After years of failed attempts, senators from both political parties finally appear on the brink of comprehensive permitting reform meant to speed up permitting reviews for new energy and infrastructure projects. Those projects currently face delays that run for years, while demand for electricity and other energy keeps growing exponentially.

On September 30, just before the Senate recessed ahead of the midterm elections, the leaders of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources (ENR) Committee — representing both parties and various states across the United States — introduced the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA). The Senate is expected to take a cloture vote on the motion to proceed on November 9.

The bill’s core is a procedural overhaul of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). BAAJA would write into the statute that NEPA is procedural and does not require any particular outcome. It would also narrow the range of alternatives agencies must study, partly by building the project sponsor’s own goals into the purpose and need statement. Fewer projects would trigger review at all. The bill doubles the statutory exclusions from the definition of “major federal action” from seven to 14, adding items such as transmission and pipeline upgrades within existing rights-of-way. It also adds firm deadlines at the end of the process. The lead agency would have to issue a record of decision within 45 days of a published environmental impact statement. Remaining federal authorizations would be due within 90 days from agencies that took part in the review and within 120 days from those that did not.

For litigators, the judicial review provisions may matter most. Under current law, NEPA challenges proceed under the Administrative Procedure Act, which has a six-year limitations period and allows courts to vacate permits. BAAJA would cut the filing deadline for NEPA challenges to 150 days. Standing would be limited to parties who submitted a sufficiently detailed comment on the issue and who can allege direct harm. The bill would also write the “substantial deference” standard into the statute. Remand without vacatur would become the only remedy for a NEPA violation, with a correction deadline of no more than 180 days. Challenges would go straight to the court of appeals for the circuit where the project will be built.

BAAJA goes beyond NEPA in several ways. Under the Clean Water Act, state Section 401 reviews would be limited to specified water quality requirements. States could deny certification only on clear and convincing evidence that no modification would allow the project to comply. The bill would also extend NPDES permits and Nationwide Permits from five years to 10. On permitting certainty, agencies would generally be barred from revoking or interfering with an issued permit except on five listed grounds, and they would bear the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. On transmission, the bill would strengthen the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s backstop siting authority for lines of 230 kV or more. It would also bar shifting the cost of serving new data centers of 20 MW or more onto other customers. In addition, BAAJA includes a package of geothermal provisions and reforms to hydropower and offshore energy.

Supporters say the bill will deliver cheaper energy, more jobs, and responsible growth while keeping key environmental and historic preservation safeguards in place. A broad coalition of labor leaders, energy producers, and nonprofits has voiced support. One non-partisan nonprofit executive director said the bill “will make remarkable, rapid progress” toward connecting more clean energy to the grid. The Bipartisan Policy Center describes BAAJA as “a true compromise” in which both parties can claim big wins. As the bill moves through Congress, it may be amended.

Project developers, environmental groups, and the lawyers who represent them should follow its progress closely, because the bill would reshape both how environmental reviews are run and how they are challenged in court.