The Senate voted 73 to 25 on Monday to begin debate on a bipartisan deal that would rewrite how the federal government approves energy and infrastructure projects, the first big test of the lame duck Congress and a rare piece of legislation with support in both parties and at the White House.
The vote was procedural. It ends debate on whether to take the bill up, and it passed with 51 Republicans, 21 Democrats and one independent. It did not pass the bill. The measure, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, still needs a final Senate vote, and then the House, before it can become law.
The deal was negotiated by four senators: Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico for the Democrats, and Mike Lee of Utah and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia for the Republicans. It would change long-standing environmental law to speed up approvals: shorter and fewer environmental reviews, deadlines for agency decisions, changes to the Endangered Species Act’s consultation process, and new planning for the transmission lines that carry power across states. Its supporters say the current system can add years to a power line, a pipeline or a factory, and Whitehouse told reporters the bill could save consumers about 60 to 80 dollars a month. President Trump has endorsed the amended bill.
The argument inside the environmental movement is the story within the story. The Natural Resources Defense Council says it is encouraged by the transmission provisions and calls other elements deeply flawed. The Sierra Club has withheld its support. The provisions drawing the most fire are the ones called project certainty, which would make federal permit decisions hard for future administrations, states or courts to revisit. Supporters of those provisions say they are needed to stop presidents from singling out disfavored projects, including the offshore wind projects this administration has blocked. Critics say the same shield would protect oil, gas and coal projects, and more than 100 environmental, faith and labor groups wrote to the bill’s own Democratic authors urging them to reject it, arguing that it locks fossil fuel projects into the communities that already bear the most pollution. Food and Water Watch called Monday’s vote a handout to technology and oil companies and urged the House to reject the bill.
The timing explains the push. The Congress that passed this procedural vote leaves office on January 3, and the incoming Congress will be Democratic in both chambers. A permitting deal has been attempted and has failed in Congress after Congress for more than a decade. Whether this one survives the Senate floor, where amendments can still change it, and then the House, is the question of the coming weeks. We will follow it at each vote.
Transparency note: Vote figures and the party split are from the Associated Press report as carried by multiple outlets. The bill’s contents are described from reporting on the text of S. 5653 and from the public statements of its supporters and critics, each attributed in the story.
