A bipartisan Senate agreement would expand the federal government’s role in reviewing major energy projects, restrict some legal challenges and require data centers to cover the extra electricity and transmission costs they create. The bill also aims to speed permits for energy and infrastructure projects that can face yearslong delays, as expanding artificial-intelligence data centers help drive up electricity demand.
Who Controls Project Reviews
The bill would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission more authority to review major projects alongside state reviews. It would also make it easier to site interstate transmission lines. The agreement puts federal oversight and state processes at the heart of changes to how major projects move toward approval.
The measure would limit legal challenges under the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires federal agencies to consider possible environmental impacts before approving projects. Lawmakers and project proponents increasingly blame those reviews for stalling projects. The bill would also restrict challenges under the National Historic Preservation Act, which protects Native American cultural treasures and other important artifacts.
Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, called the agreement “a major step toward making it faster and more efficient and easier to build infrastructure projects” while maintaining environmental protections. Capito spoke at a Capitol news conference alongside Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and Democratic Sens. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. The four senators lead the chamber’s energy and environment panels.
Capito said, “The American people sent us here to do big things. This is a big thing. It’s monumental and it’s legacy-setting.” She said the current permitting system had “delays, expenses, red tape, uncertainty,” and added: “Too long, too expensive. And we’ve seen projects that should be finished more quickly (take) decades” to complete.
Who Pays for the Grid
Data centers would have to pay for the extra electricity and related transmission costs they use, rather than pass those expenses on to families or businesses. Heinrich said the bill “will mean more energy on the grid, more good-paying jobs, and lower electricity costs for families and businesses.” As data centers drive demand for more power, he added, the bill would make sure they “pay their fair share of the grid upgrades they require – not leave that bill to American families.”
The White House said the legislation would “deliver transformative policies to lower Americans’ energy and housing costs, drive new construction and investment in American infrastructure, and create American jobs.” Lee said he expected the bill to pass during a lame-duck session in November, pointing to bipartisan support and encouragement from business and environmental groups. A vote won't take place until after the midterm elections.
Dispute Over Wind Projects and Protections
Whitehouse said Democrats still wanted clarity about how the bill would stop President Donald Trump’s administration from blocking wind and solar projects. Whitehouse and Heinrich condemned what they called Trump’s “reckless and vindictive assault on wind energy,” including efforts to block large-scale wind projects under construction off the East Coast.
In December, the administration suspended five offshore wind projects, citing unspecified national security concerns. Federal judges later allowed the projects to move forward. A federal judge also struck down Trump’s executive order blocking wind projects early in his second term. Trump recently offered to ease his administration’s hold on renewable energy projects, partly to encourage Democrats to support permitting legislation. Whitehouse called the proposal reasonable, but said the broader issue remained “unresolved.”
Brad Campbell, president of the Conservation Law Foundation, criticized the agreement, saying it “appears to adopt a fossil fuel industry wish-list.” He said it could roll back clean water and endangered species protections, limit judicial review, and curb the Environmental Protection Agency’s and states’ authority to consider project impacts. Campbell said the timing and process “preclude public input or amendment” before the midterm elections.