A new bill could change how the US builds its energy infrastructure

The MIT Technology Review article, written by Casey Crownhart and published on November 5, 2026, examines a sweeping bill meant to cut red tape and speed up the construction of energy infrastructure in the United States. The bill is the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA), and the Senate plans to vote on it on November 9, just days after the midterm elections.

The 417-page bill takes on what is known as permitting reform. The current federal system is meant to protect the environment from industrial pollution caused by large projects such as power plants, transmission lines and natural gas pipelines. It is governed by several laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act. According to the article, the process is slow and complex and can take years. The BAAJA narrows the types of projects that need federal permits and sets deadlines to speed up reviews. It also includes provisions on electricity transmission planning, mining and other issues.

One key feature is that the bill is largely technology-neutral: it makes things easier for both fossil fuel and renewable projects. That is why support for it is mixed. Its four Senate sponsors are two Republicans and two Democrats. The White House backs it, and its Council of Economic Advisers concludes that it would shorten review times and bring economic benefits such as higher GDP. Clean energy groups such as the American Clean Power Association generally support it, and their analysis estimates it could unlock 350 gigawatts of new clean power for the grid. Some environmental organizations, however, oppose all or part of the bill. The Natural Resources Defense Council says the transmission measures could greatly benefit the grid, but that scaling back environmental reviews could harm public and private lands.

Many in the climate world have long called for this reform. They argue that renewables would gain more than fossil fuels: solar and wind are among the cheapest sources today, so if more can be built, they would tend to win out on cost.

Several early analyses try to measure the effect on emissions. Rhodium Group finds that in the best case the bill would cut economy-wide emissions by 4%, lower household energy bills by $78 a year and add 200 gigawatts of clean power by 2040. In the worst case, emissions would stay roughly the same. Resources for the Future estimates it could cut power-sector emissions by 6% by 2041 and save more than $350 billion in system costs by mid-century.

Some, however, fear the real effect will be to open the door to a flood of new natural gas plants, at a time when data centers are straining the grid and many such plants have already been announced. Kevin Kircher, an energy modeler and assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue, describes it as a trade-off: growing the clean electricity industry while, as the compromise, also growing the fossil fuel industry. His model finds that if the BAAJA had been in force in 2025, energy-sector emissions would have been higher than the actual baseline, and the health and mortality risks linked to air pollution would also have risen.

The politics are still uncertain. The vote takes place before the new Congress is sworn in, and it is unclear how major Democratic wins will affect the bill. It had been expected to pass the Senate with mostly Republican support plus some Democrats. Democrats may prefer to wait until next year, when they will control both chambers. Any deal would still need Trump's signature, though, which limits how much a future bill could change.

The author concludes that easier permitting will mean more clean energy, but also more natural gas. Prices could fall, but that could push up electricity demand and, with it, total emissions. Simplifying the system is a worthwhile goal, but for emissions, what exactly gets built still matters.