Checking the Case for BAAJA

Seventeen common claims made by supporters of the Senate permitting bill, each checked against the 417-page text. What they get right, what they leave out, and what they overstate.

The short version

Supporters of BAAJA (S. 5653) mostly describe the bill accurately. Their common error is not inventing things; it is leaving out the inconvenient part. The data-center cost floor is real, but it rests on the utility's estimate, subject to regulators' approval, and covers only new loads. The core rules are technology-neutral, but the sections that name a technology are not. Courts can still stop some projects, but only in narrow cases over wetlands permits, and not over a flawed environmental review alone. Two claims overstate: that every federal permit gets a deadline, and that the deal as a whole cuts emissions 9 percent.

  • Accurate: 2
  • Accurate, with a gap: 7
  • Missing context: 5
  • Open question: 1
  • Overstated: 2

A companion page checking the claims critics make is in preparation. For the full section-by-section reading, see BAAJA, Line by Line.

How we checked

We collected 396 published claims about the bill from both sides and picked 17 common claims in its favor made by prominent supporters: think tanks, trade groups, and advocacy organizations. Each quote below is verbatim and linked to its source. We rate the claim, not the speaker, and we read each claim in its strongest form. Every statement about the bill cites page and line in the text released September 30, 2026 (for example, 192:15–19 means page 192, lines 15 to 19). Predictions about effects are labeled as predictions.

Accurate
The text says what the claim says.
Accurate, with a gap
Correct as far as it goes, but it leaves out something a reader would want to know.
Missing context
True in part, but the missing piece changes the takeaway.
Open question
The text does not settle it; courts or agencies would.
Overstated
The direction is right; the size or certainty is not.

The claims

  1. 1 If a court finds a flawed environmental review, the project keeps going while the agency fixes it. Accurate
  2. 2 Regions must plan lines together, and customers who don't benefit shouldn't pay. Accurate
  3. 3 Issued permits can be pulled only on narrow grounds the government must prove, and winning sponsors are paid. Accurate, with a gap
  4. 4 State water-quality certification is limited to water quality. Accurate, with a gap
  5. 5 Federal regulators can approve a power line when a state won't act within a year. Accurate, with a gap
  6. 6 Substantive environmental laws remain in force. Accurate, with a gap
  7. 7 The window to sue falls from six years to 150 days. Accurate, with a gap
  8. 8 The bill follows the Supreme Court's Seven County decision. Accurate, with a gap
  9. 9 The Sec. 1402 damages remedy deters agencies from targeting a whole class of projects. Accurate, with a gap
  10. 10 Data centers must pay their full grid costs. Missing context
  11. 11 The bill treats every kind of energy the same. Missing context
  12. 12 Courts can still stop projects that break substantive environmental laws. Missing context
  13. 13 The Endangered Species Act changes are modest. Missing context
  14. 14 The bill raises investment returns without a new subsidy. Missing context
  15. 15 The bill protects property rights. Open question
  16. 16 Every federal permit gets a one- or two-year deadline. Overstated
  17. 17 The deal will cut emissions 9 percent on net. Overstated

1 · Courts and NEPA

Accurate

If a court finds a flawed environmental review, the project keeps going while the agency fixes it.

“If a court finds a flaw, it sends the review back to the agency to fix, rather than stopping the project cold.”
— The Abundant Future, source, Oct. 5, 2026

What the bill says

For NEPA claims, the only remedy a court may order is "to remand, without vacatur or issuance of an injunction" (69:24–70:3), with a deadline to fix the review of no more than 180 days (70:4–10). The approval "shall remain in effect" while the agency corrects it, and work may continue (71:14–25).

What's usually left out

A NEPA challenger must also show "direct harm" and, where the agency offered a comment period, have raised the issue in a comment (68:10–20). Cases go straight to a federal court of appeals (68:22–69:2). Section 106 historic-preservation claims get the same remand-only remedy (406:19–407:11). A court may still issue a time-limited preliminary injunction if the approval likely violates another federal law, such as the Endangered Species Act, but not for a NEPA or historic-preservation violation alone (70:11–71:12). For context: vacatur is the ordinary remedy for unlawful agency action today, but the Supreme Court's 2025 Seven County decision already lets courts leave a flawed NEPA approval in place. The bill turns that discretion into a rule.

2 · Transmission planning

Accurate

Regions must plan lines together, and customers who don't benefit shouldn't pay.

“It defines the benefits that regional grid operators can consider and clarifies that consumers who would not benefit from a project should not have to pay for it.”
— Niskanen Center, source, Oct. 2, 2026

What the bill says

Costs must be allocated "at least roughly commensurate with the benefits," and customers that receive "no benefit, or benefits that are trivial" cannot be charged involuntarily (216:10–24). Neighboring regions must plan jointly (211:19–22). The ban on federal rights of first refusal applies "notwithstanding any rule or order" (224:9–14).

What's usually left out

The list of six benefits is introduced by "including" (213:19–214:8), so it is a minimum, not a closed definition. Compliance with FERC's 2024 planning rule "shall constitute compliance" with the regional requirements (217:1–7), so, if that rule is still in effect at enactment, the new duty is mainly interregional. If a region fails to file a planning process, the only stated consequence is that FERC grants, as it finds appropriate, an extension of up to six months (217:15–218:2). Texas's ERCOT grid is outside these provisions (210:18–211:5).

3 · Permit certainty (Title IV)

Accurate, with a gap

Issued permits can be pulled only on narrow grounds the government must prove, and winning sponsors are paid.

“absent a court order, violation, fraud or proven urgent harm, with the burden on the government. Sponsors who win recover costs stemming from delay plus 25 to 50 percent of costs incurred.”
— Searchlight Institute, source, Oct. 7, 2026

What the bill says

Accurate. Sec. 1401 lists five exceptions: a court order; a material breach or other violation of law; fraud; "specific, urgent, substantial, and proximate harm" shown by "new information"; and a request from the holder (159:20–160:16). The agency must prove one by clear and convincing evidence (161:19–162:8). A winning sponsor recovers delay costs plus 25 to 50 percent of all costs incurred on the project as of the agency's action, net of fees and delay costs already awarded (164:3–15), paid from the Treasury's Judgment Fund (165:18–24).

What's usually left out

The court weighs the sponsor's actual economic harm in setting the amount, but the 25 percent floor does not depend on it (164:3–24). A change in policy is not one of the exceptions. And Sec. 1401 never defines "project" or mentions energy (158:19–166:10), so on its face it reaches any federal approval for a project with a non-federal sponsor, including housing, mining, transportation and nuclear approvals. No court has tested that reach. It protects approvals in effect on or after September 16, 2026 (159:9–15).

4 · Clean Water Act

Accurate, with a gap

State water-quality certification is limited to water quality.

“Clarifies the scope of environmental reviews and limits Clean Water Act Section 401 certification to ensuring compliance with water-quality requirements.”
— American Petroleum Institute, source, Oct. 5, 2026

What the bill says

Accurate. A state's review is "limited to ensuring compliance with water quality requirements" (104:18–22), a defined list tied to Clean Water Act sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 and the laws that implement them (122:15–23).

What's usually left out

It goes further than the claim says. A state may deny only on clear and convincing evidence that no condition would work (104:23–105:7). For interstate gas pipelines and transmission lines, the state reviews only a "direct point source discharge," a term the bill does not define (118:13–119:2). Some of this is not new: the one-year limit and the waiver for state silence are already in the statute, and EPA's 2023 rule already limits review to "water quality-related impacts" of the activity; the bill writes a narrower version into the statute. For pipelines and power lines, the bill overrides the existing clause letting states add "any other appropriate requirement of State law" (120:20–121:9). For other projects, whether that clause still adds anything is an open question.

5 · Transmission and landowners

Accurate, with a gap

Federal regulators can approve a power line when a state won't act within a year.

“BAAJA lets federal regulators approve interstate transmission lines after states have had a year to act.”
— The Abundant Future, source, Oct. 5, 2026

What the bill says

Accurate, and stronger than "lets." FERC "shall" issue a permit for a line "necessary in the national interest" if it makes the required findings, including that the line serves the public interest (188:10–16; 189:6–190:3). The line must be capable of at least 230 kV, or a voltage FERC finds appropriate for advanced conductors (189:17–23), and be "used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce" (189:8–11). The text does not require it to cross a state line. The state triggers, carried over from current law, include a state that denies the line or has not decided it within a year; the bill starts that year on the date the application was filed with the state (188:24–189:5). Two other triggers, for a state that lacks authority over the line or where the developer cannot apply, have no waiting period. The federal corridor requirement is gone (185:11–13).

What's usually left out

Two things. First, a line selected in a regional plan is treated as meeting the required findings, including the 230 kV floor (217:8–14), so smaller lines can qualify once a state trigger is met. Second, landowners: the same section deletes the Federal Power Act sentence that sets compensation for these takings at "fair market value (including applicable severance damages)" (192:15–19), and federal-court condemnations follow the federal rule of procedure (192:10–14). The Constitution still requires just compensation, including damage to the land a landowner keeps. The sponsors say they removed the sentence because most courts apply state law in similar cases, and some states pay more. On November 9 the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear argument in a case raising the parallel question under the Natural Gas Act. We found nothing supporting lower awards across the board; which law sets the amount is the open part.

6 · Environmental standards

Accurate, with a gap

Substantive environmental laws remain in force.

“Substantive environmental statutes remain in force.”
— American Council for Capital Formation, source, Oct. 2026

What the bill says

Accurate as stated. The statutes stay on the books, and their core standards are unchanged.

What's usually left out

A few changes reach substance for some projects. The Endangered Species Act duty to avoid jeopardizing a species is removed for certain highway and transit projects in existing operational rights-of-way (136:17–137:3). For Corps general permits, the Corps "shall consider only" water-quality effects, and fills under 2 acres are treated as minimal by law (125:11–22). Other changes narrow procedural laws rather than standards. Under historic preservation law, "adverse effect" no longer counts temporary alterations or effects tied to unrelated past or future undertakings, and counts visual, atmospheric and audible effects only when direct and significant (380:1–382:16). Listed oil, gas and geothermal activities leave NEPA (349:6–16).

7 · Courts and NEPA

Accurate, with a gap

The window to sue falls from six years to 150 days.

“it restricts the statute of limitations for NEPA, NHPA, and ESA lawsuits from six years to 150 days”
— Searchlight Institute blog, source, Sept. 30, 2026

What the bill says

Accurate for NEPA claims (68:1–9), Section 106 claims (408:17–409:8), Clean Water Act Section 404 (129:1–130:12) and biological opinions, which go to the D.C. Circuit (154:14–21). For energy and mineral projects that prepare an environmental document, a separate 150-day limit covers challenges to a grant or denial under any federal law (284:9–21), including Endangered Species Act statements and permits for those projects (282:17–20).

What's usually left out

Endangered Species Act suits not tied to such an approval keep their own rules. The energy-and-minerals clock applies to projects for which "an environmental document be prepared" (284:1–2); the definition says it "includes" listed documents (283:1–8), so whether projects handled with a categorical exclusion are covered is open. "Six years" is the general default for suits against the government, and after the Supreme Court's 2024 Corner Post decision it can run from when a challenger is injured.

8 · Courts and NEPA

Accurate, with a gap

The bill follows the Supreme Court's Seven County decision.

“Consistent with the principles outlined by the Supreme Court in the Seven County case, the bill will reform a judicial review system that previously allowed opponents to tack years onto approved projects through litigation.”
— ClearPath, source, Oct. 1, 2026

What the bill says

Largely accurate. The bill writes in the procedural reading and the deference holding: it says NEPA "prescribes a procedure" whose result is "an informational document," and that "Nothing in this Act mandates a particular outcome" (5:10–19). Courts "shall afford substantial deference" to the agency on "the scope and contents of an environmental document" (73:23–74:2).

What's usually left out

The bill does not write in the Court's limits on how far a review must look for effects. It leaves NEPA's effects standard where it was and, unlike the House-passed SPEED Act, does not define "reasonably foreseeable" in terms of proximate cause. That question still rests on the case law.

9 · Permit certainty (Title IV)

Accurate, with a gap

The Sec. 1402 damages remedy deters agencies from targeting a whole class of projects.

“Targeting a class of projects is disincentivized — a pattern of intentional delay or denial against any project type could result in damages of 50 to 100 percent of expected construction costs paid back to project sponsors.”
— Searchlight Institute, source, Oct. 7, 2026

What the bill says

Accurate on the size of the remedy: a winning claimant can recover 50 to 100 percent of total expected construction cost (179:10–180:11). The hurdles to get there are real. A claimant must show an intentional course of action (168:22–24), a substantial statistical increase in denials or delays that persists after enactment (167:12–168:21), a waiting period before suing (181:16–182:6), and that its own application satisfies all applicable federal law (174:13–175:11). It must also show the technical and financial ability to build the project (180:12–16).

What's usually left out

Some parts are easier than they sound: statistics alone are prima facie evidence (175:12–176:6), and the government must then produce six years of data or face an adverse inference (177:6–178:17). The award comes on top of damages and fees; the court weighs actual harm in setting the amount, but the 50 percent floor does not depend on it (179:10–180:11). The duty to build or repay applies only "after obtaining all necessary Federal authorizations or permits and absent force majeure," with no deadline (180:17–24). Whether anything is owed if the permits never issue is unclear.

10 · Data centers and electric bills

Missing context

Data centers must pay their full grid costs.

“They will have to pay for all costs associated with delivering power to their facilities, as well as any additional strain they place on the existing transmission system.”
— Third Way, source, Oct. 2, 2026

What the bill says

There is a real floor. For a data center load of 20 MW or more (counting sites under common ownership, at full buildout), no part of the "incremental cost" of serving it may be charged to other customers (232:3–13; 234:22–235:2). Incremental cost includes generation, storage, transmission and distribution (233:18–24). The data center must keep paying if it leaves early (235:10–19) and post financial assurance before upgrades are built (235:20–236:6). For retail service, states may charge more and may credit the excess to other customers (236:9–21).

What's usually left out

The cost is "estimated by the electric utility," subject to approval by FERC or a state (233:24–234:3). The floor covers only data centers that connect on or after the date the bill becomes law; arrangements approved earlier stay in place (240:1–8). Charging data centers for the existing grid as well as new upgrades is not automatic: it depends on a FERC policy revision and rulemaking with "not later than" deadlines: a revised policy within 270 days, a proposed rule within 270 days after that, and a final rule within a year of the proposal. If FERC uses the full time allowed, that is about two and a half years to a final rule, with new rates after that (229:14–231:16). The core no-subsidy sentence is also made "subject to the limitations described in subsection (e)," which lists no limitations (234:22–235:2).

11 · Technology neutrality

Missing context

The bill treats every kind of energy the same.

“Crucially, none of these reforms pick one type of energy over the other; the same rules apply to a solar or wind farm, a power line, and a gas pipeline.”
— The Abundant Future, source, Oct. 5, 2026

What the bill says

True of the core. The NEPA deadlines and lawsuit limits apply across the board, and Title IV's list of 46 project types runs from onshore wind to coal exports with no ranking (169:1–172:20).

What's usually left out

Not true of the sections that name a technology. Listed oil, gas and geothermal activities on public land are declared not to be "major Federal actions," taking them out of NEPA, though they still need a drilling permit (349:6–16). The federal drilling permit is removed for three kinds of wells on non-federal land in drilling units, leaving the state permit (286:15–287:12). Gas pipeline work in existing rights-of-way gets its own exemption path (203:11–205:10); power lines get a matching one (200:11–202:9). Renewables get deadlines and categorical exclusions on federal land, but those exclusions wait on agency action due within 180 days (301:20–302:7). By count, clean energy and geothermal get more named sections; oil and gas get the strongest tools that work without further rules.

12 · Courts and NEPA

Missing context

Courts can still stop projects that break substantive environmental laws.

“Courts can still stop a project on the merits if it breaks the laws that protect our air, water, and wildlife.”
— Searchlight Institute, source, Oct. 7, 2026

What the bill says

Largely true for the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act, though many energy and mineral approvals get a 150-day filing limit (284:9–21). Challenges to biological opinions get a deadline and a court, but no limit on remedies (154:14–21). A time-limited preliminary injunction remains available alongside a NEPA claim when a project likely violates another law (70:11–71:12).

What's usually left out

Mostly not for wetlands. For Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, a court "may not vacate, revoke, enjoin, or otherwise limit the permit" unless the activity presents "an imminent and substantial danger" with no other remedy (131:15–132:15). And a claim that the environmental review itself was inadequate gets remand only, whatever statute it is brought under (67:14–22; 69:19–70:10). A CEQ order resolving a dispute between agencies also counts as full compliance with the consultation duty in dispute, "for purposes of judicial review" (52:5–23).

13 · Endangered Species Act

Missing context

The Endangered Species Act changes are modest.

“The Endangered Species Act reforms are modest.”
— Searchlight Institute, source, Oct. 7, 2026

What the bill says

The headline items are modest and accurately described: formal consultation goes from 90 to 60 days, with extensions capped without the applicant's consent (134:16–135:5); after an Interior rule, states may take over Fish and Wildlife Service consultation for in-state projects (139:1–140:14), and applicants can opt back into federal consultation (148:5–10); and biological opinions face a 150-day challenge window (154:14–21).

What's usually left out

One piece of the ESA title is larger than the rest: it removes the duty to avoid jeopardizing a species, not just the consultation step, for certain highway and transit projects (136:17–137:3). Two changes elsewhere in the bill also reach ESA consultation: CEQ dispute orders that count as full compliance with a consultation step in dispute (52:5–23), and reissuing nationwide permits without ESA consultation, if the reissued permit does not weaken preconstruction notice (127:11–128:14). A new definition of "best scientific and commercial data available" (133:20–134:8) could cut either way in court.

14 · Who pays

Missing context

The bill raises investment returns without a new subsidy.

“Permitting reform is tax policy by other means: it raises the after-risk return on domestic investment without a new subsidy.”
— American Council for Capital Formation, source, Oct. 2026

What the bill says

There is no new subsidy program for builders.

What's usually left out

Title IV does promise sponsors Treasury payments when they win: 25 to 50 percent of costs incurred when an agency loses a revocation case (164:3–15), and 50 to 100 percent of a project's "total reasonably expected cost of construction" for a proven pattern of disparate treatment (179:20–24). Both are paid from the Judgment Fund, a permanent, indefinite appropriation, so no new appropriation is needed; the bill says the awards are "not subject to the availability of appropriations" (165:18–24; 181:1–7). The agency that lost does not repay the Fund. Whether these awards count as a subsidy is partly a matter of definition: they compensate for agency action a court finds unlawful, but their floors do not depend on actual loss (164:3–24; 179:20–180:11). As of October 9, 2026, we found no Congressional Budget Office estimate of the bill.

15 · Property rights

Open question

The bill protects property rights.

“We encourage Congress to move quickly to pass this bill to lower costs for Americans, protect property rights, and restore America’s ability to build.”
— Pacific Legal Foundation, source, Oct. 7, 2026

What the bill says

It depends on whose property. For permit holders, Title IV protects issued approvals (159:9–160:16). For landowners in the path of a FERC-permitted power line, the bill widens when FERC must issue a permit that carries eminent domain (185:11–13; 188:10–16) and deletes the statute's fair-market-value sentence (192:15–19). Whether that lowers, keeps, or raises awards depends on which law sets compensation, a question the Supreme Court is scheduled to take up in a parallel Natural Gas Act case on November 9.

What's usually left out

A separate change affects landowners in wetlands cases. Challenges to EPA's definition of "waters of the United States" move to a federal court of appeals under an existing Clean Water Act provision with a 120-day deadline (103:1–9). Under an existing Clean Water Act clause, actions reviewable that way "shall not be subject to judicial review in any civil or criminal proceeding for enforcement." So for definitions issued after enactment, a landowner who misses the 120 days likely cannot contest the definition later as a defense. They could still argue that their land falls outside it.

16 · Deadlines

Overstated

Every federal permit gets a one- or two-year deadline.

“Every federal permit gets a deadline: one year in all cases except for projects that require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), for which the deadline is two years.”
— Searchlight Institute, source, Oct. 7, 2026

What the bill says

The numbers match. Reviews needing an environmental assessment get one year and those needing an impact statement get two (46:10–49:6), and permits for listed project types that need neither get one year (172:21–173:8).

What's usually left out

Not every permit. The one- and two-year NEPA deadlines already exist in current law, enacted in 2023. The new one-year deadline for permits that need no NEPA document covers only the 46 listed project types plus a court-certified catch-all for other energy-related projects (172:13–20). Permits for other projects handled with a categorical exclusion get no deadline from either rule.

17 · Emissions

Overstated

The deal will cut emissions 9 percent on net.

“A new report from the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and Greenlight Insights projects that the deal will reduce emissions, on net, by 9% over the next decade.”
— Searchlight Institute blog, source, Sept. 30, 2026

What the bill says

The modeling is real, by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) with Greenline Insights (the blog post spells it "Greenlight"). It studies "reforms under debate in Congress": interconnection queue reform and interregional transmission in four regions that together hold 54 percent of U.S. demand, with demand held fixed. Its 9 percent is power-sector carbon emissions in those regions in 2035.

What's usually left out

It is not an estimate of this bill as a whole. It does not model the oil and gas sections, Title IV, or the water-quality changes, and its national dollar figures are extrapolations. A later Searchlight Institute memo (Oct. 7) describes the same modeling as projecting the effects of "this suite of transmission reforms." Whether the bill as a whole cuts emissions on net is a forecast the text cannot settle.

Research series

Permitting, power lines, and data centers

7 related analyses from Bommarito Consulting.

  1. 1 Open →

    Michigan utility decisions · October 7, 2026

    Michigan Act 30 and the MPSC

    Transmission routes, rates, large loads, pipelines, and renewable siting: which law applies, who decides, and how residents can participate.

    ReportVideosCase explorer

  2. 2 Open →

    First look · September 30, 2026

    The 2026 Senate Permitting Bill

    Who pays, where projects go, and what states and communities can decide, with Michigan worked examples. 40-page report and a 12-minute explainer.

    ReportVideo

  3. 3 Open →

    Full reading · October 2026

    BAAJA, Line by Line

    What the bill actually says, what it changes in federal law, and who wins and loses, cited to page and line. 132-page report and two companion videos.

    ReportVideos

  4. 4 You are here

    Fact check · October 9, 2026

    Checking the Case for BAAJA

    Seventeen common claims from supporters, checked against the text: what they get right, what they leave out, and what they overstate.

    PageFact check

  5. 5 Open →

    Fine print · October 9, 2026

    BAAJA's Fine Print

    Changes the sponsors' summary does not describe, likely drafting errors, and one that looks hidden but is disclosed, each with a fix.

    Page

  6. 6 Open →

    Michigan case study · revised September 24, 2026

    The ITC Oneida–Sabine Lake 345 kV Line

    Seven published routes scored on Michigan's Act 30 factors, stress-tested across a million weightings, and resolved township by township.

    ReportVideoSimulator

  7. 7 Open →

    Michigan companion · October 2026

    HB 5940: Power Lines Along Michigan's Highways

    What the House-passed bill changes about lines along limited access highways, the four public bodies that still have to act, and what townships and landowners can do.

    PageQ&A

How to read this page, and reliance

Bill citations are page and line in the 417-page text of S. 5653 released September 30, 2026. Quotes are from the linked sources as published on the dates shown; speakers may have refined their views since. A rating applies to the quoted claim, not to the speaker or organization. Where the meaning of the text is uncertain, we say so. The bill is a proposal and its text is expected to change. This page is current as of October 9, 2026. If you think we have misstated a claim or the text, write to us and we will correct it. Nothing here constitutes legal advice.

Insights by email

Get new insights by email

One email when we publish something new, and nothing when we don't. No tracking pixels, and leaving takes one click.

Lists

We'll send one email to confirm. See the privacy notice.

Working on something like this? Talk to us →