KVIG Informative

The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act is a sweeping Senate bill that rewrites how the federal government permits energy projects, from transmission lines to mines. Here is what it contains, who wrote it, and why Tribal Nations are reading it closely.

The Basics The bill is S. 5653, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026, usually shortened to BAAJA (some write it BAJA). According to the Congressional Research Service, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito introduced it on Sept. 30, 2026, on behalf of herself and Sens. Martin Heinrich, Mike Lee and Sheldon Whitehouse. Two Democrats and two Republicans put their names on it, which is why it carries the word “bipartisan.”

What Permitting Means Before a transmission line, geothermal plant, mine or pipeline can be built on federal land, or with a federal permit or federal money, agencies must complete a series of reviews. They study environmental effects, water quality, endangered species and historic places, and several of those reviews require talking with Tribal governments. Developers call the process slow. Critics call it the main way communities get a say.

How the Bill Is Built The CRS summary says the bill has two divisions. Division A, drawn from the Environment and Public Works side of the Senate, covers the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and what the bill calls project certainty. Division B, from the Energy and Natural Resources side, covers transmission, energy permitting and historic preservation. Across both, the bill sets deadlines for agencies and shortens the window to challenge decisions in court to 150 days for many claims.

What Supporters Say Supporters argue that slow, uncertain reviews delay clean energy, transmission and other projects, and that deadlines and limits on litigation would fix that. The R Street Institute, a think tank, backs most of the environmental provisions and calls the bill the product of serious bipartisan negotiation. Public Citizen, which opposes the bill overall, says its transmission and ratepayer protections are strong. Heinrich’s office has said the bill does not weaken Tribal consultation and instead defends it against efforts by the Trump administration to make consultation discretionary.

What Opponents Say Public Citizen said on Nov. 6 that the bill “seriously weakens” the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act and also weakens NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act. Earthjustice, an environmental law group, argues the historic preservation title would make Tribal consultation optional. The National Trust for Historic Preservation opposes the same title as drafted, though it supports the bill’s funding for preservation. The National Congress of American Indians, the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and the Native American Rights Fund have asked Congress to reject that title, according to Earthjustice.

Where It Stands The bill is not law. CRS recorded it as referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with no further action as of Oct. 30. Reporting from this week says a committee vote is expected after the Senate returns on Nov. 9. Amendments could change the text before then, so any reading of a specific section is a reading of the bill as introduced.

The next three articles in this series take the bill apart by subject: Tribal consultation and sacred places, the environmental statutes, and land and sovereignty with a Nevada focus. Readers who want to check any claim here can start with the bill text on Congress.gov and the CRS section summary.