Will Congressional Democrats sacrifice public land protections for the sake of energy jobs? That’s the first major test the party faces after its historic wins in last week’s midterm elections.
This week, the Senate advanced a bipartisan bill aimed at easing the permitting for a range of energy projects, including data centers, pipelines, power plants, and highways. The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) could create thousands of jobs, according to advocates, and also aims to address affordability concerns.
But BAAJA is also problematic for the Democratic leadership that will take control of Congress in January. To fast-track these projects, the bill would remove decades-old land protections. Public comment periods would go from 90 days to just 30. The Clean Water Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act — all would be drastically scaled back. These changes could pave the way for more AI data centers built on public lands, according to critics.
Despite those concerns, 22 Senate Democrats joined Republicans this week to advance the bill. That means the Senate will have a final vote next week. Environmental groups and opposing Democrats argue that it opens the door for the sale of public lands.
“We’ll continue to fight this corporate greed because the overwhelming majority of Americans want more nature protected, not less,” said Kara Matsumoto, CLF’s senior policy director.
Divided Democrats
BAAJA was drafted by four senators: two Democrats and two Republicans. That includes Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who has repeatedly tried to pass legislation allowing for the sale of public lands.
But even Democrats who have long defended public lands voted to advance BAAJA. That includes Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colorado). He has repeatedly criticized the Trump administration for its attacks on public lands over the last year and a half, including the planned rescission of the Roadless Rule. Yet Hickenlooper still voted to advance BAAJA on Monday.
“This bill isn’t perfect. No bill is,” he said in a statement after Monday’s vote. “We should continue working with Tribal Nations and environmental groups to strengthen it as it moves through the legislative process. But we have a golden opportunity to make good on our promise to voters to make energy more affordable.”
Hickenlooper pointed to the bill’s benefits. It could improve affordability by preventing AI data centers from passing along their electricity and energy costs to consumers. Even some climate change groups support the bill because it includes language to prop up clean energy projects and modernize energy grids.
Many more, however, remain opposed. Hundreds of local and national organizations are urging Congress not to pass the bill as written. They argue that clean energy projects (which Trump has long opposed) will be ignored in favor of gas. In fact, many data centers are already building gas-powered plants, and just waiting on final approval. BAAJA would make that process much faster by removing environmental reviews and other longstanding land protections.
Benefits vs. Downsides
As with most major pieces of legislation, BAAJA includes many measures with bipartisan support. The bill requires new data centers of 20 megawatts or more to pay the full cost of the infrastructure built to serve them, potentially leading to savings for both residents and the government, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.
- An independent study claims that BAAJA would reduce residential electricity bills by $50 to $78 per year by 2040.
- Initial modeling found that the average annual costs of the electricity system would decrease by 3.5% to 7%, saving $350 billion through 2050.
- An estimated $55 billion could be collected from data centers over 10 years, largely benefiting other ratepayers.
However, not everyone agrees that the bill will do what it claims for Americans’ energy bills. The exploding demand from the data center industry may just soak up the additional power that comes online, according to Meg Slattery, a staff scientist at environmental nonprofit EarthJustice. At the same time, the bill will drastically reduce public input by doing the following:
- Attempt to eliminate mandatory Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for land use plans
- Reduce the 90-day public comment period to 30 days
- Allow the Bureau of Land Management to eliminate written comment opportunities in favor of public meetings
- Weaken other environmental protections and review processes
- Reduce state, local, and Tribal government participation.
If passed by the Senate, BAAJA must still make its way through the House before reaching President Trump’s desk. House Rep. Jared Huffman (D-California) attended a protest of BAAJA on Monday in Washington, D.C. He’s one of many Democrats demanding that his party wait until they take over Congress in January and deliver a better bill.
“This 500-page backroom deal would gut our environmental protections, undermine Tribal sovereignty, and shut communities out of decisions they’ll have to live with for decades,” Huffman said this week. “That could give Trump more room to push through his vanity projects, fast track massive AI data centers, and hand fossil fuel companies another free pass.”
But if Democrats wait until January to introduce a new bill, they’ll still face one major barrier after passing it through Congress: convincing President Trump to sign it into law.
