The Senate voted 73–25 on Monday to clear a procedural hurdle for a bipartisan bill that would speed federal approvals for energy projects and require large data centers to bear more of the cost of connecting to the power grid. The roll call limited further debate on whether to take up the measure. It did not pass the bill or change any permit requirements.

The Nov. 9 vote gives backers of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act a chance to move the bill before the next Congress takes office in January. The legislation would change how federal agencies review projects ranging from interstate power lines to gas pipelines and mines. Supporters say those changes could get projects built sooner and help contain electricity costs. Tribal organizations and some senators say the proposal would weaken safeguards for water and sacred sites, Reuters reported.

What the Senate voted on

The Senate’s floor summary identifies H.R. 2347 as the bill lawmakers are using to carry the permitting package. That is why the official roll call shows a House bill number and its original tax-related description, even though senators were debating whether to take up the energy measure. The permitting proposal was originally introduced separately. The vote was on cloture, the procedure for cutting off extended debate on the motion to proceed.

Democratic Sens. Martin Heinrich and Sheldon Whitehouse wrote the proposal with Republican Sens. Shelley Moore Capito and Mike Lee. The Reuters report described changes the sponsors released before the vote to address concerns from tribes, utilities and environmental groups. Monday’s margin showed broad support for allowing the measure to move forward. It did not establish how many senators would back the final text.

Power lines, pipelines and data centers

The bill would change environmental review deadlines and the rules that govern which projects require federal review and who can challenge decisions. It would also change how interstate power lines are planned. As The Guardian reported, that could help connect renewable generation to the grid while also making some fossil fuel projects easier to build. The effects would vary by project, depending on which approvals it needs and where it would be built.

The amendment summary gives one example of how the changes could affect a court challenge: it describes a requirement to participate in a project’s public comment period to have standing to bring certain environmental claims. The revised proposal would exempt projects whose comment periods took place before enactment. That distinction matters to communities considering whether and when to file objections.

Another provision concerns who pays for new power infrastructure. The administration’s statement says large data centers connecting to the grid would bear their own transmission costs. Sponsors say that approach could shield other utility customers from some costs of serving those facilities. Their amendment summary also describes a separate proposal for the Department of Energy to help state, local and tribal governments assess the effects of proposed data centers. Those provisions address different questions: who pays for grid work, and what information communities have when deciding whether to approve a facility.

Why tribal groups say the changes fall short

Heinrich said Monday that the revised proposal would give tribal governments a role equal to that of states in transmission planning and require agencies to consult tribes early about projects that could affect important cultural sites. The senator’s remarks described consultation on identifying affected places, assessing possible harm and finding ways to avoid or reduce it. The sponsors’ summary also describes changes to the process for reviewing effects on historic properties.

The tribal organization National Congress of American Indians said the changes did not address its central objections. It argued that the measure would still let agencies end some historic preservation reviews over tribal objections, put tight time limits on consultation and restrict what courts could do when reviews violated federal law. The group urged senators to remove the historic preservation title and work directly with tribal nations on an alternative. The disagreement turns in part on what a requirement to consult would mean if agencies retain the power to move ahead after a tribe objects.

Support for debate may not carry through

Sen. Edward Markey, a Democrat who voted against ending debate, said he supported improving interstate transmission and making data centers pay more of their grid costs. In his public statement, he said the proposal would come at too high a cost to clean water protections, tribal sovereignty and public participation. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, another Democrat, voted to move the measure forward but said she would oppose final passage unless the historic preservation provisions were removed, Reuters reported.

The White House endorsed the legislation Monday. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters it was still under review, according to Reuters, while The Guardian reported that he raised concerns about tribal sovereignty and called for more involvement by his caucus. Even if the Senate passes a version of the package, the House would have to agree to the same text before it could go to the president. The next test is whether the changes needed to win those votes preserve the provisions that brought the sponsors together.