Per-MW pricing, regional variance, and cost drivers for owners scoping hyperscale & AI builds.
Salary benchmarks across the 14 mission-critical disciplines.
Two Senate committees have agreed on a sweeping energy permitting package that would accelerate federal project reviews, reshape electric transmission planning and require large data centers to pay the added costs of serving their electricity demand.
The Senate Environment and Public Works and Energy and Natural Resources Committees reached agreement on the text of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 on Sept. 30, 2026, following months of negotiations.
The 417-page proposal combines measures to ease construction of energy infrastructure with protections for other electricity customers and restrictions on agencies’ ability to withdraw permits already granted. It covers projects ranging from natural gas pipelines to geothermal, hydropower and wind development.
The agreement does not make the legislation final. A Senate floor vote is not expected until after Congress returns from its preelection recess on Nov. 9, 2026. Any bill passed by the Senate would also need House approval before going to the president.
A central part of the package addresses growing electricity demand from AI data centers, other computational loads and cryptocurrency mining operations.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would require transmission charges for computational loads to cover both the embedded costs of the existing system and additional expansion costs needed to serve them. Incremental payments would be credited against a utility’s transmission revenue requirement to help prevent those costs from being passed to other customers.
That provision has no minimum load threshold. FERC would also have to offer a lower rate for computational loads willing to accept non-firm transmission service, which allows interruptions.
A separate framework would apply to data centers and high-density computing facilities with demand of at least 20 megawatts (MW), including phased developments expected to reach that level and certain sites under common ownership or control.
Those customers would pay the full incremental costs of serving them, including generation, storage, transmission and distribution infrastructure that would not otherwise be needed. They would remain responsible for unrecovered incremental costs if they ended service early, and utilities would have to secure sufficient financial assurances or contributions before building the necessary facilities.
States would retain substantial authority over retail service. They could establish separate rates, require new generation or limits on electricity use, and allocate available service through competitive processes based on benefits to other ratepayers rather than application order.
The framework would generally cover loads connecting after enactment, while previously approved arrangements would remain in place.
The bill would establish a general one-year deadline for environmental assessments and a two-year deadline for environmental impact statements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Agencies reviewing the same project would have to coordinate more closely.
It would also narrow the actions subject to NEPA, excluding projects whose only federal involvement is a loan or loan guarantee. Agencies could make greater use of existing reviews, categorical exclusions and environmental analyses prepared by other federal agencies, states or tribes.
NEPA challenges would have to be filed within 150 days and generally would be restricted to parties that participated in the relevant comment period. If a court sent an authorization back to an agency to correct a deficiency, the authorization would remain effective and the project could proceed during that work.
Separate provisions would generally bar federal agencies from revoking, suspending or altering permits for projects with nonfederal sponsors or permit holders if those authorizations were in effect on or after Sept. 16, 2026.
Exceptions would include court orders, material legal violations, fraud or material misrepresentation, newly identified urgent threats to life, property or national security, and requests from project sponsors. Available remedies would include permit reinstatement, injunctive relief, and litigation and delay costs.
The package would also tighten water quality certification requirements and reduce the standard timeline for formal Endangered Species Act consultation from 90 to 60 days.
The proposal would expand FERC’s authority to permit qualifying interstate transmission facilities without first requiring a Department of Energy national interest electric corridor designation.
Qualifying lines generally would have to operate at 230 kilovolts (kV) or above and satisfy public interest, consumer benefit and reliability requirements. For facilities of at least 345 kV, federal and state siting reviews could run in parallel, although FERC could issue a permit only when statutory conditions for federal authority were met.
Transmission costs would be assigned roughly in proportion to the benefits customers receive. Customers receiving no benefit, or only a trivial benefit, could not be involuntarily charged.
The bill would combine transmission planning and generator interconnection into one process, with regional planners evaluating expected needs over a 20-year period. It would also require utilities to regularly assess advanced transmission technologies and deploy them when benefits exceed costs.
Work maintaining or increasing grid capacity within existing transmission and distribution rights-of-way would be categorically excluded from NEPA review.
Other provisions would streamline permitting for renewable energy projects on federal land, certain pipeline upgrades, geothermal development and hydropower licensing.
The text could still change as Congress considers it. Even if enacted, many provisions would require subsequent federal rulemakings or state regulatory action before taking full effect.
Read the source
