A bill promising cheaper energy and faster construction cleared a key U.S. Senate hurdle Nov. 9, but critics say the push to speed up federal permitting has a contentious flip side as a local nonprofit warns the measure could weaken environmental reviews and make it harder for courts to stop unlawful approvals.

“I voted yes because we need permitting reform that lowers energy costs for families, speeds up clean energy and tackles the climate crisis our kids will inherit,” New Jersey Sen. Andy Kim said after Monday’s vote. “This bill isn’t perfect, though. We need a robust amendment process to improve it before the final vote.”

His vote and comments on the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 come after Save LBI Advocacy petitioned for New Jersey’s Senate leaders in Washington to oppose it. On Monday, by a vote of 73–25, the Senate cleared a procedural hurdle to begin debating the act. The vote was not final passage; it opened the door to debate and amendments, but senators still had to vote on the bill itself. Even if approved by the Senate, the measure would need further action before it could become law.

Sen. Corey Booker was one of 25 federal lawmakers to reject Monday’s procedural vote.

“The bill unnecessarily expedites project approvals at the expense of environmental and public legal protections,” said Bob Stern, Save LBI Advocacy president, adding the bill “would prevent courts from readdressing unlawful and environmentally harmful projects, stacking the judicial deck further against grassroots plaintiffs, and eviscerate 50 years of progress in establishing our environmental statutes.”

Sponsors of the bill, introduced Sept. 30, say it would address a permitting system that takes too long, costs too much and discourages construction. On Nov. 7, Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; Shelly Moore Capito (R-W. Va.), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee; Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), the committee’s energy and natural resources ranking member; and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the environment and public works ranking member, released a nearly 500-page substitute amendment. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee said the amendment makes clarifying, conforming and technical changes based on feedback since the bill was introduced.

“Our permitting system takes too long, costs too much and leaves too much uncertainty for the people trying to build what our country needs,” Lee said last week. “We have an opportunity to lower costs for American families and get America building again. It’s time to finish what we started.”

Capito said the substitute amendment preserves the bill’s foundation while responding to feedback from lawmakers and stakeholders.

“The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act will help lower energy costs,” Heinrich said, adding it ensures data centers pay for the energy they use and the grid upgrades they cause instead of passing the buck to ratepayers. “Americans can’t wait for lower electricity prices. We need to pass this bill now.”

Whitehouse said the amendment strengthens the bill and would boost the clean energy economy, support major construction projects, reduce pollution and create many well-paying union jobs.

Stern, however, said the bill’s restrictions could leave agencies making important decisions with incomplete information.

“Preventing state and federal regulators from conducting thorough, comprehensive environmental evaluations upfront forces agencies to make poor decisions on incomplete data,” Stern said in his Nov. 6 letter on behalf of Save LBI Advocacy. “When agencies are rushed and prohibited from examining reasonable alternatives or new science, they are far more likely to issue legally flawed EISs (environmental impact statements) and permits; and make poor decisions.”

He also argued that shortening the deadline for lawsuits and limiting courts’ ability to block permits or return cases to agencies would not end litigation.

“It will result in rushed and fragmented legal filings and prolonged uncertainty and risk for developers as flawed EISs and permits are repeatedly sent back to agencies for correction and potentially rejected after the developer has expended considerable resources on a project,” Stern said.

The group said delays more often result from how agencies and applicants implement existing laws and regulations, than from the laws or courts themselves. It also said court orders of the kind the bill would restrict are rare, and has recommended other ways to improve project timelines.

“If the Congress truly wants to establish more certainty and continuity for energy and infrastructure projects, then rather than impose arbitrary restrictions on environmental reviews, it should pass multi-energy source energy policy legislation that is needed by the utilities, and that both parties can agree to as administrations change,” Stern said.

The group’s attorney, Thomas Stavola Jr., said the bill would pair shorter environmental reviews with limits on legal recourse.

“If environmental reviews are done well, developers have nothing to fear from the courts. But it is not sound to, on one hand, expedite and limit environmental reviews and then, on the other, limit the courts from redressing poor decisions,” he said.

The nonprofit’s campaign against the federal bill comes as it pursues legal and regulatory challenges to offshore wind projects in New Jersey, including Atlantic Shores South off Long Beach Island. The group says the projects remain subject to multiple challenges and has urged Gov. Mikie Sherrill to consider what it calls the project’s uniquely adverse impacts. It also plans to send a letter to every state legislator.