WASHINGTON (DTN) -- The U.S. Senate is expected next week to debate and vote on amendments to sweeping legislation that would overhaul federal permitting for major energy projects.

The legislation aims to speed up infrastructure development and address energy costs. But one major farm organization has raised concerns that expanded federal authority over power transmission lines could threaten private property rights.

The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 passed a procedural vote Monday, 73-25, with almost all Senate Republicans and more than a dozen Democrats voting in favor.

The bill seeks to modernize federal permitting, speed up approvals and shorten litigation timelines for infrastructure and energy projects, many of which would be built in rural communities.

Congress sees the legislation as one way to address affordability concerns that ranked among voters' top issues in this month's midterm elections. The reforms also address major environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. A floor vote will follow debate and the consideration of amendments.

Twenty-three agricultural organizations have backed the legislation, including the American Soybean Association, National Milk Producers Federation, National Cattlemen's Beef Association and National Association of Wheat Growers.

Bipartisan interests behind the bill want to improve grid reliability, accommodate clean energy development and address consumer energy costs. Those goals, however, will require more transmission and distribution lines.

The American Farm Bureau Federation warns that parts of the 417-page legislation could weaken farmers' property rights, particularly when utilities seek to build transmission lines across private farmland.

In a recent Market Intel report, Farm Bureau said the bill could shift transmission permitting authority from states to federal regulators and expand the federal government's ability to use eminent domain.

The organization has not formally endorsed or lobbied on the bill. It said it supports modernizing federal permitting but believes the legislation "comes up short" on landowner protections. No other farm organization has publicly raised similar eminent domain concerns.

TRANSMISSION LINES AND FARMLAND

Under current law, states generally decide where transmission lines are built and whether utilities can use eminent domain to obtain easements across private property. State utility commissions review proposed routes, hold public hearings and determine whether projects are needed. State laws also establish many landowner protections and compensation requirements.

BAAJA would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) a larger role in approving interstate transmission projects.

"Its transmission title would shift siting authority from states to federal regulators and broaden federal eminent domain, while giving landowners limited notice, short windows to participate and narrow avenues for challenge," Farm Bureau wrote. "Those changes come as demand for new high-voltage lines, most of which are routed across farm and ranch land, is rising quickly."

The bill also removes the requirement that projects be located within federally designated transmission corridors.

Under the legislation, if a state has not approved a qualifying project within one year, FERC must take up the permit. Projects carrying 345 kilovolts or more could also apply to federal and state regulators simultaneously.

Current federal law allows certain FERC backstop permit holders to use eminent domain to obtain rights-of-way. However, FERC has never issued a backstop permit, leaving that authority unused.

"Section 216(e) of current law lets a backstop permit holder condemn rights-of-way in federal court, but without any permits, that authority has gone unused. By removing the corridor requirement and setting a 230 kV threshold, BAAJA would make federal condemnation available to far more projects nationwide," AFBF said.

Farm Bureau explains that expanding federal condemnation authority could weaken farmers' negotiating leverage over easement terms and compensation, even before an eminent domain lawsuit is filed.

In a recent Washington Post letter to the editor, Missouri Farm Bureau President Garrett Hawkins of Appleton City wrote: "Streamlining condemnation proceedings by moving authority away from states would be a mistake. Local officials and courts understand the communities and properties at stake. Their roles should not be sidelined in the name of speed."

Hawkins argued that the country can build needed energy infrastructure while respecting private property rights. Transmission lines, he said, can divide farms, limit future land use and burden families for generations.

Developers could also bypass certain state landowner protections, they warn, including limits on merchant transmission lines and provisions requiring developers to cover landowners' attorney fees. For landowners, the changes could mean less time to organize with neighbors, obtain independent appraisals and challenge proposed transmission routes.

BAAJA provides a 45-day public comment period and directs FERC to consider landowner input. However, it does not guarantee individual written notice, legal or appraisal assistance, or additional compensation for agricultural impacts.

WOTUS AND OTHER FARM BUREAU CONCERNS

Transmission lines are not Farm Bureau's only concern.

Another sticking point is the bill's omission of the Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today (PERMIT) Act, which would clarify the scope of federal jurisdiction under Waters of the United States (WOTUS).

"Farmers and ranchers need to know where federal jurisdiction begins and ends to manage and improve their land," the analysis said.

They also wanted clarification on agricultural stormwater exemptions to ensure routine farming activities do not trigger federal permitting requirements.

PERMITTING REFORMS FARM BUREAU SUPPORTS

Despite its concerns about transmission lines, some farm organizations support several other permitting changes in the legislation.

The bill changes several major environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Clean Water Act.

Under NEPA, federal agencies would have 60 days to determine whether an application is complete and another 60 days to decide what level of environmental review is required. The bill also limits the time to challenge certain federal permitting decisions to 150 days, generally requiring challengers to have raised their concerns during the public comment process.

The legislation extends the validity of certain Clean Water Act Section 404 permits from five to 10 years, giving projects involving wetlands and waterways more time under an approved general permit.

It also shortens federal ESA consultation timelines from 90 to 60 days and allows qualified states to assume some consultation responsibilities from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. For farmers seeking federal loans or cost-sharing assistance, the bill narrows which projects require historic preservation reviews. Projects involving only federal financial assistance, including certain USDA farm loans, generally would be excluded.

"Together, these changes would give farmers, ranchers and foresters more certainty when they need federal approval for an action or permit and reduce litigation over federal land management," Farm Bureau said.

Not all agricultural organizations support the legislation. Food & Water Watch, Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment, Center for Food Safety, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, National Family Farm Coalition and Waterkeeper Alliance are among the groups opposing the bill.

In a letter opposing the legislation, Tim Gibbons of the National Family Farm Coalition said, "Our federal government should be strengthening rules to protect our land, water, natural resources and property rights from corporate industrial livestock operations, not weakening them."

Although the Senate secured the procedural votes needed to consider the bill, some Democrats say they will not support it unless provisions involving tribal communities and permitting notifications are changed.

-- Read Farm Bureau's Market Intel here: https://www.fb.org/….

-- The Bipartisan Policy Center explains the bill here: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/….

-- See the Agriculture Letter of Support here: https://x.com/….

Jake Zajkowski can be reached at jake.zajkowski@dtn.com

Follow him on social platform X @jzajkow

(c) Copyright 2026 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.