A new bipartisan bill designed to expedite the construction of energy projects—and, in the process, help power the AI boom—is producing strange alignments in Washington. In a rare instance, the fossil fuel industry is united with the renewable energy sector, while some environmental groups are pitted against the green power industry they have traditionally supported.

Infrastructure permitting reform, long a seemingly boring corner of policymaking, arguably has more momentum than ever. It could also be the most consequential decision Congress makes between now and January for the future of the technology boom, the environment, and energy affordability.

Power demand is rising at a nearly unprecedented scale—largely, though not entirely, driven by the data center construction spree—and electricity and utility prices are spiking for a myriad of reasons, including growing demand and antiquated infrastructure. That is the backdrop giving an otherwise technical debate its stakes: data centers need electricity, and how quickly new generation and transmission arrive depends in part on how fast projects clear permitting.

In short, the legislation accelerates permitting timelines for everything from solar farms and power lines to oil and gas pipelines, makes it harder for presidential administrations to yank permits, narrows environmental reviews, and limits litigation outside of federal courts.

The "Four Corners" coalition

The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) is coauthored by habitual adversaries Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., alongside Sens. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., and Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.V., who have dubbed themselves the "Four Corners." Put another way, the bill enjoys the unusual support of both Whitehouse and the Trump White House.

For Democrats, it is a win for clean energy, including the many wind and solar projects effectively held hostage by President Donald Trump's administration, even as they remain nervous that the legislation is also too friendly to oil and gas and to potential environmental risks. For Republicans, there is little downside at all—aside from those who genuinely despise green power or who, perhaps wisely, fear increasing federal authority over local permitting matters.

Democrats must now decide whether to take the deal in front of them or, possibly with a congressional majority next year, craft a version more to their liking—one that would likely face staunch GOP opposition and another stretch of gridlock. Waiting until next year would still require 60 Senate votes—the threshold needed to break a filibuster—and a version deemed too liberal could be vetoed by Trump.

Time is limited, and votes are unlikely to begin until after the Nov. 3 midterm elections. Despite the optimism and momentum among supporters, plenty could still go sideways.

The legislation takes a balanced and unprecedented approach to bundling a bevy of streamlining proposals into a single bill, said Ben Norris, senior vice president of affairs for the Solar Energy Industries Association.

"The amount of new clean energy, new transmission capacity that's going to be unlocked under this bipartisan-negotiated language is well worth the tradeoffs that are made in other places," he told Fortune. "We're always willing to talk to any stakeholder, whether it's the environmentalists, whether it's the oil and gas industry."

"This is one of the best products, if not the best product, that we're going to see, and we want to be part of the coalition that gets it across the finish line," Norris added. "The bill goes a long way to getting lots of different sources of new electricity online, which is going to put downward pressure on prices."

Transmission: the quiet winner

One of the bill's biggest beneficiaries would be the growth of massive electric transmission systems—power lines—which are exceedingly hard to build across the land of property owners. Such projects deliver the largest benefits to renewables. Building transmission networks from windy, rural areas such as Kansas to larger population centers in other states, for instance, would expand the reach of wind energy.

Texas offers a precedent. Renewable energy there did not take off until the Legislature helped authorize the construction of transmission lines running hundreds of miles from the windy western parts of the state to major cities such as Houston and Dallas. It is a little-known fact that Texas now leads the country in both utility-scale wind and solar power, having recently taken the solar crown from California.

Environmentalists torn

Many environmental groups are conflicted on the topic but still lean toward opposing the legislation.

Earthjustice Action President Abigail Dillen said the bill's tradeoffs are too large. While it does represent a "genuine policy breakthrough on transmission and modernization of our electric grid," it also "eviscerates bedrock protections for water, wetlands, endangered species, and the most basic expectations for transparency and responsible environmental analysis."

"A deal that fast-tracks more gas, closes courthouse doors, and dismantles our laws to further embolden a lawless administration is not a compromise we can afford now," she added, arguing the bill would lead to more fossil fuel pipelines, gas-fired power plants, massive data center complexes, and greater overall pollution and sickness.

One argument holds that many Democrats are supporting the bill only because Trump has held clean energy hostage by illegally yanking permits for offshore wind and intentionally stalling permitting for onshore wind and solar. Trump and Congress have also canceled federal tax credits for most renewable energy projects.

The Sierra Club cited that context in arguing the legislation weakens environmental protections too much under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act—including the ability of states to use their own courts to protect their waterways. A quick primer for context: NEPA, enacted in 1970, requires federal agencies to review the environmental effects of major projects before approving them, while the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act protect at-risk wildlife and the nation's waterways, respectively.

The fossil fuel industry, for its part, contends the legislation would prevent states and environmental groups from weaponizing courts to stop projects for reasons beyond what is written in federal statutes.

Natural gas's biggest evangelist

Arguably the industry's most prominent advocate of natural gas is Toby Rice, CEO of EQT, the Pennsylvania-based gas producer. The legislation, he said, will help bring utility and inflationary prices down while creating more certainty for companies building infrastructure.

"If you think it's hard to get a pipeline built, try building a transmission line," Rice told Fortune. "This will give us a start, and this will at least get us back to having the confidence to get things built in this country."

Rice would know about the pipeline part. EQT's 303-mile Mountain Valley Pipeline took a decade—and a literal act of Congress, approved as part of 2023's debt-limit legislation—to build after many stops and starts in courtrooms. But he also envisions simpler projects that expand existing pipelines or follow the same routes—projects he said should not be challenging but in reality can take several years to complete.

"This is going to benefit all forms of energy, and I think one of the key principles that we've been advocating for has been a tech-neutral approach," Rice said. "Let's just enable all forms of energy to get built and let the market force determine what's the best."

The country needs more renewables and natural gas, he said, and enabling next-generation geothermal and nuclear projects is great too. If those projects compete with natural gas, no problem: the gas can always be liquefied and exported around the world to an energy-needy globe.

The legislation would protect more renewable energy and transmission projects under the Trump administration, but it also likely would have prevented the permitting pause on liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects that the Biden administration implemented in 2024.

"Where we've been in the past is political forces overwhelmed market forces," Rice said. "That comes in the form of shutting down energy projects, whether that's pipelines, wind facilities, solar farms, mines, transmission lines."

"At the end of the day, the government should govern, and part of that is letting market forces work."

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com.