Four Senate Democrats Hand Trump an Ultimatum Over Permitting Bill

Sens. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden of Oregon sent a letter this week warning they will oppose the motion to proceed at a vote set for Nov. 9 unless the Trump administration reinstates canceled clean energy grants and loans and commits in writing to stop weighing a state's politics when handing out awards. They argue the White House's record gives them no reason to trust promises made during negotiations. Without four reliable environmental votes, backers face a taller climb to the 60 needed to break a filibuster.

The White House isn't blinking. A spokesperson said the administration supports the bill because it delivers jobs and investment, adding that the text is published and all that's left is a vote. Even a co-sponsor is restless: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island posted on X that he is waiting for real signs of regulatory good faith, linking to reporting on the administration's contradictory moves on wind power.

Into that standoff drops a new analysis from Resources for the Future. The research nonprofit projects the bill's power-sector provisions would cut carbon emissions by 1.8 gigatons by 2041 and trim average annual electricity-system costs by 3.5 percent to 7 percent compared with a no-bill scenario. Co-author Kevin Rennert acknowledged the limits of looking at one slice of the legislation, saying anyone making up their mind should weigh a fuller set of analyses.

That gap matters, because the modeling doesn't touch the provisions that have drawn the fiercest pushback — changes to the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. Rennert said he wasn't aware of any report estimating emissions effects for the whole bill, partly because some sections are hard to quantify.

Kevin Kircher, a mechanical engineering professor at Purdue, says power-sector-only models miss the bigger picture, including methane leakage from increased gas use and emissions from fossil fuel exports. He also flagged the bill's project certainty section, which would let developers sue the federal government over permit denials or delays, leaving the current administration to set implementation rules that future presidents would struggle to reverse. Based on project queues in the PJM and MISO grid regions, he has written that streamlined permitting would largely benefit natural gas.

Opposition is hardening on both flanks. Earthjustice president Abigail Dillen wrote Tuesday that the bill would hand the president more legal runway for harmful projects while constraining whoever comes next, according to commentary posted by the group. A coalition of conservative groups, many funded by the Koch family's network, urged the Senate to pass it to protect property rights, promote energy abundance and restore America's ability to build. Kircher said it's telling that so many people formed strong opinions before they had time to read the bill — and the Nov. 9 vote will show whether the Democratic ultimatum holds.