As groups continue to assess the pros and cons of the Senate-negotiated bipartisan permitting bill (S. 5653)—and lobby for their interests on Capitol Hill ahead of the midterm elections — Earthjustice became the latest to weigh in with an analysis of the bill’s provisions.

Without explicitly supporting or opposing the legislation, the report praises the legislation’s potential to expedite new transmission projects and modernize the grid.

The flip side: It criticizes proposed changes that would weaken reviews under environmental and historic preservation laws. “In elevating speed over deliberation, the bill could help the country build much-needed infrastructure,” said the analysis. “It could also undermine other imperatives such as protecting public health and the environment and promoting a more fair economy.”

As for the measure’s Endangered Species Act language, the bill would allow the federal government to “delegate to state agencies the duty to ensure that federal actions will not jeopardize species. Most states lack the resources and expertise to play that role,” the Earthjustice analysis said.

At Defenders of Wildlife, senior government relations legislative counsel Chris Westfall said in an interview that “We oppose the bill because it eviscerates the Endangered Species Act.”

“It’s kind of mind-boggling to me that ESA is in this bill at all,” he said, citing data showing a median two-week-to-two-month consultation timeline for energy projects related to ESA concerns.

A BGOV OnPoint examines how midterm campaigns are putting candidates on the record on data center policy — and saddling them with a list of promises to fulfill when the 120th Congress convenes in January.

Congressional hopefuls in both parties generally agree that data centers should pay for their own energy use and strain on the electric grid. Many also back higher taxes on the facilities, water use rules for cooling computing equipment, and a ban on nondisclosure agreements for data center projects. Read More from Erin Bacon