This is the second post in our four-part “BAAJA Blast” series covering the proposed Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026. Check out our post on the bill’s provisions concerning transmission here.

Introduction
On September 30, 2026, Senate negotiators released the text of the proposed Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (“BAAJA”). For offshore wind, the timing is pointed. In December 2025, the administration suspended leases and construction for five East Coast projects totaling roughly 5.8 GW, and developers had to go to court to resume work. The bill responds directly to last year’s stop-work orders: if enacted, it would make federal approvals far harder to revoke and back that protection with meaningful monetary remedies. It would also lay the policy groundwork for shared offshore transmission and beneficiary-based cost allocation.

The December order was the latest in a series of actions halting permitted projects. In August 2025, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) stopped work on Revolution Wind over unspecified national security concerns, and a federal court enjoined that order in September. Then, on December 22, 2025, BOEM issued Director’s Orders suspending “all ongoing activities” for 90 days at five projects under construction in federal waters—Revolution Wind, Sunrise Wind, Empire Wind 1, Vineyard Wind 1, and Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind—citing national security risks. Developers sued, and beginning in January 2026, federal courts granted preliminary injunctions allowing construction to resume. But those wins came only after weeks of idled construction and costly litigation, and they left developers with no assurance against the next order and no compensation for the delay. That experience is the backdrop for BAAJA’s permit-certainty provisions. 

And the pressure has not let up. In recent weeks, the administration has asked federal courts to send the construction and operations plan (COP) approvals for multiple offshore wind projects—including Revolution Wind, Maryland Offshore Wind, and New England Wind—back to the Department of the Interior so it can “reevaluate” (and possibly rescind) them, an approach that targets the underlying authorizations themselves rather than suspending construction directly. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, one of the bill’s primary sponsors, has warned that moves like this could “blow up” the permitting deal.

Below, we break down the bill’s permit-certainty provisions, along with its offshore transmission reforms, and what they would mean for offshore wind developers, investors, and lenders.

Permit Certainty
If enacted, BAAJA would bar federal agencies from revoking, rescinding, suspending, amending, or otherwise altering a federal authorization in effect on or after September 16, 2026—or otherwise interfering with construction or full-capacity operation of a fully permitted project. Critically for offshore wind, “authorization” would expressly include COPs, biological opinions, incidental take statements, and concurrences. 

The protection would not be absolute. Agencies could still act under a court order; for a material breach or violation of law; for fraud or misrepresentation; at the holder’s request; or to prevent “specific, urgent, substantial, and proximate harm” to life, property, national security, or defense—but only if that harm is based on new information not considered in the underlying review. That last exception would matter most for offshore wind, where national security rationales have been invoked before. Any action under that exception would have to be limited to what is necessary to fix the specific issue. And for any of the exceptions, the agency would have to give advance written notice with its legal authority and evidence and, in court, would bear the burden of proving the exception by clear and convincing evidence—a high bar.

Points to Watch:

• BAAJA would protect authorizations in effect on or after September 16, 2026, not just those issued after enactment.
• These federal-authorization protections are not limited to offshore wind: they would apply to any project or action with non-federal sponsors or holders of a federal authorization, regardless of technology or sector.
• Because the national security exception requires new information not considered in the underlying review, a thorough record on defense, radar, and navigation issues during permitting could make it harder for an agency to later claim that a national security concern is “new.”

Remedies for Interference
If the agency could not carry its burden, the developer would be entitled to reinstatement of the authorization and an injunction against further interference absent a court order from the same judge. The court could also award attorneys’ fees, delay costs, and an additional 25–50% of all project costs incurred to date—development, permitting, financing, engineering, procurement, and construction. Courts would set the percentage based on bad faith, any pattern of similar interference, and actual economic harm. Awards would come from the Judgment Fund and would not depend on appropriations. The bill would also bar Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over these claims while a petition is pending, and permanently if relief is granted, generally channeling disputes into the district court where the project is located.

• Point to Watch: Because courts would weigh bad faith and any “pattern of similar Federal interference in other projects” in setting the award, repeated interference across the offshore wind sector could support an award near the top of the 25–50% range, even for a project facing interference for the first time.

Watch the Calendar: December 22, 2026
A special rule would send any new interference with a project back to the same judge who enjoined an earlier stop-work order—but only for stop-work orders issued within one year before enactment. Because that lookback would run from enactment, the December 22, 2025, five-project stop-work order would begin to fall outside the window after December 22, 2026. 

Points to Watch: 

• For the projects still under construction, the timing of any floor action is worth watching closely; enactment before December 22, 2026, is uncertain.
• Regardless of the date of enactment, the bill’s broader permit-certainty protections would still apply to all federal authorizations in effect on or after September 16, 2026.

Other Ocean Users and Faster Reviews
BAAJA would change the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act standard for approving offshore renewable energy activities from “prevention of interference with reasonable uses” to “prevention of unreasonable interference with other uses,” which may raise the bar for challenges from fishing interests and other opponents. Interior, consulting with the Department of Commerce, could also grant transmission rights-of-way within national marine sanctuaries, with sanctuary permits running for the full right-of-way term.

Cross-cutting reforms would also shorten the litigation window and speed up reviews: a 150-day limit on challenges to authorizations, tighter Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation timelines, and National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 review aligned with the National Environmental Policy Act review timeline. For COPs that have historically drawn litigation for years, a shorter limitations period would meaningfully de-risk the post-approval window.

• Point to Watch: The shift to an “unreasonable interference” standard would not eliminate potential conflicts with fishing and other ocean uses. Developers should continue robust stakeholder engagement and mitigation planning, since the record supporting a finding of no unreasonable interference would likely be central in any challenge.

Advancing Shared Offshore Transmission
Beyond permitting certainty, BAAJA would also begin to reshape offshore transmission policy, with longer-term implications for project structure and economics. The bill would make Interior the lead agency for coordinating all federal authorizations and environmental reviews for offshore transmission facilities—a term defined broadly to cover lines, cables, substations, and converter stations linking offshore projects to each other or to shore, expressly including both radial and backbone lines. Within two years of enactment, Interior and the Department of Energy would have to identify preferred cable routes on the Outer Continental Shelf, accounting for existing rights-of-way, optimal points of interconnection, habitat, and fisheries, and then assess at least every three years whether additional routes are needed.

• Point to Watch: Under BAAJA, Interior would be required to issue a final rule on offshore transmission authorizations within two years and, in doing so, consider whether to factor in a developer’s state award, existing agreement to interconnect, or pending interconnection request when issuing rights-of-way. If the bill is enacted, developers holding any of these should follow that rulemaking closely and consider commenting.

Transmission Cost Allocation
As discussed in our transmission post, the amended Federal Power Act § 216 backstop siting authority would expressly reach lines carrying power “from the outer Continental Shelf to a State.” A savings clause would confirm that OCS facilities are not excluded from cost allocation under amended § 216(f) (i.e., costs follow beneficiaries) if FERC makes the required § 216(b) findings. If transmission costs shift from developers to beneficiary ratepayers, the effect on offshore wind bid prices could be significant. Expect benefits analyses to be litigated.

• Point to Watch: If beneficiary-based cost allocation reduces transmission costs borne by developers, states may revisit how they structure offshore wind solicitations and evaluate bid prices. Developers should watch for state procurement changes alongside FERC proceedings.

Takeaways
For offshore wind developers, BAAJA’s permit-certainty provisions deserve the closest attention. If enacted, the no-revocation rule and Judgment Fund-backed remedies would give lenders and investors firmer ground for gauging, and pricing, the risk that an administration interferes with a permitted project.

Current events reinforce why these protections could be significant. As noted above, the administration’s push to revisit COP approvals, and the reaction it has drawn on Capitol Hill, provide important context for the permitting deal—and could be a major factor in whether it ultimately succeeds. As drafted, the bill’s no-revocation rule and remedies would bear on efforts such as these.

While BAAJA’s transmission provisions could meaningfully change project economics, most of their effect would depend on agency action two or more years after enactment. 

The bill still must pass both chambers and be signed into law, and its text could change significantly before any vote, expected after the midterms. We will continue to track its progress and implications for offshore wind.