Senate order sets Nov. 9 cloture vote on motion to proceed to H.R. 2347, the vehicle for a permitting package

What the record shows: what is in the S. 5653 permitting bill

The vehicle. H.R. 2347, the Survivor Justice Tax Prevention Act, would amend section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code to exclude from gross income damages, other than punitive damages, received on account of a sexual act or sexual contact [4]. The House passed it on April 27, 2026. The Senate received it April 28, read it the first time July 13, and on July 14 read it a second time and placed it on the calendar [4]. Nothing in its text concerns energy or permitting [4].

The motion and the cloture filing. On September 30, Thune withdrew a pending motion to proceed to Calendar No. 648, H.R. 9340, then moved to proceed to Calendar No. 453, H.R. 2347, and sent a cloture motion to the desk [1]. The motion, filed under rule XXII, seeks to “bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed” to the bill [1]. It carries 17 signatures, including Thune, John Barrasso, Shelley Moore Capito and John Cornyn [1].

The order. By unanimous consent, the Senate agreed to hold pro forma sessions through Thursday, November 5, and then stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on November 9. At that point morning business is closed, the Senate resumes the motion to proceed to H.R. 2347, and “notwithstanding rule XXII, at 5:30 p.m., the cloture motion filed during today’s session of the Senate ripen” [1, 2]. The November 5 calendar restates the order and dates it September 30, 2026 [3].

The permitting text. S. 5653 was introduced September 30 and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources [1, 5]. Its table of contents has two divisions. Division A, from Environment and Public Works, covers NEPA, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and “project certainty.” Division B, from Energy and Natural Resources, covers electric transmission, onshore, geothermal, hydropower and offshore permitting, and historic preservation [5]. Five provisions bear directly on project finance and utility regulation:

• NEPA judicial review (sec. 1110). A new NEPA section 111 would bar a claim unless it is filed within 150 days of the authorization’s publication in the Federal Register (where an EIS was prepared) or of its being made public. The claim would also have to come from a party that filed a sufficiently detailed substantive comment. Original and exclusive jurisdiction would sit in the court of appeals for the circuit where the project is located. The only remedy for a NEPA violation would be remand “without vacatur or issuance of an injunction,” on a schedule not exceeding 180 days, and the authorization would remain in effect during remand [5]. Plaintiffs would also have to allege an actual or imminent injury amounting to a direct harm. A preliminary injunction would stay available only for likely violations of laws other than NEPA [5]. NEPA has no such limitations period today; the last major amendments, in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, instead capped an EIS at 150 pages (300 for extraordinary complexity) and an environmental assessment at 75, and set general deadlines of two years and one year to finish them [13].
• State water quality certification (sec. 1202). A new subsection (e) of Clean Water Act section 401 would confine a state’s certification review to “water quality requirements.” A state could deny certification only on “clear and convincing evidence” that no modification or reasonable condition would allow it to grant one, and states would have to hold a prefiling meeting within 60 days of an applicant’s request [5]. Section 401 is the authority New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation used against the Constitution Pipeline, a dispute that resurfaced in that project’s reissuance proceeding at FERC this year.
• Permit certainty (sec. 1401). Agencies could not revoke, rescind, suspend or alter a federal authorization in effect on or after September 16, 2026, for a project with a non-federal sponsor, except under listed conditions. These include a court order, material breach, fraud, a specific and urgent harm based on new information, or a request from the holder [5].
• Transmission siting (sec. 2101). The bill amends Federal Power Act section 216 so that FERC “shall,” after a comment period of at least 45 days, issue permits for facilities “necessary in the national interest” meeting listed findings. Those findings include a voltage of not less than 230 kilovolts and benefits to consumers and reliability. Applications for lines of 345 kilovolts or more would be filed with FERC simultaneously with, or after, the state application. A new paragraph titled “Preservation of state siting authority” limits FERC’s permitting authority to the circumstances in section 216(b)(1). The bill also restarts the one-year state clock in section 216(b)(1)(C) from the date the application was filed with the state, rather than the later of that date and a corridor designation [5].
• Data center transmission costs (sec. 2107). Within 270 days of enactment, FERC would have to revise its 1994 transmission pricing policy statement (59 Fed. Reg. 55031). The revision would require utilities to charge customers seeking service for “computational load” sites the embedded and incremental cost of transmission. A rulemaking notice would follow within 270 days of the revised statement’s publication. The definition of a computational load site covers AI training and deployment, cryptocurrency mining and other data center computing connected to the bulk-power system. Incremental payments would be credited to the utility’s annual transmission revenue requirement, and customers electing non-firm service would get a lower rate [5].

Where it sits in the process: what happens after the Nov. 9 cloture vote

The prior law. FERC’s transmission siting role dates to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which added section 216 to the Federal Power Act. That version said FERC “may” issue a permit within a corridor designated by the Department of Energy, and only where a state lacked siting authority, had “withheld approval for more than 1 year,” or had conditioned approval so that the line would not significantly reduce congestion or would not be economically feasible [11]. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed November 15, 2021, added an outright state denial as a trigger and keyed the one-year clock to the later of the filing date and the corridor designation [12]. Neither law changed “may.” S. 5653 would replace it with “shall” [5, 11, 12].

The floor sequence. The November 9 vote is on cloture on the motion to proceed, not on the bill [1, 3]. Harbinger Strategies, in its October 16 preview, said sponsors oppose substantive changes. It said technical changes are expected “through a Substitute Amendment,” and that leadership will seek passage “before leaving for Thanksgiving,” though “consideration could take up to two weeks” [7]. The same preview said that “If the Senate has 60 votes for passage, the bill’s future will lie with the House” [7]. Apollo Counsel reported that a manager’s amendment is planned before the floor vote [8]. SDPB reported that the motion to bring the bill to the floor is the first step after the election and that bipartisan support is needed [9]. The Republican majority runs until January 3, 2027 [9].

Positions on the record

On introduction, Heinrich said, “It should not take decades to build the infrastructure our country needs,” and Whitehouse said, “Like all major pieces of bipartisan legislation, this bill is a compromise” [6]. The release said the bill keeps permits in place absent extraordinary circumstances, violations of law or a court order, and requires data centers to pay all associated transmission costs [6]. Speaking on the floor September 30, Lee described the effort as “comprehensively reforming America’s permitting system” [1].

Thune told SDPB, “We need permitting reform,” and said jurisdictional questions affecting states must be resolved: “I think if we can figure out how to thread that needle, I think we can get the bill across the finish line” [9]. South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Chairman Chris Nelson objected to giving Washington the final say on transmission permits. “We think it’s wrong to take that decision making away from a state agency and send it to Washington D.C.,” he said [9]. House Natural Resources ranking member Jared Huffman objected to the Endangered Species Act changes, according to Apollo Counsel [8]. Semafor reported on November 4 that Senate Democrats “will have to decide next week whether they’re ready to advance a bipartisan permitting reform bill” [10].

Reading-room questions

Questions readers bring to this record, answered from the documents cited below.

When is the Senate cloture vote on the permitting bill?

Monday, November 9, 2026, at 5:30 p.m., under a unanimous-consent order entered September 30 [1, 3]. The question is cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2347, which would open debate rather than pass anything [1, 3].

Why is the Senate permitting bill moving as H.R. 2347?

H.R. 2347 is a House-passed tax bill already on the Senate calendar, and Harbinger Strategies identified it as the vehicle, with permitting text expected through a substitute amendment [4, 7]. Neither the Congressional Record nor the Senate calendar mentions permitting on its face [1, 3].

What would S. 5653 change about NEPA lawsuits?

Suits would have to be filed within 150 days, by a party that raised the issue in a detailed comment, directly in the regional court of appeals [5]. A court finding a NEPA violation could only remand the authorization, without vacating it or enjoining the project [5].

Would data centers pay more for transmission under the Senate permitting bill?

S. 5653 directs FERC to revise its 1994 transmission pricing policy within 270 days so that service for computational load sites is charged both embedded and incremental transmission costs [5]. The sponsors describe this as requiring data centers to pay all associated transmission costs [6].

Does the permitting bill let FERC override state decisions on transmission lines?

In part. S. 5653 says FERC 'shall' issue section 216 permits when listed findings are met and starts the one-year state clock on the filing date, while limiting FERC to the circumstances in section 216(b)(1) [5]. South Dakota's utility commission chairman objects to moving that decision to Washington [9].

How many votes does the permitting package need in the Senate?

Harbinger Strategies framed Senate passage around 60 votes, and SDPB reported that bipartisan support is needed even to bring the bill to the floor [7, 9].

Note on sourcing

The Congressional Record and the Senate calendar identify the Nov. 9 cloture motion only by H.R. 2347's existing tax title; neither says on its face that the bill will carry permitting text. That link rests on a lame-duck preview by Harbinger Strategies and on the sponsors' and leadership's stated plans as reported by Apollo Counsel and SDPB. No substitute amendment text had been made public as of publication, so the provisions described here are from S. 5653 as introduced and may change. Bill text and Record pages are cited from govinfo. A Nov. 4 Heinrich-Whitehouse statement reported secondhand by one trade site does not appear on either senator's website and is not used. Results of the Nov. 3 elections are not characterized.

Sources

1. Congressional Record, Senate (September 30, 2026): Survivor Justice Tax Prevention Act, motion to proceed and cloture motion; unanimous-consent agreement; introduction of S. 5653U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), September 30, 2026 · govinfo.gov
2. Daily Digest, Congressional Record (September 30, 2026)U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), September 30, 2026 · govinfo.gov
3. Senate Calendar of Business, Thursday, November 5, 2026: Unanimous Consent AgreementsU.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), November 5, 2026 · govinfo.gov
4. H.R. 2347, Survivor Justice Tax Prevention Act (Placed on Calendar Senate)U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), July 14, 2026 · govinfo.gov
5. S. 5653, Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (Introduced in Senate)U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), September 30, 2026 · govinfo.gov
6. Heinrich, Lee, Capito, and Whitehouse Introduce Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (minority), September 30, 2026 · energy.senate.gov
7. Lame Duck PreviewHarbinger Strategies, October 16, 2026 · harbingerdc.com
8. Permitting Reform's Path ForwardApollo Counsel, October 1, 2026 (updated October 2, 2026) · apollocounsel.com
9. Congressional permitting reform bill faces jurisdictional concerns, potential midterm election hoops, Thune saysSouth Dakota Public Broadcasting, October 25, 2026 · sdpb.org
10. Congress faces long lame-duck to-do listSemafor, November 4, 2026 · semafor.com
11. Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, sec. 1221 (adding Federal Power Act section 216)U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), August 8, 2005 · govinfo.gov
12. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. 117-58, sec. 40105 (siting of interstate electric transmission facilities)U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), November 15, 2021 · govinfo.gov
13. Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, Pub. L. 118-5, sec. 321 (Builder Act amendments to NEPA)U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), June 3, 2023 · govinfo.gov

Subject headings

• permitting legislation
• H.R. 2347
• S. 5653
• NEPA
• transmission
• FERC
• Senate floor

Cross-references

Other register entries filed under the same subject headings.

1. Nov. 3, 2026No. 0030 · Report · 2 shared headingsFERC opens scoping on Longboard LNG import terminal off Oʻahu, Docket No. PF26-10-000
2. Oct. 1, 2026No. 0026 · Record of decision · 2 shared headingsFERC staff issues final EIS for Sabine Pass Stage 5 LNG expansion, Docket No. CP24-75-001
3. Sept. 22, 2026No. 0025 · Environmental review · 2 shared headingsBLM opens supplemental EIS on Seminoe Pumped Storage Project, moving FERC license order to October 2027, P-14787-004