The White House’s Council of Economic Advisers projects the Senate’s permitting bill could add up to $164 billion a year to long-run U.S. output, with gains taking years to emerge.
In an Oct. 28 report, the CEA estimated that a two-year average review period for environmental impact statements could lift long-run gross domestic product by 0.28% to 0.56%. That equals $82 billion to $164 billion in additional annual output, measured in 2024 dollars. These are model projections, not observed gains.
For that scenario, the CEA also estimates annual tax revenue would rise by $14 billion to $28 billion. It projects average household real wages would increase by $306 to $637 a year, while electric bills would fall by $178 to $251 and other expenses by $125 to $176.
A faster scenario, based on a one-year average review period, puts the long-run GDP increase at 0.41% to 0.83%, or $120 billion to $243 billion a year in 2024 dollars. The CEA projects almost no output change during the first three years after reform begins; its model takes about 18 years to deliver nine-tenths of the long-run gain.
The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to assess environmental effects of major federal actions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is the most detailed review tier. For its baseline, the CEA uses EISs published in 2022, which averaged 4.2 years from review to completion. A 2025 Council on Environmental Quality report found median review times of 2.2 years for EISs completed in 2024 and 2.4 years for those completed from 2021 through 2024. The medians cover different periods and use a different measure from the CEA’s average, so they do not offer a direct comparison.
Federal law sets one-year deadlines for environmental assessments and two-year deadlines for EISs. It allows extensions in consultation with applicants, and project sponsors may petition a court over missed deadlines. The bill, S. 5653, would amend the timing provisions, including the triggers that start the review clock. The CEA report does not say whether its two-year projection reflects the revised triggers, the existing statutory limits or both. Its analysis also excludes environmental assessments and categorical exclusions, and does not quantify possible effects from reduced uncertainty or litigation costs.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the bill would help agencies get “to ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on energy projects faster.” The Associated Press reported that environmental advocates warned the measure could weaken clean-water and endangered-species protections and restrict judicial review.
S. 5653 was introduced Sept. 30 and referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. It has not been enacted. Axios reported that a procedural Senate vote was expected Nov. 9.
