daily · Climate Policy

RFF model projects $350 billion in power-system savings under permitting bill

The October 29 study models parts of BAAJA, not an enacted law. Its power-system cost estimates are not a promise of equal savings on household electricity bills.

By Greener Numbers Editorial Team · Published October 29, 2026 · Updated 10/29/2026

Resources for the Future published an October 29 study modeling how parts of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act could affect the US power sector. Its central scenario projects roughly $350 billion in lower net-present-value power-system costs over 2025-2050 compared with a baseline. These are modeled outcomes if the represented provisions take effect, not savings already realized.

Kevin Rennert and Aaron Bergman used the Regional Energy Deployment System model with 90 geographic regions. The central scenario projects total transmission capacity about 30% above the baseline in 2041 and more than double the interregional transmission capacity. The bill was introduced in the Senate on September 30; the study is not evidence that it has become law.

The model estimates annual electricity-system cost reductions of about 3.5% to 7% through 2041. RFF explicitly distinguishes that measure from retail electricity rates: it covers power-sector operating costs and annualized capacity costs, but does not include distribution-network costs. A household should not interpret the percentage as a guaranteed reduction in its utility bill.

In the central case, clean generation capacity is roughly 60 gigawatts above the baseline in 2028. The modeled additional generation initially displaces mainly coal, with natural gas combined-cycle generation making up a larger share of displacement later. Cumulative power-sector carbon dioxide emissions are about 1.83 gigatonnes lower through 2041.

The analysis assumes high electricity-demand growth and represents changes to transmission construction, interconnection and permitting certainty. Its technology-cost inputs do not include near-term increases from tariffs or supply-chain constraints. These assumptions matter to the estimated pace and cost of the build-out.

RFF does not model every provision of the broad bill. Changes to environmental-review procedures, judicial review and activities outside the power sector, including pipelines and mining, fall outside parts of its representation. The findings therefore describe a bounded power-sector scenario, not a full accounting of every economic or environmental consequence of the legislation.