允许改革的经济效益

研究
允许改革的经济效益
白宫
2026 年 10 月 28 日
许可改革的经济效益 下载
执行摘要
经济顾问委员会（CEA）评估了允许改革的经济效益。 《国家环境政策法》（NEPA）充当环境审查的保护伞，要求各机构在项目进行之前评估环境影响。受影响的项目包括直接的联邦行动和需要联邦许可的私人项目。环境影响报告 (EIS) 通常会列出项目必须根据《清洁水法》、《濒危物种法》和《国家历史保护法》等法律获得的其他联邦许可，以便项目能够继续进行。近年来出版的 EIS 包括附录在内平均约为 1,700 页，各机构平均需要 4.2 年才能完成。长期的实施延迟会阻碍投资，因为它们迫使投资者等待更长时间才能实现回报，导致基础设施投资不足和人均资本数量减少，从而导致价格上涨和产出下降。
我们开发了一个模型来分析限制项目延迟时间的改革。两党《美国负担能力和就业法案》(BAAJA) 将规定可执行的 NEPA 审查期限。特别是，各机构需要在两年内完成 EIS。我们发现，将审核时间缩短至 BAAJA 要求的水平将：
将长期 GDP 提高 0.28% 至 0.56%（即每年增加 820 亿美元至 1640 亿美元的产出）。
将年度税收收入增加 140 亿美元至 280 亿美元。
将普通家庭的实际工资每年增加 306 美元至 637 美元。
普通家庭每年的电费减少 178 至 251 美元。
普通家庭每年的其他开支减少 125 至 176 美元。
更积极地缩短完成时间（一直缩短至 1 年）将：
将长期 GDP 提高 0.41% 至 0.83%（即每年额外产出 1200 亿美元至 2430 亿美元）。
年税收收入增加 20 美元，达到 410 亿美元。
将普通家庭的实际工资每年增加 445 美元至 922 美元。
普通家庭每年的电费减少 259 美元至 366 美元。
普通家庭每年的其他开支减少 184 至 257 美元。
我们的研究结果可能比较保守，原因有二。首先，我们将分析仅限于环境影响报告书 (EIS)，不考虑环境评估 (EA)。虽然 EA 的繁重程度较低，但其数量明显较多，并且同样会增加已实现投资的延迟。其次，NEPA 允许诉讼延迟，这给投资决策带来了额外的不确定性。在标准投资模型中，额外的不确定性会导致投资减少。我们的分析没有量化这种潜在的不确定性减少的影响，也没有量化诉讼财务成本的减少。

Research
The Economic Benefits of Permitting Reform
The White House
October 28, 2026
Economic Benefits of Permitting Reform Download
Executive Summary
The Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) has estimated the economic benefits of permitting reform. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) acts as an umbrella for environmental review, requiring agencies to evaluate environmental impacts before projects can proceed. Impacted projects include both direct federal actions and private projects requiring federal permits. An environmental impact statement (EIS) typically catalogs the other federal permits that must be obtained – under laws such as the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Historic Preservation Act – for the project to proceed. EISs published in recent years have averaged roughly 1,700 pages including appendixes, and agencies took on average 4.2 years to complete them. Long implementation delays discourage investment because they force investors to wait longer for returns to be realized, resulting in insufficient infrastructure investment and a lower quantity of capital per worker, which leads to higher prices and lower output.
We develop a model to analyze reforms which limit how long projects may be delayed. The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) would institute enforceable NEPA review deadlines. In particular, agencies would be required to complete EISs within two years. We find that reducing review times down to the levels required by the BAAJA would:
Increase long-run GDP by between 0.28 percent and 0.56 percent (i.e., $82 billion to $164 billion in additional output each year).
Increase annual tax revenue by $14 billion to $28 billion.
Increase real wages by $306 to $637 per year for the average household.
Reduce electric bills by $178 to $251 per year for the average household.
Reduce other expenses by $125 to $176 per year for the average household.
Reducing completion time even more aggressively – all the way down to 1 year – would:
Increase long-run GDP by between 0.41 percent and 0.83 percent (i.e., $120 billion to $243 billion in additional output per year).
Increase annual tax revenue by $20 to $41 billion.
Increase real wages by $445 to $922 per year for the average household.
Reduce electric bills by $259 to $366 per year for the average household.
Reduce other expenses by $184 to $257 per year for the average household.
Our findings are likely conservative for two reasons. First, we limit our analysis to Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and do not account for Environmental Assessments (EA). While EAs are less onerous, they are significantly more numerous and similarly add to delays in realized investment. Second, NEPA allows for litigation delays, which introduces additional uncertainty to the investment decision. In standard models of investment, additional uncertainty leads to lower investment. Our analysis does not quantify the effects of this potential reduction in uncertainty nor the reduction in the financial costs of litigation.