Data: Resources for the Future; Note: Central RFF scenario ; Chart: Ben Geman/Axios The Senate permitting plan would cut emissions from power plants in the near term and help keep electricity prices down, a new analysis finds.

Why it matters: The study from scholars at Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan think tank, offers some of the most detailed independent modeling yet of the bill 's effects.

• It will help inform lobbying and advocacy around the bill ahead of a test vote looming on Nov. 9. Driving the news:

The analysis models how the bill would affect the power sector compared with current law and policies. Among the findings from its central scenario:

• It would drive "robust" transmission expansion, enabling "use of additional clean energy and existing resources of all types."

• Overall electricity system costs are an estimated 3.5% to 7% lower each year through 2041 compared to a no-bill baseline, saving over $350 billion total through 2050 in present-value terms.

• That should translate into lower electricity bills for people, co-author Kevin Rennert tells Axios, though the study does not directly model retail prices.

The bill would boost the build-out of renewables, partly enabled by expansion of transmission, with added clean energy displacing fossil fuels even though additions of gas-fired capacity still occur.

• CO2 from the power sector would initially drop as more coal is edged aside, and then climb over time — but remain below levels projected without the bill. By the numbers:

In 2028, there's roughly 60 gigawatts more clean energy capacity on the grid in the study's central outlook compared to a baseline of current law and policy.

Data: Resources for the Future; Chart: Ben Geman/Axios The intrigue:

The RFF analysis shows how it sees the bill initially pushing power plant emissions downward.

• Even that eventual upward trend is hardly guaranteed. • This kind of study is by definition packed with assumptions and variables that the authors acknowledge — the future being the future and all.

• For instance, it uses a "high-electrification demand scenario to represent the rapid increase in demand from data centers and other sources."

Yes, but: The study — which uses a model developed by the Energy Department's National Laboratory of the Rockies — doesn't attempt to analyze every aspect of the wide-ranging bill.

• For example, it does not capture how changes in environmental laws would affect mining, pipelines, and various activities outside the power sector.

Catch up quick: There's a lot of other analysis flying around in the intense public and closed-door lobbying over the bill.

• A new White House study finds the bill would eventually boost GDP by $82 billion to $164 billion annually and provide substantial savings on power bills.

• And Punchbowl News reports that the Solar Energy Industries Association is circulating an analysis on Capitol Hill showing that under the bill, solar and wind would together provide over 37% of power generation in 2035 vs. around 20% under "obstructed permitting."

What we're watching: Emissions, renewables deployment, and costs are several factors in the permitting bill battle, but hardly the only ones as some environmentalists and other critics take aim at the bill.

• Other contested terrain includes the effect on consultation with Native American tribes, historic preservation, and more.

• The NAACP, for instance, is out with a new document strongly criticizing the bill.