119-SJRES-71 Investigative Journalist Impact Analysis

Summary

What changes if Congress ends the “national energy emergency”? The resolution would terminate EO 14156’s NEA‑based emergency, so agencies could no longer rely on that declaration to use emergency‑only powers (e.g., EO 14156’s invocation of 10 U.S.C. §2808 and USACE’s EO‑driven special emergency processing). However, reliability and fuels authorities that do not depend on an NEA declaration (DOE’s FPA §202(c) orders; EPA’s Clean Air Act fuel waivers) would remain available. In practice, the most immediate effects are procedural (slower federal permitting where the Corps had been using EO‑specific emergency lanes; fuller ESA consultations) and legal (reduced litigation over alleged misuse of emergency shortcuts). The macro energy supply picture is driven more by demand growth and market fundamentals than the declaration itself. [1]Congress.gov — S.J.Res.71 — 119th Congress: Terminating the national energy eme…[2]Federal Register — Executive Order 14156 — Declaring a National Energy Emergenc…[3]LII / Cornell — 50 U.S.C. § 1622 — National Emergencies (termination/effects)[4]LII / Cornell — 10 U.S.C. § 2808 — Construction authority in war or national em…[5]LII / Cornell — 33 CFR 325.2(e)(4) — USACE emergency permitting procedures[6]LII / Cornell — 50 CFR 402.05 — ESA emergency consultation procedures

Sources: EIA STEO; Reuters synthesis of EIA; DOE order/press pages; EPA statements on waivers. [7]Reuters — US power use to reach record highs in 2025 and 2026, EIA says[8]U.S. EIA — EIA press release (Oct. 7, 2025): U.S. oil production forecast and r…[9]U.S. Department of Energy — 2025 DOE 202(c) Orders — overview[10]U.S. Department of Energy — DOE press release: 202(c) order for PJM/Eddystone[11]U.S. Department of Energy — DOE: FPA §202(c) order — MISO (Aug. 20, 2025)[12]U.S. Department of Energy — DOE: FPA §202(c) order — Duke Energy Carolinas (Jun…[13]U.S. EPA — EPA news release (Apr. 19, 2024): E15 waivers and price differential

Economic Effects

Directional impacts, with emphasis on authorities that would end vs. persist.

• Permitting cadence and project timelines: USACE Districts had activated EO‑specific “special emergency processing procedures” under 33 CFR 325.2(e)(4) for energy projects. Termination would withdraw that EO basis, reverting applicants to standard Corps timelines (still allowing case‑specific emergencies). Expect longer schedules for pipelines, marine terminals, dredging, and other in‑water energy work compared with the EO period. [14]USACE — USACE Great Lakes & Ohio River Division — Special emergency processing…[15]USACE — USACE Northwestern Division — Approval of special emergency processing…[5]LII / Cornell — 33 CFR 325.2(e)(4) — USACE emergency permitting procedures
• Transmission/Generation availability: DOE’s ability to compel short‑term generation under FPA §202(c) does not require an NEA declaration; recent orders (e.g., PJM/Eddystone; MISO/Campbell; Duke Energy Carolinas) would continue until their specified end dates. Termination should not by itself curtail use of §202(c) where reliability emergencies are shown. [10]U.S. Department of Energy — DOE press release: 202(c) order for PJM/Eddystone[11]U.S. Department of Energy — DOE: FPA §202(c) order — MISO (Aug. 20, 2025)[12]U.S. Department of Energy — DOE: FPA §202(c) order — Duke Energy Carolinas (Jun…
• Fuel markets: EPA’s E15 waivers rest on Clean Air Act emergency criteria, not the NEA. While EO 14156 encouraged waivers, ending the NEA declaration would not eliminate EPA’s independent authority. Price effects of E15 (often ~$0.10–$0.25/gal cheaper than E10) therefore likely persist if EPA continues case‑by‑case waivers. [2]Federal Register — Executive Order 14156 — Declaring a National Energy Emergenc…[16]U.S. EPA — EPA Fuel Waivers — 2025 E15 nationwide waivers[13]U.S. EPA — EPA news release (Apr. 19, 2024): E15 waivers and price differential
• Macro demand and prices: Power demand is projected to set records in 2025–2026 (AI/data centers, electrification). Oil output is also projected at record levels. These fundamentals, not the presence or absence of the NEA declaration, dominate wholesale price trajectories. [7]Reuters — US power use to reach record highs in 2025 and 2026, EIA says[8]U.S. EIA — EIA press release (Oct. 7, 2025): U.S. oil production forecast and r…
• Construction and capital costs: Removing the EO’s emergency lanes and its invocation of 10 U.S.C. §2808 reduces the scope for accelerated, “without regard to other law” military‑construction style interventions. That likely raises schedule risk for some EO‑favored energy projects, increasing financing costs relative to the EO period. [2]Federal Register — Executive Order 14156 — Declaring a National Energy Emergenc…[4]LII / Cornell — 10 U.S.C. § 2808 — Construction authority in war or national em…

Social Effects

• Public participation and consultation: Termination would restore reliance on standard Clean Water Act/ESA procedures rather than EO‑driven emergency pathways, improving opportunities for state, Tribal, and community input (including ESA Section 7 emergency consultations reverting to normal process post‑event). [2]Federal Register — Executive Order 14156 — Declaring a National Energy Emergenc…[5]LII / Cornell — 33 CFR 325.2(e)(4) — USACE emergency permitting procedures[6]LII / Cornell — 50 CFR 402.05 — ESA emergency consultation procedures
• Environmental‑justice exposure: Short‑term §202(c) orders have kept older fossil units online (e.g., Campbell, Eddystone). Ending the broader energy emergency may reduce pressure to prolong such operations, marginally lowering local pollutant exposure for nearby communities, though actual outcomes depend on regional reliability needs. [17]U.S. Department of Energy — DOE Order No. 202-25-7 (MISO/Campbell plant) — PDF[10]U.S. Department of Energy — DOE press release: 202(c) order for PJM/Eddystone
• Litigation climate: Multiple state AGs sued to block the EO’s emergency shortcuts. Termination would likely narrow the contested issues and reduce associated compliance uncertainty for developers and communities. [18]Reuters — State AGs sue to block Trump’s energy emergency[19]Michigan Attorney General — Michigan AG press release: Suit challenging energy…

Environmental Effects

Key environmental pathways affected by ending the emergency.

• Permitting safeguards: Without the EO‑based emergency posture, USACE reviews would more often follow full Section 404/Section 10 procedures, and ESA consultations would be less likely to use emergency shortcuts—reducing the risk of adverse effects to wetlands, waterways, and listed species from rushed approvals. [14]USACE — USACE Great Lakes & Ohio River Division — Special emergency processing…[5]LII / Cornell — 33 CFR 325.2(e)(4) — USACE emergency permitting procedures[6]LII / Cornell — 50 CFR 402.05 — ESA emergency consultation procedures
• Emissions from extended fossil generation: DOE’s recent §202(c) orders documented high run‑times at coal/gas units. If fewer units are kept online beyond planned retirements absent the EO’s policy push, CO2 and co‑pollutant emissions (SO2/NOx/PM2.5) would be incrementally lower than under continuation of the emergency. Health literature links these pollutants to cardiopulmonary harms. [17]U.S. Department of Energy — DOE Order No. 202-25-7 (MISO/Campbell plant) — PDF[20]U.S. EPA — EPA: Human health and environmental impacts of the electric power se…
• Fuel quality waivers: EPA’s nationwide E15 waivers can continue independently of the NEA; air‑quality impacts depend on local RVP regimes and EPA determinations. EPA has stated price relief with no expected additional summer evaporative emissions under specified conditions. [16]U.S. EPA — EPA Fuel Waivers — 2025 E15 nationwide waivers[13]U.S. EPA — EPA news release (Apr. 19, 2024): E15 waivers and price differential

Temporal Analysis

1. Immediate (0–90 days): NEA‑dependent authorities cease on the termination date; saved actions (permits/orders already issued) generally remain valid for their stated terms under 50 U.S.C. §1622(a). DOE §202(c) and EPA fuel waivers continue on independent statutory bases. Some USACE districts will rescind EO‑specific emergency notices. [3]LII / Cornell — 50 U.S.C. § 1622 — National Emergencies (termination/effects)[12]U.S. Department of Energy — DOE: FPA §202(c) order — Duke Energy Carolinas (Jun…[11]U.S. Department of Energy — DOE: FPA §202(c) order — MISO (Aug. 20, 2025)[16]U.S. EPA — EPA Fuel Waivers — 2025 E15 nationwide waivers[14]USACE — USACE Great Lakes & Ohio River Division — Special emergency processing…
2. Near term (this fiscal year): Expect permitting queues to lengthen where projects were relying on EO‑based emergency processing; project sponsors may re‑sequence scopes or seek general permits. Any pending court challenges focused on abuse of emergency procedures may narrow or become moot. [15]USACE — USACE Northwestern Division — Approval of special emergency processing…[18]Reuters — State AGs sue to block Trump’s energy emergency
3. Long term (1–3 years): Grid reliability responses revert toward routine planning plus case‑specific §202(c) orders during actual emergencies. With record demand growth, operators (MISO, FERC assessments) still flag elevated risk under extreme conditions, independent of the NEA declaration’s status. [21]MISO — MISO Summer Readiness Assessment (May 8, 2025)[22]FERC — FERC releases 2025 Summer Assessment

Unintended Consequences

• Backlog effects: Reversion to standard reviews could temporarily swell agency backlogs, delaying both fossil and non‑fossil projects that touch waters/habitats. [5]LII / Cornell — 33 CFR 325.2(e)(4) — USACE emergency permitting procedures
• Reliability optics: If a high‑load event coincides with curtailed EO‑driven extensions of dispatchable units, outages—though still addressable via §202(c)—could be politically attributed (rightly or wrongly) to the termination. Operators already cite elevated risk from demand growth and retirements. [23]Reuters — NERC warns central North America at risk of power shortfalls (Summer…
• Ethanol market volatility: If EPA modulates E15 waivers more narrowly post‑termination, ethanol producers and certain retailers could see demand swings; this is policy‑contingent rather than NEA‑dependent. [16]U.S. EPA — EPA Fuel Waivers — 2025 E15 nationwide waivers

Assessment

Overall stance: Neutral. The resolution chiefly withdraws NEA‑specific shortcuts and construction authorities while leaving core reliability and fuel tools intact. Likely impacts are procedural (permitting pace; consultation) and legal (reduced emergency‑abuse claims), with modest environmental co‑benefits from fewer EO‑driven extensions of high‑emitting units and limited near‑term market effects given record demand and robust domestic supply. [2]Federal Register — Executive Order 14156 — Declaring a National Energy Emergenc…[4]LII / Cornell — 10 U.S.C. § 2808 — Construction authority in war or national em…[10]U.S. Department of Energy — DOE press release: 202(c) order for PJM/Eddystone[7]Reuters — US power use to reach record highs in 2025 and 2026, EIA says

Sourcing (selected)

Primary legal texts and agency records underpin this analysis.

• Text of S.J.Res. 71 and legislative status (Congress.gov). [1]Congress.gov — S.J.Res.71 — 119th Congress: Terminating the national energy eme…
• EO 14156 (Federal Register official text). [2]Federal Register — Executive Order 14156 — Declaring a National Energy Emergenc…
• National Emergencies Act provisions (termination/effects; specification of authorities). [3]LII / Cornell — 50 U.S.C. § 1622 — National Emergencies (termination/effects)[24]LII / Cornell — 50 U.S.C. § 1631 — NEA §301 specification of authorities
• Emergency construction authority (10 U.S.C. §2808). [4]LII / Cornell — 10 U.S.C. § 2808 — Construction authority in war or national em…
• USACE emergency processing rule and EO‑specific district notices. [5]LII / Cornell — 33 CFR 325.2(e)(4) — USACE emergency permitting procedures[14]USACE — USACE Great Lakes & Ohio River Division — Special emergency processing…
• DOE §202(c) orders and press releases (PJM, MISO, Duke). [10]U.S. Department of Energy — DOE press release: 202(c) order for PJM/Eddystone[11]U.S. Department of Energy — DOE: FPA §202(c) order — MISO (Aug. 20, 2025)[12]U.S. Department of Energy — DOE: FPA §202(c) order — Duke Energy Carolinas (Jun…
• EPA fuel waiver authority and E15 pricing statements. [16]U.S. EPA — EPA Fuel Waivers — 2025 E15 nationwide waivers[13]U.S. EPA — EPA news release (Apr. 19, 2024): E15 waivers and price differential
• Demand/supply context (EIA/Reuters), system risk (NERC/FERC/operator). [7]Reuters — US power use to reach record highs in 2025 and 2026, EIA says[8]U.S. EIA — EIA press release (Oct. 7, 2025): U.S. oil production forecast and r…[23]Reuters — NERC warns central North America at risk of power shortfalls (Summer…[22]FERC — FERC releases 2025 Summer Assessment[21]MISO — MISO Summer Readiness Assessment (May 8, 2025)
• Health impact references for power‑sector pollutants. [20]U.S. EPA — EPA: Human health and environmental impacts of the electric power se…