Congressional budget analysts have concluded that a Senate climate change bill would not increase the federal deficit but would cost the private sector billions of dollars annually.

Bill sponsors were pleased, because the report means they won’t face a budget point of order when the bill reaches the floor this summer. But Republicans seized on the new analysis as further evidence that the measure would hurt the economy.

The bill, sponsored by Joseph I. Lieberman , I-Conn., and John W. Warner , R-Va., is designed to combat global warming. It would direct the federal government to distribute emission allowances to businesses, some for free and some at auction, creating a market-based system for reducing greenhouse gases.

Overall emissions would be capped, but companies could purchase extra allowances from others who beat the targets. That would set up what is known as a cap-and-trade system.

The Congressional Budget Office concluded that the bill would increase overall federal revenues by $1.21 trillion between 2009 and 2018, although the net increase would be just $78 billion after new spending was factored in.

Proceeds from emission auctions would be spent on programs ranging from low-income energy assistance and clean energy technology research to wildlife adaptation and forest fire suppression.

The CBO analysis removes one procedural obstacle to bringing the bill to the Senate floor. But it won’t obviate the need for 60 votes to advance their bill. That number will still be required to overcome a likely filibuster attempt by opponents.

The bill’s leading opponent, ranking Republican James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, assailed its impact on businesses and said, “As the economy continues to face uncertain times and as energy prices soar, this new analysis shows once again why this bill is wrong for America.”