With its passage out of a key committee in the House of Representatives last week, the Clean Electricity Performance Program (CEPP) is a step closer to reality, as part of the powerful budget reconciliation bill (the Build Back Better Act). The bill, and that provision, still have a ways to go to get through Congress, as the House and Senate negotiate a final package. But it’s really important for clean energy to have this and complementary pieces moving — and even more important to get strong versions of them across the finish line.
To understand why, consider how the current design of the CEPP component answers the questions we had recently offered for gauging the robustness of the policy. The good news is that there’s a lot to like in what our elected representatives have laid out so far, and a whole lot to want to defend as its legislative journey continues.
And as for those five questions … the answers are very close, quite possibly, check, TBD, and yes. Here’s how the House language stacks up.
Would the targets be as strong as needed? Very close.
While “as needed” is tricky, since we need much more globally than has been put on the table so far, one useful benchmark might be the current US commitment under the Paris climate accord (50- to 52-percent reductions in heat-trapping emissions below 2005 levels by 2030), and specifically the power sector implications of that (approximately 80-percent clean electricity).
The focus of the CEPP is retail electricity providers — investor-owned utilities, municipal utilities, electric cooperatives, and third-party retail electricity providers in states with competitive power markets. The CEPP that passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (E&C) would reward those providers that increased their clean electricity supply by at least 4 percentage points in a given year (or per year, given some multiyear flexibility written into the plan). And it would collect payments from those that missed that benchmark.
That level of annual growth across the board, coupled with other complementary programs moving through the Build Back Better Act, such as clean energy tax incentives, would get us most of the way to the national target of 80 percent by 2030, according to analysis by the Rhodium Group. And the CEPP as envisioned provides a strong incentive for providers to beat that 4-percent-per-year level of growth to get us the rest of the way, together with all the clean energy pushes from states, utilities, companies, institutions, and households.
Would there be enough funding to power the transition? Quite possibly.
The early stages of the budget reconciliation process had the House and Senate approve the key top line number of $3.5 trillion, plus the allocations to the various committees. That resulted in $150 billion carved out for the CEPP within the portion the E&C is shepherding.
Is that sum enough? The performance grants for providers hitting the 4-point target would be $150 per megawatt-hour (MWh) of increased clean energy above a certain level. And that math — $150/MWh times the number of MWh needed to get to 80-percent clean electricity — works out pretty well, coming in close to the $150 billion.
So the next question is whether the resulting credit (including avoided payments for coming in too low) is enough to motivate providers to make the necessary push — and make the transition as easy and affordable as possible for customers. That level of incentive should make the willingness to invest in new renewables (directly or indirectly) at the pace and scale required all the more powerful.
So grants at that level under the CEPP could be a powerful complement to the extensions of the tax credits also included in the House reconciliation package to drive high levels of clean energy deployment.
Photo credit: John Rogers
Would the funding be used well? Check.
The current House text is explicit about what a provider can do with the performance grants it earns: use it “exclusively for the benefit of the ratepayers.” It then includes examples, such as direct bill assistance, clean energy and efficiency investments, and worker retention.
We agree: The CEPP grants should be used for purposes that directly and solely benefit the public by achieving the transition to clean electricity at a low cost and for maximum gain to consumers. So that’s good, strong language.
And it can be built on. We’ve recommended to lawmakers that they further specify allocation of the resources to ensure that this policy is doing its part to meet the administration’s Justice40 effort aimed at getting at least 40 percent of the benefits from federal investments to flow directly to disadvantaged communities.
Another clause in the E&C bill helpfully addresses the penalty portion for providers that don’t make the threshold in a given period: The legislation would let those payments be recovered only from “shareholders or owners.” That stipulation is particularly important in the case of investor-owned utilities.
Will it drive the cleanest sources? TBD.
As I’ve noted before, there’s low-carbon energy and then there’s really clean energy. Wind and solar would be the overwhelming favorites for providing the bulk of the new electrical capacity fueled by the CEPP. But the House does leave the door open to other options.
The E&C bill doesn’t spell out particular sources for inclusion or exclusion, instead setting a carbon intensity target — the maximum carbon pollution (carbon-dioxide equivalent on a 20-year global warming potential basis) per unit of electricity allowed for a source to qualify.
The good news is the House’s carbon intensity target is potentially quite strong, if it includes the emissions from the fuel supply (“upstream” emissions), although that isn’t clear from the current bill language. If upstream emissions are in there (again TBD), any fossil fuel generation would need a pretty high level of carbon capture and storage to count for the CEPP. A colleague has estimated that, with those upstream emissions included, coal or gas plants would need to capture and store at least 80 to 90 percent of their carbon dioxide emissions.
But the legislation needs to be clearer about those upstream emissions indeed being in the calculations. And the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) also has recommended other changes to make sure this section is as strong as it needs to be:
explicitly excluding particular sources, such as municipal solid waste incineration and conventional natural gas generation;
prorating performance grants for resources that meet the carbon intensity standard but are still above zero; and
putting in place strong guardrails for bioenergy, hydroelectric, carbon capture and storage, and nuclear projects to address other environmental and fuel-cycle impacts.
Would all electric utilities be covered? Yes!
This one is maybe the most straightforward. The E&C language seems quite clear that all retail electricity providers, regardless of type or size, would be covered. That’s good news, because it means that all electricity customers would benefit from the transition to clean energy.
Stronger is better
So a strong performance by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, with a few things to strengthen and a lot worth defending as this piece continues through Congress.
Be assured that UCS will continue to push for the reconciliation package as a whole — and you can, too, by contacting your members of Congress. And we also will continue to weigh in to make sure that the Clean Electricity Performance Program lives up to its full promise and becomes a powerful tool for our clean energy transition.
After a month off trying to wrap our heads around all the chaos surrounding EVs, solar, and everything else in Washington, we’re back with the biggest EV news stories of the day from Tesla, Ford, Volvo, and everyone else on today’s hiatus-busting episode of Quick Charge!
It just gets worse and worse for the Tesla true believers – especially those willing to put their money where Elon’s mouth is! One believer is set to lose nearly $50,000 betting on Tesla’s ability to deliver a Robotaxi service by the end of June (didn’t happen), and the controversial CEO’s most recent spat with President Trump had TSLA down nearly 5% in pre-morning trading.
New episodes of Quick Charge are recorded, usually, Monday through Thursday (and sometimes Sunday). We’ll be posting bonus audio content from time to time as well, so be sure to follow and subscribe so you don’t miss a minute of Electrek’s high-voltage daily news.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Got news? Let us know! Drop us a line at tips@electrek.co. You can also rate us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or recommend us in Overcast to help more people discover the show.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Hyundai is getting ready to shake things up. A new electric crossover SUV, likely the Hyundai IONIQ 2, is set to debut in the coming months. It will sit below the Kona Electric as Hyundai expands its entry-level EV lineup.
Is Hyundai launching the IONIQ 2 in 2026?
After launching the Inster late last year, Hyundai is already preparing to introduce a new entry-level EV in Europe.
Xavier Martinet, President and CEO of Hyundai Europe, confirmed that the new EV will be revealed “in the next few months.” It will be built in Europe and scheduled to go on sale in mid-2026.
Hyundai’s new electric crossover is expected to be a twin to the Kia EV2, which will likely arrive just ahead of it next year.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
It will be underpinned by the same E-GMP platform, which powers all IONIQ and Kia EV models (EV3, EV4, EV5, EV6, and EV9).
Like the Kia EV3, it will likely be available with either a 58.3 kWh or 81.4 kWh battery pack option. The former provides a WLTP range of 267 miles while the latter is rated with up to 372 miles. All trims are powered by a single electric motor at the front, producing 201 hp and 209 lb-ft of torque.
Kia EV2 Concept (Source: Kia)
Although it may share the same underpinnings as the EV2, Hyundai’s new entry-level EV will feature an advanced new software and infotainment system.
According to Autocar, the interior will represent a “step change” in terms of usability and features. The new system enables new functions, such as ambient lighting and sounds that adjust depending on the drive mode.
Hyundai E&E tech platform powered by Pleos (Source: Hyundai)
It’s expected to showcase Hyundai’s powerful new Pleos software and infotainment system. As an end-to-end software platform, Pleos connects everything from the infotainment system (Pleos Connect) to the Vehicle Operating System (OS) and the cloud.
Pleos is set to power Hyundai’s upcoming software-defined vehicles (SDVs) with new features like autonomous driving and real-time data analysis.
Hyundai’s next-gen infotainment system powered by Pleos (Source: Hyundai)
As an Android-based system, Pleos Connect features a “smartphone-like UI” with new functions including multi-window viewing and an AI voice assistant.
The new electric crossover is expected to start at around €30,000 ($35,400), or slightly less than the Kia EV3, priced from €35,990 ($42,500). It will sit between the Inster and Kona Electric in Hyundai’s lineup.
Hyundai said that it would launch the first EV with its next-gen infotainment system in Q2 2026. Will it be the IONIQ 2? Hyundai is expected to unveil the new entry-level EV at IAA Mobility in September. Stay tuned for more info. We’ll keep you updated with the latest.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Tesla has unveiled its lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) battery cell factory in Nevada and claims that it is nearly ready to start production.
Like several other automakers using LFP cells, Tesla relies heavily on Chinese manufacturers for its battery cell supply.
Tesla’s cheapest electric vehicles all utilize LFP cells, and its entire range of energy storage products, Megapacks and Powerwalls, also employ the more affordable LFP cell chemistry from Chinese manufacturers.
This reliance on Chinese manufacturers is less than ideal and particularly complicated for US automakers and battery pack manufacturers like Tesla, amid an ongoing trade war between the US and virtually the entire world, including China.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
As of last year, a 25% tariff already applied to battery cells from China, but this increased to more than 80% under Trump before he paused some tariffs on China. It remains unclear where they will end up by the time negotiations are complete and the trade war is resolved, but many expect it to be higher.
The automaker had secured older manufacturing equipment from one of its battery cell suppliers, CATL, and planned to deploy it in the US for small-scale production.
Tesla has now released new images of the factory in Nevada and claimed that it is “nearing completion”:
Here are a few images from inside the factory (via Tesla):
Previous reporting stated that Tesla aims to produce about 10 GWh of LFP battery cells per year at the new factory.
The cells are expected to be used in Tesla’s Megapack, produced in the US. Tesla currently has a capacity to produce 40 GWh of Megapacks annually at its factory in California. The company is also working on a new Megapack factory in Texas.
It’s nice to see this in the US. LFP was a US/Canada invention, with Arumugam Manthiram and John B. Goodenough doing much of the early work, and researchers in Quebec making several contributions to help with commercialization.
But China saw the potential early and invested heavily in volume manufacturing of LFP cells and it now dominates the market.
Tesla is now producing most of its vehicles with LFP cells and all its stationary energy storage products.
It makes sense to invest in your own production. However, Tesla is unlikely to catch up to BYD and CATL, which dominate LFP cell production.
The move will help Tesla avoid tariffs on a small percentage of its Megapacks produced in the US. Ford’s effort is more ambitious.
It’s worth noting that both Ford’s and Tesla’s LFP plants were planned before Trump’s tariffs, which have had limited success in bringing manufacturing back to the US.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.