Connect with us

Published

on

Originally published by Union of Concerned Scientists, The Equation.
By John Rogers

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 closequite possiblycheckTBD, 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.

And all this is in the context of maintaining the crucial top line $3.5-trillion number — and the boldness needed for a “rapid, just transition to clean energy.”

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.

 

Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.

 

 


Advertisement



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Continue Reading

Environment

Mercedes-Benz unveils the new CLA Shooting Brake EV with impressive range

Published

on

By

Mercedes-Benz unveils the new CLA Shooting Brake EV with impressive range

The new CLA Shooting Brake is the first electric Mercedes vehicle available as an estate. It’s more spacious, more capable, and more high-tech than ever.

Meet the new Mercedes CLA Shooting Brake EV

Mercedes introduced the new CLA Shooting Brake on Tuesday, its first electric estate car. The Shooting Brake arrives as the second EV from the luxury brand’s new entry-level family of vehicles.

The electric wagon takes the best of the new CLA, which was revealed just a few weeks ago, and adds more space and capability.

It’s also bigger than the current CLA Shooting Brake, offering a more spacious interior. The new EV measures 4,723 mm in length, or 35 mm longer than the outgoing model.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

With an extended wheelbase of 2,790 mm (+61 mm), the electric version offers 14 mm more headroom and 11 mm more legroom in the front. Rear passengers gain 7 mm of headroom but lose 6 mm of legroom compared to the current model.

Mercedes-Benz-CLA-Shooting-Brake-EV
Mercedes-Benz CLA Shooting Brake models (Source: Mercedes-Benz)

Boot space is 455 L, which is 50 L more than the CLA sedan, but 30 L less than the outgoing Shooting Brake. However, it does include an added Frunk (front trunk) for an extra 101 L of storage space.

With all seats folded, overall storage space is 1,290 L. It also comes with standard roof rails, which Mercedes claims can easily fit surfboards or bicycles with a 75 kg (165 lbs) load capacity.

Mercedes-Benz-CLA-Shooting-Brake-EV
Mercedes-Benz CLA Shooting Brake with EQ Technology (Source: Mercedes-Benz)

Inside, the new Shooting Brake is nearly identical to the CLA Sedan. It features the new Mercedes-Benz Operating System (MB.OS) with its fourth-gen infotainment.

The setup includes a 14″ infotainment and 10.25″ driver display screens. An extra 14″ passenger screen is available. A trim piece with star-pattern graphics replaces it if not. All three screens are powered by the latest-gen chips and graphics from Unity Game Engine.

Mercedes-Benz-CLA-Shooting-Brake-EV
Mercedes-Benz CLA Shooting Brake EV interior (Source: Mercedes-Benz)

Powered by the new Mercedes-Benz Modular Architecture and an 85 kWh battery, the new Shooting Brake EV offers up to 473 miles (761 km) WLTP range.

It will be available in single and dual-motor powertrains. The base CLA 250+ Shooting Brake has 268 hp (200 kW) output and a WLTP range of up to 473 miles (761 km). Meanwhile, the dual-motor CLA 350 4MATIC Shooting Brake has combined 349 hp (260 kW) and a range of up to 454 miles (730 km).

Mercedes-Benz-CLA-Shooting-Brake-EV
Mercedes-Benz CLA Shooting Brake EV interior (Source: Mercedes-Benz)

Based on its 800V architecture, the new electric estate can add 193 miles (310 km) WLTP driving range within 10 minutes. Mercedes said that should be plenty to get from Geneva to Milan or Berlin to Hamburg.

Mercedes will introduce new EV variants in early 2026, followed by a 1.5 L hybrid model. Prices will be revealed closer to launch, but it’s expected to start slightly higher than the current model. The current CLA Shooting Brake starts at around €40,000 ($46,500) in Europe.

Following the new CLA and CLA Shooting Brake, Mercedes-Benz plans to launch two SUVs. Check back soon for more info on the upcoming lineup.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

U.S. moving fast to secure access to critical minerals to counter China’s dominance of market, Pentagon says

Published

on

By

U.S. moving fast to secure access to critical minerals to counter China's dominance of market, Pentagon says

MP Materials CEO on deal with the Defense Department

The Pentagon is taking immediate action to boost critical mineral production in the U.S. and counter China’s dominance of the supply chain for rare earth magnets, a defense official told CNBC on Tuesday.

The Defense Department last week agreed to buy a direct equity stake in MP Materials, which will make the U.S. government the miner’s largest shareholder. MP operates the only rare earth mine in the U.S. located at Mountain Pass, California, and a magnet plant in Forth Worth, Texas.

When asked whether the Pentagon is considering similar investments in other U.S. mining companies, the defense official said it is looking at opportunities to strengthen domestic critical mineral production.

“Rebuilding the critical minerals and rare earth magnet sectors of the U.S. industrial base won’t happen overnight, but DoD is taking immediate action to streamline processes and identify opportunities to strengthen critical minerals production,” official said in a statement.

Rare earths are used in weapons such as the F-35 warplane, drones and submarines among other other military platforms. The U.S. was almost entirely dependent on foreign countries for rare earths in 2023, with China representing about 70% of imports, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

MP Materials CEO James Litinsky told CNBC last week that he views the public-private partnership with the Defense Department as a model for other companies in industries that are important for national security but struggle to compete against the state-backed enterprises in China.

“I’d like to think that this is sort of the first, it’s a model,” Litinsky told CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” on Thursday. “We have to deliver at MP and show that this is an incredible route to go. But it’s a new way forward to accelerate free markets, to get the supply chain on shore that we want.”

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in April that the U.S. government was looking at taking direct equity stakes in critical mineral and rare earth miners to break China’s dominance. The Trump administration is also looking at stockpiling critical minerals and creating a sovereign risk insurance fund to protect companies investments’ in federally approved projects, Burgum said at an energy conference in Oklahoma City.

The Pentagon makes long-term investments in mining, processing and refining critical minerals, the defense official told CNBC. It has invested $540 million so far to support a critical mineral and rare earth supply chain in the U.S. and allied nations, the official said.

“That is significant, and DoD will continue to such efforts in accordance with congressional appropriations and statutory authorities,” the official said.

Catch up on the latest energy news from CNBC Pro:

Continue Reading

Environment

Crypto super PAC Fairshake reports $141 million war chest

Published

on

By

Crypto super PAC Fairshake reports 1 million war chest

Jakub Porzycki | Nurphoto | Getty Images

Fairshake, the cryptocurrency industry’s most powerful political action committee, announced Tuesday that it now holds more than $141 million in cash on hand, underscoring the sector’s growing influence as Congress takes up landmark legislation this week.

The total, which includes liquid assets like crypto, stock, and cash, reflects a surge of donations from digital asset executives and firms, including a fresh $25 million from Coinbase.

Fairshake and its two affiliated PACs — Defend American Jobs and Protect Progress — have raised $109 million since Election Day in 2024 and $52 million during just the first half of this year.

“We are building an aggressive, targeted strategy for next year to ensure that pro-crypto voices are heard in key races across the country,” said spokesperson Josh Vlasto.

Ethereum succeeded beyond anyone's expectations, says network co-founder Vitalik Buterin at EthCC

The announcement lands in the middle of what lawmakers are calling “Crypto Week” on Capitol Hill, as the House begins deliberations on a trio of long-awaited bills that would define how digital assets are regulated.

The legislation includes the dividing of oversight, setting new stablecoin rules, and a bill banning the creation of a central bank digital currency.

The crypto industry is no longer just lobbying for survival, it is shaping the political landscape. Fairshake saw nearly every candidate it backed in 2024 win their race.

“We stuck to our core strategy from Day 1,” Fairshake previously told CNBC. “We supported pro-crypto candidates and opposed those who played politics with jobs and innovation, and won.”

WATCH: How crypto and fintech may perform under the second Trump administration

How crypto and fintech may perform under the second Trump administration

Continue Reading

Trending