Congress & Reconciliation: Why This New Clean Energy Program Matters
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 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.
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.
Xpeng has officially launched its new G7 electric SUV in China, entering the fiercely competitive electric crossover market with a starting price of just 195,800 yuan ($27,325 USD). The G7 is positioned squarely to compete with the Tesla Model Y and the newly unveiled Xiaomi YU7.
It is priced significantly more aggressively than the YU7, which shook up the industry just last week.
The G7, Xpeng’s seventh model, offers an attractive balance of performance, technology, and value, with an emphasis on the latter.
Like Lei Jun with the launch of the YU7 last week, He Xiaopeng was not shy about positioning the G7 against the best-selling Tesla Model Y.
He compared the specs and pricing with the leading premium crossover. Like Jun, he brought up Tesla’s comparison challenge against the new Model Y:
The G7 is powered by a single rear-wheel-drive electric motor producing 292 horsepower (218 kW), it achieves a 0-100 km/h acceleration in 6.5 seconds. Impressively, the G7 can cover between 602 km and 702 km (374-436 miles) based on China’s generous CLTC standard, depending on the battery option and wheel size.
Two battery options are available, both using lithium iron phosphate (LFP) technology: a 68.5 kWh and a larger 80.8 kWh pack. With Xpeng’s advanced 5C charging technology, drivers can recharge up to 436 km (271 miles) of range in just 10 minutes.
Additionally, the G7 supports Vehicle-to-Load (V2L) functionality, providing up to 6 kW of external power, like the YU7 announced last week.
On the design front, the Xpeng G7 adopts the company’s second-generation “X Face” styling, featuring sleek running lights connected by a continuous LED strip, a closed front end for aerodynamic efficiency, and a distinctive “Star Ring” rear taillight design. Xpeng emphasizes the vehicle’s aerodynamics with a drag coefficient of just 0.238 Cd, slightly higher than the Model Y’s 0.230 Cd.
Inside, the G7 embraces minimalism, replacing conventional buttons with a large 15.6-inch central touchscreen powered by Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 8295 chipset. A standout interior feature is the expansive 87-inch augmented reality head-up display (AR-HUD), developed in collaboration with Huawei, that significantly enhances navigation and driving assistance.
Practicality is emphasized with ample cargo space: an 819-liter trunk that expands to 2,277 liters with the seats folded, plus an additional 120-liter compartment beneath the trunk floor and a modest 42-liter front trunk (frunk).
Xpeng is touting an adaptive AI-driven suspension system that actively adjusts to road conditions within milliseconds, allegedly surpassing comfort benchmarks set by the Mercedes-Benz GLE and Tesla Model Y. Cabin quietness also ranks high on Xpeng’s list of priorities.
Luxury and convenience features include dual 50W wireless phone chargers, a 20-speaker premium audio system, and a panoramic sunroof. Passengers in the second row enjoy premium touches like an 8-inch control screen, individual climate settings, a foldable table, and wireless charging.
The top-tier “Ultra” variant employs two proprietary Turing AI chips capable of delivering a massive 2,250 TOPS of computing power, enabling advanced Level 3 autonomous driving capabilities set to become active via an OTA update by December 2025, pending regulatory approval. Standard versions use dual Nvidia Orin-X chips with 508 TOPS.
The Xpeng G7 starts at 195,800 yuan ($27,325 USD) for the base “Max” variant with 602 km of range, stepping up to 205,800 yuan ($28,720 USD) for the longer-range “Max” (702 km) and topping out at 225,800 yuan ($31,510 USD) for the high-end “Ultra” trim.
Customers ordering the G7 Ultra before July 31 will receive complimentary upgrades including Nappa leather and power door handles.
G7 quickly demonstrated its popularity by securing 10,000 pre-orders in just 46 minutes.
Electrek’s Take
It’s not 200,000 orders within 3 minutes like the YU7, but Xpeng doesn’t have the brand power that Xiaomi has.
Nonetheless, it is pretty impressive.
The price is insane. The specs are competitive with the Model Y, which starts at 263,500 yuan and ranges up to 313,500 yuan ($36,770 – 43,750 USD), but the price starts at about $10,000 USD less.
Between this, the YU7 last week, and a few more models launching this month, the premium crossover segment is about to get crowded in China.
I think the Model Y is in serious trouble in China. We are about to see how it fares with real competition.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla’s humanoid robot program, Optimus, is reportedly in disarray amid the departure of the senior vice president in charge, Milan Kovac.
Production has been delayed due to a new redesign, as the robot has yet to prove useful in Tesla’s factories.
Elon Musk has previously set a goal for Tesla to produce 5,000 to 10,000 Optimus humanoid robots this year.
The goal has reportedly been delayed as sources within the Chinese supply chain report Tesla informed suppliers of a 2-month halt on orders.
AI Invest first reported the news, and The Information later corroborated the report:
Two supplier sources said Tesla has not explicitly stated it will reduce robot parts orders but will wait until the Optimus design adjustments are completed before finalizing a new mass production plan and resuming procurement. The adjustments may take two months. Musk recently stated on social media that the new version of Optimus has seen significant improvements over the second-generation Optimus unveiled in 2023 and now includes voice interaction powered by Grok.
The news came after we learned that Milan Kovac, the head of the Optimus program left Tesla last month, just months after being promoted to senior vice-president by Musk.
The new reports confirm that Ashok Elluswamy, who was elevated to senior vice-president in charge of self-driving at the same time as Kovac, is taking over responsabilities.
AI Invest reported some concerns from Tesla about Optimus that reportedly trickled down to Chinese suppliers:
According to Tesla’s feedback to suppliers, Optimus still faces hardware challenges, including overheating in some joint motors, low load capacity in dexterous hands, short lifespan of transmission components, and limited battery life. Tesla is currently evaluating samples from multiple dexterous hand suppliers, testing at least three different technical approaches. On the software side, Tesla may use more synthetic data to train the robot model, improving Optimus’ autonomous operation capabilities and success rate in performing complex tasks.
According to the report, Tesla had secured parts to build over 1,000 Optimus robots earlier this year and built quite a few, but they are currently only used “for moving batteries in Tesla’s battery workshops, with efficiency less than half that of human workers.”
The redesign is expected to delay plans by at least two months and could push many of Tesla’s goals.
However, Tesla is expected to still move ahead with the prgroam and it is likely to unveil the new generation of Optimus robots at its shareholders meeting this year.
Electrek’s Take
As I previously stated, I’m actually quite hyped for humanoid robots, but I don’t think they will be nearly as big as Musk claims and I simply don’t see Tesla having a significant advantage over the competition, which is significant.
Companies like Unitree are already selling robots, Figure has made impressive progress and poached from Tesla, then there’s Boston Dynamics and dozens more.
Kovac leaving just as Tesla is supposed to ramp-up production to 50,000 units next and make this a “multi-trillion-dollar” product is a red flag.The engineer would have certainly received sweet stock option packages when he was elevated to SVP and would have likely made a fortune if he would have been able to deliver on Musk’s goals.
But I think the real product at Tesla now is the stock – hence why they reportedly plan to unveil the next generation of the robot at the shareholders meeting and have it do another shady demostration, like it did at the ‘We, Robot’ event where the robots were remotely controlled by humans.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Honda is stepping up its electric scooter game with the launch of its second electric model for Europe, the CUV e:. Following Honda’s previous debut of the EM1 e:, a compact, city-focused moped, the CUV e: brings more power, more range, and more real-world usability to riders who want a practical electric alternative to a 125cc scooter.
Now finally ready for the spotlight, the CUV e: is built on an underbone-style frame and powered by a 6 kW side-mounted electric motor producing 22 Nm of torque. That puts it squarely in the 125cc-equivalent category, allowing it to reach a top speed of 83 km/h (52 mph).
It’s not built for the highway, but rather for urban and suburban riders who want to achieve speeds seen on the fastest of urban roads and keep up with just about any traffic in the city. For that role, it looks like a solid performer – more than capable of keeping up with city traffic or carrying a second passenger.
One of the most useful features, especially for urban residents and apartment dwellers, is its use of Honda’s Mobile Power Pack e: swappable battery system. The scooter carries two of these Gogoro-style removable battery units, each rated at 50 V and 1.3 kWh. Combined, they offer over 70 km (43 miles) of WMTC-rated range. Compared to the Honda EM1 e:’s single Mobile Power Pack battery, the dual batteries of the CUV e: give Honda the chance to pull twice as much power or offer twice the range.
Honda’s swappable battery standard is designed for portability and long life, with each pack weighing around 10 kg (22 lb) and rated for 2,500 full charge cycles. Honda has been slowly building a swappable battery ecosystem, and the CUV e: is clearly meant to be part of that larger infrastructure play.
Charging of the batteries is designed to be done easily off-board, either at home or at a battery station (where available). A full charge from 0 to 100% takes about six hours per pack, but Honda says 75% can be reached in just three hours. While fast charging would be nice, the swappable format means riders can keep an extra pair charged and ready if necessary, eliminating downtime altogether.
Honda didn’t skimp on features, either. The CUV e: offers three ride modes (Sport, Standard, and Econ), plus Reverse Assist for easier maneuvering. It includes a fairly spacious flat floorboard, under-seat storage, LED lighting, a USB-C port, and keyless ignition. Buyers can choose between a five-inch color TFT display or an upgraded seven-inch “RoadSync Duo” screen, which supports turn-by-turn navigation, music control, Bluetooth phone integration, and EV-specific ride data.
Positioned as a mid-range electric scooter, the CUV e: fills the space between low-speed mopeds and larger, premium e-motorcycles. It’s a key piece in Honda’s broader electrification strategy, which aims to introduce 10 or more electric motorcycle models globally by 2025 and reach full carbon neutrality in its motorcycle division by the 2040s.
With anticipated pricing starting at around €4,000 (approximately US $4,300), the CUV e: is expected to roll out in Europe first, with other global markets potentially following. Its combination of practical range, moderate speed, high build quality, and swappable batteries could make it an appealing option in cities where electric two-wheelers are on the rise.
If the EM1 e: was Honda dipping a toe into the electric waters, the CUV e: feels like a confident step forward. It’s not flashy, but it’s functional, well-designed, and undeniably useful, which is exactly the kind of machine that could help electric scooters go mainstream.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike