The bill adds a new Title VII to the Clean Air Act establishing a tradeable energy performance standard for large electricity generators, cogeneration plants, and thermal energy users. Starting with allowances distributed in 2028, the EPA would issue output‑based emission allowances (one allowance per metric ton CO2) to covered facilities each year; owners must surrender allowances annually for the prior year’s direct CO2 emissions or satisfy the obligation via an Alternative Compliance Payment.
The program runs on an output basis (per MWh or per million BTU) with an explicit declining intensity target and a market for buying, selling, and transferring allowances.
The statute pairs the allowance market with a Carbon Mitigation Fund (capitalized by alternative‑compliance payments and civil penalties) that will buy the lowest‑cost verified emissions reductions or permanent sequestration projects through a competitive grant process. The bill also creates rules for bilateral long‑term purchase agreements between new low‑emission projects and existing facilities, a public tracking system with weekly disclosures, position limits, and a penalty regime for noncompliance tied to the prior year’s market prices.
Together, these mechanisms change investment incentives for generators and large thermal users, create new compliance and market‑monitoring obligations, and concentrate program design and verification tasks at EPA.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires owners/operators of covered facilities to surrender one allowance per metric ton of direct CO2 emitted for the prior calendar year. EPA distributes allowances annually from 2028 through 2048 on an output basis (per MWh or per million BTU) using an Output‑Based CO2 Emissions Target that declines according to a statutory formula tied to a 2027 baseline and U.S. CO2 emissions trends.
Who It Affects
Facilities with rated electric capacity ≥2 MW and thermal facilities with rated fuel‑based capacity ≥50 million BTU/hr (and voluntary smaller entities that opt in), owners/operators who must track, hold, trade, and surrender allowances, developers of new low‑emission plants that can monetize allowances, and EPA (which must run a registry, set regulations, and verify offsets).
Why It Matters
The law shifts compliance from absolute emissions caps to an output‑based intensity standard with a tradable market, altering how investment, dispatch, and retrofit decisions are valued. The Alternative Compliance Payment schedule and the Offset Program create explicit price‑signals and spending flows that will shape project economics, while the bilateral agreement rules create a pathway for incumbents to buy allowances from new clean projects—affecting project financing and long‑term contracting.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill sets an output‑based allowance program layered on the Clean Air Act. EPA will calculate an Output‑Based CO2 Emissions Baseline using 2027 data and then set annual Output‑Based CO2 Emissions Targets for 2028–2048 according to a statutory decline formula.
For each year in that range, EPA distributes allowances to covered facilities in March based on the prior year’s reported output (MWh for electricity, millions of BTU for thermal). Owners must surrender allowances by June 1 for the previous calendar year; allowances are valid for the distribution year and the following year only.
Owners can meet surrender obligations by using distributed allowances, buying/selling on the market, entering into transfers recorded in EPA’s tracking system, or paying an Alternative Compliance Payment (ACP). The ACP has a specified schedule: a fixed-dollar path from $50 in 2028, small annual increases through 2038, then a linear ramp from $70 (adjusted for inflation) in 2038 up to the Social Cost of Carbon by 2048, after which the ACP equals the Social Cost of Carbon.
The program formally disclaims that allowances are property rights and reserves the federal government’s authority to limit or terminate allowance transactions.To incent new clean capacity, the bill permits bilateral purchase agreements: a newly constructed low‑emission facility can enter a 10‑year‑plus contract with an existing facility to transfer some or all of its distributed allowances; the statute prescribes how EPA splits allowances in the first full operating year between the parties and requires EPA review of the contracts and rulemaking for enforceability. Parallel to the market, EPA will run an Offset Program funded by ACPs and penalties.
That program solicits proposals each February, publishes qualified proposals by June 1, and awards grants (to the lowest bids first) by August 1 to activities that avoid emissions or permanently sequester CO2 under rigorous monitoring, reporting, verification, and risk‑discounting standards.EPA must create an electronic tracking system with accounts, unique IDs for allowances, weekly public price and volume disclosures, and position limits developed with the CFTC to address market manipulation and liquidity. The statute requires final regulations within 24 months and periodic GAO reviews on market integrity, cost‑effectiveness, job and transition impacts, and whether the program drives innovation and an orderly market.
The design intentionally blends intensity targets with market mechanisms and an offsets fund to lower compliance costs while channeling payments to verified mitigation projects.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Coverage thresholds: facilities are covered if electric capacity ≥2 MW or thermal Rated Fuel‑Based Capacity ≥50 million BTU/hr; smaller facilities may opt in via EPA approval.
Distribution and surrender schedule: EPA distributes allowances each March for 2028–2048 based on prior‑year output; owners must submit allowances by June 1 for the previous calendar year.
Alternative Compliance Payment path: starts at $50 per ton in 2028 (with specified annual increases through 2038), then ramps to equal the Social Cost of Carbon in 2048 and thereafter.
Penalty formula: failure to surrender requires immediate payment equal to three times the highest allowance price in the previous year (per missing allowance) multiplied by the number of missing allowances.
Offset Fund mechanics and timeline: ACPs and penalties fund a Carbon Mitigation Fund; EPA solicits offset/grant bids every Feb 1, lists qualifying proposals by June 1, and awards lowest‑cost grants by Aug 1 each year.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and thresholds
This section sets the universe and technical terms the rest of the title uses — what counts as a Covered Electric, Thermal, or Cogeneration Facility, the metrics for output (MWh and millions of BTU on a higher heating value basis), and the program’s key calculational anchors (2027 baseline, Output‑Based CO2 Emissions Target, Total U.S. CO2 Emissions). Practically, these definitions determine which physical plants need systems to measure output and direct CO2 emissions and which projects can qualify as ‘Newly Constructed Low‑Emission’ for bilateral trading.
Annual surrender requirement and compliance methods
Owners must surrender one allowance per metric ton of direct CO2 emitted during the prior calendar year by June 1, starting in 2028. Allowances may come from EPA distributions, market acquisitions, or by paying the Alternative Compliance Payment. The statute limits carryover (allowances usable only for the distribution year and the following year) and requires rounding to whole allowances, which affects accounting and short‑term trading behavior near compliance deadlines.
Output‑based allowance distribution and target formula
EPA distributes allowances in March each year for 2028–2048, multiplying a facility’s prior‑year output by the annual Output‑Based CO2 Emissions Target. The target starts at the 2027 baseline and declines via a multi‑clause formula that references the prior year’s target, the baseline, actual prior year output‑based emissions, and an adjustment indexed to changes in Total U.S. CO2 Emissions. That mechanism ties intensity targets to national emissions trends and produces year‑to‑year variability in allowance volumes.
Trading, legal status, registry, and market safeguards
The title authorizes sale, exchange, and transfers of allowances but explicitly states allowances are not property rights and reserves federal authority to limit transactions. EPA must set up a tracking system with unique IDs, accounts, and weekly public disclosures of prices, volumes, holdings, and submissions. EPA must also work with the CFTC to set position limits and issue regulations to maintain orderly markets — creating a regulated, transparent marketplace but also vesting significant rule‑writing and monitoring tasks at EPA.
Bilateral purchase agreements between existing and new projects
The statute enables 10+ year bilateral contracts where newly built low‑emission facilities can transfer some of their EPA‑distributed allowances to existing covered facilities. It prescribes a calculation for dividing allowances in the first full operating year and requires copy of the contract and amendments be filed with EPA. EPA must promulgate rules to ensure contract enforceability and to prevent double allocation; in practice these provisions support project financing for new clean builds but also introduce long‑term contracting complexity into market liquidity and allocation patterns.
Carbon Mitigation Fund and competitive Offset Program
EPA must create a Carbon Mitigation Fund funded by ACPs and penalties and run an annual competitive grant program to buy emissions reductions or permanent sequestration. The program is bid‑driven: applicants propose activities, quantify tons avoided/sequestered, and bid dollars per ton; EPA awards funds to the lowest bids subject to monitoring, verification, risk discounting, and environmental safeguards (including biodiversity and ecosystem service criteria for land‑use proposals). This sets up a demand‑side procurement mechanism designed to deploy funds where cost per ton is lowest.
Enforcement: replacement allowances and monetary penalties
Failure to submit required allowances triggers two remedies: owners must submit the missing allowances plus the allowances otherwise due by the April 1 deadline two years later, and must immediately pay a civil penalty equal to three times the highest allowance price in the prior calendar year multiplied by the number of missing allowances. The combination of replacement surrender plus a multiplier‑based fine creates strong near‑term financial incentives to comply and ties penalty severity to market conditions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- New low‑emission generation and thermal projects — they can monetize distributed allowances and sell them (or lock sales via 10‑year+ bilateral contracts), improving project cash flow and financeability.
- Owners/operators of more efficient facilities — output‑based allocation rewards lower CO2 per unit of output, so higher efficiency or lower‑carbon fuel use translates directly into fewer additional allowance purchases.
- Entities that can deliver verifiable offsets — the Offset Program creates a new demand stream and pays the lowest bidders per ton, benefiting project developers in energy efficiency, electrification, charging infrastructure, and credible carbon sequestration.
- Market participants and traders — the required EPA registry, weekly disclosures, and position limits create a regulated marketplace with standardized instruments that traders, brokers, and compliance managers can operate within.
Who Bears the Cost
- High‑emitting incumbent facilities (especially baseload fossil plants) — they will need to purchase allowances or pay ACPs; bilateral deals may blunt but not eliminate that cost, and long‑term exposure to declining intensity targets raises retrofit or retirement pressures.
- EPA and implementing agencies — EPA must design and run a complex registry, set position limits with the CFTC, issue many regulations within 24 months, and manage the Offset Program and verification regimes, all of which require technical capacity and budgetary support.
- Ratepayers and consumers — compliance costs (allowance purchases, ACPs, or pass‑through from suppliers) can filter into wholesale and retail prices, especially where facilities face concentrated compliance burdens and limited competitive alternatives.
- Project counterparties and financiers — parties entering long bilateral contracts or relying on projected allowance revenues face contractual and market‑price risk, including counterparty default, future regulatory change, or altered allowance supply as the target declines.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether a declining, output‑based, tradable allowance system combined with a competitively funded offset program can reduce carbon intensity affordably while avoiding lock‑in of fossil infrastructure and ensuring credible, permanent emissions reductions; the bill leans on market flexibility and competitive offsets to lower costs, but those same features risk weakening absolute emissions outcomes, complicating verification, and shifting substantial administrative burdens to EPA.
The statute blends output‑based intensity targets with a tradable market and an offset procurement mechanism, but that mix creates implementation frictions and potential perverse incentives. Output‑based distribution rewards low CO2 per unit of output but does not by itself cap absolute emissions; facilities could increase output while lowering intensity and thus continue to generate significant aggregate CO2.
The Total Emission Adjustment Index ties the target to national emissions trends, but that linkage can introduce year‑to‑year volatility in allowance volumes and prices, complicating planning for owners and investors.
Verification and permanence are central unresolved tasks. The Offset Program requires monitoring, reporting, verification, and discounting for reversal risk, and EPA must define “permanently sequestered” with a 200‑year benchmark.
Translating that into enforceable standards (especially for natural carbon sinks and long‑lived industrial sequestration like mineralization or product‑based storage) will be technically and legally demanding. The bill also disclaims allowances as property rights while creating tradable instruments; that tension could prompt litigation over takings, contractual enforceability of long bilateral agreements, and the degree to which EPA can later alter trade rules or terminate the market.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.