The Clean Competition Act adds a new Subchapter E to the Internal Revenue Code that measures facility- and industry-level carbon intensity, imposes a charge on imports and on domestic producers whose carbon intensity exceeds a baseline, and creates export rebates and diplomatic ‘carbon clubs.’ The statute ties the dollar charge to a legislated “cost of pollution” and phases down an “applicable percentage” over decades while allowing verified direct air capture to offset charges.
Beyond trade measures, the bill funds domestic industrial decarbonization: it authorizes a large DOE‑run competitive grant and loan program to retrofit or build lower‑carbon facilities and a contracts‑for‑difference auction mechanism to subsidize production of low‑carbon primary goods. A portion of increased revenues is routed to Department of State climate assistance to support partner countries and carbon‑club negotiations.
The measure therefore combines a tariff‑like border adjustment with industrial policy and international cooperation tools — a package that will matter to importers, exporters, energy‑intensive manufacturers, trade lawyers, and compliance teams.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a carbon‑intensity reporting system and imposes a per‑unit charge on covered primary goods imported into or produced in the U.S. when a facility’s (or an import’s) carbon intensity exceeds a baseline; charges use a dollar 'cost of pollution' that escalates annually.
Who It Affects
Energy‑ and emissions‑intensive sectors listed by NAICS (steel, cement, aluminum, chemicals, petroleum, paper, etc.), importers of those primary goods, U.S. producers with covered facilities, DOE grant/auction applicants, and trading partners in negotiated 'carbon clubs.'
Why It Matters
It is a hybrid policy: a border adjustment aimed at preventing carbon leakage while subsidizing lower‑carbon domestic production. It establishes new data, verification and enforcement obligations and channels substantial funds to industrial decarbonization — reshaping competitiveness and supply‑chain decisions for affected industries.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill builds a new carbon‑intensity regime in the tax code. Covered entities must begin facility‑level reporting by June 30, 2026, supplying greenhouse‑gas and electricity usage data to IRS, EPA and DOE.
Those data feed two parallel carbon‑intensity measures: a per‑facility carbon intensity (emissions divided by output) and a covered‑national‑industry carbon intensity (aggregate emissions divided by aggregate output across facilities in the same industry group). The Secretary (with EPA and DOE) publishes these intensities annually and manages petitions to refine industry or goods‑level classifications when production processes or properties differ materially.
For imports the bill defaults to an economy‑wide adjustment using the country’s general carbon intensity scaled to the U.S. industry benchmark, but allows better data to be used if a transparent industry or manufacturer‑level dataset exists, or if an importer supplies a high‑quality environmental product declaration. Least developed countries are largely exempt unless they account for a meaningful share (3%+) of global exports of a good.
The statute also defines and tries to prevent “inter‑firm resource shuffling” — transfers of production control intended to game carbon‑intensity boundaries.Charges are calculated per unit by multiplying the excess carbon intensity (above an “applicable percentage” of the 2025 baseline) by the relevant quantity and by a dollar cost of pollution. The applicable percentage starts at 100% in 2026 and steps down slowly to 0% by 2048; the cost of pollution is $60 in 2026 and escalates annually by inflation plus 6 percentage points.
U.S. producers pay analogous charges on covered primary goods. Exports receive rebates equal to the charge that would have applied had the good been sold domestically, subject to a crediting carve‑out if the importing country already charges an equivalent foreign carbon price.The bill permits verified carbon removal (including direct air capture) to offset charges, subject to additionality, permanence, anti–double‑counting rules, and a cap tied to the first quartile carbon intensity in the U.S. industry.
Administratively the Secretary must issue regulations, publish lists of covered goods and finished goods, and work with trade authorities where necessary to preserve the policy’s integrity.To complement the price signal, the statute creates domestic investment programs: a DOE competitive grants/loans program to deploy advanced industrial technologies and a contracts‑for‑difference (CFD) auction program to underwrite low‑carbon production through per‑unit top‑ups (strike prices minus market value). The DOE program prioritizes projects that yield large carbon‑intensity cuts, benefit distressed or pollution‑burdened communities, and leverage private cost share.
Initial appropriations language sets large FY‑2027 funding amounts ($75B for DOE programs and $25B for State Dept assistance) and thereafter ties annual appropriations to a share (25%) of increases in Treasury revenues generated by the new subchapter, once a revenue threshold is met.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Facility reporting begins June 30, 2026 and must include GHGs, grid/dedicated electricity use, and production volumes for each eligible facility.
The charge uses an 'applicable percentage' that starts at 100% (2026), falls by 2.5 points annually through 2030, by 5 points annually through 2047, and reaches 0% after 2047.
The dollar 'cost of pollution' is $60 in 2026 and increases each year by CPI growth plus 6 percentage points (rounded to the nearest dollar).
DOE programs get an initial FY2027 authorization of $75 billion and State Department climate/assistance $25 billion; thereafter funding is 25% of the incremental revenues from the new subchapter once revenue increases exceed $100 billion.
Import carbon intensity can use: (1) an economy‑wide default, (2) country‑industry data where transparent and reliable, or (3) manufacturer‑level data submitted with an environmental product declaration — subject to verification standards.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Acts as 'Clean Competition Act'
States the short title; procedural but useful to search. No substantive effect on definitions or mechanics.
Mandatory facility reporting and carbon‑intensity calculations
Requires covered entities to report facility emissions, electricity use and production volumes annually and establishes calculation rules: per‑facility carbon intensity (emissions/output) and covered national industry carbon intensity (aggregated). Secretary, EPA and DOE coordinate. The provision includes a petitions process for reclassifying goods or splitting industry categories where production processes differ materially, and a publication duty to release industry and goods lists and the units used.
Imposes carbon‑intensity charges on imports and domestic production
Imposes a per‑unit charge when carbon intensity exceeds an applicable percentage of a 2025 baseline; imports pay based on the import’s determined intensity and U.S. domestic producers pay on facility intensities. The statute sets payment dates (charges due by September 30 following the calendar year), an exclusion for most least developed country imports (with a 3% global export exception), and a waiver path where foreign countries already levy equivalent, non‑rebated carbon pricing. The statute also defines interaction with electricity accounting (regional grid averages or hourly matched PPAs) and tasks the Secretary with regulations and trade actions.
Export rebates and anti‑shuffling rule
Provides refunds for exported covered primary goods and finished goods equal to the charge that would have applied; however, rebates are limited where the destination country would credit U.S. charges against its own import carbon levies. To prevent gaming, the refund calculation can aggregate a covered entity’s facilities (preventing short‑term domestic resource shuffling) so that exports cannot be rebated based on artificially low‑intensity facilities alone.
Carbon clubs: diplomatic bargains and standards
Authorizes the President to negotiate carbon‑club agreements that harmonize measurement, reporting and verification, set labor and environmental standards, and offer mutual benefits like waivers of charges where parties make commensurate decarbonization commitments. The section sets substantive membership conditions (e.g., interoperable MRV, labor protections), a 10‑year phase‑in for covered industries, and criteria for assistance prioritization for low‑ and middle‑income partners.
Definitions and scope
Lists the covered national industries by NAICS (steel, cement, aluminum, petroleum refineries, chemicals, paper, glass, etc.), defines covered primary goods, finished goods (with evolving thresholds over time), eligible facilities, CO2‑e accounting rules (IPCC/Methane 20‑year GWP), regional grid definitions, and the concept of inter‑firm resource shuffling — all of which frame coverage, measurement units, and exclusions.
DOE grant/loan program and contracts‑for‑difference auction mechanism
Creates a competitive DOE program to fund advanced industrial technology projects that achieve large carbon‑intensity cuts (50%+ prioritized, but minimum 20% requirement for covered contracts). Grants/loans require at least 50% cost share, recapture provisions if projects fail, and outreach/prioritization for distressed and high‑pollution communities. Separately, a CFD auction program will run competitive auctions by eligible goods class and ambition tier; winners receive per‑unit payments (strike price minus market value) with dynamic indexing for input costs and ceilings to fit appropriation constraints.
Initial appropriations, revenue trigger and State Dept climate assistance
Sets FY2027 funding anchors — $75B for DOE programs and $25B for State Dept assistance — then ties subsequent annual funding to 25% of the increase in Treasury revenues created by the new subchapter once the Treasury finds revenue increases exceed $100B. State Dept assistance is prioritized to support carbon clubs, low/middle‑income partners, global emissions reductions, and U.S. strategic interests.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Trade across all five countries.
Explore Trade 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
- Low‑carbon producers and importers of certified low‑intensity goods — they avoid or reduce charges and may gain market advantage as buyers and procurers shift toward lower‑carbon inputs.
- U.S. manufacturers that win DOE grants or CFDs — the DOE programs subsidize retrofits and first‑of‑a‑kind facilities, improving competitiveness and lowering long‑run production costs for low‑carbon output.
- Countries in negotiated carbon clubs and their compliant industries — membership can deliver charge waivers, technical assistance, and market access, especially for lower‑ and middle‑income partners prioritized for assistance.
- Clean‑tech developers and direct air capture operators — the law creates explicit value for verifiable carbon removals (transferable to reduce charges) and expands demand for low‑carbon electricity and hydrogen.
- Communities targeted for project preference — distressed and high cumulative‑pollution communities are prioritized for siting and community benefits tied to funded projects, potentially boosting local employment and remediation.
Who Bears the Cost
- Importers of carbon‑intensive primary and finished goods — they must pay per‑unit charges unless they provide verified manufacturer data or their country is in a carbon club with waivers.
- Domestic producers with higher carbon intensity — firms above baseline face direct per‑unit charges, administrative reporting, and compliance costs and may need capital investments to avoid ongoing fees.
- Compliance and verification infrastructure — IRS, EPA, DOE and trade agencies must build IT, audit and MRV capacity; regulated entities must build reporting systems and obtain verifications, increasing operational costs.
- Trading partners without robust MRV — countries lacking transparent industry data could see exports penalized via the economy‑wide default method, creating pressure on those governments and exporters.
- Federal budget exposure and taxpayers — large initial appropriations and ongoing CFD outlays create fiscal commitments that depend on revenue triggers and could reallocate priorities in future budgets.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is reconciling two legitimate aims with conflicting mechanics: using trade‑facing charges to deter carbon‑intensive imports and level the playing field, while simultaneously channeling public funds to accelerate domestic decarbonization and protect competitiveness. Policies that effectively push down emissions can look like protectionism to trading partners, and aggressive subsidies can distort markets if not carefully targeted and transparently administered — there is no simple formula that fully achieves both global emissions reductions and frictionless trade.
The bill intertwines a tariff‑like border charge with large‑scale domestic subsidies and diplomatic instruments. That mix raises practical implementation questions: assigning carbon intensity to specific imports requires reliable, auditable data and cross‑border cooperation that many countries lack.
The statute builds multiple data pathways (economy default, industry data, manufacturer declarations) but relies heavily on administrative judgment to decide when to accept finer‑grained evidence — a locus of future disputes and potential inconsistency. Preventing inter‑firm resource shuffling and double‑counting of removals will demand robust, frequently updated rules and enforcement capacity.
Trade and legal risk is real. The Act attempts WTO‑friendly features (non‑discrimination, export rebates, foreign price credits, and a diplomatic carbon‑club path), but many legal challenges will hinge on classification boundaries (what counts as a covered primary good or finished good), whether the charges are equivalent to domestic measures, and how exemptions and waivers are administered.
On the domestic side, the funding linkage — sizeable initial amounts but a shift to a formula tied to revenue increases after a $100 billion trigger — creates uncertainty about the durability and pace of financing available for industrial transformation. Finally, the policy’s distributional effects matter: smaller firms, downstream manufacturers, and importers who cannot easily substitute inputs may face disproportionate burdens even as larger, well‑capitalized firms capture DOE funding and CFD awards.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.