Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
The Clean Cloud Act of 2025 adds a new Clean Air Act section requiring annual reporting of electricity use and energy sources for data centers and cryptocurrency mining facilities above 100 kilowatts.
The bill directs EPA and EIA to publish facility-level data, calculate greenhouse gas intensity per facility, and set regional emissions baselines that decline to zero by 2035.
It creates fees assessed on utilities (for grid-supplied electricity) and on covered facilities (for behind‑the‑meter generation) when emissions intensity exceeds regional baselines, with escalators and penalties, and directs fee revenues to administration, consumer energy cost offsets, and grants for zero-carbon firm generation and long‑duration storage.
Ambitious climate/market intervention with fiscal effects and industry exposure; difficult to clear both chambers without major compromise.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a detailed substantive policy change that supplements the Clean Air Act with comprehensive data collection, emissions-intensity accounting, fee mechanisms, and directed use of proceeds for consumer relief and clean firm deployment. It is specific about metrics, responsibilities, timelines, anti-abuse rules, and integration with existing law.
Progressives emphasize climate ambition and public transparency benefits
Progressives emphasize climate ambition and public transparency benefits
Generally supportive: the bill forces transparency, prices carbon-intensive use by data centers and cryptomining, and channels most revenue to clean firm power and consumer relief.
The declining regional baselines and public reporting align with climate and environmental justice priorities.
Some progressives may want stronger worker transition or earlier deadlines, and will watch enforcement of PPA accounting and confidentiality exceptions closely.
Cautiously receptive: the bill provides useful data and market signals to discourage high‑carbon electricity consumption while funding technology to firm zero‑carbon supply.
Concerns focus on administrative complexity, economic impacts on regional grids, legal challenges, and whether the fees and timelines are achievable.
Would favor clearer implementation guidance and coordination with states and industry to limit unintended rate effects.
Likely opposed: the bill imposes new federal fees, reporting, and regulatory reach into energy markets and private facilities, increasing costs and compliance burdens.
Concerns include federal overreach, competitiveness harms for U.S. data centers and mining operations, and problematic restrictions on utility rate design.
Some conservatives might accept targeted transparency but reject the fee structure and baseline timetable.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Ambitious climate/market intervention with fiscal effects and industry exposure; difficult to clear both chambers without major compromise.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize climate ambition and public transparency benefits
Ambitious climate/market intervention with fiscal effects and industry exposure; difficult to clear both chambers without major compromise.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a detailed substantive policy change that supplements the Clean Air Act with comprehensive data collection, emissions-intensity accounting, fee mechanisms, and dir…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.