State Advocacy Makes a Mark on EPA Grant Funding for Climate Planning

Due to Member and Chapter advocacy, five states whose status was uncertain are now on the list of recipients of the Environmental Protection Agency’s newest grant program, the Inflation Reduction Act Climate Pollution Reduction Grants.

This multi-billion dollar pool of funding is aimed at fostering collaboration in climate planning (that includes composting and food scrap reduction and food waste avoidance) between states, municipalities and community groups. Its initial deadline of March 31, 2023 required states to opt-into $3 million in non-competitive grant funding and agree to take part in climate planning work. The states were required to reply in order for Metropolitan Statistical Areas* and cities, counties and towns in their state to apply for future funding waves (the total amount available in the program is $5 billion).

Composting programs are part of this funding pool.  

Every state except Florida, Iowa, Kentucky and South Dakota has applied to be part of the program. The states must meet on April 28, 2023 for a work plan in order to accept the funding.

From EPA: All states are eligible for up to $3 million in funding for a four-year planning period. The 67 most populous metropolitan areas are eligible to receive planning grants up to $1 million. Additional areas may become eligible for funding if a state declines funding and/or if one of the 67 areas on the list declines funding.

From EPA: “In the U.S., many cities have been leaders in developing plans, adopting policies, and taking actions to improve the ability of their residents to adapt to the effects of climate change and to implement strategies to reduce GHG emissions. The CPRG program includes planning grant funding at the metropolitan area level to encourage groups of cities, counties and other local leaders to collaborate on a regional level. Regional climate planning provides a range of possible benefits and opportunities. For example, MSA-based planning can help build and expand a network of regional leaders, provide peer collaboration and sharing of best practices, integrate and improve regional transportation and mobility networks, expand regional clean energy workforce training, negotiate more favorable regional electricity rates, collectively address decarbonization strategies for areas of dense industrial activity, align building and energy codes, and track implementation progress across cities using common metrics.”

Municipalities who do not receive direct funding from the planning grants can work with their state government (or a nearby MSA if applicable). EPA is requiring each state government who receives funding to collaborate with air pollution control districts and large and small municipalities statewide and to conduct meaningful engagement with low income and disadvantaged communities throughout its jurisdiction.

Assuming that planning grants are awarded in summer/early fall 2023, these funds could be used through summer/early fall 2027. The grant period for states and metropolitan areas is four years. Tribes and territories may negotiate shorter periods for satisfying the requirements described in the program guidance (e.g., two or three years from the date of award).

Planning grant funds may be used to pay for staffing, contractual costs, and sub-awards related to the development, updating, or evaluation of state, municipal, or tribal plans to reduce climate pollution (i.e., to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or enhance carbon sinks). CPRG planning grant funds must be used for projects and activities supporting the development, updating, or evaluation of state, municipal, or tribal plans to reduce climate pollution. In general, planning grant funds can be used for:

 • Staffing and contractual costs necessary to develop the deliverables identified in the program guidance;

 • Planning and implementing meetings, workshops, and convenings to foster collaboration among and between levels of government, the public, and key stakeholders; • Outreach and education for stakeholders and members of the public;

• Subawards to municipalities, air pollution control agencies, regional planning organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academic institutions, etc.;

• Modeling and analytical costs, including purchase or licensing of software, data or tools; • Studies, assessments, data collection, etc., needed to develop the required deliverables;

 • Evaluation and metrics for tracking activities;

 • Training and staff capacity-building costs;

 • Supplies (e.g., office supplies, software, printing, etc.);

 • Incidental costs related to the above activities, including but not limited to travel, membership fees, and indirect costs

Plans must include a benefits analysis that applies to the entire plan jurisdiction, and a second benefits analysis that applies only to those areas with communities identified as low-income and disadvantaged. Both analyses should include estimates of GHG and co-pollutant emissions reductions. However, a benefits analysis for low-income and disadvantaged communities should assess benefits of GHG reduction measures within such communities. Examples of community benefits from GHG reduction measures include but are not limited to: co-pollutant emission reductions (e.g., criteria air pollutants and air toxics), increased climate resilience, improved access to services and amenities, jobs created and workforce development, and decreased energy costs from energy efficiency improvements.

USCC will be watching for the next round of funding for municipalities to be announced.

* Metropolitan Statistical Areas: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/Excerpt-CPRG%20Planning%20Grants%20Program%20Guidance%20for%20States-Municipalities-Air%20Agencies%20Section%2015.2%20Formula%20Allocations.pdf