U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Financial Advisory Board
Public Meeting Minutes
November 17, 2022
Virtual
Respectfully submitted by Edward H. Chu, EPA Designated Federal Officer
Certified as accurate by Kerry E. O'Neill, Chair, Environmental Financial Advisory Board
NOTE AND DISCLAIMER: The minutes that follow reflect a summary of remarks and conversation during the meeting.
Such ideas, suggestions, and deliberations do not necessarily reflect consensus advice from the Board. Formal advice
and recommendations may be found in the final advisory reports or letters prepared and transmitted to the agency
following the public meetings. Moreover, the Board advises that additional information sources be consulted in
cases where any concern may exist about statistics or any other information contained within the minutes.
-------
Contents
Purpose 3
Welcome, Member Roll Call, and Review of Agenda 4
Charge Background 4
Program Structure Workgroup 5
Objectives Workgroup 7
Execution, Reporting, and Accounting Workgroup 10
Recap and Wrap-Up 11
Adjourn 11
Appendix 1. Federal Register Announcement 12
Appendix 2. Agenda 14
Appendix 3. EFAB Members 15
Appendix 4. Slide Presentations 19
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 | 3
Purpose
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Financial Advisory Board (EFAB or Board) is an advisory
committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to provide advice and
recommendations to EPA on creative approaches to funding environmental programs, projects, and
activities. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund charge.
The meeting was announced in the Federal Register (see appendix 1).
Please see appendix 2 for the agenda and appendix 3 for EFAB member names and affiliations.
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 | 4
Welcome, Member Roll Call, and Review of Agenda
Welcome
Edward H. Chu, EFAB Designated Federal Officer
Kerry O'Neill, EFAB Chair
Ed Chu welcomed participants and said oral public comments would not be accepted during this
meeting; however, written comments could be submitted to efab@epa.gov.
Charge Background
Alejandra Nunez I Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mobile Sources
Tim Profeta I Senior Advisor, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Alejandra Nunez shared the charge background, noting the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GHGRF) is
a first-of-its kind program that gives EPA until September 30, 2024, to disburse $27 billion in competitive
grants for projects that reduce GHG emissions, particularly those that impact disadvantaged
communities.
She said EPA engaged stakeholders in a variety of ways, including through public listening sessions,
requests for information (RFIs), and expert input from EFAB. She said the input is available on the
docket. She said the final deliverable from EFAB is due December 15, 2022.
Roll Call
Ashley Allen Jones, present
Courtney L. Black, present
Steven J. Bonafonte, present
Angela Montoya Bricmont, present
Matthew T. Brown, present
Stacy Brown, not present
Theodore Chapman, present
Albert Cho, not present
Janet Clements, present
Lori Collins, present
Zachary Davidson, present
Jeffrey R. Diehl, present
Sonja B. Favors, present
Phyllis R. Garcia, not present
Eric Hangen, present
Edward Henifin, not present
Barry Hersh, present
Craig Holland, present
Craig A. Hrinkevich, not present
Margot Kane, present
Thomas Karol, not present
George W. Kelly, present
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, not present
Cynthia Koehler, present
Colleen Kokas, present
Joanne V. Landau, present
Lawrence Lujan, present
MaryAnna H. Peavey, present
Dennis A. Randolph, present
Eric Rothstein, not present
Sanjiv Sinha, not present
William Stannard, present
Marilyn Waite, not present
David L. Wegner, not present
Gwen Yamamoto Lau, present
David Zimmer, not present
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 | 5
Kerry O'Neill shared that to provide feedback, EFAB approved the charge questions at the last public
meeting and created three workgroups to tackle the issues of (1) Objectives; (2) Program Structure; and
(3) Execution, Reporting, & Accountability.
She reminded participants that the Board is working on a very compressed timeframe of two months, so
the members will not be able to host panels or take steps they typically take when more time is
available. She said the workgroup products shared today are not comprehensive; in addition, the
workgroups have been working independently to date, but they will coordinate in the coming weeks.
She said there is another public check-in meeting on December 1, 2022, and the final products will be
voted on at the December 15, 2022 public meeting.
Program Structure Workgroup
Lori Collins and Ashley Allen Jones I Workgroup Co-chairs
Note: The workgroup's slide deck is in appendix 4
Lori Collins said the whole committee has been engaged with considering options and alternatives. The
workgroup focused on three areas: (1) eligible recipients; (2) eligible projects; and (3) the structure of
funding.
Eligible Recipients
Charge Question: Who could be eligible entities and/or indirect recipients under the GHGRF? What
should the thresholds for deployment be -both amount and timing -for GHGRF funding by these
entities?
Lori Collins said the workgroup recognized all entities on the table, including the range of state, federally
licensed, and non-profit capital deployment vehicles with reach into disadvantaged communities;
specific vehicles map to priority projects and unique needs of communities. These include state
infrastructure banks, green banks, housing finance agencies, minority depository institutions, nonprofit
social impact funds, and others.
She shared a graphic of the overall flow of funding, beginning with the total grant, to subgrants or
contracts, to pipeline development, project development, project installation and leverage for
commercial capital, and finally, to operations and maintenance (O&M).
Eligible Projects
Charge Question: Beyond assembling the capital stack for a deal, what other barriers and constraints
exist that could constrict the pipeline of successful projects? What program strategies are needed to
respond to these barriers and constraints?
Lori Collins said the workgroup put a lot of thought into how to approach the issue of eligible projects.
She shared an overview of the sectors relevant to GHG emissions, including transportation, electric
power, industry, commercial and residential, and agriculture. She said there is already a lot of funding
addressing GHG in the transportation sector, so the group looked at where funding gaps may be.
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 | 6
She shared sources of GHG emissions in the sectors named above to begin to identify potential areas for
solutions. Next, they looked at who could potentially benefit from some of the solutions according by
sector. For example, in the residential building sector, low- and middle-income communities could
potentially benefit from electrification, rooftop solar, community solar and wind, and energy efficiency
project. The workgroup focused on identifying the role of private equity in these potential projects and
how GHGRF monies could fill the gaps. They identified a long list of barriers to private capital at the
project, borrower, and capital provider levels (see slide 12 for details). She said that gaps are not just on
the funding side, however. Other barriers include uptake; interest; prerequisites; such as repairs; and
scale.
The Structure of Funding
Charge Question: Are there any potential program design requirements that would impact the ability of
recipients to use the GHGRF program funds?
Lori Collins said that the workgroup will coordinate with the other two workgroups to bring their
thinking on this issue together, but so far have identified the buckets of potential program design
requirements, such as federal funding requirements, financial capacity, governance, metrics, due
diligence, and others.
Charge Question: How could EPA address these issues through program design?
Lori Collins shared a graphic of the flow of funds from direct recipients at the national and regional level;
indirect recipients in the value chain; and beneficiaries. Regarding pipeline development and project
development beneficiaries, EPA can address the social, economic, and financial gaps. Project
implementation and O&M beneficiaries require private capital commitments.
Charge Question: How could recipients comply with relevant federal requirements?
Lori Collins reported that the workgroup has not yet tackled this question.
Charge Question: How can EPA streamline the distribution of funds so that applicable federal and state
review can be accomplished in a coordinated and efficient manner?
Lori Collins mentioned options for direct recipients could be a single entity, such as a national green
back, a few direct recipients, or many. She said public comments reflect an interest in both a single
entity and multiple recipients, such as states, municipalities and tribes, and green funds, as well as a
mixed approach. She said the committee is not making a recommendation to EPA, but rather is sharing
the pros and cons of each.
Next Steps
She said the workgroup's next steps are to continue to receive and review public comment and other
feedback, and to conduct interviews, and to have materials ready according to the established public
meeting schedule.
Kerry O'Neill invited input from the Board.
Eric Hangen reinforced the issue that funding isn't the only barrier to uptake.
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 | 7
Bill Stannard asked for applicability of water utilities accessing GHGRF monies, which could include
ratepayers as beneficiaries because of their potential savings if utilities do not have to raise their rates.
Lori Collins said they generally has felt the funding would not go to utilities. Bill Stannard said GHG are
emitted through the water and wastewater processes, and these pollutants could be mitigated.
Ashley Allen Jones said that, given the short timeframe, the workgroup has spent less time looking at
the state/municipal/tribal bucket, and there is an opportunity to follow up with EFAB members in the
water space.
Steve Bonafonte said there are many ways to be creative in the wastewater space beyond digesters.
Kerry O'Neill urged board members to send comments to workgroup members quickly.
Objectives Workgroup
Cynthia Koehlerand Margot Kane I Workgroup Co-chairs
Cynthia Koehler said there is overlap with the Program Structure workgroup and they look forward to
coordinating with the other GHGRF workgroups.
Cynthia Koehler said this group sought to hone in on EPA's high-level objectives and to make them more
tangible.
To fund or finance projects that reduce GHG emissions and primarily benefit low-income and historically
disadvantaged communities. She identified several reasons these communities may not be currently
resourced. They also compiled a list of several hundred ways to define "disadvantaged communities"
and are working through those definitions.
Cynthia Koehler said the workgroup identified overarching concepts. She said it will be important to
acknowledge competing mandates such as leverage. Leveraging financing is key to sustainability. At the
same time, prioritizing leverage could potentially conflict with the urgent need to move funds into
disadvantaged communities. She said that EPA could potentially design the program to empower states,
municipalities, and tribes to accomplish one of the objectives well, while ensuring that both objectives
are accomplished in the aggregate.
Another overarching concept is balance equity and access with leverage goals. This could look like
having different leverage requirements depending on the community's capacity to access these
resources.
The third overarching concept is balancing the need for "shovel-ready" projects with capacity building
goals. The rapid timeline for disbursing GHGRF money favors shovel-ready projects and could exclude
those important projects that are in early development stages and could be rapidly deployed.
Charge Questions:
How can the GHGRF grant competition be designed so that funding is highly leveraged (i.e., each
dollar of federal funding mobilizes multiple dollars of private funding)?
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 | 8
How can the funding be used to maximize "additionality" (i.e., the extent to which funding
catalyzes new projects that would not otherwise occur)?
How can EPA balance the need for grants for capacity building and short-term results with
financial structures that will allow capital to be recycled over time?
Where (if at all) is it appropriate to impose sustainability requirements on direct or indirect
beneficiaries of GHGRFfunding ?
Cynthia Koehler said that the workgroup looked at providing guidance on the strength and weakness of
each of the above elements by recipient and project, strong and weak fits, and more. They also
considered several elements related to efficient program design, including intrinsic trade-offs between
elements of program design and program objectives, and coordination around existing and future
funding sources for technical assistance (TA), among others (see appendix 4 slide 22 for details).
Environmental Justice
Charge Questions:
What considerations should EPA take into account in defining "low-income" and/or
"disadvantaged" communities in order to ensure fair access/that the funding benefits
disadvantaged communities?
How can EPA ensure that communities and organizations who have received little or no funds in
the past receive priority consideration for funding?
How could EPA identify the low-income and disadvantaged communities it should prioritize for
greenhouse gas and other air pollution reduction investments?
Cynthia Koehler said the workgroup's goal was to ensure maximum inclusivity and flexibility in the
definitions, including a broad definition of the term "community" in order capture, for example, low-
income pockets in larger, more affluent areas. EPA may want to adapt a flexible definition to make sure
funds flow to the communities they were intended to flow to. She shared a slide that depicted the
various criteria states use to define "disadvantaged community."
Charge Question: What kinds of technical and/or financial assistance should GHGRF funding recipients
provide to ensure that low-income and disadvantaged communities are able to be direct or indirect
beneficiaries of GHGRF funding? Please identify supports that could help communities with project
implementation.
Regarding the question of assistance needed, the workgroup identified assistance that may be needed
across phases of implementation according to recipients, project type, benefit pathway, and community
issues. The workgroup also looked at how TA would vary, depending on issues such as who needs
assistance, project type, and the projected benefit, such as providing workforce training if workforce
development is a goal.
Margot Kane discussed the program efficiency chart, which compared the strengths and weaknesses of
various design elements, as well as which projects suitability, or "fit" to achieve objectives (see appendix
4 slides 23-25). The chart also provides the examples identified to date. She emphasized that design
objectives may conflict with one another, depending on the situation, so there may be trade-offs for EPA
to consider.
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 | 9
Charge Question: Are there programs/structures at the federal or state level that could effectively
complement the GHGRF? How can EPA best leverage the GHGRF to support lasting, long-term (beyond
2024) transformation of the clean energy and climate finance ecosystem, especially for disadvantaged
communities, and greenhouse gas and other air pollution reductions?
Margot Kane said the workgroup has just begun to address this issue and considers where EPA can build
on existing capacity and initiatives by funding initiatives that align with GHGRF goals and creates
synergies.
Angela Bricmont emphasized that the committee is still grappling with the fact there are many
definitions of disadvantaged communities. Referring to the chart on slide 27 (in appendix 4), she pointed
out that 41% of states use median household income (MHI) as their primary criterion. In larger cities,
MHI won't capture disadvantaged communities and neighborhoods. She said the next most frequent
determinant is population, or size, and not any single one wouldn't exclude disadvantaged communities.
Rather than recommend a single definition, the group leaned toward being as expansive as possible.
Dennis Randolph echoed the need for an expansive definition of disadvantaged community. He also
spoke to the difference between the concept of shovel-ready vs rapid deployment. At the local
government level, "shovel ready" means plans are ready to be bid out, but that's not the point a lot of
disadvantaged communities will be at. Rapid deployment allows projects to be put together quickly
because engineering can be done a lot quicker. There's a subtle but important difference between the
two terms.
Eric Hangen said he appreciates the intent of the group to define disadvantaged community, but it can
go too far. For example, he said the Clean Energy and Sustainability Accelerator (CESA) Act attempted to
be inclusive, and when he analyzed the scope, he found that 83% of the US population would be
covered. He said every clause in the legislation was well intended, but something available to 83% of the
population is not meaningful targeting. Next, he encouraged the group to take the long view of what
leverage is. He said one view is to look at the current capital stack today; the other view, he said, is to
look at how much private investment can be generated down the road.
Courtney Black said it may be beneficial to focus on the census track level, rather than on the receiving
agency. She added that cost of living was another key indicator and that Moody's has just released new
scorecard data that adjust their MHI for regional price parity indexes for states. She said housing,
specifically median rent, is a better cost-of-living indicator than MHI.
Ashley Allen Jones said she appreciated the program efficiency slides (23 and 24) and said there's an
important difference between a community being ready to receive funding and a funder being ready to
disburse it. The conversation around that gap is key to the charge. She said it's important to think about
conditions being met in relation to funding coming down the pike.
Barry Hersh said he's been through efforts to define and target low-income communities, and he would
support using the best definition they can find. He asked if we are considering commercial projects or
are limited to nonprofit organizations and government. He also asked about whether the workgroup
prefers GHGRF monies go to project that currently do not receive other federal funding.
Margot Kane said commercial projects means projects developed by for-profit entities or are raising
private funding. She said non-commercial projects refers to activities typically not funded by private
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 | 10
entities, such as predevelopment costs. She said the legislation is clear that recipients do not include
commercial enterprises. Regarding Barry Hersh's point about funding, Margot Kane said that, so far, the
workgroup does not see a problem with recipients receiving other federal funding.
Lori Collins asked if there has been any work done on creating metrics around TA. How can we measure
the impact and leverage of those dollars? Cynthia Koehler said they have not coordinated with
workgroup 3, and agrees it is an important question. Lori Collins agreed and said a lot of TA has been
provided in the past and asked if there were data on that. Cynthia Koehler said it's a good question for
EPA.
Execution, Reporting, and Accounting Workgroup
Ted Chapman and MaryAnna Peavey I Workgroup Co-chairs
Ted Chapman said the workgroup looked at identifying options for EPA that will maximize impacts while
minimizing the timeline and maximize accountability while minimizing bureaucracy. He said they wanted
to complement the work of the other two workgroups without being duplicative. He said the
workgroup's approach is to find a balance between achieving the goal of the enabling legislation while
being good stewards of taxpayer money. He said the workgroup asked whether to create new paths
when there are existing programs to replicate in the government, private, and nonprofit sector. One
example is the American Rescue Plan.
Charge Question: Given the tight timeline for implementation of the funds, what are key steps that EPA
could take in the short- (next 180 days), medium- (next two years before funds expire in 2024), and long-
term (beyond 2024)?
Ted Chapman shared the workgroup's focus on what success looks like, and he shared a timeline of their
efforts to date. He said their group will not get into details but will provide their guidance as a list of
options.
Charge Question: What types of requirements could EPA establish to ensure the responsible
implementation and oversight of the funding?
Ted Chapman said the workgroup was mindful to avoid the sense that there is excessive bureaucracy.
Low-income communities are challenged in many cases to just get on EPA's radar. The workgroup will
explore what has made communities successful in the past. They will explore existing data on best
practices to evaluate program effectiveness.
Charge Question: What mechanisms could eligible recipients adopt, including governance as well as
other mechanisms, to ensure that their applications and subsequent implementation efforts ensure: (1)
accountability to low-income and disadvantaged communities;(2) greenhouse gas emission reductions;
and (3) the leveraging and recycling of the grants?
Ted Chapman said the group has also looked at who will be responsible for maintaining the feedback
loop; they want to provide a lot of burden to the end recipient while endorsing consumer protections,
such as qualified vendors, guarantees and warrantees, etc. In addition to stewarding public money, it
needs to be an effective program.
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 | 11
Kerry O'Neill said there is still a lot of coordination work to do between now and December 1.
Dennis Randolph said, if we're trying to address environmental justice, we need to make sure that the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a part of the process that we recommend. There are
complaints from people who do not want to do NEPA that NEPA is a burden; NEPA goes hand in hand
with GHG reduction. Secondly, he said the Davis-Bacon Act means more costs, but if we're going to try
to direct funds to low-income communities, we want to make sure we pay those workers a fair,
comparable, living wage. He said he's done projects with and without Davis-Bacon funding, and he's
found that Davis-Bacon projects are better.
Kerry O'Neill asked for any additional comments from the Board on this or other workgroups. There
were none.
Recap and Wrap-Up
Ed Chu I EPA Designated Federal Officer
Kerry O'Neill I EFAB Chair
Ed Chu asked if EPA clients Alejandra Nunez or Tim Profeta had any comments. Alejandra Nunez
thanked the workgroups for putting so much work into the charges. She said they have been learning a
lot, and many ideas are consistent with what they've heard from other stakeholders.
Kerry O'Neill said that this effort is unusual not only because it is on a fast timeline, but also because,
typically, EFAB makes recommendations, whereas for these charge questions, EFAB is being asked for
options with their pros and cons.
She said the workgroups will now start sharing ideas, and the next public meeting is December 1. Draft
deliverables will be voted on at the public meeting on December 15.
Ed Chu asked members of the public to continue to submit their comments to efab@epa.gov.
Adjourn
Ed Chu adjourned the meeting.
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022
Appendix 1. Federal Register Announcement
Federal Register/Vol. 87, No. 211/Wednesday, November 2, 2022/Notices
66175
Pohcv Stakmait FERC-552 remains
the same and no changes are needed for
thdt collpction
Bv the Commission.
Issued: October 27, 2022,
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-23846 Filed 11-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
Combined Notice of Filings
Take notice that the Commission has
received the following Natural Gas
Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Filings Instituting Proceedings
Docket Numbers: RP23-77-000.
Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
Description: % 4(d) Rate Filing:
Tackson Generation #132120-1 NCNR to
be effective 11/1/2022.
Filed Date: 10/26/22.
Accession Numbei. 20221u26-5203
CommentDaU 5pm FT 3 ]/7722
Docket Numbers: RP23-78-0GU.
Applicants Algonquin Gas
Timissinu. LLC.
Description §4(d) Rate Filing:
Negotiated RatesAmended Excelerate
510850 eff 11-01-22 to be effective 11/
1/2022.
Filed Date: 10/26/22.
Accession Number: 2U221U265215.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/7/22.
Docket Numbei s RP237M
Applicants: Transcontinental Gas
Pipe Line Company. LLC.
Description: Compliance tiling:
Annual Penaltv Revenue bhanng Report
2022 to be effective N/A.
Filed Date: 10/27/22.
Accession Numbei 20221027-5020.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/8/22.
Docket Numbei s RP2 3-80-00u
Applicants Destm Pipeline Company,
L.L.C.
Desciiptwn Compliance tiling Destin
Pipeline Annual Fuel Retention
Adjustment to be effective N/A.
Filed DaU 10/27^22
Accession \Tumber 20221027-5037.
Comment Date 5pm FT 1J/8/22,
Dockit Numbtis RP23-B1-0OH
Applicants CaiolmaGas
Transmission. LLC.
Description § 4(d) Rate Filing CGT
Octobei 27 2022 \dmmistrative Change
to be effective 12/1/2022.
Filed Date: 10/27/22.
Acces h iNimbe 20221027-5043.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/8/22.
Any person desmng to intervene or
protest m am ofthe dbo\e pioceedings
must file m accordance with Rules 211
and 214 ntthe Commission s
Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214] on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time on the specified comment date.
Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a
party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system (https;//
elibrary-ferc.gov/idmws/search/
fercgensearch.asp) by querying the
docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed
information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests,
service, and qualifying facilities filings
can be tound at: http://w\\iv jerc g< v!
docs-fihng/ejiling/fihng-i eq pdf For
othei liiiuinidtiun Cdll (866) 208-3676
(toll free). For TTY, call (202J 502-8659.
Dated: October 27, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Depu ty Secretary.
[FRDoc. 2022-23841 Filed 11-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL-10382-01-OW]
Notice of Public Environmental
Financial Advisory Board Virtual
Meetings
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of public meetings.
SUMMARY: The United States
Emuunmentdl Piotection Agency (EPA)
announces thiee public me' tings ofthe
Fmiionmintal Financial Aihison
Podid (FFAB) The meetings will be
conducted m a virtual format via
webcast. The purpose ofthe meetings
will be for the EFAB to provide
workgroup updates and work products
tor the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund
charge. Written public comments may
be pio\ ided m ad\aiice No nidi public
comments will be accepted duimg th^
meetings. Please see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section foi fuithn details
DATES: The meetings will be held on:
! Ncnembei 17 2022 flora 1pm tu
3 p.m. Eastern Time:
2. December 1. 2022. from 1 p.m. to
3 p.m. Eastern Time: and
3. December 15. 2022. from 1 p.m. to
5 p.m. Eastern lime.
ADDRESSES: The meetings will be
conducted in a virtual format via
webcast only. Information to access the
webcast will be piu\ ided upon
it- gistiation m ance of each met ting.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any
member of the public who wants
mtoimation about the meetings m
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 |
Federal Register/Vol. 87, No. 211/Wednesday, November 2, 2022/Notices
66176
(toi the D< cembti 1 2022 meeting) and
Dt tembti 8 2022 (ifa the Dect-mU'i 15
2022 meetmgj so that the inhumation
c m be m Cgli^d nidltiiil dl l >«tbe posted
without explicit pbiim siun of the
copMight bolder.
"Icrt'ivhil t\ Foi mtoimation on
access or services tor individuals with
disabilities or to request
accommodations for a disability, please
register for the meeting and list, any
special requirements or
accommodations needed on the
registration form at least 10 business
days prior to the meeting to allow as
much time as possible to process your
request.
Andrew D. Sawvers,
Direi toi, OH-< e ot It astewaterManagement,
Offn e of Water
[FR Doc J0J_! 6 Filed 11-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-GPPT-2022-0835; FRL-10293-
01]
Webinar and Opportunity To Submit
Applications for the Assessment of
Environmental Performance Standards
and Ecolabels for Potential Inclusion in
EPA's Recommendations for Federal
Purchasing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (HPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Em iionniHiitdl Pi"Lection
Agency (EPA) is expanding the
Recommendations of Specihcations
Standards and Fcolabels toi Federal
Puicbasmg (Recommendations) and is
seeking manage of standaids
development oiganizations ecolabel
piogiams and associated confoimity
assessment bodies to apply for potential
assessment and inclusion in the
Recommendations. Interested applicants
should electronically submit responses
to the scoping questions. Those
considering apph in<; aie invited to
attend a webm si hosted by the EPA's
Environmentalh Pit teiable Purchasing
(EPP) Program to 1> am more and ask
questions about the assessment process.
Once all applications are received, EPA
will issue an estimated timeline for full
dssesbin^iilb against Sections I thin ugh
IV ot th'"1 Framtw oik toi the Assessmuit
otFmnonmental Peitoimance
btandaids and Fcolabels toi Fedeud
Pinchasmg (Fiamt woik) The numb* i of
full assessments that FPA can p<-itoim
will depend on the number of
applicants and a\aildble lesouict-s
DATES:
Webmar: the Webinar will be held
\ntudlh onNo\embei 15 2022. from
1 no p m to 2 30 p m EDT You must
Rgistei nnlmi at https://
inut /oomgoi com/nvbinai/iegister/
}V\^XXfTIpbS9CJ,gf-Q\VQH^NKQ in
order to receive the webcast meeting
link and audio teleconference
information. EPA encourages timely
registration, but you can register at any
time before and up to the start of the
meeting Once ou register vu will
piomplh iecei\e an email with til**
n^ce sdi"\ \\ebcdsl meeting mtoiiiidtion.
1 ppl 'cnions: On or beton1 January 1,
202 3 mtuested paities must
ehctiomcalh >ubmitb\ email to epp@
epu.gov responses to tht scoping
questions found at https://
www. epa.go v/gi e?n ei pi o ducts/
framework-assessment-environmental-
peiformance-standards-and-ecolabels-
federal. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or othei inhumation whose disclosure is
restimted b\ statute.
Spt cm! accommodations: Requests
for sp*-r dl accim modations for the
Webinar should be submitted on or
before November 7, 2022, to allow EPA
time to process the requests. For
mioim-ttion on access oi senic^s toi
indiv iduals w ith disabilities diid tt»
lequH^t accommodation loi d disdbilil\
please Ci'iitdCt Jemid Laikin listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
ADDRESSES: EPA has e^tablibht d a
docket ioi this ictmn undt i docket
ids ntification (ID) numbei FPA-HQ-
OPPT-2022-0835 that is a\ ailable
online dt 'ittpi //inni iegiilations go\
Ulditional mstmrtions on \ isitmg the
docket along with nine mfoimation
about dockets generalh7. is available at
klips //nun epa go\ /dockets
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
leniid Ldikm. Em iionmental Protection
Specialist hmiioniiientdlh Pieieidble
Puic hdsing Piogium (740U\1) Ottiue oi
Themicdl Safety and Pollution
Pie\< ntion Fmnonmental Piut- rtmn
Vgenci !2oo Penns^hania A\e WV
Wellington DC 2i»4fiooool telephone
number (202) %43395; email address:
lorkm jenwiiepagov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
A. Does this action applvto me?
This is du^cted t«« the public m
general This notice ma"\ be of specific
mteiest to peisniis ho iepiesent
standaids de\ eh >pnient t ugamzatic ms,
ecolabel piogidins dnd -tssocidtHd
ct'iih)ilint\ dssessment bodies that
manage pioductoi shuice
lionmnntal peitoimmcf1 st mdatds
and/oi I'Liihhi Is that could be
consuh led toi us« m United Mates
t' dpial sustainable piiicuu ment f ttorts.
B. What action is the Agency taking?
EPA is expanding the
Recommendations oi Spt cilicatioiit,
Standaids and Ecolabels loi F^rleial
Puichasmg Infeiested apphcaiitb must
t>ubmi1 th> n i^sponses to the scnpmg
fjunstiiins »l^ctiomcalh to epp^epa goi
by lanuaiy 1 2021 The scoping
questums can bo found m the docket m
at https / to buppb domeblic clean
tn*ig\ buildings \ehicles and other
n^cessai\ pioducts and m.iteiialb The
i\pansnm of the Rt commend itiuns will
ht lp to spin this maiknt demand toi
moie sustainable pioducts and seui< es
Standaidb and tcolabels included in
the Recommc ndations will also help to
mt» t F\ecntn e Oidet 14030 entitled
Climate-Related Financial Risk (Bb FR
27'
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 | 14
Appendix 2. Agenda
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Financial Advisory Board
Public Meeting
Virtual Platform
November 17, 2022
1:00-3:00 pm Eastern Time
WELCOME, MEMBER ROLL CALL, AND REVIEW OF AGENDA
Edward H. Chu - EFAB Designated Federal Officer
Kerry O'Neill-EFAB Chair
CHARGE BACKGROUND
Edward H. Chu - EFAB Designated Federal Officer
Kerry O'Neill-EFAB Chair
PROGRAM STRUCTURE WORKGROUP
Lori Collins and Ashley Allen Jones - Workgroup Co-chairs
OBJECTIVES WORKGROUP
Cynthia Koehler and Margot Kane - Workgroup Co-chairs
EXECUTION, REPORTING, AND ACCOUNTING WORKGROUP
Ted Chapman and MaryAnna Peavey - Workgroup Co-chairs
RECAP AND WRAP-UP
Edward H. Chu - EFAB Designated Federal Officer
Kerry O'Neill-EFAB Chair
ADJOURN
1:00 pm
1:05 pm
1:15 pm
2:00 pm
2:25 pm
2:50 pm
3:00 pm
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 | 15
Appendix 3. EFAB Members
Ed Chu, Designated Federal Officer
Tara Johnson, Alternate Designated Federal Officer
NAME
AFFILIATION
LOCATION
PERSPECTIVE
REPRESENTED
CURRENT
TERM
ORIGINAL
APPOINTMEN
T DATE
Kerry O'Neill,
EFAB Chair
Chief Executive Officer,
Inclusive Prosperity
Capital, Inc.
Stamford,
Connecticut
(EPA Region 1)
Environmental/
Non-
governmental
Organization
July 20, 2021-
June 15, 2023
July 28, 2020
Ashley Allen Jones
Founder and Chief
Executive Officer, i2
Capital
Washington,
District of Columbia
(EPA Region 3)
Business -
Financial Services
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2024
July 28, 2020
Courtney L Black
Deputy Finance
Director, City of Kent
Kent, Washington
(EPA Region 10)
State/Local
Government
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2025
June 21, 2022
Steven J. Bonafonte
Assistant District
Counsel, The
Metropolitan District
of Hartford
Hartford,
Connecticut
(EPA Region 1)
Legal
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2024
July 28, 2020
Angela Montoya
Bricmont
Chief Finance Officer,
Denver Water
Denver, Colorado
(EPA Region 8)
State/Local
Government
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2024
July 28, 2020
Matthew T. Brown
Chief Financial Officer
and EVP, Finance and
Procurement, District
of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority
Washington,
District of Columbia
(EPA Region 3)
State/Local
Government
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2025
June 21, 2022
Stacy Brown
President and Chief
Executive Officer,
Freberg
Environmental, Inc.
Denver, Colorado
(EPA Region 8)
Business -
Financial Services
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2024
July 28, 2020
Theodore Chapman
Investment Banking
Analyst, Hilltop
Securities, Inc.
Dallas, Texas
(EPA Region 6)
Business -
Financial Services
July 28, 2020-
June 15, 2023
September 25,
2017
Albert Cho
Senior Vice President,
Chief Strategy and
Digital Officer, Xylem,
Inc.
Washington,
District of Columbia
(EPA Region 3)
Business -
Industry
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2025
June 21, 2022
Janet Clements
President and
Founder, One Water
Econ
Loveland, Colorado
(EPA Region 8)
Business -
Industry
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2025
June 21, 2022
Lori Collins
Owner and Principal,
Collins Climate
Consulting
Charlotte, North
Carolina
(EPA Region 4)
Business -
Industry
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2025
June 21, 2022
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 | 16
NAME
AFFILIATION
LOCATION
PERSPECTIVE
REPRESENTED
CURRENT
TERM
ORIGINAL
APPOINTMEN
T DATE
Zachary Davidson
Director of
Baltimore,
Business -
June 21, 2022-
July 28, 2020
Underwriting,
Maryland
Financial Services
June 15, 2024
Ecosystem Investment
(EPA Region 3)
Partners
Jeffrey R. Diehl
Chief Executive Officer,
Providence, Rhode
State/Local
June 21, 2022-
July 28, 2020
Rhode Island
Island
Government
June 15, 2024
Infrastructure Bank
(EPA Region 1)
Sonja B. Favors
Industrial Hazardous
Montgomery,
State/Local
June 21, 2022-
July 28, 2020
Waste Branch Chief,
Alabama
Government
June 15, 2024
Alabama Department
on Environmental
(EPA Region 4)
Management
Phyllis R. Garcia
Treasurer, San Antonio
San Antonio, Texas
State/Local
June 21, 2022-
July 28, 2020
Water
(EPA Region 6)
Government
June 15, 2024
System
Eric Hangen
Senior Research
Fellow, Center for
Impact Finance, Carsey
School of Public Policy,
University of New
Hampshire
Danby, Vermont
(EPA Region 1)
Academic
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2025
June 21, 2022
Edward Henifin
General Manager
Virginia Beach,
State/Local
July 28, 2020-
June 15, 2018
(retired), Hampton
Virginia
Government
June 15, 2023
Roads Sanitation
(EPA Region 3)
District
Barry Hersh
Clinical Professor and
MSRED Chair, School
of Professional Studies,
New York University
New York, New
York (EPA Region 2)
Academic
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2025
June 21, 2022
Craig Holland
Senior Director of
Arlington, Virginia
Environmental/
July 28, 2020-
September 25,
Urban Investments,
The Nature
(EPA Region 3)
Non-
governmental
June 15, 2023
2017
Conservancy
Organization
Craig A. Hrinkevich
Public Finance Team -
Red Bank, New
Business -
June 21, 2022-
July 28, 2020
New Jersey Managing
Jersey
Financial Services
June 15, 2024
Director, Robert W.
(EPA Region 2)
Baird & Company, Inc.
Margot Kane
Chief Investment
Philadelphia,
Business -
June 21, 2022-
July 28, 2020
Officer, Spring Point
Pennsylvania
Financial Services
June 15, 2024
Partners LLC
(EPA Region 3)
Thomas Karol
General Counsel
Washington,
Legal
June 21, 2022-
June 21, 2022
Federal, National
District of Columbia
June 15, 2025
Association of Mutual
(EPA Region 3)
Insurance Companies
George W. Kelly
Global Client Strategy
Denver, Colorado
Business -
June 21, 2022-
July 28, 2020
Officer,
(EPA Region 8)
Financial
June 15, 2024
Earth Recovery
Services
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 | 17
NAME
AFFILIATION
LOCATION
PERSPECTIVE
REPRESENTED
CURRENT
TERM
ORIGINAL
APPOINTMEN
T DATE
Partners
Gwendolyn Keyes
Fleming
Partner, DLA Piper LLP
Washington,
District of Columbia
(EPA Region 3)
Legal
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2025
June 21, 2022
Cynthia Koehler
Executive Director,
WaterNow Alliance
San Francisco,
California
(EPA Region 9)
Environmental/
Non-
governmental
Organization
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2024
July 28, 2020
Colleen Kokas
Executive Vice
President,
Environmental Liability
Transfer,
Inc.
Lahaska,
Pennsylvania
(EPA Region 3)
Business -
Industry
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2024
July 28, 2020
Joanne V. Landau
President and Chief
Investment Officer,
Kurtsam Realty Corp.
Croton-on-Hudson,
New York
(EPA Region 2)
Business -
Industry
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2025
June 21, 2022
Lawrence Lujan
Executive Director,
Taos Public
Utility Service
Taos, New Mexico
(EPA Region 6)
Tribal
Government
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2025
June 21, 2022
MaryAnna H. Peavey
Grants and Loans
Bureau Supervisory,
Idaho Department
of Environmental
Quality
Boise, Idaho
(EPA Region 10)
State/Local
Government
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2024
July 28, 2020
Dennis A. Randolph
City Traffic Engineer,
City of Kalamazoo
Public Services
Department
Kalamazoo,
Michigan
(EPA Region 5)
State/Local
Government
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2024
July 28, 2020
Eric Rothstein
Principal, Galardi
Rothstein Group
Montreat, North
Carolina
(EPA Region 4)
Business -
Financial Services
July 28, 2020-
June 15, 2023
September 25,
2017
Sanjiv Sinha
Chief Sustainability
Officer, Environmental
Consulting &
Technology, Inc.
Ann Arbor,
Michigan
(EPA Region 5)
Business -
Industry
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2025
June 21, 2022
William Stannard
Chairman of the Board,
RAFTELIS
Kansas City,
Missouri
(EPA Region 7)
Business -
Financial Services
July 28, 2020-
June 15, 2023
June 15, 2018
Marilyn Waite
Managing Director,
Climate Finance Fund
Washington,
District of Columbia
(EPA Region 3)
Business -
Financial Services
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2025
June 21, 2022
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 | 18
NAME
AFFILIATION
LOCATION
PERSPECTIVE
REPRESENTED
CURRENT
TERM
ORIGINAL
APPOINTMEN
T DATE
David L. Wegner
Senior Consultant on
Water, Climate
Change, and Asset Risk
Assessment, Water
Science and
Technology Board,
National Academy of
Sciences
Tucson, Arizona
(EPA Region 9)
Business -
Industry
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2025
June 21, 2022
Gwen Yamamoto Lau
Executive Director,
Hawaii Green
Infrastructure Authority
Honolulu, Hawaii
(EPA Region 9)
State/Local
Government
June 21, 2022-
June 15, 2025
June 21, 2022
David Zimmer
Executive Director, New
Jersey Infrastructure
Bank
Lawrenceville, New
Jersey
(EPA Region 2)
State/Local
Government
July 28, 2020-
June 15, 2023
June 15, 2018
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022
Appendix 4. Slide Presentations
EPA Environmental Financial Advisory Board
GHGRF Charge
Public Meeting
November 17, 2022
What is EFAB?
EFAB is a Federal Advisory
Committee, an independent
advisory body chartered
under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) with
members representing
various constituencies
All meetings are open to
the public
All materials are available
online via EPA's website
For more information on EFAB, visit:
https://www.epa, gov/waterfina ncecenter/efab
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 |
Charge Background & Summary
Section 60103 of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 - Amended the Clean Air Act to create a new program:
the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GHGRF)
This first-of-its-kind program will provide competitive grants to mobilize financing and leverage private capital for clean
energy and climate projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions - with an emphasis on projects that benefit low-income
and disadvantaged communities
The GHGRF provides $27 billion to EPA for expenditure until September 30,2024. This includes:
$7 billion for competitive grants to enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy or benefit from zero-
emission technologies, including distributed technologies on residential rooftops;
Nearly $12 billion for competitive grants to eligible entities to provide financial and technical assistance to projects that
reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions; ana
$8 billion for competitive grants to eligible entities to provide financial and technical assistance to projects that reduce or
avoid greenhouse gas emissions in low-income and disadvantaged communities
EPA launched a coordinated stakeholder engagement strategy to help shape the implementation of the
GHGRF and ensure economic and environmental benefits are realized by all Americans.
Public Listening Sessions - November 1 and November 9, 2022; recordings available online
a Request for Information - Public comment period open until December 5, 2022
jgllg!igilgi...gf jiggfi..liiiiIgg.gi...i.B.l.
* IHI |f II ill mi IS: IE 11 | Sffifcjrfff in n I I it l t i n
Final! charge deliverable(s) to I 2022
For more information on the GHGRF at EPA, visit:
https://wvwx-g>a-gov/irfiatioii-fgductic>fi-
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 | 21
Program Structure Workgroup
GHGRF Charge - Program Structure
Workgroup Overview
Eligible Recipients
Eligible Projects
Types of Projects/Sectors/Market Segments
Barriers, Gaps to Fill, and Strategies
Beneficiaries/Low-Income Communities
Structure of Funding
Design Requirements
Compliance and Streamlining
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 |
GHGRF Charge - Program Structure
Eligible Recipients
Charge Question ll.a.l: Who could be eligible entitles and/or Indirect recipients under the GHGRF? What should the thresholds for
deployment be - both amount and timing - for GHGRF funding by these entities? Please provide references regarding the total capital
deployed by these entities into clean energy and climate projects
> Range of state, federally licensed, and non-profit capital deployment vehicles with reach into disadvantaged
communities; specific vehicles map to priority projects and unique needs of communities
Note: EFAB is still considering questions around thresholds for deployment and total capital deployed by these entities
State Infrastructure Banks
State Sponsored Green
Banks
State Housing Finance
Agencies
State Revolving Funds (Clean
Water, Clean Energy)
Community Development
Financial Institutions
Credit Unions
Community Development
Banks
Minority Depository
Institutions
Nonprofit or Quasi-
Government Green Banks
Nonprofit
Energy/Conservation Funds
Nonprofit Social Impact
Funds
Community Development or
Technology Accelerators
7
GHGRF Charge - Program Structure
Eligible Recipients
Charge Question ll.a.ii: What eligible entities and/or indirect recipients would best enable funds to reach disadvantaged communities?
What are their challenges and opportunities and how can EPA maximize the use of these channels?
> Capacity to leverage private sector capital to expand the
reach of the program will be an important consideration
Strategic Allocation of Capital Along Value-Chain of Activities
Fund Administration and . . _ .
Project Pre-Development
Reporting/Strategic jnd Deve|oprnen, Activitie5
Allocation
Workforce Development/
Quantification,
Training/Capacity Building
1
Verification, O&M
. 1 ^ ^
_ . , _ . V Sub-grant/ \ Pipeline
Total Grant: . 6 . ' , 7
I A sub-contract A development
' v" \ ^ \
n . V Project \
rojec Y |nsta||ation/
development ,
A leverage
/ Operations \
and
\ maintenance J
I
\
l
i
Shared Service Platforms; Market Pre-Development Assistance;
Industry Support; Geographic Support
T
Co-Investment/Loans + Leverage for Commercial Capital
8
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022
GHGRF Charge - Program Structure
Eligible Projects - Types of Projects/Sectors/Market Segments
Charge Question ll.b.i: What types of projects/sectors/market segments could EPA prioritize for funding through the eligible recipients?
> To frame what types of projects could be considered, need to understand where the problem is. How can it be solved?
Who will benefit? For example, assess the largest sources, sectors, locations of GHG emissions to inform consideration
Agriculture
GH< , ries
[Source: EPA Inventory of U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks (see Figures ES-13 and Tables ES-5 and ES-6)]
GHGRF Charge - Program Structure
Eligible Projects - Types of Projects/Sectors/Market Segments*
Charge Question ll.b.i: What types of projects/sectors/market segments could EPA prioritize for funding through the eligible recipients?
> How can the problem be solved? Considerations may include project size, market gaps, GHG reduction capacity, scalability,
community reach and access, etc. List below includes representative examples (not comprehensive)
Transportation
Electric vehicles
Fleet conversions to EV
Charging infrastructure
buildouts with focus on
rural, low-income and
multi-family housing
Bicycles
Reduced emission
filters for trucks
Buildings
Energy efficiency
Community solar
Rooftop solar
Other renewable
energy projects (wind,
geothermal)
Community-scale
projects
Non-profit facilities
Heat pumps
HVAC upgrades
Housing
Enable urgent repairs
prerequisite to
weatherization
Rooftop solar
¦Energy efficiency
oSingle family
oMulti-family
oAffordable housing
Community-scale
projects
¦Heat pumps
HVAC upgrades
¦ Home battery s1
Agriculture
SME loans/grants for
high efficiency
equipment
Soli/farm practices for
carbon capture
Renewable energy on
agricultural lands
Vertical farms
Biodigesters
Municipalities
Building upgrades
Energy efficiency
Municipal-owned utility
upgrades and
replacements
Tree canopy and
vegetation development
Anaerobic digesters
Green Infrastructure
Technology
Adoption
Solar development
Batteries/storage
Hydrogen
Recycling solar modules
and batteries
How can the problem be solved?
'To be integrated with GHGRF Charge Workgroup 1 (Objectives)
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022
GHGRF Charge - Program Structure
Eligible Projects - Types of Projects/Sectors/Market Segments
Charge Question ll.b.i: What types of projects/sectors/market segments could EPA prioritize for funding through the eligible recipients?
> Who will benefit from solving the problem? List below includes representative examples (not comprehensive)
Sector
Use Case (examples)
Beneficiary (examples)
Buildings- Residential
Energy efficiency
LMI
Community solar/wind
LMI
Rooftop solar
LMI
Electrification - cooking/heat
Tribal
Buildings - Commercial
Energy efficiency upgrades
Nursing homes/churches/small business
HVAC upgrades
Health centers, small business
Renewables
All the above
Industry
Fleet conversions
LMI communities exposed
Transportation
Charging infrastructure
Rural communities
Multi-family housing
Tribal
Charge Question ll.b.ii.2: Researching
GHGRF Charge - Program Structure
and collecting relevant case studies
Charge Question ll.b.iii: Researching
deal-level economics for voriaus use-cases
Eligible Projects - Barriers, Gaps to Fill, and Strategies
Charge Question ll.b.ii.l: What are the barriers to private sector capital?
Charge Question ll.b.ii.3: What project-level gaps could the GHGRF fill for each type of project? What form could capital take to fill these gaps?
Please provide references that analyze the deal-level economics for the various types of projects, including whether and how these may vary
by geography
Barriers to Private Capital (ll.b.ii.l)
Gaps GHGRF Could Fill (ll.b.ii.3)
Forms of Capital
Project Level:
Technical assistance including [cost savings analysis.
Clean energy loans - single family, multi-family,
Underwriting risk(payback period, return on
education, adoption requirements, etc.]
commercial
investment, revenue vs. cost)
Pre-condition assistance including [grants for home
Energy efficiency loans
Ability to demonstrate energy savings
repairs enabling weatherization]
Revolving loan funds
Technical expertise
¦ EV auto loans
Fragmentation
Unsecured loans
¦ Lack of track record
Blended finance
Quality control
¦ Equipment and appliance loans
(e.g., HVAC, energy
Tenor (long-term)
efficient appliances)
Operations Si Maintenance
C-PACE loans (Commercial Property Assessed Clean
Pre-requisites (e.g., repairs)
Energy loans)
¦ Project development/supplychain
Tariff on-bill repayment loans
Scale (e.g., C-PACE)
Pay-for-performan ce contracting mechanisms
On-bill financing resistance (utility)
Administrative resistance (PACE)
Borrower Level:
¦ Market development assistance including
Green mortgages
Credit risk
[information campaigns, available incentives.
¦ Small business loans
Ability to repay
community programs]
Uptake
Funding collaboration development including [local
Adoption
funding campaigns, community wide pools, etc.]
Split incentives (tenant/owner)
Capital provider:
Balance sheet equity
Balance sheet equity
Credit enhancements: Loan loss reserves, interest
Lack of loan servicing platform
rate buy-downs, guarantees
Lack of shared services (e.g., IT, insurance)
Technical assistance
Lack of credit enhancements
Lack of climate impact reporting infrastructure
12
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022
GHGRF Charge - Program Structure
Eligible Projects - Barriers, Gaps to Fill, and Strategies
Charge Question ll.b.ii.4: Beyond assembling the capital stack for a deal, what other barriers and constraints exist that could constrict the
pipeline of successful projects? What program strategies are needed to respond to these barriers and constraints?
> Barriers, examples, and strategies listed below are representative examples (not comprehensive)
Barrier
Project Examples
Strategies
Uptake - See LBNL study on driving
demand for home improvements
Home improvements
Community-level programs
Interest - Commercial building owner
Energy efficiency, renewable energy,
HVAC upgrades, C-PACE
Demonstrated interest, commitment
or pipeline before funding program
established
Prerequisites
Home needs basic repairs (e.g., new
roof) before energy efficiency
upgrades would be viable
Commercial building needs basic
energy efficiency upgrades before
solar would be viable
Coordination with State Energy
Offices/SEP
Scale - Aggregate impact
Fleet conversions
Systemic programs, collaboration with
government agencies
13
GHGRF Charge - Program Structure
Structure of Funding - Design Requirements*
Charge Question ll.c.i: Are there any potential program design requirements that would impact the ability of recipients to use the GHGRF
program funds?
Potential Program Design Requirements
Federal funding requirements
Financial capacity
Governance
Metrics/reporting
Due diligence
Grants/debt/equity/credit enhancements
Collective action systemic change
Sector expertise
Technology
Other requirements to maximize reach (community) and impact (GHG reductions)
To be integrated with Workgroups 1 (Objectives) and 3 (Execution, Reporting, and Accountability) 14
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 |
GHGRF Charge - Program Structure
Structure of Funding - Design Requirements
Charge Question ll.c.i: How could EPA address these issues through program design?
Beneficiaries
Pipeline Development
L
Direct Recipients
[National/Regional]
Indirect Recipients
[Value-Chain Aligned]
Potential Approaches:
(i) States/Munis/Tribes
(ii) National Greer Bank/Fund
(iii) Collective Action-Geographic
(iv) Collective Action - Sectors
Second tier shows strong alignment of critical pieces of
the GHG reduction distribution chain (systemic approach)
Project Development
A
Project
Implementation
Project Operations
and Maintenance
t
Address social, economic, financial gaps
I
Require private capital commitments
EPA has an opportunity to create program structures that address barriers and directly support scaled deployment across defined value
chains, with emphasis on filling gaps that currently inhibit expansion and benefits to low-income communities 15
GHGRF Charge - Program Structure
Structure of Funding - Compliance and Streamlining
Charge Question ll.c.i: How could recipients comply with relevant federal requirements?
> EFAB workgroup is reviewing relevant Federal requirements
Charge Question H.c.i: How can EPA streamline the distribution of funds so that applicable federal and state review can be accomplished in a
coordinated and efficient manner?
> Evaluating pros and cons of a range of potential options
> Options include potentially one, few, or many direct recipients:
Single Entity/National Green Bank
Multiple potential recipients
1. States/Municipalities/Tribes
2. Green Funds
3. Collective Action - Geographic
4. Collective Action - Sectors
Mixed approach (combo of above)
Other possibilities under review
16
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 |
GHGRF Charge - Program Structure
Next Steps
Consider all feedback and input
Interviews
Review public comments
12/1/22 - Board meeting and update
12/15/22 - Board meeting and final charge deliverable(s)
THANK YOU
17
Objectives Workgroup
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 |
GHGRF Charge - Objectives
Workgroup Overview
Provide considerations around the GHGRF's primary purpose:
To fund and/or finance projects intended to reduce GHG emissions that are not being resourced today,
particularly those in low-income and historically disadvantaged communities, because:
There is a lack of requisite capital at reasonable costs;
Priority areas for reducing GHGs (e.g., buildings, transportation, industry, agriculture) may not readily lend
themselves to existing funding structures in priority communities;
There is a lack of technical and human capacity to prepare grant applications; and
There is a lack of start-up "capital" (e.g., technical assistance and planning grants).
Focused on two areas:
Program Efficiency
Design Elements
Complementary Programs and Structures
Environmental Justice / Definition of "Low-Income and Disadvantaged Communities"
Definition and Support Considerations
Technical and Financial Assistance
i§
GHGRF Charge - Objectives
Overarching Concepts
Acknowledge competing mandates
Leveraging financing and ensuring GHGRF funds flow to disadvantaged communities
will not always lead to prioritizing the same types of projects or community support
EPA has flexibility to design the GHGRF to empower states, municipalities, tribes and
eligible entities to select solutions that accomplish one or another objective well,
while ensuring performance of both in the aggregate. For example, EPA could:
Enable project selection that:
Prioritizes GHG reduction projects that provide direct benefits to disadvantaged communities, but
that will not necessarily leverage private capital (e.g., capacity building; workforce development;
reduction of localized pollution)
¦ Enhances funding additionality and recycling that may not provide immediate benefits to
disadvantaged communities but that are likely to provide funding sustainability for GHG reduction
programs for the longer term (beyond 2024)
Establish performance metrics demonstrating that selected projects in the aggregate
accomplish overarching objectives
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 |
GHGRF Charge - Objectives
Overarching Concepts
Balance equity and access with leverage goals
Seek higher levels of financing leverage for projects in communities with greater
capacity and access to resources
Lower leverage requirements for projects requiring some subsidization, associated
with less resourced communities
No leverage requirements for grant funded projects primarily intended to provide
various benefits/TA to disadvantaged communities
Balance need for "shovel-ready" projects with capacity building goals
Goal is rapid deployment
Conventional meaning of 'shovel ready1 projects (e.g., designed, engineered,
permitted) is only one path to achieving this goal and could exclude projects that
could/should be supported by one or more of the GHGRF streams
GHGRF Charge - Objectives
Program Efficiency - Design Elements
Charge Question
How can the GHGRF grant competition be designed so that funding is highly leveraged (i.e., each dollar of federal funding mobilizes
multiple dollars of private funding)?
How can the funding be used to maximize *additionally" (i.e., the extent to which funding catalyzes new projects that would not
otherwise occur)?
How can CPA balance the need for grants for capacity building and short-term results with financial structures that will allow capital to
be recycled over time?
Where (if at all) is it appropriate to impose sustainability requirements on direct or indirect beneficiaries of GHGRF funding?
Providing guidance in terms of:
Strengths and weaknesses of each of the above elements by sample recipients/project type
Strong fits and weak fits of each element by recipient/project type
Specific examples/case studies of where each element has been successful or not in comparable funding programs
Considerations and potential trade-offs regarding equitable access to funding, capacity building, and an efficiency emphasis
Additional considerations related to efficiency elements in program design, including:
a Intrinsic trade-offs between elements of program design and program objectives
a Coordination around existing and future TA funding sources
a Possibility to piggyback upon existing direct-to-consumer funding programs, e.g., tariff on-bill financing via utilities
a Risk of compromising other supports, particularly at the low-income household level (e.g., benefits cliffs)
a Indicators of success
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022
GHGRF Charge - Objectives
Program Efficiency - Design Elements
Design Element
Strengths/Weaknesses
Strong/Weak Fits
Recipient Examples
Leverage: The ability of a
recipient or project to evidence
additional private sector funding
sources
Additionality: Demonstrating
the essential contribution of the
GHGRF to getting the project
done; "but for this funding..."
Strengths
Crowds in additional dollars from other
¦ Enables larger projects
« Stretches taxpayer resources further
Can provide risk mitigation for private capital
Weaknesses
Burdensome from a structuring and
transaction cost standpoint
May increase cost of capital
Less workable in smaller projects
Strengths
Enables attribution to leaders, organizations on
successful projects
May enable projects in disinvested/overlooked
communities
Weaknesses
Challenging to measure and easy to critique
May complicate decision-making around
eligible projects
Doesn't always collaborate well with other
fundings!
Strong Fits
Large asset-backed projects
Subordinate tranches in structured funds
Nonprofit and commercial projects
Residential solar leases
Weak Fits
Smallercommunity-basedorganizations
Smaller municipalities
Matching TA dollars
Non-commerdal project costs (eg.,
predevelopment)
Strong Fits
Where capital has historically not been invested
Where funding is clearly taking "de-risking" role
for private capital
Planning and predevelopment funding
Weak Re
» Industrial/large scale projects
Loss-sharing guarantees
Pari passu funding structures
Senior debt
1 Green Banks
¦ CDFIs
1 Infrastructure Authorities/EDAs
1 Michigan Saves (l:30x)
SSBCI requires minimum l:lx
¦ On-billfinanang
¦ C-PACE
NMTC "but for" tests
GHGRF Charge - Objectives
Program Efficiency - Design Elements
Design Element
Strengths/Weaknesses
Strong/Weak Fits
Recipient Examples
Capital Recycling: The ability of
recipients to recycle/re-deploy the
funding provided overtime
Short-Term Capacity Building:
Use of funds is predominantlyto hire
expertise/staff to improve
communities' ability to plan and
execute GHG reduction projects
Strengths
¦ Bolsters financial sustainability of recipients for the long-term
Ensures long-term impacts after program funding window is
closed
Builds intermediary capadty
Enables strong leverage opportunities
Weaknesses
Desire to recoup capital reduces risk tolerance of funds
Incentives for recipients may be at odds with purpose - e.g.,
funds may be used for reserves or liquidity vs. deployment
Ability to recyde capital within reporting period may be
limited by long-term project finance cycles, which are common
in energy (20 years)
Strengths
Evident and persistent demand for capadty building support,
especially in low-income and disadvantaged communities
High demand for in-community,long-term human capadty
Can increase uptake/demand for financial assistance/pipeline
projects
Long-Term Sustainability:
Weaknesses
Once money is allocated, limited future funding sources
Short funding period incentivizes use of consultants vs. full-
time hires
No I everage/recycling abil ity
Overlooked communities may be unaware of funding
opportunities and lack grant application bandwidth
TBD
Weak Fits
Equity investments (because of both
illiquidity and risk)
Start-up capital
Technical assistance
Projects without material cash payout
over 10+ years
to long-term TA funding
When paired with green workforce
development to increase local skilled
workforce
For short-term trainings around grant
applications, reporting, and compliance
Planning uses for GHG projects
Weak Fits
Not as well suited to project-specific
funding
Credit Union secondary shares
1 CDFI FA awards
CDBG programs
1 Green Banks
and neighborhood assistance orgs
Existing community-focused TA
providers with ability to expand
with GHG reduction focus
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 |
GHGRF Charge - Objectives
Program Efficiency-Complementary Programs and Structures
Charge Question l.b.ii:
Are there programs/structures at the federal or state level that could effectively complement the GHGRF?
How can EM best leverage the GHGRF to support lasting; long-term (beyond 2024) transformation of the clean energy and climate
finance ecosystem, especially for disadvantaged communities, and greenhouse gas and other air pollution reductions ?
Considerations include:
Where the EPA can "piggyback" on existing capacity and pull examples from
existing/established federal programs and initiatives (e.g., Justice40)
Highlight existing programs that tie into GHG objectives and reductions and deliver synergistic
solutions (e.g., National Community Solar Partnership, DOE Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan
Fund)
Using federal collaboration to coordinate financial assistance
Presently researching characteristics of funding programs that have been effectively
leveraged with other funding sources
GHGRF Charge - Objectives
Environmental Justice / Definition of "Low-Income and Disadvantaged
Communities" - Definition and Support Considerations
Charge Question l.a.i: What considerations should
EM take Into account In defining "low-income"
and/or "disadvantaged" communities In order to
ensure fair access/that the funding benefits
disadvantaged communities?
Charge Question l.a.ii:
How can EM ensure that communities and
organizations who have received little or no
funds In the past receive priority consideration
for funding?
How could EM Identify the low-Income and
disadvantaged communities it should prioritize
for greenhouse gas and ot,her air pollution
reduction investments?
Provide maximum inclusivity and flexibility to ensure any
and all disadvantaged households and communities are
eligible for GHGRF funds
Broad definition of "community" - To include neighborhoods
within larger cities, areas with substantial exposure to health
risks related to GHG emissions, and rural locales lacking critical
infrastructure, while maintaining a minimum level of
standardization across states and territories.
Adopt the "Disadvantaged Communities" locations or definitions consistent
with state statute(s)
Use the definitions of disadvantaged communities, households and
organizations consistent with other Federal programs (e.g., HUD area median
income low and moderate-income thresholds; SBA size standards; ASDWA
environmental justice tool); and
If a specific state statute does not exist or direct/indirect recipients do not
incorporate other federal definitions, mapping tools (e.g., EPA EJSCREEN)
could be used
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 |
GHGRF Charge - Objectives
Environmental Justice / Definition of "Low-Income and Disadvantaged
Communities" - Definition and Support Considerations
Example - All states have criteria and
definition of "disadvantaged community"
for purposes of DWSRF
Majority incorporate Median Household
Income (MHI)
Nearly half use population as a criteria
Average MHI and population could exclude
disadvantaged neighborhoods in larger cities
or cities with income disparities
Flexible definition would reach more low-
income and disadvantaged communities
Source: Tally compiled from Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators' website summarizing state definitions of disadvantaged
communities for DWSRF: https://www.asdwa.ore/environmental-iustice/
Frequency of Criteria used to define
disadvantaged community for DWSRF Program
4S
41
40
¦
.2 35
~ 30
»25
3 20
w 15
b
24
I
12
I I .
jf j-
/ / ~ / ^
27
GHGRF Charge - Objectives
Environmental Justice / Definition of "Low-Income and Disadvantaged
Communities" - Technical and Financial Assistance*
Charge Question l.a.iii: What kinds of technical and/or financial assistance should GHGRF funding recipients provide to ensure that low-
income and disadvantaged communities are able to be direct or indirect beneficiaries of GHGRF funding? Please identify supports that could
help communities with project Implementation.
Type of assistance will vary across phases of implementation and based on:
Eligible recipients
Project types
Benefit pathways
Issues faced by community
Third parties to coordinate across communities and departments and create capacity to develop,
apply, fund, and implement projects, for example:
AmeriCorps
State extension programs
Silver Jackets (USACE)
Engineers Without Borders
Senior design projects at accredited university engineering programs
*To be integrated with GHGRF Charge Workgroup 2 (Program Structure) 28
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 |
GHGRF Charge - Objectives
Environmental Justice / Definition of "Low-Income and Disadvantaged
Communities" - Technical and Financial Assistance
Technical assistance will vary depending on several factors, including:
Who needs assistance (e.g., project developers, communities, local government entities,
households)?
Project type (e.g., buildings, industry, power sector, transportation)
What are the benefits being achieved (e.g., if local workforce development is the goal, technical
assistance might include workforce training, small business development, etc.)
Execution, Reporting, and Accountability Workgroup
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 | 34
GHGRF Charge - Execution, Reporting, and Accountability
Workgroup Overview
Recap of Tasks/Scope
Approach
Planned Deliverable
Progress To Date
GHGRF Charge - Execution, Reporting, and Accountability
Recap of Tasks/Scope
EFAB options for consideration will include:
How to meet key deadlines
Short-term - The 180-day requirement
Medium-term - Next two years before funds expire in 2024
Long-term - Beyond 2024
Responsible implementation and oversight of funding
Metrics for success - from application to post-implementation
Scope of this workgroup will include ongoing communication with
Workgroups 1 (Objectives) and 2 (Program Structure) to synchronize,
not duplicate, feedback
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 | 35
GHGRF Charge - Execution, Reporting, and Accountability
Approach
Maintain balance between achieving
1
r 7T
while being good stewards of A
A
taxpayer money / \
\
Get funds deployed to qualifying /\
LI
eligible recipients
Don't create bureaucracy that could lead
to delays or a chilling effect deterring
Thorough due diligence
How to reach legislation goals and
ambitions?
33
GHGRF Charge - Execution, Reporting, and Accountability
Approach
Pick and choose from existing
federal, state, and local
governmental as well as NGO
programs
~ Use existing programs as examples
11" -S 1 1
(preferred)
. 11 .¦ *¦ i
Replicate that which has already
proven successful
Identify and apply lessons learned
from other programs
34
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022
GHGRF Charge - Execution, Reporting, and Accountability
Planned Deliverable
Each team member is using what
is already in their wheelhouse
Leveraging contacts
Reviewing literature and research
Soliciting expert opinions
Encouraging public comment
Workgroup deliverable to EPA
will be where these overlap
Deliverable = list of options with
identified pros and cons
Other
federal
programs
GHGRF Charge - Execution, Reporting, and Accountability
Progress To Date
Charge Question lll.a - Given the tight timeline for implementation of the funds, what are key steps that EPA could take in the short- (next
180 days), medium- (next two years before funds expire in 2024), and long-term (beyond2024)?
Possible Avenues to Meet Key Statutory Deadlines:
Now through 2/12/23
Accept public comment - Now through 12/5/22
Accept EFAB work product -12/15/22
Identify metrics for success and award priorities
Publish NOFO and accept applications - TBD
Announce Initial Awards-TBD
2/13/23 to 9/30/24
Implementation milestones, including fund expenditure
Deployment metrics and impact reporting
$26,970,000,000 awarded to direct recipients by 9/30/24
10/1/24 to 9/30/31
Ensure funds are appropriately and sustainably expended
Evaluate program metrics
36
-------
Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting, Nov. 17, 2022 | 37
GHGRF Charge - Execution, Reporting, and Accountability
Progress To Date
Charge Question lll.b - What types of requirements could EM establish to ensure the responsible implementation and oversight of the
funding?
Reference other federal programs in place to reduce obstacles to
assisting and deploying funds into low-income and disadvantaged
communities
Explore existing federal templates and best practices that are used to
evaluate program effectiveness
37
GHGRF Charge - Execution, Reporting, and Accountability
Progress To Date
Charge Question lll.c - What mechanisms could eligible recipients adopt, including governance as well as other mechanisms, to ensure that
their applications and subsequent implementation efforts ensure: (1) accountability to low-income and disadvantaged communities; (2)
greenhouse gas emission reductions; and (3) the leveraging and recycling of the grants ?
Figuring out how to measure success, from application to post-
implementation...
TBD - Build upon program metrics being defined by Workgroups 1
(Objectives) and 2 (Program Structure) to establish goals
Incorporate appropriate consumer protections
Ensure grantees and sub-grantees are accountable to the communities they
serve
------- |