&EPA Cl!mate Pollution Reduction Grants Program: Formula Grants for Planning Program Guidance for States, Municipalities, and Air Pollution Control Agencies United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation March 1, 2.023 ------- CLIMATE POLLUTION REDUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM: FORMULA GRANTS FOR PLANNING PROGRAM GUIDANCE FOR STATES. MUNICIPALITIES. AND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCIES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Overview 4 2. Statutory Authority 7 3. Justice40 Initiative and Advancing Environmental Justice 8 4. Eligible Entities 8 5. Allocation of Planning Grant Funds 9 6. Summary - Schedule and Process 12 7. Notice of Intent to Participate 14 7.1. Overview 14 7.2. Deadline and Submission Requirements 15 8. Grant Application Package and Submission Requirements 15 8.1. Deadline for Submitting Application Package 16 8.2. Contents of Application Package 16 8.3. Grants.gov Application Instructions 16 8.4 Workplan Requirements 17 9. Eligible Activities 23 10. Strategic Plan Linkages, Outputs, Outcomes, Performance Measures 24 10.1. Linkage to EPA Strategic Plan 24 10.2. Outputs 25 10.3. Outcomes 25 10.4. Performance Measures 26 11. Use of Funds Requirements 26 11.1. Federal Matching Funds 27 11.2. Expenses Incurred Prior to the Project Period 27 12. Award Administration 27 12.1. Applicable Requirements 27 12.2. Terms and Conditions 27 12.3. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 28 2 ------- 12.4. Procurements 28 12.5. Performance Partnership Grant Agreements 28 12.6. Reporting Requirements 28 12.7. Joint Administration of Greenhouse Gas and Zero-Emission Standards for Mobile Sources.28 13. EPA Contacts 29 14. Technical Assistance and Tools 29 14.1. Technical Assistance Overview 29 14.2. Climate Innovation Teams 29 15. APPENDICES 31 15.1. Statutory Text: Section 60114 of the Inflation Reduction Act 31 15.2. Formula Allocations 33 15.3. Deliverable Requirements 49 3 ------- 1. Overview EPA takes seriously its responsibility to protect human health and the environment as we face increasingly more harmful impacts of climate change. Across our country communities are experiencing more deadly wildfires and storm surges, more extreme drought and water scarcity, and dangerous levels of flooding, among other impacts. The Fourth National Climate Assessment found that intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities. If unchecked, future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life and exacerbate existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and long- standing inequalities. However, with this challenge comes an opportunity to invest in a cleaner economy that can spur innovation and economic growth while building more equitable, resilient communities. Through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), Congress provided many tools to pursue greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution reductions, including the Climate Pollution Reduction Grants (CPRG) program. In implementing this and many other programs under the Inflation Reduction Act, EPA seeks to achieve three broad objectives: Tackle damaging climate pollution while supporting the creation of good jobs and lowering energy costs for families. Accelerate work to address environmental injustice and empower community-driven solutions in overburdened neighborhoods. Deliver cleaner air by reducing harmful air pollution in places where people live, work, play, and go to school. This strategy will allow the country to make the inevitable changes needed to address climate change and make them opportunitiesto revitalize the U.S. energy and manufacturing sectors, create millions of good-paying jobs throughout the country, and address historic environmental injustices and inequities. The CPRG program will seek those opportunities in partnership with states, territories, local governments, and tribes, which are in touch with the needs of their communities and familiar with the horizons of GHG reduction opportunities for their economies. In line with this strategy, EPA is committed to supporting the development and expansion of state, territory, tribal, and local climate action plans and the expeditious implementation of investment-ready policies, programs, and projects to reduce GHG pollution in the near term. Through the CPRG program, EPA will support state, territory, tribal, and local actions to reduce GHGs and associated criteria and toxic air pollution through deployment of new technologies, operational efficiencies, and solutions that will transition America equitably to a low-carbon economy that benefits all Americans. 4 ------- Section 60114 of the Inflation Reduction Act appropriates $5 billion to EPA to support efforts by states, U.S. territories, municipalities, air pollution control agencies, tribes, and groups thereof to develop and implement plans to reduce GHGs. This program has two distinct but related phases: Planning grants: The Inflation Reduction Act provides $250 million for eligible entities to develop plans to reduce GHGs. Implementation grants: The Inflation Reduction Act provides $4.6075 billion for grants to implement measures from the GHG reduction plans developed with planning grant funding.1 This guidance is focused specifically on the $250 million program for planning grants, which EPA will award as cooperative agreements through a noncompetitive process. Cooperative agreements are similar to grants but entail substantial programmatic involvement between EPA and the recipient.2 The term "grant" used throughout this document includes both "grants" and "cooperative agreements" as defined by 2 CFR 200.1. At a later date, EPA will issue a separate notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) regarding the implementation grants, which EPA plans to award under a competitive process. In that notice, EPA will indicate the funding priorities for the implementation grants. Overall, this dual-phased CPRG program enables EPA to work in partnership with state, territory, local, and tribal officials to advance important goals by providing substantial funding for climate action planning and implementation, while maintaining recipients' flexibility to pursue activities tailored to their unique resources, delivery capacity, and mix of key sectors responsible for emitting and absorbing GHGs (e.g., industry, electricity generation, transportation, commercial and residential buildings, agriculture, natural and working lands, and waste and materials management). EPA will be awarding the $250 million available for planning grants (cooperative agreements) to states, municipalities, air pollution control agencies, territories and tribes via a formula as follows: $3 million to all 50 states, District of Columbia (DC), and Puerto Rico, for a total of $156 million $1 million to each of the 67 most populous metropolitan areas, for a total of $67 million $25 million to tribes and tribal consortia and $2 million to U.S. territories (as described in a separate guidance). Each state government will be expected to develop a climate action plan or update an existing plan in collaboration with air pollution control districts and large and small municipalities 1 Three percent of the $4.75 billion in implementation funds are reserved for EPA administrative costs. 2 See EPA's Funding Instruments and Authorities for additional details. 5 ------- statewide and to conduct meaningful engagement with low income and disadvantaged communities throughout its jurisdiction. Municipal governments have authority and responsibility for transportation, waste management, and energy and water efficiency, all of which affect GHG emissions and associated co-pollutants. Local air pollution control districts often have responsibility for reducing air pollution in metropolitan areas. Accordingly, the CPRG program also provides planning grants for the most populous metropolitan areas nationally. The combined population of metropolitan areas that are targeted to receive planning funding under this program exceeds 194 million.3Smaller, rural, and unincorporated communities will be able to work with their state governments on climate planning. The territories of Guam, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands as well as federally recognized Indian tribes are also eligible entities; their application process is detailed in a separate document. Under the cooperative agreements addressed by this guidance for states, municipalities, and air pollution control agencies, funding recipients will need to produce and submit three key deliverables (in addition to meeting standard grant reporting requirements) over the course of the four-year program period running to 2027: 1. A Priority Climate Action Plan (PCAP), due in early 2024;4 2. A Comprehensive Climate Action Plan (CCAP), due 2 years from the date of the award; and, 3. A Status Report, due at the close of the 4-year grant period. Each of these deliverables is described in detail in Appendix 15.3. EPA encourages eligible entities to develop or, where applicable, revise their existing climate plans consistent with the following programmatic priorities: Improve understanding of current and future GHG emissions so that state and local governments can prioritize actions that reduce such emissions and harmful air pollution (criteria air pollution and toxic air pollutants) where citizens live, work, play, and go to school, particularly in nonattainment areas for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria air pollutants. Adopt and implement ambitious policies and programs to reduce GHG emissions and accelerate decarbonization across multiple important sectors (e.g., industry, electricity generation, transportation, commercial and residential buildings, agriculture/natural 3 In the absence of consistent emissions data at the sub-state level, EPA is using population data as a proxy for identifying the metropolitan areas that are likely to have the highest aggregate emissions of GHG pollution. 4 Applicants for implementation grant funding under the CPRG program will be required to submit a PCAP along with their application. 6 ------- and working lands, and waste and materials management). Collaborate closely with other entities in their state, region, municipality, and/or air district to develop coordinated plans based on best practices. Explore opportunities to leverage sources of funding and financing from the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021, American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors and Science Act of 2022. Stimulate innovative technologies and practices to reduce GHG emissions and associated co-pollutants in hard-to-abate sectors. Prioritize actions and policies that will be durable, replicable, and provide certainty in pollution reductions. Reduce climate pollution while building the clean energy economy in a way that benefits all Americans, provides new workforce training opportunities, and effectively addresses environmental injustices in disadvantaged communities. Adopt robust metrics and reporting programs to track emission reductions and important benefits throughout their jurisdiction and in disadvantaged communities. This document describes how the Agency intends to award and manage CPRG planning grants for states, municipalities, and air pollution control agencies. This document also describes the programmatic requirements applicable to all grants awarded through this program to states, municipalities, and air pollution control agencies. (A separate program guidance is available for territories and tribes.) This guidance document explains the key deadlines, framework for preparing applications and workplans, and submission instructions. Grant recipients shall follow the framework for grants management, requirements, and reporting using the Uniform Grants Guidance (UGG) under 2 CFR Part 200 and EPA regulations under 2 CFR Part 1500. Some of the statutory provisions described in this document contain legally binding requirements. However, this document does not substitute for those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, the document cannot impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, or the regulated community, and it may not apply to all situations. 2. Statutory Authority Section 60114 of the Inflation Reduction Act, Climate Pollution Reduction Grants (Public Law 117-169, title VI, Aug. 16, 2022, 136 Stat. 2076) amended the Clean Air Act (CAA) by creating section 137, 42 U.S. Code § 7437, for Greenhouse Gas Air Pollution Plans and Implementation Grants. Section 137 of the CAA authorizes the EPA to fund climate pollution planning grants and climate pollution implementation grants to states, air pollution control agencies, municipalities, tribes, or a group of one or more of these entities. See the statutory text for this provision in Appendix 15.1. 7 ------- 3. Justice40 Initiative and Advancing Environmental Justice The Inflation Reduction Act can improve the lives of millions of Americans by reducing pollution in neighborhoods where people live, work, play, and go to school. Inflation Reduction Act programs can accelerate environmental justice efforts in communities overburdened by pollution for far too long and can help states and cities tackle the country's biggest environmental challenges while creating jobs and delivering energy security. Environmental justice (EJ) is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or policies. Meaningful involvement means people have an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may affect their environment and/or health; the public's contribution can influence the regulatory agency's decision; community concerns will be considered in the decision-making process; and decision makers will seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected. The CPRG program will advance the goals of the Justice40 Initiative set forth in Executive Order 14008, which aims to deliver 40 percent of the overall benefits of relevant federal investments to disadvantaged communities. More information on Justice40 at the EPA can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/environmentaliustice/iustice40-epa. 4. Eligible Entities Section 137(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act defines "eligible entities" under the CPRG program as states, air pollution control agencies, municipalities, tribes, and groups of one or more of these entities. Section 302 of the Clean Air Act defines "states" as including the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The state funding allocation approach described in this document includes funding for DC and Puerto Rico. Funding for the remaining four U.S. territories is addressed in a separate program guidance. Section 302 of the Clean Air Act defines "municipality" as a city, town, borough, county, parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to State law. Consistent with new section 137(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act, a group of municipalities, such as a council of governments, may also be considered an eligible entity under this program in some cases. Consistent with section 302 of the Clean Air Act, the term "air pollution control agency" under this program includes a state air agency (which could serve as a lead organization or 8 ------- collaborating partner for a state plan), or a local air agency (which could serve as a lead organization or collaborating partner for a metropolitan area-based plan). While groups of two or more eligible entities may choose to form a coalition and submit a single application, one eligible entity must be responsible for the cooperative agreement. A coalition must identify which eligible organization will be the recipient of the cooperative agreement; they must also identify if any eligible organization(s) will be subrecipients (i.e., "pass-through entity"). Any subawards must be consistent with the definition of that term in 2 CFR 200.1 and comply with EPA's Subaward Policy. The pass-through entity that administers the cooperative agreement and subawards will be accountable to EPA for proper expenditure of the funds and reporting and will be the point of contact for the coalition. As provided in 2 CFR 200.332, subrecipients are accountable to the pass-through entity for proper use of EPA funding. This program guidance does not address climate plan funding for tribes. A separate program guidance document is available for tribal grants. However, in addition to being direct recipients of planning funding, tribes and tribal consortia can also participate in this program as collaborating partners in planning efforts managed by lead organizations for states or metropolitan areas. 5. Allocation of Planning Grant Funds Under this formula grant program, EPA will provide $223 million to eligible entities addressed in this program guidance to develop or update climate plans (the remaining $27 million will be awarded to U.S territories and tribes as described in a separate program guidance document). The presumptive allocation for states, municipalities, and air pollution control agencies is as follows: $3 million to all 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico, for a total of $156 million $1 million to each of the 67 most populous metropolitan areas, for a total of $67 million. 9 ------- EPA has used 2020 U.S. Census data5 for metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs)6 to identify metropolitan areas eligible for funding. A list of all MSAs based on 2020 U.S. Census data ranked by population is available in Appendix 15.2. Because DC is eligible to receive the state level allocation of up to $3 million, the DC metropolitan area will not receive an MSA based allocation. The DC government is encouraged to work with its neighboring states to address regional collaboration as appropriate. Each state, DC, Puerto Rico, and metropolitan area that is eligible for funding must identify and designate a lead organization to manage grant funds and oversee the climate plan development process. The lead organization must meet the eligibility requirements in Section 4 "Eligible Entities." States. DC. and Puerto Rico: To accept these funds, the governor (or DC mayor), or the governor or DC mayor's designee, must submit a Notice of Intent to Participate (NOIP) to EPA by March 31, 2023, that identifies the lead organization for the CPRG planning grant. For example, the lead organization could be the governor's office, state environment or air pollution control agency, or another designated state agency. (See sample NOIP for states on the EPA CPRG website at: https://www.epa.gov/inflation- reduction-act/climate-pollution-reduction-grants.) The lead organization will then need to submit an application, which will include a workplan and budget for the planning grant, by April 28, 2023. Municipalities and air pollution control agencies: EPA's formula prioritizes the development of regional climate plans for the most populous metropolitan areas nationally (as defined by U.S. Census 2020 MSA population). In general, the climate plan for a metropolitan area should address GHG emissions and reduction measures throughout the entire metropolitan area. EPA recommends that the leaders of municipalities and local governments (such as leaders of cities, counties, and local air pollution control agencies) within and around a metropolitan area coordinate with each other to identify an eligible lead organization to administer the planning grant. Applicants from multi-state metropolitan areas are 5 https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-total-metro-and-micro-statistical- areas.html. 6 The general concept of an MSA is that of a core area containing a substantial population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core. Metropolitan statistical areas contain at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more population. An MSA includes one or more counties. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) also delineates New England city and town areas (NECTAs) as a city/town-based set of areas conceptually similar to county-based MSAs. Metropolitan NECTAs contain at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more population, similar to MSAs, but are based on city and town "building blocks" instead of counties. https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/GARM/Chl3GARM.pdf. 10 ------- expected to conduct planning activities across all states making up the metropolitan area. The lead organization may sub-award funds to other jurisdictions, academic institutions, or non-profit organizations to assist in the development of a regional plan in accordance with EPA grants policy. To accept these funds, the lead organization for a metropolitan area must submit a NOIP to EPA by April 28, 2023, and must indicate the MSA that the planning grant will cover. It is highly recommended that collaborating jurisdictions submit letters(s) along with the NOIP, indicating their commitment to work with the lead organization on the metropolitan area plan. (See sample NOIP for metro areas on the EPA CPRG website at: https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/climate-pollution-reduction-grants.) The lead organization for the metropolitan area will then need to submit an application, which will include a workplan and budget for the planning grant, by May 31, 2023. In the event of a lack of agreement among jurisdictions regarding the lead organization to administer funds for a metropolitan area planning process (e.g., if more than one entity submits a NOIP to serve as the lead agency for the same area), EPA will first notify each entity and ask them to come to agreement. If they cannot timely resolve the issue, EPA will expect the mayor of the largest city in the MSA as determined by the 2020 U.S. Census to determine the lead organization to administer the award to develop climate plan deliverables for the area. EPA's funding set-aside of $67 million for metropolitan areas presumptively will provide funding to 67 areas. However, EPA recommends that metropolitan areas not on the initial ranked list of 67 (i.e., MSAs with population lower than the top 67) also submit an NOIP, as they may become eligible to receive funds if their state declines funding, or if no eligible entity in a higher population metropolitan area submits a NOIP. See below for more details. If a state declines funding: If a state declines the $3 million funding, those funds would be made available to the 3 most populous metropolitan areas in that state on the MSA list found in Appendix 15.2 that have submitted a NOIP before the April 28, 2023, deadline. Such areas will not also be eligible for funding from the national metropolitan area funding pool, regardless of population size. If a state declines funding and no eligible entity is identified as the lead organization for one of the 3 most populous metropolitan areas in the state, those funds will be made available to the next most populous metropolitan area in that state on the MSA list in 11 ------- Appendix 15.2 provided that a lead organization from that MSA has submitted an NOIP before the April 28, 2023, deadline. If a state declines funding and there are fewer than three U.S. Census-defined MSAs in the state, or fewer than three MSAs in the state that have submitted a NOIP by the April 28, 2023, deadline, the remaining funds will be added to the national metropolitan area funding pool and will be available for the next metropolitan area on the list that timely submitted an NOIP, regardless of state. If a metropolitan area declines funding: If no eligible entity is identified as the lead organization for a metropolitan area that qualifies for funding based on population, then those funds would remain in the national metropolitan area funding pool and would be available for the next metropolitan area on the national MSA list that timely submitted an NOIP. A summary of the formula allocations for states and metropolitan areas is provided in Appendix 15.2. 6. Summary - Schedule and Process While CPRG planning grants will be funded under a non-competitive process, to receive federal funding, eligible entities are nonetheless subject to certain minimum application requirements that must be fulfilled by the deadlines described below. Key Dates for States By March 31, 2023, the lead organization for each state, DC, and Puerto Rico must submit a Notice of Intent to Participate (NOIP) to EPA by email to CPRG(a)epa.gov. See Section 7 for additional information about NOIP submittal requirements. By April 28, 2023, the lead organization must submit a complete application, which includes a workplan and budget for the planning grant, through Grants.gov. These materials must contain all of the information listed in Section 8 "Grant Application Package and Submission Requirements." Interested applicants are strongly encouraged to contact EPA about their workplan and budget prior to submitting their application. By summer 2023, EPA Regional Offices expect to award and administer the planning grants. The EPA will perform a merit review of each application and process the awards. Once the awards are processed, recipients will be awarded their funding and can begin work. 12 ------- Key Dates for Metropolitan Areas By April 28, 2023, the lead organization for each metropolitan area must submit a Notice of Intent to Participate (NOIP) to EPA by email to CPRG(a)epa.gov. See Section 7 for additional information about NOIP submittal requirements. By May 31, 2023, the lead organization must submit a complete application, which includes a workplan and budget for the planning grant, through Grants.gov. These materials must contain all of the information listed in Section 8 "Grant Application Package and Submission Requirements." Interested applicants are strongly encouraged to contact EPA about their workplan and budget prior to submitting their application. By summer 2023, EPA Regional Offices expect to award and administer the planning grants. The EPA will perform a merit review of each application and process the awards. Once processed, recipients will be awarded their funding and can begin work. The general schedule and process is illustrated below: March 1, 2023 V March 31, 2023 V April 28, 2023 V May 31, 2023 V Summer 2023 r N r n r \ ¦ r n r N EPA issues State State Metro Funding to program deadline to application area all grantees guidance submit deadline application is awarded and notifies Notice of Metro area deadline all eligible Intent to deadline to recipients Participate submit Notice of Intent to Participate ^ J ^ J ^ J ^ J If you plan to submit an application for this program, please note the following: To apply for a planning grant (cooperative agreement), the lead organization must have an active registration in the System for Award Management (SAM.gov), an official website for doing business with the U.S. government. While this registration includes a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI), please note that SAM.gov registration is different than obtaining a UEI only. Obtaining a UEI only validates your organization's legal business name and address. Please review the Frequently Asked Question on the FSD.gov website for additional details. All eligible entities should register in SAM.gov now to ensure they are able to submit an application through Grants.gov. Organizations should ensure that their SAM.gov registration includes a current e-Business (EBiz) point of 13 ------- contact name and email address. The EBiz point of contact is critical for Grants.gov registration and system functionality. Contact the Federal Service Desk for help with your SAM.gov account, to resolve technical issues, or to chat with a help desk agent: (866) 606-8220. The Federal Service Desk hours of operation are Monday - Friday 8am - 8pm ET. As of April 2022, the federal government has stopped using the DUNS number to uniquely identify entities. For more information, please visit www.sam.gov/content/duns-uei. Once their SAM.gov account is active, the lead organization must register in Grants.gov. Grants.gov will electronically receive your organization information, such as an e- Business (EBiz) point of contact email address and UEI. Organizations applying to this funding opportunity must have an active Grants.gov registration. Grants.gov registration is FREE. If you have never applied for a federal grant before, please review the Grants.gov applicant registration instructions. As part of the Grants.gov registration process, the EBiz point of contact is the only person that can affiliate and assign applicant roles to members of an organization. In addition, at least one person must be assigned as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR). Only person(s) with the AOR role can submit applications in Grants.gov. Please review the training videos "Intro to Grants.gov-Understanding User Roles" and "Learning Workspace - User Roles and Workspace Actions" for details on this important process. Please note that this registration process can take a month or more for new registrants. Applicants must ensure that all registration requirements are met in order to apply for this opportunity through Grants.gov and should ensure that all such requirements have been met well in advance of the application submission deadline. Contact Grants.gov for assistance at 1-800-518-4726 or support@Grants.gov to resolve technical issues with Grants.gov. Applicants who are outside the U.S. at the time of submittal and are not able to access the toll-free number may reach a Grants.gov representative by calling +1-606-545-5035. The Grants.gov Support Center is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, excluding federal holidays. 7. Notice of Intent to Participate 7.1. Overview As noted above, eligible entities that elect to receive CPRG planning grant funding must submit a NOIP indicating the lead organization that will oversee and be responsible for managing planning grant funds and coordinating activities and deliverables under the planning grant program. A sample NOIP is provided online at https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction- act/climate-pollution-reduction-grants#CPRGSampleDocuments. 14 ------- 7.2. Deadline and Submission Requirements All applicants must submit a NOIP by email to CPRG@epa.gov according to the following deadlines: The lead organization for a state shall submit the NOIP by March 31, 2023. The lead organization for a metropolitan area shall submit the NOIP by April 28,2023. Applicants are encouraged to submit the NOIP as early as possible to help expedite EPA's administration of the awards process and enable the organization to begin work and consultation with EPA as needed on development of a workplan to execute the planning grant, as described in Section 8 of this guidance. The NOIP from a state, DC, or Puerto Rico should be emailed to CPRG@epa.gov and must include an attached letter or memo signed by one of the following authorized officials: an official within the relevant governor's (or DC mayor's) office, or the director of the designated agency. The NOIP from a metropolitan area should be emailed to CPRG@epa.gov and must include an attached letter or memo signed by one of the following authorized officials: the office of the chief executive (mayor, county manager, etc.) of the designated lead municipality in a metropolitan area; the director of a local air pollution control agency; the director of a designated municipal agency in a metropolitan area; or the executive director (or equivalent) of an eligible regional organization selected to administer a metropolitan area award. A metropolitan area NOIP must include a clear statement indicating which MSA the lead organization is representing. If a state, DC, Puerto Rico, or group of officials representing a metropolitan area elects to decline funding, EPA requests that notification of this declination be provided via email to CPRG@epa.gov as well. This information will help EPA with administration of the program. 8. Grant Application Package and Submission Requirements Although planning grants are being awarded through a non-competitive process, each lead organization must submit an application package through Grants.gov consisting of a workplan, budget, and required federal forms in order for EPA to disburse funds. 15 ------- 8.1. Deadline for Submitting Application Package All applicants must submit a complete application package through Grants.gov according to the following deadlines. These materials must contain all of the information listed in Sections 8.2 and 8.4. Applicants are strongly encouraged to contact EPA about their funding request and workplan prior to submitting their application. The lead organization for a state shall submit a complete application by April 28, 2023. The lead organization for a metropolitan area shall submit a complete application by May 31, 2023. EPA will review submitted application packages and will contact applicants to discuss any needed corrections or address any questions. 8.2. Contents of Application Package The application package must include all the following materials in Grants.gov: Project Narrative Attachment Form (Narrative Workplan) o Narrative o Budget Detail. See EPA's How to Develop a Budget website. Standard Form (SF) 424, Application for Federal Assistance Standard Form (SF) 424A, Budget Information EPA Form 5700-54, Key Contacts Form Grants.gov Lobbying Form, Certification Regarding Lobbying EPA Form 4700-4, Pre-award Compliance Review, See EPA's Applicant Tips for Completing Form 4700-4 Other Attachments Form - Optional Supporting Materials o Letters of commitment o Resumes 8.3. Grants.gov Application Instructions The lead organization's authorized official representative (AOR) must submit the complete application package electronically to EPA by following the instructions available on Grants.gov. The application package must contain the required forms and documents (workplan and budget) listed above. EPA will provide additional instructions upon receipt of the lead organization's NOIP. 16 ------- 8.4 Workplan Requirements 8.4.1 Overview The application package must include a high-quality, narrative workplan for executing the planning grant. The workplan is a critical component of the application package, as it describes the applicant's proposed approach for developing each of the three deliverables identified in Section 1 and described more fully below. The workplan also must include a discussion of planned interagency coordination and stakeholder engagement, outputs, outcomes, and performance measures. EPA recommends workplans not exceed 15 pages. 8.4.2 Planning Grant Deliverables As noted in Section 1, under the CPRG planning grants, funding recipients will produce and submit three deliverables (in addition to meeting standard grant reporting requirements) over the course of the 4-year program period running to 2027: 1. A Priority Climate Action Plan (PCAP), due March 1, 2024;7 2. A Comprehensive Climate Action Plan (CCAP), due 2 years from the date of the award (summer-fall 2025); and, 3. A Status Report, due at the close of the 4-year grant period (summer-fall 2027). Therefore, for each deliverable, the applicant's workplan must describe: the applicant's general approach to developing all required elements of the deliverable; the entities responsible for completing each element; a schedule with milestones for developing the deliverable. Applicants may describe in their workplans how they expect to draw from previously developed climate action plans to help satisfy the required elements of each deliverable. For example, applicants may describe how an existing climate action plan will inform the identification of measures for the PCAP, how a CCAP funded through a planning grant award could extend or expand the work completed in a previously developed climate action plan, or how existing or updated climate metrics and emissions monitoring and reporting could inform the Status Report. For more detail on the elements of each deliverable, please review Appendix 15.3. 7 Applicants for implementation grant funding under the CPRG program will be required to submit a PCAP along with their application. This is a required deliverable under the CPRG planning grants, regardless of whether a funding recipient plans on applying for CPRG implementation grants in the future. 17 ------- Key Deliverable #1: Priority Climate Action Plan fPCAP) The initial deliverable is a Priority Climate Action Plan (PCAP), a narrative report due on March 1, 2024, that includes a focused list of near-term, high-priority, implementation- ready measures to reduce GHG pollution and an analysis of GHG emissions reductions that would be achieved through implementation. These initial plans can focus on a specific sector or selected sectors, and do not need to comprehensively address all sources of GHG emissions and sinks8 in the jurisdiction. The PCAP must include: o A GHG inventory; o Quantified GHG reduction measures; o A low-income and disadvantaged communities benefits analysis; and, o A review of authority to implement. Planning grant recipients are encouraged, but not required, to include additional analyses in their PCAP such as GHG emissions projections, GHG reduction targets, a benefits analysis (for the full geographic scope and population covered by the plan), a plan for leveraging other federal funding, and a workforce planning analysis. A PCAP may draw from or reference an existing climate action plan or plans for the geographic area covered, such as an existing state climate, energy, or sustainability plan. 8 Carbon "sinks" are resources that absorb or sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions inventory, these sinks are referred to as the Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) sector. These resources include forests, coastal wetlands, agricultural soils, trees in urban areas, and landfilled yard trimmings and food scraps. 18 ------- Preparing the PCAP to Be Positioned to Compete for Implementation Grants The PCAP is a pre-requisite for competing in the second phase of the CPRG program in the future, which will competitively award $4.6 billion for implementation. Any future application for an implementation award under the CPRG will need to include a PCAP that describes the programs, policies, measures, and projects the entity will carry out with the implementation grant funding. A PCAP also may include additional measures that will not be part of an implementation grant application. In the NOFO for the implementation grants, EPA will indicate the funding priorities for those implementation grants. Note that an entity that did not directly receive a planning grant may apply for an implementation grant provided that the measures they propose for funding are covered by a PCAP. Collaborating partners who developed joint plans or regionally based plans would retain eligibility for implementation funds, regardless of who administered the planning grant. Municipalities and air pollution control agencies will also be eligible for funding for measures identified in their state's or metropolitan area's plan for implementation at their level. Tribes can also partner with a neighboring state or metropolitan area. EPA anticipates providing implementation grants with a wide range of funding levels, with the largest grant awards potentially exceeding $100 million depending on the quality of the application and its adherence to the grants competition criteria. States must coordinate with municipalities and air pollution control agencies within their state to include priority measures that are implementable by those entities. States are further encouraged to similarly coordinate with tribes. In all cases, the lead organization for a state or metropolitan area PCAP funded through the CPRG program must make the PCAP available to other entities for their use in developing an implementation grant application. Key Deliverable #2: Comprehensive Climate Action Plan (CCAP) The second deliverable is a Comprehensive Climate Action Plan (CCAP) due 2 years from the date of award of the planning grant. The CCAP should touch on all significant GHG sources/sinks and sectors present in a state or metropolitan area, establish near-term and long-term GHG emission reduction goals, and provide strategies and identify measures to achieve those goals. Each CCAP must include: o A GHG inventory; o GHG emissions projections; o GHG reduction targets; o Quantified GHG reduction measures; o A benefits analysis for the full geographic scope and population covered by the plan; o A low-income and disadvantaged communities benefits analysis; 19 ------- o A review of authority to implement; o A plan to leverage other federal funding; and, o A workforce planning analysis. All planning grant recipients will be expected to conduct a comprehensive climate action plan development process. Jurisdictions with existing climate plans may use planning grant funds to update or expand their existing plans to reflect, for example, recent changes in technologies and market forces, potential leveraging of other funding opportunities (e.g., under the Inflation Reduction Act, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, or other sources),9 new program areas and opportunities for regional collaboration, or inclusion of analyses to estimate benefits including those flowing to low income and disadvantaged communities. Grantees with previously developed climate action plans will be able to integrate their previous planning experience into the CCAP. For example, if a recent plan has included a robust stakeholder process, that prior planning experience could address the engagement requirements outlined in this guidance and the scope of additional engagement could be built around the new updated elements of the plan. However, if a prior planning process left out important elements described in this guidance, the updated plan would need to address those. Key Deliverable #3: Status Report The third deliverable for states, municipalities, and air pollution control agencies is a Status Report due at the end of the 4-year planning grant period. This report should include: o The implementation status of the quantified GHG reduction measures included in the CCAP; o Any relevant updated analyses or projections supporting CCAP implementation; and, o Next steps and future budget/staffing needs to continue CCAP implementation. Planning grant recipients are encouraged to include updates to emissions analyses, GHG reduction measures, or other items as needed to reflect recent and forecasted changes in programs and emissions at the time the Status Report is prepared (i.e., by mid-2027). 8.4.3 Coordination and Engagement The workplan should describe the applicant's proposed approach to interagency and intergovernmental coordination and their plan for public and stakeholder engagement in the development of all deliverables. 9 For example, the Clean Ports Program under IRA section 60102 also provides grants or rebates for climate action plans for ports in metropolitan areas. 20 ------- Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination Lead agencies should coordinate with other appropriate agencies and offices within their own government in the development and adoption of the three deliverables. For example, climate planning efforts should involve agencies with responsibilities in different program areas, including environmental protection, energy, utilities, transportation, housing, waste management, and land use planning. Each workplan should include: o A description of how interagency coordination would be conducted, such as through a combination of in-person and virtual meetings with reasonable opportunities to provide input on preliminary and/or draft products; and, o A process and schedule for agencies to identify existing and new measures that would lead to GHG reductions and meet other related goals. State Requirements Ongoing coordination as much as possible among state agencies, air pollution control agencies, and municipalities is expected for the development of the PCAP and over the duration of the cooperative agreement. States are encouraged to similarly coordinate with tribes. A state workplan must include: o A description of the expected process for coordinating/collaborating with a variety of entities within the state (i.e., air pollution control agencies, municipalities, and tribes), including those that are not directly receiving their own planning cooperative agreement funding; and, o A description of any sub-awards that are expected to be issued to air pollution control agencies, municipalities, tribes, or other organizations. The interagency collaboration process is intended to result in the identification and inclusion of priority measures in the state PCAP that can be implemented by collaborating entities. Sub-awards, including sub-awards to air pollution control agencies, municipalities, and tribes, are allowed under this funding award, subject to terms and conditions, and may be used to support planning efforts for those entities. Because the District of Columbia has no internal sub-state jurisdictions, they are encouraged to coordinate with the Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia jurisdictions making up the metropolitan area. 21 ------- Metropolitan Area Requirements Climate plans for metropolitan areas should also be developed with regional coordination as much as possible, and applicants are encouraged to coordinate with geographically proximate tribes as appropriate. Workplans must describe: o The existing or planned roles and relationships of the partnering jurisdictions and the process for developing joint work products; and, o Any sub-awards that are expected to be issued to partnering jurisdictions. Sub-awards to partners are allowed under this funding award, subject to terms and conditions. Letters of support/commitment from partners are encouraged. Public and Stakeholder Engagement State and metropolitan area lead organizations must involve stakeholder groups and the public in the process for developing the PCAP and CCAP. Potential stakeholders include urban, rural, and underserved or disadvantaged communities as well as the general public, governmental entities, federally recognized tribes, Port Authorities, labor organizations, community and faith-based organizations, and private sector and industry representatives. The workplan should: o Describe how public and stakeholder engagement would be conducted (such as through a combination of in-person and/or virtual meetings with reasonable opportunities to provide input on preliminary products); o Discuss how information on the PCAP and CCAP development processes will be made available to the public in a transparent manner, such as through in-person and virtual meetings, public websites, listservs, and social media; o Describe the approach to identifying low-income and disadvantaged communities, conducting meaningful engagement including communicating with low income and disadvantaged communities about emissions reductions in those areas, and identifying their priorities; and, o Describe an approach for early and frequent engagement with low-income and disadvantaged communities and how that engagement will inform the low-income and disadvantaged communities benefits analysis. 22 ------- Grantees should ensure their approach for identifying disadvantaged communities is consistent with relevant guidance from the Executive Office of the President.10 Grantees are strongly encouraged to use the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST 1.0 or higher; https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/en/). EPA is in the process of developing methodologies to track and report the benefits (and any disbenefits) flowing to low income and disadvantaged communities, and such methodologies can be used by grant recipients as appropriate in developing a PCAP or CCAP. 8.4.4 Additional Workplan Requirements The workplan must include a discussion of: The environmental outputs and outcomes to be achieved under the planning grants as well as performance measures for tracking them. More detail about outputs, outcomes, and performance measures is available in Section 10. The applicant's interest in participating in any Climate Innovation Teams (participation is optional and more fully described in Section 14.2). Applicants interested in participating in one or more Climate Innovation Teams should include in the workplan a brief description of their expected participation, including identifying personnel who may participate, identifying topics of interest, and should include any anticipated costs in their budget narrative. An annual narrative budget for each year of the grant award that adheres to federal budget categories and guidelines. Additional guidance and resources are available in the Program Guidance Appendices and on EPA's CPRG website to assist in workplan development. Technical assistance as described in Section 14 will also be available to recipients throughout the 4-year cooperative agreement period. Sample workplans, timelines, and budgets are available on the CPRG website. 9. Eligible Activities CPRG planning grant funds are restricted to projects that are directly related to the development, updating, or evaluation of state or metropolitan plans to reduce climate pollution (i.e., to reduce GHG emissions and/or enhance carbon sinks). In general, funds may be used for: 10 See July 20, 2021, memorandum M-21-28 from Executive Office of the President entitled, "Interim Implementation Guidance for the Justice40 Initiative." See also January 27, 2023 memorandum M-23-09 from Executive Office of the President entitled, "Addendum to the Interim Implementation Guidance for the Justice40 Initiative, M-21-28, on using the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST)." 23 ------- Staffing and contractual costs necessary to develop the deliverables identified in this document; 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 -tracking activities; Training and staff capacity-building costs; Supplies (e.g., office supplies, software^ printing, etcj; Incidental costs related to the above activities, including but not limited to travel, membership fees, and indirect costs; and/or, Other allowable activities as necessary to complete the required deliverables. 10. Strategic Plan Linkages, Outputs, Outcomes, Performance Measures Pursuant to Section 6.a. of EPA Order 5700.7A1, "Environmental Results under EPA Assistance Agreements," EPA must link proposed cooperative agreements with the Agency's Strategic Plan. In their narrative workplan, applicants must adequately describe environmental outputs and outcomes to be achieved under cooperative agreements (EPA Order 5700.7A1, Environmental Results under Assistance Agreements). Applicants should include specific statements describing the environmental results of the proposed project in terms of well-defined outputs and, to the maximum extent practicable, well-defined outcomes that will demonstrate how the project will contribute to the EPA Strategic Plan priorities described in Section 10.1. 10.1. Linkage to EPA Strategic Plan The activities to be funded under this announcement support EPA's Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-2026 Strategic Plan. Awards made under this announcement will support Goal 1, "Tackle the Climate Crisis" Objective 1.1, "Reduce Emissions that Cause Climate Change," of EPA's Strategic Plan. Applications must be for projects that support this goal and objective. For more information see EPA's FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan. 24 ------- 10.2. Outputs The term "output" means an environmental activity, effort and/or associated work product related to an environmental goal and objective that will be produced or provided over a period of time or by a specified date. Outputs may be quantitative or qualitative but should be measurable during a cooperative agreement funding period. Expected outputs from the CPRG planning grants include, but are not limited to, development of the following: Priority Climate Action Plan (PCAP); Comprehensive Climate Action Plan (CCAP); and, Status Report. Other potential outputs may include, but are not limited to: Number of community members participating in plan development; Meetings, events, stakeholder sessions, etc.; and/or, Dissemination of project/technology information via list serves, websites, journals and outreach events. Progress reports and a final report will also be required outputs, as specified in Section 12.6 of this document. 10.3. Outcomes The term "outcome" means the result, effect or consequence that will occur from carrying out an environmental program or activity that is related to an environmental or programmatic goal or objective. Outcomes may be environmental, behavioral, health-related or programmatic in nature, but should also be quantitative. They may not necessarily be achievable within a cooperative agreement funding period. Expected outcomes from the projects to be funded under this announcement should include, but are not limited to: Tons of pollution (GHGs and co-pollutants) reduced over the lifetime of the measures identified in the PCAP and the CCAP; Tons of pollution (GHGs and co-pollutants) reduced annually; and, Tons of pollution (GHGs and co-pollutants) reduced with respect to low-income and disadvantaged communities. Other potential outcomes may include, but are not limited to: Improved staff capacity to implement policies to address climate change; Enhanced community engagement; 25 ------- Improved ambient air quality; Health benefits achieved; Increased public awareness of project and results; and/or, Creation of high-quality jobs with an emphasis on workers from underserved populations. 10.4. Performance Measures The applicant should develop performance measures and metrics they expect to use to track progress of the proposed activities. These measures and metrics must be described in their application. Such performance measures will help gather insights and will be the mechanism to track progress concerning successful processes and output and outcome strategies and will provide the basis for developing the Status Report deliverable. The description of the performance measures should directly relate to the project's outputs and outcomes, including but not limited to: Overseeing sub-recipients, and/or contractors and vendors; Tracking and reporting project progress on expenditures and purchases; and, Tracking, measuring, and reporting accomplishments and proposed timelines/milestones. The following are questions to consider when developing output and outcome measures of quantitative and qualitative results: What are the measurable short-term and longer-term results the project will achieve? How will the grant recipient measure progress in achieving the expected results (including outputs and outcomes) and use resources effectively and efficiently? 11. Use of Funds Requirements For guidance on developing budget narratives, please see: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/documents/applicant-budget- development-guidance.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018- 05/documents/recipient guidance selected items of cost final.pdf The budget narrative must detail funding expenditures that demonstrate adherence to applicable requirements related to federal matching funds and expenses incurred prior to the project period, as described below. 26 ------- 11.1. Federal Matching Funds Applicants are not required to provide a cost-share or matching funds for the CPRG funding. No funds awarded under the Program shall be used for matching funds for other federal grants. Leveraging is encouraged, as noted in Section 8.4. "Workplan Requirements." 11.2. Expenses Incurred Prior to the Project Period The allowability of pre-award costs are governed by 2 CFR §200.458 and 2 CFR §1500.8. Pre- award costs are those incurred prior to the effective date of the Federal award directly pursuant to the negotiation and in anticipation of the Federal award, where such costs are necessary for efficient and timely performance of the scope of work. Such costs are allowable only to the extent that they would have been allowable if incurred after the date of the Federal award and only with the written approval of the Federal awarding agency. EPA defines pre- award costs as costs incurred prior to the award date, but on or after the start date of the project/budget period. Under EPA's interpretation of 2 CFR §200.309, all eligible costs must be incurred during the budget/project period as defined by the start and end date shown on the cooperative agreement award to receive EPA approval. This policy is implemented in a grant- specific Term and Condition entitled "Pre-award Costs." No funds awarded under the Program shall be used for reimbursement of previous efforts prior to the project/budget period. All costs incurred before EPA makes the award are at the recipient's risk. EPA is under no obligation to reimburse such costs if for any reason the recipient does not receive a Federal award or if the Federal award is less than anticipated and inadequate to cover such costs. 12. Award Administration 12.1. Applicable Requirements The requirements of 2 CFR Part 200 (OMB Uniform Grant Guidance) and 2 CFR Part 1500 (EPA Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards) apply to this cooperative agreement funding. 12.2. Terms and Conditions General administrative and programmatic terms and conditions applicable to EPA cooperative agreements under the CPRG planning grants program may be viewed at https://www.epa.gov/grants/grant-terms-and-conditions. EPA Headquarters will provide EPA Regional Offices with a list of terms and conditions that will also be applicable to the program. EPA Regional Office teams will ensure that all applicable terms and conditions are included. 27 ------- 12.3. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Awards funded under the CPRG planning grants program may include the collection of environmental data and may require the development of a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). EPA Regional Offices will determine if a QAPP is required based on the workplan submitted. The structure of the QAPP is intended to step through the thought process of planning a project, as well as to provide a framework for documenting the plan. A QAPP is prepared as part of the project planning process and should be completed and approved before data collection is started. For more information, visit: www.epa.gov/aualitv/qualitv-assurance- project-plan-development-tool. 12.4. Procurements When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a recipient must follow requirements as described in 2 CFR Part 200 and here: https://www.epa.gov/grants/best- practice-guide-procuring-services-supplies-and-equipment-under-epa-assistance. 12.5. Performance Partnership Grant Agreements Funds awarded under this program are not eligible for inclusion with a Performance Partnership Grant. 12.6. Reporting Requirements The following reports are required in addition to the three deliverables due under the CPRG planning cooperative agreements. These reports are required to be submitted by all CPRG planning funds recipients: Quarterly performance progress reports are required, including grant fund reporting elements and summaries of the project activity and status of outputs during the reporting period. Quarterly reports are due 30 days after the end of the reporting period. The final report must include a high-level summary of activities completed during the grant project period, copies of all deliverables, a synopsis of outputs and outcomes achieved, and a financial summary of expenditures during the grant period. The final report shall be submitted to EPA within 120 calendar days of the project/budget period end date. 12.7. Joint Administration of Greenhouse Gas and Zero-Emission Standards for Mobile Sources. EPA is considering administering the Inflation Reduction Act section 60105(g) "Greenhouse Gas and Zero-Emission Standards for Mobile Sources" $5 million grant program for states that are 28 ------- adopting and implementing such standards pursuant to CAA section 177 under the future notice of funding opportunity for implementation grants under the CPRG program. Eligible states that are potentially interested in the Inflation Reduction Act section 60105(g) grant program should consider such standards in the development of their PCAP under the CPRG program. 13. EPA Contacts All questions regarding the CPRG program should be submitted to CPRG(a)epa.gov. A list of "Frequently Asked Questions" is also available on the CPRG program website. 14. Technical Assistance and Tools 14.1. Technical Assistance Overview EPA is committed to providing ongoing technical assistance to cooperative agreement recipients under the CPRG program. EPA has established a webpage for this program that includes a technical assistance section with links to many resources that can be helpful to eligible entities in developing planning cooperative agreement applications and deliverables. These resources include EPA's state-level GHG emissions inventory and inventory tools; tools for estimating air quality changes and health benefits associated with criteria and toxic air pollutant emission reductions resulting from GHG reduction strategies; and other resources. EPA will explore additional opportunities for providing ongoing technical assistance through webinars, training workshops, and the Climate Innovation Teams described in the next section. For more information, please visit https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/climate- pollution-reduction-grants#CPRG-ToolsandTechnica I Resources. 14.2. Climate Innovation Teams EPA intends to organize a set of Climate Innovation Teams (CITs) that focus on key topics of interest to cooperative agreement recipients. Through these CITs, EPA can provide training and technical assistance to funding recipients as well as create opportunities for peer-to-peer technical assistance, peer collaboration and mentoring, and sharing of case studies, best practices, and lessons learned. Through participation in one or more teams, planning grant recipients will have the opportunity to: Coordinate efforts on one or more topic area(s) of their choice; Receive technical assistance and subject matter expertise on a range of topics; Participate in multi-jurisdictional convenings with national and local experts and stakeholders; and, Leverage other support to help jurisdictions increase the impact of their other Inflation Reduction Act or Bipartisan Infrastructure Law-funded work. 29 ------- The initial group of CITs may address topics such as: Climate planning process and approach Leveraging funding from other federal, state, and private sector sources Estimating emission reductions and program benefits in disadvantaged communities Stakeholder engagement Sector-based strategies Workforce development. EPA will finalize the initial set of CITs and consider forming additional teams based on the interests and needs of cooperative agreement recipients. EPA anticipates most CIT meetings will take place virtually (i.e., via webinars, trainings, peer collaboration, etc.) and occur every 1- 3 months. An optional, in-person annual meeting of cooperative agreement recipients may also be organized depending on available resources and participant interest. 30 ------- 15. APPENDICES 15.1. Statutory Text: Section 60114 of the Inflation Reduction Act SEC. 60114. CLIMATE POLLUTION REDUCTION GRANTS. The Clean Air Act is amended by inserting after section 136 of such Act, as added by section 60113 of this Act, the following: SEC. 137. GREENHOUSE GAS AIR POLLUTION PLANS AND IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS. (a) Appropriations. (1) Greenhouse gas air pollution planning grants. In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is appropriated to the Administrator for fiscal year 2022, out of any amounts in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $250,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2031, to carry out subsection (b). (2) Greenhouse gas air pollution implementation grants. In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is appropriated to the Administrator for fiscal year 2022, out of any amounts in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $4,750,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2026, to carry out subsection (c). (3) Administrative costs. Of the funds made available under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall reserve 3 percent for administrative costs necessary to carry out this section, to provide technical assistance to eligible entities, to develop a plan that could be used as a model by grantees in developing a plan under subsection (b), and to model the effects of plans described in this section. (b) Greenhouse gas air pollution planning grants. The Administrator shall make a grant to at least one eligible entity in each State for the costs of developing a plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas air pollution to be submitted with an application for a grant under subsection (c). Each such plan shall include programs, policies, measures, and projects that will achieve or facilitate the reduction of greenhouse gas air pollution. Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this section [August 16, 2022], the Administrator shall publish a funding opportunity announcement for grants under this subsection. (c) Greenhouse gas air pollution reduction implementation grants. (1) In general. The Administrator shall competitively award grants to eligible entities to implement plans developed under subsection (b). (2) Application. To apply for a grant under this subsection, an eligible entity shall submit to the Administrator an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such 31 ------- information as the Administrator shall require, which such application shall include information regarding the degree to which greenhouse gas air pollution is projected to be reduced in total and with respect to low-income and disadvantaged communities. (3) Terms and conditions. The Administrator shall make funds available to a grantee under this subsection in such amounts, upon such a schedule, and subject to such conditions based on its performance in implementing its plan submitted under this section and in achieving projected greenhouse gas air pollution reduction, as determined by the Administrator. (d) Definitions. In this section: (1) Eligible entity. The term "eligible entity" means (A) a State; (B) an air pollution control agency; (C) a municipality; (D) an Indian tribe; and (E) group of one or more entities listed in subparagraphs (A) through (D). (2) Greenhouse gas. The term "greenhouse gas" means the air pollutants carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. 32 ------- 15.2. Formula Allocations Table 1: Formula Grant Allocations for States, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico FORMULA STATE ALLOCATION EPA REGION Alabama $ 3,000,000 4 Alaska $ 3,000,000 10 Arizona $ 3,000,000 9 Arkansas $ 3,000,000 6 California $ 3,000,000 9 Colorado $ 3,000,000 8 Connecticut $ 3,000,000 1 Delaware $ 3,000,000 3 District of Columbia $ 3,000,000 3 Florida $ 3,000,000 4 Georgia $ 3,000,000 4 Hawaii $ 3,000,000 9 Idaho $ 3,000,000 10 Illinois $ 3,000,000 5 Indiana $ 3,000,000 5 Iowa $ 3,000,000 7 Kansas $ 3,000,000 7 Kentucky $ 3,000,000 4 Louisiana $ 3,000,000 6 Maine $ 3,000,000 1 Maryland $ 3,000,000 3 Massachusetts $ 3,000,000 1 Michigan $ 3,000,000 5 Minnesota $ 3,000,000 5 Mississippi $ 3,000,000 4 Missouri $ 3,000,000 7 Montana $ 3,000,000 8 Nebraska $ 3,000,000 7 Nevada $ 3,000,000 9 New Hampshire $ 3,000,000 1 New Jersey $ 3,000,000 2 New Mexico $ 3,000,000 6 New York $ 3,000,000 2 North Carolina $ 3,000,000 4 North Dakota $ 3,000,000 8 Ohio $ 3,000,000 5 Oklahoma $ 3,000,000 6 33 ------- FORMULA STATE ALLOCATION EPA REGION Oregon $ 3,000,000 10 Pennsylvania $ 3,000,000 3 Puerto Rico $ 3,000,000 2 Rhode Island $ 3,000,000 1 South Carolina $ 3,000,000 4 South Dakota $ 3,000,000 8 Tennessee $ 3,000,000 4 Texas $ 3,000,000 6 Utah $ 3,000,000 8 Vermont $ 3,000,000 1 Virginia $ 3,000,000 3 Washington $ 3,000,000 10 West Virginia $ 3,000,000 3 Wisconsin $ 3,000,000 5 Wyoming $ 3,000,000 8 TOTAL $ 156,000,000 34 ------- Table 2: Formula Grant Allocations for Metropolitan Areas MSA PRESUMPTIVE RANKIN METRO STATE(S) IN MAIN FORMULA 2020 EPA STATE(BY AREA METRO AREA METRO AREA STATE ALLOCATION POPULATION REGION POP) COUNT New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area NY-NJ-PA NY $ 1,000,000 20,140,470 2 1 1 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metro Area CA CA $ 1,000,000 13,200,998 9 1 2 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI Metro Area IL-IN-WI IL $ 1,000,000 9,618,502 5 1 3 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area TX TX $ 1,000,000 7,637,387 6 1 4 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX Metro Area TX TX $ 1,000,000 7,122,240 6 2 5 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area DC-VA-MD- WV DC (Receiving state $3M) 6,385,162 3 1 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area PA-NJ-DE- MD PA $ 1,000,000 6,245,051 3 1 6 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metro Area FL FL $ 1,000,000 6,138,333 4 1 7 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta, GA Metro Area GA GA $ 1,000,000 6,089,815 4 1 8 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH Metro Area MA-NH MA $ 1,000,000 4,941,632 1 1 9 Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ Metro Area AZ AZ $ 1,000,000 4,845,832 9 1 10 San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley, CA Metro Area CA CA $ 1,000,000 4,749,008 9 2 11 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area CA CA $ 1,000,000 4,599,839 9 3 12 Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, Ml Metro Area Ml Ml $ 1,000,000 4,392,041 5 1 13 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metro Area WA WA $ 1,000,000 4,018,762 10 1 14 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metro Area MN-WI MN $ 1,000,000 3,690,261 5 1 15 San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA Metro Area CA CA $ 1,000,000 3,298,634 9 4 16 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metro Area FL FL $ 1,000,000 3,175,275 4 2 17 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metro Area CO CO $ 1,000,000 2,963,821 8 1 18 Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD Metro Area MD MD $ 1,000,000 2,844,510 3 1 19 St. Louis, MO-IL Metro Area MO-IL MO $ 1,000,000 2,820,253 7 1 20 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL Metro Area FL FL $ 1,000,000 2,673,376 4 3 21 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC Metro Area NC-SC NC $ 1,000,000 2,660,329 4 1 22 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX Metro Area TX TX $ 1,000,000 2,558,143 6 3 23 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA Metro Area OR-WA OR $ 1,000,000 2,512,859 10 1 24 Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, CA Metro Area CA CA $ 1,000,000 2,397,382 9 5 25 Pittsburgh, PA Metro Area PA PA $ 1,000,000 2,370,930 3 2 26 Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown, TX Metro Area TX TX $ 1,000,000 2,283,371 6 4 27 Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV Metro Area NV NV $ 1,000,000 2,265,461 9 1 28 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN Metro Area OH-KY-IN OH $ 1,000,000 2,256,884 5 1 29 Kansas City, MO-KS Metro Area MO-KS MO $ 1,000,000 2,192,035 7 2 30 Columbus, OH Metro Area OH OH $ 1,000,000 2,138,926 5 2 31 Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN Metro Area IN IN $ 1,000,000 2,111,040 5 1 32 Cleveland-Elyria, OH Metro Area OH OH $ 1,000,000 2,088,251 5 3 33 San Juan-Bayamon-Caguas, PR Metro Area PR PR $ 1,000,000 2,081,265 2 1 34 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metro Area CA CA $ 1,000,000 2,000,468 9 6 35 Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN Metro Area TN TN $ 1,000,000 1,989,519 4 1 36 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metro Area VA-NC VA $ 1,000,000 1,799,674 3 1 37 Providence-Warwick, RI-MA Metro Area RI-MA Rl $ 1,000,000 1,676,579 1 1 38 Jacksonville, FL Metro Area FL FL $ 1,000,000 1,605,848 4 4 39 Milwaukee-Waukesha, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl $ 1,000,000 1,574,731 5 1 40 Oklahoma City, OK Metro Area OK OK $ 1,000,000 1,425,695 6 1 41 Raleigh-Cary, NC Metro Area NC NC $ 1,000,000 1,413,982 4 2 42 Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metro Area TN-MS-AR TN $ 1,000,000 1,337,779 4 2 43 Richmond, VA Metro Area VA VA $ 1,000,000 1,314,434 3 2 44 Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN Metro Area KY-IN KY $ 1,000,000 1,285,439 4 1 45 New Orleans-Metairie, LA Metro Area LA LA $ 1,000,000 1,271,845 6 1 46 Salt Lake City, UT Metro Area UT UT $ 1,000,000 1,257,936 8 1 47 Hartford-East Hartford-Middletown, CT Metro Area CT CT $ 1,000,000 1,213,531 1 1 48 Buffalo-Cheektowaga, NY Metro Area NY NY $ 1,000,000 1,166,902 2 2 49 Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metro Area AL AL $ 1,000,000 1,115,289 4 1 50 Rochester, NY Metro Area NY NY $ 1,000,000 1,090,135 2 3 51 Grand Rapids-Kentwood, Ml Metro Area Ml Ml $ 1,000,000 1,087,592 5 2 52 Tucson, AZ Metro Area AZ AZ $ 1,000,000 1,043,433 9 2 53 Urban Honolulu, HI Metro Area HI HI $ 1,000,000 1,016,508 9 1 54 Tulsa, OK Metro Area OK OK $ 1,000,000 1,015,331 6 2 55 Fresno, CA Metro Area CA CA $ 1,000,000 1,008,654 9 7 56 Worcester, MA-CT Metro Area MA-CT MA $ 1,000,000 978,529 1 2 57 35 ------- MSA PRESUMPTIVE RANKIN METRO STATE(S) IN MAIN FORMULA 2020 EPA STATE(BY AREA METRO AREA METRO AREA STATE ALLOCATION POPULATION REGION POP) COUNT Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Metro Area NE-IA NE $ 1,000,000 967,604 7 1 58 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metro Area CT CT $ 1,000,000 957,419 1 2 59 Greenville-Anderson, SC Metro Area SC SC $ 1,000,000 928,195 4 1 60 Albuquerque, NM Metro Area NM NM $ 1,000,000 916,528 6 1 61 Bakersfield, CA Metro Area CA CA $ 1,000,000 909,235 9 8 62 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Metro Area NY NY $ 1,000,000 899,262 2 4 63 Knoxville, TN Metro Area TN TN $ 1,000,000 879,773 4 3 64 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Metro Area TX TX $ 1,000,000 870,781 6 5 65 Baton Rouge, LA Metro Area LA LA $ 1,000,000 870,569 6 2 66 El Paso, TX Metro Area TX TX $ 1,000,000 868,859 6 6 67 New Haven-Milford, CT Metro Area CT CT 864,835 1 3 68 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Metro Area PA-NJ PA 861,889 3 3 69 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metro Area CA CA 843,843 9 9 70 North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL Metro Area FL FL 833,716 4 5 71 Columbia, SC Metro Area SC SC 829,470 4 2 72 Dayton-Kettering, OH Metro Area OH OH 814,049 5 4 73 Charleston-North Charleston, SC Metro Area SC SC 799,636 4 3 74 Stockton, CA Metro Area CA CA 779,233 9 10 75 Greensboro-High Point, NC Metro Area NC NC 776,566 4 3 76 Boise City, ID Metro Area ID ID 764,718 10 1 77 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metro Area FL FL 760,822 4 6 78 Colorado Springs, CO Metro Area CO CO 755,105 8 2 79 Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR Metro Area AR AR 748,031 6 1 80 Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL Metro Area FL FL 725,046 4 7 81 Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA Metro Area IA IA 709,466 7 1 82 Akron, OH Metro Area OH OH 702,219 5 5 83 Springfield, MA Metro Area MA MA 699,162 1 3 84 Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Metro Area NY NY 697,221 2 5 85 Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metro Area UT UT 694,863 8 2 86 Madison, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl 680,796 5 2 87 Winston-Salem, NC Metro Area NC NC 675,966 4 4 88 Provo-Orem, UT Metro Area UT UT 671,185 8 3 89 Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL Metro Area FL FL 668,921 4 8 90 Syracuse, NY Metro Area NY NY 662,057 2 6 91 Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Metro Area NC NC 649,903 4 5 92 Wichita, KS Metro Area KS KS 647,610 7 1 93 Toledo, OH Metro Area OH OH 646,604 5 6 94 Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metro Area GA-SC GA 611,000 4 2 95 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL Metro Area FL FL 606,612 4 9 96 Jackson, MS Metro Area MS MS 591,978 4 1 97 Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA Metro Area PA PA 591,712 3 4 98 Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA Metro Area WA WA 585,784 10 2 99 Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA Metro Area PA PA 567,559 3 5 100 Chattanooga, TN-GA Metro Area TN-GA TN 562,647 4 4 101 Lancaster, PA Metro Area PA PA 552,984 3 6 102 Modesto, CA Metro Area CA CA 552,878 9 11 103 Portland-South Portland, ME Metro Area ME ME 551,740 1 1 104 Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR Metro Area AR AR 546,725 6 2 105 Lansing-East Lansing, Ml Metro Area Ml Ml 541,297 5 3 106 Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA Metro Area OH-PA OH 541,243 5 7 107 Fayetteville, NC Metro Area NC NC 520,378 4 6 108 Lexington-Fayette, KY Metro Area KY KY 516,811 4 2 109 Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL Metro Area FL FL 509,905 4 10 110 Huntsville, AL Metro Area AL AL 491,723 4 2 111 Reno, NV Metro Area NV NV 490,596 9 2 112 Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA Metro Area CA CA 488,863 9 12 113 Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC-NC Metro Area SC-NC SC 487,722 4 4 114 Port St. Lucie, FL Metro Area FL FL 487,657 4 11 115 Lafayette, LA Metro Area LA LA 478,384 6 3 116 Springfield, MO Metro Area MO MO 475,432 7 3 117 Killeen-Temple, TX Metro Area TX TX 475,367 6 7 118 Visalia, CA Metro Area CA CA 473,117 9 13 119 Asheville, NC Metro Area NC NC 469,015 4 7 120 York-Hanover, PA Metro Area PA PA 456,438 3 7 121 36 ------- MSA PRESUMPTIVE RANKIN METRO STATE(S) IN MAIN FORMULA 2020 EPA STATE(BY AREA METRO AREA METRO AREA STATE ALLOCATION POPULATION REGION POP) COUNT Vallejo, CA Metro Area CA CA 453,491 9 14 122 Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA Metro Area CA CA 448,229 9 15 Salinas, CA Metro Area CA CA 439,035 9 16 Salem, OR Metro Area OR OR 433,353 10 2 Mobile, AL Metro Area AL AL 430,197 4 3 Reading, PA Metro Area PA PA 428,849 3 8 Manchester-Nashua, NH Metro Area NH NH 422,937 1 1 Corpus Christi, TX Metro Area TX TX 421,933 6 8 Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metro Area TX TX 421,017 6 9 Fort Wayne, IN Metro Area IN IN 419,601 5 2 Salisbury, MD-DE Metro Area MD-DE MD 418,046 3 2 132 Gulfport-Biloxi, MS Metro Area MS MS 416,259 4 2 133 Flint, Ml Metro Area Ml Ml 406,211 5 4 134 Savannah, GA Metro Area GA GA 404,798 4 3 135 Peoria, IL Metro Area IL IL 402,391 5 2 136 Canton-Massillon, OH Metro Area OH OH 401,574 5 8 137 Anchorage, AK Metro Area AK AK 398,328 10 1 138 Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX Metro Area TX TX 397,565 6 10 139 Shreveport-Bossier City, LA Metro Area LA LA 393,406 6 4 140 Trenton-Princeton, NJ Metro Area NJ NJ 387,340 2 1 141 Montgomery, AL Metro Area AL AL 386,047 4 4 142 Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metro Area IA-IL IA 384,324 7 2 143 Tallahassee, FL Metro Area FL FL 384,298 4 12 144 Eugene-Springfield, OR Metro Area OR OR 382,971 10 3 145 Ocala, FL Metro Area FL FL 375,908 4 13 146 Naples-Marco Island, FL Metro Area FL FL 375,752 4 14 147 Ann Arbor, Ml Metro Area Ml Ml 372,258 5 5 148 Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC Metro Area NC NC 365,276 4 8 149 Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH Metro Area WV-KY-OH WV 359,862 3 1 150 Fort Collins, CO Metro Area CO CO 359,066 8 3 151 Lincoln, NE Metro Area NE NE 340,217 7 2 152 Gainesville, FL Metro Area FL FL 339,247 4 15 153 Rockford, IL Metro Area IL IL 338,798 5 3 154 Boulder, CO Metro Area CO CO 330,758 8 4 155 Greeley, CO Metro Area CO CO 328,981 8 5 156 Columbus, GA-AL Metro Area GA-AL GA 328,883 4 4 157 Green Bay, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl 328,268 5 3 158 Spartanburg, SC Metro Area SC SC 327,997 4 5 159 South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI Metro Area IN-MI IN 324,501 5 3 160 Lubbock, TX Metro Area TX TX 321,368 6 11 161 Clarksville, TN-KY Metro Area TN-KY TN 320,535 4 5 162 Roanoke, VA Metro Area VA VA 315,251 3 3 163 Evansville, IN-KY Metro Area IN-KY IN 314,049 5 4 164 Aguadilla-lsabela, PR Metro Area PR PR 310,160 2 2 165 Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA Metro Area TN-VA TN 307,614 4 6 166 Kennewick-Richland, WA Metro Area WA WA 303,622 10 3 167 Olympia-Lacey-Tumwater, WA Metro Area WA WA 294,793 10 4 168 Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV Metro Area MD-WV MD 293,844 3 3 169 Utica-Rome, NY Metro Area NY NY 292,264 2 7 170 Duluth, MN-WI Metro Area MN-WI MN 291,638 5 2 171 Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL Metro Area FL FL 286,973 4 16 172 Longview, TX Metro Area TX TX 286,184 6 12 173 Wilmington, NC Metro Area NC NC 285,905 4 9 174 San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA Metro Area CA CA 282,424 9 17 175 Merced, CA Metro Area CA CA 281,202 9 18 176 Waco, TX Metro Area TX TX 277,547 6 13 177 Sioux Falls, SD Metro Area SD SD 276,730 8 1 178 Cedar Rapids, IA Metro Area IA IA 276,520 7 3 179 Bremerton-Silverdale-Port Orchard, WA Metro Area WA WA 275,611 10 5 180 Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ Metro Area NJ NJ 274,534 2 2 181 Erie, PA Metro Area PA PA 270,876 3 9 182 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metro Area CA CA 270,861 9 19 183 Amarillo, TX Metro Area TX TX 268,691 6 14 184 Tuscaloosa, AL Metro Area AL AL 268,674 4 5 185 37 ------- MSA PRESUMPTIVE RANKIN METRO STATE(S) IN MAIN FORMULA 2020 EPA STATE(BY AREA METRO AREA METRO AREA STATE ALLOCATION POPULATION REGION POP) COUNT Norwich-New London, CT Metro Area CT CT 268,555 1 4 186 College Station-Bryan, TX Metro Area TX TX 268,248 6 15 187 Laredo, TX Metro Area TX TX 267,114 6 16 188 Kalamazoo-Portage, Ml Metro Area Ml Ml 261,670 5 6 189 Lynchburg, VA Metro Area VA VA 261,593 3 4 190 Charleston, WV Metro Area WV WV 258,859 3 2 191 Yakima, WA Metro Area WA WA 256,728 10 6 192 Fargo, ND-MN Metro Area ND-MN ND 249,843 8 1 193 Binghamton, NY Metro Area NY NY 247,138 2 8 194 Fort Smith, AR-OK Metro Area AR-OK AR 244,310 6 3 195 Appleton, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl 243,147 5 4 196 Prescott Valley-Prescott, AZ Metro Area AZ AZ 236,209 9 3 197 Macon-Bibb County, GA Metro Area GA GA 233,802 4 5 198 Tyler, TX Metro Area TX TX 233,479 6 17 199 Topeka, KS Metro Area KS KS 233,152 7 2 200 Daphne-Fairhope-Foley, AL Metro Area AL AL 231,767 4 6 201 Barnstable Town, MA Metro Area MA MA 228,996 1 4 202 Bellingham, WA Metro Area WA WA 226,847 10 7 203 Rochester, MN Metro Area MN MN 226,329 5 3 204 Burlington-South Burlington, VT Metro Area VT VT 225,562 1 1 205 Ponce, PR Metro Area PR PR 224,142 2 3 206 Lafayette-West Lafayette, IN Metro Area IN IN 223,716 5 5 207 Medford, OR Metro Area OR OR 223,259 10 4 208 Champaign-Urbana, IL Metro Area IL IL 222,538 5 4 209 Lake Charles, LA Metro Area LA LA 222,402 6 5 210 Charlottesville, VA Metro Area VA VA 221,524 3 5 211 Las Cruces, NM Metro Area NM NM 219,561 6 2 212 Hilton Head Island-Bluffton, SC Metro Area SC SC 215,908 4 6 213 Athens-Clarke County, GA Metro Area GA GA 215,415 4 6 214 Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Metro Area AZ AZ 213,267 9 4 215 Chico, CA Metro Area CA CA 211,632 9 20 216 Columbia, MO Metro Area MO MO 210,864 7 4 217 Springfield, IL Metro Area IL IL 208,640 5 5 218 Johnson City, TN Metro Area TN TN 207,285 4 7 219 Houma-Thibodaux, LA Metro Area LA LA 207,137 6 6 220 Monroe, LA Metro Area LA LA 207,104 6 7 221 Elkhart-Goshen, IN Metro Area IN IN 207,047 5 6 222 Jacksonville, NC Metro Area NC NC 204,576 4 10 223 Yuma, AZ Metro Area AZ AZ 203,881 9 5 224 Gainesville, GA Metro Area GA GA 203,136 4 7 225 Florence, SC Metro Area SC SC 199,964 4 7 226 St. Cloud, MN Metro Area MN MN 199,671 5 4 227 Bend, OR Metro Area OR OR 198,253 10 5 228 Racine, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl 197,727 5 5 229 Warner Robins, GA Metro Area GA GA 191,614 4 8 230 Saginaw, Ml Metro Area Ml Ml 190,124 5 7 231 Punta Gorda, FL Metro Area FL FL 186,847 4 17 232 Terre Haute, IN Metro Area IN IN 185,031 5 7 233 Billings, MT Metro Area MT MT 184,167 8 1 234 Arecibo, PR Metro Area PR PR 182,705 2 4 235 Redding, CA Metro Area CA CA 182,155 9 21 236 Dover, DE Metro Area DE DE 181,851 3 1 237 Kingston, NY Metro Area NY NY 181,851 2 9 238 Joplin, MO Metro Area MO MO 181,409 7 5 239 Yuba City, CA Metro Area CA CA 181,208 9 22 240 Jackson, TN Metro Area TN TN 180,504 4 8 241 St. George, UT Metro Area UT UT 180,279 8 4 242 El Centro, CA Metro Area CA CA 179,702 9 23 243 Bowling Green, KY Metro Area KY KY 179,639 4 3 244 Abilene, TX Metro Area TX TX 176,579 6 18 245 Muskegon, Ml Metro Area Ml Ml 175,824 5 8 246 Iowa City, IA Metro Area IA IA 175,419 7 4 247 Midland, TX Metro Area TX TX 175,220 6 19 248 Panama City, FL Metro Area FL FL 175,216 4 18 249 38 ------- MSA PRESUMPTIVE RANKIN METRO STATE(S) IN MAIN FORMULA 2020 EPA STATE(BY AREA METRO AREA METRO AREA STATE ALLOCATION POPULATION REGION POP) COUNT Auburn-Opelika, AL Metro Area AL AL 174,241 4 7 250 Hattiesburg, MS Metro Area MS MS 172,231 4 3 251 Eau Claire, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl 172,007 5 6 252 Oshkosh-Neenah, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl 171,730 5 7 253 Burlington, NC Metro Area NC NC 171,415 4 11 254 Coeur d'Alene, ID Metro Area ID ID 171,362 10 2 255 Bloomington, IL Metro Area IL IL 170,954 5 6 256 Greenville, NC Metro Area NC NC 170,243 4 12 257 Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA Metro Area IA IA 168,461 7 5 258 East Stroudsburg, PA Metro Area PA PA 168,327 3 10 259 Pueblo, CO Metro Area CO CO 168,162 8 6 260 Wausau-Weston, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl 166,428 5 8 261 Blacksburg-Christiansburg, VA Metro Area VA VA 166,378 3 6 262 Odessa, TX Metro Area TX TX 165,171 6 20 263 Kahului-Wailuku-Lahaina, HI Metro Area HI HI 164,754 9 2 264 Janesville-Beloit, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl 163,687 5 9 265 Bloomington, IN Metro Area IN IN 161,039 5 8 266 Jackson, Ml Metro Area Ml Ml 160,366 5 10 267 Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL Metro Area FL FL 159,788 4 19 268 State College, PA Metro Area PA PA 158,172 3 11 269 Idaho Falls, ID Metro Area ID ID 157,429 10 3 270 Decatur, AL Metro Area AL AL 156,494 4 8 271 Madera, CA Metro Area CA CA 156,255 9 24 272 Chambersburg-Waynesboro, PA Metro Area PA PA 155,932 3 12 273 Grand Junction, CO Metro Area CO CO 155,703 8 7 274 Elizabethtown-Fort Knox, KY Metro Area KY KY 155,572 4 4 275 Santa Fe, NM Metro Area NM NM 154,823 6 3 276 Monroe, Ml Metro Area Ml Ml 154,809 5 11 277 Niles, Ml Metro Area Ml Ml 154,316 5 12 278 Vineland-Bridgeton, NJ Metro Area NJ NJ 154,152 2 3 279 Homosassa Springs, FL Metro Area FL FL 153,843 4 20 280 Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metro Area CA CA 152,486 9 25 281 Bangor, ME Metro Area ME ME 152,199 1 2 282 Alexandria, LA Metro Area LA LA 152,192 6 8 283 Dothan, AL Metro Area AL AL 151,007 4 9 284 Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL Metro Area AL AL 150,791 4 10 285 Jefferson City, MO Metro Area MO MO 150,309 7 6 286 Sioux City, IA-NE-SD Metro Area IA-NE-SD IA 149,940 7 6 287 Albany, GA Metro Area GA GA 148,922 4 9 288 Wichita Falls, TX Metro Area TX TX 148,128 6 21 289 Valdosta, GA Metro Area GA GA 148,126 4 10 290 Texarkana, TX-AR Metro Area TX-AR TX 147,519 6 22 291 Logan, UT-ID Metro Area UT-ID UT 147,348 8 5 292 Flagstaff, AZ Metro Area AZ AZ 145,101 9 6 293 Rocky Mount, NC Metro Area NC NC 143,870 4 13 294 Lebanon, PA Metro Area PA PA 143,257 3 13 295 Dalton, GA Metro Area GA GA 142,837 4 11 296 Morristown, TN Metro Area TN TN 142,709 4 9 297 Winchester, VA-WV Metro Area VA-WV VA 142,632 3 7 298 Morgantown, WV Metro Area WV WV 140,038 3 3 299 La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN Metro Area WI-MN Wl 139,627 5 10 300 Wheeling, WV-OH Metro Area WV-OH WV 139,513 3 4 301 Rapid City, SD Metro Area SD SD 139,074 8 2 302 Napa, CA Metro Area CA CA 138,019 9 26 303 Sumter, SC Metro Area SC SC 136,700 4 8 304 Springfield, OH Metro Area OH OH 136,001 5 9 305 Harrisonburg, VA Metro Area VA VA 135,571 3 8 306 Sherman-Denison, TX Metro Area TX TX 135,543 6 23 307 Battle Creek, Ml Metro Area Ml Ml 134,310 5 13 308 Jonesboro, AR Metro Area AR AR 134,196 6 4 309 Manhattan, KS Metro Area KS KS 134,046 7 3 310 Bismarck, ND Metro Area ND ND 133,626 8 2 311 Johnstown, PA Metro Area PA PA 133,472 3 14 312 Carbondale-Marion, IL Metro Area IL IL 133,435 5 7 313 39 ------- MSA PRESUMPTIVE RANKIN METRO STATE(S) IN MAIN FORMULA 2020 EPA STATE(BY AREA METRO AREA METRO AREA STATE ALLOCATION POPULATION REGION POP) COUNT Hammond, LA Metro Area LA LA 133,157 6 9 314 The Villages, FL Metro Area FL FL 129,752 4 21 315 Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA Metro Area WA WA 129,523 10 8 316 Pittsfield, MA Metro Area MA MA 129,026 1 5 317 Albany-Lebanon, OR Metro Area OR OR 128,610 10 6 318 Glens Falls, NY Metro Area NY NY 127,039 2 10 319 Lawton, OK Metro Area OK OK 126,652 6 3 320 Cleveland, TN Metro Area TN TN 126,164 4 10 321 Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ Metro Area AZ AZ 125,447 9 7 322 Staunton, VA Metro Area VA VA 125,433 3 9 323 Ames, IA Metro Area IA IA 125,252 7 7 324 San German, PR Metro Area PR PR 125,100 2 5 325 Mansfield, OH Metro Area OH OH 124,936 5 10 326 San Angelo, TX Metro Area TX TX 122,888 6 24 327 Altoona, PA Metro Area PA PA 122,822 3 15 328 New Bern, NC Metro Area NC NC 122,168 4 14 329 Wenatchee, WA Metro Area WA WA 122,012 10 9 330 Farmington, NM Metro Area NM NM 121,661 6 4 331 Owensboro, KY Metro Area KY KY 121,559 4 5 332 St. Joseph, MO-KS Metro Area MO-KS MO 121,467 7 7 333 Lawrence, KS Metro Area KS KS 118,785 7 4 334 Sheboygan, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl 118,034 5 11 335 Missoula, MT Metro Area MT MT 117,922 8 2 336 Goldsboro, NC Metro Area NC NC 117,333 4 15 337 Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH Metro Area WV-OH WV 116,903 3 5 338 Watertown-Fort Drum, NY Metro Area NY NY 116,721 2 11 339 Anniston-Oxford, AL Metro Area AL AL 116,441 4 11 340 Beckley, WV Metro Area WV WV 115,079 3 6 341 Twin Falls, ID Metro Area ID ID 114,283 10 4 342 Williamsport, PA Metro Area PA PA 114,188 3 16 343 California-Lexington Park, MD Metro Area MD MD 113,777 3 4 344 Brunswick, GA Metro Area GA GA 113,495 4 12 345 Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metro Area IN IN 112,417 5 9 346 Muncie, IN Metro Area IN IN 111,903 5 10 347 Lewiston-Auburn, ME Metro Area ME ME 111,139 1 3 348 Longview, WA Metro Area WA WA 110,730 10 10 349 Kankakee, IL Metro Area IL IL 107,502 5 8 350 Ithaca, NY Metro Area NY NY 105,740 2 12 351 Grand Forks, ND-MN Metro Area ND-MN ND 104,362 8 3 352 Fond du Lac, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl 104,154 5 12 353 Decatur, IL Metro Area IL IL 103,998 5 9 354 Bay City, Ml Metro Area Ml Ml 103,856 5 14 355 Gettysburg, PA Metro Area PA PA 103,852 3 17 356 Mankato, MN Metro Area MN MN 103,566 5 5 357 Gadsden, AL Metro Area AL AL 103,436 4 12 358 Lima, OH Metro Area OH OH 102,206 5 11 359 Sebring-Avon Park, FL Metro Area FL FL 101,235 4 22 360 Cheyenne, WY Metro Area WY WY 100,512 8 1 361 Hot Springs, AR Metro Area AR AR 100,180 6 5 362 Dubuque, IA Metro Area IA IA 99,266 7 8 363 Rome, GA Metro Area GA GA 98,584 4 13 364 Victoria, TX Metro Area TX TX 98,331 6 25 365 Mayaguez, PR Metro Area PR PR 97,605 2 6 366 Cape Girardeau, MO-IL Metro Area MO-IL MO 97,517 7 8 367 Fairbanks, AK Metro Area AK AK 95,655 10 2 368 Ocean City, NJ Metro Area NJ NJ 95,263 2 4 369 Corvallis, OR Metro Area OR OR 95,184 10 7 370 Cumberland, MD-WV Metro Area MD-WV MD 95,044 3 5 371 Pocatello, ID Metro Area ID ID 94,896 10 5 372 Parkersburg-Vienna, WV Metro Area WV WV 89,490 3 7 373 Grants Pass, OR Metro Area OR OR 88,090 10 8 374 Pine Bluff, AR Metro Area AR AR 87,751 6 6 375 Yauco, PR Metro Area PR PR 86,142 2 7 376 Great Falls, MT Metro Area MT MT 84,414 8 3 377 40 ------- METRO AREA STATE(S) IN METRO AREA MAIN STATE PRESUMPTIVE FORMULA ALLOCATION 2020 POPULATION EPA REGION MSA RANKIN STATE(BY POP) METRO AREA COUNT Elmira, NY Metro Area NY NY 84,148 2 13 378 Kokomo, IN Metro Area IN IN 83,658 5 11 379 Midland, Ml Metro Area Ml Ml 83,494 5 15 380 Bloomsburg-Berwick, PA Metro Area PA PA 82,863 3 18 381 Columbus, IN Metro Area IN IN 82,208 5 12 382 Hinesville, GA Metro Area GA GA 81,424 4 14 383 Casper, WY Metro Area WY WY 79,955 8 2 384 Grand Island, NE Metro Area NE NE 77,038 7 3 385 Danville, IL Metro Area IL IL 74,188 5 10 386 Guayama, PR Metro Area PR PR 68,442 2 8 387 Lewiston, ID-WA Metro Area ID-WA ID 64,375 10 6 388 Enid, OK Metro Area OK OK 62,846 6 4 389 Walla Walla, WA Metro Area WA WA 62,584 10 11 390 Carson City, NV Metro Area NV NV 58,639 9 3 391 Source: https://www2.census.gov/programs-survevs/popest/tables/2020-2021/metro/totals/cbsa-met-est2Q21-pop.xlsx 41 ------- Table 3: Metropolitan Statistical Areas in Each State, Sorted by Population MSA PRESUMPTIVE METRO RANKIN STATE(S) IN MAIN FORMULA 2020 EPA AREA STATE (BY METRO AREA METRO AREA STATE ALLOCATION POPULATION REGION COUNT POP) Anchorage, AK Metro Area AK AK 398,328 10 138 1 Fairbanks, AK Metro Area AK AK 95,655 10 368 2 Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metro Area AL AL $ 1,000,000 1,115,289 4 50 1 Huntsville, AL Metro Area AL AL 491,723 4 111 2 Mobile, AL Metro Area AL AL 430,197 4 126 3 Montgomery, AL Metro Area AL AL 386,047 4 142 4 Tuscaloosa, AL Metro Area AL AL 268,674 4 185 5 Daphne-Fairhope-Foley, AL Metro Area AL AL 231,767 4 201 6 Auburn-Opelika, AL Metro Area AL AL 174,241 4 250 7 Decatur, AL Metro Area AL AL 156,494 4 271 8 Dothan, AL Metro Area AL AL 151,007 4 284 9 Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL Metro Area AL AL 150,791 4 285 10 Anniston-Oxford, AL Metro Area AL AL 116,441 4 340 11 Gadsden, AL Metro Area AL AL 103,436 4 358 12 Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR Metro Area AR AR 748,031 6 80 1 Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR Metro Area AR AR 546,725 6 105 2 Fort Smith, AR-OK Metro Area AR-OK AR 244,310 6 195 3 Jonesboro, AR Metro Area AR AR 134,196 6 309 4 Hot Springs, AR Metro Area AR AR 100,180 6 362 5 Pine Bluff, AR Metro Area AR AR 87,751 6 375 6 Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ Metro Area AZ AZ $ 1,000,000 4,845,832 9 10 1 Tucson, AZ Metro Area AZ AZ $ 1,000,000 1,043,433 9 53 2 Prescott Valley-Prescott, AZ Metro Area AZ AZ 236,209 9 197 3 Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Metro Area AZ AZ 213,267 9 215 4 Yuma, AZ Metro Area AZ AZ 203,881 9 224 5 Flagstaff, AZ Metro Area AZ AZ 145,101 9 293 6 Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ Metro Area AZ AZ 125,447 9 322 7 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metro Area CA CA $ 1,000,000 13,200,998 9 2 1 San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley, CA Metro Area CA CA $ 1,000,000 4,749,008 9 11 2 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area CA CA $ 1,000,000 4,599,839 9 12 3 San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, CA Metro Area CA CA $ 1,000,000 3,298,634 9 16 4 Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, CA Metro Area CA CA $ 1,000,000 2,397,382 9 25 5 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metro Area CA CA $ 1,000,000 2,000,468 9 35 6 Fresno, CA Metro Area CA CA $ 1,000,000 1,008,654 9 56 7 Bakersfield, CA Metro Area CA CA $ 1,000,000 909,235 9 62 8 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metro Area CA CA 843,843 9 70 9 Stockton, CA Metro Area CA CA 779,233 9 75 10 Modesto, CA Metro Area CA CA 552,878 9 103 11 Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA Metro Area CA CA 488,863 9 113 12 Visalia, CA Metro Area CA CA 473,117 9 119 13 Vallejo, CA Metro Area CA CA 453,491 9 122 14 Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA Metro Area CA CA 448,229 9 123 15 Salinas, CA Metro Area CA CA 439,035 9 124 16 San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA Metro Area CA CA 282,424 9 175 17 Merced, CA Metro Area CA CA 281,202 9 176 18 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metro Area CA CA 270,861 9 183 19 Chico, CA Metro Area CA CA 211,632 9 216 20 Redding, CA Metro Area CA CA 182,155 9 236 21 Yuba City, CA Metro Area CA CA 181,208 9 240 22 El Centro, CA Metro Area CA CA 179,702 9 243 23 Madera, CA Metro Area CA CA 156,255 9 272 24 Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metro Area CA CA 152,486 9 281 25 Napa, CA Metro Area CA CA 138,019 9 303 26 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metro Area CO CO $ 1,000,000 2,963,821 8 18 1 Colorado Springs, CO Metro Area CO CO 755,105 8 79 2 Fort Collins, CO Metro Area CO CO 359,066 8 151 3 Boulder, CO Metro Area CO CO 330,758 8 155 4 Greeley, CO Metro Area CO CO 328,981 8 156 5 Pueblo, CO Metro Area CO CO 168,162 8 260 6 Grand Junction, CO Metro Area CO CO 155,703 8 274 7 Hartford-East Hartford-Middletown, CT Metro Area CT CT $ 1,000,000 1,213,531 1 48 1 42 ------- MSA PRESUMPTIVE METRO RANKIN STATE(S) IN MAIN FORMULA 2020 EPA AREA STATE (BY METRO AREA METRO AREA STATE ALLOCATION POPULATION REGION COUNT POP) Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metro Area CT CT $ 1,000,000 957,419 1 59 2 New Haven-Milford, CT Metro Area CT CT 864,835 1 68 3 Norwich-New London, CT Metro Area CT CT 268,555 1 186 4 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area DC-VA-MD-WV DC (Receiving state $3M, 6,385,162 3 NA 1 Dover, DE Metro Area DE DE 181,851 3 237 1 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metro Area FL FL $ 1,000,000 6,138,333 4 7 1 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metro Area FL FL $ 1,000,000 3,175,275 4 17 2 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL Metro Area FL FL $ 1,000,000 2,673,376 4 21 3 Jacksonville, FL Metro Area FL FL $ 1,000,000 1,605,848 4 39 4 North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL Metro Area FL FL 833,716 4 71 5 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metro Area FL FL 760,822 4 78 6 Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL Metro Area FL FL 725,046 4 81 7 Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL Metro Area FL FL 668,921 4 90 8 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL Metro Area FL FL 606,612 4 96 9 Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL Metro Area FL FL 509,905 4 110 10 Port St. Lucie, FL Metro Area FL FL 487,657 4 115 11 Tallahassee, FL Metro Area FL FL 384,298 4 144 12 Ocala, FL Metro Area FL FL 375,908 4 146 13 Naples-Marco Island, FL Metro Area FL FL 375,752 4 147 14 Gainesville, FL Metro Area FL FL 339,247 4 153 15 Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL Metro Area FL FL 286,973 4 172 16 Punta Gorda, FL Metro Area FL FL 186,847 4 232 17 Panama City, FL Metro Area FL FL 175,216 4 249 18 Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL Metro Area FL FL 159,788 4 268 19 Homosassa Springs, FL Metro Area FL FL 153,843 4 280 20 The Villages, FL Metro Area FL FL 129,752 4 315 21 Sebring-Avon Park, FL Metro Area FL FL 101,235 4 360 22 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta, GA Metro Area GA GA $ 1,000,000 6,089,815 4 8 1 Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Metro Area GA-SC GA 611,000 4 95 2 Savannah, GA Metro Area GA GA 404,798 4 135 3 Columbus, GA-AL Metro Area GA-AL GA 328,883 4 157 4 Macon-Bibb County, GA Metro Area GA GA 233,802 4 198 5 Athens-Clarke County, GA Metro Area GA GA 215,415 4 214 6 Gainesville, GA Metro Area GA GA 203,136 4 225 7 Warner Robins, GA Metro Area GA GA 191,614 4 230 8 Albany, GA Metro Area GA GA 148,922 4 288 9 Valdosta, GA Metro Area GA GA 148,126 4 290 10 Dalton, GA Metro Area GA GA 142,837 4 296 11 Brunswick, GA Metro Area GA GA 113,495 4 345 12 Rome, GA Metro Area GA GA 98,584 4 364 13 Hinesville, GA Metro Area GA GA 81,424 4 383 14 Urban Honolulu, HI Metro Area HI HI $ 1,000,000 1,016,508 9 54 1 Kahului-Wailuku-Lahaina, HI Metro Area HI HI 164,754 9 264 2 Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA Metro Area IA IA 709,466 7 82 1 Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metro Area IA-IL IA 384,324 7 143 2 Cedar Rapids, IA Metro Area IA IA 276,520 7 179 3 Iowa City, IA Metro Area IA IA 175,419 7 247 4 Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA Metro Area IA IA 168,461 7 258 5 Sioux City, IA-NE-SD Metro Area IA-NE-SD IA 149,940 7 287 6 Ames, IA Metro Area IA IA 125,252 7 324 7 Dubuque, IA Metro Area IA IA 99,266 7 363 8 Boise City, ID Metro Area ID ID 764,718 10 77 1 Coeur d'Alene, ID Metro Area ID ID 171,362 10 255 2 Idaho Falls, ID Metro Area ID ID 157,429 10 270 3 Twin Falls, ID Metro Area ID ID 114,283 10 342 4 Pocatello, ID Metro Area ID ID 94,896 10 372 5 Lewiston, ID-WA Metro Area ID-WA ID 64,375 10 388 6 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI Metro Area IL-IN-WI IL $ 1,000,000 9,618,502 5 3 1 Peoria, IL Metro Area IL IL 402,391 5 136 2 Rockford, IL Metro Area IL IL 338,798 5 154 3 Champaign-Urbana, IL Metro Area IL IL 222,538 5 209 4 Springfield, IL Metro Area IL IL 208,640 5 218 5 Bloomington, 1L Metro Area IL IL 170,954 5 256 6 Carbondale-Marion, IL Metro Area IL IL 133,435 5 313 7 Kankakee, IL Metro Area IL IL 107,502 5 350 8 43 ------- MSA PRESUMPTIVE METRO RANKIN STATE(S) IN MAIN FORMULA 2020 EPA AREA STATE (BY METRO AREA METRO AREA STATE ALLOCATION POPULATION REGION COUNT POP) Decatur, IL Metro Area IL IL 103,998 5 354 9 Danville, IL Metro Area IL IL 74,188 5 386 10 Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN Metro Area IN IN $ 1,000,000 2,111,040 5 32 1 Fort Wayne, IN Metro Area IN IN 419,601 5 131 2 South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI Metro Area IN-MI IN 324,501 5 160 3 Evansville, IN-KY Metro Area IN-KY IN 314,049 5 164 4 Lafayette-West Lafayette, IN Metro Area IN IN 223,716 5 207 5 Elkhart-Goshen, IN Metro Area IN IN 207,047 5 222 6 Terre Haute, IN Metro Area IN IN 185,031 5 233 7 Bloomington, IN Metro Area IN IN 161,039 5 266 8 Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metro Area IN IN 112,417 5 346 9 Muncie, IN Metro Area IN IN 111,903 5 347 10 Kokomo, IN Metro Area IN IN 83,658 5 379 11 Columbus, IN Metro Area IN IN 82,208 5 382 12 Wichita, KS Metro Area KS KS 647,610 7 93 1 Topeka, KS Metro Area KS KS 233,152 7 200 2 Manhattan, KS Metro Area KS KS 134,046 7 310 3 Lawrence, KS Metro Area KS KS 118,785 7 334 4 Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN Metro Area KY-IN KY $ 1,000,000 1,285,439 4 45 1 Lexington-Fayette, KY Metro Area KY KY 516,811 4 109 2 Bowling Green, KY Metro Area KY KY 179,639 4 244 3 Elizabethtown-Fort Knox, KY Metro Area KY KY 155,572 4 275 4 Owensboro, KY Metro Area KY KY 121,559 4 332 5 New Orleans-Metairie, LA Metro Area LA LA $ 1,000,000 1,271,845 6 46 1 Baton Rouge, LA Metro Area LA LA $ 1,000,000 870,569 6 66 2 Lafayette, LA Metro Area LA LA 478,384 6 116 3 Shreveport-Bossier City, LA Metro Area LA LA 393,406 6 140 4 Lake Charles, LA Metro Area LA LA 222,402 6 210 5 Houma-Thibodaux, LA Metro Area LA LA 207,137 6 220 6 Monroe, LA Metro Area LA LA 207,104 6 221 7 Alexandria, LA Metro Area LA LA 152,192 6 283 8 Hammond, LA Metro Area LA LA 133,157 6 314 9 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH Metro Area MA-NH MA $ 1,000,000 4,941,632 1 9 1 Worcester, MA-CT Metro Area MA-CT MA $ 1,000,000 978,529 1 57 2 Springfield, MA Metro Area MA MA 699,162 1 84 3 Barnstable Town, MA Metro Area MA MA 228,996 1 202 4 Pittsfield, MA Metro Area MA MA 129,026 1 317 5 Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD Metro Area MD MD $ 1,000,000 2,844,510 3 19 1 Salisbury, MD-DE Metro Area MD-DE MD 418,046 3 132 2 Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV Metro Area MD-WV MD 293,844 3 169 3 California-Lexington Park, MD Metro Area MD MD 113,777 3 344 4 Cumberland, MD-WV Metro Area MD-WV MD 95,044 3 371 5 Portland-South Portland, ME Metro Area ME ME 551,740 1 104 1 Bangor, ME Metro Area ME ME 152,199 1 282 2 Lewiston-Auburn, ME Metro Area ME ME 111,139 1 348 3 Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, Ml Metro Area M Ml $ 1,000,000 4,392,041 5 13 1 Grand Rapids-Kentwood, Ml Metro Area M Ml $ 1,000,000 1,087,592 5 52 2 Lansing-East Lansing, Ml Metro Area M Ml 541,297 5 106 3 Flint, Ml Metro Area M Ml 406,211 5 134 4 Ann Arbor, Ml Metro Area M Ml 372,258 5 148 5 Kalamazoo-Portage, Ml Metro Area M Ml 261,670 5 189 6 Saginaw, Ml Metro Area M Ml 190,124 5 231 7 Muskegon, Ml Metro Area M Ml 175,824 5 246 8 Jackson, Ml Metro Area M Ml 160,366 5 267 10 Monroe, Ml Metro Area M Ml 154,809 5 277 11 Niles, Ml Metro Area M Ml 154,316 5 278 12 Battle Creek, Ml Metro Area M Ml 134,310 5 308 13 Bay City, Ml Metro Area M Ml 103,856 5 355 14 Midland, Ml Metro Area M Ml 83,494 5 380 15 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metro Area MN-WI MN $ 1,000,000 3,690,261 5 15 1 Duluth, MN-WI Metro Area MN-WI MN 291,638 5 171 2 Rochester, MN Metro Area MN MN 226,329 5 204 3 St. Cloud, MN Metro Area MN MN 199,671 5 227 4 Mankato, MN Metro Area MN MN 103,566 5 357 5 St. Louis, MO-IL Metro Area MO-IL MO $ 1,000,000 2,820,253 7 20 1 44 ------- MSA PRESUMPTIVE METRO RANKIN STATE(S) IN MAIN FORMULA 2020 EPA AREA STATE (BY METRO AREA METRO AREA STATE ALLOCATION POPULATION REGION COUNT POP) Kansas City, MO-KS Metro Area MO-KS MO $ 1,000,000 2,192,035 7 30 2 Springfield, MO Metro Area MO MO 475,432 7 117 3 Columbia, MO Metro Area MO MO 210,864 7 217 4 Joplin, MO Metro Area MO MO 181,409 7 239 5 Jefferson City, MO Metro Area MO MO 150,309 7 286 6 St. Joseph, MO-KS Metro Area MO-KS MO 121,467 7 333 7 Cape Girardeau, MO-IL Metro Area MO-IL MO 97,517 7 367 8 Jackson, MS Metro Area MS MS 591,978 4 97 1 Gulfport-Biloxi, MS Metro Area MS MS 416,259 4 133 2 Hattiesburg, MS Metro Area MS MS 172,231 4 251 3 Billings, MT Metro Area MT MT 184,167 8 234 1 Missoula, MT Metro Area MT MT 117,922 8 336 2 Great Falls, MT Metro Area MT MT 84,414 8 377 3 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC Metro Area NC-SC NC $ 1,000,000 2,660,329 4 22 1 Raleigh-Cary, NC Metro Area NC NC $ 1,000,000 1,413,982 4 42 2 Greensboro-High Point, NC Metro Area NC NC 776,566 4 76 3 Winston-Salem, NC Metro Area NC NC 675,966 4 88 4 Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Metro Area NC NC 649,903 4 92 5 Fayetteville, NC Metro Area NC NC 520,378 4 108 6 Asheville, NC Metro Area NC NC 469,015 4 120 7 Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC Metro Area NC NC 365,276 4 149 8 Wilmington, NC Metro Area NC NC 285,905 4 174 9 Jacksonville, NC Metro Area NC NC 204,576 4 223 10 Burlington, NC Metro Area NC NC 171,415 4 254 11 Greenville, NC Metro Area NC NC 170,243 4 257 12 Rocky Mount, NC Metro Area NC NC 143,870 4 294 13 New Bern, NC Metro Area NC NC 122,168 4 329 14 Goldsboro, NC Metro Area NC NC 117,333 4 337 15 Fargo, ND-MN Metro Area ND-MN ND 249,843 8 193 1 Bismarck, ND Metro Area ND ND 133,626 8 311 2 Grand Forks, ND-MN Metro Area ND-MN ND 104,362 8 352 3 Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Metro Area NE-IA NE $ 1,000,000 967,604 7 58 1 Lincoln, N E Metro Area NE NE 340,217 7 152 2 Grand Island, NE Metro Area NE NE 77,038 7 385 3 Manchester-Nashua, NH Metro Area NH NH 422,937 1 128 1 Trenton-Princeton, NJ Metro Area NJ NJ 387,340 2 141 1 Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ Metro Area NJ NJ 274,534 2 181 2 Vineland-Bridgeton, NJ Metro Area NJ NJ 154,152 2 279 3 Ocean City, NJ Metro Area NJ NJ 95,263 2 369 4 Albuquerque, NM Metro Area NM NM $ 1,000,000 916,528 6 61 1 Las Cruces, NM Metro Area NM NM 219,561 6 212 2 Santa Fe, N M Metro Area NM NM 154,823 6 276 3 Farmington, NM Metro Area NM NM 121,661 6 331 4 Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV Metro Area NV NV $ 1,000,000 2,265,461 9 28 1 Reno, NV Metro Area NV NV 490,596 9 112 2 Carson City, NV Metro Area NV NV 58,639 9 391 3 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area NY-NJ-PA NY $ 1,000,000 20,140,470 2 1 1 Buffalo-Cheektowaga, NY Metro Area NY NY $ 1,000,000 1,166,902 2 49 2 Rochester, NY Metro Area NY NY $ 1,000,000 1,090,135 2 51 3 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Metro Area NY NY $ 1,000,000 899,262 2 63 4 Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Metro Area NY NY 697,221 2 85 5 Syracuse, NY Metro Area NY NY 662,057 2 91 6 Utica-Rome, NY Metro Area NY NY 292,264 2 170 7 Binghamton, NY Metro Area NY NY 247,138 2 194 8 Kingston, NY Metro Area NY NY 181,851 2 238 9 Glens Falls, NY Metro Area NY NY 127,039 2 319 10 Watertown-Fort Drum, NY Metro Area NY NY 116,721 2 339 11 Ithaca, NY Metro Area NY NY 105,740 2 351 12 Elmira, NY Metro Area NY NY 84,148 2 378 13 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN Metro Area OH-KY-IN OH $ 1,000,000 2,256,884 5 29 1 Columbus, OH Metro Area OH OH $ 1,000,000 2,138,926 5 31 2 Cleveland-Elyria, OH Metro Area OH OH $ 1,000,000 2,088,251 5 33 3 Dayton-Kettering, OH Metro Area OH OH 814,049 5 73 4 Akron, OH Metro Area OH OH 702,219 5 83 5 Toledo, OH Metro Area OH OH 646,604 5 94 6 45 ------- MSA PRESUMPTIVE METRO RANKIN STATE(S) IN MAIN FORMULA 2020 EPA AREA STATE (BY METRO AREA METRO AREA STATE ALLOCATION POPULATION REGION COUNT POP) Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA Metro Area OH-PA OH 541,243 5 107 7 Canton-Massillon, OH Metro Area OH OH 401,574 5 137 8 Springfield, OH Metro Area OH OH 136,001 5 305 9 Mansfield, OH Metro Area OH OH 124,936 5 326 10 Lima, OH Metro Area OH OH 102,206 5 359 11 Oklahoma City, OK Metro Area OK OK $ 1,000,000 1,425,695 6 41 1 Tulsa, OK Metro Area OK OK $ 1,000,000 1,015,331 6 55 2 Lawton, OK Metro Area OK OK 126,652 6 320 3 Enid, OK Metro Area OK OK 62,846 6 389 4 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA Metro Area OR-WA OR $ 1,000,000 2,512,859 10 24 1 Salem, OR Metro Area OR OR 433,353 10 125 2 Eugene-Springfield, OR Metro Area OR OR 382,971 10 145 3 Medford, OR Metro Area OR OR 223,259 10 208 4 Bend, OR Metro Area OR OR 198,253 10 228 5 Albany-Lebanon, OR Metro Area OR OR 128,610 10 318 6 Corvallis, OR Metro Area OR OR 95,184 10 370 7 Grants Pass, OR Metro Area OR OR 88,090 10 374 8 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area PA-NJ-DE-MD PA $ 1,000,000 6,245,051 3 6 1 Pittsburgh, PA Metro Area PA PA $ 1,000,000 2,370,930 3 26 2 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Metro Area PA-NJ PA 861,889 3 69 3 Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA Metro Area PA PA 591,712 3 98 4 Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA Metro Area PA PA 567,559 3 100 5 Lancaster, PA Metro Area PA PA 552,984 3 102 6 York-Hanover, PA Metro Area PA PA 456,438 3 121 7 Reading, PA Metro Area PA PA 428,849 3 127 8 Erie, PA Metro Area PA PA 270,876 3 182 9 East Stroudsburg, PA Metro Area PA PA 168,327 3 259 10 State College, PA Metro Area PA PA 158,172 3 269 11 Chambersburg-Waynesboro, PA Metro Area PA PA 155,932 3 273 12 Lebanon, PA Metro Area PA PA 143,257 3 295 13 Johnstown, PA Metro Area PA PA 133,472 3 312 14 Altoona, PA Metro Area PA PA 122,822 3 328 15 Williamsport, PA Metro Area PA PA 114,188 3 343 16 Gettysburg, PA Metro Area PA PA 103,852 3 356 17 Bloomsburg-Berwick, PA Metro Area PA PA 82,863 3 381 18 San Juan-Bayamon-Caguas, PR Metro Area PR PR $ 1,000,000 2,081,265 2 34 1 Aguadilla-lsabela, PR Metro Area PR PR 310,160 2 165 2 Ponce, PR Metro Area PR PR 224,142 2 206 3 Arecibo, PR Metro Area PR PR 182,705 2 235 4 San German, PR Metro Area PR PR 125,100 2 325 5 Mayaguez, PR Metro Area PR PR 97,605 2 366 6 Yauco, PR Metro Area PR PR 86,142 2 376 7 Guayama, PR Metro Area PR PR 68,442 2 387 8 Providence-Warwick, RI-MA Metro Area RI-MA Rl $ 1,000,000 1,676,579 1 38 1 Greenville-Anderson, SC Metro Area SC SC $ 1,000,000 928,195 4 60 1 Columbia, SC Metro Area SC SC 829,470 4 72 2 Charleston-North Charleston, SC Metro Area SC SC 799,636 4 74 3 Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC-NC Metro Area SC-NC SC 487,722 4 114 4 Spartanburg, SC Metro Area SC SC 327,997 4 159 5 Hilton Head Island-Bluffton, SC Metro Area SC SC 215,908 4 213 6 Florence, SC Metro Area SC SC 199,964 4 226 7 Sumter, SC Metro Area SC SC 136,700 4 304 8 Sioux Falls, SD Metro Area SD SD 276,730 8 178 1 Rapid City, SD Metro Area SD SD 139,074 8 302 2 Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN Metro Area TN TN $ 1,000,000 1,989,519 4 36 1 Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metro Area TN-MS-AR TN $ 1,000,000 1,337,779 4 43 2 Knoxville, TN Metro Area TN TN $ 1,000,000 879,773 4 64 3 Chattanooga, TN-GA Metro Area TN-GA TN 562,647 4 101 4 Clarksville, TN-KY Metro Area TN-KY TN 320,535 4 162 5 Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA Metro Area TN-VA TN 307,614 4 166 6 Johnson City, TN Metro Area TN TN 207,285 4 219 7 Jackson, TN Metro Area TN TN 180,504 4 241 8 Morristown, TN Metro Area TN TN 142,709 4 297 9 Cleveland, TN Metro Area TN TN 126,164 4 321 10 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area TX TX $ 1,000,000 7,637,387 6 4 1 46 ------- MSA PRESUMPTIVE METRO RANKIN STATE(S) IN MAIN FORMULA 2020 EPA AREA STATE (BY METRO AREA METRO AREA STATE ALLOCATION POPULATION REGION COUNT POP) Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX Metro Area TX TX $ 1,000,000 7,122,240 6 5 2 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX Metro Area TX TX $ 1,000,000 2,558,143 6 23 3 Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown, TX Metro Area TX TX $ 1,000,000 2,283,371 6 27 4 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Metro Area TX TX $ 1,000,000 870,781 6 65 5 El Paso, TX Metro Area TX TX $ 1,000,000 868,859 6 67 6 Killeen-Temple, TX Metro Area TX TX 475,367 6 118 7 Corpus Christi, TX Metro Area TX TX 421,933 6 129 8 Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metro Area TX TX 421,017 6 130 9 Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX Metro Area TX TX 397,565 6 139 10 Lubbock, TX Metro Area TX TX 321,368 6 161 11 Longview, TX Metro Area TX TX 286,184 6 173 12 Waco, TX Metro Area TX TX 277,547 6 177 13 Amarillo, TX Metro Area TX TX 268,691 6 184 14 College Station-Bryan, TX Metro Area TX TX 268,248 6 187 15 Laredo, TX Metro Area TX TX 267,114 6 188 16 Tyler, TX Metro Area TX TX 233,479 6 199 17 Abilene, TX Metro Area TX TX 176,579 6 245 18 Midland, TX Metro Area TX TX 175,220 6 248 19 Odessa, TX Metro Area TX TX 165,171 6 263 20 Wichita Falls, TX Metro Area TX TX 148,128 6 289 21 Texarkana, TX-AR Metro Area TX-AR TX 147,519 6 291 22 Sherman-Denison, TX Metro Area TX TX 135,543 6 307 23 San Angelo, TX Metro Area TX TX 122,888 6 327 24 Victoria, TX Metro Area TX TX 98,331 6 365 25 Salt Lake City, UT Metro Area UT UT $ 1,000,000 1,257,936 8 47 1 Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metro Area UT UT 694,863 8 86 2 Provo-Orem, UT Metro Area UT UT 671,185 8 89 3 St. George, UT Metro Area UT UT 180,279 8 242 4 Logan, UT-ID Metro Area UT-ID UT 147,348 8 292 5 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metro Area VA-NC VA $ 1,000,000 1,799,674 3 37 1 Richmond, VA Metro Area VA VA $ 1,000,000 1,314,434 3 44 2 Roanoke, VA Metro Area VA VA 315,251 3 163 3 Lynchburg, VA Metro Area VA VA 261,593 3 190 4 Charlottesville, VA Metro Area VA VA 221,524 3 211 5 Blacksburg-Christiansburg, VA Metro Area VA VA 166,378 3 262 6 Winchester, VA-WV Metro Area VA-WV VA 142,632 3 298 7 Harrisonburg, VA Metro Area VA VA 135,571 3 306 8 Staunton, VA Metro Area VA VA 125,433 3 323 9 Burlington-South Burlington, VT Metro Area VT VT 225,562 1 205 1 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metro Area WA WA $ 1,000,000 4,018,762 10 14 1 Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA Metro Area WA WA 585,784 10 99 2 Kennewick-Richland, WA Metro Area WA WA 303,622 10 167 3 Olympia-Lacey-Tumwater, WA Metro Area WA WA 294,793 10 168 4 Bremerton-Silverdale-Port Orchard, WA Metro Area WA WA 275,611 10 180 5 Yakima, WA Metro Area WA WA 256,728 10 192 6 Bellingham, WA Metro Area WA WA 226,847 10 203 7 Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA Metro Area WA WA 129,523 10 316 8 Wenatchee, WA Metro Area WA WA 122,012 10 330 9 Longview, WA Metro Area WA WA 110,730 10 349 10 Walla Walla, WA Metro Area WA WA 62,584 10 390 11 Milwaukee-Waukesha, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl $ 1,000,000 1,574,731 5 40 1 Madison, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl 680,796 5 87 2 Green Bay, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl 328,268 5 158 3 Appleton, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl 243,147 5 196 4 Racine, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl 197,727 5 229 5 Eau Claire, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl 172,007 5 252 6 Oshkosh-Neenah, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl 171,730 5 253 7 Wausau-Weston, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl 166,428 5 261 8 Janesville-Beloit, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl 163,687 5 265 9 La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN Metro Area WI-MN Wl 139,627 5 300 10 Sheboygan, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl 118,034 5 335 11 Fond du Lac, Wl Metro Area Wl Wl 104,154 5 353 12 Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH Metro Area WV-KY-OH WV 359,862 3 150 1 Charleston, WV Metro Area WV WV 258,859 3 191 2 Morgantown, WV Metro Area WV WV 140,038 3 299 3 47 ------- MSA PRESUMPTIVE METRO RANKIN STATE(S) IN MAIN FORMULA 2020 EPA AREA STATE (BY METRO AREA METRO AREA STATE ALLOCATION POPULATION REGION COUNT POP) Wheeling, WV-OH Metro Area WV-OH WV 139,513 3 301 4 Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH Metro Area WV-OH WV 116,903 3 338 5 Beckley, WV Metro Area WV WV 115,079 3 341 6 Parkersburg-Vienna, WV Metro Area WV WV 89,490 3 373 7 Cheyenne, WY Metro Area WY WY 100,512 8 361 1 Casper, WY Metro Area WY WY 79,955 8 384 2 Source: https://www2.census.gov/programs-survevs/popest/tables/2020-2021/metro/totals/cbsa-met-est2Q21-pop.xlsx 48 ------- 15.3. Deliverable Requirements This appendix further details the required and/or recommended elements of each of the three main deliverables: Priority Climate Action Plan (PCAP) - due March 1, 2024 Comprehensive Climate Action Plan (CCAP) - due 2 years from award (summer-fall 2025) Status Report - due 4 years from award (summer-fall 2027) Applicants should factor these elements into their workplans and budgets, giving particular consideration to their proposed schedule and approach for each deliverable. Plan Element Priority Climate Action Plan Comprehensive Climate Action Plan Status Report GHG Inventory Required Required Update Encouraged GHG Emissions Projections Not Required Required Update Encouraged GHG Reduction Targets Not Required Required Not Required Quantified GHG Reduction Measures Required (priority measures only) Required (comprehensive) Status and Updates Required Benefits Analysis Encouraged Required Required Low Income/ Disadvantaged Communities Benefits Analysis Required Required Required Review of Authority to Implement Required Required Update Required Intersection with Other Funding Availability Encouraged Required Required Workforce Planning Analysis Encouraged Required Required Next Steps/Future Budget and Staffing Needs Not Required Not Required Required 49 ------- GHG Inventory PCAP Simplified inventory is required CCAP Comprehensive inventory is required Status Report Inventory update is encouraged For this required element, state and metropolitan area planning grant recipients may choose to begin with a simplified GHG inventory for the PCAP, and then complete additional analyses and data collection necessary to provide a comprehensive GHG inventory in the CCAP. EPA acknowledges that there may already be existing GHG inventories for one or more jurisdictions within a metropolitan area and that not all jurisdictions may choose to participate under an awarded planning grant administered at the metropolitan area level. At a minimum, such emissions analyses for the GHG inventory element should include jurisdictions that have signed commitment letters or that are receiving sub-awards from the lead organization. EPA is not requiring a specific baseline year; inventory years should be chosen based on availability of underlying data and to support development of GHG targets. PCAP: For states, use of existing data, including a previously published state inventory, or data from EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks by State. US GHG Reporting Program, or National Emissions Inventory for this required PCAP element is acceptable. For metropolitan areas, recipients may use a variety of available GHG data (e.g., new or previously published inventories, data from EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks by State. US GHG Reporting Program, or National Emissions Inventory, or other federal agencies) for their PCAP GHG inventory and to inform the inclusion of specific climate mitigation measures in the PCAP. CCAP: A comprehensive inventory must include all GHG11 emissions and sinks12 by emission source and sink category following commonly accepted protocols for the following sectors: industry, electricity generation and/or use, transportation, commercial and residential buildings, agriculture, natural and working lands, and waste and materials management. 11 As defined by the statute, the term "greenhouse gas" means the air pollutants carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. 12 Emissions in GHG inventories should be expressed both in metric tons of each GHG and in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (C02e). Expressing emissions in C02e allows the emissions of each GHG to be compared to emissions of C02 and other GHGs. To calculate emissions in C02e, each GHG's emissions in metric tons are multiplied by that GHG's global warming potential (GWP), as shown in Equation A-l in 40 CFR Part 98 (the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program or GHGRP). The GWP of a GHG is a measure of how much heat is trapped in earth's atmosphere over a certain period by emissions of one metric ton of that GHG compared to emissions of one metric ton of C02. 50 ------- For metropolitan areas, EPA is encouraging grant recipients to address GHG emission sources and sinks across the entire geographic scope of the metropolitan area. The CCAP should include a comprehensive GHG inventory covering all collaborating jurisdictions. Status Report: As part of its Status Report, state and metropolitan area planning grant recipients are encouraged to provide an update of the comprehensive GHG inventory included in their CCAP. For more information on GHG Inventory development and available protocols, tools, data, and technical assistance, see https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/cprg-tools-and-technical- assistance-greenhouse-gas-inventory. GHG Emissions Projections CCAP Status Report Near term and long Updated projections term projections are are encouraged required PCAP: Comprehensive, economy-wide GHG future year emissions projections are not required for the PCAP. CCAP: Near-term (e.g., 2030-2035) and long-term (e.g., 2050) projections of GHG emissions are required to be included in the CCAP. This element includes projections of GHG emissions (and sinks, if feasible) in the absence of plan measures (e.g., a "business-as-usual" projection), and a projection of GHG emissions under a scenario where the plan is fully implemented. The inclusion of sector-based projections is strongly recommended (e.g., establishing a separate GHG emissions projection for transportation, electricity generation, commercial and residential buildings, industry, agriculture, and waste and materials management). Grant recipients with existing GHG projections may use those projections, but are encouraged to update, modify, or expand those projections for the CCAP as appropriate. Status Report: Grant recipients are strongly encouraged to update their projected GHG emissions for the Status Report, if new information warrants it. For more information on developing GHG emissions projections, see https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/cprg-tools-and-technical-assistance-ghg-emission- projections-and-ghg. PCAP Not required 51 ------- Near-Term and Long-Term GHG Reduction Targets PCAP Not required CCAP Near term and long term targets are required Status Report Not required PCAP: Comprehensive, economy-wide GHG reduction targets are not required for the PCAP. CCAP: A CCAP must include economy-wide near-term (e.g., 2030-2035) and long-term (e.g., 2050) GHG emission reduction targets (on a gross or net GHG emission basis), set by the recipient jurisdiction. Although EPA is not requiring a specific reduction target, plans should not be inconsistent with the United States' formal commitments to reduce emissions 50-52% relative to 2005 levels by 2030 and to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. The inclusion of sector-based emission reduction targets is also strongly recommended, especially for the highest priority sectors expected to be targeted by emission reduction measures. Grant recipients with existing GHG reduction targets may use their existing targets, but are encouraged to update, modify, or expand those targets as appropriate. For example, a state or metropolitan area may wish to develop sector-based targets, if such targets have not been previously developed, or if they need to be updated. Status Report: Updates to GHG reduction targets are not required for the Status Report. For more information on developing GHG reduction targets, see https://www.epa.gov/inflation- reduction-act/cprg-tools-and-technical-assistance-ghg-emission-proiections-and-ghg. Quantified GHG Reduction Measures PCAP Required for priority measures CCAP Required for all measures Status Report Status and updates are required The selection of GHG reduction measures should be based on GHG emissions information and focus on achieving the most significant GHG reductions possible, while considering other relevant planning goals. GHG reduction measures may include both measures that reduce GHG emissions and/or measures that enhance carbon sinks. In addition to GHG emission reductions, the rationale for selecting a measure for the plan may also include other factors, such as reduction of co- pollutants (including criteria pollutant/ precursors and air toxics), benefits to low-income and disadvantaged communities, cost-effectiveness, or other economic factors. Projected emissions reductions from identified measures should be quantified to the extent possible. 52 ------- PCAP: A PCAP must include a focused list of near-term, high-priority, implementation-ready measures that have been identified for implementation by the lead organization and any other collaborating entities (e.g., municipalities, tribes). For the lead organization, such measures should be those that it plans to implement directly and/or in partnership with collaborating agencies as described in their workplan. The PCAP should also indicate which measures could be implemented by other entities (e.g., air pollution control agencies, counties, and municipalities) within the state or metropolitan area. For each measure, the PCAP must provide an estimate of the quantifiable GHG emissions reductions, key implementing agency or agencies, implementation schedule and milestones, expected geographic location if applicable, milestones for obtaining legislative or regulatory authority as appropriate, identification of funding sources if relevant, and metrics for tracking progress. As cost information will be required for measures included in an implementation grant application, grant recipients are encouraged to plan ahead to include quantitative cost estimates in their PCAP; such estimates are required in the CCAP.13 CCAP: A CCAP must include a full suite of implementation measures that have been identified to meet the GHG reduction targets specified elsewhere in the CCAP. The plan must include measures addressing the main GHG emission sectors: industry, electricity generation and/or use, transportation, commercial and residential buildings, industry, agriculture, natural and working lands, and waste and materials management. Similar to the PCAP, for each measure, the CCAP must identify the quantifiable GHG emissions reductions (or enhancement of carbon sinks), key implementing agency or agencies, implementation schedule and milestones, expected geographic location if applicable, milestones for obtaining implementation authority as appropriate, identification of funding sources if relevant, and metrics for tracking progress. It must also include cost information for each measure. Status Report: An update on the current status of plan implementation, including the status of implementation for the individual measures identified in the CCAP, must be included in the Status Report. This assessment should identify whether the measure is still under development or has been fully implemented. If a measure is still under development, the report should identify the key parties responsible for action, and indicate what actions are needed to complete implementation of the measure. If a measure has been fully implemented, the Status Report should characterize progress in terms of key metrics identified in the CCAP, such as the metrics included in Section 10.3 "Outcomes." For more information on potential GHG emission reduction measures, see https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/cprg-tools-and-technical-assistance-quantifying-ghg- reduction-measures. 13 When developing the municipal/air district section of a PCAP or CCAP states are not expected to provide a full analysis of all required plan elements as these will be variable depending on the level of implementation by those sub- state jurisdictions. Municipalities applying for implementation funds based on a state PCAP may be required to perform additional analysis of their proposed measures. 53 ------- Benefits Analysis PCAP Encouraged CCAP Required Status Report Required A benefits analysis should assess benefits of GHG reduction measures across the full geographic scope of each plan. It should include both base year estimates of co-pollutants (including criteria pollutants/ precursors and air toxics) and anticipated co-pollutant emission reductions as plan measures are implemented and GHG reduction goals are met. EPA produces several data sources that may be suitable for this type of co-pollutant impact assessment, including the National Emissions Inventory fNEI). While requirements to provide an estimate of co-pollutant reductions apply at the plan level (e.g., for the full suite of GHG reduction measures included in the plan), grant recipients are also encouraged to provide measure-specific estimates of co-pollutant reductions for key individual GHG reduction measures in climate action plans where feasible. Grant recipients are further encouraged (but not required) to include in their PCAP and CCAP a broader assessment of benefits associated with their GHG reduction measures, including but not limited to analysis of air quality improvements (e.g., criteria air pollution and air toxics), improved public health outcomes, economic benefits, increased climate resilience, or other environmental benefits. EPA notes that the authorizing statute for this program specifies that CPRG implementation grant applications should include information on the extent of GHG reductions expected in low-income and disadvantaged communities due to implementation of a program or measure. The NOFO for the implementation grants will include additional details. The low income/disadvantaged communities benefits analysis requirement is discussed separately below. PCAP: Quantified estimates of co-pollutant reductions (e.g., PM2.5, NOx, S02, VOCs, air toxics, etc.) and/or other benefits associated with GHG reduction measures are strongly encouraged for the suite of measures included in the PCAP. Grant recipients are also encouraged to track, minimize, and mitigate, to the extent possible, any potential disbenefits resulting from implementation of GHG reduction measures included in their PCAP, particularly those that may adversely affect low-income and disadvantaged communities. CCAP: Quantified estimates of co-pollutant reductions (e.g., PM2.5, NOx, S02, VOCs, air toxics, etc.) associated with GHG reduction measures are required for the suite of measures included in the CCAP. Grant recipients are also required to track, minimize, and mitigate, to the extent possible, any potential disbenefits resulting from implementation of GHG reduction measures included in their CCAP. Assessment of additional benefits is encouraged. Status Report: Updated estimates of co-pollutant reductions (e.g., PM2.5, NOx, S02, VOCs, air toxics, etc.) or other benefits associated with GHG reduction measures that have been 54 ------- implemented or are expected to be implemented are required in the Status Report. Grant recipients are also required to track, minimize, and mitigate, to the extent possible, any potential disbenefits resulting from implementation of GHG reduction measures included in their CCAP. For more information on how to conduct this analysis, see https://www.epa.gov/inflation- reduction-act/cprg-tools-and-technical-assistance-benef its-ana lysis. Low-Income and Disadvantaged Communities Benefits Analysis PCAP Required CCAP Required Status Report Required The authorizing statute for the CPRG program specifies that implementation grant applications should include information on the extent of GHG reductions for low-income and disadvantaged communities. A benefits analysis for low-income and disadvantaged communities should therefore 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. Consistent with the Justice40 Initiative and as indicated in Section 8.4.3. "Coordination and Engagement," the PCAP and CCAP should identify disadvantaged communities in the jurisdiction covered by the plan, how the recipient meaningfully engaged with such communities in the development of each plan, and how they intend to continue this engagement into the future. Further guidance providing recommended analytical approaches and metrics for estimating benefits flowing to low income and disadvantaged communities in support of Justice40 is expected to be released in coming months. PCAP: Planning grant recipients must include a preliminary analysis of benefits for low-income and disadvantaged communities anticipated to result from the GHG reduction measure(s) in their PCAP. EPA anticipates requiring an accounting of such benefits as part of any future CPRG implementation grant application. CCAP: Planning grant recipients must evaluate the extent to which any GHG reduction measures in the CCAP will deliver co-pollutant emissions reductions and other benefits to low-income and disadvantaged communities. Status Report: Updated analyses of the co-pollutant emissions reductions and other program benefits to low-income and disadvantaged communities associated with GHG reduction measures listed in the CCAP that have been implemented or are expected to be implemented are required in the Status Report. 55 ------- Review of Authority to Implement GHG Reduction Measures PCAP Required CCAP Required Status Report Update required The PCAP and CCAP will include a range of proposed GHG reduction measures, and these plans will need to identify for each measure whether the relevant state or local governments already have existing statutory or regulatory authority to implement the measure, or whether such authority still must be obtained. PCAP: For each measure included in the PCAP, the grant recipient must indicate whether they have existing statutory or regulatory authority to implement the measure, or whether such authority still must be obtained. The PCAP must include a schedule of milestones for actions needed by key entities (e.g., legislature, administrative agency, etc.) for obtaining any authority needed to implement each listed program or measure. CCAP: For each measure included in the CCAP, the grant recipient must indicate whether they have existing statutory or regulatory authority to implement the measure, or whether such authority still must be obtained. The CCAP must include a schedule of milestones for actions needed by key entities (e.g., legislature, administrative agency, etc.) for obtaining any authority needed to implement each listed program or measure. Status Report: Grant recipients must update the information included in their CCAP as part of their review of authority to implement GHG reduction measures in their Status Report. Intersection with Other Funding Availability PCAP Encouraged CCAP Required Status Report Required EPA encourages planning grant recipients to assess funding availability broadly and align public investment in particular with the PCAP and CCAP. Recipients should consider the wide array of public investment available as a result of the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act, much of which is catalogued in the White House Guidebooks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. PCAP: An analysis of additional funding opportunities beyond the CPRG program to support GHG emission reduction measures and strategies identified in the PCAP is encouraged but not required. 56 ------- CCAP: The CCAP must identify what other funding programs are available to the recipient or have been secured by the recipient from federal, state, local and private sources that could be leveraged to pursue the objectives of the CCAP. Status Report: The Status Report must include an update to the funding analysis submitted as part of the grant recipient's CCAP. Workforce Planning Analysis PCAP Encouraged CCAP Required Status Report Required Workforce related challenges and opportunities can be a critical element of assessing the feasibility of GHG reduction measures. These may include skilled labor shortages, impacts on existing jobs and industries, opportunities for the creation of high-quality jobs, and expanding economic opportunity to underserved workers through activities in the plan. Wherever grant recipients discuss workforce development priorities in these deliverables, they are strongly encouraged to describe how activities or policies will lead to the creation of high-quality jobs in alignment with the U.S. Department of Labor's Good Jobs Principles. PCAP: G rant recipients are encouraged to conduct an analysis of workforce development activities, if any, that are needed to implement the priority measures included in the PCAP. CCAP: G rant recipients must conduct an analysis of anticipated workforce shortages that could prevent them from achieving the goals described in the CCAP and identify potential solutions and partners at the state, regional, and/or local level that are equipped to help address those challenges. Plans may note existing funding or programs that can help support the workforce needs of the plan. Status Report: Grant recipients must report on the workforce development progress they have made since submitting the CCAP, and on any ongoing workforce development challenges that are inhibiting progress toward meeting their climate goals. Next Steps/Future Budget and Staffing Needs PCAP Not applicable CCAP Not applicable Status Report Required PCAP: This element is not applicable for the PCAP. 57 ------- CCAP: This element is not applicable for the CCAP. Status Report: The Status Report must identify next steps that the grantee expects to take to continue implementation of its CCAP following closeout of the CPRG planning grant. The report should also identify those actions and measures that the applicant would hope to pursue if additional funding were made available. The Status Report should also provide a detailed budget, complete with a description of any staffing needed, that would be required to execute the next steps detailed in the plan. Some examples of next steps include: Identification of future priority programs and measures in the CCAP for implementation; Additional planning that could occur with additional resources (e.g. focus on a specific sector, additional engagement with a specific community, studies to enhance understanding of benefits, additional collaboration with a larger number of jurisdictions, municipalities, organizations, or states); Implementation projects that have not started but are expected to commence in the near- term. 58 ------- |