Climate 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, 2023
2
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
3
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
4
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 opportunities—to 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.
5
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.
6
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.
3
Smaller, 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.
7
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.
8
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/environmentaljustice/justice40-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
9
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.
10
EPA has used 2020 U.S. Census data
5
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/Ch13GARM.pdf.
11
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
12
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 [email protected]. 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.
13
Key Dates for Metropolitan Areas
• By April 28, 2023, the lead organization for each metropolitan area must submit a
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:
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
March 1, 2023
• EPA issues
program
guidance
and notifies
all eligible
recipients
March 31, 2023
• State
deadline to
submit
Notice of
Intent to
Participate
April 28, 2023
•State
application
deadline
•Metro area
deadline to
submit
Notice of
Intent to
Participate
May 31, 2023
•Metro
area
application
deadline
Summer 2023
•Funding to
all grantees
is awarded
14
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.
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.
15
7.2. Deadline and Submission Requirements
All applicants must submit a NOIP by email to C[email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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
[email protected] 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.
16
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.
17
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.
18
• Key Deliverable #1: Priority Climate Action Plan (PCAP)
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 sinks
8
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.
19
• 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;
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.
20
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.
21
• 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.
22
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.
23
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).”
24
• 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, etc.);
• 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.
25
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;
26
• 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.
27
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.
28
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/quality/quality-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
29
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 [email protected]. 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-ToolsandTechnicalResources.
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.
30
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.
31
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
32
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.
33
15.2. Formula Allocations
Table 1: Formula Grant Allocations for States, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico
STATE
FORMULA
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
34
STATE
FORMULA
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
35
Table 2: Formula Grant Allocations for Metropolitan Areas
METRO AREA
STATE(S) IN
METRO AREA
MAIN
STATE
PRESUMPTIVE
FORMULA
ALLOCATION
2020
POPULATION
EPA
REGION
MSA
RANK IN
STATE (BY
POP)
METRO
AREA
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, MI Metro Area
MI
MI
$ 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‐Bayamón‐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
RI
$ 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, WI Metro Area
WI
WI
$ 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, MI Metro Area
MI
MI
$ 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
36
METRO AREA
STATE(S) IN
METRO AREA
MAIN
STATE
PRESUMPTIVE
FORMULA
ALLOCATION
2020
POPULATION
EPA
REGION
MSA
RANK IN
STATE (BY
POP)
METRO
AREA
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, WI Metro Area
WI
WI
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, MI Metro Area
MI
MI
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
37
METRO AREA
STATE(S) IN
METRO AREA
MAIN
STATE
PRESUMPTIVE
FORMULA
ALLOCATION
2020
POPULATION
EPA
REGION
MSA
RANK IN
STATE (BY
POP)
METRO
AREA
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
123
Salinas, CA Metro Area
CA
CA
439,035
9
16
124
Salem, OR Metro Area
OR
OR
433,353
10
2
125
Mobile, AL Metro Area
AL
AL
430,197
4
3
126
Reading, PA Metro Area
PA
PA
428,849
3
8
127
Manchester‐Nashua, NH Metro Area
NH
NH
422,937
1
1
128
Corpus Christi, TX Metro Area
TX
TX
421,933
6
8
129
Brownsville‐Harlingen, TX Metro Area
TX
TX
421,017
6
9
130
Fort Wayne, IN Metro Area
IN
IN
419,601
5
2
131
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, MI Metro Area
MI
MI
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, MI Metro Area
MI
MI
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, WI Metro Area
WI
WI
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‐Isabela, 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
38
METRO AREA
STATE(S) IN
METRO AREA
MAIN
STATE
PRESUMPTIVE
FORMULA
ALLOCATION
2020
POPULATION
EPA
REGION
MSA
RANK IN
STATE (BY
POP)
METRO
AREA
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, MI Metro Area
MI
MI
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, WI Metro Area
WI
WI
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, WI Metro Area
WI
WI
197,727
5
5
229
Warner Robins, GA Metro Area
GA
GA
191,614
4
8
230
Saginaw, MI Metro Area
MI
MI
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, MI Metro Area
MI
MI
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
39
METRO AREA
STATE(S) IN
METRO AREA
MAIN
STATE
PRESUMPTIVE
FORMULA
ALLOCATION
2020
POPULATION
EPA
REGION
MSA
RANK IN
STATE (BY
POP)
METRO
AREA
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, WI Metro Area
WI
WI
172,007
5
6
252
Oshkosh‐Neenah, WI Metro Area
WI
WI
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, WI Metro Area
WI
WI
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, WI Metro Area
WI
WI
163,687
5
9
265
Bloomington, IN Metro Area
IN
IN
161,039
5
8
266
Jackson, MI Metro Area
MI
MI
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, MI Metro Area
MI
MI
154,809
5
11
277
Niles, MI Metro Area
MI
MI
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
WI
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, MI Metro Area
MI
MI
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
40
METRO AREA
STATE(S) IN
METRO AREA
MAIN
STATE
PRESUMPTIVE
FORMULA
ALLOCATION
2020
POPULATION
EPA
REGION
MSA
RANK IN
STATE (BY
POP)
METRO
AREA
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 Germán, 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, WI Metro Area
WI
WI
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, WI Metro Area
WI
WI
104,154
5
12
353
Decatur, IL Metro Area
IL
IL
103,998
5
9
354
Bay City, MI Metro Area
MI
MI
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
Mayagüez, 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
41
METRO AREA
STATE(S) IN
METRO AREA
MAIN
STATE
PRESUMPTIVE
FORMULA
ALLOCATION
2020
POPULATION
EPA
REGION
MSA
RANK IN
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, MI Metro Area
MI
MI
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-surveys/popest/tables/2020-2021/metro/totals/cbsa-met-est2021-pop.xlsx
Table3:MetropolitanStatisticalAreasinEachState,SortedbyPopulation
METROAREA
STATE(S)IN
METROAREA
MAIN
STATE
PRESUMPTIVE
FORMULA
ALLOCATION
2020
POPULATION
EPA
REGION
METRO
AREA
COUNT
MSA
RANKIN
STATE(BY
POP)
Anchorage,AKMetroArea AK AK 398,328 10 138 1
Fairbanks,AKMetroArea AK AK 95,655 10 368 2
Birmingham‐Hoover,ALMetroArea AL AL 1,000,000$ 1,115,289 4 50 1
Huntsville,ALMetroArea AL AL 491,723 4 111 2
Mobile,ALMetroArea AL AL 430,197 4 126 3
Montgomery,ALMetroArea AL AL 386,047 4 142 4
Tuscaloosa,ALMetroArea AL AL 268,674 4 185 5
Daphne‐Fairhope‐Foley,ALMetr
oArea AL AL 231,767 4 201 6
Auburn‐Opelika,ALMetroArea AL AL 174,241 4 250 7
Decatur,ALMetroArea AL AL 156,494 4 271 8
Dothan,ALMetroArea AL AL 151,007 4 284 9
Florence‐MuscleShoals,ALMetroArea AL AL 150,791 4 285 10
Anniston‐Oxford,ALMetroArea AL AL 116,441 4 340 11
Gadsden,ALMetroArea AL AL 103,436 4 358 12
LittleRock‐NorthLittleRock‐Conway,ARMetroArea AR AR 748,031 6 80 1
Fayetteville‐Springdale‐Rogers,ARMetroArea AR AR 546,725 6 105 2
FortSmith,AR‐OKMetroArea AR‐OK AR 244,310 6 195 3
Jonesboro,ARMetroArea AR AR 134,196 6 309 4
HotSp
rings,ARMetr oArea AR AR 100,180 6 362 5
PineBluff,ARMetroArea AR AR 87,751 6 375 6
Phoenix‐Mesa‐Chandler,AZMetroArea AZ AZ 1,000,000$ 4,845,832 9 10 1
Tucson,AZMetroArea AZ AZ 1,000,000$ 1,043,433 9 53 2
PrescottValley‐Prescott,AZMetroArea AZ AZ 236,209 9 197 3
LakeHavasuCity‐Kingman,AZMetroArea AZ AZ 213,267 9 215 4
Yuma,AZMetroArea AZ AZ 203,881 9 224 5
Flagstaff,AZMetroArea AZ AZ 145,101 9 293 6
SierraVista‐Douglas,AZMetroArea AZ AZ 125,447 9 322 7
LosAngeles‐LongBeach‐Anaheim,CAMetr
oArea CA CA 1,000,000$ 13,200,998 9 2 1
SanFrancisco‐Oakland‐Berkeley,CAMetroArea CA CA 1,000,000$ 4,749,008 9 11 2
Riverside‐SanBernardino‐Ontario,CAMetroArea CA CA 1,000,000$ 4,599,839 9 12 3
SanDiego‐ChulaVista‐Carlsbad,CAMetroArea CA CA 1,000,000$ 3,298,634 9 16 4
Sacramento‐Roseville‐Folsom,CAMetroArea CA CA 1,000,000$ 2,397,382 9 25 5
SanJose‐Sunnyvale‐SantaClara,CAMetroArea CA CA 1,000,000$ 2,000,468 9 35 6
Fresno,CAMetroArea CA CA 1,000,000$ 1,008,654 9 56 7
Bakersfield,CAMetr
oArea CA CA 1,000,000$ 909,235 9 62 8
Oxnard‐ThousandOaks‐Ventura,CAMetroArea CA CA 843,843 9 70 9
Stockton,CAMetroArea CA CA 779,233 9 75 10
Modesto,CAMetroArea CA CA 552,878 9 103 11
SantaRosa‐Petaluma,CAMetroArea CA CA 488,863 9 113 12
Visalia,CAMetroArea CA CA 473,117 9 119 13
Vallejo,CAMetroArea CA CA 453,491 9 122 14
SantaMaria‐SantaBarbara,CAMetroArea CA CA 448,229 9 123 15
Salinas,CAMetroArea CA CA 439,035 9 124 16
SanLuisObispo‐PasoRobles,CAMetroArea CA CA 282,424 9 175 17
Merced,CAMetroA
rea CA CA 281,202 9 176 18
SantaCruz‐Watsonville,CAMetroArea CA CA 270,861 9 183 19
Chico,CAMetroArea CA CA 211,632 9 216 20
Redding,CAMetroArea CA CA 182,155 9 236 21
YubaCity,CAMetroArea CA CA 181,208 9 240 22
ElCentro,CAMetroArea CA CA 179,702 9 243 23
Madera,CAMetroArea CA CA 156,255 9 272 24
Hanford‐Corcoran,CAMetroArea CA CA 152,486 9 281 25
Napa,CAMetroArea CA CA 138,019 9 303 26
Denver‐Aurora‐Lakewood,COMetroArea CO CO 1,000,000$ 2,963,821 8 18 1
ColoradoSprings,COMetroArea CO CO 755,105 8 79 2
FortCollins,COMetroArea CO CO 359,066 8 151 3
Boulder,COMetr
oArea CO CO 330,758 8 155 4
Greeley,COMetroArea CO CO 328,981 8 156 5
Pueblo,COMetroArea CO CO 168,162 8 260 6
GrandJunction,COMetroArea CO CO 155,703 8 274 7
Hartford‐EastHartford‐Middletown,CTMetroArea CT CT 1,000,000$ 1,213,531 1 48 1
42
METROAREA
STATE(S)IN
METROAREA
MAIN
STATE
PRESUMPTIVE
FORMULA
ALLOCATION
2020
POPULATION
EPA
REGION
METRO
AREA
COUNT
MSA
RANKIN
STATE(BY
POP)
Bridgeport‐Stamford‐Norwalk,CTMetroArea CT CT 1,000,000$ 957,419 1 59 2
NewHaven‐Milford,CTMetroArea CT CT 864,835 1 68 3
Norwich‐NewLondon,CTMetroArea CT CT 268,555 1 186 4
Washington‐Arlington‐Alexandria,DC‐VA‐MD‐WVMetroArea DC‐VA‐MD‐WV DC (Receivingstate$3M
)
6,385,162 3 NA 1
Dover,DEMetroArea DE DE 181,851 3 237 1
Miami‐FortLauderdale‐PompanoBeach,FLMetroArea FL FL 1,000,000$ 6,138,333 4 7 1
Tampa‐St.Petersburg‐Clearwater,FLMetroArea FL FL 1,000,000$ 3,175,275 4 17 2
Orlando–Kissimmee–Sanford,FLMetroArea FL FL 1,000,000$ 2,673,376 4 21 3
Jacksonville,FLMetroArea FL FL 1,000,000$ 1,605,848 4 39 4
NorthPort‐Sarasota‐Bradenton,FLMetroArea FL FL 833,716 4 71 5
CapeCoral‐FortMyers,FLMetroArea FL FL 760,822 4 78 6
Lakeland‐WinterHaven,FLMetroArea FL FL 725,046 4 81 7
Deltona‐DaytonaBeac
h‐OrmondBeach,FLMetroArea FL FL 668,921 4 90 8
PalmBay‐Melbourne‐Titusville,FLMetroArea FL FL 606,612 4 96 9
Pensacola‐FerryPass‐Brent,FLMetroArea FL FL 509,905 4 110 10
PortSt.Lucie,FLMetroArea FL FL 487,657 4 115 11
Tallahassee,FLMetroArea FL FL 384,298 4 144 12
Ocala,FLMetroArea FL FL 375,908 4 146 13
Naples‐MarcoIsland,FLMetroArea FL FL 375,752 4 147 14
Gainesville,FLMetr oArea FL FL 339,247 4 153 15
Crestview‐FortWaltonBeach‐Destin,FLMetroArea FL FL 286,973 4 172 16
PuntaGorda,FLMetr
oArea FL FL 186,847 4 232 17
PanamaCity,FLMetr oArea FL FL 175,216 4 249 18
Sebastian‐VeroBeach,FLMetroArea FL FL 159,788 4 268 19
HomosassaSprings,FLMetroArea FL FL 153,843 4 280 20
TheVillages,FLMetroArea FL FL 129,752 4 315 21
Sebring‐AvonPark,FLMetroArea FL FL 101,235 4 360 22
Atlanta‐SandySprings‐Alpharetta,GAMetroArea GA GA 1,000,000$ 6,089,815 4 8 1
Augusta‐RichmondCounty,GA‐SCMetroArea GA‐SC GA 611,000 4 95 2
Savannah,GAMetroArea GA GA 404,798 4 135 3
Columbus,GA‐ALMetroArea GA‐A
L GA 328,883 4 157 4
Macon‐BibbCounty,GAMetroArea GA GA 233,802 4 198 5
Athens‐ClarkeCounty,GAMetroArea GA GA 215,415 4 214 6
Gainesville,GAMetroArea GA GA 203,136 4 225 7
WarnerRobins,GAMetroArea GA GA 191,614 4 230 8
Albany,GAMetroArea GA GA 148,922 4 288 9
Valdosta,GAMetroArea GA GA 148,126 4 290 10
Dalton,GAMetr oArea GA GA 142,837 4 296 11
Brunswick,GAMetroArea GA GA 113,495 4 345 12
Rome,GAMetroArea GA GA 98,584 4 364 13
Hinesville,GAMetr oArea GA GA 81,424 4 383 14
UrbanHonolulu,HIMetroArea HI HI 1,000,000$ 1,016,508 9 54 1
Kahului‐Wailuku‐Lahaina,HIMetr
oArea HI HI 164,754 9 264 2
DesMoines‐WestDesMoines,IAMetroArea IA IA 709,466 7 82 1
Davenport‐Moline‐RockIsland,IA‐ILMetroArea IA‐IL IA 384,324 7 143 2
CedarRapids,IAMetroArea IA IA 276,520 7 179 3
IowaCity,IAMetroArea IA IA 175,419 7 247 4
Waterloo‐CedarFalls,IAMetroArea IA IA 168,461 7 258 5
SiouxCity,IA‐NE‐SDMetroArea IA‐NE‐SD IA 149,940 7 287 6
Ames,IAMetroArea IA IA 125,252 7 324 7
Dubuque,IAMetroArea IA IA 99,266 7 363 8
BoiseCity,IDMetr
oArea ID ID 764,718 10 77 1
Coeurd'Alene,IDMetroArea ID ID 171,362 10 255 2
IdahoFalls,IDMetroArea ID ID 157,429 10 270 3
TwinFalls,IDMetroArea ID ID 114,283 10 342 4
Pocatello,IDMetroArea ID ID 94,896 10 372 5
Lewiston,ID‐WAMetroArea ID‐WA ID 64,375 10 388 6
Chicago‐Naperville‐Elgin,IL‐IN‐WIMetroArea IL‐IN‐WI IL 1,000,000$ 9,618,502 5 3 1
Peoria,ILMetroArea IL IL 402,391 5 136 2
Rockford,ILMetroArea IL IL 338,798 5 154 3
Champaign‐Urbana,ILMetroArea IL IL 222,538 5 209 4
Springfield,ILMetroArea IL IL 208,640 5 218 5
Bloomington,ILMetr
oArea IL IL 170,954 5 256 6
Carbondale‐Marion,ILMetroArea IL IL 133,435 5 313 7
Kankakee,ILMetroArea IL IL 107,502 5 350 8
43
METROAREA
STATE(S)IN
METROAREA
MAIN
STATE
PRESUMPTIVE
FORMULA
ALLOCATION
2020
POPULATION
EPA
REGION
METRO
AREA
COUNT
MSA
RANKIN
STATE(BY
POP)
Decatur,ILMetroArea IL IL 103,998 5 354 9
Danville,ILMetroArea IL IL 74,188 5 386 10
Indianapolis‐Carmel‐Anderson,INMetroArea IN IN 1,000,000$ 2,111,040 5 32 1
FortWayne,INMetroArea IN IN 419,601 5 131 2
SouthBend‐Mishawaka,IN‐MIMetroArea IN‐MI IN 324,501 5 160 3
Evansville,IN‐KYMetroArea IN‐KY IN 314,049 5 164 4
Lafayette‐WestLafayette,INMetroArea IN IN 223,716 5 207 5
Elkhart‐Goshen,INMetroArea IN IN 207,047 5 222 6
TerreHaute,INMetroArea IN IN 185,031 5 233 7
Bloomington,INMetroArea IN IN 161,039 5 266 8
MichiganCity‐LaPo
rte,INMetroArea IN IN 112,417 5 346 9
Muncie,INMetroArea IN IN 111,903 5 347 10
Kokomo,INMetroArea IN IN 83,658 5 379 11
Columbus,INMetroArea IN IN 82,208 5 382 12
Wichita,KSMetroArea KS KS 647,610 7 93 1
Topeka,KSMetroArea KS KS 233,152 7 200 2
Manhattan,KSMetroArea KS KS 134,046 7 310 3
Lawrence,KSMetroArea KS KS 118,785 7 334 4
Louisville/JeffersonCounty,KY‐INMetroArea KY‐IN KY 1,000,000$ 1,285,439 4 45 1
Lexington‐Fayette,KYMetroArea KY KY 516,811 4 109 2
BowlingGreen,KYMetroArea KY KY 179,639 4 244 3
Elizabethtown‐FortKnox,KYMetr
oArea KY KY 155,572 4 275 4
Owensboro,KYMetroArea KY KY 121,559 4 332 5
NewOrleans‐Metairie,LAMetroArea LA LA 1,000,000$ 1,271,845 6 46 1
BatonRouge,LAMetroArea LA LA 1,000,000$ 870,569 6 66 2
Lafayette,LAMetroArea LA LA 478,384 6 116 3
Shreveport‐BossierCity,LAMetroArea LA LA 393,406 6 140 4
LakeCharles,LAMetroArea LA LA 222,402 6 210 5
Houma‐Thibodaux,LAMetr oArea LA LA 207,137 6 220 6
Monroe,LAMetroArea LA LA 207,104 6 221 7
Alexandria,LAMetroArea LA LA 152,192 6 283 8
Hammond,LAMetroArea LA LA 133,157 6 314 9
Boston‐Cambridge‐Newto n,MA‐NHMetr
oArea MA‐NH MA 1,000,000$ 4,941,632 1 9 1
Worcester,MA‐CTMetroArea MA‐CT MA 1,000,000$ 978,529 1 57 2
Springfield,MAMetroArea MA MA 699,162 1 84 3
BarnstableTown,MAMetroArea MA MA 228,996 1 202 4
Pittsfield,MAMetroArea MA MA 129,026 1 317 5
Baltimore‐Columbia‐Towson,MDMetroArea MD MD 1,000,000$ 2,844,510 3 19 1
Salisbury,MD‐DEMetroArea MD‐DE MD 418,046 3 132 2
Hagerstown‐Martinsburg,MD‐WVMetroArea MD‐WV MD 293,844 3 169 3
California‐LexingtonPark,MDMetroArea MD MD 113,777 3 344 4
Cumberland,MD‐WVMetr
oArea MD‐WV MD 95,044 3 371 5
Portland‐SouthPortland,MEMetroArea ME ME 551,740 1 104 1
Bangor,MEMetroArea ME ME 152,199 1 282 2
Lewiston‐Auburn,MEMetroArea ME ME 111,139 1 348 3
Detroit‐Warren‐Dearborn,MIMetroArea MI MI 1,000,000$ 4,392,041 5 13 1
GrandRapids‐Kentwood,MIMetroArea MI MI 1,000,000$ 1,087,592 5 52 2
Lansing‐EastLansing,MIMetroArea MI MI 541,297 5 106 3
Flint,MIMetroArea MI MI 406,211 5 134 4
AnnArbor,MIMetroArea MI MI 372,258 5 148 5
Kalamazoo‐Po r t age,MIMetroArea MI MI 261,670 5 189 6
Saginaw,MIMetr
oArea MI MI 190,124 5 231 7
Muskegon,MIMetroArea MI MI 175,824 5 246 8
Jackson,MIMetroArea MI MI 160,366 5 267 10
Monroe,MIMetroArea MI MI 154,809 5 277 11
Niles,MIMetroArea MI MI 154,316 5 278 12
BattleCreek,MIMetroArea MI MI 134,310 5 308 13
BayCity,MIMetroArea MI MI 103,856 5 355 14
Midland,MIMetroArea MI MI 83,494 5 380 15
Minneapolis‐St.Paul‐Bloomington,MN‐WIMetroArea MN‐WI MN 1,000,000$ 3,690,261 5 15 1
Duluth,MN‐WIMetroArea MN‐WI MN 291,638 5 171 2
Rochester,MNMetroArea MN MN 226,329 5 204 3
St.Cloud,MNMetroA
rea MN MN 199,671 5 227 4
Mankato,MNMetroArea MN MN 103,566 5 357 5
St.Louis,MO‐ILMetroArea MO‐IL MO 1,000,000$ 2,820,253 7 20 1
44
METROAREA
STATE(S)IN
METROAREA
MAIN
STATE
PRESUMPTIVE
FORMULA
ALLOCATION
2020
POPULATION
EPA
REGION
METRO
AREA
COUNT
MSA
RANKIN
STATE(BY
POP)
KansasCity,MO‐KSMetroArea MO‐KS MO 1,000,000$ 2,192,035 7 30 2
Springfield,MOMetroArea MO MO 475,432 7 117 3
Columbia,MOMetroArea MO MO 210,864 7 217 4
Joplin,MOMetroArea MO MO 181,409 7 239 5
JeffersonCity,MOMetroArea MO MO 150,309 7 286 6
St.Joseph,MO‐KSMetroArea MO‐KS MO 121,467 7 333 7
CapeGirardeau,MO‐ILMetroArea MO‐IL MO 97,517 7 367 8
Jackson,MSMetroArea MS MS 591,978 4 97 1
Gulfport‐Biloxi,MSMetroArea MS MS 416,259 4 133 2
Hattiesburg,MSMetroArea MS MS 172,231 4 251 3
Billings,MTMetroArea MT MT 184,167 8 234 1
Misso
ula,MTMetroArea MT MT 117,922 8 336 2
GreatFalls,MTMetroArea MT MT 84,414 8 377 3
Charlotte‐Concord‐Gastonia,NC‐SCMetroArea NC‐SC NC 1,000,000$ 2,660,329 4 22 1
Raleigh‐Cary,NCMetroArea NC NC 1,000,000$ 1,413,982 4 42 2
Greensboro‐HighPoint,NCMetroArea NC NC 776,566 4 76 3
Winston‐Salem,NCMetroArea NC NC 675,966 4 88 4
Durham‐ChapelHill,NCMetroArea NC NC 649,903 4 92 5
Fayetteville,NCMetroArea NC NC 520,378 4 108 6
Asheville,NCMetroArea NC NC 469,015 4 120 7
Hickory‐Lenoir‐Morganton,NCMetroA
rea NC NC 365,276 4 149 8
Wilmington,NCMetroArea NC NC 285,905 4 174 9
Jacksonville,NCMetroArea NC NC 204,576 4 223 10
Burlington,NCMetroArea NC NC 171,415 4 254 11
Greenville,NCMetroArea NC NC 170,243 4 257 12
RockyMount,NCMetroArea NC NC 143,870 4 294 13
NewBern,NCMetroArea NC NC 122,168 4 329 14
Goldsboro,NCMetroArea NC NC 117,333 4 337 15
Fargo,ND‐MNMetroArea ND‐MN ND 249,843 8 193 1
Bismarck,NDMetroArea ND ND 133,626 8 311 2
GrandForks,ND‐MNMetroArea ND‐MN ND 104,362 8 352 3
Omaha‐CouncilBluffs,NE‐IAMetroArea NE‐IA NE 1,000,000$ 967,604
7 58 1
Lincoln,NEMetroArea NE NE 340,217 7 152 2
GrandIsland,NEMetroArea NE NE 77,038 7 385 3
Manchester‐Nashua,NHMetroArea NH NH 422,937 1 128 1
Trenton‐Princeton,NJMetroArea NJ NJ 387,340 2 141 1
AtlanticCity‐Hammonton,NJMetroArea NJ NJ 274,534 2 181 2
Vineland‐Bridgeton,NJMetroArea NJ NJ 154,152 2 279 3
OceanCity,NJMetroArea NJ NJ 95,263 2 369 4
Albuquerque,NMMetroArea NM NM 1,000,000$ 916,528 6 61 1
LasCruces,NMMetroArea NM NM 219,561 6 212 2
SantaFe,NMMetroArea NM NM 154,823 6 276 3
Farmington,NMMetroArea NM NM 121,661 6 331 4
LasVe
gas‐Henderson‐Paradise,NVMetroArea NV NV 1,000,000$ 2,265,461 9 28 1
Reno,NVMetroArea NV NV 490,596 9 112 2
CarsonCity,NVMetroArea NV NV 58,639 9 391 3
NewYork‐Newark‐JerseyCity,NY‐NJ‐PAMetroArea NY‐NJ‐PA NY 1,000,000$ 20,140,470 2 1 1
Buffalo‐Cheektowaga,NYMetroArea NY NY 1,000,000$ 1,166,902 2 49 2
Rochester,NYMetroArea NY NY 1,000,000$ 1,090,135 2 51 3
Albany‐Schenectady‐Troy,NYMetroArea NY NY 1,000,000$ 899,262 2 63 4
Poughkeepsie‐Newburgh‐Middletown,NYMetr
oArea NY NY 697,221 2 85 5
Syracuse,NYMetroArea NY NY 662,057 2 91 6
Utica‐Rome,NYMetroArea NY NY 292,264 2 170 7
Binghamton,NYMetroArea NY NY 247,138 2 194 8
Kingston,NYMetroArea NY NY 181,851 2 238 9
GlensFalls,NYMetroArea NY NY 127,039 2 319 10
Watertown‐FortDrum,NYMetroArea NY NY 116,721 2 339 11
Ithaca,NYMetroArea NY NY 105,740 2 351 12
Elmira,NYMetroArea NY NY 84,148 2 378 13
Cincinnati,OH‐KY‐INMetroArea OH‐KY‐IN OH 1,000,000$ 2,256,884 5 29 1
Columbus,OHMetroArea OH OH 1,000,000$ 2,138,926 5 31 2
Cleveland‐Elyria,OHMetr
oArea OH OH 1,000,000$ 2,088,251 5 33 3
Dayton‐Kettering,OHMetroArea OH OH 814,049 5 73 4
Akron,OHMetroArea OH OH 702,219 5 83 5
Toledo,OHMetroArea OH OH 646,604 5 94 6
45
METROAREA
STATE(S)IN
METROAREA
MAIN
STATE
PRESUMPTIVE
FORMULA
ALLOCATION
2020
POPULATION
EPA
REGION
METRO
AREA
COUNT
MSA
RANKIN
STATE(BY
POP)
Youngstown‐Warren‐Boardman,OH‐PAMetroArea OH‐PA OH 541,243 5 107 7
Canton‐Massillon,OHMetroArea OH OH 401,574 5 137 8
Springfield,OHMetroArea OH OH 136,001 5 305 9
Mansfield,OHMetroArea OH OH 124,936 5 326 10
Lima,OHMetroArea OH OH 102,206 5 359 11
OklahomaCity,OKMetroArea OK OK 1,000,000$ 1,425,695 6 41 1
Tulsa,OKMetroArea OK OK 1,000,000$ 1,015,331 6 55 2
Lawton,OKMetroArea OK OK 126,652 6 320 3
Enid,OKMetroArea OK OK 62,846 6 389 4
Portland‐Vancouver‐Hillsboro,OR‐WAMetroArea OR‐WA OR 1,000,000$ 2,512,859 10 24 1
Salem,ORMetr
oArea OR OR 433,353 10 125 2
Eugene‐Springfield,ORMetroArea OR OR 382,971 10 145 3
Medford,ORMetroArea OR OR 223,259 10 208 4
Bend,ORMetroArea OR OR 198,253 10 228 5
Albany‐Lebanon,ORMetroArea OR OR 128,610 10 318 6
Corvallis,ORMetroArea OR OR 95,184 10 370 7
GrantsPass,ORMetr oArea OR OR 88,090 10 374 8
Philadelphia‐Camden‐Wilmington,PA‐NJ‐DE‐MDMetroArea PA‐NJ‐DE‐MD PA 1,000,000$ 6,245,051 3 6 1
Pittsburgh,PAMetroArea PA PA 1,000,000$ 2,370,930 3 26 2
Allentown‐Bethlehem‐Easton,PA‐NJMetroArea PA‐N
J PA 861,889 3 69 3
Harrisburg‐Carlisle,PAMetroArea PA PA 591,712 3 98 4
Scranton‐‐Wilkes‐Barre,PAMetroArea PA PA 567,559 3 100 5
Lancaster,PAMetroArea PA PA 552,984 3 102 6
York‐Hanover,PAMetroArea PA PA 456,438 3 121 7
Reading,PAMetroArea PA PA 428,849 3 127 8
Erie,PAMetroArea PA PA 270,876 3 182 9
EastStroudsburg,PAMetroArea PA PA 168,327 3 259 10
StateCollege,PAMetroArea PA PA 158,172 3 269 11
Chambersburg‐Waynesboro,PAMetroArea PA PA 155,932 3 273 12
Lebanon,PAMetroArea PA PA 143,257 3 295 13
Johnstown,PAMetroArea PA PA 133,472 3 312 14
Altoona,PAMetroArea PA PA 122,822 3 328 15
Williamsport,PAMetr
oArea PA PA 114,188 3 343 16
Gettysburg,PAMetroArea PA PA 103,852 3 356 17
Bloomsburg‐Berwick,PAMetroArea PA PA 82,863 3 381 18
SanJuan‐Bayamón‐Caguas,PRMetroArea PR PR 1,000,000$ 2,081,265 2 34 1
Aguadilla‐Isabela,PRMetroArea PR PR 310,160 2 165 2
Ponce,PRMetroArea PR PR 224,142 2 206 3
Arecibo,PRMetroArea PR PR 182,705 2 235 4
SanGer mán,PRMetroArea PR PR 125,100 2 325 5
Mayagüez,PRMetroArea PR PR 97,605 2 366 6
Yauco,PRMetroArea PR PR 86,142 2 376 7
Guayama,PRMetroArea PR PR 68,442 2 387 8
Providence‐Warwick,RI‐MAMetroArea
RI‐MA RI 1,000,000$ 1,676,579 1 38 1
Greenville‐Anderson,SCMetroArea SC SC 1,000,000$ 928,195 4 60 1
Columbia,SCMetroArea SC SC 829,470 4 72 2
Charleston ‐NorthCha rleston,SCMetroArea SC SC 799,636 4 74 3
MyrtleBeach‐Conway‐NorthMyrtleBeach,SC‐NCMetroArea SC‐NC SC 487,722 4 114 4
Spartanburg,SCMetroArea SC SC 327,997 4 159 5
HiltonHeadIsland‐Bluffton,SCMetroArea SC SC 215,908 4 213 6
Florence,SCMetroArea SC SC 199,964 4 226 7
Sumter,SCMetroArea SC SC 136,700 4 304 8
SiouxFalls,SDMetroArea SD SD 276,730 8 178 1
RapidCity,SDMetr
oArea SD SD 139,074 8 302 2
Nashville‐Davidson‐‐Murfreesboro‐‐Franklin,TNMetroArea TN TN 1,000,000$ 1,989,519 4 36 1
Memphis,TN‐MS‐ARMetroArea TN‐MS‐AR TN 1,000,000$ 1,337,779 4 43 2
Knoxville,TNMetro Area TN TN 1,000,000$ 879,773 4 64 3
Chattanooga,TN‐GAMetroArea TN‐GA TN 562,647 4 101 4
Clarksville,TN‐KYMetroArea TN‐KY TN 320,535 4 162 5
Kingsport‐Bristol,TN‐VAMetroArea TN‐VA TN 307,614 4 166 6
JohnsonCity,TNMetroArea TN TN 207,285 4 219 7
Jackson,TNMetroA
rea TN TN 180,504 4 241 8
Morristown,TNMetroArea TN TN 142,709 4 297 9
Cleveland,TNMetroArea TN TN 126,164 4 321 10
Dallas‐FortWorth‐Arlington,TXMetroArea TX TX 1,000,000$ 7,637,387 6 4 1
46
METROAREA
STATE(S)IN
METROAREA
MAIN
STATE
PRESUMPTIVE
FORMULA
ALLOCATION
2020
POPULATION
EPA
REGION
METRO
AREA
COUNT
MSA
RANKIN
STATE(BY
POP)
Houston‐TheWoodlands‐SugarLand,TXMetroArea TX TX 1,000,000$ 7,122,240 6 5 2
SanAntonio‐NewBraunfels,TXMetroArea TX TX 1,000,000$ 2,558,143 6 23 3
Austin‐RoundRock‐Georgetown,TXMetroArea TX TX 1,000,000$ 2,283,371 6 27 4
McAllen‐Edinburg‐Mission,TXMetroArea TX TX 1,000,000$ 870,781 6 65 5
ElPaso,TXMetroArea TX TX 1,000,000$ 868,859 6 67 6
Killeen‐Temple,TXMetroArea TX TX 475,367 6 118 7
CorpusChristi,TXMetroArea TX TX 421,933 6 129 8
Brownsville‐Harlingen,TXMetroA
rea TX TX 421,017 6 130 9
Beaumont‐PortArthur,TXMetroArea TX TX 397,565 6 139 10
Lubbock,TXMetroArea TX TX 321,368 6 161 11
Longview,TXMetroArea TX TX 286,184 6 173 12
Waco,TXMetroArea TX TX 277,547 6 177 13
Amarillo,TXMetroArea TX TX 268,691 6 184 14
CollegeStation‐Bryan,TXMetroArea TX TX 268,248 6 187 15
Laredo,TXMetroArea TX TX 267,114 6 188 16
Tyler,TXMetroArea TX TX 233,479 6 199 17
Abilene,TXMetroArea TX TX 176,579 6 245 18
Midland,TXMetroArea TX TX 175,220 6 248 19
Odessa,TXMetroArea TX TX 165,171 6 263 20
WichitaFalls,TXMetroArea TX TX 148,128 6 289 21
Texarkana,TX‐ARMetr
oArea TX‐AR TX 147,519 6 291 22
Sherman‐Denison,TXMetroArea TX TX 135,543 6 307 23
SanAngelo,TXMetroArea TX TX 122,888 6 327 24
Victoria,TXMetroArea TX TX 98,331 6 365 25
SaltLakeCity,UTMetroArea UT UT 1,000,000$ 1,257,936 8 47 1
Ogden‐Clearfield,UTMetroArea UT UT 694,863 8 86 2
Provo‐Orem,UTMetroArea UT UT 671,185 8 89 3
St.George,UTMetroArea UT UT 180,279 8 242 4
Logan,UT‐IDMetroArea UT‐ID UT 147,348 8 292 5
VirginiaBeach‐Norfolk‐NewportNews,VA‐NCMetroArea VA‐NC VA 1,000,000$ 1,799,674
3 37 1
Richmond,VAMetroArea VA VA 1,000,000$ 1,314,434 3 44 2
Roanoke,VAMetroArea VA VA 315,251 3 163 3
Lynchburg,VAMetroArea VA VA 261,593 3 190 4
Charlottesville,VAMetroArea VA VA 221,524 3 211 5
Blacksburg‐Christiansburg,VAMetroArea VA VA 166,378 3 262 6
Winchester,VA‐WVMetroArea VA‐WV VA 142,632 3 298 7
Harrisonburg,VAMetroArea VA VA 135,571 3 306 8
Staunton,VAMetroArea VA VA 125,433 3 323 9
Burlington‐SouthBurlington,VTMetroArea VT VT 225,562 1 205 1
Seattle‐Tacoma‐Bellevue,WAMetroArea WA WA 1,000,000$ 4,018,762 10 14 1
Spokane‐SpokaneValley,WAMetr
oArea WA WA 585,784 10 99 2
Kennewick‐Richland,WAMetroArea WA WA 303,622 10 167 3
Olympia‐Lacey‐Tumwater,WAMetroArea WA WA 294,793 10 168 4
Bremerton‐Silverdale‐Port Orchard,WAMetroArea WA WA 275,611 10 180 5
Yakima,WAMetroArea WA WA 256,728 10 192 6
Bellingham,WAMetroArea WA WA 226,847 10 203 7
MountVernon‐Anacortes,WAMetroArea WA WA 129,523 10 316 8
Wenatchee,WAMetroArea WA WA 122,012 10 330 9
Longview,WAMetroArea WA WA 110,730 10 349 10
WallaWalla,WAMetr oArea WA WA 62,584 10 390 11
Milwaukee‐Waukesha,WIMetroArea WI WI 1,000,000$ 1,574,731 5 40 1
Madison,WIMetroA
rea WI WI 680,796 5 87 2
GreenBay,WIMetroArea WI WI 328,268 5 158 3
Appleton,WIMetroArea WI WI 243,147 5 196 4
Racine,WIMetroArea WI WI 197,727 5 229 5
EauClaire,WIMetroArea WI WI 172,007 5 252 6
Oshkosh‐Neenah,WIMetroArea WI WI 171,730 5 253 7
Wausau‐Weston,WIMetroArea WI WI 166,428 5 261 8
Janesville‐Beloit,WIMetroArea WI WI 163,687 5 265 9
LaCrosse‐Onalaska,WI‐MNMetroArea WI‐MN WI 139,627 5 300 10
Sheboygan,WIMetroArea WI WI 118,034 5 335 11
FondduLac,WIMetroArea WI WI 104,154 5 353 12
Huntington‐Ashland,WV‐KY‐OHMetr
oArea WV‐KY‐OH WV 359,862 3 150 1
Charleston,WVMetroArea WV WV 258,859 3 191 2
Morgantown,WVMetroArea WV WV 140,038 3 299 3
47
METROAREA
STATE(S)IN
METROAREA
MAIN
STATE
PRESUMPTIVE
FORMULA
ALLOCATION
2020
POPULATION
EPA
REGION
METRO
AREA
COUNT
MSA
RANKIN
STATE(BY
POP)
Wheeling,WV‐OHMetr oArea WV‐OH WV 139,513 3 301 4
Weirton‐Steubenville,WV‐OHMetroArea WV‐OH WV 116,903 3 338 5
Beckley,WVMetroArea WV WV 115,079 3 341 6
Parkersburg‐Vienna,WVMetroArea WV WV 89,490 3 373 7
Cheyenne,WYMetroArea WY WY 100,512 8 361 1
Casper,WYMetroArea WY WY 79,955 8 384 2
Source:https://www2.census.gov/programs‐surveys/popest/tables/2020‐2021/metro/totals/cbsa‐met‐est2021‐pop.xlsx
48
49
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
50
GHG Inventory
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 GHG
11
emissions and sinks
12
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 (CO
2
e). Expressing emissions in CO
2
e allows the emissions of each GHG to be compared to emissions
of CO
2
and other GHGs. To calculate emissions in CO
2
e, each GHG’s emissions in metric tons are multiplied by that
GHG’s global warming potential (GWP), as shown in Equation A-1 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 CO
2
.
PCAP
• Simplified inventory is
required
CCAP
• Comprehensive
inventory is required
Status Report
• Inventory update is
encouraged
51
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
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
CCAP
• Near term and long
term projections are
required
Status Report
• Updated projections
are encouraged
52
Near-Term and Long-Term GHG Reduction Targets
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-projections-and-ghg.
Quantified GHG Reduction Measures
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.
PCAP
• Not required
CCAP
• Near term and long
term targets are
required
Status Report
• Not required
PCAP
• Required for priority
measures
CCAP
• Required for all
measures
Status Report
• Status and updates are
required
53
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.
54
Benefits Analysis
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 (NEI). 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, SO2, 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, SO2, 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, SO2, VOCs, air
toxics, etc.) or other benefits associated with GHG reduction measures that have been
PCAP
• Encouraged
CCAP
• Required
Status Report
• Required
55
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-benefits-analysis.
Low-Income and Disadvantaged Communities Benefits Analysis
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.
PCAP
• Required
CCAP
• Required
Status Report
• Required
56
Review of Authority to Implement GHG Reduction Measures
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
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.
PCAP
• Required
CCAP
• Required
Status Report
• Update required
PCAP
• Encouraged
CCAP
• Required
Status Report
• Required
57
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
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: Grant 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: Grant 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: This element is not applicable for the PCAP.
PCAP
• Encouraged
CCAP
• Required
Status Report
• Required
PCAP
• Not applicable
CCAP
• Not applicable
Status Report
• Required
58
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.
