Questions Regarding OAR's Implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act

These dockets are now closed for comment.

UPDATE: January 18, 2023 – The non-regulatory dockets seeking public comment for selected provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act are now closed. We appreciate your input and participation in the process and will review all feedback as we continue developing and implementing programs under the Inflation Reduction Act. If you have further questions, please reach out to [email protected].

Please be aware that owing to our obligations under EPA’s grants competition policy, and the importance of not giving any potential competitor an unfair advantage, we are not accepting one-on-one meetings on Inflation Reduction Act program design with individual potential competitors for Inflation Reduction Act funds. If you are in this category, or represent an individual or entity in this category, please consider sending an email to [email protected] indicating your interest in participating in a targeted session alongside other stakeholders.

On this page:

DOCKET 1: Climate Pollution Reduction Grants [60114]

EPA received $5 billion to assist states, air pollution control agencies, tribes and local governments to develop and implement strong, climate pollution reduction strategies. These eligible entities can apply for planning grants and then apply  for grants to implement those plans. This is a new program that will be informed by comments received via this request for public comment in addition to other stakeholder engagement activities that the Agency will be conducting consistent with its Grant Competition policy. Visit Climate Pollution Reduction Grants [60114].

  1. What are the most promising greenhouse gas (GHG) planning and reduction opportunities that could be catalyzed by the Climate Pollution Reduction grants, taking into consideration: 

    1. Total potential for GHG reductions and other co-benefits; 
    2. Gaps in existing resources, programs, or policies; 
    3. Availability of other government funding streams? 

  2. How should the EPA integrate the needs of underserved communities into the design of this program, taking into consideration: 

    1. What equity and justice concerns, opportunities, or priorities are most relevant for this program and how can EPA best help address them?  
    2. How can EPA best address the statutory requirement to consider 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. This program consists of $250 million in planning grants, $4.607 billion in climate implementation grants, and $142.5 million for administrative funding. How should EPA implement and coordinate planning and implementation funding to make the greatest impact with the funds as a whole?  

  1. EPA plans to provide technical assistance to grant recipients.  

    1. What technical assistance would be most helpful to eligible entities as they develop climate plans under the Climate Pollution Reduction Program?  
    2. What technical assistance would be most helpful as applicants prepare for the implementation phase of the program? 

  2. How can EPA facilitate coordination and leveraging of other available funding and planning efforts to maximize effectiveness of the program (e.g., timing of implementation grant solicitations, time needed to complete a plan, guidance on program interactions, etc.)? 

  1. What internal capacity challenges do you face regarding the development and implementation of GHG reduction plans? How can EPA help address those challenges? 

  1. What metrics should this program use for measuring success and ensuring accountability? 

  1. How can EPA structure this program to facilitate cooperation and coordination within and across tribal, local, regional, and state agencies to implement climate policies? 

  1. What should EPA consider in the design of the program to encourage grantees to support high quality jobs and adhere to best practices for labor standards, consistent with guidance such as Executive Order 14063 on the Use of Project Labor Agreements and the Department of Labor's Good Jobs Principles? 

  1. How could EPA design this program to align with any legal, regulatory, or voluntary obligations state, local and tribal governments – or regional planning bodies -- may have to quantify and reduce emissions including potential requirements from proposed rulemakings? 

  1. EPA wants to ensure applicants have adequate time and funding to develop their climate action plans before the deadline to apply for implementation funds. In your experience, how much time and funding is required to complete a state, municipal, or tribal climate action plan?  

  1. Please provide any additional comments you would like EPA to consider, which are not covered by the prior questions. 

DOCKET 2: Transportation Programs [60101, 60102]

EPA received $4 billion for two new programs to reduce emissions from the transportation sector. The first program is the Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicle program that will invest $1 billion to help cover the costs of replacing dirty heavy-duty vehicles with clean alternatives, deploy supporting infrastructure, and/or train and develop the necessary workforce. At least $400 million must go to nonattainment areas. The application is open to states, municipalities, Indian tribes, nonprofit school transportation associations, and eligible contractors.  

The second program will provide $3 billion in grants to reduce air pollution at ports with at least $750 million going to nonattainment areas. These funds can be used for a range of activities including purchasing and installing zero-emission port equipment and technology, covering the associated costs of planning and permitting, and developing qualified climate action plans – a detailed and strategic plan that establishes goals, implementation strategies, and accounting and inventory practices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants at one or more ports. Eligible entities include: port authorities; any state, regional, local, or tribal agency with jurisdiction over a port authority; air pollution control agencies; and non-profits and private entities partnering with the above and own, operate, or use port facilities. 

Both of these are new programs that will be informed by comments received via this request for public comment in addition to other stakeholder engagement activities that the Agency will be conducting consistent with its Grant Competition policy.  Visit Transportation Programs [60101, 60102].

Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles [60101] 

  1. How do you see this program working in conjunction with the existing Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) Clean School Bus program, and programs at other agencies given the overlap in vehicles that could be funded? 

  1. For which significant Class 6/7 vehicle sectors should EPA prioritize funding? 

  1. How can EPA ensure the benefits of this program reach low-income and disadvantaged communities? 

  1. What should EPA consider in the design of the program to encourage grantees to support high quality jobs and adhere to best practices for labor standards, consistent with guidance such as Executive Order 14063 on the Use of Project Labor Agreements and the Department of Labor's Good Jobs Principles? 

  1. What metrics should this program use for measuring success and ensuring accountability? 

Grants to Reduce Air Pollution at Ports [60102] 

  1. How can EPA structure this program to reduce air pollution in port communities and accelerate long-term trends to decarbonize the nation’s ports?   

  1. How do you see the Inflation Reduction Act ports program complementing other programs (e.g., at EPA and the Department of Transportation) that can support efforts to reduce emissions at ports? What funding gaps can this program fill (e.g., specific zero emissions technologies or related planning support)?   

  1. The Inflation Reduction Act ports program can fund the development of climate action plans as well as zero emissions port technology, equipment and related planning and permitting.  How would you like to see the action plans and infrastructure funding work together? Should they be sequenced or combined? 

  1. What types of zero-emission port technologies or related planning support do you see as most critical for delivering emissions reductions?  

  1. What do you see as the biggest hurdles to transitioning to zero-emission port equipment? 

  1. How can we help ensure this program addresses concerns of near-port communities and advances environmental justice?  

  1. What should EPA consider in the design of the program to encourage grantees to support high quality jobs and adhere to best practices for labor standards, consistent with guidance such as Executive Order 14063 on the Use of Project Labor Agreements and the Department of Labor's Good Jobs Principles? 

  1. What metrics should this program use for measuring success and ensuring accountability? 

DOCKET 3: Methane Emissions Reduction Program [60113]

EPA received $1.55 billion to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by providing financial assistance (grants, rebates, contracts, loans, and other activities) and technical assistance as well as implementing a statutorily required waste emissions charge. Eligible recipients for these funds include but are not limited to air pollution control agencies, other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and organizations, and individuals. The program specifies that at least $700 million must be used for activities at marginal conventional wells. Section 60113 also requires EPA to implement a waste emission charge on methane emitted from applicable oil and gas facilities that emit over 25,000 metric tons of CO2e and that exceed statutorily specified waste emissions thresholds beginning in 2024. The waste emissions charge will start at $900 and increase to $1,500 per metric ton.  Visit Methane Emissions Reduction Program [60113].

Incentives Program 

  1. The Methane Emissions and Waste Reduction Incentive Program provides up to $1.55 billion to EPA to issue grants, rebates, contracts, loans, and other activities for a number of statutorily specified purposes.  How can EPA structure the financial and technical assistance to ensure the greatest possible public health and environmental impact? 

  1. How can EPA ensure that the financial and technical assistance provided under the Methane Emissions and Waste Reduction Incentive Program complements rather than duplicates other federal and state programs, including funding through other Inflation Reduction Act programs? 

  1. The Methane Emissions and Waste Reduction Incentive Program can provide technical assistance to owners and operators of facilities.  What kinds of technical assistance would be most valuable?  How might technical assistance evolve over time?  

  1. The Methane Emissions and Waste Reduction Incentive Program has funding that is allocated for marginal conventional wells.  For the purposes of financial and technical assistance specified in the Inflation Reduction Act, are there unique considerations related to marginal conventional wells that EPA should consider?  How can EPA ensure that relevant stakeholders are engaged, including owners and operators of marginal conventional wells and those affected by marginal wells and their emissions? 

  1. What should EPA consider in the design of the program to encourage grantees to support high quality jobs and adhere to best practices for labor standards, consistent with guidance such as Executive Order 14063 on the Use of Project Labor Agreements and the Department of Labor's Good Jobs Principles? 

  1. What metrics should this program use for measuring success and ensuring accountability? 

Waste Emissions Charge 

  1. The Inflation Reduction Act establishes a waste emissions charge for methane from applicable facilities that report more than 25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) petroleum and natural gas systems source category (GHGRP Subpart W) and that exceed statutorily specified waste emissions thresholds.  The Inflation Reduction Act specifies certain exemptions and flexibilities related to the charge.  What issues should EPA consider related to waste emissions charge implementation? 

  1. The Inflation Reduction Act requires EPA to revise the requirements of GHGRP Subpart W to ensure that reporting is based on empirical data and accurately reflects total methane emissions.  What revisions should EPA consider related to GHGRP Subpart W?   

DOCKET 4: Funding to Address Air Pollution [60105, 60106]

EPA received over $300 million in funding to support the agency’s air quality mission by investing in a range of activities that will increase monitoring in and by communities, expand and strengthen national monitoring methods, improve monitoring methods and capacity, make monitoring data more available and useful for communities, and improve air quality in our nation’s schools. Six of these programs are authorized under Section 60105. This section establishes a wide range of eligible applicants that includes individuals, state, local and tribal Air pollution control agencies, and other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and organizations. EPA also received $50 million in Section 60106 to address air pollution at schools with $12.5 million dedicated to providing technical assistance and the remainder for grants and other activities to monitor and reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) at schools in low-income and disadvantaged communities. Eligible applicants for this funding include individuals, air pollution control agencies, and other public nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and organizations. Visit Funding to Address Air Pollution [60105, 60106].

Crosscutting Questions 

  1. How can EPA design these programs to most effectively benefit low-income and disadvantaged communities that face disproportionate impacts from air pollution? 

  1. How can EPA (or the federal government generally) incentivize/facilitate cooperation/coordination across state agencies to implement the Inflation Reduction Act (to facilitate communication between a state’s or tribe’s Department of Environmental Protection/Quality, utilities commission, and Department of Transportation and promote coordination among them)?  

  1. What metrics should this program use for measuring success and ensuring accountability? 

  1. What EPA technical assistance (training, tools) or other support is needed by low-income and disadvantaged communities especially for successful application for and implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act programs? 

Funding to Address Air Pollution – Fenceline Monitoring [60105(a)]  

Funds ($117.5 million) can be used to deploy, integrate, support, and maintain fenceline air monitoring, screening air monitoring, national air toxics trend stations, and other air toxics and community monitoring. 

  1. What are the needs for additional national air toxics trends stations and other air toxics monitoring? 

  1. What are the most important needs for monitoring air pollution in communities near the fenceline? 

  1. How can data systems be improved to help support the management of the additional monitoring data? 

  1. How should EPA determine which communities or locations should receive priority for new monitoring? 

Funding to Address Air Pollution – Multipollutant Monitoring [60105(b)]  

Funds ($50 million) can be used to expand the national ambient air quality monitoring network with new multipollutant monitoring stations, and to replace, repair, operate, and maintain existing monitoring stations. 

  1. What are the most important considerations and needs for expanding the national ambient air quality network with new multipollutant monitoring stations? 

  1. What should EPA consider when thinking about the existing and future needs for replacing, repairing, operating, and maintaining the national air quality monitoring network through September 30, 2031? 

  1. How should EPA use these funds to support national multipollutant air quality monitoring networks (e.g. the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET)) in underserved rural communities where gaps in air monitoring data frequently exist? 

  1. How can ambient monitoring enhancements in disadvantaged communities be best used to prioritize and accelerate improvements in air quality?  

  1. What training and technical assistance would best help communities engage in multi-pollutant air quality planning processes to achieve community benefits of multi-pollutant emission reductions? 

  1. To what extent has your organization/community integrated a multi-pollutant reduction approach into your air quality planning process or conversations with local stakeholders? Should EPA conduct additional analysis to help refine current plans, or should EPA first provide foundational information on how to approach this topic in your area? 

Funding to Address Air Pollution – Air Quality Sensors [60105(c)]  

Funds ($3 million) can be used for the deployment, integration, and operation of air quality sensors in low-income and disadvantaged communities. 

  1. What are the existing and future needs for air quality sensors in low-income and disadvantaged communities? 

  1. How can EPA best support the deployment, integration, and operation of air quality sensors?  

Funding to Address Air Pollution – Emissions from Wood Heaters [60105(d)]  

Funds ($15 million) can be used for testing and other agency activities to address emissions from wood heaters, EPA research, development, etc., and contracts with outside organizations. 

  1. Beyond measuring for particle emissions from these appliances, what other air pollutants are essential to measure from residential wood heating appliances? 

  1. What benefits to public health and air quality management are gained by improving the testing methods EPA uses to address emissions from wood heaters? 

  1. What value do you place on data and emissions information related to cord wood fuel species burned in your area(s)? 

  1. Do you feel that it is important for EPA to research the impact of flue draft on particulate matter emissions in relation to residential wood heating?  

  1. Are there other technological advances that EPA should be considering to address air emissions from wood heaters? 

Funding to Address Air Pollution – Methane Monitoring [60105(e)] 

Funds ($20 million) can be used for methane emissions monitoring.   

  1. What methane sources might need to be addressed with measurement technology? 

  1. What way of presenting methane data (frequency, resolution, site specificity, etc.) would be most beneficial to addressing methane measurements? Does this vary by geography? 

  1. What are the existing knowledge gaps in methane measurement, and how can training help address these gaps? 

  1. For methane monitoring, why do bottom-up sensor estimates differ so much from broader scale (e.g., satellite) estimates.  Can this funding help address this fundamental mismatch? 

Funding to Address Air Pollution – Clean Air Act Grants [60105(f)]  

General funding ($25 million) for Clean Air Act’s research, development, and grants program. 

  1. How could EPA funding best support multi-pollutant air quality planning and analysis for municipalities, States, regional planning organizations, and Tribal governments, particularly toward targeting/prioritizing action in overburdened communities? 

Funding to Address Air Pollution at Schools [60106] 

Funding includes $37.5 million for grants and other activities to monitor and reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions at schools in low-income and disadvantaged communities, and $12.5 million for technical assistance to address environmental issues, develop school environmental quality plans, identify, and mitigate ongoing air pollution hazards. 

  1. What barriers might eligible applicants face in applying for these grants? What kind of support would organizations need to apply? 

  1. What specific approaches do you recommend to promote the successful award of these grants to low income and disadvantaged communities most in need of such support? What energy efficiency/greenhouse gas emission reduction technologies or approaches do you think would be the most successful in school buildings? 

  1. What are the obstacles to integrating indoor air quality improvements with energy efficiency upgrades in school buildings, and what ideas do you have to address those challenges? 

  1. What technical assistance, guidance and other non-financial support is most needed to help schools in low-income and disadvantaged communities implement effective and sustainable IAQ and energy efficiency programs? 

DOCKET 5: Funding for Implementation of American Innovation and Manufacturing Act [60109]

Funding includes $38.5 million for implementation of the AIM Act to implement the Kigali Agreement on HFCs. Of this funding, $15 million is dedicated towards new competitive grants for reclaim and innovative destruction technologies, $20 million is dedicated to EPA to carry out the AIM Act, and $3.5 million is dedicated to EPA to deploy new implementation and compliance tools for the AIM Act.  Visit Funding for Implementation of American Innovation and Manufacturing Act [60109].

  1. What innovative destruction technologies listed under 40 CFR 84.29 are commercially available or under development? 

  1. What do you see as important components of a grant program consistent with Section 60109 (a)(3) to support reclaim and innovative destruction technologies? 

  1. What sort of new implementation and compliance tools should EPA deploy to maximize the benefits of the AIM Act? 

DOCKET 6: Low Emissions Electricity Program & GHG Corporate Reporting [60107, 60111]

Visit Low Emissions Electricity Program & GHG Corporate Reporting [60107, 60111].

Low Emissions Electricity Program [60107] 

Funding includes $87 million to fund a wide range of activities to encourage low emissions electricity generation through education, technical assistance, and partnerships with consumers, low income and disadvantaged communities, industry, and state, local, and Tribal governments.  

  1. What types of education, technical assistance, and partnerships that EPA could provide would best support low-income and disadvantaged communities in reducing GHGs associated with electricity generation and use?     

  1. What types of education, technical assistance, and partnerships that EPA could provide would best incentivize efficient electrification in the buildings, transportation, and industrial sectors to reduce GHG emissions? 

  1. What types of education, technical assistance, and partnerships that EPA could provide would be most beneficial to your efforts to advance GHG emission reductions related to electricity generation and use? 

  1. Do you see any analytic or data gaps that EPA could address through this program to both accurately identify mitigation measures delivering the most significant emission reductions for electricity generation and use as well as measure success to ensure accountability? 

GHG Corporate Reporting [60111] 

Funding includes $5 million to enhance standardization and transparency of corporate climate action commitments and plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance transparency regarding progress toward meeting such commitments and implementing such plans, and make progress toward meeting such commitments and implementing such plans. 

  1. What are the areas where EPA could provide the most value to corporate target setting and tracking? 

  1. What, if any, enhanced standardization around setting corporate climate commitments would be of value?  

  1. How can EPA help transparently track progress towards companies’ stated climate commitments? 

  1. How can EPA help support companies in meeting their commitments and implementing their plans? 

Inflation Reduction Act

Contact Us About the Inflation Reduction Act
Contact Us to ask a question, provide feedback, or report a problem.
Last updated on November 6, 2024