Environmental Policy and Innovation Grants

 

The goals of this assistance program are to (1) support analyses, studies, evaluations, workshops, conferences, and demonstration projects that lead to reduced pollutants generated and conservation of natural resources; (2) improve economic information and analytic methods to support studies, surveys, analyses, evaluations, conferences, workshops, and demonstration projects on the benefits, costs, and impacts of environmental programs; (3) improve economic information and analytic methods to support studies, surveys, analyses, evaluations, conferences, workshops, and demonstration projects of incentive-based and voluntary environmental management strategies and mechanisms; (4) support research to explore and develop strategies and mechanisms for those in the economic, social, governmental, and environmental arenas to use in environmental management decisions; (5) provide technical assistance to help communities to learn about and implement locally led, community driven approaches that deliver environmental, economic, and quality-of-life benefits; and (6) build and strengthen the adaptive capacity of states, tribes, and local communities to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to the impacts of extreme weather (e.g., storms and droughts) and other events (e.g., wildfires, sea level rise and storm surges) now and in the future.

Active 66.611 Environmental Protection Agency B - Project Grants Fiscal Year 2016 Most of the environmental economics research grants awarded under this CFDA have ended, and the few that remain are wrapping up in FY2016 One environmental economics research project funded under this CFDA that concluded this year sought to develop a series of complementary analyses for understanding the economic efficiency, environmental effectiveness, and distributional effects of overlapping policies, accounting for how different policy instruments interact with one another, and how they perform in the presence of induced technological change. The methods were applied to the two sectors of greatest import for GHG and conventional pollutant emissions: electricity generation and transportation. The first objective was to conduct a comprehensive review of existing policies and major proposals for reducing emissions and promoting clean technologies in these sectors. The second goal was to develop an analytical model of consumer, supplier, and overall market responses to these kinds of policy interventions, in order to develop intuition about interactions among policies. Importantly, in addition to an emissions externality, the model would incorporate two types of market imperfections that often motivate technology- specific policies: undervaluation of energy efficiency by consumers and spillovers from knowledge accumulated by producers. The third goal was to develop numerical models following the conceptual analysis, and carefully parameterize them for our two sectoral applications. The ultimate goal was to provide a comprehensive guide for policymakers on how the existing abundance of policies and policy options should be understood, coordinated, and possibly reformed. Their work was successful, producing the following types of information and materials: Development of a simple unifying model to analyze interactions among overlapping environmental policies, particularly those that involve tradable credit mechanisms. The model was extended to allow for both more and less mature renewable energy sources (e.g., wind versus solar), differentiating the innovation market failures among these different classes, and by incorporating demand-side market failures e.g., the undervaluation of energy efficiency improvements). It demonstrates that the value of a given policy change depends on the extent to which any and all of these market failures are internalized. The model was further adapted to allow for the peculiarities of the transportation fuels sector. This included modeling the nested targets in the Renewable Fuels Standard, a low-carbon fuel standard, and different forms of CAFE standards, including size-based incentives. It highlights how each of these policies can be modeled as combinations of implicit taxes and subsidies and reveals how they interact. The research led to parameterization of a new analytical model for the electricity sector. This permitted quantitative analysis about the optimal policy combinations. A significant focus was on the optimal deployment subsidies for wind and solar and their sensitivity to a variety of assumptions regarding the potential for learning-by-doing, the degree of spillovers, and the stringency of the emissions target. Central estimates for these values were in the range of 1 cent for wind (mature renewable technologies) and 5 cents/kWh for solar. While they rise somewhat as emissions reduction targets get more stringent, the carbon price in the optimal carbon policy combination is what rises most significantly. The development and parameterization of this model proved more challenging than expected. The baseline involves a large pre-existing suite of policy incentives and mandates, for which implicit values must be calculated. Incorporating realistic fuel economy strategies required calibrating both technological and size-based opportunities for fuel economy improvements. Trying to maintain an overall calibration strategy of relying on EIA data (projections generated from the much more complex NEMS model), while being consistent with other empirical evidence on innovation and renewable fuels, required significant innovations in terms of the model and solution strategies. The results emphasize the inefficiency of current federal renewable fuel standards and size-based fuel economy standards relative to direct taxes on carbon or gasoline. We find that the current mix of state and federal fuel taxes, fuel economy standards, and renewable fuel blending mandates leads to a 13% reduction in domestic carbon emissions from this sector relative to a no-policy baseline at an average private welfare cost of $18/tCO2. These policies induce behavioral changes that are highly cost-ineffective, however, as evidenced by a marginal cost of carbon abatement that varies widely across competing abatement options: $0/tCO2 to $736/tCO2 for options based on fuel switching (e.g., from gasoline to ethanol) and negative $45/tCO2 to positive $73/tCO2 for options based on conservation (i.e., driving fewer miles or improving fuel economy). Negative abatement costs for conservation arise in this setting due to consumer undervaluation of fuel economy and due to existing policies that implicitly subsidize ethanol well beyond the point where its marginal cost exceeds its energy value. In contrast, the optimal carbon policy — a carbon tax combined with corrective subsidies for cellulosic ethanol production and fuel economy improvements—can achieve the same 13% reduction in carbon emissions, but at an average private welfare gain of $15/tCO2 relative to no policy. For awards related to smart growth, program accomplishments involved supporting activities of current grant recipients: $135,000 for Smart Growth Conference held in February 2016 and attended by 1,700 people from the public and private sector. $90,000 for Smart Growth On-line Website and Policy Clearinghouse. $200,000 for technical assistance workshops in 14 communities addressing land use and code audits to promote more sustainable development. $20,000 for technical assistance workshops in 9 communities addressing complete streets and sustainable design. $160,000 for workshops focused on opportunities to enhance community sustainability through state policy. $20,000 for technical assistance workshops in 8 communities using the LEED for Neighborhood Development Standards as a tool for evaluating options to improve community environmental performance. Most of the environmental economics research grants awarded under this CFDA have ended, and the few that remain are wrapping up in FY2016 One environmental economics research project funded under this CFDA that concluded this year sought to develop a series of complementary analyses for understanding the economic efficiency, environmental effectiveness, and distributional effects of overlapping policies, accounting for how different policy instruments interact with one another, and how they perform in the presence of induced technological change. The methods were applied to the two sectors of greatest import for GHG and conventional pollutant emissions: electricity generation and transportation. The first objective was to conduct a comprehensive review of existing policies and major proposals for reducing emissions and promoting clean technologies in these sectors. The second goal was to develop an analytical model of consumer, supplier, and overall market responses to these kinds of policy interventions, in order to develop intuition about interactions among policies. Importantly, in addition to an emissions externality, the model would incorporate two types of market imperfections that often motivate technology- specific policies: undervaluation of energy efficiency by consumers and spillovers from knowledge accumulated by producers. The third goal was to develop numerical models following the conceptual analysis, and carefully parameterize them for our two sectoral applications. The ultimate goal was to provide a comprehensive guide for policymakers on how the existing abundance of policies and policy options should be understood, coordinated, and possibly reformed. Their work was successful, producing the following types of information and materials: Development of a simple unifying model to analyze interactions among overlapping environmental policies, particularly those that involve tradable credit mechanisms. The model was extended to allow for both more and less mature renewable energy sources (e.g., wind versus solar), differentiating the innovation market failures among these different classes, and by incorporating demand-side market failures e.g., the undervaluation of energy efficiency improvements). It demonstrates that the value of a given policy change depends on the extent to which any and all of these market failures are internalized. The model was further adapted to allow for the peculiarities of the transportation fuels sector. This included modeling the nested targets in the Renewable Fuels Standard, a low-carbon fuel standard, and different forms of CAFE standards, including size-based incentives. It highlights how each of these policies can be modeled as combinations of implicit taxes and subsidies and reveals how they interact. The research led to parameterization of a new analytical model for the electricity sector. This permitted quantitative analysis about the optimal policy combinations. A significant focus was on the optimal deployment subsidies for wind and solar and their sensitivity to a variety of assumptions regarding the potential for learning-by-doing, the degree of spillovers, and the stringency of the emissions target. Central estimates for these values were in the range of 1 cent for wind (mature renewable technologies) and 5 cents/kWh for solar. While they rise somewhat as emissions reduction targets get more stringent, the carbon price in the optimal carbon policy combination is what rises most significantly. The development and parameterization of this model proved more challenging than expected. The baseline involves a large pre-existing suite of policy incentives and mandates, for which implicit values must be calculated. Incorporating realistic fuel economy strategies required calibrating both technological and size-based opportunities for fuel economy improvements. Trying to maintain an overall calibration strategy of relying on EIA data (projections generated from the much more complex NEMS model), while being consistent with other empirical evidence on innovation and renewable fuels, required significant innovations in terms of the model and solution strategies. The results emphasize the inefficiency of current federal renewable fuel standards and size-based fuel economy standards relative to direct taxes on carbon or gasoline. We find that the current mix of state and federal fuel taxes, fuel economy standards, and renewable fuel blending mandates leads to a 13% reduction in domestic carbon emissions from this sector relative to a no-policy baseline at an average private welfare cost of $18/tCO2. These policies induce behavioral changes that are highly cost-ineffective, however, as evidenced by a marginal cost of carbon abatement that varies widely across competing abatement options: $0/tCO2 to $736/tCO2 for options based on fuel switching (e.g., from gasoline to ethanol) and negative $45/tCO2 to positive $73/tCO2 for options based on conservation (i.e., driving fewer miles or improving fuel economy). Negative abatement costs for conservation arise in this setting due to consumer undervaluation of fuel economy and due to existing policies that implicitly subsidize ethanol well beyond the point where its marginal cost exceeds its energy value. In contrast, the optimal carbon policy — a carbon tax combined with corrective subsidies for cellulosic ethanol production and fuel economy improvements—can achieve the same 13% reduction in carbon emissions, but at an average private welfare gain of $15/tCO2 relative to no policy. Due to limited funds, during Fiscal Year 2016, EPA’s Office of Sustainable Communities did not fund any new cooperative agreements. For awards related to Sustainable Communities, program accomplishments involved supporting activities of current grant recipients: a Smart Growth Conference held in February 2016 and attended by 1,700 people from the public and private sector, a Smart Growth On-line Website and Policy Clearinghouse, technical assistance workshops in 14 communities addressing land use and code audits to promote more sustainable development, technical assistance workshops in 9 communities addressing complete streets and sustainable design workshops focused on opportunities to enhance community sustainability through state policy, and technical assistance workshops in 8 communities using the LEED for Neighborhood Development Standards as a tool for evaluating options to improve community environmental performance.
Fiscal Year 2017 No new grants awarded for environmental economics, and prior funded grants closed by end of FY2016. No new grants for Community Driven Environmental Protection were awarded in 2017.
Fiscal Year 2018 No new grants awarded for environmental economics, and prior funded grants closed by end of FY2016. No new grants for Community Driven Environmental Protection were awarded in 2018.
Fiscal Year 2023 For more information about this program and achievements associated with this assistance listing, please visit the following website: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-policy-op. Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1442
Toxics Substances Control Act, Section 10, as amended by PL 106-74
Solid Waste Disposal Act, Section 8001
Clean Water Act, Section 104
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Section 20, as amended by PL 106-74
Clean Air Act, Section 103
National Environmental Policy Act, Section 102(2)(F) Assistance under this program is generally available to States and local governments, territories and possessions, foreign governments, international organizations, Indian Tribes, interstate organizations, intrastate organizations, and possessions of the U.S., including the District of Columbia, public and private universities and colleges, hospitals, laboratories, other public or private nonprofit institutions, and individuals. Nonprofit organizations described in Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that engage in lobbying activities as defined in Section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 are not eligible to apply. For profit organizations are generally not eligible for funding. Some of EPA's statutes may limit assistance to specific types of interested applicants. See "Authorization" listed above. For certain competitive funding opportunities under this assistance listing, the Agency may limit eligibility to compete to a number or subset of eligible applicants consistent with the Agency's Assistance Agreement Competition Policy. National laboratories funded by Federal Agencies (Federally-Funded Research and Development Centers, "FFRDCs") may not apply. FFRDC employees may cooperate or collaborate with eligible applicants within the limits imposed by applicable legislation and regulations. They may participate in planning, conducting, and analyzing the research directed by the applicant, but may not direct projects on behalf of the applicant organization. The institution, organization, or governance receiving the award may provide funds through its grant from the EPA to an FFRDC for research personnel, supplies, equipment, and other expenses directly related to the research. Federal Agencies may not apply. Federal employees are not eligible to serve in a principal leadership role on a grant, and may not receive salaries or augment their Agency's appropriations in other ways through grants made by this program. For certain competitive funding opportunities under this assistance listing, the Agency may limit eligibility to compete to a number or subset of eligible applicants consistent with the Agency's Assistance Agreement Competition Policy. State and local governments, U.S. territories and possessions, Indian Tribes, universities and colleges, hospitals, laboratories, other public and private nonprofit institutions, individuals, and international organizations. Documentation of nonprofit status may be required. Applicants may be requested to demonstrate they have appropriate background, academic training, experience in the field, and necessary equipment to carry out projects. EPA may ask applicants or principal investigators to provide curriculum vitae and relevant publications. Preapplication coordination is required. This program is eligible for coverage under E.O. 12372, "Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs." An applicant should consult the office or official designated as the single point of contact in his or her State for more information on the process the State requires to be followed in applying for assistance, if the State has selected the program for review. Executive Order 12372, "Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs," applies to this assistance listing when proposed Federal financial assistance involves land use planning or construction associated with demonstration projects. EPA financial assistance programs and activities subject to intergovernmental review that are subject to review under State single point of contact procedures are identified at https://www.epa.gov/grants/epa-financial-assistance-programs-subject-executive-order-12372-and-section-204. Applicants for programs or activities subject to Intergovernmental Review that are not subject to State single point of contact review must provide directly affected State, areawide, regional, and local entities at least 60 days to review their application following notification by EPA that the application has been selected for funding as provided by 40 CFR 29.8(a) and (c). Regarding pre-application assistance with respect to competitive funding opportunities under this assistance listing, EPA will generally specify the nature of the pre-application assistance, if any, that will be available to applicants in the competitive announcement. For additional information, contact the individual(s) listed in the competitive announcement. 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards applies to this program. Applicants, except in limited circumstances approved by the Agency, must submit all initial applications for funding through Grants.gov. For competitive awards, EPA will review and evaluate applications in accordance with the terms, conditions, and criteria stated in the competitive announcement. Competitions will be conducted in accordance with EPA policies/regulations for competing assistance agreements. For competitions involving research that are administered as part of the Economic and Decision Sciences program, OP will continue to adhere to the policies established by ORD, NCER and their Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, which includes engaging an external technical peer review panel to evaluate the technical merits of research applications. For non-competitive awards made under this assistance listing, EPA will conduct an administrative evaluation to determine the adequacy of the application in relation to grant regulations and to technical and program evaluation to determine the merit and relevance of the project. The Agency will then advise the applicant if funding is being considered. A final work plan will then be negotiated with the applicant. For competitive awards, deadlines will be specified in the competitive announcement. For noncompetitive awards, contact the Headquarters office for application deadlines. From 120 to 180 days. Approximately 180 days from the application submission due date specified in the competitive solicitations. For competitive solicitations administered under the Economic and Decision Sciences program, the time for notification is approximately 240 days. Assistance agreement competition-related disputes will be resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures published in 70 FR (Federal Register) 3629, 3630 (January 26, 2005). Copies of these procedures may also be found at: https://www.epa.gov/grants/grant-competition-dispute-resolution-procedures. Disputes relating to matters other than the competitive selection of recipients will be resolved under 2 CFR 1500 Subpart E, as applicable. Generally, EPA may sometimes choose to either fully or incrementally fund awarded grants and cooperative agreements for Environmental Policy and Innovation. Approval of subsequent funding increments and extensions are dependent on satisfactory project progress, continued relevance of the project to EPA's priorities, availability of funds, and Agency policy on the competitive grant process. Extensions for environmental economic research awards are subject to limitations placed on research grants, which presently allow consideration of up to seven years for the period of performance. The evaluation and selection criteria for competitive awards under this assistance listing will be described in the competitive announcement. Non-competitive applications are judged for: (a) technical merit in terms of: (1) strengths and weaknesses of the project; (2) adequacy of overall project design; (3) competency of proposed staff; (4) suitability of applicant's available resources; (5) appropriateness of the proposed project period and budget; and (6) probability that the project will accomplish stated objectives; and, for (b) program interest in terms of: (1) the need for the proposed project; and (2) relationship to program objectives. Environmental economic research supported under this assistance listing can be used for the following: (1) To support analyses, studies, evaluations, workshops, conferences, and demonstration projects that lead to reduced pollutants generated and conservation of natural resources; (2) to improve economic information and analytic methods to support studies, surveys, analyses, evaluations, conferences, workshops, and demonstration projects on the benefits, costs, and impacts of environmental programs; (3) to improve economic information and analytic methods to support studies, surveys, analyses, evaluations, conferences, workshops, and demonstration projects of incentive-based and voluntary environmental management strategies and mechanisms; (4) to support research to explore and develop strategies and mechanisms for those in the economic, social, governmental, and environmental arenas to use in environmental management decisions; and (5) to provide technical assistance to help communities to learn about and implement locally led, community driven approaches that deliver environmental, economic, and quality-of-life benefits. Assistance agreement awards under this program may involve or relate to geospatial information. Geospatial information is information that identifies the geographic location and characteristics of natural or constructed features or boundaries on the earth, or applications, tools, and hardware associated with the generation, maintenance, or distribution of such information. This information may be derived from, among other things, GPS, remote sensing, mapping, charting, and surveying technologies, or statistical data. Further information regarding geospatial information may be obtained by viewing the following website: Geospatial Resources at EPA (https://www.epa.gov/geospatial). Not applicable. Grants and cooperative agreements are subject to inspections and audits by the Comptroller General of the United States, the EPA Office of Inspector General, other EPA staff, or any authorized representative of the Federal government. Reviews by the EPA Project Officer and the Grants Specialist may occur each year. Recipients must keep financial records, including all documents supporting entries on accounting records and to substantiate changes in grants available to personnel authorized to examine EPA recipients grants and cooperative agreements records. Recipients must maintain all records until 3 years from the date of submission of final expenditure reports as required by 2 CFR 200.334. If questions, such as those raised because of audits remain following the 3-year period, recipients must retain records until the matter is completely resolved. Statutory formula is not applicable to this assistance listing.

Matching is voluntary_rating. Matching requirements may be established in program guidance or the terms of the competitive solicitation.

MOE requirements are not applicable to this assistance listing. Grants and cooperative agreements are usually funded on a 12-month basis. However, EPA can negotiate the project period with each applicant based on project requirements. EPA has limitations on project periods, and grants and cooperative agreements may be fully funded or incrementally funded. Approval of subsequent funding increments is dependent on satisfactory project progress, continued relevance of the project to EPA's priorities and availability of funds. These determinations are made by EPA. Most assistance under this assistance listing will either be awarded as a lump sum payment or incrementally. Funds will be released on as-needed basis to the grant recipient. None/Not specified. Brett Snyder
Office of Policy, Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. (Mail Code: 1809A)
Washington, DC 20460 US
snyder.brett@epa.gov
Phone: 202-566-2261
Fax: 202-566-2373

John V. Thomas
Office of Policy, Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (Mail Code: 1807T)
Washington, DC 20460 USA
thomas.john@epa.gov
Phone: 202-566-1285
Fax: 202-566-2868 https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-policy-op 68-0108-0-1-304 (Project Grants (Discretionary)) FY 22$0.00; FY 23 est $0.00; FY 24 est $140,000.00; FY 21$140,983.00; FY 20$0.00; FY 19$0.00; FY 18$0.00; FY 17$0.00; FY 16$450,000.00; - In FY2024, EPA will fund a set of small (no more than $40,000 per award), unsolicited noncompetitive grants for research and workshops. When competitive solicitations have been released in the past (FY2010 and prior years), the following types of grants were awarded: (1) for Environmental Economic Workshops: range of $35,000 - $95,000, with an average award of ~$70,000; (2) for Environmental Economics Dissertations and Early Career Research: range of $35,000 - $75,000, with an average of ~$60,000; and (3) for Environmental Economic Research: range of $75,000-$300,000, with an average of ~$250,000. For recent awards related to community driven environmental protection strategies, the range is from $25,000 to $200,000, with an average around $100,000. 2 CFR 200 and 1500 (EPA Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards); 40 CFR Part 33 (Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in United States Environmental Protection Agency Programs); 40 CFR Part 45 (EPA Training Assistance). Fiscal Year 2016 No new environmental economic research grants were funded in FY2016. This is due to reductions in appropriations that have limited amount of available funding to be used for these purposes. No new environmental economic research grants were funded in FY2016. This is due to reductions in appropriations that have limited amount of available funding to be used for these purposes. The Office of Sustainable Communities funded existing three cooperative agreements in FY 2016 that funded organizations with specific expertise to deliver technical assistance to communities. Two cooperative agreements provided assistance to 20 communities on complete streets policies, fiscal and economic aspects of sustainability and code and policy innovations to support sustainable neighborhood design.
Fiscal Year 2017 No new environmental economic research grants were funded in FY2017. This is due to reductions in appropriations that resulted in having insufficient funding available to be used for these purposes. No new cooperative agreements were funded by the Office of Sustainable Communities in FY 2017, however, work with additional support from other federal agencies continued under agreements that had been funded in the prior year. For example, awards related to community driven environmental solutions carried out in FY 2017 include a Smart Growth Conference held in February 2016 and attended by 1,700 people from the public and private sector, a Smart Growth On-line Website and Policy Clearinghouse, technical assistance workshops in 14 communities addressing land use and code audits to promote more sustainable development, technical assistance workshops in 9 communities addressing complete streets and sustainable design, workshops focused on opportunities to enhance community sustainability through state policy, and technical assistance workshops using the LEED for Neighborhood Development Standards as a tool for evaluating options to improve community environmental performance.
Fiscal Year 2018 N/A
Fiscal Year 2023 In FY 2023, there was no available funding. In previous years, this assistance listing has supported projects that included, but where not limited to: 1) research priorities in the field of environmental economics and related research continue to include: work on improvements in the valuation of environmental benefits, including human health and ecological services; 2) measuring economic costs and impacts to society from regulations, including effective ways to forecast future pollution control technologies, regulatory costs and impacts on employment and competitiveness of regulated sectors of the economy; and 3) integrating economic and natural science models for purposes of assessing environmental risks and consequences; and utilization of alternative regulatory management approaches, including use of voluntary and incentive-based programs to achieve environmental objectives