This piece is part of the Maintaining Momentum series.

Over the past year, states, cities, tribes, and territories submitted 299 applications to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grants (CPRG) implementation grants program. These applications proposed a range of clean energy projects spanning electricity generation, industry, transportation, buildings, agriculture, natural and working lands, and waste management. With only $4.6 billion available, the EPA awarded implementation funding to just 25 applicants. But this doesn’t mean the work of unsuccessful applicants is wasted.

The unsuccessful CPRG implementation applicants left a treasure-trove of high-impact projects and the diverse coalitions of public agencies, utilities, ports, developers, large and small businesses, and community groups behind them looking for other financing opportunities.

Behind these applications is extensive community engagement, public-private partnerships, and supportive measures, including earmarked state and local funds, staff time, workforce development programs, and fast-tracked permitting and regulatory reforms. This underscores the invaluable coordination and commitments behind these proposed projects that deserve to be capitalized on.

RMI mined these applications, breaking them down into their unique sub-sector initiatives or measures (hereafter referred to as the project) to create the CPRG Implementation Grant Project Inventory. Although applicants did not always follow the same format, RMI combed the workplan, budget narrative, and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction impact sections to identify unique projects against their specific CPRG funding request, estimated GHG reduction impact by 2050, and other significant characteristics.

The CPRG Implementation Grant Project Inventory is a goldmine of opportunity for a wide range of stakeholders.

• State and local government clean energy project sponsors can learn from their peers’ applications, matching their objectives and projects, and exploring the potential of aggregating clean energy projects, lowering costs per project, and sharing risks.
• Public and private lenders or investors can identify clean energy projects with bought-in state and local government project sponsors, as well as their modeled economic, environmental, and social benefits.
• Clean energy developers and manufacturers can explore where government project sponsors are offering land, workforce training, and other incentives to set up shop.
• Grassroots organizations, research institutions, technical assistance (TA) providers, philanthropies, and other mission-driven nongovernmental groups who want to see clean energy, jobs, and other opportunities realized can identify applicants and projects to support with funding, technical resources, cohorts, and advocacy.

Proposed CPRG implementation projects draw from the priorities outlined by states, metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), and tribes in their Priority Climate Action Plans (PCAPs) but do not include all of the 650 state-led PCAP measures that RMI, Evergreen Collaborative, and Climate XChange dug into last year. They indicate the clean energy infrastructure, manufacturing, and programs that states, cities, other eligible entities, and their partners sought funding for and that offer the kind of impact and scale EPA would find competitive.

While requests ranged from $2 million to $500 million, the median funding request for individual projects was roughly $10.5 million. Many of these more moderate sized projects are well suited to municipal general obligation (GO) bonds, green bank loans, or other low-interest and tax-exempt lines of credit. Many proposed projects generate their own long-term payback through energy savings and production.

State- and municipal-led applications each proposed roughly a quarter of the 862 unawarded clean energy projects, though municipalities requested roughly $6 billion in total versus states’ $10 billion. State-led proposals are of course more likely to be larger, but this is only half the story. Although most states were home to both state and local government-led applications, municipalities, counties, regional organizations (e.g., Metropolitan Planning Organizations or councils of governments), and special districts governments (e.g., ports or Air Pollution Control Districts) often submitted multiple, assorted clean energy projects where their states did not.

In Arizona, for example, the four applications submitted by the state’s MSAs — the City of Phoenix in partnership with the wider Maricopa County, Pima County, Flagstaff and Sedona — collectively requested approximately $730 million across some 30 planned projects each requesting over $750,000. These areas cover over 85% of Arizona’s population and carbon footprint. The Arizona Governor’s Office of Resilience chose to support rather than compete with their applications by not leading their own.

Applications were led by 54 state agencies from 34 states, 69 municipalities, 45 regional organizations, 37 counties, 19 tribes, 11 special district governments, 8 public utilities, and 7 universities. Most applications include many public and private organizations both as formal partners and through letters of support. When counting implementing partners, a state agency or representing city from every state in the country, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico was part of a CPRG implementation proposal.

California, Texas, and Washington proposed almost a quarter of total projects, but as the maps below show, clean energy project opportunities are everywhere, regardless of a state’s political affiliation, including 48 project opportunities proposed by coalitions of entities from multiple states. The additional coordination and planning behind developing a multi-state proposal underline both the commitments and potential size of the impact these projects offer.

One of the large-scale proposals submitted to CPRG is the Midwest Industrial Decarbonization Challenge. Industrial sector projects were some of the least frequently proposed, possibly because state and local governments were less sure they could address industrial decarbonization as quickly as other measures outlined in their PCAPs. The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy in partnership with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, and Wisconsin Office of Sustainability and Clean Energy designed the Challenge to reward industrial facilities across coalition states with grants, each up to $50 million, to deploy electrification, heat pumps, thermal storage, carbon capture, fuel switching, HVAC improvements, heat recovery, system upgrades, recycling, and equipment replacement.

Such mega clean energy projects spur innovation and promise significant emissions reductions but can be harder to secure traditional private financing for. Drawing on state capital funds and state revolving loan funds, which usually outperform conventional financing with minimal default rates, will likely be necessary to realize these many high-impact and high-visibility projects.

Most applications seek funding to implement some of the key building blocks of a local energy transition, such as facilitating clean energy retrofits in public and low income/disadvantaged communities (LIDAC) residential buildings or expanding access to electric vehicle (EV) charging. When broken out by the number of clean energy projects proposed by sector (top graph below) and total amount of funding requested by sector (bottom graph below) transportation and buildings lead the pack.

The transportation and buildings sectors were the most common measures cited in the state PCAPs as well, likely because state- and municipal-led clean transportation and building initiatives are relatively easier to unlock near-term emissions reductions and economic gains. Replacing a fossil-fuel powered vehicle with a zero- or low-emissions alternative or a gas-powered boiler with a heat pump yields immediate emissions reductions. And when the government project sponsor owns the vehicle or building, the project is directly in their control and these kinds of improvements fit more easily into their capital renewal or deferred maintenance plans.

Transportation

Transportation’s preponderance mainly comes from so many applicants’ plans to electrify government-owned vehicles, school and public buses, and ground freight. Increasing charging infrastructure at ports, depots, and other high-traffic corridors were also common funding requests. General obligation (GO) or revenue bonds are also common and viable options for financing EV procurement and infrastructure. GO bonds usually mature after 20 years, allowing a clean fleet a long-term period to recoup its fuel and maintenance savings to pay back the bond. Many states also have fleet management bureaus that offer centralized leasing of EVs and chargers.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) in partnership with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), NC Ports Authority — its three largest Metropolitan Planning Organizations — requested $64 million for an extensive list of transportation projects. They sought to replace a huge segment of the state, municipal, and long-haul commercial medium- and heavy-duty fleet with electric and clean diesel options; install level 2 charging at multifamily buildings across the state; and boost inland container transport via rail among other things. The North Carolina Manufacturers Alliance and Duke Energy Carolinas provided letters of support, committing to help deploy that EV charging infrastructure, increase the amount of electricity generated by low- and no-carbon energy resources, and ensure grid readiness to serve the growth in transportation electrification. Investors interested in EV tax equity financing and looking for utility and private electric charging provider assurances will find many in these applications.

Other popular transportation projects proposed are less easy to exchange investment for federal or state tax incentives, but they nevertheless have tremendous potential to lower household transportation expenses and boost economic activity. These include expanding pedestrian and bike lanes, e-bike rebates, and issuing mobility wallets to help lower-income individuals access public transit and shared rides.

Buildings

The most frequent buildings projects proposed were to procure in mass or issue consumer rebates for LED lighting, weatherization products, and energy-efficient HVAC systems like heat pumps. Bulk purchasing and deployment of energy efficient appliances and materials helps lower the cost per retrofit while attracting suppliers and contractors looking to reach an economy of scale. Making the most of the CPRG funding opportunity, many applicants proposed big retrofit programs and cast a wide net for eligible properties. Such mega-programs can spur local developers, contractors, and retailers to deliver energy audits, building repairs, and energy efficient products faster and more cheaply per unit.

Many applicants focused on publicly owned buildings, like schools and libraries that can serve as emergency shelters during extreme weather events, as well as homes in LIDAC communities. To support this, as well as make the most of the funding opportunity, most applicants took a wider approach. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments’ proposed Virginia Initiative for Building Efficiency (VIBE) program is a good example of this. VIBE would support energy efficiency, electrification, and clean distributed energy resource technologies for municipal buildings, privately-owned buildings in LIDACs, particularly multifamily buildings, places of worship, and small businesses, as well as market-rate commercial and multifamily buildings at risk of foreclosure.

Using Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing or commercial PACE (C-PACE) in the thirty states and District of Columbia with active C-PACE programs can help secure the up-front costs for the municipal, residential, commercial, multifamily, and nonprofit property owners identified in these plans. C-PACE leverages funds from an assessment on the property tax bill repaid over 10–30 years, capital from green banks and third-party financiers, and the state or local government acting as payment collector and remitter.

Electric Power

Electric power interventions ranged from community- to utility-scale solar, wind generation, geothermal energy production, and hydropower projects. Community-scale renewable projects far outnumbered utility-scale among the applicants, likely because state and local agencies are more likely to sponsor community-scale versus utility-scale projects.

There are, however, several large-scale clean power generation projects proposed, such as the Alaska Energy Authority’s Dixon Diversion Project to expand the Bradley Lake hydroelectric facility’s energy output by 190,800 MWh/year. Alaska requested $384 million from CPRG to help fill the funding gap left between investments from the State of Alaska and its partners, and implementing the project.

Waste and Industry

Spanning electric power, waste, and industry, projects designed to prevent gases from entering the atmosphere ranked third in total funding requested from CPRG. Entities seek to capture and/or use gases in several ways – anaerobic digestion at wastewater treatment and agricultural facilities, producing biomass from food waste and downed trees, methane capture for fuel usage, and other innovative waste-to-energy proposals. Such projects can offer state or local government-owned property and other incentives to a third-party partner for managing the waste, such as compensating them for managing landfill gas by granting development rights on the site for other uses, like deploying photovoltaics (PV) panels.

Cross-cutting

Many applications requested funding they could distribute as subgrants. Some seek to establish green bank-type structures to further administer their CPRG award for specific goals outlined in their applications. Existing state and local green banks should look to the wider CPRG proposals to understand project demand.

The projects in the Inventory can be searched by measure type, sector, project sponsor type, region, funding requested, emissions reduction potential, and several other factors. Here are some the ways different users could make use of this information.

Unawarded CPRG applicants

Many applicants are still working to move their projects forward without CPRG funding. Mining others’ applications to identify similar projects, objectives, and strategies to achieve them can help applicants adopt others’ approaches or even aggregate projects. Acknowledging that state and local governments typically have different procurement and other processes that can complicate project aggregation, bundled projects can have a greater chance of attracting private capital providers, reduce the per unit cost of the clean energy technologies purchased, and streamline project administration.

States, cities, and tribes with clean energy project ambitions not in this Inventory

Across the United States, states and other local authorities are at different stages of integrating clean and low-emission technologies into their communities. Some have yet to evaluate which infrastructure and technology types are best suited for their energy needs or local manufacturing, let alone how to get started on implementation. These 274 applications, as well as the PCAPs behind them, can help newcomers see how their peers have paired their prioritized benefits to clean energy solutions. Likewise, the public and private partners listed offer a rolodex of clean energy sponsors to engage in creating project plans and driving implementation.

Financiers

Clean energy lenders and investors have a lot to gain from this Inventory of project opportunities. Mission-driven entities like green banks, Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs), credit unions, corporate philanthropy, and other public, quasi-public, or private catalytic capital providers can find projects with clear state and local government-buy in, public-private partnerships, and modeled jobs, energy savings, and other community benefits ranging from the hyper-local to the regional scale. Many of these projects, especially those focused on developing renewable energy and clean technology manufacturing, are also likely to generate revenue, and with credit-worthy state and local government backers would be valuable to commercial lenders as well. RMI has outlined some of the more bankable projects available in this Inventory, but investors should not pass up the chance to observe the range of these proposals for themselves.

Advocates

For those who want to see clean projects in their communities, this Inventory allows a playbook for engaging their local, state, and federal representatives. They can look to draw on these projects at public meetings, in requests for feedback, and other opportunities to keep attention on these plans and projects so their implementation planning continues.

Technical assistance providers

Supporting project sponsors and their proposals’ transition from a grant-based funding pathway to other forms of financing is where TA providers have a huge role to play. This Inventory can help guide outreach to unawarded applicants, pair an organization’s mission and expertise to relevant projects, and identify what additional planning, design and engineering, partnerships, or other support would make proposed projects more attractive for public, quasi-public, and private financing. TA providers can also pair state and local government project sponsors with developers, energy service companies (ESCOs), financial lenders, and their peers to explore project aggregation.

CPRG was not designed to finance every worthy clean energy project. However, it catalyzed states, metropolitan statistical areas, and tribes to align on what economic, environmental, and social benefits they want realized in their communities; what clean energy infrastructure and technologies to deploy to realize those goals; and what policy levers, financial incentives, and other strategies could accelerate clean energy deployment and local manufacturing.

Many proposals include workforce training administered by frontline organizations and vocational schools so enabling clean technologies, like solar panels, EV supply equipment, and other amenities can be installed and managed by the communities they serve.

CPRG welcomed a diverse range of projects, and applicants pitched creative solutions to accelerate clean energy while keeping community resilience and benefits at the forefront. Clean energy advocates and investors will find in the CPRG applications details on projects’ community benefits and community engagement strategies.

America’s backlog of clean energy projects presents an unprecedented opportunity to rapidly scale low-emission interventions and drive cleaner economies for all. There are many actors who can play an essential role in ensuring the success of these projects, maintaining momentum for a more resilient future.

For any questions regarding this Inventory, please contact states@rmi.org.