Sec. 60013. Rescission of funding for greenhouse gas air pollution plans and implementation grants | Impact

One Big (not so) Beautiful Bill over the U.S. Capitol

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 60013: Rescission of funding for greenhouse gas air pollution plans and implementation grants

Executive Summary

Section 60013 rescinds the unobligated balances of funding made available for Clean Air Act section 137, the greenhouse gas air pollution plans and implementation grants program created by the Inflation Reduction Act.[1] That program is commonly implemented as EPA’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grants program, which was designed to help states, local governments, tribes, territories, municipalities, air pollution control agencies, and coalitions develop and implement plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other harmful air pollution.[2]

The original program provided nearly $5 billion in federal grant capacity: $250 million for planning grants and about $4.6 billion to $4.75 billion for implementation grants, depending on whether the amount is described by statutory authorization or EPA competition structure.[2] EPA had already selected major implementation awards before the rescission, including 25 selected applications totaling more than $4.3 billion for projects in 30 states.[3] Because Section 60013 rescinds only unobligated balances, already obligated grants are not automatically cancelled by the statutory text. The practical impact depends on how much funding remained unobligated when the rescission took effect, how EPA treated selected but not fully obligated awards, and whether later administrative actions affected access to already awarded funds.

The environmental and climate impact is negative. The section removes remaining federal support from a grant program whose purpose was to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, conventional air pollution, and local climate-related harms through state, local, tribal, territorial, and regional implementation projects.[2] Even where the rescinded amount is smaller than the original $5 billion program size because much of the program had already been awarded, the legal change narrows the remaining pathway for additional climate planning, implementation, technical assistance, replacement awards, contingencies, and administrative support.

What Section 60013 Actually Does

Section 60013 is a rescission provision. It states that the unobligated balances of amounts made available to carry out section 137 of the Clean Air Act are rescinded.[1] Section 137 was added by the Inflation Reduction Act and funded greenhouse gas air pollution planning and implementation grants.[4]

The affected program is EPA’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grants program. EPA describes the program as providing nearly $5 billion in grants to states, local governments, tribes, and territories to develop and implement plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other harmful air pollution.[2]

The original affected funding streams were:

Program or activity	Amount	What the money supports
Planning grants	$250 million	Noncompetitive grants to eligible entities to develop greenhouse gas air pollution reduction plans, including Priority Climate Action Plans and related planning work.[4]
Implementation grants	$4.75 billion in statutory funding, described by EPA implementation materials as about $4.6 billion for competitive implementation grants	Grants to implement greenhouse gas reduction programs, policies, projects, and measures identified in qualifying climate action plans.[4]
General implementation competition	Up to $4.3 billion	Competitive implementation grants for state, local, tribal, and coalition projects; EPA selected 25 applications for more than $4.3 billion across 30 states.[3]
Tribal and territorial implementation competition	About $300 million	Competitive implementation grants for eligible tribes and territories.[5]

The section does not repeal Clean Air Act section 137 itself. It rescinds remaining unobligated balances made available to carry it out. That distinction matters because a rescission of unobligated balances generally removes budget authority that has not yet been legally obligated, while funds already obligated through valid grant awards may be governed by the terms of those obligations, grant law, and any later administrative or judicial action.[1]

Climate Program Portal estimated the Section 60013 cut at about $92 million, indicating that much of the original program funding had already been awarded or otherwise obligated before the rescission.[6] That estimate should be read as an outside program-tracking estimate of likely unobligated funding affected, not as a replacement for agency account-level execution data.

Legislative Mechanism

Section 60013 uses a direct budget rescission. Rather than amending eligibility rules, changing grant formulas, or rewriting EPA’s project-selection criteria, it removes unobligated budget authority for Clean Air Act section 137.[1]

The legal mechanism has four practical effects.

First, EPA must identify the unobligated balances in the relevant accounts and stop treating those balances as available for new obligations. Second, OMB and Treasury budget controls must reflect the rescission in apportionment, account, and execution records. Third, EPA’s grant offices lose remaining flexibility to make new awards, supplement existing awards, cover administrative costs, or address contingencies using the rescinded balances. Fourth, public visibility may be uneven because the rescission affects unobligated balances, which are often visible in agency and Treasury budget execution data but may not appear as discrete award-level records on USAspending.gov unless funds had already been obligated to recipients.

The section is narrower than a program repeal. It does not, by itself, erase prior planning work or invalidate already completed climate action plans. It also does not itself terminate every existing grant. But it does change the federal funding baseline by removing remaining unobligated grant resources from a program designed to support greenhouse gas reduction planning and implementation.

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

The rescission should be tracked through federal budget execution systems rather than only through grant-award databases. EPA would identify the unobligated balances in the Clean Air Act section 137 program accounts. OMB would reflect the rescission in apportionment and budget execution controls. Treasury would record account-level budget authority and outlay effects. EPA grant systems and USAspending.gov would remain relevant for already obligated awards and any award-level modifications, but they may not clearly show the full rescinded amount if the rescinded balances were never obligated to grant recipients.

Public tracking is likely to be partly clear and partly difficult to isolate. The original CPRG awards are visible through EPA announcements and federal award data, but the precise amount rescinded by Section 60013 may be clearer in budget execution records, CBO estimates, OMB materials, EPA financial records, or oversight documents than in recipient-facing grant databases.

flowchart TD
A[Section 60013 rescission] --> B[EPA identifies balances]
B --> C[OMB adjusts controls]
B --> D[Treasury records accounts]
B --> E[EPA grant systems]
E --> F[Existing awards]
E --> G[No new obligations]
C --> H[Budget execution data]
D --> H
F --> I[USAspending data]
F --> J[Recipient reporting]
H --> K[Congress oversight]
H --> L[GAO and IG review]
I --> M[Public visibility]
J --> M
K --> M
L --> M
G --> N[Limited visibility]
N --> M

The most useful tracking sources are likely to include EPA budget materials, EPA grant announcements and award records, Treasury account reporting, OMB apportionment and budget execution information where available, USAspending.gov for obligated grants, and GAO or EPA Inspector General oversight if disputes or implementation issues arise. Section-specific public tracking may be delayed or aggregated because the rescission affects unobligated balances rather than a single new outlay, grant award, or contract.

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For EPA, Section 60013 reduces remaining program flexibility. Staff administering the Climate Pollution Reduction Grants program would have to shift from new award activity, contingency management, supplemental funding, or broader implementation support toward closeout, compliance monitoring, existing-award management, and budget reconciliation.

For states, local governments, tribes, territories, air pollution control agencies, and coalitions, the biggest day-to-day change is the loss of remaining federal grant capacity. Entities that already received awards may continue to focus on grant compliance, procurement, reporting, and implementation, but entities that expected later opportunities, supplemental support, replacement awards, or follow-on implementation funding face a narrower federal funding pathway.

The section also changes planning incentives. The CPRG structure linked planning grants to implementation opportunities: communities developed climate action plans in part because implementation funding could later support projects identified in those plans.[5] Removing remaining unobligated implementation resources weakens that planning-to-project pipeline and may leave some planning work without a federal implementation path.

Effects on Consumers

The consumer impact is indirect but meaningful. CPRG-funded projects were intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and harmful air pollution through measures such as clean energy deployment, building efficiency, industrial decarbonization, transportation changes, waste reduction, and other locally selected climate pollution strategies.[2] Consumers could benefit from those projects through cleaner air, lower exposure to pollution, improved public health, energy savings, more resilient infrastructure, and local clean-energy job creation.

Section 60013 does not directly raise household taxes, utility bills, or retail prices. Its effect is instead the removal of remaining federal support for projects that could lower pollution, reduce energy waste, or help communities implement climate action plans. Where projects had already been obligated, consumer benefits may still occur. Where planned or potential projects depended on unobligated balances, consumers may see delayed, reduced, or cancelled benefits.

The effect may be more significant in communities that lack local fiscal capacity to replace federal climate implementation funding. Low-income households, renters, pollution-burdened neighborhoods, rural communities, tribes, and smaller local governments may have fewer alternative funding sources for emissions-reduction and air-quality projects.

Effects on Businesses

For businesses, Section 60013 has mixed near-term administrative effects but negative effects for firms positioned to deliver climate and pollution-reduction projects. Contractors, engineering firms, clean-energy developers, building retrofit companies, public transit suppliers, environmental consultants, monitoring vendors, and workforce partners may lose potential work if remaining CPRG funds would otherwise have supported new obligations, supplemental awards, or expanded project scopes.

Businesses that already hold contracts or subawards under obligated CPRG grants may not be directly cut off by Section 60013 itself, but they may face uncertainty if grant recipients revise scopes, delay procurements, or reduce contingency spending. Smaller businesses and local contractors may be especially affected where state, local, tribal, or territorial recipients had planned to use federal implementation grants to procure services or equipment.

Some regulated or higher-emitting businesses may experience reduced pressure from publicly funded state and local climate implementation programs. However, that is not a broad economic gain; it reflects the loss of public investment in emissions reduction, air-quality improvement, and climate modernization. The longer-term business effect is a weaker project pipeline for clean-energy, efficiency, electrification, pollution-control, and climate-planning markets.

Environmental and Climate Impact

The environmental and climate impact is negative. Section 60013 rescinds remaining unobligated funding from a program designed specifically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and harmful air pollution through planning and implementation grants.[2]

The immediate legal effect is fiscal: remaining unobligated Clean Air Act section 137 funds are no longer available for obligation.[1] The reasonably foreseeable implementation effect is narrower EPA capacity to support additional or adjusted climate pollution reduction projects. The contingent effects depend on which projects, supplements, administrative supports, or replacement awards would otherwise have used the rescinded balances.

The impact should not be treated as neutral merely because the rescission does not itself authorize new pollution. It changes the baseline by reducing the federal resources available to reduce pollution. CPRG implementation grants were designed to fund programs, policies, projects, and measures identified in climate action plans.[5] EPA’s selected general-competition awards were intended to reduce greenhouse gases by 2030 and beyond.[3] Removing remaining funds therefore reduces the margin of support for state, local, tribal, territorial, and regional climate implementation.

The most affected environmental categories include greenhouse gas emissions, conventional air pollution, public health, climate resilience, energy efficiency, clean transportation, building emissions, industrial emissions, and community-level pollution burdens. The cumulative impact is risk-increasing because climate pollution programs often depend on multiple funding rounds, technical assistance, procurement support, and implementation continuity. Even if the rescinded balance is much smaller than the original $5 billion program size, the loss can still matter for project completion, gap-filling, replication, administrative support, and communities that were not reached by earlier awards.

Existing environmental laws remain in place. Section 60013 does not waive the Clean Air Act, NEPA, state environmental laws, or grant compliance rules for projects that continue. But the section weakens the funding side of environmental protection by removing remaining grant resources from a program aimed at pollution reduction. That is a loss of implementation capacity rather than a direct rollback of permitting standards.

Environmental justice concerns are significant. CPRG eligible recipients included states, municipalities, air pollution control agencies, tribes, territories, and coalitions.[4] These are the kinds of public entities that often carry out pollution-reduction work in communities facing high energy burdens, legacy pollution, transportation emissions, industrial exposure, or limited local tax bases. Rescinding remaining funds can deepen disparities where communities with fewer resources are less able to replace federal support with state, local, philanthropic, or private capital.

Impact Summary

Section 60013 is a targeted rescission of remaining unobligated funding for Clean Air Act section 137 greenhouse gas air pollution planning and implementation grants. It does not erase all prior CPRG work, and it does not automatically cancel every already obligated grant. But it does remove remaining federal budget authority from a major EPA climate pollution grant program.

The practical impact is largest for future or not-yet-obligated uses of the program: additional awards, supplemental funding, contingency support, technical assistance, administrative flexibility, and implementation pathways for state, local, tribal, territorial, and regional climate plans. Public tracking may be incomplete because the rescission is likely clearer in budget execution records than in award-level public grant records.

The environmental and climate effect is negative because the section rescinds funding that would otherwise support greenhouse gas reduction, air pollution reduction, climate planning, and implementation projects. The harm is partly immediate as a loss of budget authority, partly reasonably foreseeable as a reduction in implementation capacity, and partly contingent on which projects or support functions would otherwise have been funded. The affected categories include greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, public health, clean energy deployment, local climate resilience, and environmental justice.

Key References and Sourcing

Source	Relevance
Public Law 119-21, One Big Beautiful Bill Act	Primary enacted-law source for Section 60013 and the rescission of unobligated Clean Air Act section 137 balances.
EPA, Climate Pollution Reduction Grants	EPA program page describing CPRG as nearly $5 billion in grants for states, local governments, tribes, and territories to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and harmful air pollution.
EPA, CPRG Implementation Grants General Competition Selections	EPA source for the 25 selected applications and more than $4.3 billion in selected implementation grants across 30 states.
EPA, CPRG General Competition Notice of Funding Opportunity	Program implementation source describing the planning grant amount, implementation grant structure, eligible applicants, and funding competitions.
Inflation Reduction Act Tracker, IRA Section 60114	Secondary program-tracking source summarizing the statutory funding structure and implementation status of the CPRG program.
Climate Program Portal, “How much was cut?”	Secondary estimate of the amount of unobligated CPRG funding affected by Section 60013.
CBO, Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21	Federal budget source for overall enacted-law budget effects and context for tracking rescissions through budget estimates.

[1] Public Law 119-21, “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” Section 60013, rescission of unobligated balances made available to carry out Clean Air Act section 137, https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/119/public/21.

[2] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Climate Pollution Reduction Grants,” program description and funding structure, https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/climate-pollution-reduction-grants.

[3] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “CPRG Implementation Grants: General Competition Selections,” selected applications and funding total, https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/cprg-implementation-grants-general-competition-selections.

[4] Inflation Reduction Act Tracker, “IRA Section 60114 - Greenhouse Gas Pollution Grant Program,” statutory planning and implementation funding summary, https://iratracker.org/programs/ira-section-60114-greenhouse-gas-pollution-grant-program/.

[5] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “CPRG Implementation Grants General Competition NOFO,” planning grants, implementation grants, eligible applicants, and competition structure, https://www.environmentalprotectionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CPRG-NOFO-Guidelines_General-Comp.pdf.

[6] Climate Program Portal, “How much was cut?” estimate of Section 60013 Climate Pollution Reduction Grants rescission, https://climateprogramportal.org/2025/07/15/how-much-was-cut/.

[7] Congressional Budget Office, “Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21,” enacted-law budget context, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61569.