The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has proposed updated guidelines to remove what it claims is the “overly complex social cost of carbon calculation” as part of the rating criteria for transit grants under the Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program.
The CIG program is the federal government’s largest discretionary grant program to fund transit capital investments including rapid transit, commuter rail, light rail, streetcars and bus rapid transit. “Following feedback from our transit industry partners, FTA is proposing to remove the [calculation] from the Environmental Benefits section of the CIG Policy Guidance,” FTA said. “Instead, FTA will revert back (sic.) to a previously used methodology that relies on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) designation based on which city a transit project is located.”
FTA has requested feedback on these new standards “to continue the process of updating CIG Policy Guidance, which provides direction to project sponsors pursuing CIG construction grants,” and has published a proposed interim guidance update for public comment. “The proposed revisions address Executive Orders (E.O.) 14148, Initial Recissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions; 14154, Unleashing American Energy; and 14151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, signed by the President in early 2025,” FTA added.
FTA is also publishing a Request for Information (RFI) “to solicit public input on a comprehensive update to the CIG program guidance at a later date. Federal law requires FTA to update CIG Policy Guidance at least every two years.”
Comments to the proposed CIG Interim Guidance are due by Sept. 2, 2025, in the Regulations.gov docket and Sept. 18 for the RFI in Regulations.gov docket.
Editor’s Comment: Much like its most recent press release on MTA New York City Transit roadway worker safety, the FTA tacked a rather silly, sophomoric headline on this one: “Federal Transit Administration to Ditch Green New Deal Carbon Scam, Move to Unleash American Energy.” Yeah …. OK! By the way, the correct syntax is simply “revert,” not ”revert back.” – William C. Vantuono
