[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1196-1212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00158]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

[CEQ-2022-0005]
RIN 0331-AA06


National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change

AGENCY: Council on Environmental Quality.

ACTION: Notice of interim guidance; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is issuing this 
interim guidance to assist agencies in analyzing greenhouse gas (GHG) 
and climate change effects of their proposed actions under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CEQ is issuing this guidance as 
interim guidance so that agencies may make use of it immediately while 
CEQ seeks public comment on the guidance. CEQ intends to either revise 
the guidance in response to public comments or finalize the interim 
guidance.

DATES: This interim guidance is effective immediately. CEQ invites 
interested persons to submit comments on or before March 10, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number CEQ-
2022-0005, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 202-456-6546.
     Mail: Council on Environmental Quality, 730 Jackson Place 
NW, Washington, DC 20503.
    All submissions received must include the agency name, ``Council on 
Environmental Quality,'' and the docket number, CEQ-2022-0005. All 
comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Do 
not submit electronically any information you consider to be private, 
Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information, the 
disclosure of which is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jomar Maldonado, Director for NEPA, 
202-395-5750 or [email protected].

[[Page 1197]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issues this guidance to 
assist Federal agencies in their consideration of the effects of 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions \1\ and climate change when evaluating 
proposed major Federal actions in accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) \2\ and the CEQ Regulations 
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (CEQ Regulations).\3\ 
This guidance will facilitate compliance with existing NEPA 
requirements, improving the efficiency and consistency of reviews of 
proposed Federal actions for agencies, decision makers, project 
proponents, and the public.\4\ This guidance provides Federal agencies 
a common approach for assessing their proposed actions, while 
recognizing each agency's unique circumstances and authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For purposes of this guidance, CEQ defines GHGs consistent 
with CEQ's Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Guidance 
(Jan. 17, 2016), https://www.sustainability.gov/pdfs/federal_ghg%20accounting_reporting-guidance.pdf (carbon dioxide, 
methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, 
nitrogen trifluoride, and sulfur hexafluoride). Also, for purposes 
of this guidance, ``emissions'' includes release of stored GHGs as a 
result of land management activities affecting terrestrial GHG pools 
such as carbon stocks in forests and soils, as well as actions that 
affect the future changes in carbon stocks. To facilitate 
comparisons between emissions of the different GHGs, a common unit 
of measurement for GHGs is metric tons of CO2 equivalent 
(mt CO2-e).
    \2\ 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
    \3\ 40 CFR parts 1500-1508.
    \4\ This guidance is not a rule or regulation, and the 
recommendations it contains may not apply to a particular situation 
based upon the individual facts and circumstances. This guidance 
does not change or substitute for any law, regulation, or other 
legally binding requirement, and is not legally enforceable. The use 
of non-mandatory language such as ``guidance,'' ``recommend,'' 
``may,'' ``should,'' and ``can,'' describes CEQ policies and 
recommendations. The use of mandatory terminology such as ``must'' 
and ``required'' describes controlling requirements under the terms 
of NEPA and the CEQ regulations, but this document does not affect 
legally binding requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The United States faces a profound climate crisis and there is 
little time left to avoid a dangerous--potentially catastrophic--
climate trajectory. Climate change is a fundamental environmental 
issue, and its effects on the human environment fall squarely within 
NEPA's purview.\5\ Major Federal actions may result in substantial GHG 
emissions or emissions reductions, so Federal leadership that is 
informed by sound analysis is crucial to addressing the climate crisis. 
Federal proposals may also be affected by climate change, so they 
should be designed in consideration of resilience and adaptation to a 
changing climate.\6\ Climate change is a particularly complex challenge 
given its global nature and the inherent interrelationships among its 
sources and effects. Further, climate change raises environmental 
justice concerns because it will disproportionately and adversely 
affect human health and the environment in some communities, including 
communities of color, low-income communities, and Tribal Nations and 
Indigenous communities. Given the urgency of the climate crisis and 
NEPA's important role in providing critical information to decision 
makers and the public, NEPA reviews should quantify proposed actions' 
GHG emissions, place GHG emissions in appropriate context and disclose 
relevant GHG emissions and relevant climate impacts, and identify 
alternatives and mitigation measures to avoid or reduce GHG emissions. 
CEQ encourages agencies to mitigate GHG emissions associated with their 
proposed actions to the greatest extent possible, consistent with 
national, science-based GHG reduction policies established to avoid the 
worst impacts of climate change.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NEPA recognizes ``the profound impact of man's activity on 
the interrelations of all components of the natural environment . . 
. .'' 42 U.S.C. 4331(a). Among other things, it was enacted to 
promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the 
environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of 
humans. 42 U.S.C. 4321. See also 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(F) (requiring all 
Federal agencies to ``recognize the worldwide and long-range 
character of environmental problems'').
    \6\ See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(A) (directing agencies to ensure the 
use of ``the environmental design arts'' in planning and decision 
making).
    \7\ See White House Fact Sheet, President Biden Sets 2030 
Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Target (Apr. 22, 2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/22/fact-sheet-president-biden-sets-2030-greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target-aimed-at-creating-good-paying-union-jobs-and-securing-u-s-leadership-on-clean-energy-technologies/; see also 
Executive Order (E.O.) 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home 
and Abroad, 86 FR 7619 (Jan. 25, 2021), https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-02177; E.O. 14057, Catalyzing Clean 
Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability, 86 FR 
70935 (Dec. 13, 2021), https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-27114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in this guidance, when conducting climate change 
analyses in NEPA reviews, agencies should consider: (1) the potential 
effects of a proposed action on climate change, including by assessing 
both GHG emissions and reductions from the proposed action; and (2) the 
effects of climate change on a proposed action and its environmental 
impacts. Analyzing reasonably foreseeable climate effects in NEPA 
reviews \8\ helps ensure that decisions are based on the best available 
science and account for the urgency of the climate crisis. Climate 
change analysis also enables agencies to evaluate reasonable 
alternatives and mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce 
potential climate change-related effects and help address mounting 
climate resilience and adaptation challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``NEPA review'' as used in this guidance includes 
the analysis, process, and documentation required under NEPA. While 
this document focuses on reviews conducted pursuant to NEPA, 
agencies should analyze GHG emissions and climate-resilient design 
issues early in the planning and development of proposed actions and 
projects under their substantive authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accurate and clear climate change analysis:
     Helps decision makers, stakeholders, and the public to 
identify and assess reasonable courses of action that will reduce GHG 
emissions and climate change effects;
     Enables agencies to make informed decisions to help meet 
applicable Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local climate action 
goals; \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For example, the United States has set an economy-wide 
target of reducing its net GHG emissions by 50 to 52 percent below 
2005 levels in 2030. See United Nations Framework Convention on 
Climate Change (UNFCC), U.S. Nationally Determined Contribution 
(Apr. 20, 2021), https://unfccc.int/NDCREG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Promotes climate change resilience and adaptation and 
prioritizes the national need to ensure climate-resilient 
infrastructure and operations, including by considering the reasonably 
foreseeable effects of climate change on infrastructure investments and 
the resources needed to protect such investments over their lifetime; 
\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Resilience is a priority for Federal agency actions. See, 
e.g., E.O. 14057, supra note 7; see also E.O. 14008, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Protects national security by helping to identify and 
reduce climate change-related threats including potential resource 
conflicts, stresses to military operations and installations, and the 
potential for abrupt stressors; \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Nat'l Intel. Council, Implications for U.S. 
National Security of Anticipated Climate Change (Sept. 21, 2016), 
NIC WP 2016-01, https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Reports%20and%20Pubs/Implications_for_US_National_Security_of_Anticipated_Climate_Change.pdf; see also Dep't of Def., Directive 4715.21, Climate Change 
Adaptation and Resilience (Jan. 14, 2016), https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/471521p.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Enables agencies to better understand and address the 
effects of climate change on vulnerable communities, thereby responding 
to environmental justice concerns and promoting resilience and 
adaptation;

[[Page 1198]]

     Supports the international leadership of the United States 
on climate issues; \12\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(F) (requiring all Federal agencies to 
``recognize the worldwide and long-range character of environmental 
problems'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Enables agencies to better assess courses of action that 
will provide pollution reduction co-benefits and long-term cost savings 
and reduce litigation risk to Federal actions--including projects 
carried out pursuant to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law \13\ and the 
Inflation Reduction Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58, 
135 Stat. 429.
    \14\ Public Law 117-169, 136 Stat. 1818.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This interim \15\ GHG guidance, effective upon publication, builds 
upon and updates CEQ's 2016 Final Guidance for Federal Departments and 
Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects 
of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews (``2016 
GHG Guidance''), highlighting best practices for analysis grounded in 
science and agency experience.\16\ CEQ is issuing this guidance to 
provide for greater clarity and more consistency in how agencies 
address climate change in NEPA reviews. This guidance applies 
longstanding NEPA principles to the analysis of climate change effects, 
which are a well-recognized category of effects on the human 
environment requiring consideration under NEPA. In fact, Federal 
agencies have been analyzing climate change impacts and GHG emissions 
in NEPA documents for many years. CEQ intends the guidance to assist 
agencies in publicly disclosing and considering the reasonably 
foreseeable effects of their proposed actions. CEQ encourages agencies 
to integrate the climate and other environmental considerations 
described in this guidance early in their planning processes. CEQ will 
review any agency proposals for revised NEPA procedures, including any 
revision of existing categorical exclusions, in light of this 
guidance.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ CEQ is issuing this guidance as interim guidance so that 
agencies may make use of it immediately while CEQ seeks public 
comment on the guidance. CEQ may revise the guidance in response to 
public comments or finalize the interim guidance at a later date.
    \16\ CEQ, Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on 
Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate 
Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews, 81 FR 51866 
(Aug. 8, 2016), https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-regulations-and-guidance/nepa_final_ghg_guidance.pdf. On April 5, 2017, CEQ withdrew 
the final 2016 guidance, as directed by E.O. 13783. 82 FR 16576 
(Apr. 5, 2017). On June 26, 2019, CEQ issued draft GHG guidance. 84 
FR 30097 (June 26, 2019). CEQ rescinded this draft guidance on 
February 19, 2021, pursuant to E.O. 13990. 86 FR 10252 (Feb. 19, 
2021). In addition, on April 20, 2022, CEQ issued a Final Rule for 
its ``Phase 1'' NEPA rulemaking. 87 FR 23453. CEQ will be proceeding 
with updates to the NEPA regulations as set forth in the 2022 
Regulatory Agenda.
    \17\ See 40 CFR 1507.3. Agencies should review their policies 
and implementing procedures and revise them as necessary to ensure 
compliance with NEPA. Agency NEPA implementing procedures can be, 
but are not required to be, in the form of regulation. Section 
1507.3 encourages agencies to publish explanatory guidance, and 
agencies also should consider whether any updates to explanatory 
guidance are necessary in light of this guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of Key Content

    This guidance explains how agencies should apply NEPA principles 
and existing best practices to their climate change analyses by:
     Recommending that agencies leverage early planning 
processes to integrate GHG emissions and climate change considerations 
into the identification of proposed actions, reasonable alternatives 
(as well as the no-action alternative), and potential mitigation and 
resilience measures;
     Recommending that agencies quantify a proposed action's 
projected GHG emissions or reductions for the expected lifetime of the 
action, considering available data and GHG quantification tools that 
are suitable for the proposed action;
     Recommending that agencies use projected GHG emissions 
associated with proposed actions and their reasonable alternatives to 
help assess potential climate change effects;
     Recommending that agencies provide additional context for 
GHG emissions, including through the use of the best available social 
cost of GHG (SC-GHG) estimates, to translate climate impacts into the 
more accessible metric of dollars, allow decision makers and the public 
to make comparisons, help evaluate the significance of an action's 
climate change effects, and better understand the tradeoffs associated 
with an action and its alternatives;
     Discussing methods to appropriately analyze reasonably 
foreseeable direct, indirect, and cumulative GHG emissions;
     Guiding agencies in considering reasonable alternatives 
and mitigation measures, as well as addressing short- and long-term 
climate change effects;
     Advising agencies to use the best available information 
and science when assessing the potential future state of the affected 
environment in NEPA analyses and providing up to date examples of 
existing sources of scientific information;
     Recommending agencies use the information developed during 
the NEPA review to consider reasonable alternatives that would make the 
actions and affected communities more resilient to the effects of a 
changing climate;
     Outlining unique considerations for agencies analyzing 
biogenic carbon dioxide sources and carbon stocks \18\ associated with 
land and resource management actions under NEPA;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See infra section IV(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Advising agencies that the ``rule of reason'' inherent in 
NEPA and the CEQ Regulations should guide agencies in determining, 
based on their expertise and experience, how to consider an 
environmental effect and prepare an analysis based on the available 
information; and
     Reminding agencies to incorporate environmental justice 
considerations into their analyses of climate-related effects, 
consistent with Executive Orders 12898 and 14008.

III. Background

    Consistent with NEPA, climate change analysis is a critical 
component of environmental reviews and integral to Federal agencies 
managing and addressing climate change.\19\ Recognizing the increasing 
urgency of the climate crisis and advances in climate science and GHG 
analysis techniques, CEQ has clarified and updated its 2016 GHG 
guidance on particular components including basic updates to reflect 
developments in climate science, methods to provide context for the 
impacts associated with GHG emissions, analysis of indirect effects, 
programmatic approaches, and environmental justice considerations. This 
guidance is applicable to all Federal actions subject to NEPA, with a 
focus on those for which an environmental assessment or environmental 
impact statement is prepared.\20\ This guidance does not--and cannot--
expand the range of Federal agency actions that are subject to 
NEPA.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ This updated guidance is also consistent with E.O.s 13990, 
14008, and 14057, which set forth commitments to address climate 
change; direct that Federal infrastructure investment reduce climate 
pollution; and that Federal permitting decisions consider the 
effects of GHG emissions and climate change. See E.O. 13990, 86 FR 
7037 (Jan. 25, 2021); E.O. 14008, supra note 7; E.O. 14057, supra 
note 7.
    \20\ Notwithstanding this focus, where appropriate, agencies 
also should apply this guidance to consider climate impacts and GHG 
emissions in establishing new categorical exclusions (CEs) and 
extraordinary circumstances in their agency NEPA procedures. See 40 
CFR 1507.3(e)(2)(ii); CEQ, Final Guidance for Federal Departments 
and Agencies on Establishing, Applying, and Revising Categorical 
Exclusions Under the National Environmental Policy Act, 75 FR 75628 
(Dec. 6, 2010).
    \21\ See 40 CFR 1508.1(q).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1199]]

A. NEPA

    NEPA is designed to promote consideration of potential effects on 
the human environment \22\ that would result from proposed Federal 
agency actions, and to provide the public and decision makers with 
useful information regarding reasonable alternatives \23\ and 
mitigation measures to improve the environmental outcomes of Federal 
agency actions. NEPA encourages early planning, ensures that the 
environmental effects of proposed actions are considered before 
decisions are made, and informs the public of significant environmental 
effects of proposed Federal agency actions, promoting transparency and 
accountability.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 42 U.S.C. 4331(a) (``[R]ecognizing the profound impact of 
[human] activity on the interrelations of all components of the 
natural environment . . . .'').
    \23\ 40 CFR 1501.9(e)(2) (``Alternatives, which include the no 
action alternative; other reasonable courses of action; and 
mitigation measures (not in the proposed action).'').
    \24\ See 42 U.S.C. 4332 and 40 CFR 1501.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agencies implement NEPA through one of three levels of analysis: a 
categorical exclusion (CE); an environmental assessment (EA); or an 
environmental impact statement (EIS). Agencies have discretion in how 
they tailor their individual NEPA reviews in consideration of this 
guidance, consistent with the CEQ Regulations and their respective 
implementing procedures and policies.\25\ NEPA reviews should identify 
measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects of Federal 
agency actions.\26\ Better analysis and informed decisions are the 
ultimate goal of the NEPA process.\27\ Inherent in NEPA and the CEQ 
Regulations is a ``rule of reason'' that allows agencies to determine, 
based on their expertise and experience, how to consider an 
environmental effect and prepare an analysis based on the available 
information. The usefulness of that information to the decision-making 
process and the public, and the extent of the anticipated environmental 
consequences, are important factors to consider when applying that 
``rule of reason.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 40 CFR 1502.23 (methodology and scientific accuracy).
    \26\ 40 CFR 1505.2(a)(3).
    \27\ 40 CFR 1500.1(a) (``NEPA's purpose is . . . to provide for 
informed decision making and foster excellent action.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Climate Change

    Climate change is a defining national and global environmental 
challenge of this time, threatening broad and potentially catastrophic 
impacts to the human environment. It is well established that rising 
global atmospheric GHG concentrations are substantially affecting the 
Earth's climate, and that the dramatic observed increases in GHG 
concentrations since 1750 are unequivocally caused by human activities 
including fossil fuel combustion.\28\ CEQ's first Annual Report in 1970 
discussed the various ways that human-driven actions were understood to 
potentially alter global temperatures and weather patterns.\29\ At that 
time, the mean level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) had 
been measured as increasing to 325 parts per million (ppm) from a pre-
Industrial average of 280 ppm.\30\ Since 1970, the global average 
concentration of atmospheric CO2 has increased to 414.21 ppm 
as of 2021, setting a new record high.\31\ Methane is a potent GHG; 
over a 100-year period, the emissions of a ton of methane contribute 28 
to 36 times as much to global warming as a ton of carbon dioxide. Over 
a 20-year timeframe, methane is about 84 times as potent as carbon 
dioxide.\32\ Concentrations of methane (CH4), have more than 
doubled from pre-Industrial levels.\33\ Methane concentrations continue 
to grow rapidly.\34\ Concentrations of other GHGs have similarly 
continued to grow, including nitrous oxide (N2O) and 
hydrofluorocarbons (HFC).\35\ Since the publication of CEQ's first 
Annual Report, human activities have caused the carbon dioxide content 
of the atmosphere of our planet to increase to

[[Page 1200]]

its highest level in at least 800,000 years.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See, e.g., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (``The 
Physical Science Basis''), Summary for Policymakers, SPM-5 (Aug. 7, 
2021), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/ (``Observed increases in well-mixed greenhouse gas 
(GHG) concentrations since around 1750 are unequivocally caused by 
human activities''); see also id., Technical Summary, TS-45, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/technical-summary/; United 
States Global Change Research Program (``USGCRP''), Fourth National 
Climate Assessment (``Fourth National Climate Assessment''), Volume 
II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States, 76 (2018), 
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/ (``Many lines of evidence 
demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of 
greenhouse gases from fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, and 
land-use change, are primarily responsible for the climate changes 
observed in the industrial era, especially over the last six 
decades''); IPCC, Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report, 46 (2014), 
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf (``Emissions of CO2 from 
fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributed about 
78% of the total GHG emissions increase from 1970 to 2010, with a 
similar percentage contribution for the increase during the period 
2000 to 2010 (high confidence).''). These conclusions are built upon 
a robust scientific record that has been created with substantial 
contributions from the USGCRP, which informs the United States' 
response to global climate change through coordinated Federal 
programs of research, education, communication, and decision 
support. See section 103, Public Law 101-606, 104 Stat. 3096. For 
additional information on the USGCRP, visit http://www.globalchange.gov. The USGCRP, formerly the Climate Change 
Science Program, coordinates and integrates the activities of 13 
Federal agencies that conduct research on changes in the global 
environment and their implications for society. The USGCRP began as 
a Presidential initiative in 1989 and was codified in the Global 
Change Research Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-606). USGCRP-participating 
agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, 
Energy, the Interior, Health and Human Services, State, and 
Transportation; the U.S. Agency for International Development, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the National Science 
Foundation, and the Smithsonian Institution.
    \29\ See CEQ, Environmental Quality: The First Annual Report, 93 
(Aug. 1970), https://ceq.doe.gov/ceq-reports/annual_environmental_quality_reports.html.
    \30\ See USGCRP, Climate Change Impacts in the United States: 
The Third National Climate Assessment, Appendix 3: Climate Science 
Supplement, 739 (J.M. Melillo et al. eds., 2014) (``Third National 
Climate Assessment''), U.S. Env't Protection Agency (EPA), EPA 430-
R-15-004, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 
1990-2013 (Apr. 2015), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-12/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2015-main-text.pdf; see also D.L. 
Hartmann et al., Observations: Atmosphere and Surface, in Climate 
Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working 
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change (T.F. Stocker et al. eds., Cambridge Univ. 
Press 2013), https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf.
    \31\ Nat'l Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin. (NOAA), Climate 
Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (June 23, 2022), https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.
    \32\ Although there are different ways to weight methane 
compared to carbon dioxide, the U.S. nationally determined 
contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement uses the 100-year GWP 
from the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report. See IPCC, Climate Change 
2014 Synthesis Report, supra note 28, at 5. To avoid potential 
ambiguity, CEQ encourages agencies to use the 100-year GWP when 
disclosing the GHG emissions impact from an action in their NEPA 
documents.
    \33\ See EPA, Proposed Rule on Standards of Performance for New, 
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for 
Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review, 86 FR 
63110, 63114 (Nov. 15, 2021), https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-24202; see also Climate and Clean Air Coalition and United 
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Global Methane Assessment, 18 
(2021), https://www.ccacoalition.org/en/resources/global-methane-assessment-full-report; USGCRP, Fourth National Climate Assessment, 
supra note 28, Volume I, 82. Methane emissions are responsible for 
about 20 percent of climate forcing globally. See California Air 
Resources Board, Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, 7 
(Mar. 2017), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/final_SLCP_strategy.pdf.
    \34\ See, e.g., NOAA, Increase in atmospheric methane set 
another record during 2021 (Apr. 7, 2022), https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/increase-in-atmospheric-methane-set-another-record-during-2021.
    \35\ See USGCRP, Fourth National Climate Assessment, supra note 
28, Volume I, 81 (Figure 2.5).
    \36\ See Nat'l Aeronautics and Space Admin. (NASA) Earth 
Observatory, The Carbon Cycle (June 16, 2011), http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle; Univ. of Cal. 
Riverside, NASA, and Riverside Unified School District, Down to 
Earth Climate Change, http://globalclimate.ucr.edu/resources.html; 
USGCRP, Fourth National Climate Assessment, supra note 28, Volume 
II, 1454.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rising GHG levels are causing corresponding increases in average 
global temperatures and in the frequency and severity of natural 
disasters including storms, flooding, and wildfires.\37\ Even if the 
United States and the world meet ambitious de-carbonization targets, 
those trends will continue for many years, adversely affecting critical 
components of the human environment, including water availability, 
ocean acidity, sea-level rise, ecosystem functions, biodiversity, 
energy production, energy transmission and distribution, agriculture 
and food security, air quality, and human health.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See IPCC, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and 
Vulnerability (``Climate Change 2022''), Summary for Policymakers, 8 
(H.-O. P[ouml]rtner et al. eds., 2022), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-ii/; USGCRP, Fourth National 
Climate Assessment, supra note 28, Climate Science Special Report, 
Chapter 7, 207, https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR_Ch7_Precipitation.pdf; NOAA, Climate Change Increased Chances 
of Record Rains in Louisiana by at Least 40 Percent (Sept. 7, 2016, 
https://www.noaa.gov/media-release/climate-change-increased-chances-of-record-rains-in-louisiana-by-at-least-40-percent.
    \38\ See USGCRP, Fourth National Climate Assessment, supra note 
28; IPCC, Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing 
Climate, (H.-O. Portner et al., eds., 2019), https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/; IPCC, Special Report on Climate Change and Land, (P.R. 
Shukla et al., eds., 2019), https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/; see also 
USGCRP, http://www.globalchange.gov; 40 CFR 1508.1(g)(4) (``effects 
include ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on 
the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), 
aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health'' 
effects); USGCRP, The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in 
the United States: A Scientific Assessment (2016), https://health2016.globalchange.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based primarily on the scientific assessments of the U.S. Global 
Change Research Program (USGCRP), the National Research Council, and 
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in 2009 the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a finding that declared 
that the changes in our climate caused by elevated concentrations of 
GHGs in the atmosphere are reasonably anticipated to endanger the 
public health and welfare of current and future generations.\39\ Since 
then, EPA has acknowledged more recent scientific assessments that 
highlight the urgency of addressing the rising concentration of GHGs in 
the atmosphere \40\ and has found that certain communities, including 
communities of color, low-income communities, Tribal Nations and 
Indigenous communities, are especially vulnerable to climate-related 
effects.\41\ Climate change also is likely to increase a community's 
vulnerability to other environmental impacts, further exacerbating 
environmental justice concerns. The effects of climate change observed 
to date and projected to occur in the future include more frequent and 
intense heat waves, longer fire seasons and more severe wildfires, 
degraded air quality, increased drought, greater sea-level rise, an 
increase in the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, harm 
to water resources, harm to agriculture, ocean acidification, and harm 
to wildlife and ecosystems.\42\ The IPCC Assessment Report reinforces 
these findings by providing scientific evidence of the impacts of 
climate change driven by human-induced GHG emissions, on our 
ecosystems, infrastructure, human health, and socioeconomic makeup.\43\ 
Moreover, the effects of climate change are likely to fall 
disproportionately on vulnerable communities, including communities of 
color, low-income communities and Tribal Nations and Indigenous 
communities with environmental justice concerns.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See generally EPA, Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 
Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air 
Act; Final Rule, 74 FR 66496 (Dec. 15, 2009) (noting, for example, 
``[t]he evidence concerning how human-induced climate change may 
alter extreme weather events also clearly supports a finding of 
endangerment, given the serious adverse impacts that can result from 
such events and the increase in risk, even if small, of the 
occurrence and intensity of events such as hurricanes and floods. 
Additionally, public health is expected to be adversely affected by 
an increase in the severity of coastal storm events due to rising 
sea levels,'' id. at 66497-98).
    \40\ See EPA, Final Rule for Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: 
Establishing the Allowance Allocation and Trading Program Under the 
American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, 86 FR 55124 (Oct. 5, 
2021), https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-21030.
    \41\ See EPA, Final Rule for Carbon Pollution Emission 
Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources Electric Utility 
Generating Units, 80 FR 64661, 64647 (Oct. 23, 2015), https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2015-22842 (``[c]ertain groups, including 
children, the elderly, and the poor, are most vulnerable to climate-
related effects.'' Recent studies also find that certain 
communities, including low-income communities and some communities 
of color . . . are disproportionately affected by certain climate 
change related impacts--including heat waves, degraded air quality, 
and extreme weather events--which are associated with increased 
deaths, illnesses, and economic challenges. Studies also find that 
climate change poses particular threats to the health, well-being, 
and ways of life of indigenous peoples in the U.S.); see also EPA, 
EPA 430-R-21-003, Climate Change and Social Vulnerability in the 
United States: A Focus on Six Impacts (``Six Impacts'') (Sept. 
2021), https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-09/climate-vulnerability_september-2021_508.pdf.
    \42\ See 80 FR 64647, supra note 41; see also USGCRP, Fourth 
National Climate Assessment, supra note 28, Volume II, Chapters 2-12 
(Sectors) and Chapters 18-27 (Regions); Thomas R. Knutson et. al., 
Global Projections of Intense Tropical Cyclone Activity for the Late 
Twenty-First Century from Dynamical Downscaling of CMIP5/RCP4.5 
Scenarios, 7221 (Sep. 15, 2015), https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/28/18/jcli-d-15-0129.1.xml; Ashley E. Payne et. al., 
Responses and Impacts of Atmospheric Rivers to Climate Change, 143, 
154 (Mar. 9, 2020), https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-020-0030-5; IPCC, Climate Change 2022, supra note 37; IPCC, Special Report on 
Climate Change and Land, supra note 38, at 270-72; U.S. Nat'l Park 
Service (NPS), Wildlife and Climate Change (last updated Dec. 8, 
2021), https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/wildlife-climateimpact.htm.
    \43\ See IPCC, Climate Change 2022, supra note 37, Summary for 
Policymakers.
    \44\ See, e.g., EPA, Six Impacts, supra note 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Quantifying, Disclosing, and Contextualizing Climate Impacts, and 
Addressing the Potential Climate Change Effects of Proposed Federal 
Actions

    Consistent with section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, Federal agencies must 
disclose and consider the reasonably foreseeable effects of their 
proposed actions including the extent to which a proposed action and 
its reasonable alternatives (including the no action alternative) would 
result in reasonably foreseeable GHG emissions that contribute to 
climate change. Federal agencies also should consider the ways in which 
a changing climate may impact the proposed action and its reasonable 
alternatives, and change the action's environmental effects over the 
lifetime of those effects.
    This guidance is intended to assist agencies in disclosing and 
considering the effects of GHG emissions and climate change. This 
guidance does not establish any particular quantity of GHG emissions as 
``significantly'' affecting the quality of the human environment. 
However, quantifying a proposed action's reasonably foreseeable GHG 
emissions whenever possible, and placing those emissions in appropriate 
context are important components of analyzing a proposed action's 
reasonably foreseeable climate change effects.
    This section of the guidance identifies and explains the following 
steps agencies should take when analyzing a proposed action's climate 
change effects under NEPA:
    (1) Quantify the reasonably foreseeable GHG emissions (including 
direct and indirect emissions) of a proposed action, the no action 
alternative, and any reasonable alternatives as discussed in Section 
IV(A) below.

[[Page 1201]]

    (2) Disclose and provide context for the GHG emissions and climate 
impacts associated with a proposed action and alternatives, including 
by, as relevant, monetizing climate damages using estimates of the SC-
GHG, placing emissions in the context of relevant climate action goals 
and commitments, and providing common equivalents, as described below 
in Section IV(B).
    (3) Analyze reasonable alternatives, including those that would 
reduce GHG emissions relative to baseline conditions, and identify 
available mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for 
climate effects.

A. Quantifying a Proposed Action's GHG Emissions

    To ensure that Federal agencies consider the incremental 
contribution of their actions to climate change, agencies should 
quantify the reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect GHG emissions 
of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives (as well as the 
no-action alternative) and provide additional context to describe the 
effects associated with those projected emissions in NEPA analysis.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See 40 CFR 1502.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Climate change results from an increase in atmospheric GHG 
concentrations from the incremental addition of GHG emissions from a 
vast multitude of individual sources.\46\ The totality of climate 
change impacts is not attributable to any single action, but is 
exacerbated by a series of actions including actions taken pursuant to 
decisions of the Federal Government. Therefore, it is crucial for the 
Federal Government to analyze and consider the potential climate change 
effects of its proposed actions.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Some sources emit GHGs in quantities that are orders of 
magnitude greater than others. See EPA, Greenhouse Gas Reporting 
Program, 2021 Reported Data, Figure 1: Direct GHG Emissions Reported 
by Sector (2021), https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgrp-reported-data (showing amounts of GHG emissions by sector).
    \47\ In addition to NEPA's requirement to describe the 
environmental impacts of the proposed action and any adverse 
environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be 
implemented, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)), NEPA also articulates a policy 
to use all practicable means and measures ``to foster and promote 
the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which 
[humans] and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the 
social, economic, and other requirements of present and future 
generations of Americans,'' including by ``attain[ing] the widest 
range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, 
risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended 
consequences.'' 42 U.S.C. 4331(a)-(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEPA requires more than a statement that emissions from a proposed 
Federal action or its alternatives represent only a small fraction of 
global or domestic emissions. Such a statement merely notes the nature 
of the climate change challenge, and is not a useful basis for deciding 
whether or to what extent to consider climate change effects under 
NEPA. Moreover, such comparisons and fractions also are not an 
appropriate method for characterizing the extent of a proposed action's 
and its alternatives' contributions to climate change because this 
approach does not reveal anything beyond the nature of the climate 
change challenge itself--the fact that diverse individual sources of 
emissions each make a relatively small addition to global atmospheric 
GHG concentrations that collectively have a large effect.
    Therefore, when considering GHG emissions and their significance, 
agencies should use appropriate tools and methodologies to quantify GHG 
emissions, compare GHG emission quantities across alternative scenarios 
(including the no action alternative), and place emissions in relevant 
context, including how they relate to climate action commitments and 
goals. This approach allows an agency to present the environmental and 
public health effects of a proposed action in clear terms and with 
sufficient information to make a reasoned choice between no action and 
other alternatives and appropriate mitigation measures. This approach 
will also ensure the professional and scientific integrity of the NEPA 
review.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See 40 CFR 1502.23 (requiring agencies to ensure the 
professional and scientific integrity of the discussions and 
analyses in environmental impact statements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the NEPA documents they prepare, agencies should 
quantify the reasonably foreseeable gross GHG emissions increases and 
gross GHG emission reductions \49\ for the proposed action, no action 
alternative, and any reasonable alternatives over their projected 
lifetime, using reasonably available information and data.\50\ Agencies 
generally should quantify gross emissions increases or reductions 
(including both direct and indirect emissions) individually by GHG, as 
well as aggregated in terms of total CO2 equivalence \51\ by 
factoring in each pollutant's global warming potential (GWP), using the 
best available science and data.\52\ Agencies also should quantify 
proposed actions' total net GHG emissions or reductions \53\ (both by 
pollutant and by total CO2-equivalent emissions) relative to 
baseline conditions.\54\ To facilitate readability, agencies should 
include an overview of this information in the summary sections of EISs 
and, when relevant, in the summary section of EAs. Agencies also may 
use visual tools, such as charts and figures, to help readers more 
easily comprehend emissions data and compare emissions across 
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Note that agencies should be guided by a rule of reason and 
the concept of proportionality in undertaking this analysis, 
particularly for proposed actions with net beneficial climate 
effects, as described in Section IV(A).
    \50\ See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Fed. Energy Regul. Comm'n, 867 
F.3d 1357, 1374 (D.C. Cir. 2017); San Juan Citizens Alliance v. 
Bureau of Land Mgmt., 326 F. Supp. 3d 1227, 1241-44 (D.N.M. 2018); 
see generally Scientists' Inst. for Pub. Info., Inc. v. Atomic 
Energy Comm'n, 481 F.2d 1079, 1092 (D.C. Cir 1973) (``Reasonable 
forecasting and speculation is thus implicit in NEPA, and we must 
reject any attempt by agencies to shirk their responsibilities under 
NEPA by labeling any and all discussion of future environmental 
effects as `crystal ball inquiry.' '').
    \51\ This is typically expressed in metric tons of 
CO2 equivalent, or mt CO2-e.
    \52\ As discussed above, methane is a potent GHG. See supra note 
32.
    \53\ Net emissions can be calculated by totaling gross emissions 
(all reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect GHG emissions from 
the proposed action) and subtracting any gross emissions reductions 
from the proposed action, such as renewable energy generation that 
will displace more carbon intensive energy sources or the addition 
of carbon sinks. The resulting net value may be either a net 
increase in total GHG emissions or a net decrease in emissions. In 
rare circumstances, agencies should consider whether a significant 
delay between increased emissions and decreased emissions could 
undermine the value of a net emissions calculation as a metric of 
climate impact.
    \54\ See infra section IV(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where feasible, agencies should also present annual GHG emission 
increases or reductions. This is particularly important where a 
proposed action presents both reasonably foreseeable GHG emission 
increases and GHG emission reductions. The agency generally should 
present annual GHG emissions increases or reductions, as well as net 
GHG emissions over the projected lifetime of the action, consistent 
with existing best practices.\55\ Agencies should be guided by a rule 
of reason and the concept of proportionality in undertaking this 
analysis, particularly for proposed actions with net beneficial climate 
effects, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ For example, certain types of actions may involve 
construction emissions in their first year or two, followed by 
operational emissions increases in a few years prior to achieving 
net emissions reductions in later years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quantification and assessment tools are widely available and are 
already in broad use in the Federal Government and private sector, by 
state and local governments, and globally. CEQ maintains a GHG 
Accounting Tools website listing many such tools.\56\ These tools are 
designed to assist agencies, institutions, organizations, and companies 
that have different levels of

[[Page 1202]]

technical sophistication, data availability, and GHG source profiles. 
Agencies should use tools that reflect the best available science and 
data. These tools can provide GHG emissions estimates, including 
emissions from fossil fuel combustion and carbon sequestration \57\ for 
many of the sources and sinks potentially affected by proposed resource 
management actions.\58\ When considering which tools to employ, it is 
important to consider the proposed action's temporal scale and the 
availability of input data.\59\ Furthermore, agencies should seek to 
obtain the information needed to quantify GHG emissions, including by 
requesting or requiring information held by project applicants or by 
conducting modeling when relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See CEQ, GHG Tools and Resources, https://ceq.doe.gov/guidance/ghg-tools-and-resources.html.
    \57\ Carbon sequestration is the long-term carbon storage in 
plants, soils, geologic formations, and oceans.
    \58\ For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) 
Forest Inventory and Analysis tool can be used to assess the carbon 
sequestration of existing forestry activities along with the 
reduction in carbon sequestration (emissions) of project-level 
activities. See USDA, Forest Inventory Data & Tools (FIA), https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/products/dataandtools/forestinventorydata.
    \59\ See 40 CFR 1502.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the rare instance when an agency determines that tools, 
methodologies, or data inputs are not reasonably available to quantify 
GHG emissions associated with a specific action, the agency should 
explain why such an analysis cannot be done, and should seek to present 
a reasonable estimated range of quantitative emissions for the proposed 
action and alternatives. Where tools are available for some aspects of 
the analysis but not others, agencies should use all reasonably 
available tools and describe any relevant limitations. Agencies are 
encouraged to identify and communicate any data or tool gaps that they 
encounter to CEQ.
    If an agency determines that it cannot provide even a reasonable 
range of potential GHG emissions, the agency should provide a 
qualitative analysis and its rationale for determining that a 
quantitative analysis is not possible. A qualitative analysis may 
include sector-specific descriptions of the GHG emissions from the 
category of Federal agency action that is the subject of the NEPA 
analysis, but should seek to provide additional context for potential 
resulting emissions.
    Agencies should be guided by the rule of reason, as well as their 
expertise and experience, in conducting analysis commensurate with the 
quantity of projected GHG emissions and using GHG quantification tools 
suitable for the proposed action.\60\ The rule of reason and the 
concept of proportionality caution against providing an in-depth 
analysis of emissions regardless of the insignificance of the quantity 
of GHG emissions that the proposed action would cause. For example, 
some proposed actions may involve net GHG emission reductions or no net 
GHG increase, such as certain infrastructure or renewable energy 
projects. For such actions, agencies should generally quantify 
projected GHG emission reductions, but may apply the rule of reason 
when determining the appropriate depth of analysis such that precision 
regarding emission reduction benefits does not come at the expense of 
efficient and accessible analysis. Absent exceptional circumstances, 
the relative minor and short-term GHG emissions associated with 
construction of certain renewable energy projects, such as utility-
scale solar and offshore wind, should not warrant a detailed analysis 
of lifetime GHG emissions. As a second example, actions with only small 
GHG emissions may be able to rely on less detailed emissions estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See 40 CFR 1502.2(b) (environmental impact statements shall 
discuss impacts in proportion to their significance); 40 CFR 1502.15 
(data and analyses in a statement shall be commensurate with the 
importance of the impact).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Disclosing and Providing Context for a Proposed Action's GHG 
Emissions and Climate Effects

    In addition to quantifying emissions as described in Section IV(A), 
agencies should disclose and provide context for GHG emissions and 
climate effects to help decision makers and the public understand 
proposed actions' potential GHG emissions and climate change effects. 
To disclose effects and provide additional context for proposed 
actions' emissions once GHG emissions have been estimated, agencies 
should use the following best practices, as relevant:
    (1) In most circumstances, once agencies have quantified GHG 
emissions, they should apply the best available estimates of the SC-GHG 
\61\ to the incremental metric tons of each individual type of GHG 
emissions \62\ expected from a proposed action and its 
alternatives.\63\ SC-GHG estimates allow monetization (presented in 
U.S. dollars) of the climate change effects from the marginal or 
incremental emission of GHG emissions, including carbon dioxide, 
methane, and nitrous oxide.\64\ These 3 GHGs represent more than 97 
percent of U.S. GHG emissions.\65\ The SC-GHG provides an appropriate 
and valuable metric that gives decision makers and the public useful 
information and context about a proposed action's climate effects even 
if no other costs or benefits are monetized, because metric tons of 
GHGs can be difficult to understand and assess the significance of in 
the abstract.\66\ The SC-GHG translates metric tons of emissions into 
the familiar unit of dollars, allows for comparisons to other monetized 
values, and estimates the damages associated with GHG emissions over 
time and associated with different GHG pollutants.\67\ The SC-GHG also 
can

[[Page 1203]]

assist agencies and the public in assessing the significance of climate 
impacts. This is a simple and straightforward calculation that should 
not require additional time or resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ The SC-GHG estimates provide an aggregated monetary measure 
(in U.S. dollars) of the future stream of damages associated with an 
incremental metric ton of emissions and associated physical damages 
(e.g., temperature increase, sea-level rise, infrastructure damage, 
human health effects) in a particular year. The ``Technical Support 
Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim 
Estimates under Executive Order 13990'' released by the Interagency 
Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG SC-GHG) in 
February 2021 presents interim estimates of the social cost of 
carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide, which are the same as those 
developed by the IWG in 2013 and 2016 (updated to 2020 dollars). See 
IWG SC-GHG, U.S. Gov't, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of 
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive 
Order 13990 (Feb. 2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. 
The Technical Support Document notes that estimates of the SC-GHG 
have been used in NEPA analysis.
    \62\ Note that applying the specific social cost of each 
individual GHG to the quantifications of that GHG is more accurate 
than transforming the gases into CO2-equivalents and then 
multiplying the CO2-equivalents by the social cost of 
CO2. See IWG SC-GHG, U.S. Gov't, Addendum to Technical 
Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 
Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application of the Methodology 
to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of 
Nitrous Oxide, 2 (Aug. 2016), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_2016.pdf.
    \63\ See IWG SC-GHG, Technical Support Document, supra note 61. 
Agencies should typically apply the best available estimates of the 
SC-GHG to the incremental metric tons of GHG emissions expected from 
a proposed action and its alternatives. In uncommon circumstances, 
an agency may choose not to do so if doing so would be confusing, 
there are no available estimates for the GHG at issue, or, 
consistent with the concept of proportionality, an agency does not 
produce a quantitative estimate of GHG emissions because the 
emissions at issue are de minimis.
    \64\ Estimates of SC-HFCs have been developed and are available 
for use in NEPA analysis. See, e.g., EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis 
for Phasing Down Production and Consumption of Hydrofluorocarbons 
(HFCs) (June 2022), https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-07/RIA%20for%20Phasing%20Down%20Production%20and%20Consumption%20of%20Hydrofluorocarbons%20%28HFCs%29.pdf.
    \65\ EPA, EPA 430-R-22-003, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 
Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2020 (Apr. 2022), https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/us-ghg-inventory-2022-main-text.pdf.
    \66\ As described in section VI(F), NEPA does not require a 
cost-benefit analysis in which all monetized benefits and costs are 
directly compared.
    \67\ For example, if alternatives or mitigation strategies would 
result in varying emissions or reductions of carbon dioxide, 
methane, and nitrous oxide over time, presenting emissions estimates 
in metric tons of each gas, or in metric tons of CO2e, 
alone cannot fully illustrate the differences in the temporal 
pathways of these pollutants' impacts on society. The SC-GHG 
estimates can capture these differences when estimating the damages 
from the emission of each specific pollutant in a common unit of 
measurement, i.e., the U.S. Dollar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain circumstances may make monetization using the SC-GHG 
particularly useful, such as if a NEPA review monetizes other costs and 
benefits for the proposed action (see Section VI(F)); if the 
alternatives differ in GHG emissions over time or in the type of GHGs 
emitted; or if the significance of climate change effects is difficult 
to assess or not apparent to the public without monetization. SC-GHG 
estimates can help describe the net social costs of increasing GHG 
emissions as well as the net social benefits of reducing such 
emissions. Given NEPA's mandates to consider worldwide and long-range 
environmental problems,\68\ it is most appropriate for agencies to 
focus on SC-GHG estimates that capture global climate damages and, 
consistent with the best available science, reflect a timespan covering 
the vast majority of effects and discount future effects at rates that 
consider future generations. It is often also worth affirming that SC-
GHG estimates, including those available at the publication of this 
guidance, may be conservative underestimates because various damage 
categories (like ocean acidification) are not currently included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See, e.g., NEPA's direction that agencies shall consider 
the ``worldwide and long-range character of environmental 
problems.'' 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Where helpful to provide context, such as for proposed actions 
with relatively large GHG emissions or reductions or that will expand 
or perpetuate reliance on GHG-emitting energy sources, agencies should 
explain how the proposed action and alternatives would help meet or 
detract from achieving relevant climate action goals and commitments, 
including Federal goals, international agreements, state or regional 
goals, Tribal goals, agency-specific goals, or others as 
appropriate.\69\ However, as explained above, NEPA requires more than a 
statement that emissions from a proposed Federal action or its 
alternatives represent only a small fraction of global or domestic 
emissions. Such comparisons and fractions are not an appropriate method 
for characterizing the extent of a proposed action's and its 
alternatives' contributions to climate change. Agencies also should 
discuss whether and to what extent the proposal's reasonably 
foreseeable GHG emissions are consistent with GHG reduction goals, such 
as those reflected in the U.S. nationally determined contribution under 
the Paris Agreement. Federal planning documents that illustrate multi-
decade pathways to achieve policy may also provide useful information, 
such as the Long-Term Strategy of the United States: Pathways to Net-
Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050.\70\ Similarly, agencies' own 
climate goals may provide relevant context. Evaluating a proposed 
action's and its alternatives' consistency with such goals and 
commitments can help illuminate the policy context, the importance of 
considering alternatives and mitigation, and tradeoffs of the decision 
and help agencies evaluate the significance of a proposed action's GHG 
emissions and climate change effects. This type of comparison provides 
a different kind of disclosure and context than that provided by 
application of SC-GHG estimates as described above, demonstrating the 
potential utility of multiple contextualization methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ For example, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau 
of Land Management (BLM) has discussed how agency actions in 
California, especially joint projects with the State, may or may not 
facilitate California reaching its GHG emission reduction goals, 
including goals under the State's Assembly Bill 32 (Global Warming 
Solutions Act) and related legislation. See, e.g., BLM, Desert 
Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment 
and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. I, section I.3.3.2, 
12 (Oct. 2015), https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/66459/20012403/250016887/I.3_Planning_Process.pdf; see also 40 CFR 
1506.2(d) (directing agencies to discuss any inconsistency of a 
proposed action with an approved State, Tribal, or local plan or 
law); BLM, Environmental Assessment for Oberon Renewable Energy 
Project, 33-34 (Aug. 2021), https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2001226/200478716/20043975/250050165/Environmental%20Assessment%201-Main%20Text.pdf.
    \70\ U.S. Dep't of State (DOS) & U.S. Exec. Off. of the 
President (EOP), The Long-Term Strategy of the United States: 
Pathways to Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050 (Nov. 2021), 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/US-Long-Term-Strategy.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Where relevant, agencies should summarize and cite to available 
scientific literature to help explain the real-world effects--including 
those that will be experienced locally in relation to the proposed 
action--associated with an increase in GHG emissions that contribute to 
climate change, such as sea-level rise, temperature changes, ocean 
acidity, and more frequent and severe wildfires and drought, and human 
health effects (including to underserved populations).\71\ Agencies 
should use the best available information, including scenarios and 
climate modeling information that are most relevant to a proposed 
action.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ For example, see the scientific studies referenced in 
section III(B).
    \72\ In addition, newer tools or modelling may enable agencies 
in some cases to provide information on localized or ``downscaled'' 
climate effects in addition to global effects. See, e.g., Romany M. 
Webb et al., Evaluating Climate Risk in NEPA Reviews: Current 
Practices and Recommendations for Reform, 29, https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2022/02/Evaluating-Climate-Risk-in-NEPA-Reviews-Full-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Agencies also can provide accessible comparisons or equivalents 
to help the public and decision makers understand GHG emissions in more 
familiar terms. Techniques may include placing a proposed action's GHG 
emissions in more familiar metrics such as household emissions per 
year, annual average emissions from a certain number of cars on the 
road, or gallons of gasoline burned.\73\ Such comparisons may be a 
useful supplement and can, for example, be presented along with 
monetized damage estimates using SC-GHG values. Agencies should use 
disclosure and contextualization methods that best fit their proposed 
actions and alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See EPA's equivalency calculator, https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Reasonable Alternatives

    Considering reasonable alternatives, including alternatives that 
avoid or mitigate GHG emissions, is fundamental to the NEPA process and 
accords with Sections 102(2)(C) and 102(2)(E) of NEPA, which 
independently require the consideration of alternatives in 
environmental documents.\74\ NEPA calls upon agencies to use the NEPA 
process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed 
actions that will avoid or minimize adverse effects on the human 
environment.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) and (2)(E).
    \75\ See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)(iii); 40 CFR 1502.1, 1502.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consideration of alternatives provides an agency decision maker the 
information needed to examine other possible approaches to a particular 
proposed action (including the no action alternative) that could alter 
environmental effects or the balance of factors considered in making 
the decision. Agencies make better informed decisions by comparing 
relevant GHG emissions, GHG emission reductions, and carbon 
sequestration potential across reasonable alternatives, assessing 
trade-offs with other environmental values, and evaluating

[[Page 1204]]

the risks from or resilience to climate change inherent in a proposed 
action and its design.
    Agencies must consider a range of reasonable alternatives, as well 
as reasonable mitigation measures if not already included in the 
proposed action or alternatives, consistent with the level of NEPA 
review (e.g., EA or EIS) and the purpose and need for the proposed 
action.\76\ Agencies should leverage the early phases of their existing 
planning processes to help identify potential alternatives to address 
an action's anticipated environmental effects. When analyzing 
alternatives, agencies should compare the anticipated levels of GHG 
emissions from each alternative--including the no action alternative--
and mitigation to provide information to the public and enable the 
decision maker to make an informed choice. To help provide clarity, 
agencies should consider presenting charts, tables, or figures, as 
appropriate, to compare GHG emissions and climate effects across 
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), 4332(2)(E), and 40 CFR 
1502.14(e), 1501.5(c)(2). The purpose and need for action usually 
reflects both the extent of the agency's statutory authority and its 
policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither NEPA, the CEQ Regulations, or this guidance require the 
decision maker to select the alternative with the lowest net GHG 
emissions or climate costs or the greatest net climate benefits. 
However, and in line with the urgency of the climate crisis, agencies 
should use the information provided through the NEPA process to help 
inform decisions that align with climate change commitments and goals. 
For instance, agencies should evaluate reasonable alternatives that may 
have lower GHG emissions, which could include technically and 
economically feasible clean energy alternatives to proposed fossil 
fuel-related projects, and consider mitigation measures to reduce GHG 
emissions to the greatest extent possible.
    Where relevant--such as for proposed actions that will generate 
substantial GHG emissions--agencies should identify the alternative 
with the lowest net GHG emissions or the greatest net climate benefits 
among the alternatives they assess. And, as described throughout this 
guidance, they should use the NEPA process to make informed decisions 
grounded in science that are transparent with respect to how Federal 
actions will help meet climate change goals and commitments, or 
alternately, detract from them.

D. Baseline for Considering Environmental Effects

    A NEPA review must identify the area affected by a proposed action 
(i.e., the affected environment).\77\ Identification of the affected 
environment includes identifying and describing reasonably foreseeable 
environmental trends, including climate change effects. The NEPA review 
also must identify the current and projected future state of the 
affected environment without the proposed action (i.e., the no action 
alternative), which serves as the baseline for considering the effects 
of the proposed action and its reasonable alternatives.\78\ For an 
estimate of GHG emissions from the proposed action to have meaningful 
context, an accurate estimate of GHG emissions without the proposed 
action should be included in a NEPA review. The temporal bounds for the 
analysis are determined by the projected initiation of the action and 
the expected life of the proposed action and its effects.\79\ It is 
noteworthy that the impacts of GHGs can be very long-lasting.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See 40 CFR 1502.15 (providing that environmental impact 
statements shall succinctly describe the environmental impacts on 
the area(s) to be affected or created by the alternatives under 
consideration).
    \78\ See, e.g., CEQ, Memorandum to Agencies: Forty Most Asked 
Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, Question 3, ``No-Action 
Alternative'' (1986) (``This analysis provides a benchmark, enabling 
decisionmakers to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of 
the action alternatives'').
    \79\ CEQ, Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (1997), https://ceq.doe.gov/publications/cumulative_effects.html. Agencies also should consider proposed 
actions pursuant to E.O. 13653, Preparing the United States for the 
Impacts of Climate Change, 78 FR 66817 (Nov. 6, 2013), which 
considers how capital investments will be affected by a changing 
climate over time.
    \80\ Elevated concentrations of carbon dioxide will persist in 
the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years, so the earth will 
continue to warm in the coming decades. The warmer it gets, the 
greater the risk for more severe changes to the climate and the 
earth's system. EPA, Impacts of Climate Change, https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/impacts-climate-change (last updated Aug. 19, 
2022); EPA, Understanding Global Warming Potentials, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials 
(last updated May 5, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Direct and Indirect Effects

    NEPA requires agencies to consider the reasonably foreseeable 
direct and indirect effects of their proposed actions and reasonable 
alternatives (as well as the no-action alternative).\81\ The term 
``direct effects'' refers to reasonably foreseeable effects that are 
caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.\82\ The term 
``indirect effects'' refers to effects that are caused by the action 
and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still 
reasonably foreseeable.\83\ Indirect effects generally include 
reasonably foreseeable emissions related to a proposed action that are 
upstream or downstream of the activity resulting from the proposed 
action.\84\ For example, where the proposed action involves fossil fuel 
extraction, direct emissions typically include GHGs emitted during the 
process of exploring for and extracting the fossil fuel. The reasonably 
foreseeable indirect effects of such an action likely would include 
effects associated with the processing, refining, transporting, and 
end-use of the fossil fuel being extracted, including combustion of the 
resource to produce energy. Indirect emissions \85\ are often 
reasonably foreseeable since quantifiable connections frequently exist 
between a proposed activity that involves use or conveyance of a 
commodity or resource, and changes relating to the production or 
consumption of that resource.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)(i); 40 CFR 1508.1(g).
    \82\ 40 CFR 1508.1(g)(1).
    \83\ 40 CFR 1508.1(g)(2); see also Birckhead v. Fed. Energy 
Regul. Comm'n, 925 F.3d 510, 516 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
    \84\ These indirect emissions are sometimes referred to as 
``upstream'' or ``downstream emissions,'' described in relation to 
where in the causal chain they fall relative to the proposed action.
    \85\ As used in this guidance, ``indirect emissions'' refers to 
emissions that are indirect effects of the proposed action.
    \86\ For example, natural gas pipeline infrastructure creates 
the economic conditions for additional natural gas production and 
consumption, including both domestically and internationally, which 
produce indirect (both upstream and downstream) GHG emissions that 
contribute to climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section IV(A), agencies generally should quantify 
all reasonably foreseeable emissions associated with a proposed action 
and reasonable alternatives (as well as the no-action alternative). 
Quantification should include the reasonably foreseeable direct and 
indirect GHG emissions of their proposed actions. Agencies also should 
disclose the information and any assumptions used in the analysis and 
explain any uncertainty.\87\ In assessing a proposed action's, and 
reasonable alternatives', reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect 
GHG emissions, the agency should use the best available 
information.\88\ As with any NEPA review, the rule of reason should 
guide the agency's analysis and the level of

[[Page 1205]]

effort can be proportionate to the scale of the net GHG effects and 
whether net effects are positive or negative, with actions resulting in 
very few or an overall reduction in GHG emissions generally requiring 
less detailed analysis than actions with large emissions.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See 40 CFR 1502.21.
    \88\ For example, agencies may consider consulting information 
available from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the 
International Energy Agency, the Federal Energy Management Program, 
or the Department of Energy. See, e.g., U.S. Energy Info. Admin., 
Annual Energy Outlook 2022 (Mar. 3, 2022), https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/; International Energy Agency (IEA), Net Zero by 2050, 
(May 2021), https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050.
    \89\ For example, as noted in section (IV)(A)(1), for proposed 
actions that involve net GHG emission reductions (such as renewable 
energy projects), agencies should attempt to quantify net GHG 
emission reductions, but may apply the rule of reason when 
determining the appropriate depth of analysis such that precision 
regarding emission reduction benefits does not come at the expense 
of efficient and accessible analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agencies should seek to obtain the information needed to quantify 
emissions, including by requesting or requiring information held by 
other entities (such as project applicants), because such information 
is generally essential to reasoned decision making.\90\ Where 
information regarding direct or indirect emissions is not available, 
agencies should make best efforts to develop a range of potential 
emissions.\91\ Agencies can provide an upper bound for effects analysis 
by treating the resource provided or enabled by the actions they take 
as new or additional. In the example of fossil fuel extraction or 
transportation, this is sometimes referred to as a ``full burn'' 
assumption, as the agency can provide an upper bound estimate of GHG 
emissions by assuming that all of the available resources will be 
produced and combusted to create energy.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ See 40 CFR 1502.21(b); see also Birckhead, 925 F.3d at 520; 
Barnes v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 655 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2011). 
Agencies also may consider amendments to their regulations, where 
appropriate, to ensure they are able to gather from applicants the 
information needed to analyze the climate change effects of proposed 
actions.
    \91\ See, e.g., Jayni Hein, Jason Schwartz, and Avi Zevin, 
Pipeline Approvals and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 29-30 (Apr. 2019), 
discussing availability of tools for quantifying substitution 
effects and noting the need for further modeling tool development.
    \92\ A full burn assumption is consistent with analyses prepared 
by some agencies. See BLM, Environmental Assessment, DOI-BLM-CO-
S010-2011-0074-EA, 81 (2017), https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/70895/127910/155610/King_II_Lease_Mod_Final_EA_2017-1012.pdf (stating that the agency 
``assume[d] that the remaining portion of the maximum year coal to 
be shipped . . . is eventually combusted.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some proposed actions, such as those increasing the supply of 
certain energy resources like oil, natural gas, or renewable energy 
generation, may result in changes to the resulting energy mix as energy 
resources substitute for one another on the domestic or global energy 
market.\93\ Different energy resources emit different amounts of GHGs 
and other air pollutants.\94\ For proposed actions involving such 
resource substitution considerations, where relevant, CEQ encourages 
agencies to conduct substitution analysis to provide more information 
on how a proposed action and its alternatives are projected to affect 
the resulting resource or energy mix, including resulting GHG 
emissions.\95\ Substitution analysis generally is relevant to actions 
related to the extraction, transportation, refining, combustion, or 
distribution of fossil fuels, for example. Agencies should not simply 
assume that if the federal action does not take place, another action 
will perfectly substitute for it and generate identical emissions, such 
that the action's net emissions relative to the baseline are zero.\96\ 
Such an assumption of perfect substitution typically contradicts basic 
economic principles of supply and demand.\97\ Instead, where relevant, 
agencies can use available models to help conduct substitution 
analysis.\98\ Agencies should disclose any assumptions and inputs used 
in substitution analysis and use models that accurately account for 
reasonable and available energy substitute resources, including 
renewable energy. Further, the analysis generally should be 
complemented with evaluation that compares the proposed action's and 
reasonable alternatives' energy use against scenarios or energy use 
trends that are consistent with achieving science-based GHG reduction 
goals, such as those pursued in the Long-Term Strategy of the United 
States.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ See, e.g., WildEarth Guardians v. BLM., 870 F.3d 1222, 1235 
(10th Cir. 2017) (``[W]hen coal carries a higher price, for whatever 
reason that may be, the nation burns less coal in favor of other 
sources. A force that drives up the cost of coal could thus drive 
down coal consumption.''); see also Jayni Hein and Natalie Jacewicz, 
Implementing NEPA in the Age of Climate Change, 10 Mich. J. Envtl L. 
1, 40-43 (2020) (describing energy substitution analysis and how 
agencies can conduct it for NEPA analysis).
    \94\ See Hein & Jacewicz, supra note 93, at 42 (citing B.D. Hong 
& E.R. Slatick, U.S. Energy Info. Admin., Carbon Dioxide Emission 
Factors for Coal, https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html).
    \95\ See, e.g., Peter Howard, Inst. for Pol'y Integrity, N.Y.U. 
Sch. of L., The Bureau of Land Management's Modeling Choice for the 
Federal Coal Programmatic Review (June 2016), https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/BLM_Model_Choice.pdf 
(describing multiple power sector models available to Federal 
agencies for use in NEPA analysis); see also WildEarth Guardians, 
870 F.3d at 1235 (holding that an agency's ``blanket assertion that 
coal would be substituted from other sources, unsupported by hard 
data, does not provide `information sufficient to permit a reasoned 
choice' between the preferred alternative and no action 
alternative.'').
    \96\ Hein & Jacewicz, supra note 93, at 43-44 (describing the 
fallacy of perfect substitution); id. at 51-52 (describing 
litigation concerning the Wright Area coal leases).
    \97\ See, e.g., WildEarth Guardians, 870 F.3d at 1235-37.
    \98\ Available models include the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management's Revised Market Simulation Model, the U.S. Energy 
Information Administration's National Energy Modeling System, and 
ICF International's Integrated Planning Model.
    \99\ DOS & EOP, supra note 70; see also Hein & Jacewicz, supra 
note 93, at 48 (stating, ``[a] far more rational approach would be 
to model at least two policy scenarios: one taking the ``constant 
demand'' approach, and the other based on fossil fuel consumption 
consistent with meeting the 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius warming targets 
laid out in the Paris Accord.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to addressing an action's direct and indirect effects, 
NEPA requires agencies to address the effects of ``connected'' 
actions.\100\ When evaluating a proposed Federal action, agencies 
should account for other closely related actions that should be 
discussed in the same EIS or EA. Actions are connected if they: (i) 
automatically trigger other actions that may require environmental 
impact statements; (ii) cannot or will not proceed unless other actions 
are taken previously or simultaneously; or (iii) are interdependent 
parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their 
justification.\101\ For example, NEPA reviews for proposed resource 
extraction and development projects typically should address the 
reasonably foreseeable effects of other closely related agency actions 
that authorize separate phases or aspects of development. Depending on 
the relationship between any of the phases, as well as the authority 
under which they may be carried out, agencies should use the analytical 
scope that best informs their decision making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ Note that the concepts of ``connected actions'' and 
``indirect effects'' bear some similarities but are analytically 
distinct. ``Connected actions'' are actions related to a proposed 
action that an agency must consider in the same environmental impact 
statement. See 40 CFR 1501.9(e)(1). ``Indirect effects'' are not 
actions in themselves, but rather reasonably foreseeable effects 
that are caused by the proposed action.
    \101\ 40 CFR 1501.9(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Cumulative Effects

    In addition to analyzing a proposed action's direct and indirect 
effects, NEPA and CEQ's regulations require an agency to also consider 
the proposed action's cumulative effects.\102\ Cumulative effects are 
effects on the environment that result from the incremental effects of 
the action when added to the effects of other past, present, and 
reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency (Federal or 
non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.\103\ In 
evaluating a proposed action's cumulative climate change effects, an

[[Page 1206]]

agency should consider the proposed action in the context of the 
emissions from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. When 
assessing cumulative effects, agencies should also consider whether 
certain communities experience disproportionate cumulative effects, 
thereby raising environmental justice concerns.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See 40 CFR 1502.16, 1508.1(g)(3).
    \103\ 40 CFR 1508.1(g)(3).
    \104\ See infra section VI(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All types of GHG emissions contribute to real-world physical 
changes. Given that climate change is the result of the increased 
global accumulation of GHGs climate effects analysis is inherently 
cumulative in nature. Thus, the analysis and public disclosure of 
cumulative effects can be accomplished by quantifying GHG emissions and 
providing context for understanding their effects as discussed above, 
including by monetizing climate damages using estimates of the SC-GHG, 
placing those damages in the context of relevant climate action goals 
and commitments, and summarizing and citing to available scientific 
literature to help explain real world effects.

G. Short- and Long-Term Effects

    When considering effects, agencies should take into account both 
the short- and long-term adverse and beneficial effects using a 
temporal scope that is grounded in the concept of reasonable 
foreseeability. Some proposed actions and reasonable alternatives will 
require consideration of effects from different stages of the action to 
ensure the direct effects and reasonably foreseeable indirect effects 
are appropriately assessed; for example, the effects of construction 
are different from the effects of the operations and maintenance of a 
facility.
    The effects analysis should cover the action's reasonably 
foreseeable lifetime, including anticipated GHG emissions associated 
with construction, operations, and decommissioning. Agencies should 
identify an appropriate lifetime for the proposed action using 
available indicators and guided by the concept of reasonable 
foreseeability.
    Identifying an appropriate lifetime for the action also will inform 
assessment of long-term emissions benefits of proposed actions and 
reasonable alternatives. For example, development of a new wind energy 
project may result in short-term construction GHG emissions but overall 
long-term GHG benefits. Agencies should describe both short- and long-
term effects in comparison to the no action alternative in NEPA reviews 
and clearly explain the net effect of their actions even if precision 
regarding the timing of short- and long-term effects is not possible.

H. Mitigation

    Identifying and analyzing potential mitigation measures is an 
important component of the NEPA process.\105\ Evaluating potential 
mitigation measures generally involves first determining whether 
impacts from a proposed action or alternatives can be avoided, then 
considering whether adverse impacts can be minimized, then, when 
impacts are unavoidable, rectifying them and, if appropriate, requiring 
compensation for residual impacts.\106\ Mitigation plays a particularly 
important role in how agencies should assess the potential climate 
change effects of proposed actions and reasonable alternatives. 
Agencies should consider mitigation measures that will avoid or reduce 
GHG emissions. Given the urgency of the climate crisis, CEQ encourages 
agencies to mitigate GHG emissions to the greatest extent possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) (requiring consideration of 
mitigation measures in impact statements by requiring the 
consideration of ``any adverse environmental effects which cannot be 
avoided'').
    \106\ See 40 CFR 1508.1(s), 1501.9(e)(2) (alternatives include 
mitigation measures not included in the proposed action); see 
generally 10 CFR 900.3 (2019) (identifying ``mitigation hierarchy'' 
as ``first seeking to avoid, then minimize impacts, then, when 
necessary, compensate for residual impacts''); U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (FWS) Mitigation Policy (Nov. 21, 2016), https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-27751.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agencies should consider mitigation, particularly avoidance and 
minimization, as early as possible in the development of their actions, 
including during scoping, public engagement, and alternatives analysis. 
As part of early and meaningful public engagement, agencies should 
solicit public input on potential mitigation measures, including from 
communities that the proposed action and reasonable alternatives may 
affect. In their NEPA documents, agencies should discuss any mitigation 
measures considered and whether they included those measures in the 
preferred alternative. Where potential mitigation measures are not 
adopted, agencies should explain why as early as practicable in the 
NEPA process.
    Agencies should consider available mitigation measures that avoid, 
minimize, or compensate for GHG emissions and climate change effects 
when those measures are reasonable and consistent with achieving the 
purpose and need for the proposed action. Such mitigation measures 
could include enhanced energy efficiency, renewable energy generation 
and energy storage, lower-GHG-emitting technology, reduced embodied 
carbon in construction materials, carbon capture and sequestration, 
sustainable land management practices, and capturing GHG emissions such 
as methane.
    Federal agencies also should evaluate the quality of that 
mitigation by ensuring it meets appropriate performance standards.\107\ 
Appropriate performance standards help ensure that GHG mitigation is 
additional, verifiable, durable, enforceable, and will be 
implemented.\108\ NEPA does not limit consideration of mitigation to 
actions involving significant effects. However, mitigation can be 
particularly effective in helping agencies reduce or avoid significant 
effects.\109\ Agencies can discuss the scope of their mitigation 
authority to support any mitigation commitments relied upon in NEPA 
analysis, including mitigation supporting a finding of no significant 
impact.\110\ In addition, consistent with existing agency best 
practice, an agency's decision on a proposed action should identify the 
mitigation measures that the agency commits to take, recommends, or 
requires others to take.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ See CEQ, Memorandum to Heads of Federal Agencies, 
Appropriate Use of Mitigation and Monitoring and Clarifying the 
Appropriate Use of Mitigated Findings of No Significant Impact 
(``Appropriate Use of Mitigation and FONSI Memo''), 8-9, 76 FR 3843 
(Jan. 21, 2011), https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-regulations-and-guidance/Mitigation_and_Monitoring_Guidance_14Jan2011.pdf.
    \108\ See id.; see also U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA, 
Final Rule, Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, 
73 FR 19593 (Apr. 10, 2008) (discussing verifiable and enforceable 
performance standards for mitigation).
    \109\ See 40 CFR 1501.6(c).
    \110\ See id. (The finding of no significant impact shall state 
the authority for any mitigation that the agency has adopted and any 
applicable monitoring or enforcement provisions. If the agency finds 
no significant impacts based on mitigation, the mitigated finding of 
no significant impact shall state any enforceable mitigation 
requirements or commitments that will be undertaken to avoid 
significant impacts.); see also CEQ, Appropriate Use of Mitigation 
and FONSI Memo, supra note 107, at 7 (``Mitigation commitments 
needed to lower the level of impacts so that they are not 
significant should be clearly described in the mitigated FONSI 
document and in any other relevant decision documents related to the 
proposed action.'').
    \111\ See CEQ, Appropriate Use of Mitigation and FONSI Memo, 
supra note 107, at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CEQ Regulations and guidance also recognize the value of 
monitoring to ensure that mitigation is carried out as provided in a 
record of decision or finding of no significant impact.\112\ Monitoring 
intensity and duration

[[Page 1207]]

should be aligned with the mitigation action taken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See 40 CFR 1505.2(a)(3), 1505.3; see also CEQ, Appropriate 
Use of Mitigation and FONSI Memo, supra note 107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, while this subsection primarily addresses mitigating a 
proposed action's GHG emissions, agencies also should consider 
environmental design features, alternatives, and mitigation measures to 
address the effects of climate change on the proposed action, including 
to enhance resilience and adaptation. See Section IV(D).

I. Special Considerations for Biological GHG Sources and Sinks

    Many GHG emissions come from combusting fossil fuels and releasing 
substances into the atmosphere.\113\ In addition to these sources, some 
GHG emissions are related to the natural carbon cycle,\114\ or result 
from the combustion, harvest, decomposition, or other processing of 
biologically based materials.\115\ These types of emissions are 
referred to as ``biogenic.'' \116\ Biogenic GHG emissions from land 
management actions--such as prescribed burning, timber stand 
improvements, fuel load reductions, and scheduled harvesting--involve 
GHG emissions and carbon sequestration that operate within the global 
carbon and nitrogen cycle, which may be affected by those actions. 
Similarly, some water management practices have GHG emission 
consequences that may require unique consideration (e.g., reservoir 
management practices can reduce methane releases, wetlands management 
practices can enhance carbon sequestration, and water conservation can 
improve energy efficiency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ Burning fossil fuels (such as oil, coal, and natural gas), 
wood, and other forms of carbon releases stored carbon into the 
atmosphere, where it becomes a GHG. GHGs are gases in the atmosphere 
that absorb and release heat. Dep't of Energy, Off. of Science, DOE 
Explains...the Carbon Cycle, https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsthe-carbon-cycle.
    \114\ The carbon cycle is the process that moves carbon between 
plants, animals, and microbes; minerals in the earth; and the 
atmosphere. Most carbon on Earth is stored in rocks and sediments. 
The rest is in the ocean, atmosphere, and in living organisms. 
Scientists use the term ``carbon sinks'' to refer to places where 
carbon is stored away from the atmosphere. Id.
    \115\ Fossil fuels are not considered biologically based 
materials. See, e.g., EPA, Framework for Assessing Biogenic 
CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources, 5 (Nov. 2014), 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-08/documents/framework-for-assessing-biogenic-co2-emissions.pdf (``In contrast to the 
relatively short timescale of the biological carbon cycle, carbon in 
fossil fuel reservoirs, such as coal seams and oil and gas deposits, 
was removed from the atmosphere by plants over millions of years but 
was not returned to the atmosphere through the natural processes 
described above. Instead, because of geologic processes, the carbon 
that accumulated in these deposits has been isolated from the active 
biological cycling of carbon to and from the atmosphere. Without 
human intervention, carbon in fossil fuel reservoirs could remain 
isolated from the biogeochemical cycling of carbon long into the 
future.'')
    \116\ EPA, Carbon Dioxide Emissions Associated with Bioenergy 
and Other Biogenic Sources, https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/carbon-dioxide-emissions-associated-bioenergy-and-other-biogenic-sources_.html; see also Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 
Biogenic (Online Ed., last updated Oct. 21, 2022), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biogenic (defining ``biogenic'' 
as ``produced by living organisms'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the land and resource management context, how a proposed action 
and reasonable alternatives (as well as the no-action alternative) 
affects a net carbon sink or source will depend on multiple factors 
such as the local or regional climate and environment, the distribution 
of carbon across carbon pools in the action area, ongoing activities 
and trends, and the role of natural disturbances in the relevant area.
    In NEPA reviews, for actions involving potential changes to 
biological GHG sources and sinks, agencies should include a comparison 
of net GHG emissions and carbon stock \117\ changes that are 
anticipated to occur, with and without implementation of the proposed 
action and reasonable alternatives. The analysis should consider the 
estimated GHG emissions (from biogenic and fossil-fuel sources), carbon 
sequestration potential, and the net change in relevant carbon stocks 
in light of the proposed actions and timeframes under consideration, 
and explain the basis for the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ See, e.g., 10 CFR 300.2 (``Carbon stocks mean the quantity 
of carbon stored in biological and physical systems including: 
trees, products of harvested trees, agricultural crops, plants, wood 
and paper products and other terrestrial biosphere sinks, soils, 
oceans, and sedimentary and geological sinks.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some actions that involve ecosystem restoration \118\ can generate 
short-term biogenic emissions while resulting in overall long-term net 
reductions of atmospheric GHG concentrations through increases in 
carbon stocks or reduced risks of future emissions. One example is 
certain vegetation management practices that affect the risk of 
wildfire, insect and disease outbreak, or other disturbance. Some 
resource management activities, such as a prescribed burn or certain 
non-commercial thinning of forests or grasslands conducted to reduce 
wildfire risk or insect infestations, might result in short-term GHG 
emissions or loss of stored carbon but greater long-term ecosystem 
health, including an overall net increase in carbon sequestration and 
storage. However, other types of land-use changes, such as permanent 
deforestation, can adversely alter ecosystem long-term carbon dynamics, 
resulting in net emissions. Agencies can use relevant tools to analyze 
the anticipated long-term GHG emissions implications from proposed 
ecosystem restoration actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ For example, Federal agencies sometimes consider actions 
that would benefit ecosystems by restoring degraded lands or 
restoring shoreline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Federal land and resource management agencies should consider 
developing and maintaining agency-specific principles and guidance for 
considering biological carbon in management and planning 
decisions.\119\ Such guidance can help address the importance of 
considering biogenic carbon fluxes and storage within the context of 
other management objectives and ecosystem service goals, and 
integrating carbon considerations as part of a balanced and 
comprehensive program of sustainable management, climate change 
mitigation, and climate change adaptation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ See, e.g., USDA Forest Service, Considering Forest and 
Grassland Carbon in Land Management (2017), https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/treesearch/54316; see also U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 
Order No. 3399, Department-Wide Approach to the Climate Crisis and 
Restoring Transparency and Integrity to the Decision-Making Process 
(Apr. 16, 2021), https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3399-508_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Considering the Effects of Climate Change on a Proposed Action

    According to the USGCRP and others, GHGs already in the atmosphere 
will continue altering the climate system into the future, even with 
current or future emissions control efforts.\120\ To illustrate how 
climate change may impact proposed actions and alternatives and to 
consider climate resilience, NEPA reviews should consider the ongoing 
impacts of climate change and the foreseeable state of the environment, 
especially when evaluating project design, siting, and reasonable 
alternatives. In addition, climate change resilience \121\ and 
adaptation \122\ are important

[[Page 1208]]

considerations for agencies contemplating and planning actions.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ See USGCRP, Fourth National Climate Assessment, supra note 
28, Chapter 2, Our Changing Climate, https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/.
    \121\ Resilience refers to the ability to prepare for and adapt 
to changing conditions and withstand and recover rapidly from 
disruption. U.S. Dep't of Commerce Nat'l Inst. of Standards and 
Tech. (NIST), SP 800-160 Vol. 2, Rev. 1, 76, https://csrc.nist.gov/
glossary/term/resilience#:~:text=with%20mission%20needs.-
,Source(s)%3A,naturally%20occurring%20threats%20or%20incidents.
    \122\ Adaptation refers to actions taken at the individual, 
local, regional, and national levels to reduce risks from even 
today's changed climate conditions and to prepare for impacts from 
additional changes projected for the future. USGCRP, Fourth National 
Climate Assessment, supra note 28, Chapter 28, Reducing Risks 
Through Adaptation Actions, https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/28/.
    \123\ See E.O. 14008, supra note 7 and E.O. 14057, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Affected Environment

    Agencies should identify the affected environment to provide a 
basis for comparing the current and future state of the environment as 
affected by the proposed action or its reasonable alternatives.\124\ As 
discussed in Section IV(D), the current and projected future state of 
the environment without the proposed action (i.e., the no action 
alternative) represents the reasonably foreseeable affected 
environment. In considering the effects of climate change on a proposed 
action, the agency should describe the affected environment for the 
proposed action based on the best available climate change 
reports,\125\ which often project at least two possible future 
emissions scenarios.\126\ The temporal bounds for the description of 
the affected environment are determined by the projected initiation of 
implementation and the expected life of the proposed action and its 
effects.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ See 40 CFR 1502.15 (providing that environmental impact 
statements shall succinctly describe the environmental impacts on 
the area(s) to be affected or created by the alternatives under 
consideration). Note, however, that GHG emissions have effects that 
are global in scale.
    \125\ See, e.g., USGCRP, Fourth National Climate Assessment, 
supra note 28 (regional impacts chapters).
    \126\ See, e.g., id. (considering a low future global emissions 
scenario and a high emissions scenario).
    \127\ CEQ, Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National 
Environmental Policy Act, supra note 79. Agencies also should 
consider their work under relevant executive orders. See E.O. 13990, 
supra note 16; E.O. 14008, supra note 7; E.O. 14057, supra note 7. 
Note that the effects of GHG emissions by their nature can be very 
long-lasting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Effects

    The analysis of climate change effects should focus on those 
aspects of the human environment that are impacted by the agency's 
potential action (i.e., the proposed action or its alternatives) and 
climate change. The analysis also should consider how climate change 
can make a resource, ecosystem, human community, or structure more 
vulnerable to many types of effects and lessen its resilience to other 
environmental effects. This increase in vulnerability can exacerbate 
the environmental effects of potential actions, including environmental 
justice impacts. For example, a proposed action or its alternatives may 
require water from a stream that has diminishing quantities of 
available water because of decreased snow pack in the mountains, or add 
heat to a water body that is already warming due to increasing 
atmospheric temperatures. Such considerations are squarely within the 
scope of NEPA and can inform decisions on siting, whether to proceed 
with and how to design potential actions and reasonable alternatives, 
and to eliminate or mitigate effects exacerbated by climate change. 
They also can inform possible adaptation measures to address the 
effects of climate change, ultimately enabling the selection of 
smarter, more resilient actions.

C. Using Available Assessments and Scenarios To Assess Present and 
Future Impacts

    In accordance with NEPA's rule of reason and standards for 
obtaining information regarding reasonably foreseeable effects on the 
human environment, agencies may summarize and incorporate by reference 
relevant scientific literature concerning the physical effects of 
climate change.\128\ For example, agencies may summarize and 
incorporate by reference the relevant chapters of the most recent 
national climate assessments or reports from the USGCRP and the 
IPCC.\129\ Particularly relevant to some proposed actions and 
reasonable alternatives are the most current reports on climate change 
effects on water resources, ecosystems, vulnerable communities, 
agriculture and forestry, health, coastlines, and ocean and arctic 
regions in the United States.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ See 40 CFR 1501.12 (material may be incorporated by 
reference if it is reasonably available for inspection by 
potentially interested persons during public review and comment).
    \129\ See USGCRP, Fourth National Climate Assessment, supra note 
28; IPCC, The Physical Science Basis, supra note 28.
    \130\ See USGCRP, Fourth National Climate Assessment, supra note 
28. Agencies should consider the latest final assessments and 
reports as they are updated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agencies should remain aware of the evolving body of scientific 
information as more refined estimates of the effects of climate change, 
both globally and at a localized level, become available.\131\ Agencies 
should use the most up-to-date scientific projections available, 
identify any methodologies and sources used, and where relevant, 
disclose any relevant limitations of studies, climate models, or 
projections they rely on.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ See, e.g., id.
    \132\ See 40 CFR 1502.23. Agencies can consult www.data.gov/climate/portals for model data archives, visualization tools, and 
downscaling results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to considering climate change effects at the relevant 
global and national levels, agencies should identify and use 
information on future projected GHG emissions scenarios to evaluate 
potential future impacts (such as flooding, high winds, extreme heat, 
and other climate change-related impacts) and what those impacts will 
mean for the physical and other relevant conditions in the affected 
area. Such information should help inform development of the proposed 
action and alternatives, including by ensuring that proposed actions 
and alternatives consider appropriate resilience measures, 
environmental justice issues, and existing State, Tribal, or local 
adaptation plans. When relying on a single study or projection, 
agencies should consider any relevant limitations and discuss 
them.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Resilience and Adaptation

    As discussed in Section III(B), climate change presents risks to a 
wide array of potential actions across a range of sectors. Agencies 
should consider climate change effects on the environment and on 
proposed actions in assessing vulnerabilities and resilience to the 
effects of climate change such as increasing sea level, drought, high 
intensity precipitation events, increased fire risk, or ecological 
change. Consistent with NEPA, environmental reviews should provide 
relevant information that agencies can use to consider siting issues, 
the initial project design and consistency with existing State, Tribal, 
and local adaptation plans, as well as reasonable alternatives with 
preferable overall environmental outcomes and improved resilience to 
climate effects.\134\ Climate resilience and adaptation may be 
particularly relevant to the description of a proposed action, the 
alternatives analysis, and the description of environmental 
consequences. For instance, agencies should consider increased risks 
associated with development in floodplains, avoiding such development 
wherever there is a practicable alternative, as required by Executive 
Orders 11988 and 13690.\135\ Agencies also should consider the 
likelihood of increased temperatures and more frequent or severe storm 
events over the lifetime of the proposed action, and reasonable 
alternatives (as well as the

[[Page 1209]]

no-action alternative).\136\ For example, an agency considering a 
proposed development of transportation infrastructure on a coastal 
barrier island should consider climate change effects on the 
environment and, as applicable, consequences of rebuilding where sea 
level rise and more intense storms will shorten the projected life of 
the project and change its effects on the environment.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ See 40 CFR 1502.16(a)(5), 1506.2(d).
    \135\ See E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management, 42 FR 26951 (May 
24, 1977), http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11988.html; E.O. 13690, Establishing a Federal Flood 
Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and 
Considering Stakeholder Input, 80 FR 6425 (Jan. 30, 2015), https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2015-02379 (reinstated by E.O. 14030, 
Climate-Related Financial Risk, 86 FR 27967 (May 20, 2021), https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-11168).
    \136\ See, e.g., E.O. 14030, supra note 135.
    \137\ See U.S. Dep't of Transp., FHWA-HEP-15-007, Assessing 
Transportation Vulnerability to Climate Change Synthesis of Lessons 
Learned and Methods Applied, Gulf Coast Study, Phase 2 (Oct. 2014), 
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/adaptation/ongoing_and_current_research/gulf_coast_study/phase2_task6/fhwahep15007.pdf (focusing on the Mobile, Alabama region); U.S. 
Climate Change Science Program, Impacts of Climate Change and 
Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure, Gulf Coast 
Study, Phase I (Mar. 2008), https://downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap4-7/sap4-7-final-all.pdf (focusing on a regional scale in the 
central Gulf Coast). Information about the Gulf Coast Study is 
available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/ongoing_and_current_research/gulf_coast_study/index.cfm; 
see also Third National Climate Assessment, supra note 30, Chapter 
28, Adaptation, 675, http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/response-strategies/adaptation#intro-section-2 (noting that Federal 
agencies in particular can facilitate climate adaptation by 
``ensuring the establishment of [F]ederal policies that allow for 
`flexible' adaptation efforts and take steps to avoid unintended 
consequences'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agencies should integrate the NEPA review process with the agency's 
planning, siting, and design efforts at the earliest possible time that 
would allow for a meaningful analysis.\138\ Agencies may incorporate 
information developed during early planning processes that precede a 
NEPA review into the NEPA review. Decades of NEPA practice have shown 
that integrating environmental considerations with the planning 
processes provides useful information that program and project planners 
can consider in designing the proposed action, alternatives, and 
potential mitigation measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ See 42 U.S.C. 4332 (``agencies of the Federal Government 
shall . . . utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which 
will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences 
and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision-
making''); 40 CFR 1501.2 (``Agencies should integrate the NEPA 
process with other planning and authorization processes at the 
earliest reasonable time. . . .''); see also CEQ, Memorandum for 
Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies, Improving the Process for 
Preparing Efficient and Timely Environmental Reviews under the 
National Environmental Policy Act (``Efficient Environmental 
Reviews''), 77 FR 14473 (Mar. 12, 2012), https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-regulations-and-guidance/Improving_NEPA_Efficiencies_06Mar2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agencies also may consider co-benefits of the proposed action, 
alternatives, and potential mitigation measures for human health, 
economic and social stability, ecosystem services, or other benefits 
that increase climate change preparedness or resilience. Individual 
agency adaptation plans and interagency adaptation strategies, such as 
agency Climate Adaptation Plans, the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants 
Climate Adaptation Strategy, and the National Action Plan: Priorities 
for Managing Freshwater Resources in a Changing Climate, provide other 
good examples of the type of relevant and useful information that 
agencies can consider.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ See https://www.sustainability.gov/progress.html for 
agency sustainability plans and agency adaptation plans; see also 
U.S. Climate Resilience Tool Kit, National Fish, Wildlife, and 
Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy, https://toolkit.climate.gov/tool/national-fish-wildlife-and-plants-climate-adaptation-strategy; 
Interagency Climate Adaptation Task Force, National Action Plan: 
Priorities for Managing Freshwater Resources in a Changing Climate 
(Oct. 2011), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/2011_national_action_plan_1.pdf; and CEQ, Off. of the 
Federal Chief Sustainability Officer, Climate Resilient 
Infrastructure and Operations, https://www.sustainability.gov/adaptation/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering the effects of climate change on a proposed action, and 
reasonable alternatives (as well as the no-action alternative), also 
helps to develop potential mitigation measures to reduce climate risks 
and promote resilience and adaptation. Where the analysis identifies 
climate-related risks to a proposed action or to the area affected by 
the proposed action, the agency should consider possible resilience and 
adaptation measures--including measures consistent with State, Tribal, 
or local adaptation plans--that could be employed to manage those 
effects. For example, where one or more climate effects could impair 
the operation of the proposed action, the agency should identify 
possible adaptation measures to enhance the action's climate 
resilience. The agency should indicate whether the proposed action 
includes measures to adapt to climate change and, if so, describe those 
measures and the climate projections that informed them. The agency 
also should consider whether any potential measures undertaken to 
address a proposed action's climate risk could result in any 
undesirable or unintended consequences.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ See, e.g., Jane Ebinger & Walter Vergara, World Bank, 
Climate Impacts on Energy Systems: Key Issues for Energy Sector 
Adaptation, 89-90 (2011), https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/2271/600510PUB0ID181mpacts09780821386972.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 
(describing the potential for adaptation-related decision errors 
including ``maladaptation,'' in which actions are taken that 
constrain the ability of other decision makers to manage the impacts 
of climate change).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, agencies should consider their ongoing efforts to 
incorporate environmental justice principles into their programs, 
policies, actions, and activities, including the environmental justice 
strategies required by Executive Orders 12898 and 14008, and consider 
whether the effects of climate change in association with the effects 
of the proposed action may result in disproportionately high and 
adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns, 
which often include communities of color, low-income communities, and 
Tribal Nations and Indigenous communities, in the area affected by the 
proposed action.\141\ Federal agencies should identify any communities 
with environmental justice concerns, including communities of color, 
low-income communities, and Tribal Nations and Indigenous communities, 
impacted by the proposed action, and consider how impacts from the 
proposed action could potentially amplify climate change-related 
hazards such as storm surge, heat waves, drought, flooding, and sea 
level change.\142\ Moreover, Executive Order 13985 calls for an all-of-
government approach to advancing equity for underserved populations, 
including rural communities and persons with disabilities. Agencies 
should meaningfully engage with affected communities regarding their 
proposed actions and consider the effects of climate change on 
vulnerable communities in designing the action or selection of 
alternatives, including alternatives that can reduce disproportionate 
effects on such communities. For example, chemical facilities located 
near the coastline could have increased risk of spills or leaks due to 
sea level rise or increased storm surges, putting local communities and 
environmental resources at greater

[[Page 1210]]

risk. Increased resilience could minimize such potential future 
effects. Finally, considering climate change preparedness and 
resilience can help ensure that agencies evaluate the potential for 
generating additional GHGs if a project has to be replaced, repaired, 
or modified, and minimize the risk of expending additional time and 
funds in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ See infra Section VI(E); E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to 
Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income 
Populations, 59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994), https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12898.pdf, as amended by 
E.O. 14008, supra note 7, section 219 (``Agencies shall make 
achieving environmental justice part of their missions by developing 
programs, policies, and activities to address the disproportionately 
high and adverse human health, environmental, climate-related and 
other cumulative impacts on disadvantaged communities, as well as 
the accompanying economic challenges of such impacts.''); CEQ, 
Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental 
Policy Act (Dec. 1997), https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-regulations-and-guidance/regs/ej/justice.pdf.
    \142\ See, e.g., Federal Interagency Working Group on 
Environmental Justice & NEPA Committee, Promising Practices for EJ 
Methodologies in NEPA Reviews (Mar. 2016), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-08/documents/nepa_promising_practices_document_2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Traditional NEPA Tools and Practices

A. Scoping and Framing the NEPA Review

    Scoping helps agencies integrate decision making, avoid 
duplication, and focus NEPA reviews.\143\ In scoping, the agency 
determines the issues that the NEPA review will address and identifies 
the effects related to the proposed action that the analysis will 
consider.\144\ An agency can use the scoping process to help it 
determine whether analysis is relevant and, if so, the extent of 
analysis appropriate for a proposed action.\145\ When scoping for the 
climate change issues associated with the proposed action, and 
reasonable alternatives (as well as the no-action alternative), the 
nature, location, timeframe, and type of the proposed action and the 
extent of its effects will help determine the degree to which to 
consider climate projections, including whether climate change 
considerations warrant emphasis, detailed analysis, and 
disclosure.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ See 40 CFR 1501.9 (``Agencies shall use an early and open 
process to determine the scope of issues for analysis in an 
environmental impact statement, including identifying the 
significant issues and eliminating from further study non-
significant issues.''); see also CEQ, Efficient Environmental 
Reviews, supra note 139 (the CEQ Regulations explicitly require 
scoping for preparing an EIS; however, agencies also can take 
advantage of scoping whenever preparing an EA).
    \144\ See 40 CFR 1500.4(d), 1500.4(i), 1501.9(a) and (e).
    \145\ See 40 CFR 1501.9 (The agency preparing the NEPA analysis 
must use the scoping process to, among other things, determine the 
scope and identify the significant issues to be analyzed in depth); 
CEQ, Memorandum for General Counsels, NEPA Liaisons, and 
Participants in Scoping (Apr. 30, 1981), https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQ-scopingguidance.pdf.
    \146\ As noted infra in section VI(E), to address environmental 
justice concerns, agencies should use the scoping process to 
identify potentially affected communities and provide early notice 
of opportunities for public engagement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with this guidance, agencies may develop their own 
agency-specific practices and guidance for framing NEPA reviews. 
Grounded in the principles of proportionality and the rule of reason, 
such practices and guidance can help an agency determine the extent to 
which it should explore climate change effects in its decision-making 
processes and will assist in the analysis of the no action and proposed 
alternatives and mitigation.\147\ The agency should explain such a 
framing process and its application to the proposed action to the 
decision makers and the public during the NEPA review and in the EA or 
EIS document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ See, e.g., U.S. Forest Service, The Science of 
Decisionmaking: Applications for Sustainable Forest and Grassland 
Management in the National Forest System (2013), https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/treesearch/44326; U.S. Forest Service, The 
Comparative Risk Assessment Framework and Tools (2010), https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/34561; Julien Martin, et al., 
Structured decision making as a conceptual framework to identify 
thresholds for conservation and management, 19 Ecological 
Applications 1079-90 (2009), https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70036878.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Incorporation by Reference

    Agencies should consider using incorporation by reference in 
considering GHG emissions or where an agency is considering the 
implications of climate change for the proposed action and its 
environmental effects. The NEPA review for a specific action can 
incorporate by reference earlier programmatic studies or information 
such as management plans, inventories, assessments, and research, as 
well as any relevant programmatic or other NEPA reviews.\148\ Agencies 
should identify situations where prior studies or NEPA analyses are 
likely to cover emissions or adaptation issues, in whole or in part, 
and incorporate them by reference in NEPA documents (including tiered 
NEPA documents) where appropriate. Agencies should confirm that prior 
studies or programmatic documents were conducted within a reasonable 
timeframe of the proposed action under consideration such that 
underlying assumptions are still applicable. Incorporation by reference 
may be helpful when larger scale analyses have considered climate 
change effects and GHG emissions, and calculating GHG emissions for a 
specific action would provide only limited information beyond the 
information already collected and considered in the larger scale 
analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ See 40 CFR 1502.4(b), 1501.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agencies should use the scoping process to consider whether they 
should incorporate by reference GHG analyses from other programmatic 
studies, action specific NEPA reviews, or programmatic NEPA reviews to 
avoid duplication of effort. Furthermore, agencies should engage other 
agencies and stakeholders with knowledge of related actions to 
participate in the scoping process to identify relevant GHG and 
adaptation analyses from other actions or programmatic NEPA documents. 
In addition, agencies are encouraged to use searchable databases, 
websites, GIS tools, and other technology to share NEPA reviews with 
relevant agencies, stakeholders, and the public.

C. Programmatic or Broad-Based Studies and NEPA Reviews

    In the context of long-range energy, transportation, resource 
management, or similar programs or strategies, an agency may decide 
that it would be useful and efficient to provide an aggregate analysis 
of GHG emissions or climate change effects in a programmatic analysis 
and then incorporate it by reference into future NEPA reviews. These 
broad analyses may occur through programmatic NEPA documents, or they 
may occur through other processes by which agencies conduct analyses or 
studies at the national or other broad scale level (e.g., landscape, 
regional, or watershed) to assess the status of one or more resources 
or to determine trends in changing environmental conditions.\149\ In 
appropriate circumstances, agencies may rely on programmatic analyses 
to make project-level NEPA reviews more efficient by evaluating and 
analyzing effects at an earlier stage and at a broader level than 
project-specific actions. Agencies also can use programmatic analysis 
to analyze emissions from related activities in a given region or 
sector, or to serve as benchmark against which agencies can measure 
site-specific actions.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ Programmatic studies may be distinct from programmatic 
NEPA reviews in which the programmatic action itself is subject to 
NEPA requirements. See CEQ, Memorandum for Heads of Federal 
Departments and Agencies, Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA 
Reviews, section I(A), 9 (Dec. 18, 2014), https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-regulations-and-guidance/Effective_Use_of_Programmatic_NEPA_Reviews_Final_Dec2014_searchable.pdf (discussing non-NEPA types of programmatic analyses such as data 
collection, assessments, and research, which previous NEPA guidance 
described as joint inventories or planning studies).
    \150\ For instance, where a planning level programmatic review 
of GHG emissions indicates that a collection of individual actions 
will collectively reduce GHG emissions, the NEPA analyses for the 
individual actions can demonstrate that the action is consistent 
with the emission reductions examined in the programmatic review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A tiered, analytical decision-making approach using a programmatic 
NEPA review is used for many types of Federal actions and can be 
particularly relevant to addressing proposed land, aquatic, and other 
resource management plans. Under such an approach, an agency conducts a 
broad-scale programmatic NEPA analysis for decisions such as 
establishing or revising the USDA Forest Service land management plans, 
Bureau of Land Management resource

[[Page 1211]]

management plans, or Natural Resources Conservation Service 
conservation programs. Subsequent NEPA analyses for proposed site-
specific decisions--such as proposed actions that are consistent with 
land, aquatic, and other resource management plans--may be tiered from 
the broader programmatic analysis, drawing upon its basic framework 
analysis to avoid repeating analytical efforts for each tiered 
decision. Examples of project- or site-specific actions that may 
benefit from being able to tier to a programmatic NEPA review include: 
siting and constructing transmission lines; siting and constructing 
wind, solar or geothermal projects; conducting wildfire risk reduction 
activities such as prescribed burns or hazardous fuels reduction; 
approving grazing leases; granting rights-of-way; and approving site-
specific resilience or climate adaptation actions.
    A programmatic NEPA review also may serve as an efficient mechanism 
in which to assess Federal agency efforts to adopt broad-scale 
sustainable practices for energy efficiency, GHG emissions avoidance 
and emissions reduction measures, petroleum product use reduction, and 
renewable energy use, as well as other sustainability practices.\151\ 
While broad department- or agency-wide goals may be of a far larger 
scale than a particular program, policy, or proposed action, an 
analysis that informs how a particular action affects that broader goal 
can be of value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ See E.O. 14057, supra note 7 (establishing government-wide 
and agency GHG reduction goals and targets).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Using Available Information

    Agencies should make decisions using current scientific information 
and methodologies. CEQ does not necessarily expect agencies to fund and 
conduct original climate change research to support their NEPA analyses 
or for agencies to require project proponents to do so. Agencies should 
exercise their discretion to select and use the tools, methodologies, 
and scientific and research information that are of high quality and 
available to assess relevant effects, alternatives, and 
mitigation.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ See 40 CFR 1502.23 (requiring agencies to ensure the 
professional and scientific integrity of the discussions and 
analyses in environmental impact statements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Environmental Justice Considerations

    Numerous studies have found that environmental hazards (including 
those driven by climate change) are more prevalent in and pose 
particular risks to areas where people of color and low-income 
populations represent a higher fraction of the population compared with 
the general population.\153\ The NEPA process calls for identifying 
potential environmental justice-related issues and meaningfully 
engaging with communities that proposed actions and reasonable 
alternatives (as well as the no-action alternative) may affect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ See, e.g., USGCRP, Fourth National Climate Assessment, 
supra note 28, Volume II, 342 and 1077-78; USGCRP, The Impacts of 
Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific 
Assessment (Apr. 2016), https://health2016.globalchange.gov/downloads; EPA, Six Impacts, supra note 41, at 8 (Figure ES.2), 
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-09/climate-vulnerability_september-2021_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agencies should be aware of the ongoing efforts to address the 
effects of climate change on human health and vulnerable 
communities.\154\ Certain groups, including children, the elderly, 
communities with environmental justice concerns, which often include 
communities of color, low-income communities, Tribal Nations and 
Indigenous communities, and underserved communities are more vulnerable 
to climate-related health effects and may face barriers to engaging on 
issues that disproportionately affect them. CEQ recommends that 
agencies regularly engage environmental justice experts and leverage 
the expertise of the White House Environmental Justice Interagency 
Council \155\ to identify approaches to avoid or minimize adverse 
effects on communities of color and low-income communities.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ USGCRP, The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in 
the United States: A Scientific Assessment, supra note 153.
    \155\ For more information on the White House Environmental 
Justice Interagency Council, see https://www.energy.gov/lm/white-house-environmental-justice-interagency-council-resources.
    \156\ President's Memorandum for the Heads of All Departments 
and Agencies, Executive Order on Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations (Feb. 
11, 1994), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/documents/clinton_memo_12898.pdf; CEQ, Environmental Justice 
Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act (Dec. 10, 
1997), https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-regulations-and-guidance/regs/ej/justice.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When assessing environmental justice considerations in NEPA 
analyses, agencies should use the scoping process to identify 
potentially affected communities and provide early notice of 
opportunities for public engagement. This is important for all members 
of the public and stakeholders, but especially for communities of color 
and low-income communities, including those who have suffered 
disproportionate public health or environmental harms and those who are 
at increased risk for climate change-related harms. Agencies should 
engage such communities early in the scoping and project planning 
process to understand any unique climate-related risks and concerns. 
Agencies also should use the NEPA process to identify and analyze 
reasonably foreseeable effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures 
to avoid or minimize any such effects.

F. Monetizing Costs and Benefits

    NEPA does not require a cost-benefit analysis where all monetized 
benefits and costs are directly compared. In a NEPA review, the 
weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need 
not be displayed using a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not 
be when there are important qualitative considerations.\157\ Using the 
SC-GHG to provide an estimate of the cost to society from GHG 
emissions--or otherwise monetizing discrete costs or benefits of a 
proposed Federal action--does not necessitate conducting a benefit-cost 
analysis in NEPA documents. As described in Section IV(B), the SC-GHG 
estimates are useful information disclosure metrics that can help 
decision makers and the public understand and contextualize GHG 
emissions and climate damages. Agencies can use the SC-GHG to provide 
information on climate impacts even if other costs and benefits cannot 
be quantified or monetized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ See 40 CFR 1502.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an agency determines that a monetary cost-benefit analysis is 
appropriate and relevant to the choice among different alternatives the 
agency is considering, the agency may include the analysis in or append 
it to the NEPA document, or incorporate it by reference \158\ as an aid 
in evaluating the environmental consequences. For example, a rulemaking 
could have useful information for the NEPA review in an associated 
regulatory impact analysis, which the agency could incorporate by 
reference in a NEPA document.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ See 40 CFR 1501.12 (material may be cited if it is 
reasonably available for inspection by potentially interested 
persons within the time allowed for public review and comment).
    \159\ For example, the regulatory impact analysis was used as a 
source of information and aligned with the NEPA review for Corporate 
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. See Nat'l Highway Traffic 
Safety Admin., Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger 
Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2017-2025, Final Environmental 
Impact Statement, Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0056, section 5.3.2 (July 
2012), https://www.nhtsa.gov/corporate-average-fuel-economy/environmental-impact-statement-cafe-standards-2017-2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When using a monetary cost-benefit analysis, just as with tools to 
quantify emissions, an agency should disclose the assumptions, 
alternative inputs, and

[[Page 1212]]

levels of uncertainty associated with such analysis. Finally, if an 
agency chooses to monetize some but not all effects of an action, the 
agency providing this additional information should explain its 
rationale for doing so.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ For example, the information may be responsive to public 
comments or useful to the decision maker in further distinguishing 
between alternatives and mitigation measures. In all cases, the 
agency should ensure that its consideration of the information and 
other factors relevant to its decision is consistent with applicable 
statutory or other authorities, including requirements for the use 
of cost-benefit analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Conclusions and Effective Date

    Agencies should use this guidance to inform the NEPA review for all 
new proposed actions. Agencies should exercise judgment when 
considering whether to apply this guidance to the extent practicable to 
an on-going NEPA process. CEQ does not expect agencies to apply this 
guidance to concluded NEPA reviews and actions for which a final EIS or 
EA has been issued. Agencies should consider applying this guidance to 
actions in the EIS or EA preparation stage if this would inform the 
consideration of alternatives or help address comments raised through 
the public comment process.

    Dated: January 4, 2023.
Brenda Mallory,
Chair.
[FR Doc. 2023-00158 Filed 1-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3325-F3-P