The EPA can't end grants from $20 billion Biden-era fund for
climate-friendly projects, a judge says
[April 17, 2025]
By MICHAEL PHILLIS
A federal judge says some nonprofits awarded billions for a so-called
green bank to finance clean energy and climate-friendly projects cannot
have their contracts scrapped and must have access to some of the frozen
money. The ruling is a defeat for President Donald Trump's Environmental
Protection Agency, which argues the program is rife with financial
mismanagement.
The order late Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan "gives us a
chance to breathe after the EPA unlawfully — and without due process —
terminated our awards and blocked access to funds that were appropriated
by Congress and legally obligated,” said Climate United CEO Beth Bafford.
The lawsuit by Climate United Fund and other groups contends that the
EPA, Administrator Lee Zeldin and Citibank, which held the grant money,
illegally blocked the funds awarded last year and had jeopardized the
organizations' operations.
Chutkan said Citibank must provide the money that was due to the
nonprofits before the EPA had frozen their accounts in mid-February. The
EPA immediately appealed.
The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, commonly referred to as a “green
bank,” was authorized by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act under
Democratic President Joe Biden. Its goals run counter to the Trump
administration’s opposition to climate-friendly policies and its embrace
of fossil fuels. Zeldin quickly made the bank a target, characterizing
the $20 billion in grants as a “gold bar” scheme marred by conflicts of
interest and potential fraud.
A federal prosecutor resigned after being asked to open a criminal
investigation, saying there was not enough evidence to move ahead. The
FBI and Treasury Department, in coordination with the EPA, pressured
Citibank to freeze the grants, which it did, according to the
nonprofits.
[to top of second column]
|
Last month, Zeldin announced the termination of the grants, saying
“well documented incidents of misconduct, conflicts of interest, and
potential fraud raise significant concerns and pose unacceptable
risk.”
Chutkan paused that move, saying the government provided no
significant evidence of wrongdoing. But the Republican
administration, in a recent filing, asserted it was allowed to end
the contracts based on oversight concerns and shifting priorities.
“EPA’s new admission that it ‘did not terminate for Plaintiffs’
noncompliance’ ... confirms that EPA’s invocation of ‘waste, fraud,
and abuse’ was arbitrary and pretextual” the nonprofits said in a
court filing.
Molly Vaseliou, the EPA's associate administrator for public
affairs, contended that the court lacked the power to reinstate the
money. She did not provide any new evidence and repeated
unsubstantiated allegations of program abuse and conflicts of
interest.
"We couldn’t be more confident in the merits of our appeal,” she
said in a statement.
The government has told the court the case is “just a
run-of-the-mill (albeit large) contract dispute."
That argument is important because it could move the case to a
different court that can only award a lump sum and not force the
government to keep the grants in place.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
