In a recent development, federal officials have stated that the comprehensive tax and policy bill passed by Congress includes provisions to repeal a multibillion-dollar green bank aimed at funding climate-friendly projects. As a result, the Trump administration is seeking to freeze the bank’s funding and cancel contracts with related nonprofits, as per a court filing.
The lawsuit, filed by Climate United Fund and other nonprofits in March against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), its administrator Lee Zeldin, and Citibank, alleged that they were wrongfully denied access to billions of dollars allocated through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, known as the “green bank,” established by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. However, the recently passed bill by Congress would eliminate the green bank and revoke unallocated funds.
The EPA believes that the bill’s passage should lead to a favorable outcome in the ongoing court battle, suggesting that the earlier ruling requiring the EPA to release funds to the groups should be overturned given the rescinded funding. Contrary to this view, Climate United Fund contends that most of the funds have already been disbursed and unaffected by the bill, asserting that any attempt to reclaim the funds would require a different process.
Although the Congressional Budget Office projects savings of $19 million by repealing the program, it clarifies that this figure only accounts for administrative costs, indicating that the grant awards remain untouched. The green bank’s objectives clash with the Trump administration’s stance on climate change policies and support for fossil fuels. Zeldin, the EPA administrator, has criticized the green bank, labeling it as a wasteful scheme with potential fraud issues before terminating the grants earlier this year.
Despite legal battles and differing perspectives on the situation, the fate of the green bank and its funding remains uncertain as various parties continue to advocate for their positions.
The EPA argues that the case is simply a contractual dispute. If the government’s argument prevails, the EPA insists that the matter should be heard by a different court that can only provide a lump sum as a remedy, rather than mandating the government to maintain the grants in question. Federal officials maintain that there is no legal obligation in the law or the Constitution that compels the EPA to award these grants to the specified groups. In its legal submission, the EPA also referenced statements made by Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, in support of the agency’s stance. Senator Capito had previously indicated that the bill aimed to revoke billions of dollars in frozen funding. The agency quoted the senator as saying, “This action not only reflects Congress’s significant concern about deficit reduction, but also concerns regarding the EPA’s management of the (green bank) during the Biden administration, the agency’s selection of grant recipients, and the inadequate program oversight.” This article is supported by the Walton Family Foundation to aid the Associated Press in their coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is responsible for all content produced. For more environmental news from the AP, please visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment.
