A federal judge found Tuesday that the Environmental Protection Agency was acting in a “arbitrary and capricious way” while ending its contract with three nonprofits. The judge issued a temporary restraining order requiring EPA and Citibank to provide nonprofit funding in their accounts.
this Restriction order It is the latest development in lawsuits filed by three nonprofits that were obtained from grants from Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds, part of the Inflation Reduction Act Signed as law In 2022. Ask Citibank to freeze accounts Alleged concerns about waste, fraud and conflict of interest. The judge found that the EPA’s statement was “ambiguous”.
The EPA’s termination letter “vaguely introduces ‘multiple ongoing investigations’ to “programmed waste, fraud, abuse and conflict of interest,” but does not provide specific information about such investigations, factual support for decisions or personalized explanations for each investigation. [of the nonprofits]”This is not enough,” the judge wrote.
In an opinion issued the restraining order, the judge, Tanya Chutkan of the District Court of the U.S. District of Columbia, found that if they were unable to obtain funds, the nonprofit would “suffer imminent, irreparable harm.”
One of the plaintiffs is the Calimate United, who has committed $392 million to projects that qualify for funding from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, including $31.8 million for solar projects in rural Arkansas, and $63 million for solar power plants to jointly develop solar power plants in Oregon and Idaho with tribal communities.
Another plaintiff power forward promised $539 million, and the freeze in his account made it “unable to pay excellent invoices from the contractor.”
Usually, when the EPA or any other government agency terminates the contract, it will issue a written notice and provide the winner with an opportunity to object. In this case, nonprofits did not hear from EPA or Citibank before they freeze their accounts. Instead, Citibank did not release the money when nonprofits asked for withdrawals in February and March, and when asked in time, they ignored their inquiries. The EPA also ignores nonprofits.
Eventually, the EPA proposed meeting with the Climate Federation on February 24, but “rescheduled three meetings and then canceled them without explanation,” the judge found. The EPA did not send a formal termination letter to the nonprofit until March 10, until scheduled matters regarding unissued funds.
However, the termination letter “appears to violate the properly formulated regulations and interfere with the [the nonprofits’] The statutory rights of these funds. ” Judge Chutkan wrote.
“The EPA does not seem to have taken the steps required to legally require the termination of these grants in order to make its actions arbitrary and capricious. [the EPA] No evidence was provided to support the basis for its termination…or they followed appropriate procedures. ”
The judge found that nonprofits “showed a great possibility of success” when winning the case, when they issued the restraining order.
