Key takeaways
- Local weather United sued the EPA and Citibank for freezing practically $7 billion in funding in direction of decarbonization initiatives.
- The primary swimsuit of its sort through the second Trump administration, its ruling will set a precedent for any future litigation accusing the federal authorities of illegally withholding funding.
Local weather United, also known as America’s inexperienced financial institution, sued the EPA and Citibank over its congressionally appropriated funds being frozen. It now awaits the court docket’s ruling, anticipated to return out April 15 — a choice more likely to set a vital precedent.
The timeline (up to now)
April 2024: Local weather United is one in every of three coalitions chosen by President Joe Biden’s EPA to disburse $20 billion to decarbonization initiatives throughout the nation underneath the Greenhouse Fuel Discount Fund (GGRF), established within the Inflation Discount Act.
Feb. 12: EPA administrator Lee Zeldin releases a social media put up accusing Local weather United of financially mismanaging the funds designated by the GGRF.
Feb. 18: The practically $7 billion in funding — held in accounts at Citibank — is frozen after Zeldin’s accusations.
March 5: Citibank releases its first assertion, to Trellis, saying, “Our function as a monetary agent doesn’t contain any discretion over which organizations obtain grant funds.”
March 8: Local weather United sues each the EPA and Citibank for a brief restraining order that might pressure EPA and Citibank to unfreeze the funds.
March 11: After the EPA requests a one-day delay within the listening to, Zeldin broadcasts the termination of the GGRF.
March 12: Local weather United, the EPA and Citibank seem earlier than the U.S. District Courtroom for the District of Columbia in response to the lawsuit. Decide Tanya Chutkan questions whether or not “the request for an extra day was made in good religion.” Chutkan additionally seems to query the legitimacy behind the EPA’s causes for freezing the funding, asking its lawyer, “Are you able to proffer any proof that [the grant] was unlawful, or proof of abuse or fraud or bribery — that any of that was improperly or unlawfully finished, apart from the truth that Mr. Zeldin doesn’t prefer it?”
What the case may imply for the longer term
Citibank and the EPA’s actions in direction of congressionally allotted funding already within the arms of the grant recipient is a primary; the end result will create a precedent for any future lawsuits filed towards the company in connection to beforehand established federal funding packages. Already, the Coalition for Inexperienced Capital (CGC) — one of many different two coalitions awarded cash from the GGRF — has additionally filed a lawsuit towards the EPA and Citibank over the termination of its $5 billion grant.
