A Federal Judgment Tuesday found the environmental protection agency to act in a “arbitrary and capricious” way when ending contracts with three nonprofits. The judge has released a temporary conjunction with the restraint that requires EPA and Citibank to provide nonprofit accessing funds to their accounts.
The restraint to order was the latest developing in a lawsuit brought by three nonprofits that recipients of grants from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a portion of the Inflation Reduction Act signed by law in 2022. The EPA Citibank asks to FREEZE ACCOUNTS In alleged concerns about waste, fraud, and conflicts of interest. The judge found EPA's claims to be “unclear and unconscious.”
EPA's ending letters are “Vaguely Reference 'Multiple Continuing Investigation' on 'Programmatic Waste, Fraudes, and Abuse and Conflicts of Interest' but does not offer specific information about such an investigation, realistic support for deciding, or an individual explanation for each other [of the nonprofits]“The judge wrote.
In the opinion of issuing a restraining order, the judge, Tanya Chutkan of the United States District Court for the Columbia district, found nonprofit “suffer, irreversible damage” if they do not get access to their funds.
One of the plaintiffs, Climate United, has already made $ 392 million in projects that qualify for money from the greenhouse gas reduction fund, with $ 31.8 million for solar rural Arkansas projects and $ 63 million for solar power plants developed in Oregon and Idaho in conjunction with tribal communities.
Another plaintiff, the Power Forward, made $ 539 million, and the refreeze on its accounts left it “unable to pay the remaining invoices from contractors.”
Usually, when the EPA or any other government agency moves to end a contract, it sends a written notice and gives the awardee a chance to object. In this case, nonprofits did not hear from EPA or Citibank before their accounts frozen. Instead, when nonprofits requested backwards in February and March, Citibank did not release money, and when asked about it, their questions were ignored. The EPA also ignored the nonprofits.
Later, EPA offered to meet with climate United on the week of February 24, but “the meeting was rescheduled three times and then canceled it without explanation,” the judge found. The EPA did not send nonprofit formal finishing letters until March 10, before a scheduled hearing about the unbelievable funding.
However, that letter is, “appears to oppose a corresponding law and interfere [the nonprofits’] Law rights to these funds, ”writes Judge Chutkan.
“It does not appear that EPA … took the necessary steps required to terminate these grants, as these actions are unreasonable and disabled. [the EPA] There is no evidence to support their basis for termination … or they follow the proper procedure. “
With the release of the restraining order, the judge found that nonprofits “showed a great chance of success” in the case.
