EPA denies harm from GGRF freeze in court filing
This story was originally published on Utility Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Utility Dive newsletter.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency filed a motion Wednesday opposing motions for injunctive relief filed by three nonprofits that have had their access to Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grant money frozen, arguing that their monetary harm does not warrant an injunction and is not irreparable.
The nonprofit Climate Fund United, which received a $6.97 billion National Clean Investment Fund grant, was the first to sue over the frozen funds last month, targeting EPA and fund holder Citibank. The Coalition for Green Capital, which received $5 billion from the NCFI, and Power Forward Communities, which received $2 billion from it, have each filed lawsuits against Citibank.
EPA argued for the injunction requests filed by each to be denied, as 'an injunction should be denied when Plaintiffs' alleged harms are monetary and may be remedied by damages' and 'in terminating Plaintiffs' grants, EPA has not prohibited or made it unlawful for Plaintiffs (or their subgrantees) to carry out their work.'
'Nor has any other government action,' EPA said. 'The government is not preventing Plaintiffs from providing services; EPA has just terminated the contracts under which the government would provide reimbursement for those services.'
In a joint response filed Friday, the three plaintiffs argued that they have already 'demonstrated several forms of irreparable harm, including potentially fatal disruption to Plaintiffs' operations; irreplaceable loss of clients, partnerships, and opportunities; devastating reputational injury; interference with Plaintiffs' missions; and an immediate risk of insolvency for some of the Plaintiffs and their subgrantees.'
'Many of these injuries have already materialized and will worsen if Plaintiffs continue to be deprived of access to their funds,' they said.
The plaintiffs argue that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where the case is being heard, has previously held that financial harm can constitute irreparable harm when the existence of a business is threatened — and note that the court previously agreed that the plaintiffs 'will be unable to finance programs they have launched, and they will have to cease operations.'
When EPA froze the grant funding, the agency said it did so based on 'financial mismanagement, conflicts of interest, and oversight failures with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund' and has previously told the court that the grant recipients breached their contracts.
However, EPA argued in its March 26 motion that the court 'should recognize that EPA retains the ability to end its agreements, whether or not doing so complies with a (contested) for-cause termination provision. Contract law recognizes every party's right to perform or face remedies for breach.'
EPA also argued that the contracts no longer legally exist regardless of its reasoning for their termination.
'As another Judge of this Court recently put it: 'When a contract is terminated, even wrongfully, there is no longer a contract — no duty to perform and no right to demand performance … there is only a right to seek and a duty to pay damages caused by the termination … Thus, even a party that lacks the authority to terminate a contract may do so anyway',' EPA said.
The plaintiffs argued in their response that EPA 'violated federal law multiple times over' when it froze their funding by violating 'its obligation to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision … its regulations governing when and how a grant may be terminated … federal statutes by trying to eviscerate a program approved by Congress and seeking, without authority, to claw back already-disbursed funds.'
Recommended Reading
Climate United Fund sues EPA, Citibank over frozen $7B
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The EPA puts toxic power plant emissions back on the table
This analysis and news roundup comes from the Canary Media Weekly newsletter. Sign up to get it every Friday. On Wednesday, the U.S. EPA proposed repealing Biden administration rules that limit toxic pollutants and planet-warming emissions from coal and gas plants across the country. These plants 'do not contribute significantly' to 'dangerous' air pollution, the EPA claimed — something that many, many studies have shown isn't true. Power plants are the second-largest source of carbon emissions in the country, and they're responsible for a lot of health-harming pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury, too. When the Biden administration first announced the rules last year, the EPA estimated they would stem 1.38 billion metric tons of carbon pollution through 2047. That's the equivalent of taking 328 million gas cars off the road for a year, and amounts to an estimated $370 billion in climate and public health benefits. Those benefits would've helped communities surrounding gas and coal plants around the U.S., according to the Sierra Club's Trump Coal Pollution Dashboard. For example, Montana's Colstrip 3 plant would have to reduce its toxic pollution under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, while a slew of plants across the Midwest and Southwest would have to install carbon-capture systems or shut down under the greenhouse gas rules. The changes will allow coal plants around the country to keep burning. In North Dakota, some state officials are celebrating what they say is a big step toward protecting jobs and the coal industry. But in Georgia, health advocates and scientists warn the preservation of coal plants in their state will fall hard on vulnerable communities, especially those surrounding the facilities. Still, none of this is set in stone. The EPA's proposals are vulnerable to several legal pitfalls, including challenges involving the Clean Air Act, the agency's insistence that power plants don't produce 'significant' emissions, and the health, economic, and other costs of increasing pollution, E&E News reports. Analysts with TD Cowen expect the EPA to finalize the rules by early next year, but say legal challenges and uncertainty will continue through all of 2026. 'Big, Beautiful Bill' threatens rooftop solar President Donald Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' is already having big impacts on the rooftop solar industry. The bill, now undergoing negotiations in the Senate, looks to repeal tax credits for solar installations and other clean energy projects. That includes credits that allowed a North Carolina food bank to install solar panels on the roof of its headquarters, which it anticipates will save the organization $143,000 each year. Other nonprofits are looking to follow suit — but they probably won't be able to if they can't access federal incentives, Canary Media's Elizabeth Ouzts reports. The bill is also causing problems for two solar companies. Lender Solar Mosaic filed for bankruptcy last week, specifically citing 'legislation that threatens to eliminate tax credits for residential solar' as a forthcoming challenge. Residential solar giant Sunnova followed with a bankruptcy filing over the weekend. While both companies' difficulties predate the Trump administration, it's clear that the residential solar sector is facing a difficult and uncertain moment, one analyst told Canary Media's Jeff St. John. An analysis by Ohm Analytics estimates that the House's version of the bill would lead rooftop solar installations across the country to drop by half next year, and another from Morgan Stanley projects an 85% decrease through 2030. Bright spots for clean energy Amid a sea of bad news for clean energy companies, some are still finding success. Take Sublime Systems, which recently had its $87 million federal grant cancelled: Sublime says private-sector support is allowing its $150 million low-carbon cement factory in Massachusetts to move forward anyway. Solar panel manufacturer Qcells said it's launching a new recycling operation in Georgia to repurpose retired panels. Heirloom Carbon is meanwhile keeping its operations rolling by winning over Republican state leadership in Louisiana, where it aims to build a facility that extracts carbon dioxide from the air. Developer Intersect Power got the green light Wednesday to build what would be the biggest solar-and-storage plant in the nation. And in the Chicago area, Sun Metalon just raised $9.1 million from investors — including Japan's Nippon Steel — to build its steel decarbonization business, Canary Media's Kari Lydersen reports. The startup has created an oven-sized box that melts down waste metal and sludge from steel and aluminum production, churning out pucks of reusable, recyclable metal. Vehicle emissions blowback: A group of 11 states sue after President Trump signs a congressional resolution rolling back California's vehicle emissions standards, which several other states have adopted. (The Hill) Budget bill update: Democrats — and some Republicans who voted for the House-passed version of the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' — look to convince Senate Republicans to preserve clean energy tax credits as budget discussions continue. (The Hill, Politico) Community electrification: California researchers report success and lessons learned from an experiment aimed at cutting electrification costs by upgrading multiple households in a single neighborhood, which saved contractors time and allowed residents to buy products in bulk. (KQED) GM reverses on EVs: While General Motors is still ramping up EV production, its new plan to spend $4 billion on mostly gasoline-powered cars means the company has given up on a goal to make only EVs by 2035, analysts say. (E&E News) Texas' gas commitment: A study finds developers have proposed more than 100 gas-fired power plants totaling 58 gigawatts in Texas, which have the potential to emit an estimated 115 million metric tons of greenhouse gases every year. (Inside Climate News) Charging forward: A J.D. Power survey finds fewer attempts to charge at public EV stations are ending in failure than in years past, and that the total number of public chargers is rapidly expanding. (New York Times) Batteries' battle: U.S. battery recyclers face 'a limbo moment' because the Trump administration has endorsed efforts to produce critical minerals while also imposing tariffs and threatening to repeal clean energy tax credits. (Grist)
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump signs bill killing California ZEV-related waivers, state immediately files lawsuit
Legislation that would overturn waivers granted by the Environmental Protection Agency to California for its multi-faceted clean vehicle push impacting trucking was signed by President Donald Trump Thursday, and the state immediately followed with its promised lawsuit over the action. At issue is the question of whether a waiver is a rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Rules are subject to being overturned by Congress under the CRA. But the generally accepted legal definition for waivers is that they do not come under the CRA. As Roll Call reported, Congress has never overturned a waiver by using the CRA. The EPA grants waivers to California under provisions of the 1970 Clean Air Act when the state seeks environmental standards stricter than federal rules. The key California waivers targeted by Congress in its most recent action are the Advanced Clean Trucks rule (ACT) and the Omnibus NOx rule. The Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) rule had sought a waiver. But just days before Donald Trump took office, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) yanked the waiver request and the ACF is effectively dead. In a prepared statement, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the state had filed suit against the CRA action. He and California Attorney General Rob Bonta had threatened that action after the legislation passed both houses of Congress. The suit was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Several other states that have committed to aligning with California's zero emission vehicle (ZEV) rules are also plaintiffs in the suit: Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. The legislation 'defies decades of precedent of these waivers not being subject to the CRA, and contradicts the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Senate Parliamentarian, who both ruled that the CRA's short-circuited process does not apply to the waivers,' Newsom said in a prepared statement. Both the GAO and the Senate Parliamentarian had released opinions that they did not believe the CRA could overturn a waiver as opposed to a rule. The presence of other states as plaintiffs is why the issue has become of interest to Congress. The market share of California plus its 'follower' states would effectively mean that OEMs, who want to avoid building cars for two separate regulatory regimes, would follow the standards set by California and its follower states. While much of the media focus on the Congressional action and the Presidential signing focused on how it would impact a California-led push to more ZEVS, including passenger cars as well as heavy duty trucks, the Newsom statement focused not only on that but also on the legal issues surrounding using the CRA to kill waivers. 'Waivers do not expire, and there is no process for revoking a waiver,' the statement said. 'This is important because governments and industry rely on market certainty that waivers provide for years after they are granted to deliver clean vehicles and develop clean air plans.' ACT mandates a rising percentage of ZEVs into the 2040s that OEMs must sell into California. The omnibus NoX rule called for steeper reductions in nitrogen oxide emissions from heavy duty vehicles than what is called for in federal rules. The ACF was designed to produce a demand for all those ZEV vehicles that the OEMs were expected to sell into California under the ACT. But without the ACF, the ability of the ACT to accomplish its goals has been called into question. Just days before the Presidential signing, CALSTART, which described itself as a 'national nonprofit driving the clean transportation revolution,' produced its annual report on the state of ZEV trucks nationwide. The group has a wide definition of 'truck,' as it includes cargo vans, medium-duty (MD) step vans, MD trucks, heavy-duty (HD) trucks, refuse trucks and yard tractors. Its data is as of December 31, 2024. The key numbers in the CALSTART report: More than 52,500 ZEV trucks have been deployed nationwide. The number of trucks deployed in 2024 was 22,692, which was up 76% from the prior year. But in the last six months of 2024, that number was just 9,841, so less than 50% for half of the year. The number of new truck registrations nationwide was 978,748 last year. ZEV trucks accounted for 2.3% of that, a figure that was down from 3% a year earlier. If the goal is still in place to have a fully ZEV truck fleet by 2040, and an interim goal of 30% by 2030, that pace of registrations needs to double. Of those total deployments, CALSTART said 11% are for heavy duty vehicles. The largest segment is for ZE cargo vans, such as the Rivian vehicles that are in heavy use by Amazon. That category accounts for 89% of all ZEV deployments. ZE cargo vans continue to dominate ZET deployments, comprising 89% of all ZETs nationwide. The remaining 11% is distributed across HD trucks (4%), The rest of the distribution is 3% for yard tractors and medium duty step vans, 1% for medium duty trucks, and 0.2% for refuse trucks. And while CALSTART is a vocal cheerleader for ZEV technology, it did not hesitate to say the arithmetic growth in ZEV usage was a long way from the exponential growth needed to make a serious dent in market share. The lack of that exponential growth, according to CALSTART, has been caused by several factors: high upfront costs for growing a ZEV fleet; lack of charging infrastructure; and 'the upfront costs and policy uncertainty at both the federal and state levels has created hesitation among fleets, OEMs, and infrastructure providers to invest.' More articles by John Kingston Onstage in Chicago, CHRW talks tech and staffing; RXO sees language order hitting capacity Logistics GDP share rose in '24, not likely to drop: CSCMP report Parts supplier FleetPride's debt rating cut by Moody's, outlook still negative The post Trump signs bill killing California ZEV-related waivers, state immediately files lawsuit appeared first on FreightWaves.
E&E News
2 hours ago
- E&E News
Zeldin says he's saving industry. EPA documents tell a different story.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said his efforts this week to repeal climate and mercury rules would prevent fossil fuel industries from vanishing. 'Regulate them out of existence,' is how he described the intent of the Biden- and Obama-era rules on power plants. But EPA's own analysis that accompanied Zeldin's proposal, released Wednesday, showed that the rules he is targeting for repeal would have changed the U.S. energy sector very little. For that reason, the agency's so-called regulatory impact analysis — or RIA, which breaks down the costs and benefits of its actions — projected that the climate rules by the previous presidents would impose modest costs on the electricity sector. In one case, it was nonexistent. Advertisement The environmental benefits of the rules, though limited, substantially outstripped their costs to either the power sector or the economy, EPA's analysis showed. That's despite the fact that the agency didn't analyze the likely financial benefits of cutting carbon pollution from power plants under the 2024 rule finalized under former President Joe Biden — or, by extension, the costs of carbon increasing under Zeldin's plan. EPA states in its RIA for the draft repeal that it did no new modeling or analysis on the effects of repealing the carbon rule. Nor did it analyze the impacts of erasing it. Instead, the regulatory analysis draws virtually all of its figures and projections from the analysis for the 2024 Biden rule it's designed to kill. '[W]e rely on the 2024 [Carbon Pollution Standard] RIA policy case analysis as the baseline for this action. Similarly, there may be other regulatory changes before the promulgation of this proposed action, and these too are not accounted for in the baseline for this action,' said the RIA released by the agency Wednesday. Alan Krupnick, a senior fellow with Resources for the Future, noted that Zeldin's regulatory analysis 'merely takes the original RIA for [the Biden climate rule] — which was very thoroughly done — and multiplies those numbers by minus one.' EPA did not respond to requests for comment. Krupnick notes that the career staffers who compiled the analysis for the repeal probably didn't have time to run models. EPA sent the proposed repeals to the White House for review in May, just over three months after the start of President Donald Trump's second term. Under Biden, EPA analyzed how the 2024 rule requiring existing coal plants and new gas plants to reduce their climate pollution would work with other regulations and incentives to shape the grid. The analysis showed that the Inflation Reduction Act's tax credits for wind, solar and other technologies would drive the green energy build-out and deliver the carbon cuts that would nudge the power sector closer to Biden's climate goals. The climate and mercury rules would play a meaningful but supporting role, the Biden analysis showed, by ushering out aging coal-fired units and spurring a few fossil power plants to invest in carbon capture and storage systems. And because Zeldin's repeal uses the Biden climate rule's numbers and projections, its results are the mirror image of last year's IRA. For example, the repeal proposal touts $19 billion in saved regulatory costs over two decades from jettisoning the standards, or about $1.2 billion per year. A number taken from the 2024 document that reflects a relatively small percentage of the overall investments that utilities put toward their coal and gas fleets, not the kind of seismic shift to the economy that Zeldin described. The draft repeal acknowledges that the Obama-era standards for new coal, which it called 'largely non-binding,' has had no impact on costs because no new coal units have been built. 'The relative economics of coal-fired generation have remained challenging, as evidenced by continued retirement,' it states. It acknowledges that between market forces and IRA tax credits the same kinds of new power plants would likely have been built between now and the start of 2032, when the Biden rule's tougher standards would have phased in, whether that rule was repealed or not. The Biden rule would have cut power sector carbon emissions by 123 million metrics tons by 2035 — roughly the annual emissions of the Netherlands. And without the rule, the expectation now is that those tons will go into the atmosphere. Ben King, associate director of the energy and climate program at Rhodium Group, said his analysis showed that the Biden climate rule would have had a slightly larger impact on investment decisions and emissions than EPA's modeling projected. 'But it was in the same ballpark,' he said. 'Not transformative to the power system, but a step in the right direction.' But King noted 'the EPA rule and the IRA tax credits reinforce each other.' The Biden EPA's analysis showed few costs because most of the utility sector investments that would be required for compliance were already projected to happen because of the 2022 law, which invested $369 billion in those technologies. Now, Republicans in Congress are working to deliver a budget package that would greatly reduce those incentives. So EPA's analysis for its final carbon rule repeal — which is expected later this year — will likely show more savings on compliance, but also vastly more emissions tied to the loss of the Biden rule. Brendan Pierpont, director of electricity modeling at Energy Innovation, said the repeal of EPA's carbon and mercury standards and a loss of the IRA tax credits would result in higher electricity prices and more health-harming pollution from aging coal plants. 'Health damages from repealing the rule are going to be substantially more than what's represented in this because they're, again, drawing on the last year's analysis that incorporated the IRA tax credits,' he said. Right now, EPA projects that by 2035 the loss of the Biden rule would result in up to $17 billion in public health costs and premature deaths compared to what would have happened if the rule had remained in place. Those impacts are all tied to particulate pollution and smog. EPA opted not to monetize the impacts from changes in carbon or mercury pollution with or without the rule, even though those are accounted for in the IRA. Excess death estimates are reached by surveying people about their willingness to pay for policies that reduce their chances of dying. The metric is called 'value of statistical life.' But while EPA listed those figures in lower sections of the RIA for the draft repeal, the numbers were included as net benefits in the document's executive summary. Those benefits are limited to 'regulated pollutants' and savings to industry — a departure from EPA's historic practice of counting benefits when the rule helps reduce other pollutants. Krupnick called it a 'catch-22″ because he said EPA is choosing not to monetize carbon pollution in the analysis. The agency also did not count other pollution increases toward the net costs of the repeal because they aren't the pollutants the repeal is targeting, he said. 'EPA, their job is to protect and improve public health by reducing pollution,' Krupnick said. 'And you don't get to not count these [fine particulate pollution] and ozone benefits that are associated with reducing reliance on coal, you don't get to ignore that. It's completely antithetical to EPA's mission.'
