BURSTA federal appeals court has overturned a lower court’s ruling that prevented the Trump administration from clawing back billions of dollars in climate spending.
The 2-1 decision from a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. vacated a lower court ruling that would have prevented the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from recouping billions issued for climate-friendly projects under the Biden administration.
The decision, from Trump appointees Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas, is expected to enable the administration to rescind unspent funding from the $20 billion program.
The funds in question are part of a $20 billion “Green Bank” program that passed as part of the Democrats’ 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
Last year, under that law, the Biden administration doled out money to eight organizations, which were tasked with sub-awarding it to projects that reduce planet-warming emissions and/or air pollution, including renewable energy endeavors.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin railed against the program, calling it wasteful and seeking to terminate the grants.
The groups that received the money have sued over those efforts, saying the funds are lawfully theirs.
Monday’s opinion does not decide the ultimate outcome of the case, but it does lift an order that prevented the EPA from taking back the money while the litigation over it plays out.
The new opinion, authored by Rao, reasoned that the potential harm to the organizations that received the climate grants is not irreparable and that the government and general public are more likely to be harmed by the decision than the organizations that won the funds.
“If the grant terminations are later determined to be a breach of contract, the government may be required to pay damages to the grantees, which would substantially, if not entirely, redress the grantees’ interim injuries," Rao wrote.
"By contrast, if the government’s position is eventually vindicated, it will have no apparent means to recover funds spent down while the litigation has run its course."
Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented.
Pillard wrote that the EPA “has no lawful basis…to interfere with funding that, pursuant to Congress’s instructions, already belongs to Plaintiffs, who in turn have committed it to energy infrastructure development and advanced manufacturing projects according to Congress’s plan.”
She described the EPA’s efforts to claw back the money a “constitutional violation” that “justifies the district court’s injunction.”
The Climate United Fund, one of the organizations that received money challenged the EPA’s efforts to rescind it, said it is still confident it will win its case.
“While we are disappointed — albeit unsurprised — by the panel’s decision, we stand firm on the merits of our case: EPA unlawfully froze and terminated funds that were legally obligated and disbursed,” said Climate United CEO Beth Bafford in a written statement.
“This is another hurdle in our fight to lower energy costs for those who need it most while creating jobs for hardworking Americans, but we will continue to press on for communities across the country that stand to benefit from clean, abundant, and affordable energy. This is not the end of our road,” Bafford added.