When the Biden administration announced $27 billion in environmental grants last April, it put time in a woes: How to pay unprecedented amounts for the president’s envisioned Netzero Future before the fiscal year ended September 30? [emphasis, links added]
The fact that most of the money ($20 billion) will go to just eight nonprofits, like the Environmental Protection Agency itself, has never processed such a huge grant, complicates the task.
In hindsight, it is easy to suspect that the corner was cut down, that the law was violated, or at least the extraordinary measures were taken.
These possibilities are clearly the idea of EPA administrator Lee Zeldin as he tries to uncover spending at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in Byton, and the EPA decides to speed up the EPA’s acceleration ahead of the November election – an effort that includes handing over about $20 billion to private agencies, Citibank, Citibank, Citibank, Citibank, Citibank, Citibank, Citibank, Citibank, Citibank, Citibank, and away from the private sector of the department.
Zeldin terminated the arrangement Wednesday as a wealth of nonprofits filed a lawsuit to protect their grants.
The battle brought the Biden administration's attempt to focus on $20 billion.
The money was put into GGRF, a new entity born in the 2022 inflation reduction bill, Democrats pushed Congress without any Republican support.
“This bold investment will not only deploy clean energy and combat the climate crisis, but will also improve health outcomes, reduce energy costs and create high-quality jobs for Americans,” Biden’s EPA declared in his search for a grant application, “while enhancing our nation’s economic competitiveness and ensuring energy security.”
The grant was unveiled on April 4, 2024, with its built-in deadline being the time to launch the money for just a few months.
Current agency officials told RealClearinevestigatation that a political deal was reached between the White House OMB and the EPA.
As a hedge against future government attempts to curb the plan, the deal categorized the current $20 billion in a novel way, making it difficult to track.
Zeldin has asked the EPA's inspector general and the Justice Department to investigate unorthodox arrangements.
“I think it would be a tough battle to get back the money, but it’s impressive to see Trump and Selding run with it,” said Daren Bakst of the Conservative Competitive Enterprise Academy, which labeled greenhouse gas funding as “Slush Funds.”
“Even if you see the entity that received the money, or how they figure out how to get the money to them It's a corruption-prone, abusive and cronyism setting, no matter what the political partyBaxter said. “The whole thing seems to be questionable.”
The process began on April 4th.
In December 2022, Jahi Wise, an executive of the Green Capital Alliance, joined the EPA as a senior consultant. In July 2023, the EPA issued a request to make a recommendation to the GGRF applicant.
The fund is divided into three parts. The two largest, the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) and the Clean Community Investment Accelerator (CCIA), received huge sums of funds totaling $20 billion.
It is worth noting that, as RCI reported in October last year Grants are donated to nonprofit organizations with insignificant assets, earning their nonprofit status only a month before, or associated with people who have previously served in federal or state democratic government.
Wise’s former Green Capital alliance, for example, received a $5.1 billion bonus.
Three weeks later, arrangements were made between OMB and EPA, where the money was designated as “non-exchange” rather than “exchange”, which was the first EPA fundingAccording to current officials.
Records show that the label allows the money to transfer funds to the recipients rather than delineated during a transaction with a nonprofit, and in most cases the record is planned until 2029, 2030 or later.
It also requires external financial institutions to manage the money, partly because the institution has zero experience in handling grants of this size.
Although the language on greenhouse gas funding in the Lower Inflation Act does not use “should”, the term Congress is often used to indicate that something is needed, but the law does implement it with a September 30 deadline – when the fiscal year ends – both EPA officials and legal experts agree.
Biden had a disastrous debate with Donald Trump on June 27 when the EPA reached an agreement with nonprofits, and on July 21, Biden ended his re-election campaign and supported then-advised President Kamala Harris.
EPA officials said the money from the Greenhouse Gas Fund was still not shaped at that time.
The deals are finally completed, and the currency of the National Clean Investment Fund and Clean Community Investment Accelerator is obliged to award the nonprofit organization on August 16according to the timetable provided to RCI.
That leaves $7 billion, the third part of the fund, the solar energy part.
At that time, the $2 billion was still obliged to remain in the Treasury Department, officials said. Until September 6, a memorandum of understanding between the EPA and the Treasury on transfer of cash mountains.
Two weeks later, the Republican-led House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee held a hearing to learn more about EPA funding oversight, saying the agency's inspector general, Sean O'Donnell, testified.
O'Donnell made it clear that he had never seen the EPA perform with GGRF and said neither he nor his staff could maintain the lead.
“I can’t say how complex this system is,” O’Donnell testified. “It's like they created an investment bank. It's complicated. I think it's unusual.”
However, Trump administration officials told the RCI that the EPA did not start talking to Citibank about controlling the $20 billion cost until three labor days when Trump defeated Harris in the 2024 election.
During these negotiations, December 5 The Veritas project released an undercover video in which an EPA official laughed and said he thought it was an extraordinary process and likened it to “throwing a gold bar from the deck of the Titanic.”
Agency officials told RCI that Citibank's arrangement effectively removed direct EPA oversight and was interested in $20 billion for grant recipients, and signed on December 27.
Therefore, the deal represents a carving of two aspects of GGRF, which accounts for $20 billion; the $7 billion solar energy made up of all the remains of the Treasury Department.
According to federal records, the Trump administration has frozen the money, although some of it has been distributed.
To spending critics say the dark political sm of the timetable.
Steve Milloy, a skeptic of the apocalyptic global warming, said he had received a government grant and his experience was very different from what GGRF winners enjoyed. He said his process lasted 10 months.
“They climbed onto my butt, and that was a small grant,” he said.
In his opinion, this contrast is shocking.
“I've never seen anything like this before,” he said. “It's fishy…I think they'll win reelection and panic when they lose. It seems all this is done without due diligence or responsibility.”
“The tip of the iceberg”
Pick up in the “Gold Bars on the Deck of Titanic” video, Zeldin regarded GGRF as a questionable action at a confirmation hearing on January 17, and he has been objecting to it since becoming an administrator.
On March 2, he wrote to the EPA Inspector General urging him to investigate the transaction.
“These examples are the tip of the iceberg, suggesting deep-rooted patterns of political preference, lack of qualifications, and other potentially illegal distribution of taxpayer funds,” he said. he wrote. “It is disturbing that these cases may only account for a small part of the broader problem.”
Zeldin and other EPA officials said that in addition to the money-related issues, questions about the work they should pay for remain.
No recipient nonprofits contacted by RCI did not receive a $7 billion reward for the Climate Joint Fund, responding to a request for comment.
Reading Breaks in RealClear Survey
