ICYMI: Zeldin’s Latest Fraud, or “Why the Megalaw Didn’t Kill Biden’s Biggest Climate Program”

E&E News: “Why the megalaw didn’t kill Biden’s biggest climate program”

In court filings and public statements since the Republican budget bill passed, EPA Administrator Zeldin continues his misleading campaign to claw back funds granted to lower energy costs for Americans, even as power bills are now up by an average of 9% since Trump took office.

Zeldin’s latest false claim is that the budget bill – to the surprise of every Republican in Congress – actually managed to claw back the GGRF grants that have already been obligated, despite the fact that the language of the law explicitly refers to unobligated funds. In his remarks at the White House with President Trump, Zeldin repeated his thoroughly and repeatedly debunked specious attacks against Stacey Abrams that have been the hallmark of his tenure. This time, he argued that the bill signing meant that it was “a bad day” for her, insinuating the funds had been clawed back while carefully avoiding saying so explicitly (Stacey Abrams has also never received any GGRF funds).

Similarly, a court filing submitted by the Justice Department on behalf of the EPA before the legislation was actually signed, argues that “Because plaintiffs’ statutory (and constitutional) claims rested on the provision that Congress has now voted to repeal, and because the bill, if signed into law, would rescind the appropriated funds that plaintiffs sought to reinstate through this action, it is more clear than ever that the district court’s preliminary injunction must be reversed.” But, of course, the filing also stops short of explicitly claiming the law actually clawed back any of the $27 billion awarded to grantees, even while the EPA argues that the courts should pretend that it did.

Proof that the Republican Budget Bill did not claw back GGRF grants:

CBO: As the Associated Press reports, “The Congressional Budget Office estimated repealing the program would save just $19 million, which is in line with its administrative expenses only, indicating the bill doesn’t touch the multibillion-dollar grant awards.” That amount can be found in the Title VI tab of the CBO table analyzing the legislation, and represents less than 1/1000th of the amount that a total clawback of the grant would have been.

Republican Senate Leadership: In drafting the budget reconciliation package, Republican Senate Leadership carefully set savings targets for each committee, and in a legislative package that was fiercely negotiated and where every dollar of budget savings was litigated, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) was assigned to find virtually the exact total savings that they ultimately did: $1 billion. This $1 billion was cobbled together through a predetermined combination of small clawbacks, including the $19 million in GGRF Administrative funds. Needless to say, $1 billion is an order of magnitude different from $27 billion, indicating that Senate Leadership knew exactly what would and would not be clawed back. Indeed, in the final tense legislative moments, the discovery of an additional tens of billions in savings would have represented a major breakthrough in negotiations, and yet it was not mentioned once.

Rep. Morgan Griffith, House Chair of Environment Subcommittee in Energy and Commerce: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, ranking Democrat on EPW, responded to Administrator Zeldin’s misdirection by entering the relevant facts into the Congressional Record, and explained how despite half-hearted attempts to suggest otherwise, Republicans’ Congressional intent in the legislation was exactly the opposite of what the EPA claimed. As Senator Whitehouse explained, “During the markup of the Energy and Commerce Committee title for the House version of this bill, the chair of the Environment Subcommittee Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia made the following statements: On page 244, lines 5959–64: ‘I just want to point out that these provisions that we are talking about only apply as far, as this bill is concerned, to the unobligated balances. So if a grant was already given, as far as this bill is concerned, then that would still be going forward.’ On page 244, lines 5968–70: ‘If the grant has already been granted and the money is obligated, then this—then our language does not affect that.’ On pages 247–48, lines 6055–57. ‘[W]e can’t rescind expenditures that have already been obligated.’ Neither CBO nor Republican Members understood the repeal and rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to save anything more than EPA’s unspent oversight dollars. Not a cent of the grant funding was touched by section 60002. Wishful thinking on the part of DOJ does not moot the ongoing litigation.”

No Real Congressional Intent: While Chair Capito may have been coaxed into giving a perfunctory quotation that it was Congress’ intent to claw back the grants so the Trump Administration could use it in court, at no point has she or any other Republican in Congress insisted that her committee had saved 28 times as much as it actually did by clawing back $27 billion in grant funds. And in fact she has said all along that clawing back those funds would be a “ridiculous thought.” As the many unstaged quotations from her House counterpart Rep. Griffith, as well as the Senate reconciliation instructions indicate, there was never actually any Congressional intent to claw back the grant funds.

The EPA’s argument relies on a circular logic – the EPA insists that they have cancelled the grants, and they are therefore no longer obligated, but a federal judge has found that exact action to be invalid in a decision that the EPA’s politically appointed lawyers are currently appealing. If the money had already, in fact, been legally de-obligated then there would be no court case and no need for legislative action of any kind.