Clean Power Information Project Reacts to Court Decision to Take GGRF En Banc Appeal

DATE: December 17, 2025
CONTACT: Emily Samsel, emily@cleanpowerinformation.com

Clean Power Information Project Reacts to Court Decision to Take GGRF En Banc Appeal

Washington, D.C. – Today, the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear a petition from Climate United and other GGRF awardees that argued that the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court erred in its ruling by dismissing their claims earlier this summer.

Andrea Purse, Spokesperson for the Clean Power Information Project released the following statement:

“As energy bills continue to spike across the country, the administration is causing more pain by tying up needed funds in court that would help lower costs and create jobs. The court is right to take up this case and reconsider the sloppy panel decision, which was completely eviscerated in the dissent, and relied more on debunked administration talking points than evidence or the law. These are duly awarded funds from Congress and should go to communities across the country who are struggling to make ends meet, not be held up by a political agenda to kill clean, affordable energy.”

Judge Rao, one of the Trump-appointed judges who sat on the three-judge panel, echoed Trump’s talking points throughout his decision, falling for dubious EPA arguments that even the EPA walked away from after they were picked apart in court. Some examples of his embracing of the Trump administration’s arguments throughout her decision:

Echoed conservative claims that grants had “unusual structure” in using a financial agent, despite the Treasury having used financial agents previously, including to administer federal aid during the Trump administration:

P.4: “Each grant was memorialized in an agreement between the nonprofit and EPA. The grant agreements have an unusual structure. Typically, grant funds are held by the U.S. Treasury and disbursed incrementally as grantees use the funds for program purposes. EPA structured these grants with a middleman that would hold the funds as a “financial agent” of the United States. According to EPA, this was the first time the federal government used a financial agent, as opposed to Treasury, to carry out this kind of grant program.”

Cited the “gold bars” video, which has been discredited, taking criticism of the program at face value despite obvious editing and subsequent clarification that the quote was not even about the GGRF program:

P. 5: “The sheer scale of the grant program and the method of allocating billions of dollars drew public attention and criticism. The record includes a widely publicized video in which an EPA employee was recorded describing how ‘until recently’ his role was to make sure proper ‘processes are in place to … prevent fraud and to prevent abuse,’ but after the election of President Donald Trump, EPA was ‘just trying to get the money out as fast as possible before they come in and … stop it all.’ J.A. 705 n.1. The employee compared the situation to ‘throwing gold bars off the Titanic.’”

Cited the FBI investigation as above board, but did not mention the well-documented controversy around it, including a senior prosecutor who resigned rather than push such a bogus, political case:

P. 6: “After the change in administration, EPA reviewed the grants and raised concerns about conflicts of interest during the award process, the political connections of the chosen grantees, lack of government oversight and control over tens of billions of dollars, and last-minute amendments to the grant agreements and ACAs. 2 In February 2025, the FBI recommended to Citibank that it “place an administrative freeze on the account(s) associated with” the grantees’ ACAs. As the government’s financial agent, Citibank complied and stopped disbursing funds to the grantees. EPA also referred the matter to the Office of Inspector General for investigation. Shortly thereafter, EPA terminated the grant agreements. The grantees sued, seeking to enjoin the terminations as unconstitutional, unlawful, and arbitrary and capricious.”

Cited EPA’s claim that Jahi Wise failed to recuse himself, despite clear documentation to the contrary. Judge Pillard cites this in her rebuttal:

Footnote #2, p. 6: “2 For example, the Acting Deputy Administrator averred in a letter to the EPA Inspector General that “the former director of the [Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund], personally oversaw a $5 billion grant to his previous employer, the Coalition for Green Capital – without recusing himself.” J.A. 670.”

Claimed the EPA raised concerns after reviewing the grants, when in fact Zeldin’s announcement that he planned to “instantly terminate” the grants came before any investigation, and Trump had already announced intentions to freeze spending in January:

P. 6: “After the change in administration, EPA reviewed the grants and raised concerns about conflicts of interest during the award process, the political connections of the chosen grantees, lack of government oversight and control over tens of billions of dollars, and last-minute amendments to the grant agreements and ACAs. In February 2025, the FBI recommended to Citibank that it “place an administrative freeze on the account(s) associated with” the grantees’ ACAs. As the government’s financial agent, Citibank complied and stopped disbursing funds to the grantees. EPA also referred the matter to the Office of Inspector General for investigation. Shortly thereafter, EPA terminated the grant agreements.”

Claimed there was “no evidence the agency sought to dismantle the programs without congressional approval” despite public comments indicating otherwise. Section 7 of Trump’s EO freezing Inflation Reduction Act grants was titled “Terminating The Green New Deal,” and administration officials had publicly discussed their intentions to repeal the IRA.

P.25-26: “The court found that “EPA seeks to dismantle these grant programs in their entirety as a policy matter.” Climate United Fund, 778 F. Supp. 3d at 115. This factual determination was not supported by any evidence in the record and rested only on the district court’s assertion that EPA ‘suspended all eight grants.’ Id. at 116. But the suspension of the grants standing alone cannot demonstrate EPA was shutting down the statutory programs without congressional approval. Indeed, EPA repeatedly stated that it planned to recommit the grant money with greater oversight and accountability, contradicting the district court’s shutdown finding. Absent any clear evidence to the contrary, EPA’s representations were entitled to a presumption of regularity. See Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., AFL-CIO v. Reagan, 870 F.2d 723, 727 (D.C. Cir. 1989)”
“Rather than credit EPA’s statements or explain why the presumption of regularity was overcome, the district court simply declared EPA was shutting down the programs. The court disregarded the government’s interest in prudent management of the grant programs and the government’s representations that it planned to properly supervise, rather than abandon, the grantmaking process.12 The district court’s conclusory factual finding of program dismantlement was clearly erroneous. See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 118 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (explaining that even on clear error review the court is not required to “accept findings that are utterly deficient”). Because EPA issued the grants in accordance with the Inflation Reduction Act, and there is no evidence the agency sought to dismantle the programs without congressional approval, In re Aiken County cannot support the grantees’ claims.”

Echoed EPA claims that it identified “lack of oversight,” political connections, and concerns about the award process, despite the EPA having visibility into transaction-level data and there being extensive details about the lengthy application process and oversight of the funds on the EPA website (in her dissent, Judge Pillard offers thorough rebuttals of these claims):

P. 6: “After the change in administration, EPA reviewed the grants and raised concerns about conflicts of interest during the award process, the political connections of the chosen grantees, lack of government oversight and control over tens of billions of dollars, and last-minute amendments to the grant agreements and ACAs.”
P. 26, 28: “By contrast, EPA entered the grant agreements before the appropriation expired in September 2024, in compliance with any requirement in the Inflation Reduction Act to spend funds. EPA subsequently terminated the agreements because of its concerns about lack of oversight and potential conflicts of interest during the award process.” …So while their “existence relies on grant money” as the district court held, that is because these entities were established to benefit from government largesse…EPA terminated the grants because of concerns about the integrity of the grantmaking process.”

Claimed that the injunction “harms” public interest because the government wants to “properly and prudently” manage billions in funding, despite there being existing controls for government oversight of the funding:

P.28-29: “The balance of the equities and the public interest factors similarly favor the government. The injunction harms the government and the public interest by preventing the Executive Branch from properly and prudently managing billions of dollars in public funds. The grantees have an interest in continued access to government funding. But the government and the public have a stronger interest in protecting the public fisc and eliminating the appearance of impropriety around these grant programs.”

# # #