Climate United Fund v. Citibank (and EPA): What you should know
The outcome of this case will significantly help or hinder the Trump administration's efforts to unwind Biden Era climate action. A decision is expected next week. Read More
Key takeaways
- Climate United sued the EPA and Citibank for freezing nearly $7 billion in funding towards decarbonization projects.
- The first suit of its kind during the second Trump administration, its ruling will set a precedent for any future litigation accusing the federal government of illegally withholding funding.
Climate United, often referred to as America’s green bank, sued the EPA and Citibank over its congressionally appropriated funds being frozen. It now awaits the court’s ruling, expected to come out April 15 — a decision likely to set a crucial precedent.
The timeline (so far)
April 2024: Climate United is one of three coalitions selected by President Joe Biden’s EPA to disburse $20 billion to decarbonization projects across the country under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), established in the Inflation Reduction Act.
Feb. 12: EPA administrator Lee Zeldin releases a social media post accusing Climate United of financially mismanaging the funds designated by the GGRF.
Feb. 18: The nearly $7 billion in funding — held in accounts at Citibank — is frozen after Zeldin’s accusations.
March 5: Citibank releases its first statement, to Trellis, saying, “Our role as a financial agent does not involve any discretion over which organizations receive grant funds.”
March 8: Climate United sues both the EPA and Citibank for a temporary restraining order that would force EPA and Citibank to unfreeze the funds.
March 11: After the EPA requests a one-day delay in the hearing, Zeldin announces the termination of the GGRF.
March 12: Climate United, the EPA and Citibank appear before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in response to the lawsuit. Judge Tanya Chutkan questions whether “the request for an additional day was made in good faith.” Chutkan also appears to question the legitimacy behind the EPA’s reasons for freezing the funding, asking its lawyer, “Can you proffer any evidence that [the grant] was illegal, or evidence of abuse or fraud or bribery — that any of that was improperly or unlawfully done, other than the fact that Mr. Zeldin doesn’t like it?”
What the case could mean for the future
Citibank and the EPA’s actions towards congressionally allocated funding already in the hands of the grant recipient is a first; the outcome will create a precedent for any future lawsuits filed against the agency in connection to previously established federal funding programs. Already, the Coalition for Green Capital (CGC) — one of the other two coalitions awarded money from the GGRF — has also filed a lawsuit against the EPA and Citibank over the termination of its $5 billion grant.
