GOP members press EPA oversight of $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, question award to Coalition for Green Capital

Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee pressed EPA and oversight officials on whether the agency used sufficient due diligence in awarding Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funds, with particular focus on the IRAfunded Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and a $5 billion award to the Coalition for Green Capital.

Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., chairman of the full committee, said during his opening statement that the Biden administration had "announced the awarding of $5,000,000,000 to the Coalition for Green Capital," and questioned how an organization the committee identified as having had roughly $3.5 million in revenue in 2023 received such a large award. Guthrie also pointed to news and registration records showing that the Coalition later provided $200,000,000 of that award to an entity incorporated in October 2024.

The EPA acting inspector general, Nicole Murley, testified that EPA OIG has flagged systemic internal-control problems across EPA programs and that the office is concerned about oversight of IRA funds because the IRA did not include dedicated OIG funding. Murley told the committee the OIG has "observed trends" in prior IIJA oversight that raise red flags for IRA programs, citing weak data quality and problems monitoring grantees and subgrantees.

J. Alfredo Gomez, director of GAO's Natural Resources and Environment team, described GAO work reviewing EPA implementation of IIJA and IRA funding. He told the committee that EPA created a new program office for the greenhouse fund, set up three subprograms (including a National Clean Investment Fund and a Clean Communities Investor Accelerator), and used a commercial bank as a financial agent to hold and disburse funds—an approach GAO said differs from EPA's customary grant model and raises monitoring questions. GAO's provisional analysis showed EPA obligated nearly all IRA funds and expended about half.

Committee members repeatedly probed how EPA vetted recipient organizations, how EPA plans to monitor subrecipients and program-level performance, and whether EPA had developed performance goals for the greenhouse fund subprograms. Gomez said it is "not typical" for new programs to go years without program-level performance goals and stressed the importance of having those goals.

Murley said the OIG has initiated audits and investigations related to IRA-funded contracts and grants and has raised questions about due-diligence reviews, conflict-of-interest screening, and grantee and subrecipient capacity. She added that with roughly 93% of EPA's IRA funds obligated, the OIG's work is shifting from prevention to detection and that the office is using data analytics to look for potential fraud.

Committee members identified specific examples that they said warranted examination, including the Coalition for Green Capital award and the timeline and structure of a subaward that, according to public records cited by lawmakers, involved an entity incorporated in October 2024 that subsequently received a large subaward.

The witnesses agreed the rapid pace of award obligations combined with tight statutory deadlines for IRA-funded programs increases oversight risk and that monitoring and reporting requirements will be central to determining whether funds are used as intended. Murley told the panel the OIG continues oversight work with its current budget but emphasized the limits of that approach compared with having dedicated IRA oversight funding for the EPA OIG.

The committee did not take formal action; members from both parties signaled they will continue oversight inquiries and follow-up requests for documents and data.

Ending: Committee members requested additional documentation and said staff would pursue further review of award decisions, subrecipient relationships, and EPA's monitoring plans for IRA-funded programs. Several members asked the OIG and GAO to provide more detailed records and analyses for the committee record.