Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ggrf Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Members press EPA on frozen greenhouse gas reduction fund awards, agency cites legal reviews
Summary
Committee members from both parties pressed Administrator Zeldin on his decision to freeze and terminate awards from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF); Zeldin described concerns about oversight, self-dealing and novel financial arrangements while Democrats and courts have questioned the evidence used to justify terminations.
Lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee pressed EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin about the agency’s decision to freeze and seek termination of awards under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a multi-billion-dollar program created under the Inflation Reduction Act.
Several Republicans on the panel highlighted examples they said raise questions about recipient qualifications, self-dealing and reduced oversight in the initial awards. Chairman Griffith and Representatives Gus Bilirakis and others pointed to awardees that had relatively small prior budgets before receiving large GGRF awards: they cited Appalachian Community Capital (listed in the hearing as having received $500,000,000) and Power Forward Communities (reported in the hearing as $2,000,000,000). Republicans asked why entities with limited prior spending histories were tapped to administer very large award portfolios and raised concerns about the use of a financial agent and pass-through arrangements.
“I started to get into some of the examples... Appalachian asked for a billion, and they ended up receiving 500,000,000 even though the year that they asked for the funding in 2023, they spent less than 4,500,000,” Chairman Griffith said. Administrator Zeldin responded that reviewers had noted unusual cost and per-unit assumptions and said such examples were ‘‘fantastic ones to talk about’’ when considering oversight.
Democrats on the panel pushed back on the administration’s public allegations of fraud and criminality. Representative Nanette Barragán and others noted that DOJ investigators and court filings had not produced evidence of criminal conduct, and asked Zeldin to provide any documentary evidence underpinning his public statements. Representative Jan Schakowsky and others pointed to court transcripts in which EPA lawyers told a judge they were not accusing awardees of fraud.
Zeldin said the agency had concerns about ‘‘self-dealing and conflicts of interest, unqualified recipients, and reduced oversight’’ and pointed to internal reviewer notes and last-minute changes to grant documents as troubling. He said the structure — in which billions were transferred to a financial agent and then to prime recipients who themselves could subgrant funds — made oversight more difficult. Zeldin said his team is still compiling details and that litigation over some terminations remains ongoing.
Several members requested records documenting individualized grant-by-grant reviews; Zeldin told the committee that agency staff had worked with career employees and that records and more information would be provided through the committee process where appropriate. Committee Democrats said some court filings indicate EPA lawyers told judges they were not asserting criminality, and at least one judge found no document showing individualized reviews had been conducted.
The exchange underscored ongoing litigation and oversight disputes over how to monitor and, where appropriate, reclaim or reprogram multi-billion-dollar IRA-era awards.
