EPA denies harm from GGRF freeze in court filing
This story was originally published on Utility Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Utility Dive newsletter.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency filed a motion Wednesday opposing motions for injunctive relief filed by three nonprofits that have had their access to Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grant money frozen, arguing that their monetary harm does not warrant an injunction and is not irreparable.
The nonprofit Climate Fund United, which received a $6.97 billion National Clean Investment Fund grant, was the first to sue over the frozen funds last month, targeting EPA and fund holder Citibank. The Coalition for Green Capital, which received $5 billion from the NCFI, and Power Forward Communities, which received $2 billion from it, have each filed lawsuits against Citibank.
EPA argued for the injunction requests filed by each to be denied, as 'an injunction should be denied when Plaintiffs' alleged harms are monetary and may be remedied by damages' and 'in terminating Plaintiffs' grants, EPA has not prohibited or made it unlawful for Plaintiffs (or their subgrantees) to carry out their work.'
'Nor has any other government action,' EPA said. 'The government is not preventing Plaintiffs from providing services; EPA has just terminated the contracts under which the government would provide reimbursement for those services.'
In a joint response filed Friday, the three plaintiffs argued that they have already 'demonstrated several forms of irreparable harm, including potentially fatal disruption to Plaintiffs' operations; irreplaceable loss of clients, partnerships, and opportunities; devastating reputational injury; interference with Plaintiffs' missions; and an immediate risk of insolvency for some of the Plaintiffs and their subgrantees.'
'Many of these injuries have already materialized and will worsen if Plaintiffs continue to be deprived of access to their funds,' they said.
The plaintiffs argue that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where the case is being heard, has previously held that financial harm can constitute irreparable harm when the existence of a business is threatened — and note that the court previously agreed that the plaintiffs 'will be unable to finance programs they have launched, and they will have to cease operations.'
When EPA froze the grant funding, the agency said it did so based on 'financial mismanagement, conflicts of interest, and oversight failures with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund' and has previously told the court that the grant recipients breached their contracts.
However, EPA argued in its March 26 motion that the court 'should recognize that EPA retains the ability to end its agreements, whether or not doing so complies with a (contested) for-cause termination provision. Contract law recognizes every party's right to perform or face remedies for breach.'
EPA also argued that the contracts no longer legally exist regardless of its reasoning for their termination.
'As another Judge of this Court recently put it: 'When a contract is terminated, even wrongfully, there is no longer a contract — no duty to perform and no right to demand performance … there is only a right to seek and a duty to pay damages caused by the termination … Thus, even a party that lacks the authority to terminate a contract may do so anyway',' EPA said.
The plaintiffs argued in their response that EPA 'violated federal law multiple times over' when it froze their funding by violating 'its obligation to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision … its regulations governing when and how a grant may be terminated … federal statutes by trying to eviscerate a program approved by Congress and seeking, without authority, to claw back already-disbursed funds.'
Recommended Reading
Climate United Fund sues EPA, Citibank over frozen $7B
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
This Toyota Outsold the Corolla Hybrid and RAV4 Put Together
Toyota has been a hybrid leader for years, blending efficiency and reliability into some of the most popular cars on the road. From compact sedans to family SUVs, their electrified lineup continues to resonate with fuel-conscious buyers. But 2025 is already rewriting the script. The usual best-sellers—the Corolla Hybrid and RAV4 Hybrid—have been overtaken by an unexpected contender. This hybrid-only sedan has surged ahead, outselling both in the first quarter. If the momentum holds, it could mark a new era for Toyota's electrified future. In order to give you the most up-to-date and accurate information possible, the data used to compile this article was sourced from Toyota and various other authoritative sources, including the EPA and TopSpeed. In March 2025, Toyota moved an impressive 29,655 units of the Camry Hybrid—putting it well ahead of the pack. That single model outsold two of Toyota's usual hybrid heavy-hitters combined. The Corolla Hybrid notched 5,529 sales, and the RAV4 Hybrid added 14,524, bringing their total to 20,053. Even together, they couldn't close the gap. That's nearly 10,000 fewer units than the Camry Hybrid—a surprising margin. If you'd asked me which Toyota hybrid would be on top, I wouldn't have guessed this one. What makes the Camry's sales surge even more impressive is that Toyota's March numbers for the RAV4 include an extra 2,631 plug-in hybrids. Even with that boost, the RAV4 still couldn't close the gap. The Camry Hybrid, which doesn't even offer a plug-in option, managed to outsell the Corolla Hybrid and RAV4 Hybrid combined. No fancy charging port—just solid, old-school hybrid dominance. With numbers like these, it's easy to imagine a plug-in Camry being a runaway success if Toyota ever built one. We're not holding our breath, but how cool would that be? In the first quarter of 2025, Toyota sold an impressive 70,281 Camry Hybrids, more than a quarter of all its electrified sales. Out of 255,915 hybrids, plug-ins, and EVs sold, the Camry Hybrid stands head and shoulders above the rest. That kind of sales volume puts the Camry in a league of its own. It's not just leading the pack; it's outselling every other electrified Toyota model by a wide margin. The Camry Hybrid's sales have skyrocketed this year, but there's a twist. Back in Q1 2024, Toyota sold just 8,986 Camry Hybrids, but that number jumped to 70,281 in the same period of 2025. March was especially wild, with sales leaping from 2,424 units last year to 29,655 this year. The secret? Toyota now offers the Camry exclusively as a hybrid, so every single Camry sale counts toward their electrified totals. For the first time ever, the 2025 Toyota Camry is offered exclusively as a hybrid. Toyota has dropped the traditional gas-only engines, signaling a serious push toward electrified driving. It's a bold move for a model that's been a longtime bestseller, but the payoff is clear. By going hybrid-only, Toyota has made the Camry simpler, more efficient, and affordable, without cutting corners on performance. Even with the switch to hybrid-only, the 2025 Camry keeps its pricing competitive across all four trims. You can get into the base LE for $28,700, while the sportier SE starts at $31,000. If you want a bit more luxury, the XLE comes in at $33,700, and the top-tier XSE kicks off at $34,900. For a midsize sedan that delivers great fuel economy, advanced safety, and a comfy, tech-packed interior, the Camry offers solid value. Fuel efficiency has always been a major draw for the Camry Hybrid, and the 2025 model keeps that momentum going strong. The front-wheel-drive LE shines with an EPA-estimated 53 MPG city and 51 MPG combined, letting you cover up to 663 miles on a single tank. Even the all-wheel-drive LE isn't far behind, delivering an impressive 50 MPG combined and about 650 miles of range. That means whether you stick to two wheels or go all out, the Camry Hybrid keeps you going longer between fill-ups. The SE, XLE, and XSE trims dial back fuel economy a bit in exchange for extra features and stylish upgrades, but they still deliver solid efficiency. Front-wheel-drive versions hit around 47 MPG combined with a range of about 611 miles. All-wheel-drive models get between 44 and 46 MPG combined, offering roughly 572 to 598 miles before you need to stop for gas. With fuel prices always fluctuating, the Camry strikes a great balance for drivers who want strong performance without constant trips to the pump. Even the base Camry LE surprises with a well-equipped interior. You get an easy-to-use 8-inch touchscreen with wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, plus a six-speaker audio system that sounds great. Inside, there's a 7-inch digital instrument cluster, dual-zone climate control, push-button start, and wireless phone charging—along with five USB ports to keep everyone connected. Rear passengers enjoy their own air vents and plenty of legroom for a comfortable ride. Step up to the XLE or XSE, and the luxury factor kicks in. Dual 12.3-inch screens take over the dashboard, leather-trimmed seats come with heating (and optional ventilation), plus ambient lighting sets the mood. You can also opt for a nine-speaker JBL premium audio system that transforms the cabin into a mini concert hall. It's a sweet blend of tech, comfort, and style that makes every drive feel special. When you look at specs, price, and everyday practicality, it's easy to see why the Camry is winning over so many buyers this year. It packs more horsepower than both the Corolla and RAV4 Hybrids, while still delivering impressive fuel economy and a best-in-class range of up to 663 miles. The Camry also offers more features than the Corolla and comes in well below the RAV4 Hybrid's starting price of $32,300. Sure, the RAV4 boasts extra cargo space and some off-road chops, but the Camry balances comfort, efficiency, and affordability in a way that's hard to beat. The Corolla Hybrid is definitely the budget-friendly pick in Toyota's hybrid lineup, starting at just $23,825—but with only 138 horsepower and a smaller 13.1-cubic-foot trunk, it's a bit limited in what it offers. The Prius is another strong contender, boasting up to 57 MPG combined and a starting price of $28,350, just under the Camry. There's also the Prius Prime plug-in, which offers 44 miles of all-electric driving, though it starts at a steeper $33,375. But if you're after an efficient, spacious, and well-rounded sedan that balances price, power, and practicality, the 2025 Camry Hybrid makes a seriously strong case for itself.
Chicago Tribune
a day ago
- Chicago Tribune
Former EPA administrator, activists react to 'One Big Beautiful Bill'
As President Donald Trump touts a bill currently making its way through Congress as a win for the public, a former regional Environmental Protection Agency administrator is prepared to see devastating cuts to the office that could negatively impact human health. 'It's proposing severe cuts to both the scientific work that EPA's Office of Research and Development does and to the agency as a whole,' said Debra Shore, former administrator for EPA Region 5. 'It would severely reduce the agency's ability to fulfill its mission of protecting public health and the environment.' As the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Act has passed the U.S. House of Representatives and moved to the Senate, activists nationwide have worried about the consequences. Shore said it's heartbreaking to see public servants at the EPA go through these cuts, especially as the administration tries to make the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' seem like a win. 'I have never worked with a group of such smart, devoted professionals who had a shared sense of mission as EPA employees,' Shore said. 'I know that's the case across the agency. … They could be working for far higher salaries in many cases, but they are dedicated to the foundational mission of the EPA, which is to protect public health and the environment.' On Tuesday and Wednesday, the EPA posted on Facebook, saying it 'delivers for all Americans.' 'One Big Beautiful Bill is putting American workers, taxpayers and families first,' the EPA's Tuesday post said. 'Under (Trump), the U.S. can unleash American energy while ensuring we have the cleanest air, land and water on (Earth).' The bill eliminates hundreds of billions of dollars in Green New Deal tax credits, repeals former President Joe Biden administration's electric vehicle mandates, and opens federal lands and waters to oil, gas, coal, geothermal and mineral leasing, according to the EPA's Tuesday post. According to the Wednesday post, the bill also 'streamlines onerous permitting processes,' refills the Strategic Petroleum reserve and 'delivers certainty to energy producers, saves and creates energy jobs, lowers energy costs for families.' A spokesperson for Sen. Todd Young, R-Indiana, provided a statement about the bill Friday. 'Senator Young continues to have conversations with his colleagues and stakeholders about improving the House-passed bill and addressing our nation's debt and deficit challenges,' said Leah Selk, spokesperson for Young. Representatives for Sen. Jim Banks, R-Indiana, did not respond to a request for comment Friday. Within the bill, the White House would also have the ability to cut federal agencies and reduce workforce, Shore said. 'This is just an utter abrogation of Congress' authority and power,' Shore said. 'It requires an annual report of planned reorganizational moves, and it also streamlines the ability of any future president to rebuild federal agencies because of some of the language in it.' Susan Thomas, director of policy and press for Just Transition Northwest Indiana, said it's concerning that EPA is treating the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' like a win, especially on social media platforms that are easily accessible. 'No one can take any information for granted anymore,' Thomas said. 'You must do your own research with trusted sources because the amount of greenwashing that's coming down is so dangerous. … This is becoming increasingly difficult, but it's more important than ever.' Thomas and Gary Advocates for Responsible Development board member Carolyn McCrady are both worried about the effects that environmental justice communities will face if the bill passes the Senate. McCrady expects public health to worsen as a result of EPA rollbacks. An October report from Industrious Labs found that most residents in Gary are in the top 10% of U.S. residents most at-risk for developing asthma and at-risk of low life expectancy. In 2020, Indiana had a lung cancer rate of 72.5 per 100,000 people, with Lake County as one of the state's counties with the highest cancer mortality rates, according to the American Lung Association. A 2016 JAMA Network report also found Gary as one of the top five U.S. cities with the lowest life expectancy at one point. 'I think people are going to be sicker faster,' McCrady said. 'I don't think people will be able to be served in the medical community in the same way, because in Indiana, millions of people are going to lose their health insurance because of the Medicaid cuts.' Although McCrady believes the EPA cuts are devastating, she isn't surprised to see them included in 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' Cuts will continue to put communities like Gary at a greater disadvantage, McCrady said. Thomas also believes that Northwest Indiana's environmental justice communities will struggle as a result of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' 'They've already stripped away all of the environmental justice provisions that had taken years to recognize and acknowledge and to start to put in place,' Thomas said. 'This is just a very sad state that we're in.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Fuel firms can challenge California's emission limits, supreme court rules
Fossil fuel companies are able to challenge California's ability to set stricter standards reducing the amount of polluting coming from cars, the US supreme court has ruled in a case that is set to unravel one of the key tools used to curb planet-heating emissions in recent years. The conservative-dominated supreme court voted by seven to two to back a challenge by oil and gas companies, along with 17 Republican-led states, to a waiver that California has received periodically from the federal government since 1967 that allows it to set tougher standards than national rules limiting pollution from cars. The state has separately stipulated that only zero-emission cars will be able to sold there by 2035. Although states are typically not allowed to set their own standards aside from the federal Clean Air Act, California has been given unique authority to do so via a waiver that has seen it become a pioneer in pushing for cleaner cars. Other states are allowed to copy California's stricter standard, too. But oil and gas companies, as well as Republican politicians, have complained about the waiver, arguing that it caused financial harm. The waiver was removed during Donald Trump's first term but then reinstated by Joe Biden's administration. Last week, Trump again moved to end the waiver, signing a congressional disapproval of California's move to cut pollution and shift new cars and trucks to become electric over the next decade. Gavin Newsom, California's governor and a Democrat, who is in a huge head-to-head battle with the White House over the Los Angeles protests and state power, amid Trump's immigration crackdown, has called this move illegal and has said the state will sue. The justices' ruling overturned a lower court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit by a Valero Energy subsidiary and fuel industry groups. The lower court had concluded that the plaintiffs lacked the required legal standing to challenge a 2022 EPA decision to let California set its own regulations. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,' conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision. The lower court had previously ruled that the oil and gas industry didn't have legal standing to attempt to topple the California waiver but a challenge to this reached the supreme court, which appeared sympathetic to the claim when the case was heard in April. 'It's not that high a burden,' Amy Coney Barrett, one of the justices, said about proof of the alleged harm. California and the federal government have been allowed to 'stretch and abuse' the Clean Air Act, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, one of the groups challenging the waiver, has complained. But environmentalists and California's Democratic leadership have defended the waiver, arguing that it has helped push forward vehicle innovation and help cut greenhouse gases. Transportation is responsible for more planet-heating pollution in the US than any other sector. 'California and other clean car states cannot achieve federal clean air standards and protect communities without reducing harmful transportation pollution,' said Andrea Issod, senior attorney at the Sierra Club. 'We stand with these states to defend their well-established authority to set standards for clean cars.' The supreme court's ruling on Friday does not in itself end California's standards to cut pollution from vehicles, said Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund. 'The standards have saved hundreds of lives, have provided enormous health benefits, and have saved families money,' Patton said. 'While the supreme court has now clarified who has grounds to bring a challenge to court, the decision does not affect California's bedrock legal authority to adopt pollution safeguards, nor does it alter the life-saving, affordable, clean cars program itself.'
