Audrey Streb
DCNF Energy Reporter
Labor union representatives and green energy groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Monday for canceling the Biden-era “Solar for All” program.
Filed in federal court in Rhode Island, the lawsuit accused the agency of illegally terminating the $7 billion program without congressional approval. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has been axing funds for massive Biden-era initiatives in his bid to make the EPA an “exceptional steward of taxpayer dollars,” eliminating grants for environmental justice and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) that President Donald Trump campaigned against.
“Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all issues triable of right by a jury,” the lawsuit states. “For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs seek equitable relief to ensure the continuation of the Solar for All grant program and its promise of the delivery of energy resources and their benefits.” (RELATED: Trump Admin Reportedly Set To Slash Billions In Biden Solar Grants)
The EPA launched an audit of the program in March, and the agency has also been working to reclaim $20 billion in grants awarded to other organizations under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), a $27 billion funding pool created under former President Joe Biden’s signature Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
An EPA spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation that “in keeping with longstanding practice, EPA does not comment on pending or current litigation.”
Notably, the Biden administration also used the program to dole out solar energy grants to some of America’s least sunny regions and to organizations like the Coalition for Green Capital, which has several politically connected senior officials.
“Plaintiffs include business owners and non-profit organizations that made business decisions and incurred expenses in reliance on the Solar for All grant awards. Plaintiffs lost business opportunities as a result of the wrongful termination efforts, and had their missions thwarted by the unlawful agency action,” the lawsuit alleges.
“Plaintiffs also include labor unions, who lost Solar for All’s support for the creation of apprenticeship programs and well-paying jobs that would have brought in new members, as well as an individual homeowner who lost the ability to receive no cost access to the reduced energy costs associated with solar energy because of Defendants’ decision to terminate the grant program,” it continues.
The EPA already froze $20 billion in climate grants awarded to various green groups under the GGRF, which has resulted in an ongoing legal battle. Solar for All represents the remaining billions from the $27 billion GGRF program.
“One of the more shocking features of Solar for All was with regards to the massive dilution of the money as many grants go through pass-through after pass-through after pass-through after pass-through, with all of the middlemen taking their own cut—at least 15% by conservative estimates. What a grift!” Zeldin said on Aug. 8. “The bottom line again is this: EPA no longer has the authority to administer the program or the appropriated funds to keep this boondoggle alive.”
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I did not know that grifters had a right to grants (“free money”) and could sue to force a party to just give them billions of dollars, even if the intended source of the money is $37Trillion in debt and hasn’t had a budget in several decades and currently no money authorized to spend.
That’s nothing to do with the legal question of following all the proper procedures.
Edit: Read this for how hard it is to get rid of unwanted unproductive bureaucracies: https://reason.com/2024/03/17/after-a-century-the-federal-tea-board-is-finally-dead/
The US created a tea importation board in 1897 to verify “that the tea should be rejected if it was unfit” which burrocrats of course expanded to include tea tasting. It was finally abolished in 2023, 27 years after its budget had been zeroed out and was no longer taste-testing tea.
I’ll drink to that.
Tea or coffee?
What astonishes me about that article and similar ones is why politicians go to so much trouble to keep such stupid little bureaucracies around. I read long ago of some screw standards board in the 1800s that was around 150 years later. I can at least understand fighting for useless billion dollar bureaucracies. But a tea tasting board? A screw standards board? It just makes no sense.
It makes sense if you want to have some of your otherwise useless buddies employed and get their votes in return (as a very crude example).
It seems that the trend to create a
“nanny state” always existed and will never cease to exist.
A powerful politician’s brother has been appointed to the board.
I listened to an interview with a state politician talking about smog testing cars in our biggest city. The city had been failing EPA standards when smog testing was put in place. Many years later along comes 9/11, as part of the recovery for the economy automakers offered 0% loans on cars. So many new cars hit the roads that the city started passing EPA air quality standards with flying colors and still do today. Did they end the smog testing? Nope. According to the politician being interviewed they’ve kept the program in place to keep the testers employed. Matter of fact they’ve stopped sniffing tail pipes and just look to see if you have any engine codes. No codes you pass, codes present go get it fixed and come back.
That tops my favorite zombie subsidy story;
In 1954 the government began subsidizing the production of mohair, to ensure a domestic supply for the manufacture of fighter and bomber pilot jackets during the Korean war.
The subsidy lasted clear up until 1995, even tho the military had stopped using mohair in the early 1960s.
There really is nothing more permanent than a ‘temporary’ government program.
Remember when the USA did everything to outlaw the growing and trading of hemp, just to realize during WW2 that they desperately needed that stuff to make ropes for their navy… waiting for the stupid farmer to stick out his “patriotic neck”.
Government works equally harmful in both ways…
That is one of the best articles ever but I really loved the christmas tree board and want to be on it.
You only need to look at South Australia to appreciate the ability of rooftop solar to destroy the economics of the grid. The cost of grid electricity in SA is 56c/kWh.
Of course those households that have rooftop solar pay next to nothing for their electricity but they still rely on grid power for when their battery is flat. So those that do not have rooftop solar pay a high price for those who have rooftop solar.
It is a highly regressive subsidy making poor much poorer and the less poor slightly better off if they do not need a real job.
All smelters in Australia are now on government support. So it is full USSR with government now providing capital guarantees for wind farms to ensure electricity prices keep going up while supporting big consumers to contend with the high electricity prices. They clearly do not see the inevitable collapse of this fantasy world.
All smelters in Australia are now on government support.
Now now let’s not make blanket statements-
Urgent action needed on Bell Bay | Premier of Tasmania
I believe you will find that Bell Bay already gets a handsome reduction on their electricity bill by offering their load as a key load management site. The biggest in Tasmania and a single phone call to prevent a state blackout. Maybe not even a phone call they are in direct contact continuously.
Not quite the handout the other smelters have arranged but still a handout but more in recognition of the fragility of the grid rather than the high cost of electricity. Only bought about by Tasmania connecting to the mainland so they can enjoy the “benefits” of yo-yo generation.
Ahh, well, for all intents and purposes most Norwegians (that rich country up by the north pole) get government support to pay their electricity bill.
Perhaps that support is just to reduce the actual price to what it would be if they were not connected to the EU grid.
Waiting for the next spanish style blackout to happen..and again, and again…and I will repeat myself 🤪
RE: No Warming Of Air In Australia By CO2
Please go to the late John L. Daly’s website:
“Still Waiting for Greenhouse” available at http://www.john-daly.com. From the home page, page down to the end of the home page and click on:
“Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map” click on “Australia”. There is shown a list of weather stations. Click on a station to obtain a plots of the average annual temperature. For several cities there are also
lots of seasonal temperatures. These charts show no warming of air at these stations up to 2002. John Daly found over 200 weather stations that showed no warming up to 2003.
Shown in the chart (See below) is a plot of the average annual temperature is in Adelaide from 1857 to 1999. In 1857, the concentration of CO2 in dry air was ca. 280 ppmv (0.55 g CO2/cu. m.) and by 1999, it had increased to 370 ppmv (0.73 g CO2/cu. m.), but there was no corresponding increase in air temperature. Instead there was a slight cooling. The reason there was no increase in air temperature is that there too little CO2 in the air to absorb out-going long wavelength IR to cause heating of the air.
This empirical temperature data is sufficient to falsify the claims by the IPCC that CO2 “global warming” and is the “control knob of climate change”.
Temperature data for Adelaide from 1887 to 2024 is available from:
https://extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/adelaide/average-temperature-by-year. Tmax and Tmin data are displayed in a table. Here is data from 2020 to 2024.
Year—–Tavg–°C
2024—–17.4
2023—–16.7
2022—–16.9
2021—–16.6
2020—–16.7
1999—–16.7
In 2024, the concentration of CO2 was 424 ppmv (0.83 g CO2/cu. m.).
This additional empirical data confirms that CO2 does not cause warming of the air.
The big question is: Can this empirical data and analyses be used to convince Premier Anthony A. and the Canberra Climate Commissars that CO2 does not global warming and is no threat to Australia’s climate and that they should abandon their draconian climate agenda?
NB: If you click on the chart, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to return to comment text.
What was the point of posting this here? You post it just about everywhere, relevant or not.
“… with regards to the massive dilution of the money as many grants go through pass-through …”) several such.
Okay, is there an example some where?
If there are court proceedings will there be a spreadsheet and
“twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was …” ? {An apology to Arlo Guthrie}
It is a money laundering program, first and last. Anything else is cover.
So, an organized crime syndicate across multiple states. Time to invoke RICO and start prosecutions. Get the tax payers’ money back and throw these a$$hole$ in prison.
The federal government is deep in debt and cannot afford to be wasting money like this. To avoid adding amy more to our huge debt, the federal government needs to reduce annual spending by almost two trillion dollars.