EPA shielding how groups spent Biden’s cash bonanza for environmental justice

The Environmental Protection Agency is keeping Congress in the dark about how millions of dollars from President Biden’s COVID-19 stimulus spending were doled out to environmental justice efforts, The Washington Times has learned.

Now, the EPA’s government watchdog may get involved.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, requested that the EPA’s inspector general open an investigation. He said the agency spent the past eight months running interference against his attempts to uncover how organizations spent $4.3 million on environmental justice projects.

The EPA awarded the funds in 2021 to 34 organizations as part of a broader $50 million earmarked for environmental justice projects in Mr. Biden’s American Rescue Plan.

“I warned three years ago that Democrats’ partisan American Rescue Plan was a left-wing wish list disguised as COVID relief,” Mr. Grassley told The Times. “Now, the agency is trying to shut the door on legitimate congressional oversight by putting a muzzle on the recipients of taxpayer-funded grants.”

Mr. Grassley also said the EPA instructed the recipients of the taxpayer-funded grants to rebuff his office’s requests for information about how the money was spent.

The inspector general’s office has expressed concern about the EPA’s actions with the environmental justice grants and suggested it will get involved, according to a recent letter sent by Mr. Grassley to EPA Inspector General Sean O’Donnell that was first provided to The Times. 

Mr. Grassley wants the watchdog to immediately open a formal investigation.

Mr. O’Donnell’s office confirmed receipt of Mr. Grassley’s letter but declined to comment further.

An EPA spokesperson said the agency “continues to be responsive to the senator’s inquiries” and has “provided multiple comprehensive responses and documentation productions.”

The EPA, through its Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Cooperative Agreement Program, handed out American Rescue Plan grants of up to $200,000 each. The EPA has not revealed how much each recipient pocketed.

The money was designated for organizations in underserved areas for projects such as planting trees, holding “pruning workshops,” educating residents about the “acceptance of trees” in their cities and creating an electric vehicle sharing program focused on low-income communities. 

The Biden administration is in the final stages of doling out nearly $2 billion more from the Inflation Reduction Act for the cooperative agreement program and other environmental justice initiatives.

Mr. Grassley sent requests in April to all 34 environmental justice grant recipients for a detailed accounting of their organizations’ use of the funds.

The EPA conceded over the summer that the only financial data it has is how much of the money has been spent but not what it was spent on, which the agency said is the “only document detailing financial progress that grantees are required to submit,” according to Mr. Grassley.

Mr. Grassley said some groups have provided him with detailed spending records but have not disclosed them publicly.

“In other words,” he wrote to Mr. O’Donnell, “the EPA, Congress and the taxpayer are left to guess at what exactly the grantees have spent the money on at this stage in the program.”

Mr. Grassley stated that his inquiries were to ensure the money was “used for its intended purpose and is not subject to waste, fraud or abuse.”

The EPA published vague summaries in 2021 on how each group would use the funds. Each project was eligible to receive up to $200,000.

The program’s lengthy and vague mission statement was to support “projects that address local environmental and public health issues stemming from air pollution and unsafe drinking water and assist recipients in building collaborative partnerships to help them understand and address environmental and public health concerns in their communities.”

Mr. Grassley told Mr. O’Donnell that several groups initially responded in April with a willingness to comply. But communications quickly went dark.

Several organizations revealed that the EPA had intervened and told the groups to ignore the lawmaker’s request because the agency would provide the information.

Congress never received the bulk of the information requested, neither from the organizations nor the EPA, Mr. Grassley told Mr. O’Donnell. Some groups provided incomplete responses and/or retained legal counsel.

“Based on these interactions, it is clear that the EPA interfered with legitimate congressional oversight designed to determine how taxpayer money has been spent, which is a core role of the Congress,” Mr. Grassley said in the letter.

Mr. Grassley’s staff repeatedly contacted EPA attorney Kristen Knapp about whether the EPA interfered with their inquiries. Ms. Knapp never responded, according to the senator.

Mr. Grassley accused the EPA of trying to create a facade of cooperation with his office. The senator told Mr. O’Donnell that EPA Associate Administrator Tim Del Monico wrote to him in May claiming that agency representatives engaged with his staff. 

The characterization of cooperation “is demonstrably false,” Mr. Grassley said in the letter to Mr. O’Donnell.

EPA later insisted they “never told [recipients] not to respond,” according to Mr. Grassley, which his staff relayed to the organizations. 

But several of the organizations that were previously unresponsive, including the St. Croix Foundation, contradicted the EPA’s denial by informing Mr. Grassley’s staff they were “instructed” by the EPA not to respond.

EPA’s 2021 project summary award for St. Croix stated it was for engaging with high school seniors and college students to provide the U.S. Virgin Islands with data and information on health and environmental risks from poor air quality.

Responses to Mr. Grassley’s office from some groups were less than cordial, going as far as to challenge the senator’s authority to request information about how taxpayer money was used.

“To the extent you believe you are empowered to compel Utah Clean Energy to provide you with additional information, please specify the legal basis for this belief,” Utah Clean Energy attorney Jeffrey Corey told Mr. Grassley.

Utah Clean Energy was supposed to use funds to educate Salt Lake City residents about the benefits of electrification, hold “listening sessions” on the subject and develop electrification strategies with local government, utilities and residents.

The chief financial officer of SEEED Inc., Laurel Bowman, told Mr. Grassley’s staff in an email: “If he wants this information, he needs to come here to Knoxville, Tennessee to see first-hand what we do. We will share this information when he visits.”

SEEED Inc.’s funding was to improve energy efficiency and indoor air quality of older housing in Knoxville, Tennessee, through a task force and educational sessions with residents.

“These examples illustrate that the EPA has clearly — and intentionally — interfered in congressional oversight and has refused to remedy its misconduct,” Mr. Grassley wrote to Mr. O’Donnell.

None of the aforementioned organizations responded to requests for comment.

Another group, the Tennessee Environmental Council, eventually informed Mr. Grassley’s staff that the EPA would respond on their behalf and to “not contact us any further.”

The organization received money to hold 10 events over two years on how to dispose or recycle household waste materials.

Tennessee Environmental Council CEO Jeffrey Barrie told The Times it was “fulfilling all contractual obligations in our grant from EPA” and helped recycle 234,000 pounds of electronics, mattresses, tires and other household materials in the past year.

”EPA did not instruct TEC on how to respond to Sen. Grassley’s inquiry, but we did provide details about our program to Sen. Grassley’s office at their initial inquiry,” Mr. Barrie said.

Mr. Grassley told The Times his purpose was transparency.

“Conservative groups are tarred if they get money for things. This same information ought to be available from the liberal groups,” he said. “It’s a matter of the public having a right to know.”