The Center for an Ecology-Based Economy hosts a food forest design and maintenance workshop on Aug. 22, 2024, at Alan Day Community Garden in the town of Norway as part of its EPA grant work. (Provided by the Center for an Ecology-Based Economy)
Throughout Maine, nonprofits, tribes and local governments had begun work to increase environmental resiliency in their communities through federal grants funded in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
The Center for an Ecology-Based Economy in the town of Norway was awarded one of those grants to help the local school district transition to renewable energy and make building efficiency upgrades, as well as help the overall town develop a climate action plan.
In southern Maine, the Greater Portland Council of Governments had been using its grant to expand regional capacity to respond to climate hazards and severe weather, which the state has seen increase in recent years.
But in March the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency terminated these two grants, four others in Maine and hundreds across the country awarded through the Environmental and Climate Justice Program as part of the broad push from President Donald Trump’s administration to cut environmental justice measures, which seek to establish equitable access to healthy environments.
Grantees in Maine, which also include the Penobscot Nation, Maine People’s Resource Center, United Charitable and the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, with projects totaling about $3 million, are watching the first class-action lawsuit against the Trump administration terminating this program for a signal as to whether their funding could eventually be restored.
The case
Federal judges have already ruled against the EPA’s decision to cancel similar grants in cases in Maryland and South Carolina, however the class-action lawsuit, Appalachian Voices et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., could be used to advocate for the reinstatement of all grants within the program, rather than requiring recipients to sue individually.
None of the Maine grantees are plaintiffs in the case. A hearing Tuesday in the U.S. district court for the District of Columbia did not touch the class certification component, so it appears the judge will be deciding on the merits of the case first before considering whether it could be extended to all grantees, including those in Maine.
The hour-long hearing focused on the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and the EPA’s motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs argued the grant terminations are unlawful because Congress had already appropriated the funding, while the EPA argued that the “One Big Beautiful Bill” signed into law on July 4 codified the cuts, according to Katherine Christopher, supervising attorney for Climate Change and Environmental Justice Lawyers for Good Government, one of the groups representing the plaintiffs.
Christopher said that court acceptance of the EPA’s argument would have negative implications for overall due process rights.
“Who would ever want to fulfill a grant agreement with the government if they believe that, number one, at any time that money could just be taken away through a unilateral termination but, number two, that they also would have absolutely no way to be able to appeal?” Christopher said.
Rebecca Kaduru, president of the Vermont-based Institute for Sustainable Communities, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the money was specifically awarded in a way to address how slow federal funding typically is and how hard it is to reach communities that are historically left behind.
“How is this money going to get to the communities that need it if the EPA has stripped all of the technical assistance and the support for people to go out and get it?” Kaduru said.
The Trump administration’s motion to dismiss argues that the district court doesn’t have jurisdiction on the matter. Instead, the administration says it is a contractual case for the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, meaning under contract law each of the grant recipients would have to individually sue for breach of contract and damages.
While not an official decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a shadow docket opinion that suggests the high court is leaning toward an interpretation of the law that would put grant decisions through the federal claims court.
“If grantees are put into the Federal Court of Claims, they could only get monetary claims back,” Christopher said. “We are asking for the sort of relief that only a district court can give, which is basically to reinstate the programs.”
That would involve the court answering the question of whether the grant terminations violated the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers.
While U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon did not give an indication of how he might ultimately rule, Christopher and others present for the hearing said they expect a decision could come as soon as next week.
Maine-based projects
The six Maine-based projects under the Environmental and Climate Justice Program, created by the Inflation Reduction Act under Clean Air Act Section 138, covered a combination of disaster preparedness and workforce development, falling under different project categories based on aims.
The Greater Portland Council of Governments’ grant, which was a Environmental Justice Government-to-Government Program project, was focused on addressing energy costs and adaptation strategies for frontline communities, meaning those most impacted by severe weather due to their location or socioeconomic situation, said Communications Director Tom Bell.
The council had completed 10 months of work before its grant termination. It was working on its project with two nonprofits also funded by the grant: WindowDressers, which helps Northern New England residents reduce heating costs and fossil fuel consumption, and Gateway Community Services Maine, which supports the wellbeing of immigrants in the Greater Portland and Lewiston areas.
Some grantees are eyeing possible work arounds while appeals and related lawsuits play out.
For example, the Gulf of Maine Research Institute is working with the EPA to determine whether its award can be reinstated solely for the purposes of assisting local fishing communities, according to Chief Communications Officer Elijah Miller.
The institute’s grant, which was under the Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem Solving Program, had supported broader work to develop resources and opportunities that inform and prepare communities to participate in offshore wind, based on its project summary.
The Penobscot Nation’s grant, which was under the Government-to-Government Program, was meant to help install heat pumps in its community and collaborate among the Wabanaki Nations’ housing departments.
The terminations were part of sweeping cuts to what the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency task force deemed unnecessary spending, including efforts it deemed diversity, equity and inclusion, also known as DEI.
This past spring, the EPA also terminated Maine-based grants for forever chemical research as a part of that broad goal. Two of those grants were awarded to the Mi’kmaq Nation and Passamaquoddy Tribe, two of the other tribes in the Wabanaki Nations.
The agency equated the grants to DEI and environmental justice measures in a statement to Maine Morning Star, conflicting public statements made by EPA administrator Lee Zeldin that the awards were important but cut as a result of agency restructuring. The agency later reinstated the grants without explanation.
Grantees under the environmental justice program whose funding was cut are questioning the agency’s priorities.
Richy Ainsworth, associate director for the Center for an Ecology-Based Economy, called the termination antithetical to the administration’s aim to cut costs because long-term cost-saving work was being done through their work.
For example, one aspect of the center’s grant, which was under the Collaborative Problem Solving Program, involved helping local school district MSAD17 complete energy assessments, install electric vehicle chargers, transition to community solar and explore options to get solar on site. Another component was helping the town of Norway create a climate action plan that could then be used as a template in other towns.
“So many rural towns just have zero resources to look at any of this climate resiliency stuff and trying to head off things before disasters happen,” Ainsworth said.
While some of that work is still progressing through the town’s climate action committee, he said scaling up to other towns is likely no longer feasible with the funds frozen.
“A lot of these rollbacks were done in the name of ‘efficiency’ when it has been nothing but a complete waste of everyone’s time,” Ainsworth said. “All grantees could have been spending the last seven-plus months delivering on these projects that support our underserved communities instead of dealing with this nonsense.”
Implications of other EPA actions
Grantees and attorneys in the lawsuit are also watching separate but relevant actions by the EPA that would impact climate resiliency work writ large.
On July 29, Zeldin announced a formal proposal to rescind the greenhouse gas endangerment finding.
“If that goes through,” Ainsworth said, “that would just undermine absolutely everything.”
Established under former President Barack Obama, the determination called climate change a danger to human health and therefore gave the EPA power to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide from cars and trucks. When proposing the reversal, Zeldin said the framework created uncertainty for auto manufacturers and buyers and hurt the wider economy.
Maine Gov. Janet Mills swiftly condemned the news.
“Maine is already contending with extreme weather and flooding that threatens our environment, public health, and economy,” Mills said in a statement. “Allowing unchecked greenhouse gas emissions will only exacerbate these challenges and leave us susceptible to dangerous pollution from other states carried here by prevailing winds.”
The EPA is also preparing to terminate $7 billion in federal grants intended to help low- and moderate-income families install solar panels on their homes, according to two people briefed on the matter who spoke with The New York Times. Maine was awarded $62 million through the Solar for All program.
Democratic U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree of Maine condemned the plan in a letter to Zeldin on Wednesday, writing, “at a time when electricity prices are increasing and projected to continue to rise due to other actions of this administration, it is unconscionable that you would seek to deny access to clean, cheap energy to those who can least afford it.”
If the termination goes through, it would further escalate the Trump administration’s efforts to claw back billions of dollars in grants awarded under the Inflation Reduction Act.
“We’re all on the edge of our seats waiting to see what happens as they continue to push the boundary further and further on clawing back obligated funds,” said Kaduru, with the Institute for Sustainable Communities, “while also we’re living in a world where disasters are happening every day and we also see how slow the government is able to react to it.”
Comments