May 8, 2024

The Honorable Michael S. Regan

Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Regan:

We write with concerns about the potential for misuse of $600 million in taxpayer dollars
from the Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program (EJ TCGM). The
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) selection of eleven National and Regional
Grantmakers raises further questions about the implementation of this program and the use of
taxpayer funds. Based on the EPA’s funding decisions, it appears this program may be funneling
billions of taxpayer dollars to radical, far-left organizations whose mission is to protest, disrupt,
and undercut United States energy production and leadership, while also freeing up funds to
support their extreme activist agendas.

The EPA’s December announcement identified the eleven Grantmakers selected by the
agency to serve as pass-through entities for the EJ TCGM program authorized and funded by the
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). 1 We question whether some of the selectees and their partner
organizations, based on the public record of their activities, can be trusted to fulfill the role of an
objective pass-through steward of taxpayer funds.

For example, the EPA is awarding $50 million to the Institute for Sustainable
Communities and $50 million to the Climate Justice Alliance (CJA). Both organization’s 2021
Form 990 Schedule I filings display concerning partisan agendas. In 2021, the two groups
combined to provide over $4 million to fund numerous groups who have a history of partisan,
and in some cases extreme, environmental activism. 2 Their activism includes the mass
organization of climate alarmism protests, litigation of fossil fuel projects, and public
disinformation campaigns on our nation’s energy sector.

Past recipients of donations from these groups include the Indigenous Environmental
Network, the entity responsible for organizing the illegal and violent protests of the Dakota

1
See Public Law 117-169 Sec. 60201 and Sec. 138.
2
See Schedule I (Form 990) TIN: 22-3098727 and TIN: 85-3440899.
The Honorable Michael S. Regan
Page 2

Access Pipeline 3 and protesting numerous others, such as the once-proposed Keystone XL
pipeline, 4 the Line 3 pipeline, 5 and the Mountain Valley Pipeline, 6 all while carrying out “Keep It
In the Ground” policies. 7 Another group receiving donations is Healthy Gulf, which has
regularly sued federal entities such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the
Department of Interior, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for fulfilling their statutory
obligations relating to offshore oil and natural gas leasing, 8 siting of natural gas pipelines, 9 and
Clean Water Act permits for liquefied natural gas export terminals. 10 The Asian Pacific
Environmental Network has frequently been involved with the litigation arm of the
environmental left, Earthjustice, regarding activities such as coal exports 11 and transportation of
crude oil by rail. 12 These types of donations call into question the ability of these National
Grantmakers to steward responsibly and fairly a massive infusion of taxpayer dollars.

The location of the Regional Grantmakers and partners also raises questions. First,
multiple Regional Grantmakers – JSI Research and Training Institute, Inc, Research Triangle
Institute, and Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs, Inc – are not located in the EPA regions
they have been selected to serve. 13 Further, eighteen of the organizations selected as partners are
not located in the regions they are serving. 14 We are confused by the EPA’s decision to make
awards based on regions but then awarding funding to organizations located outside of those
regions, particularly in the context of Environmental Justice, which is supposedly intended to
foster local community engagement. 15

This locational concern is magnified given the fact some of their partners also have
similar questionable backgrounds to the National Grantmakers previously mentioned. For
example, the Southern Environmental Law Center recently sued the State of Virginia over its
efforts to withdraw from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, 16 as well as filing Freedom of
Information Act suits against the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) seeking further disclosure of
information regarding the TVA’s contracts with natural gas providers. 17 Another partner, the
Dakota Resource Council, recently sued the Bureau of Land Management’s approval of 173 oil

3
indigenous_resist_report_FINAL.pdf (priceofoil.org)
4
Id.
5
Indigenous, environmental activists square off with Enbridge to stop Line 3 | Canada's National Observer: Climate
News
6
June 2023 Newsletter | Indigenous Environmental Network (ienearth.org)
7
#KeepItInTheGround | Indigenous Environmental Network (ienearth.org)
8
Healthy Gulf v. Haaland - Climate Change Litigation (climatecasechart.com)
9
Healthy Gulf v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - Climate Change Litigation (climatecasechart.com)
10
Healthy Gulf v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Climate Change Litigation (climatecasechart.com)
11
Community Groups Dismiss Oakland Coal Exports Case While Working with City to Exclude Coal from Project -
Earthjustice
12
Challenging Crude-by-Rail Shipments to California's Bay Area - Earthjustice
13
See the EPA’s 2023 Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program Selectees Project
Summaries by Geographic Region.
14
Ibid.
15
See for example, Environmental Justice Primer for Ports: Effective Community Engagement Methods | US EPA.
16
We're suing to hold the line on Virginia's climate progress - Southern Environmental Law Center
17
Southern Environmental Law Center v. Tennessee Valley Authority - Climate Change Litigation
(climatecasechart.com)
The Honorable Michael S. Regan
Page 3

and natural gas lease sales across eight states. 18 Lastly, the NDN Collective has a “Resistance
team” which partners with entities such as Greenpeace, to develop and train organizers and
activists. 19 Notably, the group has a “LANDBACK U” comprehensive online platform to train
activists so they will protest for the land return movement. 20

The use of the “pass through” grant structure and the activities eligible for funding
underscore concerns about entrusting these organizations with handing out federal funds. For
example, Grantmakers may make awards for activities including, but not limited to
“investigations,” “partnership-building,” “training activities for community organizations and
community members,” “work to get permits in place directly related to an environmental
project,” and “public outreach and education.” 21 These vague activities could be construed as
influencing public opinion, tilting the federal permitting system in favor of the Administration’s
favored energy resources, investigating project developers, organizing protest activities,
advocating for particular policy outcomes, and more. Additionally, it is unclear if the EPA will
apply any standards or requirements on these “investigations,” or if they will be used to inform
enforcement and compliance actions.

We note that EPA has structured the program to avoid triggering important single audit
requirements, further reducing accountability. The Phase I: Assessment, Phase II: Planning, and
Phase III: Project Development structure has award amount limits of $150,000, $250,000, and
$350,000, respectively. 22 Understanding the caps for subgrants will mean most awards are likely
to fall under the single audit $750,000 annual threshold, it is difficult to see how the EPA will
ensure appropriate monitoring of awards. Further, according to documents the agency has
previously provided to the Committee, a minimum of 80 percent of taxpayer funds awarded
under the EJ TCGM program must be passed through Grantmakers to subrecipients. 23 It is
unclear, but seems as if, the remaining 20 percent will simply be pocketed by these activist
groups. These concerning uses and lack of single audit requirements necessitate robust oversight
and scrutiny from Congress.

18
Dakota Resource Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior - Climate Change Litigation (climatecasechart.com)
19
NDN-5YearReport_DigitalSmall.pdf (ndncollective.org)
20
Id.
21
Envtl. Prot. Agency, EPA-R-OEJECR-OCS-23-03, Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking
Program (EJ TCM): Requests for Applications Amendment 10-12 (last updated May 19, 2023).
22
Ibid. p. 6.
23
https://www.grants.gov/search-results-detail/346337
The Honorable Michael S. Regan
Page 4

We ask that you provide the Committee a briefing on how these entities were selected,
how the EPA plans to oversee their use of federal funds, if the agency plans to report the use of
these dollars to Congress, and if subgrant recipients from pass-through entities will be reported.
Please have your staff contact Christen Harsha or Drew Lingle with the Majority Committee
staff at (202) 225-3641 to schedule the briefing.

Sincerely,

_________________________________
Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Chair
Committee on Energy and Commerce
_________________________________
Earl L. “Buddy” Carter
Chair
Subcommittee on Environment,
Manufacturing, and Critical Materials