There is considerable buzz in Washington about the disclosures of Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lee Zeldin on controversial grants by the Biden Administration, including the $50 million environmental justice grant to an organization that believes “climate justice travels through a Free Palestine.” However, one item was particularly notable: $160 million to a Canadian electric bus manufacturer which later announced bankruptcy without fulfilling the contract.
Both the Obama and Biden Administration wasted billions in loans and grants on green initiatives including the failed solar-panel company Solyndra and most recently the termination of the Ivanpah Solar Power Plant.
These projects often start with photo ops and virtue signaling that costs taxpayers billions in losses. What is missing is a modicum of economic and administrative judgment.
The Canadian electric bus company Lion Electric is such an example. Figures like Vice President Kamala Harris did repeated photo ops with electric buses as a defining issue. However, the company struggled from the start and the Biden Administration failed to take the most basic steps to protect taxpayer money. Rather than break up payments in segments based on actual production, Biden officials just sent the $160 million to the company.
The company is now shutting down without supplying $95 million in bus orders. The money is gone. Poof! and the company could vanish with the “Lion’s share” of U.S. public funds.
At the same time, the Administration pushed local and state governments to buy electric vehicles. Many blue cities went all-in but then had to spend more money to deal with the failures. Cities like Asheville, North Carolina, spent millions to buy more expensive electric buses only to find that they had to be recharged every 70 miles. Three out of five buses quickly broke down and could not be repaired because the company, Proterra, also filed for bankruptcy.
The concerning aspect of the Lion Corp payments is the apparent negligence of government officials in the handling of U.S. funds. Average Americans in contracting for their homes would require more assurances than what was allegedly demanded by the EPA.
Such accounts are likely to be cited in cases where Democratic groups are fighting to force agencies to continue to pay out money after court injunctions. The argument of the Trump Administration is that it wants to freeze expenditures as it reviews these contracts. In all likelihood, it will be able to accomplish such inspections and reviews as this litigation shakes out in the courts. It may result in some resumption of funding in the interim either by court order or waivers from the Administration, as done for health programs under the US AID.