The Department of Energy has yanked back 321 clean energy awards worth almost $7.56 billion, an unprecedented rebuke that disproportionately targets states that backed Kamala Harris in the last presidential election. The move brings a screeching halt to a wide slate of projects that had drawn support across the political spectrum, including proposals on hydrogen, grid modernization, energy efficiency, and advanced manufacturing — while immediately teeing up a legal and political battle over how federal climate dollars are administered.
What was cut and where the energy funding was pulled
The cancellations affect 16 states:
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Minnesota
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- Oregon
- Vermont
- Washington
A full list of individual projects has not been released by the agency. The cuts the governor described include roughly $1.2 billion for California’s ARCHES hydrogen hub, one of a handful of regional hubs originally picked to speed clean hydrogen production and deployment.
The clawbacks target several DOE offices, including the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy; the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations; Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Fossil Energy and Carbon Management; the Grid Deployment Office; and Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains. Collectively, they’re home to much of the country’s pipeline of new clean tech ideas — researching high-risk ARPA-E technology demonstrators on down to large-scale demonstrations and investments in domestic supply chains.
DOE said that more than a quarter of the affected awards came after Election Day and before Inauguration Day, a period that is still legal but has become controversial for incoming administrations considering late-term commitments.
Political and legal fallout from the cancellations
Word of the targeted states was first reported in a post by former Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, who framed the move as a rebuke to the previous administration’s climate program.
All of the states with projects canceled had supported Harris, underscoring how energy has become tangled up in electoral maps — even as clean energy factories, labs, and grid upgrades are found on the ground rather than on campaign spreadsheets.
Recipients can appeal the decision within 30 days. It isn’t the first rollback: In recent months, DOE has voided billions more in commitments on clean energy and manufacturing, and the Environmental Protection Agency has rushed to unravel large contracts, too. Early lawsuits have produced mixed results, with one federal district court condemning an agency’s cancellations as “arbitrary and capricious” while another appellate court later upheld similar reversals as allowable exercises of government oversight. Look for new lawsuits that will examine whether DOE adhered to its own procedures when it terminated the assistance agreements (which don’t offer the due process of full-fledged procurement contracts or impose the same degree of legal responsibility on the government agency).
Economic stakes for clean tech and the wider industry
And beyond the headlines, the cuts sow uncertainty into project finance and hiring plans across all of clean energy. Hydrogen hubs were pitched as anchors of industrial decarbonization; DOE’s own materials for the program estimated tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs across the country among a hub network. Grid Deployment Office grants fund targeted congestion relief and hardening projects that utilities maintain are necessary to keep the lights on and connect new generation. Manufacturing and supply chain grants are intended to onshore the production of components like transformers, heat pumps, and “critical materials” — areas where the U.S. continues to experience bottlenecks.
States appearing on the list are home to some of the nation’s densest clusters of research and commercialization for clean tech. Massachusetts and New York are home to ARPA-E alums scaling up grid software and storage; Washington state and Oregon have advanced materials startups along with battery firms; Illinois, alongside Minnesota, is the place to build out transmission in the Midwest; California remains not just the linchpin for generation but also is still the single largest market for clean energy deployment. Trade organizations like the American Clean Power Association and the Hydrogen Council have sounded a warning that erratic federal support will increase capital costs and muzzle private investment even when project economics below the surface are sound.
Inside the decision and what comes next for awardees
Agency officials have indicated a broader shift in how the nation addresses energy issues, such as internal guidance that downplays climate framing in agency communications. The most recent cancellations continue that trend by zeroing in on programs closely linked to the decarbonization goals enshrined in recent federal legislation.
For now, recipients are considering a triage of choices: file administrative appeals, appeal to Congress, or reconfigure projects that can limp along without federal cost-share. And some states may try to fill the void with their own green banks or bond programs, but it can be hard to do so at the scale of multi-hundred-million-dollar demonstrations. Even if courts do force reinstatement for some portion of the awards, timing will still be a factor — because multiple grants have deadlines and obligations that have been set up to coincide with multiyear construction schedules.
Two things can be true: Federal agencies have discretion to manage and even cancel assistance agreements, and policy whiplash can be costly. Whether this latest batch will survive depends on the administrative record — how DOE justified each termination, how consistently it applied criteria across its offices, and whether it gave terminated awardees the process they were entitled to under their award terms. Until we know those specifics, backers and developers of projects in Harris-voting states will need to re-evaluate risk — and the national energy transition will feel one step less sure.
