DOE scraps $3.7 billion in climate awards, citing economic “irresponsibility”

• The DOE cancels $3.7B in carbon capture and decarbonization grants under Secretary Chris Wright’s review, citing economic inefficiency.
• Projects affected include Calpine, PPL Corp., Ørsted and Exxon Mobil, many signed near former President Biden’s final days in office.
• Over $4.3B in new climate grants from the EPA highlights contrasting energy policy priorities in the Biden-Trump transition.
• Critics argue the cancellations harm U.S. competitiveness and clean energy innovation, while supporters prioritize taxpayer ROI.
• DOE’s ongoing review could impact over $15B in additional climate projects, signaling a shift toward energy independence and fiscal responsibility.

On May 30, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced the cancellation of $3.7 billion in taxpayer?funded grants for carbon capture and decarbonization projects, marking a stark departure from previous climate spending under the Biden administration. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright emphasized “immediate taxpayer savings” and adherence to “economic viability,” terminating 24 awards primarily signed under Biden’s last months in office. This decision, alongside the Environmental Protection Agency’s parallel disbursement of $4.3 billion in new climate grants, underscores deepening partisan divides over how federal dollars should address energy and environmental priorities—while reigniting debates over the efficacy of government-driven climate initiatives.

DOE cancels $3.7 billion in climate awards amid scrutiny of Biden-era projects

Secretary Wright’s directive targeted 24 awards under the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations(OCED), an initiative established in 2021 with $27 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Over $15 billion in remaining projects now face similar scrutiny. Among the canceled projects: $540 million for Calpine Corp.’s carbon capture plants in California and Texas, and awards for Ørsted, Exxon Mobil and PPL Corp.’s industrial decarbonization efforts.

“These projects failed to advance the energy needs of the American people, were not economically viable and would not generate a positive return on investment,” the DOE stated, referencing 16 cancellations signed between Election Day 2024 and January 20, 2025—an interval critics say reflects rushed approvals amid a presidential power transition.

Affected companies and projects: A shift in energy policy priorities

The cancellations highlight a policy pivot toward energy freedom and fiscal accountability. Calpine’s projects, for instance, aimed to retrofit gas plants with carbon capture technology, a hallmark of Biden’s climate agenda. However, the DOE now deems such investments “irresponsible” compared to affordable, reliable energy infrastructure.

“Locking domestic plants into outdated technology isn’t a recipe for future competitiveness,” argued Steven Nadel of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, while critics like Sierra Club’s Iliana Paul accused the DOE of undermining “American competitiveness, new jobs and cleaner air.”

The divide reflects broader ideological clashes over climate strategy: one side prioritizes market-driven solutions, the other insists on aggressive federal intervention.

Partisan battles over energy and taxpayer dollars

This decision arrives amid a political midlife crisis for the IRA, passed in 2022 under Biden’s tenure. Proponents argued the law would accelerate clean energy adoption, while conservatives derided it as “corporate welfare” subsidizing uneconomical technologies.

Secretary Wright’s review aligns with President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign promises to repudiate what he framed as Biden’s “climate radicalism.” His team argues the infrared cancellation prevents costly missteps, but critics see the move as dismantling progress on climate goals.

“The Infrastructure Law required phase-one implementation by late 2024. Delays and reversals will prolong U.S. dependence on foreign energy and stifle domestic innovation,” warned Jessie Stolark of the Carbon Capture Coalition.

The cost of climate idealism and the path forward

As the DOE’s review expands, the stakes grow: $15 billion in additional projects hang in balance, with corporations and environmental groups bracing for fallout. For many conservatives, Friday’s decision signals a hardline stance against bloated federal energy programs that sidestep market realities. Yet, environmental advocates warn of a regression to fossil fuel dependence.

With the 2024 election mere months prior and the 2026 midterms looming, this clash over energy priorities may define political agendas for years to come. The American taxpayer, meanwhile, remains the ultimate arbiter—and the ultimate litmus test—for whether federal climate investments should prioritize green ambition or fiscal common sense.

Sources for this article include:

ClimateDepot.com

Energy.gov

UtilityDive.com