The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has canceled about $3.7 billion in clean energy grants, stopping 24 projects. Most of these projects focus on carbon capture and decarbonization. The DOE said this decision followed a review. It found weak execution plans, unclear goals, and limited national security or economic benefits.
Secretary David Wright confirmed this news by saying,
“While the previous administration failed to conduct a thorough financial review before signing away billions of taxpayer dollars, the Trump administration is doing our due diligence to ensure we are utilizing taxpayer dollars to strengthen our national security, bolster affordable, reliable energy sources and advance projects that generate the highest possible return on investment. Today, we are acting in the best interest of the American people by cancelling these 24 awards.”
Why DOE Scrapped Billions in Projects Signed Before Inauguration?
The press release notes that 16 of these projects—nearly 70%—were approved between Election Day and January 20. Most focused on carbon capture and decarbonization technologies.
Wright said the prior administration rushed these deals without proper financial vetting. In contrast, the current DOE leadership conducted a detailed review to ensure public funds are used wisely.
He pressed on the fact that,
“These decisions protect national security, ensure energy reliability, and prioritize high-return investments.”
Earlier this month, DOE issued a memorandum titled “Ensuring Responsibility for Financial Assistance,” outlining strict review standards. The canceled projects failed to meet key criteria—economic value, energy security, and national interest—leading to their termination under this revised oversight policy.
Heavy Industry and CCS Take the Hardest Hit
The cancellations mainly impact big carbon capture projects in cement and industry. A media report highlighted the major losses industries suffered due to the canceled projects.
-
Heidelberg Materials: $500 million canceled
-
National Cement Co. of California: $500 million canceled
-
Brimstone Energy: $189 million canceled
-
Sublime Systems: $87 million canceled
-
Calpine’s Baytown project: $270 million canceled
-
ExxonMobil’s Texas hydrogen shift plan: $332 million canceled
-
Wyoming carbon capture pilot: $49 million canceled
Many companies expressed disappointment and confusion. Brimstone Energy believes its project was misunderstood, despite its alignment with U.S. critical mineral goals. ExxonMobil declined to comment, while Heidelberg is considering an appeal.
These projects aimed to cut industrial CO₂ emissions and aid low-income, high-pollution communities. Losing them means emission-heavy sectors lose vital tools for transition, especially since some processes, like cement production, can’t easily switch to renewables.
Market Reaction: A Blow to Investor Confidence
The cancellation signals that U.S. federal support for carbon capture may not be guaranteed anymore. This worries clean tech investors and developers who rely on long-term government backing for costly, high-risk projects.
Now, companies might turn to:
However, these options often lack the scale and speed of federal aid. Industry leaders fear this move could slow U.S. innovation, especially as Europe and Asia ramp up funding for decarbonization technologies.
Jessie Stolark from the Carbon Capture Coalition expressed disappointment over this decision. She said,
“Today, the cancellation of 24 DOE-funded projects, many of them carbon capture related, is a major step backward in the nationwide deployment of carbon management technologies. It is hugely disappointing to see these projects canceled – projects that had already progressed through a rigorous, months-long review process by technical experts at DOE.”
“Further development and deployment of carbon management technologies is crucial to meeting America’s growing demand for affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy. To be clear, ensuring projects funded by the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act move forward toward commercialization are necessary to demonstrate the technology across fossil fuel power generation and key industrial sectors, including natural gas-fired power generation, cement, and basic chemicals.”
Climate Goals at Risk Without CCS Support
The DOE’s reversal may hinder U.S. climate goals. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is vital for decarbonizing cement, steel, and fossil fuel power plants. Without these technologies, emissions from these industries may continue unchecked.
Moreover, many canceled projects were in areas heavily affected by pollution. Their loss means those communities may face ongoing poor air quality and health risks.
Environmental advocates argue that the DOE’s cost-saving approach could lead to larger climate costs later. Reducing carbon capture efforts now could impede the U.S. from meeting its emissions targets under global agreements.
Fuelling the resistance, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur said,
“The abrupt termination of $3.7 Billion in clean energy investment is shortsighted and malicious. This decision will raise energy costs for American families and undermine our nation’s competitive edge. In Northwest Ohio, it endangers jobs, and undermines manufacturing in our critical glass industry, while empowering China and our global competitors. Nationwide, DOE is not only raising the cost of energy in Red Districts and Blue Districts — we’re ceding ground to global competitors racing ahead in innovation and energy efficiency.”
“This decision undercuts American innovation, discourages private-sector investment, and harms workers like the ones I represent who are counting on these projects for jobs and economic revitalization. The American people deserve leadership that meets the moment — not one that backs away from the challenge of a clean, affordable energy future. If the Trump Administration was looking to give Communist China everything they wanted, they are well on their way.”
What’s Next: A Policy Reset for Clean Energy Funding
Moving forward, the DOE is likely to set higher standards for federal clean energy grants. Projects will need to show strong environmental potential along with:
-
Economic viability
-
Realistic timelines
-
National security value
Clean energy still has bipartisan support across many U.S. regions. Yet, the path to funding may now involve stricter standards and accountability.
This gap could attract more private and foreign investment. However, scaling solutions without federal support will be tough. The big question is: Can the U.S. remain a global leader in climate tech while limiting funding for transformative projects?
All in all, the U.S. DOE’s withdrawal of $3.7 billion in clean energy grants may have halted momentum in carbon capture, industrial decarbonization, and climate tech projects. While the move is framed as a measure to safeguard taxpayer money, it casts doubt on the nation’s commitment to lead the global clean energy race. With no clear backup funding, the U.S. might risk falling behind on its path to net zero.
