This week, the Department of Energy revoked awards totaling almost $8 billion—a decision the Trump administration promoted as a way to defend fossil fuel interests over renewable energy. However, documents reviewed by TechCrunch reveal the situation is more nuanced than that narrative suggests.
Although the agency has not made public which awards were rescinded, TechCrunch has obtained the list and examined the 321 contracts the DOE intends to reverse.
However, not every project was centered on renewables.
Among the entries, one $300 million grant to Colorado State University and another $210 million to the Gas Technology Institute were intended to help oil and gas companies, both large and small, cut methane emissions from their operations.
The Gas Technology Institute, which primarily serves the natural gas sector, had a dozen grants revoked, amounting to $417 million, according to the list.
Projects related to carbon capture and removal were also affected, with 10 out of 21 initiatives—worth about $200 million—being canceled. Many of these were located in states that voted for Harris, but that factor alone doesn’t account for all the decisions.
“Three main themes are emerging,” Erin Burns, executive director at Carbon180, told TechCrunch. “Where are these projects based? Who are their collaborators? Were these initiatives likely to proceed?”
It is accurate that states supporting Kamala Harris in the last presidential race were most impacted. California faced the largest losses, with at least $2.2 billion in contracts revoked. Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Oregon each lost about $500 million in awards, while New York saw at least $309 million rescinded.
States that supported Trump generally saw only a few million dollars’ worth of contracts canceled.
One of the most significant rescinded awards was a $467 million grant to Minnesota. This funding, part of the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, was meant to upgrade grid connections across seven Midwestern states. The completed project would have enabled roughly 28 gigawatts of new generation capacity, mostly from solar and wind. For comparison, Goldman Sachs reports the world’s data centers use 58 gigawatts.
Another project, valued at $630 million, would have upgraded California’s power grid by piloting advanced conductors and dynamic line rating systems to boost transmission capacity. This initiative was intended as a model for grid modernization nationwide.
A further grid improvement plan would have built a transmission line for the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs in Oregon. The tribes have about six renewable energy projects awaiting improved grid access, which the now-canceled $250 million grant would have supported. The project also planned to install fiber-optic cables along the transmission route, delivering high-speed internet to a rural region.
“Awardees remaining in blue states may be more closely aligned with the administration’s priorities and active in sectors that are favored by current policies,” said Courtni Holness, managing policy advisor at Carbon180.
Some smaller grants may have been withdrawn regardless. “That’s generally how the U.S. approaches energy innovation,” Burns explained. “You make many small bets because it’s uncertain which will succeed regionally, technologically, or economically. So you try a lot of low-cost options.”
Meanwhile, some organizations seem to be relocating to places with more stable government support, such as Canada. “That trend is likely to grow, and it’s already influencing private investment,” Burns noted.
“It raises a broader issue,” Holness added, “about how reliable the Department of Energy is as a partner for American businesses and whether it can offer a predictable environment.”
