Reading Time: 7 minutes

In Wisconsin, utility Alliant Energy has called off a project meant to reduce power outages in disadvantaged and tribal communities after the Trump administration terminated a federal grant that would have supported it.

In California, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which has deployed and upgraded hundreds of thousands of advanced smart meters, has not received any reimbursement from the U.S. Department of Energy for the work since October, when the Trump administration declared it was killing grants that it described as fueling ​“the Left’s climate agenda.”

And in the upper Midwest, a consortium of regional grid operators, utilities and state agencies is still waiting for $464 million in DOE funds meant to help build high-voltage transmission lines to reduce grid congestion — although the agency in charge of the project says the funding will soon be restored.

Across the country, hundreds of such projects to improve grid reliability and make electricity more affordable face a highly uncertain future — the result of Trump administration actions that have slowed the outflow of billions of dollars of DOE funds to a trickle.

Some of those projects in ​“blue states” were targeted as political retribution, as recent reporting from The New York Times has made clear. A handful of grant awardees in this category have won favorable court rulings, and more are seeking legal redress.

But many others are suffering from the DOE’s broader failure to carry out work that Congress has tasked it to do, according to groups that have been monitoring the agency since the start of last year. In red and blue states alike, the DOE is forcing thousands of grantees to undergo a laborious review process, so even projects that have not been officially terminated are stuck, unable to determine when or if they’ll start getting the money they’re owed.

According to an April report from the DOE Alumni Network, a group of former agency employees, the DOE has announced the termination of 356 awards totaling $12.5 billion since January 2025 and has threatened to terminate 303 additional awards worth $12.2 billion.

But the DOE has also stalled projects for ​“a large number of awardees who have never appeared on any list,” the report found. ​“This means the agency is not moving forward to resolve disputes, finalize conditional awards, or respond to continuation applications, leaving projects in administrative limbo and functionally freezing promised funds.”

“DOE both overtly canceled a set of projects, then had this pattern of behavior where for 15 months they stopped actively managing projects,” said one former DOE official. ​“Projects can’t proceed to the next stages and get their next tranche of funding.”

The former official, who asked not to be named, described a pattern of stalling, stonewalling and ​“ghosting” utilities, state governments, energy companies, and nonprofit groups awarded grants under the Biden administration.

Many of those projects have been caught up in a process the DOE announced in May 2025 to review all financial assistance ​“on a case-by-case basis to identity (sic) waste of taxpayer dollars, protect America’s national security and advance President Trump’s commitment to unleash affordable, reliable and secure energy for the American people.”

Then, in October, the DOE announced the ​“termination of 321 financial awards supporting 223 projects” — all of them tied to states that voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. The DOE’s termination announcement came right after Russ Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, declared in a social media post that the administration would cancel ​“nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding.”

Canary Media reached out to a subset of DOE grantees that had won funding from the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) program created by the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law. The DOE issued a total of more than 100 GRIP grants — in October 2023, August 2024 and October 2024 — for projects to enlarge the grid, harden it against extreme weather, build microgrids to protect vulnerable communities, and deploy technologies to integrate solar, wind, EVs, and batteries.

Some of the GRIP projects involve expanding clean energy and serving disadvantaged communities, two bugbears of the Trump administration. But many more are straightforward grid improvement projects that need federal dollars to reduce the costs borne by utilities and regional or state agencies.

The largest of these is in California. In 2024, the DOE awarded a $630.6 million grant aimed at upgrading more than 100 miles of high-voltage power lines in the state with advanced power cables capable of carrying more electricity along existing transmission corridors, a project estimated to be capable of delivering about $200 million in savings from improved energy efficiency. That project appeared on the termination list in October, and the DOE has not disbursed money for it, according to federal records, though negotiations for resuming funding are underway.

This uncertainty appears to apply to the majority of GRIP projects, according to Emlyn Bottomley, founder of the consultancy High Road Analytics, which focuses on workforce development, and a former Department of Labor deputy policy director in the Biden administration.

According to his tracking of federal spending, of the roughly $11.4 billion in DOE funds obligated to grid infrastructure and resilience — a category that includes GRIP program funds — $9.1 billion remains ​“at risk,” with funding stalled or timelines for completion shortened. That’s compared with $400 million in grants that have been canceled outright and $1.3 billion not yet disbursed but showing no signs of being stalled.

“It’s a shame these projects are being held up or canceled, especially since the case for them is fairly bipartisan — spanning national security, economic competitiveness, and cost and affordability,” Bottomley said.

All of the GRIP projects required partners to provide matching funds at an amount at least equal to the money DOE is providing, the former DOE official added. ​“You’re talking about folks putting hundreds of millions of dollars on the line. People have skin in the game for these awards.”

The costs of losing federal funding

Many of the GRIP grantees contacted by Canary Media declined to comment, citing ongoing discussions with DOE. Others reported that they are no longer pursuing the projects as described in their grant applications, at least not with the help of DOE money.

The latter is the case for Alliant Energy’s Smart Power Automation in Rural Communities (SPARC) project, which won a $50 million grant in late 2024 to add grid visibility and control devices to 140 grid circuits in disadvantaged and tribal communities served by subsidiary Wisconsin Power & Light — a utility in a blue state.

Those devices could allow the utility to quickly find and isolate faults on its grid, cutting power outages in targeted communities by up to 50%. They could also support grid-management software to help integrate more renewable and distributed energy and potentially expand wireless communications access to these remote areas.

Alliant ​“voluntarily withdrew” from the grant award process in April, six months after its grant was terminated by the DOE, Alliant spokesperson Melissa McCarville told Canary Media. The agency has disbursed no funds to the project, according to federal records.

Alliant is ​“actively pursuing many of the goals that were outlined in the SPARC project,” McCarville wrote in a May email, but as part of a 10-year strategic plan with no set timeline. ​“While the grant did provide valuable funding, it also required a significant investment, and we want to ensure our contributions are properly prioritized,” she wrote.

Still, at least one grant-funded project in a blue state is proceeding despite the absence of DOE funds. 

That’s the case for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which serves the state’s capital and environs. In 2023, SMUD won a $50 million grant to support a project to deploy 200,000 smart meters and grid devices and underlying software controls to ​“improve grid reliability, resilience, visibility and efficiency,” utility spokesperson Gamaliel Ortiz told Canary Media in an email. 

SMUD has carried out much of that work, which includes close to $100 million in utility spending, and has received almost $33 million in reimbursements from DOE, according to federal records. However, SMUD ​“has not received reimbursement for any costs incurred after the grant was cancelled on October 10, 2025,” Ortiz wrote. ​“We remain committed to this critical work and stay flexible as we evaluate how the loss of grant funding may impact the project timeline.”

In other blue states, some grants have been canceled and others are still under negotiation. In Oregon, utility Portland General Electric has recently learned that the DOE may reinstate a previously terminated $50 million grant to support next-generation ​“grid edge computing” devices, utility spokesperson John Farmer told Canary Media in an August email. That project had received only $1.2 million in DOE funding, according to federal records.

The purpose of the project was to integrate batteries, EVs, and community solar into its grid to ​“improve resilience, enable the integration of distributed energy resources, and maximize customer investments in home energy solutions.”

“PGE is evaluating the benefits and risks of reinstating the grant,” Farmer told Canary Media. The utility ​“recognizes that there are inherent risks of additional and changing demands by the DOE as the administration’s priorities change.”

At the same time, PGE remains in discussion with the DOE on a $250 million grant to build a high-voltage transmission line with the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, Farmer wrote. ​“Without this funding, we would lose the opportunity to offset those costs with external dollars, which could limit how efficiently we can advance needed grid improvements.”

Red state projects are also being held up because the grantee is located in a blue state. Such is the case of the aforementioned $464 million DOE grant for the Joint Targeted Interconnection Queue project to build new transmission lines between the Midcontinent Independent System Operator and Southwest Power Pool, two grid operators spanning nearly a dozen Midwestern states.

The $464 million GRIP grant was meant to bolster $1.3 billion in matching funds from utilities in the region to enable nearly 30 gigawatts of new generation to be built in Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. All but one of those states voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 election — but the Minnesota Department of Commerce, the entity awarded the grant, is in a blue state.

In May, the Minnesota Department of Commerce announced that the DOE ​“will honor its $464 million grant,” which will ​“unlock more than $1 billion in additional private investment and provide communities across the region with economic and infrastructure benefits.”

A DOE spokesperson told Canary Media in a July email that the DOE has conducted its review of GRIP projects based on a ​“number of criteria,” including whether it has ​“achieved the milestones set forth in the terms of the award,” whether it ​“remains technically and economically feasible,” and whether it ​“continues to effectuate the purpose of the program or the Department’s priorities.”

The spokesperson added that ​“none of the termination decisions were based on political considerations.” That statement is belied by court testimony reported by The New York Times last month, in which a DOE lawyer stated that none of the October grant terminations were ​“based on any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction or performance-based factor,” and that all but one of them ​“had a recipient location and/​or at least one place of performance in a state that awarded its electoral votes to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and has two Democratic-caucusing senators.”

During a series of congressional hearings in April, Energy Secretary Chris Wright stated that the DOE’s review of more than 20,000 grants was almost complete and that more than 80% of grantees had received notice that their awards could proceed as is or with modifications.

But an Alumni Network analysis of DOE data shared with Congress showed that the DOE’s review both failed to restore the vast majority of projects caught up in the ​“blue state” termination action in October and failed to address the hundreds of projects that have never been officially terminated but remain unable to secure funds.

The revelation of the DOE’s explicit targeting of blue states for grant termination spurred 39 Senate Democrats to sign a letter to Wright and Vought demanding the immediate restoration of funding for DOE projects terminated in October.

“Once an Administration begins punishing Americans for how they vote,” the senators wrote, ​“the threat extends far beyond these projects: no state, community, business, or worker can trust that the federal government will apply the law fairly.”

A version of this article was first published by Canary Media.

Trump is blocking billions of dollars of grants that would fix the grid is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

States took on the mantle of combating climate change during the first Trump administration. Now they need to redouble the work during the second. 

That’s the message that Caroline Spears, executive director of Climate Cabinet, has for state lawmakers following Trump’s victory on Tuesday. 

As an advocacy organization that helps state and local leaders ​“run, win, and legislate on climate change,” Climate Cabinet supported more than 170 candidates in Tuesday’s election. As of midday Wednesday, when Spears spoke to Canary Media, she was feeling cautiously optimistic about the races her group had focused on: ​“About a third of them we won, about a third of them we lost, and about a third of them are still too close to call.” 

Getting climate-committed candidates into state offices can make the difference between a state enacting or preserving climate policies and it blocking or rolling back such policies, she said. For example, the 2022 midterms saw Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesota secure Democratic ​“trifectas” — control of the governor’s office and both houses of the state legislature — leading to significant climate legislation being passed and signed into law in those states. 

States have ​“always been key to climate policy,” Spears said, and now, with a Trump administration expected to attempt to unravel the Biden administration’s climate policies and unleash fossil fuels, it’s ​“up to state leaders to hold the line.”

How states can keep the energy transition moving

State lawmakers and regulators have the ability to order local utilities to shut down or reduce emissions from fossil-fueled power plants and expand the share of electricity they generate from zero-carbon resources like wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear power. 

States can also require large polluters — like fossil-gas utilities — to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas they spew into the air and set emissions and energy-efficiency requirements for buildings. At present, states have the authority to adopt vehicle emissions standards that are more strict than those set by the federal government — although Trump sought to rescind that authority during his first term and may attempt to do so again. 

States also play a key role in distributing funds from the federal Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act — at least while the full laws remain on the books. 

During the first Trump administration, ​“we saw states really taking charge,” said Jeff Deyette, deputy director of clean energy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group. ​“I think that momentum has been maintained over the past eight years. This could be another boost to continue to push those state leaders … to protect what they have.” 

There’s a lot to protect. The roster of states with aggressive decarbonization targets has expanded under the Biden administration: Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington state all adopted strong emissions goals in 2021 or 2022. 

All told, 25 states and Washington, D.C., have now instituted some form of target for achieving either economywide net-zero carbon emissions, 100 percent renewable or carbon-free electricity, or both. This chart, compiled in mid-2024, includes all of these states except Vermont, which in June 2024 passed a law mandating 100 percent renewable energy by 2035 for all utilities and by 2030 for its largest utility, Green Mountain Power. 

How the 2024 election changed the state policy landscape

Clean energy and climate policies aren’t necessarily partisan issues, said Heather O’Neill, CEO of trade group Advanced Energy United. ​“We see the potential for broad agreement in states of all political stripes and persuasions,” as utilities grapple with rising electricity demand from data centers, factories, electric vehicles, and broader economic growth. ​“Advanced energy technologies are a low-cost solution to all of these challenges,” she said.

She cited the example of Texas, a red state that’s deployed more wind and utility-scale solar power than any other state and is set to pass California for having the most grid-connected batteries by year’s end. Those resources are ​“working to keep the grid reliable,” O’Neill said, as shown by the role that solar and batteries played in averting grid emergencies this summer. 

But to date, Democratic control has been a prerequisite for passing aggressive climate or clean-energy legislation in almost every state that has done so. The exception is North Carolina, where the GOP-controlled legislature passed a law in 2021 mandating that Duke Energy, the state’s biggest utility, cut carbon emissions 70 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2050. 

Heading into the election, 17 states had Democratic trifectas and 23 states had Republican trifectas. No state appears to be on a path to form a new Democratic trifecta as a result of the election; rather, Democrats have lost full control in Michigan and might do the same in Minnesota. 

“We were in defense mode in Minnesota and Michigan,” Spears said. 

In Michigan, Republicans gained a majority in the state House of Representatives, while Democrats retained a majority in the state Senate and Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer still has two more years in her term. That means the state is likely to protect a slate of climate bills passed in 2023, including a mandate for the state’s two big utilities to reach 80 percent carbon-free electricity by 2035 and 100 percent by 2040. 

The situation in Minnesota is still up in the air. As of Thursday evening, the state House was evenly split between parties, with two remaining races set for automatic recounts due to razor-thin vote differences. But Democrats retained their majority in the state Senate, and Democratic Gov. Tim Walz remains in office. Even if Republicans end up narrowly controlling the House, they likely won’t be able to overturn the state’s 2023 law requiring power utilities to use 100 percent clean electricity by 2040 or a slate of bills creating incentives for electric vehicles and converting homes and buildings to more efficient electric heating. 

In Pennsylvania, a state where Democrats were thought to have a chance at forming a new trifecta, Republicans appear set to retain their majority in the state Senate. Democrats could maintain their thin majority in the state House, but the outcome depends on three races that have yet to be called. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro has proposed a carbon cap-and-invest program that would collect funds from power plants and use them to lower electric bills and support clean energy projects, but it’s unlikely to pass without Democratic majorities in both houses of the state legislature. 

The clearest victories for candidates backed by Climate Cabinet in this election cycle have been in North Carolina and Wisconsin, Spears said — though their wins did not give Democrats legislative majorities.

In Wisconsin, gains by Democrats eliminated a Republican supermajority in the Senate, giving Democratic Gov. Tony Evers the ability to veto legislation out of line with his climate agenda, she said. 

In North Carolina, Democrat Josh Stein, the state attorney general who won his race to succeed Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, will, ​“unlike his predecessor, have a veto pen that works, because we broke the supermajority” in the state House, she said. Republicans used that supermajority to override Cooper’s veto of a bill that weakened the efficiency requirements in building codes for new homes in the state. 

Voters also chalked up some climate wins with state ballot measures in Tuesday’s election. Californians passed a $10 billion climate bond that included $850 million for clean energy infrastructure — the largest of a number of local and state climate and environmental bonds passed across the country, which together will invest $18 billion. And Washington state voters rejected a ballot initiative that would have rolled back its landmark 2021 climate law. 

Turning pledges into action 

For the states that have already managed to get climate goals on the books, living up to those commitments is now even more urgent. 

State climate mandates must be followed up with continuous action from regulators, utilities, and private-sector actors to translate into actual emissions reductions. Right now, it’s far from clear that the states with decarbonization goals are on track to achieve their targets. 

A 2023 report from the Environmental Defense Fund found that the 24 states with ambitious targets were on track to cut emissions only 27 to 39 percent by 2030, well below the 50 percent reductions they’re aiming for. Since then, more states have found themselves falling behind on their climate targets, including the two most populous — the Democratic strongholds of California and New York.

California is lagging on its goal of reducing carbon emissions 48 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, according to a June report. Meanwhile, New York state has yet to finalize a cap-and-invest strategy to hit its target of 100 percent carbon-free energy by 2040 and is off track to hit its utility-scale solar and wind targets, although it has achieved its goals for distributed and community solar projects. 

For the energy transition to continue despite the headwinds of a second Trump administration, these two leading states — and the others that have enshrined decarbonization goals in law — need to do all they can to deliver on their climate commitments. 

Should Trump gut the Inflation Reduction Act, the task at hand for these states will become more difficult. Some analysts doubt this will happen because the law has funneled billions into red states and thereby earned some Republican defenders.

The law’s litany of clean energy tax credits make solar, wind, and storage projects into no-brainers; they were already cost-competitive with fossil fuels before the subsidies. The EV incentives help bring the cost of electric models in line with gas cars. Its bevy of grant programs — from money for bolstering the grid to funding for home electrification and low-income solar — are helping states transition away from fossil fuels. 

All of this makes it far cheaper and easier for states to achieve their clean energy targets and emissions-reduction goals. 

It’s unclear which of the Biden administration’s climate accomplishments will remain intact — but what is clear is the ever more urgent need for states to push forward on their climate goals, however difficult that may become.

After Trump win, it’s up to states to lead on climate action is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

The Biden administration has enacted the most consequential federal clean energy and climate policy in U.S. history, giving the nation a fighting chance at reducing greenhouse gas emissions fast enough to deal with the climate crisis. Former President Donald Trump, who has won the 2024 presidential election, has pledged to undo that work.

Though Trump’s executive powers will allow him to slow the energy transition in a number of ways, the extent to which he rolls back Biden’s clean energy accomplishments will be dictated in part by whether Republicans retain control of the House of Representatives. The GOP flipped the U.S. Senate, but votes are still being counted in key House races as of Wednesday morning.

Here’s what clean energy and climate experts say is most likely to be lost under a second Trump administration — and what might survive.

What Trump has said about energy

Trump’s rhetoric presages a worst-case future. He has called climate change a hoax and the Biden administration’s climate policies a ​“green new scam.” He has said he wants to repeal the landmark Inflation Reduction Act and halt the law’s hundreds of billions of dollars of tax credits, grants, and other federal incentives for clean energy, electric vehicles, and other low-carbon technologies.

Trump has also made ​“drill, baby, drill” a call-and-response line at his rallies, pledging to undo any restraints on production and use of the fossil fuels driving climate change. U.S. oil and gas production is already at a record high under the Biden administration.

“He has pledged to do the bidding for Big Oil on day one,” Andrew Reagan, executive director of Clean Energy for America, said during a recent webinar.

“Oil and gas lobbyists are drafting executive orders for him to sign on day one,” Reagan added, citing news reports of plans from oil industry groups to roll back key Biden administration regulations and executive orders.

A Trump administration would be all but certain to reverse key Environmental Protection Agency regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, and the oil and gas industry, all of which analysts say are necessary to meet the country’s climate commitments. It’s also almost sure to lift the Biden administration’s pause on federal permitting of fossil-gas export facilities.

Trump has also promised to withdraw the U.S. from international climate agreements (again), including the Paris agreement aimed at limiting global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

“We know that Trump would take us out of the Paris agreement, and that would be the last time his administration uttered the word ​‘climate,’” Catherine Wolfram, an economist at the MIT Sloan School of Management and former deputy assistant secretary for climate and energy economics in the Biden administration’s Treasury Department, told Canary Media. ​“Losing that global leadership would be one of the greatest losses of a Trump presidency.”

What will happen to the Inflation Reduction Act? 

Trump won’t have the power to enact all of his promises on his own. Some of the decisions must be made by Congress, including any effort to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act or to claw back unspent funds from that law or the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law.

Complete repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act would be highly disruptive to a clean energy sector that has seen planned investment grow to roughly $500 billion since the law was passed in mid-2022.

It would also undermine clean energy job growth, which has increased at roughly twice the pace of U.S. employment overall. A recent survey of clean energy companies found that a repeal of the law would be expected to lead to half of them losing business or revenue, roughly one-quarter losing projects or contracts, about one-fifth laying off workers, and about one in 10 going out of business. 

“We found that especially rural areas and smaller rural communities would experience the largest negative impacts of repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act,” Shara Mohtadi, co-founder of S2 Strategies, said in an October webinar presenting the survey data. ​“These are the regions of the country that have seen the biggest uptake in the economic benefits and the manufacturing jobs coming from other countries into the United States.”

Indeed, most of the investment and job growth the IRA has spurred has taken place in states and congressional districts represented by Republicans.

These on-the-ground realities have driven expectations that large swaths of the law’s tax credits would be likely to survive even with Republican control of the White House and both houses of Congress. Trump would face pushback within his own party to undoing the law entirely.

In an August letter to current Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), 18 House Republicans warned against repealing the clean energy and manufacturing tax credits created by the Inflation Reduction Act, which have ​“spurred innovation, incentivized investment, and created good jobs in many parts of the country — including many districts represented by members of our conference.”

“Prematurely repealing energy tax credits, particularly those which were used to justify investments that already broke ground, would undermine private investments and stop development that is already ongoing,” the 18 House Republicans wrote. ​“A full repeal would create a worst-case scenario where we would have spent billions of taxpayer dollars and received next to nothing in return.”

Republicans would need a roughly 20-seat majority to overcome opposition from these party members opposed to a full repeal, said Harry Godfrey, head of the federal investment and manufacturing working group of trade group Advanced Energy United.

“I don’t envision Republicans holding the House with 20-plus seats,” he said.

Godfrey also doubted that a Trump administration would be eager to undermine the domestic manufacturing boom that the law’s tax credits have spurred. He noted that at the October 1 vice-presidential debate, J.D. Vance, the Republican Ohio senator and Trump’s running mate, emphasized the need for the U.S. to ​“consolidate American dominance” in key energy sectors and industries now dominated by China.

While Vance went on to falsely accuse the Biden administration of failing to bolster U.S. industries against China, the goal of emphasizing domestic competitiveness could lead Republicans to avoid undermining progress in that direction, he suggested.

How Trump’s second term could derail the clean energy transition is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.