The DOE's Partial Grant Retention: What’s In, What’s Not, What Questions Remain
By Tarak Shah, S1/S4 alum; Paul Donohoo-Vallett, OP/EERE alum; Janie Thompson, CI alum; in collaboration with Lawyers for Good Government’s Mari Quenomoen, Katherine Christopher, & Jillian Blanchard
A new development from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has partially addressed its systemic pausing and cancellation of energy grants highlighted in our recent report, Innovation Interrupted. Specifically, on April 14, 2026, DOE told Congress that it had reviewed a portfolio of 2,271 projects and intends to retain or modify 1,951, or 86% of them. Then, a day later, on April 15, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright told Congress that DOE’s review of funding from the Biden administration had “finally come to a completion.” However, hundreds of DOE awardees who have been disputing their terminations since October, along with hundreds of others including state governments who are awaiting funds from formula grant programs, remain in limbo. Additionally, examination of retained vs. not retained projects within specific programs continue to show a pattern of partisan decision-making based on the listed state of the awardee.
What Projects are Included in the Retention List?
Over the past week, DOE has been sending notices out to hundreds of grantees that their projects had been under review, that the agency decided to retain them, and that additional information will be forthcoming. For most, this was the first they had heard that their projects were under review at all. Based on a review of data from USASpending.gov, at least 247 projects that received these notices even though their awards were already completed and they have closed out with DOE. Many of the retained awards had been frozen for over a year without any communication from DOE.
If DOE allows these projects to move forward with their scopes intact, this will significantly reduce the number of threatened “ghosted projects” left in limbo by the Department. That said, it will be difficult for grantees to immediately restart their projects after employees and contractors have left due to the impact of 15 months of delays. Every single project has experienced some impact from the delay.
The list of retained projects covers a broad range of projects at the Department, spanning many types of funding, including base appropriations, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funding, as well as many application types. In total, the DOE proposes to retain or modify over $24 billion in funding. It is also unclear what types of ‘modifications’ may be proposed by DOE for grantees to keep existing grants.
What About the Terminated Awards?
The list of retained projects specifically does not include 305 of the 321 projects that were on the original October 1, 2025, termination list. Those projects were terminated when DOE announced that it was terminating projects whose companies or organizations were headquartered in states that voted for Kamala Harris for President. Only a small handful of these previously terminated projects—18 in total - or less than 1% of the projects that were reviewed—are changing status from terminated to retained.
Accordingly, while DOE’s review has green lit 86% of the projects reviewed, of the remaining 14% that remain denied, nearly all of them are in blue states. Looking at the data another way, 95% of the blue state awards which were terminated on October 1st were not restored. In addition 1182 of 1238, or 95%, of projects in red states are being retained.
In the case St. Paul vs. Wright, DOE acknowledged that the “primary reason” awardees were chosen for termination on October 1st “was whether the grantee was located in a ‘Blue State’. The court then ruled that the selection of these projects for termination for partisan reasons violated the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws, declared the terminations unlawful, and vacated the October termination notices for the awardees who sued. DOE could have used this occasion to restore the grants it admitted to unconstitutionally terminating, but it chose not to do so.
It is possible that DOE may be willing to revisit the 95% of grants terminated who previously submitted a request for an informal dispute resolution. In a hearing on Wednesday, April 15, 2026, Secretary Wright suggested that there may be some openness to adjudicating these disputes, as required by agency regulations.
These numbers seem to clearly show a continued pattern by DOE of partisanship in the projects that were retained versus not retained. This becomes more evident when comparing the status of projects that were awarded under the same program with the same set of objectives and facing the same set of market conditions, in other words - all other things being equal. We identified 13 funding opportunities where every retained project was located in a “red” state and every non-retained project was in a “blue” state, as defined by the set of states listed by OMB Director Russ Vought in an October 1, 2025, post on the social media platform X.
Additional funding opportunities show similar stark discrepancies. For example the Resilient and Efficient Codes Implementation Round 2 program originally funded 23 projects - every project funded in a red state was retained while 15 out of 16 blue state projects were not retained. Considering that the objective of this program is designed to support training and enforcement of building codes, it’s not obvious what criteria would lead DOE to retain red state projects overwhelming above projects in blue states.
What Projects are Not Included in the Retention List?
Many other projects that have been ghosted by DOE do not appear on the retention list. It includes 37 awards that were on DOE’s October 7, 2025, leaked list, which, without explanation, were not included in the April 14, 2026, list of awards being retained. It also includes several entire programs created by Congress, including several to directly support energy programs in state, local, or Tribal governments through a mechanism called formula grants. These programs and awards include, but are not limited to:
Renew America’s Schools (IIJA Section 40541): This program is intended to provide energy upgrades for K-12 schools across the country. DOE has outlaid less than 8% of funds under this $500 million program. Nearly half of the awards already obligated have received $0 in payments from DOE, and DOE has failed to compete about 40% of the program funds in the first place. In fact, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found in July 2025 that DOE violated the Impoundment Control Act by withholding funds for this program, and it continues to do so as of April 2026.
State-Based Training for Residential Energy Contractors (TREC) Program (IRA Section 50123): This $200 million program is supposed to help states operate training programs for energy efficiency contractors who install upgrades to help households reduce energy costs. DOE has paid out only 0.51% of the $200 million provided by Congress. This program, like many others, directly addresses affordability issues. Of the 53 awards already obligated, 43 states (81%) have received $0 in outlays.
Conservation and Zero Energy Building Code Adoption (IRA Section 50131): Congress allocated $1 billion to help states and municipalities adopt and implement updated building energy codes, enabling deep reductions in electricity costs. A portion was to be provided as competitive grants and a portion as formula-based awards to states. DOE has paid less than 1% of the funds under this program.
Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Formula Awards (IIJA Section 40101(d)): Congress directed $2.5 billion for this program to provide formula awards to states and tribes - i.e., not competitive grants, but grants based on a formula determined by population and other factors - to pay for activities that improve their local grid’s resilience to disruptions and wildfires. DOE obligated dozens of awards in 2024, but DOE has paid out only 1.12% of the funds under this program. 71% of the awards already obligated have received $0 in funding. DOE has not made any further obligations to account for half of the $2.5 billion pool of funds.
Tribal Rebates (IRA Section 50122): Congress provided $225 million specifically for Tribes to implement high-efficiency electric home rebate programs, in which Tribes provide rebates to low-to-moderate income households for the cost of high-efficiency, cost-saving electric appliances, like heat pumps and induction stoves. In late 2024, DOE issued at least $59 million in awards under this program to Tribes who had submitted complete applications, but has since paid out $0 to these Tribes. DOE has made no further obligations to any Tribes under this program since January of 2025.
State-based rebates (IRA Section 50121 and 50122): The Home Efficiency Rebates (HER) and Home Electrification and Appliance Rebates (HEAR) programs provide a total of $8.575 billion for states to make rebates to low-to-moderate income households for energy saving upgrades and retrofits in their homes. DOE approved 12 HEAR programs and 5 HER programs for launch in 2024. Despite nearly every state and territory submitting complete applications by the January 2025 application deadline, DOE has only approved one state (Indiana) to launch a new HER or HEAR program since January 2025.
Renew America’s Nonprofits (IIJA Section 40542): This program provided $50 million for grants to fund energy efficiency upgrades in nonprofit buildings. DOE made 8 project selections for a total of $44 million and obligated the funding by the end of 2024, but it has paid out only 10% of the funds under this program.
Methane Emissions Reduction Program (MERP) (IRA Section 60113): DOE was charged by Congress with executing this $1.55 billion program in coordination with EPA. In late 2024, DOE announced selections for all $850 million in competitive grants under MERP for methane mitigation and monitoring. But DOE never finalized any of the awards, and has outlayed $0 to selected grantees. DOE also finalized awards in late 2024 for $350 million across 14 states to fund methane mitigation at low-producing conventional wells through voluntary, permanent well plugging. But 18 months later, DOE has paid out only $4.4 million, which is approximately 1.5% of the totals promised to these states.
CarbonSafe Round III (IIJA Section 40305): This program provided $518 million to support 23 selected projects to develop and validate commercial large-scale carbon storage infrastructure from industrial operations and power plants. DOE made selections under this program but never finalized them and $0 has been paid out.
Carbon Negative Shot Pilots (Base Appropriations): This program provided $58.5 million in federal funding for 11 projects to help develop a commercially viable carbon dioxide removal industry in the United States. DOE made selections under this program but never finalized them and $0 has been paid out.
What Questions Remain:
The path forward for projects both receiving the retention notices, and those that did not, remains uncertain. We’re tracking the following questions:
Project Intent and Rescoping: Will DOE allow these projects to go forward with their original purposes, or will they require projects to rescope in a way that makes them infeasible, alters their original purpose, and/or runs counter to Congress’ original statutory intent?
Timely Administration: Will DOE resume more standard project management of awards, including regular payment processes and standard Go/No Go reviews? In addition, will OMB apportion funding for restored projects in a timely manner?
Staffing and Process: Does DOE have the staff necessary to administer these grants in a faithful and timely manner, especially given the significant staffing issues already present at the agency? Functionally, the retention process may involve renegotiation of thousands of awards given economic and situational changes that will have occurred during their pauses.
Changed Environment: Awardees being asked to restart projects face a changed business environment that includes major economic shifts, rising oil and gas prices, tariffs, clean energy tax credit rescissions, and inflation. How will DOE address awardees’ requests to adjust projects in response to the full year of delays, including staff and project partner losses?
The Unaddressed: As noted above, DOE still has hundreds of projects that it cancelled in 2025 that are not addressed on this list for whom DOE has not yet responded to their determination disputes. Will DOE move to faithfully execute the dispute resolution process? Will DOE restore the other ghosted grants not addressed on this list, including a range of formula and state-based awards and how quickly?
The cumulative impact of DOE’s Project Review Process will ultimately depend on the answers to the questions outlined above. At the end of the day, while these retentions create a potential path forward for those projects that still remain viable after the delay, all projects will have experienced impacts as a result of the delay, and many projects remain in ghosted or in limbo, including terminated projects with disputes unaddressed.
###
This piece was drafted by trusted and vetted alumni of the U.S. Department of Energy. Any views and opinions expressed are that of the author(s) and do not reflect those of the DOE Alumni Network.
*Correction: A previous version mislabeled IRA Section 50131 as Resilient and Efficient Codes Implementation. The name of the program has been updated to its correct name which is “Conservation and Zero Energy Building Code Adoption”.