Bipartisan Pushback Against Energy Department’s Project Cuts
The Energy Department is facing resistance from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle for considering killing several energy projects funded by the Biden administration. The pressure from the lawmakers comes as Energy Secretary Chris Wright weighs gutting the clean energy spending that President Donald Trump has blasted as the “green new scam.” But a growing chorus of voices contends the funding is critical for new technologies like hydrogen production and carbon capture — and toward solving the “national energy emergency” that Trump has declared.
Concerns Over Funding Cuts for Vital Energy Projects
Projects at risk of losing funding have gotten backing from Trump’s allies in the oil and gas sector, as well as the lawmakers whose districts would benefit from the investments. And Democrats and some industry groups warn that canceling them could violate the laws that authorized the spending.
POLITICO previously reported that DOE is drafting a hit list of energy projects to submit to the White House for potential cuts as soon as this week. A draft version of that list that circulated within the department suggested cutting four hydrogen production hubs located mostly in Democratic-leaning states while maintaining funding for three hubs spread across mostly red states.
That draft list — along with at least two others that suggest DOE may pull funding for various transmission projects and a pair of projects that would suck carbon dioxide from the air — has drawn bipartisan concern as it rocketed around Capitol Hill this week.
Bipartisan Call for Support for Clean Energy Initiatives
Somebody’s DOGE victory is somebody else’s sacred cow,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), referring to the controversial effort led by Elon Musk to shrink the federal government. “That’s sort of what we’re running up against with this broad approach.” It’s not clear if the carbon capture or transmission projects will be on the list that Wright is expected to submit to the White House.
A DOE spokesperson reiterated on Thursday that a department-wide review “to ensure activities follow the law and align with the Trump administration’s priorities” was ongoing.
Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) noted that a majority of the funding from clean energy programs under the Biden administration flowed to red states, so focusing cuts on blue states was irrational. “If they go back on that and come around and make politics out of it, shame on them,” he said.
Democrats in particular took issue with DOE eyeing cuts mostly in Democrat-led states — including the ARCHES hub in California — while sparing Republican-led ones.
“Cancelling hydrogen hub projects out of political spite has real consequences: it will kill jobs, harm our economy, and diminish our domestic energy production,” said Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.), in a statement. “As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I’m keeping track of projects that may be impacted and I’m fighting any attempted illegal money grabs.”
It’s not immediately clear how the Trump administration would seek to cut programs it deems outside of alignment with its priorities. Trump has asserted he has the authority to suspend congressionally approved spending that he considers wasteful, in potential violation of existing law. The prospect of nixing grants already under contract would also likely face legal challenges.
But some Republicans on the Hill have expressed a willingness to formally rescind funding via legislation, should the administration send cuts their way.
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said he supports narrowing grant funding to “projects that are committed and are still viable.”
The Heartland hydrogen hub, which includes North Dakota and was excluded from the list of potential cuts, has lost several of its member companies.
“Some of those projects just have not panned out,” Hoeven said. “So I think you’ll see in a number of cases that that funding does end up getting pulled back.”
Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), who chairs the environment subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said he supports DOE funding research into all forms of energy, but there is a “huge group” of non-research grants that need to be cut to get federal spending under control.
And Griffith argued it’s more important for the Trump administration to cut now and then look at restoring efforts that merit federal support.
“Some of those programs that I might like might get cut, but we can bring them back,” he said. “It’s disruptive to the lives of the scientists and the workers at the universities, and I understand that. But the wheels are going to come off of our economic vehicle if we don’t start making some significant changes in the way we spend money.”
