DOE filing says clean-energy grants were selected by state politics

The Energy Department acknowledged in a July 15, 2026 court filing that 284 clean-energy grants terminated in October 2025 were selected based solely on the political identity of the recipient states, creating a direct conflict with the department’s earlier public explanation.

The stipulation was filed in Thakur v. Trump, Case No. 3:25-cv-04737-RL, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. DOE said that, with one exception, the grants involved states that voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election and had two Democratic-caucusing senators.

The filing is new evidence in an active legal dispute. It is not a final court ruling that the cancellations were unlawful.

What DOE stipulated

DOE accepted, solely for purposes of the litigation, that the 284 grants in the October termination tranche were not selected based on programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction or performance-based factors.

The department also accepted that the inclusion of the grants was based solely on whether the recipient’s location or a place of performance was in a so-called blue state or non-blue state. DOE further stipulated that the resulting differential treatment lacked a rational connection between the recipient’s location or place of performance and the department’s agency priorities.

The stipulation says the political identity of a grant recipient’s state was not part of DOE’s Portfolio Review Process. It also says program offices had proposed terminating similarly situated grants in both blue and non-blue states, while the grants proposed for termination but not included in the October tranche were associated with non-blue states under the definition used in the filing.

Those statements are concessions by DOE in this case. They do not amount to a criminal finding, a fraud finding or a final judicial determination.

How that differs from DOE’s public explanation

On Oct. 1, 2025, DOE announced the termination of 321 financial awards supporting 223 projects. The department said the action would save approximately $7.56 billion for taxpayers and followed a thorough, individualized financial review.

DOE said the projects did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs, were not economically viable or would not provide a positive return on taxpayer dollars. The announcement said the awards had been reviewed case by case under a policy intended to identify waste, safeguard taxpayer funds and support affordable, reliable and secure energy.

The figures in the two records are not identical. The July 15 stipulation addresses 284 grants selected for the October termination tranche. DOE’s October public announcement referred to 321 awards supporting 223 projects and approximately $7.56 billion. The broader dollar figure should not be attributed only to the 284 grants in the stipulation.

What projects and recipients were affected

The canceled awards covered a range of clean-energy work, including battery manufacturing, hydrogen technology, electric-grid upgrades and carbon-capture projects. Recipients included universities, companies, utilities, state agencies and other organizations. The records do not establish that every canceled award involved the same technology, recipient type or location.

Associated Press reporting identified affected projects in 16 states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. The court stipulation, however, is framed around recipient location and place of performance and includes one exception to the pattern.

What the filing means legally

The stipulation was an agreement to avoid the ordinary discovery process in claims against DOE. In exchange for withdrawing discovery requests, DOE agreed to produce a signed spreadsheet covering grants it identified as involving University of California researchers and to make the factual stipulations described in the filing.

The spreadsheet is expected to include information such as award numbers, recipients, amounts awarded, amounts remaining, termination dates, reinstatement dates, statutory authorities and the agency priorities or legal bases DOE identified for the terminations. The agreement gives plaintiffs seven days after production to raise technical errors or omissions with the department.

That material could help the plaintiffs challenge individual grant cancellations, but the stipulation itself does not decide the merits of the case. Further court action will be needed on the legality of the terminations and on any disputes over reinstatement or other relief.

What grant recipients should watch

Universities, companies, state agencies and other award recipients should track the case docket and any agency-produced grant data for project-specific information. A recipient’s grant may have a different termination date, legal basis, status or reinstatement history than other awards in the broader October announcement.

The dispute also reaches beyond clean energy. It raises a broader question about whether federal grant decisions must be tied to documented statutory, programmatic and performance criteria or may turn on the political geography of the recipient.

The next important developments are likely to come from court rulings, disputes over individual grant status and any changes to federal grant-management rules. For taxpayers and grant applicants, the practical issue is whether agencies can show a consistent, reviewable reason for deciding which awards receive or lose federal support.

Sources

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.