The Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations appears to be in disarray. Rumors are swirling that the office’s director, Cathy Tripodi, is on her way out, amid ongoing confusion around a reduction in force and reorganization across the energy agency — as well as the cancellation of dozens of OCED awards, totaling $12 billion.
But that number represents the potential amount each project could receive from OCED. The funding actually obligated by the office — the dollars they’re legally liable for disbursing — is much less.
For example, the Heartland Hydrogen Hub, targeting the production of clean hydrogen for use in low-carbon nitrogen fertilizer, is eligible for up to $925 million in federal cost share. That’s the number reflected in the termination lists, but at the end of the Biden administration only $20 million had been officially obligated. The rest of the funding was contingent upon meeting certain milestones over the coming years.
Between the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, OCED has more than $23 billion appropriated. But ramping up the office, and designing most of its programs from scratch, was a massive effort, federal employees who worked there during the last administration explained to Latitude Media. By the time the second Trump administration began, OCED had officially obligated around $6.6 billion, according to data compiled by a former official and shared with Latitude.
That leaves around $16.5 billion in unobligated funding across all of the office’s programs. But the question of what the administration can do with that funding is complex.
Secretary Wright, when speaking about the administration’s decision to claw back $13 billion in unobligated funding in late September, described the money as being “returned to the Treasury.” In fact, he went so far as to explain that the rescissions constituted “over $100 per American family.” In the case of OCED’s largest programs, however, canceling awards doesn’t necessarily open up those dollars for other uses.
Funding for the hydrogen hubs, for example, doesn’t expire, former officials explained. That program had $8 billion in appropriated funds, and the Biden administration selected seven projects to receive that funding. Only around $180 million had actually been obligated before Trump took office for a second time.
That means that even if DOE cancels an award issued under the Hydrogen Hubs program, that money — along with the remaining unobligated $7.8 billion — will sit inside OCED until Congress votes to cut it. (The Senate Appropriations Committee didn’t settle the argument over DOE appropriations before the government shutdown began on October 1, so any formal efforts to rescind OCED funding can’t take place until the government reopens.)
Redirecting funds
The administration has also spoken widely about redirecting DOE funding toward projects and technologies more in line with its new priorities.
For example, OCED’s Carbon Capture Demonstrations Project Program, and Carbon Capture Large-Scale Pilot Projects Program, both funded by BIL, have $2.4 billion and $716 million in unobligated funds, respectively. Last week, OCED said it would issue up to $525 million worth of awards to coal plant projects, using funds largely appropriated for the two carbon capture programs.
That approach too is legally challenging, because Congress set aside specific amounts for specific use cases, like carbon capture demonstrations or hydrogen hubs. Using that unobligated carbon capture funding to fund coal power generation, one former OCED official told Latitude, is “a clear violation of Congress’ intent” for the funds.
But the strategy is not a new strategy for DOE — or for OCED’s director Cathy Tripodi.
Tripodi served as director of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy during the first Trump administration. Her tenure there was marked by what industry advocates at the time described as “irregularities” in the disbursement of appropriated funds. She was reportedly behind the controversial cancellation of a $46 million solar research and development grant, pulling the funding opportunity mere days before recipients were set to be announced.
That funding had been marked for research into improving the integration of solar into the electric grid, including advanced power electronics, solar-plus-storage, and smart sensor tech. Instead, at Tripodi’s direction, the office issued a new notice of funding, pulling from the same funding tranche, focused on grid resilience against cyber threats.
Despite being legally dubious, that approach worked well for Tripodi in Trump 1.0: EERE ultimately issued ten awards for research into cyber threats facing the grid.
And it’s hard to see anything stopping the administration from once again leveraging that tactic. In theory, at least, enforcing the intended use for those funds is the remit of Congress. But lawmakers on Capitol Hill don’t appear motivated to keep the Trump administration operating within legal bounds, the former OCED official said.
“Here’s the thing: If [the administration] doesn’t care about what it was appropriated for, they can do anything they want,” they added. “They can cancel a hydrogen hub and build more natural gas. If no-one’s going to stop them, there’s nothing stopping them.”
