The US Department of Energy has terminated 24 awards worth over $3.7 billion, including major carbon capture projects, reflecting a shift towards fiscally disciplined and commercially viable energy investments.
The US Department of Energy has terminated 24 awards worth more than $3.7 billion, in a move that could reshape the federal pipeline for carbon capture and broader industrial decarbonisation projects.
Announcing the decision on 30 May, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the department had completed a “thorough and individualised financial review” of each award and concluded that the projects did not meet the standards needed to justify continued support. The DOE said the cancelled schemes were judged not to be economically viable, did not advance the country’s energy needs and would fail to deliver a positive return for taxpayers.
Most of the awards were tied to carbon capture and sequestration or related decarbonisation initiatives, according to the department. Nearly 70% of the cancelled projects were signed between election day and 20 January, a detail the DOE highlighted as part of its rationale for reviewing the portfolio.
Among the best-known casualties is Calpine’s planned retrofit work at its Sutter and Baytown natural gas-fired power stations. Industry reporting has put the value of the two carbon capture demonstrations at about $540 million, making them some of the most significant individual awards caught in the sweep. For developers and operators pursuing CCS as a route to lower emissions from power and heavy industry, the decision is a sharp reminder that federal backing in the United States is becoming more conditional and politically exposed.
The DOE said the cancellations follow a Secretarial Memorandum on responsible financial assistance, which directs officials to assess awards case by case for waste, national security risk and alignment with the Trump administration’s energy priorities. In the department’s telling, the latest review was intended to protect taxpayers and concentrate resources on projects with a stronger commercial case and clearer contribution to reliable, affordable energy.
The department has said the move will generate immediate savings of about $3.6 billion. But for the wider clean-energy and industrial decarbonisation market, the implications may be broader than the headline figure. OCED-backed demonstrations were designed to help bridge the gap between early-stage engineering risk and bankable deployment. Removing that support could make it harder for large-scale CCS and industrial emissions-reduction projects to reach final investment decision, particularly in sectors where the economics remain tight and carbon pricing support is limited.
The cancellations also underscore the changing federal mood in Washington. Awards made only months earlier under the previous administration have now been reassessed under a framework that places far more weight on fiscal discipline and energy security than on climate-aligned industrial policy. For project sponsors, the lesson is that grant funding alone no longer provides a durable foundation for execution. Commercial viability, policy resilience and a clear route to scale now matter more than ever.
- https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/analysis/doe-scraps-3-7b-in-grants/ – Please view link – unable to able to access data
- https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-wright-announces-termination-24-projects-generating-over-3-billion-taxpayer – On 30 May 2025, U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright announced the termination of 24 awards issued by the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED), amounting to over $3.7 billion in taxpayer-funded financial assistance. After a thorough financial review, the Department of Energy (DOE) determined that these projects failed to advance the energy needs of the American people, were not economically viable, and would not generate a positive return on investment. Notably, nearly 70% of the canceled awards were signed between Election Day and 20 January. The projects primarily included funding for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and decarbonisation initiatives. By terminating these awards, DOE is generating an immediate $3.6 billion in savings for the American people. ([energy.gov](https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-wright-announces-termination-24-projects-generating-over-3-billion-taxpayer?utm_source=openai))
- https://www.spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news/natural-gas/053025-trump-administration-cancels-37-billion-in-carbon-capture-clean-energy-awards – On 30 May 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced the cancellation of 24 awards totaling $3.7 billion in funding for carbon capture and other emissions-reduction technologies. The DOE determined that these projects were uneconomic and had ‘failed to advance the energy needs of the American people.’ Several of the canceled agreements were for carbon capture demonstrations in the power sector, including $540 million in funding for Calpine to retrofit its Sutter and Baytown natural gas-fired power plants. The DOE’s decision followed a ‘thorough and individualized financial review’ of each project. ([spglobal.com](https://www.spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news/natural-gas/053025-trump-administration-cancels-37-billion-in-carbon-capture-clean-energy-awards?utm_source=openai))
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/05/30/energy-department-grant-cancelations/ – On 30 May 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy announced the termination of $3.7 billion in grants for carbon capture and other projects. Energy Secretary Chris Wright stated that the department was ‘doing our due diligence to ensure we are utilizing taxpayer dollars to strengthen our national security, bolster affordable, reliable energy sources and advance projects that generate the highest possible return on investment.’ The decision affected 24 projects, primarily directed at helping companies decarbonize or implement carbon capture and sequestration technology. ([washingtonpost.com](https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/05/30/energy-department-grant-cancelations/?utm_source=openai))
- https://www.utilitydive.com/news/doe-cancel-carbon-capture-decarbonization-awards-grants/749409/ – On 30 May 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) canceled $3.7 billion in awards from its Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, including $540 million in grants for two carbon capture projects planned by Calpine. The canceled awards were mainly for carbon capture and sequestration and other decarbonization projects. Affected companies include PPL Corp., Ørsted, and Exxon Mobil Corp. The DOE’s decision followed a ‘thorough and individualized financial review’ of each project. ([utilitydive.com](https://www.utilitydive.com/news/doe-cancel-carbon-capture-decarbonization-awards-grants/749409/?utm_source=openai))
- https://www.pv-magazine-usa.com/2025/06/02/department-of-energy-axes-3-7-billion-in-clean-energy-demonstration-funding/ – On 30 May 2025, U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright announced the termination of 24 awards issued by the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations. The DOE canceled a combined $3.7 billion in financial assistance to energy projects, including carbon capture and sequestration projects and other decarbonization initiatives. It stated that the projects ‘failed to advance the energy needs of the American people, were not economically viable and would not generate a positive return on investment of taxpayer dollars.’ By terminating the awards, DOE said it expects to generate $3.6 billion in taxpayer savings. ([pv-magazine-usa.com](https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2025/06/02/department-of-energy-axes-3-7-billion-in-clean-energy-demonstration-funding/?utm_source=openai))
- https://www.enr.com/articles/60826-us-energy-dept-cancels-37b-in-previous-awards-for-decarbonization-projects – On 30 May 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy canceled 24 awards totaling $3.7 billion that were announced during the Biden administration to support various carbon capture and sequestration projects and other decarbonization initiatives. Energy Secretary Chris Wright announced the cancellations, claiming agency officials reviewed the awards and ‘determined that projects do not meet Americans’ energy needs, are not economically viable and would not generate a positive return on investment.’ ([enr.com](https://www.enr.com/articles/60826-us-energy-dept-cancels-37b-in-previous-awards-for-decarbonization-projects?utm_source=openai))
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
3
Notes:
The article reports on a decision announced on 30 May 2025, which is over a year old. The earliest known publication date of similar content is 30 May 2025, indicating that the narrative has been in the public domain for over a year. The article appears to be republished across various low-quality sites and clickbait networks, which raises concerns about its freshness and originality. Additionally, the article includes updated data but recycles older material, further diminishing its freshness. Given these factors, the freshness score is low. ([energy.gov](https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-wright-announces-termination-24-projects-generating-over-3-billion-taxpayer?utm_source=openai))
Quotes check
Score:
2
Notes:
The article includes direct quotes from Energy Secretary Chris Wright, such as: “The Trump administration is doing our due diligence to ensure we are utilizing taxpayer dollars to strengthen our national security, bolster affordable, reliable energy sources and advance projects that generate the highest possible return on investment.” These quotes are identical to those found in earlier material, indicating potential reuse. The wording of the quotes varies slightly between sources, which raises concerns about their accuracy and authenticity. Given these discrepancies and the inability to independently verify the quotes, the score is low. ([energy.gov](https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-wright-announces-termination-24-projects-generating-over-3-billion-taxpayer?utm_source=openai))
Source reliability
Score:
4
Notes:
The article originates from a niche, specialist publication, which may not have the same editorial standards as major news organisations. The lead source appears to be summarising content from a press release issued by the Department of Energy, which is a primary source. However, the reliance on a single source without independent verification raises concerns about the reliability of the information presented. Given these factors, the source reliability score is moderate. ([energy.gov](https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-wright-announces-termination-24-projects-generating-over-3-billion-taxpayer?utm_source=openai))
Plausibility check
Score:
5
Notes:
The article reports on the termination of 24 awards worth over $3.7 billion by the US Department of Energy, a claim that aligns with industry trends and has been reported by other reputable outlets. However, the lack of supporting detail from other reputable sources and the absence of specific factual anchors (e.g., names, institutions, dates) in the article raise concerns about its plausibility. The language and tone are consistent with typical corporate or official language, and there is no excessive or off-topic detail unrelated to the claim. Given these factors, the plausibility score is moderate. ([energy.gov](https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-wright-announces-termination-24-projects-generating-over-3-billion-taxpayer?utm_source=openai))
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): REVIEW
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): LOW
Summary:
The article raises several concerns, including low freshness due to its age and potential recycling across low-quality sites, unverified quotes with discrepancies, moderate source reliability due to reliance on a single source without independent verification, moderate plausibility with missing supporting details, and low verification independence due to reliance on non-independent sources. Given these issues, a thorough review is recommended before considering publication.
