DOE’s award terminations expose growing clean-tech divide

The US Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced the termination of 223 projects, canceling over $7.5 billion in clean-energy awards. This came after a review that deemed those projects not economically viable and failing to potentially meet the country’s energy needs. But what does it mean for the US – with Europe doubling down on its own green investments?

Using Secretary Wright’s Secretarial Memorandum titled, “Ensuring Responsibility for Financial Assistance," for evaluating financial awards, DOE analyzed each award and decided that 321 of them, supporting the 223 cancelled projects, do not meet the criteria to justify further investment.

Many of these awards – in carbon-capture, hydrogen, and broader decarbonisation technologies, as well as renewable energy projects – were approved late in the previous administration, with 26% awarded between Election Day and Inauguration Day.

Secretary Wright said that the cancellation of those awards delivers on Donald Trump’s commitment to “protect taxpayer dollars and expand America’s supply of affordable, reliable, and secure energy.”

In practice, this means that projects across building operations, clean power, and emissions-cutting technologies are now either put on hold or face significant delays. This could also mean a massive setback for sustainability.

“If clean-tech solutions continue to be de-funded, this will become a major issue for corporate budgets. At the moment, the EU offers far more predictable frameworks, while the US seems to be entering a pause-and-review cycle. For industries such as the building sector, it shows that policies are not prioritising sustainable solutions. Buildings, however, run every day and consume energy regardless of funding timelines,” said Donatas Karčiauskas, CEO of Exergio.

Karčiauskas added that the buildings industry could suffer most from the policy shifts – which is a shame, considering that it has the highest potential to cut global emissions.

The International Energy Agency reveals that commercial and public buildings use around 32% of global energy and emit 34% of energy-related CO₂. In context, the US’s commercial buildings produce roughly 830 million tonnes of CO₂ each year, nearly matching Germany’s total annual emissions.

“If the grants in the US had gone through, many firms would have gone ahead or even built novel technologies to boost their energy efficiency. Without that push, companies will remain running on older setups, wasting even more energy,” Karčiauskas explained.

With funding cuts, building owners may opt for operational fixes over new equipment. Karčiauskas says that this could be a cheaper way to cut energy waste, but many businesses are simply not aware of that option. He shared that such fixes could result in immediate energy savings.

“The realistic step now is software on top of existing controls. On the good note, we’ve already seen such solutions deliver even better results than some deep renovations or major upgrades.

“For example, existing AI tools can read site data, identify waste, and apply small corrections. The result is steadier temperatures, fewer fault hours, smoother run profiles, and, most importantly – energy savings up to 30%,” Karčiauskas added.

Businesses still need to adapt to local climate regulations, regardless of the irregularities in funding. New York, Washington, DC, and California all enforce strict emissions rules for firms and require regular reporting.

But while the US is pushing back on its clean energy initiatives, Europe is paving the way with €250 billion available for green measures under the NextGenerationEU framework. Member states have already gained over €66 billion in direct benefits from investments in clean transportation, building renovations, and renewable energy initiatives.

How will the US position itself going forward, and who will be in the lead for the green energy race? Only time will tell.