The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has canceled about $3.7 billion in clean energy grants, stopping 24 projects. Most of these projects focus on carbon capture and decarbonization. The DOE said this decision followed a review. It found weak execution plans, unclear goals, and limited national security or economic benefits.
Secretary David Wright confirmed this news by saying,
“While the previous administration failed to conduct a thorough financial review before signing away billions of taxpayer dollars, 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. Today, we are acting in the best interest of the American people by cancelling these 24 awards.”
Why DOE Scrapped Billions in Projects Signed Before Inauguration?
The press release notes that 16 of these projects—nearly 70%—were approved between Election Day and January 20. Most focused on carbon capture and decarbonization technologies.
Wright said the prior administration rushed these deals without proper financial vetting. In contrast, the current DOE leadership conducted a detailed review to ensure public funds are used wisely.
He pressed on the fact that,
“These decisions protect national security, ensure energy reliability, and prioritize high-return investments.”
Earlier this month, DOE issued a memorandum titled “Ensuring Responsibility for Financial Assistance,” outlining strict review standards. The canceled projects failed to meet key criteria—economic value, energy security, and national interest—leading to their termination under this revised oversight policy.
Heavy Industry and CCS Take the Hardest Hit
The cancellations mainly impact big carbon capture projects in cement and industry. A media report highlighted the major losses industries suffered due to the canceled projects.
-
Heidelberg Materials: $500 million canceled
-
National Cement Co. of California: $500 million canceled
-
Brimstone Energy: $189 million canceled
-
Sublime Systems: $87 million canceled
-
Calpine’s Baytown project: $270 million canceled
-
ExxonMobil’s Texas hydrogen shift plan: $332 million canceled
-
Wyoming carbon capture pilot: $49 million canceled
Many companies expressed disappointment and confusion. Brimstone Energy believes its project was misunderstood, despite its alignment with U.S. critical mineral goals. ExxonMobil declined to comment, while Heidelberg is considering an appeal.
These projects aimed to cut industrial CO₂ emissions and aid low-income, high-pollution communities. Losing them means emission-heavy sectors lose vital tools for transition, especially since some processes, like cement production, can’t easily switch to renewables.
Market Reaction: A Blow to Investor Confidence
The cancellation signals that U.S. federal support for carbon capture may not be guaranteed anymore. This worries clean tech investors and developers who rely on long-term government backing for costly, high-risk projects.
Now, companies might turn to:
-
Private equity
-
Green bonds
-
International funding partnerships
-
Academic collaborations
However, these options often lack the scale and speed of federal aid. Industry leaders fear this move could slow U.S. innovation, especially as Europe and Asia ramp up funding for decarbonization technologies.
Jessie Stolark from the Carbon Capture Coalition expressed disappointment over this decision. She said,
“Today, the cancellation of 24 DOE-funded projects, many of them carbon capture related, is a major step backward in the nationwide deployment of carbon management technologies. It is hugely disappointing to see these projects canceled – projects that had already progressed through a rigorous, months-long review process by technical experts at DOE.”
“Further development and deployment of carbon management technologies is crucial to meeting America’s growing demand for affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy. To be clear, ensuring projects funded by the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act move forward toward commercialization are necessary to demonstrate the technology across fossil fuel power generation and key industrial sectors, including natural gas-fired power generation, cement, and basic chemicals.”
- READ MORE: 2025: The Year Clean Energy Dominates with Record $670 Billion Investment, Trumping Oil & Gas
Climate Goals at Risk Without CCS Support
The DOE’s reversal may hinder U.S. climate goals. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is vital for decarbonizing cement, steel, and fossil fuel power plants. Without these technologies, emissions from these industries may continue unchecked.
Moreover, many canceled projects were in areas heavily affected by pollution. Their loss means those communities may face ongoing poor air quality and health risks.
Environmental advocates argue that the DOE’s cost-saving approach could lead to larger climate costs later. Reducing carbon capture efforts now could impede the U.S. from meeting its emissions targets under global agreements.
Fuelling the resistance, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur said,
“The abrupt termination of $3.7 Billion in clean energy investment is shortsighted and malicious. This decision will raise energy costs for American families and undermine our nation’s competitive edge. In Northwest Ohio, it endangers jobs, and undermines manufacturing in our critical glass industry, while empowering China and our global competitors. Nationwide, DOE is not only raising the cost of energy in Red Districts and Blue Districts — we’re ceding ground to global competitors racing ahead in innovation and energy efficiency.”
“This decision undercuts American innovation, discourages private-sector investment, and harms workers like the ones I represent who are counting on these projects for jobs and economic revitalization. The American people deserve leadership that meets the moment — not one that backs away from the challenge of a clean, affordable energy future. If the Trump Administration was looking to give Communist China everything they wanted, they are well on their way.”
What’s Next: A Policy Reset for Clean Energy Funding
Moving forward, the DOE is likely to set higher standards for federal clean energy grants. Projects will need to show strong environmental potential along with:
-
Economic viability
-
Realistic timelines
-
National security value
Clean energy still has bipartisan support across many U.S. regions. Yet, the path to funding may now involve stricter standards and accountability.
This gap could attract more private and foreign investment. However, scaling solutions without federal support will be tough. The big question is: Can the U.S. remain a global leader in climate tech while limiting funding for transformative projects?

The post DOE Axes $3.7B in Clean Energy Grants—Is America’s Net Zero Future in Jeopardy? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

