Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

How Government Grants Actually Turn Into Cash

Here’s why Trump’s funding freeze created so much chaos.

Money disbursement.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

A memo issued to federal agencies from the White House budget office on Monday landed like an atom bomb. The Trump administration ordered a pause on the obligation or disbursement of federal financial assistance. In laymen’s terms, that means an immediate freeze on payouts of federal grants — even those already awarded. The news sent a mushroom cloud of confusion and fear through state and local governments, schools, nonprofits, and companies that have set up programs and financed projects based on that funding.

Experts say the move is illegal and many groups moved quickly to sue. By Tuesday afternoon, a federal judge had temporarily blocked the funding freeze.

A 1974 law called the Impoundment Control Act prohibits the president from holding back congressionally appropriated funds indefinitely without permission from Congress. As Georgetown University law professor David Super explained in a blog post today, the law also prohibits presidents from deferring funds based on policy disagreements. The memo from the Office of Management and Budget makes Trump’s policy intent explicit — it specifically directs agency heads to pause activities that “may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to … DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.” It notes that the pause “will provide the Administration time to review agency programs and determine the best uses of the funding for those programs consistent with the law and the President’s priorities.”

Some have interpreted the memo as the first salvo in an attack on the separation of powers. But perhaps the most immediate reason the pause is so cataclysmic is because of the way federal grants work.

When an entity wins federal funds, be it $270 million to expand a copper recycling facility in Kentucky, or $1.2 billion to build a hydrogen hub on the Gulf Coast, or $149 million for the state of Wisconsin to set up home energy efficiency rebate programs, the awardee doesn’t just get the money transferred over to their bank account in a lump sum. Every federal grant program works slightly differently, but the majority of them are essentially pay-as-you-go.

The first thing that happens after an agency awards a grant to a given project is the two parties negotiate a contract, outlining the terms under which the award will be administered. What milestones does the project need to hit? What does the recipient need to report back to the agency? In the context of many Department of Energy programs, this contract is called a cooperative agreement, where federal staff continue to be involved in the project throughout its implementation.

After both parties sign the agreement, the money is considered “obligated,” which means the government has a legal duty to disburse those funds per the terms of the agreement. There might be some initial transfer of funds at this point to kickstart the project, depending on the program and contract. But the recipient may not get any money at all until they submit for reimbursement.

Yep, that’s right. If you win millions of dollars from the government, you still need to submit your receipts to get paid.

This is typically not a one-and-done process. A lot of grant programs fund years-long projects, and recipients regularly invoice the government for reimbursement throughout that time. In the case of the DOE, most programs also have a cost-share requirement, where the agency will reimburse a project developer for whatever portion of the expenses it has agreed to pay. For the Inflation Reduction Act’s Home Energy Rebates, where the funding is distributed to states to implement their own programs, the program is set up to transfer funds to state energy offices in four “tranches” as recipients hit certain benchmarks.

While some projects are fully obligated up front, meaning the grantee is entitled to the full amount, others are obligated in phases. For example, the Department of Energy has selected seven regional hydrogen hubs to receive up to $7 billion. But each of those seven hubs has only been awarded a portion of the funding for “phase 1,” which can be used to pay for “initial planning, design, and community and labor engagement activities.” When they are ready to move into phase 2, they’ll have to negotiate a new award for project development, permitting, and financing. Each advancement is subject to a go/no-go decision by the DOE.

Before Biden left office, his administration said it had obligated 85% of all grants from the Inflation Reduction Act. But as you can see, most of that money is not yet out the door.

Green

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Climate Tech

There’s a Better Way to Mine Lithium — At Least in Theory

In practice, direct lithium extraction doesn’t quite make sense, but 2026 could its critical year.

A lithium worker.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images, Standard Lithium

Lithium isn’t like most minerals.

Unlike other battery metals such as nickel, cobalt, and manganese, which are mined from hard-rock ores using drills and explosives, the majority of the world’s lithium resources are found in underground reservoirs of extremely salty water, known as brine. And while hard-rock mining does play a major role in lithium extraction — the majority of the world’s actual production still comes from rocks — brine mining is usually significantly cheaper, and is thus highly attractive wherever it’s geographically feasible.

Keep reading...Show less
Green
Q&A

How Trump’s Renewable Freeze Is Chilling Climate Tech

A chat with CleanCapital founder Jon Powers.

Jon Powers.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Jon Powers, founder of the investment firm CleanCapital. I reached out to Powers because I wanted to get a better understanding of how renewable energy investments were shifting one year into the Trump administration. What followed was a candid, detailed look inside the thinking of how the big money in cleantech actually views Trump’s war on renewable energy permitting.

The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Indiana Rejects One Data Center, Welcomes Another

Plus more on the week’s biggest renewables fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Shelby County, Indiana – A large data center was rejected late Wednesday southeast of Indianapolis, as the takedown of a major Google campus last year continues to reverberate in the area.

  • Real estate firm Prologis was the loser at the end of a five-hour hearing last night before the planning commission in Shelbyville, a city whose municipal council earlier this week approved a nearly 500-acre land annexation for new data center construction. After hearing from countless Shelbyville residents, the planning commission gave the Prologis data center proposal an “unfavorable” recommendation, meaning it wants the city to ultimately reject the project. (Simpsons fans: maybe they could build the data center in Springfield instead.)
  • This is at least the third data center to be rejected by local officials in four months in Indiana. It comes after Indianapolis’ headline-grabbing decision to turn down a massive Google complex and commissioners in St. Joseph County – in the town of New Carlisle, outside of South Bend – also voted down a data center project.
  • Not all data centers are failing in Indiana, though. In the northwest border community of Hobart, just outside of Chicago, the mayor and city council unanimously approved an $11 billion Amazon data center complex in spite of a similar uproar against development. Hobart Mayor Josh Huddlestun defended the decision in a Facebook post, declaring the deal with Amazon “the largest publicly known upfront cash payment ever for a private development on private land” in the United States.
  • “This comes at a critical time,” Huddlestun wrote, pointing to future lost tax revenue due to a state law cutting property taxes. “Those cuts will significantly reduce revenue for cities across Indiana. We prepared early because we did not want to lay off employees or cut the services you depend on.”

Dane County, Wisconsin – Heading northwest, the QTS data center in DeForest we’ve been tracking is broiling into a major conflict, after activists uncovered controversial emails between the village’s president and the company.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow