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
Energy

Is U.S. Clean Energy Manufacturing Booming or Busting?

Two new reports out this week create a seemingly contradictory portrait of the country’s energy transition progress.

Solar manufacturing.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Two clean energy reports out this week offer seemingly contradictory snapshots of domestic solar and battery manufacturing. One, released Wednesday by the Rhodium Group’s Clean Investment Monitor, shows a distinct decline in investment going into U.S. factories to make more of these technologies. The other, released today by the trade group American Clean Power Association, shows staggering recent growth in production capacity.

So which is it? Is U.S. clean energy manufacturing booming or busting?

Keep reading...Show less
Green
Q&A

How to Build a Socially Responsible Data Center

Chatting with DER Task Force’s Duncan Campbell.

The Fight Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

This week’s conversation is with Duncan Campbell of DER Task Force and it’s about a big question: What makes a socially responsible data center? Campbell’s expansive background and recent focus on this issue made me take note when he recently asked that question on X. Instead of popping up in his replies, I asked him to join me here in The Fight. So shall we get started?

Oh, as always, the following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

The Indiana City Saying ‘Tech Yeah!’ to Data Centers

Plus the week’s biggest development fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. LaPorte County, Indiana — If you’re wondering where data centers are still being embraced in the U.S., look no further than the northwest Indiana city of LaPorte.

  • LaPorte’s city council this week unanimously approved the expansion of a data center campus already under construction. Local elected officials were positively giddy at the public hearing on the vote, with city mayor Tim Doherty donning an orange t-shirt exclaiming a pro-AI pun: “TECH YEAH!”
  • Doherty explained his enthusiasm at the hearing in simple dollars and cents. State cuts to education had “put our local schools in an impossible position,” he said, asking: “Will the 15% in revenue sharing give our kids a superior education and the best chance at a future in this tech-driven world?”
  • That revenue sharing Doherty referenced was Microsoft’s deal in March with LaPorte’s school corporation, which stated 15% of the data center’s property tax revenue would go to the corporation for 20 years. So good was that deal some city councilors were vocally defiant against those who were opposed to the project expansion.
  • “Microsoft seems like they’re going to be a good partner for the city. They care. They’re presenting what I think is a good deal and trying to take care of people around them. So I’m all for it and if anybody wants to vote me out, hey, go for it,” councilor Roger Galloway told the hearing room.
  • The lesson? Give lots of money to education and you’re more likely to get a permit. Tale as old as the mining industry.

2. Cumberland County, New Jersey — A broader splashback against AI infrastructure is building in South Jersey.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow