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

The 3 Arguments Trump Used to Gut Greenhouse Gas Regulations

Whether any of them will hold up in court is now the big question.

Donald Trump.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Environmental lawyers are in for years of déjà vu as the Trump administration relitigates questions that many believed were settled by the Supreme Court nearly 20 years ago.

On Thursday, Trump rescinded the “endangerment finding,” the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 determination that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles threaten Americans’ public health and welfare and should be regulated. In the short term, the move repeals existing vehicle emissions standards and prevents future administrations from replacing them. In the longer term, what matters is whether any of the administration’s justifications hold up in court.

Keep reading...Show less
Spotlight

Washington Wants Data Centers to Bring Their Own Clean Energy

The state is poised to join a chorus of states with BYO energy policies.

Washington State and a data center.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

With the backlash to data center development growing around the country, some states are launching a preemptive strike to shield residents from higher energy costs and environmental impacts.

A bill wending through the Washington State legislature would require data centers to pick up the tab for all of the costs associated with connecting them to the grid. It echoes laws passed in Oregon and Minnesota last year, and others currently under consideration in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and Delaware.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Michigan’s Data Center Bans Are Getting Longer

Plus more of the week’s top fights in renewable energy.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Kent County, Michigan — Yet another Michigan municipality has banned data centers — for the second time in just a few months.

  • Solon Township, a rural community north of Grand Rapids, passed a six-month moratorium on Monday after residents learned that a consulting agency that works with data center developers was scouting sites in the area. The decision extended a previous 90-day ban.
  • Solon is at least the tenth township in Michigan to enact a moratorium on data center development in the past three months. The state has seen a surge in development since Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed a law exempting data centers from sales and use taxes last April, and a number of projects — such as the 1,400-megawatt, $7 billion behemoth planned by Oracle and OpenAI in Washtenaw County — have become local political flashpoints.
  • Some communities have passed moratoria on data center development even without receiving any interest from developers. In Romeo, for instance, residents urged the village’s board of trustees to pass a moratorium after a project was proposed for neighboring Washington Township. The board assented and passed a one-year moratorium in late January.

2. Pima County, Arizona — Opposition groups submitted twice the required number of signatures in a petition to put a rezoning proposal for a $3.6 billion data center project on the ballot in November.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow