Business
‘Got To Go’: Department Of Energy To Cut Off Billions Of Dollars’ Worth Of Biden-Era Green Energy Projects
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By
“A lot of the push to keep these subsidies alive isn’t about good energy policy — it’s about keeping industries afloat that can’t meet reliability and affordability standards on their own.”
Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on Friday that his agency plans to cut billions in grant funds for Biden-era loans as the Trump administration conducts a review of the department’s $400 billion clean energy investments, a decision that energy policy experts who spoke with the Daily Caller News Foundation cheered on.
Before leaving office, former President Joe Biden squeezed $25 billion into the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Loan Programs Office (LPO) for various projects, with the bulk of the funds going toward renewable energy development. Wright’s newly announced plans to review and cancel a majority of the loans has the backing of several energy policy experts who told the DCNF that the LPO has stripped cash from taxpayers and contributed to U.S. grid instability.
“We’ve got a lot of reasons to be worried and suspicious about that,” Wright told Bloomberg in response to a question about the LPO. “Some of these loans will go forward, some of it, it’s too late to change course. A lot of them won’t go forward, but that’s a very careful review process that we’ve just put in place and just got a team to execute on.”
The LPO has previously dished out loans for nuclear energy, an industry championed by the Trump administration. However, among the loans finalized after the election were $6.57 billion to an electric vehicle manufacturing facility in Georgia and $289.7 million to solar energy development and battery storage in Massachusetts.
“[The LPO] may have been well-intended, but it’s morphed into a clean energy slush fund that dooms energy projects by making them tied to federal funding,” Gabriella Hoffman, the director of the Center for Energy and Conservation at Independent Women’s Forum wrote to the DCNF. “LPO investing currently undermines competition and market innovation of energy technologies. In the event it stays, however, it must be radically reformed to not prop up reliable energy sources like solar and wind.”
Notably, the rush to get these loans greenlit under Biden prompted a November inspector general report, which highlighted several potential risks to taxpayers related to the LPO, including concerns that the office may be moving too quickly to distribute funds, possibly at the expense of properly vetting loan applicants.
Other noteworthy projects approved under Biden’s watch included a $2.5 billion in loan for EV technology, 1.45 billion for a solar manufacturing facility in Georgia and $584.5 million for a solar photovoltaic (PV) system with an integrated battery energy storage system in Puerto Rico.
Founded in 2005, the loan office was created to help advance clean energy infrastructure, and it was increasingly active under the Obama administration, which approved a $535 million loan to Solyndra, a green energy company that collapsed just two years later. Activity slowed during President Donald Trump’s first administration, but under Biden, the office received a massive funding boost from Congress — totaling $400 billion — to support green tech firms.
“These past four years have been the most productive in LPO’s history,” LPO wrote in a fact sheet three days before Trump returned to the White House. “Under the Biden-Harris Administration, the Office has announced 53 deals totaling approximately $107.57 billion in committed project investment – approximately $46.95 billion for 28 active conditional commitments and approximately $60.62 billion for 25 closed loans and loan guarantees.”
“If the government’s going to use my money as a taxpayer through LPO investments, that money should be going to investments that actually provide reliable power,” André Béliveau, senior manager of energy policy at the Commonwealth Foundation told the DCNF. “A lot of the push to keep these subsidies alive isn’t about good energy policy — it’s about keeping industries afloat that can’t meet reliability and affordability standards on their own.”
While the majority of the LPO’s support in Congress and the White House has come from the left, some right-of-center organizations recently urgedWright on April 14 to “preserve” the LPO for the sake of “American dominance.” The organizations argue that the LPO plays a “critical role” in enabling “new nuclear power development.”
“LPO continues to play a critical role in financing infrastructure that enables new nuclear power development, revitalizes domestic mineral production, and modernizes both grid and gas systems — all central to the administration’s goals of lowering energy costs, reshoring manufacturing, and achieving energy dominance,” the letter reads.
Subsidizing energy projects that are not able to survive on their own in the free market is questionable, Amy Cooke, the co-founder and president of Always on Energy Research and the director of the Energy and Environmental Policy Center, told the DCNF. “The calls to eliminate it are well-founded, and at the very least, it should be dramatically reformed,” she said. “If the market isn’t interested in it, is it the responsibility of the Department of Energy to fund [these projects]?” she asked.
“We should be funding improvements for firming the grid and not arbitrarily add more intermittency,” Béliveau said in reference to wind and solar projects that provide less inertia — the grid’s ability to continue running smoothly after a disturbance occurs between energy supply and demand for the electrical grid.
“If it’s going to exist, then reforms need to make sure that we’re being good stewards of taxpayer dollars,” he added, pointing to natural gas and nuclear as options that could help “firm the grid.”
“The Trump administration’s version of energy dominance has created a source-neutral way of picking winners and losers,” he continued, noting that reliability, affordability and security are the priorities of the administration, as opposed to a climate-change centric approach to energy policy.
Trump declared a national energy emergency on his first day back in office and signed an executive order to boost domestic energy generation. He signed a series of other EOs within his first 100 days in office to speed up the permitting process and clear red tape for several industries including coal and critical mineral mining.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
“The Supreme Court put to rest any question about whether fuel manufacturers have a right to challenge unlawful electric vehicle mandates”
The Supreme Court sided Friday with oil companies seeking to challenge California’s electric vehicle regulations.
In a 7-2 ruling, the court allowed energy producers to continue their lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to approve California regulations that require manufacturing more electric vehicles.
“The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. “In light of this Court’s precedents and the evidence before the Court of Appeals, the fuel producers established Article III standing to challenge EPA’s approval of the California regulations.”
Kavanaugh noted that “EPA has repeatedly altered its legal position on whether the Clean Air Act authorizes California regulations targeting greenhouse-gas emissions from new motor vehicles” between Presidential administrations.
“This case involves California’s 2012 request for EPA approval of new California regulations,” he wrote. “As relevant here, those regulations generally require automakers (i) to limit average greenhouse-gas emissions across their fleets of new motor vehicles sold in the State and (ii) to manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles as part of their vehicle fleets.”
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals previously rejected the challenge, finding the producers lacked standing to sue.
“The Supreme Court put to rest any question about whether fuel manufacturers have a right to challenge unlawful electric vehicle mandates,” American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) President and CEO Chet Thompson said in a statement.
“California’s EV mandates are unlawful and bad for our country,” he said. “Congress did not give California special authority to regulate greenhouse gases, mandate electric vehicles or ban new gas car sales—all of which the state has attempted to do through its intentional misreading of statute.”
From the Fraser Institute
By Tom Flanagan
Since 2015, the federal government has paid nearly $18 billion settling an increasing number of ‘specific claims’ by First Nations, including more than $7 billion last year alone, finds a new study released today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think tank.
“Specific claims are for past treaty breaches, and as such, their number should be finite. But instead of declining over time, the number of claims keeps growing as lucrative settlements are reached, which in turn prompts even more claims,” said Tom Flanagan, Fraser Institute senior fellow, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Calgary and author of Specific Claims—an Out-of-Control Program.
The study reveals details about “specific claims,” which began in 1974 and are filed by First Nations who claim that Canadian governments—past or present—violated the Indian Act or historic treaty agreements, such as when governments purchased reserve land for railway lines or hydro projects. Most “specific claims” date back 100 years or more. Specific claims are contrasted with comprehensive claims, which arise from the absence of a treaty.
Crucially, the number of specific claims and the value of the settlement paid out have increased dramatically since 2015.
In 2015/16, 11 ‘specific claims’ were filed with the federal government, and the total value of the settlements was $27 million (in 2024 dollars, to adjust for inflation). The number of claims increased virtually every year since so that by 2024/25, 69 ‘specific claims’ were filed, and the value of the settlements in 2024/25 was $7.061 billion. All told, from 2015/16 to 2024/25, the value of all ‘specific claims’ settlements was $17.9 billion (inflation adjusted).
“First Nations have had 50 years to study their history, looking for violations of treaty and legislation. That is more than enough time for the discovery of legitimate grievances,” Flanagan said.
“Ottawa should set a deadline for filing specific claims so that the government and First Nations leaders can focus instead on programs that would do more to improve the living standards and prosperity for both current and future Indigenous peoples.”
Specific Claims: An Out-of-Control Program
- Specific claims are based on the government’s alleged failure to abide by provisions of the Indian Act or a treaty.
- The federal government began to entertain such claims in 1974. The number and value of claims increased gradually until 2017, when both started to rise at an extraordinary rate.
- In fiscal year 2024/25, the government settled 69 claims for an astonishing total of $7.1 billion dollars.
- The evidence suggests at least two causes for this sudden acceleration. One was the new approach of Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government toward settling Indigenous claims, an approach adopted in 2015 and formalized by Minister of Justice Jodi Wilson-Raybould’s 2019 practice directive. Under the new policy, the Department of Justice was instructed to negotiate rather than litigate claims.
- Another factor was the recognition, beginning around 2017, of “cows and plows” claims based on the allegation that agricultural assistance promised in early treaties—seed grain, cattle, agricultural implements—never arrived or was of poor quality.
- The specific-claims process should be terminated. Fifty years is long enough to discover legitimate grievances.
- The government should announce a short but reasonable period, say three years, for new claims to be submitted. Claims that have already been submitted should be processed, but with more rigorous instructions to the Department of Justice for legal scrutiny.
- The government should also require more transparency about what happens to these settlements. At present, much of the revenue paid out disappears into First Nations’ “settlement trusts”, for which there is no public disclosure.
Tom Flanagan
Last day and last chance to win this dream home! Support the 2025 Red Deer Hospital Lottery before midnight!
Kananaskis G7 meeting the right setting for U.S. and Canada to reassert energy ties
Alberta’s grand bargain with Canada includes a new pipeline to Prince Rupert
“Evacuate”: Netanyahu Warns Tehran as Israel Expands Strikes on Iran’s Military Command
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoJordan Peterson reveals DEI ‘expert’ serving as his ‘re-education coach’ for opposing LGBT agenda
-
Alberta2 days agoUnified message for Ottawa: Premier Danielle Smith and Premier Scott Moe call for change to federal policies
-
International2 days agoTrump puts new price tag on Canada joining “Golden Dome”
-
espionage24 hours agoFrom Sidewinder to P.E.I.: Are Canada’s Political Elites Benefiting from Beijing’s Real Estate Reach?
-
Agriculture22 hours agoUnstung Heroes: Canada’s Honey Bees are not Disappearing – They’re Thriving
-
Economy2 days agoOttawa’s muddy energy policy leaves more questions than answers
-
Daily Caller1 day agoUnanimous Supreme Court Ruling Inspires Hope For Future Energy Project Permitting
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta’s carbon diet – how to lose megatonnes in just three short decades