The Colorado Energy Office has been at the forefront of a massive shift in energy policy in the United States, receiving exponential increases in federal grants during the Biden administration. Since the 1970s, the office has focused on energy conservation and renewable energy, but the unprecedented funding has transformed its role. With an average annual budget of $7 million per year from 2010 to 2022, the office was poised to receive $157.5 million from the energy department and another $156 million from the Environmental Protection Agency in fiscal year 2024.
The Biden administration's approval of hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending for a "more equitable, low-carbon, and clean energy economy" marked a significant change in direction. The Colorado Energy Office was one of many agencies and groups across the country that received exponential increases in federal grants during this period. A database search of government data reveals that the office was just one of several agencies and groups that received significant funding, with many organizations receiving grants much larger than they had the capability to manage.
"Biden-era climate policy sometimes prioritized sending money out the door first, and worrying about logistics and oversight second," said an investigator with OpenTheBooks, who seeks to make all government spending public. "Money went to groups that were receiving grants larger than they had the capability to manage." The grants were designed to pay for various tasks, including improving the resilience of the grid and reducing methane emissions, but some of the biggest grants were for nebulous-sounding work.
The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, the California Energy Commission, and the Colorado Energy Office were among the biggest beneficiaries of the grant money. In 2024, the New York Energy Research and Development Institute was slated to receive $335.38 million, while the California Energy Commission was set to receive $630.5 million. These amounts were exponentially higher than the office's previous average annual budget of $7 million.
The Treasury Department has rarely disbursed these grants in full, with the main goal being to unlock the money. A lawsuit brought by the attorneys general in February sought to have all the approved grant money dispensed. They argued that the Trump administration unfairly targeted states controlled by Democrats and that without the money, those states' "ambitious climate goals" may not be reached.
The lawsuit has scored some successes, with the Energy Department agreeing to reinstate 11 grants. However, the largest of them remain in limbo. The grant bonanza went on for roughly 18 months beginning in 2023 and was capped by a post-election frenzy in December 2024 and January 2025. The rapidity with which the grants were approved has raised concerns about the effectiveness of oversight.
Inspectors general at the Energy Department and the EPA warned that the unprecedented amounts would make oversight next to impossible. The Energy Secretary has made several moves to reorient the Department toward Trump's policy goal of increasing affordable and abundant energy. The administration has slashed away at what it considers Biden's fanciful push toward a Net Zero future.
The lawsuit insists that politics were behind the cuts, pointing to a hit list drawn up by the Department in 2025. "The list was intended to further the Administration's goal of eliminating renewable-energy programs created by Congress through the duly-enacted 2021 IIJA and the 2022 IRA – programs the Administration derisively calls the 'Green New Scam,'" the lawsuit alleged. It's not clear how many of the grants that were approved in Biden's final year are tied to that lawsuit.
Leftist environmental groups have calculated the difference between the closure of renewable energy projects in the Biden and Trump administrations. Their figures show Biden "canceled, closed or downsized" 25 such projects worth $3.5 billion in 2023 and 2024, while last year, Trump's first back in office, saw 61 such projects crimped or shuttered with a value of $34.76 billion.
However, conservative groups argue that taxpayers should not be forced to finance coastal states' efforts to shift their economies from traditional energy sources to renewables. "Working families in Louisiana, Florida, or Ohio should not be forced to bankroll the out-of-touch climate goals for politicians in New York, California, or Illinois," said a spokesman for the conservative Power The Future energy advocacy group.
The grant money has sparked debates about the effectiveness of oversight and the priorities of the Biden administration's energy policy. As the debate continues, the future of the grant money remains uncertain, with some arguing that it should be spent to meet ambitious climate targets and others arguing that it should be scrutinized for fraud.
