13 states sue Trump administration over hydrogen hub, clean energy cuts

California, Washington and 11 other US states sued the Trump administration Feb. 18 over the termination of billions of dollars in clean energy grants, alleging the move violated the US Constitution's separation of powers doctrine.

Thirteen attorneys general filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging the US Department of Energy's termination of $7.56 billion in awards last year. The plaintiffs argued the funding cuts are unconstitutional because Congress had specifically authorized the programs.

The lawsuit also challenges a May 2025 DOE memorandum requiring previously funded projects to undergo a "review" process, calling the memo "a pretext" for eliminating clean energy funding.

"Its true purpose was to give the administration thin bureaucratic cover to eliminate congressionally established energy and infrastructure programs and rescind their funding, for no other reason than a fundamental disagreement with the programs' policy underpinnings," the document said.

"DOE's award terminations and abandonments, and its efforts to eliminate entire federal programs, were not based on 'case-by-case' reviews or an amalgam of vague 'Standards' - they were based on the administration's new 'program goal' and 'agency priority' of wholesale defunding 'the Green New Scam,'" the lawsuit said.

The complaint follows the Trump administration's announcement of the cuts on Oct.1, the first day of a weeks-long government shutdown.

"Nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left's climate agenda is being canceled," Russ Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote on the social media platform X at the time.

The two largest awards, totaling $2.2 billion, were intended to support development of renewable-powered hydrogen hubs on the West Coast.

Alleged injuries

The lawsuit alleges that the cancellation of funding for California's ARCHES hydrogen hub dealt a major blow to project developers and the statewide economy. According to the complaint, the federal award would have leveraged $11.4 billion in additional funding, including $9.3 billion from the private sector, and created some 200,000 jobs in the state.

"The termination of ARCHES's cooperative agreement caused equipment manufacturers to cancel investments in hydrogen-fuel-cell programs, stationary-power providers to pivot away from hydrogen, and large-scale renewable energy projects to shift from hydrogen," the lawsuit said.

Washington similarly alleges that cancellation of funding for the Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub harmed the state's economy and its decarbonization efforts. The complaint states that Washington could lose about $15 million already committed as a state match.

"The loss of PNWH2 has a massive effect on Washington's ability to create a successful hydrogen market and reduces the tools available to help Washington affordably meet its climate goals," the lawsuit said. "Without PNWH2, Washington's ability to produce, store, transport, and utilize hydrogen is significantly undermined."

The lawsuit also references smaller grants to states and public universities, including some that were not officially terminated but allegedly abandoned by the DOE. One conditional award would have provided about $300 million to Colorado State University for methane emissions reduction.

"Although CSU has attempted to definitize this award, it has been unable to do so due to a lack of responsiveness from DOE," the complaint read. "As a result, this project has not been started, and CSU has not been able to access any of the award funds."

Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin are also named as plaintiffs.

The states ask the court to declare the DOE's 2025 memorandum establishing a reward-review process unconstitutional, issue an injunction barring the DOE from conducting any pending reviews under that memo, and reinstate the terminated funding. The complaint also seeks to permanently bar DOE from taking any future action on that memo.

Some grantees who were affected by the October cuts have already successfully sued. In January, the US District Court for the District of Columbia ordered DOE to reinstate $27.6 million in commitments to the Environmental Defense Fund, the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, and other plaintiffs. In that case, the judge ruled DOE had violated the Constitution's equal protection clause.