Jennifer Granholm’s tenure as U.S. Secretary of Energy from 2021 to 2025 was marked by an ambitious push for clean energy, leveraging the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Loan Programs Office to fund green initiatives. However, her final 76 days in office, between Election Day and Inauguration Day of January 20, 2025, sparked significant controversy. Reports allege that the DOE committed $93 billion in loans to green businesses, an amount three times the DOE’s annual budget and over twice the total loans disbursed in the previous 15 years. Critics claim these loans were issued to unvetted companies lacking business plans, raising concerns about cronyism, fiscal irresponsibility, and potential fraud.
The DOE’s Loan Programs Office, revitalized under Granholm, was tasked with deploying billions to support clean energy projects, a priority of the Biden administration’s climate agenda. The Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided unprecedented funding, enabling the DOE to announce over $70 billion in grants and loans by mid-2024. However, the $93 billion in loan commitments reportedly made in the final three months of Biden’s term—often mischaracterized as 76 days—dwarfed prior efforts. This figure, cited by current Energy Secretary Chris Wright and other sources, allegedly included $22.9 billion directed to Michigan-based companies like DTE Energy and Consumers Energy, which had ties to Granholm’s gubernatorial campaigns.
Critics argue that the scale and speed of these commitments suggest inadequate oversight. The DOE’s inspector general, Teri L. Donaldson, had warned in December 2024 that the Loan Programs Office lacked robust conflict-of-interest safeguards, posing risks of fraud, waste, and abuse. Despite this, Granholm approved loans to companies reportedly unvetted and without formal business plans, a claim echoed in statements from Republican lawmakers. Such actions fueled accusations of crony capitalism, particularly given Granholm’s Michigan connections and past financial ties to energy firms like Dow and Proterra.
Defenders of Granholm argue that the $93 billion reflects loan commitments, not disbursements, and that the urgency was driven by the need to secure clean energy progress before the administration’s end. The DOE’s restructured focus on deployment, with nearly 1,000 new hires, aimed to accelerate the transition to net-zero emissions by 2050. Successful past loans, like Tesla’s $465 million repayment, demonstrate the program’s potential. However, the Solyndra collapse under Obama looms large, amplifying skepticism about unvetted loans.
The $93 billion in Department of Energy (DOE) loans to green businesses were not explicitly authorized by Congress as a single, specific appropriation. Instead, these loans likely draw from existing DOE loan authority established under prior legislation, such as the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (2021), and the Inflation Reduction Act (2022). These laws collectively granted the DOE’s Loan Programs Office (LPO) significant lending capacity—over $400 billion in loan guarantees and direct loans—for clean energy projects. For example, the LPO had $40 billion in unspent funds reactivated in 2021 for clean energy initiatives, as noted by Granholm.
Congressional authorization for these programs does not require individual loan approvals but sets broad parameters for the DOE to issue loans to eligible projects. However, the rapid commitment of $93 billion, including $22.9 billion to DTE Energy raised concerns about oversight. The DOE’s inspector general warned in December 2024 of inadequate conflict-of-interest safeguards, suggesting risks of fraud and abuse. Critics, including Republican lawmakers, argue that the scale and timing of these commitments—three times the DOE’s annual budget and twice the loans issued over the prior 15 years—lacked transparency and proper vetting, though no direct evidence confirms Congress was bypassed entirely.
Without specific congressional records detailing a new $93 billion authorization in late 2024, it’s reasonable to conclude the DOE operated within its pre-existing authority. However, the lack of detailed public disclosure about the vetting process or business plans for recipient companies fuels skepticism about the process’s integrity. For definitive clarity, congressional oversight hearings or an inspector general report would be needed to confirm compliance with authorized limits.
The controversy underscores broader tensions in energy policy: balancing rapid climate action with fiscal accountability. While Granholm’s supporters view her actions as bold, critics demand investigations, with some calling for prosecution. Without transparent vetting records, the true extent of oversight failures remains unclear. As the Trump administration reviews these loans, the debate over Granholm’s legacy—visionary or reckless—will shape future energy policy.
Editorial comments expressed in this column are the sole opinion of the writer.
