At the hearing, multiple members raised contested assertions about the Department of Energy’s review and termination of previously awarded grants and loans.

Representative Frank Pallone, the full committee ranking member, cited a December court filing and said the filing stated "the primary reason for the selection of which DOE grant termination decisions were included in the October notice tranche was whether the grantee was located in a blue state." He urged DOE to restore awards where the terminations were unjustified and pressed for transparency on the department’s decision process.

Acting Undersecretary Alex Fitzsimmons disputed that characterization in the hearing, saying DOE "continuously review[s] all of the projects in the DOE portfolio" to ensure they "are consistent with national security" and that funded projects have "a pathway to technical, financial, and economic feasibility." Fitzsimmons declined to brief on individual applicants in the public hearing and offered to provide separate briefings and written follow‑up to members.

Members seeking specifics noted that courts recently issued reversals or rulings against some of the administration’s cancellations, and they warned of local impacts: delayed microgrids, canceled grid‑enhancing projects, and lost jobs and investment. Lawmakers on both sides also questioned whether the cancellations and program rescopes undermine broader reliability goals.

The subcommittee requested DOE provide detailed follow‑up responses and supporting records. Fitzsimmons said DOE would meet with members and offices outside the hearing to address project‑specific queries.

The department’s review process and the court filings remain points of contention; the hearing record will likely be used by members seeking further documentation and potential legislative clarifications about review standards and restoration procedures.