The Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Dominance Financing (EDF) released updated program guidance for the Title 17 Energy Financing Program on May 13, 2026. The guidance implements the energy financing provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), reflecting a reorientation of program priorities. For developers of energy, mining, critical minerals, and critical materials projects, several provisions are relevant, particularly regarding the restructured Energy Dominance Financing Program (EDFP), the broadening (and, in some cases, narrowing) of energy infrastructure eligible for DOE financing, and other terms with cost and timing consequences.
The EDF Program
With more than $250 billion in loan authority, Title 17 remains one of the largest federal debt financing tools available for energy infrastructure. The updated guidance covers four project categories, with the Energy Dominance Financing Program receiving the most emphasis:
- Innovative Energy projects (Section 1703). These projects deploy qualifying new or significantly improved technology that is technically proven but not widely commercialized in the United States. Examples in the new guidance include deployment of early long-duration energy storage projects, advanced nuclear reactors, “front-end” nuclear fuel cycle projects, distributed energy technologies, mine buildout with vertically integrated refinery (for critical minerals), and HVDC transmission projects. These examples reflect several current Administration priorities under the OBBBA. Wind and solar are not mentioned in the new guidance. The guidance also provides siting flexibility, stating that while a single project should generally be sited at one location, a project may be located at two or more locations if it comprises installations or facilities employing a single new or significantly improved technology deployed pursuant to an integrated and comprehensive business plan.
- Innovative Supply Chain projects (Section 1703). These projects employ new or significantly improved technology in the manufacturing process for qualifying energy technology or to manufacture a qualifying new or significantly improved technology. Innovative Supply Chain (like Innovative Energy) projects must avoid, reduce, utilize, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases through (a) the manufacturing process of the relevant product or (b) the end use of the component. Examples in the new DOE guidance include advanced geothermal, advanced hydropower, advanced grid components, nuclear microreactors (~5 MW), modular nuclear reactors, and advanced nuclear components updated to reflect priorities under the OBBBA.
- SEFI-supported projects (Section 1703). These projects support deployment of a qualifying energy technology and receive meaningful financial support or credit enhancements from a state agency or financing authority.
- Energy Dominance Financing Program (Section 1706, formerly Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment). This category is described in more detail below.
EDFP: An Expanded Toolbox
The EDFP guidance differs substantially from the pre-OBBBA guidance (issued by the DOE Loan Program Office, which has been renamed the EDF office). Due to statutory changes made by the OBBBA, eligible EDFP projects now include a wide range of conventional energy infrastructure: coal and gas repowering, pipeline replacements, refinery retrofits, nuclear plant expansions, and transmission reconductoring. Many of these project types would not have qualified under the prior guidance.
Eligible EDFP projects fall into three categories: (1) projects that retool, repower, repurpose, or replace energy infrastructure that has ceased operations; (2) projects that enable operating energy infrastructure to increase capacity or output; and (3) projects that support or enable the provision of known or forecastable electric supply to maintain or enhance grid reliability. Category (3) expressly covers both brownfield and greenfield projects, and this authority can support new-build generation tied to reliability needs.
“Energy Infrastructure” is defined broadly by the OBBBA and the guidance to include facilities used for identification, leasing, development, production, processing, transportation, transmission, refining, and generation for energy and critical minerals, including decommissioned power plants, pipelines, refineries, gas stations, refueling terminals, chemical production facilities, and distributed electric energy assets. Applicants should also note that under the new guidance, “projects that have a demonstrably robust and direct connection to the provision of electric supply and maintaining or enhancing grid reliability would be more likely to qualify than projects with a weak or indirect connection.”
The Proximity Requirement: Flexibility in the Guidance
The OBBBA expands EDF eligibility to include projects that retool, repower, repurpose, or replace infrastructure that has ceased operations. Projects qualifying under the ceased-operations prong must meet a proximity requirement that may influence how transactions are structured and documented. The new guidance interprets this broadly to include infrastructure “at or near the site of the legacy Energy Infrastructure.” Where a project is not predominantly on the same or adjacent site, EDF will conduct “a fact-intensive analysis of the strength of the nexus” between original and replacement infrastructure, evaluated through physical proximity, shared service area, or a combination of both. This may allow projects that are located near, or in the same service area as, a facility that has ceased operations, rather than on the same site — potentially allowing more projects to qualify for EDF financing.
The guidance makes clear that this nexus analysis is not a formality. Developers and counsel should document the connection between legacy and replacement infrastructure from the earliest stages of project structuring.
Electric Utilities Must Address Ratepayer Impacts
The prior guidance’s program-wide community benefit plan requirement has been eliminated. However, EDFP applicants that are electric utilities must provide DOE assurance that financial benefits will be passed on to customers or associated communities. The new guidance identifies acceptable forms of assurance as state regulatory approvals and utility governing body approvals.
GHG Requirements: Substantially Narrowed
DOE’s prior guidance imposed greenhouse gas avoidance or reduction requirements as threshold eligibility criteria for Section 1703 projects. Those requirements remain for Innovative Energy and Innovative Supply Chain applicants, but the guidance notes that, consistent with OMB Memorandum M-25-27 implementing Executive Order 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy”), “a case-specific GHG analysis may not be required for some classes of technologies and project types.” EDF does not expect applicants to conduct the GHG analysis themselves; applicants must provide input data on request. EDFP projects, by contrast, have no GHG requirement under the OBBBA revisions.
Critical Minerals and Critical Materials Projects
For Innovative Energy and Innovative Supply Chain applicants, critical minerals supply projects are now an explicitly listed Section 1703-eligible technology category. For Section 1706 projects, the new guidance also references critical minerals and critical materials, stating that the EDFP “can also finance critical materials projects and secure America’s critical minerals supply chain, reflecting the important applications of critical minerals and materials across the energy sector.”
EDF Loan Guarantee Terms
A Title 17 loan guarantee reduces the all-in interest rates for a project. Under the new guidance, interest rates on FFB loans are set at the U.S. Treasury curve for the applicable tenor, plus a 0.375% liquidity spread, plus a risk-based charge. Loan tenors can reach 30 years. EDF does not set a minimum loan size; however, due to fixed costs associated with receiving a loan guarantee (which the guidance notes can reach $3-6 million as a result of the due diligence process) EDF loan guarantees are typically $500 million or more, though no minimum is formally prescribed. Notably, a recent project involving SHINE Chrysalis, LLC (SHINE) received a DOE loan guarantee of approximately $263 million, below the informal threshold.
EDF can finance up to 80% of eligible project costs, although project cash flows and credit considerations often result in leverage ratios in the 40-60% range. EDF loan guarantees of third-party debt are capped at 90% for loans from eligible private lenders, meaning the maximum amount of eligible project costs EDF can guarantee for non-FFB loans is 72% (90% of 80% of eligible project costs).
While the OBBBA appropriated significant funds for Section 1706 EDF financing, it rescinded appropriated funds for Section 1703 projects. As a result, Section 1703 project sponsors must cover credit subsidy costs, which must be paid prior to, or at the time of, a DOE conditional commitment.
The guidance also reiterates that DOE cannot issue loan guarantees to projects expected to benefit from certain other forms of federal support (the “Federal Support Restriction”), including grants, cooperative agreements, direct loans, or other loan guarantees from federal agencies or entities. The guidance notes, however, that EDF staff will work with applicants to understand how the Federal Support Restriction applies to each potential project. Additionally, no funds obtained from the Federal Government, or from a loan or other instrument guaranteed by the Federal Government, may be used to pay the Credit Subsidy Cost, the Facility Fee, the Maintenance Fee, or other fees charged by or paid to DOE relating to Title 17 or any guarantee thereunder. Federal tax benefits that are otherwise allowable, including energy production and investment tax credits, are excluded from the Federal Support Restriction.
On the closing date of a Loan Guarantee Agreement, all applicants must pay a nonrefundable Facility Fee equal to 0.6% of the portion of the principal amount of the Guaranteed Obligation (net of any capitalized interest) that does not exceed $1 billion, and 0.1% on any amount above $1 billion. For example, the guidance explains that an applicant for a guaranteed loan in the principal amount of $250,000,000 (net of any capitalized interest) would pay a Facility Fee of $1,500,000 (0.6% of $250,000,000). An applicant for a guaranteed loan of $2.5 billion (net of any capitalized interest) would pay a total Facility Fee of $7,500,000 ($6,000,000 on the first $1 billion, plus $1,500,000 on the remaining $1.5 billion).
Applicants must also pay a non-refundable annual Maintenance Fee to cover DOE’s administrative expenses in servicing and monitoring the Loan Guarantee Agreement from execution through payment in full. The Maintenance Fee can reach $500,000 depending on loan complexity.
The Application Process
EDF operates an open program with no solicitation windows — applications may be submitted at any time.
The guidance explains that the application process consists of six steps in two parts: a Part I eligibility review followed by a Part II financial and technical review, with due diligence and term sheet negotiation occurring thereafter. During Part II review, EDF assesses whether a project provides a Reasonable Prospect of Repayment of principal and interest (see 42 U.S.C. 16512(d)(1)(B)). Part II applications should also demonstrate an integrated project structure showing that EDF-guaranteed funds are not used to build assets that will operate independently or serve different markets. This applies to industrial and manufacturing projects where EDF-guaranteed funds are sought for multiple sites or steps in a manufacturing process. EDF will also evaluate the extent to which an application achieves DOE’s policy objectives.
Evaluation includes confirmation that the project is located in the U.S. or its territories, internal EDF validation, review by OMB and Treasury, review by the DOE Credit Review Board, and final approval by the Secretary of Energy. Applicants should be aware of foreign collaboration considerations outlined in the new guidance, along with other federal requirements, including environmental/NEPA compliance, prevailing wage requirements, the Cargo Preference Act, and Build America, Buy America requirements.
As the guidance notes, projects receiving a conditional commitment or loan guarantee from EDF “will have demonstrated that they are bankable,” which in turn strengthens their position with investors, offtakers, and suppliers.
Key Takeaways
The updated Title 17 guidance broadens the program’s reach in both project types and energy sources. The EDFP category is now positioned to support a broad range of conventional and emerging energy infrastructure previously excluded under the prior framework, including midstream fossil infrastructure, baseload generation, and grid stability resources. The guidance reflects a shift in DOE’s focus from emissions reduction and climate goals toward energy and grid reliability, capacity expansion, and supply chain security. This aligns with the current Administration’s broader “energy dominance” agenda and may open doors for traditional energy and mineral projects that previously faced barriers to federal support. Project developers should review the new DOE guidance carefully before navigating the EDF process.