Solar for All Beneficiaries File Suit Against EPA to Restore the Program

The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), Lawyers for Good Government, and others filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island on behalf of beneficiaries of the Solar for All program to restore the program that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sought to terminate in July. 

Plaintiffs include the Rhode Island AFL-CIO, a statewide organization of trade unions representing more than 80,000 people, solar businesses, nonprofits, and an individual homeowner that had applied to participate in the Georgia Bright rooftop solar program launched last July. You can find the filing here, a statement from SELC here, and a New York Times article about it here. 

The Solar for All program was designed to provide a minimum of 20% savings to low-income American households on their utility bills using solar, the cheapest source of new electricity generation. Based on an analysis of all workplans done by the Clean Energy States Alliance (CESA), Solar for All programs could provide utility bill savings up to 70 percent for single-family households for the next 20 years, from $495 to $1,400 in household savings per year. According to EPA’s own numbers, 900,000 households were slated to benefit throughout the country.

Less than two months ago, EPA sent letters of termination to all 60 Solar for All grantees in which it stated EPA no longer possessed (a) the substantive legal authority or (b) the financial appropriations needed to continue implementation of the program following passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill (HR1) by Congress. 

CESA staff believe that both assertions are factually and legally incorrect. 

First, EPA not only still possesses the legal authority to administer the Solar for All program, but is required by Congress to do so. HR1 did not terminate the Solar for All program. Neither the language in the statute nor the congressional record support termination of the program. Further, HR1 did not retroactively repeal the authorizing statute (Section 134 of the Clean Air Act). 

Only if HR1 had been made retroactive could it have changed the legal status of a program that was already in its implementation phase and for which funds were obligated. Obligation in this context is a legal term referring to a firm commitment of funds by the federal government. All Solar for All funds have been obligated since September 2024, almost a year before HR1. 

In addition, Congress neither required nor instructed EPA to terminate the Solar for All program, a popular program aimed at lowering the cost of power and supported on both sides of the aisle, covering households in every state. In fact, EPA was required to obligate the funds before the end of September 2024 and to administer the programs by the Inflation Reduction Act. HR1 does not provide any express or implied legal authority for EPA to take any action on the Solar for All program other than to continue implementation in compliance with the law. 

Second, HR1 did not rescind any Solar for All program funds as Congress, specifically and unambiguously, only rescinded unobligated funds. According to Congress, the only unobligated funds under Section 134 of the Clean Air Act were $19 million of administrative funds, a far cry from $7 billion of program funds. 

“This lawsuit is a welcome step,” said CESA’s Deputy Director, Vero Bourg-Meyer. “We hope that EPA reverses course so that Solar for All grantees can all return to work, delivering savings to American households.” 

As this first lawsuit relevant to the Solar for All program is launched, EPA has not lifted its stop-work orders. States and other grantees are continuing to consider all legal options open to them.

To learn more about CESA’s work with Solar for All grantees nationwide, visit https://www.cesa.org/projects/scaling-up-solar-for-under-resourced-communities/solar-for-all/ 

Clean Energy States Alliance | www.cesa.org