Recipients of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) $7 billion Solar For All grant program have sued Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its head administrator Lee Zeldin for rescinding the funds intended to support community solar projects across the U.S.
The plaintiffs, which are represented by Solar United Neighbors, the Southern Environmental Law Center and other legal groups, are not direct grantees, but were beneficiaries of the program. They include a labor organization, an individual homeowner seeking access to solar energy to reduce costs, nonprofit organizations dedicated to assisting low-income families with affordable energy, and solar consultants and installers.
The suit alleges that EPA and Trump-appointed administrator Zeldin violated federal law, including the Administrative Procedure Act and the United States Constitution, in terminating the funds.
The suit seeks to require EPA to retore the $7 billion program.
Solar for All is a funding program launched by the EPA in June 2023. The goal of the program is to enable millions of low-income households access to affordable, resilient, and clean solar energy. It disburses grants to states, territories, tribal governments, municipalities and nonprofits.
EPA said the solar projects enabled by the Biden-era fund would reach 900,000 households and lead to average household savings of about $400 annually, or $33 per month, on electricity bills.
Total household savings were projected at over $350 million annually, and the program would lead to than $8 billion in cumulative savings over a standard 25-year solar project life, said the EPA.
Regionally and nationwide, the cut of funds is expected to lead to job losses and higher electricity prices. In the South, for instance, nearly five million households face a high or severe energy burden, according to the Southern Environmental Law Center. Rooftop and community solar programs funded by the program are helping to alleviate these burdens with a guaranteed 20% savings on electricity bills for participating households.
The EPA estimated the residential and residential-serving community solar projects would cumulatively reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions by over 30 million metric tons CO2 equivalent. This is equivalent to the emissions of over 7 million typical passenger vehicles, said the EPA.
Programs funded by Solar for All are expected to deploy and unlock over 4 GW of distributed solar energy entirely for low-income and disadvantaged communities, according to the EPA. It said programs created by the funds would “create hundreds of thousands of jobs all across the country over the next five years.”
Solar for All grant recipients committed to apply Davis-Bacon Act labor standards and the Build America, Buy America Act to their programs.
Despite the expected job growth, bill savings, and carbon emissions reductions, EPA head Lee Zeldin indicated in February 2025 the agency sought to “instantly terminate” the funds.
EPA sent termination letters in August, arguing it no longer had “substantive legal authority” or the “financial appropriations needed” to continue the program.
“Today, the Trump EPA is announcing that we are ending Solar for All for good, saving US taxpayers ANOTHER $7 BILLION!” said Zeldin the social media platform X.
Zeldin argued that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) contained language that enabled EPA to rescind the funds. However, the plaintiffs argue that the funds have already been obligated, and that only “unobligated funds” are applicable to be rescinded based on OBBBA language.
Representative Morgan Griffith (R–VA), Chair of the Environmental Subcommittee, stated repeatedly in committee that the bill would not impact obligated funds, said the complaint.
“I just want to point out that these provisions that we are talking about only apply as far, as this bill is concerned, to the unobligated balances. So if a grant was already given, as far as this bill is concerned, then that would still be going forward,” said Representative Griffith in a committee meeting.
“On August 7, 2025, ignoring the congressional directive in the unambiguous text of § 60002 and explicit legislative history, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin terminated the entire Solar for All grant program,” argued the plaintiffs.
Zeldin argued that the competitive funds suffered from “massive dilution.”
“Many grants go through pass-through after pass-through after pass-through after pass-through, with all of the middlemen taking their own cut—at least 15% by conservative estimates. What a grift!” said Zeldin in official EPA video.
Watch EPA’s statement on the recission of Solar For All below:
This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: editors@pv-magazine.com.
By submitting this form you agree to pv magazine using your data for the purposes of publishing your comment.
Your personal data will only be disclosed or otherwise transmitted to third parties for the purposes of spam filtering or if this is necessary for technical maintenance of the website. Any other transfer to third parties will not take place unless this is justified on the basis of applicable data protection regulations or if pv magazine is legally obliged to do so.
You may revoke this consent at any time with effect for the future, in which case your personal data will be deleted immediately. Otherwise, your data will be deleted if pv magazine has processed your request or the purpose of data storage is fulfilled.
Further information on data privacy can be found in our Data Protection Policy.