Lawsuit Challenges EPA’s $7 Billion Solar Program Cut
▼ Summary
– The EPA is being sued for allegedly terminating the “Solar for All” program for political reasons, which was designed to help low-income and disadvantaged communities save on electricity bills through solar initiatives.
– Plaintiffs, including a labor union, businesses, and a homeowner, claim the EPA violated federal law and the Constitution by unlawfully ending the program, which was expected to save $350 million annually and benefit over 900,000 households.
– The program was projected to create 4,000 megawatts of new solar energy and generate 200,000 jobs over five years, with Congress obligating $7 billion in grants to support these efforts.
– Plaintiffs argue that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin illegally terminated the program after a statute repeal, ignoring lawmakers’ clear statements that only unobligated funds could be rescinded and not those already awarded.
– Zeldin was accused of arbitrarily waiting a month after the repeal to end the program and violating the separation of powers, with plaintiffs citing his actions as interference due to political opposition to solar energy.
A significant legal challenge has been filed against the Environmental Protection Agency concerning its decision to terminate the $7 billion Solar for All initiative, a program designed to assist low-income households with energy costs through solar power installations. The lawsuit contends this action was politically driven and violates both federal statutes and constitutional principles.
Plaintiffs in the case include a labor union, multiple businesses, and a homeowner struggling with electricity expenses. They argue that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin unlawfully ended the program despite congressional intent. According to the complaint, Congress had clearly stipulated that only “unobligated” funds could be withdrawn when it repealed the statute behind the program. Lawmakers repeatedly emphasized that already awarded funding would remain protected.
The Solar for All program was projected to produce substantial benefits, including annual energy bill savings of roughly $350 million for over 900,000 low-income and disadvantaged households. It also aimed to install 4,000 megawatts of new solar capacity within five years and create approximately 200,000 new jobs. These outcomes would have delivered meaningful economic relief and advanced national clean energy objectives.
In 2024, Congress directed the EPA to distribute $7 billion in grants to support projects expected to generate hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs while reducing electricity bills for low-income families by an average of $400 per year. The plaintiffs assert that Administrator Zeldin disregarded the statute’s explicit language by waiting a month after the statute’s repeal to terminate Solar for All in August.
Notably, Zeldin continued distributing program funds for several weeks following the statute’s repeal, which plaintiffs say demonstrates his understanding that the money had not been rescinded. They accuse the EPA under the Trump administration of overstepping its authority by blocking congressionally approved funds, allegedly due to political opposition to solar energy. A social media post by Zeldin claimed the “EPA no longer has the authority to administer the program or the appropriated funds to keep this boondoggle alive,” which plaintiffs cite as evidence of improper motives.
(Source: Ars Technica)
