The Environmental Protection Agency faces a second lawsuit over the cancellation of solar energy grants promised under the now-terminated Biden-era “Solar for All” program with an Oct. 13 suit filed by Harris County, Texas. Both lawsuits filed against the agency accuse the EPA of illegally revoking money promised under the Solar for All program without congressional approval.
Solar for All was established in 2022 with the Inflation Reduction Act, which granted $7 billion in federal funding to help lower-income families access solar panels and battery storage programs. The program was expected to save participants an estimated $1,740 annually on their utility bills. After President Trump took office in January, Solar for All grants were largely frozen. In August, the EPA formally terminated Solar for All, citing President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. According to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, the EPA did not have the authority to administer the program or the appropriate funds to keep the program running.
The first lawsuit pushing back against the EPA’s cancellation of Solar for All came earlier this month when a group of plaintiffs comprised of solar energy companies, labor unions, and homeowners filed a lawsuit in Rhode Island accusing the EPA of ending Solar for All in violation of federal law. The plaintiffs assert the program was expected to secure 4,000 megawatts of new solar energy over five years, generate 200,000 new jobs, and would have helped save energy costs. Their complaint also accuses the Trump administration of attempting to recapture “billions of congressionally approved dollars in climate funding that was approved during the Biden administration.” The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction and for the EPA to reinstate the Solar for All program.
The latest lawsuit was filed Oct.13 by Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee. Harris County, which is comprised of Houston and the surrounding area, is contesting the cancellation of more than $400 million in solar energy grants earmarked for Texas-based organizations. Menefee’s complaint claims that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act did not give the EPA authority to cancel Solar for All grants as those funds had already been legally committed to the program. The complaint further asserts that the EPA’s cancellation of funding “jeopardizes the county’s ability to deliver critical infrastructure promised to create thousands of well-paying jobs, protect residents from extreme whether by reinforcing the county’s electrical grid, and reduce energy costs for tens of thousands of low-income households.”
The lawsuits are not the first to challenge the EPA’s termination of Biden-era climate grants. There have been numerous lawsuits filed since President Trump took office challenging the EPA’s termination of federal funding awarded through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), most notable, Climate United Fund v. Citibank. In April, the District Court for the District of Columbia in the Climate United Fund Matter issued a preliminary injunction that prevented the EPA from effectuating GGRF grant terminations while the litigation was pending. In September, however, an appeals court set aside the preliminary injunction in its entirety, stating that “the grantees are not likely to succeed on the merits because their claims are essentially contractional,” asserting that the claims must be brought before a special court that handles contract disputes involving the federal government. The grantees are appealing that decision and proceeding with litigation.
The Climate United Fund matter is one to watch as more entities file suit against the EPA for the termination of funds under GGRF and the Solar for All program. While that litigation is pending, however, the EPA is likely to face additional lawsuits over its funding cuts.