EPA Facing Class Action For Terminating Solar for All Program

Utility Dive’s Diana DiGangi reports that eight plaintiffs have sued the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the District of Rhode Island, contesting the agency’s termination of the Solar for All program.

The lawsuit, Rhode Island AFL-CIO, et al v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Zeldin, claims the decision was unconstitutional and caused significant harm to individuals, labor groups, nonprofits, and solar businesses that expected to benefit from the program’s grants.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the rescission in August, asserting that the agency lacked both statutory authority and funds to continue operating the initiative.

The Solar for All program, initiated under the Biden administration, aims to expand access to affordable solar energy in low-income and disadvantaged communities nationwide. Funded with $7 billion through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the initiative aimed to help more than 900,000 households benefit from residential solar projects.

Plaintiffs include solar companies, nonprofits, and a labor union representing workers who claim to have depended on the program’s continuation. They maintain they were “intended beneficiaries,” not direct grantees, of the funding.

According to the complaint, the EPA acted unlawfully by terminating the program after Congress repealed portions of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, but did not retroactively rescind the Solar for All initiative.

The plaintiffs argue that Congress only withdrew “unobligated balances.” That left previously awarded funds intact and requires the EPA to distribute them. The lawsuit seeks a court order reinstating the program and directing the agency to carry out its grant awards.

The dispute raises significant questions about the scope of executive power, agency discretion in managing appropriated funds, and the enforceability of statutory mandates once administrative priorities change.

Legal teams for interested parties should follow the case for guidance on what, if any, limits exist on executive authority to terminate congressionally funded programs.