A coalition of more than 20 U.S. states is suing the Trump administration over its cancellation of the $7 billion “Solar for All” program.
Attorneys general from 20 states and representatives from three others have filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its Administrator, Lee Zeldin, for “unlawfully terminating and rescinding” the funding for the “Solar for All” program in August.
Established in 2022, the “Solar for All” program was designed to fund solar projects in low-income and disadvantaged communities. The Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources stated that the program could have reduced energy bills by approximately 20% for up to 29,000 Massachusetts residents. U.S. Senator Ed Markey claimed that the program could have saved “over $8 billion” in energy bills nationwide.
The office of Oregon Attorney General Dan Reynolds stated that Oregon and other states had already advanced the planning, development, and financing of solar projects under the “Solar for All” program, and the sudden withdrawal of funds prevents them from moving forward with these projects.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta pointed out that the EPA should have paid the state nearly $250 million for community solar and energy storage projects originally planned under the program.
The states have filed two lawsuits against the EPA. The first was filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the EPA violated contracts with the states and seeking financial compensation.
The second lawsuit, filed in Washington, D.C., claims that the EPA’s cancellation of the program “violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution.” The plaintiffs argue that although Congress never required the EPA to rescind the allocated “Solar for All” funds, Zeldin “erroneously claimed” that the EPA lacked statutory authorization and dedicated funding for the program.
Alice Reynolds, President of the California Public Utilities Commission, stated, “Canceling the ‘Solar for All’ funds is not just bad policy—it is illegal. These grants were approved by Congress under the law to help lower energy costs and transition to clean energy supply. Withdrawing the funds is a destructive decision.”
Reynolds emphasized, “Working families are already feeling the pressure of rising energy costs—and obstructing clean energy programs in Oregon will only make it worse. This funding is not just about environmental protection; it’s about lowering bills, creating jobs, and helping communities shift to cleaner, more affordable energy.”
As early as February of this year, Zeldin attempted to reclaim $20 billion in clean energy grants allocated by the EPA under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. At that time, Zeldin—whose decisions are now facing legal challenges from 20 state attorneys general and multiple state public utility commissions—had criticized the EPA for “showering massive funds on far-left radical organizations.”
