A federal judge in Rhode Island has revived the $7 billion Solar for All program, ruling that the Trump administration unlawfully canceled grants intended to expand solar energy access in low-income communities across the country.
U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy ruled on Sept. 18 that the Environmental Protection Agency exceeded its authority when it terminated the program and its existing grants. She granted summary judgment to the Rhode Island AFL-CIO and other challengers, declared the EPA’s decision unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and vacated it.
Solar for All was created under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act as part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The EPA awarded the entire $7 billion to 60 recipients, including states, municipalities, Tribal governments and nonprofits, before a September 2024 deadline. The program was expected to help more than 900,000 households gain access to residential and community solar projects.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the program’s termination in August 2025 after President Donald Trump signed a tax and spending law that repealed the provision establishing the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The administration argued that the repeal stripped the agency of authority to continue administering Solar for All.
McElroy found that Congress drew a different line. The 2025 law rescinded money that remained unobligated, while the full $7 billion for Solar for All had already been committed to grant recipients.
Lawmakers also left the EPA with billions of dollars available for agency expenses, including personnel and costs associated with administering grant programs. McElroy found that the remaining funding undercut the administration’s argument that the agency lacked the resources or authority to oversee grants already in place.
The distinction between money already committed and funding still available for future awards shaped the outcome. McElroy found that Congress repealed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund going forward while allowing existing grant awards to continue.
The EPA had argued that the plaintiffs were effectively challenging individual grant terminations and that those disputes belonged in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. McElroy instead treated the case as a challenge to the agency’s broader decision to terminate Solar for All as a whole.
Several plaintiffs had already invested money, staff and other resources in projects tied to the program. McElroy found that 2KB Energy Services had standing after losing a $1.64 million subgrant contract, along with investments the company made in equipment and personnel in anticipation of the funding.
The judge vacated the EPA’s termination decision without issuing a separate permanent injunction. She found that vacating the agency action provided sufficient relief because the government represented that doing so would prevent continued implementation of the termination.
The decision adds another chapter to litigation over billions of dollars in federal climate funding that the Trump administration has sought to unwind. Solar for All grant recipients have pursued separate cases in federal district courts and the Court of Federal Claims over the loss of their awards.
The EPA said it was reviewing McElroy’s decision and considering an appeal. The ruling leaves the Solar for All grants in place unless the government obtains a different result through further litigation.
The case is Rhode Island AFL-CIO et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
