Renewable Energy News

Second Federal Judge Rules EPA’s Solar for All Cancellation Was Unlawful

Summary not found.

A second US federal judge has found that the Environmental Protection Agency acted unlawfully when it terminated the $7 billion Solar for All program last year. US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, ruling September 22 in a case brought by Harris County, Texas, wrote that EPA’s decision to eliminate the program was “arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and in excess of statutory authority” — and applied her ruling to the program nationwide, not just to Harris County’s roughly $250 million grant.

Two rulings, one conclusion

Chutkan’s decision came three days after a separate ruling from the US District Court for Rhode Island, where Judge Mary S. McElroy found on September 19 that EPA’s termination of Solar for All was procedurally unlawful and ordered it vacated. Both judges rejected EPA’s justification that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA) gave the agency authority to eliminate the program; Chutkan wrote plainly that “the OBBA provides no authority for EPA’s Elimination Decision.” Not every related lawsuit has gone the same way — a separate case brought by 22 states and the District of Columbia was dismissed in January — but the two most recent rulings both went against the EPA’s cancellation.

What Solar for All was built to do

Solar for All is part of the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund created under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, and was designed to help low-income and disadvantaged households cover the cost of installing rooftop solar or joining community solar projects. EPA terminated the program in August 2025, citing the OBBA, a move that halted disbursement of grants that states, tribes and local governments — including Harris County — had already been awarded. Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo, whose county stood to receive about $250 million with a $54 million local share, called the ruling “a really important victory for energy resilience in Harris County.”

What happens next

EPA said it is reviewing both the Rhode Island and Washington, D.C. rulings and considering whether to appeal. Unless and until an appeals court intervenes, the two decisions leave Solar for All’s roughly $7 billion in previously awarded grants legally protected, reopening a funding pathway for rooftop and community solar projects aimed at low-income households that had been frozen for more than a year. The litigation underscores how much of the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean-energy funding is now being contested and defended case by case in federal court rather than settled through legislation.