Solar for All: $7 Billion Restored, Appeal Pending

Last updated October 4, 2026

September 22: A second federal judge, in Washington, D.C., vacates EPA's termination of Solar for All as a whole.

Quick Answer

Why This Matters for EPCs

If your pipeline includes residential or community solar work tied to a state Solar for All program, two federal rulings are the first real, concrete legal wins since the program was terminated over a year ago, but "restored" and "money moving again" are not the same thing yet, and the honest answer to a client or partner asking "is this back" is more nuanced than a headline suggests.

What Solar for All Actually Is

Solar for All is a $7 billion competitive grant program under the EPA, part of the larger $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund created by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. In April 2024, EPA awarded 60 grants, to 49 state-level agencies, six tribal governments, and five multi-state recipients, covering nearly every state and territory in the country. The goal: help more than 900,000 lower-income and disadvantaged households access residential and community solar, with backers estimating it would cut electricity bills by at least 20% for participating households and save $8.7 billion in electricity costs over the panels' lifetime.

Award sizes varied widely by scope: Washington State and New Mexico each received $156 million, Oregon received nearly $87 million, Alaska received $62 million, and Harris County, Texas (Houston) led a Texas coalition with an award of roughly $250 million, specifically for distributed solar and battery storage. Some grantees had already broken ground before the termination, Groundswell, a nonprofit operating across eight Southern states, had completed 24 megawatts of projects worth over $20 million before funding was cut.

The termination's practical impact was concrete and immediate for specific households, not abstract. Arizona's Attorney General estimated roughly 11,000 low-income households in the state would see a 20% spike in energy bills as a direct result of losing the state's $156 million award. New York and California each lost close to $250 million. This is also worth knowing: the program had already survived one funding scare before the actual termination, an earlier 2025 federal funding freeze briefly cut off grantee access to funds before they were unfrozen, only for the full termination to follow months later in August.

The Timeline: Termination, Four Lawsuits, and Two Wins

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the termination on August 7, 2025, calling the program a "boondoggle" and citing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's rescission of "unobligated" balances in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund as legal justification. Grantees across the country received termination letters the same day, some, like South Carolina's Office of Resilience, immediately began winding down grant activities; others, like Oregon and North Carolina, disputed the termination and paused rather than closed out their programs.

Four separate legal challenges followed, and it matters which one a given state or grantee is actually part of:

• Track 1, the Rhode Island case, decided September 18, 2026. The Rhode Island AFL-CIO, the Rhode Island Center for Justice, Solar United Neighbors, and other plaintiffs sued in October 2025. Judge Mary McElroy's ruling, issued via summary judgment, found that Solar for All's funds were already "obligated" to grantees by a September 2024 deadline, meaning the OBBBA's rescission of "unobligated" balances legally couldn't apply to them. In her words, "the OBBBA did not convert SFA funding into a lump-sum amount subject to EPA's discretion. Instead, Congress's clear intent was that EPA continue to administer the already obligated SFA grants." This was the first of two rulings vacating the termination.
• Track 2, the multi-state attorneys general case, dismissed and under appeal. A coalition eventually reaching 23 states plus Washington, D.C., led by Arizona, Washington, and Minnesota, sued in the Western District of Washington on October 16, 2025. This wasn't purely a partisan Democratic effort either, Kentucky's governor and economic development authorities in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin joined as well. The states argued EPA's own grant agreements only permitted termination for "substantial noncompliance that materially impairs performance, adequate evidence of waste, fraud or abuse, or material representation of eligibility status," none of which EPA alleged, making the termination a direct breach of contract, not just an improper use of rescission authority. The action wasn't abstract: EPA had already withdrawn approximately 90% of grant funds directly from grantees' federal payment accounts within days of the announcement. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in June 2026, and the plaintiffs have appealed, unresolved, separate from and unaffected by the Rhode Island ruling.
• Track 3, nonprofit grantee damages claims, still pending. In July 2026, several nonprofit grantees, including Growth Opportunity Partners, Inclusive Prosperity Capital, and the Center for Rural Affairs, filed separate claims in the US Court of Federal Claims, arguing EPA's termination breached their grant agreements and seeking the full value of what was terminated. That case is still active and hasn't been resolved by either ruling.
• Track 4, the Harris County case, decided September 22, 2026. Harris County, Texas, which led a Texas coalition with a Solar for All award of roughly $250 million, sued EPA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in October 2025. On September 22, Judge Tanya Chutkan (an Obama appointee, where Judge McElroy is a Trump appointee) ruled that EPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act by issuing guidance to rescind all $7 billion of Solar for All funds, because the 2025 spending law rescinded only unobligated money. She rejected EPA's argument that the claims were purely contractual and belonged in claims court, and vacated the termination decision. Per Utility Dive, the ruling applies to EPA's cancellation of all Solar for All grants, not just Harris County's. She did not order Harris County's own grant restored.

What's Actually Confirmed, and What Isn't

Confirmed: two federal courts have vacated EPA's termination of Solar for All, each finding that already-obligated funds were not covered by the OBBBA's rescission of unobligated balances.

Not confirmed: whether EPA will appeal either ruling (it says it is reviewing and considering its options), how quickly disbursement to the 60 grantees would actually resume if the rulings stand, and whether every grantee's specific situation is covered the same way, states like Oregon that formally disputed and paused their programs are in a different practical position than ones that fully wound down operations, cancelled contracts, or laid off staff in response to the original termination.

Newly reported: EPA has said the withdrawn funds remain in a Treasury account, and an agency audit found only about $71 million had been disbursed when the program was terminated.

Unaffected by these rulings: the other roughly $20 billion of the broader Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which was also cancelled and remains so. These rulings are specific to the $7 billion Solar for All portion.

What EPC Teams Should Do Now

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Telling a client Solar for All funding is definitely available again, right now, it's legally restored but not confirmed as disbursing.
• Assuming these rulings cover the full $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, they cover only the $7 billion Solar for All piece.
• Conflating the four separate legal tracks, a state's actual situation depends on which case, if any, it's part of.
• Treating an EPA appeal as unlikely just because the rulings were clearly reasoned, EPA has explicitly said it's considering one.

Where Reslink Fits In This Conversation

A client or partner asking "is Solar for All back" deserves an answer scoped to their actual state and situation, not a general "yes" based on a headline. Reslink's proposal workflow lets EPCs attach the current, real status of any grant-funded program to a specific project's documentation, so a residential or community solar proposal reflects what's actually confirmed for that state, not what a news alert implied.

See the full workflow → Book a demo

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What did the September 18, 2026 ruling actually decide?

US District Judge Mary McElroy ruled that the EPA's August 2025 termination of the $7 billion Solar for All program was unlawful, because the funds had already been obligated to specific grantees by a September 2024 deadline, and a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act rescinding "unobligated" balances didn't apply to them. She vacated the termination.

Q2. Is Solar for All funding actually being disbursed again now?

Not confirmed. The termination has been legally vacated by two courts, but EPA hasn't announced a disbursement timeline, and it's reviewing the rulings with a possible appeal still on the table.

Q3. Do these rulings apply to every state that had a Solar for All grant?

Both courts rested on the same point, that already-obligated funds were not covered by OBBBA's rescission of unobligated balances. Per Utility Dive, the D.C. ruling applies to the cancellation of all Solar for All grants, not just Harris County's. Arizona, which was not a party to either case but has its own challenge, could regain $181 million for Arizona and Hopi projects, per Cronkite News. A separate multi-state attorneys general case was dismissed for jurisdiction in June 2026 and remains under appeal.

Q4. What happens to the rest of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund?

Nothing changes for it. Solar for All was $7 billion of a larger $27 billion fund. The remaining roughly $20 billion, allocated to community development banks and nonprofits for other climate projects, was also cancelled and is not affected by these rulings.

Q5. Can the EPA still appeal these rulings?

Yes. EPA said it is "reviewing the decision and considering options for appeal." An appeal would extend the legal uncertainty and could delay or reverse the practical restoration of funding. As of the latest reports, EPA has not announced whether it will appeal either ruling.

Q6. What should an EPC tell a client relying on Solar for All financing right now?

That the program's termination has been struck down by two federal courts, which is a genuinely positive, concrete development, but that actual fund disbursement isn't confirmed yet, and the client's specific state's situation should be checked directly with the administering agency rather than assumed from national headlines.

Q7. Has any other court ruled on Solar for All?

Yes. On September 22, 2026, Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in Harris County v. EPA that the termination was unlawful and vacated it. She did not order Harris County's grant restored.

Sources

• The Hill, September 18, 2026, ruling details, EPA response, Southern Environmental Law Center statement
• Associated Press (via OPB and Fox44), September 18, 2026, judge's reasoning, program background, parallel dismissed AG case status
• Washington Post (via Yahoo News), September 18, 2026, program scope, "900,000 people" framing, summary judgment detail
• Utility Dive, September 18, 2026, EPA obligated Solar for All funding by a September 2024 deadline, per the court decision
• CBS News, August 8, 2025, original award breakdown by state and recipient, including Alaska and Groundswell's project progress
• Clean Energy States Alliance (CESA), cesa.org, program structure, 60 grants to states/territories/tribes/nonprofits
• Southern Environmental Law Center / Lawyers for Good Government, July 21, 2026, Court of Federal Claims damages case filed by Growth Opportunity Partners, Inclusive Prosperity Capital, and Center for Rural Affairs
• Oregon Department of Energy (Primary), oregon.gov/energy, state-level termination and dispute timeline, multi-state lawsuit confirmation
• Senator Ruben Gallego's office (Primary), October 17, 2025, Senate letter citing 20% bill savings and $8.7 billion lifetime savings estimates
• California and New York Attorneys General offices (Primary), oag.ca.gov and ag.ny.gov, multi-state AG lawsuit and injunction motion detail
• Utility Dive, September 2026, the D.C. ruling's program-wide scope and the Harris County coalition
• Bloomberg Law, September 2026, Judge Chutkan's Administrative Procedure Act finding, the claims-court argument, and case number 1:25-cv-03646
• Texas Politics, September 24, 2026, no order to restore Harris County's grant, and EPA's statement that the funds remain in a Treasury account
• Cronkite News, October 1, 2026, the roughly $71 million disbursed figure, EPA's "considering whether to appeal" statement, and Arizona's $181 million