Solar for All: $7 Billion Restored, Appeal Pending

Quick Answer

Why This Matters for EPCs

If your pipeline includes residential or community solar work tied to a state Solar for All program, this ruling is the first real, concrete legal win 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) received $249 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, Three Lawsuits, and Now a Win

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.

Three 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 McElroy's ruling, issued via summary judgment, found that Solar for All's funds were already "obligated" to specific grantees when they were awarded in April 2024, 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 is the ruling behind today's headlines, and it's the one that actually vacates the termination.
• Track 2, the multi-state attorneys general case, dismissed and under appeal. 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 this week's 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 wasn't resolved by this week's ruling either.

What's Actually Confirmed, and What Isn't

Confirmed: the EPA's termination of Solar for All has been vacated by a federal court, based on a legal finding that already-obligated funds couldn't be swept up in the OBBBA's rescission language.

Not confirmed: whether EPA will appeal (it says it's "reviewing the decision and considering options"), how quickly disbursement to the 60 grantees would actually resume if the ruling stands, 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.

Unaffected by this ruling: the other roughly $20 billion of the broader Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which was also cancelled and remains so. This ruling is 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 this ruling covers the full $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, it covers only the $7 billion Solar for All piece.
• Conflating the three 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 ruling was 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 in April 2024, 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, but EPA hasn't announced a disbursement timeline, and it's reviewing the ruling with a possible appeal still on the table.

Q3. Does this ruling apply to every state that had a Solar for All grant?

The ruling's legal reasoning, that already-obligated funds can't be swept into OBBBA's rescission, would likely apply broadly if it stands, but this specific case was brought by Rhode Island-based plaintiffs. A separate, 24-state attorneys general case pursuing similar relief was dismissed for jurisdiction in June 2026 and remains under appeal, unresolved by this ruling.

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 this ruling.

Q5. Can the EPA still appeal this ruling?

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.

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 in court, 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.

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
• CBS News, August 8, 2025, original award breakdown by state and recipient, including Alaska, Harris County TX, 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, 24-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