This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact The Epoch Times Reprints.
A coalition of state attorneys general filed two lawsuits against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) this week over the agency’s decision to end a $7 billion grant program for solar energy projects.
The lawsuits stemmed from the EPA’s announcement in August that it was terminating the Solar for All program following President Donald Trump’s signing of the One Big Beautiful Act into law, which eliminated the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that financed the program.
The Solar for All program was established by the Biden administration as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. In April 2024, the program awarded grants to 60 recipients to expand solar energy access to low-income and disadvantaged communities, reduce energy costs, and address climate concerns.
The coalition, along with the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania and the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, alleged that the EPA breached the grant terms when it “unilaterally terminated” the program, according to the first lawsuit.
Filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on Oct. 15, it seeks monetary damages resulting from the program’s termination.
The coalition filed another complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Oct. 16, requesting that the court issue an order requiring the EPA to restore the program.
In that lawsuit, the coalition alleged that the EPA had directed its staff to claw back all remaining funds previously allocated to the program’s recipients, leaving the plaintiffs without access to the funding needed to continue solar projects.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, who joined the coalition in bringing the lawsuits, said the program’s termination jeopardizes $156 million for the state’s solar projects.
“Congress passed a solar energy program to help make electricity costs more affordable, but the administration is ignoring the law and focused on the conspiracy theory that climate change is a hoax,” Brown said in a statement.
The coalition argues that the EPA’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act and was “unconstitutional” because Congress had funded the program.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin at the agency headquarters in Washington on Feb. 18, 2025. Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images
“We will not let this illegal termination of the Solar for All Program stand. This Administration can try all they want to bend the law, but we will hold them accountable,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta, one of the plaintiffs, said in a statement.
Other attorneys general involved in the lawsuits include those from Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
In its response to media inquiry, the EPA said it does not comment on pending litigation.
The EPA was also being sued by a group of business owners and nonprofit groups challenging the termination of the program, which was filed at the Rhode Island District Court on Oct. 6.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said on Aug. 7 that “very little money has actually been spent” since 2024, with projects mainly in the planning phase rather than the construction phase.
“The bottom line is this: EPA no longer has the statutory authority to administer the program or the appropriated funds to keep this boondoggle alive,” he said.
Zeldin noted that the Biden administration had exempted the solar program from the “Build America, Buy America” law, which requires federal agencies to use U.S. workers, products, and infrastructure for projects funded by American taxpayer dollars.
Trump also signed an executive order in July to end federal subsidies for wind and solar energy projects, citing the unreliability of these energy sources and dependence on foreign-controlled supply chains.
