Judge Vacated EPA Termination of Solar Program
A federal judge ruled that the cancellation of a $7 billion solar grant program was unlawful.
Updated on Sept. 18, 2026 in Utilities
Live Poll
Should the federal government be required to honor previously awarded grants when administrations change?
A federal judge in Rhode Island has ruled that the EPA acted unlawfully when it terminated the $7 billion Solar for All grant program. The court decision vacates the agency's previous cancellation of the initiative.
Why it matters
The ruling challenges the executive branch's authority to rescind previously awarded funds after legislation eliminated the program's source of financing. It restores legal uncertainty surrounding the status of grants promised to dozens of organizations nationwide.
The program provided grants to 60 distinct organizations, including tribes and states, to support solar initiatives. The court found that the EPA continued to hold over $3 billion in funding for program expenses despite its formal termination.
The players
Mary McElroy
She is a federal judge in Rhode Island who presided over the legal challenge against the EPA.
Lee Zeldin
He served as the EPA administrator during the time the agency terminated the Solar for All program.
The details
The EPA terminated the program, which it characterized as a boondoggle, shortly after the July 2025 signing of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Judge Mary McElroy determined the agency's rescission of grants, which had been awarded in 2024, did not comply with legal requirements.
Timeline
Congress enacted the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022.
The EPA awarded grants to 60 organizations in 2024.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed in July 2025.
The EPA announced the termination of the program in August 2025.
Judge McElroy ruled the termination unlawful on September 12, 2026.
Market Landscape
This ruling highlights the ongoing volatility in federal clean energy funding as administrations navigate legislative shifts. It pits established environmental grant programs against newer fiscal policies that seek to aggressively reduce government spending.
The potential restoration of this program could affect the availability of solar infrastructure initiatives for approximately 1 million households. Participants and applicants should monitor whether the EPA will reinstate project timelines following this judicial order.
The takeaway
The court's decision serves as a reminder that administrative agencies face strict legal hurdles when attempting to claw back previously awarded federal grant money. Organizations affected by policy changes should consult legal counsel regarding the standing of existing government agreements.
Further reading
For more on the national outlook for energy policy, visit the Utilities section.
Live Poll
Should the federal government be required to honor previously awarded grants when administrations change?
