On October 6, the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), Lawyers for Good Government and others has brought a lawsuit At the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island on behalf of the beneficiaries of the Solar For All program to restore the program that the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wanted to end in July.
The claimants include the RHODE Island AFT CIO, an organization of trade unions that represents more than 80,000 people, solar energy companies, non-profit organizations and an individual homeowner who had registered for participation in the Georgia Bright-Zonnus launched last July.
The Solar for All program is designed to offer American households with a low income a saving of at least 20% on their energy bill by using solar energy, the cheapest source for new electricity generation. Based on one analysis Of all work plans of the Clean Energy States Alliance (CESA), Solar for All-Programs can save single-family households to 70% in the next twenty years on energy bill, from $ 495 to $ 1,400 in savings per year for households.
Less than two months ago, EPA sent termination letters to all 60 Solar for all-beneficiaries, in which it stated that EPA no longer had (a) the substantive legal authority or (b) the financial credits needed to continue the implementation of the program after the approval of the One Big Beautiful Bill (HR1).
CESA employees believe that both claims are actually and legally incorrect.
Firstly, the EPA still not only has the legal authority to manage the Solar for All program, but is also obliged to do this by the congress. HR1 has not terminated the Solar for All program. Neither the language in the status nor the conference report supports the termination of the program. Moreover, HR1 did not withdraw the authorization status (Article 134 of the Clean Air Act) with retroactive effect.
Only if HR1 had been introduced retroactively, could this have changed the legal status of a program that was already in the implementation phase and for which funds were obliged. In this context, the obligation is a legal term that refers to a fixed commitment of resources by the federal government. All Solar for all-funds have been mandatory since September 2024, almost a year before HR1.
Moreover, the Congress did not ask or instructed the EPA to end the Solar for All program, a popular program aimed at lowering energy costs and that is supported on both sides of the aisle and it is burgled in each state. In fact, EPA was obliged to make the funds mandatory before the end of September 2024 and to manage the programs on the basis of the Inflation Reduction Act. HR1 does not offer EPA explicit or implicit legal authority to take any action with regard to the Solar for All program, except to continue the implementation in accordance with the law.
Secondly, HR1 did not withdraw any Solar for all-program financing, since the congress has withdrawn only the non-compulsory funds specifically and unambiguously. According to the congress, the only non-compulsory funds consisted on the basis of section 134 of the Clean Air Act from 19 million dollars in administrative funds, very different from the $ 7 billion in programs.
“This lawsuit is a welcome step,” said Cesa’s deputy director Vero Bourg-Meeyer. “We hope that the EPA will reverse the course, so that the beneficiaries of Solar for All can all go back to work, which saves savings for American households.”
Now that this first lawsuit that is relevant for the Solar for All program is started, EPA has not withdrawn its stop-work complementing. States and other beneficiaries continue to consider all legal options that are open to them.
News item from Cesa
