Judge revives $7 billion Solar for All plan

A federal court in Rhode Island has reinstated the $7 billion Solar for All program by vacating the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to terminate it. In a ruling issued on Sept. 18, 2026, U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy held that the agency acted illegally when it attempted to end the nationwide solar grant initiative.

The decision means the EPA’s earlier termination of Solar for All has no legal effect, restoring the status of the program as it existed before the agency’s action. The ruling focuses on how the law governing the program should be interpreted rather than on broader policy questions about clean energy.

Judge McElroy concluded that Congress clearly intended the EPA to continue administering Solar for All grants that had already been obligated. The court found that by halting the program, the agency acted contrary to that intent and without other statutory authority to support its decision.

The opinion underscores that once funds have been obligated under a program such as Solar for All, the administering agency must follow the framework set by Congress. The ruling indicates that the EPA lacked a legal basis to unilaterally stop administering those committed grants.

The lawsuit challenging the termination was brought by several Rhode Island groups, including the Rhode Island AFL-CIO, the Rhode Island Center for Justice, and the nonprofit Solar United Neighbors. These plaintiffs argued that the program played an important role for workers and for low-income communities in the state.

Solar for All has been described as intended to extend access to solar power to more than 900,000 lower-income Americans. The program’s focus on lower-income households and communities was a central element in the litigation over whether the EPA could halt already obligated grants.

Following the ruling, the EPA stated on Sept. 18, 2026 that it is reviewing the court’s decision and weighing its options for appeal. Any appeal would determine whether the legal questions raised in the Rhode Island case move to a higher court.

While the decision vacates the termination, the future course of the program will depend on how the EPA responds and whether appellate courts become involved. The ruling currently stands as a significant constraint on the agency’s ability to end grant programs that Congress has funded and obligated.