A consortium comprising labor unions, non-profit groups, and solar energy businesses has initiated legal action against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), challenging the abrupt cessation of a significant solar grant initiative designed to benefit low-income Americans.

The lawsuit, filed on Monday, targets EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s decision to discontinue the $7 billion Solar for All program, alleging overreach of statutory authority. The plaintiffs argue that Zeldin unlawfully withdrew funding that Congress had explicitly allocated for this initiative under the Inflation Reduction Act, which had earmarked funds primarily to facilitate access to zero-emission technologies in underprivileged communities.

The termination, according to the lawsuit, infringes not only on the directives of the Inflation Reduction and Administrative Procedure Acts but also on commitments already made to numerous stakeholders. The program, which initially promised to equip over 900,000 low-income homes with solar technology, was rescinded following the enactment of the "One Big Beautiful Bill" Act that dismantled both the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and the Solar for All program.

Plaintiffs including the Rhode Island AFL-CIO, the Rhode Island Center for Justice, Solar United Neighbors, and several solar companies, highlighted the significant financial and operational disruptions caused by the program's unexpected termination. They are seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief to reinstate the program and fulfill the originally promised grants.

Zeldin defended the cancellation on social media, stating, "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... The Trump EPA is announcing that we are ending Solar for All for good, saving US taxpayers ANOTHER $7 BILLION!"

This lawsuit arrives amidst a backdrop of legal nuances, as the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently ruled that disputes over canceled EPA climate-grant awards fall under the jurisdiction of the US Court of Federal Claims, considering them to be "essentially contractual" in nature.

The legal battle underscores a broader conflict over the future of renewable energy initiatives in the United States, particularly those aimed at aiding low-income and marginalized communities. The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for how federal environmental funding is handled moving forward, especially in an era where climate action is increasingly urgent.