Maryland Attorney General Leads Legal Challenge Against EPA’s Reversal of Solar for All Program

Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown is at the forefront of legal action challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to terminate the Solar for All program, a $7 billion initiative designed to bring solar energy to hundreds of thousands of low-income households nationwide. The Attorney General’s office, in collaboration with Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, has filed two lawsuits. The first, lodged in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, seeks monetary damages from the EPA for alleged breach of contract with grant recipients, including Maryland’s designated recipient. The second lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court, directly contests the legality of the program’s cancellation.

The Solar for All program, established by Congress in 2022 through the Inflation Reduction Act, aimed to reduce energy costs and combat pollution by facilitating the deployment of solar projects in disadvantaged communities. In August 2024, the EPA awarded grants to states and other entities, with Maryland receiving over $62 million. Following the grant awards, recipients began project planning and stakeholder engagement. However, approximately two months prior to the lawsuits’ filing, the EPA abruptly ended the program and recalled the majority of the awarded funds. This action has left grant recipients, including Maryland’s designated entity which had already drawn down nearly $1 million of its grant, without the necessary resources to move forward with their solar initiatives, despite having committed state funds and invested significant time in program development.

The legal challenges assert that the EPA’s decision to cancel the program and reclaim funds was unlawful. According to the lawsuit filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the EPA breached the terms of executed grant agreements and acted in violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs in this action are requesting financial compensation, interest, and legal fees. This lawsuit includes the Attorneys General of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia. The complaint also lists the governor of Kentucky, the Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority, and the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation as plaintiffs.

In the separate suit filed in the U.S. District Court, the plaintiffs argue that the EPA’s cancellation of the Solar for All program contravenes the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution’s Separation of Powers Doctrine. This litigation is co-led by the Attorneys General of Arizona, Minnesota, and Washington, with participation from the Attorneys General of California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Similar to the first lawsuit, this complaint also includes the governor of Kentucky, the Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority, and the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation.

The EPA’s termination of the Solar for All program occurred despite congressional actions that only rescinded unobligated funds for the program as of July 3rd, 2025. The agency’s stated reasoning for the cancellation has included claims of lacking a “statutory basis or dedicated funding,” even though Congress had not directed the cancellation of already awarded grants. These lawsuits aim to ensure that the intended benefits of the Solar for All program, including reduced energy costs for low-income households and increased access to clean energy, are realized as originally planned by Congress.

Article by Mel Anara, based upon information from the Maryland Attorney General’s Office.

---