The General Plan

Federal · Tracker

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and Solar for All litigation

Status

The en banc D.C. Circuit (Aug. 4, 2026) affirmed the injunction against EPA's March 2025 GGRF terminations; two district courts (Sept. 2026) vacated the Solar for All termination.

Last changed
Last verified
Email me when this changes →

What it means for recipients

Only effects the cited source itself states. Nothing here is advice.

  • The en banc judgment affirms the portion of the preliminary injunction enjoining EPA from effectuating its March 11, 2025 Notice of Termination of the National Clean Investment Fund grants, and affirms the remaining portions of the injunction by an equally divided court. The court was equally divided on whether, after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, EPA's authority to suspend or terminate the grants in future is limited by both the contractual terms and section 60103 of the Inflation Reduction Act, or only by the contractual terms.

    D.C. Circuit, en banc per curiam judgment, No. 25-5122 (Aug. 4, 2026) (govinfo.gov)

  • Section 60002 of Public Law 119-21 repeals section 134 of the Clean Air Act and rescinds the unobligated balances of amounts made available to carry out that section.

    Public Law 119-21, section 60002 (govinfo.gov)

  • In Harris County v. EPA, the court vacated EPA's program-wide determination that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act required termination of Solar for All, stating EPA may take no further action premised on the ground that section 60002 requires or authorizes the program's termination. EPA represented that undisbursed Solar for All funds remain in the same Treasury account through September 30, 2031 and that closeout will not proceed before judgment.

    U.S. District Court for D.C., Harris County v. EPA, Memorandum Opinion (Sept. 22, 2026) (govinfo.gov)

  • In Rhode Island AFL-CIO v. EPA, the termination of the Solar for All program is declared unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and ordered vacated; the court declined to add a permanent injunction, stating vacatur is the appropriate remedy.

    U.S. District Court for Rhode Island, Memorandum and Order (Sept. 18, 2026) (govinfo.gov)

Changelog 8 entries, newest first

  1. D.D.C. vacates EPA's program-wide Solar for All elimination decision in Harris County v. EPA

    In Harris County, Texas v. EPA, No. 25-cv-3646, the court held EPA's decision arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority, and set aside the agency's policy-level determination that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act rendered continued operation of Solar for All legally impermissible, applicable to the program as a whole. The court denied an injunction without prejudice, noting EPA's representation that Solar for All funds will remain in a Treasury account through September 30, 2031 and that the closeout process is stayed. Harris County's grant is identified as $249.7 million.

    Source: U.S. District Court for D.C., Harris County v. EPA, Memorandum Opinion (Sept. 22, 2026) (govinfo.gov)

  2. D. Rhode Island declares the Solar for All termination unlawful and vacates it

    In Rhode Island AFL-CIO v. EPA, No. 1:25-cv-00510, Judge McElroy granted the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, declaring the termination of the Solar for All program unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and ordering it vacated, finding the decision contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority. The opinion notes that the states' parallel suit, Arizona v. EPA in the Western District of Washington, was dismissed June 1, 2026 as essentially contractual and within the Court of Federal Claims' exclusive jurisdiction.

    Source: U.S. District Court for Rhode Island, Memorandum and Order (Sept. 18, 2026) (govinfo.gov)

  3. En banc D.C. Circuit affirms the injunction against EPA's March 2025 GGRF terminations

    Sitting en banc, the court ordered and adjudged that the portion of the preliminary injunction enjoining EPA from effectuating its March 11, 2025 Notice of Termination is affirmed, and that the remaining portions are affirmed by an equally divided court. Six judges voted to affirm because EPA, in attempting to terminate the grants and claw back disbursed funds based solely on a policy disagreement with section 60103 of the Inflation Reduction Act, likely contravened the act's mandatory appropriation; four would have vacated that portion in light of section 60002 of Public Law 119-21.

    Source: D.C. Circuit, en banc per curiam judgment, No. 25-5122 (Aug. 4, 2026) (govinfo.gov)

  4. D.C. Circuit panel vacates the GGRF injunction, 2 to 1, citing Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction

    A panel of the D.C. Circuit in No. 25-5122, in an opinion by Judge Rao with Judge Pillard dissenting, concluded the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction because the grantees' claims are essentially contractual and jurisdiction lies exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims. The judgment ordered the injunction vacated and the cases remanded; govinfo's record of that judgment is now annotated as vacated by the en banc order.

    Source: D.C. Circuit opinion, Climate United Fund v. Citibank, No. 25-5122 (Sept. 2, 2025) (govinfo.gov)

  5. EPA announces it will no longer implement the $7 billion Solar for All program

    EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund page states that on August 7, 2025 Administrator Zeldin announced the agency will no longer be implementing the $7 billion Solar for All program, to remain aligned with congressional intent, and that the law signed July 4, 2025 repealed EPA's authority to administer the program and rescinded all remaining funds. The D.D.C. opinion in Harris County v. EPA records that EPA sent identical termination notices to each Solar for All recipient that evening.

    Source: EPA, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund program page (epa.gov)

  6. Public Law 119-21 repeals Clean Air Act section 134 and rescinds unobligated GGRF balances

    Section 60002 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, titled Repeal of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, provides that section 134 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7434) is repealed and the unobligated balances of amounts made available to carry out that section, as in effect the day before enactment, are rescinded. The act was signed July 4, 2025.

    Source: Public Law 119-21 (govinfo) (govinfo.gov)

  7. D.D.C. grants a preliminary injunction to Climate United and other GGRF grantees

    In the consolidated cases led by Climate United Fund v. Citibank, N.A., No. 25-cv-698, Judge Chutkan granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The opinion identifies the National Clean Investment Fund awards at issue as $6.97 billion to Climate United, $5 billion to the Coalition for Green Capital and $2 billion to Power Forward Communities. EPA filed a notice of appeal the same day.

    Source: U.S. District Court for D.C., Memorandum Opinion, Climate United Fund v. Citibank (Apr. 16, 2025) (govinfo.gov)

  8. EPA terminates the $20 billion NCIF and CCIA grant agreements

    EPA announced that Administrator Zeldin notified National Clean Investment Fund and Clean Communities Investment Accelerator recipients that their grant agreements were terminated, citing substantial concerns regarding program integrity, the award process and programmatic fraud, waste and abuse. EPA stated it would work to re-obligate lawfully appropriated funds with enhanced controls. EPA's program page states the termination covered $20 billion awarded to eight entities.

    Source: EPA news release (Mar. 11, 2025) (epa.gov)

Background

The en banc judgment's record is on govinfo. EPA's statement on the September 2, 2025 panel ruling is on epa.gov. State grantees' separate contract claims were filed in the Court of Federal Claims as Maryland Clean Energy Center v. United States, No. 1:25-cv-01738, as recorded in the Rhode Island opinion.

Not stated here because no primary document could be retrieved: reports of a D.C. Circuit order staying the en banc mandate pending a petition for certiorari, and of EPA statements about appealing the Solar for All rulings. Those will be added when the orders themselves can be cited.

Related trackers

Sources cited on this page

How this page is maintained: every entry links the primary record it describes. An editor re-reads each source on the "last verified" date above; nothing is added without a source, and nothing is forecast. About our methodology.