Two Judges Have Now Brought $7 Billion in Solar Help Back to Life. If a Salesperson Tells You It's Yours, It Isn't.

Update, October 3, 2026: A second federal judge ruled on September 22 that the EPA illegally killed Solar for All, and this ruling covers the whole program. EPA says it is weighing appeals of both decisions. Its own website still says the program is over.

If money is tight and your power bill isn’t, there is $7 billion that was supposed to help put solar on your roof. Two courts have now said it is legally alive again. Don’t plan around it.

On September 18, U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy vacated the EPA’s termination of Solar for All. Her words: “Congress clearly intended the EPA to continue administering the Solar for All grants that were already obligated. The EPA acted contrary to this intent and without any other statutory authority when it terminated the program.”

Four days later a second judge piled on. In a suit by Harris County, Texas, whose coalition was awarded nearly $250 million, Judge Tanya Chutkan called the elimination “arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and in excess of statutory authority.” She said her ruling reaches the program “as a whole,” not just Harris County’s grant.

In April 2024 the EPA announced 60 grants totaling $7 billion, aimed at “over 900,000 households” in low-income communities, out of the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. In August 2025 the agency canceled the whole thing. Administrator Lee Zeldin called it a “boondoggle.” Most of the money had never reached anybody.

Here’s what they don’t tell you. We opened EPA’s own Solar for All page on October 3, more than two weeks after the first ruling. It still says the agency “will no longer be implementing the $7 billion Solar for All program,” and it was last updated September 9. The agency’s public line is that it is reviewing both decisions and considering options for appeal.

A ruling the losing side may still appeal is not a program you can spend.

Now the number, because it gets quoted loosely. EPA’s own projection was “over $350 million in annual savings on electric bills” across “over 900,000 households.” Divide the agency’s two figures and you get about $389 a household a year. Call it $32 a month.

$32 a month is real money when the power bill is climbing and your usage isn’t. It is also not a check. Solar for All reaches you through your state’s program as a grant or cheaper financing toward a rooftop system or a community solar subscription, and the terms are set state by state.

And it is not the 30% federal tax credit. That one is gone, it is a separate law, and these rulings don’t bring it back.

So file this away, with one exception.

If you applied to a state Solar for All program in 2024 or 2025 and got told it was dead, call the administrator back this month. In most states the grantee is the state energy office or the housing finance authority. Ask two things. Is my application still on file? What is your status after the September rulings? Get the answer in writing.

Then stop there. Do not sign a solar contract whose payback depends on this money showing up. If a salesperson tells you the federal program is back and you should lock in this week, that is a pitch, not news. Run the quote on its own numbers in our solar payback calculator, and if it only works with a subsidy nobody has been paid, it doesn’t work.

For anyone tracking the cases: the first is 1:25-cv-00510 in the District of Rhode Island, brought by labor and nonprofit plaintiffs including the Rhode Island AFL-CIO. The second is Harris County’s, in the District of Columbia. A separate suit by state attorneys general was dismissed in Washington state in June; the judge said the dispute belonged in the Court of Federal Claims.

Three courts, two years, and by EPA’s own account very little of the $7 billion ever spent. The part you control is the quote in front of you. Compare it against the solar options we track and make it stand on its own.

How Candid Yak makes money. Some of the products we write about pay us if you apply or sign up through our links. That never changes our verdict, our rankings, or the numbers in this article. We call a bad deal a bad deal whether it pays us or not. Some brands shown in our comparison tools are placeholder examples while we finalize partner agreements, and we label them as such.