Oregon — U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) joined 84 members of Congress in filing an amicus brief urging a federal court to restore funding for the Solar for All program, part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Oregon’s Attorney General Dan Rayfield had signed on to the lawsuit with a number of other states.
The brief, submitted to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Harris County, Texas v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency et al., argues that the Environmental Protection Agency unlawfully terminated the $7 billion program after the funds had already been fully obligated under federal law.
Merkley joined Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in leading the filing. Lawmakers argue the EPA’s cancellation violates the statutory language of the Inflation Reduction Act and subsequent reconciliation legislation, which they say rescinded only unobligated balances.
Solar for All was created as part of the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), designed to lower energy costs and expand access to solar power. According to the lawmakers, the $7 billion allocated for Solar for All had already been obligated to states, Tribal governments, municipalities and nonprofit entities in all 50 states.
The EPA disputes that interpretation and maintains it no longer has authority to administer the program following passage of the Working Families Tax Cut, signed July 4, 2025. The law repealed Section 134 of the Clean Air Act and rescinded funding for the GGRF.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the agency is acting to protect taxpayer dollars and align with congressional intent. In a statement, Zeldin said, “The days of ‘throwing gold bars off the Titanic’ are over,” referencing a December 2024 video released by Project Veritas in which a former EPA political appointee discussed distributing climate funds before the administration change.
EPA has cited concerns about financial management, conflicts of interest and oversight challenges tied to the broader GGRF structure, which includes Solar for All, the National Clean Investment Fund and the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator.
According to EPA materials, several large nonprofit “pass-through” organizations selected to receive funding had limited financial histories prior to their multibillion-dollar awards. For example, the Coalition for Green Capital reported expending $1.42 million in 2023 before receiving a $5 billion award. Power Forward Communities reported $100 in total revenue and net assets in its 2023 tax filing prior to receiving a $2 billion grant.
EPA reviewers also raised questions during the grant evaluation process. Internal comments cited concerns about executive compensation levels, rapid capital deployment assumptions, and what reviewers described as limited detail regarding oversight planning. In one case, reviewers noted more than 20 proposed hires would receive salaries exceeding $450,000 annually. Other comments questioned projected deployment timelines and whether risk modeling adequately accounted for potential losses.
The agency has also criticized the structure of the grants, saying funds flowed through multiple layers of pass-through entities, potentially reducing transparency. EPA officials stated that in some cases grant recipients were encouraged to begin drawing down funds within 21 days, while training on how to develop a budget could take up to 90 days to complete.
Additionally, EPA highlighted that it used a financial agent agreement with Citibank to hold GGRF funds, a structure the agency described as the first use of a financial agent for a nonexchange grant program. Officials said that arrangement limited direct federal control and oversight of funds once disbursed.
In March 2025, EPA referred concerns regarding financial mismanagement and oversight gaps to its Office of Inspector General, which has initiated an investigation.
Lawmakers backing Solar for All argue the agency’s concerns do not justify terminating already-obligated funding. Their brief contends that if the court finds the termination unlawful, it can vacate the action without requiring EPA to issue new grants.
Supporters say the program was intended to lower household energy bills and expand solar access, particularly in low-income communities. Opponents argue the grant structure created unacceptable risks and insufficient safeguards for taxpayer funds.
The U.S. District Court has not yet ruled on the case.
About the Author
Discover more from Right Now Oregon
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Once again Merkley is barking up the wrong tree and is an embarrassment to the citizens of Oregon. Solar actually adds to climate warming similar to having a blacktop parking lot that extents for acres. The black panels reflect the suns temperature back into the atmosphere. 9 billion dollars would be better spent on shoring up the existing power grids and improving the hydroelectric dams,