Trump's attempted funding freeze was blocked. So why are billions in grants for solar still locked up?
In theory, that means the spigot should be back on. Except, according to solar advocates, legal experts, and awardees, as of Monday
the Solar for All funds remained inaccessible. In Massachusetts, that means some $156 million that would benefit an estimated
31,000 households is on ice.
Advertisement
Experts say it's an example of how the Trump administration is going full-speed to disrupt agency work and delay funding distribution with little concern for consequences — like lawsuits — that could come later.
It's not just Solar for All that's at risk.
Massachusetts and New England were awarded more than a billion dollars by the Biden administration to build a more resilient energy grid, lower energy costs, and create thousands of jobs, according to Maria Hardiman, spokeswoman for the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. 'We secured these funds through agreements with federal agencies, and those agreements should be honored by the new administration,' Hardiman said.
Solar energy plays a critical role in helping the state reach its climate goals to lower greenhouse gas emissions that come from burning fossil fuels. Other large-scale renewable energy projects — including offshore wind, or interstate transmission lines to bring hydroelectric energy from Canada — take years to complete, require federal permits, and are ripe for lawsuits, all of which can lead to delays. But the consistent spread of solar energy, rooftop by rooftop, has helped chip away at the state's reliance on fossil fuels.
Advertisement
This summer, when a heat wave led to extreme energy demand, the solar panels disbursed across rooftops, over parking lots, and along highways helped
What's more, solar energy can help low-income households reduce their electricity bills — key in Massachusetts, where rates are particularly high. The solar enabled by the Solar for All grant, which was awarded to the state Department of Energy Resources, is anticipated to lower energy bills by 20 percent for thousands of households.
Advertisement
The state is partnering with Boston Housing Authority and MassHousing on the grant; the locations for the first projects have not yet been announced.
In response to detailed questions about the status of the program and the legal basis for a continued pause on its funds, an EPA spokesperson responded, 'EPA is working to diligently implement President Trump's executive orders as well as subsequent associated implementation memos.' They directed additional questions about the pause to the Department of Justice, which declined to comment.
Related
:
It's a thorny legal situation, because the Solar for All funds, like many other programs funded by large climate spending bills passed under Biden, have already been obligated to states and other awardees, including tribes and nonprofits. All of the awardees had applied to the federal government for their own piece of the $7 billion program, and, once awarded, were left to design and implement Solar for All in a way that meets their specific needs.
These types of so-called
'environmental justice' programs, targeting communities that are low-income or where little to no English are spoken,
are uniquely vulnerable
under Trump because of the administration's stances opposing both climate action and anything related to diversity and inclusion.
The Trump administration's attempt to halt money that's already under contract is a 'pretty extreme step,' said Rob Bradner, an attorney who specializes in federal policy and funding and who is a partner at Holland & Knight.
'There is definitely a question as to whether they have the legal authority to do this,' Bradner said.
The ongoing pause also appears to be at odds with the court orders, according to Jillian Blanchard, vice president of climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government, a network of pro bono attorneys.
Advertisement
'There's an inconsistency' between what the Trump administration is saying in communication to courts, and what is happening on the ground, Blanchard said. 'The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power of the purse — for a reason.'
Up until the pause, any awardee could log into a federal online portal to file for reimbursement. Now, they're locked out.
'These grantees built out plans and strategies operating under the fair assumption that they would receive funds legally allocated to them, but they have now been deprived of the certainty they need to move forward,' said Sean Gallagher, senior vice president of policy for the Solar Energy Industries Association.
Massachusetts had already won the Solar for All award, negotiated a contract, produced a work plan, and had the work plan approved, according to Greg King, a community solar developer who had been providing feedback on Massachusetts' plans. A team at the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center was created and charged with fine tuning the details, he said.
Other New England states are in the same boat. Rhode Island has not received any of the $49.3 million it was awarded. Vermont can't access the $62.5 million it won, either, according to Melissa Bailey, director of Vermont's state energy office.
In Connecticut, which received a $62.5 million award, state officials are moving ahead with the Solar for All program, despite the uncertainty. 'We continue to operate under approved work plans for these grants and are implementing projects in accordance with these, ensuring that our progress moves forward as planned,' according to James Fowler, a spokesman for the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection.
Related
:
Advertisement
Since learning of the its $62 million award, the Maine Governor's Energy Office has been carrying out work, including the recent hiring of two full time staff to develop the program. So far, the state has received just $26,000 of its federal grant. Now, it's waiting on guidance from the EPA about what will happen next.
It's anybody's guess.
'Just because the states might have a legal right to those dollars under the terms of the contract, that doesn't mean that it automatically happens unless there is a willing participant in the federal government to release those funds,' said Jeremy McDiarmid, general counsel at the clean trade group Advanced Energy United.
And while that could make a strong case for a lawsuit, there are implications to taking that route, McDiarmid said. 'That is a very, very costly, slow, and high transaction cost way to do business.'
At the same time, business leaders worry that pause on funding is going to introduce new uncertainty to the solar industry, just as it's taking off in the region. An organization or company considering going into business with the federal government might ask, 'Is it worth the risk?,' said Joseph Curtatone, president of the Alliance for Climate Transition.
'This step is going to hurt working families, this will hurt our economy, and it will certainly undercut our credibility, which you can't gain back overnight,' he said.
It also sends the country's solar industry back to 'business as usual,' in which the benefits of solar power — lower energy bills and reduced
greenhouse gas
emissions — are inaccessible to low-income and disadvantaged communities, according to King, the Massachusetts community solar developer.
'Honestly, with Solar for All, we thought we now had a perfect environment for solar development,' King said. 'Now, the Solar for All program is a huge question mark.'
Sabrina Shankman can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
30 minutes ago
- Politico
Bondi says violent LA protesters will face federal charges
At least nine people are facing federal charges for their involvement in protests against immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, Attorney General Pam Bondi said Monday. Demonstrators face charges for attacking police with Molotov cocktails, looting and spitting on law enforcement, Bondi said in a TV interview. 'We are going to prosecute them federally,' she said in an interview on Fox News. 'If California won't protect their law enforcement, we will protect the LAPD and the sheriff's office out there.' Sporadic but at times raucous protests broke out in several parts of the Los Angeles area in recent days, prompting President Donald Trump to deploy National Guard troops and Marines despite the fact that Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said the additional forces were not needed. Bondi said the Trump administration planned to take a hard line against demonstrators. 'You spit on a federal law enforcement officer no more,' she said. 'As President Trump said, you spit. we hit. Get ready. If you spit on a federal law enforcement officer, we are going to charge you with a crime federally. You are looking at up to five years maximum in prison.' Those charged already include David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union California, who was injured and arrested while protesting the arrest of workers in downtown Los Angeles. He was released Monday from federal custody on a $50,000 bond. The Trump administration's decisive treatment of demonstrators — and the president's focus on punishing those who assault police officers — stands in contrast to his sweeping pardons for roughly 1,500 people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, seeking to overturn the election. Trump has deployed up to 4,000 soldiers from the California National Guard to help quell the demonstrations over the protests of Newsom and Bass — who say the moves are worsening tensions. The state has sued to reverse the deployments. The White House also ordered 700 Marines to join the National Guard, though it's unclear exactly what role they will play. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Monday evening that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to direct military forces to arrest 'lawbreakers.' DHS did not immediately respond to request for comment from POLITICO, and the Department of Defense declined to comment on the story. 'You can run, you can't hide,' Bondi told Fox. 'We are coming after you federally. If you assault a police officer, if you rob a store, if you loot, if you spit on a police officer, we are coming after you.'
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more
Jun. 9—Families hoping to send money to loved ones in other countries may be hit with additional fees from a tax and spending bill proposed by the Trump administration that would slap a 3.5% tax on remittances sent by anyone who is not a U.S. citizen. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed through the House in May and is now being debated by the Senate. The budget bill has several proposed tax changes, which include taxing money sent from an estimated 40 million non-US citizens — including green card holders, temporary workers and undocumented immigrants — to family and friends in other countries. The bill had a 5% tax but was reduced to 3.5%. The bill is another way the Trump administration is hoping to dissuade immigrants, both documented and undocumented, from coming into the country and moving money out of the U.S. economy. Republicans believe the bill would increase the average take-home pay of U.S. citizens, while Democrats believe the bill and increased taxes are "a transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich," said Daniel Garcia, spokesperson for the Democratic Party of New Mexico. What is a remittance? Remittances refer to sending money from one person to another and is typically done between family members from one country to another. A person living and working in the U.S. would send money to family members typically living in a developing country, where this money is a source of income that contributes to the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Payments are typically sent using an electronic payment service or a money transfer app. Banks, credit unions and money transfer services charge a fee for processing remittances, and fees average 10%, according to the International Monetary Fund. Cryptocurrency exchanges are not as heavily regulated and can be a way to avoid additional taxes and surcharges. "Taxing remittances would amount to a form of double taxation, since migrants already pay taxes in the country where they work," Esteban Moctezuma Barragán, Mexican Ambassador, wrote in a statement. "Imposing a tax on these transfers would disproportionately affect those with the least, without accounting for their ability to pay," Barragán added. However, some believe the 3.5% tax fee would give financial support to public services and is the most "pro-worker, pro-family and pro-American legislation we've seen in decades," said Amy Barela, chairwoman of the Republican Party of New Mexico. "Let's be clear, this measure is not about targeting individuals," she wrote in a statement to the Journal. "It's about ensuring the 3.5% fee, although modest, would also have a very meaningful impact in helping offset costs associated with public services, border security, and community infrastructure — relieving some of the financial pressure on hardworking New Mexicans who continue to bear the burden of an imbalanced system." Crucial source of revenue Mexico is the second-largest receiver of personally wired money behind India, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 2024, Latin America received $160.9 billion, with the U.S. accounting for 96.6% of all remittances to Mexico. They also make up 20-30% of GDP in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. "Remittance is a very important source of revenue in our government," said Patricia Pinzón, consul of Mexico. "This would affect Mexican families and the economy in general, but I would say the basic needs of Mexican families is the most worrying thing." However, "whatever happens in one economy will affect the other," said Pinzón. "Our economies are so interrelated that everything that happens here has a consequence in Mexico," she said. "Mexicans will not stop sending money; they'll just look for alternative ways to send it." Mexican migrant workers sent 16.7% of their labor income back to their families, and more than 80% of the income remains in the U.S. economy. The average amount of remittance sent to Mexico is roughly $350 every one to two months, which "could seem like nothing for the U.S., but it's money that a whole family lives on and covers their basics in Mexico," Pinzón said.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Smithsonian rejects Trump's attempt to fire National Portrait Gallery director
The Smithsonian Institution asserted its independence Monday evening in a statement that could be read as a rejection of President Trump's late-May firing of National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sajet. The Smithsonian's statement said the organization's secretary, Lonnie G. Bunch, "has the support of the Board of Regents in his authority and management of the Smithsonian." The statement suggested that all personnel decisions will be made by Bunch, not Trump. The announcement came after a much-anticipated Board of Regents meeting to discuss the fate of Sajet. The Washington Post had reported that Sajet quietly continued to show up for work each day after Trump's social media post, which said he was firing Sajet for being 'a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI.' The Smithsonian's statement Monday did not explicitly state that Sajet would remain in her position, and the institution did not respond to a Times question on that subject. But the text of the statement is clear in its intent, beginning: "In 1846, the Smithsonian was established by Congress as an independent entity." It continues: "Throughout its history, the Smithsonian has been governed and administered by a Board of Regents and a Secretary. The board is entrusted with the governance and independence of the Institution, and the board appoints a Secretary to manage the Institution." The Smithsonian's move comes shortly after the White House proposed a 12% reduction in funding to the Smithsonian in the 2026 budget — including the elimination of funding for the National Museum of the American Latino, which is in the development stages and aims to open on or near the National Mall; and the Anacostia Community Museum, which opened in 1967 and honors Black culture. The Smithsonian became a target for Trump beginning March 27, when he issued an executive order titled "Restoring truth and sanity to American history." That order demanded an end to federal funding for exhibitions and programs based on racial themes that 'divide Americans.' "Once widely respected as a symbol of American excellence and a global icon of cultural achievement, the Smithsonian Institution has, in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology," the order read. It also instructed Vice President JD Vance to remove 'improper ideology' from the Smithsonian's 21 museums and the National Zoo in Washington. The order followed Trump's ongoing attempts to reshape federal cultural institutions, including his February takeover of the Kennedy Center. One major difference between the Kennedy Center and the Smithsonian: The Kennedy Center's board is appointed by the president, but the Smithsonian's board consists of officials representing all three branches of government. Vance is on the Smithsonian's Board of Regents, as is Chief Justice John G. Roberts. "Since its inception, the Smithsonian has set out to be a nonpartisan institution," the statement Monday read. "As the nation's museum, the Smithsonian must be a welcoming place of knowledge and discovery for all Americans. The Board of Regents is committed to ensuring that the Smithsonian is a beacon of scholarship free from political or partisan influence, and we recognize that our institution can and must do more to further these foundational values. "To reinforce our nonpartisan stature, the Board of Regents has directed the Secretary to articulate specific expectations to museum directors and staff regarding content in Smithsonian museums, give directors reasonable time to make any needed changes to ensure unbiased content, and to report back to the Board on progress and any needed personnel changes based on success or lack thereof in making the needed changes." Get notified when the biggest stories in Hollywood, culture and entertainment go live. Sign up for L.A. Times entertainment alerts. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
