As the Trump administration battles to recover $20 billion in “greenhouse gas reduction” funds that the Biden Environmental Protection Agency had parked at Citibank, their focus now turns to another substantial green investment—the $7 billion Solar for All program. This initiative is part of the larger $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
The EPA claims this program is designed to extend the benefits of solar energy to over 900,000 low-income and disadvantaged households. However, critics argue that it’s a liberal scheme meant to enrich progressive pockets. The Solar for All initiative has already allocated $30.8 million in grants, with the majority of these funds earmarked for Democrat-led states.
Thomas Pyle, the president of the American Energy Alliance, described these grants as “the most blatant instances of self-dealing” he has ever seen. He is among the voices calling for the repeal of the IRA’s climate spending.
Notably, a significant portion of the funds was intended for Native American groups, with the Three Affiliated Tribes set to receive $135.2 million. Among nonprofits, Grid Alternatives, based in Oakland, was awarded $311.4 million to help 37,000 households access solar energy. Prior to the funding freeze, they had already received $756,791.
This program’s distribution highlights a close-knit circle of publicly funded environmental organizations and government agencies. The largest awards, totaling nearly $1 billion, were directed towards entities in states known for their Democratic affiliations, such as California and New York. Additionally, Inclusive Prosperity Capital in Connecticut was poised to receive $249.3 million.
Concerns about government favoritism and the program’s effectiveness have been raised by various critics. Amy O. Cooke expressed skepticism, arguing that these groups wouldn’t survive if they had to compete in a free market for funding.
The program was originally intended to focus on loans, with the expectation that each dollar of federal funding would attract $7 of private investment. However, historical precedents of similar programs have shown mixed results, often marred by inefficiencies.
Additional grants, ranging from $62 to $63 million, were designated for various state agencies and nonprofits, including those in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Some critics, such as Travis Fisher from the Cato Institute, argue that these grants reinforce big-government activism at the expense of individual freedom.
Despite its supporters’ claims, the Solar for All program does not appear explicitly in the Inflation Reduction Act, leaving its future uncertain. An audit has been initiated to evaluate the program’s execution.
For now, the Trump administration’s decision to halt these funds is viewed as prudent, with some advocating for a complete termination of these green programs.
