Clemetine Howard has spent the past year dreaming of bringing affordable solar energy to the Mississippi Delta.
Howard is executive director of the Clarence and Mary Lee Howard Foundation in Yazoo City, Mississippi—one of many locations previously set to benefit from a $7 billion federal program aimed at making solar power accessible to low-income households. The “Solar for All” program promised to lower energy bills and create jobs in places like the Delta, and Howard’s foundation had spent months setting up training and development courses to help local residents join the solar workforce.
Those efforts were suspended in August when the Environmental Protection Agency canceled the program, halting billions of dollars in solar funding bound for communities across the country. The termination is part of the Trump administration’s broader campaign to claw back clean energy investments and climate spending authorized under the previous administration.
Losing the Solar for All program was a gut punch for Howard, who saw it as a catalyst for improving conditions in Yazoo City and changing the career trajectory of some of its residents.
“It was truly devastating,” Howard told the Mississippi Free Press on Sept. 24. “We saw this as a way to make a life-changing difference to folks in the Mississippi Delta.”
The Solar for All program is part of the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund established under former President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. Launched in 2023, the program awarded grants to 60 applicants working to expand access to solar power—a renewable energy increasingly seen as a cleaner, more cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels. Grant recipients ranged from state and municipal governments to tribes and nonprofits, and projects included solar panel leasing programs for homeowners and community solar initiatives for renters and multifamily properties.
The federal funds were meant to offset the initial cost of installing solar panel systems and related community projects, which typically carry price tags of tens of thousands of dollars. In 2025, a homeowner can expect to pay around $14,210 for a small residential solar panel system before factoring in financial incentives, one Consumer Affairs report found.
When fully executed, Solar for All was poised to deliver solar power to 900,000 households nationwide, many of them in rural and underserved areas, according to estimates from the Biden administration. Those homes were expected to save a collective $350 million in utility costs annually, with some families pocketing more than $1,000 each year.
“With the way this program was structured, the savings were massive,” said Emily Samsel, a spokesperson at Climate Power, a strategic communications organization focused on climate change. “President Trump said in his (2024) campaign that he would cut energy bills in half by the end of his first year in office, and we’ve already seen bills are up 10% nationwide. He’s actively raising energy costs by taking away programs like Solar for All.”
In a statement to the Mississippi Free Press, the EPA said it lacks the authority and funds to administer Solar for All following the passage of President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” in July. The legislation revoked the appropriated money in Biden’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund—a move that many groups and lawmakers have blasted as illegal.
“The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law on July 4, 2025, rescinds both the authority and the appropriated funds to run the Solar for All program. EPA is working diligently to implement the law in accordance with congressional intent,” EPA Press Secretary Brigit Hirsch wrote in a Sept. 29 email.
Solar for All’s dissolution has drawn multiple legal challenges. On Oct. 16, more than a dozen state attorneys general sued the EPA over the canceled solar funds, asking a federal judge to direct the agency to reinstate the program. The lawsuit follows earlier litigation from a collection of labor groups and other nonprofits seeking to reverse the program’s termination.
Lawsuits challenging the elimination of separate Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund investments are still ongoing, though an appeals court ruled last month that federal officials can move forward with the cancellations.
Fighting for Energy Affordability
Among the 60 Solar for All grantees set to receive funding before the August termination was Groundswell, an organization dedicated to increasing energy resilience and efficiency across multiple regions. The nonprofit secured a five-year, $156 million contract from the EPA to build community solar projects across eight southern states, with more than $8 million earmarked for Mississippi ventures.
Though much of the discourse around Solar for All has centered on clean energy investments, Groundswell CEO Michelle Moore stressed that the program’s core objective was affordability.
“The primary goal of the program, and actually the statutory goal of the program, was to cut electricity bills,” she told the Mississippi Free Press in a Sept. 24 interview. “People in small towns and rural areas pay much bigger energy bills. It’s not because the electricity is any more expensive—it’s just that the housing is in such bad shape.”
To execute its contract with EPA, Groundswell has spent the past two years building a coalition of municipal utility providers and community organizations throughout the Southeast, including Clemetine Howard’s charitable foundation in Yazoo City. Together, the coalition set the goal of slashing energy bills for more than 17,000 families in the region through solar projects capable of generating over 100 megawatts of electrical power.
The same week that the EPA announced the termination of Solar for All, Groundswell received a bid for a solar and energy storage project in Yazoo City that would have helped 185 families save $1,170 annually on electricity, according to company estimates. The initiative was the first of several planned projects in Mississippi, which Groundswell projected would benefit over 1,200 households and deliver aggregate cost savings of nearly $30 million over 20 years.
The projects would also create solar and utility jobs that Moore and Howard stressed could help lift some residents out of poverty.
“You’re talking about individuals who would go from living in small quarters … to owning a home and building wealth,” Howard explained, noting that many solar installation jobs have annual salaries of around $60,000. “So you’re talking about economic development in a real sense.”
Charting A Path Forward
Moore isn’t willing to give up the Solar for All funding awarded to Groundswell without a fight. In late August, her organization filed a formal Notice of Disagreement with the EPA over the grant’s cancellation—the first step in an administrative dispute process that Moore hopes could spark renewed negotiations with the agency. This dispute process is separate from litigation challenging the EPA’s decision to withhold funds appropriated by Congress, Moore added.
“The ball is in EPA’s court,” she said, noting that she expects a response to her filing no later than February. “We would still welcome the opportunity to sit down with EPA officials (to talk) about a path forward, as well as continuing to pursue the administrative process.”
Groundswell is not the only Solar for All grantee with planned projects in Mississippi. The EPA also selected Hope Enterprise Corporation, a Jackson-based credit union and financial services institution, to receive more than $62 million in federal funds for a rooftop solar leasing program and various community solar initiatives, according to the company website.
The Mississippi Free Press reached out to Hope Enterprise Corporation several times to inquire about the grant and its cancellation, but did not hear back by press time.
Should the Trump administration refuse to release the Solar for All money promised to Groundswell, Moore says her organization will explore other options to get the solar projects off the ground.
“People are struggling with high (energy) bills that are getting higher. And not only that, our region is short on power,” she said. “So whether the federal government stands behind its contract or not, the facts don’t change, and neither does our commitment.”