Maryland Clean Energy Center v. United States

The Virginia Department of Energy (Virginia Energy) sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for allegedly breaching Virginia Energy’s grant agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Solar for All zero-emissions technologies program. The complaint alleged that by February 2025, EPA and Virginia Energy had entered into the agreement, and EPA had obligated funding to Virginia Energy. The complaint alleged that in August 2025, EPA canceled the Solar for All program, unilaterally terminated the grant agreement, and withdrew more than $144 million of grant funds from the account in which Virginia Energy received the grant award. The complaint alleged that EPA “purportedly acted based on its misguided understanding of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which repealed the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund provision pursuant to which the Solar for All program was established but rescinded only “unobligated balances of amounts made available to carry out that section.” Virginia Energy contended that EPA erroneously interpreted the OBBBA to rescind all Solar for All appropriations and also that EPA’s interpretation did not constitute grounds for termination under the terms and conditions of the grant agreement. Virginia Energy asserted claims of breach of the express terms of the grant agreement and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint requested money damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; and reasonable fees, costs, and expenses, including attorney fees.

Filing Year For Action

The Court of Federal Claims granted the United States’ motion to stay all proceedings in a breach of contract action brought by state recipients of grants under the Solar for All program after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) termination of the program. The United States argued in its motion to stay that principles of judicial economy favored a stay because “a virtually identical group” of state plaintiffs had filed a case in federal district court in Washington seeking a declaration that termination of the Solar for All grants was unlawful. The plaintiffs opposed the stay, contending that the United States was attempting to “have it both ways” by seeking the stay while simultaneously telling the district court that only the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs’ claims. The Court of Federal Claims granted the U.S.’s motion from the bench after oral argument on January 21, 2026 and imposed the stay until April 21, 2026. The court directed the parties to file a status report by April 13 addressing progress in the district court litigation and steps the Court of Federal Claims must take in this case.