News Roundup for the Week of Aug 4, 2025
Policy whiplash and supply-chain recalibration defined this week in solar. In Washington, the EPA’s cancellation of the $7 billion Solar for All program injects new uncertainty into low-income rooftop and community projects. In California, rooftop solar gets a procedural lifeline as the state’s high court orders a tougher look at NEM 3.0. Globally, China’s polysilicon giants are moving toward OPEC-style capacity cuts that could put a floor under upstream prices. Meanwhile, the Financial Times details how Trump’s new tax law is tilting the playing field toward U.S. manufacturers, and in Minnesota, a court decision trimming community-solar credits pressures project economics for legacy subscribers. Read on for the deeper dives.
EPA Terminates $7B ‘Solar for All’ Grants, Upending Low-Income Rooftop & Community Solar Plans Nationwide
The Environmental Protection Agency terminated the $7 billion “Solar for All” grant program on August 7, halting Biden-era funding meant to help more than 900,000 lower-income households access rooftop and community solar. The move reverses awards that had gone to 60 state, tribal, and regional recipients and marks a major escalation in the administration’s rollback of clean-energy initiatives.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the agency no longer has legal authority to run Solar for All after a new tax-and-spending law eliminated the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that financed it. Framing the program as a “boondoggle,” he announced the cancellation as part of a broader push to unwind climate programs created under the Inflation Reduction Act.
Before the cut, Solar for All had disbursed only a small fraction of its budget—about $53 million—while most awardees were still in planning. The program aimed to lower bills and expand clean power in disadvantaged communities by financing distributed solar projects, an approach many states had integrated into multi-year implementation plans.
Backlash was immediate. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who championed Solar for All, called the termination unlawful, while the Solar Energy Industries Association argued EPA lacks authority to pull money Congress appropriated and grant recipients contracted. Lawsuits have already been filed over earlier freezes, and a federal judge in April ruled EPA could not freeze executed contracts—setting the stage for a new legal fight over outright cancellation.
What happens next will likely be decided in court. States and nonprofits that built programs around Solar for All will now weigh injunctions and contingency plans, while developers and community groups face fresh uncertainty over near-term project pipelines. However the litigation unfolds, the decision injects immediate risk into low-income solar deployment just as many regions look to expand distributed generation.
California Supreme Court Orders Fresh Review of Rooftop Solar Cuts, Giving NEM 3.0 a Legal Lifeline
The California Supreme Court handed rooftop-solar advocates a meaningful win this week, ordering an appeals court to take a tougher, less-deferential look at the state’s 2022 “NEM 3.0” decision that slashed export credits for new solar customers. The justices didn’t reinstate the old rates or declare NEM 3.0 unlawful, but they said the lower court used the wrong standard of review and must revisit whether regulators properly followed state law.
At issue is California’s overhaul of net energy metering, which cut compensation for rooftop customers by roughly 75% and triggered a sharp decline in new residential solar hookups. Regulators argued the change was needed to reduce cost shifts to non-solar customers; environmental and consumer groups said the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) failed to account for broader benefits of distributed solar, like reliability and pollution reductions.
The high court’s order sends the case—Center for Biological Diversity v. Public Utilities Commission—back to the First District Court of Appeal with instructions to apply a stricter legal lens. In plain English: the next court must independently verify the CPUC followed the statute and weighed costs and benefits appropriately, rather than simply deferring to the agency’s judgment. That legal nuance is why advocates are calling it a “lifeline,” even though nothing changes on customer bills today.
Practically, the ruling reopens a path to argue that the CPUC undervalued rooftop solar’s system benefits and equity impacts. Roughly 1.5 million homes and businesses with rooftop systems—and the installers serving them—are watching closely, as the appellate court could uphold NEM 3.0 with a new analysis, send parts of it back to the CPUC, or set boundaries that reshape future ratemaking. None of those outcomes are guaranteed, but the door is no longer shut.
Next steps will unfold at the appeals court in the coming weeks and months; expect fresh briefing from both sides and a decision that could ripple through California’s distributed-energy market. Trade outlets and advocates framed the Supreme Court’s move as a real—if preliminary—win for rooftop solar momentum after a bruising two years under NEM 3.0.
China’s Polysilicon Giants Plan $7B Fund to Shut a Third of Capacity and Curb the Glut
China’s leading polysilicon producers are moving to fix a brutal oversupply problem by creating a 50 billion yuan (≈$7 billion) fund that would buy and permanently close roughly one-third of the country’s polysilicon capacity. GCL Technology told Reuters the plan also contemplates OPEC-style output quotas—an extraordinary level of coordination for an industry that has long prized scale and speed over discipline. The goal: end a destructive price war and stabilize a critical upstream of the solar supply chain.
The numbers are big. With China’s total polysilicon capacity around 3.25 million tons at the end of 2024, the proposed shutdown would remove at least 1 million tons of lower-quality output from the market, leaving something on the order of 2 million tons running. Traders have already reacted: polysilicon prices jumped sharply—nearly 70%—on expectations that closures and quotas will tighten supply.
Mechanically, the effort would run through an acquisition platform slated to launch as soon as late Q3 2025 and begin operations in Q4, buying both surplus capacity and inventory. Governance would sit with a central committee that includes producers, creditors, and potentially regulators—an arrangement designed to align incentives and keep shuttered lines from flipping back on when prices firm.
For global markets, a successful cut could ripple fast. Polysilicon is the feedstock for wafers and cells; if upstream prices hold higher, module prices could firm after a year of record-low quotes, complicating procurement for developers that have been banking on bargain modules. On the flip side, restoring producer margins may keep key manufacturers solvent, preserving long-term supply security and R&D capacity. (Bloomberg also reported on the fund plan aimed at retiring loss-making units.)
What to watch next: whether Beijing leans in, how aggressively the committee enforces quotas, and whether the plan draws antitrust scrutiny abroad as it affects global pricing. Implementation will also reveal which facilities are “permanently” retired versus idled, and how quickly any price effects pass through to module contracts outside China. Either way, the era of limitless expansion is giving way to managed supply.
Renewable Energy “Winners” Emerge From Trump’s Big Tax Bill
The Financial Times reports that, despite broad rollbacks to clean-energy incentives, the Trump administration’s new tax law is creating relative winners among U.S. renewables players. The bill tightens access to federal credits and bars companies tied to “adversarial” countries (notably China) from qualifying, while preserving limited “safe-harbor” pathways to lock in credits through 2030. That combination is reshaping competition and deal flow across the sector.
Domestic manufacturers look best positioned. With Chinese groups fenced out of key benefits, U.S. producers such as First Solar see their competitive footing improve, aided by robust demand from power-hungry data centers that need guaranteed clean supply. First Solar also told industry press that the final reconciliation package “strengthens” its position under the new regime, reinforcing the FT’s framing of a tilted playing field favoring U.S.-based makers.
Developers aren’t out of the game—but the rule tweaks matter. “Safe-harboring” remains a route to secure credits if projects are sufficiently advanced by set dates, yet the new bill tightens that process and raises compliance costs. The result is a scramble to bank qualifying equipment and milestones this year, alongside a parallel buying rush as firms navigate earlier phase-outs and shifting eligibility tests.
Expect a more consolidated market. Larger utilities and developers with balance-sheet heft (think NextEra-scale) can shoulder higher transaction costs and timing risk, while smaller rivals may struggle to finance projects under stricter timelines and narrower credit windows. That dynamic, the FT notes, could concentrate project pipelines even as the overall policy stance turns less generous.
Big picture: the policy tilt doesn’t make renewables obsolete. Even with tighter credits, the FT highlights analysis showing utility-scale solar remains cost-competitive with gas in many cases—though near-term volatility in pricing and supply chains is likely. Watch for further Treasury/IRS guidance on safe-harbor and “foreign entity of concern” rules; those details will determine how durable this advantage for U.S. manufacturers proves to be.
Minnesota Appeals Court Upholds Lower Community-Solar Bill Credits, Hitting Legacy Subscribers
Minnesota’s Court of Appeals upheld a Public Utilities Commission order that lets Xcel Energy move most “legacy” community-solar subscribers from the Applicable Retail Rate (ARR) to the lower Value of Solar (VOS) credit—effectively trimming what those customers earn for their solar production. The ruling applies to roughly 30,000 subscribers and affirms regulators’ authority to make the change retroactively, a significant win for the utility.
Here’s the mechanics: the PUC’s May 30, 2024 order shifted legacy gardens from ARR to VOS and delayed implementation until April 1, 2025; the appeals court signed off on that framework. Industry estimates peg VOS credits about 20–30% below ARR, which is why developers and subscribers say the change materially reduces expected savings under long-term contracts.
Why do it? Regulators and Xcel argued ARR caused a cost shift onto non-subscribing customers. Xcel cited tens of millions in annual savings for ratepayers—about $28 million this year and $39 million in future years—if legacy subscribers move to VOS. The court concluded the 2013 community-solar statute envisioned ARR as a temporary bridge to VOS and gave the PUC discretion to modify rates in the public interest.
Local governments and public institutions warned of budget pain. St. Paul, St. Cloud, and Burnsville told regulators the switch could cost each city millions over remaining contract terms; Minneapolis said 65 of its 80 subscriptions would flip from savings to net costs, and the University of Minnesota projected a $1.2 million annual hit. Trade groups say many subscribers could see around a 30% reduction in credits.
What’s next: subscriber groups are weighing options, but for now, legacy customers will transition to VOS credits while new projects continue under the retooled 2024 state law. The Minnesota Solar Energy Industries Association called the ruling a “severe blow,” warning it could chill financing and trust in the program; developers also note Minnesota’s market largely stalled when VOS first applied to new projects in 2017.
