The federal grant program Solar For All was terminated last month, leaving several communities reeling from the loss. That includes the city of Dayton, which is losing out on over $9.1 million.
The Biden-era Solar For All grant program was poised to disperse $7 billion to communities nationwide. The project aimed to subsidize the cost of residential solar installations, with a focus on lower-income households.
The city of Dayton planned to use its money to install solar on 900 homes, including those near the Behr Superfund site, and a solar field at the Valleycrest Superfund site. A requirement of the grant is 20% savings on residential energy bills.
Dayton’s sustainability director Meg Maloney said they likely would have surpassed that goal. The city prioritized these communities because of their unique energy burdens; Many nearby homes have pollution mitigation systems that drive up residents’ energy costs.
“We wanted to help lower their bills and mitigate some of the environmental injustices associated with living next to a Superfund site through this grant,” Maloney said.
"We wanted to help lower their bills and mitigate some of the environmental injustices associated with living next to a Superfund site through this grant."
The Behr Dayton Thermal System VOC Plume site has been on the EPA’s National Priorities List since 2009. Listed sites, also referred to as “Superfund sites,” often require long-term investigation and cleanup. Roughly 250 homes around the Behr site have pollution mitigation systems installed.
Jerry Bowling, a resident living near the Behr Superfund site in the McCook Field neighborhood, said he’s noticed the cost of energy has been rising recently.
He said the project could’ve made a difference for him and his neighbors in one of Dayton’s poorest neighborhoods.
“Having a solar panel on my home to offset the cost of the electricity running, that actually would probably add value to my home,” Bowling said. “Currently, I don't even know that there's a single solar panel [on] any of the residences in the McCook [Field] neighborhood.”
Bowling said installing solar panels to offset the cost of running the pollution mitigation systems was a discussion amongst community members since about 2010.
“It was just [recently] that I heard that the Trump administration had canceled it, and I'm really disappointed in that,” Bowling said. “...This was actually probably our best opportunity for funding to make something like that come to fruition.”
Maloney said residents near the Valleycrest site have wanted to explore the potential of using the site for solar since 2014.
In 2023, the EPA determined that the site was cleaned up and ready for re-use. But the hazardous materials are stored underground and will require ongoing maintenance.
“Solar on landfills is a great re-use because there's not a whole lot else you can do with them,” Maloney said.
Dayton’s mayor Jeffrey J. Mims, Jr., joined four other Ohio mayors in sending a statement to federal officials in August requesting they preserve the Solar for All program.
“Electricity bills and broader cost of living expenses are rising, and the Trump Administration is cutting a program that would save participating Ohio households, on average, nearly $400 per year on their utility bills,” the statement reads.
“Terminating Solar for All funding, including grants already awarded, is harmful. It strips away critical planned resources for home energy upgrades, including rooftop solar, to address energy affordability in our communities.”
"Terminating Solar for All funding, including grants already awarded, is harmful. It strips away critical planned resources for home energy upgrades, including rooftop solar, to address energy affordability in our communities."
The state of Ohio was also slated to receive $156 million through the Solar For All program, administered by the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority (OAQDA) and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
According to federal records, $1.2 million of the $156 million was disbursed.
NPR reports that legal challenges could ensue, as some grantees argue that the cancellation should not apply to funds that have already been obligated.
