Case Details

- Case Details:

Case Number:

2025-00264

Case Status:

Approved by Commission

Utility/Industry Type :

Electric

Utility/Industry Subtype :

Transmission and Distribution Utilities (T and Ds)

Case Type :

COMMISSION INITIATED

Case Subtype :

RULEMAKING

Pertaining to Utility/Company :

PUBLIC UTILITIES COM-TD

Case Title :

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION AMENDMENTS TO NET ENERGY BILLING RULE CHAPTER 313

Initiating Filer :

PUBLIC UTILITIES COM-TD

Case Start Date :

8/19/2025

Assigned Staff :

Dale.Coty,
Daya.Taylor,
Derek.D.Davidson,
Erin.Beaze,
Julie.Pallozzi,
Rikka.Strong,
Sally.Zeh,
amy.mills,
Jameson.McBride

View Case References

Filings (25) Data Requests (0)Public Comments (26) Active Party and Notification List (333) Assigned Staff (9)

Item No.	Date Filed	Description Of Filing	Filing Party	Filed By	No of Attachments	Deleted Filings
25	2/27/2026	Comments of Office of the Public Advocate	OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE	Landry, Andrew	1
24	2/27/2026	ReVision Energy Inc. Submission of Sec 3(Q)(4) Project Affidavits	REVISION ENERGY INC	Haslett, Nat	4
23	2/24/2026	ORDER ESTABLISHING PROJECT CHARGE AND APPROVING AFFIDAVIT	COMMISSION STAFF, CMS	COMMISSION STAFF, CMS	2
22	2/24/2026	Order Adopting Rule Approved Effective 2/23/26	COMMISSION STAFF, CMS	COMMISSION STAFF, CMS	2
21	2/23/2026	ReVision Energy Inc Request for Reconsideration	REVISION ENERGY INC	Haslett, Nat	1
20	2/3/2026	ORDER AMENDING RULE AND STATEMENT OF FACTUAL AND POLICY BASIS	COMMISSION, MPUC	COMMISSION, MPUC	3
19	12/30/2025	Objection and Additional Comments of MCPC	MAINE COMMUNITY POWER COOPERATIVE	Smith, Benjamin James	2
18	12/9/2025	Entry of Appearance	MAINE COMMUNITY POWER COOPERATIVE	Smith, Benjamin James	2
17	10/14/2025	Ampion PBC Comments	Kallaher, Chris	Kallaher, Chris	1
16	10/14/2025	MCPC Comments	Adkins, Tyler	Adkins, Tyler	1

Per Page

1 of 3 First Prev Next Last Go To

View By Set	View By Question

View By Set

View By Question

Posted By	Posted Date	Comments	Attachment(s)
Noah Oppenheim 41 Meadowbrook Road Brunswick, ME 04011	3/1/2026	Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rule that would limit Net Energy Billing participation to a single member-owned solar project per residential account. As a Maine resident who responded directly to the state's call to expand renewable generation, I made substantial good-faith investments in our clean energy infrastructure. The Commission now proposes to strip me and my family of the value of these investments. In 2022, I purchased ownership shares in a ReVision Energy member-owned solar farm. In 2023, as we transitioned to an Electric Vehicle and installed heat pumps, and as our family grew from two to four - resulting in a significant increase in our household laundry requirements - I invested in a second solar project to meet our increasing energy needs. I made these investments based on the state's clearly defined incentives and the promise of a stable regulatory environment. If the Commission promulgates this rule as planned, it will effectively "turn off" the value of one of my physical assets. By preventing credits from multiple farms from accruing on my utility account, the PUC is not merely "adjusting a program", it is stripping the economic value of the property - the shares in the second project - that I rightfully own. In my opinion, promulgating the rule as drafted constitutes a regulatory taking. It results in thousands of dollars of stranded assets that I purchased to offset my family's electricity consumption use with clean energy. Retroactively changing the rules for projects that are already operational and financed creates a climate of instability that punishes early adopters and undermines the state's own climate goals. I urge the Commission to exempt multi-project owners of solar shares and respect the property rights of those who put their own capital at risk to build Maine's renewable grid. Sincerely, Noah Oppenheim
Brook Halvorson 116 Carlyle Rd Email ID: corvid.creations@gmail.com Phone No.: 2022537287	2/28/2026	Hello, we are customers of ReVision Energy and own solar shares in two community solar farms. We purchased these solar panels (located off our home property) to fully cover energy needs of our home, including heat pump heating/cooling, heat pump water heater and clothes dryer, electric stove, and EVs. As we increased the number of electric appliances/vehicles, we needed to purchase additional shares, but at a different farm since the first was at capacity. This was an investment that we saved for and made personal expenditure sacrifices for, in the interest of the climate and air quality in Maine and on our planet. ReVision's model of selling shares in solar panels is not a subscription model; it is ownership of the solar panels, and the current interpretation of LD1777 has prevented us from accessing power from these panels. This is costing us additional money and requiring us to rely on fossil fuels, something that our family is morally opposed to. Please reconsider the decision not to exempt ownership-model community solar from the consumer protection provisions passed in LD 1777, as this is a poor interpretation of the intended law. Please formally pause the implementation of this rule change. Additionally, please review and respond to ReVision Energy's petition for reconsideration filed within this docket. Thank you, Brook Halvorson, Elin Shartar, Salinger Halvorson and Juniper Halvorson (resubmission since the first one may have failed)
Brook Halvorson 116 Carlyle Rd, Portland, ME 04103 Email ID: brook.halvorson@gmail.com Phone No.: 2022537287	2/28/2026	Hello, we are customers of ReVision Energy and own solar shares in two community solar farms. We purchased these solar panels (located off our home property) to fully cover energy needs of our home, including heat pump heating/cooling, heat pump water heater and clothes dryer, electric stove, and EVs. As we increased the number of electric appliances/vehicles, we needed to purchase additional shares, but at a different farm since the first was at capacity. This was an investment that we saved for and made personal expenditure sacrifices for, in the interest of the climate and air quality in Maine and on our planet. ReVision's model of selling shares in solar panels is not a subscription model; it is ownership of the solar panels, and the current interpretation of LD1777 has prevented us from accessing power from these panels. This is costing us additional money and requiring us to rely on fossil fuels, something that our family is morally opposed to. Please reconsider the decision not to exempt ownership-model community solar from the consumer protection provisions passed in LD 1777, as this is a poor interpretation of the intended law. Please formally pause the implementation of this rule change. Additionally, please review and respond to ReVision Energy's petition for reconsideration filed within this docket. Thank you, Brook Halvorson, Elin Shartar, Salinger Halvorson and Juniper Halvorson
Gregory Anderson 61 Pleasant Pond Ln Email ID: anderson.gregoryj.me@gmail.com Phone No.: 2075777091	2/27/2026	I am deeply concerned about the PUC interpretation of LD1777 as it effects people who OWN shares in more than one solar farm. Maine has proudly stepped to the forefront to support renewable energy and encouraged, with dramatic results, the use of heat pumps and other low energy appliances to conserve energy as well as wean more people off of fossil fuels, particularly for home heating systems. We have heeded this call to action and just this past summer had heat pumps installed to end our reliance on propane as our primary heating fuel. We also bought shares in a second solar farm through ReVision energy to provide sufficient energy to run our new heat pumps and charge our plug-in hybrid vehicle. Between heat pumps and our second solar farm share investment, we invested something over $45,000. The long term reduction in carbon produced by doing this vs using propane is remarkable to say the least. We had previously purchased ownership shares in a solar farm a few years ago simply to contribute to clean energy production and to offset our rising electrical bills as prices were rising quickly everywhere. We are retired and in a financial position such that it made sense to make these investments now such that we have time to amortize the investment. Understandably, we were completely taken aback by the PUCs interpretation of the language in LD1777 we would no longer receive ANY credits for the second solar farm energy production.To whit, we generate electricity and THEN WE HAVE TO BUY THAT POWER BACK FROM CMP?? OUTRAGEOUS to say the least. I wholeheartedly support ReVision Energy's petition for reconsideration of LD1777 and ask the PUC to please pause implementation of LD1777 while a legislative fix can be made. This is urgent, and I ask you to respond to ReVision's petition as soon as possible to ensure there are no adverse impacts to customers. Thank you. And thank you for your service to the public.
John D Despres 9 Old Armory Way Email ID: dave_despres@hotmail.com Phone No.: 9708197388	2/27/2026	I am writing in regards to a letter received from Central Maine Power (CMP) stating that the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has interpreted LD 1777 and the subsequent modifications to PUC Rule 313 to prevent Mainers from owning shares in multiple community solar farms. For Mainers like myself, this amounts to a regulatory taking, because I purchased an asset which has been stripped of its value by this rule and its interpretation. In 2020 I purchased shares in the Curravale Community Solar Farm, (14 kW of capacity). After a few years of usage and our subsequent purchase of an electric vehicle, we determined we were using more than that 14 kW of generation, so we purchased an additional 2.2 kW of capacity in the Nicholson Community Solar Farm. These shares in each community solar installation are an asset we own, and are therefore required for a proportionate share of the future upkeep and eventual decommissioning of the asset. We decided to purchase these shares based on the Net Energy Billing rules in place at the time, under which we pay CMP for the delivery service, but do not pay CMP for the power generated by our asset(s). Under the interpretation of the new rule, the power generated by our 2.2 kW share in the Nicholson facility will go to CMP with no credit to us, the owner of the generation facility. This amounts to a regulatory taking, depriving us of the monetary value of an asset we own. I understand the new rules were meant to protect some subscription-based solar programs, but it seems it was wrongully applied to the ownership-based model that we participate in. I urge you to support the passage of the language in Section Z of LD 1966 (released on Feb. 19), which is meant to clarify and correct this unfair interpretation of the recent legislation and rules. It is important that this pass during this session, as this rule is unfairly depriving us of the value of our asset and will serve as a disincentive for others to invest in solar.
Mary DiPompo 222 Pinnacle RD Canaan ME 04924	2/26/2026	I received a letter on 2-23-26 from CMP that would affect my account concerning a law passed in 2025 (LD 1777) that was interpreted by the MPUC to limit Maine customers from owning multiple shares in an ownership-model solar farm, and, since I own shares from more than one project, I will no longer receive credits for the share owned in the second project. Those shares represent a significant investment. The State of Maine has promoted the benefits of installing heat pumps to residents, so we purchased them, and using them in our home has resulted in increased electricity usage and ownership of multiple shares. These shares are not a subscription that can be cancelled. After purchasing our first share in 2023, we realized over time that we had not purchased enough with the amount of our first share as we continued to receive large energy bills in the winter. In 2025, we made the logical decision to get a second share to cover the additional amount of electricity usage of our home. These shares are an asset we own and the investment in them was made for the purpose of receiving these credits. We love living in our beautiful State of Maine and want to remain in rural Maine during retirement, even during the winter months, which has prompted the installation of heat pumps and purchase of these shares. It seems the intention of protecting subscription model solar participants who signed up for multiple subscriptions was wrongfully applied to our situation. This interpretation of LD 1777 causes financial hardship to those whose total ownership-model shares happen to come from multiple projects by not allowing credits to be received from more than one project. Please put the passage of the language in Section Z of LD 1966 released on February 19th. Thank you.
Patricia Dickinson 61 Pleasant Pond Lane Email ID: pdickinson@bowdoin.edu Phone No.: 2075040042	2/26/2026	We recently learned from CMP that LD 1777, passed in 2025, was interpreted to limit Mainers from owning multiple shares in an ownership-model community solar farm. We own shares in 2 ownership-model community solar farms; these are shares we purchased to cover electricity use in our home. This is not a subscription; it's an asset we own: like panels on a roof, we own panels in a farm. We invested in our first community solar share several years ago, contributing to the increased use of renewable energy in Maine. Last year, as Maine urged residents to move away from fossil fuels, we added heat pumps to our home and purchased a plug-in hybrid vehicle. Thus, our electricity use outgrew the amount we were generating with our existing solar shares, so we purchased additional solar shares to cover our additional energy needs. Because the original solar farm in which we had purchased shares was fully purchased, we invested in a second solar farm. We directly purchased shares of solar panels because we deeply care about increasing green energy production, thereby helping to decrease climate change. Nonetheless, we would like to continue getting the credit for this electricity generation, since we paid a significant amount to purchase the panel shares, with the expectation that our electric bill would decrease as a result of the upfront costs of purchasing the shares. The current interpretation of LD 1777 unfairly punishes Mainers like me, who chose to invest in solar. It seems the intention of protecting subscription-model community solar participants was wrongfully applied to our situation; please reconsider the decision not to exempt ownership-model community solar from the consumer protection provisions passed in LD 1777. I strongly support ReVision's petition for reconsideration; please pause implementation and reconsider as soon as possible to ensure there are no adverse impacts to customers.
THOMAS and CATHY VAN DER KLOOT 4 ROBIN LANE Email ID: catvdk@gmail.com Phone No.: 2076534496	2/26/2026	We were recently notified by Central Maine Power that a law passed in 2025, LD 1777, has been interpreted by the Public Utilities Commission to limit Mainers from owning multiple shares in an ownership-model community solar farm (CSF). The result of this interpretation will be that a significant proportion of our community solar share is being threatened to become valueless. We have long been committed to optimizing our use of sustainable energy sources, and have always been eager to promote use of solar energy. We invested in our first community solar share in 2023, but as we subsequently converted from oil heat to electric heat pumps and purchased an electric vehicle, we decided to make a significant second investment (in 2025) in an second CSF share, to fully cover our energy needs. We therefore now own multiple shares in an ownership-model CSF. Our ownership of these shares is not a subscription; it is an asset we own; similar to those who have solar panels on their roof (which was not logistically possible on our property), we own panels in a CSF. We directly purchased our CSF shares and they are now an asset we own, that cannot be easily sold (and we have no desire to do so). We firmly believe that we have been acting proactively and intelligently to promote the expansion of clean, sustainable energy to help protect the future of our plant and communities, but this interpretation of LD 1777 hamstrings our efforts. This misguided interpretation of LD 1777 unfairly punishes Mainers like us, who have made a substantial investment in solar energy. It appears that the intention of protecting subscription-model community solar participants has been wrongfully applied to our situation, and we urge you to right this wrong. We therefore ask that you please ensure the passage of the language in Section Z of LD 1966, released on February 19. Thank you for your time and consideration, Tom and Cathy Van der Kloot 4 Robin Lane Falmouth, ME 04105-2474
Bill Dunn Sunset Point, LLC 10 Sunset Point Rd Email ID: wdunn@sunsetpoint.biz Phone No.: 2078479345	2/26/2026	Remember when the State set carbon-neutrality goals, currently 100% by 2040? Remember when the State encouraged residents to help meet these goals by buying solar, switching to electric vehicles (EVs), and installing heat pumps? The State is now trying to screw the people like me who did all that through ownership of shares of multiple Community Solar Farms (CSFs) and to limit the ability of middle- and low-income residents to participate in cooperative ownership of CSFs? Over time I have purchased a total of 17kW of ownership of three ReVision Member-Owned Community Solar (MOCS) projects, for which I paid a total of $54,938, purchased an EV and installed heat pumps. The effect of the actions of the Legislature, the PUC and CMP is to confiscate assets of mine that cost me almost $30,000. I have been told by CMP (attached) that they will no longer deliver to me the output of my 2nd and 3rd MOCS projects. Since those assets will still exist and will continue producing energy and delivering it to the CMP system, some other entity will be receiving the benefit of my assets. I have no idea how those kWh will be treated, and I'm not sure the Legislature, the PUC and CMP do either. There are several ways forward to rectify this problem, which I believe to be inadvertent. First, the PUC should order CMP not to stop delivering all shares of MOCSs. Next, the PUC should re-interpret LD1777, as I believe was intended by the Legislature, to only apply to subscription-type CSFs and NOT to consumer-owned CSFs, such as Revision's MOCSs, or shares that are part of an ownership cooperative, like the Maine Community Power Cooperative. The PUC should encourage the Energy, Utilities & Technology Committee (EUT) to recommend and the Legislature to pass LD1966. In particular, encourage the EUT to recommend passage of Sections 6 and 7 of the most recent version of LD1966 (formerly Sections Y and Z). Please contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss this further.	CMP Letter - 2-19-26.pdf
Fred Farber 185 Foreside Rd Falmouth, ME Email ID: solar@farberbrothers.com Phone No.: 2077810972	2/26/2026	We recently received a notification from CMP that we were no longer able to get credits from our shares in a second ownership-model community solar farm. We have been members of our first solar farm since 2017 and joined our second last year. In the intervening time we turned our house into a completely electricity based dwelling, including a heat pump capable of heating the whole house, domestic heat pump hot water heater, and induction stove top. This significantly increased our electricity demand so we decided to invest in our second solar farm m(ownership-model). We believe this interpretation by the PUC unfairly deprives us of a significant asset that we are committed to keeping. We are in support of Revision's petition for reconsideration of this ruling and to direct CMP to take no action until this reconsideration is complete.

Per Page

1 of 3 First Prev Next Last Go To

Notification List Active Party List

Name of Person/Company	Representing Company	Mailing Address	Email/Phone/Fax
Abbey, Ross		100 N. 6th Street Suite 410B Minneapolis MN 55403	Email ID: ross.abbey@us-solar.com Phone Ph: 612-229-1920 Fax:
Abbott, Charles Lincoln		12 Mill Brook Road Plainfield CT 06374	Email ID: cabbott@greenleaf-power.com Phone Ph: 916-596-2503 Fax:
Agnew III, Charles		148 middle st portland ME 04102	Email ID: cagnew@competitive-energy.com Phone Fax:
Akers, Keith		250 West 57th Street Suite 701 New York NY 10107	Email ID: keith@syncarpha.com Phone Ph: 513-237-1749 Fax:
Albert, Eben M		254 Commercial St Portland ME 04101	Email ID: ealbert@pierceatwood.com Phone Ph: 207-791-1282 Fax:
Alexander, Barbara Reid		44 Beech Street Hallowell ME 04347	Email ID: barbalexand@gmail.com Phone Ph: 207-458-1049 Fax:
Algeo, Benjamin		84 Marginal Way Suite 600 Portland ME 04101	Email ID: balgeo@dwmlaw.com Phone Ph: 207-771-9218 Fax: Fax: 207-772-3627
Allegretti, Dan		ME	Email ID: daniel.w.allegretti@constellation.com Phone Fax:
Aronson, George		ME	Email ID: GARONSON@CRMCX.COM Phone Fax:
Assistant, Smith Legal LLC		P.O. 5418 4 Wabon Street, Suite 1 Augusta ME 04332 5418	Email ID: Assistant@smithlawmaine.com Phone Ph: 207-480-1543 Fax: Fax: 207-480-1532

Per Page

1 of 34 First Prev Next Last Go To

Staff Name	Role
Beaze, Erin	Staff Analyst
Coty, Dale	Support Staff
Davidson, Derek	Reviewer
McBride, Jameson	Staff Analyst
Mills, Amy	Reviewer
Pallozzi, Julie	Staff Analyst
Strong, Rikka	Hearing Examiner
Taylor, Daya	Hearing Examiner
Zeh, Sally	Reviewer

Per Page

1 of 1 First Prev Next Last Go To