Maine
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Do you need support?
In response to the recent changes introduced by LD 1777, ReVision Energy has created this FAQ page for our customers who own multiple shares in Member-Owned Community Solar projects.
This is a dynamic and fast-evolving issue, so we will update this webpage as new information becomes available.
ReVision Energy is actively advocating for our customers’ interests in Augusta right now, working directly with the PUC, utilities, and legislature. We are optimistic that this advocacy is going to solve the issue for our customers. We are inviting you to join us by taking two actions: contact your legislators and comment on the PUC docket. We have provided further information and instructions for both below.
In 2025, Maine’s legislature passed LD1777. The bill made significant changes to Maine’s Net Energy Billing program, which is the mechanism by which renewable energy project owners can receive compensation for the electricity generated. ReVision Energy and our customers have demonstrated the value of Member-Owned Community Solar, and have helped to distinguish the ownership model from other subscription models.
While ReVision’s Public Policy team was able to influence LD1777 to exempt member-owned community solar projects from many of the problematic legislative changes, the Public Utilities Commission has interpreted the law to prevent any single residential account from earning credits from multiple solar farms.
Even before the PUC finalized its implementation rules, CMP began sending notifications to some customers with more than one solar farm on a single account. The notification indicates that you may only receive credits from one community solar project and may no longer enroll in multiple projects. This has created confusion for our customers, and we are working aggressively with the utilities, the PUC, the Public Advocate, and the legislature to fix the problems created by LD1777.
This situation is the result of a poorly drafted section of LD1777. The Public Advocate intended for that section to address an issue where some customers inadvertently signed up for multiple solar subscriptions from different community solar providers, causing problems for both the customer and the utility. The intent was to curtail this issue, which is a consequence of some of the aggressive door-to-door subscription community solar sellers. As you know, ReVision has a different model, offering our customers member-ownership in community solar projects.
During the legislative session, we were assured by both the Public Advocate and legislators that the intent of the provision was sufficiently clear and that it was not intended to affect customers like you, and they declined our suggested edits to the legislative language before the bill passed.
Unfortunately, the Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has concluded they do not have the legal authority to exempt ownership-model community solar owners from this limitation. While expressing sympathy for the absurdity and injustice of the situation (essentially forcing Maine customers to divest of their solar farm shares), they felt that their hands were tied by the legislative language. They came to that conclusion despite the Public Advocate and others joining us in filing comments encouraging them to exercise reasonable discretion based on the clear legislative intent.
We think this outcome – for customers like you who have made a prudent investment in a community solar project – is outrageous, indefensible, and unacceptable.
The ReVision team is actively working with the utilities, the PUC, the Public Advocate, and the legislature to fix the problems for member-owned community solar created by LD1777. Addressing these issues requires a policy fix. As noted above, our first action was to provide detailed input to the PUC as they developed implementation rules for LD1777.
We have since filed a petition for reconsideration at the PUC, asking them to reconsider their decision. If you are interested in supporting this petition, you are invited to add a public comment to the docket, Docket # 2025-00264. Instructions are provided below.
Simultaneously, we immediately began working with members of the Energy, Utility, and Technology (EUT) Committee in the Maine Legislature to add language to a bill being considered in the current legislative session to fix this obvious mistake and treat customers like you fairly. That language has been added as an amendment in LD1966, which is scheduled to be taken up by the EUT Committee on Thursday, February 26. Democratic members of the EUT have told us that they understand this issue and intend to fix it, but we urge you to share your personal story with them – it is critical for decision-makers to hear from the Mainers impacted by the policies they pass.
It’s crucial for the Legislature to hear from the Mainers impacted by this unfortunate decision—your voice is an essential part of advocacy. There will be two key opportunities for your outreach to make a difference:
To pursue all of our advocacy options, we have also filed a “Petition for Reconsideration” at the PUC, asking them to reconsider the decision not to exempt ownership-model community solar from the consumer protection provisions passed in LD 1777.
We argued that it simply makes sense to exempt customers like you, because otherwise the rule allows for a taking of private property. We filed this petition within the docket that the PUC set up to implement LD 1777, called Docket # 2025-00264.
You are invited to leave a public comment in that docket explaining your personal situation (see talking points below) and saying you support ReVision’s petition for reconsideration and ask the PUC to please pause implementation and respond as soon as possible to ensure there are no adverse impacts to customers.
Share the issue:
"We were recently alerted by Central Maine Power that a law passed in 2025, LD 1777, was interpreted by the Public Utilities Commission to limit Mainers from owning multiple shares in an ownership-model community solar farm and that since I own more than one share, I will no longer receive credits for the significant investment I made in additional shares."
Share your story of why you own multiple shares in a community solar farm:
For example: "I own multiple shares in an ownership-model community solar farm. That means I purchased a share to cover the electricity use of my home. It’s not a subscription; it’s an asset we own: just like panels on a roof, we own panels in a farm. My family first made an investment in our first community solar share in [YEAR] and over time, as our electricity use grew due to beneficial electrification [explain how you potentially added heat pumps, an EV charger, or increased electricity use], we decided to make a second investment [add details if you like] in an additional share to cover our additional energy needs."
Share that this is an asset you directly invested in/paid for, unlike a subscription:
For example: "We directly purchased this share [outright or via loan], and it is now an asset we own that cannot be easily sold, nor do we desire to do so. We made this decision because we care deeply about [affordable energy, clean electricity, the changing climate, etc.]."
Make an ask.
"This interpretation of LD 1777 unfairly punishes Mainers like me, who chose to make an investment in solar. It seems the intention of protecting subscription-model community solar participants was wrongfully applied to our situation, and we urge you to right this wrong. Please ensure the passage of the language in Section Z of LD 1966, released on February 19. We must see action on this language this session."
No. We are optimistic that our combined efforts are going to solve the issue.
Based on our outreach this week, we are optimistic that this issue can be solved for member-owned community solar customers. Members of the EUT Committee in Augusta indicate they understand the issue and intend to address it this session (but it is critical that they hear from you!) We are also working with the PUC and we are hopeful there may be a pause in implementation while the legislative process plays out.
If a legislative fix is passed, it may take some time to implement. Legislation does not become law overnight, and there may be a gap that we need to address at the PUC, asking them to allow utilities to continue giving you credits given the legislative action and intent. We are working hard to address this potential scenario, and rest assured there is precedent for the PUC to delay implementation of a rule in this regard.
If CMP withholds credits to your residential account, please contact us and the PUC immediately. The PUC has asked ReVision to direct customers to its Consumer Assistance Division so they can appropriately pause utility action while the legislation is pending.
Go to the Consumer Assistance Division website, and either call or send in an email alerting them that CMP has withheld credits as a result of the implementation of LD 1777 and the unintentional application of Section 15 to ownership-model community solar shares. Ask them to please tell CMP to pause these changes and compensate you accordingly for the power you rightly produced while the legislation is pending.
Have more questions?
Send Chris Bitely an email: cbitely@revisionenergy.com