Gray Yarmouth Road Solar LLC v. Maine Public Utilities Commission

The federal district court for the District of Maine denied community solar project sponsors’ challenge to a Maine law that imposed a charge on community solar developers participating in Maine’s Net Energy Billing (NEB) Program. The plaintiffs contended that the new charge constituted an unconstitutional per se taking of private property and alleged that it would “upend Maine’s progress toward achieving its sustainability goals.” The court found that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the project charge was an unconstitutional taking. The court concluded that the charge was neither an impermissible monetary exaction under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine nor a governmental directive of payments from a specific and identifiable fund of money. The court further concluded that the plaintiffs could not sustain a per se takings claim because their participation in the NEB Program was voluntary. The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm because they would be able to recover any monetary damages resulting from the charge. In addition, the court found that the balance of equities and the public interest weighed against a preliminary injunction.

Sponsors of community solar projects in Maine filed a constitutional challenge to a law enacted in June 2025 (LD 1777) that they alleged threatened “the continued viability of Plaintiffs’ community solar projects” and would “upend Maine’s progress toward achieving its sustainability goals.” The complaint alleged that LD 1777 “effectively ends” the addition of new community solar projects to Maine’s “net energy billing” program, which the plaintiffs alleged was created by a 2019 law to induce renewable energy investment by allowing project sponsors to recover project costs through long-term contracts with residential, commercial, and industrial consumers. In addition, the complaint alleged that LD 1777 imposed a new charge for some existing projects and changed the rate structure for other current projects, “thereby pulling the rug out from under the solar projects that Maine now enjoys.” The plaintiffs asserted that LD 1777’s imposition of a new charge constituted an unconstitutional per se taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment and that LD 1777’s changes to the net energy billing program constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking and an impairment of lawful contracts in violation of the Contracts Clause.