Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select board will hear community solar pitch after members flag high‑pressure sales and request unbiased guidance
Summary
Farmington select board members discussed an approach by Solar Simplified proposing resident signups for an in‑state community solar project; members raised concerns about high‑pressure sales tactics, unclear project locations and town endorsement and asked staff to invite the company and seek independent state guidance.
A board member told the select board June 9 that Solar Simplified—a community solar developer—wants to door‑knock in town to recruit resident subscribers once its project is built. The board agreed to invite the company to present at a future meeting while urging caution about sales tactics and town endorsement.
Town staff explained how community solar interacts with Central Maine Power (CMP) billing: customers continue to receive a CMP bill showing delivery charges and any solar credits; the community solar company issues a second bill reflecting the value of those credits so the net effect is typically a 13–15% discount, according to the company representatives the manager had spoken with. Officials warned that in winter months, if a customer does not have enough credits, they revert to the standard offer rate and could see higher bills.
Multiple board members expressed wariness of aggressive sales approaches and said they would prefer an unbiased, state‑level or municipal information source for residents rather than a vendor presentation alone. One member recounted a prior program (an NLC‑subsidized sewer insurance program) that required use of the town seal and generated public backlash; members said they would not automatically allow a town endorsement for a private solar vendor.
The town manager said the developer told staff its project is already under construction and scheduled for completion this fall; the manager also offered to collect further project location and subsidy details for the board. Board members requested the developer clarify the project’s physical location, whether the project is in‑state, any state subsidies that supported the build, whether the company requires municipal endorsement to recruit residents and how it communicates likely winter‑season credit shortfalls.
The board did not make a policy decision at the meeting; members asked staff to invite Solar Simplified to present and to seek independent state or MMA resources that could explain net‑energy billing and consumer protections before residents are encouraged to sign contracts.
