This is the place to list lawsuits against Solar Developers and Companies.
People are starting to wake up to the solar panel scams and are fighting back with lawsuits.
ALL solar lawsuits are important because they involved lies, faulty products, faulty installations and corrupt business practices.
SO list every suit you can find and let the readers discover which ones fit into their particular needs.
Lawsuits againts Solar Companies
Re: Lawsuits againts Solar Companies
SunPower agreed to pay $4.75 million under a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it sold solar panels with defective microinverters.
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-set ... ettlement/
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-set ... ettlement/
Re: Lawsuits againts Solar Companies
Sanyo Energy (U.S.A.) Corp., Sanyo North America Corp., and Panasonic Corp. of North America have agreed to a settlement resolving claims that certain Sanyo solar panels delaminate overtime, resulting in power loss.
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-set ... amination/
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-set ... amination/
Re: Lawsuits againts Solar Companies
A recent antitrust class action claims that an Arizona utility company upcharges their customers who use solar power to provide electricity.
According to the class action lawsuit, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) violate federal and state antitrust laws by charging their customers more if they use solar panels to supplement the electricity provided by the company.
Customers aimed to save money by investing in solar power for their homes, but were allegedly forced to pay more for their choices.
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-set ... on-claims/
According to the class action lawsuit, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) violate federal and state antitrust laws by charging their customers more if they use solar panels to supplement the electricity provided by the company.
Customers aimed to save money by investing in solar power for their homes, but were allegedly forced to pay more for their choices.
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-set ... on-claims/
Re: Lawsuits againts Solar Companies
A $675,000 settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit related to allegedly defective 35-watt and 50-watt solar tiles that are designed to replace roof tiles and provide solar power to the property. The solar tiles at issue were manufactured between 2008 and 2012.
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-set ... ettlement/
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-set ... ettlement/
Re: Lawsuits againts Solar Companies
A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit that alleges solar panels made by BP Solar and sold by Home Depot are defective and pose a fire hazard and risk of shattered glass.
If you have BP solar panels, you may be entitled to either the replacement of your solar panels and/or a new inverter from this solar panel defect class action settlement.
The BP solar panel defect class action lawsuit involves solar panels that were manufactured by BP Solar International Inc. between 1999 and 2007 with an S-type junction box.
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-set ... ettlement/
also
A former unit of BP LLC and Home Depot USA Inc. have reportedly agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging BP produced defective solar panels, according to documents filed last week in California federal court.
On Aug. 12, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking a judge to preliminarily approve the proposed BP class action settlement, which is worth more than $67 million. BP has agreed to inspect and replace the solar panels of all eligible Class Members.
“Crucially, the settlement is designed to eliminate all safety risk to all S-type panel owners because those who are not entitled to full replacement will be made far safer through inspection and installation of an inverter,” the BP class action settlement documents state.
The BP solar panel class action lawsuit was initially filed in California state court in January 2014 and was later transferred to federal court. It alleges that BP’s solar panels had a defect that caused the shoulder joint of the panels to overheat and cause the glass covers to shatter.
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-set ... el-defect/
If you have BP solar panels, you may be entitled to either the replacement of your solar panels and/or a new inverter from this solar panel defect class action settlement.
The BP solar panel defect class action lawsuit involves solar panels that were manufactured by BP Solar International Inc. between 1999 and 2007 with an S-type junction box.
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-set ... ettlement/
also
A former unit of BP LLC and Home Depot USA Inc. have reportedly agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging BP produced defective solar panels, according to documents filed last week in California federal court.
On Aug. 12, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking a judge to preliminarily approve the proposed BP class action settlement, which is worth more than $67 million. BP has agreed to inspect and replace the solar panels of all eligible Class Members.
“Crucially, the settlement is designed to eliminate all safety risk to all S-type panel owners because those who are not entitled to full replacement will be made far safer through inspection and installation of an inverter,” the BP class action settlement documents state.
The BP solar panel class action lawsuit was initially filed in California state court in January 2014 and was later transferred to federal court. It alleges that BP’s solar panels had a defect that caused the shoulder joint of the panels to overheat and cause the glass covers to shatter.
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-set ... el-defect/
Re: Lawsuits againts Solar Companies
Two Valley Center landowners who sued in Superior Court over damages caused to their property by runoff from an adjacent solar farm have been awarded $6.5 million damages by a jury. The November 15 verdict was rendered after a two week trial in Vista Superior Court against BayWa R.E., an LLC based in Germany.
The plaintiffs, Donald Sanders and son-in-law Chris Ambuul, owners of Honey Bee Ranch, sued after a solar farm built next to their property altered the landscape and caused flooding, damaging their property at Mesa Crest Road & Mesa Verde Drive. They sued for negligence, trespass and nuisance.
In 2015 the defendants, bought 27 acres of ag property (the “Granger property”) adjacent to Honey Bee Ranch for the construction and installation of solar panels. The land had formerly been the site of a tree nursery. They removed all natural vegetation on their Valley Center land, re-graded the and, and replaced the vegetation with hundreds of waterproof solar panels.
https://www.heraldbulletin.com/news/sol ... f3fdf.html
The plaintiffs, Donald Sanders and son-in-law Chris Ambuul, owners of Honey Bee Ranch, sued after a solar farm built next to their property altered the landscape and caused flooding, damaging their property at Mesa Crest Road & Mesa Verde Drive. They sued for negligence, trespass and nuisance.
In 2015 the defendants, bought 27 acres of ag property (the “Granger property”) adjacent to Honey Bee Ranch for the construction and installation of solar panels. The land had formerly been the site of a tree nursery. They removed all natural vegetation on their Valley Center land, re-graded the and, and replaced the vegetation with hundreds of waterproof solar panels.
https://www.heraldbulletin.com/news/sol ... f3fdf.html
Re: Lawsuits againts Solar Companies
LANSING, Mich. — A three-judge appellate panel in Michigan last week revived a lawsuit challenging a change in a local zoning ordinance that led to a township approving the permit for an industrial solar farm.
In a unanimous ruling, the panel said a lower court “relied upon an alternative reality” when it decided that a group of residents from the largely rural farming community lacked standing to challenge the procedures that enabled the solar farm’s approval.
As recounted in court documents, in 2017, Invenergy LLC, a multinational power generation company, approached officials in Macon Township, Michigan, about amending local zoning ordinances to include industrial-size solar farms as a special land use in districts zoned industrial or agricultural.
https://www.thewellnews.com/in-the-stat ... olar-farm/
In a unanimous ruling, the panel said a lower court “relied upon an alternative reality” when it decided that a group of residents from the largely rural farming community lacked standing to challenge the procedures that enabled the solar farm’s approval.
As recounted in court documents, in 2017, Invenergy LLC, a multinational power generation company, approached officials in Macon Township, Michigan, about amending local zoning ordinances to include industrial-size solar farms as a special land use in districts zoned industrial or agricultural.
https://www.thewellnews.com/in-the-stat ... olar-farm/
Re: Lawsuits againts Solar Companies
A Pennsylvania-based solar array developer has agreed to pay approximately $1.14 million to settle allegations that it violated federal stormwater requirements, damaging protected wetlands, and polluted the West Branch of the Mill River in Williamsburg, state Attorney General Maura Healey announced Monday.
The consent decree, filed in U.S. District Court, settles an April 2020 lawsuit filed by the Healey’s office alleging that Dynamic Energy Solutions LLC disregarded “fundamental pollution control requirements” for construction sites under federal and state law when it constructed an 18.5-acre solar array on a steep hillside above the West Branch Mill River, according to the AG’s office.
“Developers must abide by our important state and federal laws designed to protect precious natural resources like wetlands that prevent flooding and storm damage, and support wildlife,” Healey said in a statement. “This resolution requires the company to restore the resources it damaged and to fund land acquisitions that will improve the water quality of the West Branch Mill River.”
https://www.gazettenet.com/Developer-to ... s-38651958
The consent decree, filed in U.S. District Court, settles an April 2020 lawsuit filed by the Healey’s office alleging that Dynamic Energy Solutions LLC disregarded “fundamental pollution control requirements” for construction sites under federal and state law when it constructed an 18.5-acre solar array on a steep hillside above the West Branch Mill River, according to the AG’s office.
“Developers must abide by our important state and federal laws designed to protect precious natural resources like wetlands that prevent flooding and storm damage, and support wildlife,” Healey said in a statement. “This resolution requires the company to restore the resources it damaged and to fund land acquisitions that will improve the water quality of the West Branch Mill River.”
https://www.gazettenet.com/Developer-to ... s-38651958
Re: Lawsuits againts Solar Companies
to Ehrlich the idea of transferring 13,000 acres of prized farmland to solar energy production seems to have been so unthinkable that it demanded an extraordinary response. Within months of the project being proposed she had mobilized her wealth to fund a flurry of lawsuits, spearheaded a sometimes-vituperative pressure group and spent $3m buying new plots of land, including a cemetery, on the fringes of the project.
Ehrlich even acquired an office nextdoor to the solar developer’s own premises – and in its window a cartoon has been placed showing Joe Biden shoveling cash into the mouths of solar developers, depicted as pigs in a sty.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... power-farm
Ehrlich even acquired an office nextdoor to the solar developer’s own premises – and in its window a cartoon has been placed showing Joe Biden shoveling cash into the mouths of solar developers, depicted as pigs in a sty.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... power-farm
Re: Lawsuits againts Solar Companies
The owners of four solar farms agreed to settle allegations of federal Clean Water Act violations tied to construction permits and stormwater management on projects totaling more than 500 MW in Alabama, Idaho and Illinois, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Dept. of Justice said Nov. 14.
AL Solar A LLC with a site near LaFayette, Ala.; American Falls Solar LLC with a site near American Falls, Idaho; Prairie State Solar LLC with a site in Perry County, Ill.; and Big River Solar LLC with a site in White County, Ill., will pay civil penalties totaling $1.3 million, EPA officials said.
All four used a common construction contractor—which DOJ records indicate was initially Swinerton Renewable Energy and then became SOLV Energy in a 2021 corporate spinoff.
The contractor was not a party in the settlements, says DOJ, but neither SOLV nor EPA spokespersons would comment on whether the firm signed a separate settlement or faces any pending or upcoming enforcement related to site stormwater management.
All four owners violated their construction stormwater permits by failing to design, install and maintain proper stormwater controls, said EPA. They also failed to conduct regular site inspections, employ qualified inspectors or accurately report and address stormwater issues. Additionally, the agency said AL Solar and American Falls Solar allowed unauthorized discharges of excess sediment into waterways.
https://www.enr.com/articles/55357-four ... ction-suit
AL Solar A LLC with a site near LaFayette, Ala.; American Falls Solar LLC with a site near American Falls, Idaho; Prairie State Solar LLC with a site in Perry County, Ill.; and Big River Solar LLC with a site in White County, Ill., will pay civil penalties totaling $1.3 million, EPA officials said.
All four used a common construction contractor—which DOJ records indicate was initially Swinerton Renewable Energy and then became SOLV Energy in a 2021 corporate spinoff.
The contractor was not a party in the settlements, says DOJ, but neither SOLV nor EPA spokespersons would comment on whether the firm signed a separate settlement or faces any pending or upcoming enforcement related to site stormwater management.
All four owners violated their construction stormwater permits by failing to design, install and maintain proper stormwater controls, said EPA. They also failed to conduct regular site inspections, employ qualified inspectors or accurately report and address stormwater issues. Additionally, the agency said AL Solar and American Falls Solar allowed unauthorized discharges of excess sediment into waterways.
https://www.enr.com/articles/55357-four ... ction-suit
Re: Lawsuits againts Solar Companies
A lawsuit filed Tuesday in Charlotte County Circuit Court could derail plans to build a mega-utility solar array on more than 21,000 acres in Charlotte County near the border with Halifax and Mecklenburg counties.
South Hill attorney John Janson filed suit on behalf of Faye Trent individually and as a fiduciary of Ruth A. Hansen Wilcox to halt development of the 800-megawatt project, known as Randolph Solar. The proposed solar facility would have a footprint of some 32 square miles, dwarfing other area solar projects in size.
The lawsuit aims to scotch contractual agreements to build the facility and recover monetary and punitive damages from the defendants.
The named defendants are a Reston-based solar development company, SolUnesco and company CEO Frances Hodsoll, area real estate broker Sandra Ann Towne and her company Properties of Virginia LLC and landowner William Berkley Devin.
https://vaenergyconsumer.com/lawsuit-ai ... lar-array/
South Hill attorney John Janson filed suit on behalf of Faye Trent individually and as a fiduciary of Ruth A. Hansen Wilcox to halt development of the 800-megawatt project, known as Randolph Solar. The proposed solar facility would have a footprint of some 32 square miles, dwarfing other area solar projects in size.
The lawsuit aims to scotch contractual agreements to build the facility and recover monetary and punitive damages from the defendants.
The named defendants are a Reston-based solar development company, SolUnesco and company CEO Frances Hodsoll, area real estate broker Sandra Ann Towne and her company Properties of Virginia LLC and landowner William Berkley Devin.
https://vaenergyconsumer.com/lawsuit-ai ... lar-array/
Re: Lawsuits againts Solar Companies
COLUMBUS, Ga. (WRBL) — A U.S. District Court jury on Friday awarded a Stewart County couple $135.5 million Friday afternoon for damage done to their property by a Tennessee solar company and its contractor, according to Columbus attorney James E. Butler of Butler Prather LLP.
The jury hit Silicon Ranch Corp. (SRC) and its contractor IEA Inc. for intentionally polluting property owned by Shaun and Amie Harris, the plaintiffs.
The case was tried in front of Judge Clay Land.
Silicon Ranch Corp. has developed more than 160 solar panel facilities across the country, many of them built by IEA. This case involved one in Stewart County, Ga., called “Lumpkin solar.” Silicon Ranch and IEA cleared and mass graded about 1,000 acres without first installing adequate erosion and sediment control measures.
“That was the main problem with the Lumpkin site,” Butler said in a news release announcing the verdict. “For two years SRC and IEA failed to stabilize and vegetate almost a thousand acres they had mass graded – which was breaking the law.”
The jury returned a compensatory damages verdict of $10.5 million. The trial went to a punitive phase where the jury considered an amount that would punish the companies for their actions.
In its second verdict the jury found that SRC and IEA, and an IEA subsidiary called “IEA Constructors, LLC”, acted with the specific intent to cause harm. The jury imposed $25 million in punitive damages against SRC, $50 million in punitive damages against IEA Inc., and $50 million against IEA’s wholly-owned subsidiary IEA Constructors, LLC, according to a news release from Butler Prather.
https://www.wrbl.com/news/stewart-count ... -property/
The jury hit Silicon Ranch Corp. (SRC) and its contractor IEA Inc. for intentionally polluting property owned by Shaun and Amie Harris, the plaintiffs.
The case was tried in front of Judge Clay Land.
Silicon Ranch Corp. has developed more than 160 solar panel facilities across the country, many of them built by IEA. This case involved one in Stewart County, Ga., called “Lumpkin solar.” Silicon Ranch and IEA cleared and mass graded about 1,000 acres without first installing adequate erosion and sediment control measures.
“That was the main problem with the Lumpkin site,” Butler said in a news release announcing the verdict. “For two years SRC and IEA failed to stabilize and vegetate almost a thousand acres they had mass graded – which was breaking the law.”
The jury returned a compensatory damages verdict of $10.5 million. The trial went to a punitive phase where the jury considered an amount that would punish the companies for their actions.
In its second verdict the jury found that SRC and IEA, and an IEA subsidiary called “IEA Constructors, LLC”, acted with the specific intent to cause harm. The jury imposed $25 million in punitive damages against SRC, $50 million in punitive damages against IEA Inc., and $50 million against IEA’s wholly-owned subsidiary IEA Constructors, LLC, according to a news release from Butler Prather.
https://www.wrbl.com/news/stewart-count ... -property/
Re: Lawsuits againts Solar Companies
It was a rare win for locals and environmentalists last week, when Superior Court Judge Elaine Buckley issued a decision upholding the rights of Wareham residents to pursue a lawsuit against Borrego Solar Corporation to protect wetlands and waterways from a large industrial scale solar project and sand and gravel operation proposed by AD Makepeace Co. and Borrego at 140 Tihonet Road. The operation will clear-cut 65 acres of pristine Pine Barrens forests and harm wetlands, water quality and wildlife habitat according to the lawsuit.
According to the report from "Save the Pine Barrens," AD Makepeace owns the land and is operator of the aggregate mining company, Read Custom Soils of Carver. Makepeace plans an industrial-scale earth removal operation to extract about $9 million in sand and gravel before Borrego installs its solar project. The earth removal operation will level one of the region’s highest hills, located on Tihonet Pond. In 2021, Makepeace CEO Kane inaccurately claimed to the Conservation Commission that the earth removal operation is exempt from permitting and earth removal fees because it is an “agricultural” project. After the earth removal operation, Makepeace will lease the land to Borrego to install about 47,000 solar panels and batteries. In about 20 years, the solar panels will be removed and the project decommissioned.
The residents (plaintiffs) filed the lawsuit on June 6, 2021 asking the court to invalidate the wetlands permit issued by the Town Conservation Commission on April 25, 2021 under the Town’s Wetland Protective Bylaw. The permit being challenged is called a wetlands order of conditions. The purpose of the Town’s Wetland Protective By-law is to protect water supplies, groundwater, fisheries, wildlife and habitat, and prevent flooding, water pollution and other harmful impacts. The lawsuit claims the Town’s order of conditions permit is not strong enough to carry out the purpose of the By-law to protect these interests.
Borrego Solar filed a motion with the court to dismiss the lawsuit claiming the residents lack legal standing and will not be harmed by the project. Judge Buckley disagreed citing harm to the residents’ interest in clean water, preventing pollution and flooding, and protecting fisheries including the unique alewife fishery migration route on the Wankinko River, wildlife habitat and the residents’ recreational use of Tihonet Pond. The court decision relies extensively on information in February and March 2021 letters to the Conservation Commission by Community Land and Water Coalition and Wareham Land Trust about the harm to wetlands interests from the solar project and mining operation.
“This is a significant victory in the effort to protect our drinking water, forests, and waterways from improperly sited large ground mounted solar projects, AD Makepeace’s industrial sand and gravel operations, and reckless industrial development,” said Meg Sheehan an attorney with the CLWC non-profit group.
https://franklinobserver.town.news/g/fr ... arms-se-ma
According to the report from "Save the Pine Barrens," AD Makepeace owns the land and is operator of the aggregate mining company, Read Custom Soils of Carver. Makepeace plans an industrial-scale earth removal operation to extract about $9 million in sand and gravel before Borrego installs its solar project. The earth removal operation will level one of the region’s highest hills, located on Tihonet Pond. In 2021, Makepeace CEO Kane inaccurately claimed to the Conservation Commission that the earth removal operation is exempt from permitting and earth removal fees because it is an “agricultural” project. After the earth removal operation, Makepeace will lease the land to Borrego to install about 47,000 solar panels and batteries. In about 20 years, the solar panels will be removed and the project decommissioned.
The residents (plaintiffs) filed the lawsuit on June 6, 2021 asking the court to invalidate the wetlands permit issued by the Town Conservation Commission on April 25, 2021 under the Town’s Wetland Protective Bylaw. The permit being challenged is called a wetlands order of conditions. The purpose of the Town’s Wetland Protective By-law is to protect water supplies, groundwater, fisheries, wildlife and habitat, and prevent flooding, water pollution and other harmful impacts. The lawsuit claims the Town’s order of conditions permit is not strong enough to carry out the purpose of the By-law to protect these interests.
Borrego Solar filed a motion with the court to dismiss the lawsuit claiming the residents lack legal standing and will not be harmed by the project. Judge Buckley disagreed citing harm to the residents’ interest in clean water, preventing pollution and flooding, and protecting fisheries including the unique alewife fishery migration route on the Wankinko River, wildlife habitat and the residents’ recreational use of Tihonet Pond. The court decision relies extensively on information in February and March 2021 letters to the Conservation Commission by Community Land and Water Coalition and Wareham Land Trust about the harm to wetlands interests from the solar project and mining operation.
“This is a significant victory in the effort to protect our drinking water, forests, and waterways from improperly sited large ground mounted solar projects, AD Makepeace’s industrial sand and gravel operations, and reckless industrial development,” said Meg Sheehan an attorney with the CLWC non-profit group.
https://franklinobserver.town.news/g/fr ... arms-se-ma