News Stories

On August 4, 2026 Staff of the Maine PUC filed a recommended decision regarding the net energy billing (NEB) straw proposal.

“Through this Order, the Commission finds and concludes that the formula identified at Section IV herein is appropriate for periodically adjusting the net energy billing project charge in a manner that is consistent with the requirements and intent of 35-A M.R.S. § 3209-F.”

As background, the Commission on May 27, 2026 issued a Notice of Investigation in which it directed Staff to develop and issue a straw proposal presenting a formula for adjusting the NEB Project Charge in compliance with the requirements of section 3209-F (Straw Proposal).

On June 16, 2026, Staff issued its Straw Proposal, the purpose of which was to present for comment a proposed formula for adjusting the NEB Project Charge in a manner that would comply with the Commission’s obligation to “increase the initial net energy billing project charge to account for increases in transmission and distribution rates” so that “compensation to a distributed generation resource related to transmission and distribution rate credits” does not increase by more than 2.25% per year. 35-A M.R.S. § 3209-F(4). The Straw Proposal presented two “scenarios,” the first of which calculated the NEB Project Charge adjustment based on gross “compensation . . . related to transmission and distribution rate credits” (Scenario 1),6 with the latter calculating the adjustment based on compensation net of the NEB Project Charge (Scenario 2).7 The proposed formulas under both scenarios was designed to apply to all transmission and distribution (T&D) utilities’ assessments of distributed generation resources (DGR) participating in net energy billing with a shared financial interest customer in accordance with 35-A M.R.S. § 3209-A(3) and would be adjusted annually on January 1. As for components of the formula, Staff proposed a representative capacity factor of 20%, and a 15% subscriber discount be included in the calculation under both scenarios.

Among other things Staff’s recommended decision would: (1) conclude “that the term ‘transmission and distribution rate credits’ means credits received by the DGR project sponsor that are used to offset the kWh portion of a project’s monthly invoice from the transmission and distribution utility, that in turn reduces the revenue collected by the utility”; (2) conclude “that the term ‘compensation’… is understood to account for standard, measurable factors directly impacting a typical project sponsor’s revenues in relation to T&D rate credits, including subscriber discounts and project degradation”; (3) conclude “that the NEB Project Charge should be adjusted based on compensation gross of the Project Charge,” given that “the NEB Project Charge is not part of ‘compensation . . . related to . . . rate credits’”; (4) replace “the proposed 20% capacity factor, which was used as a placeholder in the Straw Proposal” with a 17% AC capacity factor, referring to Sustainable Energy Advantage’s use of that factor “for front-of-the meter (FTM) kWh credit program projects in their 2025 Cost-Benefit Analysis of Net Energy Billing”; (5) approve “a standard subscriber discount of 15%… because it provides a representative factor that appropriately reflects the percentage of T&D rate credits that typically flow to the project sponsor as compensation”; (6) incorporate “the 0.5% [solar panel] degradation rate used in ISO-NE’s 2024 PV forecast” into the adjustment formula; (7) decline “to adopt a formula that accounts for a potential decrease in T&D rates,” given the plain language of the statute; (7) confirm that “the NEB Project Charge must be specific to each utility service territory”; (8) specify utility-specific blends “of residential and small commercial rates weighted to account for the NEB credits flowing to these customer groups”; and (9) order that the initial adjustment take effect 1/1/27.

Parties may file exceptions to this Recommended Decision by August 13, 2026, for the Commission’s consideration.

Deliberations scheduled for August 25, 2026.

Previously a wide ranging set of comments were filed regarding Staff’s net energy billing straw proposal.

(1) OPA recommends “use the NEB Project Charge formula net of the project charge,” arguing that it “must take into account both changes in T&D rates and the current project charge to preserve the relationship between the Project Charge and T&D rates intended by the Legislature,” while Maine Renewable Energy Association and Coalition for Community Solar Access (MREA-CCSA) and Nexamp recommended that “The project charge adjustment should be calculated on a gross basis,” with Nexamp arguing that “the statutory cap applies to ‘compensation … related to transmission and distribution rate credits,’ which is best understood as the revenue attributable to those credits, not the credit rate alone and not a separate regulatory charge imposed on the project sponsor”;

(2) OPA recommended that the Commission “remove the 15% subscriber discount from the compensation formula” because “the pre-discount compensation impacts customer rates” and “is inconsistent with the term ‘compensation’ as used in the statute,” which refers to “Compensation to a distributed generation resource related to transmission and distribution rate credits”;

(3) Nexamp and MREA-CCSA argued that “The fee adjustment should be able to be positive or negative,” given that: (i) the statutory “language does not absolutely prohibit downward adjustments in the project charge”; and (ii) “If the project charge is not decreased,” should rates decline, “project owners will face materially lower revenues while still needing to absorb higher charges,” which “could lead to asset owners not being able to cover debt service, leading to defaults, bankruptcies, and inability to continue to operate assets”;

(4) Nexamp and MREA-CCSA argued that “The project charge adjustment formula should account for project degradation,” otherwise “the project charge could continue to climb as reduced production decreases total project revenues… [which] could result in charges that [cannot] be supported by the project without defaulting on debt”;

(5) MREA-CCSA argued that “The adjustment should account for differing rate changes in customer classes eligible for NEB,” given that “If the formula is set assuming 100% residential customers, a project may face an inappropriately high project charge if commercial rates increase at a lower rate than residential, and actual project revenues are therefore lower than reflected in the formula,” and, in the inverse case, “the project charge will not claw back the higher rates in the small general service class”;

(6) MREA-CCSA argued that “that the project charge should be specific to each utility service territory for greatest accuracy, fairness, and adherence to the statute.”