Darling’s is accusing Versant of violating an agreement between the two companies when Versant disconnected the car dealership’s solar facility for three months.
The dealership built a 987 kilowatt solar facility in Brewer that came online Aug. 22, 2022. Darling’s spent more than $400,000 for studies, line protection work, metering and engineering, according to a lawsuit filed by the company Nov. 21 in Penobscot County Superior Court.
It accuses Versant of violating an interconnection agreement between the companies when Versant took the solar facility offline for three months. Darling’s wants a judge to find Versant breached the contract and order Versant to pay damages and attorney fees.
“Versant Power did not breach any agreement with Darling’s and will be filing a response to this lawsuit,” Versant’s Communications Manager Judy Long said in response to the lawsuit’s filing.
The solar power generated by Darling’s went to the Tibbetts Street Substation. Versant told Darling’s in March 2023 that the substation needed routine repairs and could not accept energy during the three-month repair period, per the lawsuit. Repairs started in August and are expected to wrap up around Nov. 27.
The agreement between the companies said Versant was required to give Darling’s five days’ notice before an interruption of service. That interruption is supposed to only happen “when necessary for routine maintenance, construction and repairs,” the lawsuit said.
The repairs currently underway are not “routine maintenance” but are a major overhaul of a 62-year-old substation, with a transformer that Versant knew it needed to replace in 2021, according to the lawsuit. If three months of repairs are considered routine, there is “likely no limit to how long Versant may disrupt or disconnect” service.
That Versant told Darling’s that repairs were needed five months before they started instead of the contractually obligated five days is more proof that the substation repairs are not routine, the lawsuit said.
Darling’s could have paid Versant between $15,000 and $25,000 for a system impact study, the second one the company would have funded, the lawsuit said. It paid $22,113 for one in February 2020 before construction began.
However, Darling’s spent three months trying to get in contact with Versant after the March meeting and did not receive responses. In June, Darling’s hired lawyers and started the Maine Public Utilities Commission’s dispute resolution process.
That process pushed Versant into responding to Darling’s questions. At that point it was too late to do the second impact study if Darling’s did want to pay for it. During a hearing before the public utilities commission, Versant was asked if it would have delayed the repairs so the impact study could be done, and said the company would not have delayed the repairs.
Other people and clients are not affected by the repairs. Their electrical loads are switched to other substations or a temporary mobile substation, the lawsuit said. Versant did not perform any engineering analysis to see if a complete disconnection of Darling’s solar facility was necessary or to see if Darling’s could remain connected with curtailed output.
The commission dismissed the complaint Oct. 18 because Darling’s facility was already disconnected and the commission had no relief it could have granted, per the order. There were several facts that concerned the commission.
Despite a three-year process to connect Darling’s solar facility, Versant did not tell Darling’s about the upcoming repairs and disconnection, the order said. Versant also incurred costs to make sure the loads at the substation could continue to be serviced during the repairs, but took no steps to see if Darling’s could stay connected.
