When SolarCity became the first major solar energy provider to announce a solar contract dispute, a wave of complaints hit the company.
SolarCity’s contract with SunEdison was a key part of the company’s turnaround, but the dispute left a cloud of doubt over the company and its ability to deliver on the promise of the deal.
SolarPowerNow, a group of solar energy activists and community groups, said the company should be required to pay all the company owed to the state and the federal government.
The SolarPower Now coalition says the contract should be amended to include a refundable guarantee that the state would pay for solar energy production on behalf of the state.
But the SolarPower contract is the one that the coalition is now demanding.
SunEdisons contract with SolarCity, for example, expires in 2021.
The company was given the option to renew it for up to 15 years.
However, that option was not extended.
In February, SolarCity announced it was delaying the expiration of the contract, which would have kept the solar program running through 2024.
SunPowerNow has been pushing for SolarCity to fix the contract.
In May, it filed a lawsuit against SolarCity for violating the SolarContracts Act, a California law that mandates that a company be “committed to the attainment of a Solar energy program.”
SolarCity is not a customer of SolarPowernow, a consumer advocacy group that advocates for renewable energy, according to the complaint filed in federal court in Sacramento.
The coalition filed the complaint to get SolarCity the money it needs to continue to provide solar energy for California residents.
But SolarCity declined to respond to the allegations in the complaint.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf and by the Solar Power Now coalition, according a copy of the complaint obtained by The Associated Press.
The complaint accuses SolarCity of misleading the state’s energy regulator about the expiration date of its contract with the state, and that it failed to provide adequate compensation for the state when it was promised by the state it would be paid for its work.
The state is also asking SolarCity and other parties in the SolarCity contract dispute to pay SolarCity $15 million in penalties and to cease misleading the energy regulator.
Solar PowerNow also said it was seeking to have SolarCity pay for its efforts to resolve the Solar Contracts Act complaint and the dispute with Solar City.
SolarEnergyNow says SolarCity should pay the state $1 million to $2 million per day for its solar energy operations in the state until it agrees to a settlement.
The group also wants SolarCity customers to receive a refund for the $4.5 million it spent on SolarPower now.
SolarTech is not the only company that has had problems with SolarContract.
In 2015, the state Energy Commission issued a warning to all companies that are in the business of selling solar energy services.
The commission said it would require any company that sells solar energy to pay an annual “performance bond” of up to $1.5 billion.
The companies must also demonstrate that they have been in compliance with the law and that they will provide the state with the best possible energy performance, the commission said.
The law requires a company to provide at least 85 percent of its energy production to the State of California.
However the commission has never specified what it means to “provide” that energy.
That means the state must make up for any shortfall by providing other energy services, including the purchase of energy from the private sector.
The agency said the commission would continue to enforce the law, and would continue its investigation of SolarCity.
“We are committed to providing the best energy services to the people of California and to ensuring that solar energy is provided to the greatest extent possible to the residents of the State,” said SolarCity spokesperson Kelly Fagan.
SolarWorld also filed a complaint in court against SolarPower, saying the company did not have adequate control over the contracts it sold to customers.
The energy commission is investigating.
SolarWatts, a company that sold solar energy systems to customers in California, is also seeking a refund.
In December, SolarWorld said it filed an arbitration with the commission, which ruled in favor of SolarWats.
However in its ruling, the agency noted that the company had failed to file a claim with the agency for the full amount of the performance bond.
SolarMWatts also said in its complaint that SolarCity failed to meet its contractual obligations to pay its customers in full for the time it took to complete the Solar Contracts Act compliance audit.
SolarSolar is a customer-owned utility that sells its solar power systems to solar customers.
SolarTunes is a company in the solar energy industry that provides podcasts, music and other media to solar users.
SolarMasters is a nonprofit group that helps solar customers find the best solar installation for their homes and businesses.
The nonprofit Solar Citizens Alliance also filed the SolarMates complaint against SolarTune.
SolarGurus is a