• Modules may have affected projects, triggering lost revenue and PPA penalties
• Swift Current has filed six claims seeking damages, restitution and attorneys’ fees
• Suit is also seeking up to triple damages for allegedly knowing or willful conduct

Swift Current Energy is suing First Solar, alleging it knowingly supplied defective solar modules that performed 9% to 23% below promised capacity.

Swift Current filed the complaint on September 9 in the New York County Supreme Court, alleging that First Solar, a major solar manufacturer for US projects, breached their contracts when they delivered and installed more than 1.6 million solar modules affected by a manufacturing error.

Swift Current claims that First Solar knew about the defects while at least some modules were still being shipped and installed and accused the company as misrepresenting their performance.

First Solar’s modules suffer from “metastability loss” in its thin-film cadmium telluride modules, which causes the modules to lose performance during long periods of darkness and cold temperatures, according to the complaint. Swift alleged that First Solar knew about the metastability loss, “both after installation and seasonally, but concealed material information regarding the uncertainty, variability, and potential impact,” and even created unrealistic conditions in testing to inflate their capabilities.

Swift said that First Solar’s process results in a worse performance in normal field conditions than what was represented. However, First Solar keeps the details of its proprietary preconditioning process secret, and numerous filings in the New York County public docket are redacted to protect sensitive company information.

Accused impacts

The projects impacted by the defective solar modules include Double Black Diamond, a 593 MW project in Illinois; Harvest Gold, a 99 MW project in Mississippi; and Tres Bahias, a 195 MW project in Texas.

In the complaint, Swift said it spent USD 360m on more than 2.4 million modules, representing about 1.21 GW of capacity.

Swift said the alleged misrepresentation from First Solar meant their projects underperformed, and the power losses resulted in financial penalties under power purchase agreements (PPAs).

NPM project data shows Swift Current’s Double Black Diamond project has offtake agreements with Constellation, Loyola University Chicago, CVS Health and TransUnion. Meanwhile, Tres Bahias has a PPA with NRG Energy.

According to the complaint, First Solar retrieved modules from Harvest Gold and Tres Bahias in late 2025 for testing at its facilities. Those tests allegedly found defective Series 7 modules averaged 11.5% below nameplate output, with some as much as 32% below, after less than two years in the field.

Series 6 Plus modules tested an average of 9.7% below nameplate after less than two-and-a-half years of use.

First Solar denied any misgivings when it told Swift Current in an Aug. 27 letter that “not even a single module” had been assessed in accordance with the warranty.

This isn’t the first time Swift has challenged First Solar’s equipment performance.

Background

Swift Current first contacted First Solar about lower-than-expected output at Double Black Diamond around October 2024. The developer said First Solar subsequently disclosed manufacturing process errors affecting modules installed at its projects and provided a root-cause analysis in November 2024.

However, Swift Current accused First Solar of having identified problems earlier and implemented changes to its manufacturing process without informing Swift Current. The complaint further alleges First Solar continued shipping affected modules and allowed their installation after becoming aware of the defects.

Swift Current submitted formal warranty claims in December 2024. The companies continued technical and commercial negotiations into 2025, including a July meeting involving First Solar CEO Mark Widmar, but did not reach an agreement, the complaint explains.

Swift Current claims the resulting underperformance has reduced project revenues, including revenue associated with power purchase and capacity agreements, and forced the parent company to rely on additional borrowing.

The plaintiffs assert six claims, including breach of workmanship and power-output warranties, breach of express warranties, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation and violation of Massachusetts’ unfair and deceptive trade practices law.

Swift Current is seeking damages in an amount to be determined at trial, restitution and attorneys’ fees. It is also seeking up to treble damages under Massachusetts law for conduct it alleges was knowing or willful, meaning whatever damages Swift Current proves it incurred, First Solar would pay triple the amount.

Swift Current is being represented by Morgan Lewis & Bockius.

First Solar is being represented by Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom.

First Solar did not return NPM’s request for comment, while Swift Current declined to comment.