Lawsuit Alleges Widespread Defects in Solar Modules
Swift Current Energy claims manufacturing errors in 2.4 million modules led to power losses at utility-scale sites.
Updated on Oct. 16, 2026 in Energy
Live Poll
Should solar equipment manufacturers be held legally liable when their products fail to meet promised performance?
Swift Current Energy has filed a lawsuit against First Solar in New York state court, alleging the company knowingly supplied 2.4 million defective solar modules. The developer claims these manufacturing errors have resulted in significant power losses at facilities including the Double Black Diamond project in Illinois.
Why it matters
The dispute centers on allegations that manufacturing defects and deceptive testing practices have hampered the operational performance of large-scale solar arrays. This legal action highlights the financial and contractual risks facing utility-scale renewable energy developers when hardware fails to meet projected outputs.
Leidos Engineering identified an average 8 percent power loss in tested modules, citing manufacturing process changes initiated in 2021. The complaint alleges that material from glass edges calcified onto panels during production, causing performance issues that First Solar allegedly masked using proprietary testing.
The players
Swift Current Energy
A renewable energy developer based in Massachusetts that manages large-scale solar and wind power projects.
First Solar
A U.S.-based manufacturer of thin-film photovoltaic modules used in utility-scale solar energy production.
Leidos Engineering
A technical consulting firm that provides independent engineering assessment and performance validation for energy infrastructure projects.
The details
The lawsuit alleges that a 2021 manufacturing shift prevented the module absorber layer—the thin film material responsible for converting sunlight into electricity—from forming as designed. According to the filing, glass particulates from the module edges calcified on the panels during the dwell time before washing, leading to degradation. Swift Current further claims First Solar employed proprietary preconditioning testing to obscure these metastability losses from standard performance benchmarks.
Timeline
2021: First Solar initiated a change to its manufacturing process.
2023-2024: Swift Current Energy received 2.4 million solar modules.
Dec. 23, 2024: Swift Current submitted formal warranty claims.
May 2, 2025: First Solar provided a formal response to warranty claims.
Nov. 16, 2026: Parties are scheduled to appear in court.
The Tech Race
This dispute over module efficiency marks a departure from standard warranty disagreements by challenging the underlying manufacturing integrity of thin-film technology. The case follows a pattern of high-stakes technical scrutiny for utility-scale components as developers seek to maximize yields on thin margins.
The dispute impacts developers and power buyers who rely on the performance consistency of utility-scale solar equipment. With litigation ongoing, the operational output of sites like the Double Black Diamond project remains under scrutiny regarding long-term power purchase agreement obligations.
The takeaway
The industry is watching how the New York state court evaluates claims of deceptive testing methods in high-volume hardware production. Stakeholders should track the Nov. 16, 2026, court appearance for further evidence regarding the scale of the alleged performance degradation.
Further reading
For broader context on renewable infrastructure, visit the Energy section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by pv magazine USA.
Live Poll
Should solar equipment manufacturers be held legally liable when their products fail to meet promised performance?
