I am stuck with a 25-year lease of a photovoltaic (PV) system which has vastly increased my monthly electric bill of a condo I own All this began when Greenpath Technologies marketed its PV system as a way to "reduce (my) electricity expense" Now I am being double-billed per month: one bill by HECO and another by the new owner of the PV system, Neighborhood Power Co(to whom Greenpath sold the system to before it was activated for my condo unit)
Once the PV system was activated, I expected a lower monthly overall power bill Instead, what I got was something which was the exact opposite: When I reviewed the power bills for August and September of 2017, I noted the following:
On my August bills, HECO charged a total of $whereas the bill for the PV system's power-use was $
For September, HECO charged a total of $18.18, whereas the bill for the PV system’s power-use was $
The bills for HECO and Neighborhood Power Cohad to be paid separately
Moreov
Getting only Military Survival Benefit, I decided to purchase a property for an extra income
November 16, 2016, purchased a Townhouse
January 3, 2017; received an email form GPT (Green Path Technologies, Inc)
The previous owner had installed solar panels for this unit and a balance due of $24,
We need to update the new homeowner information in our system and HECO SYSTEM
Attached are forms: Solar order form-fill out, Net Energy Metering Agreement - NEED SIGNATURE ON THE LAST PAGE ***WE ALSO NEED A COPY YOUR RECENT ELECTRIC BILL
I contacted my Realtor, my Realtor contacted to the seller’s realtorShe stated that the previous owner did not sign on contract of solar panels purchases of GPTShe has been keeping these original paper works and my realtor and I received copies of these paper works from her
January 5,2017;
I called you a couple days ago and I left a messages about solar panels on your office phone
I hope you got my message I
I have reviewed Greenpath Technologies’ (GPT’s) response (dated 1/23/2018)It changes nothing with my original request to have the Power Purchase Agreement/Net Metering Agreement voided and rescinded without penalty, based on the fact that my signature was obtained via misleading advertisingAgain, GPT’s ad promised that its photovoltaic (PV) system shall lower my monthly power expenses; the entire reason I signto begin withInstead, my on-the-ground costs have been increased overall. GPT’s most recent response has essentially admitted that its PV system has been indeed overcharging meAnd this is something that the PV system is geared to do, despite nearly non-existent power-usageThis is contrary to what its original ad brochure promisedCredits notwithstanding, the costs stated on the PV bills still have to be paid every month, on top of those of HECOIt has resulted in me paying more for power with the PV system than I would have without it. All this aside, this is now moot: the owner-investor of the GPT’s PV system has decided to cancel its lease-contract with me due to the issues raisedBecause of this development, I will be suspending my Revdex.com complaint against GPTPlease keep in mind that this is not an acceptance of GPT’s explanationsNor is it an acceptance of GPT’s dubiously gained contract with me or any of its business partnersShould there be any attempt to re-activate or resurrect the PV contract without my knowledge or approval, GPT shall be hearing from me again. Thank you for your attention. To the Hawaii Revdex.com: Mahalo for all your help
I have reviewed Greenpath Technologies’ (GPT) response to my complaint regarding on how its photovoltaic (PV) system is not saving me money in my monthly power bills. It is a piece of exposition summarizing the efforts made by GPT to bring its PV system to the [redacted] condo complex. However, it does not address the primary issue of my complaint: The fact that the PV system’s service is doing nothing to live up to the promise outlined by an ad brochure originally circulated to [redacted] condo owners in 2015: Cost savings in monthly electricity bills. Below are excerpts of the aforementioned ad brochure: Instead of bringing monthly savings, there has been a sharp increase in my Condo unit’s monthly electrical expenses. Below is a chart regarding my condo unit’s power costs, from November 2016-October 2017 (Note: the unit was unoccupied from August-October): As it is, billing for the PV system did not occur until April. This chart demonstrates that the PV system has done nothing to alleviate monthly power costs for the condo unit; instead, it has increased monthly costs. As it is, these costs must be paid out-of-pocket by the consumer to both HECO and NPC. Upon review of GPT’s response, the above ad brochure was left unmentioned. Also unmentioned were the ad’s statements regarding the aforementioned cost savings, which led me to sign-in to begin with. And no specific reason was given for the sharp difference between GPT’s promises made in the ad brochure versus the kind of monthly power costs that I had to pay in reality. On further review, GPT’s response does not mention any effort by GPT to live-up to its ad in any of its dealings with Hawaiian Electric (HECO), [redacted] Apartment Owner’s Association or other associates. Nor does it state any effort by GPT to alert its signatory customers that neither it nor its associates would be able to honor GPT’s stated promise of “monthly energy cost savings” with all the changes mentioned. Upon review, the actual documents that GPT and its associates sent to me were devoid of such notifications. Such an alert would have given me a better-informed choice regarding the PV project. Instead, GPT and its associates chose to press-on, sending their documents for my signature. Due to this lack of disclosure, I continued to support GPT’s efforts in the belief that all this would somehow amount to monthly cost-savings on my power bill… as GPT’s ad brochure promised. This lack of disclosure also effectively continues the inducements made by GPT’s ad brochure. In the light of this, any and all contracts with GPT and its associates –including my lease with Neighborhood Power Co. (NPC) which now owns my condo unit’s PV system via GPT—are voidable and rescindable based on the following: 1) GPT’s misleading advertising in its ad brochure about its cost-savings on my monthly power bills. The power bills –now higher due to the PV system-- speak for themselves. By Law, all contracts and agreements stemming from misleading advertising have no force and are therefore voidable or rescindable. Misleading advertising is also a violation of Federal Law. 2) Bait and Switch. In this case, the bait was the promise of lower monthly power bills and the switch is selling a service (and having me sign a contract) which results me paying higher monthly power bills. This sort of Bait and Switch is a violation of Federal Law. 3) Issues regarding Successor Liability. Although NPC itself did not market the PV system, its Power Purchase Agreement with me has been gained from GPT’s misrepresentations on its ad brochure. And when NPC purchased my condo’s PV system from GPT, it has assumed the liability that would come with it. This includes contracts ultimately gained or influenced from GPT's misleading advertising. In other words, NPC ultimately relied on GPT’s ad brochure to induce [redacted] customers to sign its Power Purchase Agreements; in that way, NPC did not have to expend its own resources to market the PV system it bought from GPT. In a nutshell, NPC would have not contracted me if it did not get its paperwork from GPT; GPT would not have gotten its paperwork from me had I not signed-on; and I would not have signed-on if I did not believe the promises of cost-savings claimed in GPT’s ad brochure; an ad brochure which NPC ultimately relied on to gain my contract for a PV system it bought from GPT. Just follow the paper trail. What GPT could do to remedy this is to have NPC quietly rescind all contracts with me --including NPC’s Power Purchase Agreement—without penalties to me, as soon as possible. The PV system and meter would also have to be quietly removed. I would like to resolve this matter at the “company level” at this point. However, I may pursue this matter at a higher level if this is not resolved soon.
In 2014, meetings were held between Greenpath Technologies Inc. (GPT) and the Board of Directors of the ** [redacted] (AOAO) in an effort to install Photovoltaic (PV) Systems and reduce the electricity expenditure of the AOAO and Homeowners/Tenants. Accordingly a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) Proposal was offered whereby GPT would bring in an 3rd party investors to own and operate the PV system installed on the roofs of AOAO and in turn sell the electricity produced to the AOAO and Homeowners/Tenants at a predetermined discounted PPA kWh rate. Initially the agreed PPA kWh rate was 25 cents fixed for the PPA term of 20 years and the prevailing kWh rates from HECO was about 35 cents, thereby offering an initial savings of about 8 cents with additional future savings depending on escalating HECO kWh rates. The advantage of a PPA deal was that the AOAO/Homeowner was not required to come up with any upfront investment and the 3rd party investor was responsible for ownership, operation, maintenance and replacement of the PV system during the PPA term. The only requirement was that the AOAO/Homeowner be responsible to purchase the electricity generated from the PV system at predetermined PPA kWh rates during the PPA term. In 2015, GPT collected actual electrical bills from all AOAO/Homeowners-Tenants and submitted to AOAO that a 10 solar panel system (about 2.5 kW DC) for each AOAO/Homeowners-Tenants was feasible due to present electricity consumption and equity within all homeowners. In this present case, GPT requested and obtained the previous tenants utility bill and determined that 10 panels (about 2.5 kW DC system) would offset approximately 45% of the previous tenants annual average electrical usage. The owner and previous tenant signed the HECO NEM application, which was then submitted and conditionally approved by HECO. In 2016, GPT introduced Neighborhood Power Corporation (NPC) as the 3rd party investor for this PPA transaction. At this time the AOAO also requested for an across the board reduction in the PPA kWh rate from 25 cents to 21 cents, GPT and NPC agreed to this request. NPC provided PPA contracts (about 2.5 kW DC and 21 Cents/kWh fixed terms) to the AOAO and all Homeowners who signed up for PV system under PPA terms. The AOAO and all Homeowners who signed up for the PV system under PPA terms including Mr. [redacted] signed the PPA contract with NPC. In 2015, the energy industry was transforming as a result of a potential HECO Buyout, renewable energy saturation, and PUC rule changes. As such the once popular Net Energy Metering (NEM) Program was on the verge of closing. In fact, in October 2015 the NEM program was closed but as GPT has already obtained approval previously for AOAO and Homeowners under NEM Program, these owners have been grandfathered into the NEM program. It may be noted that NEM Program is much valuable due to the fact that kWh exported during the sunlight hours can be pulled back and used on a 1:1 ratio for the next 12 months without the use of a costly battery storage system. Since 2015, there have been many changes in utility programs, and PUC rules. It has been a very long and arduous process coordinating, collecting data, signatures, paperwork, utility and building permit approvals, construction, and inspections of approximately 90 units and common area accounts and 900 panels at ** [redacted]. Signatures and HECO approvals have taken almost 12 months; construction alone has taken six months and final inspections three months after construction. Briefly the benefits in this case are as follows: Power Purchase Agreement -No upfront costs, no maintenance of the PV system. -Pay and purchase @ $0.21 per kWh for all electricity produced by the PV system while the current utility rates are about $0.28~$0.35 per kWh Mr. [redacted] has stated he was misled to believe that the PPA he had signed was to provide some energy savings. Mr. [redacted]s apartment was vacant during the subject period and therefore he could not use the electricity generated by the PV system – however he can use the credit 11.5 months down the line. Previous to this vacancy, it seems that there was a tenant since the PV system was operational since 9/2016. The marketing of this program was based on annual savings and the electric bill provided by the owner. This program is similar to other established and accepted programs offered by National companies for customers wanting to acquire solar with $0 down payment. PPA contract provides fixed cost of electricity for a period of 20 years and considering the historical increases in electricity cost, we are confident that Mr. [redacted], AOAO, and other homeowners made a wise decision provided they are able to utilize the electricity generated by the PV system. It is also in the interest of the State of Hawaii who has a renewable energy mandate to produce all electricity in the state from renewable energy sources and thus replace harmful and costly fossil fuel sources of electricity. Finally, Mr. [redacted] has a binding PPA contract with NPC and should deal with NPC directly. GPT is willing to provide any information and be of assistance in this regard.
We believe that you have received a significant benefit. Your PV system has been producing and providing an offset of energy to your unit since September 8, 2016.Energy that was produced offsets the usage of the unit occupant.Attached is a summary of the PV production since inception, as well as a savings estimation based on the information on hand. The section titled "Estimated HECO Bill based on PV Production" is assuming that all PV generated was used by the occupant in the first eleven months. The next 4 months titled "Estimated HECO Bill based on Usage" is based on the difference between PV Production minus energy Received ("REC") by HECO. Without an electric bill it would be difficult to calculate exactly. These two calculations would be the minimum amounts due and saved.The column HECO rate is the rate published by HECO (Decision and Order No. 34467 dated March 28, 2017).The first seven months the savings were in excess of $650, the next 4 months savings were $171, the last 4 months there were no savings but over payments of $286. As previously mentioned the last 4 months there was no occupants in the unit but only renovation work being performed. During those last four months HECO has accumulated a credit of $284.50 to be applied in later periods. (See 11/01/17-11/30/17 HECO Bill page 3 last column "Cumulative Credit Balance") As reflected there is a significant benefit when there is an occupant of the unit. Thank you for your time.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 11946597, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
Harumi L[redacted]
In 2014, meetings were held between Greenpath Technologies, Inc. (GPT) and the Board of Directors of Makakilo Cliffs AOAO (AOAO) in an effort to reduce the common area electricity bills. Additionally, the AOAO allowed GPT to offer two discounted Solar PV packages to individual unit owners: 1)...
Direct Purchase of a minimum 10 PV panels at an average cost of $1,200 per panel, or 2) a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) to pay $0.22 per kWh of electricity produced, compared to HECO’s higher rate. In 2015, GPT requested and obtained the utility bills of the previous owner of Ms. L[redacted]’s unit and determined that 20 panels would offset the previous owner’s annual electric usage. The previous owner signed the original HECO NEM application, GPT then sent a contract to the previous owner, and worked with the previous owner to complete a NEM extension as recently as June 19, 2016, extending the construction deadline to January 4, 2017. Although GPT never received a positive response to our contract from the previous owner, we thought we were working in good faith with the previous owner and that he simply hadn’t taken care of his paperwork yet. GPT was surprised to learn he signed the NEM extension and never stated that he was considering the sale of the property or that he had no intention of signing the contract to install his PV system. Note that GPT was surprised because HECO had already ended the NEM program, and approved NEMs are considered very valuable. We were expecting that the prior owner would have at least told GPT that he was no longer interested in a PV system at some point prior to (or during) physical construction. It was GPT’s mistake not to take the prior owner’s non-reply as a negative reply. Also, we apologize for the mishandling of communications with Ms. L[redacted] as she described in her complaint. As noted above, HECO NEMs are considered valuable, so we didn’t want it to be wasted if there was a possibility Ms. L[redacted] could benefit from the PV system. If Ms. L[redacted] would like no further communication from GPT, we will honor her request. However, we would be grateful if Ms. L[redacted] would be willing to have a discussion with GPT’s president (or CFO), the president of the AOAO (Tom H[redacted]), and anyone Ms. L[redacted] would like present to protect her interests, to apologize and explain the opportunity at hand. Briefly, Ms. L[redacted]’s unit has an approved NEM from HECO (no longer available to the public), and a PV system that has been installed for her unit. Although she is under no obligation, GPT is willing to either: (1) sell her the PV system at a reduced cost, (2) pay her cash to enter a PPA agreement, which is cheaper than HECO’s utility rate, or (3) customize a deal that would suit her situation (e.g., reduce the system size) . GPT is willing to do this as we’ve already incurred the cost of installation, and we will now need to incur additional costs to remove the system, if that is Ms. L[redacted]’s desire. Whether Ms. L[redacted] rents or sells her unit, she will benefit from taking advantage of this (and GPT will avoid additional costs). Her options were described in a flyer to all members of her AOAO, so the purpose of a meeting is simply to answer any questions and to offer her either a purchase discount or a cash payment to enter a PPA.Lastly, we sincerely apologize if we've been a bother to Ms. L[redacted], and we'll accept whatever decision she makes regarding removing the existing system, reducing its size, or acquiring/utilizing it in some fashion.
I am stuck with a 25-year lease of a photovoltaic (PV) system which has vastly increased my monthly electric bill of a condo I own All this began when Greenpath Technologies marketed its PV system as a way to "reduce (my) electricity expense" Now I am being double-billed per month: one bill by HECO and another by the new owner of the PV system, Neighborhood Power Co(to whom Greenpath sold the system to before it was activated for my condo unit)
Once the PV system was activated, I expected a lower monthly overall power bill Instead, what I got was something which was the exact opposite: When I reviewed the power bills for August and September of 2017, I noted the following:
On my August bills, HECO charged a total of $whereas the bill for the PV system's power-use was $
For September, HECO charged a total of $18.18, whereas the bill for the PV system’s power-use was $
The bills for HECO and Neighborhood Power Cohad to be paid separately
Moreov
Getting only Military Survival Benefit, I decided to purchase a property for an extra income
November 16, 2016, purchased a Townhouse
January 3, 2017; received an email form GPT (Green Path Technologies, Inc)
The previous owner had installed solar panels for this unit and a balance due of $24,
We need to update the new homeowner information in our system and HECO SYSTEM
Attached are forms: Solar order form-fill out, Net Energy Metering Agreement - NEED SIGNATURE ON THE LAST PAGE ***WE ALSO NEED A COPY YOUR RECENT ELECTRIC BILL
I contacted my Realtor, my Realtor contacted to the seller’s realtorShe stated that the previous owner did not sign on contract of solar panels purchases of GPTShe has been keeping these original paper works and my realtor and I received copies of these paper works from her
January 5,2017;
I called you a couple days ago and I left a messages about solar panels on your office phone
I hope you got my message I
I have reviewed Greenpath Technologies’ (GPT’s) response (dated 1/23/2018)It changes nothing with my original request to have the Power Purchase Agreement/Net Metering Agreement voided and rescinded without penalty, based on the fact that my signature was obtained via misleading advertisingAgain, GPT’s ad promised that its photovoltaic (PV) system shall lower my monthly power expenses; the entire reason I signto begin withInstead, my on-the-ground costs have been increased overall. GPT’s most recent response has essentially admitted that its PV system has been indeed overcharging meAnd this is something that the PV system is geared to do, despite nearly non-existent power-usageThis is contrary to what its original ad brochure promisedCredits notwithstanding, the costs stated on the PV bills still have to be paid every month, on top of those of HECOIt has resulted in me paying more for power with the PV system than I would have without it. All this aside, this is now moot: the owner-investor of the GPT’s PV system has decided to cancel its lease-contract with me due to the issues raisedBecause of this development, I will be suspending my Revdex.com complaint against GPTPlease keep in mind that this is not an acceptance of GPT’s explanationsNor is it an acceptance of GPT’s dubiously gained contract with me or any of its business partnersShould there be any attempt to re-activate or resurrect the PV contract without my knowledge or approval, GPT shall be hearing from me again. Thank you for your attention. To the Hawaii Revdex.com: Mahalo for all your help
I have reviewed Greenpath Technologies’ (GPT) response to my complaint regarding on how its photovoltaic (PV) system is not saving me money in my monthly power bills. It is a piece of exposition summarizing the efforts made by GPT to bring its PV system to the [redacted] condo complex. However, it does not address the primary issue of my complaint: The fact that the PV system’s service is doing nothing to live up to the promise outlined by an ad brochure originally circulated to [redacted] condo owners in 2015: Cost savings in monthly electricity bills. Below are excerpts of the aforementioned ad brochure: Instead of bringing monthly savings, there has been a sharp increase in my Condo unit’s monthly electrical expenses. Below is a chart regarding my condo unit’s power costs, from November 2016-October 2017 (Note: the unit was unoccupied from August-October): As it is, billing for the PV system did not occur until April. This chart demonstrates that the PV system has done nothing to alleviate monthly power costs for the condo unit; instead, it has increased monthly costs. As it is, these costs must be paid out-of-pocket by the consumer to both HECO and NPC. Upon review of GPT’s response, the above ad brochure was left unmentioned. Also unmentioned were the ad’s statements regarding the aforementioned cost savings, which led me to sign-in to begin with. And no specific reason was given for the sharp difference between GPT’s promises made in the ad brochure versus the kind of monthly power costs that I had to pay in reality. On further review, GPT’s response does not mention any effort by GPT to live-up to its ad in any of its dealings with Hawaiian Electric (HECO), [redacted] Apartment Owner’s Association or other associates. Nor does it state any effort by GPT to alert its signatory customers that neither it nor its associates would be able to honor GPT’s stated promise of “monthly energy cost savings” with all the changes mentioned. Upon review, the actual documents that GPT and its associates sent to me were devoid of such notifications. Such an alert would have given me a better-informed choice regarding the PV project. Instead, GPT and its associates chose to press-on, sending their documents for my signature. Due to this lack of disclosure, I continued to support GPT’s efforts in the belief that all this would somehow amount to monthly cost-savings on my power bill… as GPT’s ad brochure promised. This lack of disclosure also effectively continues the inducements made by GPT’s ad brochure. In the light of this, any and all contracts with GPT and its associates –including my lease with Neighborhood Power Co. (NPC) which now owns my condo unit’s PV system via GPT—are voidable and rescindable based on the following: 1) GPT’s misleading advertising in its ad brochure about its cost-savings on my monthly power bills. The power bills –now higher due to the PV system-- speak for themselves. By Law, all contracts and agreements stemming from misleading advertising have no force and are therefore voidable or rescindable. Misleading advertising is also a violation of Federal Law. 2) Bait and Switch. In this case, the bait was the promise of lower monthly power bills and the switch is selling a service (and having me sign a contract) which results me paying higher monthly power bills. This sort of Bait and Switch is a violation of Federal Law. 3) Issues regarding Successor Liability. Although NPC itself did not market the PV system, its Power Purchase Agreement with me has been gained from GPT’s misrepresentations on its ad brochure. And when NPC purchased my condo’s PV system from GPT, it has assumed the liability that would come with it. This includes contracts ultimately gained or influenced from GPT's misleading advertising. In other words, NPC ultimately relied on GPT’s ad brochure to induce [redacted] customers to sign its Power Purchase Agreements; in that way, NPC did not have to expend its own resources to market the PV system it bought from GPT. In a nutshell, NPC would have not contracted me if it did not get its paperwork from GPT; GPT would not have gotten its paperwork from me had I not signed-on; and I would not have signed-on if I did not believe the promises of cost-savings claimed in GPT’s ad brochure; an ad brochure which NPC ultimately relied on to gain my contract for a PV system it bought from GPT. Just follow the paper trail. What GPT could do to remedy this is to have NPC quietly rescind all contracts with me --including NPC’s Power Purchase Agreement—without penalties to me, as soon as possible. The PV system and meter would also have to be quietly removed. I would like to resolve this matter at the “company level” at this point. However, I may pursue this matter at a higher level if this is not resolved soon.
In 2014, meetings were held between Greenpath Technologies Inc. (GPT) and the Board of Directors of the ** [redacted] (AOAO) in an effort to install Photovoltaic (PV) Systems and reduce the electricity expenditure of the AOAO and Homeowners/Tenants. Accordingly a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) Proposal was offered whereby GPT would bring in an 3rd party investors to own and operate the PV system installed on the roofs of AOAO and in turn sell the electricity produced to the AOAO and Homeowners/Tenants at a predetermined discounted PPA kWh rate. Initially the agreed PPA kWh rate was 25 cents fixed for the PPA term of 20 years and the prevailing kWh rates from HECO was about 35 cents, thereby offering an initial savings of about 8 cents with additional future savings depending on escalating HECO kWh rates. The advantage of a PPA deal was that the AOAO/Homeowner was not required to come up with any upfront investment and the 3rd party investor was responsible for ownership, operation, maintenance and replacement of the PV system during the PPA term. The only requirement was that the AOAO/Homeowner be responsible to purchase the electricity generated from the PV system at predetermined PPA kWh rates during the PPA term. In 2015, GPT collected actual electrical bills from all AOAO/Homeowners-Tenants and submitted to AOAO that a 10 solar panel system (about 2.5 kW DC) for each AOAO/Homeowners-Tenants was feasible due to present electricity consumption and equity within all homeowners. In this present case, GPT requested and obtained the previous tenants utility bill and determined that 10 panels (about 2.5 kW DC system) would offset approximately 45% of the previous tenants annual average electrical usage. The owner and previous tenant signed the HECO NEM application, which was then submitted and conditionally approved by HECO. In 2016, GPT introduced Neighborhood Power Corporation (NPC) as the 3rd party investor for this PPA transaction. At this time the AOAO also requested for an across the board reduction in the PPA kWh rate from 25 cents to 21 cents, GPT and NPC agreed to this request. NPC provided PPA contracts (about 2.5 kW DC and 21 Cents/kWh fixed terms) to the AOAO and all Homeowners who signed up for PV system under PPA terms. The AOAO and all Homeowners who signed up for the PV system under PPA terms including Mr. [redacted] signed the PPA contract with NPC. In 2015, the energy industry was transforming as a result of a potential HECO Buyout, renewable energy saturation, and PUC rule changes. As such the once popular Net Energy Metering (NEM) Program was on the verge of closing. In fact, in October 2015 the NEM program was closed but as GPT has already obtained approval previously for AOAO and Homeowners under NEM Program, these owners have been grandfathered into the NEM program. It may be noted that NEM Program is much valuable due to the fact that kWh exported during the sunlight hours can be pulled back and used on a 1:1 ratio for the next 12 months without the use of a costly battery storage system. Since 2015, there have been many changes in utility programs, and PUC rules. It has been a very long and arduous process coordinating, collecting data, signatures, paperwork, utility and building permit approvals, construction, and inspections of approximately 90 units and common area accounts and 900 panels at ** [redacted]. Signatures and HECO approvals have taken almost 12 months; construction alone has taken six months and final inspections three months after construction. Briefly the benefits in this case are as follows: Power Purchase Agreement -No upfront costs, no maintenance of the PV system. -Pay and purchase @ $0.21 per kWh for all electricity produced by the PV system while the current utility rates are about $0.28~$0.35 per kWh Mr. [redacted] has stated he was misled to believe that the PPA he had signed was to provide some energy savings. Mr. [redacted]s apartment was vacant during the subject period and therefore he could not use the electricity generated by the PV system – however he can use the credit 11.5 months down the line. Previous to this vacancy, it seems that there was a tenant since the PV system was operational since 9/2016. The marketing of this program was based on annual savings and the electric bill provided by the owner. This program is similar to other established and accepted programs offered by National companies for customers wanting to acquire solar with $0 down payment. PPA contract provides fixed cost of electricity for a period of 20 years and considering the historical increases in electricity cost, we are confident that Mr. [redacted], AOAO, and other homeowners made a wise decision provided they are able to utilize the electricity generated by the PV system. It is also in the interest of the State of Hawaii who has a renewable energy mandate to produce all electricity in the state from renewable energy sources and thus replace harmful and costly fossil fuel sources of electricity. Finally, Mr. [redacted] has a binding PPA contract with NPC and should deal with NPC directly. GPT is willing to provide any information and be of assistance in this regard.
We believe that you have received a significant benefit. Your PV system has been producing and providing an offset of energy to your unit since September 8, 2016.Energy that was produced offsets the usage of the unit occupant.Attached is a summary of the PV production since inception, as well as a savings estimation based on the information on hand. The section titled "Estimated HECO Bill based on PV Production" is assuming that all PV generated was used by the occupant in the first eleven months. The next 4 months titled "Estimated HECO Bill based on Usage" is based on the difference between PV Production minus energy Received ("REC") by HECO. Without an electric bill it would be difficult to calculate exactly. These two calculations would be the minimum amounts due and saved.The column HECO rate is the rate published by HECO (Decision and Order No. 34467 dated March 28, 2017).The first seven months the savings were in excess of $650, the next 4 months savings were $171, the last 4 months there were no savings but over payments of $286. As previously mentioned the last 4 months there was no occupants in the unit but only renovation work being performed. During those last four months HECO has accumulated a credit of $284.50 to be applied in later periods. (See 11/01/17-11/30/17 HECO Bill page 3 last column "Cumulative Credit Balance") As reflected there is a significant benefit when there is an occupant of the unit. Thank you for your time.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 11946597, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
Harumi L[redacted]
In 2014, meetings were held between Greenpath Technologies, Inc. (GPT) and the Board of Directors of Makakilo Cliffs AOAO (AOAO) in an effort to reduce the common area electricity bills. Additionally, the AOAO allowed GPT to offer two discounted Solar PV packages to individual unit owners: 1)...
Direct Purchase of a minimum 10 PV panels at an average cost of $1,200 per panel, or 2) a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) to pay $0.22 per kWh of electricity produced, compared to HECO’s higher rate. In 2015, GPT requested and obtained the utility bills of the previous owner of Ms. L[redacted]’s unit and determined that 20 panels would offset the previous owner’s annual electric usage. The previous owner signed the original HECO NEM application, GPT then sent a contract to the previous owner, and worked with the previous owner to complete a NEM extension as recently as June 19, 2016, extending the construction deadline to January 4, 2017. Although GPT never received a positive response to our contract from the previous owner, we thought we were working in good faith with the previous owner and that he simply hadn’t taken care of his paperwork yet. GPT was surprised to learn he signed the NEM extension and never stated that he was considering the sale of the property or that he had no intention of signing the contract to install his PV system. Note that GPT was surprised because HECO had already ended the NEM program, and approved NEMs are considered very valuable. We were expecting that the prior owner would have at least told GPT that he was no longer interested in a PV system at some point prior to (or during) physical construction. It was GPT’s mistake not to take the prior owner’s non-reply as a negative reply. Also, we apologize for the mishandling of communications with Ms. L[redacted] as she described in her complaint. As noted above, HECO NEMs are considered valuable, so we didn’t want it to be wasted if there was a possibility Ms. L[redacted] could benefit from the PV system. If Ms. L[redacted] would like no further communication from GPT, we will honor her request. However, we would be grateful if Ms. L[redacted] would be willing to have a discussion with GPT’s president (or CFO), the president of the AOAO (Tom H[redacted]), and anyone Ms. L[redacted] would like present to protect her interests, to apologize and explain the opportunity at hand. Briefly, Ms. L[redacted]’s unit has an approved NEM from HECO (no longer available to the public), and a PV system that has been installed for her unit. Although she is under no obligation, GPT is willing to either: (1) sell her the PV system at a reduced cost, (2) pay her cash to enter a PPA agreement, which is cheaper than HECO’s utility rate, or (3) customize a deal that would suit her situation (e.g., reduce the system size) . GPT is willing to do this as we’ve already incurred the cost of installation, and we will now need to incur additional costs to remove the system, if that is Ms. L[redacted]’s desire. Whether Ms. L[redacted] rents or sells her unit, she will benefit from taking advantage of this (and GPT will avoid additional costs). Her options were described in a flyer to all members of her AOAO, so the purpose of a meeting is simply to answer any questions and to offer her either a purchase discount or a cash payment to enter a PPA.Lastly, we sincerely apologize if we've been a bother to Ms. L[redacted], and we'll accept whatever decision she makes regarding removing the existing system, reducing its size, or acquiring/utilizing it in some fashion.