H NU Photonics

Review: We were approached by [redacted] in April to participate in the [redacted] program, the clean energy movement on MauiHNU Energy was contracted in June to install solar panels to provide our electricity, a project that was to be completed in We were required to pay in full, which we did, in November when the permit was issuedPanels were installed December, we were told everything was up and running, then received our electric bill which showed no savingsOnly after I have called and emailed repeatedly has the first step, an inspection, taken placeI have now just learned that HNU Energy once again has not taken the next step to get things up and runningOur next electric bill will be due soon and we will still not see any savingsWe paid over $11,and do not have solar energyWe are obviously not a priority as they already have our moneyCan you help us get the system up and running and can we receive any compensation for the months of having to pay for regular electricity when we should have been producing our own solar electricity? Thank-you very much for your assistance.Desired Settlement: System to function and reimbursement for electric bills until system is up and running

Review: Contract proposal estimated 551kw ac monthly.

Panels only making an average of 350 kw. Problem existed for since June. No call backs, deferred, etc.

19 Photovoltaic panels purchased and installed in July, 2011. Paid $22,710 for the project and warranty. Peoposal [redacted].

19 Kyocera KD225 4.3W DC and 19 Enphase inverters M190.Desired Settlement: I would like our system to work properly. Something changed so our $17.42 elctric bill from April increased to $100 monthly. I want the guarantee service and product that H-Nu stated they would offer in our contract. I dont want to be told to go to MECO, Enphase, etc because when I do, they refer me back to H-Nu. H-Nu need to coordinate with MECO if there is a problem because you are the specialists.Please correct this now so that I stop losing money monthly. And fix our paid for panels before getting new customers as a preference.

Business

Response:

Business' Initial Response /* (1000, 12, 2013/02/15) */

The following is a response to a complaint filed by [redacted] against HNU Energy. We feel we have demonstrated that the system is functioning properly and to the specs laid out in the contract.

CONSUMER'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT:

"Contract proposal estimated 551kW AC/month. Panels only making 350kW"

HNU Response: This is not the case. What Ms. [redacted] is representing (350kWhr/month) is the energy received by the utility under her Net Energy Metering agreement, not the system's production.

According tot he manufacturer's monitoring software, from Feb 1, 2012 to Jan 31, 2013 the system produced 7.316kWhrs. An average of 609kWhrs/month. This is more than 10% above what our proposal documents projected.

Once we had determined that the system was functioning properly, we invited Ms [redacted] to our offices where we walked her through how to read her NEM statement from MECo and how to determine her household usage. In doing so we determined that the overall consumption in her house had gone up. The reason she is getting a larger bill from MECo is because her overall energy consumption is now outpacing what the PV system produces.

CONSUMER'S FOLLOW UP COMPLAINT 1/22/13:

"He ([redacted]) said that the system is doing what it should be doing but he could not explain why the MECo bill has not decreased to the amount he said it would prior to installation."

HNU Response:To clarify, our proposal documents never state what amount a MECo bill will be after installation since we have no control over a homeowner's usage. We only provide projections as to how much energy the system will produce. We have proved that Ms. [redacted]'s system is exceeding those projections.

CONSUMER'S FOLLOW UP COMPLAINT 2: "He said consumption must be more but we said it is actually less"

HNU Response:

To clarify, we have performed calculations, based on MECo billing statements and production statistics from manufacturer supplied monitoring equipment, that prove the household consumption has gone up. We did this together, Ms [redacted] and myself, in our offices. It is Ms. [redacted]'s opinion that they are actually using less energy however the facts do not support this.

On Jan 17 I personally tested all electrical equipment tied into the MECo service at her house, all equipment was working to spec. As an act of GOOD FAITH, we have also offered to install monitoring equipment free of charge to help her determine where the increased demand is coming from.

Consumer's Final Response /* (3000, 14, 2013/02/19) */

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)

I had to select "No" for accepting the response from H-Nu since we have not solved the problem, even though [redacted]'s account is accurate for the most part.

First, we regret that we had to contact outside agencies before H-nu would fully investigate our problem that started in May 2012.

Secondly, prior to signing the contract and installation, we told H-Nu that we wanted to minimize our electric bill as much as possible and allow for 10% growth. We trusted their professional opinion and proceeded. We did not think H-Nu would mislead us or misrepresent their product.

After contacting MECO and H-Nu, I have found that each company says there is a problem with the other company. The two companies can not exchange client info so finding a resolution becomes clouded.

[redacted] from H-Nu did meet with us and then he also came to the house and has offered to monitor electrical devices. We appreciate the help H-Nu is offering. And although H-nu says that our electrical consuption has gone up, we disagree and think something else is happening since after the initial installation of the panels in July 2011 we were satisfied and only in since May 2012 was there a problem.

The bottom line is that the $23,000 we spent on the PV panels with a break even point of 3.5 years will not occur as we had anticipated.