5. Non-Disputed Facts
On August 2, 2010, PHR entered into a written contract with Gary and Dawn Vettese for the sale and installation of a seven module photovoltaic (PV) system to be installed at the Vettese residence in San Diego. The system was installed by PHR's subcontractor, McWire Electric, Inc. (MEI), a licensed California contractor, which was also responsible for collection and submission of the documents required by CCSE in order to pay a CSI rebate for the Vettese installation. On September 13, 2010, installation of the PV system on the Vettese home was completed, as indicated by the signature of Dawn Vettese on a project completion certificate signed on that date. (Reporter's Transcript (RT) 46: 21-24; Exhibit (Exh.) 154 at 33.) On September 17, 2010, the Vetteses authorized final credit card payment of $16,900 to PHR for their installation. (Exh. 154 at 9.) Per the CSI application, the Vetteses were the host customers and PHR was the seller/payee that would ultimately receive the CSI incentive payment for the Vetteses' solar energy system. (Exh. 108 at 2.)
On October 7, 2010, Sarah Smith, a Program Assistant for CCSE, reviewed the incentive application for the Vettese project, which was prepared and submitted by MEI for PHR. (Exh. 145 at 1.) Smith suspended the application on that same date because the incentive application lacked the full documentation required by the CSI Handbook, namely an energy efficiency audit, an executed 10-year warranty, and inverter and PV module specifications. (Id. at 2.) Smith also sought clarification because MEI was listed as the Applicant for the CSI incentive payment, but the contract in the application was between the Vetteses and PHR. (Ibid.) Smith sent MEI an e-mail on October 7, 2010 concerning suspension of the application, with a copy to Vettese, requesting a response by October 27, 2010. (Exh. 110.) Diane Gordon of MEI acknowledged receipt of Smith's e-mail on October 7, 2010. (Exh. 111.) When an application is suspended because it is incomplete or needs clarification, an applicant has 20 calendar days to respond or the application will be cancelled, per CSI Handbook Section 4.3.1.1. (Exh. 140.)
On October 12, 2010, CCSE publicly announced that the CSI Program in the SDG&E service area was approaching the end of Step 7 and would transition to Step 8, which meant that CSI incentives would be reduced from $0.65 per watt to $0.35 per watt. (Exh. 112.)
Over the next few weeks, Smith exchanged e-mails with Gordon at MEI regarding the documents required to clear the suspension of the Vettese application. (Exhs. 113-115.) On October 26, 2010, Smith sent an e-mail to Gordon reminding her that the application would be cancelled if there was no response by the October 27, 2010 deadline. (Exh. 116.) On the deadline, Gordon at MEI sent Smith at CCSE an addendum to contract and a registration of warranty. (Exh. 145 at 3; Exhs. 104 and105.)
Smith reviewed the newly submitted documents and found the signatures on the contract addendum and warranty registration did not match Gary Vettese's signature on earlier documents in the application. Smith consulted her supervisor, Benjamin Airth, regarding her concern that the signatures on documents in the Vettese application did not match. Airth directed Smith to investigate by contacting Vettese. (Exh. 145 at 3.) Section 4.10.1 of the CSI Handbook states that forged paperwork is grounds for immediate disqualification from the CSI Program. (Exh. 140.)
On November 4, 2010, Smith contacted Vettese by phone and e-mail. (Exh. 145 at 3; Exh. 119.) According to Smith, Vettese told her by phone that he had not signed any documents presented by MEI or PHR for about two months. (Exh. 145 at 4.) In an e-mail later that same day, Vettese told Smith that he had not received anything from the installer to sign since the solar panels were installed back in September 2010, and that it was not his handwriting on the contract addendum and registration of warranty in question. (Exh. 120.)
CCSE's Smith consulted Airth regarding her investigation of the Vettese application. Airth concluded that based on the conversations and e-mails with Vettese, Vettese had not signed the documents or authorized PHR or MEI to sign for him. (Exh. 146 at 4.) Airth brought his concerns regarding PHR and the forged paperwork to a meeting of all CSI Program Administrators (PAs)3 on November 18, 2010. At that meeting, Airth recommended that pursuant to CSI Handbook Section 4.10.1, PHR be immediately disqualified from participating in the CSI Program. All CSI PAs agreed to disqualify PHR. (Ibid.)
On November 30, 2010, Airth sent a letter to PHR notifiying PHR of its permanent disqualification from the CSI Program and providing instructions on how to appeal. (Exh. 126.) On December 1, 2010, pursuant to Section 4.10.3.2 of the CSI Handbook, CCSE sent a letter to customers of PHR with CSI incentive applications notifying them of PHR's disqualification from CSI. (Exh. 127.)
In November 2010, Vettese contacted PHR because he had some concerns with the sales, installation and functioning of his new solar energy system. (Exh. 128 at 4.) Vettese met with representatives of PHR and MEI on November 24, 2010. (Ibid.; RT 70: 10-12.) Vettese sent a follow-up e-mail to David Sias of PHR on November 29, 2010, in which Vettese stated he had "serious concerns that the solar system installed is undersized for my home." (Ex. 128 at 4.)
In early December 2010, PHR/MEI installed three additional solar panels at the Vettese residence at no cost. (RT 52: 5-8; RT 136: 11-17.) Vettese signed a new contract addendum and registration of warranty on December 9, 2010. (Exhs. 106 and 107.)
On December 6, 2010, PHR corresponded with Airth at CCSE to appeal PHR's disqualification from the CSI Program. (Exh. 128.)
On December 10, 2010, Gary Vettese signed a letter addressed "To whom it may concern" which stated:
I retract any questioning of the signatures on the contract addendum and warranty documents, and have clarified this by providing newly signed documents with current dates. (Exh. 129 at 2.)
PHR submitted Vettese's retraction letter to Airth at CCSE on December 13, 2010 as part of PHR's appeal of disqualification, which also included the submittal of new contract addendum and warranty registration documents signed by Vettese on December 9, 2010. (Id.)
3 The CSI Program Administrators are Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, and CCSE.
