Findings of Fact
1. In early October 2010, CCSE suspended an incentive application submitted by MEI on behalf of PHR for a project on the Vettese home in San Diego because the incentive application lacked the full documentation required.
2. On the suspension deadline of October 27, 2010, an MEI employee sent to CCSE a contract addendum and registration of warranty allegedly signed on October 26, 2010 by the homeowner Vettese.
3. On November 4, 2010, Vettese told CCSE representatives by phone and e-mail that he had not signed any contract addendum or registration of warranty documents and that he had not received anything from the installer to sign since solar panels were installed in September 2010.
4. Vettese stated that no one from PHR or MEI visited his home after he signed off on the completion of the solar installation in September 2010 until representatives visited him in late November 2010.
5. After viewing the documents in question, Vettese told CCSE that it was not his handwriting on the contract addendum and registration of warranty.
6. Section 4.10.1 of the CSI Program Handbook states that forged paperwork is grounds for immediate disqualification from the CSI Program.
7. The CSI PAs agreed with CCSE that PHR should be disqualified from CSI because it had submitted forged documents.
8. Section 4.10.3.2 of the CSI Handbook states that if a solar contractor or installer is disqualified from the CSI Program, all projects under review from that contractor or installer will be suspended and all parties identified with the application will be notified.
9. In early December 2010, Vettese signed a contract addendum and registration of warranty after PHR and MEI installed three additional solar panels on the Vettese home.
10. Sandra Homewood, a forensic document examiner, testified that she was virtually certain the signature of Gary Vettese on the questioned documents was not the genuine signature of Gary Vettese based on numerous differences in the genuine and questioned signatures.
11. Vettese's retraction letter states he no longer questioned the signature on the October 26, 2010 contract addendum and warranty registration because he had signed new documents.
12. The October 26, 2010 contract addendum is signed by a "company representative" but PHR and MEI witnesses could not identify who signed the document.
13. PHR arranged with MEI to handle all documents for CSI incentive applications.
14. The witnesses of PHR and MEI cannot identify anyone from either company who visited Vettese to obtain his signature on the October 26, 2010 contract addendum and warranty registration.
15. CCSE initiated inquiries with Vettese regarding the suspicious documents before Vettese contacted PHR regarding dissatisfaction with his PV system.
16. CCSE representatives responded in a timely fashion to PHR's appeal of its disqualification.
17. A CCSE analysis of CSI data indicates cost per watt for PHR systems is substantially higher than costs for other CSI installers and that PHR systems offset less energy consumption compared to systems installed by other contractors.
