
Loading map...
Best Solar Power is not worth the risk. We found a troubling pattern of systems that failed to deliver promised savings, with one reviewer stuck paying $250 a month to the utility company on top of their solar loan after being assured the system would cover 85 percent of their usage. Another customer reported a $3,400 SCE bill a year after installation, only to be told to use less electricity. Across reviews, we saw repeated allegations of high-pressure sales tactics and wildly inflated pricing. One elderly homeowner on a fixed income was quoted $30,000 for a roof job that local contractors estimated at $10,000 to $13,000, then pushed into a $400 monthly payment plan he couldn't afford. When issues arise, the company becomes unreachable. Multiple reviewers report full voicemails, unanswered emails, and changed rep phone numbers with no notice. One customer waited a month for a simple inverter replacement. Even the company's physical existence is in question, as a 2024 reviewer with a 25-year warranty found them apparently gone.
If you're weighing solar installers, Best Solar Power's pattern of underperforming systems, inflated pricing, and vanishing customer support makes them a poor bet. Several reviewers saw bills climb instead of drop, and reaching the company for repairs proved nearly impossible.
Melissa had a rooftop solar system installed by the company in 2016, and it worked fine for years. Over the last few months she began encountering problems and tried repeatedly to reach the installer for service under the 25-year warranty. She found calls and emails unanswered and, after checking around, discovered the company appears to have vanished. The result: a system that used to be supported now lacks a responsive installer, leaving her facing the real possibility that a 25-year warranty will not be enforceable.
Kaye M. went into the purchase wanting a system big enough to cover her existing SCE bill plus future needs — she told the company how much she paid monthly, that the family would be working from home, and that they planned to add electric cars. The installer sized the array and she even added extra panels to cover unexpected increases. A year later she opened a $3,400 bill from SCE and discovered the system wasn’t delivering the promised output. The company told her to reduce usage, argued that SCE was wrong, and refused to cover the charge because the system was producing power — just not the roughly 85% performance she had been promised. A technician visited several times and acknowledged the underperformance and said he would notify the company, but customer service kept insisting the system was producing correctly. Now she is paying about $250 a month to SCE on top of her solar payments, leaving her with nearly double the expense she started with. She has moved toward legal action and plans to file complaints with consumer affairs — she included LA County Dept. of Consumer Affairs at (800) 593-8222 and the State Dept. of Consumer Affairs at 1-800-952-5210 as places to report.
Judith F. met Peter Stincer on January 3, 2019, and she walked away from that first meeting with a signed contract that would upend her retirement budget. A retiree on a fixed $2,000 monthly income living in a roughly 1,500 sq. ft. home, she had just undergone facial surgery and felt groggy when Stincer pushed into a hard sell instead of pausing. After that day he kept making appointments he never kept, stopped answering calls, and repeated promises that never materialized. He convinced her the utility rate was about to skyrocket by pulling up a webpage on her laptop and showing a projected $400 monthly bill — a figure that later averaged closer to $135. He repeatedly promised the system would “Zero Out” her electric costs and quoted a total price of $44,000, insisting Long Beach’s supposed “PACE Program” would make the project cost nothing to her. Trusting that claim, she signed financing documents; the PACE program, she later discovered, is not available in her area. Stincer also pushed to tear off her roof immediately, saying a nearby debris bin would save her $2,000 in container fees; local market rate for a bin was about $800 a week and the roofing subcontractor, Sky Tech,
Passed screening
Passed screening
Operating longer than most installers in the market.
Good BBB standing.
Reviews were posted naturally over time.
A valid contractor license is on record.
Priscila G. hired the company to install solar panels and also had them do a fence, rewire her 810 sq ft house and several other jobs. Permits were approved in March 2021 and the city had inspected the work, but after the winter storms in December 2022–January 2023 she discovered leaks that lined up with the solar array: two leaks in the living room, a ceiling stain in one bedroom, and a waterfall‑like leak in the back bedroom. She reached out to the original contact, Ben, but he stopped returning her calls; the company sent Alex instead, who inspected and quoted $9,000 to remove and reinstall the panels and $11,000 to replace the roof. They also insisted that if she hired another roofer she would still have to pay them $9,000 to remove the array or they would void the warranty — yet when she asked the office for the warranty paperwork she never received it. On top of the leaks she found other finish problems from the job: holes left behind mirrors, empty power outlets, and ceiling lights that weren’t sealed. The most striking detail is the post‑installation stance: after city approval she faced major water damage and was told she had to pay thousands to have the company touch the,
Kaye M. went into the purchase wanting a system big enough to cover her existing SCE bill plus future needs — she told the company how much she paid monthly, that the family would be working from home, and that they planned to add electric cars. The installer sized the array and she even added extra panels to cover unexpected increases. A year later she opened a $3,400 bill from SCE and discovered the system wasn’t delivering the promised output. The company told her to reduce usage, argued that SCE was wrong, and refused to cover the charge because the system was producing power — just not the roughly 85% performance she had been promised. A technician visited several times and acknowledged the underperformance and said he would notify the company, but customer service kept insisting the system was producing correctly. Now she is paying about $250 a month to SCE on top of her solar payments, leaving her with nearly double the expense she started with. She has moved toward legal action and plans to file complaints with consumer affairs — she included LA County Dept. of Consumer Affairs at (800) 593-8222 and the State Dept. of Consumer Affairs at 1-800-952-5210 as places to report.
In March 2019 Rebecca faced a 24-year-old roof replacement and, encouraged by friends who had gone solar, decided to explore adding panels at the same time. After talking with several companies she met Alex from Best Solar Power and immediately felt more confident — he spent a long time on a full inspection, patiently answered her many questions, and clearly walked her through the technology, the installation process, and the expected cost savings. He didn’t pressure her to decide; she took a few days and then moved forward. The installation unfolded smoothly and on schedule: communication stayed strong throughout, the crew delivered what had been promised, and the attention to detail stood out compared with cheaper bids that felt pushy or inexperienced. The payoff was tangible — when her annual Southern California Edison statement arrived she discovered that, for the first time in 17 years, the utility owed her money. After that success she trusted Alex and Best Solar Power with a kitchen and bathroom remodel as well, and later referred several friends. The detail that stuck with her: the system produced enough that SCE ended up owing her money.