Burbank Solar reviews

Megan P. bought a solar system three years ago for her home and is now about halfway to the payback point. Each month when her electric bill arrives she’s reminded that the panels are delivering real savings, and she remains very happy with the installation. She found the SES team easy to work with: the installation crew stayed tidy, was friendly and helpful, and left her feeling confident in the equipment. When an inverter display hiccup showed up, SES contacted the inverter manufacturer and quickly secured a replacement part — an easy fix that minimized downtime. The detail that lingered for her was the quick, manufacturer-backed response when the hardware issue came up.

A few years ago Kathy C. went ahead with a large rooftop solar install that was pitched to nearly eliminate her electric bill. The sales rep promised her monthly charges would fall to roughly $20–$40. The design kept shifting: the team initially planned for more than 100 panels, then pared that back to the 70s because of space, and finally insisted newer, higher‑efficiency panels meant she didn’t need as many. In the end the system knocked about $400 off her bill, but summer bills still spike to nearly $2,000. She phoned repeatedly; the company first blamed LADWP for not crediting her properly, then after several calls a tech visited and declared the panels dirty. Frustrated, she gave up pursuing fixes. She even emailed owner Greg Johanson and got a reply, but no tangible resolution followed. What lingered for her was simple and specific: an expensive system that underdelivered when it mattered most, and no meaningful help even after escalating to the owner.

Michael H. had a 12 kW solar array installed by SES that ran smoothly for seven years until an inverter failed. When SES couldn’t send help for almost a month, he reached out to the inverter manufacturer, SMA, and arranged warranty shipping himself. SMA offers a $150 rebate to customers to help cover reinstallation; instead of sending that rebate to him, SMA mailed the check to SES. SES then charged $550 to remove the bad inverter and reinstall the replacement, and refused to forward the $150 rebate — claiming they had already “built-in” the rebate amount to the charge despite no indication of that on his bill. Between the month-long delay, the out-of-pocket service charge, and SES not returning calls to discuss the issue, he felt shut out of the process. Michael walked away not only frustrated by the $700 effective cost he incurred, but also prepared to take about $3,500 worth of upcoming pool-heating business to another company because of how the small $150 rebate was handled.

Brenda B. bought a solar system from the company about 15 years ago. She remembers the installation being handled professionally, but now that the system needs repairs the company refuses to send technicians. Instead, the owner has been sending forms and instructional videos, effectively pushing customers to "repair it themselves." After a decade and a half, she feels the company is not standing behind its product. The detail that sticks: rather than dispatching a repair crew, the company’s response so far has been paperwork and how‑to videos—something buyers should factor into expectations for long‑term service.

Jeff R. bought a house a year ago that already had a PV system installed by Solar Electrical Systems about seven years earlier. He discovered the inverter had died and the company initially stepped in: they arranged a manufacturer replacement and charged only a small labor fee. A month after that replacement the inverter failed again. He called Cory, who reassured him a technician would come by the end of the week if possible. The next week brought the same reassurance, then an explanation that it wasn't cost-effective to send a tech unless someone else nearby also needed an install — despite the unit being under warranty. Three weeks passed with no service visit; he watched his Edison bills climb while the array sat offline. As a business owner himself, he understood how much referrals depend on keeping customers happy, and what stuck with him was the contrast between the prompt warranty fix at first and the later, weeks-long lack of follow-up that left him paying full utility costs.

Valerie H. discovered that the 76-panel solar system installed on her home came paired with a 7,000-watt inverter that was far too small for the design — roughly 2,000 to 3,000 watts short of what the system needed. She watched the array underperform from the start, phoned the company in 2009 and again in 2010, and received a string of explanations over the line but no meaningful inspection or fix. For six years the system produced below estimates until another firm diagnosed the mismatch; the undersized inverter eventually failed before it had even reached half of the advertised 10-year warranty period. Valerie invoked CSLB and California Energy Commission rules that require contractors to warrant system operation for ten years, but the installer refused to honor the warranty, stopped returning calls, and declined requests to inspect, diagnose, or repair the poorly designed system. She ended up paying thousands — the correct 10,000-watt inverter would have cost almost $4,000 — and faced an answering machine for months while the company denied responsibility. Her final, sharp point: buyers should insist on documented inverter sizing and proof of a licensed electrician on the job, a

Lance has run the company’s solar system on his home for ten years. When an error light came on, he called the office and Cory had him check the fuses; when that didn’t fix it, she texted a service tech. The crew arrived quickly and had the system back up within two hours. What stuck with him was the fast, same-day response that resolved a problem on a decade-old installation.

Billy D. had a seven-year-old solar system on his home when the inverter caught fire four months before he reached out to SES. He shut the unit down and avoided damage, but the original XANTREX inverter was well past its five-year warranty, so he called the company that had installed the array years earlier. He spoke with Ben, who dismissed the XANTREX as junk and offered two routes: a refurbished SMA inverter for about $450 plus installation with a one-year guarantee, or a brand-new SMA America SB2500HFUS for roughly $2,000 with a ten-year warranty. Ben sweetened the new-unit deal by saying SES could install it for $150 instead of $350 if they were already in the area, which would bring the total to $1,800. Convinced this was the safest long-term choice, Billy paid the $1,800 invoice on April 5, 2012, after Ben indicated the crew would be in the neighborhood “the week after next.” Weeks passed with no appointment. By May 1 he was calling; Cheri in accounts didn’t return him, and a mid-May call finally reached another rep, Mark, who claimed Ben had left the company and demanded an extra $267 to install the inverter. Billy pointed out the paid invoice and the prior agreement; a t

RJ J. hired SES to put a 6.8 system on their home and quickly ran into one problem after another. SES never finished a final design, repeatedly postponed work, and rotated in a new project manager who seemed unfamiliar with the project and frequently improvised solutions. After months of delays the company abruptly proposed a much smaller-capacity system, missed crucial rebate deadlines that cost them money, then swapped that for an even smaller design—claiming the original plan "wasn't possible" despite the homeowner having already done extra construction to accommodate it. Frustrated, they fired SES and brought in a different firm that designed and installed a 6.45 system with higher-quality panels in a fraction of the time. SES kept badgering them for months afterward with aggressive reps urging them to “complete the project,” forcing them to alert DWP about the harassment. They moved on, but remained surprised to find SES still operating.