Smart Energy Solar reviews
• last updated FEB 26, 2026Loading map...
The Verdict
Smart Energy Solar turned nearly every customer into a nightmare story. One homeowner paid $27,000 for a system that failed inspection, used a secondhand inverter, and never delivered the promised power savings. Another discovered their 50-year roof was leaking under the panels at year eight. We found a pattern of catastrophic installation failures across reviews: wrong breakers limiting energy production, wiring that failed code inspections, microinverter failures that went unresolved for months. One customer's system produced less than half the promised electricity, and after nine months and numerous service calls, it took adding three extra panels at the company's expense to finally hit the contract output. But the real cruelty is what happens after installation. A homeowner reported being sued for $6,763 because Smart Energy never paid their electrical supplier, putting a mechanics lien on the house. Another elderly customer was pressured into a $12,000 lease they didn't understand, only to have half their home's electricity stop working within 12 hours of activation. The company simply stops returning calls once problems surface, leaving customers to chase them for weeks or drive to the office in person for answers.
If you're researching solar installers, cross this one off your list immediately. The consistent pattern of failed inspections, unpaid suppliers filing liens against homeowners, and complete communication blackouts after installation makes this company a legal and financial liability you cannot afford to take on.
Reviews That Shaped Our Verdict
Gary bought a $27,000 solar system for his home last year and quickly discovered the job had been mishandled from the start. He found a pre-owned inverter installed on the system, the installation failed inspection, and the racking on his roof didn’t match any of the three layout plans the company had provided. Production has fallen far short of the company’s projections, and repeated attempts to get answers turned into hours on hold and promises that went nowhere. Company technicians who did visit identified how to fix the problems, but the installer refused to implement those corrections. Frustrated by poor communication and what he describes as stonewalling, he says he’s preparing to file a lawsuit this week to recover his costs; he also believes the company is facing multiple other legal disputes or arbitrations. After running construction jobs for 30 years, he calls this the worst customer experience he’s had and warns others to be cautious — his immediate next step is legal action to reclaim the $27,000 and any other remedies available to him.
Fabian paid for a 4.7KW rooftop system for his home and expected it to be finished in 6–8 weeks. Instead the project dragged on 16–18 weeks, and a manager, Liz Loomis, brushed off the delays as routine. Smart Energy Solar repeatedly blamed Southern California Edison for hold-ups, so Fabian called Edison himself and discovered the utility was ready; after several rounds of denial from the installer, he gave Smart Energy a direct line to Edison before they finally accepted the utility was not the problem. Installation work kept producing problems: a friend who installs solar inspected the array and judged it out of code, and Fabian felt the system shouldn’t have passed inspection. Technicians visited his house roughly a dozen times while he missed school and work due to the ongoing problems. Energy production also fell short — the 4.7KW system delivered about 8–15 KW a day (roughly 5,500 KW a year) instead of the 7,700 KW a year he was promised. Communication broke down repeatedly; Smart Energy often failed to return calls and Fabian had to drive to their office to get answers. The situation escalated when Walter Wholesale Electric, an unpaid subcontractor, filed a mechanics lien for
Janet H. needed panels installed quickly ahead of a home sale and ended up with Smart Energy Solar rushing an August installation before she even saw a final contract. She accepted a nearly $20,000 loan through Dividend Solar after pressure from the salesperson, and Dividend handed the funds to Smart Energy up front. The contract she later signed shifted almost all responsibility onto her: she must keep the panels “in good working order,” carry insurance on them, and the equipment serves as collateral while Dividend disclaimed liability. That arrangement leaves her facing years of loan payments and potential extra charges that could push her costs past $40,000, yet the system is not operating. Smart Energy stopped answering her calls and emails after receiving the money; the company assured her it had applied to PG&E to get the array running, but when she called PG&E on Oct. 13 there was no application on file for her address. The salesperson still hasn’t been paid his commission, and the installer told her he’d been let go when business slowed. Janet checked the Better Business Bureau and found Smart Energy carries an F rating and is not accredited, despite the company’s website’s
Platforms Monitored
Performance by Work Type
How We Got To Trust Score 33
No Red Flags
Unauthorized Activities
Passed screening
Misleading Claims
Passed screening
Background Check
Serving customers for 14 years
Among the longest-standing installers in the market.
BBB Rating: NR
Poor BBB standing. Significant complaints.
Natural Review Patterns
Reviews were posted naturally over time.
Contractor License
License information could not be confirmed.
What You Can Expect
Matt B. had a rooftop solar system installed several years ago and discovered that while the panels produced power, everything around the installation unravelled. Contractors ignored the approved plans and put the array in a different location and layout, which forced a full reinstallation and left extra holes in his roof. The financing paperwork never went through, so the owner, Leo, ultimately ended up financing the system himself. A contract promised annual service, but he was repeatedly told it cost the company money to send a technician and that he could just hose the panels off himself. Most recently the company offered a free annual tune-up in exchange for a social-media review; they agreed on a date and time, then the crew didn’t show. He expects pushback from the owner—possibly legal —but what will stick for him is the cascade of broken processes: botched installation, paperwork that never happened, and no-shows that left his warranty promises hollow.
Jackie O. hired Smart Energy Solar to put a residential solar system on her home, and the crew finished the installation within the projected timeframe. A few months after activation, however, the array still wasn’t delivering the electricity promised in the contract. After nine months of operation, repeated phone calls and multiple technician visits, she still hadn’t reached the expected generation and grew increasingly frustrated. Then she encountered Fabby in customer service, who took the problem to engineering; they confirmed the system was underperforming. Within weeks Fabby secured a solution: the company added three panels at their cost to bring the array up to the originally quoted output, and she kept Jackie updated throughout so she never had to wonder what was happening. The changes have been in place about three months and are now producing at—or even above—the initial projection. Jackie awarded a three-star rating because the final result was good, but it took nearly a year and the intervention of a standout customer-service rep to get there; the lasting detail is that Fabby’s persistence produced three extra panels at no charge and fixed the shortfall.
Claire T. had SES install solar panels on her home two years ago, and the crew that put the system up proved respectful and reliable. The sales and support side, however, unraveled: salesperson Mr. Rowe promised a $500 sign-up bonus during a promotion and $250 for referring friends, and after she signed up and made referrals the $750 never materialized. She spent two years chasing the payment with numerous unreturned calls. For a while Ms. Gomez stepped in and answered, but when Ms. Gomez left the company Claire found herself ignored again. In short, she walked away with a well-installed system but a broken promise and spotty customer service — the missing $750 and the disappeared point of contact are the details she remembers most.