This business is not BBB accredited.

Air Wind & Solar, Inc.

Phone: (866) 865-5084 View Additional Phone Numbers 6320 S Us Highway 377, Stephenville, TX 76401

BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.

BBB Accreditation

This business is not BBB accredited.

Businesses are under no obligation to seek BBB accreditation, and some businesses are not accredited because they have not sought BBB accreditation.

To be accredited by BBB, a business must apply for accreditation and BBB must determine that the business meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses must pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 13 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Based on BBB files, this business has a BBB Rating of No Rating. The reason is as follows:

  • The business is in the process of responding to previously closed complaints.

Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

5 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 4 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 0
Billing/Collection Issues 0
Delivery Issues 0
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 5
Total Closed Complaints 5

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

9 Customer Reviews on Air Wind & Solar, Inc.
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 4
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 5
Total Customer Reviews 9

Additional Information

BBB file opened: November 13, 2012 Business started: 11/30/2010 in TX Business started locally: 11/30/2010 Business incorporated 02/06/2013 in
Type of Entity


Business Management
Mr. Paul Graff, Chief Operations Officer Daryl Eason
Contact Information
Customer Contact: Daryl Eason
Principal: Mr. Paul Graff, Chief Operations Officer
Business Category

Solar Energy Products - Retail Solar Energy System Design & Installation Energy Conservation Products & Services Energy Management & Conservation Consultant

Additional Locations


    6320 S Us Highway 377

    Stephenville, TX 76401 (254) 965-2570 (866) 865-5084


BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview

BBB Customer Reviews Rating represents the customers opinions of the business. The Customer Review Rating is based on the number of positive, neutral and negative customer reviews posted that are calculated to produce a score.

Customer Review Experience Value
Positive Review 5 points per review
Neutral Review 3 points per review
Negative Review 1 point per review

BBB letter grades represent the BBB's opinion of the business. The BBB grade is based on BBB file information about the business. In some cases, a business' grade may be lowered if the BBB does not have sufficient information about the business despite BBB requests for that information from the business.

BBB Letter Grade Scale

BBB Rating Value
A+ 5
A 4.66
A- 4.33
B+ 4
B 3.66
B- 3.33
C+ 3
C 2.66
C- 2.33
D+ 2
D 1.66
D- 1.33
F 1
NR -----
Star Rating scale

  Average Score
5 stars 5.00
4.5 stars 4.50-4.99
4 stars 4.00-4.49
3.5 stars 3.50-3.99
3 stars 3.00-3.49
2.5 stars 2.50-2.99
2 stars 2.00-2.49
1.5 stars 1.50-1.99
1 star 0-1.49

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating is not a guarantee of a business' reliability or performance, and BBB recommends that consumers consider a business' BBB Rating and Customer Review Rating in addition to all other available information about the business. If the BBB Rating is NR then only Customer Reviews are used for the Star Rating.

Complaint Detail(s)

3/1/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have a complaint about a local firm. It is "Air, Wind & Solar located at 6320 S. U.S. Hwy
377, Stephenville, TX 76401.
In March 2013, we signed a contract with Air, Wind & Solar (A WS) to install a solar array
on our farm with battery back up. We discussed the purpose for the array on several
occasions and there seemed to be no problem with what was agreed upon.
In July the installation was completed and final payment was made. I do not remember the
date but we started having problems when we had an outage. One of the company's
technicians had to come out to reboot the system. Although outages were not frequent each
time there was one we had difficulties of one sort or another.
I noticed the instructions mentioned a data chip that would keep a history of events for
diagnostic use in determining causes of problems. The chip had never been installed by
A WS and they were dismissive when I approached them to get one. They finally ordered
one but told me to format it and complete the installation. After unsuccessful attempts on my
part A WS finally formatted the chip.
In the spring of 2014 we had an outage and the system did not switch back to the grid when it
came back online. Instead, it kept using the battery backup until the batteries were depleted
to the point the entire system shut off. I discovered this and had to manually use a system
bypass that switched back over to the grid.
A WS were not happy about again being called about a system failure and blamed my setup
for the problems. They said an individual would be joining their staff in the future who
would be able to solve the problem. We consented to wait for him to arrive. More than a
month passed with no contact from A WS so I called them and arranged for their personnel to
come out and fix the system. After an additional couple of weeks they called and said their
people would be out in an hour.
Those personnel were there parts of two days and what they found was that upon original
installation wires had been crossed and a communications cable needed to talk between
separate panels was not even installed. When the technician left he was to call me to let me
know when their crew would be out the next day with a trencher to install the heavier conduit
needed for the larger cable required to complete the electrical work. I never received a call
from him. The next morning I discovered there was no electricity to the pump that provides
water to the house. I contacted him. He realized that he had inadvertently disconnected the
wires to the pump. He said he would inform the electrician which two wires to reconnect.
Two days passed with no phone call from A WS and no water to the house. So my wife and I
stopped by their office about 2:30pm to discuss the situation. We were informed the
scheduler was out and we left the information with their receptionist who said she'd pass the
information on.
The following Monday I had to call the owner/manager who said they'd scheduled someone
to come take care of the water problem the next day. That was done; however weeks passed
and the system was still incomplete and wiring exposed. I again called their scheduler who
promised to call me back that afternoon (9/5/14). No phone call was forthcoming. Finally
someone was sent out but the cable was never buried and is still on top of the ground.
Yet, with another outage, the system still would not reconnect to the grid without me doing a
manual bypass. I personally visited A WS in November and talked to *****. Upon his
request I emailed him the data shown on the control boxes (He was not interested in viewing
the chip installed to show system information.). He asked for pictures showing the
installation setup of the panels, which were emailed to him on November 20th. To date I
have had no response.
I will not judge the technology because the installation was faulty and support was
begrudging at best. My complaint is towards the personnel/management of the organization.
They have shown a lack of concern in completing the proper installation of the system as
purchased in the manner originally discussed and agreed upon. For over a year we discussed
problems with them. A WS has not return phone calls as promised nor would they assign
personnel to fix our problem without repeated phone calls. Then once personnel were
assigned they would be pulled off the task before completion with the system left incomplete
and panels left open with wiring exposed. (Sometimes there was no power to the house or
water well.) Such performance is unprofessional and has not provided the solar system
agreed upon. I cannot recommend Air, Wind and Solar to anyone seeking this type of

Desired Settlement: see Attached document

BBB Response:

In regards to the complaint made by one ******* ****** of **** ***** **** ******* ************* ** ***** dated December 29th 2014.   _________(insert Date) contracted AWS to perform the installation of Solar PV system at his secondary residence.  Mr ******’s stated goals where to become better prepared in the event of a natural disaster or manmade calamity and to offset his current electrical bill, and in that order.  Due to the fact that the customer wished to have power during grid failure or interuptance he elected to have a battery back up system installed in conjunction with his Solar PV system.   The Solar system was to be mounted on a carport structure installed by AWS and the Battery Back up system located inside the residence in a closet also occupied by the customers Electrical Panel.  The near proximity of the Battery Back Up System to the Electrical panel being a prerequisite of the design.  During said process the customer was made aware that due to the relatively small size of the Battery Back Up system he choose: only a very limited number of outlets and appliances would be functional in the event of grid failure.  These limited “critical” items would then be wired to a secondary Electrical Panel, (referred too in the industry as "Critical Load Panel”) installed and supplied by AWS.  The methodology of installing a Battery Back Up System with the capacity to run a limited number of times and load is the norm as the cost to install Back Up systems capable of covering 100% of the load are cost prohibitive for most customers.  As result, the customer was given a range of several items to choose from in regards to the Critical Load Panel.  A sample list for this letters purposes may be instructional: 3-4 lights, a small refrigerator, 2 celling fans, 2-3 outlets from which could attached small draw items such as cell phones. laptops and radios.   Obviously more of one item could be installed with the exclusions of others.   The customer showed the sales person involved with the account, several wells and pumps on the property including a very large agricultural system used to supply water large commercial pivot type irrigation unit.  The customer asked if the Battery Back Up system could be used to supply any or all of his wells/ pumps.  He was emphatically informed that the pumps electrical draws would far exceed the Battery Back Up Systems capacity and could not be serviced.  The customer was also informed that there was a significant Utility rebate; which he wished AWS to apply and secure on his behalf.   After contract signing and renumeration the Utility rebate was effectively secured and installation commenced.  


> At the time of installation Mr. ****** informed the fabrication crew constructing the carrport structure that his wife did not wish to have the Battery back system occupy the closet in which the Electrical Panel was located.  He was informed that the Inverter/ Charger, essentially the brain of the system would have to be located in the closet but that the batteries themselves could be located elsewhere.  he was reminded that the batteries would perform best and last longer if they were kept in a heated and cooled environment.  The customer elected to move the batteries outside in between the residence and the carport adjacent to a fence separating the two.  Initially Mr ****** expressed his intention to have the Contractor that built his outbuildings construct the enclosure.  However, a short time later, Mr ****** stated that he felt that AWS should provide or construct a exterior rated battery closure for him at no cost with similar materials and color schemes as his home and outré buildings.  At first AWS personel reminded Mr ****** that he had not contracted for the structure he requested and nor had he contracted for the additional labor and materials to locate the batteries a significant distance from the Island and Critical Load Panel.  When the customer became agitated intractable AWS middle management attempted to resolve the situation by offering to cover the cost of additional materials and labor, with the customer taking responsibility for the enclosure.  When the customer repetaly refused middle managements efforts a senior executive met with the customer personally and offered to cover 90% of the costs, including the exterior battery enclosure.   At the customers insistence the fabrication of his enclosure was moved in front of all other customer projects.  When the battery enclosure was delivered to Mr Caywers secondary residence he declared it “ not too his liking” and refused to  accept it.  He then expressed his desire to have his Contractor construct the enclosure.  In the interim AWS had finished fabrication of the carport structure and had installed and interconnected the Grid Tie Solar PV System.   In addition the Utility conducted a extensive inspection of the Solar PV system and approved the system for interconnection to the grid and released the grant/ rebate funds.  


> Several months transpired and the customer contacted AWS and informed us that he no longer wished to have his contractor perform the installation of the exterior battery enclosure and that he wished to locate the Batteries a significant distance away in another outbuilding.  He of course did not wish to pay any additional labor or material costs.  Given the past history with customer and the fact that the customer still had large outstanding ballance AWS managment acquiesced.   During the installation of the Back Up System AWS's Senior Technician (Also a Master Electrician) attempted to get the customer to determine which items he wished to have connected to his Critical Load Panel.  He was reminded that only those items that were connected to the critical load panel would have power int he event of a electrical outage or grid failure.  He was again given a sample list of common items usually connected to the critical load panel.  The customer repeatedly told the technician that he wanted everything (the entire electrical load of the house, ranch and pumps connected to the Critical Load Panel.  When he was informed repeatedly over a period of several hours by the technician that not only could did the system not store enough power to service his entire ranch but that the surge (or initial power consumption when electrical appliances turn on) would be far exceed the systems capacity causing the entire system Battery Back Up and Solar PV to shut down in addition to shut off the Grid supply as it was being run through the Battery Back Up.   The customer heatedly expressed that that was how he wanted it and that he would disconnect everything that could not be run by the Battery Back.  After making his demands known to senior management and expressing his intent to “have the system taken out” of it “was not installed how I want it” AWS again complied. 



> Over the next four months the customer repeatedly complained that his system was shutting off and running errors codes.  Which he determined that where the fault of Bad Equipment.  At his requests AWS conducted 7 service calls at no charge to Mr ******.  Each time it was determined that the system was functioning normally and simply needed to be reset due to a large surge event/s.  The customer claimed that he had “alot of lightening out there” and that it must be "tripping your system".  Of course as the customer later admitted he was attempting to run almost his entire electrical load through his his Battery Back Up System.  And that while he had disconnected his water heater and other small household appliances he was still attempting to run his agricultural pumps and the bulk of the properties electrical load.  However, it was not until the end of this process that the customer finally admitted that he “had made a mistake” and that the system needed to be reconfigured.  Of course he did not wish to incur any fees to to reconfigure the system.  AWS senior management agreed to pay for half of the labor and material cost.  The system was reconfigured per the customers request.     



> It should be noted that during the sales, post sales/ design, interim, installation period and post installation Mr ****** was in constant contact with AWS personnel.  During the sales process the C.O.O. even went so far as to take Mr ****** and the his sales person to breakfast.  As the customer felt the need to interact with AWS senior management in a “less formal” environment in order that he might “feel more comfortable with your (AWS’s) institution.  The same executive and other senior management at the customers request visited his primary residence and secondary residence a total of 7 times during the before mentioned process.   It is of course highly unusual that senior management meet deal directly with customers at all.  As this task is typically reserved for sales and support staff and when necessary middle managers.   In addition Mr ****** has visited AWS’s Head Office in Stephenville TX no less than 19 times.  In each event, though the Mr ****** did not have an appointment and wished to speak with a Senior staff member, almost with out exception time was made to visit with the customer.  It is of note to mention that more often than not what Mr ****** required from the meetings with AWS executives was to reiterate and reexplain items in regards to his system.  These items ranged from technical questions to tax items.  It was noted by AWS employees of all levels that Mr ****** did not seem to digest information that he did not agree with well.  And that if he did not like the answer to his queries, that he would continue to purvey the same question to as many parties as possible.  Specifically as mentioned before many of these items were tax or technical questions.  Ironically, neither of these categories are subject to negotiation but are limits detained by physics or acts of law.   One item that the customer continually referred back too was the ability to run larger amounts of load on the Battery Back Up System.  Though after detailed explanations and even illustrations Mr ****** would except the limitations of the system as constituted and agree that he did not wish to expend further funds to upgrade his Battery Back Up System; invariably the customer would be back to “run over how this system works and why it can’t run more stuff”.  *******s "chalk talks" as the hours long sessions conducted repeatedly by AWS executives came to be known where finally deemed to not being likely to satisfy the customer.  Mr ****** demanded a copy of the installation manuals to determine for himself how the system to could be configured to work in the manner in which he wished.  After several weeks passed by Mr ****** returned to ask for help in “deciphering the installation manual”.  After some counseling by AWS senior management the customer agreed that the Battery Back Up System would be installed as originally called for and mandated by the manufactures specification.  


> It is the position of AWS that our concern has conducted it self with utmost of restraint and concern for the customers concerns and well being.   Though it is cliché we feel that any reasonable in individual can only come the conclusion that AWS personnel and especially the management team have “gone the extra mile” for the customer in question.  To be frank we believe that this unfortunate situation is simply the result of a customer who wishes to have have it his way and with out taking responsibility for the consequences of his decisions.   It is true that to some degree AWS has facilitated this behavior by repeatedly acquiescing to his demands and thereby facilitating said behavior.  While in retrospect where we to do it again we likely would be less willing to bend to he customers wishes; we do not think that one can fault our motives for so doing.  The customer repeatedly made the claim that he could not reach AWS personnel and the when he did “it was begrudging”.   It is illustrative that Mr ****** has the personal cell phones of two AWS senior executives.  But perhaps the real clue is in the term “begrudging”.  At no time did AWS or its employees not make itself available to Mr ****** even at the most inconvienet of times.  But perhaps what Mr ****** really means is that AWS was not telling him what he wanted to hear.   In fact the letter in which the customer makes these complaints is the first AWS has heard any of the befporementioned claims.   Furthermore imedailty upon recepoeint of said letter a AWS manager aqaunted with the account reached to Mr Caywer.  The customer did not wish to discuss the matter and abruptly disconnected the phone call.   At this juncture AWS feels that one cannot reasonably expect more of us than what has been done heretofore.   We respectfully consider this matter closed



2/4/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: Air, Wind & Solar was contacted to provide ground mount solar panels. We paid the deposit & they pulled the permit. Unfortunately they did not show up to the Planning & Zoning commission meeting to get the permit approved so it was denied & the city will not accept another application for 6 months. I can provide a copy of the denial from the city. I have an email from the Vice President of Sales that states "Yes, we will refund all of your money if the permits are not acquired." before I put down the deposit. We have nothing & they have our money.

Desired Settlement: Refund of $5958.00

Business Response:

The customer contracted with us to build a ground mounted solar system on her property. 

As we were working through the permitting with the city of North Richland Hills, the customer agreed that AWS could move the array to the rear of the home, which would meet the city's building and zoning requirements. AWS would take on the additional cost of labor, trenching and wire. The customer requested AWS to enclose the ground mount array making it a building at no cost to customer. 

AWS said that we could enclose the building, but we would charge the customer additional. Customer charged back their credit card and then called AWS to inform us that AWS should enclose the building at no cost to them, or else they would go to the P+Z meeting and ask that the project not proceed from the city. 

Since the customer withdrew their deposit and violated the contract, AWS notified the city of the customers behaviours and  did not attend the P+Z meeting. 

The customer received all funds from the chargeback and AWS lost over $4,500 in engineering/design and permitting costs. 

If you need anything else, please let me know. 


Consumer Response:
4/17/14 We put a deposit of $15,458.10 for ground mount solar panels to be located in the side yard next to the electric meter.  The city said we would have to file a zoning board of adjustment to put it there.
7/24/14 **** *****, CEO, spoke to my husband.  We were totally against moving it because we would have to tear down an existing shed. **** said they could move it to the back yard & enclose it.
7/25/14 ****** ******** sent an email that read

Hey *****, 

I hope all is well with the family and business.

**** informed me that he spoke with you and **** yesterday and he asked me to send you pictures of what the array would look like within the city specs. 

Let me know your thoughts, or if you would like another view let me know. This should give you a pretty good idea of where we can put this.

7/27/14 I responded

Hi ******,

What is the pitch & the total height?

Also **** told **** that ya’ll were closing the sides in?  Something about a loafing shed with the panels on top?

7/28/14 ****** responded

The pitch is 15 degrees and the total height is 14'4"

That's something we can do. I will check with **** on enclosing the sides. 

8/20/14 After many more unanswered calls & emails **** called saying he "could" enclose it not that he "would".  We told him again that we weren't changing the location if it was not enclosed.

8/21/14  Planning & Zoning meeting at 7pm.  We were there.  No representation from Air, Wind & Solar so the city denied the permit.

We disputed the $9500 charge on our credit card & the credit card returned our money.

The only fee Air Wind & Solar paid for was the permit filing fee of $582.00



***** *****

1/16/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: I puchased a $27,000 rooftop solar system in 2013. Not only has it never performed to my expectations, but its solar production has dropped from 30 kw daily to 10kwh (sunny days). I have continually contacted them with my problem. Their first solution was that i had too much shading. I loped off the treetop that they recommended pruning. Over six months later, they finally sent a representative. I told him i was glad to get his help and that i had been waiting a long time. He, **** *****, told me they had given him the wrong address for months. He was also surprised at the lack of output and asked me if it had ever had more prodution. He said he would make a report to the company. I have been in contact all year with the company with over dozens of calls for assistance. First with eric graff and most recently with paul graff. Paul is always going to call me back, in an hour, or a day or two, he never does. I am very dissapointed that I have such a expensive solar system. It was supposed to be an assest and make my home more valuable, but such a nonperforming system would actually have the opposite effect

Desired Settlement: I still want to have a solar system, but i want one that performs as advertised. Thank you

BBB Response:

In regards to the complaint above filed by *** *****.  Mr *****’s issues as he mentioned are indeed related to shading of his system.  Mr. ***** lives on heavily treed lot with adjacent neighbors having similar large flora.   The customer was made aware that in order to have optimal production from his system, significant trimming would be required.  Understandably, the customer wanted to minimize the impact on the affected trees and wished to wait until after the system was installed to trim said items.  The customer’s stated intent for so doing was that he felt the impact to “his trees could be minimized by watching the shading throughout the day and year; only trimming what was necessary.’  The reason that the customers production numbers have decreased over the years is due to the fact the trees have increased in size.  While it is true that the customer has trimmed some of his trees, others have been left untouched and as a result have increased in size and density.  Furthermore, the production of his system will necessarily vary greatly throughout the year as the sun changes position and the flora sheds or grows new leaves The net affect however, is the same due to the fact that if even one of the solar modules on one his two banks are shaded, it is the same as the entire bank is being shaded,  This is due to the fact that the systems can only produce what the lowest producing solar module on any given bank is producing.  This process is referred to in the Solar Industry as “choking”.  Mr ***** has modules that are still being shaded and as result “choking the entire system”.  The remediation for this problem is to trim the trees to a appropriate level.  A partial remediation could be accomplished by relocating the solar modules.  However, the untrimmed trees will still negatively affect the production, albeit to a lesser extent.   


In reagards to Mr *****’s claims that our institution has been unresponsive to his requests: AWS has conducted 4 service calls at no charge; at the customers explicit request for various issues that he claimed were affecting the production value.  These have ranged from claims of faulty installation as a whole, (service call performed, no issues), a defective inverter (service call performed, Inverter tested and operating correctly) and two shading analyses.  In addition, we have taken the data from the before mentioned shading analyses and constructed a 3d CAD model of the customer's home and flora to extrapolate the least invasive method of remediation.   As previously mentioned, all of these items though of significant expense to AWS have been done at no charge to the customer.  The customer has repeatedly requested that we make our best attempt to minimize both his out of pocket costs and impact to his trees.  No easy task given the situation.  We feel that we have consistently acted in the customers best interests at our expense.  We are still committed to assisting this customer in whatever way possible, irregardless of the merit or lack thereof of his complaint.  


In summary, we reiterate our recommendations expressed to the customer and in this correspondence: trim the trees, move the the modules or both.  While we do not partici***e in activities relating to trimming of trees, we have again extend offer to move the modules at less than our cost if the customer is so inclined.  Again thank you for the opportunity to respond to the matter in question.  Please feel free to contact directly with any further questions you may have.



12/11/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a solar system and have had numerous problems which have not been repaired. The system has been fully paid for over a year. I have ask Air Wind and Solar to please make the necessary repaid to make the system function They refuse to even acknowledge the problem.

Desired Settlement: For the system to function

Business Response:

Thank you for forwarding complaint *********.  AWS looks forward to the opportunity to provide clarification on this matter.  On April 12, 2012, *** ****** purchased a 6000w Solar PV System with a DC Battery backup system from AWS.  This purchase was made through his son, **** ******. This purchase also included the installation of the Solar PV system and Battery Backup.  Incidental to this purchase were several other items, including but not limited to, a Grundfos Solar Pump and 3000 gallon poly tank (a plastic water storage tank).   These items, though purchased from AWS, did not include installation.   While AWS does, on occasion install water storage tanks and/or install the solar panels for a pump system; AWS does not install the down-hole pump.  In fact, AWS is prohibited from so doing by state law, as AWS does not possess, has not possessed, and has no intention to possess a Texas Pump Installer License. While it is true that AWS maintains a variety of other Licenses under the purview of the Texas Dept. of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR), such as a Texas Electrical Contractors License etc.; said licenses and certifications and the fact that AWS performs hundreds of solar installs per year do not in any way entitle AWS to perform down-hole pump installations.   While the design and intent of the Grundfos product is meant as DIY kit, there are some customers that prefer not to perform their own installation.  AWS does not maintain any relationship with licensed pump installers for several reasons: the first being that most pump installers see our product as a direct competitor to their own business interests and have little interest in facilitating a competitor, secondly we have found that many pump installers have a different idea of what constitutes good customer service and a fair price point than what can be found at AWS.  On occasion, customers will ask if we have any recommendations as to who would be good choice to utilize as a pump installer.  Our policy is to recommend no one and if the customer is persistent, to give the customer with lists of the 2 nearest pump installers.   The latter was the case in regards to the ****** account.  We gave them the names of the 2 closest licensed pump installers of which Mr. ****** was familiar with both.  Though they had an extensive relationship with one of the pump-installers, they chose the second, ****** **** ******* (it is important to note that there are 2 ****** **** *******s located in Stephenville TX and that they are related.  They chose the Service owned and operated by ****** and **** ******* due to their lower price point.  The customer elected to install their own water storage tank.  The primary reason being that **** ****** wished to completely bury said water storage tank, which we and the manufacture of the Tank expressly an emphatically recommended against so doing.  Underground tanks are specifically designed to withstand the enormous pressure of the soil both horizontally and vertically.  These tanks have large structural ribs to keep the weight of soil from collapsing the tank.   An above ground storage tank does not contain these ribs and is designed to withstand the much smaller outward pressure of water stored internally.    In regards to the installation of products purchased from AWS by the ******s you have rather a varied cast of Actors: Solar and Batteries by AWS, down hole pump by ******, and water storage tank by the customer themselves.  Perhaps not surprisingly, the results were as varied as the installers themselves.  To date the Solar System and Battery Back Up function correctly, the pump functioned for over 2.5 years, but ceased working due a poor installation. The water storage tank installed underground suffered a complete collapse when heavy rains increased the soil density and movability.

How we arrived at this point of current dissatisfaction by the customer:  Both *** and **** ****** contacted AWS numerous times over the past 2-3 months in regards to their nonfunctioning pump.  We encouraged the ******’s to have the pump removed and to bring it to one of our locations for testing.  In the even that it was determined to be non-functional due to a manufacturing defect, we would warranty exchange the product for a new, in the box pump.   We encouraged the customer to remove the pump as soon as possible, because the pumps come with a standard 3 year warranty and they were nearing the warranty deadline.   For whatever reason, the customer seemed to believe that the pump could be effectively diagnosed while in the well, 300 plus feet down.   They persistently asked AWS to perform a service call free of charge, despite our best efforts to convince the customer that the pump needed to be removed.   AWS performed the service call demanded by the ****** at no charge and could not determine any reason above ground why the pump would be not be functioning.  When the ******'s were informed as to the results of the service call in question they again engaged in repeated phone calls to encourage AWS perform another service call.  When AWS declined based on the fact that AWS had not performed the install and that the previous service call had determined that no issues existed above ground the customer became upset.  After several more terse phone calls from the customer, AWS offered to perform a second service at our regular rate.  Specifically, the customer wished for AWS to sever the wires from the solar panels to the top of the well head (ground level) due to the fact that they believed that the solar panels were nonfunctional; even though we informed the customer that the likelihood of the solar modules being the issues was exceedingly rare.   In fact, AWS has never had a case were a solar panel was responsible for a pump system being nonoperational.   When AWS performed said service call, it was determined that the solar panels were indeed providing the correct amounts of electricity to the well head.  At that point, we instructed the customer that no further calls or efforts of any kind would be efficacious until the pump was removed.  Usually with pumps of this type, removal is rather quick and straight-forward, easily performed by one individual with no equipment whatsoever.  This is due, in large part, to the fact poly pipe (essentially back drip line on steroids) is not only recommended, but actually used in most cases.  In contrast, the ******’s installation was performed using rigid PVC pipe that requires a specialized truck and rig to remove and install.  This is unfortunately all too common by some pump installers; this allows the pump installer to create a “Captive Customer” since they can’t service their own well.  As a result, the ******’s were forced to contact their original installer ******; who declined to perform any work whatsoever on the pump and well at the ******’s.  The ******’s again contacted AWS to demand that AWS pull the pump.  When we informed them again that not only were we not permitted to do so, but that it was functionally impossible due to the fact that AWS does not own or have access to the rig needed to perform installation or de-installation of rigid pvc pipe, they eventually came to conclusion that the only option was to indeed pull the pump.  The ******'s asked if AWS was aware of any other pump installers that might service their area.  Upon further investigation, we found several candidates.   The ******s then strongly requested numerous times that AWS be present at the site while the reinstallation took place in order that they might not have to drive the 10 miles from their location to our nearest store front where our testing equipment was located.  Of course they did not wish to incur any fees for this service.  In the interest of facilitating their wishes AWS agreed to loan the ******’s AWS’s pump test unit.   Though the customer initially agreed to this compromise, when *** ****** arrived at our Stephenville location and was given the teasing unit he became irate when his request for AWS to attend the de-installation was not granted.  The ******’s also had made the determination that their pump was “fried” and that in no way, shape, or form would it be functional.  They requested that we have another like unit ordered in and waiting for when the “fried pump” was pulled out of the ground.  When informed that they would be required to pay for said pump, in the event that the pump currently in the ground was determined by AWS to be functional or damaged beyond the warranty coverage, the customer (both the father, ****** ******, and the son, **** ******) agreed to do so.   Consequently, AWS ordered another pump on the ******’s behalf.  The customer also wished to do away with the rigid pvc pipe and replace it with the ploy pipe recommend by the manufacturer; a decision AWS wholeheartedly supported.  As a result, AWS also ordered the poly pipe on the customer’s behalf.
        On the day of de-installation, *** ****** picked up the poly pipe from our Storefront in Stephenville and attempted to pick up the new pump.  Though the customer had not yet paid for the items, AWS personnel agreed to allow the customer to take the poly pipe (but not the pump) without payment; as the customer committed to come in later in the day to pay his account.   Later in the day, *** ****** returned with the original pump.  Upon inspection, it was determined that the down-hole connection (of the two connections, 1 above ground at the solar modules and one 300 plus feet below ground, submerged in water) made by the pump installer connecting the 3trey (well wire that connects the solar panels to the pump) was made incorrectly causing one wire to come completely loose.  The cause for said loose connection was twofold, first an improper crimp on the barrel connector and second, the use of common electrical tape to seal the connections as opposed to heat activated shrink wrap.   Upon testing the pump directly without the faulty 3-trey wire, the pump spun up and functioned flawlessly.   When AWS personnel showed *** ****** the faulty connections and demonstrated that the pump was indeed fully functional he became upset and demanded that AWS pay the fees for de-installation and re-installation.  When AWS personnel declined the customer insisted his intent to not pay AWS for the items that had been ordered or for the second service call that had been performed.   Towards the end of the same day, **** ****** called AWS to inquire as to the procedure for reconnecting the pump.  AWS personnel informed **** ****** that no further services would be rendered to their account until some payment had been made.  **** ****** committed that his father would pay their outstanding balance and implored AWS to assist them in reconnecting their pump via telephone.  AWS personal acquiesced to **** ******’s request.  According to further communications initiated by the customer with AWS, the pump is currently functioning correctly.   To date AWS has not received any remuneration from goods and services in regards to the ******’s account whatsoever.  AWS has made no efforts to collect said debts in the interest of not further acerbating the customer’s behavior.

AWS feels that it has made every effort to facilitate the customers’ requests well above beyond its legal and moral obligations.   We have since written this account off as a loss.  We consider this matter closed.


If you have any questions or comments, please contact Air Wind & Solar Inc.


***** *****

Air Wind & Solar Inc.

BBB Response: **** ***** *** **** * ****** ****  **** * ** ******* *** ************  **  *****
Dear **** ******

As a service to your business, this letter is in regards to a consumer complaint submitted to the BBB about your business on ********** ******* PM by ****** ****** and assigned complaint ID *********

Your customer has rejected the business' response.  For your convenience, a copy of the customer's response is below.  To expedite this matter, please respond back to the BBB within 10 calendar days of receiving this notice.

In the BBB's experience, the following tips often help foster trust in a business:

     *         Acknowledge customer concerns
     *         State the facts as you see them and avoid emotion
     *         Explain the actions you have taken to resolve concerns      

Please understand that the customer's dispute and your response could be publicly posted on the BBB website (BBB reserves the right to not post in accordance with BBB policy). Please do not include any information that personally identifies your customer.  By submitting your response, you are representing that it is a truthful account of your experience with this customer.  The BBB may redact the dispute of your response to protect privacy rights and to remove inappropriate language.

If you have any questions, please contact us at 800-621-8566 between 9:00 a.m. and 4 p.m. or by email at


****** ****

Dispute Resolution, Ad Review
****** ***** ********


The fictional short story written by AWS is laced with partial truths and many untruths. AWS has a unique way of twisting and distorting facts and I will not try and refute each of the untruths as I feel this matter will be settled in another jurisdiction.

Fact AWS has no relationship with any of the three water well companies is because they refuse to work with AWS for their own reasons. I have a relationship with two of the well companies and when I called them they refused to work on a well where AWS was involved, however Mr. ****** which I have known for 30 plus years agreed to pull my well if he did not have to even talk with AWS.

The pump sold to me by AWS was still in warranty so I ask them to perform the necessary work to determine if the pump was working. A man who had been to my location before for AWS cut the wires coming out of the pump and determined that the pump was in fact not working. Those wires remain cut now for the past three months. Upon pulling the well the poly line attached to the top of the pump was split when I ask AWS about the split I was told it must be defective poly. I then ask “well you sold me that pipe did you sell me defective pipe” and I was told they were finished with me not to call them again.

AWS was contacted several times to determine why our pump did not function. AWS recommended that the ridged steel pipe be eliminated from the well and replaced with one inch poly line. (They discussed in their story). AWS told me to take the line and pay them for what I used. Mr. ****** said if you insist on using the poly we will never be able to pull your well again because they cannot pull pipe that is continuous without collars. He said he would do whatever I ask him to do, however it would be a big mistake. I instructed Mr. ****** to run the ridged pipe back and get may water well functioning without the solar pump.

I would strongly encourage the BBB to take a minute and look on line at Solar Reviews to see what other have experienced with AWS. I am not the only person who has experienced difficulties with AWS.


** ** ***** ******

12/17/2012 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have been working with **** with this company for some time now to put in a solar system in at our home. I received an email with an estimate for 5709 in out of pocket expense, when I told them to go ahead with the installation, they did a bait and switch and wanted me to sign a contract for some amount over 13,000.00.

Desired Settlement: I want this company to honor the installation price of 5709 to install the exact system that we were quoted. This company is attemping a bait and switch contract and now does't want to honor the estimate evidentially because the person who did the quote doesn't know how to do his job. This company is involved in deceptive business practices.

BBB Response:

  BBB Ft. Worth Texas
1300 Summit Avenue, Suite 101
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Phone: (817)332-7585 | Fax: (817)882-0566




**** ****** *** ******* ****** ***** ******* ** *****


Dear **** ****** :

This message is in regard to your complaint submitted on 11/12/2012 3:51:53 PM against Air wind solar, AKA Lone Star solar AKA Lone star power savers.  Your complaint was assigned ID ********

The business has sent the BBB a message regarding this complaint, and we are passing it on to you.  The contents of this message are below or attached.  Please respond to this message at your first convenience.

Keep in mind that your response whether in whole or in part may be posted for the public to see.  If your response is posted for the public to see, consumers may use it to form an opinion about the consumer who filed the complaint more than the company on whom the complaint is filed.


****** **** ******** ******************* *********** ****** ***** ******** **** ***






Ms. ****,


We at Air Wind and Solar appreciate the opportunity to clarify the issues surrounding Mr. ******** claims.   It is a standard industry practice to calculate for potential customers the full financial benefits of a renewable energy system.  This includes, but it is not limited to: years to payback, rate of return, value of electricity produced, potential appreciation etc.  Air Wind and Solar uses a third party software Energy Periscope to provide the financial analysis and report.  This tool or ones identical to it are used by the vast majority of reputable, established renewable energy integrators.  A key function of this software is the ability take into account available or potentially available rebates or credits and how they could potentially effect the customers payback, rate of return and total cost of the system.  
Mr.  ****** asked that we factor in a potential rebate (that rebate has since become a reality) that may be offered by Oncor (his wholesale electrical provider) and the 30% federal tax credit.  Air Wind and Solar often can have rebates from different electrical providers assigned to us directly in lieu of the corresponding amount due on the contract price of the contract.  Tax credits however cannot be assigned for a variety of reasons the first and foremost being that one has to have tax liability to access the credit in question.  One of the first questions we ask potential customers is whether they have a Federal tax liability that could be offset by a renewable energy tax credit.  The customer would realize this credit after they filed taxes and received their tax return.  Mr. ****** was and is more than aware that, though the potential Oncor rebate could be assigned, the tax credit cannot be.  Despite this fact and Mr. ******** clear understanding of it, Mr ****** has tried to extort Air Wind and Solar into reducing his upfront cost the by the potential tax credit he could receive.  He then promised to assign the tax credit to us.  Mr ****** is fully aware that his tax tax credit cannot be assigned to us. (see  Notice 2006-52, 2006-1 C.B. 1175. only non profits can assign tax credits and then only to the designer of a building, Mr ****** is clearly not a non-profit and we are not designing a building).   When queried by myself as to what would happen if Air Wind and Solar were to agree to such a ill advised plan, and Mr. ****** were not recieve a tax credit?  He responded, "well that would be on you".  Of course our company does not advise, encourage or allow customers to try to assign a tax credit to us that is "unassignable" and said practice is specifically prohibited by the Internal Revenue Service.  Mr. ****** refuses to accept the fact that what he proposing is impossible.  Furthermore Mr ****** has repeatedly threatened that if Air Wind and Solar does not comply with his demands that he would do anything in his power to besmirch our reputation.  Mr ****** attempted to reinforce his his threats by stating repeatedly that he had "done this sort of thing before" and "to hold on, your in for the ride of your life".  Air Wind and Solar re-iterates its commitment to unparallelled customer service and integrity.  We deeply regret that in this case a solution could be found that met with the potential customers specifications.  We consider this matter closed 
Air Wind and Solar