BBB Logo

Better Business Bureau ®
Start With Trust®

BBB Accredited Business since

Hi-Power Solar LLC

Phone: (808) 342-0802 Fax: (808) 744-2671 PO Box 2217, Aiea, HI 96701 View Additional Email Addresses

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

BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Hi-Power Solar LLC meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services.

Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 16 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that lowered the rating for Hi-Power Solar LLC include:

  • Length of time business has been operating

Factors that raised the rating for Hi-Power Solar LLC include:

  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size.
  • Response to 2 complaint(s) filed against business.
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business.
  • BBB has sufficient background information on this business.

Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

2 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 1 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 2
Total Closed Complaints 2

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on Hi-Power Solar LLC
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 0

Additional Information

BBB file opened: July 08, 2010 Business started: 04/16/2010 Business started locally: 04/16/2010 Business incorporated: 04/16/2010 in HI
Licensing, Bonding or Registration

This business is in an industry that may require professional licensing, bonding or registration. BBB encourages you to check with the appropriate agency to be certain any requirements are currently being met.

These agencies may include:

State of Hawaii Department of Taxation
PO Box 1425, Honolulu HI 96806
Phone Number: (808) 587-4242
The license number is W70687158-01.

DCCA Consumer Resource Center
235 S. Beretania Street, 8th & 9th Floors, Honolulu HI 96813
Phone Number: (808) 587-4272
The license number is ABC 30844.

DCCA Consumer Resource Center
235 S. Beretania Street, 8th & 9th Floors, Honolulu HI 96813
Phone Number: (808) 587-4272
The license number is ABC 7796.

Type of Entity

Limited Liability Company (LLC)

Business Management
Mr. Ronald Romero, LLC Member Mr. Leslie Hirahara, RME
Contact Information
Principal: Mr. Ronald Romero, LLC Member
Business Category

Solar Energy System Design & Installation Contractors - Solar Energy Water/Pool Heating - Solar Solar Energy Equipment & Systems Dealers

Additional Locations

  • PO Box 2217

    Aiea, HI 96701 (808) 342-0802


What is a BBB Business Review?

We offer free reviews on businesses that include background, licensing, consumer experience and other information such as governmental actions that is known to BBB. These reviews are provided for businesses that are BBB accredited and also for businesses that are not BBB accredited.


About BBB Business Review Content & Services:

Some Better Business Bureaus offer additional content & services in BBB Business Reviews.
The additional content & services are typically regional in nature or, in some cases, a new product or service that is being tested prior to a more general release.
Not all enhanced content & services are available at all Better Business Bureaus.

Professional AffiliationsX

Types of Complaints Handled by BBB

BBB handles the following types of complaints between businesses and their customers so long as they are not, or have not been, litigated:

  • Advertising or Sales
  • Billing or Collection
  • Problems with Products or Services
  • Delivery
  • Guarantee or Warranty

We do not handle workplace disputes, discrimination claims or claims about the quality of health or legal services.


BBB Complaint Process

Your complaint will be forwarded to the business within two business days. The business will be asked to respond within 14 days, and if a response is not received, a second request will be made. You will be notified of the business's response when we receive it (or notified that we received no response). Complaints are usually closed within 30 business days.


What is BBB Advertising Review?

BBB promotes truth in advertising by contacting advertisers whose claims conflict with the BBB Code of Advertising. These claims come to our attention from our internal review of advertising, consumer complaints and competitor challenges. BBB asks advertisers to prove their claims, change ads to make offers more clear to consumers, and remove misleading or deceptive statements.


What government actions does BBB report on?

BBB reports on known significant government actions involving business' marketplace conduct.


Thank you for your feedback!

Help us improve by taking our survey.


BBB Reporting Policy

As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.

BBB Business Reviews are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information in this BBB Business Review is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy.

BBB Business Reviews generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Reviews are subject to change at any time.


Additional Email Addresses

  • - Communication/Mass Email
Find a LocationX

  Change Location
Show Only Accredited Locations

Complaint Detail(s)

3/31/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: Installed solar panels not working. I have had two solar panels that are not working. There have been numerous attempts to resolve this issue and I have been patient with the Company. I have just spoken to the Owner, *** ******, which resulted in a shouting match. His unprofessionalism and refusal to take responsibility to resolve this matter is frustrating. I requested him to remove the panels as he is not honoring the contract and he only persists to blame my inability to be readily available to him when he can find the time to stop by and try to get the panels running. His inability to set a date and time, then actually show up for that date and time has contributed to the panels still not working. My refusal to give out my computer and internet security panels codes to numerous different people working for him has also contributed to the problem. However, I am not comfortable with giving out my computer and internet codes to multiple employees. At one point he wanted to give me his administrative codes and instruct me on how to try to get the panels working. Due to the cost of the panels and the fact that administrative codes should not be given to customers, I was not comfortable taking this route. I am working directly with one of his employees who is running the office and an appointment has been set for Monday, March 3, 2014 to get the panels working. I am not confident this will be resolved on this date but I am hopeful. I would simply like the panels running or removed and credited since all work was paid for on January 9, 2014 and panels were installed on December 9, 2013. To date panels are still not functioning and have requested no further contact with *** ******.

Desired Settlement: To have last panels functioning immediately or removed, credited and roof repaired. No further contact with *** ******.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (4000, 12, 2014/03/26) */ At HPS, we strive to give excellent customer service by setting up and monitoring our customers system for them instead of having the customer set-up and complete the system installation on their own. The monitoring system is a service that allows customers to have piece of mind in knowing that HPS is also looking out for our client's system performance remotely. We do our very best to respond and execute on service or troubleshooting issues in a timely manner. We apologize to Ms. ****** **** for any miscommunication that happened between us through our efforts to service her. We have done our best to work with her and her father to ensure their system is up and running. We needed access to their Internet so that we could connect their inverters to the monitoring system. And with their help, we were able to connect the two replaced inverters to the Power-One monitoring system on March 3, 2014. HPS continues to monitor Mr. ******* system and will ensure that the contract made between Mr. **** and HPS will continue to be fulfilled. We hope that this troubleshoot resolves their concern and we will continue to strive in communicating more clearly on our troubleshooting process, and the required information we need to complete the task without delays. If there is anything more we can do, please let us know. Aloha, HPS Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 17, 2014/03/30) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.) I accept this response only to end my contact and close my complaint case. In essence, the Company has not responded to any of my issues. It offers no explanation as to why I had installed panels that could not be made to work for nearly 3 months. It only implies that they were unable to resolve our issues because they could not "troubleshoot" the equipment because they needed access to our internet and computer. I highly recommend that consumers not use this company. My Father and I chose this Company based on Owner *** ******'s claims of excellence in customer service, which was what we valued most. He severely failed at giving us any customer service. He also so us different equipment than what we wanted because he did not sell that equipment he explained how another brand was better. However, we see he advertises now as selling the equipment we originally wanted. Therefore we did not get the equipment or the service we wanted. Any business Owner who can use profanity on their customers is unprofessional, no matter what the situation is. Mr. ****** should have simply resolved the situation as his employee, ****** ***** did in a matter of days. I request to close this case and have my complaint posted.

BBB's Final Determination: Consumer accepted resolution offered by the business.

9/6/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: Illegal installation followed by sloppy corrections and abusive customer service practices. Hi-Power Solar Beware! I had been considering adding panels to my photovoltaic installation and in October, 2010 met with *** ****** of Hi-Power Solar to have 17 solar panels added to the existing array. When signing the contract *** said that they were busy but that if I paid in full they would try to complete the installation before the end of the year. *** seemed trustworthy and as Hi-Power was recommended by an acquaintance in the business, I wrote the check on December 2, 2010. The end of the year came and went but Hi-Power was unable to meet ***'s commitment. After pursuing *** further, he promised to do the job as soon as possible after the start of the New Year. Despite having paid in full for the job, and despite ***'s assurances, it seemed my turn was repeatedly delayed. Finally the installation was completed March 3, 2011, 3 months after we contracted and paid for the work. During installation the mounts were attached by simply drilling lag bolts through the shingles into the roof and sealed with caulking. I noticed that similar penetrations on neighboring homes were flashed. When asked about the long term integrity of the caulking, **** ***** (***'s partner) assured me that he had done many installations and that this sort of seal would easily last the foreseeable life of the PV system. I felt that I had hired experts so deferred to his judgment. In August 2012 a leak was discovered inside the house that appeared to originate from the PV installation. I attempted to contact Hi-Power but would not receive a return call despite leaving voicemail as well as email for *** ******. To my frustration, a letter from my attorney demanding a callback and resolution of the leak was required. When Mr. ****** contacted me he was angry and abusive but agreed to have **** come to determine whether the leak originated from their installation. Upon inspection, **** confirmed the leak came from their installation and re-caulked the leaking penetration. I expressed concern as the installation was only about a year and a half old and was leaking already. Again **** assured me that caulking was sufficient but later I discovered that Hi-Power had started using flashing on installations subsequent to mine. A call to **** *** of *** ******* confirmed my suspicion that flashing was not only recommended by the shingle manufacturer but was a legal requirement per the 2003 building code detailed below. 2003 International Building Code, Chapter 15 ******* Assemblies 1) Section 1503 Weather Protection see paragraphs 1503.1 - general 1503.2 - Flashings 1503.2.1 - Locations 2) Section 1507.2.9 Flashings. Despite my research Mr. ****** continued to claim flashing was not required, but after he spoke to the Building Industry Association he agreed to install flashing to prevent future leaks. In November of 2012, Hi-Power and M&R ******* disassembled my PV installation, installed flashing and re-installed the solar panels. At that point I thought my problems were over. About a week later I climbed on the roof to take a look. To my dismay, the electrical conduit serving the array lay loose on the roof with no attempt made to secure it whatsoever. Additionally, most of the screws attaching the wiring to the mounting hardware were either missing or stripped, loose installation hardware was strewn around the roof, and one of the panels was secured so poorly it actually rattled against the mounting rail in the wind. At this point I called Hi-Power to complain about the shoddy workmanship. When Mr. ****** and **** ***** came to inspect they were chagrined and admitted the installation was poorly done, at which point **** started securing the wiring and loose panel(s). While checking the panel mounts, ***** started crawling over the attached panels which we

Desired Settlement: In light of the multiple problems associated with installation and re-installation I'd like to have another solar company inspect Hi-Power's work to insure correct and complete work.

Business Response: Business' Initial Response /* (1000, 12, 2013/02/20) */ Contact Name and Title: *** ******/ ************* In response to the complaint filed by ***** ***, We attempted everything possible to satisfy *. ***. At this time we decline to make any comment, due to the fact that we do not want to incriminate ourselves. We will keep the BBB informed and updated on the situation as it arises. Consumer's Final Response /* (4200, 23, 2013/03/21) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Hi-Power Solar has done nothing without being compelled, either by me or by the DCCA. After their latest effort to correct deficiencies in the original installation, the PV panel replacement was so poorly executed the Building Department reopened the permit until Hi-Power's installation meets building code. The electric permit remains open, over two years after the installation was paid for. When DCCA ultimately forces Hi-Power to complete the job I think it reasonable to want an independent inspection by a reputable company. Business' Final Response /* (4000, 31, 2013/09/06) */ Sometime in September 2010, Mr. **** ***** of HPS, was at a local solar supplier and was approached by the department head and a fellow business owner. The fellow business owner spoke with ***** regarding an installation job for Mr. ***** *** and asked if ***** would do him a favor by installing seven panels for ***. ***** agreed and met with ***. They both agreed to charge only for the labor costs of the solar installation since *** would be providing the materials. There was also an agreement made between *** and fellow business owner regarding a commission that would be paid out to him for helping *** out. *** never paid the commission. On October 6, 2010, HPS drew up a contract for seven 240W panels. These seven panels were added to an existing thirteen panels that Giant Solar installed previously. *** noted how unhappy he was with the previous installation of the company and asked HPS to fix the previous work as HPS worked on their own installation agreement with him. He noted that he did not like the job that the job was crooked with poor mounting. HPS agreed to comply with ***'s request at no additional cost, as he was a referral of a fellow business owner. *** also requested that HPS's electrician, ****** ***** -- (of ***** Electric) redo the electrical central inverter boxes and upgrade the meter to a 200AMP meter. In analyzing the current system, ***** Electric found that the previous install was not up to code. ***** Electric worked on the new upgraded system and was delayed due to HECO's delay in turning off ***'s power to allow ***** Electric to complete the job. The electrical upgrade and permit was closed, done and charged by ***** Electric. Ref:******************************************************** ***** and HPS installers squared and straightened out the previous system, along with the seven-panel installation, and made it look professional as *** requested. The permit for the new installation was closed on December 2, 2010, BEFORE the end of the year. Ref:**************************************************** *** was very happy with the job done and decided he wanted to install additional panels. On December 2, 2010, *** contracted with HPS for an additional ten panels, this time using micro inverters. The electrical and building permits were also closed. Ref:********************************************* About two years later in mid August, *** accused HPS of a roof leak that he discovered. He called Mr. *** ****** and asked him to send someone out to inspect the leak. HPS sent ***** the very next day to inspect the leak. There was no evidence of a leak whatsoever, however, ***** put additional caulking around the bolts that *** felt was leaking. ***, after seeing other homes around him that had flashing on their roof, asked if flashing was necessary for his roof to avoid any future leaks. ***** advised him that flashing was not a necessity. After more research by ***, he reached out to **** *** of *** *******, which confirmed his so called suspicion of requiring flashing on all ******* done in Hawai'i. He then called HPS and demanded that they complete the flashing on his roof. He accused HPS of working illegally and not complying with Hawai'i State Law. He inserts in his postings, "under the 2003 International Building Code, Chapter 15 Roofing Assemblies: Section 1503.2., 1503.2.1. and 1507.2.9:" and quote's it as law. If you refer to the link listed below, you will see that he is pulling "codes" from a website for a ******* company trying to sell flashing. This company and advertisement is not a local source. Ref: http://www.******************************************.html (Also note that within this company's webpage, they themselves acknowledge that not all states have the same requirements). HPS, during the busiest time of the year, took the time to accommodate ***, free of charge. *** and HPS agreed to hire M&R Roofing Company, on HPS's invoice. Sometime in November of 2012, while M&R installed the flashing on ***'s roof, they discovered that none of the HPS penetrations were leaking. ***'s skylight, that was previously there, was the cause of the leaking that *** was experiencing. These skylights, that *** failed to disclose, were found within the same vicinity of the solar panels. The HPS penetrations had no signs of leaking, even after two years. In theory, *** saw that there was a leak, found that other homes around him had flashing, called **** **** of *** Roofing Company, did some research on-line, and accused HPS of illegal practice. THERE WAS NO ILLEGAL INSTALLATION DONE HERE. Again, all this work was done and paid for by HPS during the busiest time of the season to ease and accommodate ***. In late December, about four to five days after ***'s flashing installation, *** went onto his roof to inspect the latest efforts in finishing the job. He states that the electrical conduit is just lying on the roof and unsecured, several mounts were missing, and nuts and bolts were just resting on the bracket that he can lift them up by hand. The conduit and materials, which was not part of the job that was asked to fix by ***, are that of ***** *****'s installation. *** then called ****** and started yelling with a few choice words, while ****** was at an appointment with another customer, on why ***** wasn't able to get things done to finish the job mentioned above. ****** stated that HPS was still trying to work him into the schedule. On a Sunday morning, as *****, ******, and *** climbed on ***'s roof to inspect and confirm ***'s allegations, *** in his frustration, verbally abused, insulted, and degraded ***** and ******. *** continued to threaten ****** to hire another company to fix the aforementioned issues and send them the bill. ******, after spending a few thousand dollars, decided he had enough, spouted a few choice words, told *** to "go fly a kite," and got off the roof. *** called an electrical inspector and had him come out to his house to look at the conduit on the roof and "re-open" the electrical permit. After learning if the electrical permit is left open for too long he would get fined, *** called ***** Electric (HPS's Electrician) in desperation without ******'s knowledge. ***** Electric refused to re-close the permit for fear of any additional accusations and false claims that may be used against him in the near future. ****** called *** and apologized for using choice words during their previous encounter and asked *** if they could let bye-gone be bye-gone and wanted to complete the work that needed to be done. He also offered to give a gift certificate to *** and his wife to go out to dinner, as a form of reconciliation for using choice words. *** defensively refused, stated that it was not enough, and demanded that he be given more, $25,000 more. Shortly after ****** and ***'s conversation, *** called ****** and stated that if he were given $25,000, he would go away. When ****** asked him why so much money because the jobs were worth a couple thousand dollars, *** then changed it to $17,500. When asked again why so much money, *** had no reply. He instead drew up a Release and Settlement Agreement, threatening to publish his claims and accusations wherever deem able. ****** refused to comply with his threats. *** warned ****** of his threats in actions, which you may find sounds very much like extortion or even blackmail. On January 07, 2013, realizing that *** was not going to get what he demanded, he posted his complaints about his experiencing, while paraphrasing lies, defaming HPS, *** ******, and **** *****. This was done with information that is false to the BBB, Angie's List, Yelp, and even went as far as the Regulated Industries Complaints Office (RICO) at the Department of Commerce & Consumer Affairs (DCCA). There was NEVER an illegal installation done for ***. HPS responded to this malicious act by filing an Extortion Claim against *** on January 17, 2013. Ref: Report #13-021194. All permits were closed, there was never a leak on ***'s ******* because of HPS installations. HPS has reached out to the customer time and time again to come to a reasonable reconciliation. It is unfortunate that Mr *** did not agree to our offers. We pride ourselves on great customer service and doing things right the first time. HPS was built by word of mouth of happy and satisfied customers and will continue to give our very best.

BBB's Final Determination: After reviewing the position of all parties, BBB determined that the business made a reasonable effort to address the complaint. However the consumer remains dissatisfied.