The AG’s investigation claims that solar installers who partner with lenders typically aren’t allowed to identify and explain fees and typically don’t show cash prices without fees unless a customer asks for it.
The fees are collected only as a profit for the lenders, the lawsuit alleges, which is the primary source of loan revenue for the companies. Four lenders have collected these fees on approximately 5,000 solar systems since 2017, according to Ellison. This will account for more than 20% of all rooftop solar projects installed in the state.
Ahnemann said he didn’t think to shop around. His contract with Goodlip does not appear to specify that the principal of the loan includes a dealer fee. The 24-page document contains two sentences that say the purchase price determined by installer Blue Raven Solar “may include” fees in question but does not say how much.
He said he uncovered the dealer’s fees while inquiring about charges related to supplementary electrical work. Costs have not been added. Such fees would be disclosed in a real estate transaction, he said. So he took his complaint to Ellison.
Ellison’s lawsuit said the four companies violated a handful of state laws that require companies to “prominently disclose” all charges imposed by a creditor as a condition of a loan.
Jesse Komert, a spokesman for Goodlip, said the installer is responsible for the fee. It’s a tactic used by installers to lower a loan’s interest rate and lower the borrower’s monthly payment, he said. The installer in Ahnemann’s case, Blue Raven, did not respond to a request for comment.