Mercury Solar Systems

The never ending 2 year Solar Project
I would definitely NOT recommend this company. The Initial contract was signed in December of December of 2010 and the project was completed October of 2012.
Project was poorly planned and executed — From the beginning I had issues with them filing paperwork correctly with Vineland Municipal Utility and even getting all 4 of my contracts in order. I personally had to go over to the utility company to clarify Mercury Solar’s Submission of work.
Three of the four projects moved forward and the install went pretty smooth. The Install guys were friendly and knowledgeable but unfortunately that is the extent of Mercury’s good fortune. The fourth project Drug on forever and I had to keep calling them to ask what was going on. They kept making excuses and finally gave me an option to change my panels or wait an undefined time frame for the panels. It had already been about a year since we signed the initial contracts so I reluctantly opted to change then panels and take the cost reduction for the lower wattage panels (not to mention that the industry cost of panels had significantly dropped in that year anyway).
After repeat attempts at requesting paperwork so I could file for the 1603 grant were ignored over about 2 months, they finally got me everything I needed to file the day it was due! And at that, They wanted me to file for the 1603 not including the costs that were incurred to me via other vendors. Luckily I went against their advice and included all the eligible costs incurred as they were equal to an additional rebate of $ 6,000.
Payments were made throughout the 2 years at milestones specified by the four contracts. The only change to the contracts regarding payments were the change order for the cost reduction in panels and the additional payment they requested at the end of 2011 to make sure I would qualify for the safe harbor (at least that was the reason they gave me). The safe harbor payment is where the payment hiccup happen. The payment was to be applied to project 4 as a safe harbor however instead they applied it to the final payment of projects, 2, and 3. While it turns out the safe harbor payment was not needed it would have been fine that they applied the payment to the first 3 projects however after the 3 final payments were applied from the «safe harbor» payment there was a remainder of over $ 1600 that was never applied to any of the 4 projects.
When we were settling out the construction loan this discrepancy was located. Mercury was notified for over a month via multiple emails and numerous voice mails left for multiple different people at mercury. No email or phone calls were ever returned.
FINAL EMAIL SENT April 9^th 2013
Allen & Amanda,
Unfortunately your unresponsiveness over the past 6 months has pushed me into a corner where the only way to recover the over payment of $ 1606.65 from the payment made on 12/​28/​2011 is through legal arbitration. On Monday April 15^th I will be contacting my lawyer and handing this matter over to him and any fee incurred by him will be added to the amount of $ 1606.65 due.
To recap the issue for you:
When I spoke with Bob Stickney back in 2011 The payment made on 12÷28÷11 was supposed to be applied to the truck port project as a safe harbor payment, however, Mercury applied it to the remaining balances of the other 3 roof mounted projects with a remainder of $ 1606.65 that was never applied to any of the 4 projects. Due to this, the Final truck port payment on 10÷22÷12 was actually too large of a payment and should be refunded in the amount of $ 1606.65.