2024A-01561-CHC-ROC Notice of Hearing and Packet MAILED

2024A-01561-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-06-26

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Darrell L Vetter , Case No. 2024-01561

COMPLAINANT, Docket No. 2024A-01561-CHC-ROC

v. NOTICE OF HEARING ON CONTESTED CASE SunUp America LLC License No. ROC 325273 and 333266,

RESPONDENT. This Notice of Hearing is issued under A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(D).

HEARING INFORMATION The hearing is set for:

August 9, 2024 1:00 PM Sondra Vanella Google Meet. A link will be provided directly from The Office of Administrative Hearings. Go to www.azoah.com to request to appear in-person.

If you have requested to appear in-person at the hearing, the hearing will be held at 1740 W Adams Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007.

You must attend this hearing. This is an adversarial hearing before an administrative law judge, and is conducted in a similar manner as judicial proceedings. Thus, you must be

prepared to present evidence, including witness testimony and documents, in support of your case.

STATEMENT OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION

The State of Arizona has determined that the licensing and regulation of construction contractors is a proper state function, and has vested authority in the Registrar of Contractors to administer Title 32, Chapter 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. A.R.S. §§ 32-1101 et seq. All hearings for alleged violations of Title 32, Chapter 10 are conducted under Title 41,

Chapter 6, Article 10. A.R.S. § 32-1156.

The statutes and rules governing the hearing can be found at: Arizona Revised

Statutes §§ 41-1092 to -1092.12, and Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-101 to -122.

PARTICULAR ARIZONA STATUTES AND RULES INVOLVED

The statutes and rules the Respondent is alleged to have violated are cited in the

complaint and citation, which were served on the Respondent on May 31, 2024. SHORT AND PLAIN STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED

The complaint and citation allege that the Respondent committed the following act(s): Charge: 1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Charge: 2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(20)

THE PARTIES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING Because Respondent is a licensee and is charged with an act(s) or omission(s) that is cause for the suspension or revocation of a license, Respondent is a party to this case and will be a party to the hearing. Because Complainant alleged Respondent committed an act(s) or omission(s) that is cause for the suspension or revocation of a license, Complainant is a party to this case and will

be a party to the hearing.

Respondent and Complainant, as the parties to the hearing, will present evidence and

argument to the administrative law judge.

The Registrar’s assigned investigator will appear as a witness at the hearing. RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED The parties to the administrative hearing may choose to be represented by an attorney.

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(B). If one of the parties is a company, the company may be represented

by an officer or employee if that person satisfies the conditions set forth in A.R.S. § 32-

1156(B).

CHANGE OF ADDRESS Each party must inform the Registrar and the Office of Administrative Hearings of any change of address within five (5) days of the change. A.R.S. § 41-1092.04.

HEARING PROCEDURES AND RULES The administrative hearing will be conducted in accordance with A.R.S. §§ 41-1092

to -1092.12, and A.A.C. R2-19-101 to -122. The parties should review the statutes, rules, and processes governing the administrative hearing. Copies of the statutes, rules, and articles regarding the administrative hearing process can be found at https://www.azoah.com/.

REGISTRAR’S APPEARANCE BY VIDEO CONFERENCE OR TELEPHONE

The Registrar’s investigators, employees, and attorneys will appear at the hearing via video conference or telephone unless requested by a party to appear in-person. Requests for the Registrar’s investigators, employees, or attorneys to appear in-person must be filed with the Registrar and the Office of Administrative Hearings no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the hearing date.

HEARING PACKET

In the interests of administrative efficiency, the Registrar compiles and discloses

certain documents to the parties and the Office of Administrative Hearings. These documents are attached to this Notice of Hearing as the “Hearing Packet.” If any party wishes to submit additional evidence, they must do so during the hearing after completing a disclosure statement. See “Disclosure Statement” section below.

SUBPOENAS FOR TESTIMONY FROM A WITNESS OR DOCUMENTS

The parties to the hearing must be prepared to present evidence in support of their

case. If a party wants to obtain testimony from a witness or documents not in the party’s

possession, the party must prepare and file a written subpoena for the Administrative Law Judge to review and sign, if approved. A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(C). Forms for requesting a

subpoena can be found on the Office of Administrative Hearings’ website at www.azoah.com. The party seeking a subpoena must serve notice on all the parties to the hearing, and on the Registrar. A.R.S. § 41-1092.04.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

At least seven calendar days before the hearing, each party must prepare and serve a disclosure statement on all other parties, and file it with the Office of Administrative Hearings. A.A.C. R4-9-118; A.A.C. R2-19-108. The disclosure statement must include any exhibit the party will use at the hearing. A party’s failure to timely disclose any witness or exhibit, without good cause, may result in the administrative law judge excluding those witnesses or exhibits from being used at the hearing. A.A.C. R4-9-118(C). A sample disclosure form is available on the Registrar’s website at https://roc.az.gov/forms/RC-L-800A%20- %20Prehearing%20Disclosure%20Statement%2020191007v4.pdf

CHANGING THE HEARING DATE

The date of the hearing may only be advanced or delayed on the agreement of the

parties or on a showing of good cause. A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(C). The date of the hearing may

be changed by filing a written agreement of the parties to change the date of the hearing. The written agreement must be filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, directed to the assigned Administrative Law Judge, and transmitted to the Registrar and all other parties. The assigned Administrative Law Judge may be found on the Office of Administrative Hearings’ web portal at www.azoah.com

If a party would like to move the date of the hearing without agreement of all parties, the party must file a written motion with the Office of Administrative Hearings, directed to the assigned Administrative Law Judge, and transmit a copy to the Registrar and all other parties. The motion must state in detail good cause for why the date of the hearing should be advanced or delayed, and the position of all other parties regarding the advancement or delay. A party may also file a motion asserting a right to an expedited hearing upon a showing of

extraordinary circumstances or the possibility of irreparable harm. A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(E).

RESOLUTION SHORT OF ADJUDICATION In any case which is resolved or settled by the parties, or which is withdrawn by the Complainant without objection from Respondent after the Notice of Hearing is issued, the parties must notify the Office of Administrative Hearings of the resolution or settlement. Any such cases will be listed on the Registrar’s website and its records under the category: “Closed

Complaints – Resolved/Settled/Withdrawn.”

Dated June 25, 2024.

By: /s/ Erika Hoskin Erika Hoskin Legal Secretary Legal Department Arizona Registrar of Contractors

Copy mailed via USPS First Class mail June 25, 2024 to:

Respondent(s) SunUp America LLC 625 S. Smith Rd., Suite 11 Tempe, AZ 85288

Respondent's Attorney Paul Edward Gugel, Esq. 4742 N 24th St Ste 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Complainant(s) Darrell L Vetter 2441 E. Everglades Blvd Fort Mohave , AZ 86426

Copy sent electronically this same date to:

Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Respondent’s Attorney at email address of record with Registrar Complainant at email address on record with the Registrar

Case No. 2024-01561 /

Douglas A. Ducey, Governor Jeffrey L. Fleetham, Director

Hearing Packet FAQ What is the Hearing Packet?

The Hearing Packet is a packet of certain documents collected or issued by the Registrar over the course of its investigation.

Who gets the Hearing Packet?

The Hearing Packet is assembled and distributed to all parties and to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) prior to an administrative hearing.

What types of cases does the Registrar prepare a Hearing Packet for?

The Registrar prepares a Hearing Packet for Complainant-Handled Cases and No-Pay Cases. Note: If the Docket Number on the Notice of Hearing contains a “CHC” or “NPC”, your case is a Complainant-Handled Case or a No-Pay Case.

What is in the Hearing Packet?

The Hearing Packet contains essential case-specific documents and at a minimum will include the following documents:

● Original complaint;

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov Hearing Packet FAQ

Douglas A. Ducey, Governor Jeffrey L. Fleetham, Director

● Citation; and ● Answer.

The Hearing Packet will also contain the following documents (if applicable):

● Jobsite inspection notices, notes, and photos; ● Written directives; and ● Compliance inspection notices, notes, and photos.

What if there are documents missing from the Hearing Packet?

If there is any evidence you submitted to the Registrar that are not included in the Hearing Packet it is your responsibility to introduce that evidence at the administrative hearing. Note: The administrative law judge assigned to your case does not have access to the entire Registrar record.

If there is additional evidence you submitted to the Registrar during the investigation that you also want to introduce as evidence during your hearing, it is your responsibility to:

● Properly disclose that evidence to the other party; and ● Introduce the evidence during your hearing.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov Hearing Packet FAQ

Douglas A. Ducey, Governor Jeffrey L. Fleetham, Director

How do I disclose evidence I intend to use at a Hearing?

You must properly disclose any and all documents and witnesses you intend to use at your hearing according to the Registrar’s Prehearing Disclosure Rules. See Arizona Administrative Code Section R4-9-118.

A sample prehearing disclosure form and instructions are provided to the parties by the Registrar.

How do I obtain documents I previously submitted to the Registrar?

If you previously submitted documents to the Registrar and need a copy of these documents, please contact the Registrar’s Legal Department or submit a public records request at https://roc.force.com/AZRoc/s/roc-public-request.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov Hearing Packet FAQ

Complainant: Darrell L Vetter 2441 E. Everglades Blvd FORT MOHAVE, AZ 86426

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 Respondent: SunUp America LLC 625 S. Smith Rd., Suite 11 Tempe, AZ 85288

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 March 7, 2024

Re: Complaint No. 2024-01561

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

A formal complaint has been filed with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

A jobsite inspection is scheduled for Thursday, March 21, 2024 at 11:00 AM. The Complainant is required to be present. The Respondent’s attendance is requested and encouraged. The Registrar encourages both parties to make a good faith effort to resolve this complaint prior to the jobsite inspection.

COMPLAINANT: 1. Under A.R.S. § 32-1155(D)(1), the Respondent must be allowed, upon request, the opportunity to inspect the work complained of within fifteen (15) days of receiving this notice. If Respondent is not provided an opportunity to inspect the work within the fifteen (15) day time period, the Registrar may be prohibited from taking further action on this complaint. 2. The Registrar may also be precluded from taking further action on this complaint, if the work that is the subject of the complaint is subject to neglect, modification, or abnormal use. A.R.S. § 32-1155(D)(2) 3. You must provide safe access to any area to be inspected. If access to a roof or other elevated area is required, you must provide a means to safely access the area (ladder or manlift as appropriate). Additionally, please secure any animals.

RESPONDENT: 1. Enclosed is a copy of the complaint. Under A.R.S. § 32-1155(D) you must be allowed, upon request, the opportunity to inspect the work complained of within fifteen days of the date of receipt of this notice. 2. To assist the assigned investigator in evaluating the merits of the complaint, please submit a response to the enclosed complaint to the assigned investigator prior to the scheduled inspection. 3. If you do not attend the jobsite inspection, your absence may negatively impact the investigation, and your interests. 4. If a building permit(s) was required for this project, please have the building permit information available at the jobsite inspection. If either party needs to reschedule the jobsite inspection, please notify the assigned investigator at least three business days prior to the inspection date to schedule a new date and time.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 If the parties resolve the complaint prior to the inspection, please notify the assigned investigator in writing and by phone as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Steve Philpott #180 Steve Philpott #180, Assistant Chief of Investigations 928 6370482 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St. Ste 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Cc: File Respondent Complainant

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 A Guide to Jobsite Inspections

Purpose of the Jobsite Inspection When the Registrar receives a complaint against a contractor’s license alleging poor workmanship, the Registrar generally schedules a Jobsite Inspection. The Jobsite Inspection serves two purposes: 1. To give the contractor an opportunity to inspect the complaint items; and 2. To give the Registrar an opportunity to determine if the contractor’s work violates Arizona law.

Jobsite Inspection Rights and Responsibilities Access to inspect: The property owner has complete control over who they allow on the property. However, if the Registrar’s investigator or the contractor cannot inspect the work, the Registrar will not move forward with a citation.

Cooperation: Arizona law enables injured parties to seek relief for damages through several paths. When dealing with a licensed contractor, the Registrar of Contractors’ administrative complaint process may serve as one of those possible paths. However, in order to use that path, the Registrar relies on the cooperation of all parties to a complaint.

Minimum workmanship: The Registrar investigates workmanship complaints for compliance with minimum workmanship and professional industry standards. The Registrar does not issue citations for work that meets these standards.

Scope: The scope of the Jobsite Inspection is limited to items listed in the complaint filed with the Registrar’s office. It is the complainant’s responsibility to point out the complaint item(s) and the Investigators role to review the item(s). If the complainant identifies additional workmanship items not listed in the original complaint, they must file an addendum to the complaint. The Registrar’s Investigator may identify additional administrative violations by the contractor (e.g. work performed out of scope of the license and failure to provide a contract that meets requirements set by Arizona law) at the time of the inspection.

The Role of the Investigator At the Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s investigator will: ● Only investigate the items listed on the complaint form filed with the Registrar. ● Will gather evidence to make an informed decision about the complaint items.

What to expect after a Jobsite Inspection 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 After doing a Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s Investigator will leave the jobsite and review the evidence provided during the inspection. Generally, the investigator does not make any determination at the time of the jobsite inspection regarding whether the allegations listed in the complaint are supported. ● If the allegations are confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator may issue a Written Directive telling the contractor to correct the poor or incomplete work. ● If the allegations are not confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator will close the complaint.

Questions? If you have already filed a complaint and it was assigned to an investigator, you are encouraged to contact that investigator directly with the information listed in your jobsite inspection letter. If you have not filed a complaint yet or have not been assigned an investigator, you can reach the Registrar’s compliance department at (877) 692-9762.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 A Guide to Written Directives Purpose of the Jobsite Inspection When the Registrar receives a complaint against a contractor’s license, the Registrar generally schedules a Jobsite Inspection. The Jobsite Inspection serves two purposes: 1. To give the contractor an opportunity to inspect the complaint items; and 2. To give the Registrar an opportunity to determine if the contractor’s work violates Arizona law.

What to expect after a Jobsite Inspection After doing a Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s Investigator will determine whether the allegations listed in the complaint are supported. ● If the allegations are confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator may issue a Written Directive telling the contractor to correct the poor or incomplete work. ● If the allegations are not confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator will close the complaint.

Written Directives Access: In order to use the administrative process offered by the Registrar, a property owner must provide reasonable access to allow the contractor to fix their work as directed by the Registrar in a Written Directive. Complainants may not put any additional, unnecessary restrictions on the Respondent above and beyond the initial contract requirements agreed upon at the beginning of the project. Respondents are required to make repairs on items identified on any Written Directive, not otherwise restricted by local code or HOA limitations. Complainants must make access available to the Respondent to make the required repairs and failure to provide reasonable access may result in the Registrar dismissing the complaint.

Contractor obligations: The Written Directive will set a deadline for compliance. This is the period of time determined by the Investigator as necessary to complete the items listed in the Directive. ● The deadline for compliance assumes the contractor will promptly begin working on the items listed in the Directive. ● Do not wait. Both parties should communicate quickly to schedule the work.

Extensions: If good cause exists to extend this deadline, either party may submit a written request to the Investigator. The Registrar will review requests for extension and determine if the Directive should be extended.

Manner and method of performance: The Registrar does not provide specific instructions for how to correct poor work. A licensed contractor is expected to have the skill and 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 professionalism to complete the work. Moreover, the complainant may not dictate the manner of repair. If the contractor fails to appropriately correct the work according to the contract, the Registrar will issue a citation.

Compliance Inspection: After the Written Directive expires, the Registrar’s Investigator will contact the complainant to determine if the contractor performed any corrective work. ● If the contractor did corrective work, the Investigator may schedule a Compliance Inspection to determine if the poor work is corrected. ● If the contractor did not perform any corrective work, the Registrar’s Investigator will not do a Compliance Inspection and will determine whether to issue a citation based on the administrative record.

Work performed after the directive ends: After the Directive period ends, a property owner may choose to allow the contractor to continue its work. The Registrar encourages parties to work cooperatively, but cannot require a homeowner to continue to allow a contractor access to the property after the Directive period ends in order for the administrative process to continue. Denying access after the Directive ends is not grounds to close or dismiss a complaint.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 1 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 2 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 3 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 4 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 5 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 6 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 7 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 8 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 9 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 10 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 11 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 12 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 13 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 14 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 15 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 16 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 17 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 18 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 19 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 20 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 21 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 22 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 23 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 24 of 25 Case 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC JSI Photo 25 of 25 JSI 2024-01561 SunUp America LLC Photo index

1. Exterior view of the complainants residence, although the image quality is poor.

2. Photograph depicting the building permit.

3. Roof overview taken from the porch roof, facing south.

4. Photo displaying alleged turf damage, (already adjudicated in previous complaint).

5. Conduit transitioning from the roof to the side of the house.

6. Conduit transition from the detached garage to the porch roof.

7. Close-up image of wire transition to conduit.

8. Another perspective of the wire transition, from a standing position.

9. New panel and equipment installed by the respondent.

10. Close-up of damaged connection from conduit to panel.

11. Another angle of the damaged connection shown in photo 10.

12. Close-up of the respondent’s new hole drilled in the panel, instead of using provided knockouts.

13. Manufacturer’s specifications inside the panel.

14. Breaker used in the panel, alleged to be incorrectly installed.

15. Area where it was alleged respondent mislabeled breakers, later corrected by others.

16. Rigid pipe leading from panel to home, with loose bracket at house siding.

17. Rigid pipe entering the panel mounted on the home.

18. Conduit entering the box provided by respondent, alleged to be incorrect.

19. Close-up of manufacturer’s instructions inside the box shown in the above photo.

20. Area where respondent ran a screw missing the rafter, damaging the edge.

21. Second location of alleged screw damage through plywood, missing rafter.

22. Crack in the ceiling of the home, allegedly caused by respondent.

23. Close-up of the crack allegedly caused by respondent. 24. Side photo of panel allegedly not properly secured to the pole.

25. Image of the respondent’s vehicle. Jobsite Inspection Notes

Case No.: 2024-01561 Investigator: Steve Philpott #180 Inspection Date: Thursday, March 21, 2024 Inspection Time: 11:00 AM

Complainant: Darrell L Vetter Respondent: SunUp America LLC Not Present: Not Present:

Jobsite General Notes:

Given that this is the second complaint concerning the same project and address, any allegations previously inspected or adjudicated will not be revisited.

I arrived at the complainant’s residence at the scheduled time. We proceeded to inspect the items on the complaint list and I found the following:

I took 25 photos with my State issued phones digital camera. The photos have been scanned into Salesforce as a PDF file.

PHOTOGRAPHIC and AUDIO EVIDENCE (PDF copy scanned to Salesforce, Raw Files are in Salesforce)

Present at the JSI: Representing the ROC: Steve Philpott Representing the Complainant: Darrell Vetter and his sister Janie Moya Representing the Respondent: Cliff

Compliance Item: 9 - electrical piping not trenched , spanning space in yard to pole and also spanning 2 seperate structures Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item has been partly verified. While previously deemed code compliant due to county approval, it is now believed to reveal poor workmanship upon inspection. The home, being a stationary object, contrasts with the pole, which is subject to movement from

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C011 12/23

typical windy conditions, resulting in damage to the connection and inadequate securing. Respondent is required to rectify this issue through suitable measures. See JSI photo 16, 24, of 25. The piping between the structures has been approved by the county. No action required for this part of the complaint. Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Compliance Item: 10 - electrical piping to MSP to long, forced into box at 30*angle , breaking fittings, exposing wire Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item has been verified. While previously deemed code compliant due to county approval, it is now considered to reveal poor workmanship upon inspection. The piping from the ground being a stationary object, contrasts with the pole, which is subject to movement from typical windy conditions, resulting in damage to the connection and inadequate securing. Respondent is required to rectify this issue through suitable measures. See JSI photo 10 of 25 Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Compliance Item: 16 - 3 holes drilled through breezeway roof Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item is verified. Two areas were identified where it appeared a screw was recently installed and then subsequently removed leaving an area that required minor touch up paint work. See JSI photos 20 and 21 of 25. Respondent shall correct by appropriate Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C011 12/23

Compliance Item: 19 - new breaker wrong , leaving 1/2"x3" hole. Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item has been verified. While arguably deemed code compliant due to county approval, it is considered poor workmanship upon inspection. The label on the panel clearly indicated that “Any circuit breaker installed, replaced or added in the panelboard must be manufactured by Siemens and must be of the correct type as indicated in the tabulation below” Respondent is required to rectify this issue through suitable measures. Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION:

Compliance Item: 1 - all electrical dangerous, violates code contract totally ignored no permit at install . no prelim work done' Investigator’s Observation: This allegation is to a certain extent broad and not a specified item that can be inspected and reported on. The ROC does not conduct inspections to assess the safety of electrical work. The complainant must furnish a specific list of potential hazards rather than making a general assertion. Furthermore, it was previously established in complaint 2023-01807, item #1, that the installation had been approved by the Mohave County Development Services Department. Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 2 - Solar and all rooftop install not inspected . County claims they dont have to.said call ROC 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C011 12/23

Investigator’s Observation: Evidence presented does not support a violation of ARS 32-1154(a) It was previously established in complaint 2023- 01807, item #1, that the installation had been approved by the Mohave County Development Services Department. Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 3 - Sunup refused to get correct property layout, even when informed they had wrong layout Investigator’s Observation: The evidence presented fails to demonstrate a violation of ARS 32-1154(a). As established in complaint 2023- 01807, item #1, the installation had received approval from the Mohave County Development Services Department. The county building department is the appropriate authority for assessing the suitability of the layout. Additionally, during the JSI, the complainant indicated that the panels are slated for removal as part of an ongoing process with their insurance company to replace the roof. Consequently, altering the layout at this juncture would be redundant, considering the impending removal and replacement of the panels. (Reference: JSI audio 47:57) Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 4 - Steve Philpott sent 180 pgs of photos and additional items on 1017/23. adminstrative judge suggested this complaint. Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item cannot be inspected or reported on during a JSI. To clarify, I did not send 180 pages of photos and additional materials on October 17th, 2023. Over this period, numerous emails were exchanged between Mr. Vetter and myself. If the complainant wishes, they may submit a Public Records Request (PRR) to obtain these exchanges. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Judge did not initiate this complaint. The Judge specifically outlined the following: “Complainant may not agree with the fact that the county building authority green tagged the electrical work, however, the ROC is less specialized than the expert investigators at the county building authority. It is appropriate for the

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C011 12/23

ROC investigator to yield to the expertise of the county building authority when they green tag a project. That said, it is concerning Investigator Corlett failed to physically inspect the allegations within the complaint and instead relied upon third party photos and the limited vantage point from ground level to assess the status of a roof. While it is understandable not every investigator has the physical ability to climb roofs, Investigator Corlett ought to have made alternate arrangements to have another investigator physically inspect the roof if he was incapable of climbing the ladder at the time. Fortunately for Complainant, he may be able to file a new complaint to address the deficiencies of the inspections.” Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 5 - Sunup purposely refused to do this job proper or legal, no preliminary work.To Extort $8,000 for repairs, Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item is provided as informational and is not an item that I can inspect and report on at this jobsite inspection. Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 6 - 9/7/22 started job, 3 hours work and Sunup filed completion to claim finance funds. Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item is provided as informational and is not an item that I can inspect and report on at this jobsite inspection. Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 7 - Sunup sloped panels back toward house roof to force water under 3tab shingles, 20' of leaks on personal property. Investigator’s Observation: There was an alleged leak at the transition from the main roof to the porch roof. Complainant stated that he fixed the leak prior to this inspection. No deficiency demonstrated or observed at time of inspection. This complaint item is unverified, as evidence presented

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C011 12/23

does not support a violation of ARS 32-1154(a). No action required by the Respondent. Note: The Registrar determined that the Respondent’s work was subject to modification. For that reason, the Registrar is prohibited from issuing a citation for the Respondent’s alleged poor workmanship or the alleged departure from applicable building codes. See A.R.S. § 32-1155(D)(2). Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 8 - workers drove over block border to drive and park trucks and destroy brand new artificial turf. Investigator’s Observation: : This has been adjudicated in the previous complaint filed: Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 11 - MSP , UL warranty and protection destroyed with multiple holes drilled in exterior rated box. Investigator’s Observation: : No deficiency demonstrated or observed at time of inspection. This complaint item is unverified, as evidence presented does not support a violation of ARS 32-1154(a). No action required by the Respondent. (Note: Mohave County Development Services Department has approved this) Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 12 - control boxes improperly drilled and piped for exterior use. Investigator’s Observation: No deficiency demonstrated or observed at time of inspection. This complaint item is unverified, as evidence presented does not support a violation of ARS 32-1154(a). No action required by the Respondent. This has been approved by the Mohave County Development Services Department. Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 13 - rigidly piped MSP on pole to house disconnect. ripping off wall destroying both boxes 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C011 12/23

Investigator’s Observation: This is a repeat of Compliance Item: 9 above. Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 14 - both MSP and separate structure garage piping should be trenched. Investigator’s Observation: No action required. The piping from the MSP to the structure has already been address above in #9 and the piping from the garage to the porch as been approved by the Mohave County Development Services Department. No action required. Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 15 - piping on roof unsecured and open end and facing skyward to catch rain Investigator’s Observation: The evidence presented fails to demonstrate a violation of ARS 32-1154(a). As established in complaint 2023- 01807, item #1, the installation had received approval from the Mohave County Development Services Department. The county building department is the appropriate authority for assessing the suitability of the conduit connection and brackets. Additionally, during the JSI, the complainant indicated that the panels are slated for removal as part of an ongoing process with their insurance company to replace the roof. Consequently, altering the connections or adding additional brackets to secure the conduit at this juncture would be redundant, considering the impending removal and replacement of the panels. (Reference: JSI audio 47:57) Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 17 - hous panels lying on top of vent and blocking access to vent. Investigator’s Observation: The evidence presented fails to demonstrate a violation of ARS 32-1154(a). As established in complaint 2023- 01807, item #1, the installation had received approval from the County

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C011 12/23

building authority. The Mohave County Development Services Department is the appropriate authority for assessing the location of the panels and determining if the location of the attic vent should be moved. Additionally, during the JSI, the complainant indicated that the panels are slated for removal as part of an ongoing process with their insurance company to replace the roof. Consequently, altering the location of the vent at this juncture would be redundant, considering the impending removal and replacement of the panels. (Reference: JSI audio 47:57) Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 18 - solar cords hanging , loose and flopping in the wind . Investigator’s Observation: The evidence presented fails to demonstrate a violation of ARS 32-1154(a). As established in complaint 2023- 01807, item #1, the installation had received approval from the County building authority. The Mohave County Development Services Department is the appropriate authority for assessing the suitability of the conduit connections, cords handing or alleged to be flopping in the wind. Additionally, during the JSI, the complainant indicated that the panels are slated for removal as part of an ongoing process with their insurance company to replace the roof. Consequently, altering the connections or adding additional brackets to secure the conduit or securing cords at this juncture would be redundant, considering the impending removal and replacement of the panels. (Reference: JSI audio 47:57) Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 20 - 4' crack now in ceiling in living room over entertainment system Layout not followed Investigator’s Observation: The complaint item remains unverified as the evidence provided does not substantiate a violation of ARS 32-1154(a). It is difficult for me to ascertain whether the crack in the drywall is directly linked to the work conducted by the respondent. Typically, a structural analysis of the system, including evaluating the new load introduced by the installation of

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C011 12/23

equipment on the roof, is part of the assessment process for approving a new installation. Therefore, no action is necessary from the respondent at this time. Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 21 - safety insp. not done and Sunup employees stepped halfway trough breezeway roof. Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item serves as informational only and isn't something I can address during this jobsite inspection. The Complainant pointed out areas where the sheathing was rotted and where the crew supposedly stepped through. It seems that this damage stems from a persistent roof leak and isn't directly linked to the work carried out by the respondent. As such, no further action is necessary. Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 22 - safety was no concern for anyone as we have a total of 4 breakers and Sunup mis-labled 2 Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item is provided as informational and is not an item that I can inspect and report on at this jobsite inspection. Complainant stated he fixed the labels that were mismarked prior to the JSI. Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 23 - Sunup sub-contracted roofing claimed roof had ponds as excuse for all leaks . Investigator’s Observation: Complainant fixed the alleged leak prior to the jobsite inspection. No deficiency demonstrated or observed at time of inspection. This complaint item is unverified, as evidence presented does not support a violation of ARS 32-1154(a). No action required by the Respondent. Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 24 - MSP not plumb or secure , improper brackets cut almost in half and held with drywall screws Investigator’s Observation: The service panel does not seem 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C011 12/23

significantly misaligned. Photo 9 depicts it having an appropriate alignment with the siding of the home visible in the background along the left edge. Although the piping from the ground is misaligned, as noted earlier, this will be rectified as part of #10. Regarding inadequate fasteners, no decision will be made on that matter by the ROC. The installation has been inspected and approved by both the county and the utility company, prior to installing their meter onto the box. Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 25 - fYI-pole mounted MSP , has approx.100' 0f heavy wire to another pole and so on causing constant motion Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item serves as informative and isn't within the scope of inspection and reporting at this job site visit. It's important to note that the Respondent did not install the pole, and the wire mentioned in this complaint is typically provided, installed and owned by the utility company. Governing Rule:

Compliance Item: 26 - you can not pipe rigidly from staionary house to a box that moves, in bad weather its 25x worse than avg weather Investigator’s Observation: This complaint issue has been discussed previously in both #9 and #14 above. Governing Rule:

Steve Philpott #180 Steve Philpott #180, Assistant Chief of Investigations 928 6370482 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St. Ste 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85007

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C011 12/23

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Darrell L Vetter Case No. 2024-01561 COMPLAINANT, v. SunUp America LLC CITATION License No. ROC 325273,

RESPONDENT.

The Registrar issues this Citation to SunUp America LLC (“Respondent”) under A.R.S. § 32-1155(A). If Respondent fails to answer this Citation by April 25, 2024, then under A.R.S. § 32-1155(C), Respondent’s failure to answer may be deemed an admission of the act or acts charged in the underlying complaint, and the Registrar may then suspend or revoke Respondent’s license(s).

of 6

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 ꞏ Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 ꞏ Toll Free 877.692.9762 ꞏ roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT On February 9, 2024, Darrell L Vetter (“Complainant”) filed a written complaint with the Registrar. A copy of that Complaint is attached to this Citation. A FORMAL STATEMENT OF THE CHARGES AGAINST RESPONDENT The Registrar investigated this matter and finds cause to charge Respondent with violation(s) of Title 32, Chapter 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Respondent is charged with violating:

Charge 1: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Charge 2: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(20) Having a person named on the license who is or was named on any other license in this state or in another state that is under suspension or revocation for any act or omission that occurs while the person is or was named on the license unless the prior revocation was based solely on a violation of this paragraph.

If the matter proceeds to a hearing and the administrative law judge determines that any of the charges listed above are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, then Respondent’s license(s) may be subject to suspension or revocation, and Respondent may be subject to other penalties provided by law, including civil penalties under A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(E) and (F). FILING A WRITTEN ANSWER Respondent must appear by filing with the Registrar a written answer to the citation and

of 6

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 ꞏ Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 ꞏ Toll Free 877.692.9762 ꞏ roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 complaint showing cause, if any, why Respondent’s license(s) should not be suspended or revoked. A.R.S. § 32-1155(A). Respondent’s written answer should contain the heading “Written Answer to Citation and Complaint” and should include the case number, which is Case No. 2024-01561. How to File a Written Answer: Respondent’s written answer may be submitted in the following ways: In-Person: 1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105, Phoenix, Arizona, 85007-2812 Mail: P.O. Box 18244, Phoenix, Arizona, 85005-8244 Email: [email redacted] The Registrar’s normal office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. If Respondent submits a written answer by mail, it is not filed with the Registrar until the Registrar actually receives it. Deadline for Filing a Written Answer: Respondent must file a written answer with the Registrar no later than April 25, 2024. This deadline is calculated under A.R.S. §§ 32-1155(A) and (B), which provides a deadline ten days after service of the Citation. Service of the Citation and Complaint is complete five days after the Registrar mails a copy of the Citation and Complaint to Respondent’s latest address of record in the Registrar’s office. Consequences for Failing to File a Written Answer: If Respondent fails to answer, Respondent’s failure may be deemed an admission of the act or acts charged in the written complaint. A.R.S. § 32-1155(C). The Registrar may then suspend or revoke Respondent’s license(s). THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING If Respondent files a timely written answer contesting any charges in the Complaint, then the Registrar will request the Office of Administrative Hearings set a date for an administrative hearing and will notify all the parties at least 30 days before that hearing. A.R.S.

of 6

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 ꞏ Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 ꞏ Toll Free 877.692.9762 ꞏ roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 § 41-1092.05(D). INVESTIGATOR’S APPEARANCE AS A WITNESS The Registrar’s assigned investigator will appear as a witness at the hearing. If either party demands the attendance at the hearing of any other person, that party must obtain and serve a subpoena in compliance with the rules and processes established by the Office of Administrative Hearings. RESPONDENT’S RIGHT TO REQUEST AN INFORMAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.06, if Respondent submits a request to the Registrar for an informal settlement conference, the Registrar must hold a conference within 15 days after receiving the request. Respondent’s request for an informal settlement conference must be in writing and must be filed no later than 20 days before the administrative hearing. A.R.S. § 41- 1092.06(A). The Registrar will not close or settle any case without both parties’ appearance at the Settlement Conference. The parties participating in the settlement conference must have the authority to settle the case and must waive their right to object to the participation of the Registrar’s settlement conference representative in the final administrative decision. A.R.S. § 41-1092.06(B). Any statements, either written or oral, made by the parties at the conference, including a written document, created or expressed solely for the purpose of settlement negotiations, are inadmissible in the administrative hearing. A.R.S. § 41-1092.06(B). RESPONDENT’S PRIOR RECORD Under A.A.C. R4-9-117, in determining the appropriate discipline, the administrative law judge and the Registrar may consider not only facts in the current case, but also facts in prior cases and any documents regarding Respondent on file with the Registrar. Respondent’s prior disciplinary record and current license(s) status may be considered as a mitigating or

of 6

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 ꞏ Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 ꞏ Toll Free 877.692.9762 ꞏ roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 aggravating factor in determining the appropriate discipline. EVIDENTIARY DISCLAIMER By issuing this Citation, the Registrar is directing Respondent to file a written answer to the Citation and Complaint, showing cause, if any, why Respondent’s license(s) should not be suspended or revoked. A.R.S. § 32-1155(A). This Citation does not constitute proof that any charge or allegation in Complainant’s written complaint is in fact true. This Citation does not constitute proof that Respondent violated any statutory provision or rule adopted by the Registrar. Dated April 10, 2024. By: /s/ Dylan Warwick Dylan Warwick Legal Department Arizona Registrar of Contractors

of 6

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 ꞏ Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 ꞏ Toll Free 877.692.9762 ꞏ roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 COPY of the foregoing mailed by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, April 10, 2024 to:

Respondent Certified Mail No: [number redacted]

SunUp America LLC 625 S. Smith Rd., Suite 11 Tempe, AZ 85288

Copy mailed by USPS First Class mail this same date to:

SunUp America LLC 625 S. Smith Rd., Suite 11 Tempe, AZ 85288

License mailing address (if different from account/company address of record): SunUp America LLC 3321 E Atlanta Ave Phoenix, AZ 85040 Complainant Darrell L Vetter 2441 E. Everglades Blvd FORT MOHAVE, AZ 86426 Copy sent electronically this same date to: Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Complainant at email address on record with the Registrar

Case No. 2024-01561 / <<CreatedBy_DW>

of 6

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 ꞏ Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 ꞏ Toll Free 877.692.9762 ꞏ roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 Licensed Complaint Form Departmental Use Only For Current or Suspended Licensees

The contract was Written All change orders were N/A This project was Residential This project involved Other new main service panel and solar installation A building permit was obtained by Contractor BLD-2022-04355 Mohave County List and briefly describe each complaint item (Please do not write "see attached" or use additional pages unless necessary to further describe issues or list more complaint items) (limited to 100 characters per line)

we are 200 mi.from Sunup, according to complaints this is what they do. 19 months no solar and they choose to lie and cheat . even after losing 1st admin hearing . By refusing any and all prelim work , they are admitting the office is purposely refusing to follow contractual obligations . Its all a quick cash scheme when funds are low. Allegations Listed on Complaint:

all electrical dangerous, violates code contract totally ignored no permit at install . no prelim work done'

Solar and all rooftop install not inspected . County claims they dont have to.said call ROC

Sunup refused to get correct property layout, even when informed they had wrong layout

Steve Philpott sent 180 pgs of photos and additional items on 1017/23. adminstrative judge suggested this complaint.

Sunup purposely refused to do this job proper or legal, no preliminary work.To Extort $8,000 for repairs,

9/7/22 started job, 3 hours work and Sunup filed completion to claim finance funds.

Sunup sloped panels back toward house roof to force water under 3tab shingles, 20' of leaks on personal property.

workers drove over block border to drive and park trucks and destroy brand new artificial turf.

electrical piping not trenched , spanning space in yard to pole and also spanning 2 seperate structures

electrical piping to MSP to long, forced into box at 30*angle , breaking fittings, exposing wire

MSP , UL warranty and protection destroyed with multiple holes drilled in exterior rated box.

control boxes improperly drilled and piped for exterior use.

rigidly piped MSP on pole to house disconnect. ripping off wall destroying both boxes

RCC099 12/05/18 Page 2 of 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7D32E319-2B30-4AC5-85A6-96DFAE50B535

RENEWABLE ENERGY INCENTIVE PROGRAM—Step 2

INTERCONNECT AGREEMENT

Application for Operation of Member-Owned Small Generation Attached to MEC *To be approved by MEC prior to installation of the renewable energy system*

This application should be completed as soon as possible and returned to MEC’s Energy Management representative in order to begin processing the request.

INFORMATION: This application is used by MEC to determine the required equipment configuration for the Customer interface. Every effort should be made to supply as much information as possible. This application is intended to apply to member-owned systems attached to MEC distribution system on the member side of the meter.

Responsibilities of Member for Installation, Operation and Maintenance of Net Metering Facilities

1) The Member will, at its own cost and expense, install, operate, maintain, repair, and inspect, and shall be fully responsible for, its facilities.

2) The Member shall conduct operations of its facilities in accordance with industry standards. Maintenance of facilities by the Member shall be performed in accordance with the applicable manufacturers’ recommended maintenance schedule.

3) The Member agrees to cause its facilities to be constructed in accordance with the Rules and specifications equal to or better than those provided by the National Electrical Safety Code and the National Electrical Code, both codes approved by the American National Standards Institute, in effect at the time of construction.

4) The Member covenants and agrees to cause the design, installation, maintenance, and operation of, its facilities so as to reasonably minimize the likelihood of a malfunction or other disturbance, damaging or otherwise affecting or impairing the Cooperative’s system. The electrical output of the Member’s facilities shall not cause disturbance on or damage to the Cooperative’s electrical system.

5) The Member shall exercise reasonable care to assure that the electrical characteristics of its facilities will not result in significant impairment of service to other customers or in interference with operation of computer, telephone, television, or other communications systems or facilities.

6) The Member shall comply with all applicable laws, regulations, zoning codes, building codes, safety rules and environmental restrictions applicable to the design, installation, operation and maintenance of its facilities.

Page 1 of 4, Step 2 Interconnect Agreement - Effective January 2022 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7D32E319-2B30-4AC5-85A6-96DFAE50B535

7) The Member shall comply with all applicable laws, regulations, zoning codes, building codes, safety rules and environmental restrictions applicable to the design, installation, operation and maintenance of its facilities.

8) The Member will notify the Cooperative of any emergency or hazardous condition or occurrence with the Member’s facilities which could affect safe operation of the Cooperative’s system.

9) By signing this agreement, the member agrees to assign and convey rights to the associated environmental attributes, such as Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to MEC for the life of the system.

Responsibilities of Cooperative

The Cooperative shall perform an inspection of the interconnected facilities prior to energization to verify that the facility meets the interconnection requirements of the Sun Watts program.

The Cooperative will perform subsequent periodic inspections of the interconnected facilities to verify the facility continues to meet those interconnection requirements.

The Cooperative will notify the Member if there is evidence that the Member’s facilities operation causes disruption or deterioration of service to Cooperative’s system.

MEMBER/APPLICANT INFORMATION Darrell Vetter Member Name: Mailing Address: 2441 E Everglades Blvd Fort Mohave AZ 86426 Street/PO Box City State Zip Code

Installation Address: 2441 E Everglades Blvd Fort Mohave AZ 86426 Street Address City State Zip Code

Mohave Electric Account# ______

PROJECT DESIGN/ENGINEERING (ARCHITECT) (as applicable)

Company Name: Mailing Address: City: County: State: Zip: Phone Number: Representative:

ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR (System must be installed by Arizona licensed Electrician)

Company Name: _____ ROC# Mailing Address: City: County: State: Zip: Phone Number: Representative:

Page 2 of 4, Step 2 Interconnect Agreement - Effective January 2022 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7D32E319-2B30-4AC5-85A6-96DFAE50B535

TYPE OF GENERATOR (as applicable)

Photovoltaic

Wind

Other

ESTIMATED LOAD AND GENERATOR RATING

The following information will be used to help properly design the interconnection between MEC’s facilities and the Members facilities. This information is not intended as a commitment or contract for billing purposes.

Total Site Load (kW) Residential Commercial Industrial Generator Nameplate Rating (kW) Annual Estimated Generation (kWh)

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED INSTALLATION AND OPERATION

Give a general description of the proposed installation, including a detailed description of its planned location, number of panels or turbines, model numbers, and nameplate output. Include the specific manufacturer, size, and count of solar equipment.

INVERTER DATA (if applicable)

Manufacturer: Model:

Rated Power Factor (%): Rated Voltage (Volts):

Rated Amperes:

Inverter Type (ferroresonant, step, pulse-width modulation, etc):

Type commutation: forced line Harmonic Distortion: Maximum Single Harmonic (%)

Note: Attach all available calculations, test reports, and oscillographic prints showing inverter output voltage and current waveforms.

Page 3 of 4, Step 2 Interconnect Agreement - Effective January 2022 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7D32E319-2B30-4AC5-85A6-96DFAE50B535

MEMBER AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE:

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the information provided in this Interconnection Agreement is true. I agree to provide any further information required during the Interconnection Application Process and to install and operate the interconnection equipment according to the Terms and Conditions outlined herein.

The provisions of this Agreement and service hereunder are subject to the rules, regulations, fees, charges, classifications and requirements for service approved by the Arizona Corporation Commission (“Commission”), as amended from time to time and nothing herein shall preclude either party to this Agreement from requesting the Commission to alter Commission rules, regulations, fees, charges, classification and requirements related to service provided under this Agreement.

I warrant that this Interconnect Agreement was executed by the person whose name appears below and that they are members of the Cooperative.

7/8/2022 DATE MEMBER SIGNATURE(S)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MEMBER SUBMITS DOCUMENT TO:

Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. Engineering Department PO Box 1045 Bullhead City, Arizona 86430 Phone: 928-763-4115 FAX: 928-763-6094

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For Office Use Only Engineering Department Verification

Authorized Representative of Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. Date

(Forward to Energy Management following signature/verification)

Page 4 of 4, Step 2 Interconnect Agreement - Effective January 2022 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7D32E319-2B30-4AC5-85A6-96DFAE50B535

DISTRIBUTED GENERATION SERVICE TARIFF AND APPLICATION Mohave’s Distributed Generation Service Tariff is approved by the Arizona Corporation Commission and establishes the terms and conditions of Distributed Generation service.

Distributed Generation service is available, but not required, for all end-use retail customers of the Cooperative with metered kWh usage with a qualifying Distributed Generation Facility.

Under Distributed Generation the electric energy generated by or on behalf of the member from a qualifying Distributed Generation Facility and delivered to the Cooperative’s distribution facilities may be used to offset electric energy provided by the Cooperative during the applicable billing period as specified in this Tariff. Service under this Tariff is subject to: installation of a bidirectional meter (a new meter may or may not be needed); availability of enhanced metering and billing system upgrades; the rated capacity of the customer’s Distributed Generation Facility not exceeding the Cooperative’s service capacity; and the customer complying with all of the Cooperative’s interconnection standards. Under this agreement the customer agrees to assign and convey all environmental attributes, including RECs, to MEC for the life of the system.

The customer shall also be required to sign and complete a Distributed Generation Application and Interconnect Agreement prior to being provided Distributed Generation Service. A customer that installs a Distributed Generation Facility is not required to take service under this Tariff, but still must comply with the Cooperative’s interconnection standards.

Distributed Generation commences after the completion of all applicable metering, billing, and administrative terms and conditions for Distributed Generation service. Distributed Generation is effective on future usage only and is not retroactive.

Distributed Generation Facility Distributed Generation Facility means a facility for the production of electricity that: • Is operated by or on behalf of the customer and is located on the customer’s premises; • Is intended to provide part or all of the customer’s requirements for electricity; • Uses Renewable Resources, a Fuel Cell or combined heat and power (CHP) to generate electricity; • Has a generating capacity less than or equal to 125% of the customer’s total connected load*, or in the absence of customer load data, capacity less than or equal to the customer’s electric service drop capacity; and • Is interconnected with and can operate in parallel with the Cooperative’s existing distribution system.

*The customer’s 125% total connected load limit shall be determined:

a. In the absence of demand data (for residential and small business) the highest 12 months (Calendar Year) kWh consumption in the previous three years will be divided by 2190 (to determine the 100% capacity level in kW which will achieve a “net zero” home or business) and multiplied by 125% b. For customers with a demand history it will be 125% of the highest demand in the most current month period

Distributed Generation Service Tariff-Application - Effective December 01, 2022 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7D32E319-2B30-4AC5-85A6-96DFAE50B535

Metering Customers served under this Tariff will require a bidirectional meter that will register and accumulate the net electrical requirements of the customer and shall have other capabilities similar to meter that is being replaced or that would be installed for the service (e.g., Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) capabilities). The Cooperative will install such a meter at the customer’s Distributed Generation Facility if proper metering is not already present. The incremental metering costs for bidirectional metering and the facility meter will be incurred by the Cooperative.

Monthly Billing During the billing period for: • Customer Purchases in excess of Customer Supply o Cooperative shall bill the customer for the net kWh supplied by the Cooperative in accordance with the Cooperative’s applicable Standard Retail Rate Schedule.

• Customer Supply in excess of Customer Purchases (Excess Generation) o Cooperative shall credit on the monthly customer bill at the ACC approved Annual Export Rate (AER) or, if less than the AER, the energy charge paid by customer to the Cooperative, adjusted by applicable purchase power and fuel cost adjustor. The credit shall be applied against the Cooperative monthly charges. No excess generation shall be “banked,” “saved,” or “rolled forward” for use in a future month. In the event the credit exceeds the amount due the Cooperative (Excess Credits), the credit shall be rolled forward and applied against subsequent Cooperative bills until used. After the customer’s December bill, a customer may request a compensation for any outstanding credits from the prior year; if the outstanding credits exceed $25, a check will be automatically issued, otherwise the bill credits will carry forward to the following year.

• Basic Service Charges and Demand charges (either metered or contract) and all other elements of the Cooperative’s applicable Standard Retail Rate Schedule will continue to apply in full, except that the monthly “Customer Charge” for the applicable Optional Time-of-Use Rate will be applied whether or not the customer has elected the Time-of-Use rate. o Residential Customer Charge will be $25.60 per month. o Small Commercial Customer Charge will be $30.60 per month.

The Cooperative shall issue a billing credit to the customer for any remaining Excess Generation balance. In the event the customer’s electric service is terminated, after applying a billing credit for any Excess Generation up to the amount the customers owe the Cooperative, the Cooperative shall issue a check for the remaining value of the Excess Generation balance. The payment or credit will be determined at the Cooperative’s AER, which shall be updated annually and are as specified below:

Export Rate 12/01/2022 $0.05700

An Administrative Charge may be charged by the Cooperative to collect new or additional costs the Cooperative incurs associated with the provision of Net Metering service (such as additional data communication access and billing costs) upon filing with and approval of such charge by the Arizona Corporation Commission pursuant to ACC R14-2-2305.

Distributed Generation Service Tariff-Application - Effective December 01, 2022 Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 7D32E3192B304AC585A696DFAE50B535 Status: Completed Subject: Solar Closing Documents for Darrell Vetter Source Envelope: Document Pages: 24 Signatures: 8 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 15 Docs Team AutoNav: Enabled 3049 Executive Way EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Lehi, UT 84043 Time Zone: (UTC-07:00) Mountain Time (US & Canada) [email redacted] IP Address: 35.226.245.99

Record Tracking Status: Original Holder: Docs Team Location: DocuSign 7/8/2022 9:02:29 PM [email redacted]

Signer Events Signature Timestamp Juan Vallejo Sent: 7/8/2022 9:02:42 PM [email redacted] Viewed: 7/8/2022 9:03:39 PM Security Level: Email, Account Authentication Signed: 7/8/2022 9:08:51 PM (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 148.59.175.208 Signed using mobile Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign

Darrell Vetter Sent: 7/8/2022 9:08:55 PM [email redacted] Viewed: 7/8/2022 9:12:00 PM Security Level: Email, Account Authentication Signed: 7/8/2022 9:16:49 PM (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 148.59.175.208 Signed using mobile Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign

In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp

Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp

Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp

Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp

Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp

Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Shay Helie Sent: 7/8/2022 9:16:54 PM [email redacted] Viewed: 7/8/2022 9:21:05 PM Finance Manager SunUp America Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Susan Cardenas Sent: 7/8/2022 9:16:54 PM [email redacted] Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign

Stephanie Brown Sent: 7/8/2022 9:16:54 PM [email redacted] Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign

Witness Events Signature Timestamp

Notary Events Signature Timestamp

Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 7/8/2022 9:02:42 PM Certified Delivered Security Checked 7/8/2022 9:12:00 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 7/8/2022 9:16:49 PM Completed Security Checked 7/8/2022 9:16:54 PM

Payment Events Status Timestamps RECEIVED LEGAL 4/24/2024

Answers - AZROC <[email redacted]>

Written Answer to Citation in Case 2024-01561, Vetter v. SunUp America, LLC message

Paul Gugel <[email redacted]> Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 6:32 PM To: [email redacted]

Dear Sirs:

In response to this Complaint, we refer you to our February 23, 2024 letter to your office (attached and incorporated by reference). That letter cites the 11/09/2023 decision ("Decision") in Vetter Case 2023- 01907 wherein the ALJ:

· found SunUp violated ARS §32-1154(A)(22) · threw one of the ROC’s own inspectors under the bus; and · invited Complainant to readjudicate virtually all the elements of his original complaint, which the current complaint does.

SunUp was thwarted by Complainant in trying to perform remedial actions. Further, due to SunUp’s oversight in timely paying the $500 civil penalty after accepting its one-day suspension of ROC license 325273, the license was summarily revoked effective February 9, 2024.

Since all of Mr. Vetter’s allegations from the original case are simply reasserted in this one, the requirement for this Written Response seems repetitive. Contrary to the ALJ's assertion in the Decision that "it is appropriate for the ROC investigator to yield to the expertise of the county building authority" [which the Inspector did], our CR-11 electrical license is revoked despite completion of a job that received both jurisdictional approval and permission to operate from the utility company involved.

In response to Complaint 2024-01561, then, Respondent denies Charges 1 and 2 and otherwise pleads the defense of legal impossibility to correct due to the fallout from Case 2023-01807.

Respectfully,

Paul E. Gugel Corporate Counsel

SunUp America- Letter to ROC (Vetter II) 02-23-24.docx 45K RECEIVED LEGAL 4/24/2024

Steve Philpott, Assistant Chief of Investigations Arizona Registrar of Contractors 17000 W. Washington St., Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007

RE: Case No. 2024-01561 Darrell Vetter v. SunUp America, LLC

February 23, 2024

Dear Mr. Philpott:

SunUp requests that the current complaint be dismissed in its entirety.

Complainant’s allegations (line 4, on Page 2 of 3) in the current case indicate that the “administrative judge suggested this complaint.” Complainant is referring to Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio’s November 9, 2023 decision in Mr. Vetter’s favor against SunUp in ROC case 2023-01807 (the “Decision”). The specific language contained near the end of Paragraph 4 of the Conclusions of Law of the Decision reads: “Fortunately for Complainant, he may be able to file a new complaint to address the deficiencies of the inspections. (Emphasis added.)”

The other allegations in the present case do not address deficiencies in inspections, but merely specify alleged violations which were characterized by the Complainant himself as “too many to list” in the original Decision (Compliance Item: 8-8 on page 2 of the Findings of Fact therein). Despite their being too many to list, Complainant chose to “list” them during a 3-1/2-hour long hearing in the prior case held October 20, 2023 as referenced on the Decision’s first page and as adjudicated by the Decision.

The current Complaint thus subjects SunUp to double jeopardy on a matter already resolved.

We trust that the ROC will grant our request.

Respectfully,

Paul E. Gugel Paul E. Gugel Corporate Counsel [email redacted]

SunUp America LLC 4742 N. 24th St., Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 844-786-8729 ROC License Nos.: 325608, 325273 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Darrell L Vetter Case No. 2024-01561 COMPLAINANT, v. SunUp America LLC CITATION License No. ROC 325273 and 333266, RESPONDENT.

The Registrar issues this Citation to SunUp America LLC (“Respondent”) under A.R.S. § 32-1155(A). If Respondent fails to answer this Citation by June 15, 2024, then under A.R.S. § 32-1155(C), Respondent’s failure to answer may be deemed an admission of the act or acts charged in the underlying complaint, and the Registrar may then suspend or revoke Respondent’s license(s).

of 6

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 ꞏ Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 ꞏ Toll Free 877.692.9762 ꞏ roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 complaint showing cause, if any, why Respondent’s license(s) should not be suspended or revoked. A.R.S. § 32-1155(A). Respondent’s written answer should contain the heading “Written Answer to Citation and Complaint” and should include the case number, which is Case No. 2024-01561. How to File a Written Answer: Respondent’s written answer may be submitted in the following ways: In-Person: 1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105, Phoenix, Arizona, 85007-2812 Mail: P.O. Box 18244, Phoenix, Arizona, 85005-8244 Email: [email redacted] The Registrar’s normal office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. If Respondent submits a written answer by mail, it is not filed with the Registrar until the Registrar actually receives it. Deadline for Filing a Written Answer: Respondent must file a written answer with the Registrar no later than June 15, 2024. This deadline is calculated under A.R.S. §§ 32-1155(A) and (B), which provides a deadline ten days after service of the Citation. Service of the Citation and Complaint is complete five days after the Registrar mails a copy of the Citation and Complaint to Respondent’s latest address of record in the Registrar’s office. Consequences for Failing to File a Written Answer: If Respondent fails to answer, Respondent’s failure may be deemed an admission of the act or acts charged in the written complaint. A.R.S. § 32-1155(C). The Registrar may then suspend or revoke Respondent’s license(s). THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING If Respondent files a timely written answer contesting any charges in the Complaint, then the Registrar will request the Office of Administrative Hearings set a date for an administrative hearing and will notify all the parties at least 30 days before that hearing. A.R.S.

of 6

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 ꞏ Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 ꞏ Toll Free 877.692.9762 ꞏ roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 aggravating factor in determining the appropriate discipline. EVIDENTIARY DISCLAIMER By issuing this Citation, the Registrar is directing Respondent to file a written answer to the Citation and Complaint, showing cause, if any, why Respondent’s license(s) should not be suspended or revoked. A.R.S. § 32-1155(A). This Citation does not constitute proof that any charge or allegation in Complainant’s written complaint is in fact true. This Citation does not constitute proof that Respondent violated any statutory provision or rule adopted by the Registrar. Dated May 31, 2024. By: /s/ Dylan Warwick Dylan Warwick Legal Department Arizona Registrar of Contractors