Connecticut consumers whose SunRun solar contracts were solicited by Elevate Solar Solutions, its salespeople or others using similar tactics can seek cash payments, account credits or contract cancellation under settlements Attorney General William Tong announced Oct. 23, 2026. SunRun must notify those customers and investigate any fraud claims they raise. The restitution it can owe has no cap.
Tong’s office settled with SunRun Inc., Sunrun Installation Services Inc., Elevate Solar Solutions and two former Elevate figures, Dakota Grumet and Sierra Howes. None of them admitted liability. The state accused the group of locking homeowners into long solar contracts without valid consent and of installing systems that did not work.
The relief does not arrive automatically in a check. It runs through a process SunRun has to run: written notice to affected customers, a fraud investigation of each claim that comes in, and a reply within 60 days. The release does not give a head count of eligible customers or a filing deadline, so the practical clock is the 60-day response window once a claim is made.
That makes the open question simple for Connecticut households with a solar lease or power agreement. Did a door-to-door seller or a video-call rep sign for the household, did the panels go up without a permit or never switch on, or did no contract copy ever arrive? Anyone in that position should gather the paperwork now, because SunRun, not the state, decides first whether fraud is substantiated.
Retirement deadlines, in your inbox: Miss an enrollment or claim deadline and the money can be gone. Join the Retirement Money Brief and we’ll send you our Open Settlements & Refund Tracker as a welcome gift.
Get the Brief + the settlements tracker →
We may earn a commission from links on this page.
How SunRun’s review of fraud claims is supposed to work
Under the settlement the attorney general announced Oct. 23, SunRun must tell every consumer whose contract was solicited by Elevate, Howes, Grumet or others believed to be engaging in similar conduct. The notice is the starting gun. A customer who responds triggers an investigation by SunRun.
If SunRun substantiates the fraud, the customer can receive cash payments, account credits, contract cancellation, system removal, or a mix of those. SunRun has 60 days to respond to each consumer. The release lists CTSupport@sunrun.com as the claims contact, and the state office says it will watch the process closely.
Disputes do not land back on the household’s tab. SunRun pays for an independent arbitrator when a consumer and the company disagree about whether fraud occurred. That matters for retirees on fixed incomes, since a private arbitration can cost real money if the customer is the one who has to fund it.
A separate rule helps anyone who never got paperwork. Consumers who say they never received a copy of their contract, and whom SunRun cannot prove did receive one, may cancel. The burden sits with the company to show delivery, which is why a household’s own recollection of what arrived and when is worth writing down early.
What Elevate and its salespeople gave up
SunRun agreed to pay the state $300,000. Elevate Solar Solutions must dissolve. Elevate, Howes and Grumet owe $200,000 in total penalties, with $100,000 of that suspended to ensure they keep to the terms, so the unsuspended amount is $100,000.
Grumet, the former principal and managing member of Elevate, may not own any company in home solicitation sales, including home improvement, for 10 years. He must also stay under the direct supervision of a company and keep records of all unsolicited door-to-door or phone marketing. The records requirement is aimed at the pitch itself.
Howes, the former registered agent of Elevate, must surrender every Home Improvement Salesperson registration she holds with the Department of Consumer Protection. For 10 years she cannot apply for a new salesperson or Home Improvement Contractor registration. Tong said the case followed complaints of forged signatures, impersonation, non-permitted work and non-functioning systems.
One defendant remains outside the deal. SunRun contracted with Bright Planet Solar Inc. for marketing and sales, and the release says Bright Planet no longer has counsel, so the case against it is still pending. Customers whose pitch came through Bright Planet are not covered by a separate payment term in this announcement.
The complaints that started the lawsuit
The state sued in July 2024 after three consumer complaints referred by the Department of Consumer Protection, according to the attorney general’s lawsuit announcement. A Windsor homeowner rejected a 25-year lease at $306.98 a month, her father declined too, and the company still allegedly recorded a backdated lease and installed 36 panels.
In Stafford Springs, the pitch came over Zoom for a 25-year lease at $314 a month. The complaint says the lease hid annual payment increases that add up to $135,693 in extra charges, and that the contract was signed with a forged e-signature. The panels were installed without permits, were never activated and are still billed.
A Wethersfield consumer signed electronically after an in-person pitch for a lease at $106.18 a month but never received a copy of the contract. Those panels also went up without permits and have not been turned on, and the consumer is still being charged. Commissioner Bryan T. Cafferelli said a signed contract is one of the strongest forms of protection that a consumer and business can have.
Where Connecticut households can take a solar complaint
Households that think they fit the pattern but have not heard from SunRun can file with the attorney general’s complaint form. Online complaints to the Department of Consumer Protection are also an option, though DCP asks filers to use only one method. DCP suggests contacting the business first and says resolution attempts can take four or more weeks.
The state’s earlier advice on residential solar contracts still applies to anyone weighing a new offer: Connecticut law allows cancellation before midnight on the third business day after a transaction, and the state urges people never to sign a solar agreement under pressure. Leases and power purchase agreements do not guarantee lower bills.
The same release points to a pattern of Connecticut solar cases. Spruce Power 3 LLC paid $100,000 in March 2026 over billing, customer service and warranty complaints, and Dividend Finance agreed in 2025 to give relief to defrauded Vision Solar borrowers. SunStrong Management LLC remains under investigation after dozens of complaints.
Was a solar lease ever signed in someone else’s name?
The fraud review only helps the customer who can show what happened. A lease with an initialed e-signature the homeowner never made, a Zoom pitch with no copy of the contract afterward, or panels that were never switched on all need dates, names and replies kept in one place before SunRun’s 60 days start.
The Settlement & Refund Recovery System includes a claim log and payment tracker built for exactly that paper trail, plus a step-by-step filing walkthrough and the rules for telling a real notice from a scam. It is a set of organizing tools, not a filing service, and it leaves the decision about relief to SunRun and the attorney general.
Get the claim log and payment tracker for a solar contract dispute →
This article was produced with AI assistance and edited for accuracy against the sources linked above.
