Misleading Sunday Times Article on PV

[The Solar King]

Just received this from the STA:

"Many of you will have read the recent Sunday Times article in the Money section titled “Has the sun set on solar power?”. This is a very frustrating and biased article, riddled with errors, misstatements and in some cases, misrepresentation, in particular of the EST position. Please be assured that the STA has every intention of responding to this article to give us the opportunity to rectify the errors and present the facts. Meanwhile, Ian Cuthbert who is Microgeneration Manager at the EST has issued a response to the Sunday Times clarifying that he was misquoted. I have copied his response below.

In addition, the Renewable Energy Consumer Code (RECC formally REAL) also provided information to the Sunday Times, referencing their website. The article talks about the 30 complaints in 2009 (3 years ago) compared with the 1,130 in 2012, without referencing that installs increased significantly from approx. 12k to 201k in the same period. Teresa Hunter was directed to publicly available information on the RECC website, notably section 8 of the Annual Report Annual Report - Scheme - Renewable Energy Consumer Code (RECC) , and also the Summary of complaints Complaints Received - Monitoring - Renewable Energy Consumer Code (RECC) .

It was clearly pointed out to Teresa Hunter that the number of complaints per install has not changed, and remains around 0.5% of PV installs.


The STA will be responding to the Sunday Times article.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response from EST

Sunday Times article – “has the sun set on solar power?” by Teresa Hunter, 19 May 2013.

In response to your email in relation to the article above we would like to clarify a few points in relation to the role of the Energy Saving Trust in this article. Firstly, the tone of this article was set in the first few sentences in relation to complaints about solar PV and we understand the journalist approached us on the back of statistics received by RECC. We were asked by the journalist writing this piece a number of questions in relation to solar PV which we answered. However, the references made to the Energy Saving Trust were not a true reflection of what we said. Specifically,

·Solar panels being a “gamble” – we have been misquoted on this. We did not say solar PV is “more of a gamble”.
·Data used – this has been misrepresented. Our figures for solar PV costs are based on a 3.5-4kW system costing around £7k. See:Solar electricity PV (photovoltaic) panels explained - benefits, costs, savings, earnings, suitability


We have raised this with the Sunday Times.

We carry out interviews with print and online media on a regular basis and you can be assured that we will continue to be advocates for solar PV using the best available evidence available in terms of advice and data. However, when dealing with the media there are incidents from time-to-time such as this and we will always correct a journalist should we believe there are any inaccuracies.

We hope this clarifies for you our position on the matter.

Regards

Ian Cuthbert
EST"

So the slime balls in the Murdoch press are still at it. Just need the Daily Express to print some hysteria and that will make a nice set of three.

 

[SibertSolar]

What's new?......

 

[Uklad]

The company i work for is suffering from an overly biased piece of crap like this, we have been labeled as a company ripping the public off when the reality is without the cost saving using our systems they would loose other services.

 

[SolarCity]

Does anyone have a link to the article that I don't have to pay to read?

 

[puddy]

I am not sure how to write this but here goes: 0.5% of members on this forum told lies stating if you had free panels fitted on your roof like me, that it would change my freehold to leasehold. I was told I was mad to enter in to a contract like this as I would never be able to sell my home etc. This is where journalists get hold of this incorrect information which they then write in papers like the Daily Mail.

 

[TedM]

Does anyone have a link to the article that I don't have to pay to read?

See Sunday times hatchet job on solar

 

[TedM]

I am not sure how to write this but here goes: 0.5% of members on this forum told lies stating if you had free panels fitted on your roof like me, that it would change my freehold to leasehold. I was told I was mad to enter in to a contract like this as I would never be able to sell my home etc. This is where journalists get hold of this incorrect information which they then write in papers like the Daily Mail.

Are you sure? 0.5% would be more than 40 people.

 

[Ian-LS]

That article is completely misleading just what the author is complaining about some companies overstating what customers can receive under the FI scheme currently.

I've had to calm down after I read the full article. Its one of the worst articles I have read on Solar PV.

 

[SolarCity]

To be fair, I don't think it is as bad as the Daily Mail rant but it it is still utterly ridiculous and biased.

Here it is in full:


HOUSEHOLDS have been left frustrated after paying thousands of pounds for solar panels on the promise of huge savings that have failed to materialise.
Complaints about solar panels have soared from fewer than 30 three years ago, to nearly 1,130 in 2012, according to the latest figures from the Renewable Energy Consumer Code, set up to protect customers from rogue traders.

That number could climb even higher given the sharp drop in payments paid to households for generating their own electricity, known as the feed-in tariff.

Why? Surely any complaints about the feed-in-tariff are frivolous if they are aimed at the installers themselves. The FIT rate is irrelevant to an installer's ability or desire to judge a system's performance accurately.

The government is cutting this payment again for newly installed schemes from the beginning of July from 15.4p to 14.9p per kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity generated, below the typical 15p cost of a unit of electricity.

The FIT rate dropping below the typical 15p cost of a unit of electricity is irrelevant. The cost of electricity and the FIT rate are unrelated - except that the FIT rate IS likely to drop as the cost of electricity rises. Why would anyone expect any different? This journalist seems to be confused as to what the FIT actually is.

Experts are warning consumers to think carefully before having panels installed. Ian Cuthbert, microgeneration manager at the Energy Saving Trust, said: “Installing solar panels is now more of a gamble.”

Appears to be a misquote. It is certainly incorrect. Installing solar panels is not a gamble by any measure. Not a single one of our installations has failed to meet predictions and most have far exceeded them.


The £18bn a year renewable energy industry is plagued with bad practice, according to a review by the Office of Fair Trading. Nearly one in five complaints to the Renewable Energy Association is about misleading information where data was inflated to show better returns, or where customers have not been placed on as favourable a tariff as they were promised.

£18bn a year? Certainly not the PV industry (I wish....). And if this figure were even slightly accurate, would this not mean that just over a 1000 complaints would mean it was an astonishing success?

Property damage during installation, and other technical problems triggered 11% of complaints, with a similar number relating to the installation of different systems or orientation from what was stated in the contract.

However, the Renewable Energy Association was eager to defend the industry’s record. It said: “There was a sharp rise in installations in 2011, and there was also growing awareness of the code, so the increase is not a surprise.”

The news comes following concerns about the government’s green deal scheme, which allows households to take out long-term loans to pay for energy efficiency measures including solar panels. The loans are attached to the property.

And the relevance to complaints in the solar industry is what exactly?

Last week the Building and Engineering Services Association warned of early reports that rogue traders were cold-calling homeowners seeking upfront administration fees to assess whether homes are suitable for the scheme. It warned that homeowners should use only authorised firms that carry the quality mark.

Case study: ‘I wouldn’t rush into buying again’
Pippa Allen, 57, installed solar panels at her home in St Davids, Pembrokeshire, in 2009 and qualified for a tariff of 45p compared with 15.4p for new schemes today. Though the income has lived up to expectations, at about £900 a year, she has faced problems such as her installer going bust, leaving her without a warranty. “I certainly wouldn’t rush into it at today’s feed-in tariff,” said Allen, an economist. “Securing a new mortgage was more problematic as some valuers think panels damage the appearance of a property. Also, we’ve been trying to sell the house and the panels don’t help.”

So her big issue here is that her installers' business went ---- up? Really? Her system IS performing as expected but her pesky installers have gone and done something silly like go bankrupt.

How do solar panels work?
The most common type of panel are photovoltaic (PV) ones, which convert sunlight into electricity that you sell back to your energy supplier according to the current feed-in tariff.

This was set deliberately high at 43p per kWh of electricity generated when introduced in 2010, and topped 45p for a time. Households enjoy free electricity when the sun is out, and any surplus they generate can be exported back to the grid at 4.6p a unit.

At this price, typical households received all their electricity free and were paid more than £1,000 a year on top.

Contradiction on the way......

A typical 2.7 kilowatts peak solar system was more expensive then, at £12,000, but subscribers were able to break even after 12 years and lock into this level of income, with a promise that it would keep pace with inflation for 25 years.

However, the government was forced to reduce the rate paid to households. The highest now is 15.4p a unit, the lowest 7p. The top tariff changes quarterly, and is due to fall to 14.9p on July 1.

Even on the highest tariff, the total income and energy bill savings has fallen to between £500 to £600 a year, although the cost of installation has also come down to about £7,000.

£860 a year on the system I am currently designing, at a price of £6,350 all in.

It is also worth remembering that installation is not your only expense. Your system is likely to require maintenance costing £1,000 every eight years, or £125 a year.

Likely?! Most inverter manufacturers now have 10 year warranties and from what I am being told, most of these manufacturers expect their product will last 20 years at least. It is likely that inverters will cost a lot less when the time comes to actually replace them. £125 a year is an utterly fabricated number which has no relation to the reality of our customers.

Therefore, if lucky, you could break even after 16-and-a-half years, but under the new system your tariff is guaranteed for only 20 years, allowing less than four years for profits to flow, which might give you a top-up of £1,500.

16 years?! At current electricity prices, sub-8 year paybacks are common. The reality is that with rising electriciy prices, the payback will be far quicker.

According to the Energy Saving Trust, the panels should last 25 years or more.


Am I guaranteed to make money?
Far from it. For maximum generation you need a south-facing roof and the pitch must be right — 45 degrees is ideal. The property also needs to be in a sunny location, with Cornwall among the best locations and the Shetlands among the worst.According to the Energy Saving Trust, a north-facing system could produce an income of only £300, or less. At this rate you might not even cover your installation costs.

Okay, that was an interesting way to answer the kind of question a 10 year old would ask.

"Am I guaranteed to benefit financially from a decently designed PV system"
Answer? As sure as the the sun shines.

Of course not all roofs are suitable for a PV installation but do the readers really need to be told that? It's like telling someone in a block of flats that they shouldn't have a conservatory built or that someone living in a lighthouse can't have a lost conversion.


Will I get free electricity?
No. Solar panels generate electricity only during daylight hours. If you are at home during the day, then you can enjoy whatever you generate, as well as receiving the feed-in tariff. However, when the sun goes in you will have to pay about 15p a unit.

Will I get free electricity? YES!!! Just because you don't get free electricity all of the time doesn't mean that the stuff you get isn't free.

If I walk into a bar and the landlord tells me that all the beer is free during daylight hours, then it is free beer. If I decide to buy some beer after hours, it doesn't change the fact that I have been consuming FREE beer.

Will I get all of my electricity free? NO!

Are there other pitfalls?
Plenty. You may need to apply for planning permission, so always check first, and if you do, there will be additional costs involved.

Permission is unlikely to be granted in a conservation area or on a listed building.

Is it? I have not once had permission refused for a PV installation in the unusual instances where it was required.

Also, speak to your mortgage lender. In the early days of solar panel installation, some banks refused to offer loans for homes with panels because of concerns about their appearance and need for ongoing maintenance, which made it difficult to remortgage.

Not a problem that any of my customers has had.

Insurance companies are also likely to be nervous and may increase your premiums if they perceive the risk of potential damage to the building is increased.

What if the firm goes bust?
After the recent shake-out of the industry, a number of installers have ceased trading. This causes a headache for homeowners if they have maintenance problems.

True. But there are still plenty of firms out there which can maintain the systems for a relatively small cost. And it needs pointing out that the risk of maintenance is low. Inverters may need replacing but this is a very quick an straightforward job which should only mean a very small cost.

The Renewable Energy Consumer Code now operates an insurance-backed warranty scheme for both maintenance and deposits. Anyone signing up for panels should check that their supplier is a member of the code.

So are they still worthwhile?
Panels may still be worth considering if you tick all the optimum return boxes, such as live in a sunny area, with a south-facing garden, the right kind of roof completely unshaded and you can maximise your daytime electricity usage.

Completely unshaded? Nonsense.

However, there are other things you can do to reduce your bills, such as insulate your roof, reduce radiator temperature, turn off appliances when you do not need them, and wash clothes at 30 degrees.

At least there is some sense here. But adopting all of these measures isn't going to be enough, unfortunately.

Utterly rubbish article.

 

[The Solar King]

The Sunday Times was once a reputable paper. What ever happened to journalistic integrity? This is slovenly and lazy reporting by some one who couldn't be bothered to get off their fat bottom and actually check the information they had helpfully been given. If they had, there would have been no story, or the story would have been entirely positive.

What I find most depressing is, knowing what we know on this subject, how many lies and distortions are being peddled as news by this tawdry rag on things we know little about?

All papers have their own opinions and bias. I even read ones I don't agree with to know what the enemy is doing. A few still have integrity (Telegraph, Guardian & Independent). The rest I wouldn't use as toilet paper. (bit scratchy as well!)

 

[SolarCity]

What I find most depressing is, knowing what we know on this subject, how many lies and distortions are being peddled as news by this tawdry rag on things we know little about?

I 100% agree, and it was exactly my feeling towards MPs after Barker and my local Lib Dem MP lied to us during the FIT rate debacle.

 

[finchy]

Reputation damage, in a America in sure we could bring a law suit against them. This printed rubbish is so damaging to our industry, sadly people believe what they read, the cost for us to publish an accurate article make this criminal. There is such a general negativity with Solar, when I mention it to associates I meet, they think I'm a dodgy double glaze/used car chap. Just don't understand why as it does work as a company we have never had a compliant with everyones generation exceeding expectations, I guess joe public are happy with the ever increasing cost of energy...!

 

[The Solar King]

The reason I shell out for membership of the Solar Trade Association is so I have someone with the muscle and expertise to take on the likes of the Daily Mail and Sunday Times, as can be seen from my original post. As a minimum they work to get corrections published. They are also fighting a PR battle for the industry. We need these papers writing positive stories, not twaddle.

More importantly there is an ongoing dialogue at a ministerial and political level. Without this it is certain we would not have the FIT scheme we now have, it would be £0.07kWh. As an industry we were not blameless at the time of the FITs debacle. In terms of our approach, we had been too combative in the run up. The change in approach has reaped positive benefits. What ever you may think of Greg Barker's performance over FITs reductions, he is now on our side, promoting the industry as part of an overall UK energy strategy. There is also dialogue with other regulatory bodies and pertinent organisations to ensure the industry's interests are taken into account when changes are being made.

Membership of the technical and policy working groups is open to any STA member who wishes to contribute. The levels of knowledge and expertise shown by members of this forum could positively help in taking things forward.

We can never expect to win every time, but at least we have the opportunity to be in there.

Is it worth it? Big hitters such as Fronius, Power One and NAREC who have recently become corporate members seem to think so.

In terms of business size, we are at the bottom of the food chain, but consider membership the best insurance we can buy to help ensure a viable future. If you are serious about solar, I would urge you to join the STA.

The Solar Trade Association

 

[The Solar King]

Update on action:

[FONT=&amp]STA & DECC coordinating responses to damaging Sunday Times solar article[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]An article in The Sunday Times Has the sun set on solar power? | The Sunday Times[/FONT][FONT=&amp] attempts to discredit the solar PV industry and discourage homeowners from investing in solar PV. The article manipulates and misrepresents data and comments given by REAL and the EST.[/FONT]


[FONT=&amp]Alasdair Grainger from DECC’s FITs team has written a blog response to the article. [/FONT][FONT=&amp]http://blog.decc.gov.uk/2013/05/21/sun-still-shining-on-uk-solar/ The STA is also working on a blog response, and assisting DECC with a response article they will be writing in this coming Sunday’s edition of the paper. The REA’s Mike Landy flagged STA modelling in his rebuttal of the article’s assertions on Radio 5 Live today.[/FONT] BBC Radio 5 live - Shelagh Fogarty, 23/05/2013

 

[Earthstore]

Is it not about time that one of these papers, any one will do they all have lot's of readers, could write a true report on Solar PV??

Would it not be worth approaching one?
A little snippet down in the corner to apologize will not have much affect on the general public, and as good as it is to have blogs, do they read them like they do the daily papers??

Just a thought, that's all.

 

[Steve_rutland]

Not sure anyone around my area reads the paper ;-) because since I've installed mine, 4 of the guys at work have had there's done by local companies. Before doing mine I simply spoke to someone who had had it done and would take most things I read in the paper with a bucket of salt!

 

[The Solar King]

Yet another update:

"It seems a long time since last week’s damaging Sunday Times article. Many of our members have written in to complain, and have also contacted the Sunday Times directly and the Energy Savings Trust asking for an opportunity to rectify the inaccurate report. Ian Cuthbert at the EST has taken the paper to task and as a result, they will update the online version and also add an amendment to this Sunday edition. Meanwhile Alasdair Grainger from DECC has written a blog, and Greg Barker has written a letter to the letters section which we hope will be published. As well as DECC and the EST contacting the Sunday Times directly, we wanted to give the STA the opportunity to publish the article/blog below, and felt you, the members would like to see it. The Sunday Times did not want to publish another detailed article.

Solar’s still a great investment – and a great industry too!


You may have heard recently that complaints are rising in the solar industry, and that solar is no longer a financially attractive proposition. This was the subject of a recent article in The Sunday Times.

Well, the fact is that you can install solar with as much confidence now, if not more, than when the Feed-in Tariff first started in 2010.

Let’s start with the first point. It is true that the number of complaints about solar panels have increased in recent years (see the first chart on this page of the RECC website). More people are doing solar now, so it is fair that this industry is open to the same scrutiny as any other (which is why the REA set up the Renewable Energy Consumer Code in the first place). But this increase is entirely to be expected because the number of solar companies has increased (see Fig 3.1 in the RECC 2012 Annual Report), and the number of installations has soared (see the latest Ofgem FITs Newsletter). Note that not all RECC members are solar companies, but solar PV does account for roughly 90% of the Feed-in Tariff market.

In 2010, solar was a cottage industry. It was the launch of the Feed-in Tariff in 2010 and ongoing cost reductions which enabled it to breakthrough into the mainstream in 2011/2012. Ofgem’s Newsletter shows that more solar PV systems were installed in the first six months of 2011 than in all of 2010, and the same again the following year, more installations in the first half of 2012 than in all of 2011.

Of course the number of complaints will increase as the industry grows. The pertinent question is: Has the proportion of solar installs leading to complaints increased over that period? The answer is: very minimally, and it is extremely misleading to simply assume that things are getting worse in the solar industry – they aren’t.

The RECC Annual Report for 2012 makes clear that there has been virtually no increase in the proportion of solar installs leading to complaints:

• in 2012 0.5% of all domestic solar PV installations were the subject of a complaint registered with REAL (1,051 out of a total of 201,178 (687MW));
• in 2011 0.4% of all domestic solar PV installations were the subject of a complaint registered with REAL (439 out of a total of 124,385 (381MW)).

So the increase here is approximately 0.1%, or 1 more complaint per 1,000 installs in 2012 than 2011. What might have caused this (very small) increase? One likely factor is increased awareness of the Consumer Code and the complaints process. Another is the fact that often problems don’t arise until some months after the installation of the system (e.g. disappointing output figures).

Another crucial factor is the increased complexity of buying and selling solar PV during the ‘boom-and-bust’/‘beat-the-deadline’ cycles in 2011/12, caused by reductions to the Feed-in Tariff. Companies operating entirely in good faith may have found themselves subject to complaints because of the frequent tariff changes. The tariff is much more stable now though thanks to changes in Government policy – see Alasdair Grainger’s blog for DECC for more information on this.
Finally on this point, take a look at the consumer satisfaction surveys which RECC administers. Consumer satisfaction for the majority of factors that RECC screens for is 90% or above.

I hope this has restored your faith in the moral fibre of the solar industry! Now, turning to the question of financial attractiveness…

Solar PV is no more a “gamble” now when it was in 2010, and indeed Ian Cuthbert of the Energy Saving Trust was misquoted in that Sunday Times article. In fact, improvements and cost reductions in the technology and installation more than outweigh the drop in the Feed-in Tariff, and anyone installing eight solar panels today could actually be better off than if they had installed in 2010!

Here are the different elements going into our calculation:

System size
Improvements in the technology mean that eight typical solar panels today will deliver more power than eight typical panels in 2010.
2010: 1.8kW
2013: 2kW

Installation cost
Solar PV has achieved exceptional cost reductions in recent years
2010: £10,000
2013: £4,500

Replacing the inverter
Inverter costs have also dropped. Note that we are using 2010 and 2013 prices rather than trying to play Mystic Meg and guess when the inverter will fail and how much it will cost then, but signs are that there are still more cost reductions to come on inverters. The best inverters today won’t even need replacing, just some cheaper remedial service work.
2010: £1,500
2013: £675

Electricity cost
Electricity prices are going up, mainly due to volatility in international fossil fuel markets. This is bad news for electricity consumers, but it does increase the benefits of solar, because the more expensive grid electricity is, the more savings the consumer makes with their panels.
2010: 14p/kWh
2013: 16.4p/kWh

Feed-in Tariff: generation tariff
Yes, the Feed-in Tariff has been reduced. But will this reduction be outweighed by other factors? Read on…
2010: 43.3p/kWh
2013: 15.4p/kWh

Feed-in Tariff: export tariff
The export tariff has actually been increased since 2010…
2010: 3p
2013: 4.64p

Feed-in Tariff: tariff duration
The tariff duration has decreased…
2010: 25 years
2013: 20 years

Additionally, most people have seen their systems exceed estimated output by up to 15%, because the old methodology for estimating output from solar panels has been found to be overly conservative. The recently updated MCS PV Guide uses a new, more accurate methodology, showing higher yields across the country.

Other assumptions
2.6% annual increase over inflation on electricity price (consistent with DECC projections)

50% deemed export
30% assumed on-site electricity use (a conservative estimate)
The result
Taking all these factors together and running them through the STA’s Solar Calculator, the results are:

2010: 5.9% ROI/13 year payback
2013: 7% ROI/12 year payback

So there you have it – now is a better time than ever to go solar! Indeed, a 4kW system only costs around £6,500, so there the returns are even better.

To conclude, consumer satisfaction in the solar sector is very high, and remains high. The financial appeal of solar remains very strong too.

I’m delighted to report that I have spoken to Pippa Allen, whose home was used as a case study in The Sunday Times article. She actually still feels very positively about solar power, and was also delighted when I told her that she will probably be able to apply for the Renewable Heat Incentive for her solar thermal system when it launches in spring next year!

Paul Barwell, CEO, Solar Trade Association


NB - RECC would like to outline that the “insurance-backed warranty scheme” phrasing in the article is misleading. Warranties are not automatically guaranteed because a company is a member of the Consumer Code. It is a Code requirement that members protect Installer Warranties so they will be honoured if the company is no longer in business. This is usually achieved through an Insurance Backed Guarantee.

RECC regularly audits and mystery shops members for compliance with the Code but RECC membership per se does not guarantee that an insurance backed warranty will be included with the installation. If the installer does not outline how their Installer Warranty is protected the consumer should contact RECC before completing the purchase of the system. For more advice, see the RECC website."

Ends.

So we have done what we can including wheeling out some big guns. Importantly, if you Google Sunday Times PV, this thread is top or very near the top of the list on the first page of results, so it is there for posterity. Never forget today's news is tomorrow's chip paper.

 

[Gavin A]

An article about solar panel schemes ("Has the sun set on solar power?", Money, May 19) incorrectly stated that a 2.7 kilowatts peak solar panel system would cost £7,000 to install and that customers would therefore have to wait 16-and-a-half years to recover the cost of the original investment, based on a total income and energy bill savings of £550 a year minus maintenance costs of £1,000 every eight years. In fact, a system of this size would cost about £5,400 to install and therefore customers would have to wait 12-and-a-half years to recover their original costs, according to the Energy Saving Trust.

apparently this is the correction going in to the sunday times.

What this highlights to me is that this isn't a sunday times problem, it's an ongoing problem with the Energy Saving Trust and the way that they work up their pay back calculations - THIS is what STA, BPVA etc need to address, not an individual article, as these are the base figures that all journalists us when writing articles on solar, so it's not surprising that they come to false conclusions - it's exactly the same problem as with the Which article last year.

The problem is that EST refuse to include any allowance for RPI inflation increases in the FIT and Export payments, or any allowance for rising electricity costs in their pay back calculations, which then gives an entirely misleading impression about the pay back times.

THeir justification I believe is that they can't predict what RPI and energy price rises will be, but in excluding them what they're actually doing is giving figures that are based on 0% RPI, and 0% rise in energy costs over a 20 year period, which is completely misleading.

So thanks to the STA for their efforts, but please can you retarget your efforts against the real underlying cause of the problem, which is the Energy Saving Trust calculation method.

ps I know there have been heated arguments in EST about this, and can only assume that as head of microgeneration, it must be Ian Cuthbert who is responsible for deciding to provide the calculations carried out in this misleading manor against strong arguments to the contrary from others within EST. Maybe now will be a good time to point out the problems that he is causing to the industry by misleading the public in this way.

 

[Gavin A]

btw, in case it's not obvious, my problem with that correction is that it a 12.5 year payback is still completely misleading.

 

[SibertSolar]

Well said Gavin, focused attention is good, so long as its focused on the right object. From what you say, the EST needs to get its story straight, ASAP