Talk:Balcony solar power

Proposed update: U.S. now has state-level plug-in solar laws (2025-2026)

The article currently says the U.S. "lacks regulation for such systems," which is now out of date. Since 2025 several states have enacted plug-in / balcony solar laws: Utah (HB 340, 2025), then in 2026 Maine (LD 1730), Virginia (HB 395/SB 250), Colorado (HB26-1007), Maryland (HB 1532), and Connecticut (HB 5340). New York (SUNNY Act, A.9111C/S.8512C) and New Hampshire (SB 540) have passed their legislatures and are awaiting the governor's signature. Most cap a single device at 1,200 W (Colorado at 1,920 W) and require UL-or-equivalent certification. Sources: Clean Energy States Alliance, "What States Need to Know about Plug-In Solar" (Jan 2026); Associated Press (Aug 2025); Washington Post (Aug 2025); PV Magazine USA (Jun 2026). Suggesting the "United States" description be updated accordingly. CleanEnergyReader (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit request: advocacy organizations in the United States section

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Disclosure: I am the executive director of Bright Saver, the organization mentioned in this request, so I am proposing rather than making this change. My COI disclosure is on my user page.

Note: the open request above (15 June 2026) already proposes updating the U.S. legislation figures, so I am not duplicating that here. The pv magazine source cited below may also be useful to reviewers handling that request.

The United States section describes the legislative wave but does not cover the advocacy landscape behind it. Suggested addition at the end of that section:

"Nonprofit and advocacy organizations have supported state legalization efforts. Bright Saver, a California-based nonprofit, maintains a tracker of U.S. plug-in solar legislation that trade press have used to monitor state bills, and in July 2026 began selling plug-in solar kits at cost through a membership model in an effort to expand the U.S. market."

Happy to adjust wording or trim as reviewers see fit. Thank you. Zhoo22 (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Not done: your request appears to have been generated by a large language model. Day Creature (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedia, I am a first time user to Wikipedia and used an LLM to help me navigate the process and draft the original request. The disclosure about my role at Bright Saver, the sources, and the facts are substantive, and I am writing this resubmission myself. I'm still trying to learn though and not sure I've got it all down!

The United States section of balcony solar covers the new state laws well, but the wiki entry doesn't touch on the work of the coalition of advocacy organizations working to introduce and pass the legislation. Proposed addition at the end of the United States section:

"Several advocacy organizations have supported state legalization bills including Environmental Working Group, Permit Power, the Vote Solar Action Fund and Bright Saver. Some utilities have opposed these bills citing safety concerns. Bright Saver maintains a tracker of U.S. plug-in solar legislation that trade press use to monitor state bills and in July 2026 Bright Saver began selling plug-in solar kits at cost through a membership model."

In my still novice understanding of how the Wikipedia community works, I would offer that any rewording, trimming, or a decline on the merits is fine. I am replying to the previous comments and reopening the request. Zhoo22 (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Zhoo22. It's good to see you back. I'm a regular contributor to climate and energy topics and would be happy to brainstorm with you about how to improve this article. Regarding your latest proposal, unfortunately I think it comes across as fundamentally promotional and is therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia. Some other articles have or used to have activist-centered language, but this is not a best practice. When I see activist-centered passages in a climate or energy article I try to remove them.

Organizations like yours have a lot of expertise that can be channeled into edits that will stick. What we would love, in articles like this, is for experts to improve the article more substantively. The article could do a much better job of helping citizens and policy makers understand the issues that are preventing wider adoption of balcony solar power. Would you like to work on this with us? Best wishes, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, happy to brainstorm. Would contributions be actual content, or just weighing in on proposed updates? My expertise is probably best suited for the latter, and I'd very much like help where I can make a contribution. Zhoo22 (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion the sources given don't support the content proposed. Several sources are stories about the issues in one state, with some content about other states, but none of these sources discuss the role of advocacy organizations specifically. The Zientara source would be ok for content about Bright Saver as a non-profit advocacy organization selling plug-in solar kits to members. Zientara quotes Bright Saver for much of the content and any of that would not be suitable as it does not seem to be vetted by the journalist. Takemura is similar.

The best sources are summarized to create Wikipedia content, rather than having content then go looking for sources which say something related. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Point taken. Thank you for explaining. I will focus on other ways to improve this article for readers apart from the role of advocacy organizations. Zhoo22 (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that would be amazing. Things will definitely go faster if you make actual content contributions rather than waiting for someone else to propose things. Wikipedia allows you to edit the article directly as long as you aren't mentioning your own organization or other organizations/people you work with directly. You can also post ideas to this talk page for feedback. I've seen an uptick in media coverage of balcony solar power lately, which is wonderful! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:34, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

References

Proposed Section: Safety and Risks

There are several risks, outlined in https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fen18082132, that are expected to be addressed by UL 3700 in the next couple years.

As of now, though, there are no feasible mitigations for the over-current/breaker-masking risk. This risk has the potential to turn balcony solar into the "lawn darts of the clean energy revolution" per https://pluginsolarus.com/learn/behind-the-bill-new-hampshire-sb-540-plug-in-solar People are starting to deploy balcony solar systems that have a strong probability of causing a house fire. The Gerber 2025 paper also discusses the fact that U.S. 120V house wiring makes the overcurrent/breaker-masking risk higher than in Germany and UK, which have 240V household wiring. People are confused and this wikipedia article could be a good place to clarify risks.

Note, I've never contributed to a Wikipedia article before so please be patient if I don't follow the standard procedures. SuburbanDadEmeritus (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Welcome. One challenge new users face is that Wikipedia is a summary of sources: every claim should be verifiable. For example, you post claims

• This risk has the potential to turn balcony solar into the "lawn darts of the clean energy revolution".

pointing to a source that says Evans-Brown warned that one bad incident could damage the entire category. A staff member at Clean Energy New Hampshire described the risk bluntly: plug-in solar cannot become the "lawn darts" of the clean-energy transition.

This is very different from your claim. The staff member is concerned about clean-energy being harmed, and discussing a hypothetical, nonspecific event, not a strong probability of a house fire. If you had added this as content I would have reverted your change as failing verification. If that happens, please discuss the issues in this Talk page, per WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

I support a section on risks and safe deployment. The tone of the section needs to match the sources. Both sources are focused on barriers to deployment, not on evidence of major risks. A calm description of the risks would be welcomed. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! That makes sense. Here is my first attempt:

Safety and Risks

The Gerber paper [1] outlines three concerns that have been identified as potential fire or safety risks: touch-safe plugs, bidirectional GFCI receptacles, and breaker-masking, also known as over-current. The UL 3700 certification effort [2] is intended to address these issues.

Breaker-masking, also known as over-current

Breaker-masking relates to residential wiring safety. Balcony solar injects additional electrical current into the household wiring circuit that does not pass through the circuit breaker protecting that wiring. This is discussed in detail in Section 2.2 of the Gerber paper [1].

In Germany and the UK, this issue is addressed by restricting the owner-installed balcony solar microinverter energy production to 800W AC [citations needed]. For the German and UK 230V and 16A household wiring, 800W AC corresponds to a potential maximum over-current of approximately 3.5A (800/230), which is approximately 22% over the breaker limit of 16A. This 22% limit has been shown to be safe in Germany [citation needed]. Power production greater than 800W per dwelling requires professional installation.

US state legislation is currently legalizing production up to 1200W AC per dwelling on standard US household wiring of 120V with 15A circuit breaker protection. For the US, 1200W AC corresponds to a potential maximum over-current of 10A, which is 60% over the breaker-protected limit of 15A. This 60% limit is ~3x higher than the 22% limit in Germany and UK.

For the US to match the 22% over-current restriction in place in Germany and UK and therefore be able to leverage the Germany safety record, the US balcony solar microinverter energy production would need to be limited to 400W AC.

The UL 3700 certification process [2] is evaluating equipment and methodologies for monitoring and limiting balcony solar energy production to ensure safety. As of September 2026, this equipment is not yet deployed in balcony solar equipment nor household wiring.

[1] https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fen18082132

[2] https://www.ul.com/insights/safety-considerations-plug-photovoltaic-pipv-systems

---------

What is the review process for submissions? SuburbanDadEmeritus (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

The review process is outlined in WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Put your changes into the page.

A couple of hints. Drop all direct mention of "Gerber paper". Just summarize what they say and put the paper as a reference. Watch the article to see the changes. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion request: I see that you removed the following paragraph:

The UL 3700 certification process is evaluating equipment and methodologies for real-time monitoring and managing balcony solar energy production to ensure dwelling wiring safety at microinverter output power levels higher than 400W. As of September 2026, this equipment is not yet deployed in balcony solar equipment nor household wiring.

With the statement:

Delete paragraph that does not verify. UL 3700 is a DC standard for the panel circuit, not the household circuit, according to the cited source.

But I do not follow the reasoning. The referenced page: https://www.ul.com/insights/safety-considerations-plug-photovoltaic-pipv-systems, lists the following mitigations, which are discussed in more detailed in the linked (on that page) PDF presentation:

To address these risks, the white paper outlines potential mitigation strategies, including:

• Dedicated circuits with unique receptacles to prevent overloads
• Integrated overcurrent protection at the point of connection
• Proprietary plug configurations to avoid unsafe installations
• Power control systems (PCS) for active monitoring and load management
• Bidirectional GFCI devices to maintain shock protection under backfeed conditions

I interpret all of the as applying to the household circuit and receptacles. But perhaps I'm not clear on "panel circuit" and "DC standard" vs. "household circuit." By "household circuit" I am referring to the wiring in the walls that is protected from overheating by the circuit breaker(s) in the panel. SuburbanDadEmeritus (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

"...from overheating by the circuit breaker(s) in the panel."

I see in the above that I used the word "panel" in a possibly confusing way. I was using it to refer to the dwelling's circuit panel, which contains the circuit breakers, not the PV/solar panel. Sorry for any confusion. SuburbanDadEmeritus (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

The web page part of the source cited mentions 3700 only once:

• It also introduces UL 3700, the Outline of Investigation for Interactive Plug-In PV Equipment and Systems, which is under development to define safety requirements for this emerging technology.

The "it" here is the white paper. Note "also introduces" and "Outline of Investigation". These are, in my opinion very far from anything close to a certification process. Based on this much, 3700 is an outline of a future investigation.

The White paper uses 3700 twice:

1. It is worth noting that additional hazards associated with PIPV are addressed in UL 3700, Outline of Investigation for Interactive Plug-In PV (PIPV) Equipment and Systems. This Outline of Investigation, led by UL Solutions engineers and experts, defines requirements for safety and compliance in PIPV as technology evolves.

Note "additional hazards": the white paper is about certain hazards and 3700 is about a different set of hazards. Thus no hazard mentioned in the white paper is covered by 3700.

1. Since PV modules remain energized whenever exposed to light, DC circuits require alternative protective measures. These can include physical barriers, electronic safeguards or a combination of both. UL 3700 addresses the appropriate protection strategies for these DC circuits.

This explicitly says 3700 is about DC internal to the panel. This makes sense because UL certifies devices and not circuits. The hazards discussed in the white paper are in arenas covered in the US by the NEC. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

There are four documents at play here: First, the UL press release, https://www.ul.com/news/ul-solutions-debuts-testing-and-certification-framework-safer-plug-solar-across-united-states Second, the UL summary page about the white paper / presentation, https://www.ul.com/insights/safety-considerations-plug-photovoltaic-pipv-systems, Third, the white paper/presentation PDF, https://delivery-p133222-e1298791.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:cd9fa992-2d42-4716-bdeb-d1fd5cea03a3/original/as/Plug-in_PV_Safety_Whitepaper_-_Final.pdf

Finally, there is the UL 3700 specification itself, which is only available for purchase ($225-$998): https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL3700_1_O_20251211

Without a copy of the actual UL 3700 document "Outline of Investigation for Interactive Plug-In (PIPV) Equipment and Systems", it is awkward to make definitive statements about what is or is not in the UL 3700 based solely on a UL webpage made for marketing purposes.

However, a bootleg copy of the December 2025 UL 3700 certification specification is available here, https://www.scribd.com/document/1059441326/73743894157928-UL-3700-2025. In this UL 3700 document "branch circuits" are defined as follows, "A branch circuit is that portion of the building wiring system beyond the final overcurrent device on the power-distribution panel protecting the circuit to the field wiring terminals of permanently connected equipment or to the receptable output for cord-connected appliances." (Section 5.5). This definition of "branch circuit" is used extensively in the section specifically on Overcurrent (Section 6.1.7.).

In my interpretation, the UL 3700 specification document contents directly contradict the assertion that the UL 3700 does not cover overcurrent or the AC/building circuit hazards that listed in the publicly-available white paper. Most of the online articles have a similar interpretation, for example: https://pluginsolarus.com/learn/ul-3700-safety-standard-explained.

I understand the language of the UL 3700 document is technical, specific to the subject matter, and makes assumptions about the reader's background. I did not think it was acceptable to link a bootleg document in a Wikipedia article and did not directly quote it because the language is possibly challenging for a lay reader of Wikipedia. Instead I summarized the meaning in a brief section, which I would very much like to restore to the Wikipedia article.

Regarding "overcurrent" and "breaker-masking" being functionally equivalent, please refer to the following websites.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/plug-in-solar-power

https://pluginsolarus.com/learn/breaker-masking-explained

A possibly-helpful metaphor: think of a circuit breaker like a dam and the overcurrent risk equivalent to flooding. Yes, a dam is a different phenomenon than a flood, but a discussion of dam stability and accidental dam bypass is a discussion of flood risk.

Is this type of rejection of Wikipedia contributions standard operating procedure? This is my first effort at making a contribution and I'm finding it very tough going. SuburbanDadEmeritus (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Communicating via these Talk pages is a challenge. Two strategies might help: first discuss only a single topic in each post or Topic and second be patient ;-). I adopt an direct and vigorous reply style which is not to everyone's liking.

Regarding: "There are four documents at play here..." No, there are only two documents cited in the article. I have no knowledge of the Press Release or the specification. Editors can only verify content to sources actually cited.

All you had to do was cite https://pluginsolarus.com/learn/ul-3700-safety-standard-explained. This fifth document was also not cited. That document actually discusses 3700 unlike the citations you provided.

Regarding: "overcurrent" and "breaker-masking": again you cite two sources not previously provided. However, neither of these source provide evidence that "overcurrent" is synonymous with "breaker-masking". Breaker-masking is not similar to either a dam or flooding. Rather breaker-masking is similar to another source of water downstream of a dam, which can cause flooding that the dam is unable to control. Breaker-masking can cause overcurrent, but they are not synonyms. Three hair dryers running on the same circuit can also cause overcurrent, but no breaker-masking is involved.

Regarding "Is this type of rejection of Wikipedia contributions standard operating procedure?" Yes, you should expect this type of rejection if you add content which is not verifiable. Sources you do not cite cannot verify content even if they exist. As a practical matter YMMV: sometimes content is added and no one checks or someone reverts your changes with minimal explanation. To be clear: you can always seek consensus if you disagree with my rejections. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

You claim that the single document , https://pluginsolarus.com/learn/ul-3700-safety-standard-explained, is sufficient to justify all my previous claims regarding UL 3700 yet that document does not link to any new primary sources: it could be a complete fabrication. This level of verification is arbitrary and artificial, and ultimately devalues Wikipedia.

"Editors can only verify content to sources actually cited." i find this overly-pedantic and, when coupled with aggressive deletion of contributions instead of simply adding a note that additional citation is needed, very frustrating. If every sentence needs to have some external document supporting it -- regardless of veracity -- there's no value to Wikipedia over a simple Google/DuckDuckGo search.

As far as I can tell from my experience on this page - my first attempt at contributing - one cannot even write 2+2 = 4 without it being deleted as being unsourced. I have been assuming a level of knowledge and curiosity in the reader that does not appear to exist in the editorial process at Wikipedia. I am done here. I will not make further contributions to Wikipedia. The page is yours. Enjoy! SuburbanDadEmeritus (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

If you think pluginsolarus.com is not a reliable source then don't cite it. For purpose of an overview of 3700 it looks good to me.

I deleted and revised your content based on the sources you supplied. Based on those sources I assumed that the White Paper was UL's justification to proceed with work on UL 3700. Nothing in the content you provided had any hints that the work on 3700 was complete. You could have included the other sources in your original post as saved us a lot of time.

Statements like 2+2=4 are covered by WP:BLUESKY. I'm sorry your experience was not what you expected. Editors contribute in a large number of different ways. By the end here I can see you had quite a lot of good sources on balcony solar power. Posting such sources to the Talk page with pointers to why they are important would be a great contribution. Talk page posts about the page content are not generally subject to editing or removal.

Sorry. I started out to try to be helpful but I clearly failed. I did not think you were missing sources I thought you misrepresented them. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion request 2: I see you removed this paragraph as well:

Some United Sates state legislation is permitting microinverter production up to 1200W AC per dwelling with standard US household wiring of 120V and 15A circuit breaker protection. For a 120V electrical circuit, 1200W AC corresponds to a potential maximum over-current of 10A, which is 60% higher than the breaker-protected limit of 15A. This 60% limit is ~3x higher than the 22% limit in Germany and UK.

Stating :

Delete a sentence which does not verify. Source: "Since PV modules remain energized whenever exposed to light, DC circuits require alternative protective measures. These can include physical barriers, electronic safeguards or a combination of both. UL 3700 addresses the appropriate protection strategies for these DC circuits.

Perhaps we are talking about two different sides of the system: DC (PV panel to inverter) vs. AC (inverter to household wiring). The focus of my paragraph, and the discussion of overcurrent/breaker-masking in general, is the AC component of the balcony solar equipment. This is the current being added to the household wiring, which is AC. I do not believe the passage you cite, "Since PV modules remain energized..." is relevant to this paragraph.

Perhaps we could have two separate sections: AC risk/safety and DC risk/safety? SuburbanDadEmeritus (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

This change had the edit summary you quote above, but not the change you quote above. The change associated with the edit summary was to remove The UL 3700 certification effort is intended to address these issues. "These issues" are the ones enumerated in the Gerber paper. They are all on the AC side; UL 3700 is on the DC side.

In my opinion, issues on the DC side are not encyclopedic knowledge, but if you have a source that is clear on these issues you could add content. The UL white paper is not adequate for that purpose in my opinion. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

As in my earlier reply, above, it appears there is a source, the actual UL 3700 specification, that is not publicly available, and UL 3700 is incompletely summarized in the publicly-available documents from UL, LLC. There are articles about UL 3700 that better describe the UL 3700 specification but these are not primary sources. E.g. https://pluginsolarus.com/learn/ul-3700-safety-standard-explained

I'm not sure how to proceed. SuburbanDadEmeritus (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

You should proceed to summarize the source https://pluginsolarus.com/learn/ul-3700-safety-standard-explained and cite it in the article. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion request 3:

I see the following text was removed:

Breaker masking is a distinct issue from backfeed protection. Backfeed protection can be implemented within balcony solar equipment; breaker-masking mitigation requires integration between the balcony solar equipment and the dwelling's wiring circuits. This issue is described in detail in Section 2.2 of "Barriers to Balcony Solar and Plug-In Distributed Energy Resources in the United States".

With the explanation:

delete incorrect content. backfeed just means current injection from the solar panels, it is not a safety issue itself

This might also a result of a lack of clarity regarding AC-side of the microinverter vs. DC-side. Backfeed into the grid is an AC issue (microinverter to household wiring and grid) and is not related to the DC side (PV panel to microinverter). Backfeed, which has the potential to electrically shock utility linemen, has been a concern with household power generation for several decades.

Backfeeding#Unintentional backfeeding,

https://pvrea.coop/the-co-op/news/beware-of-backfeed/

https://incident-prevention.com/blog/solar-backfeed-safety-on-distribution-and-secondary-circuits/

Backfeed with balcony solar is not a new problem. And it is unrelated to overcurrent/breaker-masking. The point of the paragraph is to make this clarification. SuburbanDadEmeritus (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Overcurrent is not breaker-masking. Overcurrent is a condition on the wires. Breaker-masking is configuration of the circuit which can lead to overcurrent. Germany has demonstrated by direct experiment that breaker-masking need not lead to overcurrent. However German systems are typically 16A at 230V, or 16x230=3680W. An 800W panel can be supported. US systems are typically 15A at 120V or 15x120=1800W: 800W panel is 50% of the capacity of the circuit.

Backfeed is what balcony solar panels do, just like roof top solar. Backfeed can be hazardous in several scenarios where the circuit is interrupted, like the lineman issue or the touch-safety issue. "Backfeed" I agree has come to be used as short hand for "hazardous conditions resulting from backfeed".

In my opinion, the paragraph should still be deleted. We should be explaining what things are, not what things are not. The only reason to add "Breaker masking is a distinct issue from backfeed protection" is if a source says something like this. That would mean the confusion was common, which I don't believe.

If you have a source that says breaker masking is overcurrent or that is it distinct from backfeed protection we can add something. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Good points. Yes, backfeed turns out to be an ambiguous term. I have seen it used for both the anti-islanding requirements of UL 1741 and for the extra current put into a branch circuit by the PIPV equipment. The purpose of my statement was to make the distinction between the two (anti-islanding vs. overcurrent) because I have encountered confusion on this point where the existing UL 1741 certification is considered sufficient for electrical safety without addressing the potential overcurrent issue.

Agreed. The paragraph should be deleted. Breaker-masking is a binary condition, the breaker does not see the current. Overcurrent is a failure that requires multiple conditions to trigger. SuburbanDadEmeritus (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Is Bright Saver text promotional?

The article currently includes a few lines about a non-profit called Bright Saver, in the context of them selling balcony solar panels:

The California-based nonprofit Bright Saver has started selling DIY kits to members, hoping to become the Costco of balcony solar systems.[18] Their initial systems require complex profession setup but their plan is to evolve the solution to remove complexity.[19] In 2026, they began offering 180W units for less than $300.[20]

To me a lot of this reads as promotional or at least speculative, specifically that the organization is "hoping to become the Costco of..." and "their plan is to evolve the solution to remove complexity". I would appreciate input from other editors. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that wording could be removed, but the sourcing is adequate enough to keep the mention. — Reywas92^Talk 02:09, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Please see the sources. If you disagree with my summary or if you think these sources are unreliable we can discuss alternatives. Corporate plans are always speculative, we could lose the "evolve" sentence. I included the Costco bit because "DIY kits to members" sounds like a club rather than a company seeking market dominance which is what I gathered. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

To me it does come across as promotional and somewhat WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEWS in nature. To make it sound more encyclopedic, I'd suggest replacing it with "In 2026, the non-profit Bright Saver started to make 180 W units available to consumers for less than $300." The whole sentence about requiring professional installations seems to be obsolete; the newer Canary Media source and the Bright Saver website say the kits are fully DIY. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:11, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

$300 is for members only.

Something is also fishy on the Bright Saver web site. Under "PRODUCT What You'll Get" they claim UL 3700 compliance and the links point to a certification...which is based on the special UL plug, not the "outdoor GFCI outlet" also mentioned on the page. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2026 (UTC)