Don´t you have the impression that we are overwhelmed with Tier1 products all over?! Despite of existing Bloomberg definition of Tier1, I have the impression that many of the market players have self-declared their Tier1 status. Somehow similar to star-rating in the hotel industry. On the other hand, it can be that some of the "ordinary" module makers might be even better quality than many Tier1. So the question is: Does "Tier1" have any specific meaning for you? Is that the decision-driver?

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/agianfran_we-are-facing-a-major-roadblock-with-a-utility-activity-7404287715090919424-wt9l?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android&rcm=ACoAAAIq-W0B9doX5ZyoUdW0LH1OIL-04-rauPY Utility Grid doesn't allow Solar PV without upgrading Transformer ,which isn't required . That's with most Utilities ( worldwide ) keeping their Monopoly and asking for expensive add ons ......

It happened to me several times. Talking to a project owner. Some lousy products are on the BOM. I advise the owner to re-consider replacing some of the components. Reaction? Nah, I don´t want to add more money into the project. If something goes wrong, I am covered with insurance. My question is obvious: Are the insurance companies aware of the risk which are they taking? And what they do to minimize it? Does anyone here have any practical experience with insurance companies? And how do the insurance companies react for the exponentially growing risk?

I would like to offer you 2 points of view on hail resistance which I am seeing in my social bubble. 1. It shall be within the interest of every module maker to develop and design the modules with an improved hail resistance (resisting bigger hail size without damage), as the "hail showers" are more and more frequent even in regions where it was not very usual. The massive hail damage can happen nearly everywhere, therefore, never ending robustness improvements shall be part of the strategy of each module maker. 2. The fact that hail does not break the glass, but very likely breaks the cells is leading to situations that the asset owners have damaged plant, but proving it to the insurance company gets really expensive (EL screening). Insurance companies are reluctant to cover the damages, if the glass is not broken. For the sake of clarity, it would be the best, if the glass breaks as a matter of evidence. Then the whole insurance claim process goes much faster and the countermeasures can be done fast, cheap and easy. I wonder, which of those 2 ways is more resonating with you and why.

Do you think homeowners today prefer to research solar quietly on their own first, or do they still want to speak to someone early in the process? I’m seeing mixed behavior and I’m curious what you’re seeing in the field :)