Class Action Lawsuit - Home Integration System

[chriserx]

Sure, but look at it from the point of view of the vehicle firmware (more rightly the programmer maintaining it) - there's no way to know this is all the connected "charger" is going to do, once it violates the protocol spec and lowers rather than raises the voltage. It's risky to keep those contactors closed once you see this kind of behavior. Not specifically because of what the Sigenergy device does, but because, among other things, how do you know you are in fact connected to a device that violates the spec but is otherwise so safe and well-behaved?

I assumed he was referencing the GM charger since the plug type was CHAdeMO, I don't know what they actually use, I just know it's not what's in the lightning.

Sponsored

 

[chl]

Wait so you're a lawyer...? Do you have any connections to consumer protection lawyers that would have interest in this?

I'm testing my system again as I write this. I rebooted the whole system Thurs in anticipation of a storm yesterday that wasn't bad enough to cause loss of power but even so I had to power cycle the charge station again before I could get power backup to transfer today.

I agree the issue is with the fcsp, in the wireless portion, it needs to be rebooted to clear whatever crashes in that side of the equipment. Reboot the FCSP just now and it auto transferred first try (post reboot). I'm on my 3rd FCSP btw.

So my new issue and reason for continuing tests is that when I get it running and let it run for a few hours, after a while I've had the system just shut off for no reason. So even if you get it working, it's not going to be much good is it if it just cuts out after 6 hours of a multi day power outage.....

I'm screen recording the mprof app to see if that gives any clue as to why power drops. So it probably won't do it this test

Sorry you have so much trouble with this clearly defective system.

I have been a patent lawyer so not proficient in consumer protection laws, and they vary from state to state, I am licensed in Virginia only.

So I am not giving legal advice about it, just thinking out loud.

I got a taste of what consumer laws are in law school, basically the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) that has been enacted in most if not all states, but with state differences either enhancements or limitations.

There is one particular UCC section that comes to mind, the implied Warranty of Merchantability, however, your written warranty for the HIS would supersede that:

UCC 2-314:
(1) Unless excluded or modified a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to good of that kind...
(2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as:...
(c) are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used....
(f) conform to the promise or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any.

So if it don't work the way promised or at all, you have a cause of action to sue, in essence.
You can sue for your money back, to have them remediate the issue (fix it), and for damages you incurred as a result of the unfitness of the thing purchased.

Now companies have lawyers that put in contract/warranty language to 'weasel' out of things as much as possible, but that's where state or federal law might supersede the weaseling.

But you should consult with an atty licensed in your state with expertise in that area.

If I were the victim, I'd do my best to negotiate with what I know, but if I had to go to court, I'd hire an attorney.

Disclaimer

I am an attorney licensed to practice law in Virginia.

However, the above should not be considered legal advice for your particular situation. You should therefore not rely on the above and instead consult competent legal representation in your state if you have a potential case or controversy needing resolution.

This is not a solicitation for legal representation.

The law can and does change over time as news laws are passed, new cases decided, etc.

So the above may include information about past results not guaranteeing future outcomes.

The above information is for general knowledge, not personalized legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship or privilege.

Just to be clear, here is my disclaimer which language the Virginia Bar prefers be used with on-line posts.
--------------
Disclaimer

I am an attorney licensed to practice law in Virginia.

However, the above should not be considered legal advice for your particular situation. You should therefore not rely on the above and instead consult competent legal representation in your state if you have a potential case or controversy needing resolution.

This is not a solicitation for legal representation.

The law can and does change over time as news laws are passed, new cases decided, etc.

So the above may include information about past results not guaranteeing future outcomes.

 

[Pitbull2o08]

Sorry you have so much trouble with this clearly defective system.

I have been a patent lawyer so not proficient in consumer protection laws, and they vary from state to state, I am licensed in Virginia only.

So I am not giving legal advice about it, just thinking out loud.

I got a taste of what consumer laws are in law school, basically the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) that has been enacted in most if not all states, but with state differences either enhancements or limitations.

There is one particular UCC section that comes to mind, the implied Warranty of Merchantability, however, your written warranty for the HIS would supersede that:

UCC 2-314:
(1) Unless excluded or modified a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to good of that kind...
(2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as:...
(c) are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used....
(f) conform to the promise or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any.

So if it don't work the way promised or at all, you have a cause of action to sue, in essence.
You can sue for your money back, to have them remediate the issue (fix it), and for damages you incurred as a result of the unfitness of the thing purchased.

Now companies have lawyers that put in contract/warranty language to 'weasel' out of things as much as possible, but that's where state or federal law might supersede the weaseling.

But you should consult with an atty licensed in your state with expertise in that area.

If I were the victim, I'd do my best to negotiate with what I know, but if I had to go to court, I'd hire an attorney.

Disclaimer

I am an attorney licensed to practice law in Virginia.

However, the above should not be considered legal advice for your particular situation. You should therefore not rely on the above and instead consult competent legal representation in your state if you have a potential case or controversy needing resolution.

This is not a solicitation for legal representation.

The law can and does change over time as news laws are passed, new cases decided, etc.

So the above may include information about past results not guaranteeing future outcomes.

The above information is for general knowledge, not personalized legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship or privilege.

Just to be clear, here is my disclaimer which language the Virginia Bar prefers be used with on-line posts.
--------------
Disclaimer

I am an attorney licensed to practice law in Virginia.

However, the above should not be considered legal advice for your particular situation. You should therefore not rely on the above and instead consult competent legal representation in your state if you have a potential case or controversy needing resolution.

This is not a solicitation for legal representation.

The law can and does change over time as news laws are passed, new cases decided, etc.

So the above may include information about past results not guaranteeing future outcomes.

This. Thankfully California is pro consumer and our attorney has been through this with ford before.

 

[chl]

I assumed he was referencing the GM charger since the plug type was CHAdeMO, I don't know what they actually use, I just know it's not what's in the lightning.

I get what you are saying.
But maybe the 'bug' is also how the Ford/Siemens/SunRun/Delta system does it, eh?
Do we really know there is any danger?

I would hope the SigEnergy system is UL (or some other) certified.

Yes the standard may still be under development, but I imagine the makers of the V2X equipment will adhere to it and modify existing systems if needed to do so.

The IEEE published a V2X communications standard a long while back:

The IEEE publishes 802.11 a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) standard based on WLAN. The standard also supports V2I communications between vehicles and highway infrastructure and between vehicles (V2V). It is presented as an amendment to the Wi-Fi standard to cover vehicular communications as part of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and operates in the licensed ITS band of 5.9 GHz, which is allocated by the FCC in 1999 and the European Commission in 2008. Intended solely for inter-vehicle, infrastructure communications and priority transport safety applications, it is the basis for Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC). The data volume of DSRC is low and intended for road safety, traffic efficiency, energy savings and surveillance. With only a small number of small pilots having used the spectrum, the FCC re-assigned it in November, 2020, citing lack of use. It did leave some spectrum (30 MHz) available for cellular V2X, a different standard based on LTE.

NEMA recently released their own guidance Feb 2025:

The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) this week introduced a unified framework for “vehicle-to-grid” (V2G) and “vehicle-to-home” (V2H) technology, allowing EVs to discharge electricity as well as store it. The standard ends years of fragmented approaches and competing systems that have slowed commercial rollout.

Automakers and utilities have already begun to test the concept. Toyota has partnered with San Diego Gas & Electric on a pilot programme using its all-electric bZ4X model as a grid-connected energy source. Such real-world trials are intended to show how parked vehicles can support power networks during demand peaks or supply homes during blackouts.

“This standard is a turning point,” said one utility executive involved in early-stage projects. “It makes EVs as vital to our energy future as they are to our roads.”

Analysts say the move could reshape electricity markets by adding millions of potential microstorage units to national energy systems. The technology may also allow households to sell power back to utilities or lower bills by using stored energy during high-tariff periods.

However, not all carmakers have committed to the NEMA framework, and questions remain about its impact on battery longevity. Industry executives have said that data from pilot schemes will be key to determining how much regular bidirectional use shortens battery life.

Despite the uncertainties, momentum is building. US policymakers have linked broader EV adoption to national energy resilience goals, while utilities view distributed storage as a low-cost buffer against grid instability.

With the new standard now in place, industry observers expect a wave of new products and partnerships within the next two years. If successful, the shift could mean that the electric vehicles parked in driveways across America will soon do more than wait for their next trip; they will help power the grid itself.

https://www.vehicle-grid-summit.com...le-to-grid” (V2G) and “vehicle-to-home” (V2H)
---
I haven't read it yet but it is a communication standard:

The Connected Vehicle Infrastructure – Roadside Equipment Standard (NEMA TS 40010-2024) is available in NEMA’s Standard Store.

Anyway, there is a lot we don;t know the details about.
But the voltage and current levels should not be a worry.
Fail safe protections should/would be built in to any decent V2X system.

More to learn though.

 

[tearitupsports]

I will disagree with most people, in that I do not believe the FCSP to be the root cause of the HIS failures. I have done a lot of testing and trials, and the issues all seem to lie in the truck software and the truck's modem. I do believe that people "over reboot" a lot of the time, and that actually does not fix the issues. The only reboot I ever need to do to get the HIS system running is the truck modem sometimes. That being said I do not discount that some people have FCSP wifi module failures, which has not occurred with me. In those cases though a reboot is not the fix either.
I actually believe that most people who's system never works, likely have some sort of wiring issue, and it could be in many different places unfortunately. It is also too bad that most people don't have the experience to diagnose or fix this themselves.
For those that sometimes doesn't work, especially automatically in an outage, it is a function of the truck being asleep. It is an issue which they have no fix for and at this point probably never will. Unfortunately this system will never be like that promised in the reveal.

I don't know where a class action suit goes, but based on a lot of discussions with people in the know, it seems like Sunrun is the real owner of this system. If you had your system installed by Sunrun, I would not relent with them until it is resolved.

For those installed by others, I hope we can get a small community of people together who can help fix the systems that never work. I have done so personally for a few systems in TX.

Now as a person who has both the Ford HIS, and the Sigenergy system, I can tell you the Sigenergy is everything the HIS was supposed to be and more. Sigenergy is very open about how their system works now (the post about starting the CCS session then manipulating it to discharge is on the money). They also are very open that their hardware supports all the emerging bi-directional standards that are recently ratified, and will be software upgraded to support it as the manufacturers do. Even without the V2X bi-directional charger, it works great with the Lightning if you have the 240V pro-power onboard.

 

[chl]

I will disagree with most people, in that I do not believe the FCSP to be the root cause of the HIS failures. I have done a lot of testing and trials, and the issues all seem to lie in the truck software and the truck's modem. I do believe that people "over reboot" a lot of the time, and that actually does not fix the issues. The only reboot I ever need to do to get the HIS system running is the truck modem sometimes. That being said I do not discount that some people have FCSP wifi module failures, which has not occurred with me. In those cases though a reboot is not the fix either.
I actually believe that most people who's system never works, likely have some sort of wiring issue, and it could be in many different places unfortunately. It is also too bad that most people don't have the experience to diagnose or fix this themselves.
For those that sometimes doesn't work, especially automatically in an outage, it is a function of the truck being asleep. It is an issue which they have no fix for and at this point probably never will. Unfortunately this system will never be like that promised in the reveal.

I don't know where a class action suit goes, but based on a lot of discussions with people in the know, it seems like Sunrun is the real owner of this system. If you had your system installed by Sunrun, I would not relent with them until it is resolved.

For those installed by others, I hope we can get a small community of people together who can help fix the systems that never work. I have done so personally for a few systems in TX.

Now as a person who has both the Ford HIS, and the Sigenergy system, I can tell you the Sigenergy is everything the HIS was supposed to be and more. Sigenergy is very open about how their system works now (the post about starting the CCS session then manipulating it to discharge is on the money). They also are very open that their hardware supports all the emerging bi-directional standards that are recently ratified, and will be software upgraded to support it as the manufacturers do. Even without the V2X bi-directional charger, it works great with the Lightning if you have the 240V pro-power onboard.

SunRun is supposed to be the expert and they were designated by Ford to do the work, right?
There's an agency question between Ford and SunRun.

If the issue is the Ford software or communications system, then Ford is responsible for fixing that - from posts they are unable or reluctant to even try and pass the buck.

SunRun doesn't appear any better based on posted info anyway.

I'm sure the lawyers will sue all the parties involved.

The consumer should not be expected to fix this complicated system about which they have no expertise, should they? That would not be reasonable.

 

[chriserx]

I get what you are saying.
But maybe the 'bug' is also how the Ford/Siemens/SunRun/Delta system does it, eh?
Do we really know there is any danger?

I would hope the SigEnergy system is UL (or some other) certified.

Yes the standard may still be under development, but I imagine the makers of the V2X equipment will adhere to it and modify existing systems if needed to do so.

The IEEE published a V2X communications standard a long while back:

The IEEE publishes 802.11 a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) standard based on WLAN. The standard also supports V2I communications between vehicles and highway infrastructure and between vehicles (V2V). It is presented as an amendment to the Wi-Fi standard to cover vehicular communications as part of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and operates in the licensed ITS band of 5.9 GHz, which is allocated by the FCC in 1999 and the European Commission in 2008. Intended solely for inter-vehicle, infrastructure communications and priority transport safety applications, it is the basis for Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC). The data volume of DSRC is low and intended for road safety, traffic efficiency, energy savings and surveillance. With only a small number of small pilots having used the spectrum, the FCC re-assigned it in November, 2020, citing lack of use. It did leave some spectrum (30 MHz) available for cellular V2X, a different standard based on LTE.

NEMA recently released their own guidance Feb 2025:

The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) this week introduced a unified framework for “vehicle-to-grid” (V2G) and “vehicle-to-home” (V2H) technology, allowing EVs to discharge electricity as well as store it. The standard ends years of fragmented approaches and competing systems that have slowed commercial rollout.

Automakers and utilities have already begun to test the concept. Toyota has partnered with San Diego Gas & Electric on a pilot programme using its all-electric bZ4X model as a grid-connected energy source. Such real-world trials are intended to show how parked vehicles can support power networks during demand peaks or supply homes during blackouts.

“This standard is a turning point,” said one utility executive involved in early-stage projects. “It makes EVs as vital to our energy future as they are to our roads.”

Analysts say the move could reshape electricity markets by adding millions of potential microstorage units to national energy systems. The technology may also allow households to sell power back to utilities or lower bills by using stored energy during high-tariff periods.

However, not all carmakers have committed to the NEMA framework, and questions remain about its impact on battery longevity. Industry executives have said that data from pilot schemes will be key to determining how much regular bidirectional use shortens battery life.

Despite the uncertainties, momentum is building. US policymakers have linked broader EV adoption to national energy resilience goals, while utilities view distributed storage as a low-cost buffer against grid instability.

With the new standard now in place, industry observers expect a wave of new products and partnerships within the next two years. If successful, the shift could mean that the electric vehicles parked in driveways across America will soon do more than wait for their next trip; they will help power the grid itself.

https://www.vehicle-grid-summit.com/news/can-your-ev-power-your-home-a-new-standard-says-yes#:~:text=A new US standard for bidirectional electric,framework for “vehicle-to-grid” (V2G) and “vehicle-to-home” (V2H)
---
I haven't read it yet but it is a communication standard:

The Connected Vehicle Infrastructure – Roadside Equipment Standard (NEMA TS 40010-2024) is available in NEMA’s Standard Store.

Anyway, there is a lot we don;t know the details about.
But the voltage and current levels should not be a worry.
Fail safe protections should/would be built in to any decent V2X system.

More to learn though.

Since the workaround employs a 'bug' in differing implementations, it's not likely to get UL certification for bidirectional charging. It doesn't preclude it either though. The problem will be since it relies on a bug, and the charger is used in different makes and models, the failure modes could be unpredictable.

As an example, and I am not saying the parties involved didn't safeguard this scenario. Plug in vehicle and enable power export, the car thinks it's charging, battery gets depleted but the car thinks its charging and doesn't disconnect. As voltage goes down, amps go up for the same power draw, this creates heat. This could cause at worst a fire, at best an over discharged battery.

 

[tearitupsports]

Since the workaround employs a 'bug' in differing implementations, it's not likely to get UL certification for bidirectional charging. It doesn't preclude it either though. The problem will be since it relies on a bug, and the charger is used in different makes and models, the failure modes could be unpredictable.

As an example, and I am not saying the parties involved didn't safeguard this scenario. Plug in vehicle and enable power export, the car thinks it's charging, battery gets depleted but the car thinks its charging and doesn't disconnect. As voltage goes down, amps go up for the same power draw, this creates heat. This could cause at worst a fire, at best an over discharged battery.

Sigenergy doesn’t work with vehicles that don’t report the state of charge. It also has settings for lowest vehicle state of charge allowed.

 

[chl]

Since the workaround employs a 'bug' in differing implementations, it's not likely to get UL certification for bidirectional charging. It doesn't preclude it either though. The problem will be since it relies on a bug, and the charger is used in different makes and models, the failure modes could be unpredictable.

As an example, and I am not saying the parties involved didn't safeguard this scenario. Plug in vehicle and enable power export, the car thinks it's charging, battery gets depleted but the car thinks its charging and doesn't disconnect. As voltage goes down, amps go up for the same power draw, this creates heat. This could cause at worst a fire, at best an over discharged battery.

So what some call a 'bug' someone else might call a convenient entry point for programming a subroutine. Who called it a 'bug' anyway, I missed that part of the discussion?

So, when you use PPOB you set battery limits at which to stop using the HV battery.

I would guess the SigEnergy system will also let you set a safe battery discharge limit.

I imagine it will poll the Lightning and get the present SOC (or you will enter it into the app - not the best solution though), and the app will let you set a battery discharge limit - just saying that's how I'd do it if I were so inclined.

When we drive our vehicles, the battery voltages go down in the cells currents change, that is nothing new.

Some people take their battery all the way down to almost nothing - not necessarily a great idea.

But there is a low discharge buffer and the system shuts down/disconnects when it gets there.

Why would the V2X be any different?

When we Fast Charge, the vehicle communicates with the charging equipment continuously.
Any V2X system should use the same lines of communication and know what is going on.
That would be using the V2X communication standards promulgated by IEEE and NEMA. Other international standards are out there as well.

So this is an "intelligent" system programmed to safely take the stored energy in the vehicle battery (at 400VDC) and convert it to AC voltage and current at compatible US household levels (nominally 240VAC). The current will depend on the load the house requires, but will have a limit based on the wiring, e.g., the 40A of the Ford HIS, or maybe more up to some limit such as the 80A the FCSP can deliver, or more.

If the Lightning wiring can handle DC charging at 450A to 500A and 400VDC, then what's the problem powering a house through a DC-DC converter to step down the voltage and then an inverter to change DC to AC?

I don't see any unusual problems. Do you?

The V2X system will intelligently control the transfer of energy the way a DC fast charger would by communicating with the EV. It will control the contactors, keep track of the HV battery SOC through the HV BMS info, etc.

 

[chl]

Sigenergy doesn’t work with vehicles that don’t report the state of charge. It also has settings for lowest vehicle state of charge allowed.

Just as I suspected - works like a DC fast charging charger would only in reverse so to speak.

 

[tls]

So what some call a 'bug' someone else might call a convenient entry point for programming a subroutine. Who called it a 'bug' anyway, I missed that part of the discussion?

That was me, though I'm not sure I was the first one in this discussion to do so. As a once (though not current, and probably not future) firmware and protocols guy, I would consider the lack of a safeguard in the vehicle's CCS implementation to open the DC contactors on this kind of obvious protocol violation to be a fairly serious bug. You just have no way to know the device on the other end is sane once it starts doing things like ramping the voltage down when you've told it to ramp up, and there's enough energy involved that continuing to participate with a potentially insane peer is not a good idea. This is the reason I said "probably safe enough for me, but maybe not for GM" - I might trust Sigenergy and be willing to hook exactly and only their protocol-violating device up to my own vehicle, but if I owned this particular piece of firmware at a car company, unable to know what all crazy protocol violating devices people might hook up, I would be extremely uncomfortable with the potential consequences.

 

[tearitupsports]

That was me, though I'm not sure I was the first one in this discussion to do so. As a once (though not current, and probably not future) firmware and protocols guy, I would consider the lack of a safeguard in the vehicle's CCS implementation to open the DC contactors on this kind of obvious protocol violation to be a fairly serious bug. You just have no way to know the device on the other end is sane once it starts doing things like ramping the voltage down when you've told it to ramp up, and there's enough energy involved that continuing to participate with a potentially insane peer is not a good idea. This is the reason I said "probably safe enough for me, but maybe not for GM" - I might trust Sigenergy and be willing to hook exactly and only their protocol-violating device up to my own vehicle, but if I owned this particular piece of firmware at a car company, unable to know what all crazy protocol violating devices people might hook up, I would be extremely uncomfortable with the potential consequences.

Its important to keep perspective on this as well. The Sigenergy max rate is 25kW or a mere fraction of the 433 kW the drive motors can pull. The normal rate would be 11.4kW max or about 33A. Again a small percentage of the battery packs charge/discharge rate capabilities. The voltage differences needed to achieve this are very small.
I do strongly agree that it will be much better when everyone adheres to a common standard that can be validated by 3rd party independent testing. It looks like the Lightning is not going to be in that category though.

 

[chriserx]

So what some call a 'bug' someone else might call a convenient entry point for programming a subroutine. Who called it a 'bug' anyway, I missed that part of the discussion?

That's why I wrote it as 'bug', UL certifications depend on predictable boundaries, conditions and failure modes. The manner in which it is being used makes it inherently unpredictable. That being said, I am not an engineer, electrician or safety official. I actually think it's great they did it, I'm just pointing out potential issues with certification. As far as the potential issue, I went for something even I could predict, which is why I mentioned the scenario could be covered. What I'd be interested to know is there is little doubt that the system could be certified on vehicles that support UL standards, would they have to give up support for the unsupported vehicles to gain their certification?

 

[chl]

That was me, though I'm not sure I was the first one in this discussion to do so. As a once (though not current, and probably not future) firmware and protocols guy, I would consider the lack of a safeguard in the vehicle's CCS implementation to open the DC contactors on this kind of obvious protocol violation to be a fairly serious bug. You just have no way to know the device on the other end is sane once it starts doing things like ramping the voltage down when you've told it to ramp up, and there's enough energy involved that continuing to participate with a potentially insane peer is not a good idea. This is the reason I said "probably safe enough for me, but maybe not for GM" - I might trust Sigenergy and be willing to hook exactly and only their protocol-violating device up to my own vehicle, but if I owned this particular piece of firmware at a car company, unable to know what all crazy protocol violating devices people might hook up, I would be extremely uncomfortable with the potential consequences.

Well calling it a protocol violation and a bug and a dangerous one implies the Ford firmware programmers were negligent.

Isn't it more likely that is how their HIS software uses/controls the DC bus?

I mean it seems logical to have built in to the firmware the ability to either push or pull DC current from the battery if you designed the Lightning to have a V2H capability with the HIS from the start.

 

[chl]

That's why I wrote it as 'bug', UL certifications depend on predictable boundaries, conditions and failure modes. The manner in which it is being used makes it inherently unpredictable. That being said, I am not an engineer, electrician or safety official. I actually think it's great they did it, I'm just pointing out potential issues with certification. As far as the potential issue, I went for something even I could predict, which is why I mentioned the scenario could be covered. What I'd be interested to know is there is little doubt that the system could be certified on vehicles that support UL standards, would they have to give up support for the unsupported vehicles to gain their certification?

Hard to come to any conclusion about those things, better ask SigEnergy for clarification.

I liked the analogy in the video about a car manufacturer trying to control your ability to jump another car with your 12v battery and disabling it.

It's our truck, our battery, our energy stored on there.

So as long as we do not do anything to cause any harm to it, they would have a lot of nerve telling us we aren't allowed to use a non-Ford HIS or that it would void the warranty to do so, or disable the ability to do it.

I mean that is like trying to tell folks you can't use a quality generic component for your vehicle or else you'll void the warranty. Or that you can only charge at Ford authorized charge stations, or use Ford authorized EVSE's at home. Without any technical basis for the decision.

I am an electrical engineer and patent attorney. But I haven't analyzed the Lightning system for controlling their HIS. It seems to have lots of problems anyway in their implementation of their V2H judging from all the posts about it.

Sponsored