Frequently Asked Questions

Vertical Bifacial Photovoltaic (VBPV) systems mount solar panels vertically in an east-west orientation rather than at the conventional south-facing tilt. Crucially, the panels themselves are identical to those used in conventional solar farms — glass-glass bifacial modules. What changes is the configuration.

The east-facing side captures morning sun; the west-facing side captures evening sun. This produces two daily generation peaks that align closely with UK electricity demand — rather than one midday peak that coincides with the grid's daily demand minimum.

The campaign compares VBPV against Tilted Bifacial PV (TBPV) — the current UK industry standard, which uses the same bifacial panels on conventional south-facing tilted racking. Same panels, different mounting. The difference in outcome is substantial.

UK field data from the University of York shows VBPV delivers 8–12% more energy annually than conventional south-facing fixed tilted monofacial PV across all seasons. The advantage is most pronounced in winter, when the UK's energy needs are highest — reaching +24.52% during October–March.

This annual figure is accompanied by a significant revenue premium: VBPV's morning and evening generation peaks coincide with periods when wholesale electricity prices are 25–40% higher than at midday. This translates to 10–15% higher revenue per kWh generated, on top of the output advantage.

The UK's latitude (50–59°N) creates two conditions that favour VBPV. First, the sun angle is lower than in southern Europe, meaning vertical panels intercept more usable irradiance per unit of panel area than they would in, say, Spain or California. Second, the UK has longer twilight periods — the morning and evening hours where VBPV's east-west orientation captures light that a south-facing tilted array largely misses.

The University of York study — conducted at a genuine UK latitude — confirms this advantage is real and field-measured, not modelled. The winter advantage of +24.52% is particularly important: UK grid demand peaks in winter, making winter generation more valuable to both the grid and to project revenue.

Yes. Glass-glass bifacial panels capture diffuse light from overcast conditions effectively — both sides of the panel can receive scattered sky radiation. The UK's frequently overcast weather is therefore less of a disadvantage for VBPV than it might appear.

In conditions of very high diffuse irradiance (heavy cloud cover), the performance differential between VBPV and tilted configurations narrows. The biggest VBPV advantage comes on clear days with low sun angles — which in the UK means early morning, late afternoon, and winter months generally.

VBPV is a proven commercial technology with an operational track record in comparable northern European climates. Germany has the largest installed base — Next2Sun AG's Aasen installation (12 ha, ~4 MW, commissioned 2020) was Europe's largest VBPV installation at the time, with multi-year performance data now published. Austrian and US installations provide further operational evidence.

In the UK, the University of York study provides a full year of field-measured empirical data at a real UK latitude, published in Nature Scientific Reports (August 2024) — a peer-reviewed, open-access journal. This is not modelling or extrapolation: it is measured field performance.

The technology itself — bifacial glass-glass solar panels on vertical east-west mounting structures — uses mature, widely manufactured components. There is no novel materials science involved. The innovation is in the configuration.

Vertical mounting offers a structural advantage in high-wind events. Because the panels are edge-on to the predominant wind direction (east-west), they present a much smaller cross-section to wind loads than south-facing tilted arrays. This reduces both wind loading forces and the risk of panel damage or uplift in storm conditions.

Next2Sun's systems use a post-and-beam frame engineered for high wind loads, with posts driven 2.5m into the ground. German commercial installations have operated through multiple winter storm seasons without structural incident. UK-specific structural engineering to local wind loading standards is required for any installation, as with any agricultural structure.

Yes — and this is not a marginal or modified form of farming. With 10–12m row spacing, standard full-width agricultural machinery — combine harvesters, sprayers, tractors with wide implements — operates freely between the rows without modification. The panel posts have a footprint of approximately 100mm diameter, and clearance strips of around 450mm either side of the post row are maintained. Approximately 92% of the inter-row land remains in active production.

Peer-reviewed research confirms 80–90% of agricultural productivity is maintained under optimal row spacing configurations. Existing farm tenancy arrangements, crop rotations, and agri-environment scheme eligibility are compatible with VBPV.

The 80–90% figure is a conservative estimate applied to UK arable conditions, derived from the Riaz et al. (2021) study which found 80–95% productivity retention across all configurations tested. The 80–90% range reflects the proportion of land area that remains in full arable production — accounting for the narrow clearance strips alongside each panel row.

It does not mean crop yield per hectare falls to 80–90% of a field without panels. The unaffected land between rows continues to yield at normal rates. The reduction is a land-area effect, not a per-hectare yield penalty on the farmed land itself.

For comparison, conventional Tilted Bifacial PV (TBPV) — the current UK industry default — removes effectively 100% of the land from agricultural production for the 25–30 year project lifetime. Ground-level racking covers 40–50% of the surface and prevents any machinery access.

Arable crops — cereals, oilseed rape, root vegetables — are compatible with VBPV provided row spacing allows machinery access. The vertical panel configuration provides partial east-west shading, which can benefit some crops (reducing heat stress and water requirements) while having minimal impact on others that are not light-limited under UK conditions.

Shade-tolerant crops (leafy vegetables, soft fruit under canopy systems) show the most benefit. Grazing livestock — particularly sheep — integrate extremely well; operational data from Germany shows cattle also habituate quickly to VBPV installations.

The campaign's Specialist Crop Outreach Matrix covers 12 UK crop sectors in detail, including cereals, root vegetables, brassicas, and soft fruit. Available in the Document Library.

VBPV systems are designed to maintain the agricultural character of the land, which is directly relevant to subsidy eligibility. Where arable cropping, horticulture, or livestock grazing continues at meaningful levels, the land may retain its agricultural classification.

England's Land Use Framework (CP 1545, March 2026) explicitly endorses agrivoltaic systems on Best and Most Versatile land and establishes multifunctionality as a formal government principle — signalling policy alignment with VBPV's dual land-use model.

ELM scheme eligibility for land under VBPV panels requires confirmation from the Rural Payments Agency on a scheme-by-scheme and site-specific basis. Early engagement with RPA is recommended for any project on land with existing or prospective ELM agreements. This is an area where policy is actively developing.

Solar grazing — keeping sheep beneath conventional solar arrays — is routinely cited as evidence of agricultural compatibility. The campaign’s view is that it partially addresses the visual land use objection but does not resolve the underlying issues, for five reasons.

First, the land is still removed from arable production. Sheep grazing for vegetation management is not equivalent to maintaining an arable or horticultural system on Grade 1 or 2 land — which is what those classifications exist to protect. The planning system’s concern is food production from Best and Most Versatile land, not whether any agricultural activity is present.

Second, solar grazing is only compatible with a narrow range of agricultural outputs. Sheep can graze beneath panels; combine harvesters, sprayers, and root crop machinery cannot operate there. The vast majority of Grade 1 and Grade 2 land in England is in arable production — cereals, oilseed rape, sugar beet, vegetables. Solar grazing does not restore that productivity. It replaces one agricultural use with a significantly less productive one on land designated precisely because of its arable capability.

Third, on pre-2020 installations using Tilted Monofacial PV (TMPV) with polymer backsheets, there is a material and under-scrutinised food safety risk. The solar industry transitioned from TMPV to Tilted Bifacial PV (TBPV) — using glass-glass modules without polymer backsheets — from around 2018, with TBPV becoming the UK utility-scale default by approximately 2020. However, a substantial number of operational UK solar farms pre-date that transition and still carry polymer backsheet panels.

Polymer backsheets degrade over a 25–40 year project life, releasing microplastic particles into the soil beneath. Grazing sheep ingest microplastics through soil contact, pasture ingestion, and drinking water. Peer-reviewed research has confirmed microplastic presence in both cattle and sheep tissues, and milk contamination pathways are also established. Where a developer argues food production as a co-benefit of solar grazing on a pre-2020 TMPV installation, the planning authority should scrutinise whether that food production pathway is compatible with the accumulation of polymer degradation products over the remaining project lifetime — and whether the resulting meat or milk can honestly be characterised as a food production benefit on Best and Most Versatile land.

This argument applies specifically to TMPV installations with polymer backsheets. Post-2020 TBPV installations using glass-glass bifacial modules eliminate the backsheet microplastic pathway — though the arable incompatibility arguments in points one and two apply equally.

Fourth, the industry transition from TMPV to TBPV has not changed the fundamental land use outcome. TBPV delivers modestly higher energy yield and eliminates the backsheet microplastic risk. But the racking, row spacing, and ground coverage of a TBPV array remain incompatible with arable machinery access. The technology has improved; the land use problem has not.

Fifth, the expansion of solar grazing on lowland farmland creates a systemic risk to upland hill farming that is rarely acknowledged in planning assessments. UK sheep meat consumption is in long-term structural decline. Solar grazing on lowland Grade 1 and Grade 2 sites adds new, subsidised grazing capacity — landowners receive both solar income and grazing rental income, making lowland solar-grazed sheep economically viable at commodity prices that a traditional hill farmer, operating without subsidy on marginal upland land, cannot match.

If solar grazing becomes the default agricultural mitigation across the UK’s 2,600+ project pipeline, the cumulative addition to lowland sheep grazing capacity could be substantial. The economic consequence is downward pressure on sheep prices across the market — directly threatening the viability of traditional upland hill farming enterprises that have no alternative land use and operate on margins that are already under severe pressure.

This matters beyond economics. Hill farming maintains upland landscapes, moorland biodiversity, flood attenuation, and cultural heritage that cannot be replicated on lowland solar sites. Once hill farming enterprises become unviable at scale, the landscapes and ecosystems they sustain cannot simply be reinstated. The planning system’s individual site-by-site focus fails to capture this cumulative market displacement effect — and no Environmental Impact Assessment currently asks the question.

Solar grazing on Best and Most Versatile land does not resolve a food security problem. In the long run, it may create one in the uplands that no planning condition can remedy.

VBPV resolves what solar grazing cannot. With 8–12m inter-row spacing and posts occupying less than 5% of ground cover, standard arable machinery operates freely between the rows. VBPV uses glass-glass bifacial modules — no polymer backsheet pathway — and the land between the rows remains in active cereal or horticultural production throughout the project lifetime.

Sources: McConnachie et al. (2025), Animal Production Science; Mohammadi et al. (2024) — microplastics confirmed in cattle and sheep tissues; DESNZ TOB2026/04355 (April 2026); Riaz et al. (2021), IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics; Badran & Dhimish (2024), University of York. Note: the systemic hill farming displacement argument represents campaign analysis — peer-reviewed quantification of market displacement effects is not yet available in the published literature.

At the project level, VBPV has a capital cost premium of approximately 16% over conventional tilted solar. This sits in the mounting structure and wider row spacing — not in the panels themselves, which are the same glass-glass bifacial modules used in conventional systems.

At the whole-system level, this upfront premium is substantially outweighed by savings elsewhere. VBPV's dual morning/evening generation profile is worth 10–15% more revenue per kWh than midday-concentrated TBPV output. It requires significantly less battery storage infrastructure. And it increases grid hosting capacity by 46%, deferring costly network reinforcement.

The whole-system saving across the UK pipeline is estimated at £25–35 billion using verified 2025 BESS cost benchmarks.

The saving has two main components:

• Battery storage (BESS) savings: £9.5–10.5bn. VBPV's dual-peak generation profile is 57% less severe in terms of duck curve impact than conventional tilted solar, meaning significantly less battery capacity is needed to manage the grid. Avoided storage of approximately 92–103 GWh across the pipeline, costed at verified 2025 benchmarks of $117–125/kWh.
• Grid infrastructure savings: £15–25bn. VBPV increases grid hosting capacity by 46% on existing infrastructure, deferring distribution network reinforcement, substation upgrades, and balancing service costs over 30 years.

Full methodology, including all assumptions, caveats, and uncertainty ranges, is published on the Methodology page. The campaign actively encourages independent verification.

Project-level economics depend heavily on site-specific factors — grid connection cost, land lease terms, revenue route (merchant, PPA, CfD), and local irradiance. General figures should be treated as indicative only.

The revenue premium from peak-time generation (10–15% higher per kWh) partially offsets the higher capital cost. Dual revenue from continued agricultural production on the same land provides a further income stream that conventional solar cannot offer. For serious project assessment, site-specific financial modelling is essential.

The campaign's interactive financial model is available at harvestingthesuntwice.org/financial-model-protected.

Revenue varies significantly by project scale, electricity prices, and land quality. VBPV's key economic distinction from conventional solar is that it enables two revenue streams from the same land simultaneously — energy generation revenue and continued agricultural income.

The energy revenue premium from peak-time generation (07:00–11:00 and 17:00–21:00) makes VBPV output worth more per kWh than conventional solar output — relevant for both merchant sales and CfD bidding strategy. The agricultural income retained (from 80–90% of land area continuing in production) represents a meaningful additional return on a per-hectare basis compared to conventional solar where all agricultural income is forgone.

For project-specific revenue modelling, contact the campaign or a specialist agrivoltaic consultancy.

The duck curve describes a grid management problem caused by conventional south-facing solar: midday oversupply (when solar peaks but demand is low) followed by a steep demand surge in the early evening (when solar drops rapidly but domestic and commercial demand peaks). The shape of the resulting net demand curve resembles a duck in profile — hence the name.

The UK is approaching this problem as its solar pipeline grows. The solution is expensive: large quantities of battery storage to absorb midday surplus and release it in the evening. Tilted Bifacial PV (TBPV) — the current UK default — actually worsens the duck curve compared to older monofacial systems, because bifacial rear-side gain amplifies midday generation further.

VBPV's east-west orientation avoids this entirely. Generation peaks at 07:00–10:00 and again at 15:00–18:00, closely matching household and commercial demand. VBPV's duck curve impact is 57% less severe than the conventional tilted reference system — significantly reducing battery storage requirements.

By generating in two peaks that align with demand rather than one trough-time midday peak, VBPV reduces the volume of energy that needs to be stored and discharged to balance supply with demand. The duck curve severity reduction of 57% (vs TMPV reference) translates to an estimated 92–103 GWh of avoided battery storage across the 47 GW UK pipeline.

This produces a whole-system BESS saving of £9.5–10.5bn using verified 2025 cost benchmarks — even after the significant BESS cost reductions of 2024–2025. As BESS costs continue to fall, the absolute saving will reduce further; but the proportional grid-matching advantage of VBPV remains unchanged.

One of the most significant constraints on solar deployment in the UK is overvoltage risk on distribution networks — when solar generation exceeds local demand, voltage rises can exceed safe limits, forcing curtailment or requiring expensive grid reinforcement.

VBPV's distributed generation across the day dramatically reduces peak injection into the network. Research from the University of Turku — in directly comparable Nordic grid conditions — found VBPV increases grid hosting capacity by 46% compared to conventional south-facing solar. This means significantly more VBPV capacity can be connected to existing grid infrastructure without reinforcement, deferring billions in DNO capital expenditure.

Yes — and this is increasingly relevant as the most constrained areas of the UK grid coincide with the best agricultural land in the east of England, including Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire where the largest NSIP-scale solar proposals are now concentrated.

VBPV's 46% higher grid hosting capacity means that in areas where conventional solar would require expensive grid reinforcement to connect, VBPV may be able to connect to existing infrastructure — reducing project costs, accelerating timescales, and reducing the infrastructure burden on DNOs and National Grid.

This is an active argument in discussions about large-scale solar projects in fenland and similar constrained grid areas.

Yes — and five peer-reviewed sources now define the evidence base, including the only published study of microplastics in UK agricultural soils.

Conventional TMPV panels use a polymer backsheet — typically PET or PVF film. Under UV radiation, moisture, and mechanical stress across a 25–40 year operational lifetime, this degrades through photo-oxidation, producing microplastic fragments that enter the soil beneath.

The UK field study (Harrison, 2022, Staffordshire University) — the only published study of microplastics in UK agricultural soil — found all 24 sampled fields contained MPs, with polyester dominant at 41% of all types, and germination reductions of 5–17% in rapeseed, wheat, and barley. Harrison explicitly warns: current UK concentrations are not yet high enough to cause yield impacts — but if plastic continues to be added at the current rate, these effects are expected to emerge.

No EIA has ever required assessment of backsheet-specific soil loading. No monitoring condition has ever been imposed on any UK solar farm. The specific annual accumulation rate from solar farm backsheets has never been quantified — because no standardised methodology exists and none has ever been required.

VBPV uses glass-glass panels. No polymer backsheet. No microplastic pathway. No monitoring gap to close.

Solar farm planning consents routinely include a condition requiring 'restoration to agricultural use' at decommissioning. Legally, this means removal of panels, racking, cabling, and infrastructure. It does not mean — has never meant, and cannot mean — restoration of the soil to its pre-installation microplastic condition. What has entered the soil cannot be taken out.

The closest scientific analogue for long-term polymer accumulation in agricultural soil — plastic mulch film — shows that microplastic concentrations rise from a UK baseline of 664–874 particles/kg to approximately 8,885 particles/kg average in the topsoil after 32 years of plastic presence (Li et al., 2022). At 80–100cm depth — root depth — concentrations average 2,899 particles/kg. No solar farm equivalent figure exists, because no monitoring has ever been required.

There is currently no field-scale technology capable of removing microplastics from agricultural soil. Remediation is not possible. The land that is 'returned' carries whatever was deposited during the operating life.

The campaign's planning ask — "leave no trace" — establishes a specific planning condition framework: baseline soil microplastic assessment at commissioning, annual monitoring at drip-line, soil condition report at decommissioning. For VBPV with glass-glass panels, this condition is met by design.

The Building Research Establishment (BRE), funded by BEIS, conducted a three-year forensic investigation into 80 UK PV fire incidents. Key findings from the government-commissioned investigation:

• DC connectors are the second largest cause of UK PV fires, responsible for up to 12 of the 80 incidents — ranked behind DC isolators but ahead of inverters and cables.
• DC arc flash is the primary ignition mechanism. A DC arc on a solar system burns at temperatures easily sufficient to melt glass, copper, and aluminium, and to ignite surrounding materials. Unlike AC arcs, DC arcs are self-sustaining — they do not extinguish at a zero-crossing.
• 22 of 58 PV-caused fires spread beyond the area of origin, classified as 'serious' and difficult to extinguish.
• Solar farm fires are systematically under-reported. Only 6 solar farm incidents appear in the BRE database. The report notes: 'Anecdotal evidence indicates that many solar farm incidents have occurred that have not been reported.'
• Live DC circuits constrain firefighting: 19 Fire and Rescue Service incidents reported inability to safely isolate live PV cabling.

The cascade risk arises because conventional TMPV panel backsheets are combustible polymer — once ignited by a DC arc, the material provides a continuous fuel path along panel rows. Glass-glass VBPV panels eliminate this fuel path. The rear face is tempered glass, not plastic — non-combustible, contributing nothing to fire propagation.

Wildflower strips sown beneath each VBPV panel row provide nectar and pollen for bumblebees, butterflies, and hoverflies, while attracting ladybirds, parasitoid wasps, and predatory beetles that naturally suppress aphids and other crop pests in adjacent inter-row land.

A global synthesis (Dainese et al., 2019, Science Advances) found that diversified vegetation schemes including flower strips increase natural enemy abundance by approximately 44%, raise pest mortality by approximately 54%, and reduce crop damage by approximately 23% compared with monoculture systems.

A Czech field study (Hájek et al., 2024) — the first multitaxonomic study explicitly combining vertical agrivoltaics with sown flowering strips — confirmed these benefits are compatible with continued arable production.

Under the Environment Act 2021, mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requires a minimum 10% biodiversity increase for new developments; NSIPs became subject to BNG from November 2025. VBPV with wildlife strips offers a credible on-site route to achieving 15–20% BNG through species-rich grassland, reducing or eliminating the need for off-site credits.

Yes. Solar panels are 90%+ recyclable — glass (the dominant component by weight), aluminium frames, silicon, and metals are all recovered. EU and UK regulations require manufacturers to fund end-of-life recycling. With 25–30 year operational lifetimes, recycling infrastructure is well-established for the panel technologies used in VBPV.

The glass-glass construction of VBPV panels simplifies the recycling process relative to backsheet-based panels, where polymer separation from the glass and silicon adds complexity. The mounting posts — driven steel — are recoverable with minimal ground disturbance at decommissioning.

Yes — significantly. England's first Land Use Framework (CP 1545, Defra, March 2026) makes three commitments that directly support the case for VBPV over conventional solar on Best and Most Versatile agricultural land.

• It dissolves the false choice between energy and food: clean energy, food production, nature recovery and housing are explicitly described as "complementary" rather than competing demands.
• It endorses agrivoltaic systems on BMV land — stating that where solar is proposed on Grades 1, 2 and 3a land, "there may be the potential for multifunctionality such as through agrivoltaic systems."
• It establishes Multifunctionality as a formal government principle — that land "should be planned and managed to deliver greater benefits across a range of outcomes," with solar generation enabling continued grazing as the named example.

The specification gap: the Framework endorses the agrivoltaic outcome but does not yet specify the technology characteristics required to genuinely deliver it. Without published productivity retention thresholds, the endorsement risks being claimed by conventional TBPV with minimal biodiversity enhancements. Filling this gap is the campaign's central current objective.

Yes, in principle — and this is the primary campaign opportunity given the 6–12 month window before pipeline applications lock in technology choices for 25–30 year asset lives.

Projects at pre-application or early application stage can incorporate VBPV without significant delay. Projects at post-consent pre-construction stage may be able to vary their consent. The planning argument — that VBPV meets the Multifunctionality Principle of the Land Use Framework while conventional TBPV does not — is increasingly available following CP 1545.

For NSIP-scale projects, the DCO process involves an Examining Authority and Secretary of State decision — there is scope for VBPV arguments to be made in examination, particularly where Inspectors are weighing energy need against agricultural land protection. The campaign has produced a model planning representation template, available in the Document Library.

Several factors explain the current gap between the evidence and deployment practice:

• Inertia and procurement: Conventional TBPV has an established supply chain, standardised EPC contracts, and familiar bankability assessments. VBPV requires new procurement routes, structural engineering to different specifications, and different agricultural management arrangements.
• Upfront cost visibility: The 16% capital cost premium is visible at the project appraisal stage; the whole-system savings of £25–35bn are invisible to an individual developer's financial model.
• Evidence lag: The primary UK field study (Badran & Dhimish) was only published in August 2024. The commercial and policy implications are still working through the system.
• No policy requirement: Planning policy does not yet specify productivity retention thresholds for solar on BMV land, so developers can assert agrivoltaic compatibility without demonstrating it.

This is precisely the window the campaign exists to address — before technology choices are locked in at scale for 25–30 year asset lives.

"Leave no trace" is the campaign's planning condition ask, developed in April 2026. It replaces the conventional "restoration to agricultural use" decommissioning condition, which is structurally inadequate because it requires only the removal of above-ground infrastructure — not soil condition restoration.

The leave no trace condition has three specific elements:

• A baseline soil microplastic assessment at commissioning — establishing the documented soil condition against which decommissioning is measured.
• Annual monitoring at drip-line — the highest-risk accumulation zone beneath panel rows throughout the operational life.
• A soil condition report at decommissioning — demonstrating what the land is being returned in.

For VBPV with glass-glass panels, this condition is met by design — there is no polymer backsheet accumulation pathway to monitor. For conventional TMPV or TBPV with polymer backsheets, it creates an accountable record of what the land receives over the project lifetime.

There are several effective ways to support the campaign, depending on your background:

• Write to your MP using the template letter available in the Document Library — asking them to raise VBPV with the DESNZ Select Committee or the Minister for Energy.
• Submit a planning representation on a solar farm application in your area, using the campaign's planning representation template.
• Share the evidence with farmers, community groups, and planning authorities — particularly in areas where solar farm proposals are active.
• If you are a developer or landowner, contact the campaign directly to discuss VBPV as an option for your site or pipeline project.
• If you are a researcher or journalist, we welcome enquiries about the evidence base and are happy to provide briefings.

All enquiries: harvestingthesuntwice@gmail.com

The Document Library contains the full evidence base — peer-reviewed papers, campaign analysis documents, planning templates, and economic modelling — organised by subject area.

The Research Sources page provides complete academic citations with DOI links. The Methodology page gives full transparency on all economic assumptions and calculations. The Technology page provides the comprehensive feature-by-feature comparison.

The University of York research installation (the subject of the Badran & Dhimish 2024 study) is the primary UK reference site. UK commercial VBPV installations are at an early stage — the campaign is actively working to identify and document demonstration sites as they develop.

For serious developers and policymakers, visits to commercial VBPV installations in Germany (Next2Sun AG's Aasen project and others) can be explored through specialist contacts. Contact the campaign at harvestingthesuntwice@gmail.com to discuss.

Harvesting the Sun Twice is an independent evidence-based advocacy campaign. It does not have commercial relationships with specific developers or equipment manufacturers — the campaign makes the case for the VBPV configuration, not for any particular supplier's product.

The campaign engages with developers, landowners, planners, MPs, and government departments on the merits of the technology evidence. All campaign documents and economic analysis are published openly and the campaign actively encourages independent scrutiny and verification.