Utility-scale solar farms are often celebrated as clean, quiet, and efficient sources of energy. But behind the glossy images of endless rows of modules lies a tension that shapes how these projects are built, maintained, and insured.
On one hand, operators and investors are motivated to maximise returns on land leases. Every extra panel squeezed into a field means more electricity, higher revenues, and faster payback. In industry terms, this drive is measured by the ground coverage ratio (GCR) – how much of the land’s surface is covered by modules. The higher the GCR, the greater the installed capacity per hectare.
On the other hand, insurers and risk managers prefer solar farms that are accessible, resilient, and easy to repair. They know that an inaccessible panel isn’t just a maintenance headache; in some cases, it could turn a minor issue into a total loss, making repairs impractical and costly. The insured are not unscathed either. They can also face penalties if they fail to meet contract obligations due to the reduced power output.
- For entrepreneurs, the temptation is clear: pack the solar arrays “wall to wall” to maximize power generation and returns on investment. But this approach comes with trade-offs: restricted access, tightly packed rows limit space for vehicles, lifts, or maintenance crews.
- Vegetation control challenges: Mowing or grazing becomes harder where access is limited.
- Drainage and erosion risks: Dense arrays can interfere with natural runoff, increasing flood risks—especially on sloped terrain—and degrading soil integrity.
- Emergency response limitations: In the event of fire or equipment failure, poor access may hinder quick intervention.
These drawbacks are especially acute in challenging terrains, since flatlands are rare or already earmarked for other developments. Difficult environments include rocky slopes and waterlogged soil. Additionally, temperate climates, snow, and monsoons bring another set of maintenance challenges.
Standards exist, but are they followed?
It is said “there are no standards for solar farm maintenance.” That’s not strictly true. While no single global regulation dictates maintenance practices, a range of international standards and best-practice guides does exist:
- IEC 62446-1 sets requirements for documentation, inspection, and maintenance.
- IEC 61724-1 outlines performance monitoring methods to help operators detect faults early.
- Guides from NREL and IEA PVPS recommend detailed operations and maintenance (O&M) practices, including access roads, spare parts strategies, and vegetation control.
Many lenders and insurers expect these standards to be applied as part of financing or underwriting. The issue, however, is that not every operator integrates them into project design or day-to-day operations, especially when upfront costs savings take priority.
When repairs become too expensive
Insurers are increasingly aware of how design choices affect claims. The trend is clear: weather events like hail, snow, and storms are driving higher losses across the industry. When access is poor and modules are densely packed, damage that could have been repaired at modest cost may instead lead to long outages or outright abandonment of affected panels.
The impact of this is costlier repairs and higher losses. From insurers’ perspective, dense layouts without proper access can unnecessarily increase their risk exposure.
The entrepreneurial interest vs. the prudent insured
The tension can be summed up simply:
- An entrepreneur tends to maximise land yield and short-term returns.
- A prudent insurer prioritises resilience, serviceability, and sustainable performance.
Reconciling the two requires compromise:
- Designing layouts with periodic access lanes and perimeter roads.
- Balancing GCR to optimise not just output, but also O&M efficiency.
- Adopting internationally recognised maintenance and monitoring standards.
- Building for climate resilience, with designs and spares adapted to local conditions.
- Choosing vegetation strategies that reduce long-term maintenance costs.
The bottom line
Solar is quickly maturing into a mainstream infrastructure asset class. As this happens, the conversation is shifting from “how much energy can we squeeze onto this site?” to “how do we ensure it lasts, stays insurable, and performs over 25 years?”
Ignoring maintenance in the race for profits can backfire. Policyholders may face penalties from utilities for failing to meet power delivery obligations, creating financial consequences beyond repair costs. Designing solar farms to be productive, insurable, and maintainable from the start is essential.
In summary, the most successful solar farms for all stakeholders will be those that balance both sides of the equation, maximising returns while preserving the ability to maintain, repair, and insure the asset throughout its lifecycle. A
Neil Best is director, energy and Liew Boon Tat is executive energy adjuster at Sedgwick in Asia.