Share
The eighth annual Solar Risk Assessment arrives at an inflection point for the energy transition. The world passed 50 million EVs on the road in 2024; data center electricity use is on track to quintuple by 2040; and global cooling demand is projected to triple by 2060. All of that demand is landing on a grid that now counts on solar, wind, and storage.
As the industry’s footprint has grown, so has the risk picture. This year’s report is organized around three themes: Resilience, Reliability, and Emerging Risks.
Fire is the next big risk, and they often begin onsite.
Operational losses are getting more specific and measurable.
Compliance is now a financial risk. Most developers aren't ready.
With the emergence of hail-hardened modules and stow technologies pushing to increasingly steep angles, stakeholders are left wondering: which mitigation is actually worth it, and where? Using testing data from GroundWork Renewables and loss modeling from kWh Analytics, we evaluated multiple module-and-stow configurations for a 100 MW single-axis tracker at locations across the U.S. Each location-configuration pair was evaluated against a single pass/fail criteria: configurations where the 1-in-100 hail loss exceeded 10% of asset value were marked as "fail" — reflecting a 1% chance of losses that exceed standard deductibles and cause significant damage to the asset.
Analysis of over $150B in renewable energy loss data shows that fire is the second-largest loss driver at PV sites. "Fire" encompasses losses from both large wildfires originating off-site, and smaller, local brushfires, which are typically ignited by human activity or energized equipment. While large-scale wildfires dominate headlines, the data tells a different story: 84% of fire events are equipment-driven brushfires.
Project finance models underpin investment decisions but increasingly rely on aggressive assumptions about module life that may not reflect real-world performance.
Project life assumptions have expanded significantly in recent years. In the mid-2010s, useful life assumptions were 20 to 25 years; now, financial models commonly assume a 35 or 40-year useful life. With mature developers able to source a greater proportion of project capital from tax equity and debt than in years past, sponsor returns are increasingly dependent on these distant cash flows. Unfortunately, these changes were driven by finance teams; while lab testing can stress modules, real-world conditions can only be approximated and very few field-deployed proofs of 35-year useful life modules exist.