Originally published on Insurance Journal
The 2025 Solar Risk Assessment report, recently released by kWh Analytics, has sparked significant discussion among industry professionals about the evolving challenges facing renewable energy assets. To explore the report’s findings in depth, kWh Analytics convened its Renewable Energy Broker Council, bringing together leading insurance brokers specializing in solar and battery storage to share their perspectives on the industry’s most pressing risks. The council provided a platform for these experts to discuss the implications of the report’s findings and identify strategies for stakeholders.
The Broker Council consisted of the following participants: Rob Battenfield (AmWins), Todd Burack (McGriff), Mike Cosgrave (Renewable Guard), Brian Fitzgerald (WTW), John Katilus (Aon), Geraldine Kerrigan (CAC Specialty), Alex Post (Alliant), and Luke Slemeck (Marsh).
Advancing Hail Risk Mitigation
The 2025 Solar Risk Assessment highlighted hail as the dominant cause of solar losses, accounting for 73% of total losses by damage amount despite representing only 6% of loss incidents. This finding resonated strongly with the brokers, who emphasized the critical importance of robust hail defense strategies and the evolution toward more data-driven approaches.
Mike Cosgrave from Renewable Guard emphasized how clients are embracing more sophisticated risk engineering: “What’s really resonating with our clients is asking resources, like VDE Americas, to rerun models to see the effects of resilience measures like thicker modules and different stow angles on Probable Maximum Losses (PMLs, an important metric in insurance). In some cases, our clients are collaborating with us very early in the process. Design and equipment decisions are being made on this basis very early in the development process. For the Sponsors, it’s both a question of cost benefit, along with an overall desire to reduce risk. That’s where I’m seeing a lot more collaboration between insureds and others in the industry.”
The council discussed how the industry has moved towards implementing comprehensive hail defense protocols that demonstrate measurable risk reduction.
Technology Selection and Market Access
Much of the discussion centered on how module selection and technology choices are increasingly becoming essential to obtaining reasonable insurance coverage. The conversation revealed a shift in market dynamics, as Todd Burack from McGriff highlighted: “As insurers have become more sophisticated, site resiliency becomes less of an option, because without it, insurance just won’t participate. There is a price of admission to have a resilient asset, and it’s effectively building competition in the marketplace.”
This shift represents a maturation of the insurance market, where carriers are moving beyond simply pricing to the standard, to differentiating premiums based on specific resilience measures, such as thicker glass modules in hail-prone regions. Projects with legacy technology or inadequate resilience measures may find themselves unable to secure coverage at any price, fundamentally changing how developers approach equipment selection and project design.
The Insurance Procurement Challenge
Despite significant investments in resilience technology and engineering analysis, brokers identified a disconnect between technical risk assessments and insurance purchasing requirements. This gap has created frustration among developers who invest in sophisticated risk mitigation measures but don’t see corresponding reductions in coverage requirements.
Luke Slemeck from Marsh highlighted this industry challenge: “Today, asset owners invest in hail resilience with racking systems that stow at 50 degrees or greater, and have independent engineers run PML loss studies to show their benefits, yet insurance limits are sized well above the stowed PMLs. Somewhere along the line, independent insurance advisors are ignoring the realities of what developers on the ground are being asked to do: to design for resilience, causing insureds to buy much greater limits than the PML studies indicate are appropriate.”
The brokers acknowledged that navigating these conflicting requirements puts them in a challenging position between their clients’ interests and conservative industry standards. Brian Fitzgerald from WTW emphasized the broker’s responsibility in these situations: “We have that fiduciary responsibility to help clients buy the right amount of insurance, not to inflate coverage unnecessarily. When interested parties require certain coverage levels, it can be hard to push back, but it’s incumbent on experienced brokers to advocate for their clients when the data supports it, even though it can be a contentious process.”
This disconnect highlights the need for better alignment between engineering assessments, insurance requirements, and actual risk profiles of modern resilient solar projects.
Battery Energy Storage Systems: Navigating Early-Stage Risks
The rapid growth of battery energy storage systems featured prominently in the discussion, with brokers sharing firsthand experiences about the critical importance of the commissioning and early operational phases. EPRI’s findings in the 2025 Solar Risk Assessment, noting that 72% of BESS failures occur within the first two years, resonated strongly with the group.
John Katilus of Aon offered insights from direct loss experience: “Aon’s claims team has seen a small number of hot commissioning losses of Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) farms.”
“Hot testing” generally refers to the phase where the BESS system is energized and begins operating with the intended power sources and control systems. It’s the critical step where the entire system, including the Battery Management System (BMS), Power Conversion System (PCS), and plant controllers, is tested under real-world conditions.
Faulty workmanship appears to be one of the leading contributing loss factors. The hot commissioning period is also one of the riskier phases during a construction project cycle. A phased approach during commissioning, as opposed to commissioning the entire site, will significantly limit the overall loss expectancy exposure.
Data Quality and Risk Assessment Challenges
The brokers strongly supported the insurance industry’s move toward more sophisticated risk assessment, highlighting ongoing data collection and standardization challenges.
Rob Battenfield of AmWins highlighted the disparity in market approaches: “Not all insurance stakeholders understand how to ask the right questions and put data together in a way to differentiate clients in the eyes of an underwriter. Committed brokers in the space sit in a unique position where they have the ability to really make a difference. Experts can not only assist in designing efficient risk transfer but also communicate best practices in risk mitigation.”
The discussion also revealed challenges around having extensive data without clear decision-making frameworks. Alex Post noted the data paradox that the industry is facing: “We have almost too much data and often conflicting modeling information, creating uncertainty about what data should be trusted and making it difficult for asset owners to make informed insurance decisions. The risk exposure level changes significantly based on equipment and resilience tactics deployed on site. With solar, the challenge is finding a fair balance between managing these shifting exposures (based on stow angles, risk mitigation, etc.) and the financial security that stakeholders seek under adverse loss scenarios.”
The brokers also made a call to action for the industry to improve data collection and documentation. Geraldine Kerrigan from CAC Specialty highlighted a key missing element: “We would love to see clients provide us information on when hail falls and nothing happens—that’s actually more interesting than when it falls and something does happen, but we don’t get that data.”
These positive case studies of successful risk mitigation could help demonstrate the value of resilience investments and push the industry toward more nuanced risk assessment approaches.
Future Outlook and Industry Recommendations
Here are the key takeaways from the discussion:
For Developers and Asset Owners: Invest in resilience measures early in the development process and maintain comprehensive documentation of risk mitigation efforts. Focus on proven technologies and robust operational protocols, particularly for projects in previously undeveloped areas.
For the Industry: Develop standardized approaches to measuring and valuing resilience, particularly for emerging technologies like BESS. Improve data sharing on both successful risk mitigation and loss events to create industry-wide learning opportunities.
For Insurers and Brokers: Continue advancing premium differentiation that properly rewards proactive risk management while working to simplify decision-making frameworks that can handle increasingly complex technical data.
The renewable energy sector’s continued growth depends on building infrastructure designed to withstand evolving climate and operational challenges. While significant progress has been made in understanding and managing risks, the industry must continue adapting as we face changing natural catastrophe profiles.
Here’s the clear path forward for the industry: continue to collaborate, focus on data-driven decision making, and prioritize proactive risk management.
