Tokio Marine GX’s latest report argues that rising solar losses demand more than stronger assets, as contractor delays, fragmented insurance programmes and lengthy repairs threaten to prolong business interruption.
Renewable energy insurers face a growing mismatch between the scale of weather losses and the industry’s ability to restore damaged projects, according to Tokio Marine GX’s Expecting the Worst report.
The insurer’s analysis puts North American cumulative losses above $1.115bn across 2008–2026. The dataset measures total incurred economic losses at affected projects, rather than TMGX’s insured share.
“Each of our contributors arrived independently at the same underlying conclusion: the tools the industry uses to prepare for and recover from major losses have not kept pace with the evolving risk itself,” the report says.
Utility-scale solar now accounts for 80%–90% of annual global financial losses in the dataset. North American hail losses total approximately $275m, averaging $9.1m per claim.
“Larger solar projects create greater aggregation of equipment within a single site, while larger panel formats and thinner glass can increase exposure to hail and wind uplift,” TMGX says.
The underwriting challenge extends beyond location selection. Concentrated equipment values can turn a localised storm into a major claim, while less visible damage complicates assessment.
Recovery starts before the storm
“The first hurdle is the Master Service Agreement; if this isn’t in place it can take 6 to 8 weeks of contractual negotiation before the EPC team can start work,” the report states.
Its proposed response starts before a claim: “Response plans, spare parts logistics, and adjustment teams can all be agreed before a loss occurs.”
“The clearest thread running through every contributor’s experience is that the industry still organises itself around the moment of loss. Adjusters, EPC contractors, and insurers are frequently meeting each other for the first time in the aftermath of a claim.”
Larger insurer panels introduce another obstacle. The report describes non-concurrent terms requiring adjusters to reconcile coverage differences and sometimes calculate losses separately for individual insurers.
For brokers, aligning wordings and recovery procedures becomes part of reducing settlement friction, rather than simply securing capacity.
Business interruption protection must be assessed against realistic replacement lead times, according to the report.
Stronger engineering alone cannot resolve a mismatch between the time needed to recover and the period insurance will respond, its authors argue.
“Policies with cover windows built around 12 to 18 months of downtime fall short when a single transformer outage can now run to three years,” the report adds.
No comments yet