By Daniel Lazarus
When facility managers think about the critical systems underpinning a building, certain expectations are well established. For HVAC, lifts, fire systems or security, there are national service networks, consistent documentation and clear chains of accountability. When a system fails, you know who to call, what paperwork to consult and how to benchmark performance.
Solar power, despite becoming one of the most visible assets on rooftops across Australia, has yet to reach this level of maturity. Yet national portfolios are demanding it, and data is backing up the urgency. A recent national inspection rollout by the Clean Energy Regulator revealed that 22 percent of all solar systems failed to meet technical standards.
Unlike other building systems, solar does not have a universally recognised service infrastructure. Facility managers are instead left to deal with fragmented contractors, inconsistent record-keeping and an absence of standardised reporting. The result is a growing gap between the strategic importance of solar and the disparate way it is managed on the ground.
Why solar management lags behind
There are three key reasons solar asset management has struggled to keep pace.
First, solar has only recently shifted from a sustainability add-on to a mainstream building system. For years, installations were treated as environmental statements rather than operational infrastructure. That mindset meant long-term maintenance and performance considerations were often sidelined in favour of up-front installation.
Second, the industry’s rapid growth has created a patchwork of providers, many of them small operators without the scale to support national portfolios. Facility managers looking after multiple sites quickly discover that each solar system has its own installer, warranty structure and documentation format, if records exist at all.
Finally, unlike HVAC or lifts, there has been little regulatory or industry-driven impetus for standardisation. Fire systems have compliance regimes because lives depend on them. Solar has no equivalent framework, despite the fact that energy production is now critical to cost control, ESG reporting and long-term asset value, as well as ensuring safe operation.
This gap creates tangible risks.
A single underperforming panel can compromise an entire string, silently eroding a system’s output and return on investment. Without proper monitoring and documentation, these losses can persist for years, leaving owners with significantly reduced ROI and facility managers facing tough questions from asset managers.
Aging systems also undergo tangible wear and tear over time by being outside 24/7 and generating enormous amounts of electricity at least 12 hours per day. Nationwide audit programs in Australia have found as high as 15 percent of systems have serious performance or safety issues, whether around the panels, cabling, mounting or the inverters themselves.
Fragmentation also means accountability is blurred. When a system underperforms, is it the installer, the component supplier, or the current service contractor who carries responsibility? In many cases, no one steps forward. Facility managers are left navigating disputes rather than focusing on solutions.
Missing documentation adds a further layer of complexity. Changes in contractors, staff turnover, or inadequate handover processes can result in critical information, such as warranties, electrical schematics, or service histories, being misplaced. This is particularly acute in large property portfolios where standardised processes are otherwise the norm.
In short, solar’s lack of service infrastructure not only undermines performance but also exposes facility managers and owners to operational, financial and reputational risk.
Why a national, standardised approach is needed
The answer is not simply more contractors or ad-hoc fixes. What solar management needs is the same structured approach that other building systems already enjoy.
A national framework for solar service, supported by consistent documentation and reporting standards, would go a long way to closing the current gap. Standardised and centralised reporting would allow facility managers to benchmark performance across sites, identify emerging risks and demonstrate accountability to asset managers and investors.
A centralised repository of service records and warranties would reduce the risk of information loss and ensure continuity even as personnel or contractors change. National service networks, modelled on those that already exist for lifts or fire systems, would provide facility managers with clear points of contact, consistent quality standards and the ability to manage large portfolios with confidence.
This is not just a matter of operational convenience. With energy costs volatile, ESG reporting requirements intensifying and renewable generation now embedded in national policy, solar is a core asset. Treating it with the same rigour as other building systems is no longer optional.
Australia has invested billions in rooftop solar, much of it on commercial and institutional buildings. Facility managers sit at the frontline of making sure those investments deliver. Without structural reform, too many systems will underperform, too much value will be lost, and too much accountability will rest unfairly on the shoulders of facility managers.
Daniel Lazarus is the co-founder of Industrias
Read more: GBCA partners with international organisations for standardisation of sustainability frameworks
