Predicting the future: How FM uses engineering to underwrite renewable energy projects
As the renewable energy sector grows, so do the complexities of protecting it. At FM, underwriting isn’t just about crunching numbers—it’s about predicting the future. That’s where engineering comes in. Mary Rieck, principal underwriter for renewable energy, pharmaceuticals and molten materials at FM, explains how her team uses deep engineering insights to assess risk, shape strategy, and help clients see the future risks that others may miss. In this Q&A, she shares how FM’s unique approach to underwriting is helping clients navigate the evolving landscape of renewable energy.
Q: What does your role as principal underwriter for renewable energy involve?
Mary Rieck: I help FM develop a strategy that works across our renewable energy portfolio. That means understanding potential loss scenarios based on engineering input, assessing how likely those are to happen at specific sites, and building an underwriting strategy that’s both profitable and sustainable. That includes pricing, capacity, terms and conditions, and reinsurance.
Q: You have a background in chemical engineering. How does that influence your work in underwriting?
Rieck: Underwriting is more analytical than people realise. It’s not just about reviewing data—it’s about interpreting it. My engineering background helps me understand the technical aspects of risk and apply judgement to data trends. For example, transformer lead times are increasing, so we’ve had to factor that into our strategy. And if I see a new trend, I have to decide if it’s a blip or something that requires a change in our approach.
Q: How does FM use engineering in its underwriting?
Rieck: We work closely with engineers who provide us with detailed site assessments—what equipment is in use, how it’s maintained, and how resilient it is. They help us understand what could go wrong and how likely it is. For example, if a hailstorm hits a solar farm, will the glass break? That depends on the panel’s make and model, the thickness of the glass, and whether the site has a good stowing strategy. Engineering helps us answer those questions. I think of underwriting is as trying to predict the future.
Q: Can you give an example of how engineering insights directly influence underwriting decisions?
Rieck: Take solar panels—hail is the biggest risk. We look at the hail zone, the panel’s glass thickness, and whether the site has an effective stowing plan. Our engineers evaluate how well-trained the operators are and whether the stowing is automated. That all affects how likely a loss is and, in turn, our pricing and terms.
Q: What about wind and battery energy storage systems (BESS)?
Rieck: For wind, we look at things like whether the turbine class matches the wind zone and how well the site manages spare parts. Losing a blade is a common event, so we assess how quickly a site can recover. For BESS, space separation is key to limiting fire spread. We also look at off-gas detection systems, which can prevent fires by identifying thermal runaway early.
Q: How does FM’s approach differ from others in the industry?
Rieck: We go deeper. Many insurers assess risk at the account level, but we start at the site level. That gives us a more accurate view of what could happen and allows us to tailor coverage more precisely. We also use advanced climate tools—like our hail maps—to assess risks that others might overlook.
Q: How do FM’s climate tools enhance underwriting?
Rieck: Our research team works closely with underwriting to develop tools that reflect real-world risks. For example, they’ve tested solar panels by shooting ice balls at them to understand breakage thresholds. That helps us predict how much power a panel can still produce after damage and informs our underwriting triggers.
Q: How do clients benefit from this engineering-focused approach?
Rieck: Insurance is about pooling risk, but we make sure clients are pooled with their true peers—those who’ve taken similar steps to mitigate risk. That way, a well-managed site isn’t subsidising one that hasn’t invested in prevention. It’s a fairer, more sustainable model.
Q: How do you balance underwriting rigour with client needs?
Rieck: That’s the hardest part. We want to provide enough coverage to meet client and lender needs, but we also have to stay profitable. Strong underwriting, backed by engineering, helps us find that balance. We don’t expect clients to be perfect, but we do look for a commitment to loss prevention. Then we help them improve.
Q: What’s changing in renewable energy underwriting?
Rieck: We’re getting better at risk differentiation. We’re developing more nuanced categories based on site-specific data. That allows us to offer more tailored coverage and pricing.
Q: What keeps you up at night when it comes to underwriting renewables?
Rieck: It’s not the unknown—it’s the challenge of finding that mutual win. We know what can go wrong, but how do we provide enough insurance at a sustainable price? That’s the puzzle we’re always trying to solve.