.png)
If you spend any time around EV chargers, solar sites, or large battery installations, you’ll start hearing people toss around the term “System of Record” like it’s something you’re already supposed to understand.
It shows up in meetings. In reports. Sometimes dropped casually, as if everyone in the room is on the same page.
But in 2026, a ‘System of Record’ has become the difference between operations that can calmly explain what happened – and teams scrambling through files while an inspector waits.
So before we go any further, let’s slow things down and talk about what a System of Record actually is, why it matters now, and what it looks like in the real world (without assuming anyone got the memo).
Think of a System of Record (SoR) as the master diary of your infrastructure.
It’s the one place where:
… is recorded, time-stamped, and tied to the exact asset it happened on. Not scattered across apps. Not rewritten later. Not “cleaned up” after the fact.
A real System of Record creates a single, authoritative version of the truth – one that stands up under scrutiny.
And in the world of green infrastructure (EV charging, energy storage, renewable power), that truth isn’t just operational. It’s regulatory and legal.
In 2026, this is no longer a hypothetical.
Today, government inspectors routinely ask operators to prove that federally funded EV charging networks meet the required 97% uptime threshold – meaning chargers are operational and available almost all the time.
This requirement comes directly from the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Program, as defined under 23 CFR Part 680.
(Source: Federal Highway Administration / eCFR – https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-23/part-680)
If your information is scattered across:
… you don’t have a record. You have a headache.
A true System of Record changes that. It turns raw maintenance data into verifiable audit evidence. It doesn’t just show that a charger was “up”. It documents:
That level of detail is what regulators expect now. In 2026, audit-ready compliance matters far more than nicely formatted reports – and only defensible records hold up when questions are asked.
This sounds obvious, but it’s worth slowing down. Auditors don’t ask, “Tell us what you usually do.” They ask, “Show us exactly what happened, when it happened, and who did it.”
That’s where spreadsheets start to struggle. They don’t inherently show:
Without this context, inspectors are forced to piece together proof from emails, photos, paper checklists, and verbal explanations. That’s where confidence breaks down.
The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) explicitly states that auditors must assess whether data – even digital data – is complete, accurate, and reliable before using it as audit evidence. That includes data stored in spreadsheets. (Source: GAO, Assessing Data Reliability https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-283g)
In plain English: Spreadsheets can store data, but they don’t automatically prove it’s trustworthy.
If a system is going to protect your business – not just monitor it – these four pillars matter.
Every EV charger, inverter, and battery module needs a persistent digital identity.
This is often referred to as asset genealogy – a complete record of:
In battery systems, this concept is increasingly aligned with digital battery passports, driven by safety and lifecycle transparency expectations.
When something fails, inspectors don’t ask if it was serviced.
They ask which unit, with what components, by whom, and under what conditions.
A real System of Record doesn’t rely on memory.
It uses logic-driven checklists that enforce safety and compliance.
For example, under NFPA 855 – Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems, the 2026 edition increases emphasis on documented inspections and hazard mitigation requirements for battery projects. (Source: NFPA 855 Overview https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=855)
A compliant system can block job completion until required safety evidence (photos, readings) is uploaded. That’s not red tape. That’s engineered risk reduction.
In a true System of Record:
Auditors care deeply about this because it proves records weren’t altered after an incident. Immutability creates trust in the timeline.
Green infrastructure operations involve equipment from many vendors.
Your System of Record must unify physical work across:
... without caring who manufactured them. It acts as the nervous system connecting digital alerts to physical action.
This shift is no longer theoretical.
In 2026, regulatory expectations for green infrastructure are firmly in place. Across EV charging, battery energy storage, and grid-connected renewables, operators are now expected to produce clear, auditable records of maintenance, safety checks, and outage response.
This isn’t about future readiness anymore. It’s about meeting today’s requirements – and avoiding penalties, funding risk, or compliance findings that stem from incomplete or unverifiable records.
Under the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Program, uptime and performance reporting requirements are now fully active. Operators receiving federal funding are expected to provide granular, defensible evidence explaining both uptime and excluded downtime events.
In practice, that means being able to show not just that a charger was down – but why, for how long, and what corrective action was taken, using time-stamped maintenance records tied to the asset itself.
(Source: FHWA NEVI Guidance – https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nevi/)
The 2026 edition of NFPA 855 now places clear expectations on documented maintenance, inspections, and hazard mitigation for stationary energy storage systems.
For battery operators, this means safety compliance is no longer satisfied by informal logs or retrospective summaries. Inspectors increasingly expect structured records that demonstrate when inspections occurred, what risks were evaluated, and how mitigation steps were verified.
(Source: NFPA 855 – https://www.nfpa.org/855)
In 2026, NERC compliance expectations extend well beyond large utilities. Many smaller renewable and distributed energy resources are now required to register, document outages, and maintain auditable operational records under evolving grid-reliability oversight.
The common thread across NERC compliance reviews is evidence: documented events, corrective actions, and timelines that can be reviewed without interpretation or reconstruction.
(Source: NERC Compliance Monitoring https://www.nerc.com/pa/comp/Pages/default.aspx)
Poor data and miscommunication account for 52% of rework costs in construction and infrastructure projects. That’s billions lost – largely because records weren’t reliable.
(Source: Autodesk & FMI, Harnessing the Data Advantage in Construction https://www.autodesk.com/construction/resources/construction-disconnected-data)
You’ll hear a lot of software vendors promise a “single pane of glass”. It sounds reassuring. One dashboard. One view. One place to look.
In practice, most of these tools are really good at one thing: watching.
They monitor charger uptime.
They track battery temperature.
They send alerts when something crosses a threshold.
That’s useful – but it’s only half the job.
In 2026, many operations teams are discovering the same gap: these systems act like brains, but they don’t function as hands. They can tell you something is wrong, but they can’t reliably show what was done about it.
A monitoring dashboard doesn’t know:
That information lives elsewhere – often in spreadsheets, emails, photos or memory.
A true System of Record closes that gap. It connects the digital alert to the physical action, capturing execution as it happens and tying it directly to the asset. When everything is recorded in one defensible trail, inspections stop depending on explanations and start relying on evidence.
In short, a single pane of glass may show you the problem.
A System of Record proves you handled it correctly.
In green infrastructure, work doesn’t happen where Wi-Fi is reliable.
EV chargers sit along highways. Solar farms stretch across remote land. Battery storage systems live in substations and industrial zones where signal strength is … optimistic at best.
In 2026, this reality is well understood. That’s why offline-first capability is no longer a nice-to-have – it’s a baseline requirement.
A true System of Record must allow technicians to:
… without a live internet connection.
Just as important, it must preserve timestamps, asset links, and evidence locally – then sync everything automatically the moment connectivity returns.
Without offline-first execution, teams end up with gaps in their records. And in compliance reviews, gaps raise questions. Questions slow audits. And slow audits invite deeper scrutiny.
Offline-first systems eliminate that risk. They ensure the maintenance record reflects what actually happened in the field, not what someone remembered to enter later.
In short: if your System of Record can’t function offline in 2026, it’s not built for real-world energy infrastructure.
Nobody enters the energy business because they love paperwork.
But in 2026, a rock-solid System of Record is the only practical way to protect:
When the inspector knocks, you shouldn’t be searching for files. You should be handing over a master diary that calmly proves you know exactly what you’re doing.
Curious what a real System of Record looks like in day-to-day energy operations? Book a free FieldEx demo or get in touch to see how teams manage EV, battery and solar maintenance without adding extra paperwork.
Not exactly. A CMMS manages work; a System of Record is the authoritative, immutable source of truth. A strong CMMS can act as an SoR if it enforces evidence, traceability, and immutability.
Because NEVI requires proof of uptime and downtime causes. Estimates don’t qualify as evidence.
Usually not. Financial systems track money, not physical work, safety checks, or asset history.
That’s why offline-first capability is essential. A true SoR captures work locally and syncs automatically.
.avif)
.avif)
This website and its content are the property of FieldEx and are protected by copyright laws. © 2026 FieldEx. Any redistribution or reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form is prohibited, except with our express written permission.
FieldEx Pte Ltd Singapore