.png)
If you’ve never been through a maintenance audit, it’s easy to imagine something dramatic.
Clipboards.
Trick questions.
Someone trying very hard to catch you out.
If you have been through one, you already know the truth: most energy maintenance audits are quiet, structured and very predictable.
They usually come down to one thing: Proof.
Proof that maintenance was done, proof that it was done safely, proof that it happened when you said it did. Not opinions. not explanations. Records.
Let’s break down what energy regulators actually ask for during EV, battery and solar maintenance audits – and why teams that understand this upfront tend to have much calmer audit experiences.
Energy regulators ask for evidence that maintenance was performed correctly, safely, and on time. That evidence typically includes:
The goal isn’t to debate whether the equipment was fixed. It’s to verify that the process behind the fix holds up.
Audits aren’t interviews. They’re evidence reviews.
Regulators and auditors usually arrive with:
They’re not asking: “Can you explain how you usually do maintenance?” They’re asking: “Show me the record for this asset during this time period.”
If your records tell a clean, consistent story, audits stay routine. If they don’t, even good maintenance work can start to look questionable.
Across EV charging, battery energy storage, and solar operations, regulators tend to focus on the same core categories.
Auditors want to know exactly which asset was worked on and where it’s located. Asset IDs, site names, and locations need to be unambiguous.
They’ll review:
Patterns matter more than one-off fixes.
This is one of the most common audit pressure points.
Auditors typically look for:
Missing or inconsistent timestamps raise questions quickly.
Audits almost always ask:
“Handled by the team” doesn’t count as a record.
For energy assets, safety documentation is non-negotiable.
In the US, OSHA’s lockout/tagout standard (29 CFR 1910.147) requires documented control of hazardous energy during servicing and maintenance where unexpected energization could cause injury. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1910.147)
Auditors want to see:
Finally, auditors ask the most reasonable question of all:
“How do you know the fix worked?”
Verification tests, readings or confirmations close the loop and matter more than many teams expect.
EV charging audits are often uptime-driven. This is especially true for chargers funded under the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Program, which is administered by the US Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Under the NEVI rule, each charging port must maintain an average annual uptime of greater than 97%, as defined in 23 CFR Part 680 (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-23/part-680).
Importantly, “uptime” doesn’t just mean the charger looks online. The rule defines uptime in terms of the charger being:
Because of this, EV charging audits often ask for:
A common audit request sounds like: “Show me the maintenance records for this charger during its last downtime event.”
Battery energy storage systems bring added scrutiny because they involve high energy density and safety risk.
Regulators and inspectors often align expectations with safety guidance from bodies like the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and research from the US Department of Energy and NREL on energy storage safety and operations (https://www.nrel.gov/grid/energy-storage.html).
Battery maintenance audits commonly focus on:
In battery audits, how work was done matters as much as whether the system is running.
Solar audits tend to be more process-oriented and less urgent – but still thorough.
Guidance and best practices often draw from research and operational frameworks published by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), particularly around solar O&M consistency and performance tracking (https://www.nrel.gov/solar/operations-maintenance.html).
Auditors typically look for:
Solar audits reward consistency. Clear, repeatable processes matter more than speed.
This part catches many teams off guard. Auditors generally don’t ask for:
They’re not there to interpret intent. They’re there to review evidence.
Certain issues almost always lead to follow-up questions:
None of these mean the work wasn’t done. They just make it hard to prove.
Audit-ready maintenance isn’t complicated. It simply means:
You should be able to pull a complete maintenance record without detective work.
Teams that handle audits well don’t treat them as special events. They:
Audit readiness isn’t a project. It’s a byproduct of good execution.
Monitoring tools are excellent at detecting issues. Spreadsheets are fine – until scale and audits enter the picture. Audit readiness usually comes from execution-layer systems that:
Platforms like FieldEx are built around this execution layer – helping teams turn everyday maintenance work into clean, audit-ready records without adding friction.
Before an audit, ask yourself:
If the answer is “yes,” audits tend to stay boring – in the best possible way.
Energy maintenance audits aren’t mysterious. They’re structured, evidence-driven, and surprisingly predictable.
Regulators don’t expect perfection. They expect clear records that tell a complete story.
When maintenance workflows are designed to capture proof as work happens, audits stop being stressful and start feeling routine.
And honestly, that’s exactly where you want them.
Curious what audit-ready maintenance looks like in practice? You can book a free FieldEx demo or get in touch to see how teams are simplifying audit prep without adding paperwork.
They look for proof. Specifically, clear records that show what work was done, when it was done, who did it, what safety steps were followed, and how the fix was verified. The focus is less on explanations and more on evidence.
Both. Audits often review patterns across preventive maintenance (planned inspections and servicing) and corrective maintenance (repairs after failures). Regulators want to see that issues are managed consistently, not just fixed when something breaks.
The structure is similar, but the emphasis differs. EV charging audits tend to focus on uptime and downtime response. Battery audits place more weight on safety procedures and verification. Solar audits usually emphasize consistency, inspections, and long-term maintenance records.
Monitoring data helps show when something went wrong, but on its own, it’s usually not enough. Regulators typically want that data tied to maintenance records that show what actions were taken and how the issue was resolved.
Incomplete records don’t automatically mean non-compliance, but they almost always lead to follow-up questions, deeper reviews, or corrective actions. In audits, missing documentation creates uncertainty – and uncertainty is what auditors try to eliminate.
Yes. If contractors perform maintenance on regulated or critical assets, their work is usually held to the same documentation and evidence standards as in-house teams. “The contractor handled it” isn’t considered sufficient proof.
The simplest answer is to build audit readiness into everyday work. Standardized work orders, required documentation, and evidence captured during the job make audits routine instead of stressful. When records are created as work happens, there’s very little to “prepare” later.
.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