.png)
A few years ago, “maintenance compliance” sounded like the boring cousin of real work.
You know – paperwork, checkboxes, someone asking you to “upload the report” when you’re already juggling outages, parts, and a technician who swears the site definitely had signal five minutes ago.
But here’s the twist: in green infrastructure, compliance isn’t just paperwork anymore.
It’s increasingly tied to uptime requirements, safety rules, funding expectations, and audit-proof evidence.
And the uncomfortable truth is this:
You can do the repair … and still fail the compliance test if you can’t prove it.
Let’s talk about what maintenance compliance actually means, why it’s becoming non-negotiable, and how to build it into your daily workflow without making your technicians hate you.
Maintenance compliance is basically:
That last part – proof – is what makes compliance feel “extra”. But it’s also what makes it enforceable.
Because from a regulator’s point of view, “we did it” isn’t a reliable fact.
A reliable fact is:
In other words: a trail of evidence.
People often use these words like they mean the same thing. They don’t. Here’s the simplest way to separate them:
A useful way to think about it:
This shift didn’t happen because someone woke up and thought, “Let’s make technicians fill out more forms”. It happened because green infrastructure is now treated more like critical infrastructure – and the expectations are rising fast.
Maintenance compliance means performing required maintenance safely and consistently – and being able to prove it with clear records.
For EV chargers funded under NEVI (the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program), uptime isn’t a nice-to-have anymore. The federal rule requires each charging port to maintain an average annual uptime of more than 97% (Legal Information Institute).
And “uptime” doesn’t mean “the dashboard says it’s online.”
The rule is very specific: the charger must be online, available (or actively in use), and able to dispense electricity properly (Legal Information Institute).
That kind of requirement doesn’t run on good intentions or crossed fingers. It demands:
Because once performance is measured, the follow-up question is inevitable:
Why was it down – and what did you do about it?
If you’ve ever heard someone say “LOTO,” that’s lockout/tagout – the process of controlling hazardous energy so equipment doesn’t unexpectedly energize during servicing.
OSHA’s lockout/tagout standard (29 CFR 1910.147) applies to servicing and maintenance where unexpected startup or stored energy release could injure workers, and it sets minimum requirements for controlling that hazardous energy. ((OSHA))
Here’s the practical meaning for green infrastructure:
A lot of this equipment involves serious electrical energy.
So the compliance question isn’t only “did you fix it?”
It’s also: did you follow the required safety process, and can you prove it?
In regulated environments, audits are increasingly built around evidence requests – structured, specific asks for documentation that shows exactly what was done and when.
A good example is NERC (the North American Electric Reliability Corporation). Under its Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) program, NERC uses formal evidence request tools and guidance to help auditors consistently ask for, and review, maintenance and compliance records.
Even if your organization isn’t directly subject to NERC CIP requirements, the broader shift is worth paying attention to.
Audits are moving away from “tell me what happened” and toward “show me the records.”
And green infrastructure is very clearly moving in that same direction.
This is where teams get surprised.
Because they did the work.
They did restore service.
But later, someone asks for proof:
And suddenly the team is trying to reconstruct reality from:
That’s not a compliance system. That’s detective work.
And detective work is not a scalable strategy.
If you want to build maintenance compliance without guesswork, you need to standardize the “proof packet” for every job.
Here’s what auditors, regulators, and internal reviewers typically want to see – especially for assets tied to uptime and safety expectations:
A simple rule that sounds harsh but saves a lot of pain later:
If it isn’t recorded, it didn’t happen (from an audit perspective).
Let’s be honest: most compliance failures aren’t dramatic. They’re boring, repetitive and totally preventable.
The asset is back up, so everyone moves on. Then the evidence is missing.
Fix: Make closeout documentation part of “done”, not an optional afterthought.
One person documents everything. Another person writes “fixed” and calls it a day.
Fix: Standard checklists with required fields and required evidence.
If you can’t establish a clear chain of events, you can’t defend the timeline.
Fix: Automatic timestamps on key workflow steps.
If parts aren’t tracked, you lose traceability and trend insights (and you can’t prove what was replaced).
Fix: Tie parts usage directly to the work order.
Technicians may follow safe practices, but if lockout/tagout isn’t documented when required, it can become a compliance issue. (OSHA)
Fix: Make safety steps an enforced part of the workflow.
The monitoring platform shows outages. The maintenance records live somewhere else. Nobody can tell the full story quickly.
Fix: Integrate alert → work order → resolution in a single chain of record.
Photos in WhatsApp. Notes in email. Readings in someone’s notebook.
Fix: Capture evidence in one system tied to the job.
Jobs get closed without proof, or left “in progress” forever.
Fix: Closeout rules + completeness checks (and yes, this is where software helps).
Now for the good news: compliance doesn’t have to feel like punishment.
The goal is not to make people do more work.
The goal is to make compliance happen as a byproduct of doing the work properly.
Here’s how teams make that real:
A good work order shouldn’t be a blank textbox. It should guide technicians like a friendly, annoying-but-helpful teacher:
If a job requires a photo, the system should ask for the photo.
If a job requires a reading, it should ask for the reading.
Not later. Not “when you get around to it.”
Right then, while the technician is still on site.
A lot of green infrastructure sites aren’t blessed with perfect connectivity.
Offline-first mobile workflows matter because they prevent “I’ll update it later,” which usually turns into “I forgot.”
If contractors maintain your assets, compliance gets trickier. Not impossible – just trickier.
You want the same standards:
The more reporting is automated, the less people resent compliance.
A well-run workflow should be able to produce a clean maintenance record without someone spending an hour formatting it.
This is exactly where execution-layer platforms (like FieldEx) fit – helping teams standardize work orders, enforce proof capture, and keep maintenance documentation audit-ready without turning the job into paperwork theater.
If you want teams to buy in, you need to measure compliance in a way that clearly improves operations.
Good metrics include:
Here’s the secret: when compliance improves, these metrics usually improve too.
Because better documentation and standardized execution reduce mistakes, repeat visits, and confusion.
If you’re evaluating systems (or trying to upgrade a messy process), look for capabilities that make compliance repeatable:
The key question is simple: Does the system make it easy to do the right thing … and hard to skip the proof?
In green infrastructure, fixing the problem isn’t enough anymore. You also need to prove how it was fixed.
Uptime rules, safety standards, and audits all expect clear, consistent maintenance records – not best guesses or after-the-fact notes.
Teams that get this right build compliance into everyday work, so documentation happens naturally as the job gets done.
Want to see how audit-ready maintenance workflows actually looks with FieldEx? Book a free demo today, or get in touch for a quick chat. We’re here to help.
Because good compliance isn’t about paperwork It’s about confidence when it counts.
Maintenance compliance means performing required maintenance safely and consistently – and keeping records that prove it happened.
Because green infrastructure is increasingly tied to uptime, safety, and audit requirements, where missing evidence can become a real operational and financial risk.
Reliability is keeping assets working. Compliance is meeting enforceable requirements and proving you did.
For NEVI-funded EV chargers, each charging port must average greater than 97% annual uptime under the federal standard. (Legal Information Institute)
Lockout/tagout is a safety procedure for controlling hazardous energy during servicing and maintenance to prevent unexpected energization or startup. OSHA’s standard is 29 CFR 1910.147. (OSHA)
Records that clearly show what happened, who did the work, when it happened, what steps were performed, and what evidence supports it.
Work orders, timestamps, technician identity, checklist steps, parts used, photos/readings, and verification tests – tied to the asset and location.
Use standardized work orders, mobile/offline checklists, and required evidence capture so documentation happens naturally as part of the job.
Not really. Monitoring can detect issues, but compliance requires proof of maintenance actions, safety steps, and verification.
Missing documentation, inconsistent checklists, scattered evidence, unclear timestamps, and closing jobs without proof.
.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