.webp)
.png)
Let’s be honest: spreadsheets are everywhere. They’re in your maintenance room, your finance folder, your “don’t touch” drive, and probably buried in your email archive under a name like Final_v5_DefinitelyThisVersion.xlsx.
For day-to-day tracking? They’re fine.
For complex compliance inspections? They’re like trying to fix a high-voltage jet engine with a roll of duct tape. It might hold for a second, but you really don’t want to be in the air when it fails.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Spreadsheets are great for certain tasks. But compliance inspections, especially in energy infrastructure, demand things spreadsheets were never designed to deliver: traceability, defensibility, and audit-ready evidence.
And in the world of critical infrastructure – power grids, EV charging stations, battery systems, even water and utilities – the stakes have shifted sharply in recent years. We’ve entered an era where “good enough” record-keeping can quickly turn into a very uncomfortable conversation with a government inspector.
So let’s unpack exactly why these humble tables struggle when inspectors are at the door – and why that matters more than ever.
Yes, that sounds obvious. But it’s worth slowing down and really thinking about it.
Auditors don’t ask, “So, tell us what you usually do.” They ask, “Show me exactly what happened, when it happened, and who did it.”
That’s where spreadsheets start to fall short. They don’t automatically show:
Without that built-in context, inspectors are forced to piece together evidence from email threads, phone photos, printed checklists, and half-remembered explanations. And that’s the moment spreadsheets stop feeling “good enough”.
Even in formal audit guidance, data reliability is not taken for granted. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) emphasizes that auditors must assess whether data – even when digitally provided – are sufficiently complete and accurate before they can be relied on as audit evidence. That includes data stored in spreadsheets.
In plain English: Spreadsheets can hold data, but they don’t automatically prove that the data is trustworthy.
Before we talk about what’s broken, let’s be clear about expectations.
Across energy infrastructure – whether it’s EV chargers, battery storage systems or solar farms – compliance inspections usually revolve around the same core evidence:
A maintenance record isn’t just a line in a spreadsheet. It’s a story backed by evidence – and that’s what inspections evaluate.
Studies of real-world business spreadsheets have found errors in roughly 0.8% to 1.8% of formula cells, even in legitimate operational use cases. And that’s just formula errors – not missing context, incomplete documentation, or absent evidence.
That might not sound alarming at first. But multiply that error rate across:
Those small percentages can quickly turn into very large compliance problems.
Here’s the real issue: spreadsheets are free-form tools. They let you type anything, anywhere, at any time. That flexibility is great for tracking – but terrible for compliance.
Auditors don’t just want data. They want data that is:
Spreadsheets don’t enforce any of that by default. So when inspectors start asking structured questions, spreadsheets often don’t have structured answers.
These are the classic failure points inspectors run into again and again.
Change tracking exists, but it’s rarely clean, consistent, or designed for legal scrutiny.
Final.xlsx.
Final2.xlsx.
DefinitelyFinal.xlsx.
Which one is the official record?
Anyone with edit access can change critical fields – sometimes without realizing the impact.
Photos on phones. Readings in apps. Safety checks on paper. None of it is attached to the actual record.
Spreadsheets don’t enforce required actions. A missed safety step doesn’t trigger any warning.
One technician writes a paragraph. Another writes “OK.” Inspectors are left guessing.
Hand-typed dates break easily – especially across time zones or busy shifts.
Typing “replaced part X” doesn’t establish traceability to inventory, lot numbers, or suppliers.
When inspectors ask for a full maintenance history for one asset, filtering spreadsheets becomes a stressful scavenger hunt.
Spreadsheets started life as calculator-style tools for financial analysis and simple lists. They were never designed for compliance, audit trails, or evidence management.
We’ve simply asked them to do jobs they weren’t built for – like using a hammer as a wrench because, technically, it fits.
An EV charger goes down. A technician fixes it. Later, someone logs “fixed” in a spreadsheet. Months pass. An inspector asks:
The team starts searching through emails, phones, and folders. Meanwhile, the spreadsheet calmly displays one word: fixed.
That’s when spreadsheets stop being enough.
And this matters. Under the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Program, federally funded chargers must maintain average annual uptime of greater than 97%, as defined by federal regulation. That means outages and responses need to be traceable and explained, not just summarized. (Government Accountability Office)
Different green infrastructure assets have different risk profiles – but they all demand evidence.
Across all three, spreadsheets struggle to provide the structured context inspectors expect.
Regulators don’t just look at data – they assess whether it is reliable for audit purposes. That means checking completeness, accuracy, and relevance.
Manually maintained spreadsheets make this much harder to demonstrate.
The NFPA 855 standard for stationary energy storage systems now places greater emphasis on documented maintenance and hazard mitigation for battery installations. In short: battery compliance increasingly depends on clear, consistent maintenance records.
This surprises people. Inspectors don’t care how pretty your spreadsheet looks. They care whether your documentation is:
Formatting won’t save you if you can’t show proof.
At a minimum, teams should be able to produce:
When this information is easy to retrieve, inspections become routine instead of stressful.
This is where things improve.
Modern teams rely on systems that:
That’s not extra work. That’s built-in evidence. Execution-layer platforms like FieldEx are designed specifically for this – turning everyday maintenance into audit-ready records without asking technicians to double their paperwork.
When teams move away from manual entry, they stop merely tracking maintenance and start ensuring it actually happens.
Operational resilience – the ability to recover quickly and compliantly from failures – comes from:
For the 2026 fiscal years, the US EPA’s e-Manifest system charges $25 for paper image uploads of hazardous waste records – but only $5 for fully electronic submissions. Digital isn’t just safer. It’s roughly 80% cheaper. (EPA e-Manifest User Fees (FY 2026/2027))
You don’t need to rip spreadsheets away overnight.
Smart teams:
Slow transitions beat panic every time.
Look, change is hard. We’ve been using spreadsheets for decades. And honestly, they’re not bad tools; they’re just not compliance tools.
Energy infrastructure inspections today demand traceability, structured evidence, and defensible records. Relying on manual spreadsheets in 2026 isn’t just inefficient; it introduces unnecessary risk. When records are scattered, versioned, or incomplete, even good maintenance work becomes hard to defend.
Teams that move to managed, resilient systems aren’t doing it to be flashy. They’re doing it so that when an inspector shows up, they’re not scrambling for files or explanations – they’re calmly handing over a clear, complete audit trail.
Curious what audit-ready maintenance records look like in action? Book a free FieldEx demo or get in touch to see how teams are moving past spreadsheets without adding paperwork.
Spreadsheets fail because they don’t reliably provide audit trails, version control, enforced workflows, or attached evidence. Compliance inspections require proof of what happened, who did it, and how it was verified – details spreadsheets struggle to capture consistently.
Spreadsheets can work for basic tracking, but they’re risky for inspection-critical maintenance. As soon as regulators expect traceability, safety documentation, and verification evidence, spreadsheets usually fall short.
Inspectors typically expect structured maintenance records with clear timestamps, technician details, documented safety steps, verification results, and supporting evidence such as photos or readings – all tied to a specific asset.
No. Monitoring systems show when equipment goes down or behaves abnormally, but they don’t prove what maintenance actions were taken. Inspectors usually want monitoring data linked directly to maintenance records.
Green infrastructure assets often have uptime, safety, and performance requirements that must be proven during inspections. That level of scrutiny demands stronger documentation and traceability than spreadsheets typically provide.
An audit trail shows who made a change, when it happened, and what process was followed. Inspectors rely on audit trails to confirm that records haven’t been altered and that maintenance followed approved procedures.
Most teams start by standardizing inspection-critical workflows, introducing structured maintenance systems alongside spreadsheets, and gradually transitioning spreadsheets to read-only reference tools.
.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