A look back at NARDAC’s predictions for the year – and how the market really evolved.
At the start of 2025, we set out 9 core trends that we believed would shape risk, pricing and capacity dynamics across renewable energy insurance markets. As we approach year-end, it is clear that several of these predictions played out broadly as expected, while others shifted materially in response to unexpected loss activity, capital flows, and policy developments.
Below, we revisit our 2025 outlook to assess what we got right, what surprised the market, and what these developments mean heading into 2026.
Prediction 1: A softening renewables market driven by new capacity
What we predicted:
We expected more capacity to enter the renewable energy market as insurers sought growth outside tightening fossil-fuel portfolios ahead of 2030 exit timetables. This would translate into lower rates, lower deductibles and broader terms for well-engineered risks.
What happened:
This prediction proved largely correct. Rates continued to soften across most renewable lines through 2025 – supported by a more benign 2025 CAT year – owing to few claims from Atlantic Hurricane Season – modest new carrier entries and underwriters under pressure to meet year-end grow written premium targets. London markets continued to increase renewable allocations, with new appetite emerging for utility solar and BESS portfolios.
As expected, softening was most pronounced for assets with strong performance data, and low claims track record, such as utility solar. Deductibles fell slightly for non-CAT risks, however, although some mid-severity losses, notably inverter and transformer failures, smoke exposure and SCS-related hail damage, prevented more dramatic reductions, and CAT-exposed geographies still faced some discipline around retentions and limits.
Forecast vs Reality:
Broadly accurate – softening continued in 2025, but exposure and geography-driven divergence intensified.
Prediction 2: Service beats pricing — specialists outpace generalists
What we predicted:
We anticipated that specialist brokers and MGAs able to interpret emerging technologies and evolving project structures would gain market share. Generalists, we suggested, would struggle to keep pace with rapid change – potentially prompting acquisitions of niche firms.
What happened:
This proved to be one of the year’s clearest trends. Across solar, wind and BESS placements, insureds gravitated toward intermediaries with technical depth and rapid-response underwriting teams. Faster quoting, better data interpretation, and technology-specific engineering knowledge consistently outperformed pure pricing plays.
We didn’t observe notable MGA acquisitions from larger players, which had been a clearer trend in 2024, but a number of new specialists entered the market – reinforcing the belief in new opportunity.
Forecast vs Reality:
Broadly Accurate — technical fluency and sector specialism clearly reshaped placement behaviour, but market M&A didn’t reflect the growth seen in 2024.
Prediction 3: Deferred profit share would be key to retaining underwriting talent
What we predicted:
With ongoing personnel churn, we expected carriers to increase reliance on rolling, deferred incentive structures to retain underwriting teams. We also anticipated that unstable teams would be disadvantaged in securing lead positions.
What happened:
Team instability remained a feature of 2025, particularly in London and the US. To combat talent ‘lift outs’ many firms enhanced multi-year incentive schemes tied to portfolio performance, although against the backdrop of intense competition, market softening, and a persistent demand for specialised expertise.
Markets with stable teams saw a visible advantage: brokers increasingly prioritised continuity and familiarity when appointing leads on large portfolios or placements with specialist risks. Conversely, markets which saw continued churn carried the risks of further softening, as individuals in new roles sought to maintain relationships through price.
Forecast vs Reality:
Accurate, with team stability proving a genuine differentiator.
Prediction 4: “More shepherds” — more leaders competing for the same mandates
What we predicted:
We suggested that team changes and new market entrants would increase the number of potential leads, heightening competition and pushing service levels to the forefront.
What happened:
Lead markets proliferated across 2025, particularly in utility solar and onshore wind. New teams in Europe and the US entered the sector, while several experienced teams re-formed under new MGAs or carrier structures. The result was a crowded field, with underwriters working noticeably harder to secure or retain lead positions.
Service became a decisive factor: faster turnaround times, clearer feedback loops and more pragmatic T&Cs routinely carried more weight than marginal rate differences.
Forecast vs Reality:
Accurate, with a noticeable increase in lead-market competition.
Prediction 5: Increased NATCAT appetite following a lower loss record in the US in 2024
What we predicted:
Given lower 2024 US CAT losses, we expected larger carriers to offer bigger lines and potentially higher primary limits without materially changing pricing.
What happened:
This prediction partially materialised. Several carriers did indeed deploy bigger lines in 2025, particularly on US wind and Australian solar portfolios. However, US convective storm season, which brought localised US hail and tornado losses, tempered enthusiasm. CAT pricing did not meaningfully reduce, and deductibles in high-hazard postal codes remained stable or increased.
While appetite grew at the top end of quality portfolios, CAT ambitions were more muted than anticipated.
Forecast vs Reality:
Partially accurate — appetite increased selectively, but some loss activity constrained wider expansion.
Prediction 6: Reinsurance retreat would push more risk back onto primary insurers
What we predicted:
We expected reinsurers to reduce exposure to certain renewable technologies, not to the point of hardening the market, but sufficiently to restrict wordings, raise pricing and push more risk retention onto primaries.
What happened:
This prediction proved correct. Reinsurers maintained overall capacity but tightened around emerging technologies, particularly newer battery chemistries and cable-heavy offshore wind. Quota-share arrangements became harder to secure for certain classes, and reinsurers more frequently sought exclusions or sub-limits for CBI and novel technology risks.
Primary carriers responded by carrying more net retention, using manuscript wordings to maintain competitiveness, and being more selective on CBI-heavy submissions.
Forecast vs Reality:
Accurate, with retrenchment visible but not market-shifting.
Prediction 7: “All chat, no action” on nuclear, hydrogen and CCUS
What we predicted:
We expected large-scale nuclear SMR, green hydrogen and CCUS projects to attract publicity but not material insurance demand in 2025. Brokers, we argued, should qualify these opportunities carefully before approaching markets.
What happened:
This prediction proved spot on. Despite high public and political visibility, most hydrogen and CCUS projects remained at early conceptual or FEED stages, with limited insurable activity. Nuclear SMRs generated discussion but little transactional flow, reflecting the slow pace of policy impacting project timelines.
Forecast vs Reality:
Very accurate – hype substantially outpaced real insurance demand.
Prediction 8: Wind installations would rebound as OEMs stabilised
What we predicted:
We expected onshore wind to regain momentum as OEMs shifted toward incremental innovation, standardisation of parts, and improved quality control, aided by easing planning constraints and political clarity after 2024 elections.
What happened:
Onshore wind did begin to stabilise in 2025, even where it had clarity on markets that would contract. OEMs made visible progress in addressing component fatigue issues, refining supply chains and improving factory QA processes. Several markets, notably the UK, France and parts of the US saw permitting accelerate modestly.
However, grid-connection queues and logistical bottlenecks continued to cap the pace of installations. Offshore wind recovery remained uneven, with some projects progressing and others deferred due to supply chain or cost pressures.
Forecast vs Reality:
Partially accurate – sentiment improved and quality stabilised, but installation rates did not rebound as strongly as hoped.
Prediction 9: Asset and risk managers would seek more options amid changing merchant economics
What we predicted:
We expected asset managers – especially in merchant BESS – to request more optionality across deductibles, limits and indemnity periods to protect margins as revenues softened.
What happened:
This trend unfolded clearly. With merchant revenues normalising after the post-Ukraine volatility, risk managers sought cost-control across all insurance lines. Insureds looked for multiple deductible and limit configurations, with banks and lenders engaging to assess DSU structures and cash-flow sensitivities.
Underwriters able to respond quickly to last-minute option requests saw business grow.
Forecast vs Reality:
Accurate, with optionality becoming a hallmark of 2025 placements.
Looking ahead to 2026
2025 was defined by softening rates, heightened competition, and accelerating divergence between data-rich, well-engineered portfolios and more challenging risks. As 2026 begins, we expect these themes to deepen, with reinsurance discipline, BESS maturation and CAT-driven modelling trends shaping the next boundary of market behaviour.