Floating Solar PV Plant Underwriting in India 2026: Reservoir Anchoring, Cyclone Exposure and Erection-All-Risks Programme Design

Floating solar photovoltaic (FSPV) capacity in India has moved from pilot scale to utility scale through FY2024-25 and into FY2025-26, with cumulative commissioned capacity crossing the 1 GW threshold and a project pipeline reportedly exceeding 10 GW under various MNRE and SECI tenders. NTPC's Ramagundam 100 MW floating plant on the reservoir of the Ramagundam thermal station in Telangana, the Omkareshwar floating solar park on the Narmada in Madhya Pradesh (planned at 600 MW with phased commissioning through 2026 and 2027), the Rihand reservoir installation, the Kayamkulam 92 MW project by NTPC in Kerala, and the Getalsud reservoir project in Jharkhand together represent the operational and near-operational anchors of the Indian FSPV market. Behind them sit MSEDCL, GUVNL, KSEB and several state-level utility tenders that are converting unused reservoir surface area into generation assets.

The underwriting community has lagged the build-out. Most Indian commercial insurers have written ground-mount solar through fairly standardised erection-all-risks (EAR) and subsequent operational all-risks (OAR) wordings that draw on the IRDAI file-and-use mega risk policy template and the standard market wordings for engineering insurance. Floating solar does not fit those templates cleanly. The asset is not bolted to land. The structural system depends on mooring lines, anchor blocks, floating pontoons or HDPE floats, dynamic load transfer paths and cable management systems that respond to wind, wave action, reservoir drawdown, and ice or debris loading. The conventional solar exclusions and warranties (foundation works, civil structures, cable trenches) require translation into the marine and dam engineering vocabulary that FSPV uses.

The consequence in 2026 is a market in which several insurers are actively quoting FSPV erection programmes but the wordings are heterogeneous and the loss experience is thin. Underwriters at ICICI Lombard, Tata AIG, Bajaj Allianz, HDFC Ergo and the public sector quartet (New India Assurance, United India, National Insurance, Oriental Insurance) have each developed internal underwriting guidelines for FSPV that diverge on anchoring warranties, cyclone DBT (design basis threshold) requirements, water-level draw-down provisions, and the treatment of erection vessels and barges. GIC Re sits behind most placements as the obligatory cessionaire and as treaty reinsurer, and the foreign reinsurance panel (Munich Re, Swiss Re, Hannover Re, SCOR, Korean Re, Lloyd's syndicates accessed through the brokers' London market arms) provides the facultative capacity above onshore retentions.

For brokers and EPC counterparties, the practical implication is that programme design for a floating solar plant in 2026 cannot be lifted from a ground-mount template. Anchoring, mooring, cyclone uplift, reservoir-specific hydrology and the interface between marine and engineering wordings require deliberate construction. This article walks through the regulatory framework, the engineering risk catalogue, the EAR-to-OAR transition, the cyclone basin exposure overlay, anchoring and mooring failure modes, claims experience from comparable Asian markets, pricing anchors at FY2025-26 placement levels, and the practical playbook for brokers placing FSPV programmes through FY2026-27.

The under-appreciated point for risk managers at developer entities (NTPC, NHPC, SJVN, Adani Green, ReNew, Tata Power, JSW Energy, Greenko) is that the floating asset is unusually sensitive to a small number of low-frequency, high-severity events. A single cyclonic depression tracking over a coastal reservoir, or an anchor system failure during reservoir drawdown, can damage tens of megawatts of installed capacity in a single event. The probable maximum loss (PML) calibration for FSPV is fundamentally different from ground-mount and underwriters who priced FSPV on a ground-mount loss curve through 2023 and 2024 have already seen some loss notifications that suggest the curve underprices the tail.

Financing structures around FSPV further amplify the underwriting attention. The leading lenders for Indian renewable energy, including PFC, REC, IREDA, SBI, Axis Bank, ICICI Bank and the multilateral lenders ADB, World Bank and AIIB working through state utility counterparts, have built specific FSPV covenant frameworks following early operational experience. The covenant frameworks set minimum BI indemnity periods, named-perils requirements, deductible caps and subrogation restrictions, and the financing terms tighten or relax based on insurance adequacy. A developer that cannot demonstrate satisfactory FSPV-specific cover faces materially higher financing costs or even covenant breach, making the insurance procurement a board-level priority for the larger plants.

The state utility offtaker dimension also matters. SECI, NTPC REL and the state utilities act as offtake counterparties under standard PPAs that include insurance covenants. Disputes between developers and offtakers about insurance adequacy, claim recoveries or BI indemnity application have begun to surface as FSPV plants accumulate operational history. Brokers and risk managers should understand that the FSPV insurance programme operates within a complex contractual ecosystem with the offtaker, the lenders, the EPC contractor, the structural designer, the equipment suppliers and the insurance market, and the programme design must address each interface.

The regulatory architecture around Indian floating solar combines the broader renewable energy framework with site-specific clearances. The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) issues the umbrella policy guidelines, including the cumulative capacity targets under the 500 GW non-fossil installed capacity commitment by 2030. The Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) and NTPC Renewable Energy Limited (NTPC REL) act as central nodal agencies and counterparty buyers under standard power purchase agreements (PPAs). State utilities (MSEDCL, GUVNL, KSEB, MPPMCL, TANGEDCO, Karnataka Power) operate parallel tendering with state-specific PPA conditions.

The insurance obligations for floating solar are embedded primarily in the PPA and in lender requirements rather than in standalone insurance regulation. SECI standard PPAs for utility-scale floating solar include insurance covenants requiring the project company to maintain construction-phase EAR/CAR for the project value, marine cargo cover for imported floats and inverters during transit, advance loss of profits (ALOP) for the construction period, operational property damage and business interruption (PD/BI) for the operations phase, third-party liability and workmen's compensation. The wording template tracks the SECI standard PPA Schedule on insurance, with project-specific adjustments negotiated during financial close.

IRDAI's regulatory engagement with renewable energy insurance has been general rather than product-specific. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India has not issued FSPV-specific guidelines, and floating solar is underwritten under the broader engineering insurance product approvals that insurers hold for EAR, contractors' all-risks (CAR), and machinery breakdown. The IRDAI file-and-use process for mega risk policies (above INR 2,500 crore sum insured, since the 2023 revision) provides limited flexibility for insurers to negotiate bespoke wordings on large FSPV programmes, but the headline FSPV plants currently in execution (Omkareshwar Phase 1 at 278 MW, NTPC Ramagundam 100 MW) sit at sum insureds in the INR 1,500 to 3,500 crore range depending on EPC cost and ancillary infrastructure, which places several of them in or near the mega risk threshold.

The central PPA requirement on insurance is supplemented by lender requirements, which are typically more granular. Indian lenders financing FSPV (Power Finance Corporation, REC Limited, Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency or IREDA, SBI, Axis Bank, ICICI Bank and the multilateral lenders like ADB, World Bank, AIIB where they fund through state utilities) impose insurance covenants in the common terms agreement that go beyond the PPA. Typical lender requirements include named perils for cyclone, flood, earthquake (where applicable), terrorism, sabotage and malicious damage; ALOP indemnity period of 12 to 18 months with cyclone and flood specifically included in causation; minimum BI indemnity period of 18 months operational; and limits on subrogation waivers and assignment of insurance proceeds to lenders.

The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) cyclone vulnerability framework and the India Meteorological Department (IMD) basin classifications also matter for underwriting. NDMA's cyclone risk atlas identifies the Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea coastlines and the inland zones of cyclone influence (which extend several hundred kilometres inland for major cyclonic storms). Reservoirs in Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Gujarat and parts of Maharashtra fall within the cyclone hazard envelope. Underwriters use the NDMA atlas combined with site-specific wind hazard analysis to calibrate cyclone DBT and to determine whether named-cyclone exclusions or sub-limits apply.

The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) framework for wind loading on structures (IS 875 Part 3) applies indirectly to FSPV; the more directly applicable standards are emerging from MNRE's technical committees and from international FSPV guidelines (DNV-GL, TUV Rheinland, RINA). MNRE has indicated through 2025 that it intends to publish Indian-specific FSPV technical guidelines covering anchoring design, mooring configuration, structural safety factors and grid integration, but as of mid-2026 the guidance remains in draft and insurers have used a combination of IS standards, international FSPV practice notes and project-specific structural design certificates from the project's owner's engineer to set warranties.

The IIB (Insurance Information Bureau of India) is in early stages of building FSPV claims data sets, and the Indian Institute of Insurance and Risk Management (NIA Pune) has run training modules for engineering underwriters on renewable energy specialty lines including floating solar. The reinsurance market's engagement with the Indian FSPV space, including periodic engineering days hosted by Munich Re, Swiss Re and Hannover Re for Indian insurer and broker underwriting teams, has helped diffuse knowledge but the institutional infrastructure remains thinner than for established lines such as fire and motor.

The structural system of a floating solar plant is the most engineering-distinctive aspect of FSPV and the area where conventional ground-mount underwriting guidance is least applicable. The system has three principal sub-components: the floats (typically HDPE pontoons), the mooring lines (steel wire rope, polyester or HDPE rope, or chain), and the anchoring system (concrete deadweight blocks on the reservoir bed, helical screw anchors, pile anchors driven into the bed, or shore-side anchors). The interaction of these sub-components under hydrostatic, hydrodynamic and wind loading determines the structural integrity of the plant.

HDPE float failure modes include UV degradation over the 20 to 25 year design life (mitigated by UV stabilisers in the polymer compound, but real degradation does occur and affects mechanical strength), impact damage from floating debris during monsoon, manufacturing defects in the moulded joints, and chemical attack from algal growth and reservoir water chemistry. Underwriters increasingly require that float warranties from manufacturers (Ciel et Terre, Sungrow Floating, Swimsol, Indian licensees and joint ventures) be assigned to insurers for subrogation purposes, and that the float specification meets internationally recognised standards (the DNV-GL recommended practice on FSPV is the most widely cited).

Mooring line failure is the most common operational claim category from comparable Asian markets (Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan, China). Failure modes include corrosion of steel wire ropes at the splash zone, fatigue from cyclic loading, abrasion at fairleads and clamps, manufacturing defects in synthetic ropes (UV degradation, hydrolysis of polyester, creep in HDPE), and impact damage from floating logs or debris. The Asian Development Bank's published case studies on FSPV in Vietnam and Indonesia document mooring line failures during typhoon events that propagated into larger structural failures because adjacent lines could not redistribute the load. Indian underwriters have read these case studies into their warranties, typically requiring mooring line replacement schedules, redundancy in mooring configuration, and inspection regimes during the operational phase.

Anchoring system failure is lower frequency but higher severity. Concrete deadweight anchors can drag during extreme events if the reservoir bed substrate has been incorrectly characterised (soft sediment, organic deposit, sloped terrain). Helical screw anchors can pull out if the soil properties differ from design assumptions or if installation torque was below specification. Pile anchors can fatigue at the bed-water interface. Shore-side anchors can fail through ground movement or scour. The cascade effect of anchor failure can be catastrophic: an anchor block dragging across the reservoir bed can pull adjacent mooring lines, which displaces float arrays, which can rupture inter-array cables and create electrical fault propagation.

Reservoir drawdown is an FSPV-specific risk that does not have a ground-mount analogue. Hydroelectric reservoirs (Rihand, Tehri, Sardar Sarovar, Hirakud) and irrigation reservoirs have material water-level variation across the year, ranging from less than 5 metres in some run-of-river systems to over 30 metres in major storage reservoirs. The FSPV mooring configuration must accommodate this variation either through redundant slack in the mooring lines (allowing the array to follow the water surface) or through tensioned mooring that maintains array position. Both configurations have failure modes: slack mooring can produce excessive drift in winds; tensioned mooring can fail under combined drawdown plus storm loading. Underwriters typically require that the mooring design demonstrates competence across the full drawdown range and request the structural designer's calculations and certifications as part of the underwriting submission.

The inverter and electrical balance-of-plant risks are similar to ground-mount in technology but different in environment. Inverters and combiner boxes mounted on the floating array experience higher humidity, occasional water spray during high winds, and accelerated corrosion. Indian commercial-scale FSPV typically uses central inverters mounted on dedicated floating platforms rather than string inverters on the array, which concentrates the inverter risk but simplifies the marine-rated equipment requirement. Underwriters apply machinery breakdown sub-limits and standard inverter wear and tear exclusions, but the corrosion accelerator in the floating environment requires explicit cover language that the standard ground-mount inverter wording does not provide.

Cyclone exposure is the dominant catastrophic risk for Indian floating solar and the area where pricing has moved most aggressively through 2025 and into 2026. The Indian cyclone climatology is shaped by the Bay of Bengal (which produces approximately 80% of Indian cyclones with landfall) and the Arabian Sea (approximately 20%, with increasing frequency through the 2010s and 2020s). Major recent cyclones with relevance to FSPV underwriting include Amphan (2020, super cyclonic storm), Tauktae (2021, extremely severe cyclonic storm affecting the Arabian Sea coast), Yaas (2021, very severe cyclonic storm on Odisha coast), Mocha (2023), Biparjoy (2023, Gujarat Arabian Sea coast), Michaung (2023, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu coast), and the 2024 to 2026 cyclone seasons which have continued the pattern of increased frequency and intensification rates.

For FSPV underwriting, the NDMA cyclone hazard atlas categorises Indian coastline and inland zones by historical cyclone frequency, intensity and wind speed return periods. The atlas defines zones with maximum sustained wind speeds at 50-year and 100-year return periods. The most cyclone-exposed states for FSPV are Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Gujarat, and the coastal districts of Maharashtra and Karnataka. Inland states are less exposed but not exempt; cyclones tracking inland can produce damaging winds 200 to 400 kilometres from landfall, affecting reservoirs in Telangana, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and parts of Uttar Pradesh.

The wind loading on a floating solar array combines the direct wind force on the modules (which act as inclined sails at the tilt angle of typically 5 to 15 degrees for FSPV, lower than ground-mount), the wind-induced wave action on the floats (fetch-limited in reservoir conditions but still significant in large reservoirs), and the wind force on the array boundary structures and mooring components. The cyclone DBT (design basis threshold) for FSPV in cyclone basin states should reflect the 100-year return period wind speed for the specific site, typically requiring 50 m/s sustained wind or higher in coastal Andhra Pradesh and Odisha. The structural design must demonstrate competence at this DBT under combined wind, wave and drawdown loading.

Underwriters calibrate the cyclone PML by reference to comparable Asian losses and to structural engineering analysis. The Vietnam FSPV market, which has experienced multiple typhoon landfalls since 2018, provides reference points on what cyclone damage looks like at FSPV scale: typically a combination of float displacement (arrays pushed against the reservoir banks), mooring line failures (lines snapped or anchors dragged), inter-array cable rupture (electrical fault propagation), and module damage from impact with debris or with the bank structures. The typical PML estimate from underwriters for a cyclone-basin FSPV is in the 30% to 70% of total sum insured range, depending on the specific basin, the structural design margin, the cyclone DBT, and the reservoir geometry.

Claims notifications in the Indian market through 2024 and 2025 have started to populate this PML curve. Specific claim details are confidential but market disclosures and broker market reports indicate that several FSPV plants have notified partial cyclone-related losses in the 5% to 20% of sum insured range, primarily from mooring line and float displacement events during named storms. Underwriters have responded through 2025 and into 2026 by tightening cyclone DBT warranties, introducing named-cyclone sub-limits on smaller plants, increasing the cyclone deductible from the historic INR 25 lakh per event to INR 1 to 2 crore per event for cyclone-basin plants, and in some cases excluding named cyclone events above a defined wind speed unless specifically endorsed.

Reinsurance treatment of cyclone exposure is the practical constraint on capacity. GIC Re and the foreign reinsurance panel (Munich Re, Swiss Re, Hannover Re, SCOR, Korean Re) are increasingly applying cat (catastrophe) treaty capacity discipline to Indian renewable energy programmes, particularly floating solar in cyclone basins. The treaty PML aggregation across multiple FSPV plants in a single cyclone basin can exceed the treaty's per-event cat capacity, leading reinsurers to push back on cession or to demand specific facultative arrangements for individual plants above a threshold. Brokers placing FSPV in cyclone basin states in FY2026-27 should expect that capacity will be more constrained, deductibles will be higher, and cyclone DBT warranties will be stricter than in the 2023-24 placement environment.

The EAR/CAR construction-phase programme for a floating solar plant is materially more complex than its ground-mount counterpart. The construction sequence involves multiple specialised activities: float manufacturing or supply (typically imported, with marine cargo cover required), float assembly on land or in a nearby shore-based fabrication yard, deployment of floats onto the reservoir (involving cranes, barges, tugs and divers), installation of mooring lines and anchors (requiring vessel deployment, diving operations, and bed-level work), module mounting on the floats (typically done after the float arrays are positioned), inter-array and array-to-shore cabling (involving floating cable trays and shore termination structures), inverter platform installation and commissioning, and final integration and grid connection.

The EAR/CAR programme must respond to each of these construction phases. The conventional ground-mount EAR wording typically excludes waterborne activities, marine vessels, divers, and offshore-style installation operations. For FSPV, these exclusions are fatal to the cover unless explicitly amended. Underwriters have developed FSPV-specific EAR endorsements that extend cover to include marine installation activities, but the wording is bespoke and varies materially between insurers. Key wording features that brokers should negotiate include:

• Coverage for floating equipment, barges and vessels during deployment activities, with clarity on the demarcation between EAR cover and conventional marine hull cover (which may be required separately for the deployment vessel itself if it is a chartered asset).
• Diving operations cover, including injury to divers, equipment loss and pollution from underwater operations. The Workmen's Compensation Act and the Indian Maritime Labour Convention provisions interact with the diver coverage.
• Wet anchoring works exclusion or specific coverage; some insurers exclude underwater anchoring works and require a separate marine wording, while others include it within the FSPV EAR with specific sub-limits.
• Testing and commissioning cover extending to the first 30 to 90 days of grid-connected operation, with explicit treatment of partial energisation (rare for FSPV but possible in phased plants like Omkareshwar).
• ALOP (advance loss of profits) cover with a defined commercial operation date (COD) trigger and a sufficient indemnity period for FSPV-specific delay events, particularly cyclone delays and reservoir drawdown timing constraints.

The transition from EAR to operational OAR (operational all-risks) at COD is a critical point in the programme design. The COD definition must align between the PPA, the financing documents and the insurance policies, and the transition between the construction insurer and the operations insurer must be seamless to avoid gaps in cover. The EAR typically continues for a 12-month defect liability period (DLP) on a maintenance-only basis after COD, providing cover for defects that manifest during the operational phase but originated in construction.

For FSPV specifically, the COD transition creates several gotchas. The float arrays may experience storm events during the DLP that manifest mooring or anchoring failures that were latent during construction but exposed during operations. The classification of such losses (DLP claim under the EAR versus operational claim under the OAR) drives different deductibles, different recoverable indemnities, and different reinsurance treatments. Brokers should negotiate clarifying language during the placement that addresses the DLP-to-OAR boundary for FSPV-specific events.

The OAR wording for operational FSPV builds on the standard property damage and business interruption template but requires similar FSPV-specific endorsements. Named perils cover for cyclone, flood, earthquake, lightning, terrorism, and sabotage are standard. Additional FSPV-specific cover should include: ice damage (for high-altitude reservoirs in Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Jammu and Kashmir, where reservoir ice formation can damage floats and mooring); biological growth damage (algal mats can affect float buoyancy and module shading, though this is typically operations-and-maintenance scope rather than insurance); reservoir contamination from float failure (pollution liability cross-over); and grid voltage events causing inverter damage.

The BI indemnity period for FSPV operations should reflect the actual recovery time for FSPV-specific damage events. Cyclone damage to a 100 MW FSPV plant could require 12 to 24 months for full recovery, depending on the availability of replacement floats (imported with lead times of 6 to 12 months), mooring and anchoring re-engineering if the design needs revision, and remobilisation of installation contractors. A 12-month BI indemnity is the minimum; 18 to 24 months is more realistic for cyclone basin plants. Lenders increasingly require 18 months BI indemnity for FSPV plants above 50 MW capacity.

Pricing for floating solar EAR and OAR in India through FY2025-26 reflects the recalibration around cyclone exposure, the limited loss experience, and the relative immaturity of the underwriting market. Indicative pricing ranges drawn from broker market reports for placements completed through Q3 and Q4 FY2025-26 are:

For EAR/CAR construction-phase programmes, the rate on the project value (EPC cost) is typically in the range of 0.75% to 1.50% per annum for inland reservoir plants outside cyclone basins, and 1.25% to 2.50% per annum for cyclone basin plants. The rate compares to 0.30% to 0.60% for equivalent ground-mount solar EAR/CAR. The premium loading reflects the structural complexity, the cyclone exposure overlay, the marine installation component, and the limited historical loss data that underwriters use to anchor their pricing.

For operational OAR programmes, the rate on sum insured (typically the replacement cost of the plant) is in the range of 0.40% to 0.85% per annum for inland plants and 0.75% to 1.50% per annum for cyclone basin plants. Material damage deductibles are typically INR 25 lakh to INR 1 crore per event for inland plants and INR 1 to 5 crore per event for cyclone basin plants, with named cyclone deductibles often higher and structured as a percentage of sum insured (typically 1% to 5% of sum insured per cyclone event).

BI indemnity rates are loaded relative to material damage, reflecting the longer recovery time and the dependence on imported components. BI rates typically run 50% to 100% of the material damage rate, with the BI deductible typically expressed as a time excess of 14 to 30 days for non-cyclone events and 30 to 60 days for cyclone events.

For a representative INR 2,500 crore Omkareshwar-scale FSPV programme in Madhya Pradesh (inland, non-cyclone basin but with moderate inland cyclone influence), the indicative annual EAR premium during construction would be in the INR 25 to 45 crore range, with the broker placing a syndicate of three to five lead insurers and accessing facultative reinsurance through the GIC Re cession plus foreign reinsurer panel. For a comparable 100 MW Ramagundam plant at approximately INR 800 to 1,000 crore EPC cost, the equivalent annual EAR premium would be in the INR 8 to 18 crore range.

Claims experience anchors these pricing levels. Specific claim disclosures from Indian FSPV plants are limited due to confidentiality, but market intelligence suggests that the following loss categories have been notified through 2024 and 2025:

• Mooring line failure events during high wind conditions (not necessarily named cyclones), with claim values typically in the INR 1 to 5 crore range per event, primarily for replacement of failed mooring components and associated float realignment work.
• Float displacement events during monsoon, with claim values in the INR 5 to 25 crore range per event, primarily for repositioning of displaced arrays and replacement of damaged floats and modules.
• Cable damage events from float movement, with claim values typically in the INR 2 to 10 crore range per event.
• Inverter and electrical equipment damage from grid voltage events or insulation failure, with claim values consistent with ground-mount inverter losses (INR 50 lakh to INR 5 crore per inverter).
• One reported but unconfirmed larger loss involving a substantial mooring system failure during a tropical depression event, with the loss reportedly in the INR 80 to 150 crore range, primarily for mooring and anchor reinstatement and consequent BI losses.

The loss frequency is higher than ground-mount solar at equivalent capacity, but the loss severity distribution is also wider, with the tail dominated by potential cyclone events. Underwriters expect to refine their pricing curves as more loss data accumulates through FY2026-27 and FY2027-28, and most insurers are currently writing FSPV at premium loadings that include a margin for loss data uncertainty.

Sub-limit construction for FSPV typically segments the sum insured across several heads. Material damage to floats and modules carries the largest exposure share. Mooring and anchoring systems are sub-limited separately to enable specific cyclone-event accounting. Inverter platforms, evacuation cabling and shore-side infrastructure are sub-limited based on their replacement cost. Debris removal, expediting expense, and additional cost of working are sub-limited at typically INR 5 to 25 crore each. Pollution liability sub-limits in the INR 10 to 50 crore range respond to float failure events that release HDPE debris or chemicals into the reservoir. Each sub-limit should be calibrated to the realistic loss scenario, with brokers presenting the sub-limit logic in the underwriting submission rather than leaving the insurer to set defaults that may not reflect the project's risk profile.

Brokers placing floating solar programmes in 2026 should approach the work as a specialty placement requiring structured underwriting submission, multi-insurer syndicate construction, and active facultative reinsurance engagement. The placement workflow that the leading commercial brokers (Marsh, Aon, WTW, JLT-Mercer, Howden India, Anand Rathi, K M Dastur, Prudent) have developed for FSPV through 2024 and 2025 includes the following components.

Underwriting submission package

The submission should include the full project technical pack: site-specific cyclone hazard assessment (typically commissioned from a specialist firm like Risk Frontiers, AIR Worldwide, RMS, or domestic equivalents); structural design certification from an independent third-party engineer covering anchoring, mooring, float, and module mounting systems across the full reservoir drawdown range and at the cyclone DBT; reservoir hydrology study with drawdown curves, wave fetch analysis, and bed substrate characterisation; EPC contract summary with allocation of risks between the developer, the EPC contractor, and the various sub-contractors; component manufacturer information with float, mooring, anchor and electrical equipment specifications and warranties; construction schedule with critical path identification and weather-window assumptions; and operating regime description for the post-COD operational phase.

Insurer syndicate construction

The broker should structure the syndicate to align with the cession capacity of the lead insurers' reinsurance treaties, the appetite of the GIC Re obligatory cession, and the facultative reinsurance market that the broker can access for the layers above onshore retention. For cyclone basin plants, facultative reinsurance dominates the capacity stack, with Munich Re, Swiss Re, Hannover Re, SCOR and Korean Re as the primary facultative providers, supplemented by Lloyd's syndicate capacity accessed through the broker's London market arm.

Programme structure and wordings

The broker should construct the programme as a combined EAR-CAR-ALOP placement during construction, with the OAR-BI placement for the operational phase negotiated either as a continuation with the same lead insurer (preferred for continuity) or as a separate placement with different leads (when commercial terms justify). The wordings should be customised from the lead insurer's standard FSPV template, with the broker negotiating specific endorsements for the FSPV risks discussed earlier: cyclone DBT warranties, drawdown range coverage, marine installation extensions, diver and barge coverage, mooring and anchoring coverage scope, float displacement and replacement protocols, BI indemnity period, and DLP-to-OAR boundary clarifications.

Reinsurance engagement

For cyclone basin FSPV, facultative reinsurance engagement should begin early, ideally six to nine months before placement bind date. The reinsurance market for Indian cyclone-exposed FSPV is dominated by London market (Lloyd's syndicates and London company market), continental European facultative (Munich Re, Swiss Re, Hannover Re, SCOR), and Asian regional reinsurers (Korean Re, China Re, Toa Re). Each reinsurer applies its own cyclone PML methodology, and the broker should align the underwriting submission package to address the specific data requirements of each reinsurer.

Claims preparation

Claims preparation for FSPV requires pre-loss planning that brokers should engage during placement. Loss assessment for FSPV-specific events (mooring failure, float displacement, cyclone damage) requires specialist surveyors with marine engineering and renewable energy expertise. The major Indian surveying firms (Mott MacDonald, Cotecna, SGS, MITSUI Sumitomo Marine Risk Management) have developed FSPV-specific loss assessment capabilities, but the market is still maturing. Brokers should identify the surveyor panel during placement and pre-position loss adjustment frameworks for the most likely loss scenarios.

Platforms supporting integrated programme analysis across the construction phase EAR, the operational OAR, and the BI/ALOP indemnity calculations are emerging in the Indian market to help brokers manage FSPV placements. Such platforms enable the broker to model placement structure scenarios, evaluate co-insurance and reinsurance syndication, and prepare claims-readiness documentation. Brokers serving renewable energy developers in the Indian market should evaluate these capabilities as part of their FSPV practice build.

The Indian floating solar market through FY2026-27 and FY2027-28 will see continued capacity growth, structural maturation, and underwriting market refinement. Several forward-looking factors will shape the risk landscape that brokers and risk managers should track.

Capacity growth will accelerate. The MNRE pipeline indicates that the cumulative commissioned FSPV capacity in India could approach 3 to 5 GW by end of FY2027-28, with major projects completing at Omkareshwar (full 600 MW), Getalsud, Mettur, Madhya Pradesh phase 2 reservoirs, Karnataka tenders, and several state-level installations. Each plant adds to the aggregate underwriting exposure and to the data set available for loss curve calibration.

MNRE technical guidelines for FSPV are expected to be finalised through 2026 and operationalised in 2027. Once published, these guidelines will provide a normative reference for anchoring design, mooring configuration, cyclone DBT and operational protocols. Underwriters will likely align their warranties to the MNRE guidelines, simplifying the negotiation of FSPV insurance terms and reducing wording heterogeneity across insurers. The transition could also accelerate insurer entry into FSPV underwriting, as the existence of a recognised technical standard reduces the underwriting due diligence burden.

Climate change impact on cyclone frequency and intensity remains a structural uncertainty. The IMD and the IPCC frameworks indicate that the Arabian Sea has seen increased cyclone frequency and that the rapid intensification of tropical systems is becoming more common in both basins. The 100-year wind speed return periods used in current design may understate the wind speed exposure in 2030 to 2050 conditions when many of the current FSPV plants will still be operating. Underwriters and developers should anticipate that cyclone DBT warranties may tighten further as climate models inform return period revisions.

The operational claims data will populate the loss curve. Through FY2026-27 and FY2027-28, the operational portfolio of Indian FSPV will accumulate sufficient loss data for underwriters to refine their pricing curves. Initial indications suggest that mooring failures and float displacement events during non-cyclone weather are more frequent than initially modelled, while cyclone-driven catastrophic losses have remained within underwriter expectations to date. Brokers should track the loss notifications across the market and incorporate the emerging data into placement negotiations.

The interface between FSPV and broader water infrastructure will create additional risk dimensions. As FSPV plants are installed on multipurpose reservoirs (irrigation, hydroelectric, drinking water), the interaction between the floating asset and the water infrastructure (gates, spillways, downstream releases, sediment management) creates operational risks that pure-play FSPV underwriting may not address. Third-party liability cover for damage to the reservoir infrastructure or to downstream users from FSPV-related incidents should be specifically structured in the programme.

The BI dependency on grid and PPA continuity also matters. FSPV revenue depends on the PPA counterparty (SECI, NTPC REL, state utility) and on the grid evacuation capacity. Grid disruption events, PPA disputes, or utility payment delays can produce BI-like effects that are not covered under standard FSPV BI wording (which requires physical damage as the trigger). Developers with material exposure to grid or PPA risks should consider parametric BI structures or trade credit cover as supplements to the standard property-damage-triggered BI.

The FSPV underwriting market in India in 2026 sits at an interesting inflection point. The asset class is scaling rapidly, the underwriting market is competitive enough that capacity is available but disciplined enough that pricing reflects the genuine risk characteristics, and the regulatory and technical framework is maturing. Brokers and risk managers who develop FSPV-specific capability through FY2026-27 will be well positioned to serve the substantial renewable energy investment pipeline that the Indian government's clean energy targets imply. The work is technical, the wordings are bespoke, and the underwriting submissions require depth, but the market is real and growing.

For risk managers and brokers planning the next 24 months of FSPV placements, the priority actions are to build a curated facultative reinsurer panel relationship, invest in third-party structural certification at the underwriting submission stage, calibrate BI indemnity periods to realistic reinstatement timelines, and integrate the FSPV programme with the broader corporate renewable energy insurance architecture if the developer operates a portfolio of plants. Portfolio-level FSPV programmes can capture diversification benefits across geographies and reservoir types, and the leading developers including NTPC, NHPC, SJVN and the private IPPs are starting to evaluate portfolio structures rather than per-plant placements. The market is moving fast enough that the next placement cycle will likely look different from the last, and the disciplined broker and risk manager will treat each renewal as an opportunity to refine the structure rather than as a routine procurement repeat.