Thousands of pages of documentation are generated during the development, financing, construction, and operation of a solar project. Environmental studies, engineering reports, permitting records, contracts, inspections, and compliance documentation all exist for one reason: to reduce risk.
Risk is the underpinning variable across nearly all financial decisions and is especially omnipresent in the development of power generation projects. It is striking how little risk-adjusted decision making is done when defining an end-of-life panel management strategy.
As panels break or become obsolete, the industry is confronting a critical gap in the supply chain: a lack of transparency around what happens to panels after they leave a project site. While attention has been paid to the awareness of the need for recycling, far less attention has been dedicated to defining the pathways for ethical material traceability.
The challenge is that the path a panel follows after collection can be difficult to wholly understand. Panels routinely cross state lines for processing, materials may be transferred between multiple facilities, and downstream handoffs are commonplace. Even worse, panels are often exported overseas with inaccurate labels that bypass export scrutiny, and then the problem “just goes away” for all involved. Or so some believe…
The technical realities of solar recycling add another layer of complexity. While many facilities can recover easily accessible materials (aluminum frames and copper wires), nearly none possess the technical or operational expertise to decompose the laminate (key limiting factor) and cleanly recover materials from the panel itself.
At the same time, there is no nationally harmonized framework for end of life panel traceability in the United States. Power generators must navigate a patchwork of state waste regulations, certifications, and reporting expectations. While these programs can provide value, they do not necessarily guarantee complete visibility throughout the recycling chain.
As a result, many asset managers are left asking a simple question: how do we know where our panels actually went? The answer requires an understanding of the recycling technology landscape, as well as the metal and glass supply chains that exist domestically and abroad.
Material traceability first begins with an understanding of a company’s ownership structure. Are they a wholly or partially owned subsidiary of a foreign metal refinery, owned by private equity, or publicly traded? If owned by a foreign metal refinery, it may become more obvious where the panel materials end up. Companies with institutional ownership and public market requirements are much more likely to ensure domestic material reuse and provide certifiable attestations as to their material pathways.
Process methodology disclosure is equally important. It is not about recovering 91, or 96, or 98 percent of the value of the solar panel. It is only about ensuring all the panel materials are safely recovered in such a way that they can be domestically reused with full downstream traceability with auditable & credible companies.
The sole variable towards the binary: can all materials be recovered and reused domestically (yes / no) is (another binary): can the technology used to recover the panel materials decompose the laminate layers?
If, and only if, a technology can decompose the laminate layers then all materials can be safely recovered and reused in the domestic supply chain (with full traceability). It is this simple.
Finally, third-party audits provide an important layer of accountability. Independent verification, from trade associations, government agencies, or specialized auditors, help ensure that a company’s propagated statements align with the actual operational reality.
These requirements are consistent with the standards the solar industry already applies throughout the rest of an asset’s lifecycle. No investor would accept vague assurances about project performance during development or operations. End-of-life management should be no different.
For asset managers, implementing these practices starts with making traceability a procurement requirement rather than an afterthought. Expectations should be established before selecting a recycling partner, with documentation and reporting requirements built directly into contracts.
When export pathways are involved, procurement teams should require three key disclosures: where materials are being sent (and to whom), what environmental controls / standards are in place, and what the final intended disposition will be. Exporting material is inherently problematic; undisclosed exporting creates unnecessary risk, undermines transparency, and threatens the security of our national material supply chain.
Asset managers should also build accountability mechanisms into contracts. Reporting requirements, audit rights, and documentation obligations help ensure that visibility is maintained throughout the recycling process rather than depending on voluntary disclosures.
The solution is taking institutional ownership of the verification process and codifying the standards needed to validate the absolvement of downstream risk (and associated peace-of-mind that materials are being handled with care). Asset managers have both the influence and the responsibility to drive this shift by making transparency a requirement throughout the end-of-life value chain.
As solar deployment continues to accelerate, the volume of retired panels will grow alongside it. The decisions made today will help determine whether the industry can help develop a defensible national supply-chain predicated upon environmental stewardship, ethical material handling, and transparency.
Real due diligence does not end when a panel leaves the site. It extends through its final destination. Establishing those best practices now will help protect asset managers, strengthen industry accountability, and support the long-term credibility of solar recycling for decades to come.
Paul Harshbarger is the Director of Strategic Planning and Supply Chain Operations for Comstock Metals’ solar panel recycling business. His role at Comstock Metals is multi-faceted and spans back to the early days of the company’s operation. Paul’s previous experience includes various roles at a private equity fund, a Canadian power services company.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own, and do not necessarily reflect those held by pv magazine.
This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: [email protected].
Comments
Please login to comment
Thursday, July 9, 2026
11:00 am – 12:30 pm CEST, Berlin, Paris, Madrid
Thursday, June 18, 2026
2:00 pm – 3:00 pm CEST, Berlin, Paris, Madrid
Wednesday, June 10, 2026
3:00 pm – 4:00 pm CEST, Berlin, Paris, Madrid
Tuesday, June 9, 2026
11:00 am – 12:00 pm CEST, Berlin, Paris, Madrid
Thursday, June 11, 2026
5:00 pm – 6:00 pm CEST, Berlin, Paris, Madrid
Monday, June 1, 2026
5:30 pm – 6:30 pm CEST, Berlin, Madrid, Paris
Tuesday, June 16, 2026
6 am – 7:00 am CEST, Berlin
Friday, June 12, 2026
2:00 pm – 3:00 pm CEST, Berlin, Paris, Madrid
A two-day conference in Austin, Texas, bringing together leaders in US solar manufacturing, equipment specification, and factory execution.
Entries open in seven categories: Modules, Inverters, BoS, BESS, Manufacturing, Sustainability, Projects.
April 01 – August 31, 2026
pv magazine USA hosts its third multi-day virtual event on advancing U.S. solar and energy storage markets, covering financing, supply chains, and distributed energy’s role in grid resilience.
You have no items in your basket.
