Owners & developers want long-term performance. EPCs want to get steel in the ground and pass inspections.
Between those two priorities lies the real challenge: how much of your project should be standardized, and when does customization pay off?
Success for commercial solar projects hinges on efficient system design, and on how consistently and predictably that design can be executed in the field. For developers and EPCs, the tug-of-war between standardization and customization shows up on every project, from DC feeder sizing choices to inverter layouts to the way switchboards are procured. While customization can unlock better performance, standardization delivers scale, speed, and reliability.
Striking the right balance is no longer optional. It’s becoming a core competency. This article explores where standardization creates outsized value, where customization is still essential, and how the smartest engineering partners are working to simplify the complex for installers, developers, and owners.
Complexity in solar projects has a cost. It shows up in procurement errors, change orders, RFIs, troubleshooting headaches, and delays caused by inexperienced labor. You could summarize the trade off as follows:
Standardization reduces complexity; customization can reduce material cost, but only if the project can absorb the added complexity.
Consider DC feeder sizing. Customization might mean selecting a mix of 400 MCM and 500 MCM feeders to optimize cost on a circuit-by-circuit basis. That can save on copper but might introduce procurement challenges, risk of installation mistakes, and slower field execution. Standardizing to one size eliminates that friction, and sometimes, thanks to large reel bulk discounts, even neutralizes the cost difference entirely. In some cases, it can even improve voltage drop and uplift long-term performance.
The cost–complexity tension in a nutshell is:
• Customization = lower material cost, higher field complexity
• Standardization = lower risk, faster builds
At scale, variance is the enemy of predictability.
Solar developers have to make standardization decisions across three levels:
This is the simplest layer: reducing variety within a single site.
Examples:
• Using one inverter type instead of several
• Standardizing wire sizes
• Minimizing the number of panelboards or disconnect strategies
• Uniform equipment racking and placement
Project level standardization makes life easier for installers, especially when crews are composed of temporary staff with varying experience levels. To scale up quickly for project specific needs, EPCs often hire short term crews that may include workers new to solar. For these teams, standardization isn’t a preference; it’s a survival strategy.
Here, the goal is to harmonize decisions across multiple projects.
Examples:
Portfolio‑level standardization unlocks:
It also reduces variance that can otherwise confuse (“Vendor A’s specifications have different limitations and installation requirements than Vendor B’s,” etc.).
This is the strategic layer. A company may decide, for example:
These choices influence procurement and design, as well as training and construction logistics, not to forget the long‑term operation and management.
Many EPCs outsource at least one of the “E”, “P”, or “C” functions, and often subcontract construction entirely. Large utility-scale projects may require dozens of temporary installers who have never touched solar equipment before. For these crews, simplicity is everything.
That’s why techniques like skip stringing (leapfrog), which look efficient on paper, often introduce real-world risk. Skip stringing requires installers to maintain a patterned wiring sequence (A → C → F, then E → B on the return). For experienced crews, it can reduce conductor length and slightly improve efficiency. For green crews, it can result in mis wired strings, failed testing, and troubleshooting nightmares.
If customization requires advanced labor, but you don’t have advanced labor, standardization is the better economic decision.
Not every project can be standardized. Common constraints include:
Rooftops offer a 'blank canvas' for standardized equipment racking, but the ground level is a different story. Between rigid space constraints, structural variations, and aesthetic or security concerns, ground-level layouts often require heavy customization. The goal should be to minimize equipment at the ground level wherever possible, limiting the back-and-forth required to verify layouts and keeping project timelines on track.
Switchboards are custom by nature. When a project already requires one, it may make sense to incorporate auxiliary transformers, control relays, or 120V distribution into the same gear. Doing so doesn't affect lead time and shifts complexity from the field to the OEM, a smart kind of customization.
Now, here is one important point that may easily fall out of focus when we are zoned in too closely on technical elements: It matters how designs are communicated, not just how they’re engineered.
Clear, decluttered drawing sets dramatically reduce RFIs and field mistakes, especially with inexperienced labor. Overloaded plan sets can confuse installers, while streamlined sheets help them focus on what truly matters. A strong engineering partner like Pure Power takes a “simplify the complex” approach to drawing production, where every page communicates only what is essential.
Across dozens of projects, our engineering team has highlighted several categories where standardization consistently provides value:
1. Inverters (type, size, and mounting method)
Uniformity reduces training needs, simplifies procurement, and stabilizes the installation workflow.
2. Wire Sizes
Choosing 1–2 standardized conductor sizes avoids procurement errors and speeds field work. Bulk discounts can also reduce cost.
3. Racking and Equipment Pad Layouts
Repeatable rooftop inverter racks or consistent ground-mount pad configurations save time and reduce design churn.
4. Distribution Gear Strategy
Pick a preferred path (e.g., switchboards vs. distributed panel boards) and stick with it across projects.
5. Module Selection
Safe-harbored modules often create necessary mix and match situations, but limiting variety preserves efficiency.
Do you have multiple installers across the portfolio? → Standardize aggressively.
At its core, the push toward standardization isn’t about making engineering teams’ lives easier. It’s about reducing project risk, controlling cost, and improving throughput, all of which benefit EPCs and developers in an increasingly competitive market.
The best engineering partners aren’t rigid about standardization. They know when to adapt, when to simplify, and when customization is worth the trade-off. And when complexity is required, whether due to utility constraints, tight footprints, or hybrid PV+ESS configurations, it’s critical to have a partner with the depth of experience to handle it gracefully.
Our team at Pure Power Engineering supports both ends of that spectrum: helping developers build standardized, scalable design frameworks while also bringing the technical capability to solve complex, site specific challenges when they arise.
For more information on standardization vs customization or our solar + storage engineering services, please fill out our contact us form or email info@PurePower.com.