From Pilots to Scale: FTC Solar’s Andrew Morse on the Next Generation of Robotics in Solar Construction

As utility-scale solar deployment accelerates, the industry is looking beyond conventional construction methods to address persistent challenges around labor availability, worker safety, installation quality and project productivity. Robotics is increasingly emerging as part of that conversation—not as a replacement for skilled construction crews, but as a new generation of tools designed to help them work more safely, consistently and efficiently.

That transition was on display at FTC Solar’s inaugural Robotics Day in Austin, Texas, where robotics companies, EPCs, developers and technology partners came together to explore how automation could be integrated into real-world solar construction. The event demonstrated applications ranging from module installation to other repetitive and physically demanding construction activities, while also highlighting FTC Solar’s 1P Pioneer® tracker and its compatibility with automation-enabled installation.

For Andrew Morse, VP of Software at FTC Solar, the industry is already beginning to move beyond isolated pilots toward scaled robotic deployments. But widespread adoption will depend on more than the capabilities of the machines themselves. It will also depend on having trackers designed to accommodate robotics and enable trackers and robots to work together effectively. Robotics must demonstrate measurable improvements in safety, quality and productivity, integrate smoothly with established construction workflows, and give EPCs practical models for deploying, operating and training crews around the technology.

In this interview with SolarQuarter, Andrew discusses how quickly solar-construction robotics is advancing, what needs to change for robotic workflows to become part of standard EPC planning and procurement, why module installation could lead the adoption curve, and what successful collaboration between people and machines could look like on tomorrow’s utility-scale solar sites.

1.  At FTC Solar’s Robo Day in Texas, you had robotics companies, EPCs and developers all in one place. What was your biggest takeaway from it?

What stood out most to me was the range of maturity across the robotics companies in the room. We had companies that were still very early stage and had only completed a few initial pilots, alongside companies with global deployment footprints and significant commercial traction. To me, that shows the industry has reached an interesting point: these technologies are beginning to prove themselves at scale, while there is still plenty of room for innovation and new entrants.

The strong attendance from some of the largest U.S. EPCs and developers also made it clear that there is genuine customer interest in understanding where solar robotics can add value. I came away seeing the event as a glimpse of the future—one where multiple robotic solutions work alongside human operators and crews to construct and operate large-scale solar projects more effectively.

2.  Based on what you are seeing in the market, how close do you think the solar industry is to mainstream adoption of robotics in utility-scale construction and what needs to happen for solar-construction robotics to become part of standard EPC planning and procurement.

If you had asked me this in late 2025, I probably would have said we were still firmly in the pilot stage. But after seeing how adoption has progressed through 2026, I think we are already beginning to move beyond pilots and into scaled deployments. Several robotic module-installation companies have deployed multiple robots on multi-hundred-megawatt sites, running them in parallel to place modules. Most of that activity has been in the Middle East and Australia so far, but I expect adoption in the U.S. to accelerate over the coming year.

For construction robotics to become part of standard EPC planning and procurement, I think three factors have to come together: safety, quality and productivity. If a solution cannot demonstrate all three, it is unlikely to move beyond the pilot stage. In module installation specifically, the safety case is already compelling from an ergonomic standpoint because robots can reduce the need for people to lift large-format modules repeatedly throughout the day. Quality is also a strong point because, once these systems are properly dialed in, they can perform the installation cycle very consistently.

Productivity is the factor that needs to be viewed over the full working day rather than over a few minutes. An experienced crew may appear faster when you watch a short sequence, but that does not tell the whole story. Over an entire shift, robotics can help maintain a consistent pace while taking on repetitive, physically demanding work—especially as heat, fatigue and other site conditions begin to affect human productivity. As the technology and safety systems continue to mature, I expect robotic installation solutions to increasingly meet or exceed productivity expectations over both short and long timeframes.

And what needs to change before EPCs adopt robotic workflows more routinely, and which construction activities do you expect will lead the way?

One important shift is already happening in the commercial model. Many solar robotics companies initially came to market with a Robotics-as-a-Service, or RaaS, model, where the technology provider brings both the equipment and its own personnel to the project site. That can work in some industries, but construction introduces practical limitations, including contractor licensing and certification requirements, as well as union requirements in certain markets.

What we are increasingly seeing is a move toward leasing or selling the robotic equipment directly to EPCs, supported by training programs for on-site supervisors and crews. I think this lease-and-train approach is much more scalable for solar construction. Over time, I expect contractors to be able to rent module-placement robots as easily as they rent a skid steer today, with industry-standard operator certifications similar to those used for other types of heavy equipment.

In terms of which activity gets there first, module installation is the clearest candidate. Placing modules is highly repeatable and broadly similar across different racking structures, which makes it well suited to automation. It is also one of the most labor-intensive parts of the mechanical installation and can account for more than half of the labor-hours on a project. That combination of repeatability and labor intensity is exactly why we are seeing both startups and larger companies focus so heavily on this activity.

3.  FTC Solar talks about robotics as a way to support construction crews, not replace them. On a real solar project, what does a successful human-robot team look like?

The best way to think about solar robotics is as a new generation of tools. A tool can be as simple as a hammer or as complex as an excavator; robotics simply sits at the more advanced end of that spectrum. Historically, when machinery such as skid steers became common on construction sites, people did not disappear from the workforce—the nature of their work changed. Manual handling decreased, and workers increasingly became equipment operators.

I expect the same transition in solar construction. Robots and machinery can take on the heavy lifting and the repetitive, physically demanding tasks, while people operate the equipment, supervise the work and ensure build quality. A successful human-robot team is therefore not about replacing a four-person crew. It could mean that the same four-person module-installation crew evolves into four skilled operators, each running or overseeing a robotic installation unit in parallel. That is where the productivity opportunity becomes really significant.

4.  FTC Solar describes 1P Pioneer as “robot-ready.” What does that actually mean for someone building a project in the field?

I’ll give you two examples of very specific features of the 1P Pioneer tracker that demonstrate what we mean by robot-ready: the module rail hook, which enables FTC Solar’s slide-and-glide module installation technique, and the cinch clip, which replaces a traditional bolt stack for securing the module to the structure.

Most trackers are designed for a flat module installation, with the module rails parallel to the ground when the modules are placed. That approach is often necessary because those rails do not provide a way to secure the module until the final attachment is completed. With FTC Solar’s rails, either a person or a robot can establish an attachment between the module and the rail at the moment the module is placed. That provides immediate alignment and a temporary attachment, allowing the final cinch-clip connection to be completed afterward.

The elimination of threaded fasteners above the torque tube is also a major change in how the tracker can be assembled. From a robotics perspective, installing a bolt-and-nut stack requires alignment at three points—the bolt, the bolt hole and the nut—which adds considerable complexity to automation. The cinch clip simplifies that process because the applicator or insertion mechanism only needs to align the clip with the insertion slot. In practical terms, those design choices make the installation process much more compatible with both human and robotic workflows.

5. For developers and EPCs considering robotics, what makes the business case compelling, and which performance metrics should they weigh when deciding whether to adopt it?

Construction is often described as an industry that is resistant to change, but I think solar developers and EPCs tend to be relatively innovation-forward and open to new technology. We saw that in the turnout at FTC Solar’s Robotics Showcase. At the same time, labor constraints are pushing EPCs to find new ways to maintain productivity with fewer resources, which makes the business case for robotics increasingly relevant.

The most compelling robotic solutions are the ones that can fit into existing solar construction methods without requiring the entire workflow to be redesigned, while delivering measurable improvements in safety, quality and productivity. Those three areas provide a practical framework for evaluating the technology.

I would recommend looking at a scorecard that tracks safety incidents over time, particularly ergonomic strain; the amount of rework or missed installation steps; installation speed, such as modules per hour; labor-hours per megawatt; and, ultimately, total installation cost. Those metrics make it possible to compare robotic solutions not only with one another, but also with conventional manual methods on a consistent basis.