Case Studies
Aug 26, 2024

In-Depth Analysis of Risks and Their Impacts on Solar Power Project Development: Public and Private Contractors’ Perspective

Publication: Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
Volume 16, Issue 4

Abstract

Solar power is sustainable and one of the mainstream resources for meeting power demands. It has emerged as the most adaptable solution to energy access and security concerns. Despite offering modularity and low cost of generation advantages, the projects suffer overruns and often fail to deliver the desired performances. However, limited studies are available on investigating solar power project risks and their impact on project performances, primarily based on empirical evidence. Moreover, such studies rarely analyze the underlying contractor’s approach in addressing them. Therefore, through case studies in India, this study empirically attempts to identify the potential risk issues and associated impacts responsible for impaired solar project performance. The study also explores the contractors’ approach toward their management concerning their enterprise listing, i.e., private and public. The study outlines the 16 key risk factors, including error in project estimations, incorrect site assessment, delays in statutory and regulatory compliances, change in management, ineffective communication and control, improper distribution of works, insufficient workforce, and lack of quality control mechanism. Also, the study evaluates their impact on project performance, such as reworks, cost and time variance, imposition of liquidated damages, loss of revenue, and disputes and claims. Moreover, the study suggests mitigation measures, i.e., proactive and inclusive planning, a thorough study of project parameters and conditions, utilizing IT for reducing response time, training and development, and continuous monitoring and control, that could have minimized the impact of risk in the cases. Further, the study reveals that irrespective of the contractors’ listing type, the approach toward risk management remains casual, leading to derailed project outcomes. Overall, this study fills a critical gap in the body of knowledge on solar power project development by identifying risk factors that cause impaired performances and the contractors’ perspectives based on empirical evidence from India.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Data Availability Statement

All data, models, or code that supports the study’s findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

Works Cited

Akintoye, A. S., and M. J. Macleod. 1997. “Risk analysis and management in construction.” Int. J. Project Manage. 15 (1): 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(96)00035-X.
Ansar, A., B. Flyvbjerg, A. Budzier, and D. Lunn. 2014. “Should we build more large dams? The actual costs of hydropower megaproject development.” Energy Policy 69 (Jun): 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.069.
Bridge to India. 2022. “Solar EPC business undergoing a churn.” Bridge to India. Accessed January 4, 2023. https://bridgetoindia.com/solar-epc-business-undergoing-a-churn/.
Bridge to India. 2023. Project compendium-utility scale solar projects. Gurugram, India: India RE Navigator.
Brookes, N. J., and G. Locatelli. 2015. “Power plants as megaprojects: Using empirics to shape policy, planning, and construction management.” Utility Policy 36 (Jun): 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2015.09.005.
Burchett, J. F., V. M. R. Tummala, and H. M. Leung. 1999. “A worldwide survey of current practices in the management of risk within electrical supply projects.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 17 (1): 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461999371844.
CEA (Central Electricity Authority). 2021. Brief status of awarded ultra-mega power projects. New Delhi, India: CEA.
CEA (Central Electricity Authority). 2022. Annual report 2021-22. New Delhi, India: CEA.
COSO (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission). 2009. Strengthening enterprise risk management for strategic advantage. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State Univ.
ET (Energy World). 2023. “India missed 175 GW renewable energy capacity target by 30 percent.” ET Energy World, January 4, 2023.
Gupta, P. K. 2011. “Risk management in Indian companies: EWRM concerns and issues.” J. Risk Finance 12 (2): 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/15265941111112848.
IEA (International Energy Agency). 2020. Power systems in transition—Challenges and opportunities ahead for electricity security. Paris: International Energy Agency.
IEA (International Energy Agency). 2022. Electricity sector. Paris: International Energy Agency.
IEA (International Energy Agency). 2023. World energy investment 2023. Paris: International Energy Agency.
Islam, M. S., M. Nepal, and M. Skitmore. 2023. “Structuring risks for a comprehensive understanding of cost overruns in power plant projects.” Constr. Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-05-2022-0120.
Islam, M. S., M. P. Nepal, and M. Skitmore. 2018. “Modified fuzzy group decision-making approach to cost overrun risk assessment of power plant projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 145 (2): 04018126. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001593.
ISO. 2018. Risk management-guidelines. Geneva: ISO.
Iyer, K. C., and K. N. Jha. 2006. “Critical factors affecting schedule performance: Evidence from Indian construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 132 (8): 871–881. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:8(871).
Khare, V., C. J. Khare, S. Nema, and P. Baredar. 2022. “Path towards sustainable energy development: Status of renewable energy in Indian subcontinent.” Cleaner Energy Syst. 3 (Dec): 100020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cles.2022.100020.
Koner, J., and M. N. Shah. 2015. “An empirical investigation of causes and remedies for delays and cost overruns in mega power projects in India.” In Proc., PMI India Research and Academic Conf., 141–146. Mumbai, India: Project Management Institute.
Kul, C., L. Zhang, and Y. A. Solangi. 2020. “Assessing the renewable energy investment risk factors for sustainable development in Turkey.” J. Cleaner Prod. 276 (Dec): 124164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124164.
Lundy, V., and P. P. Morin. 2013. “Project leadership influences resistance to change: The case of the Canadian public service.” Project Manage. J. 44 (4): 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21355.
MNRE (Ministry of New and Renewable Energy). 2011. “Generation based incentive scheme.” Press Information Bureau, December 16, 2011.
MNRE (Ministry of New and Renewable Energy). 2014. “Renewable energy programmes gets a new impetus; focus on development of energy infrastructure.” Press Information Bureau, December 21, 2014.
MoF (Ministry of Finance). 2014. “To maximise utilisation of solar power, exemption from excise duty and basic custom duty extended on solar panels.” Press Information Bureau, August 8, 2014.
MoP (Ministry of Power). 2012. “Forum of regulators (FOR) draws up RPO trajectory for states.” Press Information Bureau, July 20, 2012.
Narayan, P., S. Kar, and K. N. Jha. 2024. “Disputes in renewable energy development: International and domestic interventions.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 16 (2): 05023010. https://doi.org/10.1061/JLADAH.LADR-1128.
Nasirzadeh, F., A. Afshar, and M. Khanzadi. 2008. “Dynamic risk analysis in construction projects.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 35 (8): 820–831. https://doi.org/10.1139/L08-035.
Pai, S., and R. Varma. 2020. “Risk management in Indian infrastructure projects.” China Business Law Journal. Accessed December 1, 2021. https://law.asia/risk-management-indian-projects/.
PMI and KPMG (Project Management Institute and Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdler). 2012. Study on project schedule and cost overruns. New Delhi, India: KPMG, PMI and MOSPI.
PMI and KPMG (Project Management Institute and Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdler). 2019. Revamping project management: Assessment of infrastructure projects and corrective recommendations for performance improvement. New Delhi, India: KPMG, PMI and MOSPI.
PMI (Project Management Institute). 2019. The standard for risk in portfolios, programs, and projects. Newtown Square, PA: PMI.
Ranganath, N., D. Sarkar, P. Patel, and S. Patel. 2022. “Application of fuzzy TOPSIS method for risk evaluation in development and implementation of solar park in India.” Int. J. Construct. Manage. 22 (14): 2764–2774. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1826027.
Rangnath, N. 2022. Project risk management in solar power plants. Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India: Pandit Deendayal Energy Univ.
Rashid, Y., A. Rashid, M. A. Warraich, S. S. Sabir, and A. Waseem. 2019. “Case study method: A step-by-step guide for business researchers.” Int. J. Qual. Methods 18 (Mar): 160940691986242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919862424.
REN21 (Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century). 2023. Renewables 2023: Global status report collection-energy supply. Paris: REN21 Secretariat.
Rustagi, V., and M. Karmarkar. 2022. Technical standards for balance of systems in solar projects. New Delhi, India: Bridge to India & International Copper Association.
Saunders, M., P. Lewis, and A. Thornhill. 2016. Research methods for business students. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
Schoonwinkel, S., C. J. Fourie, and P. D. F. Conradie. 2016. “A risk and cost management analysis for changes during the construction phase of a project.” J. S. Afr. Inst. Civ. Eng. 58 (4): 21–28. https://doi.org/10.17159/2309-8775/2016/v58n4a3.
Sovacool, B. K., D. Nugent, and A. Gilbert. 2014. “Construction cost overruns and electricity infrastructure: An unavoidable risk?” Electr. J. 27 (4): 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2014.03.015.
Svendsen, A. B., T. Tollefsen, T. Gjengedal, M. Goodwin, and S. Antonsen. 2018. “Digitalization of the power business: How to make this work?” In Safety and reliability: Safe societies in a changing world, 2513–2520. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Wang, T., W. Tang, L. Du, C. F. Duffield, and Y. Wei. 2016. “Relationships among risk management, partnering, and contractor capability in International EPC project delivery.” J. Manage. Eng. 32 (6): 04016017. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000459.
Wong, C. C., F. A. M. Rahim, and L. S. Chuing. 2021. “Enterprise risk management and risk culture in construction public listed companies.” J. Constr. Dev. Countries 26 (2): 17–36. https://doi.org/10.21315/jcdc2021.26.2.2.
Yin, R. K. 2014. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Zhao, X., B.-G. Hwang, and S. P. Low. 2013. “Critical success factors for enterprise risk management in Chinese construction companies.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 31 (12): 1199–1214. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2013.867521.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
Volume 16Issue 4November 2024

History

Received: Nov 28, 2023
Accepted: Jun 6, 2024
Published online: Aug 26, 2024
Published in print: Nov 1, 2024
Discussion open until: Jan 26, 2025

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Ph.D. Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110016, India (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6832-9683. Email: [email protected]
Santu Kar, Ph.D. [email protected]
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam 781039, India. Email: [email protected]
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110016, India. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1266-0132. Email: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share