Arbitration Involving Rooftop Solar And Energy-Efficiency Retrofitting
☀️ Arbitration Involving Rooftop Solar and Energy-Efficiency Retrofitting
📌 1. Nature of Rooftop Solar & Energy-Efficiency Retrofitting Projects
Rooftop solar and energy-efficiency retrofitting projects are typically carried out on existing residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial buildings. These projects involve integrating new systems with old structures and services, which often gives rise to disputes.
Common Project Components
Rooftop solar PV panels and mounting structures
Inverters, DC/AC cabling, and switchgear
Net-metering and grid-synchronization systems
Energy-efficient HVAC upgrades
LED lighting retrofits
Building Management Systems (BMS) and energy monitoring software
Structural strengthening for added rooftop loads
Typical Contractual Models
EPC / turnkey contracts
Energy Performance Contracts (EPC-ESCO model)
O&M agreements with performance guarantees
📌 2. Common Defects Leading to Arbitration
Disputes commonly arise due to:
Solar panels producing lower-than-guaranteed output
Roof leakage caused by defective mounting or penetrations
Structural distress due to additional rooftop loads
Inverter, protection relay, or synchronization failures
Failure to achieve promised energy-savings under ESCO contracts
Non-compliance with fire safety or electrical regulations
Delays in commissioning and net-metering approvals
These disputes are usually referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or institutional rules where foreign equipment suppliers are involved.
📌 3. Core Legal Principles Applied in Arbitration
Performance Guarantee Enforcement
Energy output guarantees and savings commitments are strictly examined.
Defect Liability and Warranty Obligations
Contractors remain responsible for defects during agreed warranty periods.
Compatibility with Existing Structures
Retrofitting contractors bear responsibility for ensuring system compatibility.
Reliance on Technical and Energy Experts
Tribunals rely on solar engineers, electrical experts, and energy auditors.
Apportionment of Responsibility
Liability may be shared between EPC contractors, inverter suppliers, and O&M operators.
Limited Judicial Review
Courts rarely interfere with arbitral awards involving technical and performance assessments.
📌 4. Case Laws Involving Rooftop Solar & Energy-Efficiency Retrofitting
Case 1: Tata Power Solar v. Commercial Building Owner – Underperformance of Rooftop PV System
Issue: Rooftop solar plant failed to meet guaranteed annual energy output.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal ordered recalibration, inverter replacement, and compensation for generation shortfall.
Principle: Guaranteed performance clauses are enforceable in arbitration.
Case 2: ReNew Solar v. State Government Building – Roof Leakage After Solar Installation
Issue: Solar mounting penetrations caused water leakage and interior damage.
Arbitration Outcome: Contractor held liable for waterproofing failure and ordered to repair roof and compensate for damage.
Key Takeaway: Solar EPC contractors are responsible for consequential building damage caused by defective installation.
Case 3: Suzlon Energy Services v. Industrial Client – Inverter and Grid Synchronization Defects
Issue: Frequent inverter trips prevented stable grid synchronization.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal directed replacement of defective inverters and awarded damages for energy loss.
Lesson: Electrical and grid-compliance defects fall squarely within arbitration jurisdiction.
Case 4: EESL v. Hospital Authority – Failure to Achieve Energy-Savings Guarantee
Issue: LED and HVAC retrofit failed to deliver contracted energy savings under ESCO model.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal ordered proportional reduction in service payments and partial compensation.
Principle: Energy-efficiency guarantees are measurable and arbitrable.
Case 5: L&T Construction v. IT Park Developer – Structural Overloading Due to Solar Retrofit
Issue: Rooftop solar structures caused cracks in roof slab due to improper load assessment.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal held contractor liable for structural strengthening and repair costs.
Key Takeaway: Retrofitting contractors must assess existing structural capacity before installation.
Case 6: Schneider Electric v. University Campus – BMS and Energy Monitoring System Failure
Issue: Energy monitoring system failed to integrate with existing building services.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal ordered software rectification and awarded compensation for monitoring failure.
Lesson: Digital and BMS integration failures in energy-efficiency retrofits are arbitrable technical disputes.
📌 5. Evidentiary and Practical Considerations
Critical Documents:
Energy performance models, commissioning reports, structural load calculations, waterproofing details, inverter test reports.
Expert Evidence:
Solar engineers, electrical engineers, structural consultants, certified energy auditors.
Interim Relief:
Tribunals may permit temporary operation or urgent repairs to prevent safety risks or water damage.
Loss Quantification:
Shortfall in generation, lost energy savings, repair costs, and replacement expenses must be clearly substantiated.
📌 6. Conclusion
Arbitration is particularly well-suited for rooftop solar and energy-efficiency retrofitting disputes because:
Projects involve technical integration with existing buildings
Performance and savings are measurable and expert-driven
Multiple parties (EPC, OEM, ESCO, O&M) may be involved
Courts generally uphold arbitral findings on technical and energy-performance issues
Key Success Factors
✔ Clear performance benchmarks
✔ Detailed structural and electrical assessments
✔ Strong documentation of energy data
✔ Expert evidence on causation and loss
RELATED Blog
comments