Arbitration Regarding Rooftop Solar, Energy-Efficiency, And Battery-Storage Failures
1. Overview of Disputes in Rooftop Solar, Energy-Efficiency, and Battery Storage
Disputes in these sectors usually arise due to:
System Design Failures: Incorrect sizing of solar panels, inverters, battery systems, or energy-efficiency devices leading to underperformance.
Installation Defects: Improper mounting, electrical connections, or integration with existing electrical networks.
Equipment Failures: Defective solar panels, inverters, controllers, or batteries causing short circuits, energy losses, or safety hazards.
Operational Inefficiencies: Systems failing to meet guaranteed energy output, reduced efficiency, or faulty battery charge-discharge cycles.
Maintenance and Warranty Claims: Disputes over preventive maintenance, replacements, or warranty coverage.
Regulatory Non-Compliance: Violations of grid codes, fire safety norms, or local electrical regulations.
Performance Guarantees and Penalties: Failure to achieve contractual energy savings or power-generation targets.
Arbitration is commonly invoked due to:
Confidentiality of commercial disputes.
Need for technical expert evaluation.
Speedier resolution compared to courts.
2. Common Arbitration Issues
Performance Shortfall: Dispute over actual versus guaranteed energy generation or energy efficiency savings.
Design vs. Installation Liability: Determining whether failures are due to poor design, installation, or defective equipment.
Battery Storage Failures: Liability for fires, thermal runaway, or reduced lifespan due to improper integration.
Liquidated Damages: Claims due to delay in commissioning systems or failing to meet contractual energy targets.
Regulatory Compliance: Ensuring systems meet grid connection requirements, safety, and fire codes.
Apportionment of Liability: Particularly when multiple contractors, suppliers, and consultants are involved.
3. Illustrative Case Laws
Case 1: Rooftop Solar PV System Underperformance
Facts: A commercial rooftop solar project produced only 70% of the promised output. Owner claimed contractor breached performance guarantee.
Arbitration Finding: Tribunal found contractor partially responsible due to incorrect inverter sizing; panel quality also contributed. Contractor paid proportional damages and agreed to system optimization.
Key Principle: Performance guarantees are enforceable; causation and technical expert evaluation are critical.
Case 2: Battery Storage Fire Incident
Facts: Lithium-ion battery system caught fire in a commercial energy-storage installation. Owner claimed supplier failed to meet safety norms.
Arbitration Finding: Tribunal held supplier liable for non-compliance with IS/IEC battery safety standards and awarded damages for equipment replacement and downtime.
Key Principle: Suppliers must adhere to safety standards; negligent installation can trigger liability.
Case 3: Energy-Efficiency Retrofit Failure
Facts: A retrofit project promised 25% reduction in energy consumption but achieved only 10%.
Arbitration Finding: Tribunal found audit and implementation errors in energy-efficiency measures. Contractor liable for shortfall; awarded damages based on lost savings.
Key Principle: Energy savings guarantees are binding; measurable verification is essential.
Case 4: Delay in Rooftop Solar Commissioning
Facts: Project delayed due to late delivery of panels and incomplete installation. Owner sought liquidated damages.
Arbitration Finding: Tribunal apportioned delay between supplier (panel delivery) and installer (poor project management). Damages reduced accordingly.
Key Principle: Delay claims must account for contributory factors; partial liability reduces damages.
Case 5: Hybrid Solar-Battery System Malfunction
Facts: Hybrid system integrating solar PV with batteries failed to deliver stable power due to improper controller settings.
Arbitration Finding: Tribunal held installation contractor responsible for misconfiguration; equipment supplier not liable. Contractor reimbursed rectification costs.
Key Principle: Proper commissioning and configuration are part of contractor obligations.
Case 6: Warranty and Maintenance Dispute
Facts: Post-warranty, rooftop solar panels showed rapid degradation. Contractor denied liability citing normal wear and tear.
Arbitration Finding: Tribunal held contractor responsible for substandard panels and awarded replacement under extended warranty terms.
Key Principle: Warranty obligations cover defects beyond normal wear; expert testing determines defect versus normal degradation.
Case 7: Regulatory Non-Compliance Leading to Grid Rejection
Facts: Rooftop solar system rejected by utility due to non-compliance with grid interconnection standards. Owner claimed damages from contractor.
Arbitration Finding: Tribunal ruled contractor liable for failure to follow standards and awarded costs for rectification and delayed energy sales.
Key Principle: Compliance with regulatory and utility standards is a contractual obligation.
4. Key Takeaways
Expert Evaluation is Central: Technical experts in solar, battery, and energy-efficiency systems often decide the outcome.
Clear Performance Metrics Reduce Disputes: Contracts should specify energy output, efficiency savings, and battery cycles.
Liability Can Be Shared: In hybrid projects, tribunals may apportion responsibility among suppliers, installers, and designers.
Warranty, Maintenance, and Safety Are Critical: Post-installation failures often hinge on contractual maintenance obligations.
Regulatory Compliance Cannot Be Ignored: Non-compliance can lead to both contractual and legal liability.
RELATED Blog
comments