N Rangnath (14RCL01P)

PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT OF SOLAR POWER
PLANTS
By:
N. RANGNATH
Roll. No: 14RCL01P
Under the Guidance of
Dr. Debasis Sarkar
Associate Professor and Former Head of Department
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Technology, PDEU
SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY
PANDIT DEENDAYAL ENERGY UNIVERSITY
GANDHINAGAR – 382421, GUJARAT-INDIA
MARCH 2022
i

APPROVAL SHEET
This report entitled “Project Risk Management of Solar Power Plants” by N.

Rangnath is recommended for the degree of Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Civil
Engineering.
Examiners
Supervisors
Chairman
Date:
Place: Pandit Deendayal Energy University, Gandhinagar
ii

STUDENT DECLARATION
I N. Rangnath hereby declare that this written submission represents my ideas in my own words
and where others’ idea or words have been included, I have adequately cited and referenced the
original sources. I also declare that I have adhered to all principles of academic honestly and
integrity and have not misrepresented or fabricated or falsified any idea / data / fact / source in my
submission. I understand that any violation of the above will be cause for disciplinary action by
the PANDIT DEENDAYAL ENERGY UNIVERSITY and can also evoke penal action from the
sources which have thus not been properly cited or from whim proper permission has not been
taken when needed.
N. RANGNATH

PANDIT DEENDAYAL ENERGY UNIVERSITY, GANDHINAGAR
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
(MARCH 2022)
CERTIFICATE
Date: 25.03.2022
This is to certify that the THESIS entitled “PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT OF

SOLAR POWER PLANTS” has been carried out and completed successfully by N.
RANGNATH (14RCL01P) under my guidance in fulfilment of the degree of
Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D.) at PANDIT DEENDAYAL ENERGY

UNIVERSITY, GANDHINAGAR during the academic years 2014-2022.The
present work has not been submitted for the purpose of other degree elsewhere. This
is the final version of thesis, which carries full compliance to the remarks and the
suggestions made by the thesis evaluators and examiners.
Guide Head of the Department
Dr. Debasis Sarkar
Associate Professor
4

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I express my gratitude and sincere thanks to my Guide Dr. Debasis Sarkar (Associate Professor,
former H.O.D, Civil Engineering Department, PDEU Gandhinagar) for his constant motivation
and support. I truly appreciate and value his esteemed guidance and encouragement from the
beginning and I am indebted to him for having helped me shape the problem and providing insights
towards the solution.
I would like to acknowledge the kind assistance of the Questionnaire respondents, who agreed to
give up their time to contribute to the research of this project. Without their participation and input,
the questionnaire survey could not have been successfully conducted. I would like to thank all
concerned government and private authorities who are directly or indirectly involved in this
research work.
I would like to thank my friends many others like Dhaval, Yashdeep, Parth and Arpit to help in
completing this journey. I would also like to thank all my classmates for their support during my
tenure. Last but not the least, I would like to take the opportunity of thanking my parents for their
constant support and co-operation.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process
ANP Analytic Network Process
BESCOM Bangalore Electrical Supply
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
COD Commercial Operation Date
CERC Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
CSP Concentrating Solar Power
COD Commercial Operation Date
DBFOT Design Build Finance Operate Transfer
DSG Direct Steam Generation
EVM Expected Value Method
EPC Engineering Procurement Construction
FAHP Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process
GHGs Green House Gases
GOI Government Of India
GSPP Gujarat Solar Power Policy
HFL High flood Level
HFL High Flood Level
IoT Internet of Things
IMD Indian Meteorological Department
I-VAM Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Model

ISM Interpretive Structural Modelling
IEA International Energy Agency
IRR Internal Rate of Return
JNNSM Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission
KERC Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission
KWH Kilowatt-hours
LT Low voltage
LEC Levelized Energy Cost
LCCA Life Cycle Cost Analysis
LCOE Levelised Cost of Energy
LOA Letter Of Approval
MAHP Modified Analytical Hierarchy Process
MCA Master Concierge Agreement
MCS Monte Carlo Simulation
MNRE Ministry Of New and Renewable Energy
MOEF Ministry Of Environmental and Forest
MCDM Multi Criteria Decision Making
MU Million Units
MW Megawatts
NPV Net Present Value
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NAPCC National Action Plan on Climate Change

NIS Negative Ideal Solution
O and M Operations And Management
PDIA Project Development and Implementation Agreement
PRM Project Risk Management
PV Photo-Voltaic panel
PPA Power Purchase Agreement
PIS Positive Ideal Solution
PVGCS Photovoltaic Grid-Connected Systems
PPP Public Private Partnership
QAP Quality Assurance Plan
RFP Request For Proposal
RFQ Request For Quote
RE Renewable Energy
RETs Renewable Energy Technologies
SHS Solar Home Systems
STE Solar thermal electricity
SBCA Social Benefit Cost Analysis
SERC State Electricity Regulatory Commission
SPV Special Purpose Vehicle
STU State Transmission Utility
TOPSIS Technique for Order Preference by Similarities to Ideal Solution
WPI Wholesale Price Index

ABSTRACT
For any nation’s economy and the socio-political prevailing conditions, the infrastructure and its
growth play a significant role. Global population expansion in hand with the corresponding
industrial requirements adds to increase in pollution levels, which in-turn disrupts the balance
between human and nature. For the sustaining of such infrastructure and smooth functioning of it,
the risk assessment and management become a necessary peril to undergo to minimize accidents
and harmful effects on environment and obviously on the business/profit aspect of it. Even in the
developed countries, many major infrastructure projects eventually suffer due to poor risk
management or poor policies of allocation of funds for such management. Risk management as
such becomes an indispensable field that helps to identify, analyse, mitigate and control risks
associated with project for the parameters like cost, schedule, quality, health, safety and
environmental aspects. In the era of development and growing infrastructure, the challenges in
making, maintaining and managing the same also rises significantly. This makes the disaster/risk
management a very crucial area to study and improve upon as the success of these infrastructure
projects are greatly influenced by the effective management of such risk and challenges and
optimisation of the same.
Renewable energy sector projects like development and implementation of solar power plants are
crucial in the present era to suffice the target for generation of green and clean energy. Just like
any complex infrastructure projects, the solar power projects face risks and uncertainties
throughout its many phases. The risk assessment for projects remains a multi-variable problem as
a lot depends on human expertise. The present work identifies the risks involved in its various
phases and employs two methodologies of risk analysis while comparing between the two. It has
been observed that the TOPSIS approach produces more coherent interpretation than the AHP
approach. This is the first study where TOPSIS approach is employed for the case of risk
assessment of solar parks in India (Rajasthan, Karnataka and Gujarat) and then subsequently
compared with the AHP analysis of the same. It has been inferred that for niche and isolated
projects AHP is more suitable however for more general and multiple source data TOPSIS is the
superior approach. The risk assessment is broken down into 5 phases and it has been observed that
based on the risk indexing of those phases, the project authorities cannot afford to ignore any of
the phases. It is observed that TOPSIS approach has substantial advantages over the conventional
AHP process in terms that it can evaluate the data using fuzzy numbers from various decision
makers or sources. Furthermore, AHP is limited to the study of each solar park separately and

there exist no way to interpret one with respect to another. Thereby, for standalone projects or
niche markets of study AHP is better suited in the absence of other related projects that can provide
the same range of identifiable parameters across the board.
This study further highlights the crucial factors to be considered in terms of maintaining the Solar
panels by periodical cleaning for getting optimum power generation. Solar Photo-Voltaic (PV)
panel cleaning has been a major challenge in renewable energy sector to achieve maximum
efficiency for getting higher returns. Different cleaning systems have been designed to maintain
the efficiency and further studies have been carried out to demonstrate the effectiveness of
cleaning system. This is a discussion about how the crucial variables such as dust, humidity, wind,
dry lands affect the output of the solar PV panels and what kind of technologies (robotic cleaning)
are available in solar PV panel cleaning system to maximising the output by minimising the cost
and impact of the constraints on solar panels. Conventional method of cleaning by deploying
manual labour is not giving effective solutions, as the cost factor is of concern. Here is where the
advances and integration into Internet of Things (IoT) can be employed for cleaning of panels by
deploying robots or automatic technologies to improve the power generations during the plant’s
life span. Solar panels require periodic cleaning in order to have optimum power generation and
consistent efficiency. Most of the plants planned or implemented, lie in North Western parts of
India which are known for dust storms and hence receive frequent dust accumulation on the panels.
The present work reviews all the available options and concludes that robotic cleaning/automatic
cleaning is the effective way for maintenance of the Solar panel in Indian Sub-continent, for
getting optimum power and revenue generation. The economic cost involved with manual
cleaning and the corresponding comparisons with robotic ones shows the clear winner for the case
and the best option being to move with robotic cleaning systems that can be automated and well
controlled remotely using IoT.
Economic feasibility and sustainability are also presented through the evaluation of the life cycle
costing of such solar parks. Life Cycle Costing analysis is employed to evaluate the long-term
benefit of the huge investments in India’s ambitious plan of setting up nearly 100 GW installed
solar power capacity by Dec 2022. Life cycle costing is a methodology used in economic
calculation of all costs incurred during the life span of any project. For Renewable Energy systems,
this shows the cost-effectiveness of being used as an alternative source compared to conventional
power generations. The model is applied to the Photo Voltaic projects in Indian scenario where
all required data has been collected from reliable sources. The exponential increase/growth in
renewable energy (RE) market like solar and wind has led to need for an accurate and precise
10

evaluation for an economic feasibility of these technologies is a cause of concern to the Project
Investors, developers and decision makers. It is required to consider the cost of all the works
involved in such projects right from feasibility stage till completion and also safe disposal phases,
or what it is called as life cycle costing (LCC). Hence computing the Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is
an excellent approach and methodology especially for a Renewable Energy (RE) systems which
shows the benefits of using RE as an alternative source compared to fuel incurred costs (due to
fluctuations) in the present scenario in view of Global warming. LCC model for PV generation
system has been developed for an Indian scenario based on the data and information collected
through extensive questionnaire by interacting with developers/Investors and also Contractors.
The unique feature of the current study is even the disposal cost of the PV panels have been
considered. It is observed that the capital investment burden is lower than conventional fossil fuel
alternatives which indicates the benefits and the viability of the project for the given lifetime of
the PV. The Cash flow analysis indicates that, project payback depends on initial investment and
PPA rate. The payback is generally less than 8 years which is about 30 % of the project life cycle.
Keywords: Risk Management, Solar PV, Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), Fuzzy
TOPSIS, Life Cycle Cost Analysis, Social Benefit Cost Analysis, PPP Model Development
11

CONTENTS
APPROVAL SHEET ......................................................................................................ii
STUDENT DECLARATION.......................................................................................... 3
CERTIFICATE ............................................................................................................... 4
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................................................................................. 5
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................... 6
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 9
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 20
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................. 20
1.1 Need for Study ............................................................................................ 21
1.2 Research Objectives .................................................................................... 22
1.3 Research Scope ........................................................................................... 23
1.4 Methodology ............................................................................................... 23
1.5 Research Contribution ................................................................................. 24
1.5.1 Identification of the risk parameters involved in various phases of the solar project
in India. ..............................................................................................24
1.5.2 Evaluate the risk analysis using both AHP and TOPSIS methods and comparing
between the two the first of its kind in this niche. ................................24
1.5.3 Made the case for the importance of IoT in cleaning and maintenance along with the
cost involved and cost analysis over a period of time along with the corresponding
overheads. ..........................................................................................24
1.5.4 Life cycle costing analysis for various solar parks in India of varying capacities of
1MW to 10 MW and the projection of cash flow and sensitivity analysis. 24
1.5.5 The social benefit cost analysis has been carried out by considering the various
parameters related to Solar Power Plant. .............................................24
1.5.6 Framework for Model Concession Agreement (MCA) and PPP model for the solar
park development in India...................................................................24
12

1.6 Thesis Organization ..................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................... 26
2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................. 26
2.1 Application of Risk Management to Solar Park ........................................... 27
2.1.1 Energy Scenario .................................................................................28
2.2 Feasibility study .......................................................................................... 30
2.2.1 Economic feasibility ...........................................................................31
2.3 Research Gap in Literature .......................................................................... 41
CHAPTER 3 : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................... 43
3.0 Introduction .................................................................................................... 43
3.1 Methodology .................................................................................................. 47
3.2 Major components for Setting of Solar Parks .................................................. 48
3.3 Role of Professionals in Setting Up of Solar Projects ...................................... 49
CHAPTER 4 DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................ 52
4.0 A Case Study on Defective Design, Poor Execution and Project Management52
4.1 Summary ..................................................................................................... 61
CHAPTER 5 : DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 71
5.0 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) And Modified Analytical Hierarchy Process
(MAHP) ...................................................................................................... 71
5.1 FUZZY TOPSIS .......................................................................................... 84
5.2 Salient Features of Projects Considered for Case Study ............................... 91
CHAPTER 6 LIFE CYCLE COSTING OF PV GENERATION SYSTEM ................. 130
6.0 Introduction ............................................................................................... 130
6.0.1 Solar Status - Indian scenario ............................................................ 130
6.0.2 PV Costing and Installation of Solar Projects .................................... 132
CHAPTER 7 SOCIAL BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS OF INDIAN SOLAR POWER PROJECTS

................................................................................................................................... 159
7.0 Introduction ............................................................................................... 159

13

7.1 SBCA ........................................................................................................ 160
7.1.1 Need for SBCA for Solar Power Projects ..........................................161
7.2 Solar Power Generation ............................................................................. 162
7.3 Solar Power ............................................................................................... 163
7.3.1 Merits of Solar Power ....................................................................... 164
7.3.2 Demerits of Solar Power ................................................................... 164
7.4 Social Benefit Cost Analysis (SBCA) ........................................................ 164
7.5 Summary ................................................................................................... 165
CHAPTER 8 PPP MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND MODEL CONCESSION AGREEMENT

FOR SOLAR POWER PLANTS IN INDIA................................................................ 166
8.0 Feasibility of Considering the project in PPP mode: .................................. 166
8.1 Necessity for Considering the Project Under Public Private Partnership..... 168
8.2 Salient features of Public Private Partnership (PPP) Model ........................ 168
8.3 Development of Solar PPP Projects – Indian scenario ................................ 168
8.4 Method of Awarding ................................................................................. 169
8.5 Master Concessionaire Agreement ............................................................. 169
CHAPTER 9 APPLICATION INTERNET OF THINGS (IOT) FOR MAINTAINANCE OF

SOLAR PV PANELS ................................................................................................. 170
9.0 General Introduction.................................................................................. 170
9.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 170
9.1.1 Major Components of Solar Plants.................................................... 171
9.1.2 Factors affecting the generation in solar plants .................................. 172
9.2 Solar Panel Cleaning ................................................................................. 173
9.2.1 Challenges in Solar Panel cleaning ................................................... 174
9.3 Summary ................................................................................................... 176
CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................. 180
Conclusion for AHP, MAHP and TOPSIS................................................................... 180
10.0 Conclusion for Life cycle costing .............................................................. 182

14

10.1 Conclusion for Social Benefit .................................................................... 182
10.2 Conclusion for IoT .................................................................................... 183
10.3 Future work ............................................................................................... 183
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 185
ANNEXURES 1 DETAILED COMPUTATION FOR FUZZY TOPSIS ......................... 1
ANNEXURE 2 SAMPLE QUESTIONAIRE ............................................................ 32
ANNEXURE 3 MODEL CONCESSION AGREEMENT ......................................... 41
15

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1 Photos Indicating the extent of damage witnessed due to heavy wind........................ 57
Figure 5.1 Triangular Fuzzy number system ............................................................................. 85
Figure 6.1 Decline in the PV Costing during the 2010-20 ....................................................... 132
Figure 6.2 Exponential Growth in the PV Installation during 2010-20. ................................... 132
Figure 6.3 Year wise Module price and Installed capacity – Indian scenario........................... 133
Figure 6.4 Life cycle costing percentages for 3.3 MW solar power plant of Karnataka, India . 142
Figure 6.5. Life cycle costing percentages for 1 MW solar power plant of Charanka, India .... 142
Figure 6.6. Life cycle costing percentages for 10 MW solar power plant of Andhra Pradesh, India
.............................................................................................................................................. 143
Figure 6.7 Life cycle costing percentages for 15 MW solar power plant of Tamil Nadu, India 143
Figure 6.8 Life cycle costing percentages for 10 MW solar power plant of New Delhi, India . 144
Figure 6.9 Life cycle costing percentages for 5 MW solar power plant of Barmer, Rajasthan, India
.............................................................................................................................................. 144
Figure 6.10 Cash flow diagram for sensitivity analysis for Case-1 Charanka, Gujarat (1MW) 148
Figure 6.13. Cash flow diagram for sensitivity analysis for Case-4 Charanka, Gujarat ............ 151
Figure 7.1 Emission level of CO2 due to use of various fuels for Generation of Electricity – Indian
scenario .................................................................................................................................. 162
Figure 7.2 Energy Produced from various Source in India ...................................................... 162
Figure 8.1 Projected Payback Period of the Various Solar Power Plants of India .................... 167
Figure 8.2 Projected Cash Flow Diagram for Implementation Solar Power Plants of India in PPP
Mode ..................................................................................................................................... 167
Figure 9.1 Dust accumulation causes on solar panels and the relationship Maghami et al. (2016)
.............................................................................................................................................. 172
Figure 9.2 Correlation between thicknesses of dust and difference in efficiencies (redrawn from
Siddiqui and Bajpai (2012)) ................................................................................................... 173
Figure 9.3 cost comparisons of various components for manual and automatic cleaning ......... 177
Figure 9.4 Cost distribution for manual and automatic cleaning .............................................. 177
Figure 9.5 Semi-automatic fibre brush cleaning ...................................................................... 178
Figure 9.6 Automatic slider type cleaner ................................................................................ 179
16

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Details of Different Phases in Implementation of Solar Power Park .......................... 59
Table 4.2 Broad Risks Identified under Phase-1 ....................................................................... 59
Table 4.7 Risks Identified under Phase-1 .................................................................................. 61
Table 4.8 RisksIdentifiedunderPhase-2..................................................................................... 63
Table 4.9 RisksIdentifiedunderPhase-3..................................................................................... 65
Table 4.10 Risks Identified under Phase-4 ................................................................................ 67
Table 4.11 Risks Identified under Phase-5 ................................................................................ 70
Table 5.1 Saaty Scale for Risk Rating ...................................................................................... 72
Table 5.2 Risk Severity Scale ................................................................................................... 73
Table 5.3 Sample Computation of Normalised Weights for Risks under Phase-1 ...................... 74
Table 5.4 Sample Calculation of Weights for the Risks (For Row-3) ........................................ 77
Table 5.5 Computation of Normalize Weight for the Risks for all Phases of the Solar Power Plant
................................................................................................................................................ 79
Table 5.6 Summary of Risk Severity of Risk Factors of Solar Power Plant through EVM
Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 81
Table 5.7 Summary of Final Risk Index for Identified Risks of Solar Power Plants .................. 81
Table 5.8 Fuzzy ratings for linguistic variables......................................................................... 86
Table 5.9 Saaty scale for risk rating .......................................................................................... 87
Table 5.10 Scale for risk severity based on difference of FPIS and FNIS .................................. 89
Table 5.11 Scale for risk severity based on closeness coefficient (CC) ..................................... 89
Table 5.12 Alternative ratings by decision makers for phase-5 (operation and maintenance) .... 93
Table 5.13 Alternative ratings by decision makers for phase-5 (operation and maintenance) .... 93
Table 5.14 Criteria weightage by decision makers (1 and 2) for phase-5 (operation and
maintenance) ............................................................................................................................ 94
Table 5.15 Application of fuzzy numbers for alternative A1 for phase-5 (operation and
maintenance) ............................................................................................................................ 95
maintenance) ............................................................................................................................ 96
17

maintenance) ............................................................................................................................ 97
Table 5.18 Aggregated alternative and criteria weightage fuzzy decision matrix for phase-5
(operation and maintenance) .................................................................................................... 98
Table 5.19 Normalized aggregated fuzzy decision matrix for alternative A1 and A2 for phase-5
(operation and maintenance) .................................................................................................... 99
Table 5.20 Normalized aggregated fuzzy decision matrix for alternative A1 and A2 for phase-5
(operation and maintenance) .................................................................................................. 100
Table 5.21 FPIS for identified risks for phase-5 (operation and maintenance) ......................... 101
Table 5.22 FNIS for identified risks for phase-5 (operation and maintenance) ........................ 101
Table 5.23 FPIS and FNIS values of all the phases of the solar power plant project ................ 103
Table 5.24 Closeness Coefficient (CC) values of all the phases of the solar power plant project
.............................................................................................................................................. 107
Table 5.25 Corrective and preventive measures for the risks of phase 1 (Feasibility studies). . 109
Table 5.26 Corrective and preventive measures for the risks of phase 2 (Survey, investigation,
master plan and concept report) .............................................................................................. 115
Table 5.27 Corrective and preventive measures for the risks of phase 3 (Detailed design and
specifications - civil, structural, electrical, scada and transmission line) ................................. 119
Table 5.28 Corrective and preventive measures for the risks of phase 4 (Vendor selection,
procurement, construction and commissioning) ...................................................................... 122
Table 5.29 Corrective and preventive measures for the risks of phase 5 (Operation and
Maintenance) ......................................................................................................................... 126
Table 6.1 Year wise Module price and installed capacity in India ........................................... 133
Table 6.2 Life cycle costing model for solar photovoltaic in Indian scenario .......................... 139
Table 6.3 Investment / Costing Heads for solar photo voltaic in Indian scenario ..................... 141
Table 6.4 Summary of the initial investment cost and other costs for the solar power plants of India
understudy ............................................................................................................................. 145
Table 6.5 Sensitivity analysis results for the four cases of the Shankara solar plant 1MW in Gujarat
.............................................................................................................................................. 147
Table 6.6 Sensitivity analysis results for the four cases of the Barmer, Rajasthan solar plant 5MW
in India................................................................................................................................... 152
Table 6.7 Sensitivity analysis results for the four cases of the Tamilnadu solar plant 15MW in
India....................................................................................................................................... 153
18

Table 6.8 Sensitivity analysis results for the four cases of the New Delhi solar plant 10MW in
India....................................................................................................................................... 154
Table 6.9 Sensitivity analysis results for the four cases of the Karnataka solar plant 3.3 MW in
India....................................................................................................................................... 155
Table 8.1 Summary Comparison of the Solar Plant Capacities, Tariff, Cost, Return on Investment
and the Payback period of the Solar Power Plant .................................................................... 166
Table 9.1 Expenses for 5 MW solar plant maintenance ........................................................... 175
19

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
industrial requirements adds to an increase in pollution levels, which in turn disrupts the balance
between humans and nature. For the sustaining of such infrastructure and smooth functioning of
it, the risk assessment and management become a necessary peril to undergo to minimize accidents
including harmful effects on the environment and apparently on the business/profit aspect of it.
Infrastructures are a complex system of interconnected, interdependent, adaptive systems that are
directly or indirectly linked to the nation's or people's development. Even in the developed
countries, many major infrastructure projects eventually suffer due to poor risk management or
poor policies of allocation of funds for such management. This leads to a diminished project life
cycle which would prove to be a burden for the economy again in the years to come. Risk
management as such becomes an indispensable field that helps to identify, analyse, mitigate and
control risks associated with the project for the parameters like cost, schedule, quality, health,
safety and environmental aspects (Sarkar and Singh, 2018, 2020).
Complex multidisciplinary infrastructure projects suffer huge risks throughout all the phases of
the project starting from idea and feasibility, design, development, implementation and operation
(Sarkar and Dutta, 2011). If these risks are not addressed by the project authorities and mitigated
by adequate mitigation measures, then the project faces time and cost overrun and finally
collapses. Risk analysis thereby becomes a crucial activity to be carried out by the project
authorities before the feasibility phase of the project. Risk analysis helps to determine the risk
severity which helps in developing risk maps. Based on the risk maps which indicate low, medium,
high, very high and critical risk zones, the mitigation measures can be adopted. Sarkar and Dutta
(2011) carried out risk analysis of a large-scale infrastructure project, such as the construction of
an elevated corridor for metro rail operations through Expected Value Method (EVM) which was
also later implemented by Nicholas (2001). Sarkar and Singh (2020) extended their previous work
by carrying out risk analysis using (FAHP) Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process.
Solar power plant projects just like other infrastructure projects also face risks throughout all the
phases. It is necessary to carry out a detailed risk management for the solar power plant projects.
Risk identification, risk analysis and development of risk mitigation measures are the three basic
steps for carrying out the risk management process (Nicholas, 2001). Risk analysis can be carried
20

out through various Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods. After Zadeh (1965)
introduced fuzzy set theory within MCDM, many researchers across the globe carried out research
in decision making through fuzzy set theory and fuzzy environments. Risk assessment remains an
unstructured task that relies on human skills for a solar power plant project involving vast
resources. Identifying and assessing risk variables is an important step in the risk analysis concept
that should be carried out by a project manager to get an early warning about the possible risk
variable using (statistics and mathematical tools) that can occur in the project.
The complexity of nature and dynamics of the solar power plant prevents us in knowing at advance
how they would interact or behave in the event of any unforeseen or vulnerable scenarios. The
impact could be catastrophic or horrendous on a relatively large scale. Such issues are dealt with
the approach of risk management analysis with the defined markers or parameters of such systems.
The present study the complexity of nature and dynamics of the solar power plant prevents us in
knowing at advance how they would interact or behave in the event of any unforeseen or
vulnerable scenarios. The impact could be catastrophic or horrendous on a relatively large scale.
Such issues are dealt with the approach of risk management analysis with the defined markers or
parameters of such systems. The present study aims at identifying all the risks associated with all
the phases of the solar power plant starting from feasibility, design, development, implementation
and operation of the solar power plants in India. The risks are evaluated with appropriate risk
analysis tools for computation of their severity. According to the severity of the risks obtained
from the analysis, the corrective and preventive mitigation measures are suggested accordingly.
Furthermore, a suitable Public Private Partnership (PPP) Model has been proposed for the solar
power plants in India. An Internet of Things (IoT) based solar panel maintenance system has also
been proposed. The economic feasibility is assessed using Life cycle costing method. Moreover,
the social benefits are quantified by making comparisons to existing hydel power projects.
1.1 Need for Study

Risk is involved in all the infrastructure projects, and the construction industry in respect to the
development of integrated solar park is no such exception. The majority of project management
challenges that have an impact on the project's success are caused by connected uncertainties. In
India's building business, there are a number of issues that can be ascribed to a variety of sources.
Poor risk management and risk management during execution have significant implications in
terms of time and expense overruns, which have a negative impact on the contractor's and client's
ultimate project goal. Risks arising out of conflicts eventually result in number of litigations and
21

arbitration leading to project delays and corresponding financial impact. So, there is a need to
identify several risks and the assessment technique for the risks involved in a complex project like
solar park installation. A realistic and robust by utilising the most recent project management
techniques, a risk management model can assist in mitigating risks. Based on the literature survey
conducted so far, this risk management is not well applied and studied thoroughly when it comes
to solar park systems in the Indian scenario. This opens up the chance to study and identify the
crucial parameters in the risk management of such solar parks, based on the mean weight analysis
and other network hierarchy approach in the literature. This study once completed shall pave the
design and choice criteria for the smooth setting up of other such solar parks in the Indian
subcontinent, making them more cost effective and less hassle during initial set-up. Furthermore,
the economic viability aspect of such solar parks/power is studied sufficiently in other developed
countries. However, adequate literature of the same is missing in Indian scenario. The economic
feasibility study shall encourage more investors to participate in such a sector.
1.2 Research Objectives

Based on the above discussions, the objectives of this study are as follows:
Objective 1: Identifying and researching the risks and uncertainties associated with different
phases of a solar power plant project.
Objective 2: To create a risk index for quality, environment, and safety of all major activities of
a solar power plant project for safe operation using the Modified Analytical Hierarchy Process
(MAHP).
Objective 3: To carry out risk analysis using Fuzzy TOPSIS method for all major activities of
solar power plant projects under study.
Objective 4: To carry out Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) and Social Benefit Cost Analysis
(SBCA) for finding out the socio-economic feasibility of the solar power plants under study.
Objective 5: To develop and recommend a suitable Public Private Partnership (PPP) Model and
also a suitable Internet of Things (IoT) based solar panel maintenance system for the solar power
plants in India.
22

1.3 Research Scope
The scope of this present research work will be restricted to solar power plants in India. Case
studies of the 1 MW solar park of Charanka village, Santalpur taluk, Patan district, Gujarat, 10
MW solar power plant of Andhra Pradesh, 15MW solar power plant of Tamil Nadu and 5MW
solar power plant of Barmer, Rajasthan will be considered.
The scope of this present research work will be restricted to solar power plants in India. Case
studies of the 1 MW solar park of Charanka village, Santalpur taluk, Patan district, Gujarat, 10
MW solar power plant of Andhra Pradesh, 15MW solar power plant of Tamil Nadu and 5MW
solar power plant of Barmer, Rajasthan will be considered. The risks and uncertainties in
development of integrated Solar Park Projects must be identified for all activities pertaining to
Health, Safety, Environment, Quality, Site selection, Investigation, Planning, approvals, design,
resources, finances of Solar Park project. Case study for Solar Park by using EVM to create a risk
index and risk ranking for all major activities / risk categories that have been identified.
1.4 Methodology
Renewable energy sector projects like the development and implementation of solar power plants
are crucial in the present era to suffice the target for the generation of green and clean energy. Just
like any complex infrastructure project, solar power projects face risks and uncertainties
throughout their many phases. The risk assessment for projects remains a multi-variable problem
as a lot depends on human expertise. The present work identifies the risks involved in its various
phases and employs two methodologies of risk analysis while comparing the two. It has been
observed that the TOPSIS approach produces a more coherent interpretation than the AHP
approach. This is the first study where TOPSIS approach is employed for the case of risk
assessment of solar park and then subsequently compared with the AHP analysis of the same. It
has been inferred that for niche and isolated projects AHP is more suitable however for more
general and multiple source data TOPSIS is the superior approach. The risk assessment is broken
down into 5 phases and it has been observed that based on the risk indexing of those phases, the
project authorities cannot afford to ignore any of the phases.
The methodology is primary data research, where the data pertaining to risks associated with the
different activities of the solar power plant has been collected from solar power plants at three
locations in India namely Rajasthan, Gujarat and Karnataka respectively. The identified risks
pertained to the activities with respect to health, safety, environment, quality, site selection,
investigation, planning, approvals, design, resources and maintenance of solar parks.
23

1.5 Research Contribution
1.5.1 Identification of the risk parameters involved in various phases of the solar project
in India.
The present work identifies the risks involved in its various phases and employs two
methodologies of risk analysis while comparing between the two.
1.5.2 Evaluate the risk analysis using both AHP and TOPSIS methods and comparing
between the two the first of its kind in this niche.
It has been observed that the TOPSIS approach produces a more coherent interpretation
than the AHP approach.
1.5.3 Made the case for the importance of IoT in cleaning and maintenance along with the
cost involved and cost analysis over a period of time along with the corresponding
overheads.
Solar Photo-Voltaic (PV) panel cleaning has been a major challenge in the renewable
energy sector to achieve maximum efficiency for getting higher returns. Different cleaning
systems have been designed to maintain efficiency and further studies have been carried
out to demonstrate the effectiveness of the cleaning system.
1.5.4 Life cycle costing analysis for various solar parks in India of varying capacities of
1MW to 10 MW and the projection of cash flow and sensitivity analysis.
Life Cycle Costing analysis is employed to evaluate the long-term benefits of the huge
investments in India's ambitious plan of setting up nearly 100 GW installed solar power
capacity by Dec 2022. This tool would help in technical and well as socio-economic
feasibility analysis of the future upcoming solar plants in India.
1.5.5 The social benefit cost analysis has been carried out by considering the various
parameters related to Solar Power Plant.
This tool would also help in technical and well as socio-economic feasibility analysis of
the future upcoming solar plants in India.
1.5.6 Framework for Model Concession Agreement (MCA) and PPP model for the solar
park development in India.
The proposed MCA and PPP model would help the policy makers in India to develop
strategies for implementation of upcoming and future solar plants in India.
24

1.6 Thesis Organization
The thesis has been organized as follows:
Chapter 1 provides an overview of the research's major features, methods, goals, and
contributions.
Chapter 2 includes an overview of the literature that explains the research's context and
background. In regard to the study goals, the review cites state-of-the-art literature published by
researchers and organisations, as well as best practises and policies.
Chapter 3 gives a summary of the research methodology as well as an explanation of the main
concepts, methodologies, relationships, tools, and procedures employed in each of the research's
major deliverables.
Chapter 4 contains case study descriptions, as well as data acquired through primary and
secondary sources and analysed.
Chapter 5 provides the analysis, result and discussion of the AHP, TOPSIS, FPIS, FNIS.
Chapter 6 provides the details of the Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and thereby the economic viability
and feasibility of such solar parks.
Chapter 7 provides the Social Benefit-Cost Analysis (SBCA) evaluation of sustainable power
generation system in order to ensure the acceptability of such systems in the long run.
Chapter 8 provides details about PPP Model Development and Model Concession Agreement
(MCA) for Solar Power Plants in India.
Chapter 9 provides details of an application Internet of Things (IoT) for maintenance of Solar PV
Panels.
Chapter 10 reflects the conclusion of the study. It also provides the future scope of this research
work.
25

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
industrial requirements adds to increase in pollution levels, which in-turn disrupts the balance
between human and nature. For the sustaining of such infrastructure and smooth functioning of it,
the risk assessment and management become a necessary peril to undergo to minimize accidents
and harmful effects on environment and obviously on the business/profit aspect of it (Sarkar and
Dutta, 2011). Infrastructures are a complex set of interconnected, interdependent, adaptive
systems that directly or indirectly index the development of a nation/people (Sarkar and Singh,
2018, 2020).
The nature and dynamics of the complexity of the infrastructures prevent us in knowing at advance
how they would interact or behave in the event of any unforeseen or vulnerable scenarios, the
impact could be catastrophic or horrendous on a relatively large scale. Such issues are dealt with
the approach of risk management analysis ingrained with the defined markers or parameters of
such systems (Sarkar and Singh, 2018, 2020). In the available literature various studies are
available which sheds light to such studies by taking a sample case of a smaller connected
distributive system or in terms of general statistics as a whole.
In the last few decades, Risk management has become quite a niche research field gathering the
interest of academicians and researchers globally in an attempt to improve the success rate of
Infrastructure projects in terms of timely completion, lower financial implications (within the
budget) and compliance to HSE requirements (Sarkar and Singh, 2018, 2020).In the era of
development and growing infrastructure, the challenges in making, maintaining and managing the
same also rises significantly. This makes the disaster/risk management a very crucial area to study
and improve upon as the success of these infrastructure projects are greatly influenced by the
effective management of such risk and challenges and optimisation of the same (Sarkar and Dutta,
2011). Even in the developed countries, many major infrastructure projects eventually suffer due
to poor risk management or poor policies of allocation of funds for such management. This leads
to diminished project life cycle which would prove to a burden for the economy again in the years
to come. Risk management as a field has become indispensable in identifying, analysing,
mitigating, and controlling risks associated with projects such as cost, schedule, quality, health,
safety, and environmental aspects. In a study of some university organizations, (Cohen et al.,
26

1972) made a set of observations that were translated into a model of decision making in organized
anarchies and guided to a behavioural theory of organized anarchy characterized by problematic
preferences, unclear technology, and fluid participation by the organizations. Based on various
recent investigations, some elaborations and adjustments of current theories of choice. The
influence of specific organizational structure characteristics on the process of choosing inside such
a model was investigated, and a model for understanding decision making within organized
anarchies was constructed. An explicit computer simulation model of the garbage can decision
process is created using the concept of organized anarchy issues and solutions. Five primary
measures on the process explain the model's overall implications. An assessment of the model's
predictions about the influence of hardship on university decision making demonstrates possible
uses of the model to more specific predictions. Sovacool (2013) applied concepts from justice and
ethics theory to modern energy concerns, illustrating specific solutions with examples and case
studies worldwide. Macauley et al. (2019) presented an energy justice special issue for the
transition to low-carbon energy systems. As noted in the energy justice framework, questions of
distribution, recognition, and process may be addressed and used across all components of the
energy system and in connection to various actors and policies.
2.1 Application of Risk Management to Solar Park

In the recent past several countries across the globe have been affected by climate change due to
carbon emission due to extensive utilization of the fossil fuels. Mankind is yet to see a major
catastrophic impact in terms of natural disaster due to climate change. All efforts are focussed
across the globe to minimize the use of fossil fuels to meet the energy demand by harnessing other
renewable energy sources like the divine solar power on a large scale by developing integrated
solar park (Ranganath et al., 2021).
It is observed that during the Feasibility Study, Planning, Designing, Implementation,

Commissioning including Operation and Maintenance of integrated solar parks, several
risk/challenges will be encountered leading to major impacts on the project schedule including the
cost. It is apt to carry out research to identify such challenges/risk in setting up Large Scale
integrated Solar Parks either individually or collectively not only in India, but across the globe
including measures to mitigate and minimize the associated risks (Ranganath et al., 2021).
Zarza et al. (2006) created a conceptual design for the first solar power plant to use Direct Steam
Generation in a parabolic-trough solar field (DSG). This plant's solar field was designed with
experience and expertise. In the 5MW facility, a DSG parabolic-trough solar field is coupled to a
27

superheated steam Rankine power cycle. The solar field produces 4100C/70bar superheated
steam. This work is promoted by a German-Spanish consortium with the financial support of the
European Commission. The main design objective is to assure high operational flexibility and
reliability. Similar works are also conducted by Burkhardt III et al. (2011); Kribus et al. (1998).
In recent times, the steam production is not considered very reliable using solar energy, due to
prevailing fluctuating climate scenarios owing to global warming. Rather solar grids of
photovoltaic cells are placed in efficient alignment to account for smaller or large-scale
installations. This increases both the flexibility as well as the capacity of the solar park.
As solar parks of such kind are still either rare or under development and installation and can be
considered to be in the cocoon phase, not much literature is available on the risk assessment or
risk management or such solar parks yet. As discussed earlier that for other infrastructure projects,
risk management is studied both in detailed in theory and in application. However, these learnings
are not specifically applied to the risk management of solar parks except a few isolated studies
here and there which are discussed later. One such relevant work is by Aragonés-Beltrán et al.
(2010) who studied the Analytic Network Process (ANP) and applied the same to the selection of
photovoltaic (PV) solar power projects. These projects follow a long management and execution
process from plant site selection to plant start-up. As a consequence, there are many risks of time
delays and even of project stoppage. These risk and vulnerabilities are only hurdles in terms of
economic aspect or efficiency consideration. This study identified 50 project execution delay
and/or stoppage risks in order to invest based on risk minimization. The main conclusion of this
study is that unlike the other models used in the literature, the single network model can manage
all the information of the real-world problem and thus it is the decision analysis model. The
strengths and weaknesses of ANP as a multi-criteria decision analysis tool are also described in
their work. In the further works of Aragonés-Beltrán et al. (2014), the criteria for accepting or
rejecting any proposals for such an investment based on risk priorities. Jacobson and Delucchi
(2011) extended the research in all forms of renewable energy, wind water and solar power in their
work. Cost effectiveness studies of solar power can be found in literature (Dominguez et al., 2012;
Nithyanandam and Pitchumani, 2014).
2.1.1 Energy Scenario

The use of fossil fuels must be controlled, as unrestrained CO2 emissions are wreaking havoc on
the environment and jeopardising the human species' ability to survive on the earth. In this era,
finding viable and deployable low-carbon technology to meet the world's expanding electricity
demands has become critical (Jacobson and Delucchi, 2011). The role of eminent scientists and
28

engineers is gradually shifting towards 'Sustainable Conventional Energy' and 'Renewable Energy
Available.' Because global warming and climate change are global issues, they must be addressed
in concert. The new mantra is "Think Global, Act Local," because the answers are unique, with
many local variations, despite some agreement on the need to evolve some generalised principles
(Nithyanandam and Pitchumani, 2014). Different countries are making individual and joint efforts
to address this energy-related climate change issue. According to the International Energy Agency
(IEA), around 1.3 billion people worldwide do not have access to electricity. In India, over 404
million people do not have access to electricity, while the average daily per capita power use for
the connected population is roughly 2 KWh.
As a result, there are two key issues in the electricity sector:
1. Increasing access to power for people who live in areas where the grid does not reach.
2. Meeting rising demand from segments of the population within the grid's reach
Increasing energy efficiency is also a big problem for the country's power sector, which currently
has losses in transmission and distribution of approximately 26%. Solar, wind, bio, and
hydropower are all regarded viable options in this enterprise, both for grid-connected and off-grid
systems (Dominguez et al., 2012). In the future decade, it is expected that RE will account for
20% of worldwide electricity generation (by 2020). RE is diffuse, distributed, and random by
nature, as well as unpredictable due to nature/climate. Because the majority of the world's
population is dispersed, concentrated generation is not always desired or practicable (Sharma,
2011). Man requires energy in the form of heat, light, and motion to achieve the ideal quality of
life. Electricity is also a booster of high education, healthcare, agriculture, and population
management in developing economies with vast scattered populations. Electricity is widely
regarded as the most efficient means of transporting energy from a source to a load. Today's
challenge is not just to produce electricity without harming the environment, but also to efficiently
transfer and use it (Sharma, 2011). Despite major rural electrification programmes, India has over
54,000 villages that are still without electricity. Not only are linked households a small percentage
of the total in most electrified villages, but power is only provided for 4 hours per day on average.
This is unacceptable if the motto is "electricity to all" and all power philosophies are guaranteed
24 hours a day, seven days a week (Nithyanandam and Pitchumani, 2014). Hiteva and Sovacool
(2017) utilized a business model framework to examine how concepts of energy justice, such as
fair cost and benefit distribution, affordability, due process, and more involvement in decision-
making, might be included in energy business model innovations through social innovation. They
29

examined prospects for incorporating energy justice ideas into the heart of business models on a
local, sub-national, regional, and global scale. They provided an essential viewpoint on the
possibility of business model innovation directed by a more broadly defined definition of value,
strengthened by energy justice concepts.
Hence, harnessing the divine solar energy could be one of the best options in such temperate and
tropical climate in meeting the power requirement by Planning and development of an Integrated
Solar Park in remote areas having un-utilized barren lands/saline mud flats (which are not suitable
for the agricultural activities and having no development activities). But due to remoteness there
could be several other challenges/risks in establishing solar park during the process of feasibility,
land acquisition, DPR, utility diversions, construction activities, transportation of resources,
Power evacuation, operations and maintenance (Ranganath et al., 2021).
For an Integrated solar park, all major activities involved has to be identified with their possible
risks and uncertainties for better planning of projects, as these project endeavour longer economy
recovery compared to conventional power projects, leading to sustainable development and job
creation opportunities (Ranganath et al., 2021).
Furthermore, such projects if implemented as per the vision should reduce the migration of the
people to urban areas, in turn maintaining excellent peace and harmony and optimum utilization
of the available natural resources. Therefore, in the initial planning stage of such major integrated
projects, such as development of integrated Solar Park, it is necessary to identify and grade the
risks involved, assessing risks either qualitatively or quantitatively, choosing the appropriate
method for mitigating the risks, and then monitoring and documenting the same, for which the
current study is being undertaken (Ranganath et al., 2021).
2.2 Feasibility study

There are usually three aspects to such installation of solar power parks converting solar energy
into consumable electricity. One is the technological progress and the know-how of such complex
installations of such non-conventional power systems. This is at present not an issue as inspiration
can be taken from the already existing solar power parks and can be remodelled as per the local
needs (Sharma, 2011). The second one is the financial viability of the same. It is to be noted that
the present power set-ups like thermal, oil, hydel or nuclear are profit making and the cost of
electricity per unit KWh is standard. Any renewable energy source being non-conventional and
thus the initial capital and installation cost are too high comparatively. The economic viability of
such solar power would need to generate similar cost of power per unit KWh in order to compete
30

with the existing power. Hence, the transition from non-renewable to renewable sources takes
time. The third aspect is the political and social willingness to adopt to such systems. Usually as
the land/space requirements of a solar park is substantially high, land acquirement and other such
logistics become messy and piled with loads of bureaucratic hindrance, older economic/govt
policies and so on, all of which cumulatively leading to disinterest from the private sectors to
invest in the same. This aspect in very recent past has been changing with government providing
subsidies and other tax benefits to solar or wind energy schemes. Though not totally sufficient but
such moves and policies need to evolve further to motivate the entrepreneurs for investment.
2.2.1 Economic feasibility

As already mentioned, the initial capital being so high, it is significant to note the NPV (net present
value), IRR (internal rate of return) and sensitivity analysis plays a major role in deciding the
feasibility of setting up of any solar power plant.
According to Sharma (2011), the government is responsible for developing conventional forms of
energy to meet society's growing energy needs at a reasonable cost. The scarcity of fossil
resources, as well as the environmental issues associated with them, have highlighted the need for
new sustainable energy supply options based on renewable energies. Non-
conventional/alternative/new and renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and bio-energy,
among others, are also receiving sustained attention. Alternative energy news sources have long
claimed that smart investments in renewable energy can result in fortunes. Solar power is one of
the hottest areas of energy investment right now, but the future of solar technology and solar
energy markets is hotly debated. Sharma (2011) investigates various ways in which solar power
is precisely such an opportunity. Their findings suggest that even with proper incentives, solar
power can be made a rich sector given the solar abundance in Indian context.
India being a developing economy has acute electricity shortages in most of the rural areas. Very
recently, the government was successful to electrify all the villages, providing sufficient power to
the nodes is still a far-fetched dream (Srivastava and Srivastava, 2013). It requires huge capacity
expansions to fulfil the demands of its fast-expanding economy. India must reduce its alliance on
fossil fuels for electrification in order to continue economic growth while reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. In this context, a study by Ansari et al. (2013) aims to develop a structural model
of the barriers to implement solar power installations in India. The literature and subsequent
discussions with experts from academia and industry revealed thirteen relevant barriers to
implementing solar power installations. Contextual relationships among these barriers have been
31

identified, and a structural model of barriers to implementing solar power installations in India has
been developed using the interpretive structural modelling (ISM) technique. MICMAC analysis
has also been used to classify barriers based on dependence and driving power. One top-level
barrier and six bottom-level barriers have been identified. This paper also proposed various
methods for removing these barriers. A better understanding of these barriers would assist
organisations and government bodies in prioritising and managing their resources in an effective
and efficient manner, allowing India to install the greatest number of solar power projects possible.
Renewable energy sources and technologies have the potential to assist developing countries such
as India in addressing long-standing energy issues. Solar energy has the potential to be a critical
component of India's goal of increasing energy security, addressing environmental concerns, and
dominating the massive renewable energy industry (Purohit and Purohit, 2010). Solar thermal
electricity (STE), also known as concentrated solar power (CSP), is a new renewable energy
technology that has the potential to be developed as a future alternative for electricity generation
in India. Sharma et al. (2012) provided an overview of the availability, current state, strategies,
points of view, promotion policies, notable accomplishments, and future potential of solar energy
options in India.
Dawn et al. (2016) investigates the current solar energy landscape, strategies, availability, future
potential, policies, and development in India's rapidly growing power sector. The most important
component of infrastructure for economic progress and national welfare is power. To keep the
Indian economy growing, current infrastructure must be developed. India's power sector is one of
the most developed in the world. As a result of the day-to-day increase in electricity demand, the
Indian power sector is experiencing some difficulties in maintaining the balance between power
generation and demand, as well as supply constraints and power shortages. Shifting from
conventional to non-conventional energy sources is no longer an option; it is a requirement for
maintaining the generation-to-demand ratio (Sharma et al., 2012). In India, the importance of solar
energy as a source of energy is not only economic, but also environmental.
Lolla et al. (2015) investigates the feasibility of combining grid-connected wind and solar
resources in India's regional power grids, as well as whether spatiotemporal complementarity
between these resources can reduce grid-scale intermittency. The southern grid has the most
renewable energy potential, according to the MERRA Reanalysis' wind and solar resources,
followed by the western, eastern, and northeaster grids. Only the northern grid can truly take
32

advantage of these resources' spatiotemporal complementarity to reduce renewable energy
intermittency.
Srivastava and Srivastava (2013) analyse solar energy's future importance in India. Solar energy,
a zero-emission pure renewable resource, offers enormous energy potential that may be captured
using a variety of methods. Solar energy systems are now readily available for both industrial and
home use, with the added benefit of little maintenance. With government tax incentives and
rebates, solar energy might become commercially viable. Solar energy is becoming one of the
most important renewable energy sources in most developed countries (Sharma, 2011). When
constructing building plans, current architectural designs provide for solar cells and accompanying
electronics. The National Solar Mission is a major project of the Indian government and state
governments that aims to promote environmentally friendly growth while also addressing India's
energy security concerns. It will also be a significant contribution by India to the global effort to
address the challenges posed by climate change (Srivastava and Srivastava, 2013). The goal of the
National Solar Mission is to make India a global leader in solar energy by creating the policy
conditions that will allow it to spread as quickly as possible across the country. The Mission's
immediate goal is to focus on creating an enabling environment in the country for both centralised
and decentralised solar technology penetration. According to the National Action Plan on Climate
Change, "India is a tropical country where sunlight is available for more hours each day and in
greater intensity." As a result, solar energy has a lot of future energy potential. It also has the
benefit of allowing for decentralised energy delivery, which empowers people at the grassroots
level” (Srivastava and Srivastava, 2013, Sharma et al.2012).
Yenneti (2016) examines industry opinions of solar electricity and the policies that govern it.
Through the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (JNNSM), India is making a significant
contribution to global solar energy contributions, and its various states are collaborating with the
national government through specific state solar policies. Gujarat, through the 'Gujarat Solar
Power Policy 2009 (GSPP 2009)’, has been leading the country in solar power generation. The
feed in-tariff based GSPP 2009 is a unique experiment of the state to develop individual solar
projects as well as public-private partnership based large-scale solar parks. Of the about 2700 MW
(in September 2014) installed solar energy capacity in India, Gujarat occupies a share of more
than 900 MW. Through semi-structured in-depth interviews with project developers involved in
the execution of the Charanka solar park in Gujarat, this article investigates industry perspectives
on the GSPP 2009. With a capacity of 216 MW, the Charanka Solar Park is Asia's largest solar
park (as of April 2012). According to the findings, the policy's primary assets are the appealing
33

fixed feed-in-tariff and solid implementation procedures. On the other hand, the primary issues
are financial institutions' lack of trust in solar energy projects, as well as the tradability and
bankability of solar power purchase agreements.
Purohit and Purohit (2010) make a first attempt at assessing the technical and economic viability
of concentrated solar power (CSP) technology in India to assess the techno-economic viability of
CSP technologies in Indian settings, two projects, PS-10 (based on power tower technology) and
ANDASOL-1 (based on parabolic trough collector technology), were chosen as reference
instances. These two methods have been tested in a number of Indian places. According to early
findings, the utilisation of CSP technology in India makes economic sense for the country's north
western region (particularly in Rajasthan and Gujarat states). Furthermore, internalisation of
secondary benefits of carbon trading under the Kyoto Protocol's clean development framework
increases the financial feasibility of CSP systems in additional places studied in this study. It
should be mentioned that sites with more than 1800 kWh/m2 of yearly direct solar radiation are
best suited for CSP system installation. The acquired results can be utilised as preliminary
indications for identifying niche locations for immediate/short-term solar energy usage for
concentrating solar power generation in India. The Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission
(JNNSM) is part of India's recently announced National Action Plan on Climate Change
(NAPCC), which aims to promote the development and use of solar energy for power generation
and other purposes, with the ultimate goal of making solar competitive with fossil-based energy
options. The plan has specific goals to (a) create an enabling policy framework for the deployment
of 20,000 MW of solar power by 2022; (b) create favourable conditions for solar manufacturing
capability, particularly solar thermal, for indigenous production and market leadership; (c)
promote off-grid applications, with 1000 MW by 2017 and 2000 MW by 2022; (d) achieve 15
million m2 solar thermal collector area by 2017 and 20 million by 2022; and (e) deploy 2 million
m2 solar thermal collector area by The installed capacity of grid-interactive solar power
installations was 6 MW until October.
Chakrabarty and Islam (2011) studies the economic feasibility and eco-efficiency on a smaller
scale in Bangladesh. Six case studies were conducted in certain chosen areas of Chhatakupazila
in Bangladesh where NGOs such as Grameen Shakti and BRAC are delivering and servicing solar
home systems to assess the financial feasibility as well as the eco-efficiency of SHS. The financial
sustainability of the SHS is determined by comparing previous expenditures (before to installing
the SHS) for kerosene, automotive batteries, and other traditional sources. Eco-efficiency is a
financial viability estimate that aims to optimise effectiveness while accounting for environmental
34

costs. Six alternative SHS situations are analysed and evaluated in terms of financial viability and
eco-efficiency. This gives information regarding the product's relative performance in six distinct
circumstances. Solar electricity generates a multitude of earnings, resulting in new green jobs for
Bangladesh's rural people. Although the financial sustainability of SHS is sensitive to kerosene
subsidies, our analysis demonstrates that the SHS is more financially appealing when it is utilised
for minor income-generating activities other than illumination. However, in virtually all
circumstances, this technology is essential for enhancing the rural community's environmental
standards and eco-efficiency.
Similar studies are also conducted by Mondal and Islam (2011). Geospatial toolkit, NASA SSE
solar radiation data, and HOMER optimization software were used to assess the potential of a
grid-connected solar PV system in Bangladesh. The financial feasibility of solar photovoltaic as
an energy generating source for Bangladesh was also evaluated using RETScreen simulation
software on a planned 1-MW grid-connected solar PV system for 14 different sites in Bangladesh.
In Bangladesh, the technological potential of gird-connected solar PV was predicted to be around
50174 MW. The yearly power generation of the proposed system ranged from 1653 MWh to 1854
MWh, with a mean value of 1729 MWh. Several economic and financial metrics, including the
internal rate of return, net present value, benefit-cost ratio, cost of energy generation, and simple
payback, were determined. All indicators for all sites indicated favourable conditions for the
projected solar PV system development in Bangladesh. The findings also revealed that by
implementing the suggested system in any section of the country, a minimum of 1423 tonnes of
greenhouse gas emissions may be prevented each year.
Bazenand Brown (2009) reviews the advantages and limitations of solar photovoltaic (PV)
systems for energy generation under various physical efficiency limits and financial assistance
programs. Recent increases in utility and fuel costs in poultry production as well as public
awareness of and demand for green power or renewable energy sources have given renewed
interest in alternative energy sources. This study seeks to investigate the impact of alternative
energy programs, grants and other incentives on the feasibility of solar PV systems in several solar
regions within Tennessee’s poultry industry. Preliminary results show that incentives exceeding
current levels before adoption of solar PV systems would be financially beneficial.
There are several economic barriers that prevent potential investors or institutional lenders from
investing in decentralised renewable energy technologies, including high up-front capital costs,
high transaction costs, and a variety of risks (e.g., performance and technical risks, contract risks,
35

market risks) (RETs). To support RET investments, proper business models, particular financing
approaches, and enhanced risk management systems to cope with transaction costs and financial
risks are necessary. Arnold and Yildiz (2015) address this problem by developing a Monte Carlo
Simulation (MCS) risk analysis technique based on a whole life-cycle description of RET-
investment projects. By doing so, the authors discover significant benefits in terms of content and
approach as compared to traditional NPV estimate or sensitivity analysis. It can be demonstrated
that the proposed financial analysis, in conjunction with MCS, contributes in optimising the
conceptual design of an investment project in terms of capital returns and risk. Because both
concerns are important to lenders and investors, the double-criteria analysis technique provided in
this study makes it easier to raise financing for decentralised RET project investments.
Most of the studies made in this non-renewable energy sources have usually solar wind wave etc
clubbed together as a group to study the benefits of these over conventional fossil fuels. The
standalone study for just solar power is not adequate in the literature. Shakya et al. (2005) is one
such standalone solar power study. Researchers investigated the practicality of a stand-alone
hybrid wind–photovoltaic (PV) system with compressed hydrogen gas storage for Cooma
(Australia). A system with (load) and (storage) was studied. Hydrogen is generated in electrolysers
using excess electricity from the system. The system components were selected according to their
availability and cost. The “discounted cash flow" method, with the “levelized energy cost" (LEC)
as a financial indicator was used for analysis. Configurations with PV% of 100, 60, 12 and zero
were analysed. He discovered the lowest LEC of AU $ 2.52/kW for 100 percent PV. The cost of
producing hydrogen from 100 percent PV was AU $692/GJ of hydrogen. Fifty-two percent of the
total project costs were due to the electrolyser. Hence, a reduction in the electrolyser cost would
reduce the cost of the overall system.
In the global context however, many solar power efficiency and feasibility study are found. The
construction of the SEGS facilities in California in the mid-1980s and early 1990s marked a
significant advancement in the commercialization of concentrated solar power technology. They
have demonstrated over the years that parabolic trough power technologies are the most cost-
effective option for commercial scale solar power generating in the world's sunbelt regions.
However, the question must be asked why no additional solar power plants have been build
following the bankruptcy of the developer of the SEGS projects, LUZ International Limited.
Although many people assume the SEGS projects were successful because of the parabolic trough
technology used, in reality, the SEGS projects were built merely because they provided an
appealing prospect for investors. Simply put, no new projects have been established since no one
36

has been able to put together a financially appealing package for possible investors. More than
$1.2 billion in private capital was raised in debt and equity financing for the nine SEGS plants.
The true clients for solar power technology are the investors and bankers who make these
investments. They are more concerned with risk, return on investment, and coverage ratios than
with yearly solar to electric efficiency. Price and Kistner (1999) examine solar power projects
from the standpoint of a financier. Moving forward, the challenge is to attract private investors,
commercial lenders, and international development organisations, as well as to discover novel
solutions to the severe difficulties that investing in the global power market provides for solar
power technology.
Kebede (2015) explored the viability of grid-connected solar PV power generation in Ethiopia. In
all, 35 locations with a 5 MW PV power plant were examined for their technological potential.
Ethiopia's National Meteorological Agency and NASA's Surface Meteorology and Solar Energy
Dataset are among the data sources used in the study. The applications HOMER and RETScreen
were both used in the study. According to the study, the average PV power plant capacity factor
of the various locations evaluated was 19.8 percent, and the average value for energy exported to
the grid was 8674 MWh/year. In addition, the economic viability of a 5 MW PV grid-connected
power plant in the Addis Abeba region was investigated. Financial data show that the projected
solar PV system is economically viable; nevertheless, without an incentive mechanism, it may not
be compelling enough to commercial investors.
Further scenario analysis revealed that the future feed-in tariff regulation for solar PV power
generation (which has yet to be implemented) may impact the private sector's investment choice.
The suggested system may generate up to 7658 MWh of power and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by at least 1089 tonnes per year.
Harder and Gibson (2011) investigate the viability of a 10 MW solar power plant in Abu Dhabi,
employing RET Screen modelling software to forecast energy production, financial feasibility,
and GHG emissions reductions. The first results show a large potential for energy production, with
24 GWh created and over 10,000 tonnes of GHG emissions saved per year. The net present value
of the benefits of lowering GHG and air pollution emissions by replacing natural gas with PV
power is predicted to be $47 million, with a wide range of probable values. According to the
findings, the high starting costs and low predicted price for generated power are the primary
reasons why solar systems are not being deployed in Abu Dhabi. To make large-scale PV systems
profitable, a feed-in tariff rate of $ 0.16/kWh is proposed.
37

Cosentino et al. (2012) addressed the analytical study of the transition of an energy generation
system for a real MV/LV distribution system from one that is ‘fuel-based" to a distributed and
smart ‘renewables-based’ system. The paper outlines both the technical and the economic issues
related to such a transition from one type of system to the other. The study is carried out for a real
islanded network located in the Island of Pantelleria (Mediterranean Sea). The results obtained are
presented and discussed, putting into evidence the technical, environmental and economic benefits
of using smart technologies and renewable energy sources. The study is further subdivided into
four highlights.
(a) to study the smart renewable electricity generation for an islanded power system in the
Island of Pantelleria (Mediterranean Sea).
(b) to identify the renewable energy sources and hypothesise the new energetic scenario.
(c) to study the system’s technical performance in both the current and the new scenario
(d) to perform a cost–benefit analysis related to the transition to the new scenario
Tsoutsos et al. (2003) shed light on the Greece predicament. During the summer, the demand for
power skyrockets due to the extensive use of air-conditioning equipment in Greece. This
contributes to an increase in CO2 emissions while also posing major difficulties with the country's
power supply. The use of solar energy (SE) to drive cooling cycles is intriguing since the cooling
load is generally in phase with SE availability. An economic evaluation of two types of solar
cooling systems is made (an absorption and an adsorption system). The analyses indicated that,
because of their high investment cost, these systems would be marginally competitive with
standard cooling systems at present energy prices.
Ilkan et al. (2005) explores the renewable possibility in Northern Cyprus. The average annual
increase in electricity consumption and peak demand in Northern Cyprus (N. Cyprus) during the
past 20 years have been 7.1% and 5.5%, respectively. In recent years, the demand for electricity
has been stretched to its limits in winter. This raised the question of whether renewable energy
resources could be utilized to reduce the level of peak demand. Indeed, Cyprus being a
Mediterranean island, enjoys an abundance of solar energy, and preliminary studies showed that
a considerable potential of wind energy is also available. Utilization of renewable energy for space
heating, water heating, pumping and power generation would increase electrical reserve margins,
raise system load factor, improve load following capabilities, and reduce the need for capacity
expansion. Currently, solar water heating which leads to a saving of at least 72 GWh energy per
annum and a significant reduction in CO2 emission has been extensively used in N. Cyprus. In N.
38

Cyprus, despite the availability of renewable energy resources constructing renewable base-load,
electrical power stations have not been found feasible. However, constructing such systems is
recommended for two reasons: firstly, as a supplement to saving fuel and secondly, expanding
capacity. In this context, the economic analysis for both solar and wind energy systems, has shown
a reasonable internal rate of return (IRR). Although, the IRR is higher for wind energy systems,
the availability of wind is limited to a few locations and therefore energy distribution is required.
Tudisca et al. (2013) performs the study in Italy. The photovoltaic sector in Italy in recent years
has experienced a rapid growth also in the primary sector, thanks to substantial incentives
guaranteed by energy policies, simultaneous reduction of investment costs and tax benefits. In
order to better understand the growth of the PV industry in Italian primary sector, the aim of this
paper has been to evaluate the economic convenience of four PV systems on farm buildings
located in four different farms of the north-western coast of Sicily and realized during the second
and fourth Italian feed-in schemes. For each feed-in scheme it has been considered a PV plant that
sells the electricity to the grid and another in which the energy generated is consumed entirely by
the farm. The results show a clear convenience to the realization of investments both with the
current market conditions and at the variation of the feed-in tariff or the investment costs. Similar
work is carried out by Cucchiella et al. (2012, 2017). Furthermore, a comparative study is
performed for EU countries by Dusonchet and Telaretti (2015).
Baneshi and Hadianfard (2016) investigated the techno-economic characteristics of a hybrid

diesel/PV/wind/battery power generating system for a major non-residential electricity user in
southern Iran. As a case study, the feasibility of running a hybrid system to meet a non-residential
community’s load demand of 9911 kWh daily average and 725 kW peak load demand was
investigated. HOMER Pro software was used to model the operation of the system and to identify
the appropriate configuration of it based on comparative technical, economical, and environmental
analysis. Both stand alone and grid connected systems were modelled. The impacts of annual load
growth and governmental energy policies such as providing low interest loan to renewable energy
projects, carbon tax, and modifying the grid electricity price on viability of the system were
discussed. Results show that for off-grid systems the cost of electricity (COE) and the renewable
fraction of 9.3–12.6 C/kWh and 0–43.9 %, respectively, are achieved with photovoltaic (PV)
panel, wind turbine, and battery sizes of 0–1000 kW, 0–600 kW, and 1300 kWh, respectively. For
on grid systems without battery storage the range of COE and renewable fraction are 5.7–8.4
C/kWh and 0–53 %, respectively, for the same sizes of PV panel and wind turbine.
39

Similar studies based on energy sector of Iran are also performed by Mirzahosseini and Taheri
(2012). In this study, based on new electricity tariffs, three scenarios have been developed with
The RETScreen International Photovoltaic Project Model, according to the targeting of energy
subsidies in Iran. They have also considered one of the scenarios to be the reduction of greenhouse
gasses. In the first case the electricity price was set to 3.75 Cents/kWh (450 Rial/kWh) and no
credit was assigned to the reduction of greenhouse gasses (GHG), therefore equity payback
(Return positive cash flow) has been 12.1 year. In the second case the electricity price was set to
17.5 Cents/kWh, therefore equity payback (return positive cash flow) was 8 years. Finally in the
last scenario by considering a credit to the reduction of greenhouse gasses and electricity price
being 175 Cents/kWh and applying solar panels with high efficiency and suitable batteries (DOD
= 60%), equity payback (return positive cash flow) reached within 6 years.
Photovoltaic grid-connected systems (PVGCS) are now undergoing rapid market growth. This is
primarily owing to a declining trend in PV costs, as well as various government-sponsored support
programmes in many industrialised countries. However, government bodies and prospective
owners/investors are concerned with how changes in existing economic factors – financial
incentives and main economic parameters of the PVGCS – that configure a given scenario may
affect the profitability of the investment in these systems. Consequently, not only is a mere
estimate of the economic profitability in a specific moment required, but also how this profitability
may vary according to changes in the existing scenario. In order to enlighten decision-makers and
prospective owners/investors of PVGCS, Talavera et al. (2011, 2010) performed a sensitivity
study of the internal rate of return (IRR) to various economic parameters. Three distinct scenarios
have been imagined to reflect the major three geographical PV markets: the Eurozone, the United
States, and Japan. The findings of this study show that yearly loan interest, normalised initial
investment subsidies, normalised annual PV electricity yield, PV electricity unitary price, and
normalised initial investment have the greatest influence on the IRR. A brief and comprehensive
study of the taxes implications is also provided.
A simple framework for the financial performance evaluation of a solar photovoltaic (SPV) water
pump has been presented by Purohit and Kandpal (2005). The unit cost of water delivered by such
a pump has been estimated. The financial benefits to the end user have also been calculated based
on the amount of diesel or electricity saved. The investment in an SPV water pump's Net Present
Value and Internal Rate of Return have also been calculated. The impact of rising fuel prices on
financial performance indices has been assessed, as well as the break-even prices for diesel and
electricity. The impact of financial incentives such as capital subsidies, accelerated depreciation-
40

related income tax advantages, and the provision of a low-interest loan on fuel and electricity
break-even prices have also been investigated. The outcomes of some numerical calculations for
a 1.8 kWp SPV pump are provided and discussed briefly.
Jain et al. (2011) summarizes the literature salient point in Indian scenario. Solar power is gaining
importance in the light of discussion about climate change and renewable energy sources. Every
year, most parts of India have 250–300 days of clear, sunny weather. The annual global radiation
varies from 1600 to 2200 kWh/m2, which is comparable to what is received in tropical and
subtropical locations. This study performs simulated scenarios for several sites in India to
determine the technical and economic viability of solar power generation using photovoltaic (PV)
technology. Solar radiation statistics are available on the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) website, while additional meteorological indicators are available from
the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD). The data is loaded into the RETScreen model,
which is then used to execute various simulation scenarios. The feasibility of locations in India
for a 5-MW PV-grid linked power station is explored from both a technological and an
environmental standpoint. A model is conducted for 31 key Indian sites to assess the feasibility of
Solar PV installations at these locations. Financial incentives established in India's national solar
mission were utilised as inputs to the model. The model identifies viability indicators such as
internal rate of return (IRR), net present value (NPV), cost of electricity (CoE), and benefit–cost
(B–C) ratio. The finest sites in India are reported through a comparison of results. Backer and
Clark (2008) give insights into the business case for eco-effective greening of business based on
an evaluation of Royal Dutch Shell's 1997 formation of Shell Renewables as its fifth core business.
They used organizational decision-making theory to help companies to become more
environmentally friendly. After choosing to rationalize, Shell used its energy-industry networks
to create a market for its new eco-effective goods and services. They also suggested that eco-
effective greening might be a business case in the making, with how new green markets are formed
and pursued determining the economic outcome of producing eco-effective products and services.
2.3 Research Gap in Literature

From the above consolidation of literature survey, a few inferences are drawn as follows:
1. Solar power feasibility, technical hurdles and the likes are widely studied in developed
countries. However, the study in Indian scenario is very limited and thereby, the literature is
not adequately developed on the issue.
41

2. In the Indian scenario, the researchers usually club the renewable resources like wind, water,
solar to show the benefits over fossil fuel or the transition over it. However, a standalone and
in-depth study of solar park in Indian context is not found in the literature.
3. In regards to risk assessment or risk management, there is a huge literature in terms of global
manufacturing, infrastructure or service industries. For solar power plant installation and the
risk assessment, identification of crucial parameters is yet to be achieved.
4. The available literature suggests the payback period of such solar power is usually between 6-
12 years depending on the scale and size of it. The study of IRR, NPV and sensitivity analysis
of Indian solar power is yet to be achieved on a quality scale.
The present work attempts to address the above-mentioned gaps by conducting thorough research
on it.
42

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
Renewable energy sector projects like development and implementation of solar power plants are
crucial in the present era to suffice the target for generation of green and clean energy. Just like
any complex infrastructure projects, the solar power projects face risks and uncertainties
throughout its many phases (Ranganath et al., 2019). The risk assessment for projects remains a
multi-variable problem as a lot depends on human expertise. The present work identifies the risks
involved in its various phases and employs two methodologies of risk analysis while comparing
between the two. It has been observed that the TOPSIS approach produces more coherent
interpretation than the AHP approach. This is the first study where TOPSIS approach is employed
for the case of risk assessment of solar park and then subsequently compared with the AHP
analysis of the same. It has been inferred that for niche and isolated projects AHP is more suitable
however for more general and multiple source data TOPSIS is the superior approach. The risk
assessment is broken down into 5 phases and it has been observed that based on the risk indexing
of those phases, the project authorities cannot afford to ignore any of the phases (Ranganath et al.,
2020).
Complex multidisciplinary infrastructure projects suffer huge risks starting from the inception of
the idea to its feasibility, design, development, implementation and operation (Sarkar and Dutta,
2011). If these risks are not properly addressed by the project authorities and mitigated priorly by
adequate mitigation measures, then the project runs the likelihood of collapses due to time and
cost overrun. Risk analysis thereby becomes a crucial activity during all planning and execution
phases of the project to be carried out by project authorities. Risk analysis determines the severity
of the risk in a quantitative manner by formulating risk maps. Based on the scale of risk maps
which indicate low, medium, high, very high and critical risk zones, the corresponding mitigation
measures can be put into place and any quick or long fix/tweak can be performed. Sarkar and
Dutta (2011) enhanced the use of Expected Value Method (EVM) to carry out risk analysis of
elevated corridor for metro rail operations. The same was later implemented by Nicholas (2001).
Sarkar and Singh (2018, 2020) carried out risk analysis and developed risk index through Fuzzy
Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) for application in elevated corridor metro rail project in
India. Risk identification, risk analysis and development of risk mitigation measures are the three
basic steps for carrying out the risk management process (Nicholas, 2001). Risk analysis can be
carried out through various Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods. Zadeh (1965)
43

continued the work of fuzzy set theory further within MCDM which added to the literature used
by many researchers working in decision making.
In the risk analysis concept, many techniques exist in order to quantify and assess associated risk
variables into formulating decision making parameters. Another alternative approach is applying
fuzzy logic combined with the Technique for Order Preference by Similarities to Ideal Solution
(TOPSIS) method. In the previous few decades, extensive study has been performed in the area
of Project Risk Management (PRM) (Sarkar and Dutta, 2011; Sarkar and Singh, 2018, 2020).
There is a consensus about risk assessment to be one of the most critical areas in the field of project
management. The construction industry maintains higher stakes as enhanced cost and time delays
can halt the project due to poor planning or risk management. Every phase of the project is subject
to various risk and substantial and adequate treatment is needed for smooth execution and
completion in optimal fashion.
The probabilistic infrastructure risk analysis model was formulated by Ezell et al. (2000a) for
modelling water distributions infrastructure and its system dynamics. Further work of Ezell et al.
(2000b) presents the application part of such risk analysis model by characterizing the water
system along the parameters of function, structure, component, state, and vulnerability, while
keeping in view of other political, temporal and economic perspectives. Expected and extreme
risks are evaluated using probability, while efficient alternatives are generated and presented in a
multi-objective framework. The methodological framework can be easily applied to other critical
infrastructure elements and networks. According to Ezell (2007), vulnerability is a measure of a
system's susceptibility to threat scenarios, and it is a system state that can be quantified using the
Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Model (I-VAM). Such a model requires establishing
value functions and weights to various protection parameters of the system. Additionally, the
uncertainty in measurements is taken into account by suitable simulations along with expert’s
feedback depending on the particular field, eventually providing a vulnerability density function
(Ω).
Jannadi and Almishari (2003) carried out risk assessment primarily for construction industry and
concluded that in construction industry things do not always turn as planned and thereby detailed
risk management is must. Williams et al. (1997) suggested in developing methodologies which
can put risk management into practice. Furthermore, Ward and Chapman (2003) claimed that all
the undertaken risk management practices focus on project uncertainty. However, project risks are
44

all about project cost and unscheduled uncertainties (Nicholas, 2001)). Thereby, the risk
management unarguably should be focused on project uncertainty and complexity management.
According to recent construction industry trends, alternative procurement methods such as design-
build, construction management, build-operate-transfer, and privatisation will continue to be
adopted (Songer et al.,1997). As these emerging approaches become more widely used, there is
growing concern regarding their long-term performance and portability. Because of the inherent
risks of implementing new procurement procedures, effective pre-project planning and analytical
methodologies must be investigated. This is especially true for money-dependent infrastructure
like toll roads and highways. Better data for pre-project decision-making and project performance
is provided by improved risk analysis technology. One such risk analysis method is the Monte
Carlo (Songer et al., 1997) for revenue dependent infrastructure projects. Mathematical analysis
is limited for some studies available in the literature due to constraints in data about the overall
reliability of a system. This issue leads to shifting the domain to input set of parameters from
expert knowledge in the field. Thus, a lot of crucial parameters that are identified before they are
put to any mathematical modelling or simulation are provided by the field experts or by
statistically obtained opinion about the inherent parameters. This problem usually continues due
to the lack of hard quantifiable data in most of the cases as shown by Guikema (2009) leading to
the use of probabilistic risk analysis. With the developments in information technology, there lies
an issue with over-abundance of data which might seem the solution as finding needle in a sack
of hay (Guikema, 2009). Some examples of such critical infrastructure systems are electric power
distribution systems, transportation systems, water supply systems, and natural gas supply
systems. One of the unforeseen and unpredictable parameters in the risk assessment of any
infrastructure system comes from natural disasters, the impact and the scale of which is very
unpredictable depending upon the kind of infrastructure in consideration. Other industrial risk and
contingencies can be well designed and streamlined through a well-structured organization and
management system. Sometimes, the terrorist activities due to their unforeseen nature are clubbed
along the natural disasters and are sometimes considered as a separate parameter in the risk
management studies (Apostolakis and Lemon, 2005; Lian andHaimes,2006).
Construction industry is subjected to greater risk owing to it multi-phase allocation of resources

and different strategies for planning, investigation, collection of data, feasibility, design and
development, implementation and execution as well as operation and maintenance. Many complex
mega infrastructure projects, such as the establishment of solar parks, power projects, refineries,
the construction of elevated and underground corridors for metro rail, and so on, have experienced
45

large variations in cost and scheduling, resulting in an enormous strain on manpower and longer
delays in the execution and commissioning of these projects. In most circumstances, the economic
sustainability of the project is called into question as a result of project delays caused by numerous
risks faced during the implementation stage. It is a well-known reality that as project size and
complexity grow, increased degrees of risk and uncertainty become unavoidable. As a result, a
systematic risk analysis method is required to classify, identify, and assess these risks in order to
formulate risk response plans (Begum et al., 2014). Significant effort has been put into risk
assessment and management (Dionne, 2013; Serpella et al., 2014). Voetsch et al. (2004)
investigated the link between management support for risk management practises and reported
project success in depth, in addition to identifying flaws and potential improvement possibilities.
Sarkar and Dutta (2011) argue that one needs to identify the various stages of projects such that,
the entire work of project implementation from concept to commissioning can be divided
appropriately in different phases such that, broad activities can be grouped under each phase and
sub activities may be defined which in turn portray the risk associated for those broad and sub
activities. Same has been employed in the present work where an attempt is made to explore the
relationship between broad and sub activity risks under each phase of project related solar power
plant. Development of questionnaires for risk rating using Saaty Scale, probability of risk
occurrence and impact of risk for assessment of risk severity, risk index, risk ranking is carried
out. For this, three projects located in three different parts of India have been considered. To
achieve the above-mentioned objectives, two research framework has been employed using
Modified Analytic Hierarchy Process (MAHP) and TOPSIS.
As solar parks are still either rare or under development and installation, can be considered to be
in the cocoon phase, not much literature is available on the risk assessment or risk management
or such solar parks yet. As discussed earlier that for other infrastructure projects, risk management
is studied both in detailed in theory and in application. However, these learning are not specifically
applied to the risk management of solar parks except a few isolated studies here and there which
are discussed later. One such relevant work is by Aragonés-Beltrán et al. (2010) dealing with AHP
applied to the selection of photo-voltaic solar power projects. The length of such projects is usually
long from one to other which thereby accentuates the risk and other time delays leading to project
stoppage. These risk and vulnerabilities are only hurdles in terms of economic aspect or efficiency
consideration. This study categorically identified 50 project execution delays. The strengths and
weaknesses of ANP as a multicriteria decision analysis tool are also mentioned in their work. In
the further works of Aragonés-Beltrán et al. (2014), the criteria for accepting or rejecting any
46

proposals for such an investment based on risk priorities. Jacobson and Delucchi (2011) extended
the research in all forms of renewable energy, wind, water, and solar power in their work. Cost
effectiveness studies of solar power can be found in literature (Dominguez et al., 2012;
Nithyanandam and Pitchumani, 2014). A preliminary case study of solar parks has earlier been
carried out in our earlier works showing the role of vigilance in design and construction
(Ranganath et al., 2019). Adding to the previous work and understanding, an attempt is put
forward in applying the known approaches of risk management on solar power parks and
commenting on the better approach to deal with multi-criteria decision making and substantial
crucial parameters. The primary objective of this work is to compare the two approach and
determine their merits and demerits over one other by identifying and evaluating the risks and
uncertainties associated with a complex project like solar power plant installation in India.
3.1 Methodology
The methodology is primary data research, where the data pertaining to risks associated with the
different activities of the solar power plant has been collected from solar power plants at three
locations in India namely Rajasthan, Gujarat and Karnataka respectively. The identified risks
pertained to the activities with respect to health, safety, environment, quality, site selection,
investigation, planning, approvals, design, resources and maintenance of solar parks.
The present work highlights the crucial factors to be observed by the field professionals including
the time planning, design and project execution wherein even the slightest of dilution can lead to
a major disaster. Therefore, it requires utmost attention and care at all levels for ensuring proper
setting up and functioning of power plants in various climatic conditions across India. The present
case study reveals that lack of vigilance by concerned professionals during all the stages of work
right from Investigations, Design and Construction is a major setback to such state-of-the-art
projects. Lack of proper approach and understanding the ground realities has resulted in failure of
foundations of solar panels module mounting structures. Ultimately failures resulted in loss of
power generation, reduction in revenues and in turn incurring additional cost for rectification
works to restore it back. The study carried out at the site has identified the contributing factors for
the failures for the solar plant in Bikaner, Rajasthan. Furthermore, corrective and preventive
designs were suggested and implemented at site. The performance of these designs is found to be
safe after completion of one year of monitoring. The designs were reviewed independently and
accepted.
47

Setting up of Solar Parks involve in-depth study of suitability of land, environmental impact,
availability of water and electricity at the site. Accordingly, both macro and micro level planning
for various infrastructures of the solar park is developed including resource allocation and quality
assurance. It is to be noted that, during the course of implementation, i.e. at the time of site
selection, reconnaissance survey, survey and investigations including design and construction,
various factors have to be considered simultaneously and cautiously to execute the solar projects.
3.2 Major components for Setting of Solar Parks

The solar plant shall comprise of minimum components (Alagh et al., 1998; Shukla et al., 2004)
as listed below apart from the panels used in generating Solar energy:
a. Suitable Location
b. Availability of Land at identified location
c. Accessibility to Location
d. Internal Road Network within Plant
e. Arrangement of Structure with foundation for placing Panels
f. Drainage Facility
g. Source of Water for Plant Operation
h. Fire Station
i. Electrical network substation for supply of auxiliary power
j. Developed Office Space for Operation
k. Residential Accommodation for Plant Staff
l. Substation to evacuate power from each sub units in the plant.
m. Medical Assistance
n. Telecom Network
o. Operation and Maintenance Facility
p. Hotels/Guest House Helpline / Assistance for 24/7
q. Provision of Green Belt
It is evident that the infrastructure required for the implementation of a solar plant needs a
thorough study of the area comprising various surveys, investigations, economic design (at the
same time, these designs shall be stable enough for various adverse conditions) and availability of
good construction materials for execution. Apart from this, performance of the project depends on
the quality of materials and construction as obvious for any construction project.
48

3.3 Role of Professionals in Setting Up of Solar Projects
The following aspects of the project need to be addressed to avoid any kind of effect on solar plant
during operations (Sharma, 2011; Sharma et al., 2012)
• Project Performance: For any project to be commissioned and perform reliably within the
stipulated time, effective project management techniques are required to be in place. There are
simple and effective tools that have proven to be fruitful in the past:
(a) Deployment of qualified and experienced team in handling the projects of multi-
disciplinary nature.
(b) True and accurate survey and investigation of the site
(c) Taking preventive actions during the course of the project with regard to non-
availability of good quality construction materials, timely approvals, local and
administrative issues etc., and advising the project authority to take preventive actions at
appropriate time
(d) Project activities are planned up to the micro level and are executed from part to whole,
thereby avoiding any duplication and repetition. Dedicated and experienced manpower
resources for obtaining necessary approvals / permits well in time.
• Project Integration Management: Project Management Integration is considerably a complex
matter / issue, during the implementation of the Solar Park. The role of individual and team as
a whole and timely advice during the course of the project will help Integration Management
to a great extent. The following narration gives briefly, the management of overall changes,
including controlling various aspects during the project execution.
(a) A thorough scope, including the strategy and relevant papers, must be established and
discussed with project officials. Following ratification of the project document, a thorough
and detailed Master Plan covering all aspects envisioned in the project document will be
created. The project authorities will then examine, agree on, and accept the Master Plan,
which will serve as the foundation for the remaining activities.
(b) All the details pertaining to Topographical Survey Drawing, Geo-technical and
Geological Investigation Report, along with levels for drainage planning for proper
integration with the Master Plan shall be made available.
(c) During construction, as far as possible, deviation/changes shall be avoided by the
Statutory authority and the approving authorities shall be available for inter action,
consultation on 24/7 basis, especially during commissioning stage.
49

(d) The activities shall be monitored by the top management with system of reporting
procedure at all levels, besides carrying out surprise and periodical inspection to the site.
All the above aspects will ensure timely commissioning of the project with emphasis on
quality.
• Project Scope Management: The infrastructure development includes acquisition of Govt
and private lands, Development of Approach and internal Roads, Creation of reservoir for
storing rain water, Raw Water Supply, Treatment and distribution, Smart Power
Evacuation facility including Auxiliary Electrical and Telecom Network etc, Online
Tracking System, Development of Local Manpower by providing in-house Training,
Community Development etc.
• Project Time/Schedule Management: A comprehensive planning is required to ensure
completion of project in all aspects without time over-run. This is achieved by having work
break-down structure and assigning proper time to each activity taking into account the
likely factors contributing to delay resulting into time over-run beyond the schedule
leading to additional cost. Hence, a detailed project schedule should be in place to monitor
all the critical activities for ensuring timely completion of project.
• Project Cost/Resources Management: Project cost/resource management shall be
undertaken to ensure there is no major deviation in the estimated cost and generally the
project is executed within the budget. The sources for project funding needs to be
identified.
• Project Quality Management: The following concepts need to be practised in order to
achieve total quality management.
(a) Every person involved must be trained to understand the purpose of the project and
measures in place to achieve the target and quality.
(b) Improvise implementation practices.
(c) Identify core team of reliable and competent contractors and award the work based
on competency.
(d) Have regular meetings with the contractors and the Project Management team to
address technical and non-technical issues and try to build a good relationship between
all stakeholders.
(e) Develop quality standards at a very early stage of the project.
(f) Address and provide necessary technical assistance to the work force.
• Human Resource Management for Projects: Human Resource Management for Projects
refers to the processes that must be followed in order to make the best use of the personnel
50

participating in the project in order to finish it on time. The organization of human resource
employed for the successful completion of the project shall be planned well in advance.
• Project Communications Management An effective communication system shall be
established between the parties involved in the project to avoid any sort of communication
gaps leading to delay in project execution.
• Project Risk Management: Risk management pertaining to external and internal factors
likely to affect the progress of the work shall be dealt carefully. External factors generally
are unpredictable and thereby not under control but precautions required for such factors
based on the previous experience/ data shall be in place.
• Project Contract/Procurement Management: In order to achieve timely completion of the
project, the total project shall be divided into smaller sub-projects like internal roads, site
development, treatment plants, auxiliary power plants, telecom, etc. These sub projects
then shall be awarded to different contractors having expertise in their respective fields.
51

CHAPTER 4 DATA COLLECTION
The solar power plants established in Rajasthan had a major setback. Within two years from the
date of commissioning, due to reasons related to investigation, earth work filling, lack of
supervision, limiting in the codes etc., leading to a major disaster in the power plant within a short
span of 12 to 18 months which could have been avoided with timely vigilance of field engineers
and professionals, design engineers and the project execution authorities.
4.0 A Case Study on Defective Design, Poor Execution and Project

Management
This is already mentioned in the earlier works of Sahu (2016), Shrimali and Rohra (2012)
a. Project Location A State of the Art 5.83 MW (DC) Solar Power Project in Bikaner District,
Rajasthan was developed by an Entrepreneur / Agency who had entrusted the work of entire
project involving engineering, procurement, construction, commissioning including operation
and maintenance to a single Agency (EPC).
b. Project Condition The power plant is in operation since the last three years. However, during
the recent past (June to Oct 2015), due to heavy monsoon rains along with gale/heavy wind
(60 to 90 Kmph), extensive damage to some of the solar panels including the structure has
occurred, resulting in considerable generation loss. Out of the total structures generating 5.83
MW, approximately structures generating 1.05 MW has been damaged extensively and most
of the remaining structures are in the distress conditions. The structure is M.S. supporting
column fixed on a single pile foundation (Khan, 2020). On 19th May and 27th May 2015, the
site witnessed high speed winds. These resulted in structures to be uprooted from their
foundation and were damaged significantly. The purlins and rafters were damaged beyond
repair at certain locations. At certain areas where the purlins and rafters could not be mended,
different ones were used. Identifying the scale of damage, the owner decided to carry out a
detailed investigation into the failure of structures and utilized the structure consultants’
services to carry out the revised design of foundation and support the Module Mounting
Structures. (Fig-3.1)
c. Findings and Solutions for Damage:
1. Field Observations after Damage due to Heavy Rain and Wind:
• Terrain of the project area is flat. In order to provide effective drainage, part of the
project site has been filled up and the ground level is raised. The extent of filling varies
between 0.4 m to 0.6 m from the original ground level.
52

• Structures are erected on Pile foundation of 300 mm dia, with a pile cap of 375 x 375
x 300 mm. The depth of the Pile is 1.6 m.
• The effective length of the pile in the original soil (where the land is filled with
borrowed material by 0.4 to 0.6 m) is only 0.9 m to 1.2 m in the natural ground.
• Soil exploration details furnished reveals the SBC of 7/sq. m under dry condition.
• Anchorage between the pile and the pile cap was poor and the reinforcement was not
concentric within the pile.
• Length of the foundation bolts was insufficient and MS Bolts have been used instead
of E8 Bolts.
• One of the common failures was the shearing of the pile cap at the foundation bolt
level.
• Quality of the concrete work was poor and the cover for the reinforcement was less.
2. Modes of Failure:
• Considerable number of panels was uprooted due to the wind force pulling along with
it the supporting steel section, pile cap and the pile. (Fig-3.1)
• The steel sections were also twisted and the pile cap was separated around the base of
the foundation bolt.
• In majority of the cases, there was no bond between the pile and the pile cap.
• The pile and pile cap were not cast monolithically.
• The depth of the pile is indicated as 1.7m below Formed Ground Level (FGL).
• The diameter of the pile is 300 mm and provided with 10 mm dia reinforcement.
Considerable number of panels was uprooted due to the wind force pulling along with
it the supporting steel section, pile cap and the pile. (Fig-3.1)
• The steel sections were also twisted and the pile cap was separated around the base of
the foundation bolt.
• In majority of the cases, there was no bond between the pile and the pile cap.
• The pile and pile cap were not cast monolithically.
• The depth of the pile is indicated as 1.7m below Formed Ground Level (FGL).
• The diameter of the pile is 300 mm and provided with 10 mm dia reinforcement.
3. Contributing Factors for the Failure:
• Insufficient embedding of pile in natural soil
• Lack of integrity in the structure due to absence of monolithic action between pile and
pile cap
53

• Lesser value of wind design speed considered than what is applicable for the area.
• Non-compliance with codal provisions regarding minimum reinforcement in pile,
minimum grade of concrete and size of pile cap.
• Diameter, quality and length of the foundation bolts was found not up to the standards.
• The client had discussions with representatives of contractor and designer wherein, the
rectification methods were discussed and one of the main criteria to be satisfied during
the process of rectification was to minimize the loss of power generation and
minimizing the time of construction and simultaneously ensuring the safety and
durability of the rectified structure. It was also decided to utilize the existing materials
to the maximum extent possible.
• Poor quality of construction and lack of supervision.
• In view of the bitter experience of the failure and for ensuring safety and durability of
the rectified structure, the following criteria was decided for the design and execution
of rectification proposals duly deliberating all the points in several meetings.
– Adopting wind load coefficients as per ASCE.
– Adopting single pile structure. Later as per site conditions, decision is taken to
go with Single pile foundations in Blocks C, D and E and Twin pile foundation
in blocks A, B and F
– Providing EN8 bolts instead of M.S. bolts.
– Adopting strict quality control measures during construction.
– Rectification works were carried out accordingly and completed within the
stipulated time satisfying the code requirements and simultaneously ensuring
that the structure is safe against any probable high wind forces.
• The rectification work carried out involved only essential components required for the
safety and durability of the structure besides ensuring minimum generation loss.
4. Reasons for Failures:
• Inadequate investigation and insufficient data
• Design not confirming to provisions mentioned in relevant Code.
• Poor construction.
• Lack of supervision.
• Insufficient anchorage of the pile.
• Location of some of the piles in filled up soil.
• Inadequate designs and detailing.
54

5. Corrective Actions:
• Designs have been carried out considering the depth of foundation to reach Natural
ground level.
• Considering the code provision and also as per client suggestions, twin pile structures
have been adopted for 170 structures. For remaining structures, single pile of 400 mm
dia, 3.5 m deep and pile cap of 400 mm is considered.
• Minimum embedding depth of 2.5 m in natural soil is provided.
• Structures have been designed considering site condition and also effect of moisture in
the soil as per code.
• Additional inner reinforcement is provided along with cover blocks to ensure
concentricity of reinforcement.
• EN 8 blots of 6.8 grade having a length of 800 mm has been used.
• Main pile reinforcement has been extended up to top of pile cap with additional
anchorage length of 150 mm. Both pile and pile cap has been cast monolithically.
• Mix deign was carried out and accordingly M25 Grade concrete was used. Required
cover was provided using cover block. Strict supervision was undertaken during
execution.
6. Proposed Corrective and Preventive Designs: Upon review of the site conditions and field
investigations, it was planned to suggest remedial measures to ensure restoration of plant
for operations. Preventive and corrective designs proposed depending upon the extent of
damage witnessed for the Module Mounting Structures. Two types of designs as detailed
below were proposed (Fig-3.2) as Type A: Twin Pile Corrective Foundation and Type B:
Single Pile Preventive Foundation.
d. Review of Proposed Corrective and Preventive Design by Independent Agency
1. Review of Type A: Twin Pile Corrective Foundation: The design forces and design
calculations for the foundation was reviewed and following are the discussions presented
from Excelsior Engineering Solution as an independent agency. Overview of the Design
of Type A Twin Pile:
a. Grade of concrete- M25; grade of reinforcement- Fe500.
b. For each steel column, two piles of 350 mm diameter each at a centre-to-centre spacing
of 2400 mm; total length of pile in the soil is3500 mm.
c. Pile cap 650 mm width, 3050 mm long; 600 mm projected above NGL.
d. Pile reinforcement- 6 nos. 12 mm dia bars.
55

e. Pile cap reinforcement- 4 nos. 12 mm and 2 nos. 10 mm dia bars, both at top and
bottom.
f. Anchor bolts- 6 nos. 16 mm dia, 450 mm long 6.8 grade anchor bolts with 400 mm
embedment in the concrete.
g. Base plate 400x400x10 mm dimension.
An independent design check was carried out based on IS 875-3 and the design submitted,
based on which the following inferences are made. As a combined effect of the multiple
discrepancies in the design calculations e.g.: overestimation of force calculations and some
overestimation of the capacity of piles, the final recommended twin pile of 350 mm
diameter with 3500 mm length inside the soil is found to be adequate based on the checks
carried out. It is observed that the Type A foundation design is safe, and the margins of
safety are adequate. Prima facie, it might seem that the margins in bending moment are
significantly higher (a utility ratio of 0.13). However, optimizing the pile foundation for
bending moment by reducing either the diameter or depth of the pile would result in
reduction of its uplift capacity, which would result in failure against uplift as well as affect
its lateral deflections as they are correlated.
2. Review of Type B: Single Pile Preventive Foundation: The design forces and design
calculations for the foundation was reviewed and following are the discussions presented
from Excelsior Engineering Solution Overview of the Design Type B Single Pile:
a. Grade of concrete- M25; grade of reinforcement- Fe500.
b. 450 mm diameter pile; total length of pile in the soil is 3800 mm.
c. Pile cap 750 mm diameter; 300 mm in the soil, 300 mm projected above NGL.
d. Pile reinforcement- 5 nos. 12 mm dia + 1 no. 16 mm dia bars.
e. Pile cap reinforcement- 6 nos. 16 mm dia bars.
f. Anchor bolts- 6 nos. 16 mm dia, 900 mm long 6.8 grade anchor bolts with 700 mm
embedding in the concrete and 100 mm L-bend beyond that.
g. Base plate 350x350x8 mm dimension.
An independent design check based on IS 875-3, IS 456 (200), and IS 2911 part-1 sec-2
and considering the missing criteria from the submitted design, the following can be
concluded: As a combined effect of the multiple discrepancies in the design calculations
e.g. overestimation of force calculations, some overestimation of the capacity of piles, and
some underestimation of the capacity, the final recommended single pile of 450 mm
diameter with 3800 mm length inside the soil is found to be adequate based on the checks
56

carried out. It is observed that the Type B foundation design is safe and the margin of
safety considered is adequate. It may seem that the margins in bending moment are very
high (a utility ratio of 0.15). However, optimizing the pile foundation for bending moment
by reducing either the diameter or depth of the pile would result in reduction of its uplift
capacity, which would result in failure against uplift as they are correlated.
3. Outcome of Independent Review:
Figure 4.1 Photos Indicating the extent of damage witnessed due to heavy wind
57

Figure 4.2 Photos Indicating the Repair, Rectification and Maintenance of Foundation and Module
Mounting Structure
• A detailed review of the foundation Type A: Twin Pile corrective as per the ASCE and
Several IS codes as indicated, revealed that the designed foundations are safe. The
margins of Safety considered for the design of foundation are adequate for a safe
operational life of the project. The anchor bolts utilized are adequate to withhold as
well as transmit the forces acting on them as per IS-456.
• A detailed review of the foundation Type B: Single Pile Preventive as per the ASCE
and Several IS codes as indicated, revealed that the designed foundations are safe. The
margins of safety considered for the design of foundation are adequate for a safe
operational life of the project. The anchor bolts utilized are adequate to withhold as
well as transmit the forces acting on them as per IS-456.
After the review and in-depth study as mentioned so far, he identified risks were
categorized and grouped into different phases of the solar power plant as shown in Table-
4.1 Further details of each phase with broad categories are depicted in Table-
4.2,4.3,4.4,4.5,4.6
58

Table 4.1 Details of Different Phases in Implementation of Solar Power Park
Phase Description of Phases

Phase-1 Feasibility Study
Phase-2 Survey, Investigation, Master Plan and Concept Report
Phase-3 Detailed Design and Specifications-Civil, Structural Electrical,
SCADA and Transmission Line
Phase-4 Vendor Selection, Procurement, Construction and
Commissioning
Phase-5 Operation and Maintenance of Solar Plants
Table 4.2 Broad Risks Identified under Phase-1
No Activities with Risks

a Letter of Intent (LOI)
b AcceptanceandKickofMeetingandFinalizationoftheScopeandDeliverables.
c Risks in Site location
d Reconnaissance Survey of Site
e Collection of Data
f Inception Report Preparation (IR)and Submission
g Review and Approval of IR
h Preparation and Submission of Draft Feasibility Report (DFR)
i Presentation and Discussion
j Approval of DFR
k Submission of Final DFR

a Resource Mobilization and Establishing camp and site office.
b Delay of Site Land Handover
c Topographical Survey
d Land Acquisition Risks
59

e Environmental Risks
f Resettlement and Rehabilitation Risks
g Geo-tech Investigations
h Data Analysis
i Master Plan and Concept Report
j Approval of Master Plan and Concept Report
a Revision in Master Plan
b Risk in DPR Preparation

c Design of Civil Works
d Design of Structural Works
e Design of Electrical, SCADA and Transmission Line Works
f Preparation and Submission of Draft Detailed Project Report

(DDPR)including Tender Documents
g Approval of DDPR and Tender documents
h Submission of Final DPR and Tender documents

a Invitation of Tender and Award of Work
b Letter of Intent (LOI)to Contractor
c Acceptance and Kick of Meeting and Finalization of the Scope

d Financial Closure Risks
e Permit and Approval Risks

f Civil Works Construction and Quality
60

g Mechanical and Electrical Works and Quality
h Safety
a Operation
b Maintenance
4.1 Summary
The major activities and sub-activities are identified for all phases of solar parks under study in
the Indian scenario and are tabulated. The same activities are later analysed and assessed in terms
of risk management methods in the later chapter.
Table 4.7 Risks Identified under Phase-1

1 Delay in Issue of LOI
2 Wrong Details of Contract
3 Delay in responding to Wrong details by Client
4 Delay in Acceptance of LOI
5 Delay in conducting Kick of Meeting
6 Gaps in scope of work
7 Improper objectives Scope and Deliverables finalization
8 Proximity to International border
9 Proximity to wild life sanctuary
10 Presence of forestland
11 Proximity to eco sensitive zone
12 Proximity to Historical monuments, Place of worship etc.
13 Presence of sensitive lands within the project boundary
14 Highly undulating and rocky terrain.
15 Presence of Built-up Close to Project
61

16 Access to Site
17 Ground Water Table
18 Impact on Environment
19 Social Impact
20 Availability of Land
21 Permission from Government
22 Presence of low laying area.
23 Identification of Different Site for Reconnaissance
24 Wrongly Identification of Site Boundary and Orientation
25 Missing of Key Data during Reconnaissance survey
26 Improper Data Collection
27 Inadequate Data Collection
28 Misinterpretation the Scope of Work
29 Defining of Unrealistic Approach and Methodology
30 Insufficient Time Allocation for Investigation and Design
31 Delay in Submission of IR
32 Review by non-technical professional
33 Delay in review and forwarding the observations
34 Delay in approval of IR
35 Improper Approach and Methodology for Feasibility Report
36 Insufficient Survey and Investigation
37 Mistakes in Conducting Survey and investigations
38 Hydraulic and hydrological Investigations
39 Recommendation of Foundation Type
40 Poor Interpretation of Data
41 Wrong Planning of Master Plan
42 Presence of Utilities
43 Raw Material Sources
44 Preliminary Design
45 Drawings and Documentation
46 Mistake in Quantity Calculations
47 Adopting Wrong Schedule of Rates for Estimation
48 Delay in Preparation of Draft Feasibility Report
62

49 Delay in Submission of Draft Feasibility Report
50 Presenting Wrong Details about Project
51 Discussions of un-related points during presentation
52 Authenticity of Clients Observations and Incorporation in Report
55 Delay in approval of DFR
56 Delay in Receiving Comments/Observation of Draft DFR
57 Delay in Attending the Comments/Observation of Draft DFR
58 Delay in Submission of Final Feasibility Report
Table 4.8 RisksIdentifiedunderPhase-2

1 Access to project office is improper
2 Delay in Marking of site
3 Delay in construction of project office
4 Lack of Conducive environment in the office
5 Lack of basic amenities and infrastructure
6 Delay due to all permits and procedures are in place before any work
commence
7 Delay in set up of project site office, lay down area and site
establishment
8 Delay in Site Land handover
9 Delay in Taking over of the site
10 Delay in Survey and Investigation
11 Delay in Detailed Project Report (DPR)
12 Delay in Construction
13 Joint boundary demarcation
14 Delay due to Wrong Identification of Site
15 Delay due to Site Handing over for work
16 Mistake in Establishing Horizontal and vertical Control points
17 Deployment of unqualified surveyors
63

18 Deployment of poorly calibrated equipments
19 Not connecting to national grid such (GTS)and Mean Sea Level
20 Wrong project boundary Identification
21 Omission of major topographical details
22 Elevation of land is not properly done through surveyor equipments
23 Political interference
24 Faulty Revenue Survey
25 Delay in finalizing temporary rehabilitation schemes
26 Public interference for changing the Site
27 Interference of environmental activists
28 Delay due to inter departmental issues
29 Delay in construction of diversion roads for existing traffic
30 Cost of Compensation
31 Problems with the physical possession of land
32 Deforestation
33 Reduction in Intensity of Rainfall
34 Ecological Imbalance
35 Increase in Surrounding Area temperature
36 Resettlement site not accepted by affected parties
37 Resettlement site very costly
38 Litigation by affected parties or Litigation in the Site Identified for R
and R
39 Resistance and agitation by political parties
40 Delay in Finalization of Site and Locations of Investigations
41 Delay in Deployment of Required Machineries
42 Deployment of unqualified Personnel for Investigation
43 Improper/Inadequate/Insufficient Investigation
44 Collection of sample sand testing
45 Poor interpretation of data
46 Inadequate foundation design recommendations
47 Missing of Soil Resistivity Data
48 Poor assessment of catchment area and historical floods
49 Deficient Hydrological Report
64

50 Computation of Finished Grade Level for the plant
51 Wrong QA and QC Report
52 Finalization of Route for Transmission Lines
53 Processing of the data and preparation of base maps in different
layers.
54 Establishment of the monumentation
55 Preparation of Engineering documents in line with project requirement
56 Delay in Finalization of Master Plan and Concepts
57 Lack of Involvement of Skilled Professional
58 Misunderstanding of Data Analysis
59 Preparation and Submission of Master Plan and Concept Report for
Approval
60 Presenting Wrong Details about Project
61 Discussions of un-related points during presentation
62 Authenticity of Clients Observations and on Master Plan and Concept
Report
65 Delay in approval of Master Plan and Concept Report
Table 4.9 RisksIdentifiedunderPhase-3

1 Minor Level Modification in Master Plan
2 Medium Level Modification in Master Plan
3 Large Level Modification in Master Plan
4 Delay in Finalization due to extent of Revision
5 Delay in approval of Revised Master Plan
6 Wrongly identification of Works
7 Lack of Coordination among different teams
8 Inadequate data and information
9 Uneconomical Design
10 Defective Design
65

11 Incomplete Detailing
12 Missing of Design and Specifications for Works
13 Improper Design of Site Levelling and Grading Plan
14 Identification of Type of Fencing/Compound
15 Discarding importance of Roads, Drainage and Cross Drainage
Structures
16 Faulty Design of Structure Foundation for the Module Mounting
17 Location and Size of Control room
18 Location and Size of Security/Guardroom
19 Source and Raw water storage including distribution
20 Design of Module Mounting structure
21 Design of Control Room
22 Design of Maintenance Staff Accommodation
23 Design of Security Cabins
24 Design of Main entrance Gate
25 Array layout including optimization
26 Cable Trenches
27 Switch Yard
28 Earthing Layout
29 Overall SLD
30 HV System SLD
31 Overall PV array layout
32 Area power Earthing and Grounding layout
33 SCADASLD
34 Substation
35 Auxiliary power
36 Transmission line
37 Site Lighting
38 Building Lighting
39 Lightening arrestor
40 Improper Approach and Methodology
41 Improper Use of Survey and Investigation Data
66

42 Delay in submission of drawings by detailed design consultant-Civil
Works
43 Delay in submission of drawings by detailed design consultant-Structure
Works
44 Delay in submission of drawings by detailed design consultant-Electrical
Works
45 Adopting Wrong Schedule of Rates for Estimation
46 Lack of accuracy in internal detailed estimate
47 Deficiency in Drawings
48 Short comings in internal detailed estimate/provisions
49 Delay in Preparation of DDPR and Tender documents
50 Delay in Submission of DDPR and Tender documents
53 Delay in approval of DDPR and Tender documents
54 Delay in Receiving Comments/Observation of Draft DPR and Tender
documents
55 Delay in Attending the Comments/Observation of Draft DPR and
Tender
documents
56 Delay in Submission of Final Detailed Project Report and Tender
documents

1 Delay in preparation and approval of tender document
2 Two packet system (Technical and financial evaluation) is not
implemented
3 Delay in issuing NIT (Notice Inviting Tender)
4 Delay in Pre-Bid Meeting
5 Delay in Response to the Queries of Bidders
6 Postponement of Tender Submission Date
67

7 Variations by the client
8 Improper evaluation of Tender Documents of Bidders
9 Delay in Award of Contract to Successful Bidder
10 Delay in Issue of LOI to Contractor
11 Wrong Details of Contract
12 Delay in responding to Wrong details by Client
13 Delay in Acceptance of LOI by Contractor
14 Delay in conducting Kick of Meeting
15 Improper objectives Scope and Deliverables finalization
16 Delay in mobilization of resources by contractor
17 Project not bankable
18 Lenders not comfortable with project viability
19 Adverse investment climate
20 Delay in contractual clearances
21 Delay in projects specific orders and approvals
22 Delay in clearance from environmental and forest departments
23 Delay in the approval of relocation of major utilities (telecom cables,
electrical cables, storm water drains, sewer lines).
24 Unsuitable construction Programme planning (e.g., Sequence of
activities is not properly planned) affecting working scheme and Quality
of work.
25 Delay in Labour induction by doctor and safety officer.
26 Delay in performs 100% pre-checks and pre-inspection before the
GEC do the official check sand inspections.
27 Delay in submission of GFC drawings by contractor.
28 Delay in granting approval of drawings.
29 Drawing bullet in system is not implemented on site for drawing
progress/Implementation tracking.
30 Longer Lead for Construction Materials.
31 Delay in Supply of Materials from Vendors
32 Increase in Cost of Materials (Steel, Cement)
33 Risks of minor/major accidents during Work
34 Ineffective control and management
68

35 Delay in Start of Construction Activity
36 Defect in Level Carrying for Site Work
37 Defects in Foundations for Module Mounting structure
38 Defective works in Other Civil Works
39 Improper Drainage Facility
40 Inadequate program scheduling
41 Variation of construction programs
42 Lack of coordination between project participants
43 Incomplete approval and other documents
44 Poor construction plan
45 Insufficient experience and skill in construction works
46 Unstable supply of critical construction materials
47 List of Approved materials/brands and vendors is not prepared
48 Defects in Module Mounting structure
49 Improper Erection/Mounting of modules
50 Defect in Area Power Earthing and Grounding Layout
51 Defect in Cables and Trenches
52 Defects in Overall SLD and HV System SLD
53 Defective Switch Yard
54 Delay in Implementation of SCADA
55 Substation
56 Auxiliary power
57 Transmission line
58 Yard Lighting
59 Building Lighting
60 Lightening arrestor
61 Main entrance Gate
62 Security/Guardroom
63 Raw water storage including distribution and connection
64 String extension cabling
65 Module Connector
66 Combiner Box
67 ICB to inverter cabling
69

68 PCU
69 Datalogger along with PC
70 Weather Stnpyrano, Anemo and Tempsensor
71 Earthing System/Lighting System
72 Documentation, Department approvals, Statutory clearance
73 Testing and Pre-commissioning
74 Staffing, SOP and Training
75 Safety of Workers during Construction
76 Safety of Machineries
77 Safety of Plant after Construction

1 Reduction in Power Generation due to Variation in Solar Energy
2 Defect in the Solar Panels
3 High Rainfall
4 High Wind Causing Dust cover on Panels
5 Fire Hazards
6 Robbery of Equipment
7 Unskilled Operational Staff
8 Delay in Supply of Materials for Maintenance
9 Poor Maintenance by Operating Staff
10 Non-Availability of Spare parts
11 Scarcity of Water
12 Delay in attending the break-down in operation
70

CHAPTER 5: DATA ANALYSIS
5.0 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) And Modified Analytical Hierarchy

Process (MAHP)
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) approach first
developed by Saaty (1988) as a way to build ratio scales from paired comparisons. The input can
be collected by real measurement, such as price, weight, and so on, or through subjective
judgement, such as satisfaction sentiments and preference on a quantitative magnitude scale. The
limitations of this approach are a little inconsistency as inputs from human judgement is relatively
constrained. Principal Eigen vectors and the principal Eigen values serve as the ratio scales and
the consistency indexes respectively.
The data analysis of the quantitative output of the qualitative attribute survey for each attribute of
quality, risk assessment can be obtained using Modified Analytical Hierarchy Process (MAHP)
data analysis tool which is a MCDM tool used to obtain ranks and outputs. Initially, a
questionnaire is formulated to obtain the responses pertaining to “Probability of occurrence of
risk" and “Impact" which is filled up by industry experts of a sample space of 120. These values
range from 0 to 1 where 0 indicates nil probability of occurrence of a risk and impact while 1
indicates very high probability of occurrence of a risk and impact. For computational simplicity,
the risk rating values obtained from questionnaire survey have been converted into “Satty Scale"
(1,2,3,4,5) with the help of which pair-wise comparison matrix is constructed to obtain weights of
the sub-group risk factors. Additionally, a level of risk non-singular matrix is created for each item
of the chosen subgroup (elements of row 1 are divided by weights of respective column to that of
row and so on). Probability weight based non-singular matrix is created for each item of the chosen
subgroup.
The level of risk weights and probability weights are normalized.

𝑗=1,..𝑛
Normalized value = {∏𝑖=1 𝑎𝑎 }1/n (5.1)
Where n = number of items under the chosen subgroup
This process is repeated for all the three solar parks under study in this case with the Saaty scales
for each of the phases in terms of broad activities and sub activities separately. Another constraint
to this process is that it cannot differentiate between the better solar park or can make any
quantitative assertion among the case studies.
71

The severity of the identification risks can be computed by the equation of Expected Value Method
(EVM) methodology (Sarkar and Dutta, 2011, Nicholas, 2007):
Risk Cost (RC) = Corrective Cost (CC) * Risk likelihood or Probability of occurrence (Li) (5.2)
Risk Time (RT) = Corrective Time (CT) * Risk likelihood or Probability of occurrence (Li) (5.3)
(Expected Cost (EC) = Base Cost Estimate (BCE) + RC (5.4)
Expected Time (ET) = Base Time Estimate (BTE) + RT (5.5)
Risk Severity = Risk likelihood or Probability of occurrence * Impact. (5.6)
In order to estimate the risk index and risk ranking, normalised weights have been estimated based
on the total weights calculated for each phase. These normalized weights have been multiplied
with risk severity to estimate the risk index which is denoted as:
Risk Index = Risk Severity * Normalised Weights (Wn). (5.7)
Below is Table 5.1 which highlights the Satty Scale Risk Rating and Table 5.2 highlights the risk
severity scale used for this research work.
Table 5.1 Saaty Scale for Risk Rating
No. Saaty Scale Importance
i Equal Importance 1
ii Somewhat More Important 2
iii Much More Important 3
iv Very Much More Important 4
v Absolutely Much More Important 5
72

Table 5.2 Risk Severity Scale
Description Values
Low 0.00-0.10
Medium 0.11-0.20
High 0.21-0.30
Very High 0.31-0.50
Critical 0.51-0.70
Very Critical 0.70-1.00
Table 5.3 represents the sample computation of the normalized weights for the risk under Phase
1.
73

Table 5.3 Sample Computation of Normalised Weights for Risks under Phase-1
C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7 C-8 C-9 C-10 C-11 C-12 C-13 C-14 C-15
Weights Normalised
Row-1 a b c d e f g h i j k
(W) Weights (Wn)
Saaty
Row-2 4 3 4 4 5 4 3 3 3 4 5
Scale
Row-3 a 4 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.25 0.95 0.08
Row-4 b 3 1.33 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.67 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.67 1.27 0.11
Row-5 c 4 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.25 0.95 0.08
Row-6 d 4 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.25 0.95 0.08
Row-7 e 5 0.80 0.60 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.76 0.07
Row-8 f 4 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.25 0.95 0.08
Row-9 g 3 1.33 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.67 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.67 1.27 0.11
Row-10 h 3 1.33 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.67 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.67 1.27 0.11
74

Row-11 i 3 1.33 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.67 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.67 1.27 0.11
Row-12 j 4 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.25 0.95 0.08
Row-13 k 5 0.80 0.60 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.76 0.07
SUM 11.39 1.00
75

The above matrix is developed by using the Saaty Scale rating for each activity risk. Matrix value
is estimated by dividing the Saaty Scale rating as shown below in order to estimate the weights
related to the identified activity risk. Further the weights have been normalised by dividing the
weights of each activity risk by sum total of weights from all the activity risks in the matrix and
these are known as normalized weights.
Table 5.4 represents the sample calculation of the weights for the risks of Row 3 under Phase 1
of the solar power project.
76

Table 5.4 Sample Calculation of Weights for the Risks (For Row-3)
C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7 C-8 C-9 C-10 C-11 C-12 C-13 C-14 C-15
Normalised
Weights
Row-1 a b c d e f g h i j k Weights
(W)
(Wn)
Saaty
Row-2 4 3 4 4 5 4 3 3 3 4 5
Scale
Average
of
4/4 = 3/4 = 4/4= 4/4 = 5/ 4 = 4/4 = 3/4 = 3/4 = 3/4 = 4/4 = 5/ 4 = Values 0.95/11.39
Row-3 a 4
1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.25 (C-3 to = 0.08
C-13) =
0.95
77

The same procedure has been followed for all the rows of the matrix and all the phases under
broad activities risks and weights and normalised Weights for each risk under each phase of the
solar power plant project under study.
The computation of normalized weights for the risks of all phases of solar power plant is
presented in Table 5.5.
78

Table 5.5 Computation of Normalize Weight for the Risks for all Phases of the Solar Power Plant
Phase-1 Phase-2 Phase-3 Phase-4 Phase-5
Nor
Nor
mali Norm Norm Norma
malis
sed alised alised lised
Activity Weights Activity Weights Activity Weights Activity Weights ed Activity Weight
Wei Weig Weig Weigh
No (W) No (W) No (W) No (W) Weig No s (W)
ghts hts hts ts
hts
(Wn (Wn) (Wn) (Wn)
(Wn)
)
a 0.95 0.08 a 1.05 0.09 a 1.38 0.17 a 1.25 0.15 a 1.00 0.50
b 1.27 0.11 b 1.39 0.12 b 1.03 0.13 b 1.25 0.15 b 1.00 0.50
c 0.95 0.08 c 0.84 0.07 c 1.03 0.13 c 0.94 0.11 2.00 1.00
d 0.95 0.08 d 1.05 0.09 d 1.03 0.13 d 1.25 0.15
e 0.76 0.07 e 1.05 0.09 e 1.03 0.13 e 0.94 0.11
f 0.95 0.08 f 1.05 0.09 f 0.83 0.10 f 0.94 0.11
g 1.27 0.11 g 1.05 0.09 g 0.83 0.10 g 0.94 0.11
79

Phase-1 Phase-2 Phase-3 Phase-4 Phase-5
Nor
Nor
mali Norm Norm Norma
malis
sed alised alised lised
Activity Weights Activity Weights Activity Weights Activity Weights ed Activity Weight
Wei Weig Weig Weigh
No (W) No (W) No (W) No (W) Weig No s (W)
ghts hts hts ts
hts
(Wn (Wn) (Wn) (Wn)
(Wn)
)
h 1.27 0.11 h 0.84 0.07 h 1.03 0.13 h 0.75 0.09
i 1.27 0.11 i 1.05 0.09 8.18 1.00 8.25 1.00
j 0.95 0.08 j 1.05 0.09
k 0.76 0.07 k 0.84 0.07
11.39 1.00 11.22 1.00
80

Table 5.6 represents the summary of the risk severity of the risks of the solar power
plants through Expected Value Method (EVM).
Table 5.6 Summary of Risk Severity of Risk Factors of Solar Power Plant through EVM
Methodology
No Risk Rajasthan Gujarat Karnataka

Description
Severity
of Task
Risk Qualitative Risk Qualitative Risk Qualitative
1 Phase-1 0.39 Very High 0.25 High 0.39 Very High
2 Phase-2 0.56 Critical 0.30 High 0.33 Very High
3 Phase-3 0.30 High 0.39 Very High 0.30 High
4 Phase-4 0.33 Very High 0.42 Very High 0.23 High
5 Phase-5 0.10 Low 0.09 Low 0.07 Low
Table 5.7 Summary of Final Risk Index for Identified Risks of Solar Power Plants
No Risk Rajasthan Gujarat Karnataka

Descri
Final Risk Risk Final Risk Risk Final Risk Risk
ption Index Ranking Index Ranking Index Ranking
of
Task
1 Phase- 0.108 2 0.070 4 0.105 1

1
2 Phase- 0.1531 1 0.0826 2 0.0935 2

2
81

3 Phase- 0.060 4 0.077 3 0.059 3
3
4 Phase- 0.0663 3 0.0834 1 0.0464 4

4
5 Phase- 0.005 5 0.004 5 0.003 5

5
Identification of risk in any infrastructure project will help in addressing impact likely to
happen on the project in terms of safety, environmental disaster besides financial loss. This
will also help the managers and decision makers forewarn any uncertainties likely to occur
which will have impact on budget and time. If the same logic is applied to a solar power
plant, the risk will be linked to fire hazards, loss of life besides substantial power
generation loss leading to major financial implications. Identification of risk will be the
responsibility of the top management especially Senior Managers by virtue of their
experience and exposure. They understand each and every activity and stages involved in
implementation of projects which are the best suited and they prepare check list to verify
at each and every level and also for applying QA and QC. This action will minimize the
risk factor to a great extent. The present study has confirmed that due to lack of managerial
co-ordination and deployment of skilled people at each stage has led to major impact on
the projects. Hence identification of the risk and managing the same by taking appropriate
action by manager at each level is of paramount important in successful timely
implementation of project.
Harnessing the divine solar energy is of paramount importance in the present context of
global warming and also to limit dependency on fossil fuel. In this regard several steps
have been taken across the globe and India is making all-out efforts to become the Mecca
of renewable energy. In this regard the study that has carried out by identifying nearly 308
risks in implementation of solar parks, both medium and large scale, has helped in
identifying the core areas where the policy makers, developers and other stakeholders need
to focus.
The studies on the risk assessment for different locations of Solar Power Plant projects
have revealed the following outcomes;
82

Project in Rajasthan
Highest risk is observed in Phase-2 i.e. Survey, investigation, master plan and concept
report Stage of the project on both Broad Activities as well as Sub Activities.
Project in Gujarat
Highest risk is observed in Phase-4 i.e. Vendor selection, procurement, construction and
commissioning Stage of the project on both Broad Activities as well as Sub Activities.
Project in Karnataka
Highest risk is observed in Phase-2 i.e. Survey, investigation, master plan and concept
report Stage of the project based on Sub Activities and Phase-1 i.e. Feasibility study based
on Broad Activities.
It is evident from the detailed analysis of risks that no compromise shall be done on at the
time of identification of the site and investigation. Any compromise will have major impact
on the project. For any infrastructure project, the primary activity is to identify the site and
conduct all necessary survey, investigation, master plan and concept report when compared
with any other phase of work. Similarly, even in the present study the above results
indicates that, out of the three projects two projects indicates the Phase of “Survey,
Investigation, Master Plan and Concept Report” is only representing High Risk Index
which needs proper attention to minimize further complexity during the further phases of
the project.
From the study it is noted that, Phase-2 of Implementation of Solar Power Plants includes
major activities like Topographic Survey, Geotechnical Investigations, Land Acquisition,
Environmental Risks, Data Analysis and Interpretation, Master plan preparation etc. In the
event proper examination of the above factors if not considered this will add complexity
to the project in terms of Risks.
The limitation of the present work is about the number of risks under certain phases of
broad and sub activities and risk management for all the risks. Further, for future research
the risk analysis with additional risks if any may be considered using Fuzzy TOPSIS and
Fuzzy Preference relations for all major activities of a Solar Park.
83

In the present scenario identification of risk and analysis has been carried out within a
certain frame work considering specific to the site and the same logic can be applied to
various other on the ongoing projects and appropriate measures can be taken to minimize
the impact. Detailed analysis and finding an appropriate management technique to
overcome risks at every stage of project implementation will be the scope for further study.
5.1 FUZZY TOPSIS

The identified risks were categorized and grouped into different phases of the solar
powerplant project like feasibility phase, survey and investigation, detailed design and
specifications, vendor selection, procurement, construction and commissioning and finally
operations and maintenance. The identified risks were analyzed with a Multi Criteria
Decision Making (MCDM) technique termed as Fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by
Similarities to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). Finally, mitigating methods, both corrective and
preventative, were suggested. TOPSIS is a multi-criteria decision analysis approach
invented by Hwang and Yoon (1981), with subsequent improvements by Yoon (1987) and
Hwang et al (1993). TOPSIS is founded on the idea that the preferred option should be the
one with the lowest geometric distance from the Positive Ideal Solution (PIS) and the one
with the greatest geometric distance from the Negative Ideal Solution (NIS) (NIS). It is a
compensatory aggregation approach that compares a group of options by assigning weights
to each criterion.
As the parameters or criteria are often of incongruous dimensions in multi-criteria

problems it may create problems in evaluation. So, to avoid this problem a need of fuzzy
system is necessary. Using fuzzy numbers in TOPSIS for criteria analysis the evaluation
becomes simpler. Hence, Fuzzy TOPSIS is simple, realistic form of modelling and
compensatory method which includes or excludes alternative solutions based on hard cut-
offs.
The definitions of Fuzzy TOPSIS have been adapted from sources. These definitions are
presented as follows:
Definition 1: In a universe of discourse X, a fuzzy set is defined by a membership function

(x) that transfers each element x in X to a real number in the interval [0, 1]. The grade of
84

membership of x in is denoted by the function value (x). The closer (x value)'s is to unity,
the higher x's grade of membership in.
Definition 2: A triangular fuzzy number is denoted by the triplet ā = (a1, a2, a3). The
triangular fuzzy number 𝓊𝑎 (𝑥) membership function (x).
A fuzzy set ā, membership function 𝜇ā that maps each element x in X to a real number in
the interval [0, 1]. A triangular fuzzy number is represented ā = (𝑎1, 𝑎2, 𝑎3)
Figure 5.1 Triangular Fuzzy number system
𝑎2 gives the maximal grade of 𝜇𝑎 so that 𝜇𝑎=1
𝑎1gives the minimal grade of 𝜇𝑎 so that 𝜇𝑎=0
𝑎1and 𝑎3are the lower and upper bounds of the available area for the evaluation data.
(5.8)
85

The distance between fuzzy triangular numbers
Let ā = (a1, a2, a3) and b = (b1, b2, b3) be two triangular fuzzy numbers. The distance
between them is given using the vertex method by:
1
𝑑 (𝑎, 𝑏) = √3 [(𝑎1 − 𝑏1)2 + (𝑎2 − 𝑏2)2 + (𝑎3 − 𝑏3)2 (5.9)
Fuzzy Set Theory
Conversion scales are used to convert language words to fuzzy numbers. Typically, a scale
of 1 to 9 is used to rate the criteria and options. The intervals are designed so that the fuzzy
triangular numbers used for the five linguistic ratings have a uniform representation from
1 to 9. Table 5.8 displays the fuzzy ratings for the language factors. The Satty scale for risk
assessment is shown in Table 5.9.
Table 5.8 Fuzzy ratings for linguistic variables
Fuzzy Number Alternative assessment QA weights
(1,1,3) Very poor (VP) Very low (VL)
(1,3,5) Poor (P) Low (L)
(3,5,7) Fair (F) Medium (M)
(5,7,9) Good (G) High (H)
(7,9,9) Very good (VG) Very high (VH)
86

Table 5.9 Saaty scale for risk rating
Sr No. Saaty Scale Importance
1 Equal importance 1
2 Somewhat more important 2
3 Much more important 3
4 Very much more important 4
5 Absolutely much more important 5
The methodology for Fuzzy TOPSIS is explained below through the following steps:
Step 1:
Alternatives ratings by decision makers need to be identified
Step 2:
Criteria weightage by decision makers need to be given
Step 3:
Apply fuzzy numbers
Step 4:
Providing aggregated alternative and criteria weightage and formulation of fuzzy decision
matrix:
xki j = (aki j , bki j , cki j)
wkj = (wkj 1, wkj 2, wkj 3)
ai j = min {aki j}, bi j =1/K ∑ bkij, ci j = max{cki j} (5.10)
wj1= min {wj k1}, wj2=1/K ∑ wj k2, wj3= max {wj k3} (5.11)
87

Step 5:
Fuzzy multi criteria Group Decision Making (GDM) and carrying out process of
normalizing:
As working on various criteria for decision making has been carried out, two vital criteria
on which the complex infrastructure depends are benefit criteria and cost criteria. The aim
is to maximize benefit and minimize the cost. A fuzzy multi criteria GDM problem which
can be concisely expressed in matrix format as:
R = [rij]m×n, i = 1, 2, . . ., m; j = 1, 2, . . .,n (5.12)
rij= (aij/ c*j, bij / c*j, cij/c*j) and
c*j = max cij(benefit criteria)
rij = (aj/ cij, aj / bij, aj/ aij) and
aj = min aij(cost criteria)
Step 6:
Computation of Fuzzy Positive Ideal Solution (FPIS)and Fuzzy Negative Ideal Solution
(FNIS) to be done as follows:
A+ = (𝑝+1, 𝑝+2, . . .,+n) where
𝑝+j = max {𝑝ij3}, i = 1, 2 . . ., m; j = 1, 2, . . ., n (5.13)
A- = (𝑝-1, 𝑝-2, . . .,-n ) where
𝑝-j = min {𝑝ij1}, i = 1, 2 . . ., m; j = 1, 2, . . ., n (5.14)
Select the maximum value from each row as p+ and select the minimum value from each
row as p-.
Step 7:
The distance of each weighted alternative can be computed from the following equations:
di+=∑𝑛𝑗=1𝑑 (𝑝𝑖𝑗,+) (5.15)
𝑑𝑖=∑𝑛𝑗=1(𝑝𝑖𝑗,−) (5.16)
88

Step 8:
Closeness coefficient of each alternative can be computed from the following:
CCi = 𝑑 i- / (𝑑 i- + 𝑑 i+), i= 1,2,3,…..m (5.17)
Here alternative A1 is chosen as cost criteria which need to be kept minimum and
alternative A2 is kept as the benefit criteria which need to be kept maximum. The following
scales are chosen by the authors based on their past experience for the FPIS, FNIS and
closeness coefficient (CC) for computation of the risk severity.
Table 5.10 Scale for risk severity based on difference of FPIS and FNIS
Sr No. Difference of FPIS (A1+A2) and Risk severity

FNIS (A1 + A2)
1 000-030 Low
2 031-110 Moderate
3 111-230 High
4 231-400 Very high
5 401-1000 Critical
Table 5.11 Scale for risk severity based on closeness coefficient (CC)
Sr No. Closeness coefficient difference value Risk severity
[ CC1(A1) – CC2(A2)]
1 0.000 – 0.2000 Low
2 0.201-0.250 Moderate
89

3 0.251-0.460 High
4 0.461-0.600 Very high
5 0.601-0.999 Critical
According to Table 5.10, which represents the scale for risk severity based on the
difference of the FPIS and FNIS values, based on the past experience of the authors the
scale has been chosen. If the difference of FPIS and FNIS of the alternatives A1 which is
the cost criteria and alternative A2 which is the benefit criteria, is ranging from values
“000-030” then the risk severity is “low”. If the values are ranging from “031-110”, “111-
230”, “231-400” and “401-1000” then the risk severities are considered to be “moderate”,
“high”, “very high” and “critical” respectively. According to table 4, which represents the
scale for risk severity based on closeness coefficient (CC), the value of the difference of
CC of alternative A1 and A2, if the value is ranging from “0.000-0.2000” then the risk
severity is considered to be “low”. Similarly, if the values range from “0.201-0.250”,
“0.251-0.460”, “0.401-0.600”, “0.601-0.999” then the risk severity is considered to be
“moderate”, “high”, “very high” and “critical” respectively. After analysis of the risks by
fuzzy TOPSIS, the final decision about the risk severities for each identified activity need
to be taken based on the values obtained through FPIS, FNIS and CC computations. FPIS,
FNIS gives some idea about the risk severities, thus the action taken would be indicative
but CC computations gives more accurate values for risk severities, and thus the action
taken based on CC values appear to be more confirmatory. Thereby, it is advisable to
decide the recommendations and mitigation measures based on both the values.
Three case studies of solar plants of Rajasthan, Gujarat and Karnataka are considered for
this study.
90

5.2 Salient Features of Projects Considered for Case Study
(a) Rajasthan Project
A solar power plant project was implemented at Gajner Village, Kolayat Tehsil, Bikaner
District, Rajasthan. The capacity of Power Generation of this project is about 5.83 MW.
Project has been spread over an area of 30 Acres. The project was commissioned in the
year 2012-13. Project belongs to a private company.
(b) Gujarat Project
1. Government of Gujarat and Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) signed a Memorandum of

Understanding (“MoU”) with the State of Gujarat to set up a Solar Power Plant through
Gujarat Power Corporation Limited (GPCL). This project was implemented at
Charanka village, Santalpur taluk, Patan district, Gujarat state. The capacity of Power
Generation of this project is about 500 MW. Project has been spread over an area of
5400 Acres. The project was commissioned in the year 2012-13. Project belongs to a
private company.
(c) Karnataka Project
The project under consideration in Karnataka is based on solar power plants proposed by
four businesses, namely KEPL, MEPL, SEPL, and SAPL at Gaddikere Village near Hagar
Bommanahalli, Bellary Dist., Karnataka. This project's power generation capacity is
around 12.1 MW (11.0 MW on AC side and 12.1 MW on DC side). The total area included
by all three survey numbers comes to 57.21 acres. In the fiscal year 2016-17, the project
was commissioned.
The details of the identified risks under Phase1 (Feasibility study), Phase 2 (Survey,
investigation, master plan and concept report, Phase 3(Detailed design and specifications
- civil, structural, electrical, scada and transmission line), Phase 4 (Vendor selection,
procurement, construction and commissioning) and Phase 5 (Operation and maintenance
of solar plants) are given in Appendix 1.
The data gathered from the questionnaire survey was analysed using the fuzzy TOPSIS
approach. The fuzzy TOPSIS approach may be used to assess many options against the
chosen criteria. The TOPSIS approach scales quantitative criteria using their own actual
numbers and for representation of geographical data imprecision, and human cognition
91

over the theory of linguistic variables is utilised. A linguistic variable is one with values
that are words or phrases in a natural or artificial language. Because standard quantification
approaches struggle to explain circumstances that are obviously complicated or difficult to
express, the concept of a linguistic variable is both required and beneficial. This statement
can be used to rate qualitative criteria or to compare two assessment criteria.
There are a number of multiple criteria strategies available to help with choosing in
multiple-criteria situations. One of these is the TOPSIS technique, which ranks alternatives
based on their relative resemblance to the ideal solution, avoiding the problem where both
positive and negative ideal solutions have the same similarity index. The TOPSIS method
is a valuable and practical strategy for ranking and selecting options. The TOPSIS model,
which is based on the idea of fuzzy sets, expresses the rating of each alternative in
triangular or trapezoidal fuzzy numbers, the weight of each criterion in fuzzy or crisp
values, and multiple normalizations are utilised. The TOPSIS technique selects the optimal
option that is closest to the Fuzzy Positive Ideal Solution (FPIS) and farthest from the
Fuzzy Negative Ideal Solution (FNIS). The best performance values for each choice
comprise an FPIS, whereas the lowest performance values comprise a FNIS. Here, the
relevant steps of Fuzzy TOPSIS are presented below:
(a) Alternatives ratings by decision makers
Here, as a sample analysis for one phase of the project, like the phase 5 which is the
operation and maintenance phase, two alternatives such as A1 and A2 have been chosen.
Also, two decision makers namely DM1 and DM2 have also been considered. Alternative
A1 is chosen as the cost criteria of the project which need to be kept minimum and
alternative A2 is chosen as the benefit criteria delivered by the project which needs to be
kept maximum. The two major decision makers of the project are DM1 who is the client
and DM2 who is the principal implementer of the project. Now, decision makers rate the
alternatives as shown below. Table 5.12 and Table 5.13 represent the alternative ratings
for A1 and A2 respectively.
92

Table 5.12 Alternative ratings by decision makers for phase-5 (operation and
maintenance)
Sr
Risk description Alternative A1
No.
DM1 DM2
Reduction in power generation due to
1 9 3
variation in solar energy
2 Fire hazards 9 3
3 Robbery of equipment 5 7
4 Unskilled operational staff 7 7
Delay in supply of materials for
5 9 5
maintenance
6 Poor maintenance by operating staff 9 9
7 Scarcity of water 7 3
Delay in attending the break-down in
8 7 3
operation
Table 5.13 Alternative ratings by decision makers for phase-5 (operation and
maintenance)
Sr No. Risk description Alternative A2

DM1 DM2
1 9 7
2 Fire hazards 9 7
5 7 9
maintenance
93

8 5 9
operation
(b) Criteria weightage by decision makers
The next step is determination of criteria weightage by the decision makers. This is
highlighted through Table 5.14.
Table 5.14 Criteria weightage by decision makers (1 and 2) for phase-5 (operation and
maintenance)
Criteria
Sr No. Risk description
Weightage
A1 A2
Reduction in power generation due to variation in

1 3 7
solar energy
2 Fire hazards 7 7
5 Delay in supply of materials for maintenance 5 9
8 Delay in attending the break-down in operation 3 9
94

(C) Apply fuzzy numbers
The next step is to apply fuzzy numbers. The fuzzy numbers are triangular fuzzy numbers
for decision makers 1 and 2. The application of fuzzy numbers to the maintenance and
operation phase of the project is presented through Table 5.15 and 5.16
maintenance)
Fuzzy Number A1
Sr No. Risk description DM1 DM2
Reduction in power generation due to variation

1 (7,9,9) (1,3,5)
in solar energy
2 Fire hazards (3,5,7) (5,7,9)
3 Robbery of equipment (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
4 Unskilled operational staff (7,9,9) (5,7,9)
5 Delay in supply of materials for maintenance (7,9,9) (3,5,7)
6 Poor maintenance by operating staff (7,9,9) (7,9,9)
7 Scarcity of water (5,7,9) (1,3,5)
8 Delay in attending the break-down in operation (5,7,9) (1,3,5)
95

maintenance)
Fuzzy Number A2
Sr
Risk description DM1 DM2
No.

1 (7,9,9) (5,7,9)
2 Fire hazards (7,9,9) (5,7,9)

8 (3,5,7) (7,9,9)
operation
The next step is computation of fuzzy number criteria for alternatives A1 and A2. Table
5.17 represents the fuzzy number criteria weightage for alternative A1 and A2.
96

maintenance)
Fuzzy Number criteria

weightage
Sr
Risk description A1 A2
No.

1 (1,3,5) (5,7,9)
2 Fire hazards (5,7,9) (5,7,9)

5 (3,5,7) (7,9,9)
maintenance

8 (1,3,5) (7,9,9)
operation
(d) Aggregated alternative and criteria weightage fuzzy decision matrix
The aggregated alternative and criteria weightage fuzzy decision matrix is then computed.
The aggregated alternative and criterion weightage fuzzy decision matrix is shown in Table
5.18.
97

Table 5.18 Aggregated alternative and criteria weightage fuzzy decision matrix for
phase-5 (operation and maintenance)
Aggregated fuzzy
decision matrix for
alternatives
Sr
No.

1 (1,6,9) (5,8,9)
2 Fire hazards (3,6,9) (5,8,9)

8 (1,5,9) (3,7,9)
operation
(e) Fuzzy multi criteria Group Decision Making (GDM) and process of normalizing
The next stage is to use fuzzy multi-criteria Group Decision Making (GDM) and the
normalising procedure. The normalised aggregated fuzzy decision matrix for alternatives
A1 and A2 is shown in Table 5.19. The weighted normalised fuzzy decision matrix is
shown in Table 5.20.
98

Table 5.19 Normalized aggregated fuzzy decision matrix for alternative A1 and A2 for
Normalized Matrix
Sr
No.

1 (0.56,0.89,1) (0.11,0.2,1)
2 Fire hazards (0.56,0.89,1) (0.11,0.14,0.2)
3 Robbery of equipment (0.56,0.89,1) (0.11,0.14,0.2)
4 Unskilled operational staff (0.56,0.89,1) (0.11,0.13,0.2)

5 (0.56,0.89,1) (0.11,0.14,0.33)
maintenance
6 Poor maintenance by operating staff (0.56,0.89,1) 0.11,0.11,0.14)
7 Scarcity of water (0.33,0.78,1) (0.11,0.17,1)

8 (0.33,0.78,1) (0.11,0.17,1)
operation
99

Table 5.20 Normalized aggregated fuzzy decision matrix for alternative A1 and A2 for
Weighted normalized fuzzy

decision matrix
Sr
No.

1 (0.56,4.45,9) (0.11,1,9)
2 Fire hazards (0.56,4.45,9) (0.55,0.98,1.8)
3 Robbery of equipment (0.56,4.45,9) (0.55,0.98,1.8)
4 Unskilled operational staff (2.8,7.12,9) (0.88,1.04,1.8)

5 (1.68,6.23,9) (0.33,0.98,9)
maintenance
6 Poor maintenance by operating staff (3.92,8.01,9) (0.77,0.99,1.26)
7 Scarcity of water (0.33,4.68,9) (0.11,1.02,9)

8 (0.33,4.68,9) (0.11,1.02,9)
operation
(f) Computation of FPIS AND FNIS
FPIS can be computed by equation (5.13) and FNIS can be computed by equation (5.14).
Select the maximum value from each row as p+ and select the minimum value from each
row as p-.
Table 5.21 and 5.22 represents FPIS and FNIS for the identified risks of the operation and
maintenance phase of the solar power plant under study.
100

Table 5.21 FPIS for identified risks for phase-5 (operation and maintenance)
FPIS
Sr
No.
Reduction in power generation due to variation in

1 5.54 6.9
solar energy
2 Fire hazards 5.54 7.91
3 Robbery of equipment 5.54 7.91
4 Unskilled operational staff 3.74 7.77
5 Delay in supply of materials for maintenance 4.52 6.82
6 Poor maintenance by operating staff 2.99 8
7 Scarcity of water 5.59 6.9
8 Delay in attending the break-down in operation 5.59 6.9
Total 39.05 59.11
Table 5.22 FNIS for identified risks for phase-5 (operation and maintenance)
FNIS
Sr.
No
Reduction in power generation due to variation

1 5.72 5.16
in solar energy
2 Fire hazards 5.37 0.76
101

3 Robbery of equipment 5.37 0.76
4 Unskilled operational staff 6.02 0.54
5 Delay in supply of materials for maintenance 6.1 5.02
6 Poor maintenance by operating staff 6.58 0.31
7 Scarcity of water 5.77 5.16
8 Delay in attending the break-down in operation 5.77 5.16
Total 58.63 29.46
Computation of the distance of each weighted alternative
The distance of each weighted alternative is computed from equation (5.18) and (5.19).
−𝑑𝑖 + ∑ 𝑛𝑗 = 1𝑑 (𝑝𝑖𝑗, +)(5.18)
−𝑑𝑖−= ∑ 𝑛𝑗 = 1 (𝑝𝑖𝑗, −) (5.19)
1
𝑑 (𝑎, 𝑏) = √ [(𝑎1 − 𝑏1)2 + (𝑎2 − 𝑏2)2 + (𝑎3 − 𝑏3)2 ]
3
𝒅1+= 39.05
𝒅2+= 59.11
𝒅1-= 58.63
𝒅2-= 29.46
Closeness coefficient (CC) of each alternative
The closeness coefficients of each alternative A1, A2 are computed from equation (5.20).
CCi = 𝑑i- / (𝑑i- + 𝑑i+), i= 1,2, 3, m (5.20)
CC1 (A1) = 0.548
102

CC2(A2) = 0.286
Here the closeness coefficient (CC1) for alternative A1 which is the cost criteria, which
should be aimed to be kept minimum. For project like solar power plants the initial
investment is high and the expenses for operation and maintenance is also quite high.
Thereby the values for CC1 need to be kept as low as possible. The other alternative A2 is
the benefit criteria, for which the closeness coefficient (CC2) should be as maximum as
possible. According to the analysis, for operation and maintenance phase, CC1(A1) is
0.548 which is quite high and thereby the risk severity appears to be high. The value of
CC2 (A2) is 0.286 which is quite low and thereby the risk severity appears to be high.
In the similar manner FPIS and FNIS of all the phases (one to five) of the solar power
plants under study have been computed. The FPIS and FNIS of all the phases are presented
in Table 5.23.
Table 5.23 FPIS and FNIS values of all the phases of the solar power plant project
Risk severity
FPIS FPIS FNIS FNIS FPIS / FNIS (low/moderat

Phase
(A1) (A2) (A1) (A2) trend analysis e/high/very
high/critical)
Value of total of
FPIS (A1+A2) =
575.7 which is
Phase 1 slightly greater
(Feasibi than the value of

219.2 356.5 317 157.2 total of FNIS (A1 Moderate
lity
studies) + A2) = 474.2
FPIS – FNIS =
575.7-
474.2=101.5
103

Phase 2
(Survey Value of total of
, FPIS (A1+A2) =
investig 768.09 which is
ation, much greater than

269.9 498.1 392.9 the value of total
master 78.94 Very high
6 3 2 of FNIS (A1 +
plan
and A2) = 471.86
concept FPIS-FNIS =
report) 296.23
Phase 3
(Detaile
d
design
Value of total of
and
FPIS (A1+A2) =
specific
645.91 which is
ations -
much greater than
civil,
the value of total
structur 418.8 318.7
227.1 50.6 of FNIS (A1 + Very high
al, 1 1
A2) = 369.31
electric
al, FPIS-FNIS =
scada 276.60
and
transmi
ssion
line)
104

Phase 4
(Vendo
Value of total of
r
FPIS (A1+A2) =
selectio
1246.97 which is
n,
much greater than
procure
the value of total
ment, 354.7 892.2 818.7 158.9
of FNIS (A1 + Very high
constru 6 1 2 5
A2) = 997.67
ction
and FPIS-FNIS =
commis 249.30
sioning
)
Value of total of
FPIS (A1+A2) =
121.89 which is
Phase 5 slightly greater
(Operat than the value of
ion and 48.3 73.59 58.63 29.46 total of FNIS (A1 Moderate
mainten + A2) = 88.09
ance)
FPIS-FNIS =
33.80
105

From the table 5.23 it has been observed that for phase 1(feasibility studies) the value of
total of FPIS (A1+A2) = 575.7 which is slightly greater than the value of total of FNIS (A1
+ A2) = 474.2 and the difference of FPIS and FNIS is 575.7-474.2=101.5. Thus, according
to the risk rating scale given in table 5.10, the risk severity is found to be “moderate”. For
phase 2 (survey, investigation, master plan and concept report) the value of total of FPIS
(A1+A2) = 768.09 which is much greater than the value of total of FNIS (A1 + A2) =
471.86. Thus, the difference of FPIS and FNIS is 296.23 and the risk severity according to
the risk rating scale given in table 5.10, the risk severity is found to be “very high”. For
phase 3 (detailed design and specifications - civil, structural, electrical, SCADA and
transmission line), value of total of FPIS (A1+A2) = 645.91 which is much greater than
the value of total of FNIS (A1 + A2) = 369.31. The difference of FPIS and FNIS is 276.60
and the risk severity is found to be “very high”. For phase 4 (vendor selection,
procurement, construction and commissioning) value of total of FPIS (A1+A2) = 1246.97
which is much greater than the value of total of FNIS (A1 + A2) = 997.67. The difference
of FPIS and FNIS is 249.30 and the risk severity is found to be “very high”. Furthermore,
the last phase which is phase 5(operation and maintenance) the value of total of FPIS
(A1+A2) = 121.89 which is slightly greater than the value of total of FNIS (A1 + A2) =
88.09. Thus, the difference of FPIS and FNIS is 33.800 and the risk severity is found to be
“moderate”. The client, principal contractor and other associated project authorities need
to develop and adopt preventive and corrective mitigation measures accordingly to reduce
the severity of the risks.
The risk severities of the different phases of the project can also be verified through the
computation of CC. The values of CC for alternative A1 and A2 as computed by equation
(5.20) is presented in table 5.24.
106

Table 5.24 Closeness Coefficient (CC) values of all the phases of the solar power plant
project
Risk severity
Difference
CC1 CC2 (low/moderat
Phase CC1(A1) –
(A1) (A2) e/high/very
CC2(A2)
high/critical)
Phase 1 (Feasibility
0.591 0.306 0.285 High
studies)
Phase 2
(Survey, investigation,
master plan and concept 0.593 0.137 0.456 High
report)
Phase 3
(Detailed design and

specifications - civil,
0.583 0.108 0.475 Very high
structural, electrical, scada
and transmission line)
107

Phase 4
(Vendor selection,
procurement, construction 0.698 0.151 0.547 Very high
and commissioning)
Phase 5 (Operation and

0.548 0.286 0.262 High
maintenance)
For phase 1, CC1 for alternative (A1) is 0.591 and CC2 for alternative (A2) is 0.306. The
difference of CC1(A1) and CC2(A2) is 0.285. According to risk rating scale for CC as per
table 5.24, the risk severity for phase 1 is “high”. According to the analysis of FPIS and
FINS (table 12) the risk severity was found to be “moderate”. Thus, it can be concluded
that the risk severity of phase 1 ranges from “moderate to high”. For phase 2, CC1(A1) is
0.593 and CC2(A2) is 0.137. The difference of CC1(A1) and CC2(A2) is 0.456. According
to risk rating scale for CC as per table 5.11, the risk severity for phase 2 is “high”.
According to the analysis of FPIS and FINS (table 5.23) the risk severity was found to be
“very high”. Thus, it has been observed that the risk severity of phase 2 ranges from “high
to very high”. For phase 3, the CC1 (A1) is 0.583 and CC2(A2)-is 0. 108.The difference
of CC1(A1) and CC2(A2) is 0.475. According to risk rating scale for CC the risk severity
for phase 3 is “very high”. This exactly matches with the analysis of FPIS and FINS (table
5.23). The risk severity was found to be “very high”. For phase 4 CC1(A1) is 0.698 and
CC2(A2) is 0. 151.The difference of CC1(A1) and CC2(A2) is 0.547. According to risk
rating scale for CC the risk severity for phase 4 is “very high”. This exactly matches with
the analysis of FPIS and FINS (table 5.23). The risk severity was found to be “very high”.
Finally for phase 5, CC1(A1) is 0.548 and CC2(A2) is 0.286. The difference of CC1(A1)
and CC2(A2) is 0.262. According to risk rating scale for CC the risk severity for phase 5
is “high”. According to the FPIS and FNIS analysis (table 12), the risk severity was found
108

to be “moderate”. Thus, it can be firmly concluded that the risk severity of phase 5 ranges
from “moderate to high”. Thereby it is observed that the FPIS and FINS may be considered
as an indicative test for computation of risk severities and then the values need to be cross
checked by CC computation. Thus, computation of CC for determining should definitely
be considered as confirmatory test. The project authorities need to develop and adopt the
risk mitigation measures accordingly. The next section comprises of the corrective and
preventive mitigation measures for all the identified risks associated with all the five
phases of the project.
CORRECTIVE AND PREVENTIVE MITIGATION MEASURES
The corrective and preventive measures of the identified risks are presented in tables 5.25,
5.26, 5.27, 5.28 and 5.29.
Table 5.25 Corrective and preventive measures for the risks of phase 1 (Feasibility
studies).
Risk Severity Corrective Preventive

Sr
descriptio (low/medium/hig mitigation mitigation
No. n measure measure
h/v.high/critical)
(i) Hire
technically sound
consultant for
(i)Frequent
drafting terms (ii)
meeting of
Draft detailed and
stakeholders to
Letter of unambiguous LOI
decide the final
1 Intent Very high by a sound
terms (ii)Clear
(LOI) consultant (iii)
communication
Roles and
between
responsibilities of
stakeholders.
all stakeholders
must be clear and
for all the phases.
109

Sr
h/v.high/critical)
(i)Delay should
be avoided but
if it occurs then
all stakeholders
should
understand the
(i) Prior
Acceptance importance of
communication of
and kick of time and
availability of
meeting discussion
stakeholders from
and should be quick
client, contractor,
2 finalization High and decision
consultant or any
of the scope making should
other should be
and be fast.
done and date of
deliverable (ii)Multiple
meeting should be
s. meetings in
fixed.
short time
interval can be
decided to
achieve quick
decision
making.
There are no
Risks in corrective
3 site Very high measures once Choose different
location the site is site.

finalized. One
can only change
110

Sr
h/v.high/critical)
the location and

that will involve
other problems
such as
clearance,
financing,
technical issues
etc. One can
take insurance
to reduce
financial risk
and must adhere
to highest
standard of
safety and
execution if the
location is
controversial
(i)There are no (i) Use co-

corrective ordinates to pin
measures but to point the location
Reconnaiss change from and boundary of
4 ance survey Very high wrong location site and mark
of site of project to the boundaries by
actual location. fencing or other
(ii) Hire techniques.
technically
111

Sr
h/v.high/critical)
sound proof
consultant to
check the
details
collected.
(i) Different
method of data (i) Hire a
collection can technically sound
Collection
5 Critical be identified by consultant for
of data
research and feasibility to avoid
should be any wrong details.
adopted.
(i) If the (i) Hire a

approach is technically sound
unrealistic then consultant for
the client feasibility to avoid
should be any wrong details.
Inception
informed about (ii)
Report (IR)
it and new Communication
6 Preparation Very high approach and amongst
and methodology stakeholders
submission should be should be clear.
decided. (ii) (iii) Research
Meetings could should be done
be held to before finalizing
correct the methodology.
scope of work. Time allocation
112

Sr
h/v.high/critical)
(iii) Different for different

method of studies should be
investigation estimated and
can be decided with
identified to caution.
complete the
task in
minimum
duration.
(i) Ensure proper

approach and
Review and
(i) Comply to methodology is
7 approval of High
the comments adopted for
IR
implementation of
the project.
(i) Standards for
(i) Different approach and
Preparation method of methodology

and investigation should be decided
submission can be prior to
8 of Draft High identified to commencing the
Feasibility complete the project. (ii) Client

Report task in should do a market
(DFR) minimum survey of
duration. prevailing rates to

avoid such
mistakes. (iii)
113

Sr
h/v.high/critical)
Proper research
should be carried
out before
finalizing rates.
(i) Ensure
correct
Presentatio (i) Appoint a
information of
9 n and High sound technical
the project is
discussion consultant.
presented and
discussed.
(i) Plan and

(i) Ensure proper
arrange regular
study is
meetings with
undertaken as part
Approval stakeholders to
10 Very high of feasibility stage
of DFR avoid any sort
to decide on
of
implementation of
miscommunicat
the project.
ions.
(i) No part of the

Submission study is left out
(i) Comply to
11 of final Critical based on the
the comments
DFR stakeholders
meeting.
114

Table 5.26 Corrective and preventive measures for the risks of phase 2 (Survey,
investigation, master plan and concept report)
Severity Corrective Preventive

Sr Risk
(low/medium/hig Mitigation Mitigation
No. Description
h/v.high/critical) Measure Measure
(i) It can be
made more
accessible
Resource but the cost (i) Plan and appoint
mobilization of the project technically qualified
and could resources within
1 Very high
establishing increase short timeframe.
camp and which has to Planning should be
site office. be kept in done in detail.
mind. Also, it
varies based
on site.
(i) Plan and execute

(i) construction by
Construction adhering to proper
Delay of site process can standards. Planning
2 land High be should be done in
handover accelerated detail to mitigate
by various unforeseen risks
methods. which could delay
construction.
Topographi (i) (i) No preventive

3 Critical Boundaries measures as it is
cal survey
could be responsibility of the
115

Sr Risk
No. Description
verified by client. It can arise

external due to issues in
agencies clearances and
having sound various govt.
knowledge of agencies are
surveying. involved in
clearances. Also, to
ensure error free
data appoint a sound
survey specialist.
(i) Extremely
difficult to
correct. It can
be done (i) Revenue system
through should be finalized
Land
frequent prior to start of the
4 acquisition Very high
meetings and project.
risks
identifying
problems and
coming at a
mutual
solution.
(i) Project (i)Generally doesn’t

Environmen must be occur as most of
5 Very high solar projects are in
tal risks designed
accordingly. arid or semi-arid
regions but if there
116

Sr Risk
No. Description
are high grasslands

then the project
must be designed
accordingly.
(i)Continuou
s negotiation
Resettlemen
and (i) Change the
t and
6 Very high discussion location of the
rehabilitatio
with the project.
n risks
affected
parties
(i) Different
methodology
can be
adopted to
complete
investigation (i) Points for
within investigation should

Geo-tech
timeframe. be decided prior to
7 Investigatio Very high
ns (ii) Collect construction. (ii)
the missing Appoint a sound

data and then consultant.
do the
analysis
again. (iii)
Proof
consultant
117

Sr Risk
No. Description
can be
appointed for
review as
third party.
(i) Details of the

report should be
(i)Collect discussed prior with
Data missing data stakeholders.
8 Critical
analysis and prepare (ii)Check history of
report again. the location prior to
project
commencement.
(i) Standards
can be set
again or
amendments
can be done
Master plan to meet (i)Appoint a sound

project consultant and
9 and concept Very high
report objectives by follow appropriate
discussion standards.
and
meetings.
(ii)Repeat the
procedure
again if any
118

Sr Risk
No. Description
mistakes
occur.
(ii) No part of the

planning is left out
Approval of
(i) Comply to based on the
master plan
10 Critical the stakeholders
and concept
comments meeting while
report
preparing the master
plan.
Table 5.27 Corrective and preventive measures for the risks of phase 3 (Detailed design
and specifications - civil, structural, electrical, scada and transmission line)
Severity
Sr Corrective
(low/mediu Preventive
Risk Description Mitigation
No. m/high/v.hig Measure Mitigation Measure
h/critical)
(i) Issue
revised master (i) Appoint a
plan with technically sound
Revision in proper consultant. (ii)
1 High
master plan comments for Monitor and interact
necessary with stakeholders to
corrections avoid any changes.
incorporated.
119

Severity
Sr Corrective
h/critical)
(i) Supervisor
should monitor
the work
(i) Engineer with
properly. (ii)
ample amount of
Replacement
experience should be
of team
in charge.
members or
Risk in DPR
2 Very high providing them (ii) Proper planning
preparation
point of in hierarchical level
contact. of powers and
(iii)Look out reporting protocol.
for the changes
that can be
done in design
to save cost.
(i) Appoint a
(i)Verify the
technically sound
data and
team of engineers for
designs at site
Design of civil ensuring cost
3 Very high and modify the
works effective design by
proposal if
consultant with
found
relevant experience
incorrect.
in solar works.
Design of (i) Appoint a (i) Appoint a

4 Very high technically technically sound
structural works
sound team of structural
120

Severity
Sr Corrective
h/critical)
structural engineers for

consultant with ensuring cost
relevant effective design by
experience in consultant with
solar works relevant experience
in solar works.
(i)Check for (i) Appointing a

Design of various technically sound
electrical, components electrical engineer
5 SCADA and Very high specifications, having knowledge
transmission line size, positions, and experience of
works authentication electrical works of
etc. solar
(i) Appoint a
technically sound
consultant. (ii)
Preparation and (i) Verify the
Appointing a
submission of DDPR with
qualified team
Draft Detailed scope of work
6 Critical person having
Project Report and
adequate knowledge
(DDPR) including specifications
of all the components
tender documents finalised.
and material cost as
per prevailing
market condition.
121

Severity
Sr Corrective
h/critical)
(i) Review of
Approval of (i) Proof
documents by Team
7 DDPRand Tender Critical consultant can
Leader and senior
documents be appointed.
technical persons.
(i) Review of
(i) Review of final
Submission of incorporated
DPR pertaining to
8 Final DPR and Very high comments by
discussions and
tender documents client and proof
comments on DDPR.
consultant.
Table 5.28 Corrective and preventive measures for the risks of phase 4 (Vendor selection,
procurement, construction and commissioning)
Severity
Sr Corrective Preventive
Risk Description (low/mediu Mitigation Mitigation
No. m/high/v.hig Measure Measure
h/critical)
(i) Appoint a
technically sound
Invitation of tender (i)Issue
1 High consultant having
and award of work corrigendum
experience in
relevant works
Letter of Intent (i) Frequent (i)Hire technically

2 High
(LOI) to contractor meeting with sound consultant for
122

Severity
h/critical)
selected drafting terms. (ii)

contractor to Draft detailed and
decide the final unambiguous LOI
terms. (ii) by a sound
Clear consultant. (iii)
communication Roles and
between responsibilities of all
stakeholders. stakeholders must be
clear and for all the
phases.
(i)Appoint a
technically sound
consultant having
experience in
(i)Rectify the
relevant works and
Acceptance and mistakes if any
whole team should
kick of meeting and in the scope of
3 Very high have full knowledge
finalization of the work and issue
about the project. (ii)
scope addendum for
Plan for mobilisation
the work.
of team and
machineries for start
of construction
activities.
123

Severity
h/critical)
(i) Project viability

shall be checked
before proceeding
(i) No
Financial closure with work with
4 High corrective
risks banks and financial
measures
institutions to ensure
project is worth
investment.
(i) Appoint a sound

contractor who has
in depth knowledge
of project. (ii)
(i) Care should
Necessary approvals
be taken that
are taken from
approvals are
Permit and approval statutory bodies for
5 Very high done on time to
risks execution of the
avoid project
project. (iii)
delays and cost
Concerned
control.
authorities must be
given intimation
about the orders
before deadline
Civil works (i) Random (i) A project
6 construction and Very high checks shall be management
quality made and if consultant should

found faults, supervise and
124

Severity
h/critical)
the same shall monitor the work on

be rectified at daily basis. (ii)
the cost of Monitor the quality
contractor. with predefined
quality control tests
and check lists.
(iii)Certified
equipments should
be used
(i) Random
checks shall be
made and if
Mechanical and (i)Appoint a
found faults,
7 electrical works and Very high technically sound
the same shall
quality electric consultant
be rectified at
the cost of
contractor.
(i) Introduce
effective safety (i) Proper safety
measures to be measures shall be
8 Safety Critical followed ensured as part of
during project HSE compliance and
implementatio reviewed by PMC
n.
125

Table 5.29 Corrective and preventive measures for the risks of phase 5 (Operation and
Maintenance)

Sr Risk
Description (low/medium/high Mitigation Mitigation
No. Measure Measure
/v.high/critical)
(i) Different
factors
decreasing
power
generation
(i) Cleaning
should be
technique should
determined and
be planned
Reduction in mitigated
carefully as dust
power accordingly.
accumulation on
1 generation due Critical For example, if
solar panels is a
to variation in the temperature
major risk which
solar energy becomes too
reduces the power
high which
generation
affects the
capacity.
material
properties of
the panels, then
it can be
controlled.
(i) Ensure no wires

(i) No or joints are prone
2 Fire hazards High Corrective to short circuits.
measures (ii) Don’t allow
any material
126

Sr Risk
No. Measure Measure
/v.high/critical)
susceptible to fire
in the plant.
(ii) Collect
(i) Enhance
information about
security to
Robbery of such cases. (ii)
3 Very high sensitive
equipment Appropriate
locations along
security can be
the boundary.
planned.
(i) Time to time

Unskilled (i) Appropriate
checking
4 operational High consultant can be
maintenance
staff selected.
reports
(i) Material
supply can be
made faster by
Delay in (i) Appropriate
different
supply of schedule should be
5 High methods such
materials for prepared and
as Just in Time
maintenance updated regularly.
(JIT) and other
models but it
can cost higher.
Poor (i) Time to time

(i) Appropriate
maintenance checking
6 Critical consultant can be
by operating maintenance
selected.
staff reports
127

Sr Risk
No. Measure Measure
/v.high/critical)
(i) Alternative
technologies
(i) Site selection
can be adopted
Scarcity of should be planned
7 Very high like use of
water for project
scrubbers to
lifecycle.
clean solar
panels etc.
(i) Instrumentation
and control should
be established
(i) No which would notify
corrective any breakdown
Delay in measures. anywhere in the
attending the Operation and plant. (ii)
8 Very high
break-down in maintenance Operation and
operation team should maintenance team
avoid any such should be prepared
delays. for any such
breakdown and
they should plan
accordingly.
After careful scrutiny of the results from AHP and TOPSIS analysis the following
conclusions are drawn. TOPSIS has substantial advantages over the conventional AHP
process in terms that it can evaluate the data using fuzzy numbers from various decision
makers or sources. In this case, TOPSIS approach combines the input of the solar parks
from Rajasthan, Gujarat and Karnataka and combines them with the same activities and
128

sub-activities and provides an ensembled interpretation of the parameters. The results of
maximum and minimum risk phase are more coherent in TOPSIS than in AHP. AHP
concludes Phase-2 or Phase-4 as the highest risk depending upon the solar park. This
incoherency is not well appreciated where the quality of results lies on external factors.
The highest risk phase should be independent of the geographical location as the
parameters in the study are same for any solar park. However, TOPSIS clearly shows both
the phase 2 and 4 to be of medium risk. It is very evident from the comparison and the
analysis that TOPSIS is a more refined approach in such study of various solar power parks
using the same identified parameters.
It is evident from the above analysis that in Fuzzy TOPSIS method, data for the project
will be collected from people who are critically involved in project implementation at multi
levels. Besides the questionnaire will be responded by multiple people who are involved
during the project implementation cycle and also responsible for timely completion in-
spite of several challenges. Hence this has more accurate and decisive making outcome
helping the management to ensure either the risks are totally mitigated or reduced to
minimum severity. Further, key management team can also act in taking preventive
measures for managing the risks since corrective measures will have major impact in terms
of economics besides fatal accidents. In view of these, the authors strongly believe that
whenever projects of are of similar nature with multidisciplinary components, adopting
Fuzzy TOPSIS MCDM will help in mitigating the major risks, thus ensuring the
enhancement of probability of successful completion of the project within stipulated time
and cost frame.
129

CHAPTER 6 LIFE CYCLE COSTING OF PV GENERATION
SYSTEM
This chapter details the life cycle costing and thereby the economic viability and feasibility
of such solar parks. Life Cycle Costing analysis is employed to evaluate the long-term
benefit of the huge investments in India’s ambitious plan of setting up nearly 100 GW
installed solar power capacity by Dec 2022. Life cycle costing is a methodology used in
economic calculation of all costs incurred during the life span of any project. For
Renewable Energy systems, this shows the cost-effectiveness of being used as an
alternative source compared to conventional power generations. The model is applied to
the Photo Voltaic projects in Indian scenario where all required data has been collected
from reliable sources (Ranganath and Sarkar ,2021)
6.0 Introduction
As of June 30th, 2020, India's installed solar capacity was 35,739 MW. From April 2019
through March 2020, solar power output was 50.1 TWh, or 3.6 percent of total generation
(1,391 TWh). The cost of setting up 1 GW of Solar Power Plant will be about Rs. 5000
Crores. The exponential growth in Renewable energy (RE) market like solar and wind,
leading to the need for an accurate and precise economic feasibility evaluation of these
technologies, is a cause of concern to the Project Investors, the developers as well as the
decision makers. It is required to consider the cost of all the works involved in such projects
right from the feasibility stage till completion including the safe disposal phases or what it
was called life cycle costing (LCC). LCC is a methodology used in economic calculation
of the entire cost incurred during the life span of any project. For Renewable Energy (RE-
Solar) systems, LCC is a good methodology, which shows the cost-effectiveness of using
RE as an alternative source compared to conventional power generations. LCC model is
applied to the Photo-Voltaic (PV) projects in Indian scenario since the projects planned are
of gigantic scale and hence this exercise will help for decision makers to take appropriate
decision while approving such projects.
6.0.1 Solar Status - Indian scenario

Covid Pandemic and subsequent developments in the international policy and decision
making is moving towards India centric development leading to major industrial growth,
rapid Urbanization and subsequent infrastructural developments, requiring continuous and
130

uninterrupted quality power supply and thereby exponentially increasing energy needs. In
the present scenario, use of fossil fuels or non-renewable sources for energy generation
already has adverse effect on environment and mankind as a whole. Apart from that setting
up such power plants takes substantial time and recurring cost are exorbitant. Hence,
tapping freely available abundant divine solar energy, a non-conventional energy source is
one such endeavour to mitigate the process of climate change. Realising the need for non-
conventional energy and also to mitigate the threats of Global warming, India has taken
proactive steps by setting up Solar Power Plants in several parts of India. The Country
wish to commission nearly 100 GW capacity by Dec 2022. It is necessary to deal with the
energy crisis through the utilisation of abundantly available existing renewable energy
resources, such as solar energy, wind energy and biomass energy etc. (Srivastava and
Srivastava, 2013). India is endowed with massive solar energy potential. The equivalent
energy potential is about 6,000 million GWh of energy per year (Sharma et al., 2012).
Solar power has wider application than other energy resources such as power generation,
water pumping, heating, chilling, desalination, drying etc. Recent development ensures
that the solar power systems are made available easily for industrial and domestic usage
with the added advantage of less maintenance.
Harnessing of Solar energy has been increasing exponentially during last decade in view
of government favourable policies to promote RE. Further, the drastically fallen prices of
PV module in the last few years (Fig-5.1) has made the field attractive to the investors. In
addition, the automated innovations in manufacturing processes and metallization
solutions also contributes to the current fall in prices. PV cells manufacturing costs have
sharply declined from more than Rs. 68/Wp at 2010 to approximately less than 21/Wp
nowadays and expected to go further down in the coming times. The decline in the cost of
the PV module and the increase in the commissioning of the Solar PV plants during the
previous decade (2010-2020) are shown in Fig 6.1 and 6.2 respectively.
131

Figure 6.1 Decline in the PV Costing during the 2010-20
Figure 6.2 Exponential Growth in the PV Installation during 2010-20.

6.0.2 PV Costing and Installation of Solar Projects
The data and information regarding the Installation across India during the 2010 – 2020
has been collected and also the costing of the PV module has been analysed and presented
in Table-6.1 and Fig-6.2. The decline in the PV costing after 2015, has led to exponential
growth in the PV installation in India. This is evident from the Fig 6.3.
132

Table 6.1 Year wise Module price and installed capacity in India
Sr Module price Cumulative installed capacity in India

Year
No. (INR/Wp) (in MW’s)
1 2010 68 161
2 2011 60 461
3 2012 48 1205
4 2013 41 2319
5 2014 37 2632
6 2015 32 3744
7 2016 30 6763
8 2017 28 12289
9 2018 24 21651
10 2019 21 28181
11 2020 21 34627
Figure 6.3 Year wise Module price and Installed capacity – Indian scenario
133

Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE)
The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) is a phrase that summarises the cost of solar power
generated over a period of time, generally the system's guaranteed life. By purchasing
solar, you are effectively constructing a hedge against growing utility prices by securing
a fixed per kWh rate at a known cost.
The levelized cost of electricity is the average income per unit of electricity generated
necessary to recoup the expenses of constructing and operating a producing facility over
an anticipated financial life and duty cycle. The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) is
frequently quoted as a concise summary estimate of the overall competitiveness of
various producing technologies. (US Energy Information Administration, Feb2020).
Capital costs, fuel expenses (no fuel costs in the case of RE), constant and variable
operations and maintenance (OM) costs, financing costs, and an anticipated utilisation
rate for each plant type are key inputs for calculating LCOE. The relevance of each of
these elements varies depending on the technology. LCOE varies approximately in
proportion to the expected capital cost of the technology for systems with no fuel costs
and relatively minor variable OM costs, such as solar and wind power producing
technologies. For technologies with high fuel prices, both fuel cost and capital cost
estimations have a considerable impact on LCOE.
LCOE can be computed by equation 6.1.

Life Cycle Cost (LCC)
LCOE = Life Cycle Energy (LCE) (6.1)
Where LCOE is the Levelised Cost of Energy; LCC comprises of (i) Cost of Project
conceptualization / Feasibility / Detailed project activities / Statutory compliances /
Project financing / Costing for Pre project activities (C-Ppa), (ii) Cost of selection and
finalization of the correct technology (PV panels) and cost towards procurement of the
same (C-Panel), (iii) Cost of AC and DC electrical side including transmission,
evacuation, inverters and associated related costs (C-Elec.), (iv)Cost of civil, mechanical
design including mounting structure costing (C-Civil and Mounting), (v) Cost of all the
peripeheral works, testing and commissioning (C-Pw and Com), (vi) Operation and
maintenance costing (C-OM) and (vii) Cost of safe disposal of the PV panels after their
life span (C-PDis).Since LCC is a decision making tool to forecast the future cost of a
134

facility in a present date, time value of money has always been considered. The final
computation is either carried out through Present Worth (PW) or Annual Worth (AW) or
Future Worth (FW) method.General assumptions for computation of LCC lies in
assuming the feasibility studies cost, design costs,technology selection cost, project
implementation cost and also the project operation cost.
The Life Cycle Energy (LCE) produced has been computed through equation (6.2).
LCC is a good methodology, especially for the RE system, which shows the benefits of
using RE as an alternative source compared to fuel incurred costs. The LCE produced
can thus be computed annually, discounted with r discount rate as shown in equation 6.2.
AEPx(1−dfi)
Life Cycle Energy (LCE) = ∑ni=0 (1−r)i
(6.2)
Where AEP is the Expected Annual Energy produced, in line with the estimated life of
the project, “r” represents the interest rate,“i” represents the economic life of the facility
or system. With the system, life progresses, its output power yield will be degraded with
a factor “df” in order to get a better energy harvest forecasting.
Life Cycle Costing Analysis (LCCA) Model for Solar PV: Indian Scenario
Life Cycle Costing model developed for Indian scenario of solar PV generation
systemare distributed into seven cost centres as presented in equation 6.3.
1. Cost ofproject conceptualization/Feasibility/Detailed project activities /Statutory

compliances/Project financing / Costing for Pre-project activities(CPpa),
2. Cost of selection and finalization of the correct technology (PV panels) and cost
towards procurement of the same (CPanel),
3. Cost ofAC and DC electrical side including transmission, evacuation, inverters
and associated related costs(CElec.),
4. Cost of civil, mechanical design including mounting structure costing
(CCivilandMounting),
5. Cost of all the peripheral works, testing and commissioning (CPw and Com),
6. Operation and Maintenance Costing (COM),
7. Cost of safe disposal of the PV panels after their life span (CPDis).
135

LCC = CPpa+ CPanel + CElec. + CCiviland Mounting + CPw and Com + COM + CPDis (6.3)
1. Cost of project conceptualization / Feasibility / Detailed project activities

/Statutory compliances /Project financing, Costing for pre project activities (C Ppa)
Project conceptualization is an important event in any project since the idea of going
ahead with the project, including investment, will be decided and firmed up subjected to
economic validity of the project, availability of the land free from encumbrances,
statutory compliances, including required approvals from various authorities.
Any misadventure at this time will have a serious impact on the overall project completion
schedule resulting in an exponential increase in the project cost, and in some of the cases,
projects get abondonded. A thorough investigation at this juncture with respect to all the
“do’s” and “dont’s” of the project activities, including firming up of preliminary costing,
considering the overall project requirement, will ensure the investors’ confidence. All the
expenses involved under this category have been termed as cost towards Panels and should
be accounted for in the project cost CPpa.
2. Cost of selection and finalization of the right technology (PV panels) and cost
towards procurement of the same (CPanel):
Selection of the right kind of technology, including vendors, capable of meeting the project
timelines, having excellent track record regarding their performance including proven
technology with competitive price plays a vital role. In most cases, failure on the part of
selecting the right technology for the given environment and other climatic conditions will
lead to generation loss and also degradation of the panels much before the expected life
span. Research has to be done while selecting the appropriate technology, including the
supplier with all the warranties, so as to ensure that in the event any setback occurs, the
supplier should be able to make up good not only by replacing the panels and also taking
care of the generation losses. All the expenses involved under this category should be
accounted for in the project costC Panel.
136

3. Cost of AC and DC Electrical side including transmission, evacuation, inverters
and related works costing (CElec.):
The power generated from the panels will be DC, and this will be required to be converted
to AC with the help of an inverter for further transmission to the grid or to the consumer
point. They are working out detailed costs with respect to the inverter, electrical installation
on both AC and DC side, transmission line along with facilities at the power plant and
receiving station, monitoring system to detect any issues with the panels.All the expenses
involved under this category should be accounted for in the project costCElect.
4. Cost of civil, mechanical design, fabrication, fixing of Panels (CCiviland Mounting):
Detailed design for civil and mechanical has to be carried out after study with regard to
soil parameters, foundation, wind, earth quake, flooding etc. There are several incidents
wherein the entire solar PV plant has been washed away due to floods or blown off due to
wind in view of the poor designs and construction without QA and QC. Hence required
precautions have to be taken at the time of investigation, design, construction and
commissioning followed by proper supervision, including the QA and QC.All the expenses
involved under this category should be accounted for in the project costCCivil and Mounting.
5. Cost of all the peripeheral works, testing and commissioning (C Pw and Com):
Every solar plant requires space all around for carrying out routine inspections, O and M,
besides protecting the plant from theft. Hence required accessibility to all the panels,
including the facility planned with proper entrance, security, building for fixing and
commissioning of inverters etc., to be catered while working out the detailed costing.
Third-party inspection at the time of testing and commissioning of the plant is equally
important for ensuring that there will not be any fire hazards or any other such challenges
at the time of commissioning of the plant. All the expenses involved under this category
should be accounted for in the project costCPw and Com.
6. Costing for safe disposal of the panels after their life span (C PDis):
The dark side of any solar PV plant is the safe disposals of the panels on completion of the
estimated life span, which normally is considered as 25 to 30 years. While manufacturing
137

the solar panel, pure silicon is used. However, in order to increase the efficiency of the
panels, metals such as cadmium and lead are added. This makes solar cells difficult to
recycle, and if these metals find its way to the soil or to water, then it becomes hazards.
Hence it is important to earmark certain costings in the overall projects costings towards
safe disposal of the solar panelsCPDis.
Life cycle costing of PV modules is totally dependent on the quality of data or the input.
Higher the accuracy of the data, the output will be more realistic and implementable. As
reiterated infigure 1, the cost of the PV is decreasing in the last decade. In view of this in
the present study, the data and information have been collected from the main developers
or implementing agency through a questionnaire with regard to various parameters or
activities involved in the entire life cycle of the solar project. The only issue in the entire
data system is the disposal of solar PV panels. Consequent to completion of life span
(normally 25 to 30 years), it has been reported by all the developers that the panels have
to be safely disposed of, for which a certain amount has to be earmarked while working
out the life cycle cost.
The data and information with regard to solar projects implemented in Gujarat, Rajasthan,
Karnataka and Tamilnadu during the previous decade (2010 to 2020). The details of data
and information with respect to various states are furnished in table 2 and table 3. Figure
4 represents the LCC percentages for the 3.3 MW solar power plant of Karnataka, India.
Figure 5 represents LCC percentages for the 1 MW solar power plant of Charanka, India.
Figure 6 represents the LCC percentages for the 10 MW solar power plant of Andhra
Pradesh, India. Figure 7 represents LCC percentages for the 15 MW solar power plant of
Tamil Nadu, India. Figure 8 represents LCC percentages for the 5 MW solar power plant
of New Delhi, India and Figure 9 represents LCC percentages for the 5 MW solar power
plant of Barmer, Rajasthan, India.
138

Table 6.2 Life cycle costing model for solar photovoltaic in Indian scenario
Barme
Charan
Sr r, Tamiln Andhra New Karnat
Description ka,
No. Rajast adu Pradesh Delhi aka
Gujarat
han
15
1 MW 5 MW 10 MW 10 MW 3.3 MW
MW
Costing (INR Million)
Pre project
1 7.5 28.5 44.0 2.5 20.5 2.5
Costing
Selection and
procurement
2 75.5 200.0 562.5 320.0 450.0 115.5
Costing of
PV panels.
AC and DC
Electrical,
Inverter,
Installation,
3 Transmission 260.0 137.5 227.5 140.3 103.0 32.86
, evacuation,
including
related works
costing.
Civil,
Mechanical
design
4 including 17.5 87.5 157.5 159.3 306.0 31.64
mounting
structure
costing.
139

All the
Peripeheral
works,
5 1.5 23.5.0 70.0 29.5 175.5 12.4.
Testing and
Commissioni
ng
Operation
6 and 45.0 150.0 510.0 360.0 500.0 120.0
Maintainance
Safe Disposal
7 of the solar 2.5 10.0 25.0 12.0 15.0 9.0
PV Panels
1571
Total cost 175.5 627.0 1011.6 1555.0 314.9
.5
140

Table 6.3 Investment / Costing Heads for solar photo voltaic in Indian scenario
Investment / Costing Heads
AC and DC
Electrical,
Civil,
Inverter,
Mechanical Peripheral
Commissi Installation,
Pre- PV Design works, Testing
oning Transmission,
project panels including and
Year Evacuation,
Mounting Commissioning
including
Structure.
Related
Works.
2013 5.97 41.93 28.83 18.34 4.93
2014 4.15 52.99 21.43 14.84 6.59
2015 0.38 49.11 21.53 24.45 4.53
2016 1.94 42.65 9.76 29.00 16.64
2017 1.28 59.26 16.86 16.23 6.36
141

Figure 6.4 Life cycle costing percentages for 3.3 MW solar power plant of Karnataka,
India
Figure 6.5. Life cycle costing percentages for 1 MW solar power plant of Charanka, India
142

Figure 6.6. Life cycle costing percentages for 10 MW solar power plant of Andhra
Pradesh, India
Figure 6.7 Life cycle costing percentages for 15 MW solar power plant of Tamil Nadu,
India
143

Figure 6.8 Life cycle costing percentages for 10 MW solar power plant of New Delhi,
India
Figure 6.9 Life cycle costing percentages for 5 MW solar power plant of Barmer,
Rajasthan, India
144

Case Analysis through projected Cash Flow and Sensitivity Analysis
Cash flow has been worked out based on the initial investment cost envisaged for all the
projects based on the plant capacity. Summary of the cost and other details are presented
below, which have been financial cash flow analysis for different sensitivity scenarios.
Table 6.4 highlights the summary of the initial investment costs and other associated
costs of the six solar power plants of India under study. This comprises the tariff, PV
panel costs and Bill of Procurement (BOP) costs.
Table 6.4 Summary of the initial investment cost and other costs for the solar power
plants of India understudy
Barmer,
Sr Charanka Tamil Andhra New Karnat
Rajasth
No. , Gujarat Nadu Pradesh Delhi aka
an
Project
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
No.
Tariff
2 (INR / 15.00 8.00 7.05 7.05 8.05 8.40
KWH)
PV Cost
3 (INR 7.55 4.00 3.75 3.20 4.50 3.50
Cr./MW)
Bill of
Procurem
4 ent (BOP) 5.50 5.74 3.49 3.44 6.20 2.68
Cost (INR
Cr./MW)
5 Total MW 1 5 15 10 10 3
1st PV
Panel
6 0.50 2.50 7.50 5.00 5.00 1.65
Module
Commissi
145

oning
Capacity
2nd PV
Panel
Module
7 Commissi 0.50 2.50 7.50 5.00 5.00 1.65
oning
Capacity
(MW)
Sensitivity Scenarios in Analysis
Case-1: Base Cost and Base Revenue
Case-2: Base Cost increased by 15%,and base Revenue
Case-3: Base Cost and Base Revenue reduced by 15%
Case-4: Base Cost increased by 15%,and Base Revenue reduced by 15%
Table 6.5 represents the sensitivity analysis for the four cases of the Chankara solar power
plant of 1MW in Gujarat. It has been observed that 25 years project IRR for case 1 is
17.1%, for case 2 is 14%, for case 3 is 13.4% and for case 4 is 10.7%. The project payback
period for case 1 is 6.49 years, case 2 is 7.54 years, case 3 is 7.77 years, and case 4 is 9.12
years.The results of sensitivity analysis reveal that the plant is techo-economically viable.
Figure 10 represents the cash flow diagram for sensitivity analysis for case 1 for the solar
power plant of Charanka, Gujarat. Figure 6.11 represents a cash flow diagram for
sensitivity analysis for case-2 of the Charanka solar power plant of Gujarat.Figure 6.12
represents the cash flow diagram for sensitivity analysis for case-3 of the Charanka solar
power plant of Gujarat. Figure 6.13 represents the cash flow diagram for sensitivity
analysis for case-4 of the Charanka solar power plant of Gujarat.
146

Table 6.5 Sensitivity analysis results for the four cases of the Shankara solar plant 1MW
in Gujarat
Project 1: Charanka, Gujarat (1 MW)

Sensitivity Cases Results
Financial
Indicators/Sensitivity Case-1 Case-2 Case-3 Case-4
Cases
Tariff (INR / KWH) 15.00 15.00 12.75 12.75
PV Cost (INR
7.55 8.68 7.55 8.68
Cr./MW)
BOP Cost (INR
5.50 6.33 5.50 6.33
Cr./MW)
25 Yr. Equity IRR 45.1% 31.7% 28.1% 20.1%
Equity Payback (Yrs) 3.15 4.23 4.80 7.75
25 Yr. Equity NPV
5.18 4.21 3.28 2.31
(INR Cr.)
DSCR 2.17 1.91 1.81 1.59
25 Yr. Project IRR 17.1% 14.0% 13.4% 10.7%
Project Payback (Yrs) 6.49 7.54 7.77 9.12
25 Yr. Project NPV
5.84 3.74 2.79 0.69
(INR Cr.)
147

Projected Cash FLow Diagram for Implementation of Solar Power Plant
Project
₹ 60.00
Revenue from Power Sales (Rs. Cr.)
₹ 50.00 O&M Costs (Rs. Cr.)
Insurance Expense
₹ 40.00
EBITDA / Net operating income (Rs. Cr)
Cash Flow, INR Crores
₹ 30.00 Project Cost (Rs. Cr.)

Project Net Cash Flow (Rs. Cr.)
₹ 20.00 Project Cumulative Net Cashflow (Rs. Cr.)
₹ 10.00
₹-
₹ -10.00
₹ -20.00
₹ -30.00
2022
2031
2040
2021
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
Year
Figure 6.10 Cash flow diagram for sensitivity analysis for Case-1 Charanka, Gujarat
(1MW)
According to figure 6.10, which represents the cash flow diagram for sensitivity analysis
for case 1 for solar power plant of Charanka, Gujarat, the cash revenue from the power
sales it goes on increasing from year 2029 up to 2046. The other associated costs like
operation and maintenance (O and M) costs, insurance costs, etc. are within the range
which the project authorities can afford. Thus, from the LCC computation, it has been
observed that the project is techno-economically viable.
148

Project
₹ 60.00
₹ 50.00 O&M Costs (Rs. Cr.)
Insurance Expense
₹ 40.00
₹ 30.00 Project Cost (Rs. Cr.)

₹ 20.00
Project Cumulative Net Cashflow (Rs. Cr.)
₹ 10.00
₹-
₹ -10.00
₹ -20.00
₹ -30.00
2043
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2044
2045
2046
Year
(1MW)
Figure 6.11 represents the cash flow diagram for sensitivity analysis for case-2 of the
Charanka solar power plant of Gujarat. According to figure 5, the cash flow diagram for
the sensitivity analysis shows that the revenue from the power sales starts increasing from
year 2029 and then goes on steep increase up to year 2046. The other associated costs
related to operations and maintenance and insurance costs remain constant within an
affordable range from year 2021 to 2046. Thereby this indicates that the project for case 2
is techno-economically viable.
149

Project
₹ 60.00

₹ 50.00
O&M Costs (Rs. Cr.)
₹ 40.00 Insurance Expense
₹ 30.00
Project Cost (Rs. Cr.)
₹ 20.00
₹ 10.00
₹-
₹ -10.00
₹ -20.00
₹ -30.00
2038
2043
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2039
2040
2041
2042
2044
2045
2046
Year
(1MW)
Figure 6.12 represents cash flow diagram for sensitivity analysis for case-3 of the Charanka
solar power plant of Gujarat. It has been observed that the revenue from the power sales
starts increasing from year 2028 and then continuously increases up to year 2046. The
associated costs are bit less in the initial years of 2021 and 2022 but then remain constant
up to year 2046.Thus this plant also is techno-economically viable.
150

₹ 60.00 Project
₹ 50.00 Revenue from Power Sales (Rs. Cr.)

O&M Costs (Rs. Cr.)
₹ 40.00
Insurance Expense
Cash Flow,INR Crores
₹ 30.00 EBITDA / Net operating income (Rs. Cr)

Project Cost (Rs. Cr.)
₹ 20.00 Project Net Cash Flow (Rs. Cr.)
₹ 10.00
₹-
₹ -10.00
₹ -20.00
₹ -30.00
2023
2033
2043
2046
2021
2022
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2044
2045
Year
Figure 6.13. Cash flow diagram for sensitivity analysis for Case-4 Charanka, Gujarat
(1MW)
Figure 6.13 represents cash flow diagram for sensitivity analysis for case-4 of the Charanka
solar power plant of Gujarat.It has been observed that the revenue from the power sales
starts increasing from year 2029 and then continuously increases up to year 2046. The
associated costs are bit less in the initial years of 2021 and 2022 but then remain constant
up to year 2046.Thus this plant also is techno-economically viable.
Table 6.6 represents the sensitivity analysis for the four cases of the Barmer, Rajasthan
solar plant 5 MW in India. According to table 6 it has been observed that 25 years project
IRR for for case 1 is 9.9%, for case 2 is 7.6%, for case 3 is 7.2% and for case 4 is 5.1%.
The project payback period for case 1 is 9.61 years, case 2 is 11.43 years, case 3 is 11.86
years and case 4 is 14.31 years.The results of sensitivity analysis reveal that the plant is
techo-economically viable.
151

Table 6.6 Sensitivity analysis results for the four cases of the Barmer, Rajasthan solar
plant 5MW in India
Project 2: Barmer, Rajasthan (5 MW)

Financial
Cases
Tariff (INR / KWH) 8.00 8.00 6.80 6.80
PV Cost (INR
4.00 4.60 4.00 4.60
Cr./MW)
BOP Cost (INR
5.74 6.60 5.74 6.60
Cr./MW)
25 Yr. Equity IRR 29.2% 21.2% 18.2% 13.1%
25 Yr. Equity NPV

10.22 7.39 5.15 2.32
(INR Cr.)
DSCR 1.83 1.62 1.52 1.34
25 Yr. Project IRR 9.9% 7.6% 7.2% 5.1%
25 Yr. Project NPV

-0.16 -8.02 -8.30 -16.16
(INR Cr.)
Table 6.6 represents thesensitivity analysis results for the four cases of the Tamilnadu solar
plant 15MW in India. Table 6.7 represents the sensitivity analysis results for the four cases
of the Tamilnadu solar plant 15MW in India.According to table 6.7, it has been observed
that 25 years project IRR for case 1 is 13%, for case 2 is 10.4%, for case 3 is 9.9% and for
case 4 is 7.6%. The project payback period for case 1 is 7.95 years, case 2 is 9.32 years,
case 3 is 9.66 years, and case 4 is 11.48 years.The results of sensitivity analysis reveal that
the plant is techo-economically viable.
152

Table 6.7 Sensitivity analysis results for the four cases of the Tamilnadu solar plant
15MW in India
Project 3: Tamilnadu (15 MW)
Financial
Case-1 Case-2 Case-3 Case-4
Indicators/Sensitivity Cases
Tariff (Rs. / KWH) 7.05 7.05 5.99 5.99
PV Cost (INR Cr./MW) 3.75 4.31 3.75 4.31
BOP Cost (INR Cr./MW) 3.49 4.02 3.49 4.02
25 Yr. Equity IRR 25.7% 19.1% 16.5% 12.1%
25 Yr. Equity NPV (INR Cr.) 25.56 18.10 12.17 4.68
DSCR 1.73 1.53 1.43 1.27
25 Yr. Project IRR 13.0% 10.4% 9.9% 7.6%
25 Yr. Project NPV (INR Cr.) 20.61 3.08 -0.90 -18.43
Table 6.8 represents the sensitivity analysis results for the four cases of the New Delhi
solar plant 10MW in India,According to table 8 it has been observed that 25 years project
IRR for for case 1 is 8.5%, for case 2 is 6.3%, for case 3 is 5.8% and for case 4 is 3.8%.
The project payback period for case 1 is 10.69 years, case 2 is 12.80 years, case 3 is 13.31
years, and case 4 is 16.20 years.The results of sensitivity analysis reveal that the plant is to
a certain extent techo-economically viable, and attempts need to be made to increase the
IRR and reduce the project payback period.
153

Table 6.8 Sensitivity analysis results for the four cases of the New Delhi solar plant
10MW in India
Project 5: New Delhi (10 MW)

Financial
Cases
Tariff (Rs. / KWH) 8.05 8.05 6.84 6.84
PV Cost (INR
4.50 5.18 4.50 5.18
Cr./MW)
BOP Cost (INR
6.20 7.13 6.20 7.13
Cr./MW)
25 Yr. Equity IRR 23.0% 16.6% 14.4% 9.9%
25 Yr. Equity NPV

16.50 10.17 6.30 -0.21
(INR Cr.)
DSCR 1.67 1.47 1.38 1.21
25 Yr. Project IRR 8.5% 6.3% 5.8% 3.8%
25 Yr. Project NPV

-9.90 -27.17 -26.28 -43.54
(INR Cr.)
Table 6.9 represents the sensitivity analysis results for the four cases of the Karnataka solar
plant 3.3 MW in India.According to table 8 it has been observed that 25 years project IRR
for case 1 is 20.9%, for case 2 is 17.4%, for case 3 is 16.6% and for case 4 is 13.6%. The
project payback period for case 1 is 5.56 years, case 2 is 6.41 years, case 3 is 6.62 years
and case 4 is 7.69 years. The results of sensitivity analysis reveal that the plant is very
much techo-economically viable.
154

Table 6.9 Sensitivity analysis results for the four cases of the Karnataka solar plant 3.3
MW in India
Project 6: Karnataka (3.3 MW)
Financial
Cases
Tariff (INR / KWH) 8.40 8.40 7.14 7.14
PV Cost (INR
3.50 4.03 3.50 4.03
Cr./MW)
BOP Cost (INR

2.68 3.08 2.68 3.08
Cr./MW)
25 Yr. Equity IRR 49.8% 36.8% 31.2% 23.5%
25 Yr. Equity NPV

10.30 8.80 6.79 5.29
(INR Cr.)
DSCR 2.23 1.99 1.86 1.66
25 Yr. Project IRR 20.9% 17.4% 16.6% 13.6%
25 Yr. Project NPV

14.30 11.01 8.66 5.37
(INR Cr.)
155

Results and Discussions
In the present study, costing has been worked out for the projects executed in the states of
Gujarat, Rajasthan, New Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu states of
India. Data has been compiled for the projects in the east, west, north and south of India.
The investment costing considered includes pre-project expenses, PV panels, electrical AC
and DC, civil and mechanical installation and peripheral works. The cost towards disposal
of the PV panels has also been considered. In all the cases, PV panel investment is the
highest, and the pre-project or the peripheral expenses are the lowest. In some cases, like
Andhra Pradesh, the land was owned by the developer. The solar projects which are
considered for evaluation of life cycle cost analysis are located in different geographic
locations of India. The major cost component in solar project is the supply of solar panels
and any change in the cost of solar panel procurement will have direct impact on the project
cost. Incidentally, the graph presented in the paper shows the decline in the solar panel cost
over a period of a decade starting from 2010 to 2020 for procurement of solar panels in
Indian scenario. The solar projects have been executed starting from 2010-11 to as late as
2017-18. During this period the cost of solar panels have drastically reduced from INR 68
/ Wp to INR 21 / Wp. Since this component is being the major item of the solar project,
there is a substantial reduction in the project cost. This is also reflected in PPA rates signed
by project authorities which is varying from INR 15/KWh to INR 7.05/KWh.
According to the objectives of this research which is to compute a LCCA model for the
solar power plants in India, it has been observed that feasibility and economic viability
of solar power plants are quite high but there needs to be awareness campaigns and policy
incentives for promotion of sustainable and renewable energy like solar energy. The cash
flow analysis for all the six cases confirms that project payback depends on initial
investment and Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) rate. The payback is generally less
than eight years which is less than 30 % of the project life cycle of 25 years.The results
of this research are comparable with the past researches in India carried out by Kumar
(2015, 2016); Ranganath et al. (2020); Raina and Sinha (2019); Sahu (2016) and Sharma
et al.(2012). The studies carried out by the stated authors also communicates about the
techno-economic feasibility of the solar powern plants in India and encourages and
promotes the use of solar energy in Indian subcontinent. However, this study may not be
considered with the past studies outside Indian subcontinent as the geographical
156

conditions, meteorological conditions and environmental conditions are quite different
and do not match with that of India. This study should set the baseline for the Indian
subcontinent, and future works may be compared with the results of this study.
The novelty and unique contribution of this research lies in communicating the concerned
authorities and policy makers of India about the techno-economic feasibility of the solar
plants in India which is adequately supported by the results and findings of this study.
Also this is an unique study for LCCA where the disposal cost of the solar PV pannels
has also been considered.
Validation of Data
The data and information furnished by the various project implementing authorities or
developers have also been validated by interacting with many suppliers in order to ensure
the data is realistic, with regard to costing of PV model, costing of inverters, costing of
civil structures including mounting etc. has been verified. The data and information
furnished by the developers are found to be realistic and can be considered for evaluation
of LCC of the project. However regarding the disposal of the PV model, not much
validation could be done except a confirmation from respective developers.
Conclusions
The exponential increase and growth in Renewable Energy (RE) markets like solar and
wind have led to the need for an accurate and precise evaluation ofthe economic
feasibility of these technologies. This is a cause of concern to the project investors,
developers and decision-makers. It is required to consider the cost of all the works
involved in such projects right from the feasibility stage till completion of the project and
also at safe disposal phases. Hence LCC is an excellent approach and methodology,
especially for a RE system which shows the benefits of using RE as an alternative source
compared to fuel incurred costs(due to fluctuations) in the present scenario in view of
global warming. LCC model forsolar PV generation system has been developedfor an
Indian scenario based on the data and information collected through extensive
questionnaire by interacting with developers,investors and also contractors. The unique
feature of the current study has been consideration of the solar PV pannel disposal costs.
It has been observed that for 25 years PV lifetime, the operation and maintenance
contribution and safe disposal of the PV panels to LCC is a mere 32.45%, and the average
157

module price is INR 36.4/Wp. The capital investment is INR 76.96 / Wp which indicates
the benefits and the viability of the project for the given lifetime of the PV. The cash flow
analysis carried out in this study for all the sixsolar power plants of India in the state of
Karnataka, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, New Delhi and Rajasthan confirms
that, project payback depends on initial investment and Power Purchase
Agreement(PPA) rate. The payback period is generally less than eight years for the
project whose life cycle is about twenty five years. Thereby, in Indian scenario it can be
concluded that the solar power plants which are planned to be installed and implemented
in the upcoming and next decade are techno-economically feasible.
158

CHAPTER 7 SOCIAL BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS OF INDIAN
SOLAR POWER PROJECTS
As the cost of setting up of 1 GW of Solar Power Plant is about Rs. 5000 Crores, it is
imperative to look into Social Benefit Cost Analysis (SBCA) to justify such huge
investments in a short duration. For project appraisal, well-established scientific analysis
is undertaken to evaluate whether the whole social benefits of a project justify the total
social expenses. India, as a tropical country, has enormous solar energy potential. It is true
that solar power provides several benefits such as carbon credits, renewable energy
certificates, job creation, rural electrification, reducing global warming, and ensuring
overall development while having a low environmental effect. However, the biggest
disadvantage of solar power is the expensive initial investment cost and the fact that
electricity can only be generated for 8 hours every day. When compared to other renewable
energy sources such as hydropower, this analysis reveals that the social benefit outweighs
the social cost in the case of solar electricity. However, the hefty start-up costs keep
investors wary of solar power. As a result, important actions are highlighted that must be
implemented to reduce the cost of solar power in order to assure its viability, as well as the
government initiative regarding the proper procedure for disposing of electronic garbage.
The research contributes by verifying a social benefit-cost analysis (SBCA) that can be
used to evaluate sustainable power production technologies in order to assure their long-
term acceptability.
7.0 Introduction
making is moving towards India centric development. This will be leading to major
industrial growth, rapid Urbanization and subsequent infrastructural developments,
requiring continuous and un-interrupted quality power supply and energy needs are
increasing exponentially. In the present scenario, use of fossil fuels or non-renewable
sources for energy generation will have adverse effect on environment and mankind as a
whole besides setting up such power plants takes substantial time and cost will also be
exorbitant. Hence, tapping freely available abundant divine solar energy, a non-
conventional energy source is one such endeavour to mitigate the process of climate
change. Realising the need for non-conventional energy and also to mitigate the threats of
159

Global warming, India has taken proactive steps by setting up Solar Power Plants in several
parts of India. The Country wish to commission nearly 100 GW capacities by Dec ’22.
While India is moving firmly and steadily in harnessing the divine solar energy on a
massive scale, but there are several challenges in maintaining such plants for ensuring
optimum generation in line with the projection for making such projects economically
viable. Solar PV energy is derived from solar radiation; however, for monocrystalline solar
PV panels under STC, only 15-18% of solar radiation is utilised to generate power. This
efficiency varies owing to numerous aspects such as: lower irradiance; greater temperature;
regardless of this, solar radiation is not captured due to the deposition of foreign particles
such as dust, bird excrement, snow, and many more. Cleaning solar PV panels has been a
difficulty in the renewable energy business in order to attain optimal efficiency.
7.1 SBCA
The Social Benefit Cost Analysis (SCBA) is a method of evaluating a project based on its
social rather than economic success. In almost all the project economic performance is
worked out since the investors will be having a major stake. Hence, in projects where
public interest or their hard-earned tax is being used for the implementation of the Projects.
It is necessary to assess the potential impacts on social quality of life rather than economic
quality of life. To conduct a scientific and systematic social cost benefit analysis of
projects, it is necessary to weigh each project's pros and cons to society as a whole, which
includes costs such as environmental damage, ecological imbalance, undesirable practises,
human services used, monopoly costs, adverse effect on society, and so on. Social
advantages, on the other side, include environmental improvements, increased availability
of products and services, job creation, poverty reduction, and activity that contributes to
the welfare of society (Natarajan and Nalini, 2015). When a project has a significant social
impact, a social cost-benefit analysis is necessary, which is often performed by the
government POLLOCK (2005). A significant advantage of a social cost benefit analysis is
that it allows investors to analyse several project alternatives in a systematic and unified
manner.
The construction of new solar power facilities is undeniably dependent on the importation
of very volatile fossil resources. As a result, it is vital to address the energy problem by
160

utilising readily accessible existing renewable energy resources such as solar energy, wind
energy, and biomass energy, among others (Srivastava and Srivastava, 2013). India has a
vast solar energy potential. The corresponding energy potential is approximately 6,000
million GWh per year (Sharma et al., 2012). Solar power offers a broader range of
applications than other energy resources, including power production, water pumping,
heating, cooling, desalination, drying, and so on. Recent advancements guarantee that solar
power systems are widely accessible for industrial and home use, with the added benefit
of requiring less maintenance.
7.1.1 Need for SBCA for Solar Power Projects

India is now the world's seventh greatest producer of Green House Gases (GHGs) and fifth
largest emitter of GHGs from fossil fuel burning. It accounts for around 4% of global
emissions. India plays a critical part in the Copenhagen Accord, which underlines that
climate change and global warming are important concerns that must be addressed by
reducing carbon emissions. Greenhouse gases are emitted when fossil fuels such as coal,
oil, and natural gas are used to generate power. India has committed to reducing its
emissions per unit of GDP by 20 to 25 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 (NRDC, Former
Hon'ble PM Manmohan Singh). CO2 emissions are a significant contributor to global
climate change, the world's most severe environmental problem today. Hence if India can
shift even about 5 to 10% of its power generation from fossil fuel to Solar, It will have
major impact on the environment. Hence the impact of Social Benefit Cost will pave the
way in this direction.
161

Figure 7.1 Emission level of CO2 due to use of various fuels for Generation of Electricity
– Indian scenario
Figure 7.2 Energy Produced from various Source in India
7.2 Solar Power Generation

A solar panel (PV panel) is made up of cells, which are sheets of silicon crystals. Each cell
in the solar panel is placed between two layers of aluminium and glass. The energy-
162

producing components that convert sunlight into electricity are formed by the combination
of the cell and the sandwiched layer of glass and aluminium.
Solar plant basically is made up of two components:
1. The solar plant component: The solar plant component comprises of Mechanical
structures, solar panels, array junction box, inverters, copper cables connecting the
solar panels to array junction boxes and the copper/ aluminium cables connecting array
junction boxes to Inverters. This is basically the component where electricity is
generated. The electricity generated is in Low voltage (LT).
2. Evacuation system component: Evacuation is either in the form of LT or High Voltage
(HT) depending on the capacity of the solar plant. In the case of evacuation in LT, the
evacuation system component consists of LT panel, meter and cable connecting the LT
panel to the metering panel and where the evacuation is in HT, consists of LT panel,
LT cable connecting the LT panel to the Transformer, Transformer, HT cable
connecting the transformer to Ring main unit (RMU), RMU, metering panel and the
HT cable connecting the RMU to the metering panel. Typically, 1 MW of Solar Power
project will generate 1.6 MU/year on average considering 300 sunny days for the entire
year. This translates into 4384 KWh per day (average).
7.3 Solar Power

Given the global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions and the excessive use of
fossil fuels, solar energy is becoming increasingly important as the world attempts to
transition from old energy sources to new energy sources. This form of energy is infinite;
the Sun is a massive source of energy. The energy may be captured using solar cells,
namely photovoltaic cells, and transformed from a direct current (DC) to an alternating
current (AC) using an inverter.
Because the cost of photovoltaic electrical generation has decreased, the use of grid-
connected solar PV modules is rapidly increasing. Photovoltaic is undeniably becoming a
good, economical, and low-carbon technological breakthrough capable of properly using
sustainable energy from the Sun not only in the current context, but also significantly in
the next years.
163

7.3.1 Merits of Solar Power
• Solar power is the most environmentally benign energy source; it emits no
hazardous gas emissions or pollutants and poses no damage to animals.
• It may be utilised almost anyplace including in distant regions where there is no
electricity infrastructure. (standalone).
• It is a low-cost option that does not necessitate extensive wiring and requires little
maintenance.
• Solar power plants take up little area and are often built on roofs.
• Solar panels have a lengthy life cycle and are not checked manually.
7.3.2 Demerits of Solar Power

• Depending on the source of light. Solar photovoltaic cells are hampered by
intermittent difficulties due to the short daylight hours. To put it another way,
Generation can be unexpected.
• Depending on the climatic conditions, production and efficiency vary by region.
• Does not work at night
• Solar energy has been linked to pollution. Specifically, during the shipment,
installation, and disposal of solar panels.
7.4 Social Benefit Cost Analysis (SBCA)

The social benefit cost analysis has been carried out by considering the various parameters
related to both Hydro-Electric Power Plant as well as for Solar Power Plant. Following
parameters have been referred for the purpose of calculation.
1. Land Required for setting up of 1 MW Hydro-Electric Power Plant and Solar Power
Plant.
2. Cost of Land per Hectare for Hydro-Electric Power Plant and Solar Power Plant.
3. Number of Power Units Generated by Hydro-Electric Power Plant in 24 Hours
4. Number of Power Units Generated by Solar Power Plant in 8 Hours
5. Plant Load Factor for Hydro-Electric Power Plant and Solar Power Plant
6. Unit Rate for Power Generated by Hydro-Electric Power Plant
7. Unit Rate for Power Generated by Solar Power Plant
8. Cost of Setting up of 1 MW Solar Power Plant
164

9. Maintenance Cost of Solar Power Plant per Year
10. Expected Life of Solar Power Plant
11. Interest Rate/Discount Rate
It is to be noted that, the benefit-cost analysis has been carried out considering details from
some of the project as reference.
Hydro-Power Plant can work for 24 Hours a day. However solar power plant will produce
electricity only for maximum of 7 to 9 hours with an average duration of 8 hours per day.
Therefore, for comparison purpose, the power generation by hydro-electric power plant
has been considered for 8 hours only. The plant load factor of 60% has been adopted for
hydro-electric power plant and for that of solar power plant is 95%.
7.5 Summary
requiring continuous and uninterrupted quality power supply and energy needs are
change. The research, which compares the societal costs of solar and hydro, firmly
endorses harnessing solar energy as the best option. The Social Cost Benefit Analysis
calculates the social costs and benefits of a certain project. Solar power has several
advantages, including carbon credits, renewable energy certificates, job creation, rural
electrification, reducing global warming, and ensuring general growth. According to this
analysis, the social benefit of solar electricity outweighs the social cost.
165

CHAPTER 8 PPP MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND MODEL
CONCESSION AGREEMENT FOR SOLAR POWER
PLANTS IN INDIA
8.0 Feasibility of Considering the project in PPP mode:

It is an established fact that the project has been implemented both by the government and
private sector are yielding good result since it is possible to repay the investment in less
than 30% of the life of the project. Considering the life of the solar as 25 years the return
on investment (ROI) is less than 8 years. The following table and the graph confirm the
return on investment of solar project as less than 8 years and hence it will be an additional
advantage for the private investors to set up the projects in PPP mode.
The following table summarizes the comparison of the solar plant Capacities. Tariff, Cost,
Return on Investment and the Payback period,
Table 8.1 Summary Comparison of the Solar Plant Capacities, Tariff, Cost, Return on
Investment and the Payback period of the Solar Power Plant
Financial
Charanka, Barmer, New
Indicators / Tamilnadu Karnataka
Gujarat Rajasthan Delhi
Location
Power
Generation 1.00 5.00 15.00 10.00 3.30
Capacity, MW
Tariff (Rs. /
15.00 8.00 7.05 8.05 8.40
KWH)
PV Cost (Rs.
7.55 4.00 3.75 4.50 3.50
Cr./MW)
BOP Cost (Rs.
5.50 5.74 3.49 6.20 2.68
Cr./MW)
25 Yr. Equity
0.45 0.29 0.26 0.23 0.50
IRR
15 Yr. Equity
0.45 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.50
IRR
Equity Payback
3.15 4.58 5.34 6.09 2.94
(Yrs)
25 Yr. Equity
5.18 10.22 25.56 16.50 10.30
NPV (Rs. Cr.)
15 Yr. Equity
3.58 6.23 14.52 8.66 7.24
NPV (Rs. Cr.)
166

DSCR 2.17 1.83 1.73 1.67 2.23
25 Yr. Project
0.17 0.10 0.13 0.08 0.21
IRR
Project Payback
6.49 9.61 7.95 10.69 5.56
(Yrs)
25 Yr. Project
5.84 -0.16 20.61 -9.90 14.30
NPV (Rs. Cr.)
Figure 8.1 Projected Payback Period of the Various Solar Power Plants of India
Figure 8.2 Projected Cash Flow Diagram for Implementation Solar Power Plants of India
in PPP Mode
167

It is evident from the above graph that the payback period ranges from 6.5 years to 10. 7
years depending upon the tariff being signed as a part of Power Purchase Agreement
(PPA). The cumulative cash flow diagram indicates, the average payback period is about
8 years.
8.1 Necessity for Considering the Project Under Public Private

Partnership.
India has set a goal of installing approximately 100 GW of solar power capacity by
December 22. The country's solar installed capacity was 35,739 MW as of June 30th, 2020.
From April 2019 through March 2020, solar power output totaled 50.1 TWh, or 3.6 percent
of total generation (1,391 TWh). The cost of constructing a 1 GW solar power plant is
estimated to be around Rs. 5000 crores. If the Gigawatt scale is to be established, a
significant cash investment would be necessary, hence the possibility of developing Solar
and Wind on a Public Private Partnership (PPP) basis is being studied.
8.2 Salient features of Public Private Partnership (PPP) Model

• Transfer the capital cost of the project, wholly or in part, to the private sector
partner
• Defers/amortizes the state’s financial liabilities and outlay over a longer period and
thus “frees up” scarce state resources and capital, for utilization in other projects
• Can mitigate budgetary deficit by off-balance sheeting various future expense
items
• Leverages future revenues at present.
• Private sector partner takes on technology, development and operational risks and
State thus insulated from Asset performance risk
• Fosters the development of quality infrastructure assets
• Ensures high asset availability to win customer confidence.
• Optimizing Energy cost is the key to success
8.3 Development of Solar PPP Projects – Indian scenario

The present model developed for the Indian subcontinent covers all the parameters in
arriving realistic price for the development of solar plant. (Based on the outcome of the
interaction with the various developers-Survey). The variable components are Tariff, Land
168

price, BOP/BOM cost besides O and M cost which will be increasing year on year.
Provision has been made for the cell degradation in line with standard practice for the
entire project life cycle. The Net Present Value (NPV) of project implementation at
discount rate of 10% is greater than zero justifying project feasibility in terms of financial
viability. The debt cover service ratio (DSCR) is above 1 justifying that out of the revenue
being generated from selling of the power it is possible to repay the debt and interest.
8.4 Method of Awarding

The most crucial aspect in the project when the government is involved and the public
interest and money are being considered it will be prudent for the government to adopt
most transparent method and approach in awarding the work to the eligible developers/
investors with stringent terms of reference. While shortlisting the bidders, aspects like,
experience, financial credibility including the net worth of investors may have to be
considered. The government should offer the land (on lease rent) and should create
minimum infrastructure This will facilitate in meeting the project target of commissioning
100 GW without much financial investment on the part of the government.
8.5 Master Concessionaire Agreement

Master Concessionaire Agreement is a document prepared for execution between the
purchaser of the power (Owner) and supplier of the power (implementing agency).
The master Concessionaire Agreement includes Administration, Technical, Scope of work,

Legal, Environment, Force measure, general conditions, special conditions and including
termination clause etc.
The Master Concessionaire Agreement covering all the aspects mentioned above has been
developed for taking up the implementation of Solar Projects under PPP mode in Indian
scenario has been developed and the same is furnished in Appendix 3.
169

CHAPTER 9 APPLICATION INTERNET OF THINGS (IOT)
FOR MAINTAINANCE OF SOLAR PV PANELS
9.0 General Introduction

This chapter highlights the crucial factors to be considered in terms of maintaining the
Solar panels by periodical cleaning for getting optimum power generation. Solar Photo-
Voltaic (PV) panel cleaning has been a major challenge in renewable energy sector to
achieve maximum efficiency for getting higher returns. Different cleaning systems have
been designed to maintain the efficiency and further studies have been carried out to
demonstrate the effectiveness of cleaning system. This is a discussion about how the
crucial variables such as dust, humidity, wind, dry lands affect the output of the solar PV
panels and what kind of technologies (robotic cleaning) are available in solar PV panel
cleaning system to maximising the output by minimising the cost and impact of the
constraints on solar panels. Conventional method of cleaning by deploying manual labour
is not giving effective solutions, as the cost factor is of concern. Here is where the advances
and integration into IOT can be employed for cleaning of panels by deploying robots or
automatic technologies to improve the power generations during the plant’s life span.
9.1 Introduction
The Government of India is strongly committed to the 2030 Agenda, including the SDGs
being one of the signatories with the UN. In order to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels,
mitigate the negative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, and fulfil the country's
expanding energy demands, India has embarked on an ambitious plan to build over 100
GW of installed solar power capacity by December 2022. The country's solar installed
capacity was 35,739 MW as of June 30th, 2020. From April 2019 through March 2020,
solar power generation was 50.1 TWh, accounting for 3.6 percent of total generation (1,391
TWh). The cost of constructing a 1 GW solar power plant is around Rs. 5000 crores. Solar
power facilities for utility-scale and distributed electricity generation are quickly
expanding. Cost reductions driven by technological advances, by increase in scale of
manufacturing, by easy financing and government subsidies have brought solar power
within reach of grid parity in an increasing number of markets within a span of a decade.
Continued advancements and further cost reductions will expand these opportunities,
170

especially in developing countries like India, where favourable solar conditions exist. India
being one of the fastest growing economies attracts businesses and investors across the
globe. Covid Pandemic and the subsequent developments in the international policy and
decision making is moving towards India centric development leading to major industrial
growth, rapid Urbanization and subsequent infrastructural developments, requiring
continuous and uninterrupted quality power supply Khan (2020); Sahu (2016). While the
conventional fossil fuels are a quick-fix but due to the awareness of global warming and
climate change, gradual shift towards harnessing renewable energy have picked up
substantial pace in India. Massive establishment of solar power plants including setting up
of high scale solar park is being planned in large tracks of waste lands putting them to the
best use. The challenges lie in maintaining such gigantic Solar plants for ensuring optimum
generation in line with the projection for making such projects economically viable
Shrimali and Rohra (2012); Shukla et al. (2004). Solar energy is harnessed using a mono
crystalline solar PV panel under STC and it is seen that only 15-18% of solar radiation is
used to produce electricity. This efficiency is a function of lower irradiance and higher
temperature. There are additional other factors like accumulation of foreign particles like
dust, bird excrement, snow which deteriorates the net efficiency Alagh et al. (1998). Solar
PV panel cleaning has been a challenge in renewable energy sector to achieve maximum
efficiency possible. The present work attempts to address the later part of maintenance and
cleaning of the solar panels and shows that IOT is beneficial instead of the usual manual
labour approach.
9.1.1 Major Components of Solar Plants

A solar panel (PV panel) is made up of several sheets of silicon crystals called cells. Each
cell in the solar panel is sandwiched by an aluminium and glass layer. The combination of
cell together with the sandwiched layer of glass and aluminium form the energy-producing
components that convert sunlight into electricity. Solar plant basically is made up of Solar
Plant component (comprising of Mechanical structures, solar panels, array junction box,
inverters, copper cables connecting the panels to array junction boxes and the copper/
aluminium cables connecting array junction boxes to Inverters. This is basically the
component where electricity is generated. The electricity generated is in Low voltage (LT))
and Evacuation system component. Evacuation is either in the form of LT or High Voltage
(HT) depending on the capacity of the solar plant. In the case of evacuation in LT, the
171

evacuation system component consists of LT panel, meter and cable connecting the LT
panel to the metering panel and where the evacuation is in HT, consists of LT panel, LT
cable connecting the LT panel to the Transformer, Transformer, HT cable connecting the
transformer to Ring main unit (RMU), RMU, metering panel and the HT cable connecting
the RMU to the metering panel.
9.1.2 Factors affecting the generation in solar plants

The generation of the PV module is determined by factors like temperature of the cell,
Solar irradiation, number of sunny days in a year, mass of air, environmental conditions,
type of PV cells, and wind. It is fairly intuitive to say that all the above factors are not
specific to a particular location and it varies from place to place. However, most of the
factors mentioned above are dependent on nature, topology and geography and weather
conditions and hence are beyond linear behaviour for the control of generation. But due to
deposition of the dust, birds droppings, snow etc, generation will get affected to a great
extent as shown by Maghami et al. (2016) in Fig- 9.1.
Figure 9.1 Dust accumulation causes on solar panels and the relationship Maghami et al.
(2016)
Technically dust layer on the Solar panel can reduce up to 40% of potential peak power
generation Siddiqui and Bajpai (2012) (Fig-8.2. Many Installations may see up to 20%
reduction in peak power generation and up to 8% on estimated annual energy generation
due to soil and dust settlement, when solar panels are not cleaned consistently as per
172

schedule. It is important to understand that energy generation simulation for the purposes
of cost-benefit analysis will be done considering soiling loss factor of under 2%, for most
of the MW scale power plants. When most solar farms are installed with majority of
installation costs from borrowings, even marginal reduction of energy generation
compared to estimated will have significant impact on the payback duration of plant when
the cost of finances are considered. Even 1% reduction in estimated energy generation will
impact energy generation by -16000 units per annum, which in turn translates to about Rs
50,000 lesser revenue per MW from plant. A 10 MW plant can lose up to Rs 5 Lakhs
annually in revenue. Conventionally, most installations in India need panel cleaning 2 to 3
times a week/month (depending on site location) to achieve the expected energy generation
Sharma (2011); Sharma et al. (2012).
Figure 9.2 Correlation between thicknesses of dust and difference in efficiencies

(redrawn from Siddiqui and Bajpai (2012))
9.2 Solar Panel Cleaning

Solar panel cleaning is a process of removing accumulated elements including dust, bird
droppings, etc. from the panel surface. This process is implemented to recover power
conversion capability of PV where accumulated particles act as an obstruction between the
sunlight and the panels. A clean panel will ensure that the various methods applied like
MPPT within the process across the applications work effectively in harnessing maximum
efficiency from solar panel to improve the power output. Solar farms with installation sizes
larger than 1MW needs regular cleaning of Solar panels to ensure that the estimated
production and efficiency from the solar panels are optimal for earning revenues. Each
173

MW of Solar installations requires between 3.5-to-4-acre land and between 2500 to 3000
number of 2 square meter solar panel area depending on the panel rating. Therefore, each
MW of solar installation necessitates up to 6000 Sq meter of solar panel surface area.
Proportionately for 10 MW, the installed surface area of panels will be in range of 60,000
Sq. m. With Indian subcontinent being in tropical zone, the Solar farm sites will have loose
eroded soil dust which quickly settle on top of the solar panel. As a practice every solar
plant installation outsources the site management and maintenance activities to third party,
AMC contractors. Typically, the on-site team comprises of 4 to 8 persons for a moderate
sized solar plant for routine cleaning of panels, vegetation etc., and conducting regular
check on plant functionality as per the necessary protocol. The site maintenance contracts
range from 2-4 lakhs per MW per year.
9.2.1 Challenges in Solar Panel cleaning

The major activity for site maintenance personnel is to ensure the panels are cleaned
regularly as per schedule. Solar panels can be cleaned mopped manually if it is a smaller
(under 1MW) installation. However, cleaning the solar panels manually for higher MW
installations is not practical or economically feasible. The key challenges are the
availability of sufficient water at site for panel cleaning and the availability of sufficient
labour to manually mop and clean the solar panels. Often Solar farms are installed on
barren land where vegetation would not have been possible because of water scarcity.
Secondly, most solar farms are on lands, which are at remote locations thus, far from the
nearest township. This means getting sufficient labour on regular basis will be expensive,
if not difficult. These aspects have prompted solar farm developers to seek automated solar
panel cleaning systems. Such systems integrated with the use of IoT have the benefits of
Work with few personnel at site for cleaning the panels
a. Effective and consistent cleaning

b. Possibility of cleaning without water, for sites with extreme water scarcity
c. No cost excalations
Table-30 list the typical efforts and expenses for cleaning solar panels of a 5MW farm for
both manual and automatic systems. It is clear that enormous cost and resources are
required for manual cleaning (about 6 times per MW more than the automatic) and thus,
not being very practical or economically viable.
174

Table 9.1 Expenses for 5 MW solar plant maintenance
Details Details
No. Description
(Manual) (Automatic/IoT)
Solar plant Installed
1 5 MW 5 MW
capacity
No. of Solar panels
2 14,300 panels 14,300 panels
(350Wp)
3 Surface area of Solar panels 28,500 Sq.m 28,500 Sq.m
Water requirement
4 1.5liter/panel/per cleaning 21,500 Liters Nil
cycle
No. of cleaning cycles per
5 2 2
month
Total water requirement per
5.15 Lakh
6 annum considering cleaning Nil
liters
every fortnightly
Cost of water, con- Rs.31 lakhs
7 Nil
sideredRs.6 per liter yearly
Manpower/labor
8 8-12 persons 2
Required for cleaning.
Time required to 3 days-working
9 clean the 5MW so-lar farm for for 6 hours a 1.5days
each cycle day
Labour cost per annum only for
10 Rs.3.5 lakhs 0.384lakhs
panel cleaning
Total yearly expenses for
solar panel cleaning for 5MW
11 Rs.35 Lakhs, Rs.6.92 Lakhs
farm considering other
miscellaneous costs.
Approx. yearly expense/MW
12 Rs7 lakhs 1.384 lakhs
for solar panel cleaning
175

Extrapolating the data from Table-8.1 for a typical GW scale Solar Park, water requirement
shall be around 1,03,000 Kilo Litres per annum only for cleaning purposes, the panel
cleaning charges amounts to Rs. 70 Crores per annum. Thereby, the amount likely to be
lost due to generation loss if panels are not cleaned per anum will be Rs. 5.0 Cr. This puts
a lot of budget constraints for manual maintenance of the solar plants.
However, on the other hand automatic robotized solar panel cleaners have great techno-
commercial advantages. Most automatic cleaners are priced in range of Rs. 2-5 lakhs
(depending on features, manufacturer and service support provided). A single robotic
cleaner is sufficient for up to 2 MW installation, so that each cycle of solar panel cleaning
can be completed within max 2 days.
Fig-9.3 shows the cost comparison of various components for both manual and automatic
cleaning processes. It is seen that both the labour cost and water cost are substantially high
for manual cleaning. Furthermore, in the remote areas the availability of water is a major
issue. So, apart from the cost angle even the availability is a big constraint. It is to be noted
that the miscellaneous expense of automatic cleaning includes the cost of the cleaner
(5lakhs) which is a onetime expense and the corresponding year onwards, the amount 6.92
lakhs fall down even more for a 5MW plant. Similar inference can also be made from Fig-
9.4 where water cost constitutes a big percentage in manual cleaning whereas the
miscellaneous portion is significant in the automatic cleaning in which most are onetime
expenses. The labour and water and utility cost every year constitutes the running expense
which is 5-6 times lower for the IoT approach.
Semi-automatic and automatic solar panel cleaning in India is shown in Fig-9.5 and 9.6
respectively.
9.3 Summary
One of the crucial challenges of solar plants is operation and maintenance, especially the
cleaning part which has components like requirement of water and manual labour. Solar
panels require periodic cleaning in order to have optimum power generation and consistent
efficiency. Most of the plants planned or implemented, lie in North Western parts of India
which are known for dust storms and hence receive frequent dust accumulation on the
panels. The author has reviewed all the available options and is of the opinion that robotic
176

cleaning/automatic cleaning is the effective way for maintenance of the Solar panel in
Indian Sub-continent, for getting optimum power and revenue generation. The economic
cost involved with manual cleaning and the corresponding comparisons with robotic ones
shows the clear winner for the case and the best option being to move with robotic cleaning
systems that can be automated and well controlled remotely using IoT.
Annual Cost for 5MW (in lakhs)

50
Manual
40 Automatic/robotic
30
20
10
Total cost
Water cost
Miscellaneous cost
Labor cost
Figure 9.3 cost comparisons of various components for manual and automatic cleaning
Manual cleaning labor water
miscellaneous
labor
Automatic cleaning
water
miscellaneous
Figure 9.4 Cost distribution for manual and automatic cleaning

frequent dust accumulation on the panels. The author has reviewed all the available options
and is of the opinion that robotic cleaning/automatic cleaning is the effective way for
maintenance of the Solar panel in Indian Sub-continent, for getting optimum power and
revenue generation. The economic cost involved with manual cleaning and the
177

corresponding comparisons with robotic ones shows the clear winner for the case and the
best option being to move with robotic cleaning systems that can be automated and well
controlled remotely using IoT.
Figure 9.5 Semi-automatic fibre brush cleaning
178

Figure 9.6 Automatic slider type cleaner
179

CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSIONS
Conclusion for AHP, MAHP and TOPSIS

After careful scrutiny of the results from AHP and TOPSIS analysis the following
conclusions are drawn. TOPSIS has substantial advantages over the conventional AHP
process in terms that it can evaluate the data using fuzzy numbers from various decision
makers or sources. In this case, TOPSIS approach combines the input of the solar parks
from Rajasthan, Gujarat and Karnataka and combines them with the same activities and
sub-activities and provides an ensembled interpretation of the parameters. The results of
maximum and minimum risk phase are more coherent in TOPSIS than in AHP. AHP
concludes Phase-2 or Phase-4 as the highest risk depending upon the solar park. This
incoherency is not well appreciated where the quality of results lies on external factors.
The highest risk phase should be independent of the geographical location as the
parameters in the study are same for any solar park. However, TOPSIS clearly shows both
the phase 2 and 4 to be of medium risk. It is very evident from the comparison and the
analysis that TOPSIS is a more refined approach in such study of various solar power parks
using the same identified parameters.
Furthermore, AHP is limited to the study of each solar park separately and there exist no
way to interpret one with respect to another. As it can be seen the results of AHP of each
solar parks are shown separately and the most critical case varies case to case which may
not be the true representation of the actual problem under consideration. Moreover, for
standalone projects or niche markets of study AHP is better suited in the absence of other
related projects that can provide the same range of identifiable parameters across the board.
Phase-3 shows the maximum risk in terms of both the broad and sub activities for TOPSIS
approach. However, the lowest risk belongs to Phase-1 for both the broad and sub-
activities. This can be justified as the execution phase and the operation and maintenance
phases have the maximum number of uncertainties. The comparisons between the two
approaches show that they differ in their conclusions by a substantial margin.
Detailed analysis of the identified risks for all the five phases of the integrated solar power
plant project in India through Fuzzy TOPSIS methodology has revealed that all the phases
have chances of risks. Fuzzy Positive Ideal Solution (FPIS) and Fuzzy Negative Ideal
180

Solution (FNIS) computations may be considered as indicative tests for risk severity.
Closeness Coefficient (CC)computation should be considered as confirmatory tests for risk
severity. The difference of FPIS and FNIS as obtained from the analysis were 101.5,
296.23, 276.60, 249.30 and 33.80 for phase 1, 2, 3 4 and 5 respectively. Difference of the
CC values between alternative A1 which is considered as the project costs and alternative
A2 which is considered as the project benefits as obtained from the analysis are 0.285,
0.3456, 00.475, 0.547 and 0.262 for phases 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Thereby based on
indicative tests and confirmatory tests it can be concluded that the risk severity for the
phase 1 of the project which is “Feasibility studies” ranges from “moderate” to “high”. For
phase 2 of the project which is “Survey, investigation, master plan and concept report
preparation” the risk severity ranges from “high” to “very high”. For phase 3 which is
“Detailed design and specification-civil, structural, electrical, SCADA and transmission
line” the risk severity is observed to be “very high”. For phase 4 which is “Vendor
selection, procurement, construction and commissioning” the risk severity is observed to
be “very high”. Finally for phase 5 which is “maintenance and operation” the risk severity
varies from “moderate” to “high”. Thereby no phase of the project should be ignored by
the project authorities and phase 3 and 4 need to be handled with utmost care. Corrective
and preventive risk mitigation measures have been recommended. Amongst the vital
mitigation measures, for ongoing and upcoming solar power plants the selection of the site
needs to be carried out very carefully. The site should be checked very thoroughly with
respect to its geotechnical properties and solar radiation properties. Affected parties need
to be negotiated and proper resettlement and rehabilitation package need to be provided to
the affected parties. Selection of appropriate consultant design, implementation,
maintenance and operation is absolutely mandatory. Time to time checking maintenance
reports should be done. Instrumentation and control should be established which would
notify any breakdown anywhere in the plant. Operation and maintenance team should be
prepared for any such breakdown and they should plan accordingly.
It is evident from the above analysis that in Fuzzy TOPSIS method, data for the project
will be collected from people who are critically involved in project implementation at multi
levels. Besides the questionnaire will be responded by multiple people who are involved
during the project implementation cycle and also responsible for timely completion in-
spite of several challenges. Hence this has more accurate and decisive making outcome
181

helping the management to ensure either the risks are totally mitigated or reduced to
minimum severity. Further, key management team can also act in taking preventive
measures for managing the risks since corrective measures will have major impact in terms
of economics besides fatal accidents. In view of these, the authors strongly believe that
whenever projects of are of similar nature with multidisciplinary components, adopting
Fuzzy TOPSIS MCDM will help in mitigating the major risks, thus ensuring the
enhancement of probability of successful completion of the project within stipulated time
and cost frame.
10.0 Conclusion for Life cycle costing

The exponential increase/growth in renewable energy (RE) market like solar and wind has
led to need for an accurate and precise evaluation for an economic feasibility of these
technologies is a cause of concern to the Project Investors, developers and decision makers.
It is required to consider the cost of all the works involved in such projects right from
feasibility stage till completion and also safe disposal phases, or what it is called as life
cycle costing (LCC). Hence computing the Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is an excellent
approach and methodology especially for a Renewable Energy (RE) systems which shows
the benefits of using RE as an alternative source compared to fuel incurred costs (due to
fluctuations) in the present scenario in view of Global warming. LCC model for PV
generation system has been developed for an Indian scenario based on the data and
information collected through extensive questionnaire by interacting with
developers/Investors and also Contractors. The unique feature of the current study is even
the disposal cost of the PV panels have been considered. As already discussed, that for 25
years PV lifetime, the O and M contribution and safe disposal of the PV panels to LCC is
a mere 32.445 % and the average module price is INR 36.4/Wp and capital investment
burden is INR 76.96 W/p which indicates the benefits and the viability of the project for
the given lifetime of the PV. The Cash flow analysis for all the 6 cases confirms that,
project payback depends on initial investment and PPA rate. The payback is generally less
than 8 years of the project life cycle.
10.1 Conclusion for Social Benefit

182

requiring continuous and uninterrupted quality power supply and energy needs are
change. The study by comparing the social costing of Solar and by Hydro emphatically
supports Harnessing the Solar energy as the best preference.
The Social Cost Benefit Analysis calculates the social costs and benefits of a certain
project. Solar power has several advantages, including carbon credits, renewable energy
certificates, job creation, rural electrification, reducing global warming, and ensuring
general growth. According to this analysis, the social benefit of solar electricity outweighs
the social cost.
10.2 Conclusion for IoT

One of the crucial challenges of solar plants is operation and maintenance, especially the
cleaning part which has components like requirement of water and manual labour. Solar
panels require periodic cleaning in order to have optimum power generation and consistent
efficiency. Most of the plants planned or implemented, lie in North Western parts of India
which are known for dust storms and hence receive frequent dust accumulation on the
panels. The author has reviewed all the available options and is of the opinion that robotic
cleaning/automatic cleaning is the effective way for maintenance of the Solar panel in
Indian Sub-continent, for getting optimum power and revenue generation. The economic
cost involved with manual cleaning and the corresponding comparisons with robotic ones
shows the clear winner for the case and the best option being to move with robotic cleaning
systems that can be automated and well controlled remotely using IoT.
10.3 Future work

Once MCDM methods and the analysis are already evaluated in the present work, further
studies can be extended to the recent solar parks under construction and global market
changes as a variable can be added to the present analysis thefuture scope of this
183

research work lies in developing a Social Benefit Cost Analysis (SBCA) model for
the solar power plants of India. This model along with the LCCA model may help
in effective decision making for techno-economic feasibility analysis of the
upcoming solar power plants in India.Application of Internet of Things (IoT) can be
explored for maintenance of the solar pannels.Future research can also be carried
out in developing LCCA and SBCA for the storage systems of the generated solar
energy.Land cost and associated compensation is a very important costing overhead
which has not been considered in this present study as the data is partially available.The
values also vary by a big margin from state to state depending upon the affinity to nearby
township.This component would be considered as a scope for future research.
184

REFERENCES
Alagh, Y., Shah, J. and Shah, V. (1998), “Power Economics in Gujarat”, Har-Anand
Publications, pp. 1-176.
Ansari, Md., Kharb, R., Luthra, S., Shimmi, S.L. and Chatterji, S. (2013), “Analysis of
barriers to implement solar power installations in India using interpretive structural
modeling technique”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 27, pp. 163–174.
Apostolakis, G. and Lemon, D. (2005), “A screening methodology for the identification

and ranking of infrastructure vulnerabilities due to terrorism”, Risk Analysis: An
International Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 361–376.
Aragonés-Beltrán, P., Chaparro-González, F., Pastor-Ferrando, J.P. and Rodríguezpozo,

F. (2010),“An anp-based approach for the selection of photovoltaic solar power plant
investment projects”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 14, pp. 249–264.
Aragonés-Beltrán, P., Chaparro-González, F., Pastor-Ferrando, J. and Pla-Rubio, A.

(2014), “An ahp (analytic hierarchy process)/anp (analytic network process)-based multi-
criteria decision approach for the selection of solar-thermal power plant investment
projects”, Energy, Vol. 66, pp. 222–238.
Arnold, U. and Yildiz, Ö. (2015), “Economic risk analysis of decentralized renewable

energy infrastructures–a monte carlo simulation approach”, Renewable Energy, Vol. 77,
pp. 227–239.
Backer L and Clark, T.S. (2008) “Eco-Effective Greening Decisions and Rationalizations:
The Case of Shell Renewables. Organization & Environment”. Vol. 21(3), pp.227-244.
Baneshi, M. and Hadianfard, F. (2016), “Techno-economic feasibility of hybrid

diesel/pv/wind/battery electricity generation systems for non-residential large electricity
consumers under southern Iran climate conditions”, Energy Conversion and Management,
Vol. 127, pp. 233–244.
Bazen, E. and Brown, M. (2009), “Feasibility of solar technology (photovoltaic)adoption:

A case study on tennessee’s poultry industry”, Renewable Energy, Vol. 34, pp. 748–754.
185

Begum, R., Sarkar, M., Jaafar, Abdul. and Pereira, Joy. (2014), “Toward conceptual
frameworks for linking disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation”,
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 10, pp. 362–373.
Burkhardt, John., Heath, G. and Turchi, C. (2011), “Life cycle assessment of a parabolic
trough concentrating solar power plant and the impacts of key design alternatives”,
Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 45, pp. 2457–2464.
Chakrabarty, S. and Islam, T. (2011), “Financial viability and eco-efficiency of the solar
home systems (shs) in Bangladesh”, Energy, Vol. 36, pp. 4821–4827.
Cosentino, V., Favuzza, S., Graditi, G., Ippolito, Mariano., Massaro, F., Sanseverino, E.
and Zizzo, G. (2012), “Smart renewable generation for an islanded system. technical and
economic issues of future scenarios”, Energy, Vol. 39, pp. 196–204.
Cucchiella, F., D’adamo, I. and Gastaldi, M. (2012), “Modeling optimal investments with
portfolio analysis in electricity markets”, Energy Education Science and Technology Part
A: Energy Science and Research, Vol. 30, pp. 673–692.
Cucchiella, F., Gastaldi, M. and Trosini, M. (2017), “Investments and cleaner energy
production: A portfolio analysis in the Italian electricity market”, Journal of Cleaner
Production. Vol. 142, pp. 121–132.
Dawn, S., Tiwari, Prashant., Goswami, A. and Mishra, M. (2016), “Recent developments
of solar energy in India: perspectives, strategies and future goals”, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 62, pp. 215–235.
Dionne, G. (2013), “Risk Management: History, Definition, and Critique”, Risk

Management and Insurance Review, Vol. 16, pp. 147–166.
Dominguez, R., Baringo, L. and Conejo, A. (2012), “Optimal offering strategy for a
concentrating solar power plant”, Applied Energy, Vol. 98, pp. 316–325.
Dusonchet, L., and Telaretti, E. (2015), “Comparative economic analysis of support

policies for solar pv in the most representative EU countries”, Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews. Vol. 42, pp. 986–998.
186

Ezell, B. (2007), “Infrastructure vulnerability assessment model (i-vam)”, Risk Analysis:
An International Journal, Vol.27, pp. 571–583.
Ezell, B., Farr, J. and Wiese, I. (2000), “Infrastructure risk analysis model”, Journal of
infrastructure systems, Vol. 6, pp. 114–117.
Ezell, B., Farr, J. and Wiese, I. (2000), “Infrastructure risk analysis of municipal water
distribution system”, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 6, pp. 118–122.
Guikema, S. (2009), “Natural disaster risk analysis for critical infrastructure systems: An
approach based on statistical learning theory”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety,
Vol. 94, pp. 855–860.
Harder, E. and Gibson, J. (2011), “The costs and benefits of large scale solar photovoltaic
power production in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates”, Renewable Energy, Vol.36, pp.
Hiteva, R. and Sovacool, B. (2017). “Harnessing social innovation for energy justice: A
business model perspective”, Energy Policy, Vol. 107, pp. 631-639.
Hwang, C.L., Lai, Y.J. and Liu, T.Y. (1993), “A new approach for multiple objective
decision making”, Computers and operations research, Vol. 20, pp. 889–899.
Ilkan, M., Erdil, E andEgelioglu, F. (2005), “Renewable energy resources as an alternative

to modify the load curve in Northern Cyprus”, Energy, Vol. 30, pp. 555–572.
Jacobson, M. and Delucchi, M. (2011), “Providing all global energy with wind, water, and
solar power, part i: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure,
and materials”, Energy Policy, Vol. 39, pp. 1154–1169.
Jannadi, O. and Almishari, S. (2003), “Risk assessment in construction”, Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 129, pp. 492–500.
Kebede, K. (2015), “Viability study of grid-connected solar pv system in Ethiopia”,

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, Vol. 10, pp. 63–70.
Khan, M. (2020), “Policy review and recommendations on the promotion of renewable

energy and energy efficiency”, Sustainable Energy Initiative for Industries in Pakistan, pp.
1-120.
187

Kribus, A., Zaibel, R., Carey, D., Segal, A. and Karni, J. (1998), “A solar-driven combined
cycle powerplant”, Solar energy, Vol. 62, pp. 121–129.
Li, H.L. (1987), “Solving discrete multicriteria decision problems based on logic-based
decision support systems”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 3, pp. 101–119.
Lian, C. and Haimes, Y. (2006), “Managing the risk of terrorism to interdependent

infrastructure systems through the dynamic inoperability input–output model”, Systems
Engineering, Vol. 9, pp. 241–258.
Lolla, S., Roy, S.and Chowdhury, S. (2015), “Wind and solar energy resources in India”,
Energy Procedia, Vol. 76, pp. 187–192.
Macauley, D., Ramasaar, V., Hefforn, R.J., Sovacool, B.K., Mebratu, D. & Mundaca, L.
(2019) “Energy justice in the transition to low carbon energy systems: Exploring key
themes in interdisciplinary research”, Applied Energy, Vol. 233(34), pp. 916-921.
Maghami, M., Hizam, H., Gomes, C., Radzi, M., Rezadad, M. and Hajighorbani, S. (2016),
“Power loss due to soiling on solar panel: A review”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, Vol. 59, pp. 1307–1316.
Mirzahosseini, A. and Taheri, T. (2012), “Environmental, technical and financial

feasibility study of solar power plants by retscreen, according to the targeting of energy
subsidies in Iran”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 16, pp. 2806–2811.
Mondal, M. and Islam, A. (2011), “Potential and viability of grid connected solar pv
system in Bangladesh”, Renewable Energy, Vol. 36, pp. 1869–1874.
Moteff, J. (2005), “Risk management and critical infrastructure protection: Assessing,

integrating, and managing threats, vulnerabilities and consequences”, Library of Congress
Washington DC Congressional Research Service, pp. 1-28.
Natarajan, P. and Nalini, G. (2015), “Social cost benefit analysis of solar power projects”,
Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, Vol. 8, pp. 36–42.
Nicholas, J. (2007), “Project management for business and technology: Principles and
practice", Routledge, Taylor and Francis, London and New York
188

Nithyanandam, K. and Pitchumani, R. (2014), “Cost and performance analysis of
concentrating solar power systems with integrated latent thermal energy storage”, Energy,
vol. 64, pp. 793–810.
Pollock, R. (2005), “Social cost-benefit analysis in a nutshell”, Emmanuel College,

University of Cambridge.
Purohit, I. and Purohit, P. (2010), “Techno-economic evaluation of concentrating solar

power generation in India”, Energy Policy, Vol. 38, pp. 3015–3029.
Ranganath, N. and Sarkar, D. (2021), “Life cycle costing analysis of solar photo voltaic
generation system in Indian scenario”, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering.
pp. 1–16.
Ranganath, N., Sarkar, D., Kachuwaha, S., Mathad, V. and Ghosh, S. (2019), “Role of
professional vigilance in design and construction - a case study of solar projects”, In
Frontiers in Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 441–453.
Ranganath, N., Sarkar, Debasis., Patel, P. and Patel, S. (2020), “Application of fuzzy
Topsis method for risk evaluation in development and implementation of solar park in
India”, International Journal of Construction Management. pp. 1–11.
Saaty, T. (1988), “What is the analytic hierarchy process?” In Mathematical models for
decision support, pp. 109–121.
Sahu, B. (2016), “Solar energy developments, policies and future prospectus in the state
of Odisha, India”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 61, pp. 526–536.
Sarkar, D. and Dutta, G. (2011), “A framework of project risk management for the
underground corridor construction of metro rail”, International Journal of Construction
Project Management, Vol. 4, pp. 21–38.
Sarkar, D. and Singh, M. (2018), “Development of risk index for mass rapid transit system
project in western India through application of fuzzy analytical hierarchy process
(FAHP)”, International Journal of Construction Management, pp. 1–12.
189

Sarkar, D. and Singh, M. (2020), “Risk analysis by integrated fuzzy expected value method
and fuzzy failure mode and effect analysis for an elevated metro rail project of Ahmedabad,
India”, International Journal of Construction Management, pp. 1–12.
Serpella, A., Ferrada, X., Howard, R. and Rubio, L. (2014), “Risk management in
construction projects: a knowledge-based approach”, Procedia-Social and Behavioural
Sciences, Vol. 119, pp. 653–662.
Shakya, B., Aye, L. and Musgrave, P. (2005), “Technical feasibility and financial analysis
of hybrid wind–photovoltaic system with hydrogen storage for cooma”, International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 30, pp. 9–20.
Sharma, A. (2011), “A comprehensive study of solar power in India and world”,

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 15, pp. 1767–1776.
Sharma, N., Tiwari, P. and Sood, Y. (2012), “Solar energy in India: Strategies, policies,
perspectives and future potential”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 16,
pp. 933–941.
Shrimali, G. and Rohra, S. (2012), “India’s solar mission: A review”, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 16, pp. 6317–6332.
Shukla, P., Biswas, D., Nag, T., Yajnik, A., Heller, T. and Victor, D. (2004), “Impact of
power sector reforms on technology, efficiency and emissions: Case study of Gujarat,
India”, Program on Energy and Sustainable Development Working Paper, pp. 1-46.
Siddiqui, R. and Bajpai, U. (2012), “Correlation between thicknesses of dust collected on

photovoltaic module and difference in efficiencies in composite climate”, International
Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 3, pp. 1-7.
Songer, A., Diekmann, J. and Pecsok, R. (1997), “Risk analysis for revenue dependent
infrastructure projects”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 15, pp. 377–382.
Sovacool, B.K. (2013). Energy and Ethics: Justice and the Global Energy Challenge,
Basington, Palgrave Macmillan.
190

Srivastava, S. and Srivastava, S. (2013), “Solar energy and its future role in Indian
economy”, International Journal of Environmental Science: Development and
Monitoring, Vol. 4, pp. 81–88.
Talavera, Dl., Muñoz-Cerón, E., De La Casa, J., Ortega, Mj. and Almonacid, G. (2011),
“Energy and economic analysis for large-scale integration of small photovoltaic systems
in buildings: The case of a public location in southern Spain”, Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, Vol. 15, pp. 4310–4319.
Talavera, Dl., Nofuentes, G. and Aguilera, J. (2010), “The internal rate of return of
photovoltaic grid-connected systems: A comprehensive sensitivity analysis”, Renewable
energy, Vol. 35, pp. 101–111.
Tsoutsos, T., Anagnostou, J., Pritchard, C., Karagiorgas,M. and Agoris, D.(2003),“Solar
cooling technologies in Greece. An economic viability analysis”, Applied Thermal
Engineering, Vol. 23, pp. 1427–1439.
Tudisca, S.,Anna T., Sgroi, F., Testa, R. and Squatrito, R.(2013),“Economic analysis of pv
systems on buildings in Sicilian farms”, Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, Vol.
28, pp. 691–701.
Voetsch, R., Cioffi, D. and Anbari, F. (2004), “Project risk management practices and their
association with reported project success”, In Proceedings of 6th IRNOP Project Research
Conference, Turku, Finland, pp. 680–697.
Ward, S. and Chapman, C. (2003), “Transforming project risk management into project
uncertainty management”, International journal of project management, Vol. 21, pp. 97–
105.
Williams, R., Walker, J. and Dorofee, A. (1997), “Putting risk management into practice”,
IEEE software, Vol. 14, pp. 75–82.
Yenneti, K. (2016), “Industry perceptions on feed in tariff (fit) based solar power policies–
a case of Gujarat, India”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 57, pp. 988–
998.
Zadeh, L. (1965), “Fuzzy sets”, Information and control, Vol. 8, pp. 338–353.
191

Zarza, E., Rojas, M., Gonzalez, L., Caballero, J. and Rueda, F. (2006), “Inditep: The first
pre-commercial DSG solar power plant”, Solar Energy, Vol.80, pp. 1270–1276.
192

ANNEXURES 1 DETAILED COMPUTATION FOR FUZZY TOPSIS
1.1 ALTERNATIVE RATINGS (A1) BY DECISION MAKERS FOR PHASE-1
PHASE-1: FEASIBILITY STUDY
Importance of Risk as per Saaty Scale

A1
No Activities with Risks DM1 DM2
a Letter of Intent (LOI) 4 4
1 Delay in Issue of LOI 4 4
2 Wrong Details of Contract 4 4
Delay in responding to Wrong

3 3 4
details by Client
Acceptance and Kick of Meeting

b and Finalization of the Scope and 2 2
Deliverables.
4 Delay in Acceptance of LOI 3 2

Delay in conducting Kick of
5 2 2
Meeting
Improper objectives Scope and

6 2 3
Deliverables finalisation
c Risks in Site location 4 5
7 Proximity to International border 5 5
8 Proximity to wild life sanctuary 5 5
9 Presence of forest land 4 5
10 Proximity to eco sensitive zone 4 4

Proximity to Historical
11 4 5
monuments, Place of worship etc.
Presence of sensitive lands within
12 4 5
the project boundary
Highly undulating and rocky
13 3 4
terrain.
14 Presence of low laying area. 3 3
d Reconnaissance Survey of Site 4 4
Identification of Different Site for
15 5 5
Reconnaissance
Wrongly Identification of Site
16 4 3
Boundary and Orientation
Missing of Key Data during
17 3 4
Reconnaissance survey
e Collection of Data 5 5
18 Improper Data Collection 5 5
19 Inadequate Data Collection 5 5
Inception Report Preparation
f 4 4
(IR) and Submission
Misinterpretation the Scope of
20 5 5
Work
Defining of Unrealistic Approach
21 4 5
and Methodology
Insufficient Time Allocation for
22 4 4
Investigation and Design
23 Delay in Submission of IR 4 3
g Review and Approval IR 3 3
Review by non-technical
24 4 4
professional
Delay in review and forwarding the
25 3 3
observations
26 Delay in approval of IR 3 3
2

Preparation and Submission of
h 4 4
Draft Feasibility Report (DFR)
Improper Approach and
27 5 5
Methodology
Insufficient Survey and
28 4 5
Investigation
Mistakes in Conducting Survey and
29 3 3
investigations
30 Poor Interpretation of Data 4 3
31 Wrong Planning of Master Plan 4 4
32 Mistake in Quantity Calculations 3 3
Adopting Wrong Schedule of Rates
33 3 3
for Estimation
Delay in Preparation of Draft
34 3 3
Feasibility Report
Delay in Submission of Draft
35 3 3
Feasibility Report
i Presentation and Discussion 3 3
Presenting Wrong Details about
36 4 3
Project
Discussions of un-related points
37 3 3
during presentation
Authenticity of Clients
38 Observations and Incorporation in 3 3
Report
j Approval of DFR 4 3
39 5 4
professional
40 3 3
observations
41 Delay in approval of DFR 3 3
k Submission of Final DFR 5 5
3

Delay in Receiving
42 Comments/Observation of Draft 5 5
DFR
Delay in Attending the
43 Comments/Observation of Draft 4 4
DFR
Delay in Submission of Final
44 5 5
Feasibility Report
1.2 ALTERNATIVE RATINGS (A2) BY DECISION MAKERS FOR PHASE-1
A2

Delay in responding to Wrong details
3 3 4
by Client
Acceptance and Kick of Meeting and
b Finalization of the Scope and 2 3
Deliverables.
5 Delay in conducting Kick of Meeting 2 3
6 2 3

Proximity to Historical monuments,
11 4 5
Place of worship etc.
Presence of sensitive lands within the
12 4 5
project boundary
13 Highly undulating and rocky terrain. 3 4
15 4 4
Reconnaissance
16 4 3
17 3 4
Inception Report Preparation (IR)
f 4 4
and Submission
20 Misinterpretation the Scope of Work 5 5
Defining of Unrealistic Approach and
21 4 4
Methodology
22 4 4
24 Review by non-technical professional 3 4
25 3 3
observations
Preparation and Submission of Draft
h 4 4
Feasibility Report (DFR)

27 Improper Approach and Methodology 5 5
28 Insufficient Survey and Investigation 4 4
29 4 3
investigations
Adopting Wrong Schedule of Rates for
33 3 3
Estimation
34 3 3
Feasibility Report
35 3 3
Feasibility Report
36 3 3
Project
Discussions of un-related points during
37 3 3
presentation
Authenticity of Clients Observations
38 3 3
and Incorporation in Report
40 4 3
observations
Delay in Receiving
42 5 5
Comments/Observation of Draft DFR
43 4 5

44 5 5
Feasibility Report
1.3 CRITERIA WEIGHTAGE BY DECISION MAKERS (1 and 2)

Delay in responding to Wrong details by
3 3 4
Client

b Finalization of the Scope and 2 3
Deliverables.

5 Delay in conducting Kick of Meeting 2 3
6 2 3
11 4 5
12 4 5
project boundary
13 Highly undulating and rocky terrain. 3 4

15 5 4
Reconnaissance
16 4 3
17 3 4
f 4 4
and Submission
20 Misinterpretation the Scope of Work 5 5
21 4 4
Methodology
22 4 4
25 3 3
observations
h 4 4
27 Improper Approach and Methodology 5 5
28 Insufficient Survey and Investigation 4 4
29 3 3
investigations

33 3 3
Estimation
Delay in Preparation of Draft Feasibility
34 3 3
Report
35 3 3
Feasibility Report
36 Presenting Wrong Details about Project 4 3

37 3 3
presentation

38 3 3
40 3 3
observations
Delay in Receiving
42 5 5
43 4 5
Delay in Submission of Final Feasibility
44 5 5
Report

1.4 APPLY FUZZY NUMBERS: FUZZY NUMBER FOR ALTERNATIVE A1
FUZZY NUMBER (A1)

a Letter of Intent (LOI) (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
1 Delay in Issue of LOI (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
2 Wrong Details of Contract (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
Delay in responding to Wrong details
3 (3,5,7) (5,7,9)
by Client
Acceptance and Kick of Meeting
b and Finalization of the Scope and (1,3,5) (1,3,5)
Deliverables.
4 Delay in Acceptance of LOI (3,5,7) (1,3,5)
5 Delay in conducting Kick of Meeting (1,3,5) (1,3,5)
6 (1,3,5) (3,5,7)
c Risks in Site location (5,7,9) (7,9,9)
7 Proximity to International border (7,9,9) (7,9,9)
8 Proximity to wild life sanctuary (7,9,9) (7,9,9)
9 Presence of forest land (5,7,9) (7,9,9)
10 Proximity to eco sensitive zone (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
11 (5,7,9) (7,9,9)
12 (5,7,9) (7,9,9)
project boundary
13 Highly undulating and rocky terrain. (3,5,7) (5,7,9)
14 Presence of low laying area. (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
d Reconnaissance Survey of Site (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
15 (7,9,9) (7,9,9)
Reconnaissance
10

16 (5,7,9) (3,5,7)
17 (3,5,7) (5,7,9)
e Collection of Data (7,9,9) (7,9,9)
18 Improper Data Collection (7,9,9) (7,9,9)
19 Inadequate Data Collection (7,9,9) (7,9,9)
f (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
and Submission
20 Misinterpretation the Scope of Work (7,9,9) (7,9,9)
Defining of Unrealistic Approach
21 (5,7,9) (7,9,9)
and Methodology
22 (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
23 Delay in Submission of IR (5,7,9) (3,5,7)
g Review and Approval IR (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
24 (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
professional
25 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
observations
26 Delay in approval of IR (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
Preparation and Submission of
h (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
Draft Feasibility Report (DFR)
Improper Approach and
27 (7,9,9) (7,9,9)
Methodology
28 Insufficient Survey and Investigation (5,7,9) (7,9,9)
29 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
investigations
30 Poor Interpretation of Data (5,7,9) (3,5,7)
31 Wrong Planning of Master Plan (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
32 Mistake in Quantity Calculations (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
11

Adopting Wrong Schedule of Rates
33 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
for Estimation
34 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
Feasibility Report
35 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
Feasibility Report
i Presentation and Discussion (3,5,7) (3,5,7)

36 (5,7,9) (3,5,7)
Project
Discussions of un-related points
37 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
during presentation
38 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
j Approval of DFR (5,7,9) (3,5,7)
39 (7,9,9) (5,7,9)
professional
40 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
observations
41 Delay in approval of DFR (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
k Submission of Final DFR (7,9,9) (7,9,9)
Delay in Receiving
42 Comments/Observation of Draft (7,9,9) (7,9,9)
DFR
43 Comments/Observation of Draft (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
DFR
44 (7,9,9) (7,9,9)
Feasibility Report
12

1.5 FUZZY NUMBER FOR ALTERNATIVE A2

Fuzzy Number (A2)

3 Delay in responding to Wrong details by Client (3,5,7) (5,7,9)
b Finalization of the Scope and (1,3,5) (3,5,7)
Deliverables.
Improper objectives Scope and Deliverables
6 (1,3,5) (3,5,7)
finalisation
Proximity to Historical monuments, Place of
11 (5,7,9) (7,9,9)
worship etc.
Presence of sensitive lands within the project
12 (5,7,9) (7,9,9)
boundary
15 (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
Reconnaissance
13

Wrongly Identification of Site Boundary and
16 (5,7,9) (3,5,7)
Orientation
Missing of Key Data during Reconnaissance
17 (3,5,7) (5,7,9)
survey
Inception Report Preparation (IR) and
f (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
Submission
21 (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
Methodology
Insufficient Time Allocation for Investigation
22 (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
and Design
24 Review by non-technical professional (3,5,7) (5,7,9)
25 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
observations
h (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
27 Improper Approach and Methodology (7,9,9) (7,9,9)
29 (5,7,9) (3,5,7)
investigations
33 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
Estimation
14

34 Delay in Preparation of Draft Feasibility Report (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
35 Delay in Submission of Draft Feasibility Report (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
36 Presenting Wrong Details about Project (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
37 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
presentation
Authenticity of Clients Observations and
38 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
Incorporation in Report
40 (5,7,9) (3,5,7)
observations
Delay in Receiving Comments/Observation of
42 (7,9,9) (7,9,9)
Draft DFR
Delay in Attending the Comments/Observation
43 (5,7,9) (7,9,9)
of Draft DFR
44 Delay in Submission of Final Feasibility Report (7,9,9) (7,9,9)
1.6 FUZZY NUMBERS FOR CRITERIA WEIGHTAGE

Fuzzy number criteria
weightage
15

Deliverables.
6 (1,3,5) (3,5,7)
finalisation
11 (5,7,9) (7,9,9)
worship etc.
12 (5,7,9) (7,9,9)
boundary
15 (7,9,9) (5,7,9)
Reconnaissance
16 (5,7,9) (3,5,7)
Orientation
17 (3,5,7) (5,7,9)
survey
f (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
Submission
16

21 (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
Methodology
22 (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
and Design
25 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
observations
h (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
29 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
investigations
33 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
Estimation
37 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
presentation
38 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
17

40 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
observations
42 (7,9,9) (7,9,9)
Draft DFR
43 (5,7,9) (7,9,9)
of Draft DFR
1.7 AGGREGATED ALTERNATIVE AND CRITERIA WEIGHTAGE FUZZY

DECISION MATRIX

Aggregated Fuzzy
Decision Matrix
Deliverables.
6 (1,4,7) (1,4,7)
finalisation
18

11 (5,8,9) (5,8,9)
worship etc.
12 (5,8,9) (5,8,9)
boundary
15 (7,9,9) (5,7,9)
Reconnaissance
16 (3,6,9) (3,6,9)
Orientation
17 (3,6,9) (3,6,9)
survey
f (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
Submission
21 (5,8,9) (5,7,9)
Methodology
22 (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
and Design
25 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
observations
19

h (5,7,9) (5,7,9)
29 (3,5,7) (3,6,9)
investigations
33 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
Estimation
37 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
presentation
38 (3,5,7) (3,5,7)
40 (3,5,7) (3,6,9)
observations

42 (7,9,9) (7,9,9)
Draft DFR
43 (5,7,9) (5,8,9)
of Draft DFR
20

1.8 AGGREGATED FUZZY WEIGHTAGE MATRIX

Aggregated Fuzzy
Weightage Matrix
a Letter of Intent (LOI) (5,7,9)
1 Delay in Issue of LOI (5,7,9)
2 Wrong Details of Contract (5,7,9)
3 Delay in responding to Wrong details by Client (3,6,9)
b Finalization of the Scope and (1,4,7)
Deliverables.
4 Delay in Acceptance of LOI (3,5,7)
5 Delay in conducting Kick of Meeting (1,4,7)
6 (1,4,7)
finalisation
c Risks in Site location (5,8,9)
7 Proximity to International border (5,8,9)
8 Proximity to wild life sanctuary (7,9,9)
9 Presence of forest land (5,8,9)
10 Proximity to eco sensitive zone (5,7,9)
11 (5,8,9)
worship etc.
12 (5,8,9)
boundary
13 Highly undulating and rocky terrain. (3,6,9)
14 Presence of low laying area. (3,5,7)
d Reconnaissance Survey of Site (5,7,9)
15 Identification of Different Site for Reconnaissance (5,8,9)
21

16
Orientation (3,6,9)
17 Missing of Key Data during Reconnaissance survey (3,6,9)
e Collection of Data (7,9,9)
18 Improper Data Collection (7,9,9)
19 Inadequate Data Collection (5,8,9)
f
Submission (5,7,9)
20 Misinterpretation the Scope of Work (7,9,9)
21 Defining of Unrealistic Approach and Methodology (5,7,9)
Insufficient Time Allocation for Investigation and
22
Design (5,7,9)
23 Delay in Submission of IR (3,6,9)
g Review and Approval IR (3,5,7)
24 Review by non-technical professional (5,7,9)
25 Delay in review and forwarding the observations (3,5,7)
26 Delay in approval of IR (3,5,7)
Preparation and Submission of Draft Feasibility
h
Report (DFR) (5,7,9)
27 Improper Approach and Methodology (7,9,9)
28 Insufficient Survey and Investigation (5,7,9)
29 Mistakes in Conducting Survey and investigations (3,5,7)
30 Poor Interpretation of Data (5,7,9)
31 Wrong Planning of Master Plan (5,7,9)
32 Mistake in Quantity Calculations (3,5,7)
33 Adopting Wrong Schedule of Rates for Estimation (3,5,7)
34 Delay in Preparation of Draft Feasibility Report (3,5,7)
35 Delay in Submission of Draft Feasibility Report (3,5,7)
i Presentation and Discussion (3,5,7)
36 Presenting Wrong Details about Project (3,6,9)
22

37
presentation (3,5,7)
38
Incorporation in Report (3,5,7)
j Approval of DFR (3,6,9)
39 Review by non-technical professional (5,8,9)
40 Delay in review and forwarding the observations (3,5,7)
41 Delay in approval of DFR (3,5,7)
k Submission of Final DFR (7,9,9)
42
Draft DFR (7,9,9)
Delay in Attending the Comments/Observation of
43
Draft DFR (5,8,9)
44 Delay in Submission of Final Feasibility Report (7,9,9)
1.9 FUZZY MULTI CRITERIA GROUP DECISION MAKING (GDM) AND PROCESS
OF NORMALIZING: NORMALIZED AGGREGATED FUZZY DECISION MATRIX
FOR ALTERNATIVE A1 AND A2

Normalized Agg. Fuzzy Decision
Matrix
No Activities with Risks A1 A2
a Letter of Intent (LOI) (0.56,0.78,1) (0.11,0.17,0.33)
1 Delay in Issue of LOI (0.56,0.78,1) (0.11,0.17,0.33)
2 Wrong Details of Contract (0.56,0.78,1) (0.11,0.14,0.2)
3
Client (0.33,0.67,1) (0.11,0.17,0.33)
b Finalization of the Scope and
Deliverables. (0.11,0.33,0.56) (0.14,0.25,1)
4 Delay in Acceptance of LOI (0.11,0.44,0.78) (0.14,0.25,1)
23

5 Delay in conducting Kick of Meeting (0.11,0.33,0.56) (0.14,0.25,1)
6
Deliverables finalisation (0.11,0.44,0.78) (0.14,0.25,1)
c Risks in Site location (0.56,0.89,1) (0.11,0.13,0.2)
7 Proximity to International border (0.78,1,1) (0.11,0.13,0.2)
8 Proximity to wild life sanctuary (0.78,1,1) (0.11,0.13,0.2)
9 Presence of forest land (0.56,0.89,1) (0.11,0.13,0.2)
10 Proximity to eco sensitive zone (0.56,0.78,1) (0.11,0.14,0.2)
Proximity to Historical monuments, Place
11
of worship etc. (0.56,0.89,1) (0.11,0.13,0.2)
12
project boundary (0.56,0.89,1) (0.11,0.13,0.2)
13 Highly undulating and rocky terrain. (0.33,0.67,1) (0.11,0.17,0.33)
14 Presence of low laying area. (0.11,0.44,0.78) (0.14,0.2,0.33)
d Reconnaissance Survey of Site (0.56,0.78,1) (0.11,0.14,0.2)
15
Reconnaissance (0.78,1,1) (0.11,0.14,0.2)
Wrongly Identification of Site Boundary
16
and Orientation (0.33,0.67,1) (0.11,0.17,0.33)
17
Reconnaissance survey (0.33,0.67,1) (0.11,0.17,0.33)
e Collection of Data (0.78,1,1) (0.11,0.11,0.14)
18 Improper Data Collection (0.78,1,1) (0.11,0.11,0.14)
19 Inadequate Data Collection (0.78,1,1) (0.11,0.13,0.2)
f
Submission (0.56,0.78,1) (0.11,0.14,0.2)
20 Misinterpretation the Scope of Work (0.78,1,1) (0.11,0.11,0.14)
21
Methodology (0.56,0.89,1) (0.11,0.14,0.2)
22
Investigation and Design (0.56,0.78,1) (0.11,0.14,0.2)
24

23 Delay in Submission of IR (0.33,0.67,1) (0.14,0.2,0.33)
g Review and Approval IR (0.33,0.56,0.78) (0.14,0.2,0.33)
24 Review by non-technical professional (0.56,0.78,1) (0.11,0.17,0.33)
25
observations (0.33,0.56,0.78) (0.14,0.2,0.33)
26 Delay in approval of IR (0.33,0.56,0.78) (0.14,0.2,0.33)
h
Feasibility Report (DFR) (0.56,0.78,1) (0.11,0.14,0.2)
27 Improper Approach and Methodology (0.78,1,1) (0.11,0.11,0.14)
28 Insufficient Survey and Investigation (0.56,0.89,1) (0.11,0.14,0.2)
29
investigations (0.33,0.56,0.78) (0.11,0.17,0.33)
30 Poor Interpretation of Data (0.33,0.67,1) (0.11,0.14,0.2)
31 Wrong Planning of Master Plan (0.56,0.78,1) (0.11,0.14,0.2)
32 Mistake in Quantity Calculations (0.33,0.56,0.78) (0.14,0.2,0.33)
33
Estimation (0.33,0.56,0.78) (0.14,0.2,0.33)
34
Report (0.33,0.56,0.78) (0.14,0.2,0.33)
Delay in Submission of Draft Feasibility
35
Report (0.33,0.56,0.78) (0.14,0.2,0.33)
i Presentation and Discussion (0.33,0.56,0.78) (0.14,0.2,0.33)
36 Presenting Wrong Details about Project (0.33,0.67,1) (0.14,0.2,0.33)
37
presentation (0.33,0.56,0.78) (0.14,0.2,0.33)
38
Incorporation in Report (0.33,0.56,0.78) (0.14,0.2,0.33)
j Approval of DFR (0.33,0.67,1) (0.11,0.17,0.33)
40
observations (0.33,0.56,0.78) (0.11,0.17,0.33)
25

41 Delay in approval of DFR (0.33,0.56,0.78) (0.14,0.2,0.33)
k Submission of Final DFR (0.78,1,1) (0.11,0.11,0.14)
Delay in Receiving
42
Comments/Observation of Draft DFR (0.78,1,1) (0.11,0.11,0.14)
43
Comments/Observation of Draft DFR (0.56,0.78,1) (0.11,0.13,0.2)
44
Report (0.78,1,1) (0.11,0.11,0.14)
1.10 WEIGHTED NORMALIZED FUZZY DECISION MATRIX

Weighted Normalized Fuzzy
Decision Matrix
a Letter of Intent (LOI) (2.8,5.46,9) (0.55,1.19,9)
1 Delay in Issue of LOI (2.8,5.46,9) (0.55,1.19,9)
2 Wrong Details of Contract (2.8,5.46,9) (0.55,1.19,9)
3 (0.99,4.02,9) (0.33,1.02,2.97)
Client
b Finalization of the Scope and (0.11,1.32,3.92) (0.14,1,7)
Deliverables.
4 Delay in Acceptance of LOI (0.33,2.2,5.46) (0.42,1.25,7)
5 Delay in conducting Kick of Meeting (0.11,1.32,3.92) (0.14,1,7)
6 (0.11,1.32,3.92) (0.14,1,7)
c Risks in Site location (2.8,7.12,9) (0.55,1.04,1.8)
7 Proximity to International border (2.8,7.12,9) (0.55,1.04,1.8)
8 Proximity to wild life sanctuary (5.46,9,9) (0.77,1.17,1.8)
9 Presence of forest land (2.8,7.12,9) (0.55,1.04,1.8)
10 Proximity to eco sensitive zone (2.8,5.46,9) (0.55,1.19,9)
26

11 (2.8,7.12,9) (0.55,1.04,1.8)
of worship etc.
12 (2.8,7.12,9) (0.55,1.04,1.8)
project boundary
13 Highly undulating and rocky terrain. (0.99,4.02,9) (0.33,1.02,2.97)
14 Presence of low laying area. (0.33,2.2,5.46) (0.42,1.25,7)
d Reconnaissance Survey of Site (2.8,5.46,9) (0.55,1.19,9)
15 (2.8,7.12,9) (0.55,1.04,1.8)
Reconnaissance
16 (0.99,4.02,9) (0.33,1.02,2.97)
and Orientation
17 (0.99,4.02,9) (0.33,1.02,2.97)
e Collection of Data (5.46,9,9) (0.77,1.17,1.8)
18 Improper Data Collection (5.46,9,9) (0.77,1.17,1.8)
19 Inadequate Data Collection (2.8,7.12,9) (0.55,1.04,1.8)
f (2.8,5.46,9) (0.55,1.19,9)
Submission
20 Misinterpretation the Scope of Work (5.46,9,9) (0.77,1.17,1.8)
21 (2.8,5.46,9) (0.55,1.19,9)
Methodology
22 (2.8,5.46,9) (0.55,1.19,9)
23 Delay in Submission of IR (0.99,4.02,9) (0.33,1.02,9)
g Review and Approval IR (0.33,2.2,5.46) (0.42,1.25,7)
24 Review by non-technical professional (2.8,5.46,9) (0.55,1.19,9)
25 (0.33,2.2,5.46) (0.42,1.25,7)
observations
26 Delay in approval of IR (0.33,2.2,5.46) (0.42,1.25,7)
h (2.8,5.46,9) (0.55,1.19,9)
27

27 Improper Approach and Methodology (5.46,9,9) (0.77,1.17,1.8)
28 Insufficient Survey and Investigation (2.8,5.46,9) (0.55,1.19,9)
29 (0.33,2.2,5.46) (0.42,1,2.31)
investigations
30 Poor Interpretation of Data (2.8,5.46,9) (0.55,1.19,9)
31 Wrong Planning of Master Plan (2.8,5.46,9) (0.55,1.19,9)
32 Mistake in Quantity Calculations (0.33,2.2,5.46) (0.42,1,2.31)
33 (0.33,2.2,5.46) (0.42,1,2.31)
Estimation
34 (0.33,2.2,5.46) (0.42,1,2.31)
Report
35 (0.33,2.2,5.46) (0.42,1,2.31)
Report
i Presentation and Discussion (0.33,2.2,5.46) (0.42,1,2.31)
36 Presenting Wrong Details about Project (0.99,4.02,9) (0.33,1.02,2.97)

37 (0.33,2.2,5.46) (0.42,1,2.31)
presentation
38 (0.33,2.2,5.46) (0.42,1,2.31)
j Approval of DFR (0.99,4.02,9) (0.33,1.02,2.97)
40 (0.33,2.2,5.46) (0.42,1,2.31)
observations
41 Delay in approval of DFR (0.33,2.2,5.46) (0.42,1,2.31)
k Submission of Final DFR (5.46,9,9) (0.77,1.17,1.8)
Delay in Receiving
42 (5.46,9,9) (0.77,1.17,1.8)
43 (2.8,7.12,9) (0.55,1.04,1.8)
28

44 (5.46,9,9) (0.77,1.17,1.8)
Report
1.11 FPIS FOR EACH CRITERIA
FPIS

a Letter of Intent (LOI) 4.12 6.64
1 Delay in Issue of LOI 4.12 6.64
2 Wrong Details of Contract 4.12 6.64
3 4.25 7.64
Client
b Finalization of the Scope and 5.45 5.26
Deliverables.
4 Delay in Acceptance of LOI 4.64 5.04
5 Delay in conducting Kick of Meeting 5.45 5.26
6 5.45 5.26
c Risks in Site location 3.74 7.89
7 Proximity to International border 3.74 7.89
8 Proximity to wild life sanctuary 2.04 7.76
9 Presence of forest land 3.74 7.89
10 Proximity to eco sensitive zone 4.12 6.64
11 3.74 7.89
of worship etc.
12 3.74 7.89
project boundary
13 Highly undulating and rocky terrain. 4.25 7.64
14 Presence of low laying area. 4.64 5.04
29

d Reconnaissance Survey of Site 4.12 6.64
15 3.74 7.89
Reconnaissance
16 4.25 7.64
and Orientation
17 4.25 7.64
e Collection of Data 2.04
18 Improper Data Collection 2.04 7.76
19 Inadequate Data Collection 3.74 7.89
f 4.12 6.64
Submission
20 Misinterpretation the Scope of Work 2.04 7.76
21 4.12 6.64
Methodology
22 4.12 6.64
23 Delay in Submission of IR 4.25 7.64
g Review and Approval IR 4.64 5.04
24 Review by non-technical professional 4.12 6.64
25 4.64 5.04
observations
26 Delay in approval of IR 4.64 5.04
h 4.12 6.64
27 Improper Approach and Methodology 2.04 7.76
28 Insufficient Survey and Investigation 4.12 6.64
29 4.64 5.04
investigations
30 Poor Interpretation of Data 4.12 6.64
31 Wrong Planning of Master Plan 4.12 6.64
30

32 Mistake in Quantity Calculations 4.64 5.04
33 4.64 5.04
Estimation
34 4.64 5.04
Report
35 4.64 5.04
Report
i Presentation and Discussion 4.64 5.04
36 Presenting Wrong Details about Project 4.25 7.64
37 4.64 5.04
presentation
38 4.64 5.04
j Approval of DFR 4.25 7.64
40 4.64 5.04
observations
41 Delay in approval of DFR 4.64 5.04
k Submission of Final DFR 2.04 7.76
Delay in Receiving
42 2.04 7.76
43 3.74 7.89
44 2.04 7.76
Report
31

1.12 FNIS FOR EACH CRITERIA
FNIS
a Letter of Intent (LOI) 5.79 4.89
1 Delay in Issue of LOI 5.79 4.89
2 Wrong Details of Contract 5.79 4.89
3
Client 5.45 1.58
b Finalization of the Scope and
Deliverables. 2.29 4.01
4 Delay in Acceptance of LOI 5.46 3.89
5 Delay in conducting Kick of Meeting 2.29 4.01
6
Deliverables finalisation 2.29 4.01
c Risks in Site location 6.32 0.78
7 Proximity to International border 6.32 0.78
8 Proximity to wild life sanctuary 7.24 0.64
9 Presence of forest land 6.32 0.78
10 Proximity to eco sensitive zone 5.79 4.89
11
of worship etc. 6.32 0.78
12
project boundary 6.32 0.78
13 Highly undulating and rocky terrain. 5.45 1.58
14 Presence of low laying area. 5.46 3.89
d Reconnaissance Survey of Site 5.79 4.89
15
Reconnaissance 6.32 0.78
32

16
and Orientation 5.45 1.58
17
Reconnaissance survey 5.45 1.58
e Collection of Data 7.24 0.64
18 Improper Data Collection 7.24 0.64
19 Inadequate Data Collection 6.32 0.78
f
Submission 5.79 4.89
20 Misinterpretation the Scope of Work 7.24 0.64
21
Methodology 5.79 4.89
22
Investigation and Design 5.79 4.89
23 Delay in Submission of IR 5.45 1.58
g Review and Approval IR 5.46 3.89
25
observations 5.46 3.89
26 Delay in approval of IR 5.46 3.89
h
Feasibility Report (DFR) 5.79 4.89
27 Improper Approach and Methodology 7.24 0.64
28 Insufficient Survey and Investigation 5.79 4.89
29
investigations 5.46 3.89
30 Poor Interpretation of Data 5.79 4.89
31 Wrong Planning of Master Plan 5.79 4.89
32 Mistake in Quantity Calculations 5.46 3.89
33
Estimation 5.46 3.89
33

34
Report 5.46 3.89
35
Report 5.46 3.89
i Presentation and Discussion 5.46 3.89
36 Presenting Wrong Details about Project 5.45 1.58
37
presentation 5.46 3.89
38
Incorporation in Report 5.46 3.89
j Approval of DFR 5.45 1.58
40
observations 5.46 3.89
41 Delay in approval of DFR 5.46 3.89
k Submission of Final DFR 7.24 0.64
Delay in Receiving
42
Comments/Observation of Draft DFR 7.24 0.64
43
Comments/Observation of Draft DFR 6.32 0.78
44
Report 7.24 0.64
34

ANNEXURE 2 SAMPLE QUESTIONAIRE
2.1 VARIOUS PHASES CONSIDERED FOR RISK EVALUATION IN DEVELOPMENT and IMPLEMENTATION OF SOLAR PARK
Saaty Scale -Rating
1 2 3 4 5
Sr. No Activities with Equal Somewhat Much Very Absolutely

Risks Importance More More Much Much
Important Important More More
Important Important
a. Letter of Intent (LOI)
Delay in Issue of LOI
Wrong Details of Contract
Delay in responding to Wrong details by Client
Acceptance and Kick of Meeting and Finalization of the

b.
Scope and Deliverables.
32

Delay in Acceptance of LOI
Delay in conducting Kick of Meeting
Improper objectives Scope and Deliverables finalization
c. Risks in Site location
Proximity to International border
33

Saaty Scale -Rating
1 2 3 4 5

Important Important
Proximity to wild life sanctuary
Presence of forest land
Proximity to eco sensitive zone
Proximity to Historical monuments, Place of worship etc.
Presence of sensitive lands within the project boundary
Highly undulating and rocky terrain.
Presence of low laying area.
d. Reconnaissance Survey of Site
Identification of Different Site for Reconnaissance
34

Wrongly Identification of Site Boundary and Orientation
Missing of Key Data during Reconnaissance survey
e. Collection of Data
Improper Data Collection
35

Saaty Scale -Rating
1 2 3 4 5

Important Important
Inadequate Data Collection
f. Inception Report Preparation (IR) and Submission
Misinterpretation the Scope of Work
Defining of Unrealistic Approach and Methodology
Insufficient Time Allocation for Investigation and Design
Delay in Submission of IR
g. Review and Approval IR
Review by non-technical professional
Delay in review and forwarding the observations
36

Delay in approval of IR
h. Preparation and Submission of Draft Feasibility Report

(DFR)
Improper Approach and Methodology
Insufficient Survey and Investigation
37

Saaty Scale -Rating
1 2 3 4 5

Important Important
Mistakes in Conducting Survey and investigations
Poor Interpretation of Data
Wrong Planning of Master Plan
Mistake in Quantity Calculations
Adopting Wrong Schedule of Rates for Estimation
Delay in Preparation of Draft Feasibility Report
Delay in Submission of Draft Feasibility Report
i. Presentation and Discussion
Presenting Wrong Details about Project
38

Discussions of un-related points during presentation
Authenticity of Clients Observations and Incorporation in

Report
j. Approval of DFR
Review by non-technical professional
39

Saaty Scale -Rating
1 2 3 4 5

Risks Importance More More Much Much More
Important Important More Important
Important
Delay in review and forwarding the observations
Delay in approval of DFR
k. Submission of Final DFR
Delay in Receiving Comments/Observation of Draft DFR
Delay in Attending the Comments/Observation of Draft DFR
Delay in Submission of Final Feasibility Report
40

ANNEXURE 3 MODEL CONCESSION AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT is entered into on this the .... day of ...., 20. between
1. The XXX, with its office located at ZZZ, YYY, City: Pin code: (here in after referred to as
the “Authority” which expression shall, unless repugnant to the context or meaning thereof,
include its administrators, successors and assigns) of One Part;
AND
2. (.... LIMITED),1. a company incorporated under the provisions of the [Companies Act,
1956] and having its registered office at......, (hereinafter referred to as the
"Concessionaire," which expression shall, unless repugnant to the context or meaning
thereof, include its successors, permitted assigns, and substitutes) of the Other Part.
Whereas
A. The XXX has decided to construct a solar project of ....MW, (hereinafter referred to as solar
project) on PPP basis.
B. The Authority had accordingly invited proposals by its [Notice/ Request for Qualification
No.*** dated ***] (the “Request for Qualification" or “RFQ") for short listing of bidders
for construction, operation and maintenance of the solar project on DBFOT basis and had
short-listed certain bidders including, inter alia, the selected bidder/ consortium comprising
......., .......and ......(collectively the “Consortium") with ...... as its lead member (the “Lead
Member”).
C. The Authority had prescribed the technical and commercial terms and conditions, and
invited bids (the “Request for Proposals” or “RFP”) from the bidders short-listed pursuant
to the RFQ for undertaking the Project.
D. The Authority had approved the bid of the preferred bidder/Consortium after evaluating the
proposals received. and issued its Letter of Award No. . . . . . . . dated . . . . . . . . . .
(Hereinafter called the “LOA”) to the winning bidder/Consortium, necessitating, among
other things, the completion of this Concession Agreement within 45 (forty-five) days of
its issuance.
E. A. The selected bidder/ Consortium has since promoted and incorporated the
Concessionaire as a limited liability company under the Companies Act 2013, and has
requested that the Authority accept the Concessionaire as the entity that will undertake and
perform the selected bidder/ Consortium's obligations and rights under the LOA, including
41

the obligation to enter into this Concession Agreement pursuant to the LOA for the Project's
execution.
F. By its letter dated . . . . . . . . . . . . ., The Concessionaire has also joined the selected bidder/
consortium's request to the Authority to recognise it as the company that will carry out and
fulfil the selected bidder/ consortium's responsibilities and rights, including the requirement
to enter into this Concession Agreement according to the LOA. For the purposes of this
contract, the concessionaire has also stated that it has been marketed by the selected
bidder/Consortium.
G. The Authority has consented to the request of the chosen bidder/Consortium and the
Concessionaire, and has agreed to enter into this Concession Agreement with the
Concessionaire for the DBFOT execution of the Project, subject to and on the terms and
circumstances set out herein.
3.1 Article 1. Definition And Interpretation
3.1.1 Definitions
Unless the context otherwise requires, words and expressions beginning with capital letters and
defined in this Agreement have the meaning ascribed to them herein, and words and
expressions defined in the Schedules and used therein have the meaning ascribed to them in
the Schedules.
3.1.2 Interpretations
In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires
a. Insofar as such amendment, re-enactment, or consolidation applies or is capable of

applying to any transaction entered into hereunder, references to any legislation or any
provision thereof include amendment, re-enactment, or consolidation of such
legislation or any provision thereof.
b. Laws of India or Indian law or regulation with force of law refers to the laws, acts,
ordinances, rules, regulations, bye laws, or notifications that have force of law in India
and may be changed, modified, supplemented, extended, or re-enacted from time to
time.
c. Any individual, firm, company, corporation, society, trust, Government, state or agency
of a state, or any association or partnership (whether or not having separate legal
42

personality) of two or more of the above shall be construed as a reference to a "person"
and words denoting a natural person, and shall include successors and assigns;
d. The table of contents, headers, and subheadings in this Agreement are for reference
purposes only and shall not be utilised in the construction or interpretation of this
Agreement;
e. The terms "including" and "including" are to be understood broadly, and whether or not
they are followed by such phrases, they are considered to be followed by "without
restriction" or "but not limited to."
f. Investigation, design, developing, engineering, procurement, delivery, transportation,
installation, processing, fabrication, testing, commissioning, and other activities
incidental to the construction are included in references to "construction" or "building"
or "installation," unless the context requires otherwise, and "construct" or "build" or
"install" shall be construed accordingly;
g. Construction, augmentation, upgradation, and other activities ancillary to development
are included in references to "development," unless the context necessitates otherwise,
and "develop" is construed appropriately;
h. Any reference to a period of time must be understood in terms of Indian Standard Time;
• any reference to day shall mean a reference to a calendar day;
• references to a "business day" shall be construed as a reference to a day (other than
a Sunday) on which banks in State generally open for business;
• Any reference to a month in the Gregorian calendar is a reference to a calendar
month;
i. Any reference to a date or time includes any date or period that may be extended under
the terms of this Agreement;
j. any reference to any period commencing “from" a specified day or date and “till" or
“until" a specified day or date shall include both such days or dates; provided that if the
last day of any period computed under this Agreement is not a business day, then the
period shall run until the end of the next business day;
k. Singular words must incorporate plural words, and vice versa;
l. Any reference to a gender must include the opposite gender as well as the neutral
gender;
43

m. “lakh" means a hundred thousand (100,000) and "crore" means ten million
(10,000,000);
n. “indebtedness" shall be interpreted to encompass any existing or future, real or
contingent commitment (whether committed as principal or surety) for the payment or
repayment of money;
o. references to the "winding-up", "dissolution", "insolvency", or "reorganisation" of a
company or corporation shall be construed so as to include any equivalent or analogous
proceedings under the law of the jurisdiction in which such company or corporation is
incorporated or any jurisdiction in which such company or corporation carries on
business including the seeking of liquidation, winding-up, reorganization, dissolution,
arrangement, protection or relief of debtors;
p. any reference, at any time, except as explicitly permitted in this Agreement, to any
agreement, deed, instrument, licence or document of any description shall be construed
as reference to that agreement, deed, instrument, licence or other document as amended,
varied, supplemented, modified or suspended at the time of such reference; provided
that this Sub-clause shall not operate so as to increase liabilities or obligations of
CLIENT hereunder or pursuant hereto in any manner whatsoever;
q. Any agreement, permission, approval, authorisation, notification, communication,
information, or report requested under or pursuant to this Agreement from or by any
Party shall be valid and effective only if it is in writing and signed in this regard by a
fully authorised representative of such Party;
r. The Schedules and Recitals to this Agreement are an important part of this Agreement
and have the same force and effect as if they were set out expressly in the body of this
Agreement;
s. Except where the context requires otherwise, references to Recitals, Articles, Clauses,
Sub-clauses, or Schedules in this Agreement mean references to Recitals, Articles,
Clauses, Sub-clauses, and Schedules of or to this Agreement, and references to a
paragraph shall, subject to any contrary indication, be construed as a reference to a
paragraph of this Agreement or of the Schedule in which such reference appears;
t. The damages payable by either Party to the other under this Agreement, whether on a
per diem basis or otherwise, are mutually agreed genuine estimated loss and damage
44

anticipated to be experienced and paid by the Party entitled to receive them (the
"Damages"); and
u. In carrying out the "Parties'" respective tasks, time is of the importance. If any of the
time periods set out herein are extended, such additional time shall be of the essence as
well.
Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, any Documentation required to be provided or

furnished by the CONCESSIONAIRE to CLIENT shall be provided free of charge and in three
copies, with CLIENT being entitled to retain two copies if they are required to return any such
Documentation with their comments and/or approval.
The rule of construction, if any, that a contract should be read against the parties who drafted
and prepared it does not apply here.
Unless otherwise defined or construed in this Agreement, any term or expression used herein
shall have its usual English meaning, and the General Clauses Act 1897 shall not apply.
3.1.3 Measurements and Arithmetic Conventions

All measurements and calculations shall be in the metric system and calculations done to 2
(two) decimal places, with the third digit of 5 (five) or above being rounded up and below 5
(five) being rounded down.
3.1.4 Priority of Agreements, Clauses and Schedules

This Agreement and all other agreements and documents forming part of or referred to in this
Agreement are mutually explanatory, and unless otherwise expressly provided elsewhere in
this Agreement, the priority of this Agreement and other documents and agreements forming
part of or referred to in this Agreement shall, in the event of any conflict, be in the following
order:
a. this Agreement; and

b. any other agreements and papers that are a part of or referred to in this text;
i.e., The agreement in (a) preceding shall take precedence over the agreements and papers in
(b) preceding. In the event of inconsistencies or contradictions within this Agreement, the
following shall apply, subject to the terms of the preceding article:
45

a. When there is a conflict between the provisions of two or more Clauses of this Agreement,
the provisions of a specific Clause relevant to the situation at hand will take precedence
over those in other Clauses;
b. The Clauses of this Agreement will take precedence over the Schedules, and the Schedules
will take precedence over the Annexes;
c. between any two Schedules, the Schedule relevant to the issue shall prevail;
d. If there is a conflict between a numerical value and a value stated in words, the latter will
win.
3.2 Article 2. Scope of the Project

The scope of the Project shall mean and include, during the Agreement Period:
1. Designing, financing, supply of materials, constructing, erecting, testing, commissioning,

grid synchronization and completing the Project for the Contracted Capacity and supply of
power to the Delivery Point within Scheduled Commissioning Date;
2. Operation and maintenance of the Project in compliance with the Design and Operational
Standards set out in the following section, as well as the terms of this Agreement.; and
3. Execution and fulfilment of the CONCESSIONAIRE's other responsibilities under this
Agreement, as well as items incidental to or required for the performance of any or all of
the CONCESSIONAIRE's obligations under this Agreement.
3.2.1 Design and Operational Standards

The Design and Operational Standards shall mean the minimum prescribed standards that the
CONCESSIONAIRE has to adhere to during the design, construction and operation and
maintenance of the Project as provided in Schedule 2 to this Agreement.
3.3 Article 3. Terms of Agreement
3.3.1 Appointed Date

This Agreement will take effect on the date that both Parties sign it, which will be referred to
as the Appointed Date.
3.3.2 Agreement Period

This Agreement shall subject to Clauses 3.3 and 3.4 be valid for a term of 25 years commencing
from the Commercial Operation Date. At the end of the Agreement Period, the Project
46

Facilities shall be transferred to CLIENT on as-is-where-is-basis and in good operating
conditions.
3.3.3 Early Termination

This Agreement shall terminate before the Expiry Date if either CLIENT or
CONCESSIONAIRE terminates the Agreement, pursuant to Article 16 of this Agreement.
Upon such termination, Project Facilities shall be transferred to CLIENT on as-is-where-is-
basis and in good operating conditions.
3.3.4 Survival
The expiry or termination of this Agreement shall not affect any accrued rights, obligations
and liabilities of the Parties their heirs and successors under this Agreement, including the right
to receive penalty as per the terms of this Agreement, nor shall it affect the survival of any
continuing obligations for which this Agreement provides, either expressly or by necessary
implication, which are to survive after the Expiry Date or termination including those under
Article 14 (Force Majeure), Article 16 (Events of Default and Termination), Article 18
(Liability and Indemnification), Article 19 (Governing Law and Dispute Resolution), Article
21 (Miscellaneous Provisions), and other Articles and Schedules of this Agreement that
expressly or by their nature survive the Term or termination of this Agreement will continue to
apply and survive any such expiration or termination.
3.4 Article 4. Conditions Precedent
3.4.1 Conditions Precedent

Save and except as expressly provided in Articles 4, 14 ,19, 21 or unless the context otherwise
requires, the respective rights and obligations of the Parties under this Agreement shall be
subject to the satisfaction in full of the conditions precedent specified in this Clause 4 (the
“Conditions Precedent") by the CONCESSIONAIRE within 180 (One hundred and eighty)
days from the Appointed Date, unless such completion is affected by any Force Majeure event,
or if any of the activities is specifically waived in writing by CLIENT.
3.4.2 Conditions Precedent for the Developer

When the CONCESSIONAIRE has satisfied the Conditions Precedent, the
CONCESSIONAIRE is judged to have completed the Conditions Precedent.:
47

a. obtained all Consents, Clearances and Permits required for supply of power as per the terms
of this Agreement;
b. achieved Financial Closure and provided a certificate to CLIENT from the lead banker to
this effect;
c. made adequate arrangements to connect the Project with the Interconnection Facilities at
the Delivery Point;
d. obtained power evacuation approval from respective Power Transmission Company
Limited as the case may be;
e. delivered to CLIENT from the Consortium Members, their respective confirmation, in
original, of compliance with the equity lock-in condition set out in 3.2;
f. given to CLIENT a legal opinion from the Developer's legal counsel about the Developer's
authority to enter into this Agreement and the enforceability of its clauses. CLIENT in its
own discretion reserves the right to get the same examined by its own advocate;
g. delivered to CLIENT and its authorized representation/Third Party the following
documents:
i. Project Organization structure detailing the escalation matrix and communication
protocol.
ii. Execution methodology and conceptual design
iii. Basic and detailed engineering documents
iv. Procurement plan and activities
v. Vendor engineering documents
vi. Quality Assurance Plan (QAP)
vii. Dispatch plan.
viii. Construction schedule and methodology
3.4.3
Developer shall make all reasonable endeavours to satisfy the Conditions Precedent within the
time stipulated and CLIENT shall provide to the Developer all the reasonable cooperation as
may be required to the Developer for satisfying the Conditions Precedent.
48

3.4.4
The developer shall notify CLIENT shall be notified in writing by the Developer at least once
a month on the progress made in meeting the Conditions Precedent. When any of the
Conditions Precedent are met, the Developer shall quickly notify the CLIENT.
3.4.5 Conditions Precedent for CLIENT

CLIENT shall be regarded to have satisfied the Conditions Precedent when CLIENT shall have
a. Executed Power Purchase Agreement with BESCOM for supply of the energy produced
from the Project; and
b. Granted to the Developer right of way to the Project Site for implementation of the Project
as per the terms of this Agreement;
3.4.6 Delays by the Developer

If the Developer fails to fulfil any or all of the Conditions Precedent set forth in Clause 3.4.2
within 180 days, and the delay is not due to any reasons attributable to CLIENT or Force
Majeure, the Developer shall pay to CLIENT Damages calculated at a rate of 0.2 percent (zero
point two percent) of the Performance Security for each day of delay until the fulfilment of
such Conditions Precedent, subject to the following: CLIENT may cancel this Agreement at
any time after the stipulated 30 (thirty) days have passed.
3.4.7 Performance Security

For due and punctual performance of its obligations under this Agreement, relating to the
Project and for guaranteeing the commencement of the supply of power up to the Contracted
Capacity within the time specified in this Agreement, the Developer has delivered to CLIENT,
simultaneously with the execution of this Agreement, an irrevocable and revolving SFMS Bank
Guarantees from a scheduled bank acceptable to CLIENT for an amount of Rs. 8,03,20,000/-
(Rupees Eight Crore Three Lakh Twenty Thousand only). The Performance Security is
furnished to CLIENT in the form of three SFMS Bank Guarantees in favor of Managing
Director, CLIENT as per the format provided in Schedule 3 and having validity up to 13
(thirteen) months from the Commercial Operation Date (COD). The details of the SFMS Bank
Guarantees furnished towards the Performance Security are given below;
49

3.4.8 Appropriation of Performance Security
Upon occurrence of a Developer Default or failure to meet the Conditions Precedent by the
Developer, CLIENT shall, without prejudice to its other rights and remedies hereunder or in
law, be entitled to encash and appropriate the relevant amounts from the Performance Security
as Damages for such Developer Default or Conditions Precedent. Upon such encashment and
appropriation from the Performance Security, the Developer shall, within 30 (thirty) days
thereof, replenish, in case of partial appropriation, to its original level the Performance
Security, and in case of appropriation of the entire Performance Security provide a fresh
Performance Security, as the case may be, and the Developer shall, within the time so granted,
replenish or furnish fresh Performance Security as aforesaid failing which CLIENT shall be
entitled to terminate this Agreement in accordance with Article 16.
3.4.9 Release of Performance Security

Subject to other provisions of this Agreement, CLIENT shall release the Performance Security,
if any after 13 (thirteen) months from the Commercial Operation Date. The release of the
Performance Security shall be without prejudice to other rights of CLIENT under this
Agreement.
3.5 Article 5. Obligation of the developer

Subject to and on the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Developer shall at its own
cost and expense;
a. design, finance, supply materials, construct, erect, test, commission, grid synchronization
and complete the Project for the Contracted Capacity in accordance with the Applicable
Law, Grid Code, the terms and conditions of this Agreement and Prudent Utility Practices;
b. observe, fulfil, comply with and perform all its obligations set out in this Agreement or
arising hereunder;
c. In performing its responsibilities under this Agreement, it must comply with all Applicable
Laws and acquire all necessary Consents, Clearances, and Permits (including renewals as
needed), as well as keep all Applicable Permits in full force and effect during the Term of
this Agreement;
d. commence supply of power no later than the Scheduled Commissioning Date and continue
the supply throughout the term of the Agreement;
e. Evacuate the power at the Delivery Point as per the Power Purchase Agreement.
50

f. keep the Project Facilities free and clear of encumbrances, except those expressly permitted
under Article 20;
g. Comply with the equity lock-in conditions set out in Clause 3.5.2;
h. be responsible for all payments related to any taxes, cesses, duties or levies imposed by the
Government Instrumentalities or competent statutory authority from time to time on
equipment, material or works of the project to or on the electricity generated / sold /
consumed by the Project or by itself or on the income or assets owned by it;
i. Submit the following documents/drawings to CLIENT/Third Party Consultant:
i. Inspection reports as per the approved QAP
ii. Warranty certificates
iii. Monthly progress reports in the format provided by CLIENT/its authorized
representative/Third Party Consultant
iv. O and M Plan 30 (Thirty) days prior to Scheduled Commissioning Date
v. As-built drawings within 15 (fifteen) days from COD
vi. Incorporate comments of the authorized representative of CLIENT/Third Party
Consultant on the documents/drawings etc. submitted and re-submit the same for
approval/reference within 15 days of receipt of comments.
The Developer shall provide transportation at the Project Site for the officials from CLIENT/its
authorised representative/Third Party Consultant.
3.5.1
The Developer shall provide at its own cost, the office space to accommodate at least 10
persons of the Third-Party Consultant.
3.5.2
The Developer must fulfil its commitments in line with industry standards and in a reasonable
and cautious manner.
3.5.3
Notwithstanding any provision in this Agreement, the Developer shall indemnify and make
good the damages paid by CLIENT under the Power Purchase Agreement due to any delay or
51

default under the Power Purchase Agreement by CLIENT caused as a result of any delay or
default by the Developer under this Agreement.
3.5.4
Developer would be permitted to use the part of Project Site for accommodating its labourers
working for the Project, however, the Developer shall ensure that the activities of such
labourers does not cause or result in any unhygienic or unhealthy conditions in and around the
Project Site or results in polluting the canal water, and the Developer shall be liable to make
all arrangement for proper management of the solid waste and waste water generated by such
labourers.
3.5.5
Developer would be permitted to use the part of Project Site for the purpose of storing of the
materials required for the purpose of Project. However, the Developer shall be responsible for
the safety and security of the materials so stored by them.
3.5.6
Save and except as expressly permitted by this Agreement, Developer shall neither assign,
transfer or sublet or create any lien or Encumbrance on this Agreement, or the rights hereby
granted or on the whole or any part of the Project nor transfer or part possession thereof,
3.5.7
The Developer shall, at its own cost and expense, in addition to and not in derogation of its
obligations elsewhere set out in this Agreement:
a. make, or cause to be made, appropriate applications to relevant government agencies with

such particulars and information as may be required for obtaining Applicable Permits, and
obtain and preserve such Applicable Permits in force and effect in accordance with the
Applicable Laws;
b. obtain the requisite property rights, licences, agreements, and approvals for materials,
techniques, processes, and systems utilised or incorporated into the Power Project, as
needed;
52

c. make reasonable measures to ensure that the employees engaged by it or its Contractors in
connection with the fulfilment of its responsibilities under this Agreement are in good
working order;
d. guarantee and procure that all Applicable Permits and Applicable Laws are followed by its
Contractors while performing any of the Developer's responsibilities under this
Agreement.;
e. not to conduct or fail to do anything that may be construed as a violation of any of the
requirements of this Agreement;
f. procure water, electricity and other necessary utilities required for the purpose of the
Project;
g. procure any additional land required for the Project, apart from the Project Site;
h. undertake any work required for the safety of the canal on account of setting up of the
Project;
i. undertake restoration of any damages caused to the Project site or any part thereof during
the term of this Agreement;
j. ensure minimum obstruction in the flow of natural flow of water in the nalas/drains and the
designed High flood Level (HFL) is not disturbed
k. ensure no obstruction to the maintenance/strengthening work of nala banks and bear any
expenditure to be incurred for ensuring the same;
l. install or erect the Project Facilities at a particular distance from the permanent structure so
as to ensure maintenance and safety of these structures;
m. ensure that the height of the solar panels and allied structures are maintained so as to ensure
minimum obstruction in cleaning and maintenance of the canal.
n. Carry out removal of silt and weed in the Project Site during the term of this Agreement
3.5.8 Equity Lock-in Conditions

The shareholding as on the Appointed Date is as follows:
Table 3.1 The shareholding as on the Appointed Date

Names of Shareholders Description of Shareholding
53

a. The Developer, having been established solely for the purpose of exercising its rights
and fulfilling its responsibilities and liabilities under this Agreement, hereby undertakes
and agrees to comply with the following lock-in requirements.:
b. In case the Selected Bidder is a Consortium then,
i. Members of the Consortium shall collectively hold at least 51% of subscribed and
paid-up equity share capital of the Developer at all times until third anniversary of
the Commercial Operations Date of the Project.
ii. Lead Member shall have 26% shareholding of the SPV until third anniversary of
the Commercial Operations Date of the Project.
Or
c. In case the Selected Bidder is a single entity, the Selected Bidder shall hold at least 51%
of subscribed and paid-up equity share capital of the Developer, until third anniversary
of the Commercial Operations Date of the Project. This condition is applicable only in
case the single business entity incorporates an SPV to execute the Project Development
and implement Agreement.
If Developer fails to comply with the foregoing, it will be considered a default by

Developer, and CLIENT will have the right to cancel this Agreement in line with Article
16.
3.5.9 Information regarding Interconnection Facilities

The Developer shall be required to obtain all information with regard to the Interconnection
Facilities as is reasonably necessary to enable it to design, install and operate all
interconnection plant and apparatus on the Developer’s side of the Delivery Point to enable
delivery of electricity at the Delivery Point.
3.5.10 Connectivity to the grid

The Developer shall be responsible for power evacuation from the Project site to the nearest
Delivery Point.
54

3.5.11 Supply of power to Grid
The Developer agrees to generate and transfer power to the Grid on behalf of CLIENT at
Delivery Point in accordance with the terms and conditions of the PPA between CLIENT
and DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
3.5.12 Minimum Guaranteed Energy

During the first 12-month period immediately after Commercial Operation Date, the
Developer shall generate minimum energy of 1.6 MU/MWac in case of fixed axis without
tracking and up to 2.0 MU/MWac with tracking. The units specified herein include the 3%
degradation for the first year. After the first anniversary of the Commercial Operation Date,
an additional 0.7% per annum of degradation is permissible. In case the actual generation
is higher, the Developer shall be eligible to receive Tariff as set out in Article 12, subject
to maximum limit of 1.664 MU/MWac (in case of fixed axis without tracking) and 2.1
MU/MWac (in case of tracking) or the limit indicated in the PPA, whichever is lower.
On account of reasons solely attributable to the Developer, the noncompliance by

Developer to generate Minimum Guaranteed Energy shall make Developer liable to pay
the compensation provided in this regard in the PPA Agreement as payable to
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY by CLIENT. This compensation shall be applied to the
amount of shortfall in generation during the Contract Year.
CLIENT, at any time during a term of the Agreement, shall not be obliged to make any
additional payment for any additional energy produced by the Developer beyond 1.664
MU/MWac (in case of fixed axis without tracking) and 2.1 MU/MWac (in case of tracking)
or the limit indicated in the PPA, whichever is lower.
3.5.13 Extensions of Time

In the event that the Developer is prevented from performing its obligations under Clause
3.5.1 by the Scheduled Commissioning Date due to:
a. Any CLIENT Event of Default; or

b. Force Majeure Events affecting CLIENT; or
c. Force Majeure Events affecting the Developer,
55

The Scheduled Commissioning Date and the Expiry Date shall be deferred for a reasonable
period of time, but not less than "day for day," to allow the Developer or CLIENT to overcome
the effects of Force Majeure Events affecting the Developer or CLIENT, or until such time as
such Event of Default is rectified by CLIENT, subject to the limits prescribed in Clause 3.7.2
and Clause 3.7.3.
In case of extension occurring due to reasons specified in clause 3.7.1(a), any of the dates
specified therein can be extended, subject to the condition that the Scheduled Commissioning
Date would not be extended by more than 6(six) months. In case of extension due to reasons
specified in Article 3.7.1(b) and (c), and if such Force Majeure Event continues even after a
maximum period of 3(three) months, any of the Parties may choose to terminate the Agreement
as per the provisions of Article 16. If the Parties have not agreed, within 30 (thirty) days after
the affected Party’s performance has ceased to be affected by the relevant circumstance, on the
time period by which the Scheduled Commissioning Date or the Expiry Date should be
deferred by, any Party may raise the Dispute to be resolved in accordance with Article 19. As
a result of such extension, the Scheduled Commissioning Date and the Expiry Date newly
determined shall be deemed to be the Scheduled Commissioning Date and the Expiry Date for
the purposes of this Agreement.
3.5.14 Liquidated Damages for delay in commencement of supply of power

If the Developer is unable to commence supply of power by the Scheduled Commissioning
Date other than for the reasons specified in Clause 3.7.1, the Developer shall pay to CLIENT,
Liquidated Damages for the delay in such commencement of supply of power and making the
Contracted Capacity available for dispatch by the Scheduled Commissioning Date as per the
following:
a. For the delay up to one month an amount equivalent to 20% of the Performance
Security.
b. For the delay of more than one (1) month and upto two months an amount equivalent
to 40% of the total Performance Security.
c. For the delay of more than two and up to three months an amount equivalent to 40% of
the Performance Security.
56

For avoidance of doubt, in the event of failure to pay the above-mentioned damages by the
Developer entitles the CLIENT to encash the Performance Security.
The maximum time period allowed for achievement of Commercial Operation Date with
payment of Liquidated Damages shall be limited to 15 (fifteen) months from the Appointed
Date. In case, the achievement of COD is delayed beyond 15 months from the Appointed Date,
it shall be considered as Developer’s Event of Default and provisions of Article 16 shall apply.
3.5.15 Acceptance/Performance Test

Prior to synchronization of the Project, the Developer shall be required to get the Project
certified for the requisite acceptance/performance test as may be laid down by Central
Electricity Authority or Chief Electrical Inspectorate, Government of State to carry out testing
and certification for the solar power projects.
3.5.16 Third Party Verification

Client shall appoint a firm for inspection and verification of the works carried out by the
Developer at the Project Site (“Third Party Consultant"). The Developer shall be required to
provide access to the Project facilities at all times during the Agreement Period to CLIENT, its
authorised representatives and a Third-Party Consultant. The Third-Party Consultant may
verify the construction works/operation of the Project being carried out by the Developer and
if it is found that the construction works/operation of the Project is not as per the Prudent Utility
Practices, it may seek clarifications from Developer or require the works to be stopped or to
comply with the instructions of such Third-Party Consultant. Any penalty/damages/charges
levied by any Government Instrumentality during the term of this Agreement shall be payable
by the Developer.
3.6 Article 6. Obligations of the Client
3.6.1 Obligations of CLIENT

Client shall comply with and perform all of its responsibilities set out in this Agreement or
arising therein at its own risk and expense. The CLIENT shall make timely Tariff payments to
the Developer in accordance with Article 12's process. The Project would be financially
supported with Rs 24.096 Crores from CLIENT under the assistance of Ministry of New and
Renewable Energy (MNRE), Government of India (“Grant"). Subject to CLIENT receiving the
Grant from MNRE under the scheme and upon obtaining necessary certificate from the Third-
57

Party Consultant regarding achievement of respective milestone (set out in the table below) by
the Developer, CLIENT shall disburse the Grant amount in the manner set-out in the table
below:
Table 3.2 Disburse the Grant amount in the manner set-out

Amount
Sr Cumulative
Milestones Of
No. of%
Grant(in%)
On approval of documents listed in Clause4.2(g)
1. 5% 5%
of the Conditions Precedent
On achievement of other Conditions Precedent of
2. 5% 10%
the Developer.
On receipt of solar panels and inverters at Project
3. Site and Random Inspection clearance by third 10% 20%
party consultant
On completion of structure and panel installation
4. 10% 30%
and approval by third party consultant
On receipt of major items required for power
5. evacuation from the plant to the delivery point 10% 40%
and approved by third party consultant
6. On issue of Completion Certificate 60% 100%
3.6.2
CLIENT agrees to provide support to the Developer and undertake to observe, comply with
and perform, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and the
Applicable Laws, the following:
a. provide right of way over the Project Site to the Developer during the Agreement
Period;
b. Provide reasonable support and assistance to the Developer in obtaining Applicable
Permits necessary from any government bodies for the implementation and operation
of the Project, upon writing request from the Developer and subject to the Developer
complying with Applicable Laws;
58

c. not to conduct or fail to do anything that may be construed as a violation of any of the
requirements of this Agreement;
d. act reasonably, while exercising its discretionary power under this Agreement;
e. In line with the terms of this Agreement, you will assist, collaborate, and support the
Developer in the execution and operation of the Project;
f. ensure minimum interruption to the Project Facilities during the regular or periodic
maintenance of the Canal parts forming part of the Project Site;
g. make available the service roads for accessing the Project Site; and
h. subject to availability of water in the canal, provide water required for the purpose of
Project.
3.7 Article 7: Representations and Warranties

Representations and warranties of the Developer are listed as follows
a. it is duly organised, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of India;
b. It has full capacity and authority to execute, deliver, and perform its duties under this
Agreement, as well as to complete the transactions contemplated by it;
c. It has taken all required corporate and other actions to authorise the execution, delivery,
and performance of this Agreement under Applicable Laws and its constitutional
documents;
d. It has the necessary financial resources and capacity to carry out the Project;
e. This Agreement is its legal, legitimate, and binding obligation, which can be enforced
against it in line with its conditions;
f. the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement will not conflict with, result in
the breach of, constitute a default under or accelerate performance required by any of the
terms of the Developer’s Memorandum and Articles of Association or any Applicable Laws
or any covenant, agreement, understanding, decree or order to which it is a party or by
which it or any of its properties or assets are bound or affected;
g. there are no actions, suits, proceedings or investigations pending or to the Developer’s
knowledge threatened against it at law or in equity before any court or before any other
judicial, quasi-judicial or other authority, the outcome of which may constitute Developer
Event of Default or which individually or in the aggregate may result in Material Adverse
Effect;
59

h. It is unaware of any breach or default relating to any court order, writ, injunction, or decree,
or any legally enforceable order of any Government Agency that might have a Material
Adverse Effect;
i. It has complied with all applicable laws and has not been subjected to any fines, penalties,
injunctive remedies, or other civil or criminal obligations that have had or might have a
Material Adverse Effect in the aggregate;
j. No statement of material fact made by the Developer herein or in any other document
furnished by it to CLIENT or any Government Agency in relation to Applicable Permits
contains or will contain any untrue statement of material fact, or omits or will omit to state
a material fact necessary to make such statement or warranty not misleading.; and
k. Without limiting any express provision of this Agreement, the Developer acknowledges
that, prior to the execution of this Agreement, the Developer has conducted an independent
evaluation of the Project and the information provided by CLIENT, and has determined to
its satisfaction the nature and extent of risks and hazards that are likely to arise or that the
Developer may face in the course of performing its obligations.
The Developer further recognises and accepts the risk of insufficiency, mistake, or error in or
pertaining to any of the things listed above, and certifies that CLIENT is not accountable in
any way to the Developer for the same.
3.7.1 Representations and Warranties of CLIENT

Client represents and warrants to the Developer that:
a. Client has complete capacity and authority to engage into this Agreement, and has taken
all required steps to authorise the Agreement's execution, delivery, and performance.; and
b. Client's lawful, legitimate, and binding duty under this Agreement is enforceable against it
in line with its provisions.
3.7.2 Obligation to Notify Change

If any of a Party's representations or guarantees cease to be accurate or change, the Party who
made the representation or warranty shall promptly tell the other.
60

3.8 Article 8. Synchronization, Commissioning and Commercial Operation
3.8.1
The Developer shall provide at least forty (40) days advanced preliminary written notice and
at least twenty (20) days advanced final written notice to CLIENT of the date for synchronizing
power and shall co-ordinate on behalf of CLIENT with DISTRIBUTION COMPANY,
HESCOM/KPTCL of the date on which it intends to synchronize the Project to the Grid
System.
3.8.2
Subject to above Clause 3.8.1, the Project shall be synchronized by the Developer with the Grid
System when it meets all the connection conditions prescribed in applicable Grid Code then in
effect and otherwise meets all other Indian legal requirements for synchronization to the Grid
System.
3.8.3
The synchronization equipment and any upgradation devices as specified in the PPA shall be
installed by the Developer at the Delivery Point at its own cost. The Developer shall
synchronize its system with the Grid System only after the approval of synchronization scheme
is granted by the head of the concerned sub-station/Grid System and checking/verification is
made by the concerned authorities of the Grid System.
3.8.4
The Developer shall achieve COD within Scheduled Commissioning Date. Upon achieving
COD and submission of as-built drawings, the Third-Party Consultant shall issue completion
certificate (“Completion Certificate”).
3.8.5
The Developer shall immediately after each synchronization/tripping of generator, inform the
sub-station of the Grid System to which the Project is electrically connected in accordance with
applicable Grid Code.
61

3.9 Article 9. Dispatch
The Power Project shall be required to maintain compliance to the applicable Grid Code
requirements and directions, if any, as specified by SLDC and any other Government
Instrumentality.
3.10 Article 10. Metering
3.10.1 Meters
ABT meters, metering cubicles, CTs and PTs meter and all accessories meeting the relevant
IEC and BIS standards shall be installed by the Developer at plant end and Delivery Point.
Meter testing, meter calibration and meter reading and all matters incidental thereto, the
Developer and CLIENT shall follow and be bound by the Applicable Laws including Central
Electricity Authority (Installation and Operation of Meters) Regulations, 2006, the Grid Code,
as amended and revised from time to time.
The Developer shall bear all costs including taxes pertaining to installation, testing, calibration,
maintenance, renewal and repair of generation meter at plant, main meter and check meter at
the Delivery Point.
3.10.2 Measurement of Energy

Electrical energy shall be measured at the Delivery Point by the metering system.
3.10.3 Reporting of Metered Data and Parameters

The Developer will install necessary equipment for regular monitoring of solar irradiance
(including DNI), ambient air temperature, wind speed and other weather parameters and
simultaneously for monitoring of the electric power generated from the plant. Online
arrangement would have to be made by the Developer for submission of above data regularly
for the entire period of this Project Development and Implementation Agreement to CLIENT.
Reports on above parameters on monthly basis shall be submitted by the Developer to CLIENT
for entire period of this Agreement.
62

3.11 Article 11: Insurances
3.11.1
The Developer shall affect and maintain or cause to be affected and maintained, at its own cost
and expense, throughout the Term of this Agreement, Insurances against such risks, with such
deductibles and with such endorsements and co-insured(s), which the Prudent Utility Practices
would ordinarily merit maintenance of and as required under the Financing Agreements.
3.11.2
The Developer shall obtain and maintain, at its own cost and expense, the following insurances
during the development of the Project Facilities, including but not limited to the following;
a. Developer’s all risk insurance;

b. Comprehensive third-party liability insurance, including coverage for damage or death to
project staff and agents;
c. workmen’s compensation insurance;
d. or death to personnel / representatives of Persons who may enter the Project Site; c.
workmen’s compensation insurance;
3.11.3
The Developer shall obtain and maintain, at its own cost and expense, the following insurances
during the operation of the Project Facilities, including but not limited to the following;
a. loss, damage or destruction of the Project Facilities at replacement value;

b. the Developer’s general liability arising out of the rights given under this Agreement;
c. liability to third parties;
d. any additional insurance required to safeguard the Developer, its workers, and its assets
from loss, damage, destruction, business disruption, or loss of profit, including
insurance against any insurable Force Majeure Events.
3.11.4
The Developer shall insure against any damages that may be caused to the canal top at the
project site because of undertaking of the project during the term of this Agreement.
63

3.11.5
If the Developer shall fail to effect and keep in force all insurances for which it is responsible
pursuant hereto, CLIENT shall have the option to either keep in force any such insurances, and
pay such premium and recover the costs thereof from the Developer, or in the event of
computation of a Termination Payment, treat an amount equal to the insurance cover as deemed
to have been received by the Developer.
3.11.6 Application of Insurance Proceeds

Save as expressly provided in this Agreement or the Insurances, the proceeds of any insurance
claim made due to loss or damage to the Power Project or any part of the Project shall be first
applied to reinstatement, replacement or renewal of such loss or damage. If a Force Majeure
Event renders the Project no longer economically and technically viable and the insurers under
the Insurances make payment on a “total loss” or equivalent basis, CLIENT shall have claim
on such proceeds of such Insurance in proportionate to the Grant amount released for the
Project under this Agreement.
3.11.7 Effect on liability of CLIENT

Notwithstanding any liability or obligation that may arise under this Agreement, any loss,
damage, liability, payment, obligation or expense which is insured or not or for which the
Developer can claim compensation, under any Insurance shall not be charged to or payable by
CLIENT.
3.12 Article 12: Applicable Tariff and Sharing of CDM Benefits

3.12.1
The Developer shall be entitled to receive the Tariff of Rs. . . . . . . / kWh of energy exported
by it to the Grid System in accordance with the terms of this Agreement during the period
between COD and the Expiry Date. Payment under this clause shall be subject to the Developer
meeting the Operational Standards as specified in clause 3.2.2.
3.12.2
If the Tariff fixed for the energy supplied by CLIENT to DISTRIBUTION COMPANY under
the PPA is revised at any point of time during the term of this Agreement, then in such cases,
the Tariff payable to the Developer under Clause 3.12.1 shall also be revised in the same
64

proportion and revised Tariff shall be applicable for calculating the payment to be made to the
Developer.
3.12.3
Sharing of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Benefits the Project shall be compatible to
CDM claims and all such CDM claims shall be reported to CLIENT periodically by the
Developer. The profits of carbon credits from authorised CDM projects will be divided among
the parties as follows:
a. The Developer is entitled to 100% of the total profits of CDM benefits accrued in the first
year following the Commercial Operation Date;
b. In the second year following the Commercial Operation Date, the Developer shall give 10%
share in the gross proceeds of the CDM benefit to CLIENT and the share of benefit to
CLIENT shall be progressively increased by 10% every year thereafter till it reaches 50%,
where after the proceeds shall be shared in equal proportion between the Parties.
3.13 Article 13: Billing and Payment
3.13.1 General
On achievement of COD and thereon commencement of supply of power, CLIENT shall raise
invoice against DISTRIBUTION COMPANY as per the terms of Power Purchase Agreement.
Upon receipt of payment from DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, CLIENT shall pay to the
Developer the monthly Tariff Payments, on or before the Due Date, in accordance with Article
12. All Tariff Payments by CLIENT shall be in Indian Rupees.
3.13.2 Delivery and Content of Monthly Bills/Supplementary Bills

The Developer shall issue to CLIENT a signed monthly bill/Supplementary Bill for the
immediately preceding Month between the 5th day up to the 10th day of the next Month. In
case the monthly bill/Supplementary Bill for the immediately preceding Month is issued after
the 10th day of the next Month, the Due Date for payment of such monthly bill/ Supplementary
Bill shall be as detailed of Article 13, 3.13.1 below. Each monthly bill shall include all charges
as per this Agreement for the energy supplied for the relevant Month based on Energy Accounts
issued by RLDC/SLDC or any other competent authority which shall be binding on both the
65

Parties. The monthly bill amount shall be the product of the energy metered and the applicable
Tariff.
3.13.3 Payment of Monthly Bills

Client shall subject to it receiving payment from DISTRIBUTION COMPANY under Power
Purchase Agreement, pay the amount payable under the monthly bill/Supplementary Bill.
Monthly bill/Supplementary Bill shall be paid at the earliest on receiving commensurate
payment from DISTRIBUTION COMPANY by CLIENT under the Power Purchase
Agreement (the “Due Date") to such account of the Developer, as shall have been previously
notified by the Developer in accordance with article (c) of Clause 3.13.2 below. In case the
monthly bill or any other bill, including a Supplementary Bill is issued after the 10th (tenth)
day of the next month, the Due Date for payment would be 10 (ten) days of receiving
commensurate payment from DISTRIBUTION COMPANY by CLIENT under the Power
Purchase Agreement. All payments required to be made under this Agreement shall also
include any deduction or set off for:
a. deductions required by the Law; and

b. sums claimed by CLIENT from the Developer, if any, via an invoice payable by the
Developer that are not challenged by the Developer within fifteen (15) days of receipt of
the said Invoice, and such deduction or set-off shall be made to the extent of the amounts
not disputed. It is stated that once the fifteen (15) day time has expired, CLIENT shall be
able to claim any set off or deduction under this Article.
The Developer shall open a bank account at . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. [Insert name of place] (the
“Developer’s Designated Account") for all Tariff Payments (including Supplementary Bills)
to be made by CLIENT to the Developer, and notify CLIENT of the details of such account at
least 90 (ninety) days before the dispatch of the first monthly bill.
3.13.4 Disputed Bill

If DISTRIBUTION COMPANY/CLIENT does not dispute a Monthly Bill or a Supplementary
Bill raised by the Developer by the Due Date, such Bill shall be taken as conclusive subject to
reconciliation as per Clause 3.13.5. If DISTRIBUTION COMPANY/CLIENT disputes the
amount payable under a Monthly Bill or a Supplementary Bill, as the case may be, it shall pay
66

95% of the disputed amount and it shall within fifteen (15) days of receiving such Bill, issue a
notice (the "Bill Dispute Notice") to the invoicing Party setting out:
a. the details of the disputed amount;

b. its estimate of what the correct amount should be; and
c. all written material in support of its claim.
If the Developer agrees to the claim raised in the Bill Dispute Notice issued pursuant to Article
3.13.4, the Developer shall revise such Bill and present along with the next Monthly Bill. In
such a case excess amount shall be refunded along with such interest as may be received by
CLIENT, if any, from DISTRIBUTION COMPANY under the Power Purchase Agreement. If
the Developer does not agree to the claim raised in the Bill Dispute Notice issued pursuant to
Article 3.13.4, it shall, within fifteen (15) days of receiving the Bill Dispute Notice, furnish a
notice (the “Bill Disagreement Notice") to the CLIENT providing:
a. reasons for its disagreement;

b. its estimate of what the correct amount should be; and
c. all written material in support of its counter-claim.
Upon receipt of the Bill Disagreement Notice by the CLIENT under Clause 3.13.4, authorized
representative(s) or a director of the board of directors/ member of board of the CLIENT and
Developer shall meet and make best endeavours to amicably resolve such dispute within fifteen
(15) days of receipt of the Bill Disagreement Notice. If the Parties do not amicably resolve the
Dispute within fifteen (15) days of receipt of Bill Disagreement Notice pursuant to Article
3.13.4, the matter shall be referred to Dispute resolution in accordance with Article 19. For the
avoidance of doubt, it is clarified that despite a Dispute regarding an Invoice, CLIENT shall,
without prejudice to its right to Dispute, be under an obligation to make payment of 95% of the
Disputed Amount in the Monthly Bill. If any disputed bill which is the subject matter under
this Agreement is also a subject matter for dispute under the PPA Agreement, then all the
necessary assistance to deal with such dispute by CLIENT with DISTRIBUTION COMPANY
shall be provided by the Developer and the Developer shall abide by the outcome of such
settlement made under the Power Purchase Agreement.
67

3.13.5 Quarterly and Annual Reconciliation
The Parties acknowledge that all payments made against Monthly Bills and Supplementary
Bills shall be subject to quarterly reconciliation within 30 days of the end of the quarter at the
beginning of the following quarter of each Contract Year and annual reconciliation at the end
of each Contract Year within 30 days to take into account the Energy Accounts, Tariff
adjustment payments, Late Payment Surcharge, or any other reasonable circumstance provided
under this Agreement. The Parties, therefore, agree that as soon as all such data in respect of
any quarter of a Contract Year or a full Contract Year as the case may be has been finally
verified and adjusted, the Developer and CLIENT shall jointly sign such reconciliation
statement. Within fifteen (15) days of signing of a reconciliation statement, the Developer shall
make appropriate adjustments in the next Monthly Bill. Late Payment Surcharge/ interest shall
be payable in such a case from the date on which such payment had been made to the invoicing
Party or the date on which any payment was originally due, as may be applicable. Any Dispute
with regard to the above reconciliation shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of
Article 19.
3.13.6 Payment of Supplementary Bill

Developer may raise a (“Supplementary Bill") for payment on account of:
a. Adjustments required by the Energy Accounts (if applicable); or

b. Tariff payment for change in parameters, or
c. Change in Law as provided in Article 15, or
CLIENT shall remit all amounts due under a Supplementary Bill raised by the Developer to
the Developer’s Designated Account by the Due Date.
3.14 Article 14: Force Majeure

In this Article, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
3.14.1 Affected Party

An Affected Party means CLIENT or the Developer whose performance has been affected by
an event of Force Majeure.
68

3.14.2 Force Majeure
A "Force Majeure" event or circumstance or combination of events described below that
prevents or unavoidably delays an Affected Party in performing its obligations under this
Agreement, but only if and to the extent that such events or circumstances are beyond the
Affected Party's reasonable control, directly or indirectly, and could not have been avoided if
the Affected Party had taken reasonable care or complied with Prudent Utilities:
a. Acts of God, epidemics, severe weather, lightning, earthquakes, landslides, cyclones,

floods, volcanic eruptions, chemical or radioactive pollution, ionising radiation, fire, or
explosion (to the extent of contamination or radiation or fire or explosion originating from
a source external to the Site);
b. blockade, embargo, riot, insurgency, terrorist or military action, civil unrest, or politically
motivated sabotage are all examples of acts of war (whether declared or undeclared);
c. forcible acquisition or expropriation of any Project Facilities or rights of the Developer or
Contractors in the national interest;
d. revocation of, or refusal to renew or grant without valid cause, any clearance, licence,
permit, authorization, no objection certificate, consent, approval, or exemption required by
the Developer or any of the Contractors to perform their respective obligations under this
Agreement and the Project Agreements; provided that such delay, modification, denial,
refusal, or revocation did not result from the Developer's or any Contractor's failure to
perform their respective obligations under this Agreement and the Project Agreements;
provided that such delay, modification, denial, refusal.
e. An event of Force Majeure identified under the Power Purchase Agreement between
CLIENT and DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, thereby affecting performance of obligations
by the Developer under this Agreement.
3.14.3 Force Majeure Exclusions

Except to the extent that they constitute results of an incident of Force Majeure, Force Majeure
does not include I any event or situation that is within the reasonable control of the Parties, and
(ii) the following requirements.:
a. Unavailability, late delivery, or price variations for the Power Project's plant, machinery,
equipment, materials, replacement parts, or consumables;
b. Any Contractor, subcontractor, or their agents' failure to perform on time;
69

c. Non-performance as a result of normal wear and tear, which is common in materials and
equipment used in power generating;
d. Strikes at the Affected Party's facilities;
e. a. Inadequate cash or funds, or the arrangement proving difficult to fulfil; and
f. Non-performance caused by or related to the Affected Party's failure to perform:
i. Intentional or negligent acts, mistakes, or omissions;
ii. Failure to comply with an Indian Law;
iii. or Breach or default under this Agreement.
3.14.4 Notification of Force Majeure Event

The Affected Party shall give notice to the other Party of any event of Force Majeure as soon
as reasonably practicable, but not later than seven (7) days after the date on which such Party
knew or should reasonably have known of the commencement of the event of Force Majeure.
If an event of Force Majeure results in a breakdown of communications rendering it
unreasonable to give notice within the applicable time limit specified herein, then the Party
claiming Force Majeure shall give such notice as soon as reasonably practicable after
reinstatement of communications, but not later than one (1) day after such reinstatement.
Provided that such notice shall be a pre-condition to the Affected Party’s entitlement to claim
relief under this Agreement. Such notice shall include full particulars of the event of Force
Majeure, its effects on the Party claiming relief and the remedial measures proposed. The
Affected Party shall give the other Party regular (and not less than monthly) reports on the
progress of those remedial measures and such other information as the other Party may
reasonably request about the Force Majeure Event. The Affected Party shall give notice to the
other Party of (i) the cessation of the relevant event of Force Majeure; and (ii) the cessation of
the effects of such event of Force Majeure on the performance of its rights or obligations under
this Agreement, as soon as practicable after becoming aware of each of these cessations.
3.14.5 Duty to Perform and Duty to Mitigate

To the extent not prevented by a Force Majeure Event pursuant to Article 3.14.3, the Affected
Party shall continue to perform its obligations pursuant to this Agreement. The Affected Party
shall use its reasonable efforts to mitigate the effect of any Force Majeure Event as soon as
practicable.
70

3.14.6 Available Relief for a Force Majeure Event
a. Except to the extent that execution of its duties was prohibited, hampered, or delayed owing
to a Force Majeure Event, no Party shall be in violation of its obligations under this
Agreement.;
b. every Party shall be entitled to claim relief in relation to a Force Majeure Event in regard
to its obligations, including but not limited to those specified under Article 3.5.7;
c. For avoidance of doubt, neither Party’s obligation to make payments of money due and
payable prior to occurrence of Force Majeure events under this Agreement shall be
suspended or excused due to the occurrence of a Force Majeure Event in respect of such
Party.
d. Provided that no payments shall be made by either Party affected by a Force Majeure Event
for the period of such event on account of its inability to perform its obligations due to such
Force Majeure Event.
3.15 Article 15: Change in Law

“Any of the following occurrences occurring after the Effective Date, resulting in any extra
recurring/ non-recurring expenditure by the Developer or any revenue to the Developer, is
referred to as a "Change in Law.":
a. the legislation, implementation, adoption, promulgation, amendment, modification, or

repeal (without re-enactment or consolidation) of any law in India, including the rules and
regulations enacted pursuant to that law;
b. a modification in the interpretation or implementation of any law by any governmental
instrument with the legal authority to do so, or by any competent court of law;
c. the establishment of a necessity for acquiring any previously unrequired Consents,
Clearances, and Permits;
d. a modification in the terms and conditions for getting any Consents, Clearances, or Permits,
or the addition of any additional terms or conditions for obtaining such Consents,
Clearances, or Permits; unless the Developer is in default.;
e. any tax modification or introduction made applicable to the Developer's power supply as
per the conditions of this Agreement.
71

but not (i) any change in any withholding tax on income or dividends payable to the Developer's
shareholders, (ii) any modification as a result of KERC regulatory actions, or (iii) any change
in the KERC approved Tariff as compared to the approved tariff in effect on the Bid Due Date.
3.15.1 Relief for Change in Law

The aggrieved Party shall be required to approach the KERC for seeking approval of Change
in Law. The decision of the KERC to acknowledge a Change in Law and the date from which
it will become effective, provide relief for the same, shall be final and governing on both the
Parties.
3.16 Article 16: Termination
3.16.1 Termination for Developer Default

Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, if any of the defaults listed below occur and the
Developer fails to cure the default within the Cure Period set forth below, or if no Cure Period
is specified, then within a Cure Period of 60 (sixty) days, the Developer shall be deemed to be
in default of this Agreement (the "Developer Event of Default"), unless the default occurs
solely as a result of any breach of this Agreement by the Developer. Among the defaults
mentioned here are the following:
a. The Developer has failed to achieve the COD beyond 90 (ninety) days of Scheduled
Commissioning Date for Project for any reason whatsoever;
b. The condition relating to equity lock-in period specified in Clause 3.5.2 of this Agreement
is not complied with;
c. The Developer fails to refill or deliver new Performance Security within a Cure Period of
30 (thirty) days after the Performance Security has been encashed and allocated in line with
Clause 3.4.5(b);
d. The Developer has illegally rejected this Agreement or has otherwise said that he does not
wish to be bound by it;
e. The Developer has materially breached any of its commitments under this Agreement, and
such substantial breach has not been remedied by the Developer within thirty (30) days of
CLIENT's initial notification of such breach.
f. The Developer has been in significant violation of any of its commitments under this
Agreement for more than 60 days and has not repaired the situation;
72

g. The Developer's representations and warranties provided under this Agreement have been
determined to be untrue or misleading;
h. The Developer's shareholders have approved a resolution for the Developer's voluntarily
winding up;
i. Any petition for winding up of the Developer has been admitted and liquidator or
provisional liquidator has been appointed or the Developer has been ordered to be wound
up by Court of competent jurisdiction, except for the purpose of amalgamation or
reconstruction with the prior consent of CLIENT, provided that, as part of such
amalgamation or reconstruction and the amalgamated or reconstructed entity has
unconditionally assumed all surviving obligations of the Developer under this Agreement;
j. A default under any of the Financing Documents has occurred, and any of the Project's
lenders has recalled its financial support and requested payment of the sums due under the
Financing Documents, or any of them, as applicable;
k. Developer assigns, mortgages or charges or purports to assign, mortgage or charge any of
its assets or rights related to the Project in contravention of the provisions of this
Agreement;
l. Developer transfers or novates any of its rights and/or obligations under this agreement, in
a manner contrary to the provisions of this Agreement, except where such transfer is to a
transferee who assumes such obligations under this Agreement and the Agreement remains
effective with respect to the transferee;
m. PPA is terminated as a result of the default attributable to the Developer under this
Agreement; and
n. The Developer has had a lien placed on any of its assets that has caused or is expected to
produce a Material Adverse Effect on the Project, and the lien has been in place for more
than 60 days.
3.16.2 Procedure for cases of Developer Event of Default

Upon the occurrence and continuation of any Developer Event of Default under Article 3.16.1,
CLIENT shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement by issuing a notice stating its intention
to terminate this Agreement (CLIENT Preliminary Default Notice), which shall specify in
reasonable detail, the circumstances giving rise to the issue of such notice. Following the issue
of a CLIENT Preliminary Default Notice, the Consultation Period of sixty (60) days or such
longer period as the Parties may agree, shall apply and it shall be the responsibility of the
73

Parties to discuss as to what steps shall be taken with a view to mitigate the consequences of
the relevant Event of Default having regard to all the circumstances. During the Consultation
Period, the Parties shall continue to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement.
Within a period of seven (7) days following the expiry of the Consultation Period unless the
Parties shall have otherwise agreed to the contrary or the Developer Event of Default giving
rise to the Consultation Period shall have ceased to exist or shall have been remedied, CLIENT
shall terminate this Agreement by giving a written Termination Notice of thirty (30) days to
the Developer.
3.16.3 Obligation of Parties

Following issue of Termination Notice by CLIENT, the Parties shall promptly take all such
steps as may be necessary or required to ensure that;
i. until Termination the Parties shall, to the fullest extent possible, discharge their respective
obligations so as to maintain the continued operation of the Project Facilities,
ii. the termination payment, if any, payable by CLIENT in accordance with the following
Clause 3.16.4 is paid to the Developer on the Termination Date, and
iii. the Project Facilities are handed over to CLIENT by the Developer on the Termination
Date free from any Encumbrance along with any payment that may be due by the Developer
to CLIENT.
3.16.4 Termination Payments

i. After COD, if CLIENT is terminated due to a Developer Event of Default, CLIENT shall
pay to the Developer a Termination Payment equal to 60% (sixty percent) of the Debt Due
less Insurance Cover; provided, however, that if any insurance claims forming part of the
Insurance Cover are not admitted and paid, 50% (fifty percent) of such unpaid claims shall
be included in the computation of Debt Due. To prevent any misunderstanding, the
Developer agrees that no Termination Payment will be owed or payable if a Developer
Event of Default occurs before to COD.
ii. The Developer expressly agrees that Termination Payment under this Article 16 shall
constitute a full and final settlement of all claims of the Developer on account of
Termination of this Agreement for any reason whatsoever and that the Developer or any
shareholder thereof shall not have any further right or claim under any law, treaty,
convention, contract or otherwise.
74

3.16.5 Rights of CLIENT on Termination
Upon Termination of this Agreement for any reason whatsoever, CLIENT shall upon making
the Termination Payment, if any, to the Developer have the power and authority to:
i. access the Project Facilities as soon as possible and take possession and management
of them;
ii. prohibit the Developer and any person claiming through or under the
iii. Developers are prohibited from entering or engaging with Project Facilities;
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement, CLIENT shall not, as a consequence

of Termination or otherwise, have any obligation whatsoever including but not limited to
obligations as to compensation for loss of employment, continuance or regularisation of
employment, absorption or re-employment on any ground, in relation to any person in the
employment of or engaged by the Developer in connection with the Project, and the handing
back of the Project Facilities by the Developer to CLIENT shall be free from any such
obligation.
3.16.6 Accrued Rights of Parties

a. Regardless of anything in this Agreement to the contrary, any termination according to any
of its terms shall be without prejudice to each Party's accrued rights, including its right to
claim and collect money damages and other rights and remedies that it may have in law or
contract. The rights and duties of any Party under this Agreement, including without
limitation those pertaining to the termination payment, will survive the Termination to the
extent required to give effect to such rights and obligations. Regardless of anything in this
Agreement to the contrary, the Parties hereby agree that upon the Senior Lenders recalling
and demanding the debt outstanding under the Financing Agreement (following an event
of default under the Financing Agreement), or upon CLIENT issuing a Termination Notice,
the Senior Lenders will recall and demand the debt outstanding under the Financing
Agreement.
b. the Senior Lenders shall, without prejudice to any other remedy available to them, have the
option to propose to CLIENT the substitution of the Developer by another suitable entity
(“Proposed Developer"). Any such proposal shall contain in sufficient detail all the relevant
information about the Proposed Developer and the terms and conditions of the substitution.
75

c. Upon receipt of the Senior Lenders’ proposal pursuant to the preceding sub-article (a),
CLIENT shall, at its discretion, have the right to accept substitution of the Developer on
such terms and conditions as it may deem fit. Provided that any such substitution shall,
i. be on terms and conditions which are not less favourable to CLIENT than those
prevailing at the time of substitution, and
ii. be for the remaining Agreement Period only.
d. In the event of substitution as aforesaid, all the rights, privileges and the benefits of the
Developer shall be deemed to have been transferred to and vested in the Proposed
Developer and the CLIENT and the Proposed Developer shall take such steps and enter
into such documents as may be necessary to give effect to the substitution.
e. Upon the substitution of the Developer becoming effective as aforesaid, the Developer shall
hand back to CLIENT or upon instruction of CLIENT to the Proposed Developer and for
the purpose of giving effect to this provision, CLIENT shall have all such rights as are
provided in Article 16.5.
3.16.7 Termination due to Force Majeure

If the Force Majeure Event or its effects continue to be present beyond the period as specified
in Article 3.7.3, either Party shall have the right to cause termination of the Agreement. In such
an event, this Agreement shall terminate on the date of such Termination Notice.
3.17 Article 17: Hand back of Project Facilities
3.17.1 Developer’s Obligations

a. Upon the expiry of the Agreement Period by efflux of time and in the normal course, the
Developer shall on the Expiry Date, hand back vacant and peaceful possession of Project
Facilities on Project Site, to CLIENT free of cost and in good operable condition.
b. At least 12 months prior to the Expiry Date, the Developer shall, for due performance of
its obligations relating to handback of Project Facilities on Project Site, submit to CLIENT
an SFMS Bank Guarantee, in the form as set forth in Schedule 3 (“Handback Guarantee"),
to be modified, mutatis mutandis, for this purpose from a scheduled bank acceptable to
CLIENT for a sum of Rs... only (Equal to the amount of Tariff paid to the Developer by
CLIENT in the last 12 months under this Agreement). The Handback Guarantee shall be
kept valid for a period of fourteen (14) months.
76

c. At least 6 months before the Expiry Date a joint inspection of the Project Facilities shall be
undertaken by CLIENT and the Developer. CLIENT shall, within 45 days of such
inspection prepare and furnish to the Developer a list of works/ jobs, if any, to be carried
out so as to conform to the Project Facilities requirements. The Developer must
immediately commence and complete such works/jobs at least three months prior to the
Expiry Date, as well as guarantee that the Project Facilities continue to satisfy such criteria
until the Expiry Date when they are returned to CLIENT.
d. Client shall, within 45 days of the joint inspection undertaken under Clause 3.17.1(c)
prepare and furnish to the Developer a list of items, if any, with corresponding distinctive
descriptions, which are to be compulsorily handed back to CLIENT along with the Project
Facilities.
e. The Developer hereby acknowledges CLIENT"s rights specified in Clause 3.16.5
enforceable against it upon Termination and its corresponding obligations arising
therefrom. The Developer undertakes to comply with and discharge promptly all such
obligations.
3.17.2 Client’s Obligations

Client shall, subject to CLIENT’s right to deduct amounts towards;
i. carrying out works/jobs listed under Clause 3.17.1(d), which have not been carried out by
the Developer,
ii. purchase of items, which have not been handed back to CLIENT along with the Project
Facilities in terms of Clause 3.17.1(e), and
iii. any outstanding dues, which may have accrued in respect of the Project during the
Agreement Period, duly discharge and release to the Developer the Handback Guarantee
within 2 months from the Expiry Date.
3.17.3 CLIENT’s Right to Decommission the Project

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Article 17, CLIENT may at its discretion, on expiry
of this Agreement, require the Developer to remove, at their own cost, all or any part of the
Project Facilities at the Project site. In such an eventuality, the Developer shall be required to
dismantle the Project Facility as per the requirement of CLIENT at their own cost and in
accordance Applicable Law including the norms laid down by the State Pollution Control
Board or MoEF, GOI.
77

3.18 Article 18: Liability and Indemnification
3.18.1 Indemnity
CLIENT shall be indemnified, defended, and held blameless by the Developer:
a. any and all third-party claims against CLIENT for any loss or damage to a third-property,
party's or death or injury to a third-party, arising out of the Developer's breach of any of its
obligations under this Agreement.; and
b. any and all losses, damages, costs and expenses including legal costs, fines, penalties and
interest actually suffered or incurred by CLIENT from third party claims arising by reason
of a breach by the Developer of any of its obligations under this Agreement, (provided that
this Article 18 shall not apply to such breaches by the Developer, for which specific
remedies have been provided for under this Agreement)
CLIENT shall indemnify, defend and hold the Developer harmless against:
a. any and all third-party claims against the Developer, for any loss of or damage to property
of such third party, or death or injury to such third party, arising out of a breach by CLIENT
of any of their obligations under this Agreement; and
b. any and all losses, damages, costs and expenses including legal costs, fines, penalties and
interest (“Indemnifiable Losses") actually suffered or incurred by the Developer from third
party claims arising by reason of a breach by CLIENT of any of its obligations.
3.18.2 Procedure for claiming Indemnity

Third party claims
a. When the indemnified party is entitled to indemnification from the indemnifying party
under Article 3.18.1(a) or 3.18.2(a), the indemnified party must promptly inform the
indemnifying party of the claim for which it is entitled to indemnification. The Indemnified
Party must give notification as soon as reasonably possible after becoming aware of the
claim. Within thirty (30) days of receiving the foregoing notification, the indemnifying
party must settle the indemnity claim. Providing, however, that:
i. the Parties choose to refer the dispute before the Arbitrator in accordance with Article
19; and
78

ii. If the Indemnifying Party fails to pay the claim amount to the Indemnified Party or to
the third party, as the case may be, promptly following the resolution of the Dispute,
the Indemnifying Party shall become liable to pay the claim amount to the Indemnified
Party or to the third party, as the case may be, promptly following the resolution of the
Dispute.
b. The Indemnified Party may challenge the claim by referring it to an Arbitrator for which it
is entitled to indemnification under Article 3.18.1(a) or 3.18.2(a), and the indemnifying
party must refund the Indemnified Party for any reasonable fees and expenses incurred.
However, such Indemnified Party shall not settle or compromise such claim without first
obtaining the indemnifying party's approval, such consent shall not be denied or delayed in
an unreasonable manner.
An indemnifying party may, at its own expense, take over the defence of any proceedings
brought against the Indemnified Party if it acknowledges its obligation to indemnify the
Indemnified Party, gives the Indemnified Party prompt notice of its intention to take over the
defence, and hires independent legal counsel at its own expense who is reasonably satisfactory
to the Indemnified Party.
3.18.3 Indemnifiable Losses

Where an Indemnified Party is entitled to Indemnifiable Losses from the indemnifying party
pursuant to Article 3.18.1(b) or 3.18.2(b), the Indemnified Party shall promptly notify the
indemnifying party of the Indemnifiable Losses actually incurred by the Indemnified Party.
The Indemnifiable Losses shall be reimbursed by the Indemnifying Party within thirty (30)
days of receipt of the notice seeking Indemnifiable Losses by the Indemnified Party. In case of
non-payment of such losses after a valid notice under this Article 18, such event shall constitute
a payment default under Article 16.
3.18.4 Limitation on Liability

Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, neither the Developer nor CLIENT nor its/
their respective officers, directors, agents, employees or affiliates (or their officers, directors,
agents or employees), shall be liable or responsible to the other Party or its affiliates, officers,
directors, agents, employees, successors or permitted assigns or their respective insurers for
incidental, indirect or consequential damages, connected with or resulting from performance
or non-performance of this Agreement, or anything done in connection herewith, including
79

claims in the nature of lost revenues, income or profits other than payments expressly required
and properly due under this.
3.18.5 Duty to Mitigate

The Parties shall endeavour to take all reasonable steps so as mitigate any loss or damage which
has occurred under this Article 18.
3.19 Article 19: Governing Law and Dispute Resolution
3.19.1 Governing Law

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the Laws of India. Any
legal proceedings in respect of any matters, claims or disputes under this Agreement shall be
under the jurisdiction of appropriate courts in Bengaluru.
3.19.2 Dispute Resolution

a. Any disagreement or difference between CLIENT and the Developer relative to any subject
arising out of or associated with this Agreement must be resolved in accordance with the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitral tribunal will be made up of three
arbitrators, one each chosen by the CLIENT and the Developer. The third Arbitration, who
will function as presiding arbitrator, will be chosen by the two arbitrators thus designated
by the Parties. The Presiding Arbitrator will be appointed by the Indian Council of
Arbitration/President of the Institution of Engineers (India)/The International Centre for
Alternative Dispute Resolution if the two arbitrators appointed by the parties fail to reach
an agreement within 30 days of the appointment of the arbitrator appointed later (India).
b. If one of the parties fails to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with subclause (a) above
within 30 days of receiving notice of the other party's appointment, the arbitrator will be
appointed by the Indian Council of Arbitration/President of the Institution of Engineers
(India)/The International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (India). Each of the
parties should be given a certificate copy of the order of the Indian Council of
Arbitration/President of the Institution of Engineers (India)/The International Centre for
Alternative Dispute Resolution (India) making such an appointment.
c. The arbitration procedures will take place in Bengaluru, India, and the arbitration
proceedings, as well as all papers and communications between the parties, will be
conducted in English.
80

d. The majority judgement of the arbitrators shall be final and binding on both parties. The
arbitral panel will decide the cost and expenditures of the arbitration procedures. However,
each party is responsible for its own expenditures related to the preparation, presentation,
and other aspects of its proceedings.
e. During the arbitration procedures, performance under the Agreement will continue, and
payments owed to the Developer by CLIENT will not be withheld unless they are the
subject of the arbitration proceedings.
3.20 Article 20: Assignment and Charges
3.20.1 Assignments
The Parties, as well as their respective successors and allowed assignee, are bound by and
benefit from this Agreement. This Agreement may not be transferred by any party except with
the mutual permission of the parties, which must be documented in writing.
i. Provided that, such consent shall not be withheld if CLIENT seeks to transfer to any
transferee all of its rights and obligations under this Agreement.
ii. Provided further that any successor(s) or permitted assign(s) identified after mutual
agreement between the Parties may be required to execute a new agreement on the same
terms and conditions as are included in this Agreement.
Developer shall not (save as permitted pursuant to Clause 3.20) establish or permit the
existence of any Encumbrance, or otherwise transfer or dispose of all or any of its rights and
benefits under this Agreement to which the Developer is a party, except with CLIENT's prior
written agreement, which CLIENT shall be able to reject without assigning any reason.
3.20.2 Permitted assignment and charges

The restraints set forth in Clause 3.20.2 shall not apply to:
a. mortgages/pledges/hypothecation of goods/assets other than Project Assets, and their

related documents of title, arising or created in the ordinary course of the Project's business,
and used only as security for indebtedness to the Senior Lenders under the Financing
Agreements and/or for working capital arrangements for the Project.;
b. Any Applicable Law-required liens or encumbrances.
81

3.21 Article 21: Miscellaneous
3.21.1 Interest and Right of Set Off

Any sum which becomes payable under any of the provisions of this Agreement by one Party
to the other Party shall, if the same be not paid within the time allowed for payment thereof,
shall be deemed to be a debt owed by the Party responsible for payment thereof to the Party
entitled to receive the same. Such sum shall until payment thereof carry interest at prevailing
medium term prime lending rate of State Bank of India per annum from the due date for
payment thereof until the same is paid to or otherwise realised by the Party entitled to the same.
Without prejudice to any other right or remedy that may be available under this Agreement or
otherwise under law, the Party entitled to receive such amount shall also have the right of set
off. Provided the stipulation regarding interest for delayed payments contained in this Article
3.21.1 shall neither be deemed nor construed to authorise any delay in payment of any amount
due by a Party nor be deemed or construed to be a waiver of the underlying breach of payment
obligations.
3.21.2 Depreciation and interest

For the purposes of depreciation under the Applicable Laws, the property representing the
capital investment made by the Developer in the Project shall be deemed to be acquired and
owned by the Developer. For the avoidance of doubt, the CLIENT shall not in any manner be
liable in respect of any claims for depreciation to be made by the Developer under the
Applicable Laws. Unless otherwise specified, any interest payable under this Agreement shall
accrue on a daily outstanding basis and shall be compounded on the basis of quarterly rests.
3.21.3 Confidentiality
The Parties undertake to hold in confidence this Agreement and not to disclose the terms and
conditions of the transaction contemplated hereby to third parties, except:
a. to their professional advisors;

b. to their officers, Contractors, employees, agents or representatives, financiers, who need to
have access to such information for the proper performance of their activities; or
c. disclosures required under Law. d. without the prior written consent of the other Party.
3.21.4 Waiver of Immunity

Each Party unconditionally and irrevocably:
82

a. agrees that its execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement are commercial
activities done and executed for a profit.;
b. agrees that no immunity (whether by reason of sovereignty or otherwise) will be claimed
by or on behalf of the Party with respect to its assets, property, or revenues if any
proceedings are brought against it or its assets, property, or revenues in any jurisdiction in
relation to this Agreement or any transaction contemplated by this Agreement.;
c. waives any immunity that it or its assets, property, or revenues currently have, may acquire
in the future, or that may be ascribed to it in any jurisdiction.; and
d. consents, in general, to the granting of any relief or the issuance of any process in any
jurisdiction in connection with the enforcement of any judgement or award against it in any
such proceedings (including the making, enforcement or execution against it or in respect
of any assets, property or revenues whatsoever irrespective of their use or intended use of
any order or judgement that may be made or given in connection therewith).
3.21.5 Waiver
Waiver by any Party of any default by the other Party in the observance and execution of any
term of or responsibilities under this Agreement, including partial or conditional waiver.:
a. shall not operate or be considered as a waiver of any other or future breach of this
Agreement's terms or responsibilities.;
b. shall not be effective until signed by a fully authorised representative of the Party in
writing.; and
c. shall not in any way affect the legality or enforceability of this Agreement.
Neither a Party's failure to insist on the performance of the terms, conditions, and provisions
of this Agreement or any obligation hereunder on any occasion, nor any time or other
indulgence granted to the other Party, shall be treated or deemed as a waiver of such breach,
acceptance of any variation, or relinquishment of any such right hereunder.
3.21.6 Exclusion of implied warranties etc.

This Agreement expressly excludes any warranty, condition or other undertaking implied at
law or by custom or otherwise arising out of any other agreement between the Parties or any
representation by either Party not contained in a binding legal agreement executed by both
Parties.
83

3.21.7 Survival
Termination shall;
a. not relieve the Developer or CLIENT, as the case may be, of any responsibilities under this
Agreement that expressly or implicitly survive the termination of this Agreement.; and
b. Not relieve either Party of any obligations or liabilities for loss or damage to the other Party
arising out of, or caused by, acts or omissions of such Party prior to the effectiveness of
such Termination or arising out of such Termination, except as expressly provided in any
provision of this Agreement expressly limiting the liability of either Party.
All obligations that survive Termination will only be valid for 3 (three) years from the date of
Termination.
3.21.8 Entire Agreement

This Agreement and the Schedules together constitute a complete and exclusive statement of
the terms of the agreement between the Parties on the subject hereof, and no amendment or
modification hereto shall be valid and effective unless such modification or amendment is
agreed to in writing by the Parties and duly executed by persons especially empowered in this
behalf by the respective Parties. All prior written or oral understandings, offers or other
communications of every kind pertaining to this Agreement are abrogated and withdrawn. For
the avoidance of doubt, the Parties hereto agree that any obligations of the Developer arising
from the Request for Proposal shall be deemed to form part of this Agreement and treated as
such.
3.21.9 Severability
If for any reason whatever, any provision of this Agreement is or becomes invalid, illegal or
unenforceable or is declared by any court of competent jurisdiction or any other instrumentality
to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality or enforceability of the remaining
provisions shall not be affected in any manner, and the Parties will negotiate in good faith with
a view to agreeing to one or more provisions which may be substituted for such invalid,
unenforceable or illegal provisions, as nearly as is practicable to such invalid, illegal or
unenforceable provision. Failure to agree upon any such provisions shall not be subject to the
Dispute Resolution Procedure set forth under this Agreement or otherwise.
84

3.21.10 No Partnership
This Agreement shall not be interpreted or construed to create an association, joint venture or
partnership between the Parties, or to impose any partnership obligation or liability upon either
Party, and neither Party shall have any right, power or authority to enter into any agreement or
undertaking for, or act on behalf of, or to act as or be an agent or representative of, or to
otherwise bind, the other Party.
3.21.11 Third Parties

This Agreement is intended solely for the benefit of the Parties, and their respective successors
and permitted assigns, and nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create any duty to,
standard of care with reference to, or any liability to, any person not a Party to this Agreement.
3.21.12 Successors and Assigns

The Parties, as well as their respective successors and allowed assignee, are bound by and
benefit from this Agreement.
3.21.13 Notices
Any notice or other communication to be delivered by either Party to the other under or in
connection with the matters contemplated by this Agreement must be in writing and shall be
signed by both Parties.:
a. Notices or other communications to be given to an address outside Bengaluru may, if they

are subsequently confirmed by sending a copy thereof by registered acknowledgement due,
air mail, or courier, be given by facsimile or e-mail and by letter delivered by hand to the
address given and marked for attention of the person set out below or to such other person
as the Developer may from time to time designate by notice to CLIENT; provided that
notices or other communications to be given to an address outside Bengaluru;
b. If the Developer does not have an office in Bengaluru, such notice may be given by
facsimile or e-mail and by hand-delivered letter addressed to the Managing Director with a
copy delivered to CLIENT Representative or such other person as CLIENT may from time
to time designate by notice to the Developer; provided, however, that if the Developer does
not have an office in Bengaluru, such notice may be sent by facsimile or e-mail and by
registered acknowledgement due; and
85

c. Any notice or communication given in accordance with this Agreement is deemed to have
been delivered when it would have been delivered in the normal course of post, and in all
other cases, on the actual date and time of delivery, except that in the case of facsimile or
e-mail, it is deemed to have been delivered on the working day following the date of its
delivery.
3.21.14 Language
All notices required to be given by one Party to the other Party and all other communications,
Documentation and proceedings which are in any way relevant to this Agreement shall be in
writing and in English language.
3.21.15 Counterparts
This Agreement may be completed in two counterparts, each of which shall constitute an
original of this Agreement when written and delivered.
86

N Rangnath (14RCL01P)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

N Rangnath (14RCL01P)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT OF SOLAR POWER

Roll. No: 14RCL01P

Under the Guidance of

Dr. Debasis Sarkar

Associate Professor and Former Head of Department

Department of Civil Engineering, School of Technology, PDEU

PANDIT DEENDAYAL ENERGY UNIVERSITY

GANDHINAGAR – 382421, GUJARAT-INDIA

PANDIT DEENDAYAL ENERGY UNIVERSITY

This report entitled “Project Risk Management of Solar Power Plants” by N.

Place: Pandit Deendayal Energy University, Gandhinagar

PANDIT DEENDAYAL ENERGY UNIVERSITY

PANDIT DEENDAYAL ENERGY UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

This is to certify that the THESIS entitled “PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT OF

RANGNATH (14RCL01P) under my guidance in fulfilment of the degree of

Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D.) at PANDIT DEENDAYAL ENERGY

Guide Head of the Department

Dr. Debasis Sarkar

PANDIT DEENDAYAL ENERGY UNIVERSITY

PANDIT DEENDAYAL ENERGY UNIVERSITY

ANP Analytic Network Process

BESCOM Bangalore Electrical Supply

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

COD Commercial Operation Date

CERC Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

CSP Concentrating Solar Power

COD Commercial Operation Date

DBFOT Design Build Finance Operate Transfer

DSG Direct Steam Generation

EVM Expected Value Method

EPC Engineering Procurement Construction

FAHP Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process

GHGs Green House Gases

GOI Government Of India

GSPP Gujarat Solar Power Policy

HFL High flood Level

HFL High Flood Level

IoT Internet of Things

IMD Indian Meteorological Department

I-VAM Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Model

PANDIT DEENDAYAL ENERGY UNIVERSITY

IEA International Energy Agency

IRR Internal Rate of Return

JNNSM Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission

KERC Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission

LEC Levelized Energy Cost

LCCA Life Cycle Cost Analysis

LCOE Levelised Cost of Energy

LOA Letter Of Approval

MAHP Modified Analytical Hierarchy Process

MCA Master Concierge Agreement

MCS Monte Carlo Simulation

MNRE Ministry Of New and Renewable Energy

MOEF Ministry Of Environmental and Forest

MCDM Multi Criteria Decision Making

NPV Net Present Value

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NAPCC National Action Plan on Climate Change

PANDIT DEENDAYAL ENERGY UNIVERSITY

O and M Operations And Management

PDIA Project Development and Implementation Agreement

PRM Project Risk Management