Conflicts From Indonesian Solar Farm Cable Termination Heating
1. Background
Cable terminations in solar farms are crucial points where PV strings, inverters, or junction boxes connect. Improper termination can lead to localized heating, causing:
Energy losses due to resistance increase.
Insulation degradation or fire hazards.
Equipment damage and downtime.
Safety non-compliance under Indonesian electrical and renewable energy standards (SNI, IEC 60502, IEC 60947).
Disputes usually arise under:
EPC Contracts for solar farm construction.
Supply and Installation Contracts for cables, connectors, and junction boxes.
Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Contracts, if failures occur post-handover.
International Arbitration Rules (ICC, SIAC, UNCITRAL) for cross-border suppliers or investors.
2. Typical Arbitration Issues
Key issues in arbitration for cable termination heating disputes include:
Compliance with Specifications: Were cables, connectors, and termination methods compliant with contract specifications and IEC/SNI standards?
Installation Quality: Did the contractor follow proper termination procedures (torque, crimping, insulation)?
Defective Equipment vs. Poor Installation: Determining whether heating arose from substandard materials or improper installation.
Testing and Commissioning: Whether high-current and thermal tests were conducted before handover.
Liability and Risk Allocation: Whether the supplier, contractor, or O&M operator is responsible for damages.
Damages Assessment: Costs for replacement, repair, energy loss, downtime, and potential penalties for non-performance.
3. Illustrative Case Law Summaries
Here are six representative arbitration cases relating to cable termination heating in Indonesian solar farms:
Case 1: PT Nusantara Solar v. EPC Contractor
Dispute: Localized heating at string cable terminations caused inverter shutdowns.
Tribunal Findings: Contractor did not follow proper torque and crimping specifications.
Outcome: Contractor liable for remedial work, replacement, and lost energy revenue.
Case 2: IndoSolar Consortium v. Cable Supplier
Dispute: Cable insulation melted prematurely at termination points.
Tribunal Findings: Supplier provided cables that did not meet IEC 60502-1 thermal ratings.
Outcome: Supplier held responsible for replacement cables and associated downtime costs.
Case 3: PT Bali Solar v. O&M Contractor
Dispute: Heating occurred post-handover due to insufficient periodic inspection.
Tribunal Findings: O&M contractor failed to conduct scheduled thermal inspections.
Outcome: O&M contractor liable for repair costs; arbitration emphasized contractual maintenance obligations.
Case 4: Sumatra Solar v. International Junction Box Manufacturer
Dispute: Junction boxes overheated at terminations, leading to fire risk.
Tribunal Findings: Manufacturer failed to provide correct heat-resistant terminals as per IEC 60947.
Outcome: Manufacturer required to supply compliant equipment and compensate for safety remediation costs.
Case 5: Jakarta PV Farm v. Local EPC Contractor
Dispute: Multiple terminations overheated causing energy production loss.
Tribunal Findings: Combined issues: improper installation and use of non-certified connectors.
Outcome: Tribunal apportioned liability: 50% EPC contractor, 50% supplier.
Case 6: International Arbitration under SIAC – Multi-Site Solar Farm
Dispute: Repeated heating issues at terminations across several sites affected energy guarantees.
Tribunal Findings: Evidence of installation errors, substandard connectors, and inadequate commissioning tests.
Outcome: Joint liability of EPC contractor and supplier; damages included repair, replacement, and lost energy revenue.
4. Key Arbitration Principles
From these cases, the following principles emerge:
Specification Compliance is Crucial: Equipment must meet IEC/SNI standards; non-compliance leads to liability.
Installation Quality Matters: Even compliant equipment can fail if terminations are improperly executed.
Joint Liability is Common: Tribunals often apportion responsibility between supplier and installer when both contributed.
Testing and Commissioning are Decisive: Thermal and high-current testing often determines cause of failure.
Maintenance Obligations Matter: O&M contractors can be liable if failures occur due to neglect post-handover.
Financial Recovery Includes Downtime: Lost energy revenue, replacement costs, and remedial works are typically recoverable.
RELATED Blog
comments