Shrestha, R B and Ogunlana, S (2007) Direct stakeholder's perception of PPA clauses in the Nepalese environment. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 12(2), pp. 21-41. ISSN 1823-6499
Abstract
The paper analyses the perceptions of the stakeholders regarding the key issues in Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) in the Nepalese Environment. A total of 90 questionnaires representing sponsors, utility, lenders and government officials were used for the study. The questionnaire sought the perception of the stakeholders regarding the significance (importance) of the clauses and the likelihood of inclusion of the clauses in PPAs. Comparison of the ranks of means was conducted by Kruskal-Wallis tests to see the significance of the differences in responses of the stakeholders and Mann-Whitney tests to see the significance of the differences of the pairs of stakeholders. Data analysis showed clauses where the prime stakeholders have similar stands and clauses where the perceptions are divergent. The findings of this paper will help the stakeholders in negotiating PPAs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | guarantees; independent power producers; power purchase agreements; take or pay contracts |
| Index terms: | independent power producer, power purchase agreement, guarantee, data analysis, questionnaire, negotiating, take or pay contracts |
| Subjects: | energy systems, data analysis and analytics, data collection methods, payment, conflict resolution, contract structure |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Sustainability, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here