Ye, S and Tiong, R L K (2004) Public-private partnership for power projects: A case study of Hub power project. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 9(3), pp. 129-140. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
Through the case study on the Hub power project in Pakistan, the paper investigates key issues of applying public-private partnership (PPP) to power projects and proposes strategies to address these issues. The following key findings will be helpful in concession design for power project development: (1) the private involvement in the development of power projects largely depends on the government's attitude towards PPPs; (2) a financially strong and technically experienced development team is crucial to winning concessions and achieving financial closing; (3) the choice of PPP structures should adapt to the characteristics of proposed projects; (4) the construction of auxiliary facilities will lessen the viability of projects; (5) appropriate concession period structures can effectively address completion risk; (6) turnkey construction contracts is a good means to transfer construction risks to construction contractors; (7) a tariff adjustment mechanism as a risk mitigating measure has its limitations; (8) a real need for the project is more important than power purchase agreements; (9) insurance protection for political risks is one of key contributing factors to the successful financial closing; and (10) the high-risk/high-return strategy is not suitable for pure risks.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | concession design, independent power project, political risk, public private partnership, risk-return trade-off, tariff structure, tariff adjustment, case studies |
| Index terms: | project development, risk-return, partnership, public private partnership, construction contract, insurance, concession period, construction contractor, case study, power purchase agreement, Pakistan, mitigating measure, strategy |
| Subjects: | contract structure, partnership management, energy systems, project delivery, financial risk, Geography, contract type, economic analysis, contractual arrangements, data collection methods, environmental hazards, management, practitioner |
| Topics: | Procurement, Project Management, Geographical Context, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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