通过对法律适用规则、FIDIC多层次争议解决机制以及协商、调解、国际仲裁、诉讼四种核心解决方式的系统分析，我们已经搭建起国际新能源EPC项目争议解决的理论框架与路径选择模型。然而，理论层面的规则设计与路径指引，最终需要在具体的项目实践中接受检验。跨境新能源项目争议往往呈现出成因复合化、利益交织化、技术专业化的特点，单纯依赖理论规则难以应对复杂多变的现实场景。为此，本章将通过两个具有行业代表性的典型案例，深度剖析争议发生的完整逻辑、裁判机构的审理思路与企业的应对得失，从实践层面提炼可复制的经验教训与风险防控策略，帮助中国出海企业更好地应对跨境工程争议挑战。

　　Through the systematic analysis of the rules of law application, the FIDIC multi-tiered dispute resolution mechanism, and the four core resolution methods—negotiation, mediation, international arbitration, and litigation—we have established the theoretical framework and path selection model for dispute resolution in international new energy EPC projects. However, the rule design and path guidance at the theoretical level ultimately need to be tested in specific project practices. Disputes in cross-border new energy projects often present the characteristics of compound causes, intertwined interests, and technical specialization, making it difficult to cope with complex and ever-changing real scenarios solely by relying on theoretical rules. To this end, this chapter will conduct an in-depth analysis of the complete logic of dispute occurrence, the adjudicative thinking of the tribunals, and the successes and failures of enterprises' responses through two industry-representative typical cases, and extract replicable experiences and lessons as well as risk prevention and control strategies from the practical level, to help Chinese enterprises going overseas better address the challenges of cross-border engineering disputes.

　　六、典型案例分析

　　Typical Case Analysis

　　(一)土耳其鸡粪生物质发电项目性能不达标争议

　　Dispute over Substandard Performance of Turkey Poultry Manure Biomass Power Generation Project

　　在新能源EPC项目跨境履约实践中，土耳其鸡粪生物质发电项目争议案具有典型的样本价值。该案源于中材节能与土耳其H29公司于2019年4月签订的10MW鸡粪生物质发电项目EPC协议，合同约定中材节能负责项目设计、设备供货、锅炉本体安装及调试等工作，工期截止点为2020年8月12日通过性能验收。[1]尽管中材节能在2021年初宣布项目成功并网发电，并宣称“所有设备及安装严格执行CE标准”，但时隔数年，H29公司于2024年向新加坡国际仲裁中心提起仲裁，索赔金额约3343.46万美元(折合人民币约2.38亿元)，使得这一曾被上市公司视为“里程碑”的海外项目最终陷入重大争议。

　　本案争议焦点高度契合新能源EPC项目的主要纠纷类型。其一为性能保证不达标，申请人主张项目运转率及相关性能保证均未达到合同约定标准，项目未能持续高效运行。其二为设备质量缺陷，H29公司称部分设备存在缺陷且在运行过程中已损坏，部分缺陷未被修复，已修复部分亦由业主自行承担费用。其三为技术标准合规争议，核心在于CE认证问题——尽管土耳其并非欧盟成员国，但合同明确要求项目执行CE标准，而申请人主张中材节能未能提供CE认证证书及相关锅炉资料。这三重争议相互交织，分别对应前文所述的“施工质量不达标”“设备质量缺陷”以及设计环节的“技术参数不符”等争议类型，呈现出新能源EPC项目纠纷的复合性特征。

　　从行业分析视角审视，本案对出海企业具有多重警示意义。首先，技术标准的跨境适配问题需高度重视。CE认证作为进入欧盟市场的强制性要求，在土耳其项目中仍被援引为合同标准，表明东道国业主可能采用欧盟标准作为技术门槛，承包商须在投标阶段即对认证可行性进行充分评估，避免“并网成功”的表象掩盖合规性隐患。其次，性能保证条款的风险分配机制需精细化设计。运转率、发电量等核心性能指标直接关系项目收益，EPC总包方应在合同中明确性能测试标准、测试程序以及未达标的补救机制与责任上限，避免承担远超合同价款的索赔风险。再次，跨境仲裁的程序应对能力至关重要。本案由新加坡国际仲裁中心受理，涉及仲裁地选择、证据开示规则、专家证人运用等专业问题，企业需在合同订立阶段即建立与争议解决路径相匹配的证据管理体系。

　　In the practice of cross-border performance of new energy EPC projects, the dispute over the Turkey poultry manure biomass power generation project is a typical representative case. The dispute arose from the 10MW poultry manure biomass power generation EPC agreement signed between Sinoma Energy Conservation and Turkey H29 Company in April 2019, under which Sinoma Energy Conservation was responsible for project design, equipment supply, boiler body installation and commissioning, with the project schedule deadline set for passing the performance acceptance on August 12, 2020. Although Sinoma Energy Conservation announced the successful grid connection of the project in early 2021 and claimed that "all equipment and installation strictly complied with the CE standards", several years later, H29 Company filed an arbitration with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) in 2024, claiming compensation of approximately 33.4346 million US dollars (equivalent to about 238 million RMB). This overseas project, once regarded as a "milestone" by the listed company, ultimately became mired in a major dispute.

　　The focal points of this dispute are highly consistent with the main types of disputes in new energy EPC projects. First, the performance guarantees were not met: the claimant alleged that the project's operation rate and relevant performance guarantees failed to reach the standards agreed in the contract, and the project was unable to operate continuously and efficiently. Second, there were equipment quality defects: H29 Company stated that some equipment had defects and was damaged during operation, some defects were not repaired, and the owner bore the costs for the repaired parts on its own. Third, there was a dispute over compliance with technical standards, centering on the issue of CE certification—although Turkey is not an EU member state, the contract explicitly required the project to comply with CE standards, while the claimant alleged that Sinoma Energy Conservation failed to provide the CE certification certificate and relevant boiler documents. These three intertwined disputes correspond to the aforementioned dispute types including "substandard construction quality", "equipment quality defects" and "inconsistent technical parameters in the design phase", reflecting the compound characteristics of disputes in new energy EPC projects.

　　From an industry analysis perspective, this case offers multiple warnings for Chinese enterprises going overseas. First, high attention should be paid to the cross-border adaptation of technical standards. CE certification, a mandatory requirement for entering the EU market, was still cited as a contractual standard in the Turkey project, indicating that host country owners may adopt EU standards as technical thresholds. Contractors must fully evaluate the feasibility of certification at the bidding stage to avoid compliance risks being concealed by the superficial "successful grid connection". Second, the risk allocation mechanism for performance guarantee clauses needs to be elaborately designed. Core performance indicators such as operation rate and power generation are directly related to project returns. EPC general contractors should clearly stipulate performance testing standards, testing procedures, as well as remedial mechanisms and liability caps for non-compliance in the contract, to avoid bearing compensation risks far exceeding the contract price. Third, the capacity to respond to cross-border arbitration procedures is crucial. This case was accepted by the SIAC, involving professional issues such as the choice of arbitration seat, rules of discovery, and the use of expert witnesses. Enterprises must establish an evidence management system matching the dispute resolution path at the contract conclusion stage.

　　(二)贸仲涉"一带一路"国家能源索赔案——联营体权责划分与英国法查明

　　CIETAC Energy Claim Dispute Involving the Belt and Road Countries – Consortium Liability Allocation and Ascertainment of English Law

　　中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会审理的一起涉"一带一路"国家能源索赔案，涉及联营体成员单独提起仲裁的主体资格、英国法查明路径、合同成立认定等前沿法律问题。本案中，中国A电力设计院与案外人C公司组成联营体，参与P国某燃煤电厂项目投标。项目业主B公司向联营体发出意向书后，双方签署了EPC合同及相关技术附件。但业主后续以工程电价未获P国当局批复为由搁置合同签署，并于2020年与第三方另行签约。申请人主张业主行为构成根本违约，要求赔偿前期投入损失。

　　本案的核心争议点包括：其一，联营体成员是否有权单独提起仲裁。仲裁庭认定，联营体成员权利义务是否可分割是判断单独诉权的依据，本案联营体协议对成员分工约定明确、具体，属于可分割义务型联营体，申请人有权单独提起仲裁。其二，英国法的查明路径。仲裁庭通过当事人提供专家意见、判例汇编、权威法学著述等方式查明英国法，并安排英国法专家证人出庭接受质询。其三，意向书的法律效力认定。仲裁庭援引英国判例，认定意向书仅为邀请谈判的表示，不具备承诺效力，合同未有效成立。

　　本案对出海企业的实务启示在于：其一，联营体协议中的权责划分应尽可能明确具体，约定成员单独或共同行使诉权的条件，避免因主体资格问题延误争议解决。其二，意向书的法律风险需充分认知。在收到意向书后的大规模前期投入，应通过正式合同或至少具有约束力的阶段性协议加以确认，避免陷入"合同未成立、投入难追回"的被动境地。其三，外国法查明机制需提前规划。当合同约定适用域外法时，企业应在争议发生前储备相关法律专家资源，确保证据开示与法律论证的专业性。[2]

　　A CIETAC-adjudicated energy claim dispute involving the Belt and Road countries addressed cutting-edge legal issues including the standing of a consortium member to initiate arbitration independently, the paths for ascertaining English law, and the determination of contract formation. In this case, Chinese A Electric Power Design Institute and a third party Company C formed a consortium to bid for a coal-fired power plant project in Country P. After the project owner Company B issued a letter of intent to the consortium, the two parties signed the EPC contract and relevant technical appendices. However, the owner subsequently suspended the signing of the contract on the ground that the project's electricity price had not been approved by the competent authorities of Country P, and entered into a new EPC contract for the project with a third party Company D in 2020. The claimant alleged that the owner's conduct constituted a fundamental breach of contract and claimed compensation for the losses incurred from its preliminary investments.

　　The core focal points of this dispute are as follows: First, whether a consortium member has the right to initiate arbitration independently. The arbitral tribunal held that the divisibility of the rights and obligations of consortium members is the criterion for determining the right to initiate separate proceedings. The consortium agreement in this case clearly and specifically stipulated the division of work among members, making it a consortium with divisible obligations, and thus the claimant was entitled to initiate arbitration independently. Second, the paths for ascertaining English law. The arbitral tribunal ascertained English law through means including expert opinions, case compilations and authoritative legal works provided by the parties, and arranged for English law expert witnesses to appear in court to be cross-examined. Third, the determination of the legal effect of the letter of intent. By citing English judicial precedents, the arbitral tribunal ruled that the letter of intent was merely an expression inviting negotiations and had no binding effect as a commitment, and thus the contract was not validly formed.

　　This case provides practical insights for Chinese enterprises going overseas: First, the allocation of rights and obligations in consortium agreements should be as clear and specific as possible, with explicit provisions on the conditions for members to exercise the right of action independently or jointly, so as to avoid delays in dispute resolution due to standing issues. Second, full cognizance should be taken of the legal risks of letters of intent. Large-scale preliminary investments made after receiving a letter of intent should be confirmed by a formal contract or at least a binding phased agreement, to avoid the passive situation of "unrecoverable investments due to lack of a validly formed contract". Third, the mechanism for ascertaining foreign law needs to be planned in advance. When a contract stipulates the application of foreign law, enterprises should reserve relevant legal expert resources before disputes arise to ensure the professionalism of evidence disclosure and legal argumentation.

　　七、结语

　　Conclusion

　　国际新能源EPC项目的争议解决，本质上是一场法律规则、商业逻辑与技术理性的多重博弈。面对跨境履约中法域冲突的复杂性与政策环境的不确定性，中国企业需跳出“重建设、轻合约”的传统思维，将争议管理从被动应对转向主动规划。合同订立阶段对法律适用、DAAB机制、不可抗力与情势变更条款的精细化设计，是降低后续争议发生概率、提升处置效率的制度基石;履约全过程中对证据的固定、合规风险的监测与变更程序的规范，则是将纸面权利转化为可主张利益的关键支撑。

　　值得强调的是，争议解决的终极目标并非胜负判决，而是项目利益的平衡与商业关系的延续。协商与调解的柔性价值、FIDIC机制的程序理性，以及国际仲裁的终局效力，共同构成了多层次、可组合的工具箱。企业在选择具体路径时，需综合考量争议性质、利益诉求、时间成本与执行难度，避免因路径误判导致“赢了官司、输了项目”。未来，随着全球能源转型的深入推进，新能源EPC项目的争议形态将持续演变，唯有将法律专业能力嵌入项目管理全流程，方能在复杂多变的国际市场中行稳致远。

　　Dispute resolution in international new energy EPC projects is essentially a multi-faceted game of legal rules, commercial logic and technical rationality. Faced with the complexity of cross-jurisdictional legal conflicts and the uncertainty of the policy environment in cross-border performance, Chinese enterprises must break away from the traditional mindset of "prioritizing construction over contracts" and shift dispute management from passive response to proactive planning. The elaborate design of clauses governing the application of law, the DAAB mechanism, force majeure and changed circumstances at the contract conclusion stage lays the institutional foundation for reducing the probability of subsequent disputes and improving disposal efficiency. The preservation of evidence throughout the performance process, monitoring of compliance risks and standardization of variation procedures are the key supports for translating contractual rights into enforceable interests.

　　It is worth emphasizing that the ultimate goal of dispute resolution is not a winning or losing judgment, but the balance of project interests and the continuation of commercial relations. The flexible value of negotiation and mediation, the procedural rationality of the FIDIC mechanism, and the finality of international arbitration together form a multi-tiered, combinable toolbox. When selecting specific resolution paths, enterprises must comprehensively consider the nature of the dispute, interest demands, time costs and enforcement difficulties, to avoid the predicament of "winning the lawsuit but losing the project" due to misjudgment of the path. In the future, with the in-depth advancement of the global energy transition, the forms of disputes in new energy EPC projects will continue to evolve. Only by integrating legal professional capabilities into the entire process of project management can enterprises forge ahead steadily in the complex and ever-changing international market.

　　注释及参考文献(滑动)：

　　[1]中材节能土耳其 H29 SALIHLI 10MW 生物质发电项目成功并网发电 [EB/OL]. 2021-01-15. http://www.sinoma-ec.cn/contents/268/17232.html.

　　[2]涉 “一带一路” 国家能源索赔争议中的英国法律查明和适用 [EB/OL]. 中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会，2026-01-04. https://www.cietac.org/articles/34444.

　　参考文献：

　　一、中国国内法、司法解释等文件：

　　[1]《中华人民共和国可再生能源法》

　　[2]《中华人民共和国招标投标法》

　　[3]《中华人民共和国外商投资法》

　　[4]《中华人民共和国仲裁法》

　　[5]《国务院关于促进光伏产业健康发展的若干意见》

　　[6]《基础设施和公用事业特许经营管理办法》

　　[7]《国务院关于加快建立健全绿色低碳循环发展经济体系的指导意见》

　　二、国际公约与多边条约：

　　[8]《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》(《纽约公约》)

　　[9]《联合国国际贸易法委员会国际商事仲裁示范法》

　　[10]《联合国国际贸易法委员会仲裁规则》

　　[11]《国际商事合同通则》

　　三、学术著作：

　　[12][美]加里·博恩：《国际仲裁：法律与实践》，白麟、陈福勇等译，商务印书馆2015年版

　　[13]许军珂：《国际私法上的意思自治》，法律出版社2005年版

　　[14]覃华平：《论国际投资调解机制的续造与中国路径》，载《当代法学》2025年第6期

　　四、网络资源：

　　[15]中材节能土耳其 H29 SALIHLI 10MW 生物质发电项目成功并网发电 [EB/OL]. 2021-01-15. http://www.sinoma-ec.cn/contents/268/17232.html.

　　[16]涉 “一带一路” 国家能源索赔争议中的英国法律查明和适用 [EB/OL]. 中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会，2026-01-04. https://www.cietac.org/articles/34444.

　　作者简介：

　　刘俊丽，高级合伙人，管理主任，国际工程与PPP业务部主任、合伙人会议薪酬与分配委员会主任

　　拥有24+年法律工作经验，累计办理案件700余件，经办案件标的额超1000亿元人民币。专注于国际 / 国内建设工程投建运全生命周期法律服务(PPP、BOT、EPC、FIDIC等);政府与社会资本合作及特许经营项目全生命周期法律服务;新基建、新能源项目投建营全生命周期法律服务;能源与环境工程(EOD)投建运全生命周期法律服务;并深耕上述领域重大疑难争议解决法律服务。

　　国际工程与PPP业务团队

　　「三级 + 四化」全维度服务保障

　　刘俊丽主任团队搭建了「三层三级」组织架构，推行核心骨干主导 + 执行层高效协同 + 各地分支机构及合作咨询机构联动补位的服务模式，实现专业服务能力与人力调配灵活性的双重保障。

　　团队以专业化、行业化、团队化、国际化为发展内核，成员均为深耕国内外大型基础设施与公共服务领域的专业律师，多数具备工程、法律双专业背景;同时长期与战略投资、工程咨询等领域专业机构深度合作，组建跨领域服务联盟，为客户提供一体化解决方案。

　　手机：13391809892

　　邮箱：liujunli@deheheng.com