Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
There’s a lot of conjecture about “moving goalposts”. Just factually incorrect. Climate elements like solar panels were agreed to by the applicant in the approval. They did not have to agree to do it, there is no mechanism to require it.
|
Bunk - can you comment on this in contrast with the language in the CSEC statement about the city insisting on adding solar to the scope? I appreciate your uniquely qualified to speak on this points and I am hoping there is a factual way to rebut the torrent of City-bashing from those I know outside of CP who will side with the Flames' owners no matter what.
Fwiw Capital Power recently disclosed a roughly 15% capex overrun on solar in construction so I wonder if the 4M cost is an increase from suppliers over a previously agreed budget (my interpretation and extrapolation of Bunk's post) or if the solar actually is net new scope as CSEC suggests.