Summerland solar a vanity project

Dear Editor:

In reviewing materials concerning the Summerland solar and storage project, I note the mayor writes: “The Solar and Storage project also shows action on climate change,” and yet the sustainability coordinator writes: “The Solar and Storage Project is a utility infrastructure project, rather that a GHG emissions reduction project.”

Who is right? As far as I can see, the sustainability coordinator is the more credible one here, as solar does nothing to reduce GHG emissions when replacing hydro power. It may just increase them — the project is slated to be only temporary and then all the panels and associated infrastructure removed. May I assume that the storage battery system will remain indefinitely, given that it provides the opportunity to “peak-shave” during the coldest winter nights?

This is just one of the many issues surrounding this vanity project. There should be a full public examination and discussion of all aspects of this project — in particular, why it is being put on prime developable land and why did council defeat Coun. Richard Barkwill’s motion to have the value of the land appraised for consideration in the economics of the project.

At present, Council is also not considering the costs of decommissioning the site, once again a question posed by Barkwill. Is this short-sighted thinking typical of all council decisions? Why does Council refuse to consider the full cost of the project, now estimated to approach $1 million from Summerland’s budget, over and above the $6 million in tax dollars available “for free” from a federal government agency?

John Bennest Summerland