$2.2B Obama-Backed Solar Power Plant to Close

[nabeifuckpap]

https://www.newsmax.com/us/california-solar-power-ivanpah/2025/09/25/id/1227941/

WATCH TV LIVE​

Skip to main content

Menu

Home | America
Tags: california | solar power | ivanpah | mohave desert | electricity | obama administration

$2.2B Obama-Backed Solar Plant to Close​

By Jim Thomas | Thursday, 25 September 2025 10:26 PM EDT






A California solar power facility once hailed as a renewable energy breakthrough is shutting down two decades ahead of schedule after killing tens of thousands of birds and failing to meet electricity output goals, Blaze Media reported.

The Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in California's Mojave Desert was once the largest solar plant in the world. Built on 3,471 acres of public land, the $2.2 billion project included three 459-foot power towers and more than 173,000 heliostat mirrors, according to the U.S. Department of the Interior.

Launched with $1.6 billion in federal loan guarantees from the Obama administration, Ivanpah began operations in 2014 with an expected lifespan of 30 years. But it is now scheduled to shut down in 2026 after failing to generate solar power efficiently, the New York Post reported.

NRG Energy, the Texas-based company that invested most heavily in the project, said in a statement that Ivanpah "has been surpassed by solar photovoltaics (PV) due to much lower capital and operating costs in producing clean energy."

The company said shutdown procedures will commence in 2026, pending regulatory approval. Once closed, the site may be repurposed for PV energy production.

The plant's struggles were compounded in January, when utility giant PG&E announced it would terminate power purchase agreements with Ivanpah.

PG&E announced that terminating the agreements now would reduce costs for customers compared with maintaining them through 2039.

Performance issues plagued Ivanpah for years.

Jenny Chase, a solar analyst at BloombergNEF, told Climate Depot that the plant never generated more than 75% of its planned annual output.

SierraDailyNews reported that Ivanpah continued to rely on natural gas to operate, undermining its image as a green alternative.

Critics say the project is another cautionary tale of failed green energy experiments.

Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, told Fox News, "Ivanpah is yet another failed green energy boondoggle, much like Solyndra. Despite receiving $1.6 billion in federal loan guarantees, it never lived up to its promises, producing less electricity than expected while still relying on natural gas to stay operational."

Steven Milloy, a senior fellow at the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute and a former member of President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency transition team, warned that Ivanpah reflects broader problems with taxpayer-funded renewable energy.

"Soon we will be looking at failures of larger magnitude than Green New Deal spending. No green project relying on taxpayer subsidies has ever made any economic or environmental sense," Milloy told Fox News.

"It's important that President Trump stop the taxpayer bleeding by ending what he accurately calls the 'Green New Scam.'"

Jim Thomas​

Jim Thomas is a writer based in Indiana. He holds a bachelor's degree in Political Science, a law degree from U.I.C. Law School, and has practiced law for more than 20 years.​

Related Stories:

• The Uphill Battle Ahead: Four Different Leaders, Four Different Takes on Global Warming
• Solar Installation Forecast Slashed Amid Rising Costs

© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Special Links:​

• Trump’s Vision for Prosperity May Benefit Retirees the Most
• Thousands Flock to Card With $200 Bonus After Spending $500
• Neil Armstrong’s Shocking Apollo 11 Confession
• Bone on Bone Knees? Try This Before you Get Surgery
• Cardiologists Reveal How to Quickly Lose a Hanging Tummy
• Put Aluminum Foil in the Toilet at Night, Here's Why
• Brand New Trump 'Full-Auto' Knife

Click Here to comment on this article



Join the Newsmax Community

Read and Post Comments
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.

Download the Newsmax App​

About | Contact | Advertise | Shop | RSS | Archives | Careers | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions |

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© 2025 Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved

 

[laksaboy]

All the green/sustainable/renewable energy products and projects are scams. The PAP regime will find out the hard way.

 

[Hightech88]

Looks like Trump has been right all along. Aiyah, in reality solar is only good for small scale items like watches, calculators or some gadgets. Even ranjiao rooftop solars are actually more of a lifestyle money-wasting purchase which takes 6–12 years just to cover the initial investment, excluding maintenance and repairs LOL.

Trump spoke at UN meeting warning the useless United Nations that Climate Change and Green Energy nonsense is the greatest con job scam ever:

 

[Leongsam]

Trump is the best of the best!

 

[syed putra]

Elon musk is a strong proponent of solar.

 

[Leongsam]

Elon musk is a strong proponent of solar.

Solar makes the most sense because it harnesses the energy from nuclear fusion. There is no need whatsoever to build a reactor on earth all we need to do is let the sun do its job.

 

[Hightech88]

Elon musk is a strong proponent of solar.

Solar makes the most sense because it harnesses the energy from nuclear fusion. There is no need whatsoever to build a reactor on earth all we need to do is let the sun do its job.

Yes, Elon is a strong supporter of solar as he said that solar energy is the most abundant long-term source of clean energy for humanity.

But he is still a businessmen to boost his stock price LOL. As mentioned, rooftop solar or Tesla Panels is still just a lifestyle purchase which makes little financial sense.
Just look at the payback time to recover the initial investment for a typical US & SG home, excluding repair and maintenance charges LOL. :

Payback time calculation for Tesla solar panels + Powerwall.

Typical Setup (U.S. home)​

• Solar panels (8 kW system):
  Cost (after 30% federal tax credit): ~$15,000–$18,000
  • Annual savings: $1,500–$2,000
• Tesla Powerwall (13.5 kWh usable storage):
  Installed cost (after credit): ~$7,500–$9,000
  • Adds resilience (backup power) and helps with time-of-use (TOU) rates.
  • But in pure financial terms, it doesn’t generate more electricity — it just stores it.

Total cost: ~$22,500–$27,000 (Panels + Powerwall).

Payback Period​

• Annual savings (depends on state, utility):
  No TOU pricing: still $1,500–$2,000
  • With TOU pricing (high evening rates): can rise to $2,200–$2,800

Scenarios:

• Low-savings case: $25,000 ÷ $1,500 ≈ 16.7 years
• Medium case: $24,000 ÷ $2,000 ≈ 12 years
• High-savings case (TOU states like California/Hawaii): $23,000 ÷ $2,600 ≈ 8.8 years

Takeaways​

• Panels only: 7–12 year payback.
• Panels + Powerwall: typically 12–17 years, but can be under 10 years in high-rate states.
• Main reason to add Powerwall: blackout protection + energy independence, not faster ROI.

----------------Source: ChatGPT-----------

Rough estimate for Singapore of the payback period for panels + battery (e.g. Powerwall-type storage).

Key Data for Singapore​

• Residential electricity tariff (SP / regulated) is about S$0.2747 / kWh (without GST) or S$0.2994 / kWh (with GST) as of July–September 2025. (SP Group)
• A typical rooftop solar installation cost (for home / landed properties) is ~ S$15,000 to S$20,000 for ~10 kWp. (Fomo Energy)
• A residential battery (10 kWh scale) typically costs S$7,000 – S$10,000 extra, depending on brand, size, etc. (Solar Panel Contractor Singapore)
• Many analyses say that solar (without battery) in Singapore often achieves payback in about 6 to 8 years, depending on consumption, rooftop, and export rates. (firstsolution.com.sg)

Rough Payback Estimate (Panels + Battery)​

Let me walk through a sample calculation.

Assumptions​

• You install, say, a 10 kWp solar PV system for S$18,000 (midpoint).
• You add a battery (10 kWh) for S$8,000.
• Total capital cost = S$26,000.
• The system (solar) produces, say, 12,000 kWh/year (this is aggressive; actual may be lower, but good for an estimate).
• Self-consumption (i.e. electricity you use directly as it’s generated) is, say, 50%. The rest is exported / stored / lost.
• Battery allows you to shift use of some of that exported/unused generation to evening/nighttime, increasing your effective “use” of solar. Suppose that gives you an extra 10% effective utilization.
• So net useful kWh offset from grid = (50% + 10%) = 60% of 12,000 kWh = 7,200 kWh per year.
• Value of offset (at grid rate) = 7,200 × S$0.2994 = S$2,156.
• Plus maybe you can export some extra with the local scheme (but the “export credit” is typically lower than your buying tariff). Let’s assume an extra S$300/year from exporting surplus.
• So total annual benefit = ~ S$2,456.

Payback

Payback​

[
\text{Payback time} ≈ \frac{\text{S$26,000}}{\text{S$2,456/year}} ≈ 10.6 \text{ years}
]
So in this model, adding a battery pushes the payback into the ~10 to 12 year range (or more, depending on inefficiencies, maintenance, degradation, etc).

If your self-consumption is higher (say you are home more, use appliances during the day) or export compensation is better, the payback could be a few years faster. But if you use most power at night and rely heavily on battery, the battery’s losses degrade the ROI.

⚠ Factors That Can Change This​

1. Self-consumption rate: If you use more electricity during the day, battery helps less; if you use more at night, battery helps more.
2. Battery efficiency & losses: Every charge/discharge has losses (10–20% or more).
3. Degradation / maintenance: Over time, panels and batteries lose performance.
4. Export / grid export credit: In Singapore the compensation for exported energy is lower than consumption rate. So surplus energy isn’t valued equally.
5. Financing cost: If you borrow / take a loan, interest reduces net return.
6. Policy changes / subsidies: Any incentives or changes in tariffs affect payback.

Conclusion​

• In Singapore, a solar + battery system is likely to pay for itself in the ~10 to 12+ years region under favorable conditions.
• Without the battery (just solar), the payback could be shorter (6–8 years in many cases).
• The battery adds resilience and shifts energy use, but doesn’t generate electricity, so its economic benefit is more limited in Singapore’s context (especially with less generous export credits).

----------------Source: ChatGPT-----------
1. Why Musk / Tesla focused on

• In 2017, Elon Musk/Tesla didn’t actually build a solar farm in South Australia — instead, they built what was then the world’s largest lithium-ion battery system, the Hornsdale Power Reserve (100 MW / 129 MWh at first, later expanded).
• The reason: Australia already had plenty of renewable generation (especially wind and some solar). The problem wasn’t producing energy — it was storing and stabilizing it.
• South Australia’s grid was plagued by blackouts, instability, and price spikes due to the intermittency of renewables and the cost of fast “peaking” gas plants.
• The Tesla battery provided grid-scale storage that could:
  
  • Instantly inject or absorb power to stabilize frequency (within milliseconds).
  • Reduce the need for expensive gas-fired peaker plants.
  • Store surplus renewable power and release it during peak demand.
    

So, instead of building more generation, Musk/Tesla solved the bottleneck: reliability and balancing.

2. How the Tesla​

• Technology: Lithium-ion (Tesla Powerpack, now Megapack) batteries.
• Capacity: Originally 100 MW / 129 MWh, later expanded to 150 MW / 194 MWh.
• Functions:
  
  1. Frequency Control Ancillary Services (FCAS): Provides ultra-fast response (milliseconds) to keep grid frequency stable at 50 Hz. Traditionally, this service was provided by gas turbines, but they take minutes to ramp up.
  2. Energy Arbitrage: Charge during low-price / surplus renewable hours, discharge during peak demand (when electricity prices can spike massively).
  3. Backup supply: Can provide short bursts of electricity during outages.
     

3. Payback for the Australian Government / Operators​

The economics are surprisingly good:

• Cost to build: ~A$90–100M (2017).
• Reported annual savings / revenues:
  
  • In its first year, the battery saved the South Australian grid and consumers an estimated A$40M by reducing FCAS costs and replacing expensive peaker plants.
  • Independent reports (e.g. Aurecon, Neoen, AEMO) have shown consistent multi-tens of millions in savings each year.
• Payback period:
  
  • Roughly 2.5 to 3 years (A$100M cost ÷ A$30–40M savings per year).
  • That’s exceptionally fast for infrastructure projects.
  • After that, it became a profit-generating asset for Neoen (the operator, with Tesla tech).

This is why more “big batteries” have since been rolled out across Australia (Victoria Big Battery, etc.).

Bottom Line​

• Elon Musk didn’t build a solar farm in Australia because the country already had lots of renewables.
• The real problem was grid stability and storage → hence Tesla’s giant battery.
• The Tesla battery works by instant grid response + energy arbitrage.
• Payback was around 2–3 years — much faster than typical solar farm ROI (which is usually 6–12 years).

In other words, Musk proved that storage, not just generation, can be the most profitable investment in renewable-heavy grids.

------Source: ChatGPT-------------

 

[cocobobo]

All the green/sustainable/renewable energy products and projects are scams. The PAP regime will find out the hard way.

Scam how?

You mean water come out of the cables instead of electricity?

 

[ftan42]

The main concern is the disposal process after the product's lifespan has ended, as it doesn't make sense to recycle it due to its high cost, which often results in it being sent to landfills instead.

 

[syed putra]

How he make money from storage?

• Elon Musk didn’t build a solar farm in Australia because the country already had lots of renewables.
• The real problem was grid stability and storage → hence Tesla’s giant battery.
• The Tesla battery works by instant grid response + energy arbitrage.
• Payback was around 2–3 years — much faster than typical solar farm ROI (which is usually 6–12 years).

In other words, Musk proved that storage, not just generation, can be the most profitable investment in renewable-heavy grids.

 

[syed putra]

The main concern is the disposal process after the product's lifespan has ended, as it doesn't make sense to recycle it due to its high cost, which often results in it being sent to landfills instead.

Batteries may decline in storage after say 20 years but it is still usable at 80%.
Solar panels now reaching 30 years and still in working condition but producing less power. Maybe 70%. So no need to dispose. These products have zero running parts.
If you want, you can rehabilitate these batteries and panels. Not sure what the ost will Be.

 

[k1976]

Scam how?

You mean water come out of the cables instead of electricity?

That is a good one

 

[congo9]

All the green/sustainable/renewable energy products and projects are scams. The PAP regime will find out the hard way.

Probably they knew , but it's hard to get out now

 

[Hightech88]

Looks like Trump has been right all along. Aiyah, in reality solar is only good for small scale items like watches, calculators or some gadgets. Even ranjiao rooftop solars are actually more of a lifestyle money-wasting purchase which takes 6–12 years just to cover the initial investment, excluding maintenance and repairs LOL.

Trump spoke at UN meeting warning the useless United Nations that Climate Change and Green Energy nonsense is the greatest con job scam ever:

Examples and reasons supporting Trump’s argument about green energy projects being a “scam” or “con job.”

---

Title: Why Some Green Energy Projects Can Be Seen as a “Scam” or “Con Job”

Real-world examples that illustrate why President Trump called certain green energy initiatives a “scam” or “con job” at the recent UN meeting. These focus on poorly designed policies, cost overruns, consumer scams, and hidden system costs.

#	Project / Issue	Country	Cost / Scale	Problem / Issue	Source
1	Ivanpah Solar Power Facility	USA	$2.2B build, $1.6B federal loan guarantees	Failed to meet energy targets, needed natural gas to operate, ~6,000 bird deaths annually	New York Post
2	Snowy 2.0 Hydroelectric & Storage	Australia	Budget grew from $2B → $12B	Delays, cost overruns, poor project management	Cato Institute
3	Capacity Investment Scheme	Australia	N/A	Only 952 MW reached final investment by 2025; projects stuck in regulatory/planning issues	The Australian
4	Revolution Wind Project	USA	Offshore wind farm	Federal stop orders, legal & ethical subcontracting controversies	CT Insider
5	Residential Solar Scams	USA	N/A	Aggressive sales tactics, misleading cost claims, misrepresented tax credits	FTC, US Treasury
6	Grid Integration Costs	Europe	€1.3T needed by 2030	Hidden infrastructure costs for transmission, balancing, storage	CRU Group
7	Battery Storage Lifecycle	Australia	Hornsdale: 100–150 MW	Batteries degrade and require repowering in 12–15 years, adding significant costs	Aurecon Group
8	Badly-Designed Subsidies / Policies	Multiple	N/A	Poorly structured feed-in tariffs and guarantees inflate consumer bills and taxpayer spending	IEA / World Energy Investment
9	System-Level Integration Costs	Multiple	N/A	Intermittent wind/solar requires transmission upgrades, balancing services, storage, backup plants	IEA
10	Karadzhalovo Solar Park	Bulgaria	$248M	Rapid resale of project after completion, raising questions about financial viability	Wikipedia
11	Denmark's North Sea Energy Island	Denmark	$29.81B	Delayed by 3 years due to rising costs and high interest rates	Reuters
12	Ørsted's Hornsea 4 Offshore Windfarm	UK	2.4 GW	Canceled due to escalating costs and economic uncertainties	The Guardian
13	Ørsted's Green Fuels Project in Sweden	Sweden	€470M	Canceled due to slower-than-expected market growth and higher project costs	Financial Times
14	Cyprus Gas Terminal Project	Cyprus	€67M EU funding	EU requested funds back due to issues in the tender process	Kathimerini
15	Poland's Nuclear Program	Poland	N/A	Delays and cost overruns; lacks conditions for success	CleanTechnica
16	UK's Hinkley Point C Nuclear Plant	UK	£48B	Costs soared from £18B to £48B; completion delayed to 2029–2031	The Times

Summary:

• Poorly designed government policies and subsidies can impose massive costs on taxpayers and consumers.
• Many large renewable projects face delays, cost overruns, and underperformance.
• Consumer scams and fraudulent practices in rooftop solar financing erode trust.
• Grid integration and battery lifecycle costs are often underestimated.

Taken together, these examples show that poorly managed green energy initiatives can behave like a “scam” or “con job,” even if the underlying technology itself is legitimate.

---

-----------------Source: ChatGPT----------------

 

[syed putra]

Examples and reasons supporting Trump’s argument about green energy projects being a “scam” or “con job.”

---

Title: Why Some Green Energy Projects Can Be Seen as a “Scam” or “Con Job”

Real-world examples that illustrate why President Trump called certain green energy initiatives a “scam” or “con job” at the recent UN meeting. These focus on poorly designed policies, cost overruns, consumer scams, and hidden system costs.

#	Project / Issue	Country	Cost / Scale	Problem / Issue	Source
1	Ivanpah Solar Power Facility	USA	$2.2B build, $1.6B federal loan guarantees	Failed to meet energy targets, needed natural gas to operate, ~6,000 bird deaths annually	New York Post
2	Snowy 2.0 Hydroelectric & Storage	Australia	Budget grew from $2B → $12B	Delays, cost overruns, poor project management	Cato Institute
3	Capacity Investment Scheme	Australia	N/A	Only 952 MW reached final investment by 2025; projects stuck in regulatory/planning issues	The Australian
4	Revolution Wind Project	USA	Offshore wind farm	Federal stop orders, legal & ethical subcontracting controversies	CT Insider
5	Residential Solar Scams	USA	N/A	Aggressive sales tactics, misleading cost claims, misrepresented tax credits	FTC, US Treasury
6	Grid Integration Costs	Europe	€1.3T needed by 2030	Hidden infrastructure costs for transmission, balancing, storage	CRU Group
7	Battery Storage Lifecycle	Australia	Hornsdale: 100–150 MW	Batteries degrade and require repowering in 12–15 years, adding significant costs	Aurecon Group
8	Badly-Designed Subsidies / Policies	Multiple	N/A	Poorly structured feed-in tariffs and guarantees inflate consumer bills and taxpayer spending	IEA / World Energy Investment
9	System-Level Integration Costs	Multiple	N/A	Intermittent wind/solar requires transmission upgrades, balancing services, storage, backup plants	IEA
10	Karadzhalovo Solar Park	Bulgaria	$248M	Rapid resale of project after completion, raising questions about financial viability	Wikipedia
11	Denmark's North Sea Energy Island	Denmark	$29.81B	Delayed by 3 years due to rising costs and high interest rates	Reuters
12	Ørsted's Hornsea 4 Offshore Windfarm	UK	2.4 GW	Canceled due to escalating costs and economic uncertainties	The Guardian
13	Ørsted's Green Fuels Project in Sweden	Sweden	€470M	Canceled due to slower-than-expected market growth and higher project costs	Financial Times
14	Cyprus Gas Terminal Project	Cyprus	€67M EU funding	EU requested funds back due to issues in the tender process	Kathimerini
15	Poland's Nuclear Program	Poland	N/A	Delays and cost overruns; lacks conditions for success	CleanTechnica
16	UK's Hinkley Point C Nuclear Plant	UK	£48B	Costs soared from £18B to £48B; completion delayed to 2029–2031	The Times

Summary:

• Poorly designed government policies and subsidies can impose massive costs on taxpayers and consumers.
• Many large renewable projects face delays, cost overruns, and underperformance.
• Consumer scams and fraudulent practices in rooftop solar financing erode trust.
• Grid integration and battery lifecycle costs are often underestimated.

---

-----------------Source: ChatGPT----------------

No examples from china where its massive solar projects and battery storage contributes to the economy and reduction in electricity cost.

 

[k1976]

No examples from china where its massive solar projects and battery storage contributes to the economy and reduction in electricity cost.

Well, battery tech improved a lot along the way since Obama Days esp in China

 

[laksaboy]

Scam how?

You mean water come out of the cables instead of electricity?

The main scam is 'CO2 emission is bad for the planet, and we must reduce it'. All other scams of the anti-carbon cult come from it.

The entire new HDB town in Tengah is predicated on this. I'm sure many have profited from the additional premium charged for helping to 'save the planet'.

https://www.hdb.gov.sg/about-us/history/hdb-towns-your-home/tengah/live-green-at-tengah

 

[Hightech88]

The main scam is 'CO2 emission is bad for the planet, and we must reduce it'. All other scams of the anti-carbon cult come from it.

The entire new HDB town in Tengah is predicated on this. I'm sure many have profited from the additional premium charged for helping to 'save the planet'.

https://www.hdb.gov.sg/about-us/history/hdb-towns-your-home/tengah/live-green-at-tengah

Wonderful BTO project indeed..:

If this is not a scam, I don't know what it is LOL:

https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/w...her-3-delays-moving-tengah-flat-leaky-cooling

'What happens if my kids get electrocuted?' Mother of 3 delays moving into Tengah flat with leaky cooling system​

Tengah resident Dianah said that there were puddles of water in the living room, and damages to the walls and vinyl flooring.
PHOTO: Screengrab/TikTok/Jnd_kazoku
March 28, 2024 6:57 PM

Mother of three Dianah received the keys to her new Build-To-Order (BTO) flat in Tengah after a year-long delay due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

But the 36-year-old coordinator, who declined to give her full name, said she will not be moving in anytime soon, after being left "speechless" by water leaking from the centralised cooling system in her five-room unit.

"The leaks are near to the electrical switch area," Dianah said. "Will SP be responsible if anything happens to my family?"


She said that SP Group, which manages the cooling system in Tengah town, allegedly assured her that her new home would not be affected by an issue prevalent among many residents there.

Plantation Village resident Dianah said that she received her keys on Feb 19, but has yet to move into the flat.

She said that, like many of her neighbours, is concerned about leaks stemming from the centralised cooling system.

Tengah, an eco-friendly and car-lite "forest" town, is the first HDB estate to provide a centralised cooling system as an option for home owners.

The system uses chilled water to remove heat, unlike conventional air-conditioning units that are connected to outdoor compressors and use refrigerants to cool down flats. Centralised chillers on the blocks' rooftops produce chilled water that is piped directly into homes.

There have been teething problems, with some residents sharing photos of puddles of water caused by the leaky cooling system.

"SP replied that my unit was not affected and told me to proceed with renovation," Dianah said, adding that she later paid around $5,110 for the installation of five fan coil units.

But on March 20, Dianah, who was not at home, received a "serious" call from a staff member at the Building Service Centre in Tengah.

An inspection of her flat found puddles of water in the living room, and damages to the walls and vinyl flooring.

"I was disappointed, speechless and my heart sank," Dianah said. "SP told me that they will be liable for all the damages caused by the centralised cooling system.

Dianah said that SP has since closed the main valve outside her home.

But she is putting off plans to move into her flat due to concerns about her children's safety.

Dianah said: "What if the leaks happen when I'm on vacation or when the warranty ends? Who will bear the cost?

"What happens if my kids get electrocuted? Will SP be responsible?"
-----------------------

https://www.edgeprop.sg/property-ne...esidents-seek-legal-recourse-against-sp-group

CCS woes spur Tengah residents to seek legal recourse against SP Group​

By Nicholas Lam / EdgeProp Singapore |July 26, 2024 8:30 AM SGT

The CCS pipes coolant from an energy-efficient central-cooling unit located on the roof (Credit: Samuel Isaac Chua / EdgeProp Singapore)

When the Tengah eco-town estate was launched over six years ago, it was touted as a “forest town” with green, sustainable and smart features — one of which was the debut of the central cooling system (CCS), the first to be offered in a public housing estate.

Initial marketing material for the CCS stated that the system was eco-friendly and efficient. It uses centralised condensers to pipe chilled water as the main coolant. Cost savings of 30% were advertised for the CCS compared to conventional air conditioning.

However, teething issues arising from the implementation of Tengah’s CCS have led some residents who have moved in to seek legal recourse against SP Group, the company tasked with building, designing and implementing the CCS across the estate.


A Telegram chat group, “Tengah CCS Issues”, conducted a poll to gauge the intentions of its 3,000 members. It found that out of 500 respondents, 21 (4.2%) said they have opened a case with the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT). Another 92 (18.4%) indicated intentions to do so.

Of the 21 respondents who claimed to have opened cases, four responded that they were successful in their cases against SP, three responded that they were not, and the remaining cases were ongoing.

Several respondents shared with EdgeProp Singapore that one of the main reasons they were pursuing legal recourse was a lack of faith that SP would make good on its initial promises for the CCS. Therefore, they are seeking to cancel their contracts with minimal financial losses.

As of July 22, the MyTengah.sg website by SP Group still quotes the outdated cost-saving estimates from November 2023 (Source: SP Group/MyTengah website)

Early birds​

A Tengah resident who only wants to be known as Mrs Tan has an ongoing case and recounts why she signed up for the CCS in 2020.

“The system was eco-friendly, cost-saving, and we wanted to support the new idea,” says Tan. “It didn’t matter that we signed up years before actual implementation because we believed that an established organisation like SP would execute it well.”

However, her issues with the CCS and SP started soon after she signed her contract.

Tan says: “I wanted to shift my fan coil unit,” a point she claims to have brought up in initial conversations with SP’s sales representatives before signing her contract.

But after signing, she was told that the system could not accommodate the shift. She attempted to resolve the issue with SP for over a year before requesting that pre-installation works for her unit be put on hold.

The majority of complaints about the system stem from water condensing or leaking from the piping. (Credit: Samuel Isaac Chua / EdgeProp Singapore)

Penalties for termination​

Photos and videos of pooling water caused by the CCS began to flood the “Tengah CCS Issues” chat group on Sept 22, 2023, following the completion of the first batch of flats in the estate.

Shortly after, SP released a statement on Nov 6, 2023, revising its initial cost-saving estimates from 30% to 17%, citing an increase in electricity costs.
SP also announced multiple measures to reassure residents in its November 2023 statement, including additional quality checks, waiving CCS usage charges, halving the contract cancellation fee and resolving 88% of reported issues.

However, in light of her previous experience with SP, Tan decided to cancel her contract. Terminating her contract in December 2023 incurred a cost of $796.25, or 17.5% of her total installation charge. Her unit was five months from being completed.

Currently, residents who cancel their CCS contract agreement before their fan coil units, piping and cabling are installed incur a penalty equal to 17.5% of the total installation charge. The penalty increases to 50% if the contract is cancelled after installation works are completed. Contracts cancelled within the 30-day cooling-off period from signing incur no cancellation charge.

According to the contract agreement issued by SP, the amount reflects a “genuine pre-estimate of the loss” suffered by the company due to the contract’s cancellation.

CCS testing being conducted at a completed unit in Tengah following the detection of leaks six months after moving in (Credit: Samuel Isaac Chua / EdgeProp Singapore)

Claims and counterclaims​

Court documents seen by EdgeProp Singapore show that at least one resident has successfully dismissed SP’s claim of loss incurred from customers cancelling their contracts.

The resident, who only wants to be known as Maan, is a construction project manager in his 50s. He succeeded in dismissing SP’s claim of damages incurred during his SCT hearing in February.

Like Tan, Maan cancelled his CCS contract after the system did not allow the coolant pipe in his unit to be rerouted to accommodate his renovation plans.
Maan claims that a sales representative from SP assured him that he could void the contract without repercussions in such cases. Yet SP informed him that he was still liable for the cancellation fee after cancelling the contract.

Without evidence of the verbal exchange between himself and the sales representative, Maan filed a claim against SP with the SCT. In response, SP filed a counterclaim.

“I’m not sure why I even filed the claim,” says Maan, as he had not yet paid the cancellation fee at that point and, thus, could not prove that he suffered a loss. But to his surprise, neither could SP.

SCT records showed that SP’s counterclaim was dismissed.

“When we were asked to produce evidence, SP didn’t submit anything,” recounts Maan. “I think that’s why the magistrate dismissed its claim.”

Newly completed HDB flats are covered by a one-year Defects Liability Period effective from the date of key collection (Credit: Samuel Isaac Chua / EdgeProp Singapore)

‘Refuse to pay’​

Since sharing his experience on the Telegram group, Maan estimates that up to 15 other residents reached out to him for advice on how to proceed with their own claims against SP. However, he has not heard of SP filing another counterclaim since his case.

Other residents who have filed with the SCT claim that their cases were dismissed out of hand when they could not prove loss and are still on the hook for the termination charge.

Consequently, a future resident of Tengah’s Park District, a multimedia designer in his 20s who only wants to be known as Jay, has decided not to pay the cancellation fee and wait for SP to file an SCT claim against him.

A common notion among those in the Telegram chat group is that the SCT will interpret the payment of the cancellation fee as a settlement and throw out the case.
“At the moment, we just refuse to pay and see how it goes,” says Jay.
“I think there will be fewer people intending to go the SCT route now since there are many stories of cases being thrown out.”

More than 9,000 CCS subscribers​

As of Feb 12, SP reported having more than 9,000 CCS subscribers in Tengah, equal to about 70% of residents who have signed leases for HDB flats there.
SP has also stated that they aim to resolve all reported issues within 10 business days of the initial inspection.

In response to a request for comment from EdgeProp Singapore, an SP spokesperson said: “SP Group, together with our partners, are committed to delivering a reliable, energy-efficient, and cost-effective CCS. Our round-the-clock operations and customer support teams remain ready to respond to customer queries and assist them with timely support.”

‘Brilliant idea’​

Russell Pang, co-founder of local interior design firm Kinjo, has renovated five HDB flats in Tengah. All five had subscribed to the CCS.

“Of my five projects, three units experienced issues with leaking and condensation before renovations began,” says Pang. “Technicians from SP Group responded within two to three weeks at no additional cost to the homeowners.” He has not heard of CCS issues arising in his projects since.

Based on his personal experience and conversations with other interior designers who have done renovations in Tengah, Pang believes that instances of CCS faults severe enough to require rectification works after renovation are “quite rare”.

He also shares that there are preventative measures to minimise such cases. “I advise my clients to thoroughly test their CCS units and report any issues before renovation works,” says Pang. “This way, any leakages can be remedied before affecting renovation works.”
Newly completed HDB flats are also covered by a one-year Defects Liability Period effective from the date of the key collection. Defects can be reported to the Building Service Centre within the estate for rectification works.

Pang advises CCS subscribers to avoid hiding or covering the coolant pipe's trunking to better detect faults (Photo: Russell Pang / Kinjo)

Pang also avoids hiding or covering the coolant pipe’s trunking in the five units he renovated. He explains that it allows homeowners to identify and remedy leaking or condensation issues in the future.

“The CCS is a brilliant idea,” says Pang. Like any new feature, it has teething issues, he concedes. However, he is confident that they will be ironed out.
An example is the new open-concept layout offered at the upcoming October launch of the Kallang-Whampoa Build-To-Order flats. “Without additional support beams, air-conditioner piping may be even more prominent without a false ceiling,” explains Pang. However, he is “cautiously optimistic” that the issue will be resolved.
-------------------

 

[cocobobo]

The main scam is 'CO2 emission is bad for the planet, and we must reduce it'. All other scams of the anti-carbon cult come from it.

The entire new HDB town in Tengah is predicated on this. I'm sure many have profited from the additional premium charged for helping to 'save the planet'.

https://www.hdb.gov.sg/about-us/history/hdb-towns-your-home/tengah/live-green-at-tengah

Even if it's not carbon free or whatever, cost of solar is already lower than sg's natural gas electricity. When even the elite install them on their landed roofs, you know they know something