Debated in Parliament on 13 Sep 2016.
Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether he can provide an update on the delayed construction of Singapore's first co-digestion plant at PUB's Ulu Pandan Water Reclamation Plant; (b) whether fraud is involved in the delayed construction; and (c) what assistance will be provided to the affected SMEs involved in this project.
The purpose of the co-digestion demonstration project at the Ulu Pandan Water Reclamation Plant is to test a new technology developed and owned by Anaergia Inc, a leading international renewable energy company. The technology involves co-digesting food waste and used water sludge, thus increasing biogas production and reducing the net energy consumption of used water treatment. The project required Anaergia Inc to set up and operate the demonstration plant over three years under the TechPioneer Scheme, which is co-funded by the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and the Economic Development Board (EDB) and supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF). This scheme promotes the early adoption and commercialisation of new environmental and water technologies.
The co-digestion project had started well in November 2014. However, in October 2015, PUB discovered that the local company representing Anaergia Inc, Anaergia Pte Ltd (APL), was unable to meet the project schedule. PUB had also been in close contact with the Canada-based Anaergia Inc, which was committed to resolving the issue. The parent company decided to appoint its other Singapore subsidiary, Anaergia Singapore Pte Ltd (ASPL), to steer the project back on track. PUB had agreed to the change as the plant under construction is designed to use Anaergia Inc's proprietary co-digestion technology.
After ASPL took over the project, construction of the demonstration plant resumed in June 2016. The plant is now about 70% completed and is on schedule for completion by December 2016.
For all research and development projects co-funded by PUB, PUB only makes payments to the main contractor for the actual expenses incurred, after receipt of the invoice and onsite verification that the work had been satisfactorily completed. PUB was prompt in making payments to APL for this co-digestion project.
PUB does not directly contract with or reimburse the subcontractors for all its projects. For this particular co-digestion project, the subcontractors had informed PUB earlier this year that APL had not paid them for the work done. PUB took action and advised the subcontractors to seek legal redress and exercise their contractual rights against APL. We understand that the two subcontractors who took APL to Court were awarded Court judgments in May 2016 against APL for the amounts owed. We are unable to comment on whether fraud is involved in the delay in construction by APL.
PAPERCUTS