# External assessment of public claims — 19 August 2026

This note is the public post behind the peer-review register entry. It is not a licensed expert review. It transcribes an independent technical reading of the live site.

## Verdict

**Disputed** on the public claim. **Confirmed with caveat** on the wastewater-heat arithmetic.

Short answer from the reader: the core portfolio could work, and it is worth testing — but the site has not yet proved that it can replace 750 MW of gas at equal reliability or for $1.5–1.8 billion.

Scores offered: 8/10 as a proposal to test alternatives before new gas; 6/10 as a technically plausible portfolio; 4/10 as construction- or investment-ready today.

## Strongest defensible description

A roughly 400 MW domestic flexibility portfolio, potentially completed by a 200 MW seasonal-import bridge.

38 MW heat + (300 × 85%) MW battery + (150 × 80%) MW demand response = 413 MW. It reaches 613 MW only after adding 200 MW of winter imports.

Sewage heat does not, by itself, replace a gas plant.

## What this filing changed in response

Cover, submit kit, and FAQ no longer say the hybrid is an all-in replacement that covers the 2030 shortfall. The 38 MW credit is named as a resistance upper bound. The 15 kW / 675 MW identity sits beside Hydro’s ~6.4 kW coincident figure (~288 MW). The 85% battery haircut is not dependable capacity. Import cost stays open. Compute rent is out of the hybrid 20-year band. Bill 51 is not treated as a private heat-host mandate. The Order 1 tape is on the winter proof file.

Until Order 1 and a measured heat pilot pass, the honest claim remains: promising alternative that deserves independent modelling.