Fine, but if you can't get agreement on a fundamental part of the the entire project, how can you justify moving ahead with the project?  The goal was to eliminate the use of diesel generators.  At best they have reduced the use of them.  Is that now partial benefit sufficient to justify going ahead with the project?  obviously someone said yes it was.  They would have been much better off to spend 5 years resolving the objections and delaying the project.  The other problems were not political, so fools all.