The figure, ranging between €1.9 million and €2.8 million , refers, according to two different versions, to additional costs or lost revenue from energy sales caused by the system malfunction. This figure, and its nature, is thought to be one of the triggers for the heated dispute between Tecnocasic and Cacip, which culminated last July in Barbara Porru 's resignation from the leadership of the consortium comprising the Metropolitan City of Cagliari and the municipalities of Assemini, Capoterra, Elmas, Sarroch, Sestu, and Uta.

According to Porru, that figure refers to "extra costs" based on the information provided by Ernst & Young in the analysis conducted at the request of the Consortium following the alarm raised by its own board of auditors regarding the presence of "charges"—which the audit firm defined as "structural and recurring"—at Tecnocasic. However, its sole director, Sandro Anedda , attributes that amount to lower revenues due to lower energy sales compared to the past (a difference estimated at €1.9 million). Indeed, he adds, Ernst & Young itself "explained in a subsequent note that the extra costs are not attributable to Tecnocasic."

A back-and-forth that has a legal aftermath , because after her resignation following the motion of no confidence presented against her by the board of directors (mayors Beniamino Garau of Capoterra, Mario Puddu of Assemini and Angelo Dessì of Sarroch), former president Porru sued Anedda for defamation , accusing him of having reacted to the analysis of the accounts with a series of behaviors deemed obstructive and by disseminating information defined as "false" against her.

It all began with the auditors' report, nine months ago, in which they highlighted the continued presence of those "structural" charges at Tecnocasic (Cacip's in-house company and therefore subject to similar oversight), adding that their recognition would worsen Cacip's income statement and financial exposure. Thus, on November 25th, the Consortium unanimously decided to verify the accuracy of those accounts.

Since then, according to the complaint, Anedda has slowed down its inspections and "the approval of the 2025 budget." In December, Cacip asked its subsidiary to contain expenses by cutting consulting fees, reorganizing staff, and mitigating the costs of the plant shutdown. The revamping of line A has been underway since 2020, and already in 2024, Tecnocasic spent €740,905 to renovate and operate the boiler on line B for at least another 12 months (to ensure waste disposal).

But Line B had problems in 2024 and was the subject of work in 2025, a year in which, however, it never operated despite a certificate of regular execution issued by Tecnocasic.

The document, while not definitive, highlights several alleged critical issues in Tecnocasic's management. Specifically, regarding the alleged increased expenditure of between €1.99 million and €2.78 million. In this regard, in his communications with CACIP, Anedda repeatedly describes (as reported in the complaint) similar controls in the past as lacking. He expresses "disappointment" with the manner in which the due diligence is proceeding, arguing that the audit should be conducted jointly by the Consortium and Tecnocasic, whereas, in his view, it was handled solely by the president and general manager without his involvement. He speaks of an "absolute lack of cooperation on the part of the organization, which persists in conduct more appropriate to an opposing party." He believes he cannot "share the requested documentation directly with Ernst & Young" because it contains "confidential data and information relating to the company's activities." He describes the nature of the "objections" leveled against Tecnocasic by CACIP's general manager as "instrumental."

After the urgent board meeting in which she received a vote of no confidence, Porru resigned. She then, through her lawyer Aldo Luchi, filed a lawsuit against Anedda for attempting to "create a climate of suspicion regarding the chairwoman within the board of directors simply because, in properly performing her role as representative of the controlling entity, she prevented the due diligence from being delayed or obstructed."

It would be "false" that Anedda was not involved in the investigations, given "the multiple requests for cooperation that were consistently ignored by Tecnocasic." The manager's sole purpose was "obstructionist," accusing Cacip of a "hostile attitude." Now the matter is in the hands of the prosecutors.

The manager's reply: "No irregularities."

Despite being "unaware" of the complaint, Sandro Anedda explains that he is "absolutely calm" and ready to respond to former president Porru's accusations when the time comes. However, he adds, "Ernst & Young itself has confirmed the absence of administrative irregularities and maintained that the additional costs are not attributable to Tecnocasic's management."

Nor is it true, as alleged in the complaint, that he obstructed the due diligence or challenged Cacip's ability to conduct a similar inspection. He simply "highlighted," he reiterates, the lack of "involvement of the opposing party," namely Tecnocasic: "It did not participate in the cross-examination checks. I believe that, to be properly conducted, the analysis should have included our presence." In any case , "I presented my counterarguments" to the checks, and "Ernst & Young later specified, in a note, that the additional costs arose from the age and revamping of Cacip's equipment, reiterating that in its original report it did not attribute responsibility to us."

According to Anedda, the situation unfolds as follows . Tecnocasic had requested €3.9 million in additional costs from Cacip; the subsequent due diligence, "which did not reveal any irregularities in the quantification of the costs we incurred," the administrator notes, "made some observations, based only on documents, regarding a specific item": there was a loss of revenue between €1.9 and €2.8 million, caused by reduced energy sales.

Tecnocasic "explained why it included those figures, and Ernst & Young responded by claiming that its estimate was merely an estimate, as it had no technical reports. In any case, the extra costs were not the result of Tecnocasic's mismanagement, but rather the malfunction of Cacip's A and B production lines." So much so that "the Consortium itself moved Tecnocasic's line, approving the extra costs on August 12th."

© Riproduzione riservata