Sant's surcharge pledge foolish - AD

Alternattiva Demokratika yesterday slammed Opposition leader Alfred Sant's promise to slash the electricity surcharge by half, describing the idea as an "expensive electoral trick" as the "season of electoral antics" kicks off.

It was "utterly foolish" for Dr Sant to make such promises without stating how they would be financed, said AD chairman Harry Vassallo.

The proposal was "economically unsustainable" unless energy production achieved superior efficiency and the government got serious about electricity theft, which was substantial.

Serious matters had to be dealt with seriously, Dr Vassallo insisted.

The promise was also environmentally destructive and irresponsible since it created the impression that energy consumption had no consequences, apart from economic. The message conveyed was that the consumer did not need to be careful anymore, said AD economy and finance spokesman, Edward Fenech.

Dr Sant could not play "economic games" on the inescapable rise in the cost of oil and the burden on families. He was giving the impression that Malta's reality was different from the rest of the world - a case of sheer "stupidity", Mr Fenech said.

But while AD disagreed with Dr Sant's rash 50 per cent discount on the surcharge - reminiscent of a sale on summer clothes at the end of the season - neither had the government shown sufficient sensitivity towards the impact the surcharge was having on the public's spending power.

It was using "calculator politics" to deal with the issue and had failed to use the oil crisis to sensitise the public to a more efficient use of energy, he said.

In its budget proposals, AD has proposed different surcharge rates, according to consumption levels on a per capita basis. For example, if a household was making a serious effort to save on energy, the applicable surcharge rate would be lower, while above-average consumption levels should incur higher costs, Mr Fenech explained.

The system would discriminate in favour of those who were more energy efficient, while being revenue neutral and, therefore, not costing the country anything, Mr Fenech said.

Dr Sant's proposal would cost the taxpayer Lm25 million a year, and Mr Fenech questioned where the money would come from. It was easy to say that they would be saved by cutting down on capital projects, which Dr Sant had not even managed to do during his short term in power, the spokesman said.

AD's proposal would also incentivise a culture of energy efficiency, he continued.

In Malta, renewable energy could replace 12 per cent of the energy generated from fossil fuels, but the country still had not tapped into this resource.

Instead of spending money on the extension of the power station, the government should invest in solar energy for every household - an initiative that would make more economic sense, but was not visible enough, would not allow for a ribbon to be cut, and did not involve commissions, Dr Vassallo said.