Is tariff consultation process a sham?

Speaking about public consultation on Enemalta's proposals on electricity tariffs, Minister Austin Gatt said he was informed that nobody commented on the proposals. He was informed wrongly as I, for one, had sent my feedback to the Malta Resources Authority on February 24.

Over the last few years, the MRA has issued a number of consultation papers on various topics but has always shied from publishing the results of such consultations. It makes one wonder whether this supposed consultation process is a sham. No wonder the unions ignored it.

My personal views do not concur with those of the unions as I hold that the previous practice of Enemalta taking loans to subsidise consumption is unsustainable and Enemalta should be permitted to operate as a business. Tariffs should be based on international fuel prices and if Enemalta goes into hedging it should be at its own risk and any gains or losses from the practice should not be passed on to the public.

As things are going, it is quite probable that the Enemalta electricity division will be privatised some time in the future. Will the principles on how the tariffs are worked out then change, allowing more profit to the owners while excluding the public from any consultation? This is what is expected to happen with fuels, where a private monopoly is replacing Enemalta's fuels division. The MRA has already said that the fuel company will be free to import fuels at any price it wishes and will then apply a mark-up decided by the regulator. It will be the worst kind of monopoly situation.

The MRA has proved to be a disappointment, its only function, apart from rubber-stamping the government's decisions, serving as a distribution agency for minor government subsidies. Far from being an independent regulator as envisaged by the European Union as a condition for entering Europe.