This could also be called energy of politics. The political class could not be more energetic in its pursuit of keeping the question of energy supplies out of the professional sphere where it should belong. This past week has seen the situation growing worse.

In his winding up of the two-day debate on the Budget 2010 motion the Prime Minister touched on energy sourcing. He let it be known that he had instructed Enemalta to try to source supplies for a full year.

Never mind that this way it appeared that the corporation has not one political master, but two - Minister Austin Gatt and PM Lawrence Gonzi. Above all it was finally made as dark as Marsa coal dust that Enemalta is subject to political direction.

That should never be the case. It is enough that the corporation, like others in the public sector, has a politically appointed board, plus a chairman who has become highly controversial - not for his association with contractors involved in the coming extension of the Delimara power station, but for his remarks about the reason for the recent extensive power outage.

Board or no board the monopolistic supplier of our electricity requirements ought to have a kernel of able professionals who should be solely responsible for sourcing and satisfying the corporation's oil product inputs.

That, after all, was the principle behind the appointment of Roderick Chalmers and others to make recommendations on the issue. The Chalmers committee studied the matter in depth and came out with a set of expert proposals. The government gave accepted them for a while. Yet it is not at all clear that it has continued doing so. Certainly, the proposals did not include one that Enemalta should bind its supplies one year in advance.

To be fair to the Prime Minister that suggestion did originate from him. I believe it was the Leader of the Opposition who first put it forward, with the aim of stabilising tariffs for commercial, industrial and domestic consumers. Not long afterwards the business sector took the proposal up, and that was a voice which the Prime Minister and Minister Gatt obviously felt should be heeded.

Were they right to do so? The PM, by nature and definition a political animal as well as the country's CEO, did not fail to utter the right warning. Tying up a long way in advance means that we're stuck with the resulting tariffs should the price of oil and its by-products fall, he said. He did so quite before he revealed his political instructions to Enemalta.

I am not by any means an expert on oil or its pricing. I do believe, however, that the best way forward is to cover ahead judiciously, largely to move along the market path with flexibility to cover more intensively should prices drop below the trend line, and assuming one were able to cover at acceptable (higher) forward prices. Essentially, I believe that is also what the Chalmers Committee said.

I also firmly believe that the Enemalta monopoly must end. Other operators should be encouraged to offer supplies, even if the distribution infrastructure has to remain in the hands of the government. That is the only way to really attach such inefficiencies as remain in the operations of Enemalta. Minister Gatt too had anticipated this line. He said that those who talk about inefficiencies should not complain about layoffs should these be necessary.

Fair enough, but layoffs might not even be necessary. Skilled workers in the sector are scarce and would surely be competed for, rather than be laid off, should other operators be allowed to enter it. That would also put to rest the expectation of economic operators and domestic consumers alike that electricity tariffs should not reflect the movement of relevant petroleum by-products in the market.

The way forward should not be political interference, but political explanation, with specific and detailed references to how other small countries, or regions in bigger countries, work. Instead it was the Energy Minister who coordinated a briefing session on Enemalta's sourcing and pricing organised for the benefit of the Opposition Leader.

For the good of the country and for the good of politics, Enemalta should be taken out of the political domain. It has a professional job to do. Leave it to the professionals to carry it out, before the situation gets worse.

The international energy situation is not going to get better. The price of crude oil, which is at the heart of the pricing of all petroleum by-products together with supply and demand pressures, will continue to fluctuate. It may rise further than its record of $147 a barrel, or it may fall again well below what it is now.

The experts can't get it right, certainly not all the time. But politicians will get it wrong, probably most of the time.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.