Renewable energy: When reality bites!

Regardless of all the reassuring statements on renewable energy issued by the minister concerned as well as his communications officers in recent weeks, the following points remain undisputed and uncontested:

a) According to recently published statistics, Malta had the least renewable energy in EU27 in 2008 with only 0.2 per cent of Malta's energy coming from these sources.

b) Within two years this figure should go up to two per cent of total energy which in practical terms means 10 times the current level.

c) There is no valid reason why this government, which usually does not miss an occasion for a media conference or a photo opportunity, chose to play down the fact that it had submitted its renewable energy action plan to the EU Commission without bothering to inform the general public.

d) We are still awaiting an explanation as to why, during the parliamentary debate of July 7 on the ratification of IRENA, the minister concerned claimed that the relevant action plan was still in its finalisation stages, only for us to subsequently come to learn - solely through the local media - that the said action plan had been submitted and posted on the EU website dated July 6.

e) In spite of various ministerial efforts to play down the manner in which the National Audit Office report on renewables was allegedly "sensationalised" by the media, one cannot ignore the fact that in its latest report, entitled Malta's Renewable Energy Contingent Liability - Potential Costs Relating To The Non-Attainment Of The EU's Mandatory 2020 Targets, the NAO reached some highly interested conclusions. Primarily that:

• Although progress has been registered, Malta is still in the planning phases of major renewable energy projects, including one relating to an offshore wind-farm.

• The competent government entities responsible for the implementation of the Renewable Energy Directive evidently need to keep abreast of developments to ensure that the provisions of the directive are fully respected while containing Malta's contingent liability to a minimum.

• In addition to the National Renewable Energy Action Plan, every two years member states are obliged to submit a progress report to the European Commission, containing information on their share of renewable energy, support schemes and progress on tackling administrative and grid barriers.

• The directive also stipulates that member states who do not attain their interim trajectory over any two-year period will have to submit an amended NREAP to the Commission.

• In this revised document, member states are to indicate how they will make up for the shortfall.

• The Commission reserves the right to initiate infringement procedures against member states that fail to comply with a treaty obligation.

• Infringement procedures may lead to the case being referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Failure to comply with the ECJ ruling may lead to the imposition of financial penalties, in accordance with Article 260 of the Treaty in question.

• In its report of 2009 the Climate Change Committee had already calculated the additional financial impact on Malta's carbon emission obligations in the event that Malta does not attain its renewable energy targets.

• Regarding infringements, the ECJ calculates penalties on the following criteria:

• The seriousness of the infringement;

• The duration of infringement;

• The need to ensure that the penalty acts as a deterrent to further infringements.

• It is pertinent to point out that Malta is legally obliged to comply with its renewable energy obligations. Consequently, it can be reasonably presumed that penalties imposed would have to be paid until the time Malta becomes compliant. Hence the penalties would probably reflect the amount that Malta would have had to invest to fulfil its obligations.

With all this in mind, one finds it easier to understand why the ministry conveniently chose to gloss over all these valid observations and conclusions by the NAO.