Energy policies by stealth

I cannot blame those who might have grown immune by now to this government’s manner of developing its energy policies by stealth. Seven years on as an EU member state and with the election less than two years away – at the very latest – we still do not have an energy plan in place yet while the draft renewable plan remains in the same draft form in which it originally saw the light of day some five years ago.

In spite of submitting our renewable energy action plan to the EU this time last year, Brussels is reported to be still seeking clarifications about the modalities of the plan itself as well as the energy mix in question.

One moment we refer to wind energy as a strong possibility with the Sikka l-Bajda project still having to be subjected to rigorous environmental criteria and feasibility studies and a few moments later we are given the impression that the project will definitely materialise. While also being a major component that should help see us achieve the 10 per cent alternative energy targets in question.

Waste incineration plans continue to be kept nebulous, possibly until the election is out of the way. This despite the fact that the government plans to rely heavily on waste-to-energy to try and achieve alternative energy targets that have hardly taken off the ground yet in spite of the 2020 litmus test being barely eight years away. In spite of talking of decommissioning part of or the entire Marsa power plant we still do not know by when it will really happen, if any breathing space has been requested to the EU and whether we still stand the risk of facing any EU penalties should we need to continue relying on this plant until the interconnector comes on stream sometime in 2013.

This is the same government that saw one of its key ministers make a fool of himself by asking the EU Commission to lower even further our targets regarding renewables should the Sikka l-Bajda project fail to materialise only to be snubbed that such requests were not even entertained in principle by the Commission, regardless of whether Malta had a Plan B or not.

Judging by the minister’s reaction then, all indications implied and/or suggested that no such Plan B had existed after all.

This is the same government that only days before submitting its action plan to Brussels had shown concern that it might fall somewhat short of achieving the modest 10 per cent target it had agreed to bind itself to achieve only to enlighten us, a few days later, that in fact we are expected to even surpass the 10 per cent benchmark.

No wonder the European Commissioner for Energy while visiting Malta was recently reported to have warned the Maltese authorities that the EU expects no more and no less of Malta’s renewable energy target.

Traditionally, such commissioners meet the House Foreign and European Affairs Committee for a frank exchange of views on their respective portfolios. But this time round, possibly in order to spare the government any potential embarrassment, no such meeting was set up with the commissioner while I have reason to believe that the Committee itself was not even officially informed that such a visit was to take place. Speaking for myself, I only learnt about it as a long-standing member of this Committee through the Nationalist Party’s media the day before.

From the sites visited, it was evident the government had merely intended to show him what were, by its own standards, its flagship projects: the Sant’Antnin recycling project and the Delimara power station extension.

Through the local media we came to learn as parliamentarians that, although this was the commissioner’s first visit to Malta, contacts with the Commission regarding renewables in the energy mix have been going on for three to four years. To date, there is very little to show or account for regarding such talks.

Reading between the lines of what the commissioner said, it was intriguing to note that, regarding the planned use of heavy fuel at Delimara, he was reported to have said that Malta should move to new technology as soon as possible while treating security of supply as a first priority, with sustainability also being important but coming second.

There was also talk of technical and feasibility studies, that are/were expected to take between one and two years, on Malta’s possible integration in the EU gas market in the best cost-effective way.

While newspaper reports informed us that the ministers of resources and finance discussed with the commissioner Malta’s plan of action regarding renewable energy and planned investment, we were kept completely in the dark, mulling over these bland and inconclusive statements.

That bilateral contact between the commissioner and Malta will continue in Brussels this month must have come as little consolation to us all.

From what Commissioner Günther Oettinger said it was evident he seemed concerned about the economic feasibility of a gas pipeline to Sicily and seemed to be considering other options. Hence, the proposed tests. Equally disconcerting was the perception about the government’s capability to move ahead unaided. Undoubtedly, Malta’s low achievements in the renewables sector and our high carbon choices must have been at the back of his mind too.

The long timescales that he mentioned equally gave room for concern.

One thing emerged clearly: If there will be a change in government it will be up to it to pick up and foot all the bills.

Brincat.leo@gmail.com

www.leobrincat.com

The author, a Labour MP, sits on the House Standing Committee for Foreign and European Affairs.