The opposition’s spokesperson on energy, Marlene Pullicino, yesterday urged the government to ask Mepa to rescind the decision taken on Monday about the power station extension to run on heavy fuel oil instead of the less polluting diesel when it is switched on next year.
Dr Pullicino said that in spite of various reports showing that heavy fuel oil would impact people’s health in Birżebbuġa and Marsaxlokk with emissions of PM 2.5 particles, Mepa had decided in favour of such emissions that would double what the EU directive permitted, without any thought to family problems in health and loss of work.
She hoped the abatement measures and monitoring would not mimic the black dust farce, in which Enemalta had found it so hard to acknowledge the problem even existed.
Minister Tonio Fenech had just admitted that the price of electricity could indeed be cheaper with the interconnector. The people were simply paying for the government’s years-long indecision because energy had not been one of its priorities.
Its main concern about using heavy fuel oil was not to lose the guarantees on the abatement measures. The people wanted guarantees about their own health.
Enemalta would continue to be important after the interconnector because the corporation would still have the task of distributing the imported electricity. Had the distribution costs been taken into account?
Dr Pullicino had started her speech by challenging Mr Fenech to ask her the questions he had just asked Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat, who was not present at the sitting. When he did not, she still answered them.
On the impact on the consumer of changing Delimara over to diesel, she said the extension was already ready for diesel. Backed by studies, experts at the Mepa meeting had said this would lower costs by 17 per cent.
Did not the minister know that Mepa was asking the government for a letter of comfort worth €9 million, which would also involve payment of interest, with regard to the Delimara emissions? The government’s own engineers had shown they did not know the cost of waste disposal.
With regard to how to finance the €12 million in lower tariffs, Dr Pullicino said Standard & Poor’s had downgraded Enemalta after it had raised tariffs.
Investments usually called for continued investment for maintenance, but what if the government had used the funds for the new Parliament towards a better infrastructure? The country needed new investment in energy that would start giving benefits from day one.
The government’s promised millennium gift to the people, a power station running on gas, had been changed to one on heavy fuel oil.
On the third question she said there could indeed be another technology that could be part of the energy mix with competitive tariffs. The government was considering the Sargas proposal only now that it had come out into the open.
Dr Pullicino said the effect of any changes on Enemalta could not be worked out if the corporation did not have updated accounts. She asked if Enemalta was on the verge of bankruptcy, the extent of its borrowings and assets and where the funds for its projects would come from.
There had been no accounts for the past two years, yet the House was being expected to approve the estimates for next year.
At one point, Dr Pullicino asked whether the installation of smart meters was being deliberately delayed because of some unknown shortcomings in the national grid. The project, she said, would enable lower night tariffs which in themselves could be a form of cheaper utility bills. The system could benefit the people in more ways than one.