Energy: Time for full parliamentary scrutiny

I do not expect the PM to resign over a misguided pre electoral PR move, which may not significantly impact on the overall  success of Labour's energy  plan, but I expect him not just to explain what led to the postponement in  parliament and to submit the project to full parliamentary debate and scrutiny.

It’s positive that government and opposition have agreed to hold a debate on energy on 20 October. Hopefully this will not degenerate in a political   tit for tat on the missed deadline.  It would make more sense if this debate is informed  by the publication of all agreements signed with third parties, and a full debate on Malta's energy policy. Ideally this process should lead to permanent scrutiny through the appointment of a select committee responsible for energy policy.

Before the election, Joseph Muscat went as far as saying that he would resign if the power station is not delivered within established time-frames. Government is duty bound to refer to parliament and explain why this deadline has changed.

I have always taken deadline and targets announced during electoral campaigns with a pinch of salt. From day one I considered these tight deadlines as the Achilles’ heel of an otherwise robust energy plan.

I am not so shocked by the announcement that the government has failed on its own target date for the opening of the new power station. Complications are bound to arise in the completion of all major projects. Neither does the postponement of the project by a few months entail its failure.  In fact the energy plan of the government still seems to be on track to that extent.

Still, irrespective of the reasons for the delay, the announcement is a blow to the pretensions of a political party that at times tries to govern using power point presentations.

Mizzi says the new plant was held up over three-way talks after the entry of another major player, unforeseen when Labour presented its plans on the eve of the election. On its own this plausible excuse is further evidence of the sheer impossibility of dictating deadlines on entities, which on the ground may have more leverage than the national government.  It is also interesting to learn which problems were identified by the Chinese which had not been previously identified by Enemalta.

There is a silver lining in the postponement of the completion of the new power plant infrastructure.  There will be more time to complete important environmental and safety studies required for the Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Permit. There will also be more time to scrutinise the cost-benefit analysis which will finally take into account the usage of the Malta-Sicily interconnector in assessing the benefits of the new privately owned gas plant.

Explaining why a major electoral promise was not honoured should be enough reason for the government to refer to parliament. I don’t expect the PM to resign over a misguided PR move, which may not significantly impact on the overall success of the plan, but I expect him to explain what led to the postponement to parliament.

But there are three other reasons for government to refer to parliament, not just through a statement but by initiating a full debate and permanent parliamentary scrutiny of a vital element of our national sovereignity.

The first is that government needs to explain how next year’s reduction of bills for businesses will be financed in the absence of the new plant. If the reduction of these bills is not dependent on the new Electrogas plant, is it really  necessary especially considering the fact that Shanghai Electric Power is converting the ‘BWSC plant’ to gas at its own expense, fulfilling the pledge to do away with heavy fuel oil? Surely someone has to import the gas but do we need another power station to make that possible…?

Secondly, we need an informed debate and full publication of all agreements signed so far with private companies. It is unacceptable that the agreement with ElectroGas has yet to be published. The publication of these agreements should be followed by the appointment of a select committee on energy, which would have the task of ensuring parliamentary scrutiny of all aspects of energy policy. 

Parliament should also be informed about the dealings between ElectroGas and SEP, which will own Malta’s two major power plants.  These are not just two normal companies selling their wares at a profit on the open market: they are two companies which control Malta’s most strategic commodity – energy.

The third reason is that parliament should have the ultimate say on determining Malta’s energy mix.  Since the agreement with ElectroGas binds future governments and not just this government for the next two decades, the balance between the interconnector, the Electrogas plant, the Chinese-owned plant and renewable sources should be determined by parliament. As things stand the interconnector remains the only publically owned energy source.  Morever while Italian regions like Puglia invest heavily on wind energy, Malta seems to have abondoned any interest thanks to the misguided decision to put all our bets on Sikka l-Bajda.

Of particular importance due to the underlying energy geopolitics is the sole source for the provision of 75% of our energy. It  is vital for parliament to be informed from where Electrogas will be buying its gas supply which will power both the Chinese and its own  plant for the next 18 years.