A power cut in credibility

When Alex Borg announced that his party had discovered a way to cut electricity bills by an average of 30%, it was always going to turn heads. In a country where energy costs weigh heavily on the political discussion, such a promise is not just attractive, it is politically potent. As someone who works in the energy sector, I approached the proposal with genuine curiosity. Bold claims deserve careful listening before they are dismissed.

That curiosity quickly turned into disbelief.

The headline figure, the much-advertised 30% saving, does not withstand even basic scrutiny. The proposal outlines two main elements of savings: A €65 annual reduction through the removal of the electricity meter rent, and up to €100 for those who fully utilise units in the second tariff band. Together, that amounts to €165 per year. For the average household, this is nowhere near 30% of an electricity bill. It is, at best, a modest reduction, closer to the value of an hour’s wage per month than a transformative cut in living costs.

The explanation offered for this discrepancy reveals a more troubling issue. The “average” saving is inflated by including dwellings with little to no electricity consumption. According to National Statistics Office data from the 2021 Census, Malta has over 81,000 dwellings, more than 27% of the total, classified as secondary, seasonal, or vacant. For such properties, removing a fixed meter fee effectively translates into a near 100% saving, since there is little or no consumption to begin with. Including these in the calculation artificially boosts the average and creates the illusion of a substantial benefit for ordinary households. Even if one assumes that this was not intended to mislead, the result is a figure that does not reflect the reality experienced by families.

The proposal’s funding mechanism raises even more serious concerns. The plan hinges on installing 110MW of photovoltaic (PV) panels on government-owned rooftops, supposedly generating 175GWh annually. On paper, it sounds ambitious and forward-looking. In reality, it appears detached from practical constraints.

To achieve such output, panels would need optimal conditions: Perfect orientation, ideal tilt, and consistent maintenance to keep them operating at peak efficiency. Malta’s building stock, however, is far from uniform. Not all roofs face south, not all are flat, and spacing between panel rows is necessary to avoid shading. The sheer scale of the proposed installation inevitably raises doubts about whether sufficient suitable space even exists.

Cost estimates further undermine the plan’s credibility. The proposal allocates €60 million for the entire project. While large-scale procurement can reduce the cost of photovoltaic panels compared to retail prices, panels themselves represent only part of the overall investment. Even using more optimistic assumptions on panel pricing, once additional costs are factored in (inverters, cabling, mounting structures, labour, crane operations, and grid connection upgrades) the numbers quickly escalate. Installations over car parks, also cited as an option, would require elevated metal structures that significantly increase costs.

Even allowing for economies of scale, the fragmented nature of rooftop installations across schools and other public buildings limits the efficiency gains normally associated with large projects. A realistic estimate suggests that €60 million would yield closer to 60MW of installed capacity, not 110MW. That is a substantial shortfall.

Perhaps the most glaring flaw, however, lies in the projected financial returns. The proposal claims that this €60 million investment would generate savings of €30 million per year. If such returns were genuinely achievable, Malta would already be blanketed in PV panels. Investors, public and private alike, would not pass up such an extraordinary opportunity.

The error stems from a fundamental misunderstanding, or misrepresentation, of how electricity costs work. While solar generation can reduce fuel consumption and lower carbon credit obligations, it does not eliminate all generation costs. A significant portion of these costs, maintenance, staffing, infrastructure, insurance and financial commitments, are fixed. This means that only part of the total cost can be offset by renewable generation. The rest remains payable, regardless of how much solar energy is produced.

Moreover, PV systems themselves are not cost-free once installed. They require maintenance, insurance, and eventual replacement.  Such expenses further erode the projected savings.

Taken together, these flaws point to a proposal that is less a serious policy initiative and more a piece of political theatre. Renewable energy is a critical component of Malta’s future, and investment in solar power should be encouraged. But such investment must be grounded in technical reality and financial honesty.

Voters deserve better than inflated averages, optimistic assumptions, and arithmetic that does not hold up. Energy policy is too important to be reduced to slogans. If we are to navigate the challenges of affordability and sustainability, we need proposals built on facts, not figures designed to impress at first glance but unravel under closer inspection.

What was presented as a flagship measure ultimately feels like smoke and mirrors—an illusion of progress rather than a plan to achieve it.