More questions than answers

Monday’s parliamentary debate about the Delimara power station was supposed to answer a number of questions in the wake of a missed two-year deadline. Instead, it only raised a whole new series of questions about a project that seems to change every time it is discussed.

At the end of the session, we were still left in the dark as to the revised timeframes for the completion of the gas-fired station. Moreover, changes were announced that had not been in any way foreseen by the original energy plan.

The source of gas to fuel the new power station has now been revealed as Shell, when initially it was meant to be imported from Azerbaijan. Mizzi also announced that Enemalta, Electrogas and Shanghai Electric are currently in talks about a ‘master schedule’ for the whole project, and for this reason it was not possible to answer the most basic question of all: when will the new power station be up and running?

Yet we had already been given a master schedule, in the form of the plan presented to the electorate, before March 2013. That was the plan that was voted on and approved by the electorate. If the original schedule could not be adhered to, what guarantees do we have that the new deadlines – which in any case haven’t even been made public – will not likewise be missed?

Equally striking was the failure on the government’s part to table any contracts or documentation linked with this constantly changing project. Instead, we were treated to the sort of classic political diversionary tactics we have grown used to, used by incumbent governments when faced with legitimate criticism. This time, Energy Minister Konrad Mizzi tried to deflect public attention from these anomalies by attacking another (unrelated) energy initiative by the preceding government.

Where he failed to produce any of the contracts relevant to the discussion at hand, Mizzi tabled an unsigned (and possibly fraudulent) bank letter in connection with a contract awarded in 2013 for the installation of photovoltaic cells on public buildings. The matter is now being investigated by the police, upon both his and former energy minister George Pullicino’s insistence.

This was presumably the whole point as far as Mizzi was concerned. We are now discussing a contract for renewable energy issued under the previous government, instead of the project that was meant to be debated.

It was, on the whole, a disappointing performance by a government which won the last election on the promise of more transparency and seriousness when it comes to public projects. Attacking the credibility of the previous administration on energy issues does not automatically absolve the present government of any shortcomings in its own handling of the same sector. Quite the contrary: it places an even greater onus on the present government not to repeat the mistakes of its predecessor.

For there is an irony in this situation that Muscat’s government seems incapable of seeing. Konrad Mizzi may even be right to insist on a police investigation into a contract that had been kept under wraps by the PN administration. He may even have a point when he portrays the Nationalist opposition as the last people who should be complaining about delays in public projects and secrecy in government contracts.

But these considerations reflect on the messenger, not on the message. Regardless of its own mishandling of energy when in power, the Opposition is nonetheless right in the basic points it has raised during this debate. It is true that the project now taking shape before our eyes bears less and less resemblance to the one we were sold before the election. This is clearly a credibility issue for the Labour Party.

Besides, the government has already reduced electricity tariffs on the basis of a project that is now off schedule. We now know that the new power station will not be complete in time to make the savings which should, in theory, be financing this tariff reduction. Where, then, is the money going to come from?

This points towards the central irony of this discussion. The Labour government now behaves exactly as it used to criticise its Nationalist predecessor for behaving: it withholds information on the energy sector, at a time when operational control of much of Malta’s energy infrastructure is being ceded to private entities.

Shell will now be the main provider of a fuel for a power plant owned and operated by Electrogas. Shanghai Electric will administer the distribution network. These are all pivotal, strategic assets in an area which weighs heavily on national security. It is inconceivable that agreements of this calibre are entered into without the scrutiny of Parliament. 

Rather than minimise these considerations or belittle the people who asks these questions, the Labour government must create the necessary vehicles to allow for proper, serious levels of scrutiny in all its dealings on the energy front.

We should not be forced to simply take the government’s word for it. Ultimately it should be Parliament, which is the only institution that can claim to represent the Maltese taxpayer, that should have the final say on Malta’s energy strategy for the next 18 years.