Amid all the hoo-ha that goes for national debate in our country, little if no notice has been paid to a contribution by the man who for long years was Enemalta’s financial controller, Tarcisio Mifsud, who wrote some days ago to di-ve.com on the vexed question of the electricity tariffs.

Mr Mifsud goes back a number of years, far too many than many people care to remember.

The question he seems to try to answer is: why has Enemalta failed to cover its costs and, one adds, carry out the necessary investment and ensure the sustainability of the energy sector.

The answer he does not give could be summarized in a few words: political interference in the running of the corporation. Let us put it in a different way: it is true that Enemalta needs huge investments at any time and that these could come only from the government; and it is also true that the successive governments did try their best at directing the corporation as best they could, but then look at the resulting mess and see for yourselves how even the best-laid plans come to grief. Plus, there is that other very Maltese constraint: the discontinuity caused in this regard by election reverses, losses and wins, but which also exists, we hold, even when there is continuity of the party in government but not continuity in the minister holding the brief.

Mr Mifsud goes back to 1981 (even that is reductive for he misses out on the oil spike of the 1970s). Anyway, the oil price in Malta was raised in January 1981 when the price of crude oil was around $22 a barrel but the dollar was strong. There were then two reductions – five per cent in 1983 and four per cent in January 1987.

Skip a decade and in 1996 the PN government took two important decisions (albeit at the end of its mandate): it ordered the combined cycle for Delimara, which was due to be paid from Enemalta’s revenues. And it was persuaded by Water Services to allow it to do the billing instead of the government centre at Swatar.

But what happened was that the PN lost the election. Whether this had any bearing on what happened or not is not revealed, but the IT section of WSC, which had promised it could start issuing the bills within three months, did not fulfil its commitment, so much so that by the end of 1997 the bills for the whole year were not issued. This in turn meant that Enemalta could not pay for its ordinary expenses let alone for its capital investment.

Enter Alfred Sant, who commissioned an audit company, MSD, to carry out an exercise in preparation for a new set of tariffs that would have ensured Enemalta’s long-term viability.

Mr Mifsud adds: “The exercise included the technical terms ‘short run’ and ‘long run’ so that the tariffs would cover capital investments required by Enemalta in the future.

“Several options were given and Enemalta chose to work on the following strategy:

• Domestic – tax high users. Domestic customers would get cost of living benefit through the annual COLA exercise, when the rates go up.

• Industrial customers saw only small increases, less than 10 per cent.

• Hotels and other tourist accommodation saw no increases in tariffs.

• Commercial outlets saw an increase of about 15 per cent.”

However even Mr Mifsud seems to admit that the exercise was somewhat dented given that “Enemalta did not have the latest information on its customers’ consumption pattern, and it was forced to use outdated information for its tariff exercise”.

Then, as we all know, politics took a hand in the proceedings as the whole country rose as one against the new tariffs, which were indeed steep compared to what was previously charged, also considering this was the first time something like that had happened. The rest is history.

We can now compare and contrast. Both Dr Sant’s government and this one have a majority of one. Both tried to defend what was at heart a sound approach to solving Enemalta’s recurring financial crisis. Even Mr Mifsud says the “October 2008 tariff exercise conducted by the Nationalist government is probably a scientific exercise, naturally based on higher rates due to the oil factor” (although he admits to some reservations).

The lesson this newspaper draws from this unusual glimpse of past history is possibly not the one Mr Mifsud was thinking of, even while this paper admits that Dr Sant’s intention and aim was in the right direction. To make a political comment: it is highly ironic that Dr Sant chose to make a stand against Dom Mintoff while backtracking on the electricity tariffs he had commissioned on scientific grounds. This only reinforces our argument that the present government must stand by the reasons for the hike in fuel prices in that what the fuel cost Enemalta must be recovered without depending on the government to cushion the impact except for the socially needy.

This does not mean that the rates may not be tweaked if it is proved, for instance, that some calculations are not exact or are one-sided (even if we hold that such corrections show shoddy preparation). Even if the international oil prices have since come down, we may expect to pay less only when the present consignment has been used and a new one has come in, like we do in the case of petrol.

The country must understand, and the government must help the country understand, that it is in all our interests if Enemalta does not remain a big sore and a sick body in our midst, like the dockyards was. It also goes without saying that an essential part of that plan must be to make Enemalta more, not less, efficient.