Bottom line, the public is being held to ransom. We either have to accept a power station extension acquired through a dubious contract, which had a World Bank blacklisted company as its advisor, or face a long summer of discontent with frequent power cuts.

Although, the extension will not be operational for at least another year, so we might still have a troublesome time beyond the summer when it comes to our energy supply.

Many are short sighted and prefer the short term benefits, even if they have their doubts about the controversial contract and environmental impact, while others are still airing their lack of confidence in the whole shebang. But it is all academic now, since MEPA has granted the go ahead.

Even though “The process now requires an environmental permit” and “the vigorous processing of this permit, for this installation, is envisaged to last about 12 months, whereby further in-depth studies and extensive public consultations will be carried out.”

The Times reported that Mepa chairman, Austin Walker made it clear that Thursday’s meeting was not considering “the operational aspects of the plant” because those would be subject to an environmental permit but he granted permission to Enemalta to make its presentations so that the public would have all the information.

Yet, a full development permit for the power station extension was granted. How can a full development be granted if the operational aspects of the plant were not considered?

There was uproar when Mr Walker insisted that the plant would not be operational unless it had an environmental permit.

So is he saying that all that was approved was an empty shell?

How can a permit for a building with a specific purpose be granted to go ahead when the process still “requires an environmental permit” and “further in-depth studies and extensive public consultations”?

Can a negative result from the “further in-depth studies and extensive public consultations” and “the vigorous processing of this permit, for this installation” which is envisaged to last about 12 months, stop the whole thing, when the plant is half or fully built and equipment installed?

Zejtun mayor Joe Attard pointed out that the permit under discussion was not only about the construction of the buildings but also about the installation of the equipment.

“No one can convince us that any equipment would be removed once it is installed,” he said to a round of applause.

Besides, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has not even started its deliberations on the Auditor’s report on the project. Not that the outcome there will be any different from the Mepa vote.

Although our PAC structure is based on the UK’s PAC, where Cabinet Ministers are excluded from sitting on the committee, here Ministers Tonio Fenech and Austin Gatt, both involved in the controversial project being discussed, are on the PAC.

The committee is formed of four government members and three, one of which is the chairman with no casting vote, are from the Opposition. So no prizes for guessing who will carry the vote.

As for the environmental impact and proposed savings, I am not qualified to judge, so I have to rely on those who have a sound grasp of the subject.

Professor Edward Mallia, a scientist and lecturer at the University of Malta had this to say on The Times online comments section, on Mepa’s granting of a full development permit for the power station extension.

“The specifications of this plant are not out of this world. HFO as fuel has imposed an expensive, elaborate system of pollution removal. But if it works well, then there should be no marked deterioration in air quality.”

“The devil is in this last sentence, ‘Mepa said that the vigorous processing of this permit, for this installation, is envisaged to last about 12 months, whereby further in-depth studies and extensive public consultations will be carried out.’

“Mepa is only now putting together information on the air quality around the present Delimara. The same applies to noise: the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) said there should be no deterioration, but had no measures of present noise.

“The EIA suggested that the unburnable fraction of HFO be sent to the Marsa incinerator; only today did Mepa discover this and point out that Marsa is not licensed to burn the sludge. Prototype or not, BWSC has no experience with operation of this pollution abatement system.

“Enemalta, faced with the much smaller problem of Marsa fly ash disposal caused by MEPA blockage, simply switched off the precipitators for seven months, showering us with around 200 tonnes of the stuff and an equal amount of bullshit. What to do? We need the extension,” said Professor Mallia.

He said he found two problems with a table sent by Enemalta to show that the HFO-Diesel difference taking savings into account is 24 per cent, as aired on a PBS news bulletin.

“The starting point must have been the CEO’s 36 per cent on fuel costs alone and secondly, there was no chance to see what savings had been taken into account. Engineer Arthur Ciantar (a consultant to the Marsaxlokk council, who insisted that the combination of diesel engines with air filtering equipment was not a tried and tested plant and no references existed for it in the world) concluded 32 per cent not 36 per cent for the fuel-only difference, so that 24 per cent could come down to 20 per cent.

What it cannot come down to is Minister Fenech’s ‘immediate rise of electricity prices’.

“The Jan 1 rates are not representative of current or recent crude oil prices; they are rather recoupers of Enemalta hedge losses. If this is not the case, Minister Fenech is in the right trade to prove otherwise to the public.

“Failing that, he should follow his own words ‘Government has no difficulty with using diesel instead of HFO.’ One word of warning though, the NAO Report thinks that BWSC may not too happy about this,” commented Professor Mallia.

“Use of diesel instead of HFO would instantly increase electricity rates by 30 per cent. This was confirmed by the same three independent experts,” Minister Fenech told The Times.

“As one of the ‘three independent experts’ I can safely say that my 30 per cent came from the minister himself, as can be seen from Franco Debono’s speech in Parliament. So I am not independent,” responded Professor Mallia.

He further commented that Minister Fenech has always insisted that the 30 per cent cost difference took into account all the savings that would result from removal of pollution abatement and disposal.

Moving on and back to the dubious contract, many are baffled as to why David Spiteri Gingell, the chairman of the project adjudicating committee, did not tender his resignation and hasn’t been asked to?

“I admit my mistake by choosing Lahmeyer International because I assumed that, since the Malta Resources Authority had worked with them in the past, they had already been vetted,” he said on TV on Tuesday evening.

“I got it wrong. I only knew about their (Lahmeyer) blacklisting when the news broke out in Malta.”

Well, he cannot be fired because former Enemalta chief executive officer Spiteri Gingell’s tenure of the adjudication committee for the power station extension terminated on 4 April 2009 when he presented the recommendations for adjudication.

“Had I still been responsible for the committee I would have resigned from chairing the committee when the news on Lahmeyer broke out,” he told Karl Stagno-Navarra in an interview.

Well that is convenient. One wonders what adjudicating committees he is chairing now and what other government projects he is acting as consultant to. Is he still the CEO of government’s in-house consulting arm?

One would also like to know how many other due diligence actions he assumed were taken by others when advising government on other projects and chairing other adjudicating committees?

He said he had resigned his post as Enemalta CEO in June 2008.

However, despite his resignation, he was asked by the Ministry for Infrastructure, Transport and Communications ministry (MITC) and the Enemalta Chairman to complete three assignments, which included the adjudication of the 150MW plant.

“I was asked because there was concern that these three strategic initiatives would be derailed until a new CEO was appointed. Unfortunately I accepted”, he said in the interview.

Asked by Stagno-Navarra if he felt somebody else should shoulder the same responsibility, Spiteri Gingell replied: “I was the chairman, responsibility starts and stops with me. That is the way accountability works in my mind.”

Yet another convenient situation. Of course, if I remember correctly, Alex Tranter resigned as Enemalta chairman just before the sh.. hit the fan and Austin Gatt did not resign, he was (or asked for) a new ministerial portfolio.

Well the way accountability works in Mr Spiteri Gingell’s mind is saying “oops, sorry, my mistake”, I assumed someone else had done the job I was supposed to do, but I cannot resign because my term as adjudicating chair for the project had expired and I can save the government taking any responsibility.

He also admitted that with hindsight he should have “never accepted to continue chairing the committee once I resigned as CEO of the corporation.”

So why did he? Was it an offer he could not refuse?

[email protected]