They do not disagree dogmatically on electrical interconnection of Cyprus with the rest network of Europe
They do not disagree dogmatically on an electrical interconnection of Cyprus with the rest of Europe's network (Great Sea Interconnector), report five links, members of the OEB related to energy, adding, however, that “the way in which the implementation of the project is promoted, it poses serious risks and heaps of problems, which we cannot ignore, on the contrary we must point them out”. of Energy Savings (PA.SY.E.EN), the Cyprus Association of Renewable Energy Sources Companies (SEAPEK), the Wind Energy Alliance and the Cyprus Hydrogen Association (SYK) report that “the implementation of the Great Sea Interconnector project must be done with a careful assessment of the risks and consequences for Cypriot consumers”.
At the same time, they call on the Government and the competent bodies seriously consider the consequences before proceeding and ensure that the conditions for the implementation of the project will be such that they defend the interests of the citizens and really contribute to the energy security and economic viability of our country”.
< p>“We clearly recognize that an interconnection will bring several benefits for our country, which are highlighted in the memorandum sent by the OEB to the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Nikos Christodoulides, on Friday, August 2, 2024 on the subject in question” , the links state.
“While we agree with some of the points mentioned in the OEB memorandum, we want to differentiate our position that the cable must be done 'at all costs' and re-emphasize our main concerns, which some have partially adopted and in the OEB memo', they add.
They also report that in addition to energy-related associations, under the OEB umbrella are dozens of other associations with hundreds of members, “a fact which makes it reasonable that their positions are sometimes conflicting”.
“In this context, the views of the OEB do not always reflect the views of all its members, which is understandable and respected in a democratic federation”, they add.
Regarding risk-taking, the five links state that“the risk and the burden of the consequences arising from any modifications in the implementation of the project and any technical and geopolitical risks, should be borne by the private investor and not by the consumer “and they add that“the final construction cost of the project must be finalized and that any excesses will be borne by the investor”.
In addition, they state that, according to ADMIE, the project is expected to be completed in 2030 and add that “in case of a delay in implementation, the organization will have to pay the corresponding penalties”.
“The Cypriot Government must ensure the necessary guarantees and insurances from the investor, ensuring that the financial responsibility and risks will not be transferred to the Cypriot consumers”, they add .
In relation to the viability of the project, the associations, members of the OEB, consider it “unjustified and unreasonable for the Cypriot consumer to pay any fixed fee before the commercial operation of the project”.
Furthermore, they state that the project's economic viability and cash flow must come solely from its commercial use and activity.
“The Cypriot consumer cannot shoulder the huge and uncontrollable costs of this use. Any promised benefits for consumers must be clear and measurable,” they add.
Regarding the participation of the Government, the five associations state in their joint statement that before the decision on the participation of the Government with a capital of 100 million euros, “the very important uncertainties of the project regarding the total cost, the time horizon of completion, the benefit to the Cypriot consumer and the risks of burdening the public debt in the event of failure or delays must be seriously evaluated”.
“Pending the results of the cost-benefit study evaluation, the Government would be useful to consider whether the sponsorship solution is a preferable option to investment participation, as it thus avoids assuming the relevant risks”,add.
In relation to cost sharing, the links consider that “the sharing of costs, 63% burden for Cyprus and 37% for Greece, is unfair and unjustified, as the benefit of the operation of the project will much more favor the Greek producers who will export their excess energy to Cyprus”.
In relation to the terms of operation of the project and the protection of national energy security, they state that”the implementation and uncontrolled operation of the Great Sea Interconnector project poses serious risks to the energy self-sufficiency and security of Cyprus and at the same time endangers the viability of many investments that have been made so far in Cyprus, making them redundant with an undetermined financial impact”.< /em>
They also state that “it is very important that CERA and the Republic of Cyprus formulate the appropriate provisions and determine the limits of energy import into Cyprus, to ensure the above, but also to achieve the national goals for the green transition”.
“Each state must be self-sufficient in energy production as it is a matter of national security”, they add.
The links state that the concerns they express “are not intended to hinder the development or interconnection of Cyprus with Europe, but to ensure that this development is done in a way that protects the interests of citizens and the domestic market”.
“Cyprus cannot afford one more project that will bring about inequalities and create financial burdens for consumers”, they conclude.
source: KYPE
