The way GSI is promoted poses risks and problems, say OEB links – What they say in a statement
They do not disagree dogmatically on the electrical interconnection of Cyprus with the rest of Europe's network (Great Sea Interconnector), five links, members of the OEB related to energy, add, however, that “the way in which the implementation of the project is being promoted, carries serious risks and heaps of problems , which we cannot ignore, on the contrary we must highlight them”.
In a joint statement, co-signed by the Electricity Market Association (SAAH), the Pancypriot Energy Saving Association (PA.SY.EN.EN), the Cyprus Association of Renewable Energy Sources Companies (SEAPEK), the Wind Energy Alliance and the Cyprus Hydrogen Association (SYK) state 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 “to seriously consider the consequences before proceeding and to 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 “.
“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 Christodoulidis on Friday, August 2, 2024 for 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, dozens of other associations with hundreds of members are housed under the OEB umbrella, “which makes sense for their positions to they are sometimes contradictory”.
“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 the assumption of risk, the five links state that “the risk and the burden of the effects 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 add that “the final construction cost of the project must be finalized and that any excesses will be borne by the investor”.
Furthermore, they state that, according to ADMIE, the project is expected to be completed in 2030 and add that “in in case of delay in implementation, the organization should 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 links, members of the OEB, consider “the payment of any fixed fee by the Cypriot consumer before the start of commercial operation of the project to be unjustified and unreasonable”. project must come exclusively from its commercial use and activity.
“The Cypriot consumer cannot shoulder the huge and uncontrollable costs of this use. Any promised benefits to 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 is made 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”. the sponsorship solution is a preferable option to investment participation, as it thus avoids assuming the relevant risks”, they add.
In relation to cost sharing, the associations consider that “the cost sharing, 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 they 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 unspecified economic impact”.
They also state that “it is very important that CERA and the Republic of Cyprus formulate the appropriate provisions and determine the energy import limits in 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 will be done in a way that protects the interests of citizens and the domestic market”.
“Cyprus cannot afford another project that will bring about inequalities and create financial burdens for consumers”, they conclude.
