EDITORIAL - Give the facts on energy

Last week's relaunch of the Cuba-financed project of the distribution of free energy-saving fluorescent light bulbs to Jamaican households is, hopefully, being done with better oversight and without the alleged seaminess of its launch five years ago.

Then, it was claimed, dummy companies were set up to siphon cash from the Treasury to line political pockets to the cost to taxpayers of more than $270 million. Indeed, Kern Spencer, the junior minister for energy in the former administration, who had oversight for the project, is now facing the courts on charges of fraud and corruption.

But whatever the merits of the allegations against Mr Spencer and others, the resumption of the scheme is timely, coming as it does in the face of uncertainty over the price of oil and the incipient call by the Government to national energy conservation.

According to Cuban officials, in the project's first phases, between 2006 and 2007, approximately 2.8 million energy-saving bulbs were substituted, for free, in more than half a million homes.

Positive impact

The environmental impact, in terms of prevented carbon emissions, would have been substantial. So, too, would have been the economics.

Mr James Robertson, the energy minister, estimates that the use of energy-saving bulbs led to an 87-megawatt reduction of Jamaica's peak electri-city load demand, which is above 700 megawatts. That reduction, he says, translated into savings to householders of around $79 million a year.

The Cubans project that a tranche of 160,000 bulbs to be distributed will swipe six and a half megawatts off energy demand - a figure not to be sneezed at, as the light and power company has warned consumers of a 10 per cent hike in their energy bills because of the pass-through impact of the cost of fuel.

The issues highlight matters upon which this newspaper often comments and about which the Jamaican Government says it shares concern, although it does not often do so with the vigour or limpidity that we feel is warranted.

The first of these is energy conservation. The Government's effort in galvanising support among Jamaicans is, at best, effete. It lacks ... well, energy.

Unsustained conservation efforts

It is true that the administration does occasionally rouse itself to remind consumers about the merits of conserving energy or to set targets for its own ministries, agencies and departments. But these are not sustained.

The second matter is how the Government continues to keep Jamaicans in the dark about the technical basis on which it arrived at the fuel for an energy-conversion project.

It is obvious that Jamaica needs a cheaper energy source than oil if its economy is to be competitive with those of its regional neighbours.

The Government has chosen liquefied natural gas, for which it has invited power-generation bids and for which it has a bidder of choice of storage, regasification and delivery facilities.

We do not know if this is the least-cost option available to Jamaica and what would be the trade-off with other fuels, including coal. And our Government has yet to tell what assumptions it made on these issues.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.