In mid-March, Vestland County Council gathered to adopt a new energy plan. The decision was supposed to be the culmination of work that has been going on since 2021. But instead of making a decision, the majority chose to postpone the decision until after the election. They justified the postponement with the fact that it is better to wait for the recommendations to the Straumprisutvalet in October. Among the minority, the appointment has caused sharp reactions, for a number of reasons: Voters have a right to get power policy clarifications before the election The county is “losing valuable time” in the green transition There will be no “new insights” in October. The more detailed report to the Energy Commission is already out. The “evasion” stands in sharp contrast to the action of the European Commission, which on the same day (March 14) presented a proposal for a new power market reform – You must not think badly of others The claim that the opponents push uncomfortable questions before them are based on the fact that the voters do not have the same opportunity to “punish” the politicians after the election, when the voting seat is “used up”. – You must not think badly of others, and I do not want to blame other parties for taking tactical precautions. But I allowed myself to be deceived. Yes, I do, says Trude Brosvik, who is group leader for KrF and belonged to the minority. From Raudt, the speech is clearer: – In my view, this is a cowardly and irresponsible way of avoiding difficult questions, says county council representative Terje Kollbotn. That’s why they didn’t want to postpone the plan Silja Ekeland Bjørkly, Høgre – In some cases it can be sensible to push matters while waiting for a response from other bodies, but in this case the argument is thin at best. First and foremost because the work the Straumprisutvalet will deliver has very little to do with our energy plan. Thus, it seems like a substitute argument for postponing taking a stand until after the election. Terje Søviknes, FRP – For us, it was impossible to understand the logic that the Renewable Plan had to wait for the Straumprisutvalet. Norway is steering towards a power deficit, completely independent of the Straumprisutvalet’s conclusions. Then more power must be produced. For Frp, this primarily means upgrading existing hydropower plants and developing new hydropower. The FRP is also clear that we need to look at the conservation plans from the 70s, 80s and 90s again. Natalia Golis, MDG – We are very much in disagreement with the majority who want to wait for a national signal. In any case, a new report will not have consequences for this plan or change the need for more energy – and quickly. Now we are instead back to all cases being dealt with piecemeal and divided. Without a plan. We have to be brave enough to tackle conflicting goals. Jeanette Syversen, Raudt – We stepped in to handle the whole plan now. The report to the government will not come before the local elections are over, that is striking. It is one thing to talk about concerns linked to wind power, power exports and increasing electricity prices, but then action must also be shown. Voters deserve to know what the politicians will prioritize. The election campaign promise to preserve natural diversity is now just writing in the sand. – Voters deserve to know what the politicians will prioritize. The campaign promise about natural diversity is now just writing in the sand, says Jeanette Syversen, who is the leader of Raudt Vestland. Raudt has profiled himself as a clear no to onshore wind power, but has shown signs of slipping on the issue of offshore wind. Photo: Privat The most controversial part of the regional power plan sets targets for offshore wind (5-10 TWh) and onshore wind power (3.4 TWh). Sigrid Brattabø Handegard, who is group leader for the Center Party, says that the party needs clearer assurances about power exports before they can vote on the plan. – It is completely logical to know how the measure will work, before we decide on the scope and power production, she says. Therefore, they wanted to appoint the plan Geir Kjell Andersland, Liberal Party – The main reason why the Liberal Party voted for the appointment was a desire for a better decision-making process. It should not be “a democratic problem”. On the contrary. More specifically: There are well over 100 inputs to the plan through the consultation process. But just four days after the consultation deadline expired, the recommendation was submitted by the administration. There was clear dissatisfaction from representatives of outdoor life in particular that their entries were not sufficiently assessed. Otherwise, the decision was not just about postponement. It also contains a positive decision to have a joint strategy for energy saving drawn up. I think there is quite a lot of potential here. Sigrid Brattabø Handegard, Center Party – Our answer to the voters is that we need to know how the power will be used, and how we can ensure that new energy production becomes a competitive advantage for green workplaces in Vestland – before we build more nature. Marthe Hammer, SV – There have been 107 consultation submissions for the plan, with a deadline of 20 February. In practice, this means that the administration has only had a few days to go through all the entries. Many of the entries were both long and academically and politically heavy, and it is clear that the entries have not resulted in significant changes. We have also received input from several people that the plan should be postponed to ensure a thorough political process. Therefore, SV was in favor of designating the plan. Arve Helle, Ap – The Labor Party believes it is wise to wait for the processes that are taking place nationally, especially linked to the follow-up of the Energy Commission’s work. The state has set the framework for our work, and we shall contribute aggressively and well to the government’s work with the Energy Commission. The processes taking place in the EU will also affect future energy policy. The political and legal work in the EU has not had its concrete results in Norway, and much is still in the works. It is therefore wise to adapt our plans according to the state’s framework. Helene Ødven, day-to-day manager of the Bergen and Hordaland tour team – The appointment decision is important so that the politicians will have time to review their own priorities, as well as so that the politicians and the administration will have time to go through over 100 statements which, among other things, contain many proposals for better care to nature – in line with the recent nature agreement. We believe it is important and right that when civil society – teams and organizations use time and resources to write statements and contributions to contribute to the desired development of the region in a consultation process, this should be respected by the administrative apparatus spending sufficient time to assess hearing response. The most controversial part of the regional power plan sets out targets for offshore wind and onshore wind power. Parts of the county council wanted to scrap these plans as soon as possible, while others wanted to wait for further clarifications. Photo: Anna Nilsson / Norwegian Institute for Natural Research – A gift package for the slack county election campaign Statsvitar Svein Erik Tuastad calls it “a democratic problem” that politicians procrastinate and “clear difficult questions away from the election campaign”. – It is part of the political game, but that does not mean that we have to accept it. It is actually fundamentally undemocratic. Democracy means that voters make informed choices about future politics. He believes that the rationale for delaying the decision is “thin”, since it is not possible to advance exactly who will “get” the new power, and that an energy plan “is actually a gift package for the usually weak county election campaign”. – Another thing is that the stream policy should be local. It is locally that we have to make the difficult choices. Should we protect the waterway or not? Build a wind farm? Until now, the stream debate has been distant and abstract, something about abroad, as it were. In this case, the county politicians do the opposite of making the stream debate more local. Political editor in Fedrelandsvennen, Vidar Udjus, gives the same diagnosis: – From a democratic perspective, it is very unfortunate to postpone difficult issues until after an election. A political body is elected for four years, and the electorate should have a claim that the body is effective for the entire period, he says. Peter Egge Langsæther, who researches voter behaviour, is more ambivalent. On a general basis, he says that it is “very unfortunate if politicians push through unpopular decisions to avoid being blamed by the voters”, but adds: – At the same time, it can be completely legitimate to push through a decision if there are good reasons for it. that, for example, whether the knowledge base for the decision is better after the election.
ttn-69
Folkevalde “cowarded” when they had to adopt a new plan for wind power – news Vestland
