Energy Commissioner Says GSI Absolute Priority, no New Study Needed

Cyprus should be free from energy isolation, the EU body told MEP Michalis Hadjipantela following a relevant question.

Header Image

GSI must continue without further delays as a work of primary importance, EU says.

POLITIS NEWS

 

The European Commission has made its decision very clear on the EU co-funded Great Sea Interconnector project, noting that work should continue without further delay and indicating that no other technical, logistical or financial studies were needed.

Responding to a relevant question by EPP and DISY MEP Michalis Hadjipantela, Energy Commissioner Dan Jorgensen underscored that lifting the island's energy isolation was of absolute priority to the EU and that construction should move forward, free of any further timeframe setbacks.

Following a Hadjipantela query on the possibility of a new cost benefit analysis, Jorgensen noted that such a process had already concluded in the framework of integrating the work in the Projects of Common Interest programme, applied, as noted in the EU regulations 'to key cross-border energy infrastructure projects that are essential for completing the European internal energy market and helping Europe achieve its energy and climate policy objectives, such as security of supply, sustainability, and affordability.'

Jorgensen further stressed that the GSI approval as such a project actually confirms that its benefits outweigh the costs, clarifying that viablitity and cost-benefits analyses cannot be made public, as they are likely to contain confidential and classified information.

'The GSI completion is a key priority for the EU', the Commission added, as it stregthens energy security, connectivity and the capability of transporting clean European energy.

It also made clear that European political will to finish the work remains steadfast, strong and absolutely unquestionable.

Comments Posting Policy

The owners of the website www.politis.com.cy reserve the right to remove reader comments that are defamatory and/or offensive, or comments that could be interpreted as inciting hate/racism or that violate any other legislation. The authors of these comments are personally responsible for their publication. If a reader/commenter whose comment is removed believes that they have evidence proving the accuracy of its content, they can send it to the website address for review. We encourage our readers to report/flag comments that they believe violate the above rules. Comments that contain URLs/links to any site are not published automatically.