The company claims not to be interested in them remaining open in this context of energy transition
MADRID, 19 Oct. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The Supreme Court (TS) has assumed the task of analyzing the Government’s lack of response to the request of the energy company Naturgy to temporarily close five gas plants: two located in Palos de la Frontera (Huelva), another two in Cartagena and one in Sagunto (Valencia).
Given the “general economic interest” represented by the supply of electricity, the Supreme Court has decided to establish jurisprudence on the effects of administrative silence in the regulation of the energy sector and, more specifically, on how it affects requests to close plants combined cycle.
In a car to which Europa Press has had access, the Supreme Court admits Naturgy’s appeal against a ruling by the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid that dismissed its allegations in the face of the double silence of the Government, both the current and the last of the PP, the first one you applied to.
According to that ruling, the lack of response cannot be interpreted as a ‘yes’ to the closure, given that what Naturgy wants affects the supply of electricity, which is a “service of general interest” that excludes the “positive effect” of the administrative silence, which is a ‘no’ when it affects the public interest.
However, the TS emphasizes the “polysemic” nature of the concept of public service, so it will clarify whether this silence serves as a ‘no’ from the Government to the energy company’s request.
Naturgy, as explained by the TS, has “no interest” in keeping these facilities open “in view of the evolution of the electricity generation market and the energy transition process” promoted by the European Commission with the ‘European Green Pact’.
For the former Gas Natural Fenosa, generating electricity is an activity that “does not constitute any public service”. “The closure of a plant does not imply that any power related to ownership or public service is transferred to the applicant, since it only implies the free exercise of leaving a market,” he claims.
