The Technological Institute of Renewable Energies of Tenerife (ITER) has incurred losses ranging from 8 to 12 million euros due to the closure of wind turbine facilities in Arico since 2019. This is underscored by a consortium of private stakeholders in the entity (shareholders of the photovoltaic segment of the park, with the wind division entirely under public management), for which the Cabildo of Tenerife holds accountability. They criticise the management of the previous island government (PSOE-Cs), yet remain unconvinced by the explanations and inaction observed from the current administration (CC-PP). These individual investors, who have partnered with ITER for two decades and have witnessed “the inception, growth, success, and decline of the company,” are questioning what measures have been implemented to reclaim that money over the past year, especially considering the new administration, which they recall spent the entirety of the last term denouncing these losses. A motion was also unanimously ratified to back the then-president, the socialist Pedro Martín, in adopting necessary actions to recover these funds.
In a response to this publication, the Cabildo government continues to reference the previous administration, which it labels as “catastrophic.” “To such an extent,” they assert, “that in July 2023, we find ourselves in a dire predicament that we are striving to rectify, though this is not straightforward given that those four years of inactivity have adversely affected an entity that needs to restore its research and economic activity momentum it once had. We are implementing various measures to rectify, alter, and enhance the situation, but it will require time,” they stress.
This “inactivity”, as articulated by CC and PP, is evidenced by the “stalemate in the supercomputer’s expansion, neglect concerning the repowering of the wind farm, inability to negotiate a new and improved collective agreement for staff, or the cessation of bioclimatic homes which they failed to resume post-pandemic. It is abundantly clear that, in July 2023, ITER found itself in a worse predicament than in 2019, both concerning its expansion and development projects and in relation to internal management, characterised by a relentless pursuit of non-issues (of irregularities) to undermine the previous administrations’ management.”
Moreover, they underscore that “the losses incurred by the Areté and La Roca parks along with potential legal liabilities prompted the resignation of Enrique Arriaga (Cs) from ITER in December 2022, who had previously been overseeing the company. The reality is that, beyond grandiose proclamations and plenary agreements, no substantive actions were executed regarding this issue, nor were any avenues for negotiation initiated for resolution.” Consequently, they reveal that they are currently evaluating “actions to undertake and, once the legal services assess all options, we will arrive at a decision. Undoubtedly, the PSOE’s inadequacy in management has inflicted harm, and the accountability for a problem arising during its term must be elucidated. “This is a complex matter that requires thorough examination, but we do not exclude any possibilities given the gravity of the situation, and we will defend the interests of the public company.”
“Shameful political exploitation”
In light of this, the shareholders reproach that various governments reiterate the same rhetoric when they assume leadership of ITER: “It is merely the same mantra regurgitated ad nauseam. Declaring that the management of our predecessors was catastrophic is a statement laden with implications, yet devoid of substantiation, highlighting the disgraceful purely political exploitation of this institution. These remain allegations, but the truth is that ITER, in 2019, was an entity that achieved projects across multiple domains and drawn in researchers, whereas now it faces the prospect of 6 years without executing a renewable energy project, and the exodus of personnel from the entity appears relentless—a questionable means of re-establishing that research enthusiasm and economic activity if the few projects undertaken are being subcontracted, a departure from previous practices where they were handled internally.”
Concerned partners recall that “with every change in management, there exists a trial phase, a period in which the new leadership takes hold, but this must have a finite duration. The condition in which a business is inherited is not entirely the responsibility of the new administration; however, if the organisational structure persists, follows similar protocols, and the stagnation deepens, then eventually, the responsibility becomes shared and, ultimately, it is their own. CC-PP has been at the helm…
This entity has faced stagnation for over a year and a half, with no developments to report and all inquiries remaining unanswered. A sum of 30 million Euros of public funds (including bitcoins, shutdown of mills, and fotobat…) is unaccounted for, leaving the pursuit of recovery lacking real clarity.
According to their claims, “the truth is that today, after six years devoid of the ability to execute renewable projects, abandoning the bioclimatic homes and outsourcing the execution of its own initiatives, this institute has surpassed its role in renewable energy.” Additionally, they are baffled that, two years following the issues with the mills, it is stated that further study is necessary. “The previous administration made it abundantly clear who was accountable; why hasn’t there been follow-through?” The documentation affirming this responsibility was prepared by the ITER technical team. If CC, as indicated in the motion, acknowledged the technical contributions of these professionals and supported the president in fulfilling these responsibilities, then efforts should have been sustained to resolve this matter of public significance.
Fotbat 5+5 and the hydrogen generating machine
Concerning the Fotobat 5+5, the licensing for the photovoltaic installations and land acquisitions were highly publicised by the prior management either as election propaganda or public denunciations of mismanagement. Criticised by CC, they too have not shown any advancement in this area. Nevertheless, it is also the case that these files were accompanied by reports from ITER’s technical personnel, prompting the question: is the politicisation of the institute such that technical documents are tailored to suit the preferences of the current government for political advantage? How is it feasible that these technical reports favour certain individuals while subsequent leaders disregard them? Is there a guarantee that the efforts of the technical staff are directed towards matters of public interest rather than political agendas?
These stakeholders are well aware that a technology company “governed by the political class is challenging to comprehend.” However, they persist in asserting that “public scientific personnel must convey information about genuine projects and circumstances, and raise concerns rather than partake in things that are not genuine, for whilst this battle for power continues, ITER is suffering.”
As for the Fotbot, the current administration attributes its predicament to the PSOE and asserts that “the materials, despite no longer being state-of-the-art, are entirely usable, as per the technical evaluations, especially regarding the project’s most innovative components, which are the batteries. This is among the initiatives that have recently been awarded, and its execution has been temporarily halted until suitable measures are enforced concerning the archaeological site within the project’s framework. The facts speak for themselves: we have revitalised the project and as soon as the situation of the site is resolved, with assistance from the Historical Heritage department of the CIT, we will proceed accordingly.
Concerning the hydrogen production initiative (Seafuel), which the stakeholders recall was never realised despite numerous announcements, the government maintains that, “in any case, it signifies a wealth of knowledge and experience contributed to our research teams. ITER fulfilled its obligations in a timely manner, its participation was justified and compensated. The project partner encountered issues with the machine that could not be rectified, and ultimately, it did not commence. In other words, it could not be executed due to issues beyond the institute’s control.”
