ITALY. THE SARDINIA REGION DENIES THE SARDINIANS' SAY ON WIND BLADES AND PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS. THE "HOT" OPINION OF ATTORNEY MICHELE PALA

Giannina Puddu, 31 dicembre 2024.

In Sardinia, the Sardinian people have asked to be able to express their opinion on the massive use of mega wind and photovoltaic systems.

Provided in quantities disproportionate to the energy needs of the Sardinians, in unfair comparison with the load attributed to the other regions of Italy, privileging, among the many possible tools for the production of green energy, wind farms and photovoltaic panels, known for their impacting and polluting power.

The Sardinia Region has denied this constitutional right to the Sardinians, declaring the "illegitimacy" of the referendum question. I spoke about it with the lawyer Michele Pala, Representative of the Referendum Committee for the NO.

1) Lawyer Michele Pala, I address you as Representative of the Referendum Committee for the NO, for a "hot" analysis of the opinion expressed by the Regional Referendum Office of the Sardinia Region which rejected, for "illegitimacy", the referendum question you proposed: "Do you want the Sardinian land and sea landscape to be modified with the installation on the land and at sea of ​​industrial wind and/or photovoltaic systems to the production of electricity?”.

The expression of this "refusal", following the "dilution" of the Popular Proposal of Law "Pratobello 24", seems to confirm the political will of the Sardinia region to prevent the Sardinian people from expressing themselves on the future of their natural habitat, and, therefore , on the defense of his own "identity".

What is your "hot" comment, exactly?

First of all, it must be clarified that the Referendum Office is a regional body established at the Presidency of the Region.

In fact, it is the President of the Region herself who appointed the four magistrates who, together with the general secretary, form this college whose function is precisely to decide on the admissibility of the referendums provided for by constitutional law in the Sardinian special statute.

The provision of the Regional Referendum Office does not actually allow the Sardinians to express their will in a united and democratic way and is certainly an act that has serious political consequences.

It comes after months of popular mobilization, after the appeals of numerous personalities from the world of journalism, entertainment and culture and finally after the substantial rejection by the Regional Council of the "Pratobello" law proposal. In essence, the people were denied any legal instrument that could influence the political direction expressed by the national government.

The Sardinians who in various capacities contributed to making all this happen must be attributed a responsibility that will remain as an indelible stain in the history of Sardinia and that of Italian democracy.

2) The Resolution of the Regional Office for the Referendum opens with the reference to the Regional Law. 17 May 1957, n. 20 which deals with the rules regarding regional popular referendums.

This law, in letter f), provides for the ability to "express an opinion on issues of particular regional and local interest" and this legal reference is cited by the same "Deliberation" which, immediately afterwards, contests its application by declaring the "illegitimacy " of the referendum question as the matter on which it concerns cannot be the subject of a consultative referendum...

Yet, the text presented by the Referendum Committee for the NO dealt exclusively with industrial-sized wind and photovoltaic plants, asking the Sardinians whether or not they are in favor of the use of these "tools", which have a serious impact, to achieve the goal of the production of electricity from renewable sources.

How do you interpret this motivation of "illegitimacy"?

From a legal point of view, the motivation given by the referendum office is astounding because they wanted to see the damage to the national interest where it does not suffer any prejudice. In fact, the referendum question is not against the energy transition and cannot even prejudice the commitments undertaken by the State to reduce fossil fuels.

These commitments, which affect the national interest, translate for Sardinia into an obligation to produce a minimum of 6.2 gigawatts of electricity from renewable energy.

The same legislative decree no. 199 of 8 November 2021 in art. 2 indicates energy from renewable sources as energy coming from non-fossil renewable sources, i.e. wind, solar, thermal and photovoltaic energy, and geothermal, environmental energy, tidal energy, wave motion and other forms of marine energy, hydraulic energy, biomass, landfill gas, waste gases from purification processes and biogas.

Our referendum, if the no votes had prevailed, would have directed the legislator to exclude only the use of industrial photovoltaic and wind power, leaving open the possibility of using any other renewable source among those indicated by the same national law.

In short, the Sardinia region could produce exactly the amount of anergy assigned to it, without resorting to wind and photovoltaic power, but instead using the tides, or hydroelectric energy, biomass or others among those previously indicated.

Therefore, if it is true, as it is true, that the national interest lies in the production of energy from renewable sources, the meaning of the referendum lies precisely in encouraging a political process that leads Sardinia to produce the quota of energy assigned to it, as required by the regulations national, using the renewable sources that best adapt to the territory while respecting the production activities, the landscape and the identity elements of the island.

Instead, the Regional Referendum Office wanted to see the national interest in the fact that energy is produced exclusively through wind and photovoltaic systems, a squint that is truly difficult to understand.

To conclude, I remember that a few years ago the Regional Referendum Office admitted popular consultation on radioactive waste deposits in Sardinia.

That referendum had the subject of energy as its subject and that particular problem undoubtedly underpinned the national interest.

Well, that referendum was admitted and the Sardinian citizens were able to express themselves, but this significant precedent is today totally omitted and silenced.

2) The text of the "Deliberation" continues by stating that Preliminarily, it is worth remembering that the Republic is "one and indivisible" (art. 5 Constitution)... But, despite having tried to find the logical connection of this quote in the context of verifying the "legitimacy" of the referendum question, I was unable to grasp it. Using a simple approach, it could be summarized with "what's wrong"?

Yes, it's disconcerting!

The fact that citizens can express themselves on an intervention so relevant for their territory according to the Regional Referendum Office has become a potential element of disruption of national unity!!!

In truth, the referendum is an instrument provided for in the Constitution of the Republic and provided for by constitutional law in the Sardinian Special Statute.

It is the main instrument of direct democracy through which popular sovereignty is exercised.

If for the Referendum Office the expression of popular sovereignty referred to in art. 1 of the Constitution ends up becoming an element of rupture of national unity, then the problem does not only lie in the protection of the landscape and identity of Sardinia, but becomes a problem of democracy and freedom.

3) What follows, in the text of the "Deliberation", is a sort of juridical-speculative exercise which is poorly combined with the objective gravity of the situation which instead demands concrete solutions and responses to the Sovereign People who call, renouncing acrobatic intellectual exhibitions of this kind...

The memory of Queen Marie Antoinette comes to mind who, according to the revolutionaries' attribution, said to the starving people of Paris: If they have no more bread, let them eat brioches (S'ils n'ont plus de pain qu'ils mangent de la brioches).

In this case, instead of brioches, a learned "Deliberation" is offered to the People which confirms the total disconnect between the Institutions and real society.

We read: At first, the environment and landscape constituted a hendiadys: in this sense, it is particularly significant Corte Cost., 20 February 1995, n. 46, in which the Court, called to rule on civic uses, had expressly overcome the "fragmentary vision of landscape protection typical of law no. 1497 of 1939, mainly aimed at the protection of individual natural beauties considered in isolation"...

And, it continues, retracing the entire history of the regulatory definition of your categories "Landscape" and "Environment", to reach a ruling, after over 80 lines (!!!), that the purpose of the referendum request is to establish a prevalence between the landscape and the environment, regardless of any balance between the said assets; however, this is in clear and direct contrast with what is stated by the most recent constitutional jurisprudence, according to which:...

I ask you: had the NO Referendum Committee, before formulating the question, drawn up a ranking of value between "Landscape" and "Environment"?

So what?

Also in this case, the orientation of the Referendum Office is frankly incomprehensible because it states that "the installation of industrial wind and/or photovoltaic systems for the production of electricity, on the one hand, allows the environment to be preserved, as a set of physical and chemical conditions of existence of the living being, on the other hand it impacts on the landscape and cultural heritage" and therefore if the referendum banned wind and photovoltaic energy the environment would be prejudiced.

The contrast between landscape and environment raised by the referendum office is inconsistent because it does not consider that if preserving the environment is possible with biomass, hydroelectric, wave motion or other renewable energies, why do it with wind and photovoltaics which have a particular impact on the landscape?

The reality is that the referendum outcome does not create any conflict between landscape and environmental protection needs and leaves the legislator the possibility of achieving the balance while respecting the popular will.

4) In «REPowerEU, the Union calls for a process of accelerating the use of renewable energy is essential to reduce the Union's dependence on fossil fuels and gradually eliminate Russian gas consumption.

And, the European Commission itself, having noted the contrary opinion of the populations who do not accept the upheaval of their territories as a result of these invasive plants, has suggested that "To overcome it, the needs and perspectives of citizens and interested parties in society should be taken into account at all stages of the development of renewable energy projects – from policy development to spatial planning and project development – ​​and good practices to ensure a fair distribution of the impacts of the plants on the local population should be encouraged ”.

But, the rigid attitude adopted by the Sardinia region seems to ignore this indication by choosing to "go straight ahead" in the face of any initiative of expression of the Sardinian citizens in relation to their "needs" and "perspectives".

This, like the central governments which have not applied the principle of "equity", burdening Sardinia with the load of 6,2 GW and, also, not providing for a maximum production ceiling.

What is your reading?

The fact itself seems serious to me.

The expressed desire not to allow popular consultation must make us reflect on the drift our democratic system has taken.

I repeat, the devastation of an entire island with the transformation of its entire landscape from rural to industrial is a responsibility that will remain in history, but today the people are denied even the right to express themselves, or rather, they can only express themselves when this expression complies with government guidelines.

The referendum committee together with the other committees and associations that supported the referendum together with numerous fellow citizens have already started a reflection on what remains of the constitutional guarantees and popular sovereignty.

The measure taken by the region with its referendum office opens a new phase which could even have judicial developments, but which will certainly have political consequences of absolute importance for the Sardinian citizens and we hope for this ailing democracy of ours.