Sammut's claim collapses the criticism into a single phrase — 'failed to plan'. The narrower complaints he's drawing on are real: late transposition of the Renewable Energy Directive, tight-clock gas-contract procurement, and a renewable-electricity share that's still the EU's lowest. But the documented project pipeline contradicts 'no plan'. The honest critique is that the plan exists, is delivering on some dimensions, and is conspicuously behind on others. 'Failed to plan' isn't an accurate description of what's on paper or what's being built.

What's in the published plan

The 'no plan' framing has to argue with ten distinct policy tracks each at varying stages of delivery. Some are operational (IC1, CCGT, rooftop solar, household batteries). Some are commissioning (IC2). Some are at procurement (IC3, offshore wind, replacement gas deal, utility-scale storage). One is unambiguously late (RED III transposition).

The legitimate criticisms Sammut is drawing on

Three real failings are visible in the record. Sammut is correct on these specifically — but they don't add up to 'failed to plan':

• RED III transposition late. EU Renewable Energy Directive (EU) 2023/2413 had to be transposed into Maltese law by 21 May 2025. Malta missed the deadline. EC sent letter of formal notice (July 2025), reasoned opinion (December 2025), and referred Malta to the CJEU in April 2026 alongside Greece and Portugal. This is a real legal-compliance failing — but it's about not legislating the directive's text into Maltese statute, not about absence of physical projects.
• Renewables build-out pace below EU peers. Malta's renewable-electricity share at 16.6% (Q3 2025) is the EU's lowest. Structural constraints explain part of the gap (no hydropower, limited land, deep seas — see #75 / #82); policy pace explains the rest. The plan exists but is below the pace EU peers have set.
• Gas-contract clock. Electrogas-SOCAR pricing leg expires 13 August 2026. Replacement procurement is happening under tight time pressure and volatile LNG markets (#73 covers this). The bridge-deal approach is defensible but the runway should have started earlier.

Each of these is a fair criticism in narrower form. None of them, individually or together, supports 'failed to plan properly' as a blanket statement. Late transposition is a different category of problem from absent planning.

What 'failed to plan' would actually look like

For the framing to be accurate, the record would need to show:

• No interconnection projects under construction.
• No offshore wind tender process.
• No domestic battery scheme.
• No EEZ legal basis for offshore renewables.
• No renewable-electricity share growth.

The actual record shows all five being delivered — some on time, some behind pace, but all in active execution. The plan is critiquable on speed and on legal-text transposition. 'Failed to plan properly' is the wrong frame for either critique.

So is the claim accurate?

The narrower complaints Sammut is drawing on — RED III transposition delay, slow renewables pace, tight gas-contract clock — are all real. But the umbrella framing of 'failed to plan' is contradicted by the documented project pipeline. There is a plan, it has measurable outputs, and it is behind on some dimensions while ahead on others.

Verdict: Misleading. Real underlying failings bundled into a blanket framing the project record doesn't support.