ANACA asserts that the route of the Alcúdia power cable "no longer has any justification"

The ANACA platform – New Agreement for the Alcúdia Cable – denounced this Wednesday that the route planned by REDEIA for the PENBAL-2 electrical interconnection project has been left "without technical foundation, without territorial coherence, and without social legitimacy." The organization demands a reconsideration of the alternative that avoids Sa Ferradura and argues that the "10-Bis" option, which would enter through the Bay of Alcúdia, is now "the only viable one." According to the platform, the energy and territorial situation of the municipality has changed, while the project "has remained anchored in obsolete arguments." One of the main ones, they claim, is the Murterar thermal power plant, which is expected to close permanently in 2026. For years, this complex had been used as a reason to discard the corridor entering through Alcúdia. "If the power plant no longer exists, neither does the technical limitation," argues ANACA, which asserts that this alternative has never been studied in depth. The organization also accuses the Government and the City Council of "opacity" for not providing technical reports on the viability of the power plant's cooling pipes, which could serve—according to the platform—as a corridor for the new submarine cable. Furthermore, we criticize the fact that, while potential geological risks such as paleochannels have been cited, "REDEIA itself installs more complex cables in much more demanding areas, such as the Bay of Biscay." Territorial changes and new affected parties

ANACA believes the selected land route has not been updated to reflect the recent municipal purchase of the Poble Nou/Gatamoix property, unanimously approved by the City Council and designated for environmental, educational, and cultural uses. The planned route passes very close to this public space and, according to the platform, also affects other facilities such as the Victoria campsite, the municipal sports center, frequently used paths, and homes. The platform asserts that the supposed consensus announced by the City Council "never existed" and that it only considered a small group of residents affected by a previous route. According to ANACA, numerous residents of areas such as Bonaire, Maristany, and the Camí de la Montaña "were not informed and are now the ones most affected." Posidonia seagrass, another point of contention

Another central element of the debate is the state of the Posidonia seagrass meadows. ANACA asserts that the environmental project has insufficiently compared the two bays and criticizes the fact that the announced municipal study to analyze the Alcúdia meadows "was never carried out." Therefore, the platform has commissioned a supplementary review of the maps and underwater images. According to their interpretation of this data, the Pollença meadows are "more continuous and dense," while in Alcúdia there are extensive sandy areas that would allow for less invasive techniques. Overall, they maintain that "it is not true that the Alcúdia option is more damaging." Criticisms of the environmental project

The organization also points out deficiencies in the project's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which—according to the platform—does not adequately compare the alternatives and is based on "outdated" premises, such as the activity of the Murterar power plant. They remind us that European regulations require demonstrating that no less harmful alternatives exist before authorizing impacts on the Natura 2000 network. Among the areas potentially affected by the current route, ANACA cites the CEIP S'Hort des Fasser school, the municipal sports center, the Pollentia protected area, and the Pollentia protected ecosystem. Final claim

In conclusion, ANACA states that "all excuses have fallen apart" and that the route through Sa Ferradura "is no longer justifiable." The platform argues that alternative 10-Bis, through the Bay of Alcúdia, is "technically viable, environmentally less impactful, and socially more just." REDEIA and the relevant institutions have not commented on ANACA's statements in this press release, although the project remains in the environmental impact assessment phase.