Vol. 1045 No. 6
1. Deputy Darren O'Rourke asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications the date on which the energy security review and the McCarthy report will be published; if both have been presented to the Cabinet; how the environmental impact of proposed energy security options will be assessed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50447/23]
When will the energy security review and the McCarthy report be published? Have they been presented to the Cabinet? How will the environmental impact of proposed energy security options be assessed? I ask the Minister to make a statement on the matter.
The Energy Security in Ireland to 2030 report was published earlier this week, on 14 November, following approval by the Government. The energy package outlines a new strategy to ensure energy security in Ireland for this decade while ensuring a sustainable transition to a carbon-neutral energy system by 2050.
The comprehensive report, which has 24 actions in total, is a roadmap to ensuring a sustainable, affordable and secure energy landscape that balances energy risk and resilience against our binding European and domestic energy and climate commitments. It is informed by six pillars of analysis, including the technical view of the energy security of Ireland's electricity and gas networks carried out by Cambridge Economic Policy Associates. More than 450 consultation responses to this analysis were provided and the independent review on the security of electricity review, carried out by the former Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach, Dermot McCarthy, and known as the McCarthy report, is included.
The energy package integrates energy, climate, enterprise and digitalisation policy ambitions in order that Ireland's energy future is clear and certain. Ultimately, it will ensure our energy system is secure and affordable as we transition to a carbon-neutral future. The four key areas are reducing demand, switching to renewables, creating a resilient system and good governance to oversee this transition we need to make.
It is welcome that we have this comprehensive review. Several proposals it makes are of particular note. With regard to the strategic gas emergency reserve, a report is due in the middle of next year but it seems to be indicated this will take the shape of a State-owned floating storage regasification unit, FSRU, gas reserve. In terms of the assessment of alternatives in that regard, is onshore gas storage an option? If not, why not? Similarly, is it not the case that the Kinsale gas field would serve the same purpose? In the context of this transition period and the overlap between Kinsale possibly coming into use in future for natural gas or hydrogen and this floating offshore facility, does it open the door to Shannon liquified natural gas, LNG, for example?
I appreciate the Deputy's remarks. It is a comprehensive body of work two years in the making. He is right. A significant amount of attention has been drawn to one of the 28 actions, namely, the creation of a strategic gas emergency reserve. I think we are in agreement that it should be State-led. It is strategic. We have to avoid anything that would promote the use of new additional gas that would breach our climate limits. We have to prepare for a world where our gas use is reduced. There is still this interim period where it provides balancing capability with renewables. We have to avoid the damage that would be done to the country if there was a change as a result of a low-risk but high-impact eventuality. We looked at onshore and the Kinsale gas field and took account of a variety of reasons. They would be much more expensive and would not provide the same level of security and risks. In the case of the former option in particular, it would leave a legacy stranded fossil fuel asset. The advantage of the temporary facility is that it can be withdrawn. I expect we will use the Kinsale gas field in future but probably for hydrogen. That is a more medium-term investment decision.
In terms of the timeline for this later report, will this be a floating offshore LNG facility? Does that require a change in legislation or policy? Are there inconsistencies with the approach taken to Shannon LNG? Does this comprehensive document confirm that commercial LNG is not the way forward but, rather, it should be State-led? On the McCarthy report, does the Minister accept that if we had delivered on the renewables potential and energy generation, the current situation would have been avoidable?
The Government's policy statement with regard to commercial or State-led strategic reserves or facilities stays in place pending the completion of the analysis by Gas Networks Ireland, GNI. It is not ruling out looking at onshore or other facilities but we expect the focus will be on temporary, strategic and State-led FSRU. We need to consider locations and other elements for the delivery of that, as well as the additional legislation that would be needed. It has to be done quickly. It will report by the second quarter of next year. The ordinary timetable for this sort of infrastructure might be five, six or seven years. We have to halve that because this is an interim period and a period of risk. As such, the quicker we can build it, the better.
With regard to the McCarthy report, the Deputy is right. We need to build out renewables quicker but, pending further interconnection and other storage mechanisms, there still would be elements of risk. For example, yesterday was a relatively calm day and this morning is the same. There can be several days in a row of low wind, particularly mid-winter. We need to balance the capability as we develop the storage and interconnection systems, and gas will provide that on those days. Even with those traditional renewables, we will still have to close the risk.
2. Deputy Ivana Bacik asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications how many households have availed of the microgeneration support scheme to date, broken down by year; how many are feeding electricity into the grid; how many are projected for installation in 2023; how many have availed of the maximum grant; if he has increased the budget for the scheme in 2024; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50385/23]
How many households have availed of the microgeneration support scheme to date, broken down by year? How many are feeding electricity into the grid? How many are projected for installation in 2023? How many have availed of the maximum grant available? Will the Minister consider increasing the amount available for the scheme in the budget for 2024?
The domestic solar photovoltaic, PV, grant scheme under the microgeneration support scheme is administered on behalf of my Department by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI. The current scheme came into operation in February 2022 and built on the success of a previous pilot version of the scheme. Since 2019, over 36,500 homes have been supported under the scheme. In 2022, there were 10,017 completed installations and to date in 2023, there have been 17,766 completed installations. To date, over 24,000 homes have been awarded the maximum solar PV grant available at the time.
No adjustments to the administration of the domestic solar PV grant were announced as part of budget 2024. However, a planned mid-scheme review of the microgeneration support scheme, MSS, is currently under way, which will provide an update on its performance and total projected cost, as well as any recommendations for improving its effectiveness. In line with the parameters set forth in the MSS final scheme design, the maximum grant for 2024 will be €2,100.
On the scheme budget, 2022 saw a significant rise in demand with over double the level of funding provided compared to 2021, at over €24.4 million, and 2023 is expected to be even more successful, with grants projected to reach over €55 million by the end of the year, in support of over 22,000 households. The budget for 2024 will be based on demand but given the strong level of interest in solar PV, it is expected to be similar to this year.
On the number of households that are feeding electricity into the grid, while there is no single register to record the number of microgenerators exporting at any one time, ESB Networks maintains a register of NC6 submissions, which records the number of microgenerators that have had their export capabilities registered. As of 3 November this year, ESB Networks has received 73,286 valid NC6 form applications from microgenerators nationwide, which amounts to approximately 273 MW of electricity generation capacity.
I thank the Minister for that information. The scheme has had a number of teething problems, some of which would probably have been expected. Many people are concerned about the bureaucracy relating to it. I have a question about those who are in the system. The Minister has outlined the figures for how households many have participated. Why is a static rate being paid per kilowatt for energy from the likes of Electric Ireland, while consumers are being charged fluctuating rates? Why can we not mirror both going in both directions?
There is also an issue with cost. In the Committee of Public Accounts recently, we found out that the SEAI is way behind in other aspects of its work. There had to be multiannual transfers between budgets. Can we not move some more of the funding into this area to bring more people in? The cost is prohibitive, especially to those who are vulnerable or on lower budgets.
Finally, on the payments back, the Minister has outlined the numbers of people who are getting payments. Some suppliers are doing it monthly or by time periods, while others are waiting until the whole following year, which seems a bit ridiculous. In the mid-term review, can we create a standardised process for how consumers are being paid for the electricity they are generating back to the grid?
First, I would say that this has been incredibly successful. I would say the same about any scheme where one has got a doubling from 2021 to 2022, and then a doubling again from 2022 to 2023. Those sorts of numbers, with 22,000 homes involved this year, are not small. It is hugely successful, and a very welcome success in times of high energy costs.
On what the supply companies do with regard to flexible rates and incentives to customers to be able to sell power back, and also to purchase power at flexible rates, that needs to improve. We have 13 different supply companies.
On the time-of-day pricing and flexibility, particularly now with 1.5 million householders using smart meters and pretty much all those with PV being able to use smart metering, we need to become more innovative in promoting and incentivising more flexibility in selling power back and also in purchasing power.
The main constraint, I would argue, is not bureaucratic; it is the number of contractors and the supply chain. That is improving because contractors are seeing steady, strong demand. That has been the biggest constraint rather than any bureaucratic hold-up.
It is across a whole range of issues, including the volume of contractors and people working in the area. That is why the retrofit scheme is so far behind and that is why there have been multiannual transfers of budgets. It is quite unusual that it is going on two years in a row. Can we not transfer some of the budget that is not being used so we can bring more people in on this scheme? I do not doubt the figures the Minister is outlining but we need to do more.
We also need to make provision to ensure those on lower or more modest incomes, and those who are actually vulnerable, can participate in the scheme because they cannot do so at present. I have two questions. It has been purported that after 2024, the grant of €2,400 will actually go down. Why is it projected that it will start decreasing? In his reply, I would like the Minister to give us the figures for those in the farming community who are participating in the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, who are getting the capital allowance that has been allowed from this scheme? How many, and how is it working?
I do not have the schemes here in front of me but I will endeavour to get the figures and share them with the Deputy. There is a whole range of initiatives happening. In the coming weeks, we will start the building out of the solar panels that we are going to put on top of every single school roof in the country. We have already introduced schemes for the most vulnerable, particularly those using medical devices who have a consistent requirement to be using electricity in their homes, and provided for that. We will be introducing new low-cost loans that will help householders to access and avail of retrofitting grants.
I will make this point. When I was at the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications yesterday to discuss a Supplementary Estimate, I explained why we are shifting money into the faster roll-out of the national broadband plan. There was not any indication in that of a lack of commitment to retrofitting, or a lack of success in that. Just as in solar PV, the number of houses being retrofitted is ahead of target.
The Minister should go back and read the transcripts from the Committee of Public Accounts last week.
I will go back and look at the transcripts of the Committee of Public Accounts. In the meantime, I will get those figures on the farmers for the Deputy.
3. Deputy Darren O'Rourke asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications about the small-scale renewable energy support scheme, SRESS, and the date on which it will be launched; how this process will differ from the renewable energy support scheme, RESS auction; what, if any, additional supports will be put in place as part of this process; if there are revised targets for the number of contracts to be awarded to renewable energy communities and then for the number of projects that complete all milestones; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50448/23]
I want to ask the Minister about SRESS. On what date will it be launched? How will this process differ from the RESS auction? What, if any, additional supports will be put in place as part of this process? Are there revised targets for the number of contracts to be awarded to renewable energy communities and for the number of projects that complete all milestones?
Through the first two RESS auctions, my Department has provided pathways and supports for communities to participate in renewable energy projects through the application of a community projects category. Through my Department’s continued engagement with renewable energy communities, RECs, there is evidence of significant challenges that REC projects may face with the auction-based nature of RESS, along with other barriers to project delivery. Therefore, support for communities for the development of renewable projects will now transition to SRESS. That scheme will not be auction-based; rather, it is anticipated that support will be through an administratively determined feed-in tariff.
This export tariff phase of SRESS, which will support small-scale and community renewable projects, is due to be launched later this year with the full scheme opening expected in 2024. It will offer a simpler route to market for community projects and will align more closely to the experience and capacity of the community energy sector. It is expected that SRESS will support a more sustainable delivery pathway to the renewable energy community target of 500 MW by 2030.
A set of technical and financial supports for community projects are currently available to communities in a community enabling framework under RESS. Similar supports will be available to community projects under this new support scheme.
The SRESS grants are already available for renewable self-consumers, above 50 kW and up to 1 MW, through the non-domestic microgeneration scheme and the business grants and supports scheme.
This is a really important departure. It is clear that RESS more broadly, as it has been applied, has not been successful in delivering community projects. There is a further priority question on the same issue. Under RESS 1, seven community projects were successful and only four are still in play. There is a question now as to whether all four of those projects will go to generation. One of the major hurdles is to do with connections to the grid. In previous replies, the Minister pointed to the role of EirGrid and the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU. Connection is a massive hurdle for community groups. Will that be addressed in the new SRESS model?
I agree that we need to be far more ambitious and see far greater delivery in the area of community energy. The Deputy attended, as did I, the European Commission and CRU event last week on empowering citizens in the energy revolution. We need to be really ambitious and fast. The auction system has not delivered what we would want, which is why we are switching.
I also agree with the Deputy that one of the key issues has been grid access. Community projects often find themselves having to pay for upgrades to the grid, which makes the projects unviable. CRU, EirGrid, and the ESB at the distribution level, will have a vital role in making sure we provide and protect grid access for community renewable projects. We are switching from an auction system towards a system where there is a support price guarantee up to 5 MW, which will take out some of the risks. We will work with EirGrid and CRU to make sure the grid aspects are also addressed.
There is a spectacular opportunity for bottom-up climate action to empower, and power, communities. People are up for it. At the conference last week, I spoke to colleagues in the sector from across Europe. Our energy communities are based on a retrofitting programme. In most other European countries, they are based on energy generation, which creates the money needed to deliver retrofitting.
There are two elements to consider. Will there be additional financial support for connections? We need the renewable spatial plans. I hear from ESB Networks that these proposed projects are not well located in terms of connection to the gird. Second, as I asked in a priority question on a previous occasion, is there any scope to extend the deadlines and target dates for existing community projects to keep them in RESS?
The sustainable energy communities, of which there are some 750, are really important. They are very strong on retrofitting and they need to be strong on self-generation as well. Combining supply companies and generators is one of the examples from Europe we should be encouraging. The SEAI has a critical role in this regard. We need to de-risk a lot of the investment to the community sector. That does not mean waiting until every single risk is gone; it means the State must take on the risk and must ensure, in our regional, local authority and other development plans, that we provide for community energy projects and make sure they are not last in any grid deployment process. A whole variety of different work needs to be done by the regulator, the grid company and the SEAI to enable us to be faster, more flexible and more supportive of community power generation development. This project will start to make that feasible because there will no longer be the really complicated auction system. People know they will get up to 5 MW through if the grid, grant and other elements are sorted. It will be up to the State, through EirGrid and the SEAI, to make sure that happens.
4. Deputy Jennifer Whitmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications for an update on the national adaptation plan, including when it will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50260/23]
Will the Minister provide an update on the national adaptation plan and indicate when it will be published? Adaptation is coming to the fore at the moment as we see the damage being caused by storms, but it is much broader in its scope than the need to address that issue.
Observations show that Ireland's climate is changing, with increases in average temperature, changes in precipitation patterns and weather extremes. Climate change is expected to have diverse and wide-ranging impacts on Ireland's environment, society and economic development, including on the built environment, managed and natural ecosystems, water resources, agriculture and food security, human health and coastal zones. Ireland will need to adapt to these impacts, including, in particular, flood risk, over time.
My Department leads and co-ordinates national climate adaptation policy, primarily through the development and implementation of the national adaptation framework, NAF. The current framework, developed under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, as amended, addresses these risks. The NAF outlines a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach to climate adaptation in Ireland to improve the enabling environment for adaptation through ongoing engagement with key sectors, civil society, the private sector and the research community. The key objectives of the framework are implemented through activity at sectoral, regional and local levels. Departments and agencies are responsible for implementing adaptation measures in sectors under their remit.
Following a statutory review by my Department in 2022, a new framework is currently in development and a first draft is expected to be completed by the end of this year. A public consultation will follow in early 2024, following which the new NAF will be submitted to the Government for final approval.
The current framework was published in 2018, since when our understanding of the impacts of climate change has changed. The speed at which those impacts are affecting us has changed, as has Government policy. The sectoral adaptation plans produced under the NAF are not necessarily reflective, I hope, of current Government policy. For example, the flood management sectoral plan includes a list of the prioritisation of impacts and the response to climate change. The assessment of potential green infrastructure, which I presume means nature-based solutions, gets an incredibly low rating. It is seen as not important at all. If we have learned anything recently, it is that we cannot rely on concreting and engineering our way out of climate change. We will have to work with nature. I am interested in the Minister's opinion on that.
I agree that nature-based solutions should get the highest priority in our flood management plans because they are the most effective long-term way of holding back water. We need to work with nature. We saw devastating flooding recently in Midleton, Carlingford and Clarinbridge. The river basin catchment management process, which involves assessing water flows from the source of rivers right down to the sea, is the best way of dealing with this. I expect there will be a change in Government policy, with a real focus on that. One of the ways we are dealing with this issue is through the land use review task force that has been established, which has to optimise for storing carbon, restoring biodiversity, preventing flooding and ensuring water quality. Together with the adaptation framework and the river basin catchment management programme, the task force will help to ensure we have an integrated approach.
The Office of Public Works, OPW, has a key role and insight, not just in putting physical barriers in towns but in thinking bigger and upstream in a whole variety of ways. Local authorities also have a critical role. They need to start showing leadership in setting out their plans.
I do not just mean in flood events, but also in allowing counties to think strategically about flooding in an upstream as well as downstream way. As well as the Government, local authorities need to step up to the plate and show leadership in that regard.
My fear is that there is a long process. We are talking about another consultation and a review, which will feed into sectoral plans, and I do not know when that will happen. By the time we get around to embedding nature-based solution thinking into our policies, it will be too late. We will have already installed a new generation of infrastructure that might not do what we need it to do.
I agree with the Minister on local authorities, but the Government is the primary source of governance in the country. If local authorities are not doing what it expects them to do or what they need to do, it is for the Government to ensure that they do.
I am unsure of whether the Minister knows about this, but I recently became aware of local authorities that were using the Part 8 system to build social housing on flood plains. They are putting flood mitigation measures in place, but I am concerned about whether those are sufficient. Since it is going through the Part 8 process, there is no or very limited consultation. I would like the Minister to raise this matter with his counterparts in government.
I am speaking about completing the first draft within weeks, so it will be before the end of the year. That will help to inform people and give a direction from central government, following consultation. It will set the path.
The process takes too long. There are many examples one could pick of it taking a long time to take remedial measures. I could cite Sandymount in my constituency, which happens to be in the newspapers today. It has to do with flood protection from sea inundation rather than overflowing rivers, but a date of 2030 was quoted in the newspapers for when the local authority might be able to come to a final solution.
In many ways, we need to double the speed of everything we are doing in respect of climate matters. The impact of climate change even over the past year has doubled dramatically.
Sometimes, nature-based solutions take time. It takes time to plant a hedgerow, switch to mixed swards and change the forestry model. All of these are solutions we can pursue upstream. It takes time to rewet bogs, although we are doing 15,000 ha this year. We are working on solutions, but we need to speed up.
5. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications further to Parliamentary Question No. 72 of 28 September 2023, and subsequent follow-up, the details of the analysis carried out by his Department regarding the operation of the community-led category in RESS 1 and RESS 2, and in particular the challenges faced by community-led energy projects; the details of the analysis behind the decision to discontinue the community-led category in RESS 3 and to provide support instead under the small-scale renewable energy support scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50115/23]
Deputy O’Rourke raised this matter in a slightly different way, but both questions are the same really. As the Minister knows, this is an issue that I follow up on continuously. I do not know how many questions I have tabled on it. It is good that there is a community-led category – I welcome that as well as the changes – but my problem is that I do not know where the analysis is. I have asked repeatedly for details of the analysis carried out by the Department of those who rose to take up the challenge of running community-led schemes, the difficulties they faced, the reasons they dropped out, etc. I have been promised the details, but I have never received them.
A community projects category was included in the RESS 1 and RESS 2 competitions. In total, seven community projects were successful in the RESS 1 auction. Four remain in progress and are either energised or due to energise this year. In RESS 2, eight community projects were successful in the auction, are continuing to progress and are currently expected to energise by the end of 2025.
Through my Department and SEAI’s continued engagement with RECs, there is evidence of significant challenges that REC projects may face. These challenges include the competitive auction-based nature of RESS, along with grid, financial, general know-how and other barriers to project delivery. My Department's analysis is that the auction and contractual delivery-based nature of the RESS does not align well with the capacities and structures of communities. Grid connection costs and uncertainties are a major challenge for communities, which is something that the CRU is examining as part of a review of its electricity generation policy.
In addition, the financial risks associated with being unsuccessful in a RESS auction are difficult for a community to manage, particularly in the current challenging macro environment where supply chains and inflationary pressures are adding additional project risks. The SRESS will offer such projects a simpler, non-competitive route to market. Potential SRESS applicants will know the export tariff they are eligible for before planning for their project begins. This will give them more certainty compared to the competitive RESS.
As someone who supports what the Minister is talking about, I am frustrated. The Minister of State, Deputy Ossian Smyth, was present the last time I asked about this on 28 September. He stated that he would contact my office. I received an acknowledgement but nothing with details of the analysis. Where RESS 1 is concerned, I have been told repeatedly that seven community-led projects were successful and four remained. I would like to know what happened to the other three. What were the difficulties? Where is the analysis? I would like to see it. Where RESS 2 is concerned, eight communities were successful. How many of those remain? Are they all solar or are other forms of generation involved? What are the possibilities? I agree with Deputy O’Rourke that this is an exciting area. It is a way to both power and empower communities. I think of my city of Galway and the areas of, for example, Claddagh and Shantalla, which could be self-sufficient.
I would like to see the analysis, so will the Minister depart from the script and tell me how removing community projects from the auction system, which I welcome, was decided? Give me the evidence, please.
We came to this change because, in a sense, the auction-based system was not working. In the early 2000s, there was a similar competitive bidding system. One of the several reasons projects ran into difficulty was that people were bidding down so tightly that they were not able to get financing and get their projects built. This was a particular issue in the past two to three years. With the war in Ukraine, coming out of Covid and supply chain constraints, the price of steel, PV pounds and contractors increased. Indeed, the price of every element increased. This meant that communities were not able to deliver the projects as expected.
All going well, we will see those four projects delivered under RESS 1. The eight in RESS 2 are progressing. It is not guaranteed that every single one of them will reach the point of final delivery, but we want and need them.
Seeing that the current system was not working drove us towards a different approach, one that has removed the financing risk in the sense that applicants know their price before they start their projects. This financing certainty is helpful. Financing is one of the obstacles. Grid connections and planning are others that we need to overcome.
I do not disagree with the Minister and I am delighted that community projects are out of the auction system. They should never have been in it in the first place. When we declared a climate emergency, we spoke about needing transformative change because our corporate model and other models had not worked for energy. That transformative change will come from the ground up and nowhere else. When community and other ground-up initiatives come forward, they need help, including financial assistance. The Minister mentioned that technical expertise was available from the SEAI and that there would be financial aid.
While I welcome the Minister saying that there has been a change, on what basis was that decided? I would like to be empowered so that I can help empower my communities in how they proceed. Where is it spelled out in the Department’s analysis what the challenges were for those projects that, after going to significant effort, dropped out? Maybe they could come forward again if we knew what challenges they faced. Is there a piece of research somewhere in the Minister’s office or his Department that we could have access to so that we could empower ourselves and, more importantly, our communities?
One of the other key developments we need to work on – the CRU has been tasked with this and will shortly conclude its work – is grid connection policy. Of all the various aspects, that policy has been one of the main challenges. I have seen that myself in meeting various community groups. They often have grid connection points, but they take on the full cost of the relevant grid upgrades. Typically, solar is the largest example. The development of solar community projects is a positive one because they can be done economically, but the grid constraint and the cost of the grid upgrade has been one of the main obstacles.
I expect the CRU to come back with a new connections policy that, combined with a regulatory certainty around price and support for that, will help us.
Is there a document, an analysis or research-----
There will be a document published in the very near future from CRU-----
-----that led to the Minister’s decision?
The changes on the auction system was from my own personal assessment that it needed a much more guaranteed stable certain pricing regime, particularly for community.
