Vol. 1048 No. 5
93. Deputy Darren O'Rourke asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications if he is aware of EirGrid’s recent warning that capacity deficits have been identified in the ten years to 2032; what steps he is taking to address the structural features of the electricity market which contributed to the electricity market crisis as noted in the recently published McCarthy report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3414/24]
Is the Minister aware of EirGrid's recent warning that capacity deficits have been identified in the ten years to 2032? What steps has he taken to address the structural features of the electricity market which contributed to the electricity market prices, as noted in the recently published McCarthy report? Will he make a statement on the matter?
The Government's energy security package, published in November 2023, contains a wide range of measures to strengthen Ireland’s energy security in the long term, including through reduced and responsive energy demand, a commitment to delivering on a renewables-led energy system, enhancing resilience across energy supply and enhancing oversight and governance mechanisms in the energy sector.
I welcome the publication of the All-Island Generation Capacity Statement 2023-2032, which is an annual report from EirGrid that examines the likely balance between electricity demand and supply for the next ten years. The most recent report shows an improved situation on the 2022 generation capacity statement, GCS, due to lower demand forecasts and the actions taken by the Government and State agencies to manage the situation. These actions include procuring both additional temporary and enduring capacity to generate electricity. The GCS is the principal forecasting tool to inform the setting of auction volumes within the single electricity market, SEM, and the SEM committee refers to the GCS analysis to make its capacity determinations for future capacity years so that there is a steady pipeline of required capacity.
The Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, currently has a programme of actions under way to ensure the security of our electricity supply. Regular updates on this programme are published on the CRU website. The energisation of temporary emergency generation, TEG, units in North Wall in December 2023 as part of the programme, with further TEG units to be energised in Huntstown in the coming weeks, and Shannonbridge and Tarbert across 2024, will mitigate risks to our electricity supply, going forward. The energy security package concludes that Ireland’s future energy will be secure by moving from a fossil fuel-based energy system to an electricity-led system, maximising our renewable energy potential, providing flexibility and integrating into Europe's energy systems.
The EirGrid report notes that steps need to be taken to avoid shortages and those steps may include keeping older power plants open beyond their scheduled closing date. This has particular implications for the use of fossil fuels and emissions. Will the Minister outline if that is the intended strategy? An alternative is, of course, to deliver on and go beyond our renewable energy targets. Another alternative would be to reduce demand. My two questions relate to extending the lives of our existing plants and reducing demand. What are the Government's plans in that regard?
It is essential we do both. The most recent statement about what happened last year shows the benefit of that approach. As I said, we are slightly better positioned than we were last year because our demand has not grown by as much as EirGrid had expected because of efficiency measures applied in a variety of ways. We focus first on energy efficiency in everything we do. That is absolutely the case.
Last year saw a significant reduction in emissions from the power sector. We will get the figures in due course. What has driven that? Shutting down Tarbert and allowing much less running time for Moneypoint has driven it. That has to be the future. The strategy cannot be to rely on heavy emitting plants to meet our energy capacity needs. That will not work. We have to switch off coal next year and only have such plants as an absolute last-case backup in the event of all other systems being unavailable. That is not our strategy.
We need to look at what is working and what worked last year particularly was that the existing interconnectors allowed us to draw in power at times when the wind was not blowing here. That helped to reduce emissions and gave us greater security of supply. The introduction of new interconnection with the UK this year and with France in two years' time, and further interconnection, rather than reliance on heavy emitting base load power plants that are running all the time, as well as renewables and efficiency, will be the cornerstone of our security future.
I will ask about demand management and reduction in light of EirGrid's projections in respect of the significant expected increase in demand, especially for data centres, to 2032. I am sure the Minister is aware that the International Energy Agency stated that EirGrid has underestimated. That agency predicts that data centres in Ireland may double electricity consumption over the next two years. Is that something the Minister sees happening? If it is, how will that be managed in the context of a constrained electricity system?
I do not see electricity demand doubling in the next few years. We cannot afford for that to happen either on a security of supply basis or on an emissions reduction basis. That is not going to be tolerated.
We have a large number of data centres on our system. They account for a large percentage of demand. They bring enormous benefits to the economy, which we should not ignore. Additional data centres will come online because they were agreed prior to the formation of this Government. We saw that we cannot provide an open door because if we did, we would not be able to provide the power needed. Some data centres were contracted prior to that direction from me to the likes of Gas Networks Ireland, GNI. The Government does not reverse or break contracts so such contracts are likely to be filled. However, any future data centres and new connections are going to have to live within our climate budget. They are going to have to be flexible in terms of where they are located to support, rather than put pressure on, the grid. They will need to have demand flexibility and renewable power at the core of their systems. They need to have real flexibility to allow us to use waste heat from them to help with our efficiency. We are not saying "No" to new data centres but they cannot be agreed on a basis that breaches and breaks our climate budget. We are working with the CRU, the industry and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to make that a viable future.
94. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications if he believes the resources allocated for retrofitting are sufficient given the lengthy waiting lists for the warmer homes scheme and the need to make rapid emissions reductions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3397/24]
The Government has set a target of 120,000 homes to be retrofitted by next year and a target of 500,000 by 2030. In 2022 and 2023, only 10,300 of these were fully State-funded under the warmer homes schemes. More than twice as many applications were received as were carried out. There is currently a waiting list of two to three years. Given the dire climate emergency we are facing, is it not time for a massive increase in fully State-funded retrofitting?
As the Deputy said, the climate action plan set ambitious targets to retrofit the equivalent of 500,000 homes to a building energy rating of B2 on a cost-optimal basis and the installation of 400,000 heat pumps in existing homes to replace older and less efficient heating systems by the end of this decade.
The national retrofit plan sets out the Government's approach to delivering on these targets. Output is really ramping up under the plan, reaching 27,200 houses in 2022 and 47,950 in 2023. One of the key principles underpinning the retrofit plan is fairness. We need to ensure fairness to all and support a just transition. For that reason, the warmer homes scheme is a key priority in the Government's package of supports for retrofit. The warmer homes scheme delivers a range of energy efficiency measures free of charge to households vulnerable to energy poverty.
Increased awareness of the multiple benefits of retrofit and significant improvements to the upgrades provided under the warmer homes scheme has, as the Deputy said, resulted in increased levels of demand for the scheme. Approximately 24,000 applications were received by the SEAI in 2022 and 2023.
Recent years have seen significant increases in the budget allocations for the scheme. Expenditure on it stood at just under €40 million in 2019, the year before this Government came to office. Last year saw the highest ever spend under the scheme, with almost €158 million, 49% of the overall spend, delivering approximately 5,900 fully funded upgrades for households at risk of energy poverty. The average waiting time from application to completion decreased from 26 months in 2022 to 20 months last year.
In order to help ensure further growth in delivery, the budget for the scheme has been increased to nearly €210 million this year. This includes funding from the European regional development fund. My officials continue to work with the SEAI to maximise and accelerate the output of free energy upgrades provided under the scheme.
I hope the Minister is not saying that waiting times of 20 months are in any way acceptable. These are not just green environmental measures we are talking about. They are a perfect example of environmental measures that improve people's lives, reduce carbon emissions and bring down bills. We are talking about some of the poorest households in the country. I refer to working families on poverty wages who get the working family payment, carers, single parent families, people with disabilities and pensioners whose incomes are low enough to allow them to qualify for the fuel allowance. These are the people who are living in energy poverty right now and who are faced with a choice between heating and eating on a daily basis. They cannot afford to wait almost two years for these energy upgrades. The vast majority of people who get work done under the warmer homes scheme say it is great. It is exactly the sort of environmental measure we need, but we need more funding. What the Minister has outlined is not a sufficient increase. If we are getting twice as many applications as are being dealt with at present, increasing the funding by 25% will not get on top of it and we will continue to have extremely long waiting lists.
I put it to the Minister that the warmer homes scheme is not a priority. The reason I say this is because the pre-works take eight to ten months, the survey takes 14 months, the works completed take 24 to 26 months and the post-works BER assessment takes two to three months. I appeal to the Minister, particularly with regard to people on the warmer homes scheme waiting list who are critically ill. They do not have the time. The situation is serious and I have not got any satisfaction from the SEAI because it says it is constrained. We have seen the most severe weather involving rain and storms. I know people in my constituency who are critically ill and desperately need these works to be done. Can the Minister fast-track these? Can he sit down with the Minister for Health and fast-track the cases on a humanitarian basis? People are experiencing elongated waits in hospital. The most vulnerable individuals in our society cannot come home because they are too cold because the work has not been done. We will work with the Minister to try to sort this out but it really needs to be sorted out.
Since the Government came to office, expenditure on this has increased from €40 million to €210 million. Members should be honest. Is that not a significant and incredible increase? The great thing we know is that thanks to the carbon tax, which Deputy Paul Murphy opposes, it will increase by the same amount next year. It is predictable, so you can get the workers and reduce waiting times because we set up a system whereby we know it will grow every year. We are going to devote half the money we raise in carbon tax to retrofitting to the poorest homes. This is deeply popular.
At the same time, we have also changed the nature of the work that is done. It has gone from shallow to deep retrofitting. When we came to office, the average payment was €1,200. It is now €24,000, so we are going much further in the houses we go into with double the amount of spending in each home. The scheme is hugely popular. There are loads of examples in this regard. I would love to be able to go into every single house tomorrow. During the Government's term of office to date, the number of applications rose from 5,682 initially to 13,983 last year. That is because it is 100% grant-funded into the privately owned houses of people who are at real risk of fuel poverty. This is the right way to target it. We all agree that this is the right thing to do. Anyone who says that an increase from €40 million to €210 million is not significant and that we should get rid of the funding to facilitate that can show me from where they are going to get the money and indicate how they are going to provide for people. How are they going to continue growing it the way we are growing it? What we are doing is significant and is dramatically improving both people's health and their homes.
I will tell the Minister how we can do what is necessary. It will not be by means of small incremental increases for a scheme that is excellent but that is completely underfunded. The Minister is saying it is acceptable for people to wait two years when they are living in the cold.
I am not.
The Minister is saying that this is great and that we should be celebrating. That is not good enough. On alternative, why do we not hit those who are responsible for the large portion of carbon emissions in this country? Why do we not hit the wealthy? The Minister probably saw the report from Oxfam last week. The richest two billionaires in this country have more wealth than half of the population. How about we hit them with a wealth tax, which would raise about €6 billion, and invest the money we get in the sort of rapid transition we need?
The truth is that the Minister's plan of getting to 120,000 homes per year will not be achieved on the basis of the warmer homes scheme and it will certainly not be achieved in light of the extremely slow progress of the councils. It is a disgrace how long people in council housing have to wait. Instead, the Minister is simply hoping to achieve what needs to happen on the basis of incentivising the wealthier households that can afford the work by providing grants to them. We should have grant schemes for them. The Minister is not giving enough money to those who need it most, namely, those in council homes and those who would qualify for the warmer homes scheme.
Again, I take the point. I have not included social housing and the Deputy is right; we need to do that as well. I am going from memory as I do not have the figures in front of me but spending before the lifetime of this Government was about €10 million and has increased to about €90 million last year. A 900% increase in spending is not small. What is an increase from €40 million to €210 million? Is it 800%? Can somebody do the maths quickly for me? It is a 500% increase. That is not small. If we achieve a 500% increase again, that would be transformative and there is nothing to stop us because of the carbon tax. Carbon tax in this country is progressive, protects the poor, improves social equality, delivers guaranteed funding and helps address the problem as well provide for the solution. The Deputy opposes to it at every turn, but it works. It delivers social justice through increased spending on the warmer homes scheme. I am glad to hear the Deputy say that the latter is an excellent scheme. It is one we need to keep growing. We will do that.
96. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications if he supports Ireland becoming a lead state in promoting a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3395/24]
The Dáil passed a motion before Christmas endorsing the development of a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty and calling on Ireland to join the block of states seeking a negotiating mandate. The Minister has said previously that he is in favour of a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty but what is he doing about it? Is he advocating within Government that Ireland become a lead state promoting the idea of this treaty and does he think it likely that the Government will do this before the next general election? I think the outcome of COP underlines the need to develop such a parallel process.
Our reliance on fossil fuels is incompatible with the Paris Agreement and a low-carbon future. Ireland supports measures that reinforce and advance our transition away from reliance on fossil fuels and while we have not signed the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, we continue to follow its progress and development.
We are acting domestically and internationally to tackle our reliance on fossil fuels. Following the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018, the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund divested from fossil fuel companies and holds a list of companies in which it will not invest. Ireland has also ended the issuing of new exploration licences for fossil fuels and will manage existing authorisations towards a natural conclusion through expiration, relinquishment, or production.
International collaboration is key to achieving the widespread, transformative change needed to tackle climate change. At COP26, Ireland joined the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, BOGA, because of our determination to shift the global relationship with nature from a place of extraction to rehabilitation.
This commitment was demonstrated further at COP27, when Ireland joined the global offshore wind alliance to create a global driving force for the uptake of offshore wind through political mobilisation and the creation of a global community of practice. At COP28 Ireland continued to advocate for the move away from fossil fuels. I participated in a number of BOGA events and attended a high-level dialogue on international co-operation for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty and attended several other related meetings. I will continue to keep signing the treaty under review, to work with those involved, and to supporting it. I agree with the intent and strategic aims they have in mind, but the delivery of that will require further consideration, which we will do with the proposers of the treaty.
I do not think that was a very clear answer at the end. Does the Minister support a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty? Does he support that or not? If he supports it, is that just something that exists in one part of his mind or is it something he is advocating for within Government as Minister for the environment? His response to COP28 was very poor. He attempted to greenwash the outcome of that to try to pretend we are making progress we are simply not making. It was completely captured by the oil and gas corporations as well. The president of COP28 has gone back to his day job of flogging oil and gas for the UAE state oil company, and the Minister has gone back to his day job of pretending we are making progress we simply are not and lulling people to sleep. That is why we need this fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. It is why 60 environmental activist groups came together before Christmas to call on the Irish Government to take a lead and to publicly endorse it. That is absolutely what we need to do. We need to help develop this parallel process.
It is a complicated issue. If the conclusion of my last comments reflected that, that is the reality. I have spent a fair bit of time in discussions. I attended in New York last September a special meeting hosted by, I think, Tuvalu and Vanuatu - small island states. The meeting was mainly attended by small island states, including Ireland, and we spent a lot of time discussing how we might progress this treaty. As I said, in COP28 I attended that high level dialogue. I think I was one of very few ministers there. There may have been one or two others, if that. However, it was because we have a real interest in making sure it works. It is complicated. The first questions I was asking were about whether this sits inside or outside the Paris treaty - the UNFCCC. We do not have a written treaty. People ask if we should sign it. In truth, there is nothing to sign at the moment. Simplistic yes and no questions about signing it when you do not have something to sign are not-----
I did not ask him to sign it.
I know, but others have. This is complicated because there is a real issue. We have more than enough oil, gas and coal to burn this planet, in particular oil and gas. We have to stop exploring for new oil and gas. I was arguing that, not just within COP28, and it was not greenwashing. Yes, it did not go as far as I would like to see, but there was significant progress in tripling renewables, doubling efficiency, and committing to changing the international finance system so we get the $4.5 trillion we need into the clean energy alternative. We will continue to do that at the IEA ministerial in September, where I hope to bring the international discourse towards no new exploration in long-term oil and gas discoveries. That is the way you make progress, by working collaboratively in other institutions like COP, the IEA and elsewhere.
We are heading for disaster. We are still heading for disaster after COP28. The Minister knows that. In the text are all of these references to low-carbon fuels and carbon capture and storage, which are all premised on this illusion of technology coming to save us that is not coming. That is the oil and gas corporations lulling the world to sleep by saying we will have progress and not to worry, we do not need radical change in our societies and economies which the science says we absolutely do. That is the need for the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. It is for states to come together to say they commit to not having fossil fuels. That then creates a space for movements to build pressure in other states to say they should sign up to that.
When I asked the Taoiseach about this before Christmas, he said he knew nothing about the treaty. I hope the Minister has since discussed it with him, explained what it is about and given his personal support for it. There is no treaty to sign, but that means this is a good space for Ireland to say to the small island states appealing for this that we are committed to this idea, we want to develop this fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty and we want to contribute to it. Ireland should take the lead instead of fudging and saying we are listening and having discussions. We need clarity. We need to say we are in favour of this and then help to shape it.
I am happy to help shape it. Deputy Murphy is absolutely right that the world is in a perilous position when it comes to climate. Stefan Rahmstorf spoke the other day about the interconnected nature of the various tipping points we risk going over if we do not adhere to the Paris climate agreement. Even that is a probability risk we set. We know now it is not a political wishlist. It is a physical limit that we have to keep as our North Star that we have to meet. We should also be careful not to make people despondent, give up hope and think it is absolutely impossible. We are seeing at this time an increase in solar in particular, including in Ireland, and in wind power technologies and others that no one expected to scale. If we can continue the exponential rate of growth, it gives us the prospect of switching to a better alternative that is cleaner, cheaper and more secure. It is not impossible.
Fossil fuels are going up too. That is the problem.
That has to stop. That has to end. Included in that, going back to the financing issue, and again citing the IEA, because I am particularly involved with it at the moment, we know that by the end of this decade half of the money currently going into fossil fuels has to divest from fossil and go into clean. Those industries have to change. In a similar way, of the $4.5 trillion per annum we know we need early in the next decade, $1.5 trillion of that has to go into the emerging countries that are completely locked out. That is the first climate justice issue we have to focus on, as well as our own needs, because that brings stability and peace and helps reduce forced migration and a whole range of other issues, which are the real challenges of our time. We will work on all that and look at things like the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty and help, it is hoped, to try to evolve that thinking because we need it in a world that is burning. Unless we change course, all of our security is threatened.
97. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications if he will advocate against the proposal for a floating LNG in the energy security review; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3396/24]
The programme for Government says it does not make sense to develop LNG import terminals importing fracked gas. However, the energy security review is proposing a floating LNG terminal, and we all know it is not possible to verify whether LNG is fracked. Activist groups like Not Here Not Anywhere and Safety Before LNG are vehemently opposed to this and are determined to fight against it. Whether an LNG terminal is on land or sea, it is still an LNG terminal. If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck, or in this case an LNG terminal. Why is the Minister going along with this?
Government approved and published the Energy Security in Ireland to 2030 report late last year. Its supporting annexes and work programmes of 28 actions are included. The comprehensive report concludes that Ireland’s future energy will be secure by moving from a fossil fuel-based energy system to an electricity-led system, maximising our renewable energy potential, flexibility and, as I said earlier, integration into Europe’s energy systems. With regard to gas, the report determines that Ireland’s natural gas supplies and infrastructure are adequate to meet our demand projections, but Ireland does not have adequate resilience in case of a major disruption to our gas imports. As a transitional temporary measure, we will introduce a strategic gas emergency reserve to address security needs in the short to medium term, to be used only if a disruption to gas supplies occurs. Based on preliminary analysis by my Department, it is anticipated that in terms of delivery options, a strategic gas emergency reserve provided through a storage and importation facility in the form of floating storage and regasification units is one of the technologies that could be appropriate. As a final part of the review of Ireland's energy security, my Department, in consultation with Gas Networks Ireland, will complete a detailed examination of the optimal approach to deliver the emergency gas reserve, and I will return to the Government for a final decision on this later this year.
What we are doing is different from what other countries have done. A number of other countries among our colleagues in Europe have introduced LNG terminals to increase supply. We are not doing that, and that is exceptional, because we cannot increase our gas supply because of the climate limits we have just discussed in answer to the previous question. What we are doing is being explicit and saying this is not to import new gas. It is to respond to international events where we see a heightened risk of energy security disruption to our people, and which threatens our people.
To protect our people, we need a short-term facility while we be build up the safe and secure alternative supplies in renewables, efficiency and interconnection.
The Minister, the leader of the Green Party, is saying he is in favour of this. An LNG terminal is an LNG terminal. Okay, it is a floating LNG terminal rather than an LNG terminal on land. The Minister may say this will not lead to any more reliance on fossil fuels and so on, but I do not understand why that would be that the case. The energy security review explicitly states that this can have private involvement or even be a public-private partnership. How is this different from a commercial LNG terminal like Shannon LNG rejected by An Bord Pleanála only a few months before the energy security review was published? Safety Before LNG wrote to me to say, "We move from the moratorium on LNG terminals and a policy against fracked gas imports which helped get the Greens into power to a non-commercial LNG terminal which would be state owned, diluted down even more to an LNG terminal that would be state controlled to the now vague state-led LNG terminal which the energy strategy defines as commissioned by the state." It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. The Minister is talking about an LNG terminal and it goes against the previous programme he stood for.
First, we need security for people. I hope the Deputy would agree that what has happened in recent years, including the Nord Stream gas pipelines being blown up and the Baltic gas interconnector into Finland being broken by an anchor being deliberately dragged across it, presents a risk, low risk as it may be. If it were to arise, the risk to our people is immense because while we would have backup power for a while in the distillate we store close to our power generation stations, in a number of days that would come to an end and we would not be able to turn on the lights in our hospitals, homes and businesses. Our people's lives would be at risk. Sometimes we cannot ignore such security risks and we have to respond to that. That is our duty as a Government.
There are various options to provide for that security issue. We could have a fixed terminal onshore. However, that would potentially be building natural gas assets - fossil fuel assets - that would leave us stranded. We will not need them in the fossil fuel-free future we have. Therefore, it is appropriate for us to look at other measures.
The Deputy asked what the difference is here. The difference is this would not be commercial. This would not be to sell gas. This would not be pumping gas into our system to make a commercial return. It would be purely security strategic. Do other parties and others in this House believe we should ignore that security issue or should we try to protect our people for that eventuality, even though it is a cost and it is a short-term issue because we will have alternatives? An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach more than anyone else knows that a country ignores its own security interests at its own cost potentially, and we cannot do that.
The security argument is being used by the fossil fuel industry to keep western Europe linked to fossil fuel, to keep us addicted to fossil fuels. The biggest security danger is climate change and that is what we need to keep in mind. The answer is to reduce energy usage where possible, which the Minister is not interested in at all given that he has allowed the data centres to keep expanding, and to shift rapidly to renewable energy, bringing increasing amounts of renewable energy onto the grid. Instead, the Minister is locking us into high consumption of dirty natural gas - he cannot give me a guarantee that it will not be fracked gas - for decades to come, hindering State investment in renewables and delaying the transition to a zero-carbon economy. The Minister now says it is all about security, but he told the Dáil that this will also be used for periods when the wind is not blowing. That is not about security.
Not Here Not Anywhere researched this and has not identified any floating LNG terminals which are currently used for the purpose the Minister is talking about. It identified a technical problem with keeping it liquefied. Keeping the gas liquefied requires the use of a lot of energy. Is the plan to keep it liquefied so that it can be brought on stream very quickly or does it go back to gas and therefore need to use a bunch of energy to get it back into liquid form?
I wish to correct what the Deputy said. It is untrue. It will not be used to provide backup when the wind is not blowing. He is right that there is not an example, as Not Here Not Anywhere has said, because all the other energy terminals built in Europe were built to increase supply and that is not the case here. It is exceptional. We are different. We do not offer oil and gas licences. We do not invest in fossil fuel companies. We are part of international alliances recognising the climate is the greatest security risk we face, but we also need to protect our people in the short term. We do that by having a storage facility we can turn to in the event of a disruption.
Yes, there is boil-off and, yes, we keep gas running. Gas Networks Ireland can and will manage that. It will come back with the technical specifications on how to do that. That is the process that is ongoing at the moment. However, there is a fundamental difference between a commercial entity selling gas with more gas being used and a strategic store to respond to international events in Ukraine and elsewhere where there are real-life examples of a risk that our people could be threatened. We will not tolerate that. We need to bring our people through a transition that is just but is also secure. This is only one element - not the key one, but one we cannot ignore - to provide for our security as we transition away from fossil fuel.
98. Deputy Alan Farrell asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications to provide an update on his Department’s plans to build on strong wind energy generation in Ireland in 2023; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3162/24]
I congratulate Deputy Murphy on his good luck on getting three questions in a row. I calculate the probability of that is one in 1,300. Paul is extremely lucky, unlike me, whose questions are relegated to the bottom of the paper. However, I am very fortunate that Deputy Alan Farrell has allowed me to ask this question.
Will the Minister outline his views on the expansion of wind energy and the progress made to date? What are the potential obstacles? The climate council does not seem to have listed having energy security as one of the obstacles to such progress, despite what Deputy Murphy just said.
With approximately 4.8 GW of onshore wind, Ireland is a world leader in levels of installed wind energy capacity per capita as well as in the integration of variable renewable electricity onto the grid.
According to provisional figures published by SEAI for the electricity generation mix for 2023, renewable generation, including wind, increased by over 9% compared with 2022 figures. Rapidly growing solar generation capacity in Ireland complements wind generation, with more than 1 GW of solar now installed, making an important contribution to the now over 6 GW of renewable energy installed across the country. Under the Climate Action Plan 2023, Ireland has set a target of 80% of electricity demand from renewable sources by 2030, with targets of 9 GW of onshore wind, 8 GW of solar and at least 5 GW of offshore wind.
The accelerating renewable electricity task force has been established to identify, co-ordinate, and prioritise the required policies to achieve the onshore renewable electricity targets. The offshore wind delivery task force has been established to drive delivery and capture the wider and longer-term economic and business opportunities associated with the development of offshore renewables in Ireland.
In December last year, Ireland signed up to a European Wind Charter to develop and improve the conditions necessary for the delivery of wind energy targets. Ireland also signed a voluntary so-called wind pledge, committing to the delivery of wind energy targets for the period 2024 to 2026, as well as pledging indicative targets for 2030 and post 2030.
I look forward hearing the Deputy's views. As I mentioned, last year we saw not just a 9% increase in renewables capacity but also a very significant reduction in emissions, which is one of the key metrics we have to be guided by. That is before we deliver the additional wind energy, particularly onshore, and solar, which are waiting to come through the planning system but which will come, I believe, and will allow us to meet our targets.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Representatives of the climate council appeared before the committee recently. I have to say there was a note of exasperation about some of the obstacles to expanding our renewables. They included guidelines for onshore wind which seemed to be inordinately held up, spatial planning guidelines, planning delays, the regulatory treatment of battery storage and some others relating to hybrid connections and private wires. We seem to have an administrative problem in getting through some of these enabling provisions. It creates a concern that the very ambitious and important targets the Minister just outlined may not be met.
Can we break some of these logjams which seem to persist?
We have to break those logjams and the job of the political system, which the Deputy would be aware of, particularly at ministerial level in our Department, is to break the logjam and to ensure our administrative system is able to deliver on the scale of ambition we have. The Deputy cited three things, one of which was onshore wind guidelines. We have to deliver those this year. It has been so many years between two Departments, but that has to be resolved and will be resolved this year. We have to get better spatial planning. We are seeing many counties effectively opting out of the renewables revolution. I do not know how they can do that, because if they do that, they will be opting out of other investment into their counties because the industries and jobs will follow the clean energy. We clearly have to deliver on the spatial planning. Third, the Deputy mentioned the example of the private wires. I believe there is huge potential for us to become more efficient. One of the key bottlenecks is in the grid development and building out the grid, and one of the advantages with private wires is that it helps us deliver renewables to a variety of different solutions and not just in the traditional model. It is sometimes frustrating and it can take longer than one would want but we cannot relent. As politicians, we must drive the administrative system to deliver those system changes. We have European law to back us up, the technology is there and is improving all the time but we do need to become quicker in this country at removing some of the blockages which would risk our world-leading position at the moment if we do not act fast.
To listen to the climate council, it points to other countries which have taken a more robust approach. I know we value the consultative process and the protections we have enshrined in planning law, albeit we are now trying to rationalise some of the excessive delays that occur in it. Has the Minister looked to other legal reforms which would make it easier to reach these decisions quickly? I know the delays in the planning board are inordinate and there is a big effort to bring in new expertise there, but it seems to me it needs to soar up the political agenda as a cross-government initiative whereby every Minister has a heightened obligation to remove barriers in this sphere.
The reform, the upgrading and the modernisation of our planning laws is probably the number one piece of Government legislation. It is, because it affects every aspect of our society. I will make a couple points on that. First, it is very complicated because the new Bill is 700 pages. The Deputy will be on the committee the Bill goes to, or rather he will not as it will go to Steven Matthews's committee rather than Brian Leddin's. I believe there are some 1,000 amendments. That will involve a great deal of work from the committee.
The first principle is that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The independent Bord Pleanála-based planning system is the right approach. These are not easy decisions and you have to made sure you adhere to the Aarhus Convention, have open public consultation, engagement, recourse to legal challenge, and so on. It is not like it will be a wholesale change of everything. It is refining and fine-tuning, in the interests of everyone, so that it is less expensive with fewer lengthy delays, and it is clearer legally and administratively to operate. We need to do that and to have that legislation introduced in the coming months.
It is starting to work. We are starting see planning decisions, especially for our semi-State companies. For example, Oweninny wind farm in Mayo, which is near the first wind farm we had, in Bellacorick, is now in operation. I expect Bord na Móna, Coillte and others to be able to continue on that path. We are starting to see planning applications coming through but we need that legal reform. It is not a question of throwing the baby out with the bathwater but of making it quicker and more effective.
99. Deputy Darren O'Rourke asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications with regard to the warmer homes scheme whether the eligibility criteria is sufficient to ensure the most vulnerable have access to the scheme; how are the poorest, coldest homes identified and targeted; if there are plans to expand the eligibility criteria of the scheme to include those on invalidity pensions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3416/24]
I ask the Minister about the eligibility criteria for the warmer homes scheme, whether he will extend the scheme to people on invalidity pensions, and how he targets it?
I thank the Deputy. The warmer homes scheme targets support to those most in need and living in the least efficient homes so that the resources available can have the greatest impact. To that end, eligibility for the scheme is linked to a number of Department of Social Protection payments. Homeowners can check their eligibility for the scheme through a recently launched online application feature on the website of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland or can apply in writing to SEAI. Applications are assessed on the basis of the date of application to SEAI, with priority then given to those living in the worst performing homes with building energy ratings of E, F and G. We discussed that issue earlier.
The scheme eligibility criteria are kept under ongoing review by my Department, together with the Department of Social Protection, to ensure they are consistent with, and complementary to, the other income support schemes offered by that Department. The scheme is very popular, with 24,000 applications received over the past two years, and there are no current plans to amend the eligibility criteria.
It is important to note that households where someone is in receipt of an invalidity pension may also qualify for one of the Department of Social Protection payments eligible for the warmer homes scheme, such as the fuel allowance. However, this would be subject to the household meeting the relevant Department of Social Protection operational guidelines and means test, where required. In this regard, my Department has no function in relation to the Department of Social Protection schemes, means testing or payments. There are other supports available for people who do not meet the qualifying criteria for upgrades under the warmer homes scheme, which include part-funded SEAI grants, housing adaptation grants under the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, and the supplementary welfare allowance-additional needs payment from the Department of Social Protection.
The Minister very much needs to review this scheme and extend its eligibility. The Minister did not touch on how the Department identifies homes to be prioritised. Is his Department identifying the coldest and oldest homes? What way does his Department go about that? A point was made earlier that those with particular medical needs should also be prioritised.
I am coming back on this again to the Minister because too many of the people who are on the Minister's list for 26 months do not have that length of time, unfortunately. Will the Minister please look at this to prioritise people, especially those people who have cancer or are terminally ill? Will he please do that, even from a humanitarian perspective? It has to be done. We cannot sit here while this is happening and while people are spending their last days in freezing cold homes.
I will give detail with regard to who is eligible. The eligibility payments are for those in receipt of fuel allowance, jobseeker's allowance for more than six months, working family payment, one-parent family payment, domiciliary care allowance, carer's allowance where the recipient is living with the person they are caring for, and disability allowance for more than six months, or where they have a child under seven years of age. That is continuing to be broadened. It has not stayed static. There has been significant change in who would be eligible.
To answer the Deputies' question directly, the prioritisation is, first, on the time of the application but, given that, there is also prioritisation to those living in the worst performing homes with building energy ratings E, F or G. Going back to our earlier discussion, those are the houses we have to tackle first. We will continue to review the eligibility, but that has to be done with the Department of Social Protection because it is that Department's schemes which define who can apply.
I am happy to move on, Chair, if you want to take the next-----
Is there a supplementary question?
I would like to come in on my Question No. 104
The Deputy only has 60 seconds.
I will take the 60 seconds, if you do not mind.
104. Deputy Thomas Gould asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications the role his Department takes in monitoring air quality [3382/24]
Last night we saw an initiative in Cork City Council called the clean air night. While it is a good idea and perhaps a good initiative in getting people aware about reducing air pollution, there are only three air quality monitors on the northside of Cork, in Montenotte, Mallow and Gurranabraher. There are six on the southside. I do not think six are enough on the southside, but certainly three are not enough on the northside. We have a situation where a man from Glanmire who has asthma has contacted my office. He wants to be able to go out for a run or a jog. He is told, however, to check the air quality before he goes out but there is no air quality monitor in Glanmire. He was told to check a suitable town comparable to Glanmire, but Glanmire has one of the major roads in the country next to it as well as the Dunkettle roundabout, which is a cause of air pollution.
What role does the Minister's Department have in air pollution monitoring and what more can be done? Will the Minister ask the EPA to install more air monitors in Cork, especially on the northside and in areas like Glanmire?
I will give the very last word to the Minister.
Very briefly, our Department has a key role in supporting the EPA and in funding its ambient air quality monitoring programme.
I hear what the Deputy is saying about the north side of Cork not getting the requisite number compared to the south side, and I accept this is a critical issue. On the Deputy's behalf, I will look at what can be done to try to enhance monitoring. Given what we discussed earlier about enforcement, the local authorities are the key area where we have to up our game, so that local authorities do not just monitor, but act where we can prove or find out that coal merchants or other merchants are selling fuels that are adding to the problem. We will do both. As I said, I will happily make the case for north Cork in discussions with the EPA.
