Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Wednesday, 16 Nov 2005

Business of Joint Committee.

I wish to read a letter from Mr. Brian Crowley, MEP, and 12 other MEPs resulting from our visit to Brussels last week. The committee asked the Chairman and a number of members to visit Brussels to meet Irish MEPs and members of the European Commission fisheries committee. We discussed a number of issues regarding the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill, which will be debated on Second Stage tomorrow. The letter is adressed to the Chairman of the committee, with the heading Strasbourg, 15 November 2005 and states:

A Chathaoirligh,

Following the meeting last week in Brussels between the members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, the Marine and Natural Resources, cross party representation of Irish MEPs and cross party representation from all the major political groups on the fisheries committee in the European Parliament, we have been requested by all those present to convey to your committee a number of observations.

Nobody condones violations of fishing rules and regulations in any manner. The MEPs believe that there must be sanctions for such violations. Without interfering in Irish national legislation, they believe that sanctions and penalties in all EU member states must be proportionate and fair.

However some of the provisions of the Irish Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005, as proposed, were met by the MEPs, without exception, with total incredulity. In particular they found some of the draconian sanctions which only apply to Irish fishermen to be not only extremely discriminatory but also in total contradiction with the European ideal and not least to the spirit of the Common Fisheries Policy. They underlined that this type of double standard would be unacceptable and would be rejected with force in their own countries.

They found the general levels of "the excessively inflated sanctions being proposed", which would apply to their own fleets in Irish waters, to be totally disproportionate to the offences concerned, with no relation whatsoever to sanctions for similar offences in every other member state.

The members of the European Parliament underlined that it was totally erroneous and misleading for anyone to suggest that Brussels was directly responsible for the levels of sanctions being proposed. The sanctions aspect of the bill is the sole responsibility of the Irish authorities, on a proposal from their Civil Service.

The MEPs underlined that the European Commission have consistently indicated that they have a preference for these matters to be dealt with by administrative sanctions. The MEPs are in full agreement with this approach and would like to see fisheries offences decriminalised. They underlined that almost 90% of all EU offences in the fisheries sector are dealt with using administrative sanctions.

The non-Irish MEPs underlined that their own fishermen were directly concerned by the proposed Irish legislation. Consequently they have decided to raise the whole question of sanctions, throughout the EU, in a number of ways in the coming weeks.

Cross-party parliamentary questions with debate in full plenary session will be tabled to both the Commission and the Council. The fisheries committee will seek independent legal advice on the different systems applies in the different member states. The committee will also undertake whatever procedure that is necessary to put this whole vexed question firmly back on the EU agenda.

We have been asked to request that your committee keep the MEPs informed of the evolution of your draft bill. Furthermore, were you to arrange a hearing on this issue, members of the European Parliament's fisheries committee representing a number of EU countries would be willing to travel to Dublin to testify.

Yours sincerely,

Brian Crowley, MEP, Liam Aylward, TD, MEP, Simon Coveney, TD, MEP, Avril Doyle, MEP, Bairbre de Brún, MEP, Deputy Gay Mitchell, MEP, Marian Harkin, TD, MEP, Jim Higgins, Senator, MEP, Seán Ó Neachtáin, MEP, Mary Lou Mc Donald, MEP, Mairead McGuinness, MEP, Jim Nicholson, MEP, Eoin Ryan, TD, MEP, Kathy Sinnott, MEP.

Some 13 members of 16 MEPs from all of Ireland have put their names to this letter. The other three members could not be contacted as the letter went to press.

I welcome our two guests, whom I will introduce after putting a second letter on the record. This letter is from the Taoiseach, dated 14 November 2005, and states:

Dear Noel,

I refer to your letter of 21 October 2005 concerning the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005. I wish to confirm the Government's intention to have the Bill enacted before the end of 2005.

As you are aware, the purpose of this Bill is to strengthen and consolidate existing sea fisheries law to provide for the implementation of national fisheries policy and the European Union Common Fisheries Policy in order to provide for sustainable fisheries and safeguard the future of coastal communities dependent on fishing. This is necessary because of the need to fully update the legislative framework to enable it to implement the reformed Common Fisheries Policy and to address the issues identified in the Browne and Kennedy Supreme Court Judgments, which have substantially undermined the current legislative framework for enforcement of fisheries legislation.

I have been advised by the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, our colleague Deputy Pat the Cope Gallagher, that the issues raised at the hearing of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources on 12 October are being examined by his Department. In particular, the Attorney General has been asked to review the legal position with regard to an administrative penalty regime. Consideration is also to be given to the structure of the seafood control office.

The Minister of State has also advised me that consideration of any amendments arising in the context of the concerns raised by your committee will be done on Committee Stage of the Bill's passage through the Houses.

I hope this is of information to you.

With my very best wishes, Bertie Ahern, Taoiseach.

That is very strong measure of support from the MEPs. I was on the trip to Brussels when we met with Irish MEPs, the EU fisheries committee and the chef de cabinet of Commissioner Borg. All agreed on the draconian measures proposed. They certainly debunked the notion that these came from Brussels. To a certain extent, the impression is given that pressure is being put on us by the European Commission in the imposition of the provisions in the Bill. That is a myth and is certainly not the case. It is a matter for the Oireachtas to decide the sanctions to impose.

The chef de cabinet told us the Commission does not have any function in regard to what is included in the draft legislation and cannot interfere with it, which I found very interesting. When I asked if Irish fishermen were to be treated under a more generous regime than foreign fishermen, I was told there would be a problem and that the Commission would have to intervene, which seems to be discriminatory. The legislation is discriminatory against Irish fishermen.

I welcome the support from our colleagues in the European Parliament, and the letter from the Taoiseach. It appears they are perhaps starting to respond to our concerns in this regard. We will await the amendments put forward.

It is important the committee has access to the information from the Attorney General on the possibility of introducing administrative sanctions. We are on an energy module and we cannot go into the details of it now but I ask the Chairman to brief other members of the committee. In terms of the talks in Brussels, particularly on inter-country control of sanctions for quota breaches, it seems our proposed legislation does not, in any way, treat Irish boats differently from foreign boats in respect of a breach of legislation. The only area in which it could possibly treat them differently is in respect of our inability to know immediately about a boat in terms of its quota and whether it is Spanish, French or otherwise. The Naval Service would have information on an Irish boat as regards its quota. The application of any other regulations, such as technical mesh sizes and so on, can only be treated on a common basis. However, we will tease that out on Committee Stage.

I am keen to hear the Attorney General's view on the administrative sanctions and on the crucial issue as to whether there is a move in the European Union to close the loophole, which has been called a free-for-all in European fishing, whereby a boat landing in a foreign port — for example, an Irish boat landing in Norway or Scotland — is not regulated in terms of whether it is at quota or above quota. That loophole is the real concern. I would be interested to know whether that loophole was raised by members when in Europe and whether the MEPs would be able to assist us in closing it.

Would it be a good idea to take up the request by the Irish MEPs and the members of the EU fisheries committee to have an exchange of views with this committee before we take Committee Stage of the Bill? I understand passage of this Bill could take a number of weeks.

It was interesting to hear the Taoiseach say in very clear terms that he wants this Bill passed before the new year. We should not do anything to delay the Bill given the constitutional difficulties around the Vincent Browne case and almost an inability to prosecute under fisheries legislation due to the lack of controls and proper legislative support. We should not do anything which, in a sense, disables our ability to prosecute European fisheries——

I am advised from our discussions in Brussels and elsewhere that all the legislation stands up.

Following the Vincent Browne case in the Supreme Court, there is, in effect, almost an inability on the part of the State to prosecute for breaches of fisheries legislation under the current regime.

We have had preliminary discussions in this regard with our senior counsel. I too am encouraged by the Taoiseach's letter and, having spoken to the Minister last night, I am aware that there will be substantial changes to the Bill. It would be very helpful to the committee if it took the opportunity to meet the MEPs to hear their views. The Irish MEPs from all parties, as well as those who are independent, were extremely helpful last week during our visit to Brussels.

Each year, in advance of the Fisheries Council meeting in December, we have had meetings at which scientists from the Marine Institute have kept us up to date on what the negotiations are likely to involve. I presume we still hope to keep that tradition.

Not this year.

Such a meeting is even more important given the huge difficulties the Irish fishing industry faces. MEPs could also attend to provide a European perspective. It is important we stick to that routine we have had for the past three years, namely, of having a summary of the likely quotas and scientific advice in advance of the Fisheries Council. If we break from that tradition——

We agreed not to hold that meeting this year. In place of it, we held an all-day session on 12 October. That was a decision of the committee. Rather than get into the technicalities of it now, will we leave that matter for private session?

We will come back to it.

The Attorney General is looking at the administrative sanctions. We have also secured the services of a senior counsel to advise the committee on all the current legislation and on the question of administrative sanctions. I understand the senior counsel is working on that. It is interesting that our country is one of two of the longest participating EU countries with a common law system, the UK being the other. The UK is looking seriously at moving towards administrative sanctions. Malta and Cyprus have a similar common law system based on the British one. I think Malta has introduced an administrative system of sanctions, although I am open to correction on that.

Members of the EU fisheries committee, in particular the Spanish and Portuguese members, were absolutely horrified and aghast to learn that we were giving powers to the Naval Service to fire a gun at a ship. However, I understand this section will be deleted from the Bill.

I imagine they would be even more horrified if they found out that the Naval Service had a means to discover whether a boat was fishing above or below quota and to try to stop the absolute free-fall in Irish waters.

If the committee invites the MEPs for a frank discussion, we will see if they can advance that in the European Parliament. Does the committee agree to invite the MEPs?

If we have such a meeting, it makes sense to invite the members of the Marine Institute to give us details of its annual report in terms of what the likely quota will be. I am sure it would be interesting for the MEPs, some of whom are Deputies.

We would have tremendous difficulty with that. There are 16 Irish MEPs and some members of the EU fisheries committee have indicated they would travel to Dublin for an exchange of views along the lines the Deputy mentioned. It would be a very important step for this committee to engage with Members of the European Parliament at this level.

They, more than anyone else, would be interested to hear what Irish marine scientists are saying about quotas because it would feed into their deliberations around the events in December. Perhaps the new scientific adviser in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources would provide an in-depth, scientific view of fish stocks.

Is it agreed that we will allow the clerk to make the arrangements? Agreed.

We will now have a discussion with the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas, Ofreg, and the Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation, NIAER. I welcome Mr. Dermot MacCann, acting head of the Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation and Mr. John FitzGerald, a member of NIAER. Before asking Mr. MacCann to begin, I advise everyone that we will receive a short presentation followed by a question and answer session. I request that all mobile phones be switched off.

I draw everybody's attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Furthermore, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside, or an official by name, in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I thank Mr. MacCann for taking the time to attend the committee and to share his views and experience concerning how his agency carries out its energy regulation work in Northern Ireland. It will certainly be of interest to the members of the committee to learn the differences between the regulatory authorities, North and South.

Mr. Dermot MacCann

I thank the joint committee for the opportunity to make this presentation. I apologise on behalf of our chairman, Mr. Douglas McIldoon, who is unable to be here today. I am accompanied by Mr. John Fitzgerald, who is here in his capacity as a member of the Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation.

Members have received copies of the presentation, which I will go through without using the projector. The presentation will focus on the following points: the role and functions of the regulator in Northern Ireland, the development of the gas industry in Northern Ireland, the electricity industry in Northern Ireland and the opening up of the market. I will also talk about the all-island energy market and the authority's role in encouraging energy efficiency and renewables.

The Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation was established in April 2003 under the Northern Ireland Energy Order 2003. Prior to that, Mr. Douglas McIldoon undertook the role of regulator of electricity and gas. Following the establishment of the authority and until September of this year, when his term of office came to an end, Mr. McIldoon was both chairman and chief executive of the authority, Ofreg.

In future, it has been decided to split his office into a part-time chairman and full-time chief executive. Both posts will be advertised and, I hope, filled in the first quarter of 2006. In the meantime, Mr. McIldoon continues as part-time chairman and I am acting head of Ofreg. We continue to be supported by a very able and committed authority. In addition to Mr. Fitzgerald, we have Mr. Peter Lehmann, Ms Joan Whiteside and Mr. John Gilliland. The authority comprises a mixture of people from the business, academic and consumer sectors. Two of the authority's members are from Northern Ireland, one from the Republic of Ireland and one from Britain. The chairman and members are appointed by the Government.

I will now give a brief overview of the authority's objectives. There are two primary objectives. The first is to protect the interests of electricity consumers, where appropriate by promoting competition, which is an important point. The second key objective is to promote the development and maintenance of the natural gas industry. In achieving these objectives the authority must have regard to a number of further considerations. These include the protection of gas consumers, financial soundness of licence holders and the protection of vulnerable consumers as well as protection of the environment. It is rather different from other regulators in that we have a primary duty to develop and promote the natural gas industry with protection of gas consumers as a secondary issue.

I will provide some background data on the gas industry in Northern Ireland and some of the key issues concerning it. It is important to emphasise that it is an immature industry compared to what exists in the South or in Britain. The natural gas industry came late to Northern Ireland. While there had been an old towns' gas industry, which had served Belfast and several other towns, this closed down in the late 1970s. It was not until British Gas completed an interconnector, the Scottish-Northern Ireland pipeline, known as SNIP, that we had the basis for a natural gas industry in Northern Ireland.

SNIP was built in 1996, initially to provide gas to Ballylumford power station. Ballylumford was converted from oil to gas and thereafter we had the opportunity to develop a distribution business. Completion of the SNIP was followed by completion of a transmission line to Belfast and the setting up of a distribution business by Phoenix Gas in 1996. Ten years later, Phoenix has 86,000 customers, with a projected growth to approximately 220,000 by 2016. Compared to the Republic, we have a very small gas industry at present.

In the past couple of years there have been a number of developments involving the development of the industry outside Belfast. First, the gas transmission system has been extended. In February 2002, BGE was awarded a licence to convey gas along two new transmission lines in Northern Ireland. The first of these was to transmit gas to the new Coolkeeragh power station built by ESBI, as well as the towns along that route. The second of these, known as the South-North pipeline, was intended to provide security of supply by connecting with the transmission system in the Republic, as well as extending availability to towns adjacent to the pipeline.

The north-west pipeline to Coolkeeragh was completed in October last year and the south-north pipeline is expected to be completed in October next year. This effectively will complete the gas transmission system in Northern Ireland. The extension of the transmission system has allowed gas to be distributed to towns outside Belfast. Following a competition, BGE was awarded a licence to distribute gas outside Belfast in March this year. Initially, ten towns will receive gas, five off each of the two pipelines.

Turning to market opening and competition, the original Phoenix licence which was granted by DETI envisaged a phased market opening in the I&C sector, with the market fully opening by December 2004. In December 2004, following representations from Phoenix and the authority, DETI decided to delay market opening, except for the largest customers, on the grounds that the small, immature gas market in Northern Ireland would not see lower prices as a result of competition.

Currently, only the larger I&C customers — those consuming over 75,000 therms per annum — are open to competition. Even for them, while some suppliers have sought a supply licence, there has been no effective competition. The main reason for this situation was that until 1 October 2005, Phoenix had a beneficial contract with Centrica, which made it unattractive for other suppliers to enter the market. British Gas owned Phoenix originally. This contract has now ceased and Phoenix is depending on buying at market prices. We expect new suppliers to emerge.

Smaller I&C and domestic customers, those consuming less than 75,000 therms per annum, will be open to competition by July 2007. Currently, DETI is consulting on the best timetable for this with a view to minimising costs and maximising benefits to customers.

BGE, which is involved in distribution outside Belfast, continues to have exclusivity from competition from three to eight years, depending on customer type, before it is subject to supply compliance.

Turning to the electricity side, I will provide a short history of developments in Northern Ireland since privatisation. Following the privatisation of NIE in 1992, Northern Ireland was an isolated energy market and electricity prices were high relative to the rest of the UK. As a result of this isolation and the way the privatisation is being carried out there was no scope for competition, wholesale or retail. The regulator could reduce prices through vigorous regulation of the monopoly transmission and distribution business. In the first five years after privatisation there was modest or little reduction. Since then the transmission and distribution prices have fallen by over 50% in real terms.

In addition there have been two key developments, first, the ending of our isolation. The electricity connector with the Republic was reopened in 1995 and this was followed by the construction of gas and electricity interconnectors with Scotland in 1996, the SNIP and in 2000 the Moyle. Two of our three rather dirty, inefficient plants have been replaced and by April 2005 more than 800 megawatts, 40% of our total capacity of oil and coal plant, had been closed down and replaced with two combined-cycle gas turbines, CCGTs, Ballylumford and Coolkeeragh, now with a combined capacity of 1,000 megawatts.

In line with the EU directive, the electricity market in Northern Ireland was gradually opened to competition. This was greatly facilitated by interconnection and the presence of independent sources of generation — the building of Coolkeeragh power station and the increasing presence of renewables. The process started in 1999 when those in the top 27% of the market by usage were allowed to choose their own energy supplier. This phased implementation continues, and from March 2005 all non-domestic use, accounting for 60% of usage, is effectively open.

Four second-tier suppliers are active in the market, Energia, BGE, Airtricity and ESBIE. We are planning for full market opening by July 2007. In deciding its approach the authority will bear in mind the need for a lowest possible cost approach. This is likely to require an incremental, rather than a "big bang", approach. We are aware of the lessons from the Republic's experience of significant investment in new systems where switching levels are lower or no better than those in Northern Ireland. This refers to the incumbent moving to new suppliers.

In November last year the Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland and the Department of Communications Marine and Natural Resources produced an all-island energy market development framework, covering the whole spectrum of electricity, gas, renewables and energy efficiency.

The key development of that work to date has been the creation of an all-island wholesale electricity market. The benefits of such a development are increased competition in a larger market, increased efficiency of dispatch and improved investment conditions. The target date for implementation of the wholesale market is July 2007.

The two regulators are responsible for progressing this. It is on target — the high level design was produced in June 2005 and the detailed rules are on target for February 2006. An additional North-South interconnection is planned which will complement this project. We will not derive the full benefit of the wholesale market until that is complete.

Several issues which need to be tackled lie outside the regulators' control. There is a need for legislation in both jurisdictions. There is also the issue of dominance, which is not entirely within our control. While regulators are considering a regulatory approach to this, a structural approach involving more competing generators would be preferable.

We depend too on the actions of others to ensure that interconnection occurs as planned. Ministers North and South have already given their backing to this, which is important. It is imperative that there is no unnecessary delay in this project.

While the primary responsibility for promotion of energy policies to improve the environment falls to Government, Ofreg has a long tradition of promoting energy efficiency and renewables. This year we have published two papers on this issue: Beyond CCGTS — The Next Carbon Reduction Strategy, and — if the committee will pardon the grammar — Energy Efficiency: the ‘Most Best' Solution. These papers look forward to a post-CCGT world. If we are to meet our environmental targets, we need to lay much greater emphasis on energy efficiency. I commend both papers to the committee.

There are areas in which the authority has acted to benefit environmental policy. One quarter of our domestic customers are prepayment customers who use a keypad system. They buy electricity at a discount below the price paid by standard credit customers. They can access an array of information about their usage through their keypad, which puts them firmly in control and encourages energy efficiency.

They pay the same price per unit throughout the day but a trial by which customers on keypad can access time of day charges is to be made available by the end of this year to all keypad customers. The idea is that a higher price will be charged at peak hours and off-peak charges will be discounted.

This system is sympathetic to low income small users. It also provides incentives for people to invest in energy efficiency measures. Pro-energy efficiency pricing is not enough. There are too many reasons that there has not been investment in energy efficiency. Efficiency must be actively facilitated if the inertia arising from hassle and ignorance are to be overcome. An energy efficiency programme funded by customers began in 1996 and has incrementally grown in scale since then. In the period up to 31 March 2005 customers had spent £12 million and saved £119 million, while at the same time producing carbon dioxide savings of almost 500,000 tonnes. One reason NIE backs this programme is that it is incentivised to outperform the savings target and earn additional profits.

Just as high conventional energy costs improve incentives for energy efficiency, so too do they improve the case for renewables. Last year 25% of public sector electricity was green and 14% of small businesses also bought green energy. Domestic customers can also buy green energy from NIE for no extra cost. Between 2004 and 2005 just under 6% of all the electricity sold in Northern Ireland was green, with two thirds generated in Northern Ireland and one third imported from the Republic. The local market share is growing steadily.

With on-shore wind turbines increasing in numbers the policy emphasis has switched to promoting micro-renewables and large scale schedulable renewables such as biomass.

Does Mr. MacCann have any price reports regarding renewables? For example, NIE did not have an alternative energy regulation, AER, type of system.

Mr. MacCann

There is a rock system which supports renewables and there are various schemes to give start-up money to these things. This year the Secretary of State announced in his budget two tranches of £25 million over the next few years to support renewables. The Government is beginning to give this much higher priority. It is possible this money will lever other money which may help with this.

Perhaps Mr. MacCann will finish the presentation because we are interested in the rocks versus the AER system. That was Deputy Broughan's question.

Mr. MacCann

NIAER price control incentivises it through higher rates of return and accelerates its appreciation to promote, under what is known as a smart programme, both small scale renewables and large scale embedded generation. That is an example of what I spoke about earlier. While the total impact remains small, a variety of technologies, including PV solar water heaters, ground source heat pumps, etc., are supported by these schemes. The current Secretary of State's strong support is important.

There is a need to ensure that both parts of the island co-ordinate their approaches to promoting renewables. For example, the treatment of carbon in the next phase of the EU emissions trading scheme, which will cover the period 2008 to 2112, should be done in a consistent way. It will prevent any distortions in the new wholesale electricity market. This is an issue for policy makers rather than regulators.

I call Deputy Broughan to be followed by Deputy Fitzpatrick. Senator MacSharry has an interesting question about extending the gas line into the Republic to provide gas to the north-western area.

I warmly welcome Mr. MacCann and Mr. Fitzgerald and thank them for an interesting presentation, which is good for comparison purposes for us in trying to shape energy policy. What is the overall size of the market in megawatts compared to, for example, the Republic?

Mr. MacCann

The electricity market is 1,800 MW and has a capacity of approximately 2,200 MW.

What is NIAER's relationship with the UK regulator? For example, in generation terms in areas such as Kent or any of the other major regions in the UK, how does NIAER compare with the UK? What is the nature of the NIAER relationship with the overall regulator, if there is one?

Mr. MacCann

The Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation is an independent regulator. Its equivalent, Ofgem, is for Great Britain. We have a close relationship with Ofgem and we meet from time to time to discuss overall strategy but NIAER is an independent regulator.

Mr. MacCann mentioned, in terms of developing competition in the market, that in some areas NIAER would appear to be behind the Republic. How does NIAER compare with areas of the UK?

Mr. MacCann

Clearly, Great Britain — particularly England and Wales — has been in the lead in the liberalisation of the market. Once Northern Ireland electricity was privatised, it was given a separate regulator. It is a reflection of a different set of circumstances. As I said earlier, we were physically isolated at that time and had a small system. The privatisation was done in a particular way where there are long-term contracts. Northern Ireland was split up and the generation was sold off separately from the transmission and distribution business. There are long-term contracts between the power procurement business in Northern Ireland and the independent generators. All of that has influenced the way that regulation has been developed in Northern Ireland.

NIAER is still a long way from competition for, say, household customers——

Mr. MacCann

We are not a long way from it in the sense that we plan, as covered by the EU directive, to have domestic competition by July 2007. The important issue with competition is that it produces positive results for consumers in terms of lower prices. We have always put the emphasis on getting the cost and the prices down. In working within EU directives, if competition brings cost benefits, we will accelerate it. If, however, it does not and if difficulties arise, we will adjust the pace accordingly.

Did Mr. MacCann say that for either gas or electricity — I am not sure which — the real cost had fallen by 50%?

Mr. MacCann

Just the regulated component. The transmission and distribution element of the electricity bill, over which they had regulated because the monopoly business has a great say, has fallen by 50%.

Have consumers in Northern Ireland faced the same onslaught of price increases that their counterparts in the Republic have experienced in respect of gas, in recent weeks, and electricity, in January, with a 40% plus rise for householders and businesses? Has there been that type of development in Northern Ireland, or is it the reverse?

Mr. MacCann

We should distinguish between electricity and gas. Electricity prices in Northern Ireland for the domestic consumer, which is where the market is not open, have remained broadly level in recent years in line with increases in inflation. It may well be expected, given the significant increase in fuel prices during the past year, that there will be some increase in price in the coming year. That has not yet been determined and will not happen until April next year. Gas prices in recent years, partly because of the rather beneficial contract I mentioned earlier with Centrica, have shown modest increases but in October there was a 30% increase in gas to the domestic consumer. That is entirely a reflection of wholesale gas prices.

Did NIAER evaluate what has been happening in regard in the networks and the investment the gas network was receiving or the investment the electricity network was receiving? Was that a major component of NIAER's consideration of the price level?

Mr. MacCann

Network prices for gas and electricity are controlled by the regulator. That is the area where we have considerable influence. In terms of the network costs for this year, none of the 30% increase reflects the network costs of the Phoenix gas. It was wholly the wholesale price of gas. The authority has examined the Phoenix purchasing policy and is satisfied that it is fine. We have a monitoring arrangement where we meet Phoenix each quarter to discuss its gas buying strategy to ensure it is done in an effective manner.

In terms of electricity generation, Viridian is the effective successor to what was the pre-privatised company. I note that Mr. MacCann mentioned there has been much replacement generation. Does that mean that older marginal generators have been completely replaced by——

Mr. MacCann

All except one. The station in Belfast west was closed. The Ballylumford station was revamped and new steps installed. Coolkeeragh is our first independent fire producer and the remaining station, Kilroot, which is coal-burning, still has a contract.

Is there competition? Is it the intention, when we move to the all-island market in the summer of 2007, that it would enable the two big old incumbents and others to create a much more competitive environment in the whole island?

Mr. MacCann

We were ready, as a result of market opening, to have a vigorous competition in the eligible sector in Northern Ireland. In that context, I refer again to the 60% of usage, in terms of the industrial sector, that is open. There has been vigorous competition between second-tier suppliers there, which has led to significant price improvements for industry. To some extent, we have had the benefits of competition in the retail sector. At wholesale level, this is one of the benefits we would expect from the all-island market.

I welcome back Mr. Fitzgerald. We are talking about carbon taxes.

Thank you, Chairman. On the structure in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Electricity handles transmission and distribution. All the generation companies are independent. Kilroot and Ballylumford are two separate companies and ESBI in Coolkeeragh is the third. Two of them will sell the bulk of their electricity under contract until 2010 or 2012; there is a long-term contract in place. There are three independent generators, therefore. From July 2007——

Does one of those companies control the network?

No, Northern Ireland Electricity owns no generation capacity in Northern Ireland. As a Viridian group it owns Huntstown in the Republic. It is Premier Power and ESBI. It is a very different situation from that in the Republic, where there are three totally independent generators that have no financial links to Northern Ireland Electricity.

To return to the question of the position post-2007, in terms of generation there will be somewhat greater competition on this island. ESB will have the largest generation portfolio. There will be Northern Ireland Electricity in Huntstown, Tynagh and the three stations in Northern Ireland, one of which is controlled by the ESB.

Will Northern Ireland Electricity be a generator and a network controller at that stage?

It will be a generator in the Republic and will manage the transmission distribution business in Northern Ireland.

Mr. MacCann said legislation will have to be introduced to provide for final enablement. Would a logical step be the establishment of a single regulator for the island?

Mr. MacCann

That was one of the aspirations in the framework document from last year and one can see the logic of that. We could have a single regulator for those issues that affect the island as a whole. I am speculating now but there could be a separate regulatory role for each jurisdiction where the matters are local rather than on an all-island basis.

To develop that point, there is a representative from the Irish side on your board. Am I correct in saying there is no representative from Northern Ireland on our energy commission?

Mr. MacCann

There is no representative from Northern Ireland on the CR. Mr. Fitzgerald is on our board representing himself; he is not a representative from the Republic. The point I was making earlier was that we have a broad mix of experience. We have two people from Northern Ireland, a person from Great Britain and somebody from the Republic of Ireland.

To be correct, you have a broad range of experience on your board.

Mr. MacCann

Yes, that is the point I was making, Chairman.

You did not ask our Government to appoint somebody.

Mr. MacCann

No, appointments to our authority are a ministerial decision in Northern Ireland but there was no official request from the Republic's Government for a representative.

From your perspective, would it be helpful to have somebody from the energy regulation authority in Northern Ireland offering an exchange of views and developing policies together in a formal structure?

The Government structure is different. The CER will tell the committee about its position but in our case there is a part-time chairman, non-executive directors and a full-time chief executive officer, whereas in the CER in the Republic there are three commissioners who are appointed by the Government. As Mr. MacCann said, I was appointed to the authority by the Northern Ireland Government. The process is rather different from that in the Republic. An advertisement is placed for all non-executive directors of Government boards; it is not a purely Government appointment. There is an application process. One must apply for it, there is an interview and then one is appointed by the Government.

Mr. Fitzgerald, I am aware of our system. That does not mean that will not change. What I am asking is whether you have found that the broad experiences of the various people who have joined the authority have been helpful in developing the role of the regulator.

I have found the range of expertise available to be interesting. We have a consumer representative on the board, Peter Lehmann. A fifth member resigned. I have found the nature of the board useful and stimulating.

Mr. MacCann

We have experience of gas from Peter Lehmann, who formerly had a role in British Gas and as a non-executive of the board of Gaz de France. Mr. John Gilliland has a large amount of experience in the renewable sector and Joan Whiteside has similar experience to that of Mr. Gilliland.

The representatives made some interesting points about the efficiency in renewables. A Danish parliamentarian who appeared before the committee yesterday gave us a briefing on energy conservation in Denmark, the reduction of carbon emissions and so on. That appears to have been done as a dedicated national effort with all-party support, national targets and so on. First, were the representatives aware of that? Second, on the keypad meters, the representatives said they were prepaid but what does that mean? How is it different from any metering here? Third, on the subject of metering and in regard to renewables, has the authority examined the question of net metering? Has that come on the agenda?

Mr. MacCann

On Denmark, we are aware of that because Denmark is at the forefront in many of these areas. That is all I can say on that. On the prepayment meters, a fairly simple prepayment meter is installed in a house and one can buy credit for that at various outlets. That allows the person to examine his or her consumption. This is only the beginning of what could be done with this.

It is a little like a mobile phone.

Mr. MacCann

Yes. If we then begin to introduce time of day pricing, people can start to change their behaviour and buy electricity at cheaper prices. There is a price signal which may signal only a change of pattern but perhaps a reduction in consumption in total. Therefore, we see it as very useful. It is very popular. Over a quarter of the customers have got these meters installed.

Do they not have any bills?

Mr. MacCann

They have no bills, it is a pay as you go system.

On the net metering point.

Mr. MacCann

Some net metering is available although I cannot give the Deputy much detail on that.

I welcome Mr. MacCann and Mr. Fitzgerald. When the consumer in Northern Ireland gets his or her electricity bill, is a public service charge indicated on it?

Mr. MacCann

It is not separately indicated.

Will you expand on the question of keypad meters? What are they and how can they help consumers to economise on their gas consumption?

It is like purchasing a mobile phone whereby one buys a code, keys it in and that gives one a certain amount of credit. Meters are located in the house in order that they are more accessible and one can check them. They are probably located in the kitchen and people can note the information recorded on them.

One of the experiments we carried out allowed consumers to opt to pay a different tariff whereby they would pay a higher standard price for usage during the one or two peaks hours in the day and a low price at night. A technician does not have to call to a house to change the meter; the consumer simply buys a code and reprograms the meter which provides that option. That option appears to be achieving significant reductions, particularly during the peak period, which is expensive. More carbon is emitted when electricity is generated during the peak period. This facility allows us to experiment in terms of this option and to give consumers a choice. However, in the Republic the meters do not have this capacity. There is potential for competition in terms of providers offering different meters with different times of day facilities. Such an option provides much more flexibility for the future than the standard meter.

Who installs these meters and who pays for them?

Mr. MacCann

The NIE metering services install them and the meter is part of the overall charge to customers.

Does Mr. MacCann envisage that such meters will be standard in new housing and apartment developments?

Mr. MacCann

Ideally, that would be the way to go but their installation is not standard as of yet. Consumers have a choice to install a meter and to opt for this new system of time of day metering. They have a choice whether they want to continue to pay a flat tariff or opt for a differential tariff based on the time of day usage.

Keypad meters give consumers more control over their consumption.

Mr. MacCann

They empower consumers.

Without penalising them.

Mr. MacCann

No, the system does not penalise them.

As Deputy Broughan said yesterday, a Danish Member of Parliament who visited here pointed out that in Denmark consumers are taxed on their consumption of electricity and gas. It is a separate tax. Does Mr. MacCann consider that a keypad meter would be more consumer-friendly than taxing people on the basis that the more energy they use, the more they are taxed?

Mr. MacCann

We believe it would be more consumer-friendly. In addition, I mentioned a number of papers we produced earlier in the year which were focused on raising a debate on this issue and covering areas in which the authority does not have direct leverage or input. We found that a small proportion of consumers in Northern Ireland use a large proportion of electricity. The top 8% or 9% of consumers use 20% or 30% of the electricity generated. I have those figures in front of me. One of the proposals is that after a certain cut-off point, well above what the average family would consume in electricity, we might impose a differential tariff for the very large consumers. These are consumers who are wasteful in their use of energy or have a lifestyle whereby they use a great deal of electricity such as through heating a swimming pool or whatever.

I thank the gentlemen for their presentation. One of the delegates mentioned that in terms of gas there are 86,000 consumers who are predominantly in the Belfast area and the authority is expanding that service. What role has the regulator in the North in the expansion of that service? Is the authority involved only in the regulation of the service or is it also involved in the promotion of the expansion of the service or in seeking to expand the service under a public service obligation?

Mr. MacCann

The expansion of the gas industry was not the easiest investment to make. It was not easy to bring the gas industry into Northern Ireland in the first instance and then expand it outside Belfast. There has always been a role for the regulator at least in encouraging these developments.

I take it the authority does not have a hands-on role?

Mr. MacCann

We do not have a hands on role.

We are required to put in place a regulatory regime which is favourable to the deployment of gas supply. One of the issues is to give more long-term guarantees to investors in order that they have certainty in getting their investment back if they expand the capacity. That is part of our role.

I must intervene because a vote has been called in the Seanad. I want to ask another question and perhaps one of the delegates might answer it in my absence. Has the authority criteria such as net present value in terms of the calculations, taking into account the revenues and costings of a new town being added to the network, whereby the authority would over a period of years judge the value of its industrial and commercial consumers versus residential consumers and, if so, what is that period? In the UK that period is 20 years for industrial and commercial consumers. Is the period the same for the authority?

Mr. MacCann

I do not fully understand the question. When BGE got its licence, there was a competition for that licence and, effectively, there were two competitors for it, Phoenix Gas and BGE. Both had different roll-out proposals and cost structures. We chose the BGE proposal. The market outside Belfast is difficult to serve. It is rural, spread out and does not have the same industrial and commercial base that there is in Belfast. The roll-out of the gas industry outside Belfast largely focuses on the industrial and new-build developments and on social housing where there are the necessary volumes which can becatered for at a minimum expense.

Over what period would the authority base its judgment?

BGE has bid for this licence. It is not receiving a subsidy. Out of the price it gets for gas over future sales, it must remunerate its investment——

I understand that.

——and it has made that commercial decision.

Is it allowed to choose towns it will serve or are there regulations whereby there are criteria under which a town qualifies, in other words, that the provider can serve Newry for the reasons stated but not Newtownards for other reasons stated?

Mr. MacCann

There was a licence area for Phoenix Gas. BGE could bid for the rest of Northern Ireland outside the Belfast area. It submitted a proposal which involved ten towns.

The authority does not have any regulations in that context. Is Mr. MacCann familiar with the term "net present value"?

Mr. MacCann

I am certainly familiar with it.

In terms of the net present value and what Mr. MacCann knows of the regulator here, whereby only the first seven years are taken into account for industrial and commercial customers compared with the first 20 years for residential customers, does the authority impose similar criteria?

Mr. MacCann

Not specifically.

We leave it to BGE, Phoenix Gas or whatever provider wants to supply the gas to decide whether it will get its money back. It will do the net present value calculation and decide whether it is a worthwhile investment.

They apply their own criteria.

They apply their own.

That is fine.

I take it the Senator will return to the meeting.

The regulator does not interfere in the commercial aspect of the laying of the pipeline. It is a commercial decision by Phoenix Gas, Bord Gáis Éireann or whatever provider to decide.

Mr. MacCann

On the distribution side, that was a subsidy from Government. The distribution side is a commercial decision of BGE. To secure the licence it had to make certain commitments that it would have a roll-out plan and in the extreme case if it did not meet its plan, it could lose the licence.

Bord Gáis Éireann made a decision to bid for that business in Northern Ireland to roll out the service beyond Belfast to the parts of Northern Ireland regarding which the authority invited submissions of interest. It is prepared to put in place an infrastructure and pay for it but we have the opposite situation in this part of the country, where it is not prepared to roll out an infrastructure into the north west taking in Ballina in Mayo and the other parts of the north-western region. Does that strike Mr. MacCann as being strange?

There is a difference in that the transmission pipeline to Coolkeeragh was already being put in place and there was a subsidy involved in that. There is a pipeline running from near Larne through to Derry and towns close to that can be connected. That is what the issue was about, whether BGE or Phoenix Gas would agree to do so.

There is a pipeline being built to meet the Corrib gas supply——

I would not hold my breath on that one.

——but we have no indication yet from Bord Gáis Éireann whether it will build spurs from the pipeline to service the towns along the way.

Mr. MacCann

One would need to ask that company. In Northern Ireland, we have what we call a postalised system, where all the transmission costs, including the connector to Scotland, are put into the same pot and then there is a single price per unit for all consumers.

If the Corrib gas field difficulties are overcome, is it Mr. MacCann's intention to have a connecting spur from that field to supply gas to Northern Ireland?

Mr. MacCann

We have no such plans at this stage. That would depend on commercial realities.

Would Mr. MacCann explain the transmission and distribution savings to customers? I note that he indicates in this presentation that there were substantial savings to customers.

This was on electricity. The costs of regulation of transmission and distribution have fallen in real terms.

Mr. MacCann

That was just the monopoly electricity transmission and distribution business over the period from 1992 when the sector was privatised. Transmission and distribution costs have fallen by 50% in real terms.

The price consumers pay will incorporate a number of different elements. There will be the cost of generating the electricity and the cost of the transmission and distribution. There have been significant cost savings over time in the transmission and distribution element. That does not mean that the price today is less than it was ten years ago, in that other elements have risen in price.

What has happened down here because our prices seem to be increasing continually?

As the authority, we would not have a view on that. We are both facing market circumstances in terms of fuel prices.

What is the cost per therm of gas to the end user or customer in Northern Ireland?

Mr. MacCann

For the domestic user, it is 60p per therm. I do not have the exact details with me.

Roughly, it is 60p sterling. Recently some people from Monaghan and Cavan appeared before the committee. Will it be 2007 when they will be able to purchase their energy requirements from Northern Ireland or can they purchase electricity from Northern Ireland at present?

Today consumers in the Republic can purchase electricity from anybody who is prepared to sell it to them but I have not had anybody knocking at my door in Dublin trying to sell me electricity in that there does not appear to be enthusiasm for competition in supplying electricity to the household sector.

That is not what I mean. A company, Wellman, which is based near the Border either in Cavan or Monaghan and which appeared before the committee recently, spends more than €1 million a year on energy. Can that company purchase from a supplier in Northern Ireland at present?

Mr. MacCann

Yes, if the company is part of the open market which, with that sort of consumption, it must be. People in Northern Ireland can certainly buy from various suppliers and I assume the same applies in the Republic. One can buy from any second-tier supplier in the market, whether it is BGE, the ESB, Energia or Eirtricity.

There is a constraint on the system, which relates to what Mr. MacCann stated earlier about the need for enhanced interconnection between Northern Ireland and the Republic. There is a strict limitation on how much electricity can be sent from North to South and it is at capacity. Similarly, there is a strict limitation on how much can go from South to North, which has an even smaller capacity, which is a significant problem for Northern Ireland.

Is that because the grid cannot take it?

Is this why Mr. FitzGerald is looking for an expansion of the interconnector?

Mr. FitzGerald mentioned the district heating in the South. It was interesting for the committee to find that Phoenix National Gas has been conducting trials on combined heat and power, CHP. Is that planned to bring heating to new housing estates, factories and developments or how is it working?

There is at least one experiment in a number of houses. It would not be economic at this stage but they have installed in houses very small plants which will generate both electricity and gas to see how it operates in real households. This is at an experimental stage. A number of different experiments are being undertaken.

I take it that it is an individual unit, not a pipe system as in Denmark.

That is correct.

Mr. FitzGerald touched briefly on this. From his perspective and looking at it as a member of the Northern Ireland body, what is his view on regulation, North and South? As he will be aware, in the South three civil servants are the three regulators. Considering the Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland models, what is Mr. FitzGerald's view of regulation?

They both work well for consumers. I, and I am sure Mr. MacCann, would not want to express any particular view. There is not an ideal model of regulation. If one travels the world, one will find different models in different places.

Mr. MacCann

I would not like to comment on that. What I would say is that we both have been co-operating on this all-island market and it has been working well. There is close co-operation and a good understanding. We both appreciate our particular strengths in this area.

Returning to the ROC system versus the AER system, how is the ROC system working in Northern Ireland? I am particularly interested in wind energy. What are Northern Ireland's renewables and wind energy targets, for instance, for 2010? How does NIAER facilitate the renewables? For example, yesterday we heard from Bord na Móna, a State company with which Mr. FitzGerald and Mr. MacGann will be familiar, which has planning permission for the past two years for 320 MW of wind turbines to be erected in Mayo and which cannot get access to the grid. This is a State company dealing with another State company. What arrangements does NIAER have to ensure that renewables are accommodated on the grid?

Mr. MacCann

In general, it is the Department that has the primary role in promoting renewables. The ROC system, which is a UK system, is one part of that package. Certainly it gives a price advantage to renewables. As I stated, the British Government recently announced a further package of direct assistance to renewables.

As far as wind energy connection onto the grid is concerned, I am not aware of any significant problems in Northern Ireland. It is still a relatively small proportion of electricity generation. While it is small, there are not any typically significant problems for the grid. The advantage in Northern Ireland is that we have a fairly robust grid system. We invested earlier. In the Republic, as I understand it, there is a system of catching up.

What percentage of Northern Ireland's energy is derived from renewables, and, in particular, wind energy?

Mr. MacCann

It is approximately 4% or 5%, probably all of which is wind energy. There is some biomass and some from other sources, but 90% of the total is wind energy.

Some 90% in total.

On the renewables obligation, the authority is on record as opposing the extension of the charges for renewable energy to Northern Ireland. We felt it would not push forward the deployment of wind and it would add to the cost for consumers.

In Northern Ireland, the grid is a circle which goes round the province, whereas in the Republic, the north-west is at the end of a wire. Given that the connection to the grid in Northern Ireland is a relatively small percentage of the total, it has not posed a major problem.

What about the charges?

The authority opposed the extension to Northern Ireland of the renewables obligation of the charge because it felt it would be bad value for consumers. It would not change the incentives for deployment of wind to Northern Ireland but it would increase the cost for consumers.

Mr. MacCann

The reason the authority did so was because Northern Ireland was different from GB in a number of respects. It was not that it opposed the concept of a policy to help renewables but initiatives to encourage renewables were already in place. We had already grown a significant renewable capacity and Northern Ireland's electricity contract to move from fossil fuels already imposed a direct cost to consumers, which would not have been the case in GB. We also felt there was a potential to distort the all-Ireland wholesale market.

Do the charges apply to consumers?

The consumers still have to pay.

Mr. MacCann

The supplier must take a certain proportion of the electricity supply from renewables. If it cannot access that level of renewables, it must buy certificates to make up the difference. This is a cost on the supplier and, ultimately, consumers.

Are many suppliers proposing to increase the wind energy into the national grid in Northern Ireland?

Mr. MacCann

There are a significant number of potential investments in the pipeline. I draw the Chairman's attention to the 2020 vision strategy, which was a joint strategy on renewables produced by both Departments. The potential for renewables is referred to in that document.

It was mentioned that there are technical difficulties arising from the differences in the transmission systems. Are the witnesses seeking increased interconnection and a strengthening of the grid? Is the grid mainly on the Northern Ireland side or in the Republic side?

Mr. MacCann

We were seeking a strengthening of the grid in the Republic side.

Both regulators — the Commission for Energy Regulation can speak for itself — believe it is important to have a second interconnector between Northern Ireland and the Republic to allow the all-island market to work properly. With the current grid, one can only transmit a very small amount of electricity from the Republic to Northern Ireland. It would be beneficial to Northern Ireland if the grid within the Republic were strengthened so that more could be sent to Northern Ireland if and when required. There are issues in terms of enhancing the overall grid and the specialised issue of the enhanced interconnection between the two systems with an additional interconnector.

Is the weakness in the north-west of the country? The ESB is spending €3 billion on upgrading the national grid.

I understand the problem is in the Louth area. The constraints in that area appear to be preventing more being transmitted from the Republic to Northern Ireland.

The steps required to establish an all-Ireland energy market are a strengthening of the grid in the Republic and a second interconnector which would allow for the transmission of power. Does the authority envisage any barriers in this regard?

Mr. MacCann

The framework document produced by the Ministers last November had a set of aspirations for the all-Ireland energy market in a variety of aspects. The electricity wholesale market is just the first step. There are aspirations to do things on an all-island basis on the transmission system. There could be common transmission planning and common rules. This is the first of many steps to improve the energy situation, North and South.

Is the authority itself taking the different steps? Is Mr. MacCann suggesting that we need to catch up in this regard?

Mr. MacCann

The Framework Document identified those who will be involved in carrying out different parts of the work. The two regulators must work together on some parts, the two Departments must work together on other parts and the two TSOs must work together on other aspects. All the actors need to be involved.

In terms of moving forward, the two regulators are forming joint plans. The documents we published are joint documents.

What is the joint strategy for renewables in the plan?

Mr. MacCann

The 2020 vision document is a joint strategy from the joint steering group, which involves the two Departments and the two regulators. A consultation document was produced earlier in the year.

Is it supported by ROCs or AER?

Mr. MacCann

The first stage was examining the potential for renewables. It examined the economic and technical aspects to try to identify what might be a realistic renewables policy and the various components of the different types of renewables and, as a result, reviewing policy, North and South, including AER and ROCs, with a view to establishing what policy improvements could be made.

Is it examining the short, medium or long term?

Mr. MacCann

It is examining as far 2020.

I thank Mr. MacCann and Mr. FitzGerald for appearing before the committee.

How does the unit cost of electricity to domestic consumers in Northern Ireland compare with the unit cost to domestic consumers in the Republic?

Mr. MacCann

It depends on the consumption level. There are fixed and variable charges, North and South. We consider consumption of 4,000 kilowatt hours a year to be typical. It may be a little low given the higher consumption levels in the Republic per household. Our rates are between 5% and 10% lower than those in the Republic, depending on whether it is a rural or urban tariff.

Is it between 5% and 10% lower on average?

Mr. MacCann

It is the case at that consumption level.

That is average domestic consumption.

That is in Northern Ireland. Average domestic consumption in the Republic is higher. One might get a slightly different answer if the calculation were based on the average consumption level in the Republic.

Is the new ESB station making a significant contribution to the energy requirements in Northern Ireland?

Mr. MacCann

The prevalence of the ESB station is making a contribution to our energy. Also, increasing efforts by ESB supply in Northern Ireland, which is using some of that energy, are having a significant impact on prices.

I thank Mr. MacCann and Mr. Fitzgerald for their attendance at this committee. I hope the clerk will be allowed freedom to contact their office if we need to clarify any specific matter. That will help us when finalising our draft report on energy.

Sitting suspended at 11.41 a.m. and resumed at 11.48 a.m.
Top
Share