Joint Committee on Transport and Communications debate -
Tuesday, 31 Mar 2015

Energy Council: Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources

Chairman

The only item on the agenda is a discussion with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Alex White. The purpose of this meeting is to engage with him on the recent meeting of EU Council of Energy Ministers which took place in Brussels earlier this month. On behalf of the committee, I welcome the Minister and his officials.

I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I also advise that any submission or opening statement made to the committee will be published on our website following the meeting.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite the Minister to make his opening remarks. I apologise for the slight delay in starting the meeting but we had to deal with an urgent issue.

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Alex White)

I thank the Chairman and the members of the committee for the invitation to discuss with them the outcome of the March Energy Council.

The Council's agenda included the two main discussion points of energy union and energy infrastructure. Before I address the two main agenda items, let me mention the matter dealt with under the heading of any other business at the meeting. When the Commission gave an update on energy security, the Czech delegation referred briefly to the 10th plenary meeting of the European Nuclear Energy Forum. That forum meeting will be held in Prague on 26 and 27 of May next. The meeting will provide an opportunity to discuss the role of nuclear power and its contribution to the decarbonisation efforts under the umbrella of the developing energy union concept. While I will be interested to know the outcome of that discussion, I do not propose to attend it or have officials present.

I shall next discuss the energy union aspect of the deliberations. Discussions on the first substantive item of energy union began with a presentation by the Commission and was followed by an exchange of views among member states. In my intervention, I welcomed the communication from the Commission and the concept of energy union, generally. I emphasised how strongly Ireland supports the five dimensions of the energy union proposals as a way to strengthen the three pillars of European energy policy, namely, the security of supply, sustainability and competitiveness.

Enhancing Europe's energy security is of particular importance to Ireland and other inadequately connected member states, and those reliant on only one supply source. It is vital that diversity of routes and sources of energy, together with the appropriate infrastructure, are put in place to address these challenges.

I stressed the significance of the roll out of projects of common interest with support, as required, from the EU Connecting Europe Facility and the European Fund for Strategic Investments. These are important elements to achieve security of supply for Ireland. In this regard, I reiterated the necessity to provide safeguards and flexibilities for small member states with poorly interconnected markets.

Ireland is currently almost completely reliant on external sources of gas. In this regard, I noted that we are looking forward to the Commission's proposals in regard to a revised EU Regulation 994/2010 on gas security of supply.

I understand that the Commission will seek to enhance co-operation between member states in the revised proposal. This would strengthen our position, in that the regulation would provide for greater collaboration and sharing of resources in the event of disruption of our gas supply.

Developing indigenous resources, particularly renewables, is also extremely important for increasing security of supply. We need to focus on all technologies, including onshore and offshore wind, solar, biomass and geothermal. In this regard, we need to continue the focus on research and innovation, particularly in regard to ocean energy and developing wave and tidal technologies.

I referred to the particular vulnerabilities facing Ireland in terms of dependence on oil, specifically in the heating and transport sectors. We must remember the importance of oil in meeting our energy needs, and consider the contribution to our oil security of refining capacity across the EU.

Completing the internal energy market is the key to energy union. I noted the Commission's view that EU-wide decision-making is required from the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, ACER, and the European Networks of Transmission System Operators, ENTSOs, in both electricity and gas. However, we need to avoid imposing one-size-fits-all decisions on all member states. Instead we should provide safeguards and flexibilities for member states, particularly smaller member states with poorly interconnected markets. Related to this is the Commission's proposal to present legislation on a new electricity market model. The emphasis will be on a redesign that links wholesale and retail. It will increase security of supply and provide for a multitude of producers. It will also enable the full participation of consumers in the market through better demand response measures. This is an interesting proposal, but it must be a logical evolution of the current market design. Customers cannot be expected to pay for constant evolutions in market design. Industry must have regulatory stability and a clear policy pathway if it is to invest in the infrastructure required to complete the internal energy market.

On this issue, I reiterated Ireland's position that capacity payments can be appropriate, necessary and EU-compliant in certain circumstances. While market integration and decarbonisation remain critical targets, principles of national flexibility must also be respected.

Other member states generally welcomed the Commission's communication on an energy union. At the end of the debate both Commission Vice-President Šefovi and Commissioner Cañete were encouraged by the support.

The Latvian Presidency confirmed that it would write to President Tusk of the European Council, to reflect the views of the Energy Council and the views of the Environment Council, in preparation for the discussion on energy union at the meeting of Heads of State and Government which took place on 19 and 20 of March.

As an additional note for information, in preparation for European Council at the General Affairs Council on 17 March, the discussion on energy union indicated divergences among member states on the questions of transparency in the gas market, and the ex ante assessments of intergovernmental agreements.

There were also calls for stronger language on energy efficiency, energy infrastructure and climate change. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Dara Murphy, repeated the importance of including a reference in the conclusions to the position of poorly connected peripheral regions and the need to have the citizen at the centre of the energy union.

At the European Council meeting held on 19 March the issues of transparency in the gas market and assessments of intergovernmental agreements arose again.

In the end, the text proposed by the President was agreed. From an Irish perspective the Taoiseach was successful in introducing language into the conclusions that recognised the position of peripheral regions in the context of interconnections, as I mentioned. Positive language was also introduced on ensuring affordability for households and businesses.

I turn now to the second substantive agenda item, namely, energy infrastructure. The discussions began with a presentation by the Commission on developments and priorities and this was followed by a policy debate. I expressed our interest in achieving the 10% electricity interconnections target, which accompanied the communication on energy union. From Ireland's standpoint as a small member state which has developed one of the first cross-border electricity markets in the EU, I said that poorly interconnected peripheral regions must have additional interconnection for our energy consumers to reap the benefits of the internal energy market. Our approach to the energy union and collective funding decisions must reflect this goal. Otherwise the project of the internal energy market runs the risk of being seen as irrelevant or, worse, detrimental to the needs and interests of European consumers in poorly connected markets.

Second, I welcomed an enhanced regional approach as a stepping stone to delivering full European energy market integration. Ireland has witnessed the benefits of regional co-operation since the establishment of the single electricity market, SEM, in November 2007. This combined two separate wholesale markets on the island into a single, cross-jurisdictional and jointly governed and regulated wholesale market on the island of Ireland. The benefits achieved by the single electricity market include improved security of supply, competitive prices and increased penetration of renewable energy, the key goals of the energy union project.

On regional co-operation, Ireland continues to participate in the North Sea countries' offshore grid initiative which was formed in 2009 by nine EU member states and Norway. This is a regional co-operation initiative to facilitate the co-ordinated development of a possible offshore electricity grid in the North Sea. The work is still at an early stage but it will facilitate the bringing forward of projects in the coming years. The Commission intends to add to the momentum by bringing forward an action plan for the northern seas regional group. It will also convene an energy infrastructure forum to facilitate progress.

I informed our European hosts and my ministerial colleagues that we have also recently explored the possibility of exporting electricity from renewable sources to our near neighbour, the United Kingdom. Members of the committee will see that some of the projects of common interest, PCIs, listed in the annex to the communication relate to the proposed Ireland-UK energy trading project. For various reasons this project is not progressing at present, so the related PCIs are unlikely to be developed in the timeframe indicated. Other important PCIs are being progressed, most notably the North-South transmission line project, an important gas project in south-west Scotland and a feasibility study for an interconnector between Ireland and France.

The issues of funding and our location as a peripheral, poorly connected member state are key challenges to the development of energy infrastructure. Having low electricity interconnection levels and also being cut off from the continental oil grid are a high cost burden on a small, energy using population and provide a challenge to private investment. I welcomed the establishment of the European Fund for Strategic Investments to support and enhance existing funds such as the connecting Europe facility. I hope that this fund will stimulate investors to develop the infrastructure necessary to complete a fully integrated European energy market.

To conclude, it was a successful Council and I made full use of the opportunity to stress the importance we attach to key elements of European energy policy. Following the Council, I read press reports of some very ill-informed criticism of Ireland's energy policy and of our contribution to European measures to tackle climate change. I hope this report to the committee underlines our active engagement in regional co-operation in this area, including in the North Sea countries' offshore grid initiative. I also assure the committee that Ireland is fully committed to making its contribution to the overall EU 2030 targets for carbon emission reductions, energy efficiency and the generation of renewable energy. Measures to help deliver our transformation to a low carbon economy and society will be at the centre of the energy White Paper which I will publish later this year. The energy agenda has never been fuller. Its complexity makes many demands on all stakeholders. Much of what is topical at European level is echoed here in Ireland. All of the debate is helpful to me as I seek to develop Ireland's energy policy out towards 2030.

As I have mentioned repeatedly in the Chamber and elsewhere, I will publish a definitive energy policy for this country next September. Clearly, all of us have a role in developing our future energy policy to support economic development, underpin the social recovery that is clearly gathering momentum and manage the transition to a low carbon economy.

I thank you, Chairman, for the invitation to the meeting and look forward to hearing the members' views.

Chairman

Thank you for the overview of European developments. Regarding your initial remarks about nuclear power and that you would not be attending or sending officials, can we take it that it is your view and the view of the Department that nuclear power will not play any role in future energy policy in Ireland?

Deputy Alex White

The current position under our law is that generation using nuclear power is illegal. It is prohibited under two different statutes. Obviously, that is the position my Department follows and that is our policy. It is the law of the land.

Chairman

That clears that up.

Deputy Michael Moynihan

I welcome the Minister. What is being discussed at European Council level is one of the more important issues for our country as we move forward. I wish to discuss a number of issues. The Minister spoke about nuclear power but perhaps he would discuss his and the Department's views on hydraulic fracturing or fracking as well.

The Minister mentioned the interconnectors. A major issue has developed over the last week in respect of the North-South interconnector and the parity of esteem between grid link south, grid link west and the North-South interconnector. That must be properly discussed because there is a significant amount of opposition locally in Meath, Monaghan and other counties on that issue.

Overall, what is the position of the European Commission regarding wave and tidal power? What type of investment or what type of technology is the Commission discussing or what type of research has taken place? In his discussions with his ministerial colleagues, what sense did the Minister get of when that can be achieved? From a commonsense point of view, Ireland has huge untapped resources in regard to that energy source and it would be less controversial than any of the other forms of energy generation this country has. In addition, some of our European colleagues have moved massively ahead with biomass, which is carbon neutral and so forth. I believe this country is somewhat behind the curve in that regard. The raw material has been growing in this country. There has been huge afforestation over the last 20 or 25 years and some of it is being thinned or cut now and being sold at knock-down prices. There is a major issue there and we should tap into it.

Perhaps the Minister would address the issue of the North-South interconnector and co-funding or funding for inter-country infrastructure. Will he also talk about the wave or tidal energy resources and biomass? What were the discussions or the thoughts of his colleagues in that regard?

I would like to hear the Minister emphatically ruling out fracking in the same way as he has emphatically ruled out nuclear power.

Deputy Alex White

I thank the Deputy for his contribution and his support, at least at the general level of the importance of this agenda. I note Deputy Martin made similar points in reply to the Taoiseach's report on the Council meeting, if I am not mistaken, or at least in one of the recent exchanges in the Dáil. Politicians may often say it from this side of the House but if there is a single area of policy relating to all our futures that deserves at least a high level of cross-party debate if not agreement, energy policy should be such an area. It requires decisions to be made that have implications for five, ten or 15 years. It is not an issue that is closely aligned to the electoral cycle so we should try to work closely on it. I welcome Deputy Moynihan's sentiments in that regard.

With respect to unconventional gas exploration and extraction, or fracking as it is sometimes know, the position is the same as I have explained to colleagues on a number of occasions in the Chamber and elsewhere. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has been retained to carry out a study on fracking. That study is under way and I do not expect it to be completed until mid 2016 at the earliest. People may say there should be a moratorium or a ban but there is nothing to ban. There will be no consent or actions at all with respect to fracking, at least until that report has been examined by the Minister and conclusions have been made. I answer questions about a ban in one way by saying there is nothing to ban, as there will not be such an activity at least until that report has been absorbed, with conclusions drawn from it.

Colleagues are aware that last week EirGrid made some announcement on its assessment of the needs of the grid into the future. Grid25 is the basic EirGrid strategy and it was launched in 2008. At that time, the projection was a required investment or cost of the order of €4 billion. That was revised in 2011 and EirGrid has now published its latest assessment as of last Friday. Colleagues are aware of what that assessment contains. It is a discussion paper and it reviews the strategy while revisiting the three major projects, which are the North-South interconnecting line, Grid West and Grid Link. It reaffirms the need for the North-South project and Grid West; it identifies a third option other than a direct current underground cable overhead line of 400 kV. The draft strategy also confirmed the need to reinforce the transmission system in the south east but suggested an alternative to the original proposal that would involve upgrading some of the existing transmission lines. Depending on which options are selected for these projects, the new overall cost of Grid25 will be somewhere between €2.7 billion and €3.9 billion, depending on final decisions. It is a discussion paper that considers each of the three lines separately, as they are separate propositions. Some of the possibilities for Grid Link are not possible with respect to the North-South context. That is explained very clearly in the EirGrid discussion paper.

With regard to the North-South line, the current position is that last November, as part of the project of common interest process, EirGrid submitted a draft planning application file to An Bord Pleanála for review, allowing it to assess the extent of the information provided and, as set out in the relevant regulation, request any missing information that it deemed necessary. In December, the board informed EirGrid that it had reviewed the draft planning application file and asked for certain specified missing information to be submitted. In March 2015, EirGrid submitted the requested information to An Bord Pleanála. The position now is that An Bord Pleanála will draw up a schedule for the permit granting process and EirGrid expects to make a formal application for planning in the coming weeks.

With regard to wave and tidal issues, we are talking about the Energy Council meeting and there would be different levels of commitment across Europe to these technologies. Some countries are more amenable to wave and tidal energy than others because of geography. All member states and the Ministers representing them are agreed that there must be a diversity in energy sources, with input extended from renewables. The menu of renewable energies should also be extensive. There is much commitment to different forms of energy generation and wave and tidal power feature in the menu for some countries more than others.

The offshore renewable energy development plan, which was published last year, is important. The Deputy will accept that this country has one of the best offshore renewable resources in the world, particularly wave energy. We are at the forefront of the development of renewable electricity but we also need to diversify our renewables, just as I mentioned other countries are doing. I am very committed to extending our research capability in respect of offshore power, and we have done much work in the publication of that plan. I am very interested in taking that work forward as matters proceed.

We have published a bioenergy draft plan in recent months and had some good responses to it. I look forward to debating that further with colleagues and seeing how we can develop biomass as well. The Deputy is right in that we need to have a mix and diversity in sources. There is much talk and perhaps a little controversy about onshore wind, which has been successful, but it is not the only form of renewable energy. The Deputy is right in that we must be careful not to confine our interests or attention to a particular source. A very important measure I am considering is a renewable heat incentive and we are doing much work in developing that idea. We will publish an environmental impact assessment and appropriate assessment shortly and I hope to have that renewable heat incentive in place in the course of 2016.

Senator Terry Brennan

I apologise for not being present for the entirety of the Minister's statement. I ask about the recent findings on Grid West, which has part of its proposals underground and other parts overhead. The Grid25 strategy is costed at €4 billion, and it can also cater for increased capacity on existing overhead networks, including pylons, poles and so on, as well as an underground element. The North-South interconnector, in time, will be part of the overall east-west European grid. There may be difficulties for the people living where the interconnector will pass. My understanding is the same possibilities will not present for the North-South interconnector as for Grid West and Grid25.

The people involved cannot understand why the same cannot happen on the route of that interconnector. I realise the importance of interconnectors and being part of the overall European grid.

Will the EU help fund a gas interconnector between this country and mainland Europe? Does Ireland have a greater dependence on imported energy than other EU states, which includes, whether we like it or not, nuclear energy, which is helping us in times of great demand in this country? Due to our high dependence on imported oil and gas, it is all the more important that oil and gas deposits, whether on land or sea, terra marique, should be exploited. Should we be considering exploiting our facilities around the coast to a greater extent as a substitute for imported infrastructure, so to speak?

Deputy Alex White

I thank the Senator. I will refer briefly to the North-South interconnector. Every project is different. As I mentioned, each of the three main projects has been revisited in the course of EirGrid's assessment of what it put into the discussion paper published last Friday. In regard to the North-South project, my understanding from my discussions with EirGrid and what it said publicly on Friday is that an additional electricity line, rather than further capacity on our current line, is needed in order to ensure a safe, secure supply of electricity across the island. The existing infrastructure of GridLink in the south and south east can be developed and enhanced to meet the need. I understand from EirGrid that, based on its analysis of the North-South project, that cannot be done. It does not follow that because the infrastructure in the south east can be enhanced in that way, the infrastructure in the North-South scenario is available to be enhanced in a similar way. What works on one project does not necessarily work on another project. The new technology I mentioned in regard to the south east works by increasing the amount of electricity that can be carried on the existing line. The North-South interconnector is required to ensure a secure supply of electricity to Northern Ireland as well. We have to bear in mind it is a North-South project. It is not just for our benefit; it is also for the benefit of our friends and colleagues in the North. What is in place is a 275 kV double-circuit overhead line between Louth station in County Louth and Tandragee in County Armagh. If that line was to go, there simply would not be enough electricity reaching the north east of the island to keep the lights on. An additional line, the North-South interconnector, is needed, therefore, to ensure a safe, secure supply of electricity across the island. Using the new technology would make no difference in this scenario because, even if EirGrid increased the amount of electricity carried on the existing 275 kV line, the risk to the system if that line were to suffer a fault would remain, so it would not solve the problem in the way that EirGrid can solve the problem-----

Senator Terry Brennan

Are we talking about an additional 275 kV line in parallel with the existing one?

Deputy Alex White

I can certainly get the specifics of the actual proposal expected to go planning for the Senator. We are talking about a capacity that is significantly greater than the capacity that exists at the moment. What needs to be achieved is significantly more than what could be done by what is in place at present or by any possible enhancement of it.

We have three gas interconnectors to the island of Ireland, two to the Republic and one into Northern Ireland. We have no plans as yet for a gas interconnector to mainland Europe. I mentioned in my introduction that some research work is taking place in regard to an interconnector with France - not a gas interconnector but an electricity interconnector. That is very much at the research stage and is one of the projects being worked on with the French. In terms of gas, there is no current proposal to do that. Gas Networks Ireland, GNI, has secured EU funding of more than €30 million to address a concern in south west Scotland. If approved, this will enhance our security of gas supply. It is another of the PCI projects in the pipeline, so to speak.

To answer the Senator's question, we import 96% of our gas. Corrib will help us with this and should provide something of the order of 60% of our needs for a period of six years and also a very high contribution to our needs beyond the six years. We all look forward to that and to the gas coming ashore and being available for use.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

I would be fascinated to know to whom the Minister was referring when he spoke about those bad people who were saying bad things about the outcome of the Council meeting.

Deputy Alex White

Is that a question?

Deputy Michael Colreavy

No. The Minister made an observation that there are some commentators.

Deputy Alex White

Yes.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

I would be fascinated to know whom he was referring to. All parties and, indeed, most if not all Oireachtas Members fully support the vision of secure, safe, clean, reliable and competitive energy in this country. Therefore, I would like to know whom the Minister was referring to. Much of what is contained in the various statements following the Council meeting is good. There is not much to argue with. It is a bit like dropping a 100-piece jigsaw out of the box and getting 90 pieces back, as it can be hard to see the whole picture. I understand it is difficult for somebody who did not attend a series of meetings to be able to get a full and comprehensive picture of what happened during those meetings and discussions.

I have a couple of questions, some of which are quite specific. The Minister stated that many delegations emphasised the need to respect member states' national competencies over their energy mix. That could be from one of at least two perspectives. It could be from the perspective that attempts were being made to disrespect member states' national competencies over their energy mix or it could be from the perspective of "Let us work even harder to make sure that member states have responsibility over their energy mix." It is unclear from the statement here which perspective applied in that case.

There is little hard data in relation to smaller countries like Ireland that need to benefit from more indigenous renewable energy sources. I do not know the level of detail at those discussions or whether those discussions have started.

With all the talk about the need for interconnections between states, we have an abysmal record in micro-generation projects. In particular, we are very far behind in terms of linking smaller generation projects to our national grid. We are way behind the Six Counties in that regard, and I believe the Six Counties could do a lot more. It is ironic that we are talking about international and transnational projects when we are not doing enough to examine the potential for micro-generation, not just for individual housing estates, businesses, factories, hospitals and so on but also in terms of the contribution that could make to the national grid. We are not considering how we can eliminate impediments to getting those surplus energy projects onto the grid.

I had not intended to mention fracking, but I am glad the Minister did, and I thank him for that. Will he indicate to the members whether there was any discussion about the possible contribution of hydraulic fracturing to energy independence in Europe? I saw nothing about that in any of the statements. The Minister of State, Deputy McHugh, indicated that he would seek an interim report from the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, on its study on fracking and decide whether that interim report could be put before the committee. Will the Minister inform us of the position regarding that process and whether an interim report can be expected imminently?

I want to make an overall point. I am not sure about timescales with regard to these areas. We will reach a point at which we will have some certainty about the extent to which Ireland's way forward, in terms of our vision and our strategy, can be matched with the European vision and strategy and the supports from within Europe. At what stage would the Minister envisage that kind of convergence of strategies and supports?

Finally, when the Minister spoke about wave energy, I take it he is also thinking about tidal energy.

Deputy Alex White

I thank the Deputy for his questions and insights. Regarding the media reportage, the issue was more a lack of understanding of the details of the work being done in the regional groupings in particular. That is what caught my eye. I do not make too much of that, because criticism and debate is what this is all about, but it was important for me to have an opportunity to explain to the committee what actually happened and what is happening in the energy Council, and I welcome the opportunity to do that here today.

I do not believe that the member states asserting the importance of retaining national competencies was a reaction to anything. There was no disrespect displayed that I saw or heard for individual member states and their independence in regard to their decisions on energy. It is no secret that some countries are very keen to ensure they maximise the use of their resources. We think of Poland and coal, for example, and the United Kingdom and nuclear energy. To partly answer one of the Deputy's other questions, some countries have prospects, as they would see it, in terms of fracking and they want to be able to do that if they decide that that is what they want to do. Those points were made by countries. Effectively, they were saying that if that is what they decide to do, as with the UK and nuclear power, they will do it. I do not want to put it in confrontational language, but there is an assertion by countries that already have an approach that they wish to continue that. France is another country that wishes to continue with its use of nuclear power.

There was an interesting exchange during the course of the energy Council in which the Vice-Chancellor of Germany touched on the position now being adopted by Germany in regard to nuclear power, reiterating the change in policy that has been adopted in Germany in recent years. The Austrians took a very strong position against nuclear power, and that was also stated. One could interpret such remarks as being an assertion of independence in regard to energy policy, but it was not a response-----

Deputy Michael Colreavy

Sorry, Minister, but it was not in response to any implicit or explicit threat-----

Deputy Alex White

No.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

-----to the independence of those nations?

Deputy Alex White

Absolutely not. It is worth pointing out that the energy mix any country adopts is a national competency, and that is set out clearly in the treaties. Member states have sole competency to decide on the make-up of their energy mix, whether it is renewables, nuclear energy or anything else. That applies to us as much as it applies to anyone else. That having been said, the idea of an energy union is to see what can be brought together in terms of the different strands of policy to which all member states could see their way to agreeing. It cannot be done other than by agreement. It cannot be imposed. Like any of these decisions in Europe, they are collective decisions by the member states and the member states have to move forward together on the basis of agreement. If we have a deeper set of agreements at the level of the European Union in regard to energy policy, that will emerge in the coming months and years. It is a priority of the Juncker Commission that the work on the energy union should be progressed, but it can only be done by agreement, and we will be full participants in any of that discussion.

The White Paper will be published in September, and I would hope to have an engagement with the committee on it as it emerges in the early part of the summer to allow the committee have an input at a relatively early stage. We will take full account of the developments in the EU in the framing of that White Paper so that the context for what we are doing-----

Chairman

We would welcome an engagement at that stage.

Deputy Alex White

I would welcome that very much.

I have some sympathy for the Deputy's point on micro-generation. It is something I am very keen to ensure we deal with in the White Paper, and we must investigate how we can promote and bring forward micro-generation, how it could be supported and the kinds of model we could put in place. I would like to see us doing some work on that. There is important work to be done there and I would be keen to bring that forward.

In terms of whether there was any discussion on fracking, there was no agenda item or anything like that on fracking. As to whether any member state may have mentioned it, I frankly cannot remember, but if a member state did mention it, it could well have been in the context of particular prospects our country would see itself as having, and they may have asserted that they were interested in such proposals. However, it did not take off as a discussion and was not something I remember. Off the top of my head I cannot even remember which country would have mentioned it. I do not want to say it did not come up, but I cannot remember it coming up.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

Okay.

Deputy Alex White

Were there any other-----

Deputy Michael Colreavy

The interim report from the EPA.

Deputy Alex White

If the Deputy will indulge me, I will write to him in response to that in the coming days.

Chairman

The committee sent a letter asking for an update on that issue.

Deputy Alex White

I will reply to that in days, not weeks.

Chairman

I thank the Minister. Three members are indicating. We will take Deputy Tom Fleming and Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice together as the two Independent members. We will then call Senator Mooney, who will be followed by Deputy Conlan.

Deputy Tom Fleming

Who is first?

Chairman

The Deputy indicated first.

Deputy Tom Fleming

I want to ask the Minister about storage capacity for oil reserves for our national needs, especially in the event of an emergency. Do we have adequate capacity and how many days' reserves exist? Is there a variation occasionally on this and, if so, I wonder how many days ahead we are. If an election is called I am sure there will be a big demand for fuel to keep the old bangers ticking over.

I also wish to ask about the Scotland-Ireland gas interconnector. Some 12 months ago or more, the supplies were very depleted at one stage. With Britain dependent on those gas supplies as well, I think at one stage it was down to three or four weeks' supplies. To an extent, therefore, we could have been left high and dry.

The Minister is well aware of the Shannon liquified natural gas, LNG, proposal for Tarbert. It is a crucial development that should be pursued further to ensure that it is there in the national economic interest, including the economy of County Kerry. There are 300 or 400 jobs involved in that proposal in a peripheral region which has been neglected, particularly following the collapse in the construction industry. The Minister should re-examine this proposal. Surely there is a mechanism or loopholes whereby we can get around regulatory obstacles. The LNG proposal would be a godsend for that part of rural Ireland. County Kerry depends very much on tourism, but that part of north Kerry does not attract a huge amount from the tourist sector. For the country's competitiveness, it is essential to have large gas reserves readily to hand.

Natural gas supplies come from Kinsale to Cork and Limerick, but Kerry is deprived of that. There is a preliminary plan to bring the gas pipeline into Kerry, including Listowel, Tralee and Killarney. This would be a major plus if it were made available. Does the Minister have any update on that plan and, if so, what is the latest position? The Government should pursue it vigorously to ensure that it goes ahead.

A Bill went through the Oireachtas concerning various energy research matters. The Minister referred to offshore wind and wave energy, but at what stage is our research into those programmes? There is huge potential for such developments off the coast.

Is there any programme for investigating future solar energy potential? Does the current research programme include solar energy? There is major potential in that regard.

I support Deputy Colreavy's comments on micro-turbines. Provision is being made to connect the output of such micro-energy projects to the national grid. Many companies are being charged rates for erecting a single turbine, however, although they might be employing 100 or 200 people. I know of one firm that is employing 800 or 900 people, yet it is paying massive rates on two turbines. There should be an exemption from rates where jobs are being created or there is a potential to create employment. Such charges are anti-jobs and anti-rural Ireland. Due to the exorbitant cost of electricity, such firms must develop their own energy sources.

The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government could be made responsible for collecting rates for local authorities, but an exemption could be considered where jobs are involved as well as a waiver on the public service obligation. The Minister should examine this matter because self-employed operators with small workshops are being crucified by the PSO obligation and the VAT rate involved. Those on a higher voltage capacity are being burdened with a high tariff.

As a matter of national policy, the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, should intervene with the electricity companies over costs. In addition to small employers, it is also surprising that individual farmers are liable for these type of rates. It is not right.

Chairman

We will park those questions. I will now call Deputy Fitzmaurice before going back to the Minister and we will then take the final two speakers.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I thank the Minister for his presentation and I have a few questions for him. By what percentage is Europe self sufficient in gas, compared to what it imports from Russia? The Minister spoke about Ireland becoming 60% sufficient in gas from Mayo in the coming years. When I was a garsún, and that is neither today nor yesterday, we had found the Kinsale gas field and it was said that we would have supplies for 15 years. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is still going and I am more than 15 years older since then. Between Kinsale and the Mayo field, what percentage are we hitting?

The Minister is probably aware that Britain has kicked wind energy to touch because it is not cost effective. Have we done a full cost-based analysis on how much wind energy costs? I have undertaken some research on this and have visited places where turbines have been erected. I have spoken to people involved in the industry who say that, but for the subsidies, it is a non-runner. Down the road, however, businesses will have to be competitive.

The Minister mentioned the northern seas, so can he provide some information on that subject? Have we looked at ideas such as the spirit of Ireland or hydroelectricity? Have we gone away from what was pretty simple?

Looking ten or 15 years ahead, the Minister mentioned an electricity interconnector between Ireland and France, but we also have an interconnector to Britain. France is building a lot of nuclear plants, while five are being installed in Britain. In this free market, what price will they charge us for electricity? Does the Minister think that, in ten or 15 years' time, we will not be able to compete with that price? From what I have seen across Europe, the price of electricity will come down due to other countries doing various things, including deferring wind energy which has a high cost.

We are looking at wind and it is costing heavily. With regard to Grid West, some 30 km is supposed to be going underground. As with anything, if we can tear some of the road we can tear all of the road. We should look at going underground where there are houses or people involved.

I heard a reference to biomass. We must realise, having talked to Bord na Móna about willow, that the price of doing 30% of Lanesborough with woodchip or biomass involves planting the whole of County Roscommon. We cannot keep our sawmills going but we are importing timber from Scotland for manufacturing and sending it back to London. It is great that we are creating jobs but we must take a long, hard look at where we are going and do some cost analysis. We might find interesting results and I would like a response to that.

Deputy Alex White

I will respond to the questions of Deputies Tom Fleming and Fitzmaurice. With regard to oil storage capacity, we are required to have 90 days' capacity stored under International Energy Agency, IEA, rules. Most of it is in the facility at Whitegate and the National Oil Reserves Agency, NORA, is the body that oversees and manages it for the State. We also have agreements with other member states to store oil in their jurisdictions on our behalf to ensure we keep to a minimum of 90 days' supply of oil. The Deputy is referring to a one-off concern with gas following a particularly harsh winter. Perhaps it also related to the geopolitical concerns with Ukraine over the past two years, where there was a perceived issue about gas. In so far as it was ever an issue, it is not now an issue in respect of availability of a reliable supply of gas.

Deputy Tom Fleming

Could it be an issue again?

Deputy Alex White

Our assessment is that it is not and is unlikely to be an issue. I know about the Shannon liquified natural gas, LNG, proposal and the Deputy is aware that Shannon LNG applied for the connecting Europe facility funding last year. The application process was run by the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency, INEA, for the European Commission and the applications were assessed in accordance with different criteria, including ensuring the energy projects had cross-border benefits and strengthened the EU security of energy supply. The principle of projects of common interest, PCI, is that they cross different jurisdictions and add to the strength and security of supply in the European Union in general. Each application is adjudicated on its merits. My Department has no role in that evaluation of applications other than being asked to approve the application. We approved the Shannon LNG application and my predecessor, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, was supportive of the project in meeting with the promoters of the project and assisting in any way he could. I have continued that support and met the project promoters. I have extended my support by letters of support and the Deputy may know that I recently met a delegation from Kerry County Council. I am willing to assist in any way possible within the remit of my powers as Minister but the decision on projects of common interests are not for the Government but for the Commission. I am available, as is my Department, to assist Shannon LNG in any way we can. However, we must respect the independence of the PCI process and regulatory independence.

The Deputy asked me about ocean energy research. I am very keen on this and I have seen terrific work in the Irish Maritime and Energy Resource Cluster, IMERC, in Cork where there is a cluster of research interest and excellence. There is a huge amount going on internationally in ocean energy and research and the prospects for the future. We have supported the research and the strategic energy technologies plan provides funding for the next generation of renewables, which includes ocean and tidal. We have set aside some considerable funding for research in that area and I am happy to provide details of the precise sums of money to the members of the committee after the meeting. I am supportive of the area. When we read about the potential in our seas, it is remarkable and worthy of our support. Anything we can do to progress it, we will do.

I agree with the Deputy's point on solar power, one of a suite of renewable technologies. As it improves, with the advent of Chinese solar technology the cost is decreasing by the week. We must keep an eye on it and bring it forward. I see it as featuring in our thinking when we put together the definitive policy statement in the White Paper. All of the insight at the committee meeting will help me with that work.

The Deputy also asked about the PSO, which is necessary for security of supply and critically important in terms of renewables. It is spread across all electricity consumers. If we do not spread it evenly across all, some will pay more than others. The correct way to do it in policy terms is to spread it evenly across all consumers.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice asked some exacting questions and I am not sure I can respond to them. I am quite happy to revert to the Deputy subsequently if I cannot. With regard to the European energy system, the latest data show the EU imported 53% of its energy at a cost of some €400 billion. This makes it the largest energy importer in the world. Some six member states depend on a single external supplier for their entire gas imports and, therefore, remain too vulnerable to supply shocks. It has been estimated that every additional 1% increase in energy savings cuts gas imports by 2.6%. We have not spoken much about efficiency in the past hour and the importance of bringing forward policy on energy efficiency. This is the case for all sorts of reasons, including the positive impact on the need to import fossil fuels. I can provide more information on this.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I am sorry for interrupting the Minister. Is it not hypothetical to talk about security of energy? We will not change that 53% figure in one, two or five years because we are looking at ten years or 15 years. We will not turn around security of energy supplies overnight. In Europe, we are relying on Russia.

Deputy Alex White

I agree with that but our policy direction must be to progress our work and incrementally press forward our efforts to reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels. The Deputy is not suggesting it but the fact that it will take a long time is just a measure of how difficult it will be. This is not a counsel of despair and there is no reason to say that oil and gas will always be around as long as any of us are on the planet, and probably much longer. That is not an argument that we do not try to change things and progress the agenda. I respectfully disagree with the direction of the Deputy's remarks about onshore wind.

All of my reading and analysis of this subject, and not just in terms of the advice I have received, demonstrates to me how cost effective onshore wind has been as a source of renewable energy. I am not suggesting it is the answer to all of our needs or all of our woes, but it has been cost effective and has proven itself to be cost effective. As I have said, wind energy is not the answer to everything and we have to bring forward other sources of renewable energy. The extent to which we can bring forward solar and biomass energy has been mentioned we need to have a proper balance. We all need to participate in the work on the White Paper to ensure we have a kind of mix that is appropriate.

The Deputy mentioned the Spirit of Ireland project. I met the promoters of that project. There have been some changes in terms of the people involved but the promoters of the project still have a very lively interest in it. Their project is of considerable scale and complexity and I think we should have an open mind on these kinds of proposals. I have an open mind. I do not have a closed mind on any aspect of this agenda. It would not be appropriate to have a closed mind and certainly not until we publish the White Paper, the collective definitive statement on where we want to go.

I have noted the points raised. I know what the Deputy states in respect of Grid West. Obviously he has seen the EirGrid discussion because his remarks are based on it. The Deputy sees the need to bring biomass forward. Coillte and Bord na Móna are in the process of attempting to conclude a joint venture at present, to be called bio energy Ireland. By entering a joint venture they hope to incentivise more supply of sustainable biomass. NewERA is advising both companies on the development of the joint venture. I would expect proposals to emerge from that process.

Chairman

The final two members offering are Senator Mooney to be followed by Deputy Conlan.

Senator Paschal Mooney

I thank the Minister and I apologise as I was on duty in the Seanad and could not be here earlier. His comments on the Spirit of Ireland were interesting because that concept has been around for about seven or eight years. In theory it is an excellent suggestion about storing energy for export. I gather there are sorts of complications surrounding the grant of planning permission and the relationship with local authorities. I am delighted to hear the Minister say he has an open mind and I agree with Deputy Fitzmaurice that the project might be worth pursing.

Today there is a report in The Irish Times that an Irish offshore energy company has obtained a substantial contract to build the world's largest offshore energy park off the coast of Cornwall in the United Kingdom. As a Member of the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly we have prepared a report on wave energy and visited the Orkneys where there is a major experimental energy storage depot. We seem to be lagging behind the United Kingdom in this regard, particularly in regard to the vast potential for harnessing wave energy off the west coast. I believe we have the strongest winds in the world, not just in Europe. I wonder if the Minister has any observation on that? The Irish company states it would love to work in Ireland but due to bureaucracy and too much red tape, it would not be able to implement it. The company operates a Swedish technology and will be involved in a very exciting project that is being funded by the United Kingdom Government. I know this is coming from the left field, but has the Minister a view on wave energy concepts?

Deputy Colreavy has raised the issue of fracking. He and I regularly raise the question of fraking at the committee. I hope the Government will raise this issue at the next Energy Council. There is a reference to the issues debated at the Council, it states that others stress the need for greater energy security given the EU's high dependence on energy imports and the exposure of certain member states. There are mixed views in Europe on fracking. Some countries have introduced a moratorium, others such as Poland seem to be proceeding with it. Those of us who have been involved since the very beginning are anxious that there would be a Europe-wide policy position on fracking, which does not seem to have emerged. I understand that there is no Europe-wide policy position on fracking even though the Commission has published a number of reports. I think Ireland should have a more proactive approach on this because it is a controversial concept, especially as the UK Government is actively embracing the concept of fracking. It has introduced very significant tax breaks and concessions. I would be concerned that pressure would be brought to bear on the Irish Government to do the same.

I think the Minister might have been alerted in advance to the final point I wish to raise, namely, the Six Nations Rugby Championship being listed for free-to-air terrestrial television. The committee has had representations from the IRFU on this in the past when it came up under a previous Administration. Although the Minister has said he has an open mind, my view is that it could prove to be financially devastating for Irish rugby if the Six Nations championship matches were to be listed, but at the same time the vast majority wish to watch these matches on terrestrial television. Will the Minister clarify his views on this?

Chairman

Will Deputy Conlan keep his contribution short?

Deputy Seán Conlan

Last night I was at a meeting of the landowners affected by the North-South interconnector in County Monaghan and the County Monaghan Anti-Pylon Committee. I handed the Chairman a petition from the landowners before this meeting requesting that we look again at the matter and ask EirGrid to delay this project and the application to An Bord Pleanála until such time as specific underground route options are put forward for the North-South interconnector. The communities affected by Grid Link and Grid West made their submission and changes have taken place. The people in the north east believe there should be equality of treatment and have asked me to hand the petition to the Chairman. I organised the petition and more than 95% of landowners have signed it. They also asked me to request the Chairman to have EirGrid and the County Monaghan Anti-Pylon Committee appear before the committee.

Chairman

That will be dealt will be by the committee in the morning. The Deputy can take it that the request will be acceded to.

Deputy Alex White

I thank Senator Mooney for the points he raised. I did not see the report on wave energy in The Irish Times but I will certainly have a look at it when I get a chance. I share his enthusiasm for this area. It is something we have taken a close interest in, we are very much involved in supporting research and I mentioned the Beaufort facility in Cork - I performed the topping off ceremony some weeks back. The Senator will know about the Atlantic marine energy test site, AMETS, in Mayo and the testing work that is going on in Beaufort, which allows devices to be tested. Those that are successful move on to AMETS in County Mayo. I absolutely agree with the Senator. I am disappointed that he met people who thought we were not as enthusiastic as we are.

If the Deputy has any particular organisation or group with which he has met that he would like me to know about, he can talk to me about it after the meeting.

Senator Paschal Mooney

The Irish Times report would be critical in that regard.

Deputy Alex White

Very good. In relation to raising the issue at the Energy Council, I will have to reflect on what the Senator has said. I mentioned earlier that it is a competency of member states. We would not like to be told by others what we should or should not do and I am not sure how well received it would be were we to purport to tell others what they should do in relation to the energy mix. However, I take the point that the Senator raises.

Before I deal with the designation of sporting events, I note as a courtesy to Deputy Conlan, that he handed me a letter which I understand is accompanied by a petition. I was literally on the way in the door and I have not had an opportunity to read it. I note respectfully what he says. I have the letter and will certainly consider it.

Chairman

The Minister might correspond directly with the Deputy.

Deputy Alex White

I will. In relation to designated events, I informed my Cabinet colleagues today that I am considering making an order to designate three additional sporting events as so-called "live free-to-air events". They are the Six Nations rugby football championship, the all-Ireland senior ladies final and the all-Ireland senior camogie final. The current list of events has not been changed since 2003, but there will be a consultation process. No decision has been made. The consultation process is required under the Act. I will consult with the relevant sporting bodies, including the IRFU, as well as with the relevant broadcasters. I will be required to publish a notice in due course of any intended designation and to invite comments from the public and that will be done. I will consult with the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport and engage with the European Commission.

A whole consultation process must be engaged in and I will not share any particular view or conclusion now. The whole point is that the consultation process must now take place. What I said was that if one looks at the Act itself, I am required to consider the extent to which an event has a special general resonance for the people of Ireland and the extent to which an event has a generally recognised distinct cultural importance for the people of Ireland. They are the prima facie issues that must be dealt with. There is a whole consultation process we must now have.

Chairman

I presume we will have a role in that.

Senator Paschal Mooney

Will the committee play a role in the consultation process?

Chairman

Our role may be to have hearings on it.

Deputy Alex White

I have huge respect for the committee. It is not mentioned specifically in Part 11 of the Act, but it may be that we can discuss the matter in due course.

Senator Paschal Mooney

I thank the Minister.

Chairman

I thank the Minister. I apologise for rushing everybody at the end of the meeting. There is no other business and we will adjourn until tomorrow's meeting at 9.30 a.m. with officials on the minerals development Bill.

The joint committee adjourned at 7.25 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 1 April 2015.