Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Mar 2023

Vol. 292 No. 10

Environmental Protection Agency (Emergency Electricity Generation) (Amendment) Bill 2023: Committee and Remaining Stages

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, to delete lines 16 to 23 and substitute the following:

“82D. The Agency, in considering designated applications, shall do so in a manner that is consistent with the plans, strategy, framework and objectives referred to in section 15(1) of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015.”.”.

We want assurances from the Minister of State. From our reading of the Bill, it is trying to override section 15 of the 2015 Act, which relates to relevant bodies. There is already a great deal of flexibility in section 15, in that a relevant body - in this case, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA - need only have regard to the various plans and strategies and not be consistent with them. Professor John Sweeney described this get-out clause at the time as "weasel words". What is the rationale for giving further flexibility in paying attention, and having due regard, to the Act?

Whatever energy crisis we may face, it sits within the climate crisis, which is ongoing and non-negotiable. Unfortunately, I must disagree with some of what we were told on Second Stage. Senator Maria Byrne stated that this was just for keeping the lights on and existing businesses, but we know that extra energy capacity is being sought - this information came from the Department last week and I will keep referring to it for the record, as it is relevant - because the anticipated increase in demand next winter will be due to large energy users necessitating growing levels of dispatchable generation capacity to be available for days with low wind and interconnector availability. The Bill is not about keeping the lights on and existing businesses; it is about anticipating growing demand form large energy users. It is not about anticipating how we will curtail that demand, which is specifically named by the Department in black and white as being the reason we will need emergency dispatchable energy.

We have a climate crisis and an energy crisis. We had concerns ahead of last winter, but we were lucky. We now have concerns for next winter. Why are we not dealing with energy demands that we can curtail instead of measurably undermining our response to the climate crisis just to meet an anticipated demand that we have decided we are okay with? These matters are not, as the Minister of State said, outside the scope of the Bill. Demand is the reason for the Bill. As such, it needs to be examined as part of our consideration of the Bill.

How on Earth are the provisions on backup generation acceptable? This is an example of the joined-up piece. There may be situations where we need this temporary capacity, which is why we did not oppose the Bill on Second Stage, but we need to know not just about the planning permissions and EPA licences, but about what conditions will be attached. Section 15 of the 2015 Act is not going to stand in the way of having this emergency energy generation, but it could mean that emergency energy generation licences have applied to them conditions that consider the climate crisis properly.

One condition could be that the first port of call should be to reduce demand. According to the Minister of State, it is his understanding that the data centres will be the first bodies asked to turn off. Will they be asked or required? As I understand it, there are no plans to require them to do so, but if they are going to be asked or required, what are the plans for measuring their response, for example, whether they demand a quid pro quo and whether they are agreeable? Was this made a condition of their licences in the first place? There is nothing to stop us introducing emergency legislation on how demand should be managed in a crisis, which would probably be more compliant with the 2015 Act. One condition might be that, if energy demand is exceeding capacity temporarily, there be clear measures that tackle demand from large energy users first and that these measures and the large energy users' response be recorded so that we can identify patterns and do better in addressing them.

The other kind of condition that might get attached, which would not stop us having the emergency energy generation but would ensure it was used responsibly, could be conditions around the switch to backup generators in these large energy users whose demand has grown by either 260% or 280% in the past five years.

The CRU stated it was not interested and that it was the job of the EPA to consider what kind of backup generators are being used by large energy users. It stated that it had simply said these users should have back-up generation but did not specify the fuel type for the dispatchable generation. It could be diesel or petrol; who knows what it could be? The point is that the CRU directed that the EPA is responsible for the environmental regulation, yet here the EPA is being told not to consider its obligations under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. Does that make it more difficult for the EPA to attach conditions which, for example, would ask a firm to reduce demand rather than just switch to fossil-fuel powered sources of energy or diesel back-up generators? That would create a positive incentive for large energy users to have renewable backup energies, other sustainable energy, batteries or whatever else. It is joined up.

This idea that there will be days when the lights go out is being used disingenuously because we are actually talking about planning for one third of all energy being used to ensure Amazon advertisements update every millisecond and a video to advertise a product starts playing as soon as someone logs on. That is where a lot of the energy is going. All energy usage is not the same. Some of it is very important for society and the economy but other parts of it are simply profit maximisation. We know that because there are a lot of ethical issues around how energy is managed, even within data centres. Storing photographs and medical records is not the same as optimising the speed of turnover on advertising products. They are different things.

This is worrying and should cause concern. The provision is already flexible in that the section refers to the EPA having regard to rather than it being bound. I am worried that we are removing the suggestion that the EPA would have regard to our climate action and low-carbon development goals. The fact is that the planet is not going to wait. The planet will not decide that, because it is a busy time and because Ireland is very excited about the new money and believes the data centres, while there is no money in them, might employ someone else up the road in some other job, it will not warm up and will keep the glaciers in place. That is not how it works. We cannot suspend climate change and we should not suspend consideration of our climate change targets on developing policies. Policies should be developed that work with those targets. This is not saying we cannot have emergency generation but that we will have badly designed emergency generation and it will be used without proper scrutiny and conditions unless we have joined-up thinking on climate and energy. We are seeking to fix this section by reinserting the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act in the process. This is a no-brainer. I am confused about how it was ever allowed to be suspended or proposed to be suspended.

It is important to bear in mind that keeping the lights on is an important immediate policy aim and obligation of government. Whatever one might say about long-term strategy, and I intend to say a few words about that too, keeping the lights on on an emergency basis is an imperative for government. We have to be practical in how we achieve that aim.

On the long-term strategy, Senator Dooley will recall that five, six or seven years ago, at the joint committee that dealt with energy at the time, I consistently demanded of SEAI witnesses and departmental witnesses, how our long-term demand, as they saw it, was to be reconciled with the policy of attracting data centres to Ireland. I was flannelled and so was the committee by evasive nonsense where people would not admit that there was a complete incongruity at the heart of public policy at the time and that ploughing ahead regardless was not a sustainable course of action. It was well known that the Department with responsibility for energy and communications - these were in a single bundle of departmental responsibility - and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment had radically different approaches which they decided to sweep under the carpet and not address. The result of that has been that the increased demand by large-scale energy users, coupled with a massively growing population in Ireland, meant that our energy requirements in the medium term would expand rather than contract. At the time, the SEAI was on a different intellectual trajectory, talking about reducing energy demand. These things just did not add up. I remember that the current Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, was a member of that committee. It struck me at the time that he was not sufficiently vocal on that matter and did not support the positions I was taking. He seemed to be very happy that Apple would come and all the rest of it. He seemed to be relaxed about these developments. He now knows we are in a different situation.

The Minister, Deputy Ryan, consistently argues that offshore wind development is the answer to nearly all our problems and that, coupled with developing hydrogen energy conversion methods, we should not merely be self-sufficient but should become an energy exporter in the foreseeable future. All that would be fine if anything was being done about it but we are still at the stage where the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA, the agency that is supposed to licence offshore development, is getting its act together in the recruitment of officers and executives to commence the licensing procedure later this year. That is the sad situation we are in, two and a half years into the life of this Government. We cannot escape the truth that if offshore wind power was the great solution to all our problems and was urgently needed to comply with our climate change aims, the implementation of the process whereby deep offshore floating or fixed platforms can be constructed in the appropriate places in Ireland is hopelessly behind schedule. That is a part of the administrative paralysis which has characterised our approach to this matter, let alone the administrative failure to tell the truth at the time, as I referred to earlier.

A third issue that has arisen here is that legislation was brought through - I think by the Minister, Deputy Ryan - envisaging that An Bord Pleanála would be the agency to determine objections and issues of planning sustainability in respect of offshore wind farms.

He assured this House quite recently that An Bord Pleanála was now going to start recruiting people with some expertise in this area. Let us remember that An Bord Pleanála has had to defer simple consideration of railways projects for want of resources and time. It is snowed under with work. It has had an internal, domestic debacle. We are now in the situation that we are going to create a new area of activity for An Bord Pleanála to deal with the ecological or environmental aspects of licences granted by the MARA process to people who are willing to invest in offshore development in Ireland. We have not made the decisions about ports to service them. We have not implemented the network decisions necessary to sustain all this. We have done nothing.

This particular legislation is all the more necessary because of the complete absence of strategic thinking on the part of Government and the absolute indolence and paralysis that has characterised facing up to a few simple facts. One of them is that for the next five to ten years we will need fossil fuel backup, unfortunately. The British Government is today reactivating coal-fired stations to meet its targets. Our gas importation is at the moment, apparently, safe, even though it all goes through one particular location in Scotland. Luckily, Norwegian and North Sea gas supplies seem to be unaffected by the current international crisis. As long as that is the case, gas would or should be our fallback in respect of avoiding brownouts and the like.

We have to say as well that it has been obvious that we need extra fossil fuel technology and infrastructure to deal with the coming five to ten years. It has been obvious to everybody. There has been all this dithering about liquified natural gas, LNG, and whether it is a good or a bad thing, who should own it and the like. Again, all of that should have been put in place two years ago. Whatever the decision, whether it is to be State-owned or privately developed, that decision could have been made two years ago and the infrastructure could have been built by now. We did not do it.

In the midst of all of this, we are closing down Derrybrien on a legally mistaken basis. That has the capacity to keep 30,000 homes functioning when there is wind. It is unnecessary. There is a way out that complies with European law and that denies developers the benefit of their development.

Where I have a significantly different perspective from Senator Higgins is in this: what we do in this country is important in terms of its international demonstration effect but it is not really that important in terms of the future of the planet. Those who argue that what happens in Ireland is crucial to saving glaciers simply do not understand. Decisions being made in other parts of the world as we speak, things happening in respect of methane output in central Asia and other places at the same time as we are debating this, in global terms mean that those who think this particular Bill is going to accelerate the melting of glaciers as an isolated proposition are simply wrong. Therefore, I come back to the point I made at the beginning. We must avoid brownouts. We cannot be an economy that goes into temporary paralysis due to lack of joined-up thinking over the past five and seven years. Previous Ministers and their Departments, not just this Minister, must bear responsibility for failing to address these issues five and seven years ago when it was plain that we were paddling our canoe towards the Niagara Falls in terms of our capacity to comply with the obligations we have undertaken internationally to meet climate change targets.

I have been clear that of course we need to keep the lights on. That should be our priority and that is why we have not opposed the concept of emergency energy generation. What are the actual measures in prioritising how our energy is used and ensuring it is directed towards keeping the lights on that everyone is so keen on and that is so necessary? We must keep our essential services running and our public records in place. We must ensure the essential services families need in terms of energy, heat and electricity. What are our measures of prioritisation? On energy demand, we could have much clearer measures and policies in the medium term. We could have been measuring it. We could introduce hard measures that allow us not just to ask but to require large commercial energy users to curtail and limit their energy usage at certain times. The Minister might comment on that. We could plan better. It is clear that the Department's concern going into next winter is not keeping the lights on but the growing demand of large energy users. That is what the Department names as being a reason we need dispatchable energy. That is the identified reason. Keeping the lights on is of course crucial. It should be a priority underpinned by legislative measures. We could have legislation to address demand issues. That is what the legislation could be doing.

In respect of this legislation on emergency generation, I have some specific questions and I would like answers to them. How is it anticipated that we are going to ensure the first port of call is asking the large energy users to curtail their use when the emergency energy demand is coming through? Will it be measured by where the demand has come from and what measures have been taken to curtail that demand? We will ask Europe to suspend environmental law and say it is an emergency. We are saying that we want an alternative mechanism. The Minister of State should be clear that this is the basis - an emergency context in which an alternative assessment process would be sought. If it is temporary emergency measures, we need to be clear on our overall case. When this emergency additional capacity is being deployed, we also must be clear on what it is being deployed for, what other measures are taken, and how we ensure it was being deployed for those genuine causes on which we all agree such as keeping the lights on. Could it be deployed because a centre wants to run overnight, over 24 hours, or has an increasing demand? Will increase in demand be measured in the areas served?

It does matter what Ireland does. It really matters. Ireland has among the higher levels of carbon emissions per capita. We should not start down the road of everybody saying it does not matter because of somebody else.

We are talking about a brand-new industry that we like and want, data centres, and it is great. How are we meant to talk, however, to countries that are trying to build their basic infrastructure? These countries are using fossil fuels to build up early infrastructure and industry that will bring them out of deep poverty. At the same time, here we have one of the wealthier countries in Europe saying it wants more money. I was disgusted to hear someone at one of the debates in our committee, and I will not say who it was, speak about Ireland's demand going up by 9% but that this was normal for a wealthy developed country. I am paraphrasing. It is not okay for wealthier countries to say this is about us getting a bit wealthier and that this is sufficient reason for us to suspend our climate laws while we are asking other countries, that are trying to bring their populations out of deep poverty, to choose sustainable paths of development instead of, for example, selling oil, access to coal or signing contracts that they will not be able to get out of in terms of fossil fuel exploitation.

This aspect, therefore, does matter. It matters not only in the context of the example I have given. We must acknowledge that the example matters, but equally our emissions and each share of the emissions matter. This matters in terms of the example and of the credibility concerning international negotiations when wealthier countries are going into them willing to make all kinds of exceptions for themselves all the time. However, they are still looking for global targets despite the historical emissions record.

In a way it is useful to have had this said. When I see these policies, I worry sometimes. Senator McDowell suggested it may perhaps not matter in the bigger picture. Maybe secretly, the Government does not think it matters. Maybe officials think it does not matter. Maybe a lot of people are going, "Well, there is the next five-year election cycle and the next ten years after that, and we are okay". They have their plans for how they are going to retreat and live in the countryside, or whatever it might be. The specific amendment we are talking about is concerned with suspending the climate legislation in respect of how this new policy will be implemented. This is acting as if it does not matter, but it does matter. It matters in every Bill. To be honest, pretty much everything we do should consider the climate legislation and the carbon targets attached to it. The idea that the things that already have these elements attached would have them suspended is, frankly, ridiculous.

I thank Senator Higgins. I call Senator Boylan.

I will be brief.

Sure look, we are paid to be here.

I do not mind if the Senator is not brief, but I ask her to not say she will be if she is not going to be.

I will try to be brief.

Senator Higgins has made many of the relevant points. It is regrettable that every time we talk about emergency electricity generation people conflate the supply issue with the generation issue. This is disappointing and it is exploiting the issue, because these are two completely different things. We could have all the gas supply in the world, but we do not have the generators required to produce electricity to feed the insatiable demand. This is an important point and it is used and exploited every time we come in here and debate these issues around emergency generation.

That is for another day, however. Undoubtedly, it will be trotted out again, and by various think tanks as well, whose representatives are regularly on the airwaves. This amendment is trying to ensure that the EPA, which already has a weak enough reference to take account of the climate legislation, does so and that this obligation is not removed. The Minister of State said all the data centres now must have 100% emergency back-up generation. It is astounding, however, that there is no determination regarding what type of emergency generation backup this will be. It is astounding that we are in the situation where we could have diesel generators just to feed data centres. People say the data centres are our bogeyman and that we hate them all, but we do not. I have never said we do not need data centres. We absolutely do. Equally, not all large energy users are the same. They are not all equal. Large energy users, like big pharmaceutical companies, are essential. Data centres that process information to help us to do remote work are essential. It is the same for those that have databases for the sharing of information and moving things around online rather than on paper. This is all essential.

Let us be honest about the type of data centres we have in Ireland, in addition to those important large energy users. This is why it will be important that the EPA would also be able to determine which of these large energy users would have to switch off or lower their power consumption. If we look at the types of data centres like the Facebooks, the Googles and the Amazons, it will be seen that Facebook and Google are the world's largest advertising companies. This is the reality. We can talk about social media, but these companies are the world's largest advertising companies. Some 84% of the revenue of Alphabet, the parent company of Google, came from advertising. For Facebook, 98.5% of its revenue came from advertising. We know these companies use a system called real-time bidding, which is where they take people's personal data, monitor them online and use surveillance data to decide what are people's likes, dislikes and moods. They then target adverts to people specifically and this happens in little mini auctions that are ongoing continuously throughout the day. In fact, in 2022, some 178 trillion transactions took place in terms of these advertisements. For every option that is determined to target people, only one advert will pop up on their social media platform. In that process, however, 99.99% of the computer energy used in the real-time bidding option is wasted. Those adverts never see the light of day. This is the reality we are dealing with here and it is important that we talk about facts.

I say this because it is always thrown out that we are just opposed to data centres and all large energy users. It is not true. What we are opposed to is this type of insidious advertising that is just burning up energy needlessly and pushing a consumer, growth-driven agenda. When it comes to keeping the lights on and preventing brownouts, what we want is to have a scale of who is prioritised and who needs to power down. This is all we are asking for. We are asking that these aspects be targeted in this way, so that the essential things, like households, hospitals, etc., will keep the lights on first, before those data centres that are just needlessly burning up energy.

I agree with Senator Higgins, as I think does everybody here today who is on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action, that it does matter what Ireland does. What is the point of the Paris Agreement? International reputation was mentioned. What sort of international reputation will we have if we go out and just say, "Do you know what, it does not matter what Ireland does, the planet can burn". This is as equally damaging to our international reputation as just asking data centres to use energy efficiently.

We are discussing an amendment but we have had a general discussion. I thank Senator McDowell for speaking so-----

I have allowed some latitude to avoid a row.

I do not want to misquote Senator McDowell, but I think he said what we do in Ireland is not important for the planet. I think this was what was said.

I did not say that.

Is it unfair to paraphrase the Senator that way?

Yes, everyone is paraphrasing me incorrectly, as the record will show.

Okay, that is fine.

Senator McDowell can come back in if he wants to correct everyone else.

I do not want to misquote the Senator, but what we do in Ireland is important for the planet. It is not that I think this but that I know it. There are only 5 million of us in Ireland, but we have a much higher usage per capita than the average use in the world. If every community of 5 million people globally took this attitude, if every city in China of 5 million people said "we are just 5 million people, so we might as well not do anything", then clearly we would never be able to solve any problem related to pollution. Climate change and GHG emissions are a form of pollution. If we were to say it does not matter if I throw all my rubbish into the sea in my country, because we are only 5 million people, only 0.1% of the population, and if everybody were to take this attitude, then we will be in trouble.

The whole basis of worldwide global climate action is collective action. This means that people get together and agree that we will do this if you do that and let us all agree this is how we will approach the issue. It is part of civilisation. The attitude I mentioned is a formula for abdicating our responsibilities as citizens as well. It is an attitude of what I do in life not mattering. It is one where the view is taken that I can throw everything on the ground and abuse people because I am just one person, and the rest of the population of the world can go and comply with laws if they want. We are a society and not just a country, and also a global community of people trying to share an atmosphere.

We cannot have the attitude that what we do individually or collectively as a country is insignificant and, therefore, we might as well do nothing. I was shocked to hear that, but maybe the Senator can clarify what he meant by it.

Guidelines on data centres were published by the then Government in 2018. I do not believe they made any reference whatsoever to the climate or security of supply. They were entirely aimed at allowing more investment in tech business. They had to be updated. Clearly, data centres can have a major effect on energy demand, which is why there are new guidelines. Data centres must provide 100% backup. They must also ensure there is an equivalent quantity of renewable energy added to the grid compared with what they need. They must improve security of supply rather than decrease it. I do not want to misquote anyone, but I believe Senator Boylan stated that we absolutely needed data centres.

They are not all equal.

Let us get to the amendment. The Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 and the provisions therein are important and provide for public bodies to act in a manner consistent with the latest climate action plan and relevant plans and strategies "in so far as is practicable". The Government has introduced a number of measures. For example, we cut VAT on electricity and gas. That is not good for the climate. We are giving people €1.6 billion in cash into their electricity accounts to cushion the burden of the increase in the cost of electricity. One could say that is not consistent with the Act because it encourages people to use more electricity. We cut the price of petrol and diesel at a significant cost of, I believe, €500 million. All of these measures were taken because it was felt necessary to deal with the cost-of-living crisis. That is why the Act uses the phrase "in so far as is practicable". As such, nothing is changing with this Bill.

The insertion of section 82D into the 1992 Act under section 3 of the Bill is being done on the advice of the Attorney General and reflects the language already approved by the Oireachtas under section 10 of the Development (Emergency Electricity Generation) Act 2022. While the Bill is intended to require the agency to act in a manner consistent with the 2015 Act, it is proposed that it would do so in a practicable way, having regard to the seriousness of the current situation. The provision in the Bill as initiated merely provides clarity as to what will feed into the agency's decision.

On a technical level, the Senator's proposal would go further than the provisions of section 15(1) of the 2015 Act, which requires public bodies to act in a manner consistent with the relevant plans and strategies "in so far as is practicable". For these reasons, I cannot accept the proposed amendment.

Briefly, I never said it did not matter what we did in Ireland. Needless to say, those who wanted to hear me say that have heard me say it, but I did not say it.

What I said - I want the Minister of State to be clear on this - was that what we did in Ireland was, in the context of other developments internationally, including in terms of methane, not going to prevent the melting of glaciers in an emergency situation.

I believe that the Attorney General has given the Government good advice on this occasion and that the phraseology of the proposed new section 82D is reasonable and defensible. I wish to put on the record why it is necessary that this be done. I presume it is because the Attorney General foresees that, if that section is not in this Bill, any proposal for emergency generating capacity will end up in the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, with injunctions being sought to prevent such measures being taken on the basis that the wording that the Attorney General has asked for is not present in the Act and that the emergency nature of this and the practicalities arising from the emergency that this is designed to avoid have not been taken into account.

I have not used any deprecatory language in this debate, but to suggest that I said it did not matter what we did in Ireland and to extrapolate from that "let us throw all our rubbish into the sea" does not match what I said. I am saying that, if this country faced an emergency and had to take emergency steps because the existing law would open the door for litigation in the High Court if this particular wording was not there, the emergency would be well and truly on us by the time the various court actions were resolved.

We are moving more and more towards being an electricity-dependent world. We must increase our capacity to generate electricity. We are being told about motor cars, buses, battery-driven trains and all the rest of it. We know where we are going, so let us not cod ourselves that we are all going to survive on the existing renewable infrastructure. We need the development of renewable infrastructure to be accelerated in terms of offshore wind development. Having a two-tier planning process with MARA on the one hand and An Bord Pleanála on the other is a big mistake. An Bord Pleanála does not have the capacity to deal with this issue. We should have devised a simpler licensing and regulatory process under one single body to determine who could build offshore wind facilities and where, taking into account environmental and other matters.

However, we are where we are and we are facing into an emergency. No one in this House would be thanked by the Irish people in 12 months if the lights went out or if matters got into serious difficulty. The mistakes that were made in the past, to which I adverted, were plain and obvious and swept under the carpet. I recall one case where the courts were told that it was too early for An Bord Pleanála to take into account the likely effect of ongoing construction of data centres and to develop a policy on the matter. That argument was used by An Bord Pleanála to allow for the Apple data centre in Athenry. I will not comment any further because I was involved in that case and I never comment on cases, but that was an argument that was put forward at the time. It was not too early. It has all been far too late.

The Senator also said "Briefly" before he started. I am not sure if that fitted the definition either.

I am finished now.

I thank the Senator. On the basis of equal opportunities, if I am tackling everyone who uses the word "briefly", I have to pick on him as well. I call Senator Higgins. She is going to be brief.

There is always a first time.

There is a piece of wisdom that Senator McDowell has mentioned previously - so often, we are told things are too early and then we are told they are too late at a point in between. The issue of data centres is a clear example of that.

The Senator did not say that it did not matter and he made it clear that his comments were specifically in respect of glaciers. In that context, I probably still disagree with the law of tipping points as it relates to glaciers, given the volume of sea ice we have lost over the past six years. Nonetheless, I am sorry if I phrased it as "things do not matter". The Senator has made clear what he actually said.

Okay. Does the Minister of State wish to reply?

I would never want to misrepresent someone or speak in a deprecatory way.

I am not taking offence. I just wanted to correct the record.

The Senator is absolutely right.

He also said he was finished.

He specified the context.

We need more dispatchable generation. It is not just for large energy users. As the Senator stated, it is also because the basis of climate action is the electrification of transport and heating systems and that means we need more dispatchable generation. That does not just involve emergency generators; it also involves batteries and interconnection with other countries, as well as more peaking gas power plants. We have clearly stated that we are commissioning 2 GW of gas by 2030 to be used in the exceptional circumstances of when we are out of renewable capacity.

We have not done terribly badly in renewables; rather, it has been mixed. We have done very well on onshore wind, as Senator O’Reilly pointed out but, for some reason, there was a concentration on one form of renewable energy. The solar was not done at the same time and the offshore wind was not done. Those provide a mixture of sources of renewable electricity, which makes for a more resilient grid. We are doing that now but it takes time. The solar is going to happen much faster than the offshore wind. They will provide a more stable system, better security of supply and better national security in the long term.

I welcome the ladies from St. Pius X Girls National School in Terenure. I thank their teachers for bringing them here. I hope the students will keep their teachers nice and quiet during the vote.

Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 7; Níl, 22.

  • Boylan, Lynn.
  • Flynn, Eileen.
  • Gavan, Paul.
  • Higgins, Alice-Mary.
  • Hoey, Annie.
  • Sherlock, Marie.
  • Wall, Mark.

Níl

  • Ahearn, Garret.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Byrne, Malcolm.
  • Byrne, Maria.
  • Carrigy, Micheál.
  • Cassells, Shane.
  • Chambers, Lisa.
  • Crowe, Ollie.
  • Currie, Emer.
  • Daly, Paul.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Fitzpatrick, Mary.
  • Horkan, Gerry.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lombard, Tim.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • McGreehan, Erin.
  • Murphy, Eugene.
  • O'Reilly, Joe.
  • O'Reilly, Pauline.
  • Seery Kearney, Mary.
  • Ward, Barry.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Lynn Boylan and Alice-Mary Higgins; Níl, Senators Paul Daly and Joe O'Reilly.
Pursuant to Standing Order 57A, Senator Rebecca Moynihan has notified the Cathaoirleach that she is on maternity leave from 6th February to 18th August, 2023, and the Whip of the Fine Gael Group has notified the Cathaoirleach that the Fine Gael Group has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Moynihan for the duration of her maternity leave.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

I will be very brief.

I will hold the Senator to her promise.

Please define what "brief" means.

It is whatever I decide it to be as I am the Chair.

Section 8 allows the Minister to "prescribe such requirements and such matters of procedure and administration as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient in respect of an alternative assessment." I believe we may get another chance to discuss this legislation but I want to ask a question at this point. Does the Minister plan to use his power to "prescribe such requirements and such matters of procedure and administration"? This section also allows "information, including supplementary or additional information where required, relating to the alternative assessment to be provided." Does the Minister plan to use those powers to strengthen some of the issues we have addressed, such as environmental impact assessments? One of the ameliorating factors would be assessments of the other measures in place to ensure such energy is only deployed when absolutely necessary and to ensure demand-side measures are taken into account. I have asked about some of these things before. Specifically, when will this emergency energy be dispatched? One of the things which would affect the environmental impact of the granting of these permissions is clarity about when the energy to be dispatched will be used. What other measures will be in place to ensure it is only used when it is genuinely the last resort and there are no other measures that could be deployed? Does the Minister have plans to use the powers mentioned in section 8?

As this is an EPA Bill, it does not concern issues of demand prioritisation. Such issues apply to EirGrid, in consultation with CRU. EirGrid has a prioritisation mechanism. I have heard its chief executive speak about it at meetings of the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action. I believe EirGrid is updating that into a more detailed programme, which it will finalise this year. The idea is that EirGrid will initially request large energy users to reduce their use and then mandate that they do so. Ultimately, they will curtail their supply - not entirely, initially, but by a large proportion. That is the mechanism that is in place at the moment. EirGrid is now working on a much more detailed prioritisation scheme of who comes first and so on among different energy users. It is a question of who gets curtailed and when. I suppose that fits in with having this emergency generation capacity on the grid.

The Minister of State made a point about who powers down or the hierarchy on the grid. Is it not the case currently, with regard to electricity, that households are first to be disconnected in terms of burnouts and businesses are last? It is the opposite for gas, as households are prioritised over businesses.

The principle at the moment is that households are the number one priority. After that, the objective is to source additional power from any smart sources that we can while managing the shortfall with voluntary demand-side measures. After that, it is about maintaining close co-operation with the UK and doing things like load shedding. Involuntary or mandatory curtailment is a last resort.

Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 8, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“Reports

9. The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, commission and publish reports on—

(a) the level of increased demand by large energy users in the period 2017 to 2022,

(b) a breakdown of large energy users that participated in demand side reduction mechanisms during that period,

(c) a critical appraisal of existing demand side reduction strategies, and

(d) a comprehensive plan to ensure the prioritisation of demand side reduction measures over increased electricity generation into the future.”.

This amendment is self-explanatory. Given we are, for the third time, rushing through emergency legislation to address the fear we will not have enough power on the grid, it is reasonable that we get a report from the Minister setting out the level of increased demand by large energy users in the five-year period specified. The amendment also seeks a breakdown of the users that participated in demand-side reduction. Such reduction is voluntary rather than obligatory and we need to see whether the demand-side reduction strategy is working and having the desired effect. The amendment also calls for a plan for prioritising demand-side reduction measures over increased electricity generation into the future. This is the key point because demand-side reduction is essential for balancing the grid, and that is well and good, but we as a country need reassurance from the Minister of State, given we are in a climate emergency, that we are looking at the issue of demand.

We all want to electrify the economy. We want people to use public transport run on sustainable energy, but some people will have to use electric vehicles. We need to electrify our heating systems and all of that. We all accept that is the path we are going along. However, the Climate Change Advisory Council and all the climate scientists are telling us we must reduce demand. This is key. We cannot have exponential growth in electricity demand into the future. How many wind farms are we going to build to meet an insatiable demand for energy with no regard to where it is coming from? We heard earlier it is too early to plan for certain things and then suddenly it is too late. We need to know the Government is looking at what the future plan around electricity demand is and how we will reduce the overall demand. That is not about destroying the economy or anything like that, but we cannot keep growing demand exponentially.

I had thought this amendment was ruled out of order so some of the issues have been discussed and I will not go into them in much detail. Since it is in order, it is important we get a proper answer. We still have not really heard what demand reduction measures are being talked about or looked at. The first time we heard about it at the committee, only demand reduction at busy peak hours was being discussed, and indeed that is the focus today. However, what of overall demand reduction versus the increasing growth predicted by the Department? The briefing we got from the Department refers to that increasing growth and what we must do to meet it, but nothing is said about curtailing the increasing growth in demand. That does not seem to be the actual plan and goal. I am concerned because while we have an economy that is growing and developing, that must happen within constraints. I do not accept, for example, the premise the emergency is any time there is more demand than renewable energy can meet while we are moving slowly along on renewable energy and trying to get a bit more of it. Renewable energy, and ultimately renewable energy plus emergency energy, should be the constraint within which what we do as a society must fit, as opposed to thinking the emergency energy envelope must expand indefinitely, solely in order that we can meet the demand which is taken as an immutable fact of nature, despite the fact it can be managed. Some of the specific measures for such management have been talked about.

We have had a drip-drip of information. Senator McDowell was right when he talked about a blind eye being turned, flannelling and an unwillingness to give information on this area. We are only getting a drip feed of information on data centre demand. The Minister of State mentioned 2018, but an opportunity was missed in the lifetime of this Government, namely, with the CRU's consultation. I made a submission back in 2020 when the commission had the option of introducing a moratorium until all the ducks were in a row with respect to how data centres should operate. The choice was made not to do that and we have seen a number of data centres going ahead in the years since.

The amendment requests specific information, including the level of increased demand by large energy users in the last five years and a breakdown of whether such users are participating in voluntary demand-side reduction schemes or being required to do so. The Minister of State mentioned the voluntary and the involuntary. We need that general information so we can identify the pattern and see how we can make our involuntary measures more robust if the voluntary measures are not working, which they do not seem to be. We also need specific information on the days when we are using emergency generation. We want to know what happens in a week when we have to use emergency generation. We need that addressed with respect to both the general pattern and the specific instances when this special temporary generation capacity is being deployed.

The amendment also calls for a critical appraisal of existing demand-side reduction strategies. The Minister of State said households are the priority, but if I am understanding this correctly, it is not that households are the priority but, rather, the opposite. The Minister of State said households are the priority when it comes to electricity reduction whereas what he means is households get their electricity cut first. Is that the case? He mentioned households, then voluntary measures, then involuntary measures, so I would like clarity on that chain because it was a surprise to me. With gas, large energy users are cut off first and households are last, but I would like clarity on how the process is tiered when it comes to electricity. It would be useful if we could have the breakdown of how often we have gone to involuntary measures with large energy users.

The amendment would also require the Minister to prepare a comprehensive plan to ensure the prioritisation of demand-side reduction measures over increased electricity generation, by whatever method. When we talk about the gaps in our information, is it not disgraceful that a couple of years after we got our new legislation on climate, the CRU is still just demanding backup generation with no requirements around what it is? The commission does not know whether it will be diesel. How is it acceptable to not know or care what kind of fuel is being used for backup generation by some of the largest electricity users in the country? How is that in any way consistent with any kind of joined-up thinking or strategy around demand. If we take the demand off the grid by getting large users to engage their backup generation which is powered by diesel, then that is a problem. In those circumstances, simply having them move to their backup might not be enough. Maybe we should not be allowing them to move to backup. I worry a little about having these invisible pots of emissions and fossil fuel usage that are going to happen if every large company can have its own means to generate energy from fossil fuel sources. These will be pumping away while we pretend it is not affecting Ireland's emissions record.

These measures really matter. We are pushing hard on them because they matter and because we are constantly being told we must move the goalposts out on energy and allow for more and more emergency generation capacity in suspension of some of our concerns about climate, all while being given only a drip feed of demand reduction measures. Opportunities to curtail developments have been missed not just by the previous Government but also by this one.

The Senator misunderstood me and I am certain it is my fault for not being clear enough. The first priority in demand management is to protect households, rather than to turn off their electricity. I am sorry if I was not clear when I said that.

The Senator mentioned concerns about the CRU and what it is doing. Unless I am misunderstanding, the CRU is accountable to the committee, rather than to me. When it comes to the committee and the committee asks it questions, tells it what to do or holds it to account, that is the way the law has been constructed, which I am sure the Senator has read.

We have asked the CRU.

The legislation on the CRU makes it accountable to the Committee on Environment and Climate Action, rather than the Minister.

The Minister of State, without interruption, please.

The Senator can come back to me afterwards.

The Minister of State asked me a question, so I will answer it.

Let him finish and then I will let the Senator back in.

This amendment asks for four reports providing data on energy demands and so on. This is great. I love to see informed debate. I would like to read this information myself. I look at those reports and think I would like to read them. It is a great idea. It does not fit within an EPA (amendment) Bill. It is fine to discuss it. In the previous debate, we said political accountability is very important, but reporting as proposed within specified timeframes, as set out in this proposed amendment, is not necessary. The legislation we are discussing here today reflects legislation previously passed by the Oireachtas and is being introduced in a very public manner that demonstrates an openness and desire for cross-party support. The Minister, Deputy Ryan, EirGrid and the CRU have appeared in front of the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action on this very serious issue of energy security and will continue to do so. The provisions of the Eirgrid, Electricity and Turf (Amendment) Act 2022 require that EirGrid reports to the CRU on at least a quarterly basis on any measures taken pursuant to that Act. The CRU is answerable to a joint committee of the Oireachtas in the performance of its functions and will be able to further inform the committee of progress and implementation. Therefore, I do not accept the amendment.

The CRU comes before the committee and we take our scrutiny of it very seriously. The CRU also engages with Government Departments. One clear example is the Energy Charter Treaty. We have repeatedly asked the CRU if it is examining the implications of the treaty. We have been asking for three years. We have been constantly told that if the Minister required the CRU to do work or examine the issue, it would, but the Minister has not, so it will not. We have been told it has not examined that issue. Now, we are at a point where the Energy Charter Treaty, another thing nobody ever wants to talk about, and five or six countries have announced they are leaving the treaty. Senator Boylan gave leadership on this and I supported her on this. She has been flagging it as a serious issue with serious implications. There has been a complete unwillingness to discuss it.

In that regard, the reason that has been given is the Minister. I have asked Ministers if they will request or seek information or examination of this issue. There has been no examination because we wanted to wait to see what Europe is doing. Europe is now leaving and wanting to leave. We still do not know what Ireland's position is on the Energy Charter Treaty and what it is doing. That is one example.

On these issues, with respect, while we can question the CRU, it does not have to be through the CRU. In fact, the CRU suggests that the EPA may be the relevant authority. That is what it suggested to us recently regarding back-up generators. I ask the Minister of State, whether or not he accepts it as this amendment, if he will seek to get the information about exactly what kind of back-up generator is in each of the data centres in Ireland. We need to find out exactly what kind of back-up generation they have, so we can have a picture and know that information.

Does the Minister of State think it would be a good idea to put in more requirements, rather than somebody saying that they have back-up generation? We might look to, for example, trying to avoid the most egregiously, heavily fossil fuel forms of back-up generation. That may require political leadership from the Department. At a basic point, we must have that information and all of the information we have looked for, such as the breakdown of large energy users which participated in demand-side reduction mechanisms, voluntary and involuntary, both in the generality as the pattern and in relation to specific times when temporary emergency energy has been activated. Those are specific questions.

Will the Minister of State seek the information concerning those measures, voluntary and involuntary demand-side measures taken with large energy users in general, and in at least some of the specific instances in which temporary emergency energy generation was activated? That information will help us get better policies together in relation to that.

Will the Minister of State also seek the information regarding back-up generation? We can question the CRU, which we will and we take very seriously. It comes regularly to the committee. Nonetheless, ultimately political leadership and responsibility for this sits with the Department. That information is a priority for all of us - I include the Minister of State and others - who want better policies in this area. We need to have that information. Be it the EPA, the CRU or the Department directly, whatever might be required, I would like the Minister to ensure that information is made available to inform our decision-making.

To go back to prioritisation of customers on the grid, I was informed by Gas Networks Ireland that it is the opposite. If there is any shortage of gas, households are prioritised. It is not out of any social justice motive, it is because of pilot lights being kept on, which is really important from a public safety point of view. When it comes to electricity, if there is load shedding or blackouts, households are the first to be cut off. That is what I was told. I think it is important that we have clarity on that.

My other question is about the CRU being answerable to the committee. That is the case, but the CRU also, under its remit, says it has to be cognisant of a framework of Government policy. In 2009, we saw a Government very directly intervene in the independence of the regulator in saying you had to recalibrate network tariffs in favour of large energy users. That was a policy decision taken at a Cabinet level and an intervention sent directly to the regulator at the time.

Regarding the Government, its role around the regulator and what the regulator can or cannot do, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment made a submission to CRU's public consultation recently and went beyond the scope of that submission to defend large energy users and criticise the CRU for the decisions it had taken around the network tariffs. It had no qualms about going beyond the remit of the public consultation because it felt that the CRU needed to know what the Government's position was. The CRU does come in and, as a committee, we have agreed for it to come in even on a monthly basis, because we are trying to get as much information as possible. It does operate in the framework of Government policy. The buck does stop with the Minister of State, if he wants this to happen in terms of who gets switched off first or what sort of back-up generation they have. That can be determined by Government policy.

In relation to the requested reports on demand-side reduction and energy use, I am happy to provide the Senators with any information I legally can that is relevant and useful. If any Senator contacts me I will be happy to work on that. We do not feel that it fits in with an EPA piece of legislation.

On prioritisation of electricity supply, the State has a range of mitigations before cuts to household power apply. These include businesses, those who work voluntarily or have demand mandatorily curtailed, demand-side units that work with us formally to reduce demand as needed and mandatory curtailments that occur with large users, which provide us with an extra line of defence in the event of shortage of power. This entire legislation is about making sure there is capacity so that, in an emergency, we do not have to ever turn off the general public's power. That is the whole purpose of the legislation. The priority is to make sure people continue to receive electricity for the purposes they need it, whether that is by turning off large energy users or using emergency back-up generators

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 9 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Bill received for final consideration.

When is it proposed to take Fifth Stage?

Question, "That the Bill do now pass", put and agreed to.
Top
Share