Vol. 669 No. 2
77 Deputy Deirdre Clune asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the bio-fuel strategy with specific reference to liquid bio-fuels to be used in the transport sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43673/08]
111 Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the steps he will take following the completion of the public consultation on the bio-fuels obligation scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43630/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 77 and 111 together.
The planned introduction of a bio-fuels obligation will require all fuel suppliers to ensure that bio-fuels represent a certain percentage of their annual fuel sales. The bio-fuels obligation is designed to provide a long-term market based framework for the development of a bio-fuels sector and delivery of bio-fuels targets to 2020.
The public consultation process on the bio-fuels obligation scheme has recently been completed. More than 30 submissions were received as part of the consultation process. My Department is now analysing these submissions with a view to finalising a bio-fuels obligation scheme informed by the consultation process. I will be bringing a proposal to Government in the coming months, including introduction of the necessary legislation to put the bio-fuels obligation in place by the end of 2010.
Ireland's national bio-fuels obligation scheme will take full account of EU and global developments on bio-fuels and related sustainability criteria. Ireland is working closely with the Commission and other member states to ensure all bio-fuels placed on the European and Irish market are produced in a manner that does not harm indigenous communities, does not give rise to food security issues and that delivers real and worthwhile savings in greenhouse gas emissions. The trilateral discussions between Parliament, Council and Commission are coming to a close, and I expect to see the item on the agenda for the Energy Council later this month.
This process provides a critical opportunity to set realistic and worthwhile criteria to govern the bio-fuels sector as we move towards our 2020 energy in transport targets. Given that bio-fuels will form an increasingly important component of European transport fuels in the coming years, it is absolutely vital that these criteria are not alone robust and effective in protecting those most at risk in the developing world, but also set the agenda for further investment in more efficient bio-fuel production, and for investment in second generation bio-fuels.
Sustainable bio-fuels will play an important part in delivering the 10% renewable energy target for transport fuels by 2020. Electric vehicles will also play a key role in this regard. Through the full application of the EU sustainability criteria, the bio-fuels obligation scheme mechanism will allow us to ensure the bio-fuel we use is sustainably sourced, and evolving technologies will allow us to increase the penetration rate without any impacts on food prices.
The Minister might clarify what he means by sustainably sourced because I am not sure that bio-fuels will play an increasingly important role in terms of transportation fuel across the European Union, and he knows this as well. There will be a role for bio-fuels in the future but many are not quite sure what that role is.
I am also surprised the Minister has not mentioned the Government's bio-fuels pilot projects currently being proposed. My understanding is that the Government has incentives in place to encourage a certain number of people who are part of that scheme to produce bio-fuels into the future. Is that not the case? Could the Minister give us the detail of those pilot projects?
The concern in the industry is that by taking the current approach where there are pilot projects on bio-fuel production over the next number of years to address the issues of feasibility, viability and sustainability, we kill the rest of the industry. While the Minister gives a certain small number of producers of bio-fuels preferential treatment to get them going on pilot project schemes, nobody else will invest in the industry.
Go raibh maith agat.
I ask the Minister to address the immediate concerns of the industry in that regard rather than give a general answer on the future sustainability of first, second or third generation bio-fuels.
I thank Deputy Coveney. There are a number of Deputies offering.
To answer that question on what are sustainable bio-fuels, first, it is taking what are currently waste products and environmental problems such as tallow or vegetable oil from existing processing industries and turning them into an energy source. I see that as sustainable.
Second, the development of second generation bio-fuels — the technology must be delivered here — from algae or from other lignnocellulose material that currently cannot be transferred into bio-fuels but which scientists state may become a reality, would be a further sustainable source.
Third, if we are to use bio-fuels from land use, produced either at home but particularly abroad, rather than from the first two processes I mentioned, it is crucial that they be sustainable in that the emission reduction achieved is real, not as in the case of some corn-to-ethanol or maize-to-ethanol bio-fuels that have come, particularly from the United States, in recent years. They should not come from land use processes that themselves are unsustainable, either in terms of the effect on food prices or on the natural environment. The definition of sustainable bio-fuels is those that meet such criteria.
In the absence of us supporting the European Commission in this proposal, two things happen. The first is that the entire European climate change package falls apart or certainly encounters difficulty because the renewables component, of which bio-fuels is one component, is a central structure keeping the European package together.
The second, which is more crucial, is that while bio-fuels will develop regardless of what the European Union does, if it does not set targets and procedures, there will not be any sustainability criteria in place. Supporting the European Union targets is a way for this country to support proper standards in distant parts of the world because the European Union has the buying power to affect the standards that apply across the world.
The pilot scheme contracts were signed and cannot be unsigned. The reason I want to put in place a bio-fuel obligation scheme is that it will treat all people in the industry on a level playing field where as long as they meet such sustainable criteria they have the ability to supply the market. That is a better approach than the approach taken to date of grant-aiding or giving a tax break to particular companies.
But they cannot compete with the pilot projects.
I presume the Minister accepts that the meeting of targets requires a considerable amount of imported bio-fuels and the issue of traceability is crucial. I have been struck by the fact that when I raised this in the past the Minister was not even able to tell me what percentage of bio-fuels were imported as opposed to indigenous, let alone from where it was coming, and yet other countries and companies are able to set down requirements to ensure that ethical standards are met. We hear a great deal of talk from the Minister but, in terms of practical requirements on producers and suppliers, what will he do to ensure full traceability so we can be comfortable in the idea that we are not causing depredation across the developing world?
In the absence of a European Union agreement I do not believe it is not possible for any country in Europe——
I have here details of a Scandinavian company, Norenergi, which has specific requirements of suppliers. The Minister can look for it. It seems there is no difficulty.
In listening to what every European Government has to say, they are agreed that it is through European sustainability criteria that one is able to trace and monitor, under World Trade Organisation rules, the transfer of bio-fuels and to set proper standards for them. It is right for Ireland to attach itself, and to meet its interests in the sustainability criteria via such a European mechanism. For Ireland to try to do it alone would be incredibly difficult. Recognising that some of the fuels we import from the UK are already pre-blended with bio-fuel inputs, it is difficult for a country the size of Ireland to determine world trade rules in terms of bio-fuels.
On a point of information——
There is no such thing as a point of information but I am sure the Deputy has another question which she will ask briefly.
The requirement set out by Norenergi, which is a huge company, is that suppliers must meet written assurances on GMOs and palm acid distillate. It is that specific, it is a requirement and there is no doubt about it. This company is not waiting for any European flimflam; it is doing it now.
I am unsure if that is a question.
The planting of bio-fuels on good land is a crime against humanity and nothing will ever convince me otherwise. The products to which the Minister referred do not amount to anything but bio-methane could be hugely beneficial given the issues that have arisen in regard to the present numbers of bovine stock. We should be trying to turn negatives into positives. A number of bio-methane units have been developed through private funding but there has been no support from the Department nor has any analysis been conducted.
I know that a question is coming.
It is coming.
A loyal colleague.
This country's bovine stock numbers run to millions. Will the Minister consider making funds available to determine the size at which a herd can become a viable bio-methane unit?
I thank the Deputy for reminding me that the definition of sustainable transport fuels should include electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cells and bio-methane. I was pleased earlier this year to provide additional support to Irish agriculture for the development of schemes similar to those in place in Germany and elsewhere for anaerobic digestive processors that can produce bio-methane. Meeting our targets will require a range of supplies from existing waste products and Irish farms and other sustainable transport solutions rather than a big bang solution.
78 Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the consultations he has had with EirGrid on the viability of putting a new electricity grid structure underground as an alternative to overhead transmission lines; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43664/08]
117 Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources his views on the progress of the North-South interconnector; his further views on the findings of the ASKON report on undergrounding; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43616/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 78 and 117 together.
The Government's energy policy framework 2007–20 underlines the importance of ensuring the continued availability of reliable, secure and competitively priced energy supply. This is vital for the competitiveness of Irish industry and Ireland's long-term economic and social development.
In delivering on this imperative, the energy policy framework committed to the publication of a grid development strategy and to the delivery of the North-South and Meath-Cavan transmission lines and the east-west interconnector. EirGrid's grid development strategy, grid25, was launched on 8 October 2008. This sets out a road map for the development of the electricity transmission network for the next 17 years and aims to double the capacity of the national grid during this period.
The North-South and Meath-Cavan transmission lines and the east-west interconnector are interrelated projects which are of strategic national importance to Ireland. They will link Ireland to the wider UK market and facilitate competition as part of the all-island electricity market. They will also lead to major improvements in the reliability and quality of supply, both locally and nationally, to the benefit of business and consumers and will facilitate higher levels of renewable electricity penetration in line with Government targets.
While I have no direct role in regard to routes and the planning of transmission lines, I am mindful of the concerns expressed about specific developments and the development of the grid generally. To this end, earlier this year my Department commissioned an independent study on the comparative merits of high voltage overhead electricity transmission lines versus underground cables. I published the study in July 2008 and conveyed it to the Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.
The study concludes that underground transmission cables can be expected to have forced outage rates which are at least ten times greater than those expected of overhead lines. The consultants describe this as a severe limitation for underground cables and, consequently, underground cables do not compare favourably to overhead lines in terms of adequacy of the electricity transmission system and reliability of electricity supply. The consultants describe this finding as the dominating criterion when comparing overhead and underground technologies. They note that the associated negative impacts cannot compensate for any of the advantages of underground cables. The study also concludes that the cost implications of underground cable proposals are difficult to quantify but would be significant. Based on case studies conducted by the consultants, they state that the cost of underground cables would be approximately five times greater than the capital cost of overhead lines and three times the life cycle cost.
I am aware of the ASKON report commissioned by North East Pylon Pressure and I am advised that EirGrid is examining the aspects of this report that have been made available. EirGrid has also had a number of constructive meetings with North East Pylon Pressure. Arising from these meetings, EirGrid has stated that they would welcome an opportunity to meet the authors of the ASKON report to more fully inform its understanding of the basis for the report's conclusions. This engagement with North East Pylon Pressure is part of ongoing pre-planning application consultations by EirGrid on the North-South transmission line. In its planning application to An Bord Pleanála, EirGrid will be required to submit full details of its proposed route and technology selection, as well as a full environmental impact assessment. In addressing technology selection, EirGrid will provide An Bord Pleanála with a full report analysing the issues involved with undergrounding the 400 kV project.
EirGrid expects to submit a planning application for the North-South transmission line to the strategic infrastructure board in 2009. The target completion date for the line is 2012.
I thank the Minister for his reply but I disagree with much of what he said. He stated that he has no direct role in determining whether Ireland's infrastructure should go underground or over ground but that is not the case. He is the policy leader in this area. This issue does not solely affect EirGrid.
In Denmark, politicians and policy makers have agreed under a compromise arrangement that all power lines built in the future, including 400 kV lines, will be put underground. I understand that has been formalised in a new law. Let us have a frank discussion instead of saying it is EirGrid's problem.
The ASKON report will be——
A number of Deputies wish to contribute.
There are two questions on this issue.
I will explain the rules to the Deputy. Each Deputy has one minute, regardless of the number of questions asked, and I can call Deputies again. The Deputy has already used two minutes.
I will ask the Minister some brief questions. Has he read the ASKON report and, if not, will he read it and will he draw different conclusions to those drawn in the Ecofys report commissioned by his Department?
The Deputy misquoted me. I did not say I have no role but that I have no direct role in regard to routes and planning applications for transmission lines. The Department retains a policy role on how we develop our electricity supplies and network. That is why we commissioned an independent study on the merits of this clearly contentious issue. I have regard for that report, as well as the ASKON report. I have considered both reports.
Has the Minister read the ASKON report?
Yes. For the Deputy's information, I travelled to Denmark earlier this year, where I met the engineers responsible for the development of that country's transmission line. They had every interest in putting their 400 kV lines, which are similar to ours, underground. They desperately wanted to construct the interconnector because they are to Denmark's economic advantage in terms of the trade in energy between the north pool and the German markets. Similar planning concerns arose in regard to whether the lines should be installed underground or over ground. The engineers were pulling their hair out because they said, in an honest way, that it was not technically feasible to put them underground. This response is similar to the findings of the independent report commissioned by my Department. Deputy Coveney heard in committee from a professor of electronic engineering in UCD who is an independent expert and has no vested interest in the matter but who gave exactly the same answer. Transmission systems of this type and over this distance cannot be built underground.
A number of Deputies wish to contribute.
At this time of economic difficulty, we must recognise that the option of not proceeding with the transmission connections is to condemn certain areas of the country to being ignored for future employment opportunities. In regard to what the Deputy said earlier about being ambitious for electric vehicles——
I need to call other Deputies.
I will finish this point if I may.
I am aware of the need for an interconnector.
We will not be able to develop such systems in the absence of an electricity system that works.
I know the Minister wants to give information——
The Minister has never met those people.
——but a number of Deputies are still offering and I am very confined in terms of time.
I apologise.
Why does the Minister not meet the people concerned and tell them what he thinks of overgrounding? He is fairly clear in his statement and should tell them this. He has refused to even reply to their letters and they have received no correspondence whatever from him. The Minister has come in here with a clear position and yet he will not be up front and tell the people campaigning, who have gone to considerable expense and trouble to put forward what I believe is a very well-researched case. He is treating them with a certain amount of disdain. He should speak to them as they are being directly affected.
It is not disdain at all and I listen to and read any information provided by them.
Why does he not speak to them?
He might learn something.
I go back to where I started — I do not have a direct role in routes or planning.
Do not abdicate responsibility.
It would be disingenuous for a Minister in each individual case where contention arises to pretend he or she can come in like a white knight and solve a problem. There are contentious issues regarding building of transmission and distribution pipelines across the country. I cannot intervene in each instance and say I have a role in planning.
This is the test case.
As I stated in my response, I fully understand the concerns of the pressure group and have listened to the issues with no vested interest or in wanting to do them down——
The Minister should talk to them. They are nice people.
——or not meet any of the particular aspirations.
The Minister just told us that is EirGrid's role.
As I understand it, that pressure group has had a series of meetings with EirGrid and I hope some common ground can be realised where possible to achieve the aims of the group and EirGrid. There are good public policy reasons to try to deliver an electricity system for the area as well as the wider country.
As one living in the Border area I welcome that there will be a connection at some stage but we must make every effort to ensure the issues raised in the ASKON report and others be fully looked into. Will the Minister advise if he will make every effort in instructing that the ASKON report be discussed at the relevant committee level so that all aspects of it can be looked into? Will he ensure the rights of the people will be looked after?
When I met some of the EirGrid people, they seemed to have their mind made up. Is the letter sent by the Minister to Monaghan County Council definitive? The letter stated the process could not be underground.
I have a brief question to follow on from Deputy McManus's comments. Will the Minister meet with the north east pylon pressure group?
With regard to Deputy Crawford's comments, I support a discussion of the ASKON report at the relevant committee as suggested. One must recognise at the same time that it is a difficult, complex and technical area and one needs a detailed knowledge of the law of physics and how transmission networks work to do justice to some of the issues raised. I support the suggestion and any committee that would give time and attention to those difficult issues.
I fully commit the Government to the protection of the rights, interests and views of the people involved within the planning system, as well as their right to put forward alternatives.
The Minister has no option on that.
The Government is not blind or insensitive to people's concerns. We will always listen to such issues. In the first instance, it is appropriate for the group to engage with EirGrid, as it has done. EirGrid has the role of looking at the specifics of what is possible. I support the process rather than wishing to set up a separate process.
EirGrid has made it clear that the Minister is the policy man.
The Minister has no problem meeting with EirGrid but will not meet the people.
I prefer to support that process and wish both sides the best of fortune.
The Minister should not opt out.
It is important we get some agreement so we can deliver what we all agree is a crucial economic infrastructure for the stimulation of the country's economy.
EirGrid has no part in policy.
What of the letter to Monaghan County Council?
The Deputies opposite are always talking about economic stimulus packages.
The Minister is happy to meet EirGrid but not the people affected.
The Minister represents thousands of people but will not meet the people affected.
That is very telling.
One of the most crucial economic——
It is very telling that he will not meet the people directly affected by this major infrastructure.
That concludes our time.
——stimulus packages is in this area.
What of the letter?
The Minister should play his part.
Deputy Gilmore has talked about economic stimulus and might see it in action.
I thank the Minister.
The Minister should play his role.
That concludes Question Time.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
