Vol. 901 No. 1
40. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources when the roll-out of high-speed rural broadband under the national broadband scheme will commence; the minimum speed of the proposed service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44660/15]
As the Minister knows, broadband is the new highway. Many rural areas still have only 5 Mbps or 10 Mbps broadband. When will we see the physical roll-out of the rural broadband scheme? Will the Minister be absolutely clear on what speeds we can expect because it is inappropriate to talk about 30 Mbps, which is five years out of date?
The national broadband plan aims to ensure that every citizen and business, regardless of location, has access to a high-quality, high-speed broadband service. This will be achieved through a combination of commercial investments and a State-led intervention in areas where commercial services will not be provided. The commercial telecommunications sector is currently investing approximately €2.5 billion in network upgrades and enhanced services. These very significant investments represent a step-change in the quality of broadband services available.
Last November, I published a national high-speed coverage map for 2016. This map is available at the broadband website. The areas marked blue represent those areas that will have access to commercial high-speed broadband services. The amber areas show the target areas for the State intervention. All premises within the amber areas will be included in the State's intervention.
The map allows all members of the public, be they business or residential, to see whether their premises or home will have access to commercial high-speed broadband services by the end of 2016 or whether they will be included in the Government's proposed intervention. The high-speed map contains a breakdown of premises covered per townland.
It is anticipated that there will be speeds of at least 30 Mbps. I emphasise that it is at least 30 Mbps because occasionally this is misreported or misunderstood as being up to 30 Mbps. It is not up to 30 Mbps but speeds of a minimum of 30 Mbps will also be delivered through the Government's intervention and the network will be designed to cater for future increased demand from consumers and business. In other words, it will be future-proofed. Consumers can also consult the websites of the various commercial operators to ascertain details of current and future deployment plans.
Meanwhile, my Department continues to review the technical and financial detail relating to potential new commercial investment proposals. As I indicated earlier, I expect to proceed to formal procurement before the end of the year. The Government is determined to ensure that the network is built out as quickly as possible and engagement with industry stakeholders has indicated that this could be achieved within three to five years of the contract award. Some 85% of addresses in Ireland will have access to high-speed services by 2018 with 100% coverage by 2020.
The Minister has given a very long and comprehensive answer telling us everything we already knew. At the end of it, he began to address the issues. He said that by the end of this year, he will have taken step 1. When can we expect to see the physical roll-out of high-speed broadband under the State's intervention? Will it be in 2016 or 2017? Does the Minister intend to roll out from the most isolated areas inwards - in other words, from those areas where there is no question of commercial intervention? Does the Minister agree that in reality within a year or two years, it will be 1 Gbps and that 30 Mbps is totally obsolete in the modern world? Even 100 Mbps has been overtaken. What most people will demand and get in the future is fibre to their premises.
On the last issue the Deputy raised, I again emphasise it will be a minimum of 30 Mbps. The Deputy is correct. Given the exponential improvement in the technology and what is now possible, this sector is expanding and enhancing its services at a very high rate. What we expect of operators, and what we will do in the procurement process, is to understand from them how they will future-proof the network they will build in order to ensure it is not up to 30 Mbps but that 30 Mbps is the minimum and, as the technology improves, they will be able to upgrade the service they give to their consumers without building again, procuring again or anything else of that nature. It will start at 30 Mbps and go up from there. The Deputy is right that there is huge potential technology in regard to what can be achieved. That will be achieved and we will ensure we build future-proofing into the procurement process.
I thank the Minister.
I have already given the House information on the timescale. This is not step 1; this is step 3, as I have indicated. Step 1 was the publication of the map a year ago. Step 2 was the strategy in July of this year and step 3 is now the procurement process, which is about to begin. It will take three to five years to build the entire project.
I am sorry. We are over time.
We expect to cover 85% by 2018.
When will the physical build start? In other words, how long will the procurement process take? People want to know when they will be able to plug in their computers and get connected to proper broadband. Does the Minister not agree that if he wants to future-proof, he should specify 1 Gbps to everybody and be done with it? Specifying a minimum of 30 Mbps is obsolete already because what people need and expect is real high-speed broadband. The Minister knows how it is provided. It is a little bit of fibre in reality. Talking about being technology-neutral, real high-speed broadband cannot be provided other than by fibre.
I take the Deputy's point about fibre. However, we cannot specify a technology. We have to be technology-neutral.
The Minister can specify a speed.
Under state aid rules, we cannot do that. I agree with the Deputy that fibre is likely to be the technology we need to deliver these services but we cannot specify it. I have already told the House that we will go to procurement by the end of December. We hope to have a bidder or bidders in place by the middle of 2016. I have told them that it will take between three and five years to build the entire network.
When will they start building?
It will take between three to five years to build it.
When will it start?
It will take between three to five years.
We are over time now.
It starts next year. There will certainly be delivery of product in 2018 because I have given figures in respect of that. The last house will be covered some time before 2020.
I thank the Minister.
I accept that people are frustrated but when they have high-speed broadband, they will be very satisfied that we have done the right job.
41. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources his views on the wisdom of continuing with the Environmental Protection Agency study into hydraulic fracturing with terms of reference that are considerably out of date, given that 50% of research into hydraulic fracturing has been carried out since 2012. [44663/15]
This follows on from Deputy Colreavy's earlier question regarding the EPA process and fracking. I am not filled with confidence given the Minister of State's implacable defence of the process in the prepared answer he read out and then in the latter reply when he said he would give us an interim report, which completely contradicts the EPA head of research who in March of this year said there would be no interim reports.
I do not know how the Minister of State can defend the EPA given that it has been broadly exposed in the eyes of a lot of people on this matter. The solution is that the process should be called off.
It is important to emphasise that the EPA is independent of the Government. Instead of reading out the formal response I will take up the point made by Deputy Clare Daly. A decision was taken in 2011 to inform ourselves as policy agents and as legislators on the best thing to do on foot of the research and based on the best evidence available. I have taken a decision to approach the steering committee to produce an interim report. Deputy Clare Daly is correct that it was not part of the original thought process but it is important. The original timeframe was to have phases 1 and 2 completed by July 2016 and to dovetail them into a report in 2016. That is not going to happen. A tendering process has not been initiated for phase 2. In light of that, I am asking the steering committee to examine the significant body of evidence produced and to draw up an interim report and that will give us time to take stock of the information gathered. Deputy Clare Daly indicated in her question that 50% of research on fracking has been done since 2012 but we need to evaluate, take stock and produce an interim report to consider the information that has been garnered in the time afforded in the first instance.
The problem is that stock has been taken of this process so far by people with greater technical expertise than anybody in this House and we can say with absolute confidence and without fear of contradiction that fracking is a tainted process. We know, for example, that Queen's University pulled out at the start. We know that the Dáil was misled about the university's involvement in the process, having been told of its continued involvement in June 2015 when that was not the case. We know the role of CDM Smith Ireland, which was already highlighted in the previous question. In addition, we know that the peer-reviewed studies and information on this horrendous practice should lead us in the direction of saying "stop the runaway train", but from his response the Minister of State seems to say the EPA is independent - it has said it will not do an interim report but is ploughing on regardless - and that he will ask it to do a report. Does the Minister of State have the power to direct the EPA to do it? In light of existing evidence, why would he not just direct the EPA to stop because this does have the hallmark of becoming a runaway train? We know that the evidence produced since the terms of reference were written is that 69% of research on water quality found potential or actual contamination. Those are most serious issues and all of the peer-reviewed research says we should abandon fracking not just get an interim report.
Queen's University is still involved in a reviewing capacity but it was not able to commit to the original proposition for funding reasons. It is important to point out that the information is garnered on a cross-Border basis. Some of those involved include the British Geological Survey, universities in Northern Ireland, UCD and the EPA. We have a collection of expertise and they form the steering committee. I will make formal contact with the steering group and ask it to produce a review. That will happen. I have spoken to the officials and indicated I would like that to happen sooner rather than later.
A body of evidence is available from the information that has been garnered that will address my initial fears. When I got this post on the very first day I was answering a question asked by Deputy Colreavy and I put my reservations on the floor of the House. We are a small country and we have plenty of offshore capacity. We have had 42 expressions of interest for licences in terms of the Atlantic margin offshore. As to whether I have reservations about fracking, yes I do, and I want us to be clear and coherent in terms of getting the review and to take stock of the significant body of work that has been completed today, even though that was not part of the original terms of reference.
If the Minister of State has concerns I do not know why we are going ahead with fracking. It seems to be a case of I have started so I will finish, which makes no sense. Let us be clear about the involvement of Queen's University. At the Oireachtas joint committee last week the EPA admitted that it had misled the House in regard to the major change in the status of the involvement of Queen's University in the process. It promoted Queen's University with the intention of beefing up the supposed independence of the research study. That is a fact. It is on the record. It is undisputed at this stage. Throwing more money at the process at this stage is very irresponsible, in particular when 88% of the studies done since the terms of reference were put in place found that air quality had elevated pollutant emissions and 84% of the original studies on health risks found signs of harm or indications of potential harm to human health and yet the latter is not being considered as part of the research. The biggest problem with fracking is not even being factored into the equation. It is an absolute disgrace that the programme is continuing. If the Minister of State is steering the ship he should just throw the anchor over and not even allow it to sail forward any further.
Let us be clear, this is a significant piece of work that will be completed by the end of January. It will cover areas such as those mentioned by Deputy Clare Daly, namely, groundwater, surface water, associated ecosystem, seismicity, air quality, impacts and mitigation measures for project operations and a regulatory framework for environmental protection. Significant work is being done so let us find out what has been evaluated and researched and then inform ourselves as legislators.
As someone who lives in the north west and has plenty of contacts in south Donegal and Leitrim I have my own personal fears and concerns about the process. We are a small island with plenty of offshore capacity. In terms of geographical magnitude we are the fourth largest country in Europe when our sea area is taken into account. I acknowledge the legitimate concerns of people in this House and within the communities that could be affected. I have asked the steering committee to produce a mid-term review and to take stock of the findings we have in the first instance.
42. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the extent by which he expects to reduce dependency on fuel or energy imports with particular reference to the utilisation of non-fossil fuels as a means of achieving national fuel security and reliability, and to reduce dependency on fossil fuels over the next ten years, by year; if this is in line with projections and requirements; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44819/15]
The question attempts to focus on emerging needs in terms of renewable energy, in particular in the aftermath of the Paris conference on climate change and the extent to which it is possible to put in place a structure that will stand the country well in the future.
The overarching objective of the Government's energy policy is to ensure secure and sustainable supplies of competitively priced energy to all consumers as our energy system undergoes the radical transformation required to meet our climate change policy objectives. A well balanced fuel mix that provides reliable energy, minimises costs and protects against supply disruptions and price volatility is essential to Irish consumers as we make this transition. By 2050, greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector will be reduced by between 80% and 95%, compared to 1990 levels in line with the EU objective. By the end of the century in 2100 our greenhouse gas emissions will have fallen to zero or below. While fossil fuels will remain a progressively decreasing part of the energy mix as we transition to a largely decarbonised energy system by 2050, significant progress is already being made in increasing the share of renewables in that mix.
Our immediate focus is on the period to 2020. In addition to the EU's 2020 targets for emissions reductions, the 2009 EU renewable energy directive sets Ireland a legally binding target of meeting 16% of our energy requirements from renewable sources by 2020. Ireland is committed to achieving this target through meeting 40% of electricity demand, 12% of heat and 10% of transport from renewable sources of energy, with the latter transport target also being legally binding.
Figures provided by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, show that, in 2014, 8.6% of Ireland's overall energy requirements were met from renewable sources. More specifically, the SEAI has calculated that 22.7% of electricity, 6.6% of heat and 5.2% of transport energy requirements were from renewable sources in 2014.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. To what extent does he anticipate each of the alternative energy sectors will provide a growing amount of reliable energy without displacing food production in general? To what extent does he expect to be able to rely on a reduction in importation of all energy resources, particularly fossil fuels?
According as we increase our renewable portfolio, we are not only doing the work we need to do in terms of replacing fossil fuels, but renewable energy is indigenous and does not require us to import any fuel in order to generate, for example, electricity. At the same time as replacing fossil fuels, and replacing dirtier fuels and fuel inputs, we are also reducing our dependence on imports. I can let the Deputy have some information on that. I gave some numbers to the House earlier in respect of 2014. This process will continue. The period to 2020 will be challenging but we were ahead in the energy area and I believe we can meet the 40% target in respect of electricity by 2020. It will be more difficult in the area of heat and more difficult again in the area of transport. I have responsibility for the energy sector but there will be challenges also in the agriculture sector and across the board.
Is the Minister satisfied with our ability to be able to identify and quantify precisely the distinct role that hydropower, wind energy and the other renewables will play in energy production in the future, having regard to the need to have a reliable and unquestionable source of energy?
There is a discussion on these matters in the White Paper, which is due for publication tomorrow. It contains a discussion of the contribution that can be made by the different renewable sources. We have hydropower here but we do not have huge potential for its development in terms of large-scale projects. Onshore wind energy has proven to be very cost-effective but it is the not, and cannot be, the full story. Solar energy will have a big part to play, it is becoming cheaper all the time, and there are some very interesting and exciting developments in the area of storage which will make it easier progressively for us to expand our renewable energy portfolio. Biomass will certainly have a role to play, more likely in the heat sector than in the electricity generating sector. Offshore wind will have a role to play in the future; it is more expensive and is very much at the early stages of development. Many of these technologies need to mature and when they do I think they will come on board. Wave and tidal energies are also at early research phases. We will have a good discussion on this in the White Paper. We need to have a plan and we have a plan. We also need to decarbonise our economy and renewable energy is a huge part of that.
43. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the status of the introduction of a domestic renewable heat incentive to stimulate biomass demand, and given the Conference of Parties 21, if he will implement policies to further develop the biomass industry as part of Ireland's contribution to tackling climate change; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44806/15]
Will the Minister comment on the introduction of a domestic renewable heat incentive to try to incentivise the biomass industry and to meet our renewable energy targets, particularly in light of the COP21 negotiations last week
The 2009 EU renewable energy directive set Ireland a legally binding target of meeting 16% of our energy requirements from renewable sources by 2020. This is not without its challenges, as I have said, particularly in the areas of heat and transport. The potential of the bioenergy sector to make a significant contribution in this regard is well recognised. I published a draft bioenergy plan in 2014 which was, in part, designed to capture this potential through the development and introduction of measures to encourage the growth of Ireland’s biomass and bioenergy sectors. One key demand-side measure identified in the plan was the introduction of a renewable heat incentive, RHI. Following analysis of various options, including increased carbon taxes, the option with the least modelled cost is an appropriately focused renewable heat incentive targeted at larger commercial and industrial heat users, at least in the first instance, and not at the domestic sector.
As part of the process to design an effective RHI scheme, my Department published the first of three consultations in July this year to identify a range of technologies in the heating sector. Currently, all responses to this first consultation are under review. Two further consultations are expected in 2016 in order to finalise the new RHI support scheme subject to Government approval and state aid clearance from the European Commission.
The current renewable energy feed in tariff, REFIT, 3 support scheme is designed to incentivise the use of biomass and bioenergy. This support scheme has already stimulated growth in the Irish biomass sector and the SEAI have reported that in 2014 the overall use of biomass grew by 13.2%. There is little doubt that shifting from fossil fuels to sustainable biomass and bioenergy more generally can help reduce overall emissions and tackle climate change.
I thank the Minister for his reply. It is clear that the contribution will be solely driven by the commercial sector and the large industrial users and it seems that those are the sectors the Department is targeting in terms of incentivising production. It is vitally important that we meet the heat targets set. The Minister pointed out that we are only reaching 6.6% of renewable energy production through the heat sector. We need to target domestic users. There are more than 2 million homes in this country, the vast majority of which are heated by fossil fuels - by oil and gas. If we are serious about achieving the targets and getting buy-in from the public in terms of tackling climate change and meeting our renewable energy targets, the Government needs to incentivise domestic users. There are organisations around the country, such as the Donegal woodland owners co-operative which are developing models and market streams for wood as a fuel for households, and they would benefit greatly from a domestic incentive that would encourage more farmers to go into the area of forestry, develop it and create jobs in the rural sector. It is vitally important for the Minister to encourage that.
I appreciate what the Deputy said about the domestic sector. We have large industrial users in place in the country. We might not like many of these big operations and companies and so on but there is no point in us believing that we should not bring them into the picture and ensure that we incentivise them. I understood that was the point the Deputy was making with respect to a cut at the larger users and I apologise if that is not what he meant. He is right about the domestic sector in that we need to incentivise it.
The analysis we carried out suggested that it would not be cost effective at this stage to include the domestic heating sector in the RHI scheme. This is due to a number of factors, including the much higher support tariff per kilowatt hour of energy that would be required to incentivise households to change heating systems as well as the significantly greater cost associated with administering the scheme for a large number of households in what is an unregulated sector compared to the approximately 3,000 or so commercial and industrial installations envisaged for the scheme. However, there is much we can do in the domestic sector. Electricity has a role to play. Traditionally, we have shunned the idea of electric heat, for reasons that we all understand, in that we regard it as expensive and so on. There are many outstanding new developments happening in the sector where we can see that electricity can, in many ways, be the answer, or one of the answers, in the domestic environment.
I was not saying that the industrial users should not get an incentive. I would argue as to whether they require an incentive because in drawing up their financial plans for the future they can see that there will be a return on it. However, domestic users would need an incentive not only in terms of meeting our targets but stimulating an industry across rural Ireland that could develop, grow and provide jobs. That is where the importance of providing a domestic incentive comes into the equation. The Government has decided that it will incentivise business and the business sector gets many incentives. It is time for the householder to get an incentive and for domestic renewable heat production to be incentivised.
We would like to try to do both. In terms of the scale of what we are proposing and the analysis we have done in regard to the RHI, it would not be suitable at this point to direct the RHI scheme into the domestic sector. There will be much that we can do in the domestic sector. We will discuss this in the White Paper which is due to be published tomorrow. We will publish an affordable energy policy early in the new year. A huge amount of work has been done in that area in regard to energy efficiency. There is a massive amount that we can do in the domestic sector. I agree with the Deputy on that. It is just that this scheme may not be the most appropriate one to address the domestic sector, but biomass will definitely have a role to play.
44. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he will consider a complete ban on hydraulic fracturing given renewed efforts to mitigate climate change; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44822/15]
There are many health and environmental reasons to ban fracking completely and I will introduce a Bill to that effect in the House on Thursday. In the aftermath of the Paris summit and all the aspirations and promises to deal with and prevent further and dangerous runaway climate change, is it not simply a requirement that we ban fracking in order that Ireland does not contribute to generating more fossil fuels that will damage the global climate and environment? If we are serious about those commitments, should we not just grasp the nettle now, ban fracking and not progress this further?
As the Deputy may be aware, the EPA has commissioned a research programme into the potential impacts of unconventional gas exploration and extraction on the environment and human health. This all-island programme of research, which is being administered by the EPA, comprises five interlinked projects and involves field studies as well as an extensive desk-based literature review of unconventional gas exploration and extraction practices and regulations worldwide.
This scientific research programme considers existing baseline data with respect to groundwater, air and seismicity, and the potential implications and mitigations that are required to be considered to understand the environmental impacts of using this technology and whether it can be undertaken in an environmentally protective manner, in accordance with the requirements of environmental law. The programme has been designed to produce the scientific basis, which will assist regulators, North and South, in making an informed decision about whether it is environmentally safe to allow unconventional gas exploration and extraction. As well as research in Ireland, evidence from other countries will be collated and considered.
As I have stated on a number of occasions, and I would like to once again confirm, no application to engage in such exploration and extraction has been received in my Department, nor would any such application, if submitted, be considered until the research programme has concluded and there has been time to consider its findings.
On the Paris summit, which the Deputy raised, any policy decision will be taken in the context of the objective of achieving a low carbon energy system by 2050.
In response to questions I put to them at a joint committee meeting last week, EPA officials made the extraordinary admission that following the survey that is being carried out, they will still be unable to tell us whether fracking is a danger to human health. That begs the question: what the hell is the report investigating?
It is also extraordinary that on all the key environmental impacts that are being examined, CDM Smith and Amec Foster Wheeler - one an existing member, and the other a former member, of a pro-fracking coalition - are the lead forces in this study. It is hopelessly compromised by their relationship with the oil and gas industry.
Is it not obvious that from a global climate and environmental point of view, fracking means producing more fossil fuels, which will do more damage to the environment and make it more difficult to meet climate change reduction targets and, therefore, if we want to be serious about contributing to preventing runaway climate change, fracking should be banned? The Government should forget all these useless compromise studies and just ban fracking.
No applications have been submitted and even if they were, they would not be accepted because it is clear fracking is not allowed. I want to give the steering committee time and space to consider the possibility of producing an interim report. The committee has produced a significant body of work and the research has been conducted on a joint basis. I have long been an advocate of North-South co-operation and I am delighted that universities in Ulster, the British Geological Survey, UCD and the EPA are sitting around a table examining this research. We will learn from that and I am asking and encouraging the EPA and the steering committee to produce an interim report at the end of January.
Amec Foster Wheeler is a member of a pro-fracking coalition. It has a hopeless conflict of interest, as has CDM Smith given it is a former member of that coalition and its primary business is with large oil and gas companies. How can the Minister of State seriously suggest they can give independent assistance in looking into this issue? Is it not beyond question that fracking, which will produce more gas, will contribute to global warming? Why would we not just stop it now?
The company was selected independently and the EPA dealt with that at the joint committee meeting.
