I welcome the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and his officials, Ms Sara White, deputy secretary, and Mr. Martin Finucane from the Department.
Report on Electricity Needs: Discussion with Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.
I very much welcome this opportunity to come to the committee. Taking a lead from the letter of Monday, 3 March last, I understood the main area at which were are looking is meeting our electricity needs post 2020 and that is what I will concentrate on in the short presentation. If there are other questions, aspects or details, we can come to them.
I prepared a brief overhead presentation. With the Chairman's forbearance, it might take ten to 15 minutes to go through. I asked if we could get a flip chart because I do not have everything in graphic form that I might want, but I am told it may not be possible to get such technology.
It is too high-tech.
Unfortunately, it may not be possible. If it is not, we can talk through what we are doing.
I set out an opening slide on Ireland as Europe's energy exporter. This is Ireland's opportunity. Fundamentally, if we are looking beyond 2020, and to the long term, which we must in the case of energy, we must start thinking of ourselves as an energy exporting country. That is our potential. I want to set out briefly my sense of where we are in that regard or what is the opportunity.
I want to show a slide which gives a useful sense of what was happening in the European market in 2009. It shows that roughly 10 GW of wind capacity has been added to the European system. It shows gas next, at approximately 6,000 MW, and PV, and it goes on down. Nuclear decreased by 1,500 MW.
It is important to remind ourselves that this renewable is the big deal, the real deal. It is where all the money is going, where all the technological development is. All the concentration on infrastructure is in this renewables area, and we have some of the highest renewables resources in Europe. Those figures are a real indication of what is happening and where investment is going. That underscores the opportunity I see that we have.
On offshore wind resources, Mr. Brendan Halligan and Mr. Grattan Healy, both of whom are involved in the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, have given me some background material, all of which is from published sources, which I found useful. The figures here need not be exact as we are thinking in the long term and it is more to do with concept. We have in the near shore a potential for 1,000 terawatt hours per annum of offshore wind. This is 30 times our electricity consumption. This underpins the possibility of Ireland becoming an exporting country. With regard to deep offshore, if some of the investments being made in wave, tidal and offshore distance wind, come through, then this could be multiplied. The opportunity and the scale of our resources is significant. Not only is the scale of the resource large but the wind speeds and capacity factors are higher than elsewhere in Europe. We can continue to be the lowest cost producer in Europe. We have a comparative advantage compared to other economies. This is a crucial factor for our long-term strategy.
Did the Minister say we are the lowest cost producer?
I will give the Senator an example. Our feed-in price now is approximately 6.5 cent per kilowatt hour for wind. In Germany the cost is 9.5 cent because their wind speeds are so much lower and they have to apply that higher support price to make the projects bankable whereas we can bank them at 6.5 cent on onshore wind. We have a comparative advantage with onshore wind. The offshore wind speeds in the North Sea and the Baltic are quite strong and match what we have in the Irish Sea in many instances. In general, our capacity factors are way ahead of what they would be in other countries. In County Donegal, for instance, a turbine farm plant works at 40% capacity and a typical German or central European plant might be 20% capacity. We have twice the potential for every given turbine compared to European destinations.
We also have a contiguous market which is very large and which includes all the big economies of western Europe within 2,000 km, Germany, France, northern Italy, Spain. This near market is another advantage. China is currently transporting wind power over 2,000 km. The technology is developing and allowing this to happen. As well as having one of the largest resources, we have a very large near market with a potential demand for such product. The distance to the market is becoming less of a technological problem. High voltage DC technology can transmit power over long distances with minimal losses. This gives us the potential to sell into that market. This is a rapidly developing technology and some HVDC technologies did not exist two or three years ago. The level of investment and engineering means we can expect that transmission technology to continue to improve.
The cable being built between north of Dublin and north Wales is probably the leading technology, the latest advanced version of the technology. It is carrying 500 MW capacity, the capacity of some of our largest power stations being carried through a cable the width of a pen. These are the new technologies in submarine HVDC cables.
The technology is important and what can or cannot be done is controversial. Point to point HVDC technology really works. It is very different when building an onshore transmission system. This may be a subject for another time but unless we build our onshore grid, which will not be sub-sea, which will have different characteristics, then it is all to no avail in my view because we will not have a cheap power to power our economy and we will not have jobs across the country such as those announced today. High-tech industries will not locate to areas which do not have a good transmission grid. What HVDC technology is very good for is point to point long distance connection to provide power from a distant supply source into a grid and on into the transmission system.
Europe is increasingly interested in the development of this power resource and the development of a grid to tap into it as a key strategic infrastructural investment. It will join up electricity markets which is what is needed. In recent years and because of the Russian-Ukranian gas crisis, it has become obvious that a divided, fractured, fragmented Europe, is weak. Neighbouring countries selling us energy will just play one off against the other. I am supporting the move of the European Council of Ministers towards more integrated markets. This will happen on a regional basis, with the development of the likes of Mediterranean solar power industry and the North Sea, Irish Sea, Atlantic and Baltic becoming centres for an alternative power supply so Europe is not reliant on Russian gas and is not vulnerable and has its own integrated power supply. Within that regional context Ireland has a particular opportunity to work on a Celtic grid in the Irish Sea, working with our near neighbours in the United Kingdom, as a first step towards working in a north-western European integrated grid system.
Eddie O'Connor of Mainstream Power, formerly of Airtricity, has been championing the idea of a supergrid for a long time. It is starting to have real purchase. It shows the real possibilities that exist when there is a connection between the large hydro resource of northern Scandinavia with the significant wind resource in the North Sea, the Irish Sea and the western Atlantic waters. The HVDC technology allows all these resources to be connected. This technology needs to develop but in the long term and bearing in mind our indigenous energy resource, the technology already developed in offshore wind and in HVDC shows it is possible for us to tap into this.
Other developments in the EU include in Denmark where on occasions, approximately 100% of its power comes from green, variable electricity. Already there are occasions when up to half our power is coming from green electricity, from renewable electricity. A total of 15% electricity from renewables was the target for this year and we have passed that target. Most of this, a total of 13%, comes from wind energy and 2% from hydro energy. We are about second place in Europe in terms of wind integration so we are reasonably far advanced and we know that our objectives of 40% renewables by 2020 will put us ahead of Denmark as the leading country in terms of renewals integration.
Offshore development is being taken very seriously in Europe. The UK Government plans 33 GW of offshore wind by 2020. This is very ambitious. Germany plans for 6 GW in the North Sea. There is beginning to be a deployment of economies of scale as countries such as Germany, Denmark, France and the UK develop this offshore resource. They have to develop it because they do not have the onshore capability we have. They do not have the onshore wind speeds so they are going offshore. Germany is going 80 km offshore to look for the wind whereas we have it on our door step and as a result, Germany is developing offshore technologies. The United Kingdom is stopped at about 5% or 6% renewables penetration, less than half our rate because they are unable to get the planning system to work onshore. We have a comparative advantage onshore but we need to tap into the offshore developments occurring elsewhere.
Our main location initially, our near-shore location, is in the Irish Sea. We have a comparative advantage there in terms of good wind speeds and good shallow water areas which are close to the shore but not too close. We also have the experience of the Arklow Banks, one of the first of the offshore projects and which works. We are collaborating with our Scottish and Northern Ireland colleagues on the Isles project in the Irish Sea. A detailed study is being undertaken to find out how to run a HVDC cable down through the Irish Sea and how to connect it up with further integration with the UK. We are building an east-west interconnector from north of Dublin to north Wales. EirGrid has completed a major study on integration and the economics of further integration. It shows that the flows would be very good and both systems would balance, with power going both ways. At a time when the wind is quiet we would be able to import power. At a time when the wind is strong here we would be able to export it. As well as the two interconnectors we have, the Moyle interconnector between Scotland and Northern Ireland and the one we are building which will be completed in 2012, it may make much sense for us to build perhaps two further interconnectors with the UK and also interconnection directly with France. All the modelling and analysis we are doing is showing that starts to make sense. One can start to see a grid develop in the Irish Sea, a kind of cross grid where the North-South HV-DC line runs underwater and there are lines running power across east-west at the same time. We are doing some very detailed analysis of the engineering requirements and the economic aspects. We have some serious reports done. We will get a very clear indication towards the end of this year or early next year as to how we do it. We are well placed and fairly well ahead of most other European countries in getting ready for and developing this grid and getting the economics right.
That covers our near onshore, particularly on the Irish Sea because we have a sandbank that runs down the perimeter of the east coast. We also have great potential offshore. Atlantic wind speeds have been higher. There is an integration opportunity between what we are investing in wave and tidal energy and in offshore wind energy. The grid connection we are building out from Belmullet has the potential not only to tap into wave power, where we have the best wave resource in the world, but if this offshore technology develops which can survive in such harsh climates we can then do a dual development. We would run a grid out from Belmullet down the west coast and into Foynes or Moneypoint which would then be back onto a very good transmission connection into the Irish system. We could start to develop wave technologies and offshore wind along that grid, which has enormous potential. This will probably happen in ten or 15 years. However, we need to start planning for it and investing now as we are doing. We are building out to Belmullet so we are making the investment. It is a risky investment. We are uncertain about the technology and it is a long-term play. It is worth taking the risk because if it works the potential is great. There are many companies doing it and we are not alone. The Scottish, British and Portuguese Governments are doing it. There are devices being built in every country by the largest engineering and utility companies in the world which believe this is worth considering. If one of those devices works then our potential in the medium to long term is great. That is the big picture of where opportunity lies.
I appreciate the Oireachtas committee is considering the long-term view. Phase one will cover the next ten years. I have always said the opportunity in that time is approximately 2 GW. We need to build 4 GW onshore. If we do not build that, the country will be in deep trouble because our electricity will be expensive. If our electricity is expensive we will not attract the digital and pharmaceutical industries and will not get the food industries working well here. We need cheap power for the new economy. We will do it through onshore wind because it represents our biggest comparative competitive advantage. We need to build a grid to get to it and if we delay we will lose jobs throughout the country. That 4 GW of onshore wind is crucial. However, even in the timeline between now and 2020 we should build the capacity to produce approximately 2 GW of offshore wind power. That will allow us to meet our European 40% targets. In fact we would be able to exceed them. It would build up the technological expertise in the area and allow us to start to build up some of the supply bases, to use and develop our ports, including at Harland and Wolff, Rosslare, the west coast and Killybegs. That should be our ambition for the next ten years.
Phase two will be the 15 years from 2020 to 2035, for which we need to start planning and investing. We should set ourselves a target of approximately 1 GW a year and then from 2035 really ramp it up when these offshore wind, wave and tidal technologies work to go to 2 GW per annum. While it is long term it is not that long term — I hope it will be within my lifetime. Within that time we should have a 50 GW industry and will be able to export. That is the scale of what we should be considering.
I shall now outline some rough output figures. No one can be certain what might happen in this sort of timeframe. If we were producing 50 GW of offshore wind energy and were exporting it all, which we could do on the interconnectors we are going to build and which makes sense for us anyway to allow our onshore system to work more effectively, we would have approximately 6 TW-h, terawatt hours, of power to sell. The gross revenue for the companies would be approximately €1 billion a year over a 20 year lifespan. It would create approximately 600 jobs in operation and maintenance primarily in harbours along the east coast and approximately 6,000 construction jobs. They might not all be located in our country; someone may well sail across from Liverpool. It is not possible to be precise in this. We will need to buy in much of this technological expertise. However, there will be approximately 11,000 supply chain and construction jobs.
We can think of 2050, which is again long-term thinking. The scale of the market share is interesting. If we are producing 50 GW of offshore install capacity, 150 TW-h, it would be approximately 2% to 3% of that market in Germany and the UK, which is not enormous. We would not be a threat to anyone. We would not undermine the British or German electricity market. As part of the European market it would be 1.5% or 2%. However, for us as a country it is €10 billion to €20 billion in earnings. To put it into scale, agriculture currently brings us approximately €8 billion. We started this process 50 years ago in agriculture. T.K. Whitaker or someone had the bright idea that because grass grows quicker here than elsewhere, we should build up a food industry on the back of that. We built up a dairy and meat industry that brings us in approximately €8 billion of gross revenue. This is a similar opportunity. We need a similar vision over a similar timeline in terms of developing the resource and it represents a much bigger opportunity for the country in terms of hard cash coming into the country and improving our balance of payments. I would be careful about the jobs figure, because as I said there will be jobs throughout the chain not all of which will be here. Agriculture employs approximately 120,000. The potential scale is bigger for this.
I am just setting out the ambition to become one of Europe's largest energy exporters to exploit the potential of the sea in wave, wind and tidal energy and sell into an increasingly integrated European electricity market. We will be increasingly integrated with the UK. We are already dependent on that country for the gas price, which sets our electricity price. Independence as an island nation for energy would not be clever for us; we are going to be increasingly integrated.
I shall give some examples of what is happening. People might have seen that nine European Union countries and Norway signed off on a north-seas countries initiative. It was a political statement from these ten countries outlining that we wanted to develop this offshore grid and that we will work in collaboration to make it happen. We have a common vision of this being one of the main energy suppliers for Europe. We plan to co-ordinate our offshore infrastructure. We intend to agree a memorandum of understanding by the end of this year. While it is a long-term project we need to start planning for it now. It builds on work that has already been done in the European Union under the last Commission on the strategic energy technology plan and on the work that is done on the climate change package. The clear indication of commitment within Europe contained in published Commission documents and Council of Ministers decisions that we want to invest in offshore energy and wind energy in particular allowed the framework for this political initiative for ten countries to come together and make this happen. The Spanish Presidency has it pretty much right and even though Spain is not a member of the group it is very committed to integrated grids. Belgium will assume the Presidency next and is absolutely committed to this. There is strong political commitment behind it, including from Ireland at the Council.
We need to develop our relationship with our neighbouring island first. Approximately 18 months ago the British-Irish Council agreed to set up a special stream of work on the grid issue and also on the marine energy issue. We had a very positive meeting of the Ministers on Monday. The outcome of that was an agreement to exchange information on grid research and development. We had a presentation from the two transmission operators setting out their plans. The UK Government has a similar plan to ours on the west coast of the Irish Sea on the east coast of the Irish Sea and on the North Sea. We will share that work with the two grid operators working closely together.
We will also work together on regulation and planning consent. That is probably the most important issue because the market arrangements will be the most crucial. It is how one sets the regulation for the transfer of green credits that allows the electricity market systems to work and also the funding and payment of the interconnectors and the other grid infrastructure. We have agreed to bring in the energy regulators to the next meeting of the working group in July under the British-Irish Council to see how they are going to create the market conditions and rules for that to happen. Real political commitment is evident from all the governments and the European Union.
We are also going to influence EU policy on funding. I will explain why there is an urgent timeline around the plans. The European Union is committed to this type of project in the climate change package. It is starting to reassess its entire funding arrangements. From 2014 on we expect a different funding system. The EU will try to completely reconfigure the funding system to meet its wider objectives on climate change and other areas. We need to go to Europe late this year or early next year with our proposals on how we see European Union funding evolve. We should make a strong pitch that European Union funding should help us in building grids that allow us to tap into the power. That was the main topic at the European Council of Ministers meeting in Seville. It was also the main topic of conversation at the European energy Ministers Council meeting two weeks ago. We are pushing for European Union funding to go into the building of the super grid.
My argument is not an ideological one based on public versus private. I made the argument at the Council of Ministers level that for every €1 billion one spends on grid, one is likely to get €10 billion in private sector investment on bankable energy projects that sit on the grid. It is not a question of public versus private, but the grid in particular requires public funding because it is such a long-term, transnational investment that it is perfect for European Union funding. Our opportunity is to take the work we are doing with the British-Irish Council and within the European Commission working groups that have been set up to examine how we can develop the offshore grids in conjunction with the Department, the regulator and transmission companies. We must set out for Europe a vision as to how Ireland can play its part in the grid and how we see ourselves becoming an energy exporter that would help other European Union countries meet their renewables targets and create a significant employment opportunity and balance of payments benefit for this country. That is my vision of where we are going post 2020.
I seek guidance from the Chair. Are we dealing purely with post-2020 at this stage or can we ask questions on how we get there in terms of the practical arrangements?
Yes.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. I share many of his views in terms of what is possible for this country. I remember bringing Mr. Eddie O'Connor to the European Parliament when I was an MEP to give him an opportunity to outline his vision for a super grid and what he thought was possible. We got extraordinary interest at that meeting four years ago. It is true that the project has developed slowly since then and now it is almost becoming mainstream, certainly for countries in northern Europe, which is something I would encourage the Minister to continue to push.
I am on record as saying many times that this country can be an energy exporter in the future, that we have an extraordinarily competitive advantage in terms of the wind that blows across our island and the waves it generates. We need to harness that in a way that is cost effective and that can provide exciting solutions in terms of employment and economic growth for this country but also in terms of raising large sums of money by exporting that power. I agree with the Minister on all of those issues. Where I have a difficulty is in terms of the actual down and dirty policy making and decision making and the issues the Minister controls that are not performing at the moment in terms of making those things a reality.
Nobody doubts the Minister's commitment but the issue is getting the practical things done to make it happen. I have some questions in that regard. My first question relates to gate 3, which is the connection mechanism for up to 4,000 MW of wind between now and 2015, 2018 and 2020. We have a mechanism under gate 3 which essentially means that people who have planning permission and who want to build wind farms in order to get connected to the grid must get connection under the gate 3 mechanism. The process by which that works is that people who have been waiting are in a queuing system and the CER deals with that queue in sequence. As a result, the places on the island where we will be building wind farms is developer-led rather than led by the Minister. I have a big problem with that because we will have the cost and hassle of building grid connection to facilitate wind farms in a totally unco-ordinated way in terms of where they are placed, from the midlands to the west, the north west, south west, east and the Irish Sea on the basis of how long people have been waiting for grid connection as opposed to taking a strategic approach towards the parts of the island that have the best and most consistent wind speeds and that have the best chance of getting grid connection quickly.
I accept we cannot unravel gate 3 at this stage because commitments have been given and there is a legitimate expectation for developers to get grid connection. However, we need to learn lessons from that. As the Minister has outlined in his note, there are 11,000 MW of projects outside of gate 3 waiting for grid connection, much of which relates to wind. What are we saying to those people? Do we have any mechanism to connect them to the grid or will they have to wait until the gate 3 process is finalised? Would it not make more sense for us to designate and zone regions of the country centrally through the Department in consultation with the CER, SEI, the Marine Institute and whoever else the Minister wants to work with, that would attract investment in renewables, particularly wind, in the future rather than having a system that is developer-led which is resulting in us being unable to make the strategic grid development and investment programme that is necessary? Instead, we are being asked to roll out grid to facilitate developers rather than rolling out a grid to invite developer interest on the back of that. I have said that many times to the Minister. We are making the grid infrastructure investment unnecessarily expensive because of the way in which the gate 3 process works.
On microgeneration, literally every second farm in the country could be producing its own power. In fact, all of them could probably be producing their own power if we put a mechanism in place to help them do that. Essentially, we have a pilot project in place that gives people a feed-in tariff of 19 cent per kW hour for the first 3,000 units. Everyone, including people in the Department, accepts that this is a temporary measure but we need a more comprehensive approach towards promoting microgeneration. This is potentially a big employer because it involves putting up microturbines on farms, having gasification plants and mechanical anaerobic digesters to produce biogas to drive combined heat and power plants. Will the Minister try to deal with that issue as a matter of urgency so that we can encourage farmers and businesses to generate their own power where possible in a cost-effective way?
We have an insane policy. For example, one can buy a diesel-driven generator and reclaim VAT but if one buys a wind turbine, one cannot reclaim VAT. That is the kind of policy that frustrates me, especially when we have a Minister that has an impressive vision but its practical implementation is a problem.
I would like the delegates' views on energy storage projects. Spirit of Ireland, which met the Department recently, is but one of many really interesting energy storage project consortia. Several planning applications are about to be submitted for large pump storage projects in Cork and Mayo. Whether we want this to happen or not, it will happen. What is the Minister's view on it? He has been very shy about commenting on the part energy storage projects have to play in the overall energy mix. Instead of focusing on storage, we have relied on peat plants and interconnection to deal with the problem of intermittent wind. This is a mistake because storage, be it pump storage or storage of compressed air, has exciting potential in Ireland, including for the transport fleet.
I agree there is potential for offshore wind energy production. To give the impression we are on the right track regarding offshore wind energy projects is simply misleading. Most companies, consortia and investors who want to invest in offshore projects in Ireland are very frustrated. The people who own the turbines on the Arklow Banks want to build another 100 and would commence next year if they could be connected to the grid, yet we are talking at this meeting about development after 2025 on foot of which there will be a grid infrastructure between Ireland and Britain that will facilitate building turbines on the Arklow Banks. There are seven at present but there could be 107 if there were grid connection. Those concerned are not in the gate 3 process and are in limbo in terms of obtaining grid connection for a really ambitious project.
There is proposal for a 400 MW onshore wind farm in Mayo. The investors are being told they will have to wait for approximately eight years to obtain full grid connection to cater for the full capacity of the project. My issue, therefore, is not with where the Minister wants to take the country because I agree with him in this regard, but with the roadmap for getting us there and for connecting projects to the grid. It is a question of having a system in place that is not in a straitjacket like the gate 3 process. Thus, when we have developers with new ideas for increasing capacity, we will be able to connect their projects to the grid quickly rather than putting them in a queue that will force them to wait for eight years.
I encourage the Minister to remain as ambitious as he is in terms of what he wants to achieve. My party and I will certainly support him in that. However, many developers in Ireland at present are deeply frustrated. They have finance to develop projects and generation capacity but, because of grid capacity issues and the inability to obtain connections to the grid, they simply cannot proceed. Only a Minister and his Department can resolve that.
I welcome the Minister and compliment him on his presentation. He has shown vision on our long-term prospects for what can only be called an energy revolution. It is vital that we take the opportunities available to us. We are not the only country embarking or which has embarked on the shift towards renewable energy. There is a genuine fear that we are really not at the races when it comes to realising our potential. It is not for party-political reasons I make this point. Deputy Coveney shares my view that we have a common goal. How successfully are we enabling the realisation of that goal?
Our job as politicians is to develop public policy, but this policy can only really be tested by those to whom it applies. In this instance, we are talking largely about the private developers and investors, the innovators and risk takers. There is no doubt but that the response we are receiving in all kinds of ways comprises a message of frustration.
Although we are talking about a very lengthy timeframe, from 2025 to 2050, the Irish Wind Energy Association is saying the next nine months will make or break the sector's availability to deliver on the 40% target. There are immediate needs that are directly relevant to our long-term goal. When one talks to a developer who says it may take him up to ten years to develop an offshore wind project, one must question why there is such a gap between the ambition and the reality. Why are our administrative, legislative and regulatory systems so inadequate that such delays are envisaged by people who are keen to avail of the opportunities Ireland offers? We are concentrating on wind today although there are opportunities in other areas. However, we all recognise wind energy is the main renewable resource.
The chief executive of the Irish Wind Energy Association stated:
The importance of the green economy has been repeatedly stressed by the Government [...]. However, our members are growing frustrated at the increasingly difficult investment environment, which is complicated by a lack of co-ordination between official agencies.
We all understand the difficult investment environment. It comprises one issue but the other is the direct responsibility of the present Minister, in particular. It is unfortunate that other Ministers also have a role to play because it leads to fragmentation and more difficulties. This is the area on which we must concentrate.
The one criticism I have of the Minister's presentation, which was excellent, is that he did not deal with the nuts-and-bolts work that must be done if we are to realise our potential. With regard to our licensing regime, the one-stop shop in respect of which we produced foreshore legislation under our Chairman, Deputy Barrett, seems to be an essential method of ensuring development can take place.
The other area on which we should concentrate concerns the manner in which the Commission for Energy Regulation operates. It is quite mystifying that the length of time for which an application has been with the Commission for Energy Regulation determines whether one gets the go-ahead. It may be for litigation reasons or otherwise but it does not make any strategic sense. It calls into question why we need a commission for energy regulation if the duration for which one has been in the queue determines whether one gets the go-ahead. There are private developers who simply do not have sufficient resources trying to negotiate with semi-State companies that have sufficient resources to avail of an opportunity under the gate 3 process.
The operation of the system does not seem to make sense but that is only part of the problem. Administration, licensing, permission and the one-stop-shop proposal need to be addressed. These are the direct responsibility of the Minister responsible for energy. If one tables a parliamentary question on this, as I have done, one receives a reply referring to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Responsibility for the foreshore legislation had to be transferred from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and it took forever and a day. I am concerned that because we are dealing with another Department, with its own priorities, we will have continuous delays in streamlining the system and making it work in a way that is effective and appropriate to our needs. Will the Minister show the same vision in making that kind of change?
The report raises the point that legislation is needed to cover geothermal developments. The Minister of State expected legislation to be published in February but I have not yet seen any sign of it. The urgency to exploit our potential is not evident when it comes to introducing reforms within public administration. I hope the Minister will concentrate more on this. The message coming from those at the coalface – probably not the most appropriate of terms in this context – is that the system is not working to best advantage and that we need to get this right. The legislation presented by the Chairman dealt with many of the difficulties encountered.
Britain has been taking much greater initiatives than we have to harness offshore wind energy production. I note the concept of peak oil and a sudden drop in oil production, one not referred to very often. The various reports produced do not deal with this aspect of the energy portfolio. Has the Minister assessed the effect of peak oil in Ireland? While I know he is well aware of the issue, it is like the elephant in the room. If it is not a real issue, this should be stated; if it is, we had better prepare for it and understand its implications.
I share the Minister's vision. All committee members have tried to deal with the issues involved in a non-political way. For that reason, we produced this legislation on an all-party basis. I fail to see why some of its suggestions have not been taken on board.
It has taken 40 years to have our main cities linked by motorway. Can the Minister imagine developing an industry based on a Third World road network? The position is similar with the electricity grid. We have massive potential to create thousands of jobs and attract inward investment given to us by the Man above but we do not have a plan to build a proper grid network to harness it. A proper grid will be needed if we want to become involved in electricity production for export. If a development programme for the next ten years for such a grid is not produced by the Government, all this potential will go unrealised.
Will the Minister lead the way by establishing a working group for those involved in the wind and alternative energy production industry and the various Departments concerned? If he is not returned in the next election, at least his legacy would be this working group developing a programme for an infrastructure to enable this alternative energy industry to develop to its full potential. The energy Minister, whoever it may be, in the next ten years should lead this working group. Its work should be ongoing and led by officials overseeing this work. For example, for ocean energy production, harbour development is required on the west coast to hold the ships necessary to maintain such plants. In the education sector some institution should be introducing a skills programme to train engineers in alternative energy production.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government talks about spatial planning. We should have spatial planning for our seas. Up to 93% of our territorial area is under water and should be central to spatial planning. We must decide what part of our territorial area we will develop for ocean energy production. As Deputy Coveney rightly said, we cannot have bits and pieces all over the place. When the committee visited the Marine Institute, it was told in half an hour the ideal locations for such development. As the institute has surveyed the ocean bed, it should be used as a lead organisation.
A working group on alternative energy production should delve into every aspect of its development such as identifying suitable areas to be zoned for various projects, licence-issuing and auctioning. Irrespective of which party is in government, this working group should continue its work in order that investors would know it was in place.
I am delighted to hear about the super grid. It is the greatest export opportunity for Ireland and I encourage the Minister to keep seeking European grants to develop it quickly. If the European Union is giving us grant aid to build motorways, surely it could do the same for a grid that would make us self-sufficient in electricity production. The Senator might like to add a few words before I ask the Minister to respond.
I apologise to the Minister for being late. However, I was listening to the debate and I heard everything he said. I concur very much with the points made by my colleagues here, particularly on the time issue raised by Deputy Coveney.
I have raised these issues with the Minister privately and in public before. There are two points to start off with. First, I do not believe there is another Minister who has such a consensus of support behind him or her on all sides of the Oireachtas. That is not to be taken lightly. Irrational objections are not being made by anybody. However, the type of stuff one is hearing here gives rise to frustration. I was in escapist mood about ten days ago and rather than getting involved in anything Irish, I read a British newspaper. To upset my equilibrium on a long weekend, I read about the ten sites and £4 billion investment by the UK in northern Scotland. The Chair and I paid a visit to north Mayo some time ago, where we were given a complete briefing by some of the people involved in wave energy in particular, but also tidal and wind energy there. I have detailed notes of the meeting and I know I told the Minister about it at the time. They said we were leading in Europe on this at the time but believed we were going to be overtaken by Scotland. It is at least a year and half since the Chair and I made the visit, but on that day they showed us the Pelamis wave energy harvester, which was about to be connected to the grid off the Shetlands in Scotland. That is now in place.
To add insult to injury, the main company dealing with the tidal aspect, was an Irish company, OpenHydro, which we have dealt with here in the committee. I know what the Minister will say, since he knows my frustration about this, but I just cannot see why we are not doing this. The Chair and I walked away from a meeting with the Mayo county manager and from memory we held the view that the proposal for wind harvesting on the Bellacorick site would bring in 500 MW when it was in operation. We reckoned that this one county, without any reference to the Mayo gasline, could supply 20% of the country's energy needs at specific times during the year, everything going right. That does not deal with the issues raised by Deputy Coveney about the whole question of storage and the times when the wind is not blowing
It is important to recognise and the international evidence is clear that the wave height off the Mayo coast, which is on average 2.5 metres, gives rise to the most energy rich waves in all Europe. It is as good as any place on the globe. As the Minister said in his presentation, it is right on our doorstep to be taken on to the land, and we do not have to go 100 miles out to sea.
Some 20 years ago I believe I was the only politician in either house who defended Eddie O'Connor, the man who was too good to be retained in the Irish public service. We could not pay him enough to hold him. I recall being rubbished and ravaged by all sides at the time. We are at the same point again. I am looking at the super-grid here, but I am more attracted to Eddie O'Connor's proposal, not just for the super-grid, but also as regards the linked systems for harvesting renewable energy sources from Scandinavia right down along the Iberian coast and back into the Mediterranean, which will also be in place. I have the super-grid map up in my office here in Leinster House, but there is more to be done there. We are on a fulcrum now. If we lose this opportunity we shall never be forgiven. That is the point the Chair has just made.
On the point made by Deputy McManus, what do we say when somebody who recognises we are members of this committee raises simple questions, say, about the foreshore Bill and the legislation to allow for geothermal energy? It is a year since a man who runs a company in west Dublin was in here, who drills down 2 km to find water hot enough for district or general urban heating. His was the same problem that we dealt with in Tara Mines some 30 years ago, namely, because he goes down "sideways" he is now under somebody else's land even though he is 2 km or more down. He cannot get investors into that industry because they are not sure they have the rights to harvest the energy.
I know it is complex, but I cannot think of anything more important than us doing that, at the moment. We are champing at the bit here to support the Minister in making this happen. This is an extraordinary situation and we just do not know what needs to be done. The last time we discussed the geothermal issue and when we discussed the foreshore Bill, the Minister assured us – and I have no reason to doubt him – that this was in train, on its way and being developed. As Deputy Coveney said earlier, however, the people in Arklow are ready to do more. The last time I heard one of them being interviewed he was not sure which grid they might connect into. They might connect into the UK grid, which is why the proposal as regards the super-grid is so attractive.
We could lose out on the treble here. We could lose out not only in terms of industrial development and employment, and also as regards energy, but if it goes into the grid of another jurisdiction we also lose out in terms of carbon emissions and trading. There are all sorts of down sides to be considered. We – and I include the committee here as well as the Minister – are guardians of this resource and yet we are not delivering. Even though we are all in agreement it still has to be determined what has to be done to unblock the ideas that exist.
I do not want to reiterate all that has been said by the Chair but that is the frustration we have. The Minister must be experiencing this, too, when he meets different groups. People fax and phone in and one meets them at conferences and so on, when they ask about the delays. I cannot answer any more, since I do not know what the delays are. I completely support the points the Minister made on where we are going, but how do we move things on? How do we kick start matters from here?
Senator O'Toole's last point is important. We need consensus since this is a long-term project that will involve several governments. There is much concern in terms of some of the costs involved and others might believe it is too risky and that offshore energy is too expensive, arguing that we should not invest in going out into the ocean off Mayo, because it is risky. As good as the Pelamis device is, it is still not commercial, and so is not certain yet.
Send the Philistines into us and we shall deal with them.
I shall give the Senator some addresses, privately, later on.
Can the Minister clarify whether the opposition is from within the Cabinet?
No, there is understandable concern, sometimes, as regards the costs of offshore energy. The ESRI or other bodies might have raised concerns about offshore development because of the expense involved.
They are right to be concerned, but there are ways and means of doing it. There are cheaper and more expensive methods, and that is our job. There is consensus on the final objective.
It is important to build consensus around the economic opportunity. On what the Chairman had to say about the working group, there is such a body in place – under the leadership of Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, pulling in the grid companies, the marine institutions, the IDA and all the other parties that need to be there. However, it is time to build rather than just continuing in working groups. Many of the plans are in place, first onshore, which people are rightly addressing in terms of the onshore development industry.
The all-island grid study is an internationally recognised body of work, planning where we develop our grid. It shows how we can get more than 40% of our electricity from renewable energy sources in the next ten years. This was one of the factors in the Grid 25 study that our grid transmission company set out. It did exactly what we needed to do in determining where the grid should be built on foot of the analysis. It is a €4 billion investment project. We can raise the money for it and it is ready to go. The real difficulty now, however, is getting it built. I share the frustration Senator O'Toole referred to, particularly in terms of grid development. It is unfortunate that the closing date for submissions on the northside interconnector was two weeks ago, but there is still an opportunity for political parties to show their support for the development of this grid, which is the first and most crucial element in delivering the renewable energy we have. This may sound dull or uneventful, but without it nothing will happen. We would have expensive electricity and would lose jobs in other industries. It is not an easy task and it is understandable that significant public concerns have arisen in regard to it but I believe the benefits from developing the grid for employment in local areas and tapping into renewable energy supplies outweigh the negatives. I am frustrated at the delays that have occurred thus far. An oral hearing is to be held on the North-South interconnector in the next couple of months and a decision will issue later this year. If we do not proceed with it, we might as well give up the ghost and lock up the shop on our renewable resources.
That is not an option.
I know it is not.
We need to find ways of addressing communities' concerns.
I hope we can get support for it because it is the first key constraint on whether we get things done. The project is being progressed on the basis of the most detailed planning, the best long-term thinking and the leading engineering advice. The Scottish Government just made the decision to construct the Beauley-Denny line, which is similarly critical to that jurisdiction. I recently visited the Danish transmission company, which is experiencing the same problems. Our shared problems are not easy to resolve but we have to make progress on them.
In regard to those political parties which seek an all-island dimension, such as Sinn Féin, energy policy is being integrated on this island to a greater extent than in any other area.
Given that we have just spent three and a half hours on a discussion of the North-South interconnector, it is not the case that we do not care about it.
I am aware of that.
A legal process must be followed and political parties cannot expedite it. If the Minister wants to speed up the process, it is his responsibility to change the law. The system exists so that people can express their views. I do not understand his point, therefore. Political parties and representatives of local communities clearly have a role to play in the planning process.
I agree.
It is not that political parties are blocking the process.
We fully recognise that An Bord Pleanála must be allowed its independence but I am seeking support for EirGrid, which as the transmission company has the crucial task of building the grid. That is the first and biggest constraint to delivering on our objectives.
In regard to gate 3, while this is clearly a complex issue I am not sure that it is accurate to characterise it as developer led. It is largely wind-led because people will be going to the areas with the strongest wind capacities. We have an unfortunate history of moratoriums and uncertainty but I think we have overcome these problems in recent years. I recall consulting the Irish Wind Energy Association on whether it was satisfied that the gate 3 process was the right approach. The association believed that although it was cumbersome and complex, it should be implemented because it wanted to progress its development plans. We are building approximately 300 MW per year and, while we need to ramp that up to 500 MW, it is not as if we are failing to develop projects. I see the grid rather than financing as the key constraint and it will become a complete block within a very short space of time unless we progress our development targets.
I recognise that constraints arise from the planning system. Ocean planning in particular was deeply unsatisfactory. The delay in transferring it from the former Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was——
Scandalous.
Yes. However, it is now starting to work in a very different way in the latter Department and I believe real progress can be made on co-ordinating and planning not only off-shore developments but also the other difficulty that arises for developers where planning permissions are expiring and complex decisions must be made on whether certain stages have been reached. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has asked every county manager to be innovative in supporting the development of this industry and I am sure he will continue to investigate the legislative and other options available to him to give certainty to development projects.
I concur with Deputy Coveney regarding the opportunities that micro-generation presents for farmers. Our work in micro-generation is a step-by-step process, the first part of which was a pilot phase project which I am seeking to extend into other areas, possibly including larger micro-generation projects that will help farmers. If they are going to have wires on their land, they need to be able to get revenue from them in addition to the fees paid by transmission or grid companies. They need to see the potential of selling the power they generate as well as using it for their own needs. I am committed to doing further work in that area in the immediate future.
Can the Minister give us a timeframe for it?
No, I cannot.
Businesses are hanging on by their fingertips as they wait for a decision in this area to be made.
I have a sense of urgency on the issue and hope to act quite quickly. In terms of energy storage, Deputy Coveney mentioned Spirit of Ireland, the representatives of which I met two weeks ago. This issue is related to our long-term vision. If we develop ocean energy off our west coast, the volume of power may be so large that a point-to-point connection system will be needed alongside the ordinary transmission, particularly if we are exporting to the UK and French energy markets. The volume of power could present problems for the Irish transmission system. This, again, is a question of how one manages development within the timelines required for these developments.
Is the Minister referring to transmission from the source to markets outside the country?
West to east.
It is probably west to east. If, for example, wave energy can be successfully exploited, the grid could be developed along the coast in order to connect it but that would probably be done on a phased basis. My intuitive sense would be that the first phase would involve a connection from County Mayo along the west coast and into Shannon. Locations like Foynes present good port opportunities and transmission connections. Spirit of Ireland or any other large scale project will encounter the grid connection as a key constraint.
Deputy Coveney also spoke about the proposals to expand production on the Arklow Bank and the possibility of developing a connection from our section of the Irish Sea directly to the UK. I do not consider this option to be attractive in the long term for the Irish public because we may lose some of the benefits and flexibility in terms of powering our own system when the wind is strong on the east coast and weak on the west and the ability to manage green export credits. Furthermore, I do not think the public would be happy to see an offshore development in Irish waters exporting directly to the UK system.
We have no way of connecting it to the Irish grid.
The difficulty we face in connecting to the Irish grid arises from the reinforcement required in the Carlow-Kildare region to transmit power to the remainder of the system. Other offshore developments can take advantage of gate 3 connections. We are conducting a major study with our Scottish and Northern Ireland counterparts on the construction of a line that would run down the east coast of the Irish Sea and connect with east-west interconnectors and, possibly, the Isle of Man. Such a development would allow us to tap into these offshore sources. That is a better prospect than exporting Irish wind energy directly to the UK.
The developers of the Arklow Banks would have to wait in the hope that project becomes a reality.
I have advised them on an informal basis that I am not supportive of the concept of directing power directly from Irish waters to the UK market if we do not benefit other than through licensing arrangements.
I am speaking about the Irish market.
The difficulty again arises in terms of overcoming the crucial constraint of the grid.
Deputy McManus was absolutely correct to refer to co-ordination among agencies. A sense of urgency is understandably needed at all levels of the public service, from local government to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and State agencies. The city and county managers have recently joined our renewable energy development group, which gives us a deliberate point of contact. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is reviewing its planning system to ensure better co-ordination and the Minister is absolutely committed to the development of renewables technology.
Several people raised the issue of geothermal energy. The legislation will be available within a matter of weeks. It is a very sizeable Bill.
That is very good news.
There are 80 or 90 heads. The Department contains 270 staff and we are also preparing a large fisheries Bill. I am in the Seanad every second day with the bio-fuels Bill among other things.
Something will go wrong if we do not organise ourselves properly at some stage.
This is an example of where it would make great sense to employ outside help to put the Bill together; such is the urgency of it. This is a situation in which the flexibility of approach to which the Minister referred is required.
We employed a former civil servant who had retired for the specific reason of getting that Bill through.
There are large numbers of staff in the Department of Health and Children. Could the Minister not arrange to transfer some of those people to his Department?
As Deputy McManus stated, some flexibility would be useful.
This committee could prepare the legislation for the Minister.
It is coming. I refer to peak oil.
Given the current levels of unemployment such staffing costs are unacceptable. I realise there are expertise issues——
I am simply making the point that my Department is delivering the Bill on very tight resources along with the delivery of the bio-fuels, fisheries and gas safety Bills among others. We are not short of delivering legislative change.
Peak oil is a geological reality facing this country. We use 165,000 barrels of oil per day but there will be no energy source like oil in the future. It is the most energy-dense, transportable fuel. For example, sources are declining in the North Sea by 7% to 8% per annum, a real concern. Recently, I was asked a question about NAMA and I made a submission to the agency in respect of peak oil and its effect on prices, planning and a range of developments. I will put that on my website in the coming days such that people can have a look at——
It would be helpful to see that.
I will be pleased to share it.
There has not been much discussion on that matter.
No, but it is centre stage in my thinking. There are various reasons to do this. One relates to climate change and to ensure a reduction in emissions. Another is to achieve energy security and the third reason is because of the balance of payments and employment opportunities. This is a trading opportunity for the country. All three reasons are fully convincing.
Tomorrow I will attend the Irish Wind Energy Association. I realise people are frustrated that we are not building the sector more quickly and I share the sense of urgency. A recent European Wind Energy Association study showed what is unfolding. While our volume of power is small compared to other countries, as a percentage of power we are right up there at number two. We have met our 2010 target. Only very few other European countries have met the 2010 target. We are on target. We must speed up and increase from 300 MW per year to 500 MW and then we must get to 1,000 MW or 1 GW per year. This is the vision I have set out and we can achieve it. The greatest challenge is probably market economics and the greatest opposition will probably come from economic commentators who will be concerned about how the market economics of it will work. We must negotiate on the details, especially with our UK and French counterparts.
A developer seeking to develop an offshore wind energy project stated it could take up to ten years to go through the red tape. Does the Minister not see this as something for which he must take responsibility and which is a blockage?
We have built approximately 1,500 MW of wind energy in the offshore sector. There is approximately 1,200 MW in gate 2, which has all necessary grid connections and is simply waiting to move to the next stage of development.
That is on land.
We have approximately 4,000 MW in gate 3, and the relevant companies are receiving offers. That figure includes such offshore projects as Kish Bank, which is only seven or eight miles from here and due to be connected to the grid in 2013. That is a real grid connection time line that could be built upon. The situation is similar with Oriel. Such projects must be seen as only the beginning of a much more integrated development. Crucially, in the offshore sector we have recognised that we must completely reconfigure our planning system for offshore development.
We have commissioned a strategic environmental assessment within SEAI to set out the exact nature of the resource. We have committed to change our planning consent system for planning permission and licensing in respect of State conditions for development. This must be done within a one or two year time horizon to enable project companies that wish to proceed. This is taking place in the context of the oil study. Our approach is to inform the European Union of the work and analysis we have carried out and to show how we intend to achieve these ends. We have sought its assistance to fund the infrastructure and we have made an economic case and I am reasonably confident about it. I refer to the east-west interconnector, a €600 million project. We received a cash injection from Europe of €120 million to help to build it. This was one of the first projects to be built under the European Union economic recovery programme. People are out there in hard hats and yellow jackets building it.
Is the Minister saying our grid development will require EU funding and otherwise we would be in difficulty in respect of funding it? EirGrid has already proposed grid development not dependent on State funding.
I refer to offshore grid development and interconnectors. That is where the opportunity lies. This is only right because it is about joining up Europe. Our internal grid can be funded from the balance sheet of EirGrid and ESB.
I am pleased to hear that there is a working group but I was concerned about the nature of inter-departmental co-operation through a working group, which links to whatever existing working group is in place.
I attended a meeting of the working group three weeks ago with Mr. Brendan Halligan and Mr. Eoin Sweeney, head of the marine energy development project. I was very impressed because the process is working. The group's work is broken down into a variety of areas related to which ports are necessary, how to develop the resources in place, economic analysis and shipping arrangements. Many areas need to be considered. The Department has a renewable energy development group which pulls together other Departments and key stakeholders such as the Irish Wind Energy Association and the Marine Institute. That group within the Department has the co-ordinating role.
I refer to the good work done by the existing working groups and agencies. We must ensure the ideas and attention they pay to future possible developments have a forum. The Departments involved should be kept up to speed and they are conscious they have a role to play. I do not want the working group to become totally frustrated because when it produces something each Department does its own thing. It does not seem to have the same priority.
Mr. Brendan Halligan spoke at a conference I attended a while ago and referred to one of the advantages we have over other countries, that is, everyone is largely on the same page. As Senator O'Toole stated, the head of our transmission company has bought into this process and the heads of our utilities are very ambitious about it. They are investing in Mayo with international companies to put devices in the sea. Our regulator and political system have bought into the process as well. The reason I am here today is that we have bought into it.
The Minister is missing my point. It took two and a half years to get responsibility for the Foreshore Act to be transferred——
That is the reality.
——from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. That is the reality as distinct from dreamland. It took two and a half years to achieve that.
There are wave energy companies in Ireland who must leave here to undertake testing pilot projects because they cannot get basic grid connection off the coast. They are going to Scotland and, will potentially, go to Portugal as a result. The risk is that they will never come back and develop commercial units in those new locations because they could not access basic testing facilities in Ireland. That is not to say there have been no good projects in Ireland; there have been. I refer to the project in Galway Bay which we visited. However——
I met the Scottish Minister on Monday, the most recent of several meetings. The more we share with Scotland, the stronger we both become because we are competing for international investment. They are doing very good work in the Orkney Islands but I would not pitch them ahead of us. Let us consider what has taken place here in the past two and a half years. We have practically doubled our renewable energy power supply output. We have——
How many companies have relocated from Scotland to Ireland?
In the all-Ireland grid study we have a world-leading integration of renewables with our system plan. This summer three or four world-leading devices will be placed in Galway Bay. A project in Belmullet is progressing. It involves a system that will be just as good as, if not more effective than, the Scottish system. It will be larger and more innovative.
Why, therefore, are companies relocating from Ireland to Scotland?
One of the ten companies is OpenHydro, a tidal flow power company. We do not have same the tidal flow as in the Orkney Islands.
I am referring to wave power companies.
Jobs are being created in Greenore in the production of manufacturing equipment.
In terms of tidal energy surveys, a number of places were indicated to us and we examined them. From memory, they included two places on Achill Island, the Shannon Estuary, at Kilcredaun and the north channel, and the Blasket Islands, County Kerry.
The tidal energy issue is important——
The matter of wave energy is beyond question.
It is. We have granted significant budget increases in the form of capital grants to our wave energy companies to develop prototypes. International companies located here such as Vattenfall are also spending millions to develop resources here. If a device were to work in Scotland, I would shake Mr. Jim Mather's hand and say it was great because it would help us to work together collectively. We will be stronger together. We are examining connecting our grid with the Scottish grid. As a cold front moved up from the south west, from the Atlantic, with a more integrated grid at a certain point, one would have power.
Is there a fast-track grid connection mechanism which the Minister can put in place to allow for companies which want to locate in Ireland to test new wave energy products but cannot secure a grid connection for various reasons?
The Belmullet facility is the best and acts as a leading international grid connection point. The international companies with which I have talked are satisfied that the building timelines meet their needs.
How long did it take to secure the grid connection in Belmullet? It was an issue for a very long time.
It was. Since the project was transferred to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the turnabout rate in making decisions has improved. I was frustrated at the length time it was taking to make decisions on a range of foreshore licencing issues. Our foreshore licencing system was not fast enough. It needed to quicken, which was why people wanted to have the project transferred.
Very good.
I thank the Minister and his staff.
I have one quick question about those not covered by the gate 3 process. There is 11,000 MW of capacity available for investment in Ireland. As the Minister correctly said, finance is not the issue in the industry. It is the only industry in which finance is not an issue. It is all about grid connection. What mechanisms is the Minister providing for these companies to have an aspiration that they will be able to secure a grid connection some time in the next decade?
There is a mechanism in place with the CER and the transmission company to examine what we should do beyond the gate 3 process. Certain applications will not proceed. The matter has to be grid-led because that is the most difficult constraint to deal with. The process we have undertaken, while complex and difficult, at least ensures certainty that clustered offers work.
Is the Minister saying developers will have to wait until the gate 3 process ends before they will be considered for grid connection?
No, I am not. We will have to examine mechanisms whereby they will be able to opt in, or whereby grid development will occur in a slightly different way.
Is the Minister examining those mechanisms?
There is ongoing work being done by the CER and the transmission company to see what we can do post the Gate 3 process.
What is the timing for the foreshore Bill? I appreciate what the Minister said about the other Bill.
I understand it will be introduced towards the end of this year.
That is where my working group comes in, in terms of interdepartmental co-operation.
We are receiving very good co-operation from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
The reason is obvious. I refer to the need for a long-term structure which could sustain changes of Government and personnel. Such a structure is badly needed. We will live to regret it if we do not provide it. It would cause no problems; it would only result in benefits.
That is exactly what the renewable energy development group which was set up two years ago does.
The joint committee adjourned at 3.30 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 31 March 2010.