Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, NATURAL RESOURCES AND AGRICULTURE díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 7 Dec 2011

Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals

I welcome Dr. Stjohn O'Connor, principal officer, Mr. Eamon Confrey, assistant principal officer. and Mr. John Rice, assistant principal officer, from the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. I also welcome Mr. Kevin O'Rourke from the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, to the meeting to discuss this proposal. A briefing note on the proposal was circulated to members.

On privilege, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any persons or entities by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on criticise or make charges against either a person outside of the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I now invite Dr. O'Connor and Mr. Confrey to make their opening statements.

Dr. Stjohn O’Connor

I apologise that we were unable to have a representative from the CER here this morning, due to illness. I do not intend to say too much because the directive is quite broad based. It focuses on two issues, energy efficiency and combined heat and power, which is a considerable departure from the previous energy efficiency directive and undoubtedly made discussions somewhat more challenging at Council level.

While I and Mr. Confrey are policy leads in respect of energy efficiency, we do not necessarily have the required background in combined heat and power energy, which is why we have asked Mr. O'Rourke to attend this meeting. He should be in a position to answer more detailed questions on that aspect of the directive. I propose that Mr. Confrey will give us a somewhat detailed presentation on each of the key articles from our perspective in the directive and we will then be happy to take any questions. If there are questions we cannot answer today, we will revert to the committee with a response as soon as possible.

Mr. Eamonn Confrey

I propose to give a high level overview of the key articles and to explain a little around the EU and national policy contexts. Then we can get into the headline articles. I also propose to give a flavour of the Council discussions so far, to give a sense of where the discussions stand currently along with our particular view on specific articles.

In the overall EU context, members will be familiar with the EU 2020 goals across greenhouse gas reduction, renewables, energy targets and energy efficiency. Among the three targets we have in terms of the 2020 vision, the energy efficiency target is a non-binding one at EU level and it is the one that, on current projections, is unlikely to be achieved by 2020. The goal and objective on energy efficiency is to reduce primary energy consumption by 20% over 2020 projections. That goal was endorsed by the Heads of State and Government at the spring European Council in 2007. The latest projections show that the primary energy consumption will only be reduced by approximately 10% by 2020, compared to projections in 2007. In broad terms, we are approximately half way towards our target. This is of concern to the Commission, which is why we have the proposal now before us for discussion.

I will show the target on a slide in a slightly different format. Members can see the projections here. The top dark blue line shows business as usual, which is, essentially, the projections that were available when the 20% was adopted in 2007 and shows where primary energy consumption would be with no policy change or no major change in terms of that scenario. The objective is to get us to the dark black broken line at the bottom of the slide, which is the 1,474 megatonnes of oil equivalent by 2020. The middle, dark green broken line is where we are now, based on current projections. The difference between the 1842 megatonne figure at the top and the 1474 megatonnes at the bottom is 368 megatonnes of oil equivalent and that is the figure introduced into the draft proposal from the Commission. This is where we need to get and that is the reason there has been some discussion on binding targets, which has caused some degree of concern among a number of member states. The message is that we must increase our efforts and set out a clear path for the next decade if we are to have any chance of achieving the overall goal.

Is this graph based on efficiency only?

Mr. Eamonn Confrey

Yes. Of the three pillars I mentioned earlier-----

If we produced 100% renewable energy, would it affect this graph?

Mr. Eamonn Confrey

To some degree it would, but we are talking across three pillars.

Does this graph relate to just one pillar?

Mr. Eamonn Confrey

Essentially, yes. In the national policy context, we have a national energy efficiency action plan, NEEAP, which was published in May 2009 as a result of the energy services directive adopted in 2006, from which most of our energy efficiency policy flows. In terms of our own NEEAP, we have three main targets. These are a 9% efficiency target by 2016; a national 20% efficiency target by 2020; and, recognising that Government must lead by example, a 33% target was identified for the public sector.

To give a sense of scale, the national 20% target is equivalent to just over 31,000 GW hours saved by 2020. The actions we have outlined in our revised NEEAP, which is being finalised at the moment, project that we will realise approximately 33,000 GW hours of savings by 2020, which is a slight overachievement on our 20% target. To put it another way, if all of the actions and measures are delivered, over €250 million will be saved by businesses annually by 2020 and approximately €180 million in the public sector. Up to the end of 2010, the savings achieved thus far account for approximately 25% of our national target, or approximately 8,000 GW hours, which represents a reduction in energy spend of approximately €460 million per annum. In terms of the public sector, members will note that we have a 33% target, which is equivalent to just over 3,000 GW hours. At the end of 2010, we had achieved approximately 18% of that target. This information gives members some sense of the national policy. As I mentioned, a further action plan is being finalised currently and we will then be due to have a further revision on our national plan in 2014. This all comes under the existing directive.

On the energy efficiency plan itself, the Commission published its energy efficiency plan in March, on the back of the first one, which was published in 2007. This sets out the major policy actions to be pursued under the flagship initiative for a resource efficient Europe and calls on member states to prioritise energy efficiency. One of the key elements is that it flags the Commission's own intention to push for mandatory energy savings targets in 2014 if the EU is not on track. As I mentioned earlier, the projections tell us that we are certainly behind target and we may have to grapple with mandatory targets in a few years' time.

The proposal refers to energy efficiency in public spending, the renovation of public buildings - we will deal with that in one of the articles - and energy performance contracting. As far as industry goes, it is pushing efficient generation of heat and electricity, the prioritisation of energy efficiency in the regulation of electricity and gas networks and broadly increasing competitiveness through emissions trading and energy taxation opportunities. For consumers, it is all about promoting energy efficient appliances, both in terms of ecodesign, which is effectively the performance of the appliance, and then labelling, which makes sure that when consumers go to purchase a product, they have relevant information on what they can expect from its performance.

The plan also pushes forward ideas about tackling heat use in buildings, training and re-skilling for the constructions, and ESCOs, or energy service company type contracting, which is something of particular interest to us from the policy side and something we would certainly want to push forward.

The headline elements of the draft energy efficiency directive are in front of committee members. They include renovation targets for public buildings. The 3% target in the draft would cause us some concerns from a cost basis. There are obligation schemes, which for us mean a significant ramp up of what we are doing already under "Better Energy", which is administered through the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland. In general, there is a much greater push towards green public procurement.

The current directive combines two existing directives into one, the combined heat and power directive from 2004 and the energy services directive from 2006. In that respect, the draft proposal is quite ambitious because it pulls together two fairly significant directives in their own right. I would not underestimate some of the challenges of that in trying to achieve political agreement.

What is involved in this combined directive? What are they trying to get us to do?

Dr. Eamonn Confrey

It is about ensuring that when member states are planning the infrastructure for either combined heat and power or district heating, they would effectively prioritise energy efficient considerations. More generally, there is an issue regarding spatial planning and we have considerable concerns about that. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government is the policy lead on spatial planning, but the directive may place a requirement on our spatial plans in respect of CHP and district heating.

Hold on.

There is no point getting a briefing if we do not get to the essence.

That is what the questions are for. We can try to keep moving on.

I am sorry. I read this the other night and I think we might be skipping over the key issue. It seems we will get a directive from Brussels that we are going to sign, and the Deputies from the country and I will wake up some morning to find out that our spatial configuration, allowing us to retain our historical communities, would be all wiped out on an energy efficiency tack, even though we can all put up windmills.

Dr. Eamonn Confrey

The Deputy is absolutely right. We have considerable concerns with what is in the draft proposal. I have a separate slide dealing with Article 10 - the article to which the Deputy refers - later on and we can get into the deeper discussion then. It is something that causes us and a number of member states a fair degree of concern.

The Commission proposal was published last June. We have had fairly intensive discussion during the Polish Presidency so far. That will continue on into the Danish Presidency. Simultaneously, the European Parliament has a significant role to play under the new treaty arrangements and the directive proposal was referred to the relevant energy committee in July. That committee has held a couple of hearings so far and the plan is for a vote in January 2012, which is essentially the First Reading. There was a Council of Ministers discussion in November, at which a progress report on the directive was presented to Ministers. This is where we hope to achieve political agreement. To be honest, we simply do not know what will happen at this stage, but I know the ambition is that the Commission would like to see political agreement by next summer. Whether that is achievable or not remains to be seen, but there is a long way to go.

I would like to move on and deal with the articles. Article 3 is a Commission proposal that member states would set a national energy efficiency target and that they would review progress of same by June 2014. That target would be expressed as an absolute level of primary energy and it goes back to some of the earlier graphs I showed on megatonnes of oil equivalent and so on. In terms of the Council view, many member states would like to see this energy efficiency target better reflect national circumstances, or at least allow a degree of flexibility to member states. The Presidency has been working on revisions to the text. One revision which has been proposed in this article is for a two-step assessment of progress achieved, to be carried out in 2013 and 2015. There has also been discussion about the appropriate methodology adopted to assess progress. There are different methodologies at play here. We have traditionally followed the Commission methodology, which is known as the PRIMES model. The Department and the SEAI use this for forecasting. As we speak, the SEAI is publishing this morning its energy forecast for 2011, so that will effectively provide our up to date position on our overall NEAP targets. We already have a national target in our efficiency action plan, but we would be less keen on a binding national target at this stage.

Article 4 deals with requirements on public bodies. Essentially, the headline objectives are that member states would renovate 3% of the floor area owned by their public bodies, that a public inventory would be complied and that we would also look towards introducing and implementing energy management systems and energy efficiency plans for public bodies. There have certainly been suggestions for an alternative approach to the annual renovation target. There is certainly some concern about the figure of 3%. The alternatives would include something like an equivalence approach for member states to take the most cost-effective measures that are appropriate to their own public bodies. There are different administrations in place across Europe where local and municipal authorities have their own autonomy in many cases. That certainly causes the central government some challenges in that respect.

Several delegations have questioned the scope, the financial feasibility and the appropriateness of the annual 3% target. They are also concerned that any such obligation would be backed by additional sources of financing. We certainly support the concept of a national inventory, but clearly we have concerns with the cost. A 3% target is ambitious and would represent a fairly significant cost risk for the public sector. Our own view is that the focus of the articles should be on an energy usage target for the public sector, rather than a renovation target. We believe that would be a more appropriate measure.

I will move on to Article 5. The Commission is encouraging public bodies to purchase products, services and buildings with a high energy efficiency performance rating.

In terms of the stage the Council discussions have reached, the revisions to the text include caveats about taking account of cost effectiveness, economic feasibility, technical suitability and the need for sufficient competition. In general, the article does not cause major objections or concerns at this point. We generally support it and suggest the text should call for the highest energy efficiency performance class. That would reflect where we are in terms of a national policy and the green public procurement action plan which will be published early next year and for which the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government is the lead Department. It will ensure energy efficiency considerations are taken into account when public bodies are procuring products, services and capital projects.

Article 6 deals with obligation schemes. The ambition is that member states will establish an obligation scheme equivalent to 1.5% of final energy savings by energy saving companies in any one year, excluding transport. These energy savings will be published. There is room in the text for an alternative approach under Article 6.9. It is fair to say it is one of the central articles in the proposal, one which has generated a significant amount of discussion thus far.

On the Council's view, member states are looking for more flexibility on the design of the scheme to best suit their own circumstances and do not want to affect negatively national schemes in place across a number of member states, including Italy, France and the United Kingdom. There is resistance to establishing a system of mutual recognition of schemes across member states. It will be an area in which some negotiations will be required.

On the 1.5% target to be achieved, a number of member states will be looking for a gradual increase, potentially starting from a lower level to achieve higher savings over time. There are also questions as to how early action can be accommodated within the overall targets set.

With regard to having an alternative approach, provided for in Article 6.9, there is some scope and a desire for more detail in terms of what the scheme might look like and whether it would allow flexibility to combine elements of an existing obligation scheme with other possible policy approaches. While having an obligation scheme is consistent with our policy direction under the better energy programme which we started this year, namely, a voluntary obligation scheme with 25 energy supply companies, from where we are now reaching the target of 1.5% will involve a significant increase on the first phase figure. A figure of 1.5% will represent a fivefold increase.

Article 7 deals with energy audits. The Commission has proposals for the promotion of energy audits to final customers, with the particular aim of stimulating activity in households and small and medium enterprises. It also proposes that the first audit take place by June 2014 and thereafter every three years. There is broad agreement in the Council on the usefulness of energy audits as a concept to tap into the savings potential. There is some resistance to having mandatory requirements for larger companies, in particular, to conduct energy audits on the grounds of proportionality and the administrative burden involved. There is also a desire that implementation of the article focus on recommendations arising from audits and energy management systems. Some member states have called for a European energy audit standard to be developed which should be reflected in the directive.

We support the approach proposed which is consistent with national policy. Sustainable Energy Ireland has been to the fore in pushing energy audits and energy management systems, particularly for large industry. In Australia a public reporting mechanism is embedded into the senior management structures of companies. There are champions and leaders at very high levels in each company, which gives the process focus and direction. Having a similar obligation should not necessarily create a large administrative burden. By giving energy efficiency visibility one can encourage interest and uptake beyond what we are liable to achieve at this stage. There are moves in the revisions to the text to shift the requirement for undertaking audits from a three to a five year timeframe, moves which have been welcomed by a number of member states.

Article 8 concerns metering and informative billing. It is driving the push towards smart meters. The Commission wants to see a situation where final customers are provided with meters to measure actual energy consumption rather than bimonthly billing with which we are all familiar. It also wants consumers to be allowed to request metering data to be made available to third parties such as energy companies. By 1 January 2015 billing should be accurate and based on actual consumption. The information should be provided for customers free of charge.

On the Council's discussions, while delegations generally support the aim of delivering energy savings through behavioural change, there are concerns about informative billing and the ambition to roll out smart meters. The article comes up against what is commonly called the third package which deals with gas and electricity regulation. It has been the subject of several directives in recent years. A lot of the third package is still being implemented, including by us. We generally support the intent of the article because providing consumers with accurate and timely data is good and to be welcomed. We are also conscious that there are several provisions in the existing article which would impact on the cost benefit analysis the Commission for Energy Regulation has carried out. Ireland is probably ahead of a number of member states in this regard because we have probably the most advanced and accurate cost benefit and trial data as a result of the gas and electricity metering trials conducted by the CER.

The Commission for Energy Regulation has concluded consultations in recent days on the roll-out of electricity and gas smart meters which broadly indicate its decision to proceed with the national roll-out based on the positive results it gained from its analysis to date. It is, ultimately, subject to a Government decision. To give a sense of scale, even if we were to take all the necessary decisions now to proceed with roll-out, it would probably be 2017 or 2018 before there could be a national roll-out. January 2015 is the indicative timetable in the directive, which is far too ambitious based on the current position. A number of member states are further behind us and there is likely to be a change to the implementation date of the article.

As we mentioned, Article 10 is one of the articles which causes significant concern. The Commission is suggesting that by 1 January 2014 member states establish national heating and cooling plans for high efficiency co-generation and district heating systems and that national spatial plans be in line with national heating and cooling plans. There is a lot of detail in the article centred around the fact that new terminal generation installations over 20 MW will have regard to the objective of having combined heat and power systems. Where major installations were being refurbished, their permits would have to have regard to the potential for combined heat and power and district heating.

This is one of the articles which has a long way to run. Revisions to the text are currently under discussion and this will introduce a large number of caveats to a number of the articles as regards cost benefit. They will stipulate that any national heating and cooling plans would be subject to cost-benefit analysis. In my view this is fair and the Commission has indicated it will be in agreement.

As for Ireland's view, given our climatic conditions, our population dispersal and the nature of the majority of industry located here, we have significant concerns about the cost to consumers of the proposals and also practical concerns regarding market competition, priority dispatch - which is referred to in this article - and the electricity market structures which in our view would be disproportionately affected. As I mentioned, as regards refurbished plants or where the permit needs to be updated, the costs associated with retrofitting an existing plant would be extensive, notwithstanding the current exemption conditions which are provided for in Article 10.6 and others. The message from the Department is that many of the existing directives in this area need to work together, in terms of the renewable energy directive and the third packages I have mentioned. The proposal as it stands does not sufficiently acknowledge the existing rights and obligations under other relevant proposals nor how they will react.

With regard to spatial planning, Ireland's climate, geography and population dispersal would all mitigate against having a blanket planning requirement which requires us to assess the potential for district heating and cooling. In our discussions with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government it has expressed the strong view that Ireland needs to proceed cautiously in so far as this article is concerned and we must work against creating a legal obligation at EU level.

The related Article 12 deals with transmission and distribution. The Commission proposes that regulators would ensure that network tariffs and regulations provide incentives to network users to implement energy-efficient measures such as smart grids, for example. It proposes that by 30 June 2013, member states would adopt plans to assess the energy efficient potential of infrastructure and identify measures for improvements in network infrastructure. Transmission system operators and distribution system operators would provide priority access and dispatch for high efficiency co-generation.

The broad view at Council is that the role to be given to combined heat and power with regard to both access and dispatch needs further analysis, in particular, in comparison to existing renewable energy sources and the existing CHP directive. In the negotiations thus far, the Commission acknowledges there are challenges and that it would depend on the individual member state to identify a need for and to establish any possible priority ranking. As Mr. O'Connor has mentioned, we are not the experts on the policy and the Commission for Energy Regulation has assisted us in our analysis. The provision of priority dispatch is the one element that would cause us the greatest concern. If everything with high efficiency has priority dispatch then everything has priority dispatch and nothing has priority. Given our own market structure, we would need to look for flexibility and it might also have implications for the single electricity market. We will need to keep a close watch and talk to our UK counterparts as this article progresses in the negotiations.

Article 14 deals with energy services. The Commission objective is to promote the energy services market and to include measures such as a public list of energy service providers and what services they offer; model contracts for energy performance contracting in the public sector in particular; the dissemination of energy service information to consumers. This article is generally supported by most member states and there is nothing to cause us particular concern. We welcome moves towards the development of model contracts for the public sector in particular and we are very keen to progress this policy.

Article 15 promotes energy efficiency by the removal of existing regulatory barriers such as split incentives. This is of particular interest in the rental market where there is no real onus on either the tenant or the owner to introduce or push for better cavity wall insulation or other measures to ensure energy efficiency. The article also provides for a reduction in the legal and administrative barriers as regards public purchasing. The article will allow the public sector and the local authorities a greater degree of flexibility with their budgeting. It recognises that if they are moving towards employing energy performance contracting or ESCOs, the savings gained in this practice would be reinvested by those bodies. We support this article.

Articles 17 and 18 deal with delegated acts. I will alert the committee that the Commission is looking to adopt delegated acts with regard to areas such as the obligation schemes and the mutual recognition of same which I mentioned earlier, cost-benefit analysis and the various cost-benefit analysis schemes, CBAs, that will need to be put in place for a range of articles in this proposal and harmonised efficiency reference values. It is proposed that the delegation will be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time, but this may be revoked by either the parliament or the Council of Ministers. This is to reflect the fact that the trend in Europe is that powers are allocated to the Commission to adopt delegated acts. We are familiar with this trend in the eco-design and energy labelling directives which were recently transposed. I sound a note of caution as regards the delegation and the power which the Commission wishes.

Article 19 is the review and monitoring arrangement which will apply. By 30 April each year, member states will report progress towards their national efficiency targets and those reports may form part of the national reform programme which has been introduced under broader EU requirements and on which the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of the Taoiseach will be the lead Departments. Depending on what is contained in the progress reports from member states, the Commission may then issue recommendations to member states and ultimately may go down the route of mandatory targets.

Delegations at the Council discussion had reservations about the timing of certain reporting obligations and in particular, the availability of reliable statistical data. In the case of a number of member states, their energy agencies are tasked with gathering the data and in the case of Ireland, the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland gathers information on energy forecasting. We need to be careful with regard to the timing. The Department has made the point about the numerous reporting obligations under various existing EU directives and also the national reform programme obligations. We would urge the Commission to harmonise and streamline the reporting requirements on member states as much as possible. The timing with regard to our national energy statistics is a problem in that they are generally not available until November of the following year. For example, the 2010 energy balance is only just now being finalised and published. This is a problem shared by several member states. If the April time line is retained, we would only be able to produce the high-level estimates for the current year in April of that year.

The Polish Presidency has been discussing this issue since July and it has been examined extensively by the working group. The group held two technical workshops, on the obligation schemes and the combined heat and power elements of the directive, in October, followed by bilateral meetings with all member states in November. The Presidency circulated a revised text in early October setting out the current status of the discussions, which has been a very useful input to the debate. Based on that revised text, the bilateral meetings that have taken place and written comments from various member states in the interim, we expect a further revised text in the next week or ten days. That will give us a better sense of where we currently stand.

A Council of Ministers meeting took place in November at which a progress report on the directive discussions was presented by the Presidency. It is noteworthy that the Commissioner for Energy, Mr. Oettinger, reiterated to his colleagues that further progress must be made if we are to reach our 2020 targets. As I said, we are currently at about 10%. The Commission reiterated the two-pronged approach at this meeting. There is the overall binding national target to be adopted, with some flexibility for member states, but if we are not on track in two or three years time, when this is revised, we can expect binding instruments to follow thereafter.

Looking ahead to next year, the Danish Presidency, which commences on 1 January 2012, has set out its broad priorities as relating to economic growth, climate, energy, justice and budgetary matters. Specifically on the energy side, the energy efficiency directive is probably its number one priority, followed closely by an energy infrastructure regulation, Council conclusions on the energy roadmap to 2050, which is part of a suite of documents published by the Commission this year, and a regulation on the safety of offshore drilling.

The first working group meeting under the Danish Presidency will take place on 10 January. It has indicated an intensive six-month programme of work, with approximately six meetings per month planned. This directive will be top of the pile, in order to inject momentum into the discussions. We would expect the Danish to seek significant progress on this dossier by June. Whether we will achieve political agreement within that timeframe remains to be seen; it may well fall to the Cypriot Presidency to secure such agreement. That is assuming a high level of agreement as we move from here.

I thank Mr. Confrey for his detailed outline of the directive. I now open the floor to questions.

The EU has some audacity in bringing forward this type of directive considering that it sat on the REFIT 2 programme for more than a year. If it is serious about energy efficiency, it should focus on practical issues rather than weighing us down with paperwork and so on.

From our perspective, as an island with probably the best wind, wave and tidal resources one could dream of, what we need most of all is European investment into a strong European grid so that we can get rid of all of our surplus wind. The types of interconnectors we are building are not sufficient for us to export. If Europe is genuinely interested in this issue, the reality in regard to Ireland is that we could become carbon neutral, that is, we could export enough renewable energy to cover any imports. If the EU is serious in its intentions in regard to energy, it would be better focusing its attention on the big picture.

Another issue it must address is in regard to transport, which is often cited as a major problem in regard to emissions. If the technology were developed to make electric cars efficient, those of us lucky enough to live in the one-off houses which seem to cause such great offence to others could construct a small windmill on our properties and charge our cars at night without ever needing to us a drop of petrol or diesel. We do not have to push everybody to live where they do not want to live in order to have energy neutrality. What is needed is a focus on developing new technologies.

Will Mr. Confrey confirm that there is a binding high-level target in regard to CO2 emission reduction by 2020?

Mr. Eamonn Confrey

Yes, in regard to greenhouse gas emissions, there is a binding target. However, as I mentioned in my presentation, of the three pillars - greenhouse gas emissions, renewables and energy efficiency - the latter is currently non-binding.

If, for argument's sake, we were to reduce our net greenhouse gas emissions to zero, surely it does not matter how that is done. In other words, we could have the most inefficient houses and it would not really matter. If they are being fed entirely by renewable energy, what difference would it make? Surely the issue here is a reduction in greenhouse emissions, not the use of energy in itself.

Dr. Stjohn O’Connor

Does the Chairman wish us to answer questions one by one or to respond to a group of questions?

We will try to group questions together. In this case, however, the Deputy's question is rather hypothetical. If we get to 100% renewable energy, we would not need a debate on the other types of energy.

Exactly. That is what I am saying.

It is a hypothetical supposition that we could get to 100% renewable energy.

No, if we could export sufficient amounts of renewable energy, we could support gas and oil imports.

It is a theoretical proposition. I ask the Deputy to confine his questions to the directive we are discussing.

It is a very relevant issue. It is the role of the EU to set binding, high-level targets. In this country, because we are so well endowed with all types of opportunities and advantages, we should set about exceeding those targets. In other words, we should not be driven by EU targets but rather by targets which far exceed anything required by the EU. I often wonder what countries such as Norway and Switzerland do without Big Daddy to instruct them. I am sure they have energy targets which match anything the EU has brought forward. Perhaps the delegates will comment on that.

I question the need for this legislation, which seems to be totally contrary to the EU treaty obligations in regard to subsidiarity. How we do it is our business; to do it is an obligation. As I said, I would argue that we should seek to exceed the targets and we should set about doing so in our own way. The EU could assist us in terms of major infrastructure and technological development. Instead of directives such as this, if it were to work to make electric cars totally efficient and compatible with petrol-driven cars, for instance, it would be doing far more to help us to meet and exceed our targets.

Bureaucracies have an insatiable appetite, comprised as they are of people who must always be doing something. If they are not constantly writing new rules, they are out of a job. There is so much in this proposal that is objectionable in the way it is being done. I agree that there should be an energy audit standard, but it should be an international standard rather than a European one. Whether in America, Japan, South Africa, Australia or anywhere else, everybody should be singing from the same hymn sheet. We have the proposal to adopt the metre as the standard unit of measurement, that is, to get rid of all of British measurements and deal in continental measurements on a worldwide basis. A European Union measurement would not be much good, particularly in the context of dealing with the Americans. I cannot understand why the US has not moved to the metric system. I am of the view that there should be an accepted standard worldwide. I am also of the view that Europe is too small to dictate what should be that standard. There should be a global standard for the global village.

There is a great deal in the proposal before the committee which could be incorporated into national legislation. In the context of such legislation, a country can adopt, achieve or even exceed targets in a way that suits its own circumstances. The proposal is quite prescriptive and, as our guests pointed out, there are parts of it which would give rise to major difficulties. However, the 3% target in respect of public buildings is very low and I am of the view that the Government should prioritise capital spending to ensure public and private buildings meet thermal efficiency standards. This is a no-brainer because our economy depends on reducing the amount of oil we import. It should not take a European directive to encourage us to take action. We should move forward in respect of this matter ourselves. In that context, the 3% target is extremely modest.

I have major difficulties with Article 10. When I served as a Minister, one of my responsibilities related to rural development. In that capacity, I hosted a meeting of officials from the then Departments of Transport, Finance and Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Those from the latter Department were opposed to rural development, they did not like the spatial layout of the country and they kept referring to people living and working together. I asked the officials from the Department of Finance if they could encourage NAMA to provide a large building for the purposes of experimentation. I proposed that we could fill the lower floors with retail outlets, that the middle floors could be occupied by the Department of Transport and that accommodation could be provided on the uppermost floors. This would have allowed everyone involved to live and work in the same building. The officials were aghast when I suggested that they should live by their own principles. The idea of them all inhabiting the same building was a step too far for some.

Our efforts in respect of the spatial strategy have backfired and we have been left with the melting ice cream effect which I predicted ten years ago. One cannot force people to do things they do not wish to do. The emphasis was on attracting jobs to the cities but people wanted to live in less urban areas of counties. As a result, the county with the largest percentage growth of population is Laois. Dublin's population has been static for the past ten or 15 years, the populations of Cork, Waterford and Limerick have decreased but those of the peri-urban areas between here and the Shannon have all increased. The spatial strategy has, therefore, had a counter-effect.

Will Article 12 give rise to problems in respect of energy security? The Moneypoint plant is thermally inefficient but it is important in the context of energy security. If we were obliged to give priority to the more thermally efficient plants on every occasion, would we, as an island nation which has poor interconnectivity, compromise our energy security as a result?

The Finns are opposed to Article 10 and Sweden has lodged an objection in respect of it. My basic point is that I am not convinced we need the directive at all. If there are small aspects of it that are required, then I am open to persuasion in respect of them. However, the general thrust of the directive runs contrary to the spirit of the European treaties - it might also run counter to the letter of the law - which state that micro-management is not the responsibility of the European Union.

I welcome the officials from the Department and the SEAI. I think they may have assumed that members are all experts on this matter. The truth is that we are not. Perhaps it might be possible to obtain a summary of their PowerPoint presentation because the information provided earlier did not do members any favours. It might be useful if we were given a document that was written in plain English, that did not contain so many abbreviations and that provided a brief synopsis of the positions the Department is adopting in respect of each of the articles. Such a synopsis was not provided with the main presentation. As a result, I was obliged to try to recall what was stated in the briefing material in respect of the pros and cons of the various articles and the Department's position on each of them. I am, therefore, at somewhat of a loss. I did not discover anything new in the context of how the Department and the SEAI are approaching the articles in the proposed directive from the presentation provided earlier. I would have preferred if, rather than the text of the directive, we had been given a summary of the Department's position in a readable form. I ended up making guesses in respect of much of what was stated earlier. It was difficult to follow the presentation.

I share some of Deputy Ó Cuív's views on the heavy-handed approach adopted by the European Commission in the context of how it will impose the directive. The idea behind achieving what is envisaged is laudable. People often forget the position from which this country is operating. Density of population per square kilometre in Ireland is extremely low. In a European context, our urban areas only qualify as small cities, towns and villages. There is major potential, therefore, to reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the agriculture industry is often cited as a major contributor in the context of greenhouse gas emissions. Forestry, pasture or grasslands are never taken into account as balancing or mitigating factors but this should not be the case. We do not do intensive farming very well but we have large swathes of open grassland. That is not taken into account but it should be. I am not sure whether the Commission is aware of the position in this regard.

In dealing with issues of that nature, we could then address matters relating to one-off houses or rural dwellings. People in rural areas choose to live in a particular way. As Deputy Ó Cuív stated, we are preventing people from living in the way they want. Many individuals choose to live in urban areas - this is obviously more energy efficient - and it suits them to do so. However, other people do not want to live in such areas and we try to resist that. Unlike the UK, Ireland has never been an overly industrialised country. We have been presented with a great deal of information in respect of matters at a micro level but focusing on issues in that way tends to lead to the bigger picture being forgotten.

In rural areas there is great scope for microgeneration but we do not tend to do well in this regard. If a degree of initiative and imagination were used and if some incentive were provided - perhaps in the form of a feed-in tariff - we could reap huge benefits in this area. However, our guests did not refer to microgeneration in their presentation.

In a political context, it has proven extremely difficult to roll out smarter technologies. EirGrid recently became involved in a dispute with a local authority in respect of running cables underground. I accept that the process relating to the latter is expensive. Obstacles of this nature tend to hinder the development of our networks. We have not dealt with this matter. One local authority took a decision and, regrettably, will be challenged in respect of it.

We are very good when it comes to the bureaucracy relating to energy efficiency. We are good at discussing the matter and at reaching agreement in respect of what needs to be done but we tend to forget the bigger picture. As a result, some of the easier targets we could achieve tend to be forgotten. There is so much we could do and we must recognise the type of resources that exist in this country in the context of wind and wave energy. I accept the technologies relating to the latter are not perfect. If, however, we exploited these energies to a greater degree, we could go a long way towards achieving our targets. I would prefer a broader discussion to take place on that issue. Other aspects that could be considered are the renovating of public buildings and the setting of targets at a household level. Did anybody speak to local authorities about imposing conditions on planning approvals during the boom when tens of thousands of houses were built? If a building energy rating was carried out on those houses, I guarantee they would be deficient in some shape or form. That issue could have been addressed very easily by way of conditions attached to planning approvals. I do not know if that was a matter for each local authority, but the failure to address that issue in our built environment was a missed opportunity. It was a shame. I do not know if it can be addressed now but that was a lost opportunity.

I look forward to further presentations but I would like to get a written brief covering articles the Department agrees or supports, areas where there are problems and areas where the Department has identified there will be difficulties in achieving targets, the reason that is the case and if there are alternatives. We should examine how we can play to our strengths, in other words, what this country is good at. We should avoid trying to impose solutions that we are not good at. Much of that tends to be forgotten in terms of the directive and the bureaucracy involved, which we have to examine. If we took that approach, we might achieve the targets set for us.

I wish to made a few points. The crux of the issue is that the article, as configured, sets out almost to micro-manage our efforts to achieve the 2020 20% target. The energy efficiency aspect is in ways the easiest to address, notwithstanding what Deputy Ó Cuív said about the drive for reduced greenhouse gas emissions through extra renewables. That is the reason the three areas are interlinked. All houses for rent must have a building energy rating. Accordingly, a differential is chargeable on that basis and an energy efficiency standard must be achieved. The same applies to properties for sale. That aspect has been incorporated.

Our smart metering technology and advancements was mentioned, and we are probably in a lead position in that area. Article 10 will come into force on top of that provision and in a way it will interfere with it, as is currently laid out in the article, which is the article on which many people have focused. I note the Finnish in particular and to a lesser extent the Swedish have difficulties with that. They see it as setting a precedent whereby the EU would get involved in spatial planning at member state level. I believe there will be a good deal of debate on that.

I will ask Dr. O'Connor for his response to the points raised. The committee will prepare a report on the proposal. I am advised it is too late in terms of a reasoned opinion on the subsidiarity element but we will present a report based on the information we have. It has been very helpful and I accept it is very detailed. Some of us who were members of the previous Dáil had the benefit of being a member of the energy committee for some years which was helpful in that the issues involved were drilled into our minds. We presented a paper, endorsed by the previous energy committee and the agricultural committee, on using post-1990 forestry as part of the calculation for carbon sequestration if we moved our targets, and even if we did not move them beyond the 2020 20% target, we could include them for common sense reasons because we had scope to develop the forestry industry and give it a value in that respect. As the witnesses know, that element is not allowed at present. I do not know if other members wish to comment further. If not, I will revert to Mr. Confrey or Dr. O'Connor to respond.

Dr. Stjohn O’Connor

I thank the Deputies and the Chairman for those comments. A number of them relate to areas that are not necessarily in our area of competence, so I would be wary of making a public comment on them. I will answer most of the questions and will refer some of them to my colleagues. I will start with Deputy Harrington's request for a brief overview of the directive. Our intention today was to give a flavour of it. We were not sure to what extent the committee was au fait with the substantive aspects of the directive and we tossed it around internally as to whether it was an overview or more detailed commentary on each of the articles that was being sought. We ended up going with the more detailed commentary. We do not have any ideological problem with giving a summary but we are in the negotiation phase, matters are changing and even in terms of the Presidency text, a new draft is to come to us. It is kind of a moveable feast. We will give a perspective on the original text, while recognising that in terms of the Presidency text, the directive is perhaps two stages further along and, ultimately, we will be getting a vote later in the year in this respect. I do not believe that will be a cause for major concern but I wanted to point that out.

In preparing this, I ask Dr. O'Connor to bear in mind that some of us are new Deputies and starting off from a blank page.

Dr. Stjohn O’Connor

There is no problem with giving a general summary of the articles but in giving our position in light of matters having moved on, we will have to nuance that. Apart from that, we have no problem in doing that and we will approach it from a much higher level.

To respond to the Chairman's comment on the directive seeking to micro-manage member states and on energy efficiency, Ireland does energy efficiency very well. It is something we are good at, and Deputy Harrington also commented on this area. As my colleague outlined, €460 million worth of savings based upon 25% of our target is quite a substantial achievement. The fact that we predict we will achieve our target is impressive. Energy efficiency is something we are very good at. The way in which the Commission has approached this is on the basis that member states do not want a binding target for energy efficiency. It is the only one of the three pillars that does not have a binding target. The Commission said that if the member states do not want binding targets, they will have binding measures. That addresses a question many Deputies had on the reason the Commission is going into so many specifics in respect of each of the different measures. It is because they are supposed to be binding measures. It is a different tack and it is to get around that issue of binding targets and binding measures. My colleague also mentioned that there is a number of review stages built into the directive on the basis that if the Commission says that progress towards 2020 targets is not being achieved, it has a fall-back position in that it can say it will then push for binding targets. That is a difficult push and many member states are opposed to binding targets. Ireland's position to date has been that we are neutral on it because we believe we will meet our target anyway and therefore it is of less concern to us.

There were a number of comments on articles 10 and 12 to which I will refer first to Mr. Confrey and then to Mr. O'Rourke for general comment. I signal one caveat going back to the overview: the Presidency text has moved the discussion on a considerable distance whereas the initial text on Articles 10 and 12 gave us major cause for concern. The issue of subsidiarity is one with which we were very familiar, even though, as my colleague mentioned, it is not our direct area of responsibility but it is something we have raised with the Presidency. The Presidency has inserted a number of clauses or text that it would like included around the cost benefit issue, which would effectively remove much of the concern we have in respect of this, on the basis that we would do it if it makes economic sense but otherwise we would not do it. That has moved on the discussion. The key question for us is how much of that will be factored into the ultimate revised text from the Commission at a later stage, but certainly the initial proposal gave us considerable cause for concern.

I will hand over to my colleague, Mr. Eamonn Confrey.

Mr. Eamonn Confrey

To pick up on a number of comments on Article 10, my colleague, Dr. O'Connor, is right in saying it is one of the articles that has been subject to quite an degree of discussion. One of the technical workshops I mentioned that was arranged under the Polish Presidency was dedicated solely to CHP. I attended the workshop with a colleague from the Commission for Energy Regulation. The takeaway from the workshop is that the experience of different member states - north, south, east and west - varies considerably. The Scandinavians are well established in terms of combined heat and power, CHP, and they have much potential in terms of forestry and their own natural resources. Many of the member states that were previously in eastern Europe have experience, for different reasons, of district heating and other systems. It clearly is an article that causes concern. The discussion thus far at the working group has been to push for a much greater degree of flexibility, and to try to ensure that any of the provisions contained in the article are subject to cost-benefit analysis. The focus is on whether it makes sense for the particular member state. As I mentioned, we would argue that we have particular circumstances in terms of geography and population dispersal, which would in large part mitigate against much of what is in the directive. We are seeking flexibility. We have referred to the issues to do with spatial planning. We are keeping in close contact with our colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

One could ask whether we need high level EU obligations and prescriptive targets in some of the areas. That is rightly something that is up for discussion. In many ways it is better off to allow member states a degree of flexibility in how they achieve that. Perhaps Mr. O'Rourke would like to contribute on CHP.

Mr. Kevin O’Rourke

One could summarise Article 10 by saying that four sets of issues present difficulty. Without getting into the detail, there are technical logic issues, spatial planning issues, economic case issues and legal issues. One of the issues about district heating may well be in conflict with consumer choice in some cases because people may be locked in to a particular supply. That may conflict with other directives, which bears out the point that Mr. Confrey made on the need for joined-up systems in all of these matters.

I draw the attention of the committee to a specific clause in the text which is important in terms of understanding the status of what is being obliged. It is saying that there are conditions for exemption in regard to this, which we have not highlighted. One of those is the threshold conditions on the availability of heat-load, as set out in an annexe, which is really about the heat density available, which bears on some of the concerns that have been raised. Second, a cost-benefit analysis shows that the costs outweigh the benefits in comparison with the full lifecycle costs, including infrastructural investment of providing the same amount of electricity and heat with separate heating and cooling. There is a mitigating provision. It is not necessarily a draconian imposition. Its status needs to be understood in those terms. I hope that is helpful. Does Dr. O'Connor wish me to address any other issues?

Dr. Stjohn O’Connor

No, that is okay for the moment. I will deal with a few other issues such as the one about local authority housing. Building regulations have successively increased the efficiency of new-build housing. All new-build housing must meet certain efficiency criteria. The question becomes one of compliance, but certainly all houses today are built to a far more efficient standard than they were, regardless of their location, because building standards are centrally managed rather than part of the remit of local authorities.

On low-hanging fruit, again I go back to the point that we have the better energy programme, which grant assists the low-hanging fruit. The success of the scheme and the demand for it shows that there is a real appetite for it. One of the commitments in the programme for Government is to make the transition to a pay-as-you-save scheme. That would be the long-term plan where, in effect, householders or businesses could use what they are spending on energy to make the capital investment but they would not have an upfront cost. We are very much focused on low-hanging fruit. A number of studies have pointed to it. Everyone knows about attic insulation and cavity insulation. They are generally the cheapest measures and they generally give the best savings. I invite Mr. Rice to make a point about feed-in tariffs for microgeneration.

Mr. John Rice

No decision has been made in respect of microgeneration, either on wind, biomass or renewable energies. However, we are in discussions-----

By whom? Does Mr. Rice mean nationally?

Mr. John Rice

Nationally. Yes.

It is disgraceful.

Mr. John Rice

The Department and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine are exploring options in that regard.

It is taking a long time.

Dr. Stjohn O’Connor

Deputy Ó Cuív mentioned targets. He is correct that much of this legislation could be put into national legislation. Much of it exists already in some shape or form. That is why we made reference to procurement in particular where our standards are already probably in excess of what the Commission is seeking. We advocate that the Commission would push for the highest efficiency class. My colleague made reference to that. Certainly we see that many of the standards are not a million miles from what we already have. We already have SI 542/2009. It is secondary legislation but it is a prime piece of efficiency legislation.

There is a big onus on the public sector to perform as an exemplar in respect of energy efficiency. We have an active programme in respect of developing an energy performance contracting model, which is one of the fundamental ways the Commission sees for realising energy efficiencies. Model contracts, for example, are something we will push hard for, and it is a key work area for 2012, as it has been for 2011. We have done much work in respect of the public sector. One of the projects we and colleagues from the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, are working on is the collection of energy data from public sector bodies. We have collected approximately 28,500 electricity meter point reference numbers, MPRNs, and approximately 2,500 gas meter point numbers. The reason is that ultimately we want to set energy saving targets for public sector bodies. We wrote to every single public sector body in the State asking them to send us back those numbers. We will collect the data automatically, build a database and feed it back in order to produce an annual report on public sector energy consumption. The idea is that the more data one can gather, the more one can measure and then the more one can improve efficiency.

Deputy Ó Cuív made a specific point on investment. Energy performance contracting is a way of stimulating investment without having the capital cost of the investment. That is a key work area for us. He also mentioned the need to have an international standard for auditing. We agree. Mr. O'Rourke was involved in developing the national standard for energy management which morphed into the European standard, which has now morphed into an ISO standard. Effectively, there is an international standard for energy management for which this country is extremely active. I think I am correct in saying a university was recently certified as one of the first universities with an ISO certification.

Mr. Kevin O’Rourke

It was UCC.

Dr. Stjohn O’Connor

It got the first ISO energy management standard. Much work is being done in that area and a lot of it is indigenous, which is quite exciting.

On the 3% target mentioned by Deputy Ó Cuív, it is challenging because the first issue is that we just do not know how much renovation is done each year. That project to which I referred - collecting MPRNs and GPRNs - is an attempt to capture that information on what is being done in the public service, but also to identify fully and properly how much the public service spends on energy. While we have a good understanding, we do not have an exact number. That is a key project. Our view is that rather than the State having to stump up the cash, the market can provide the cash for making those energy efficiency investments. That is why we are keen to see it. The issue is that we just do not know how stretching the 3% target is because we have to build an industry and a supply chain that can deliver those projects.

Another issue raised by Deputy Ó Cuív is whether there are targets for Norway and Scotland.

It was Switzerland and Norway.

Dr. Stjohn O’Connor

I am sorry, Switzerland and Norway - Scotland is obviously part of the UK. We might come back to him on the issue. Norway may have, but-----

I presume they have high thermal standards.

Dr. Stjohn O’Connor

They have high standards of thermal efficiency, without a shadow of a doubt, but I am unaware whether they have an energy efficiency target.

How can countries such as Switzerland, for example, which has a model economy, manage to survive without the micromanagement of Brussels? My fundamental, underlying question-----

I do not know whether that is a question for today's meeting.

It is because-----

In the context of-----

No, it is because-----

The Deputy is making a point about Europe trying to micro-manage in this article, and that is a fair point, but we cannot get into a high level discussion on the validity or otherwise of being a member state-----

That is not what I am saying. Europe claims in its own treaty to protect the principle of subsidiarity but it seems that every day it goes contrary to that and tries to micro-manage. People say it needs to do that and that it would not do it otherwise but there are perfect models where they do it otherwise because it should be done. Everything that is in this directive, in its global sense, should be done but the problem with all of these directives is that we can get caught on micro-provisions that do not suit us.

To be fair, I would hope our report will reflect that.

Yes, but nobody has answered the question as to the reason we need this directive. We should examine an alternative model. If the Chairman came in here and told us that Europe is giving him a two menu choice, first, sign up to a 20% efficiency target by 2020 or, second, have all this micro-management, I would have no problem signing up to the 20% target because if we sign up to Option A, the 20% target, we are doing it our way and let those who want the micro-managing by Mammy or Daddy in Brussels go for that option.

In their negotiations the representatives might go back and revive what I understand was the Commission's first option, namely, the global target and nothing more, and say that for the countries that want to sign up for that the rest of this directive does not apply, unless aspects such as international standards of audit arise and therefore Article 1, 5, a, 12, 16, 40 or whatever does not apply to them.

We will always be told it is too late to go back but the method that seems to be adopted by our Departments is that when Europe comes forward with a huge plan in micro-detail it is always accepted that it is okay subject to minor modifications later, but nobody ever questions the basic need for many of these plans. Could they suggest a two option menu? First, we opt for the high level target, achieve that our own way, sign off on it as a binding target and after that we are on our own or, second, we take the detailed menu but do not have the high level target.

The Chairman might get clarification on the comment that it is too late for reasoned opinion. When was the date for the reasoned opinion? What are our legal powers as an Oireachtas and why are we here?

It was October.

How did we miss this?

It was because of the delay in establishing the committees. I will read out one part of the summary note we got as it might interest the Deputy. On the implications for Ireland it states that if the proposed directive is adopted it would have major implications for Ireland. It further states that the Commission envisages that it should be a matter in the first place for member states to set the national energy efficiency targets, schemes and programmes and it is up to the member states to decide whether these targets should be binding or indicative in their territory. Is that correct?

Dr. Stjohn O’Connor

Yes. The more fundamental question is why we need this directive in the first place. We need this directive because there is not a binding target, and that is what I said at the outset.

It is an overall binding target, is it not?

Dr. Stjohn O’Connor

But it is not binding, and that is the issue.

The overall target is binding.

Dr. Stjohn O’Connor

No. The indicative target is 20% and it is-----

No, not that one. The overall-----

Dr. Stjohn O’Connor

-----three pillars.

-----CO2 reduction target.

Dr. Stjohn O’Connor

Of 20%, yes, but the three pillars stand individually and collectively. The only one that does not have a binding target is the energy efficiency pillar but the Deputy is correct. If we had a binding target member states should be free to implement the measures but we do not have a binding target and that is the reason they are coming forward with this directive.

Why did they not say that those who want a binding target can take Option A and those who do not want it can have all this micro-management in Option B? There are five Deputies present and the chances of us getting the opportunity, with our work schedule, of micro-analysing all of this information, understanding it and getting independent advice, etc., to warn us, as the people who pass the laws in this country, about all the hidden gems in this document that we will all be cursing in five years' time is nil.

I object to all this micro-management from Brussels because if we found here that a law had ridiculous, unintended consequences, and the one lesson every legislator must learn from day one is the law of unintended consequences, we could change it. In terms of an unintended consequence, the only difference between the Legislature here and Brussels is that if we find an unintended consequence we can change it very handily within a few weeks in the Dáil. If it was sufficiently urgent we can amend it in three days in the Dáil, and I have done that. That cannot be done with directives from Brussels, and we get caught all over the place. All of us have experience of well-meaning items of legislation from micro-managers in Brussels having all sorts of unintended consequences that nobody ever dreamt of when the legislation was introduced.

The only aspect on which we were late was the question of a reasoned opinion on subsidiarity. We are allowed to make a report with recommendations which the Minister is obliged to take on board. The subsidiarity question is a reasoned opinion, and Finland and Sweden are the only two member states I am aware of-----

Mr. Eamonn Confrey

Possibly Portugal and one or two others.

-----who have raised the issue of subsidiarity. The tenure of this debate and the concerns Deputy Ó Cuív in particular outlined are not just on the subsidiarity question, but the fact that so many articles in this directive apply to us whereas if we agree to establish the binding targets we could manage that ourselves. That is the key to what we are trying to achieve here. This discussion is about our uniqueness, and every member state has that view, Finland in particular. For similar reasons it has decided it is better left to the member states to manage, and we will not disagree in producing a report along those lines.

I do not wish to prolong the debate but I feel strongly about this because I know it can come back to haunt us-----

I assure the Deputy that I do too.

Two basic issues arise. First, I would prefer the high level target because they will insist on us reaching that anyway, by hook or by crook, and I would rather go there my own way. Second, I have great difficulty with Articles 10 and 12. Third, the entire directive is a little bit cheeky of Europe because of the issue I raised about the renewable energy feed-in tariff, REFIT, and the delay in getting the 1,000 MG of wind energy up and running. We have a 4,000 MG target which we can reach if Europe does not keep holding us up. There is a saying in Irish - An pota ag tabhairt tóin dhubh ar an gciteal, and I believe that is what is involved here.

In referring to technology, I meant that for us to exploit our renewable energy the idea of a super grid connected across Europe, which would be very expensive but in the long term would allow us export energy at will, is necessary because we need to export when we have got a great deal of wind energy and import it when we do not. I do not know the stage of development in terms of providing finance centrally for Europe towards such a development to allow us exploit our renewables and export them across Europe. My understanding is that what we are getting is an interconnector which is not in those terms of any real significance in the greater scheme of things.

Do the representatives wish to make any final comments?

Dr. Stjohn O’Connor

The renewables area is not my area of expertise and therefore I would be loath to comment publicly on that.

This has been an informative and useful presentation. An overview might be helpful to members. It is quite clear that the Department is already aware of many of the concerns expressed by members today. I thank Dr. O'Connor, Mr. Confrey, Mr. Rice and Mr. O'Rourke for their presentations, answers and observations. The clerk will draw up a report with recommendations, following today's meeting, that will be brought before the committee for approval.

The joint committee went into private session at 1.10 p.m. and adjourned at 1.55 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 13 December 2011.
Barr
Roinn