Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Nov 2023

Future Licences and Contracts to Connect Data Centres to the Gas Network: Discussion

No apologies have been received. The purpose of the meeting today is to discuss the future licences and contracts to connect data centres to the gas network. On behalf of the committee, I welcome representatives from the Commission for the Regulation of Utilities, CRU, and Climate Change Advisory Council, CCAC, to the meeting. From the CRU we have Mr. Jim Gannon, chairperson, Ms Aoife MacEvilly, commissioner, Mr. John Melvin, director of security of supply and wholesale, Dr. Phil Hemmingway, director of carbonisation, and Dr. Mary Doorly. From the CCAC we have Ms Marie Donnelly, chairperson, Dr. Meabh Gallagher, carbon budgets team lead, and Mr. George Hussey, secretariat manager.

I will move to the note on privilege, which I am compelled to read out. I remind the witnesses of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of a person or entity. Therefore, if witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction. For witnesses today who are attending remotely outside the Leinster House campus, there are some limitations to parliamentary privilege and, as such, they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness physically present does.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members that they are only allowed to participate in this meeting if they are physically located in the Leinster House complex. In that regard, I ask all members, prior to making their contribution to the meeting, to confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

I call Mr. Gannon to make his opening statement.

Deputy Brian Leddin took the Chair.

Mr. Jim Gannon

I wish members a good evening and thank them for inviting us to join them today. We are here to discuss future licences and contracts to connect data centres to our energy networks.

In 2018, the Government published its Statement on The Role of Data Centres in Ireland’s Enterprise Strategy. This noted Ireland’s ambition to be a digital economy hot spot in Europe. It also noted the challenges that data centres could pose to the future planning and operation of a sustainable power system, with a focus on electricity networks, and noted that, "A plan-led approach will develop a range of measures to promote regional options for data centre ... [development], minimising the need for additional grid infrastructure."

In July 2022, the Government produced an updated Statement on The Role of Data Centres in Ireland’s Enterprise Strategy. This considered the twin transitions of decarbonisation and digitalisation and their complementarity. The statement sets out principles with the intention of ensuring that the data centre infrastructure that can be accommodated will contribute to our climate and policy ambitions. It notes that the principles "will be reflected in energy, enterprise and planning policy, regulatory and other decisions across Government Departments, local authorities, enterprise development agencies and other public bodies".

We will outline the key areas of activity where we, as energy regulator, are seeking to reflect and implement the aforementioned policy with due regard to Ireland’s Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act and associated carbon budgets. The CRU is developing an ambitious energy demand strategy in line with our responsibilities under the climate Act and to meet the requirements of the Climate Action Plan 2023. The objectives of the energy demand strategy include increasing energy system flexibility and reducing the carbon intensity of energy demand. The CRU is progressing this at pace to maximise the impact on the carbon budget and is co-ordinating with key relevant Departments and agencies.

This summer, in furtherance of this strategy, the CRU published a call for evidence on phase 1 of the energy demand strategy, with three areas of focus: smart services to encourage greater flexibility among domestic customers and small business customers; demand flexibility and response to incentivise provision of demand response at certain times, and I note a recent ESB Networks, ESBN, consultation on that; and a focus on new demand connections, targeted initially at very large energy users, both electricity and gas, seeking to connect.

As part of this process, in June 2023 the CRU published a call for evidence on large energy user connections. Currently, applications from data centres applying to connect to the electricity network are covered by the CRU direction to system operators, SOs, related to data centre grid connection processing. For data centre connections to the gas network, the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications has written to Gas Networks Ireland, GNI, and has received a response outlining GNI’s obligations under the Gas Acts. I will come to that again later.

In quarter 1 of 2023, during the early stages of consideration of the energy demand strategy, the CRU consulted bilaterally with GNI, EirGrid and ESB Networks, with letters then issued in the summer period, on the possibility for interim measures to be put in place enabling the alignment of existing connection arrangements for large energy users to take cognisance of the climate Act and carbon budgets. Concerns were raised by SOs relating to how this might be balanced against existing constraints and-or obligations in legislation and existing policy.

The new CRU review of large energy user connections on both the gas and electricity networks highlights the sectoral emissions ceilings and the Government Statement on the Role of Data Centres in Ireland’s Enterprise Strategy and is intended to identify any current process, regulatory and-or policy barrier to full alignment of large energy user connection approaches taken by the system operators and Ireland’s climate Act and associated carbon budgets. Following the call for evidence, the CRU is now developing a more detailed consultation, which it intends to publish in quarter 4 of 2023. The targeted timeframe for a decision on large energy user connections is quarter 1 of 2024.

The CRU expects this decision to outline the conditions for connecting large energy users, LEUs, to the gas and electricity networks. A number of aspects are being considered as part of this consultation. First, the aim of the review is to provide a pathway for new LEU connections to electricity and gas systems that minimises the impact on national carbon emissions and supports industry and others to decarbonise Ireland’s economic growth. Due to the considerable interaction between gas and electricity networks, the CRU is cognisant that a co-ordinated approach is required for connections to the electricity and gas networks to ensure policies introduced for electricity do not inadvertently lead to an increase in emissions from new gas connections and vice versa.

As part of the review, the CRU is considering criteria such as the requirement for a corporate power purchase agreement, CPPA, for renewable energy.

We note the Climate Change Advisory Council, CCAC’s, recommendation that planning permission for all data centres should require a CPPA for renewable electricity and agree this requirement could be more appropriate as a planning condition for the facility, which would typically be earlier in the development process, rather than as a regulatory condition. We note the recent grant of planning by Fingal County Council for a data centre in Blanchardstown-Mulhuddart that not only requires a CPPA to be in place and attributable to the data centre but also requires that "the amount of electricity generated by the new renewable energy projects shall be equal to or greater than the electricity requirements of the data centres in operation at any given time". That is a very important specification in the planning condition.

The published call for evidence also explores the potential of moving to a requirement for real-time zero carbon demand. To facilitate this, hourly emissions monitoring and reporting would be a key enabler. ESBN is engaging with the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, on this, which will form an element of the ESB national networks local connections programme, and the CRU will continue to support the delivery of this capability and engage with system operators as part of that process. The call for evidence also considers the role of on-site generation and storage. We note that some large demand connections may require on-site backup generation, both for operational reasons and under the current CRU direction for connection. This can assist with security of supply concerns on the grid. Where on-site backup is a requirement, it may be worth exploring what conditions could be put in place through planning conditions or environmental licensing that would typically provide an earlier signal in the development process to ensure this backup generation is low or carbon neutral, for example, batteries, green hydrogen in the future, biomethane, hydro-treated vegetable oil, HVO, or alternative fuels. The CRU is exploring other means of achieving this, including through its own regulatory measures, as part of the large energy users, LEUs, connection policy review.

In July, the CRU consulted on proposals for price control five, PC5, which will set the revenues that Gas Networks Ireland, GNI, collects from its customers up to September 2027. The consultation proposed an incentive to ensure GNI would consider and adapt its business to have regard more clearly to the climate Act, carbon budgets and broader decarbonisation policy. Following feedback from stakeholders, the CRU is now minded to strengthen this incentive further, linking it to, for example, acting on the energy demand strategy. While not directly related to the review of large energy user connections, in line with the CRU’s new regulatory role in district heating, the CRU supports the CCAC’s proposal that the planning process should ensure data centres and other LEUs build in heat export capability, where practicable, at the time of construction to facilitate future district heating networks.

A letter recently forwarded from the CCAC recommends that:

CRU should direct GNI not to sign any more contracts to connect data centres to the gas network where the data centre would be powered mainly by on-site fossil fuel generation under section 10A of the Gas Act, to reflect the Government statement. If there is a legislative barrier the Government should take immediate action to revise the Gas Act in line with national policy and the principles set out in the Government statement.

The CRU understands that GNI has paused processing islanded data centre applications in line with both the ministerial direction mentioned earlier and the Government statement on the role of data centres in Ireland’s enterprise strategy. In parallel and as noted above, the CRU is exploring more enduring options to align future LEU connections with the climate policy through the call for evidence outlined above. This exercise and any subsequent decision may identify the need for amendments to existing legislation to implement recommendations.

The CRU notes its strategic objectives are fully aligned with the national climate objective, with one of its strategic priorities being to drive a low-carbon future. The objectives associated with this priority are to design and implement regulatory frameworks that deliver transformational change, to enable high levels of renewable integration through market design and development, and to ensure markets enable participation in the transition by all customers. The CRU is carrying out its functions with a view to enabling decarbonisation of the energy system. However, the CRU’s early engagement on specific initiatives, including the call for evidence on large energy user connections, suggests there remains a lack of clarity on the extent to which each public body is expected to, or is empowered to, play a role. The CRU therefore welcomes the call from the CCAC for the Government to "review and revise the legal mandate of relevant State agencies and public bodies to ensure these are consistent with delivering the climate action plan measures as well as the legislated carbon budgets".

The CRU also notes the recent publication of the recast energy efficiency directive which more than doubles the annual energy savings obligation by 2028, making it binding for EU countries to collectively ensure an additional 11.7% reduction in energy consumption by 2030 compared with the 2020 reference scenario projections. Alongside Ireland’s carbon budgets, this will likely increase the need for Ireland to examine the scenarios for our continued economic growth and to consider how we ensure economic growth is decoupled from carbon and energy intensity where possible and to reflect on which sectors will share the burden and opportunities arising from these policy obligations.

Finally, as an appendix to our opening statement and in furtherance of an update in our letter provided on Monday, we note an error in the figures provided on arrears to the committee. The figure on non-domestic gas arrears and the percentage of non-domestic gas arrears was provided in error, where a figure of 15,501 was provided and a percentage of 56% was provided. We forwarded an update to those figures earlier today to the joint committee prior to this meeting. The 15,501 figure is in fact 8,007 and the percentage figure of 56% is in fact 29%, so that was a mistake we made. I apologise for that. We always try to make information available quickly and clearly and clarify any ambiguity in the information we provide. We understand how it was provided and how the error was made and will make significant efforts not to have that happen again. Apologies to the committee from myself.

This concludes our opening statement and we are happy to take questions.

I thank Mr. Gannon for his opening statement. I thank Deputy O'Sullivan for opening the meeting, as I was not available at the start. I thank Mr. Gannon for clarifying the situation with respect to the figure for non-domestic gas users in arrears that it is 29% and not 56%. I note that one of the national newspapers has published an article outlining that clarification as well. I will go now to Ms Donnelly of the Climate Change Advisory Council, CCAC, for her opening statement.

Ms Marie Donnelly

I thank the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action for the opportunity to attend today and to speak on the impact of future licences and contracts to connect data centres to the gas network. I am the chairperson of the Climate Change Advisory Council. The council's role is to be an independent advisory body tasked with assessing and advising on how Ireland can achieve the transition to a climate-resilient, biodiversity-rich, environmentally sustainable and climate-neutral economy. The council particularly welcomes the opportunity to have a discussion on the growth in energy demand from data centres in the context of decarbonisation of the electricity sector.

The electricity sector was set one of the most ambitious emissions reduction targets in terms of its sectoral emissions ceiling, SEC. However, it is the sector that is furthest off track in terms of meeting this ceiling, with already 49% of its emissions target consumed after only two years. EirGrid has estimated that a 34% increase in demand for electricity is foreseen by 2030, with the largest growth coming from data centres, which are projected to account for 23% of electricity demand by 2030. Over the same time period, the 2023 national climate action plan targets the roll-out of 9 GW of onshore wind, 8 GW of solar and at least 5 GW of offshore wind by 2030. This additional renewable electricity which uses our own indigenous resource will generate sufficient renewable electricity to meet the forecasted growth in electricity demand. However, the council notes the deployment of onshore renewables is not on track and the current connection rates observed for both onshore wind and solar are significantly lower than required to meet our 2025 and 2030 targets. The council is particularly concerned that delays to key actions are jeopardising the achievement of our onshore renewable electricity generation targets. In particular, we are concerned that the renewable electricity spatial policy framework that was due to be published in quarter 3 of 2023 and which is crucial to provide the necessary spatial planning guidance to support the scaled up deployment of onshore renewable electricity has not been published.

Earlier today, the Government published a report on the achievements of quarter 3 actions under the climate action plan. It has acknowledged that these are not on time but has given no indication as to when they will come through. This is rather unfortunate.

Second, enabling actions on hybrid technology grid connections, policy on private wires and the new draft wind energy guidelines for onshore wind energy generation have not been finalised. Further, the council has concerns about the near absence of onshore wind projects that have received planning approval in the past 12 to 18 months. For example, just four onshore wind projects, totalling nearly 70 MW, have been approved in the planning system in the past 12 months, with one of these projects currently being under appeal. Just so that members of the committee are aware, there are applications for approximately 800 MW currently in the planning system. There is no indication as to when decisions may or may not be taken on these.

This failure to get planning approval means that there are important consequences. First, it means our capacity to meet growing electricity demand is jeopardised. Second, the availability of projects for data centres to contract with for corporate power purchase agreements is diminished. Third, a reduction of projects with planning approval will lead to a reduced number of qualifying projects for the renewable energy support scheme, RESS, 4 auction in 2024 and a likely increase in the average price that consumers will have to pay for electricity in the future.

The council has previously stated that accelerated deployment of onshore renewable electricity generation will be crucial for the electricity sector to meet its sectoral emissions ceiling for the first carbon budget period and indeed for the second carbon budget. The delay to the expansion of our onshore renewable capacity in line with our 2023 climate action targets, along with the continued use of coal in electricity generation, means that steeper emissions reductions will be required in future to remain within our carbon budgets.

Specifically on data centres, the council has recommended that planning permission for all data centres should require corporate power purchase agreements for renewable electricity, the volume of which exceeds the maximum electricity demand of the data centre, and that these should be connected to the grid in advance of commissioning the data centre. This is in line with the principle of renewables additionality set out in the Government's statement on the role of data centres in Ireland’s enterprise strategy. Also, new data centres and other large energy users should be required to build in heat export ability at the time of initial construction for simple potential connection to future district heating networks.

The council has considered the Government’s statement on the role of data centres in Ireland’s enterprise strategy, in which the Government has stated that islanded data centre developments that are not connected to the electricity grid and are powered mainly by on-site fossil fuel generation would not be in line with national policy. These would run counter to emissions reduction objectives and would not serve the wider efficiency and decarbonisation of our energy system. Growth in islanded data centres could result in the risk regarding security of supply being transferred from electricity to gas supply, which would be a significant challenge in light of Ireland’s reliance on gas importation. In this respect, the council recommends that, under section 10A of the Gas Act, and to reflect the Government's statement, the CRU should direct GNI not to sign any more contracts to connect data centres to the gas network where the data centre would be powered mainly by on-site fossil fuel generation. If there is a legislative barrier, the Government should take immediate action to revise the Gas Act in line with national policy and the principles set out in the Government's statement. Further, each system operator should work with large energy users to facilitate accurate hourly emissions reporting and grid carbon intensity transparency and allow data centres to optimise computing loads in order to maximise the use of renewables and minimise carbon emissions.

The objectives of all relevant public bodies should be immediately aligned with and support the achievement of the national climate objective. The Government should review and revise the legal mandate of relevant State agencies and public bodies to ensure that these are consistent with delivering climate action plan measures, as well as the legislated carbon budgets.

In order to meet the requirement to have on-site generation and-or battery storage that is sufficient to meet their own demand, data centres are utilising on-site dispatchable fossil fuel generation, rather than renewable electricity stored in batteries. Battery storage using renewable electricity is key to decarbonising data centres and maximising the available renewables in the system. However, the current regulatory treatment of battery storage represents a barrier to the entry and participation of battery storage in the wholesale electricity market. The council is concerned that the delay to the publication by the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications of the policy framework for electricity storage, which was also due in the third quarter of this year, will have a knock-on delay to the publication of the regulatory review of the treatment of storage including licensing, charging and market incentives, which is scheduled for the fourth quarter.

When renewable electricity is not available, it would constrain emissions and be economically more desirable if the backup was provided centrally with a large open-cycle gas turbine. Backup provision through diesel generation should be strongly discouraged.

Our indigenous renewable resource is sufficient to meet the forecast growth in electricity demand, but roadblocks must be removed to accelerate the necessary scaled-up roll-out of renewable electricity across the country, recognising renewable energy projects as an overriding public interest. We are now in the third year of the first carbon budget. We need to urgently address the delays to the roll-out of onshore renewables if we are to stay within our carbon budget and meet an increasing demand for electricity. The council views the recent growth in the number of islanded data centres as of particular concern due to their potential to increase gas demand, jeopardise gas security and give rise to an associated increase in carbon emissions.

The council is happy to assist this committee in its deliberations on the decarbonisation of our electricity sector in the context of growth in energy demand. I look forward to the discussion.

I thank Ms Donnelly for her opening statement. It was very thorough, as was Mr. Gannon's. We very much appreciate that. Before we begin, I note that the Dáil is in session and we may be called away to vote. There is a possibility that the bells may ring at any point. If that happens, I will suspend the meeting to allow members to go to the Dáil to vote. Typically, we suspend for 15 or 20 minutes to allow that to happen.

I invite colleagues to indicate to ask questions. I remind them that we will have five-minute slots as usual, but I will of course allow latitude if it is helping the discussion. I will certainly give latitude to our guests in order to get their points across. I call Deputy Whitmore first.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I did not expect to be first up. The Cathaoirleach has taken me by surprise.

My first question is to Ms Donnelly in relation to a note in her submission. She raises many concerns in relation to progress being made when it comes to renewable energy and she highlights risks to meeting the targets as a result of that. She also says that she recommends that planning permission for data centres should require corporate power purchase agreements so that they themselves are renewable and do not create any emissions. Yet, the barriers to the completion of many of these renewable projects include issues with construction workers, capacity issues in building and the processes. There is the planning process, getting through An Bord Pleanála and all those different administrative and logistical processes. If we are to allow continued growth in data centres - which have significant financial resources behind them - and if they can be the ones to access the developers that will be responsible for the construction of this wind or renewable energy, will that not be to the detriment of our targets?

Essentially, we need those renewable resources in place to meet our current energy and electricity demands, not any future or continued growth within them. I am not sure if I am explaining it correctly but does Ms Donnelly see a conflict there? Surely if we are going to be building renewable energy, the first place it should be prioritised to be used is for current energy consumption and not for projected growth of data centres?

Ms Marie Donnelly

Deputy Whitmore makes very valuable points on a number of aspects that I would like to come back on if I can. As a general approach, if our natural resource availability was limited I would agree with the Deputy 100% but, as it happens, our natural resource of both wind and solar is not limited, so it is not a limiting factor in terms of the roll-out of onshore renewables, be they either wind or solar.

In response to the question of whether it is data centres that are taking over from other wind farms, I think there is an element of natural justice in this. If data centres are going to use that much of our electricity, it seems logical that they should pay for the production of it and making it available. My understanding is that it is a possibility to go down that road. It is not being resisted by the data centres and in natural justice, as I say, it would seem to be quite equitable when the natural resources are sufficient to cover the demand.

Deputy Whitmore also raises an important point, which is that the costs of actually rolling out infrastructure in the current environment are increasing and that is a challenge. It is not just a challenge for data centres; it is a challenge for ourselves given that we want to see these rolling out. We do our annual auctions and if the auction is not filled, we suffer because we do not have enough of the issue. That is a general concern. It is happening. We have seen it not just in Ireland but, for example, in the United Kingdom where there were zero applications for their most recent offshore auction because of the pricing. We have seen where Ørsted has pulled out of two very large offshore construction facilities in the United States. Its share price dropped 40% on the basis of that but the pricing just got out of line, and it could not proceed with it because it would not have been able to fund it. There is an issue that we do need to look at, more as a consequence, shall we say, of what has happened globally in the supply chain, and the knock-on consequences of that on capacity and the cost of construction. Given that our source raw material is not in short supply, it would seem to be entirely coherent that data centres that will use electricity should pay for its production.

When Ms Donnelly says it is not in short supply is she talking about just wind?

Ms Marie Donnelly

Wind and solar.

I suppose we have to translate that into a usable energy source and in order to do that we must have construction workers, developers and the infrastructure, and that is limited. Where that is limited, that is the limiting factor. If we have 100 workers and they can produce ten wind farms, are we better off saying we do not want those ten wind farms to be used for growth in data centre demand but that this energy should be used for businesses and homes across the country? When we have sufficient capacity we can certainly open it up and data centres can build their own wind farms and have their own contracts but that should not be the case until we match our status quo of energy demand.

Ms Marie Donnelly

Currently, and of course this can change, as a sector, like all sectors in Ireland, there is pretty much full employment and there is scarcity. It is a sector that is perhaps not as badly affected with a capacity constraint as, for example, the housing sector is. This is a very specialist area and the investors here are able to programme the availability and in some instances bring in expertise from abroad in order to facilitate the construction. Of itself, until now, that has not been a constraint but that could change. Deputy Whitmore is quite right that it is an issue that we need to continue to monitor but I do not think it is a basis for saying that data centres should not contribute their fair share to the generation of renewable electricity for the country.

I have a question for the CRU but I do not know if I have time to ask it.

I just read the Dermot McCarthy report. It gives a good history of how we got to the energy security risks that we had. It was clear that those risks were identified as early as 2017 and it was primarily, even back then, identified that the large energy users such as data centres were going to cause problems when it came to energy security risks. One of the roles of the CRU is to ensure security of supply. This report states that having regard to the pressure arising from the demand from data centres, new conditions for connecting them to the grid, which were introduced in 2021, could have been put in place at the time of the Government's statement on the role of data centres in 2018. Mr. McCarthy is essentially saying that we would not have hit, or had, as serious a security of supply issue with our energy if the State had put in place measures that it knew were going to be required. I see the CRU as central to that. Does Mr. Gannon see it as a failure in the CRU's response that energy risks were identified as early as 2017, yet it took until 2021 before any conditions were placed on data centres to curb their demand? That is a significant time gap. Does Mr. Gannon see that as a failure of the CRU in that role?

Mr. Jim Gannon

At the start of the timeline Deputy Whitmore referred to, the potential increase and acceleration of the rise in data centre demand was identified as a potential risk in 2017. In 2018, the Government published its first statement on the role of data centres in Ireland as an enterprise strategy and articulated that a plan-led approach would be taken, which would include actions by the regulator but also, one assumes, many other entities in terms of enterprise planning, spatial planning and other actors.

In 2018, I believe, and I will confirm this, the first data centre connection process and policy, DCCOPP, was developed by EirGrid in tandem with the CRU, which recognised that data centres were different and were a paradigm shift. This was the first policy put in place to try to address these grid connections differently. In parallel with that, in the energy projections that are developed and support our decision-making process, it became apparent that data centre demand prediction was quite difficult. If we look at the generation capacity statement from different years, including 2018, and 2019 to 2021, the years Deputy Whitmore referred to, the median demand raised and then lowered by significant margins, which were of the order of 300 MW at different stages. It is, therefore, unpredictable and challenging to predict.

Between the first data centre connections policy and the subsequent one in 2021, we experienced a significant tightening, sparked by the loss of two combined cycle gas turbine, CCGT, generation units for the better part of a year. That placed a highlight on the tightness of the system or how tight it could get at that point in time. At the same time, we saw again an increase in data centre demand, and an acceleration in that. The fact that data centre demand would increase was put forward as a risk but that demand is difficult to predict. A policy was put in place in 2018 which required strengthening in 2021. It now requires further strengthening, not just to deal with security of supply but also with decarbonisation, and that is what we are considering at the moment.

Does Mr. Gannon think the CRU's processes take too long? We even see in quarter 1 of 2023, during the early stages of the energy demand strategy, that the CRU did a consultation. There was a call for evidence and the CRU is now developing a more detailed consultation which it intends to publish in quarter 4 of 2023, with the targeted timeframe decision to be taken in quarter 1 of 2024. From looking at the operation of what the CRU does, it seems there is a significant time between the start of the process and a decision. I can understand that there is consultation but it seems to be very prolonged. In instances like this where we need a more reactive approach, is that part of the difficulty?

Mr. Jim Gannon

It is a fair challenge. It is something we have challenged ourselves on. We are resourcing up. We should have close to 150 staff by the end of this year and close to 194 at the end of next year. At the Department's request, we have sought to look again at our resourcing beyond the current sanction for 194 staff.

We believe that is necessary and it is therefore something we challenge ourselves on. This includes the efficiency of decision-making, as well as the length of and how many consultation stages we should go through with different decisions. In 2021, when that policy was brought in, we had a single very compressed consultation. I believe it was possibly only two to four weeks because of the urgency of that situation. It is therefore possible to adapt and be flexible when urgent situations come about and we continue to challenge ourselves on that.

Ms MacEvilly looked as though she was going to come in. Does she want to briefly make a contribution?

Ms Aoife MacEvilly

I wanted to speak about the context of that 2021 decision. I refer to the timeline from the point that EirGrid wrote to us to say that there was an issue we needed to urgently address to the point that we consulted on and produced that direction to it. It was actually quite short; I think in that case it was actually a matter of months. In addition, in the timeline the Deputy described, we were not just looking at connection policy but also introduced an entirely new market, which was known as the integrated single electricity market, I-SEM, project and which was a redesign of our wholesale market, including capacity auctions. As we were running annual capacity auctions to bring in new capacity, a whole range of measures were being progressed simultaneously. It was not just the case that there was a single action regarding the data centres connection policy. I just wanted to add that point.

I will go to Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan, but for the benefit of the members, I will read out the order by which members will come in. Deputy O'Sullivan will be followed by Deputy O'Rourke, Senator Dooley, Deputy Kenny and Deputy Bruton.

My first question is for the CRU. Can the representatives explain how a corporate power purchase agreement is more beneficial and sustainable in the long run in terms of data centres?

Mr. Jim Gannon

Yes. I am happy for either of my colleagues to take this question if I am not clear enough. I will try not to ramble.

A project needs funding for the electricity it produces. If it enters into one of the RESS auctions, it receives a contract. That contract gives it a set amount of money for each kilowatt hour or unit of electricity that is produced from the wind farm. If the market price is above that set level, then the wind farm will return the excess. It therefore just gets the amount that is set as its required price. If the market price is below that level, then it will get topped up to the price that was struck in the auction.

An alternative to that is entering into a corporate power purchase agreement. This is where a corporate entity enters into an agreement directly with the wind farm on the price of electricity that is produced. Therefore, the wind farm for the electricity produced would be paid by the corporate entity, as distinct from the RESS auction process and that type of contract. There is a range of different types of risk sharing that can be put into these contracts.

Is the idea that it encourages more renewables to come online, as well as more renewable projects?

Mr. Jim Gannon

It is an alternative way of funding them.

That is very good. In relation to the current energy security situation and lay of the land at the moment, yesterday there was the publication of the energy security strategy. There are some very interesting options in there. In relation to the current scenario and the emergency procurement of 500 MW, can we get an update on that, as well as on the two sites that were proposed?

Mr. Jim Gannon

Yes. I am happy to start off the top of my head, but I think the director, Mr. Melvin, has bullet points with dates. I will pass over to the director.

Mr. John Melvin

We speak of the temporary emergency generation, TEG, in two tranches. The first temporary emergency generation will come in two lots. There will be 50 MW from Huntstown in the west of Dublin and 191 MW in North Wall inside the port. That first tranche is expected to become available this winter. The first element of North Wall is expected to be fully available towards the end of this month when it will be available for commercial operation. The Huntstown element is to come in, if I recall correctly, shortly before or just around Christmas. That is the first tranche, which is two sites-----

Is it the case that the 191 MW will be at the end of this month?

Mr. John Melvin

Yes.

When will the 50 MW at Huntstown be?

Mr. John Melvin

Just before Christmas.

Okay. In the context of the outlook for the winter, demand, security and red alerts etc., where does that leave us?

Mr. John Melvin

EirGrid published its winter outlook approximately three or four weeks ago. That winter outlook compared to the winter outlook last year. Last year, we attended this committee along with EirGrid. The winter outlook expresses risks regarding the adequacy of the electricity system using a figure called “loss of load expectations”. The loss of load expectation that was recorded for last winter was in the fifties and the loss of load expectation recorded for the forthcoming winter was broadly half of that figure. In terms of that measure of risk, this winter was measured by EirGrid-----

Would Mr. Melvin say there is far less risk?

Mr. John Melvin

Well, it is halved. There is more risk than we would normally expect, seek or desire to have in the system but less risk than last winter.

How much did it cost to deliver those two projects?

Mr. John Melvin

I do not have a cost figure before me. The two projects were procured in different ways at different ways at different times. The first TEG was procured through open procurement and the second tranche of the temporary emergency generation, which will be in Tarbert and Shannonbridge, are to come in over 2024-----

Can Mr. Melvin give a ballpark figure for those two?

Mr. John Melvin

We can give the Deputy a ballpark figure in a few minutes. I will find it.

That is okay. Who won those contracts?

Mr. John Melvin

The Huntstown contract is by a company called Energia, and is in the west of Dublin. The North Wall contracts are with ESB and it is an ESB site. The Shannonbridge contract for 262 MW is an ESB site. There was also Tarbert-----

Mr. Melvin might come back to me on the cost. I appreciate that this is a lot of detail to get from him.

I am already out of time, but I want to go to Ms Donnelly as well. The question of onshore wind is a really tricky debate. Personally, I do not believe it should be as tricky and controversial as it is. We have heard of how some county councils have declared in meetings that they cannot accommodate any more onshore wind. I can understand why it is controversial. We have all been approached by communities that just do not want wind farms. Yet, I understand that most of the current volume of renewable energy that is on stream is provided by onshore wind. I could be wrong but I think the vast majority of it is. Therefore, it still clearly plays a big part in our renewable energy capacity. Especially given the issues that Ms Donnelly has highlighted about us not being on track in the delivery of floating offshore wind, how do we get around this? I know this is a really difficult question for her to answer. Are we failing in the area of communication? Are the energy companies failing in the area of communication? It is always the case that when this happens on one's own back door, the issue raises its head. I personally cannot see an issue with them, once they are done in a way that is environmentally and ecologically sensitive and that there is not an environmental or ecological impact. Can Ms Donnelly share her views? It is still my view that a big piece of the delivery of renewables is onshore wind.

Ms Marie Donnelly

I thank the Deputy and share his concern. It is fair to say that the structures that have been put in place in Ireland are logical and reasonable. There is the fact that we have investors coming, and many of them are Irish, and they must meet all the environmental criteria and receive planning. When they construct a wind farm, they must support the local community with a community benefit fund. On average, that amounts to €2 million going into the community over a period of 15 years, which is nice.

We do have to ask ourselves why, given all the provisions that are in place, the supports that are there and the popular support for climate action in the country, the communication messages have not succeeded in connecting in people's minds the idea that a wind farm will keep the lights on.

There has perhaps been a failure of communication in terms of translating the benefits of this particular infrastructure. I would go further than wind turbines and say the issue also applies to pylons. The reality is that this infrastructure needs to be rolled out in order for us to benefit from our own natural resources and be able to keep the lights on. We have failed to communicate that message. It is a failure on the part of all of us.

We know we have failed in this regard but the question is how the hell do we improve.

Ms Marie Donnelly

It requires working much harder. I do not want to sound too much like I am coming from Cork but we must be less Dublin-centric. We need to go out and talk to people in their own areas about what is going on. We need to be able to challenge those who may not have a full understanding of the projects and are against them. We must be able to explain the benefits. People talk about noise from wind turbines. It is important to take people to a turbine and ask whether they can hear it. There is a myth that turbines make noise or cause flicker, as the case may be. It is essential that people are able to feel and touch these structures and not be intimidated by them at a distance. That is a role for us all, including those of us in the council and our colleagues in CRU, and it is a role for politicians, who are, after all, the leaders in society. Any way we can support members in that is something we would like to do.

Ms Donnelly should never apologise for being from Cork, especially the Old Head, which is heaven. We have a challenge in reaching renewable energy targets and delivering different aspects of energy security. Does Ms Donnelly believe that CRU, EirGrid, ESB Networks and the relevant Departments are working closely enough together? Is there a need for more cohesion, communication and joined-up thinking? Is that an issue?

Ms Marie Donnelly

The first point, which we have made repeatedly, is that we need to be able to move faster. That applies to everybody; we all need to be able to move faster. Policy papers must come out more quickly and policy action needs to happen more quickly. As a consequence of that, decisions on planning, investment and construction would be able to happen faster. Speed is becoming absolutely essential to this whole process.

Do people need to talk more to each other? There is always a need for that. Part of the conversation that really is a challenge is that we are all very constrained by what is happening today, which makes it more difficult to think about the future. As Deputy Whitmore pointed out, not being able to understand a message in 2017 and having still to talk about it in 2023 is an illustration that, sometimes, we are looking at today's problems and not taking enough account of tomorrow's problems. We in the council are in something of a privileged position in that we are currently working on the carbon budget up to 2040. I am no longer living in 2023; I am somewhere in 2032 or 2033, trying to understand what direction of travel we should take, what issues are likely to arise and how we can address and prepare for them now in order to ensure we are going in the right direction. That is a challenge we have.

The emergency generation that is coming on line before Christmas is to be welcomed. I thank Ms Donnelly for her replies.

To pick up on an earlier point, is the community dividend obligation the same under a CPPA as it is under the RESS?

Ms Marie Donnelly

I may be wrong but I do not think it is the same.

Ms Donnelly is right that it is not the same. There is an issue there in terms of community acceptance. There is the idea that we are delivering renewable energy in which citizens have a stake and from which they are benefiting, compared with the idea of building renewable infrastructure in their communities that is offsetting data centres owned by multinational corporations. There is a job to do on how we deliver infrastructure at pace and scale and the models we use to do so.

Today's meeting was prompted by the issue of islanded data centres and connections to the gas grid. How many such centres are yet to be built? Am I correct that the number is 11? Mr. Gannon said the notice went from the Minister and his understanding is that Gas Networks Ireland has acted on it and stalled future development. Is the plan for 11 centres to be built? How many do we have at the moment?

Mr. Jim Gannon

My colleague can provide those numbers.

Dr. Phil Hemmingway

One data centre is connected to the gas grid, 11 are contracted and there are formal inquiries from 25.

Will Dr. Hemmingway repeat that?

Dr. Phil Hemmingway

One centre is connected to the gas grid, 11 are contracted, which comes to 1,693 MW of terminal capacity, and there are inquiries from a further 25 centres, which would add up to approximately 9,000 MW of terminal capacity.

How many of those came into play after CRU's plan-led DCCOPP and the enlightenment and awareness around the impact of data centres?

Mr. Jim Gannon

I am happy to take that question. The DCCOPP would have referred specifically to electricity connection. We can have refresh the figures we previously provided on electricity group connections and put them against that pathway. We have data on the electricity connections against when the 2021 policy change came in, so we should be able to track back to 2018 on the electricity side. On the gas side, we have a breakdown of the figures, which we can provide to the Deputy if that is helpful. We can note when they came in, if I can put it that way; how many and when the connection applications came in. I am not sure we have all those data but I can provide what we have. Separately, we can provide information on what is in process. The DCCOPP and the 2021 policy change would have related to the electricity connection as distinct from the gas connection.

Was nobody anywhere paying attention to this? I take the point that there was a focus during that period on the pressure on the electricity system and that there now needs to be an update to deal with decarbonisation. Where does the responsibility lie in this regard? We had legislation on climate and climate action plans, and we now have stronger climate legislation and a stronger climate action plan. Where does the responsibility lie to say this stuff does not add up and does not make sense? We all have a clear picture of the very fine balance to be struck between now and 2030 in terms of managing all of this in respect of electricity, getting the renewables on the grid and making it acceptable to communities. However, regarding the demand on gas, surely somebody should have said, "This is absolutely insane and we just should not do it."

Mr. Jim Gannon

We have a climate action plan in place. The demand strategy, which looks specifically at large energy user connections, to both gas and electricity, is in process and under consultation. We will be bringing forward a decision programme for quarter 1 of next year. That is being acted on. Separately, it has been helpful to have a clear Government policy statement to the effect that islanded data centres are not considered to be beneficial overall. That came out in July.

Of the one data centre that is connected and the 11 that are contracted, is there any room for manoeuvre? It may not be in Mr. Gannon's gift to answer this. Can CRU impose any obligations on those centres, or at least encourage them, to move to alternative sources, avail of a CPPA and move away from gas?

Mr. Jim Gannon

It would be helpful, although it is difficult to get to, to understand how many of these projects are not, in fact, proposed islanded data centres. Many of them would be using gas and would need a gas connection but they are not necessarily saying it would be their primary source of fuel. They would be connected primarily to the electricity grid as their source of energy but their backup, instead of being diesel or something else, would not necessarily require that their own power station be islanded. We can seek that clarity.

It would be helpful if Mr. Gannon could do so. I have a final question.

I see CCAC and CRU welcome the review and revision of the legal mandate of relevant State agencies. It speaks to the point about who is the responsible authority in Government and its agencies for saying there are contradictions in terms of the policy direction and that we have obligations in terms of climate while in enterprise we are pulling in exactly the opposite direction. Who are the agencies in question? Do they include the CRU, in terms of its mandates and responsibilities? Is it GNI? Senator Higgins brought legislation around Bord na Móna, Coillte and others. Is it just for Government to take that in broad terms?

Mr. Jim Gannon

I will be very brief-----

No. You are saved by the bell. The bells are ringing and a vote has been called in the Dáil. We will suspend for about 20 minutes until 6.50 p.m. and I will allow Deputy O'Rourke continue then.

Sitting suspended at 6.31 p.m. and resumed at 6.50 p.m.

The comment from the CCAC, which was welcomed by the CRU, that the Government should review and revise the legal mandate of relevant State agencies and public bodies to ensure they are consistent with delivering the climate action plan and the carbon budgets speaks to some of the points we have been discussing here today. What are the relevant bodies and agencies? What should a review look like? Perhaps we could start with Ms Donnelly.

Ms Marie Donnelly

I thank the Deputy very much indeed for that. The reason we put that in is that the boards of commercial semi-State bodies currently have legal mandates that are heavily commercial and financial and do not include climate considerations. This presents them with a dilemma as regards investment and choices. In the absence of clarity in their legal bases, it can sometimes be very difficult for them to make the right choice. That is why we feel it is very important that commercial semi-State bodies in particular, but also other agencies of government, should have the climate legislation in mind as part and parcel of their mandates so that it can be taken into account in their decisions. I am not too sure whether that must be done through amendments to each relevant Act or whether it could be done across the board. That is a matter for legal people. However, we understand the dilemma posed by some of the current legal bases and this needs to be addressed.

Do Mr. Gannon or Ms MacEvilly want to add anything to that? Do they feel the CRU's own mandate should be looked at? Is it for the commission or someone else to keep an eye on all of that and to ensure consistency with carbon budgets and climate action plans?

Mr. Jim Gannon

We are supportive of the idea. An example of that is the recent data centre policy, published in July 2023, the outcome of which was a Government policy statement that said there should be activity across Government Departments and State agencies and a plan-led approach should be adopted. That involves planning, environmental licensing, energy regulation, semi-State involvement and enterprise policy and how it interacts with spatial policy. That sort of guidance is given. To take it down to the next level, there is our energy demand strategy, which we have also consulted upon. We are engaging with the enterprise agencies and the commercial semi-State bodies and system operators in that discussion. What we are seeing is that, in certain cases, we had legislation to provide for access to energy, for example, through electricity or gas connections, that was premised on the primacy of access to energy connections and energy. Such legislation did not consider this new mandate in respect of the climate Act. There are certain parts of legislation in which we need to consider the balance between what existed in the past and what exists now in respect of climate action and carbon budgets to facilitate that sort of response. That is why we are supportive. That is a specific example that evidences that it would be helpful.

I thank both groups for their presentations. We are here to discuss data centres and their impact on the grid and electricity generation in general. To reflect a little bit on what Ms Donnelly said about wind energy and how that debate has been lost in conversations in communities, I am concerned that a little bit of that is creeping into the debate on data centres. There is an effort by some to portray data centres as the bad child, something that is destroying our capacity to meet our need for electricity, and there is a failure to recognise what would seem obvious to most, which is that data centres are what filing cabinets were in the 1960s and what advanced factories were in the 1970s and 1980s. They are an integral part of the next phase of our economy. If we get into a conversation about pausing their development to wait for ourselves to catch up on the other end, that is a negative that will very shortly come back to haunt us from an economic point of view. I have always felt that, rather than targeting the data centres, we should aggressively go about ensuring we reach a point at which we have both grid capacity and capacity for generation, as Ms MacEvilly will recall me saying before. That is where our focus must be.

I recognise that the earlier Government policy paper was probably necessary. It is fair enough to look at the islanded data centres. However, we have to recognise that there are other data centres out there. I am conscious that islanded data centres are problematic. Cloud Infrastructure Ireland is a group representing Amazon, Google, Microsoft and others, and it is headed by up a former Member of these Houses, Michael McCarthy. These companies are really big players in terms of our future. We have to make a differentiation, as the CRU did when speaking about the islanded data centres. It has to be clear that there are data centres and operators that are connected to the grid and generating renewable energy. They will bring approximately 1,100 MW to the grid over the coming years. We should not end up with a negative view of data centres. In my humble opinion, we have to emphasise their importance for our economic future.

There can also be a sustainability element to this. Both groups will be familiar with the ESB's proposals to develop an offshore wind entity off the west coast of Ireland and will be aware that there are others looking at such a project. I will mention two things. I would like Ms Donnelly to speak to the first issue, which is the delays. If you talk to people in the ESB and in the private sector who are looking at wave and wind energy, you will hear that while there are ambitious targets for delivery, we are slipping behind. There are designated maritime area plans, DMAPs, to be done and an area may not be in the next phase. Quite frankly, investment is moving to other jurisdictions where returns can be realised more quickly. We talk a lot and we are really good on policy ideas and vision but we are dreadful on delivery. That speaks to the 2030 targets, which Ms Donnelly has already referenced. Any comments on that issue would be helpful.

On the capacity for offshore wind energy, as Ms Donnelly has rightly identified it is difficult not only to get wind turbines in place, but also to install pylons and grid infrastructure. With data centres, demand can be moved almost to the point of harvesting. The centres do not have to go offshore; they can be onshore. There is no need for a big grid to get the energy to Dublin because the data centre can be put closer to the point of delivery in Kilrush, Kilkee or wherever. We have to push back against this narrative, which I believe is tied up in a political ideology that progress and economic activity are bad and that data centres are all about YouTube, music and silly photographs and videos when they are not. They are central repositories of data, which are now in the cloud. It is about banking and finance. Everything is now in the cloud and we have to fight this narrative. I meet people in the street who ask what these data centres are and whether they are bad, not realising that they use them every day to do their business.

Ms Marie Donnelly

The Senator has raised a number of very important points. In advance of today, we had the pleasure of meeting with Cloud Infrastructure Ireland and another group. I have forgotten its name. Was it DII?

Ms Marie Donnelly

No. It began with "digital". It is concerned with co-location. We in the council have acknowledged that as we go forward in our transition, we need to move away from using fossil fuels as our main source of energy because of the emissions linked to such fuels and that we therefore need an alternative and decarbonised source of energy.

The direction of travel there will be decarbonised electricity. Electricity will become our energy vector going forward into the future, but with this is the way we use electricity. We have already had discussion about demand, the time of usage or whatever. One of the important elements about electricity is how we use it. A key contributor to efficient usage of electricity is the automation and digitalisation and the reality is that they depend on data centres. The Senator is quite right. The data centres, if one can imagine, are the floor on top of which one can put all of the various apps for this, that and the other which will allow us to automate home heating systems, lights going on or whatever it might be. In fact, they are inextricably linked. It is an element. The Senator is quite right that we need to understand that because we will not be able to decarbonise without digitalisation.

There are certain elements that we need to look at that can perhaps be beneficial. The big data centres - the names that we know - invest vast sums of money in being as efficient as possible because it is all money for them.

It is in their interest.

Ms Marie Donnelly

They are doing that, not for us but for their own sake. We could be more supportive of smaller entities that have their own facilities in the basement of the factory or the office block, as the case may be, in that co-location of some of the smaller data centres can provide greater levels of efficiency of processing the data. That is an opportunity that is there for bringing some of the efficiencies that Mr. Gannon was talking about coming in the energy efficiency directive that if one moves it into a-----

A shared location.

Ms Marie Donnelly

-----co-location or shared centre, it can be more efficient. It is something that perhaps can be developed more thoroughly in the country.

When one talks about ultimately going forward for the economy and for society in Ireland, one talks about the offshore wind. It is a fabulous resource. Most of Europe is looking at us with envy for it. I agree we need to harness it. When we harness it, we need to use it to the best return for Ireland. The council has argued and, indeed, many people have said that we need to look at the best value added that we can get out of that. It might be electrons in the form of electricity. It might be molecules in the form of hydrogen. It could be even higher valued - up the chain of the value added. If we look at data centres, they use electricity to run the data centre but converting that electricity into data is adding value. It is effectively an industrial process that gives a return to the country. Some of those elements perhaps have not been communicated very well. I am sorry I am coming back to the point that maybe we are just not able to communicate properly some of these very complex issues to people.

The sound bites are so much easier. When one is explaining, one is losing. Sound bites feature all the time in politics. I am always taken by the protest that used be about the telephone masts, where the handwritten sign put up stated, "Call 087 ..., if you want ...". That was okay, but there was no coverage.

Ms Marie Donnelly

This is part of the difficulty. I would agree with the Senator. In our response, we were clear in coming through and saying that we have the resource to meet the electricity demand and let us get that right. The electricity demand of itself is not the problem. We have a problem with the source of the actual energy going into it and we need to maximise the benefit. Obviously, they need to be as efficient as possible and deliver as much as possible to the country but let us focus our attention where the real problem is right now.

For the offshore delays, we have set up the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA. We have done our first round, which is very good. We are now looking at the environmental issues. We are starting to see some objections coming through. It is going to be a challenging process to go through the legitimate environmental checks and balances and the planning process. This is probably the first time that as a country we have looked at planning of infrastructure like that offshore. It will be novel. It will require a concerted approach, from leaders, such as the committee members, and from communication, to get that message across as to the value that presents to the country and why we need to go ahead with it.

The Deputy is correct that it is an issue of concern. We are not lost yet but it is an issue of concern.

I thank Ms Donnelly.

I do not think there was a question for the regulator.

I had all those questions.

I call Deputy Martin Kenny.

I thank the Chair and thank the witnesses for their opening statements and the engagement so far. I want to focus on little part of all of this.

I note Ms Donnelly, in her opening statement, said that "Battery storage using renewable electricity is key to decarbonising data centres and maximising the available renewables in the system." I assume that is available renewables for everybody, including data centres. I would like to understand how much of that battery capacity have we got to do that and how much more do we need to have. A certain amount of the electricity that is produced disappears. How much of that can be stored? If we had the capacity to store that, where would we be at in regard to sustainability?

Dr. Meabh Gallagher

The market has seen a successful deployment of the shorter duration storage to date but it is the longer duration eight-hour battery storage where we would see an issue or have concerns. In EirGrid's analysis for the climate action plan, it has pointed to a need for significant long-duration storage in the second carbon budget period from 2025 to 2030. I suppose the council's concern would be that that will be delivered on time and be in place to back-up the renewables on the system at that point. I suppose that is where the council has pointed to concerns around delays of some of the enabling policies there - the storage framework that was due in quarter 3 and the regulatory review of storage that is due by the end of this year.

In general, there are a number of market barriers for that long duration storage to interact with the market at present from the system service market, the energy market and the capacity market and there is a good deal of enabling policy and regulation that will need to come in time to deliver this longer duration storage from 2025. If there is a planning element to that, it makes it a very short timeframe between now and then. In the context of data centres, the shorter duration storage that we have available at present is not necessarily the most suitable for data centres for back-up generation if they have an outage for a longer period of time and it is that long-duration eight-hour storage that they would require.

Is it prohibitive cost-wise or what are the main issues there? Is the investment there? Is there capacity within that sector to deliver? Dr. Gallagher said there are issues regarding regulation and so on but if all of those were ironed out, how fast could that be done?

Ms Marie Donnelly

I suspect that would be done very quickly if all goes with us. Money talks. In the end of the day, it could be implemented on this issue. We will have the same problem that everybody else has of whether we can access the raw materials and the supply chains to supply the batteries and the materials in the batteries, but that will be the same as everywhere else. If we put enough effort behind it, we will be able to do it.

There is a secondary element but it is a more long-term issue. That is that, in general, we need to look at alternative storage mechanisms for electricity. There are various. The ones that are in solid-state batteries, for example, are being investigated. There are some salts that are being investigated. These are at the research stage. They might be able to deliver long-term storage for us. That is certainly an area of interest but for the moment, many of those are still in research-----

In their infancy.

Ms Marie Donnelly

-----in the development stage.

The other issue in regard to that, and I suppose it comes into it, is the interconnectivity where we connect into other countries' supplies of electricity. France is the one that we most recently heard about. What capacity does that give us, where does that put us or does it do very much really?

Ms Marie Donnelly

I might be incorrect on some of these. I understand the new Celtic interconnector is a 700 MW one, the east-west interconnector is 500 MW and the Greenlink coming on stream is approximately 500 MW.

It is good. We could probably have as much again because it is a safety valve and very useful from that point of view.

Mr. Jim Gannon

When we talk about storage and interconnection, at the root of this is the fact that we have demand that follows a certain profile, and that could be on a given day because people go to work and come home, or it can be over seasons because it gets hotter and colder and there is more daylight and less daylight.

Separately, our renewable energy resources, such as they are, follow a different but much harder to predict profile in that we have an abundance of wind and solar but that can be unpredictable. Really, what we are looking for is matching and flexibility and that can be achieved through batteries or storage. That balancing can be achieved through interconnection, as was said, and also demand profile changing itself in response to either carbon intensity or price. It is likely a combination of these behavioural changes and technologies that will give us the sort of matching flexibility that we need. It is good to talk about batteries and interconnection but we must also look at the other types of things that will help to deliver flexibility, including demand itself. We should not lose that.

If the battery issue is not resolved, will interconnectivity fill that gap? According to Mr. Gannon's statement, it is not looking good at the moment.

Mr. Jim Gannon

We might come back to the committee with a breakdown of the number of batteries currently deployed in Ireland and the duration of those batteries. There are quite a lot of batteries that are there to respond to a system trip or emergency, which are half-hour or hour-long batteries, and they deal with a certain type of response that the system needs. There are other longer duration batteries, as mentioned by the Climate Change Advisory Council that give that sort of coverage over a peak, where perhaps they could charge overnight and then give coverage over a peak. We also need to consider those periods where it is winter and the wind can be low for a number of days in a row and solar is less than it would be in the summertime. To provide the committee with some information on the batteries as they currently stand would be helpful, but would also give the committee that sense of delivery.

Dr. Phil Hemmingway

In terms of storage on the system, we understand there is 843.5 MW on the system right now in both battery and pump storage, and by the end of this year, it is expected there will be 1 GW on the system. I am not aware that there is a target but there is an energy storage policy due to be published. I am not sure exactly what will be the content of that but it might clarify some of these questions.

Mr. Jim Gannon

Mr. Melvin might speak to the market barriers and incentives.

Mr. John Melvin

If we come back to talk about storage at this committee, as Mr. Gannon said, it is very important to understand the difference between the really short duration batteries that provide one service, which is not typically about storing carbon-free electricity and is about responding very quickly to changes in the market, and then the longer duration storage batteries. The Department consultation is on longer duration storage, how much is needed, does it need to be supported and how might it be supported. That is expected early next year.

In terms of market interactions and how batteries interact with the energy market, if there is on-site storage in a data centre, that is just demand and it is not impacted by any wholesale market barriers. The industry is currently consulting and there is a trading and settlement code modifications panel where the industry is consulting with itself to find the right ways to change the rules to remove barriers to participation of batteries in the energy market. In particular, where they need to fill themselves up and recharge themselves, it is to automate and systematise that. That is a process that the industry is going through to decide on the right modification, and the modification will be put into the systems and will take effect. That is under way within the industry at the minute.

Mr. Jim Gannon

There are other examples with regard to battery storage in particular. Because they were new and they entered an existing system in regard to connections and network charges for a period of time, one of the barriers would have been that because they both supplied and consumed electricity, they were charged a consumption network tariff and also a generation network tariff. I am not sure whether it was the year before last or last year, but we removed that double charging. We understand that more work can be done to find whether there is an even greater benefit in terms of not double charging, and while that has been reduced, it is possible that something even more sophisticated can be put in place for that. It is a matter of identifying the various barriers and making sure we not only get batteries, but that we get the right type of battery and the right service from that battery, and we then explore the other types of flexibility in terms of demand itself responding or interconnection or other storage technologies being put in place. We will likely meet all of these ultimately, given the amount of wind and solar that we have.

I thank the witnesses. The presentations were very interesting. What jumps out at me is that there is a huge long-term opportunity with the 22 GW of renewable power that we hope to deliver by 2030 and beyond. Data centres are probably one of the most effective uses of that in the long term compared with hydrogen or other options. We have a long-term opportunity and very real short-term constraints.

I will start with a question to Ms Donnelly. How do we crack the things that she spelt out there, such as spatial planning guidelines, hybrid connections, private wires – I am not sure what they are about - guidelines for onshore wind, planning delays and regulatory treatment of battery storage? Those are the constraints that Ms Donnelly recognises, which mean we have only 70 MW of wind energy approved, and even one part of that is appealed. We have massive constraints in delivering our ambition. I am sure people are working with might and main to try to deliver these but is there a way in which we can crack these constraints that appear to be very serious ones? That is the first question. Is there low-hanging fruit within this or are these very long-term, like the planning legislation reform which, with the best will in the world, is going to take some time to impact?

Second, what are the lessons to be drawn from the fact we ran into short-term constraints and had the need to acquire backup generation under very unusual conditions? Are there things we need to do beyond what we have already done? Mr. Dermot McCarthy said that the risk of capacity shortfall was underestimated and he seems to point to the fact there is no single owner of planning risk and the design of mechanisms left something to be desired. In fact, it was the procurement of conventional generation that let us down, not the procurement of the new breed of technology. I am interested in finding out what are the lessons that we are to draw beyond the constraints that Ms Donnelly has described being put on data centres.

To go back to what Senator Dooley said, it seems to me that one of the efficiency gains for small Irish businesses will be to migrate to the cloud, and it will be a lot more efficient than what they are doing now. Are we unwittingly constraining data centres that would allow that transition to happen? Are we slowing down something that needs to happen because of these constraints? Are the restrictions that have been published a bit of a blunt instrument?

Should every data centre have a corporate purchasing agreement regardless? Are there some that might fit into an efficient change in the way businesses are now operating, with a more efficient platform with a lower carbon footprint, rather than just allowing that to continue on? Do we need more subtlety in how we are constraining data centres, rather than just these two measures, which make a lot of sense, corporate power purchase agreements and heat exportability? In the grand order of things and for the bigger data centres they make sense, but are they fit for all data centre developments? I would be interested to hear the response to that.

Ms Marie Donnelly

The Deputy raised a number of points. What are our policy delays? I do not seek to be overly critical of people in Government Departments who are genuinely working hard but there seems to be a challenge with the speed at which policies can be settled, adopted by the Government and made available. That is something that will need to speed up if we are going to meet some of our targets. Some of the policy papers we mentioned have been delayed in their development and in their adoption by the Government.

Some of the policy papers are not technical in nature but political. The renewable spatial policy paper is a political document, not a technical one. It takes political courage to say we have a target of 9 MW for onshore wind and 8 MW of solar. If we are going to deliver that in the country it means that in Donegal you have to do X, in Offaly you have to do Y and in Wexford you have to do Z. Alternatively we could retreat a bit and say that in the northern region we will do X and in the southern region we will do Y. Even to put numbers on that takes political courage. It would require saying that we have national targets and that we have to have them happen on the ground. That is a political decision and it can take a long time to make such decisions. That may well be a reason we have a delay there. I am being blunt about that, but I am in the presence of experts in that respect. Some of it is about the political will to take the tough decisions.

We have been getting messages from Europe, largely as a consequence of the Ukraine war, about the mechanism for overriding national interest. In Spain they use that mechanism to produce new renewable generation capacity within four weeks. In Germany they have removed the option for farmers to make an appeal against planning, on the basis of overriding national interest. It is a brutal mechanism but when you do not have power or energy there are limited choices. I have asked some colleagues to produce a paper on what other countries are doing in that respect and maybe we will look at some of those ideas in Ireland. There are certain infrastructure roll-outs that are necessary in the national interest and it is about the balance of getting that right.

What are the lessons? If I was to take one lesson from what we have been discussing this evening, it is that up until last year nobody took energy seriously. Three years ago, other than in committee meetings, how often did the members think or talk about electricity or energy, or worry about its availability, other than on occasions to say their ESB bill was too high? Most people never did so and they took energy for granted. It was always there, it was going to be available and it was never limited. We had not built energy in as a concern in our industrial or societal development. The importance and role of energy, how necessary it is in our society and how we use it in our society is one of the key lessons. When I was in the Commission dealing with energy efficiency I used to pray for a crisis so that I could talk about energy efficiency and now we have one. It is difficult to deal with it and it is hard to get people to focus on energy unless there is a crisis in it. That is one of the lessons.

For SMEs colocation is an attractive option. It moves their scope 1 and scope 2 emissions to somebody else, which cannot be bad news for the companies. It can be cost-effective and they do not lose access and control. I am not talking about Microsoft and other large companies. I am talking about a moderate-size company that might have a mini data centre in the basement. For them the opportunity is to colocate where somebody else is looking after it. It is still theirs so they do not give anything away. It is their private data centre but it happens to be housed in the colocated centre. They shift their emissions that way and because it is a general location it is more efficient in the energy it uses. I am not sure the awareness of that is high among our SMEs so maybe that is something we could look at communicating more efficiently. It is also a fact that some of these colocation centres cannot operate or get new data centres because they cannot get connections. They are caught by the freeze on connecting data centres. We have to think about what we will do in that context, particularly for those sites that are not in the Dublin region - they may be outside Dublin and close to Limerick, Galway or wherever - where it would be feasible to operate it on a much faster basis. There are real opportunities for our SMEs to be more efficient and carbon-effective in what they can say about their products. There are opportunities there and it would be good to use them.

Mr. Jim Gannon

Part of the second part of the Deputy's question was directed towards us so I might ask Dr. Hemmingway to speak briefly to hybrids, which is one of the points that the Deputy and the CCAC made. I will also speak to some of those learnings, including with the energy security package, and Ms MacEvilly might speak to the data centres and the pathway forward. We will keep it brief because others need to come in.

Dr. Phil Hemmingway

What are hybrid projects? It is about having more than one generation technology behind a single connection point. If they can be built in greater numbers and more locations, potentially using the same connection point, that means a reduced need for costly upgrades to the grid. That leads to better use of existing wires. We are working hard to remove some of the barriers and enable more hybrid projects to come onto the system. We have consulted the industry and prioritised three areas that we are trying to address.

The first is called an installed capacity cap. A generator is allowed to install up to 120% of its maximum export capacity but for long durations wind or solar farms, for example, will not be operating at their full capacity. We are asking if we can remove that cap and allow wind and solar farms etc. to bring in hybrid technologies at a higher number of megawatts installed. We have consulted on this and we are expecting to publish a decision by the end of this year.

The second thing we are prioritising is the sharing of maximum export capacity. The current market rules state that market registered capacity has to equal maximum export capacity. That prevents hybrid colocated units from registering separately and participating in the market. We want to find a way to change that which could enable more hybrids and we plan to consult on that shortly.

The third priority we are addressing is around multiple legal entities. Legislation does not currently allow for multiple legal entities to be behind a meter point. In other words, if a wind farm and a solar farm want to develop behind the same meter point they must be the same legal entity. We are taking legal advice on understanding what legislative change might be required to enable that to happen.

The witnesses will notice that the bells are ringing. We cannot hear them but it says "Vótáil" on the screens. We will suspend for the duration of the division and Mr. Gannon can come back in at that point.

Sitting suspended at 7.29 p.m. and resumed at 8.26 p.m.

Mr. Jim Gannon

On the hybrids discussion, this is one area where there were three separate parts of one major decision we were going to make.

Deputy Whitmore made a point about the speed of decision-making. It is one of those areas where we asked industry which component part of this one big decision would have the biggest impact the quickest and their response was in the order in which we have now split out the decision into three decisions to try to have impact earlier. It is one of the means by which we are trying to get more impact quicker in terms of our decision-making process.

Deputy Bruton mentioned the energy security package. There are of course learnings to be had therein. There are always learnings even if things do not result in emergency actions needing to be taken. A key part of that for us is the recommendation that the EY review that we conducted on the capacity mechanism should be fully implemented. This preceded the McCarthy report and incudes actions around the capacity market, and reflections on incentives in the capacity market, exit penalties and the method by which we predict demand. We have spoken about that challenge in predicting demand. There is now a European requirement called the national resource adequacy assessment. That is quite a sophisticated demand prediction tool.

Separately, there are other findings in that report and in the package that we have discussed here today. One is the plann-led approach around data centres and making sure that there is this consideration of decarbonisation alongside security of supply, and that we can see more clearly that pathway ahead. That requires not just us, as energy regulators, acting on it.

On a point of clarification, CRU has outlined that there are 12 data centres with 1,000 MW and another 25 inquiries with 9,000 MW. Will they be all subject to the corporate PPA and the heat proposal or are they outside of that requirement?

Mr. Jim Gannon

I imagine that they are outside of that requirement and that these are proposals at the moment. In terms of our energy-demand strategy, particularly the new connections for large energy users, the decision is likely to be taken in court in the next year.

In terms of PPAs, we have seen Fingal County Council make a decision and have as a planning condition that condition. It is, therefore, accessible and available to planning authorities right now to use that.

On the desire expressed by the CCAC, which we are supportive of, to have consideration to use of the waste heat, I am not sure that that would necessarily apply to these data centres that may be in train or in process, if they have gone through the planning process already.

There is opportunity left in that regard.

We have also mentioned planning reform, which was another finding. Another important point concerns the architecture of the energy system in Ireland. It involves the Department, the regulator, the semi-State entities and the system operators. That overarching policy and governance was set, by and large, more than 20 years ago. Ireland's policy priorities and the policy and regulations in Europe at the time were very different from the policy opportunities we have now. It is rational to consider the overall architecture of the energy system in Ireland. As part of our request to the Department for additional staffing beyond existing sanction, we also sought a review of our commission structure and scope to make sure we could match the new needs and priorities in policy and the directives and regulations coming from Europe. That is an important point that should not be missed either.

I know there is limited time but there is a third strand to the Deputy's question related to data centres and the future pathway. Ms MacEvilly will speak to that.

Ms Aoife MacEvilly

I will be brief. There is a way forward but we have to do things differently. Business as usual is not an option. We cannot keep signing off and connecting data centres to our energy networks faster than we can deliver the network, the renewables and the gas backup generation capacity needed for those data centres. That is not just a security of supply issue; it is now a carbon ceiling issue. We have to do things differently, and there are ways forward. That is why we are working on the large energy user connection policy for electricity and gas. It is to find out those ways forward where we can meet the State's twin goals of digitalisation and carbonisation. Some of the options have been mentioned. Colocation, energy parks and building data centres where they can support the removal of constraints on the grid are certainly among those. There may be other options where colocation is not required, in other words, where a data centre can bring a battery on. It does not necessarily have to be onsite so long as the battery can help mitigate demand at peak times. That flexibility and all of those options are under consideration. I think we will find a way forward.

Gas might look a little different. If there are gas connections, we might be looking for data centres to support biogas development and have completely renewable gas generation. There are options and it is useful to know the data centre community is also interested in finding those options as well. We will find a way forward on this.

I thank the witnesses for the presentations. I will start with Ms Donnelly. As I understand it, the role of the Climate Change Advisory Council is to advise the Government on, among other things, how we can transition to a carbon neutral economy. It is not bound by the energy policy of the Government or anything else, so it is free to advise what is necessary. Ms Donnelly listed the significant problems with data centres and our being wildly off target in terms of electricity usage, the usage of data centres and so on. I was then surprised, to be honest, that all of her recommendations effectively assume the continuation in growth of the data centre sector in Ireland and ways we can limit that negative influence, as opposed to proposing the obvious, straightforward and, I would argue, more effective route of saying there must be no more data centres. Will she outline why she has taken that approach?

Ms Marie Donnelly

We had a long conversation in the council about this and the considerations. We have discussed it here as well. As the Deputy said, our primary function is the achievement of a climate neutral economy. As part of that, we required to take into account a number of elements in our considerations. Competitiveness, impact on employment and macroeconomic considerations are one of the elements the legislation requires us to take into account. In our considerations, we look at the implications of the data centres for Ireland's competitiveness and employment. In response to an earlier question, the position we take is that growth in demand as projected by EirGrid, at least on paper, is 34% between now and 2030. That would be matched by the availability of electricity from renewable sources if we were to deliver on what is in the climate action plan. That means the 9 GW of onshore wind, the 8 GW of solar and the 5 GW of offshore wind would actually deliver the amount of electricity required to match that demand up to 2030. Taking these two together, they match. The question then is whether it is working. The issue we have highlighted is that it is not working. The concern we have is that the roll-out of the 9 GW of wind and 8 GW of solar is not happening. That is a limiting factor for Ireland, not just vis-à-vis data centres but potentially for us as citizens and our economy and society.

I understand that answer. Maybe I will unpack it in a couple of different ways. It may be the case that Ms Donnelly and I disagree on how positive data centres are for our society. Senator Dooley compared data centres to the filing cabinets of the 1980s. In responding Ms Donnelly did not disagree with that. Let us say 18% of our electricity consumption at the moment goes on data centres. What percentage of data centre energy usage is equivalent to filing? To what extent is it the storage of our emails, health data and other things which, in the past, would have been in filing cabinets? How much of that energy usage is made up of that sort of filing?

Ms Marie Donnelly

I am not sure I am sufficiently expert to be able to answer that. However, looking at data centres, there are two things. Data centres are the filing cabinets and then applications come on top of them. Data centres are the filing cabinets and they are used and support applications, which are what we use - our apps and things like that. That is another layer on top but the base system comes from the data centre. I cannot tell the Deputy how much of the 18% is just data centre and how much is applications. I do not think we have that information but I suspect a large share is filing cabinets.

I think Ms Donnelly is fundamentally wrong. I suggest that, as chair of the Climate Change Advisory Council, this is information she surely must have. I do not see how she can come before us and say we should fire ahead and have more data centres, so long as we have corporate power purchase agreements and so on, without knowing how much energy is spent on useful things.

Ms Marie Donnelly

I will make one point. In our submission, we did not make a comment either in favour of or against data centres. We have taken a clear position that we are neither in favour of nor against data centres. We have looked at the carbon budget and the sectoral ceilings for electricity. We have identified that the growth in demand, which at the moment is driven in large measure by data centres, is such that our supply side of renewables is not in sync. That is the issue the council has pointed out.

Ms Marie Donnelly

We are not taking the position that data centres are good or bad. I will say that we are also aware that for many of the elements and actions necessary for decarbonisation of our society, we will require digitalisation.

Sure. Has the CCAC tried to get this information about what the energy is spent on? I would wager that a small percentage of the total energy is spent on actual data storage of filing-type stuff.

A relatively large percentage is spent on Netflix, YouTube etc., which people genuinely use and get enjoyment from and so on. Also, another very significant percentage, perhaps even a majority, is stuff that is not socially useful, like the running of algorithms to target people with advertising to create more artificial watts. That is a very large percentage. Surely this-----

Ms Marie Donnelly

I am making a mental notes I will inquire and send in a written response as soon as we get the information on that. As I said, I am not sufficiently expert but I think we are looking at a situation, as I understand it, where the data centre is the box. The applications - Netflix and even the algorithms, as they fall into the applications side - are on top of the box.

What I am suggesting to Ms Donnelly is that even to think about her own computer, and the noise it makes when it begins to whirr and make activity. If it is just sitting there storing one's data on any given day, it is not making much noise or using a whole lot of energy. One can turn one's computer off and the hard drive still has the information on it. One's computer begins to whirr, make a bunch of noise and use a lot more energy when it is using the apps on top of it. It is far-----

I want to give Deputy Murphy plenty of time but to use his time well, there is a fundamental question about the quality of data and what the data centres are for. The point is well made but I am sure the Deputy has lots of other questions.

I take the Chair's point, and I will move on.

I accept Ms Donnelly's framing and that what she is saying is a problem is also a problem. I do not accept that it is the only problem. Does Ms Donnelly not see that even if we can bring the renewables into stream and on time in order to accommodate this further growth of data centres, there still is a problem. There are two problems. One is the "escalator going up" problem. We are expanding energy usage. For every kilowatt of energy that we spend on running data centres, that is not going to something else that is, in my opinion, more socially useful. One has corporate power purchase agreements, CPPAs, and renewable power all going to data centres but we have just had the development then of renewable power that is not going to transition other energy from fossil fuels to renewable power. That is one problem. This is a delay. The more we expand energy usage, the slower we will be to get to a point of carbon neutrality. Does Ms Donnelly not accept that this is a fundamental problem with expanding energy usage?

Ms Marie Donnelly

If I look at the projections from EirGrid - the 34% increase - and at the factors that will cause the increased consumption of electricity, I can see data centres are part of it. Part of it is a transition from our heating system into electricity, and part of it is a transition from our transport into electricity.

Yes. We have to electrify and then go to renewables.

Ms Marie Donnelly

Yes, which will be on the assumption that we have renewable electricity, which is a process of the decarbonisation of both the heat and transport sectors. If we roll out what is in the climate action plan, we have enough electricity - because we have enough natural resources - to meet that demand. Availability of the electricity is unlikely to constrain it. Our capacity to roll out heat pumps and electric vehicles up to 2030 has been factored into that unless, in the morning, both accelerate at a rate that has not been foreseen. On the basis of the projected increase of both heat pumps and electric vehicles, that electricity consumption has been factored into the projections from EirGrid and has been covered then by what is projected in the national action plan for the roll-out of renewables.

I want to ask the CRU why the current consultation on large energy users is proposing only to introduce new requirements and conditions for new data centres as opposed to existing ones?

Ms Aoife MacEvilly

I am happy to take that. It is like the difference between when new housing is brought on to the network. We have really good standards now for housing. A lot of new houses have heat pumps and solar. It is easier to add that when one is building and it is much harder to retrofit. We have an opportunity for the new ones connecting to bring them on in a way that really supports our goals, and we know it is going to be harder to work with the ones that are there and already have a footprint, where they cannot necessarily as easily add some of the options we are consulting on. That is why the connection policy focuses on new connections.

There is another strand to the demand strategy that is looking at how we can get existing users of all scales on the network, from domestics to small and large businesses, including data centres, to participate in flexibility markets and provide demand-side response. We are targeting them as well through that other strand of the policy. There is such an opportunity here. We should not be signing more data centres without getting them to be as close to carbon neutral and to our shared goals as we possibly can.

Mr. Jim Gannon

It is really important that for the existing ones, it is not just to focus on what they traditionally would have focused on, which is energy efficiency, which creates a very obvious monetary benefit for them. It is also on flexibility and decarbonisation for the existing stock.

Finally, has the CRU communicated carbon budget obligations to Gas Networks Ireland, GNI?

Ms Aoife MacEvilly

We have been talking to GNI about the carbon budget and how we are going to collectively change the way we operate. It is a new paradigm for all of us. The kinds of things we are looking at include, first, what we call a revenue control. This is where we set out the next five years of investment and priorities. We are looking at what climate budget means to that, and with regard to future developments, we are looking at an innovation incentive around the future role of the gas networks. We are also looking, with GNI, at how we can work on this connection policy. We are working with them to introduce what we call flexible connections, so that in the future, we can impose more flexibility requirements on new customers. The other area we are talking to GNI about at the moment is forecasting, and how we can develop forecasts that are also consistent with climate ceilings.

It is all new. As Mr. Gannon reflected in his opening statement, we are still having that conversation with all of the system operators. We are still trying to feel our way through how they do some of this and whether they are empowered and have the right tools for it. In line with Deputy Bruton's question, this is why we are also thinking about what the legal basis is, and whether we can clarify some of this to make it really clear what the expectations are. I hope that answers the Deputy's question.

I thank Ms MacEvilly.

I thank the witnesses for staying to answer our questions. We really appreciate it, as we know it is late.

I am trying to get my head around this. What Ms Donnelly is speaking about is dealing in reality, rather than the idea that we can just change all of these things overnight but in time, with regard to the kind of usage people have for data. If those policies come on stream around those twin tracks of new and existing data centres, do we then know if how much that should reduce the demand is factored in? Is there a target for how much that would reduce the demand? Likewise, has the CCAC looked at the scenario where with that reduction, it means we will hit that target, or hit it earlier? It is that demand management which sometimes I feel is kind of an afterthought in energy security. We are planning for the demand that there is at the moment. We are planning for no policy changes, and then, sure if we can reduce it, we will. However, that has to be factored in at the very start. That is the frustrating bit, I think. It is also a frustrating bit for the public to not really understand that there are changes coming about.

Ms MacEvilly spoke about how fast other countries are doing this and rolling this out, and the frustration around the length of time.

To be fair, it is taking a long time as well for these policies to come out. That creates a problem in terms of us ramping up those other pieces.

The other question I want to ask is about district heating. I may have missed what was said earlier. I am interested in hearing about the part it can play and perhaps the demand reduction, the efficiencies of scale and so on and so forth. We have had very interesting sessions here on district heating. It seems like a very exciting possibility for Ireland. I would love to see how fast it could be rolled out. What are the issues in terms of all of the problems there are to getting district heating working onstream quickly? Are they resolvable quickly and what kind of speed could we roll out some of it? I think district heating is quite untapped for Ireland. Data centres are part of that conversation as well but it is not the entire conversation around district heating.

Mr. Jim Gannon

If it is all right, I think the questions were mostly for the CRU.

I do not disagree.

Ms Marie Donnelly

If there is any particular problem in the course of the replies I am very happy to join in.

Mr. Jim Gannon

On the first part of the question – Ms Donnelly might clarify – the Climate Change Advisory Council gives us a pathway to our 2050 target outlined in the climate Act. What then follows is budgets every five years that show us what that pathway should mean. That gives us the number of carbon tonnes we are allowed to spend, if I can put it that way. National policy is then developed to serve that purpose and to give us targets. An example on the energy demand side is that there is a national flexibility target in the climate action plan for 30% of demand to be flexible by 2030. When that policy is then set, we get an action that says let us put together an energy demand strategy that achieves that purpose. Before the climate action plan for 2023 was put together we had discussions with the Department about an energy demand strategy. On the smaller scale, the residential consumer side, it was reasonably well known what might get us there, in that smart meters would come about and people would electrify their heating and transportation. They need to know and understand how to move and change their demand, whether it is from a price signal or through an understanding of how carbon intensive things are. Some people would be very active. They would see something on their phone and they would decide to turn something on or off. For others, it would be something automated. It might take two or three years to come in but that would be more automatic. There was a real gap in terms of larger energy users, whereby the level of flexibility they could provide had not really been tapped, pressed, or facilitated. It had not been incentivised, either through positive incentivisation, saying we would give them a bonus or a premium, or through negative incentivisation and saying "You can't do that unless you bring this service to the table". That is an example of where a carbon budget would be set, national policy is set, and then we follow through with something that seeks to join the dots.

On the updates, I see the Climate Change Advisory Council then considers how things have changed, where our baseline is now and where we need to be next time around. I do not want to go into that as it pertains to the Climate Change Advisory Council.

I thank the Senator for bringing up district heating. I will hand over to my colleague, Dr. Hemmingway.

Before he comes in, just so I am clear on the kind of demand reduction, Mr. Gannon spoke a bit about a 30% flexibility but in terms of the envisaged demand reduction, there might be a reduced demand increase when it comes to that sector. What is the actual percentage that we are looking at?

Mr. Jim Gannon

There is a reference in the opening statement to the European energy efficiency directive being published. It was finalised in the last couple of months. It has requested a doubling of the European ambition – I want to make sure I get this right – which was a decrease of 11.7%-----

Is that by large energy users?

Mr. Jim Gannon

No, overall. In the 2020 reference scenario, which would have predicted what our demand would be in 2030, the target is now that we must reduce what was predicted then by 11.7%.

Some of that is coming from domestic users. Does Mr. Gannon know how much of that will be the large energy users? What is the expectation? He is designing these policies in order to meet this requirement. What amount of it is he expecting from the large energy users?

Mr. Jim Gannon

It is just not clear at this stage.

Ms Aoife MacEvilly

There are a couple of issues here. One is that, first, it is an energy efficiency target overall, it is not just for electricity. It might be that we still have to grow our electricity because the way we will improve our mean energy efficiency is to electrify heat and transport. It is just not clear yet. We might still have electricity demand growth even with that target. It is not just for a regulator to make a decision. These are major Government policy choices in terms of how we allocate the burden sharing across sectors like transport and agriculture, not to mind within electricity as one of the sectors. It is something that we are aware of. Senator O'Reilly is correct. The more we can deliver energy efficiency the better it solves the problem almost before we have to start building more infrastructure. This is a very new area where Government policy will be required. The SEAI and other actors will have a critical role in that.

But the CRU is leading the large energy users piece of the consultation.

Ms Aoife MacEvilly

Our large energy user consultation is around the requirement in the climate action plan for demand flexibility.

So for flexibility rather than reduction.

Ms Aoife MacEvilly

Yes. If there is demand reduction in there as well we are happy to bank that but the primary focus is the 30% flexibility by 2030 and the interim target of 15% to 20% by 2025.

I am sorry I interrupted the response on district heating.

Dr. Phil Hemmingway

That is no problem at all. The best national reference guide to the potential opportunity for district heating is in the SEAI national heat study. That looked at potential heat demands and sources across the country. That is certainly worth a read. There is a climate action plan target for capacity installed of district heating. In recent years, the Department has formed a steering group of multiple relevant bodies to consider district heating and what needs to be set up and done. That resulted in a steering group report being sent to the Minister in recent months. It has resulted in a centre of excellence being set up in the SEAI to try to drive forward the deployment of district heating. I understand the centre of excellence will do a lot of heavy lifting in terms of trying to figure out what is the best approach to take in the context of learnings from other countries.

The CRU has been appointed as the customer protection regulator for district heating in the first instance. I believe a heat Bill is due to be published or considered early next year, which will add a lot more colour to the area of district heating. The CRU's regulatory remit may potentially be expanded as part of that but other pieces of the jigsaw will be filled in by the heat Bill.

So we do not yet know exactly what the CRU's role will fully look like for consumer protection with district heating.

Dr. Phil Hemmingway

We have clarity on our role when it comes to customer protection. A couple of statutory instruments were passed at the end of last year but our role may be expanded into other areas. We just do not have clarity yet as to what those areas might be and to what extent our remit might be expanded.

On district heating, does it make sense that Gas Networks Ireland, GNI, would become the entity that would manage district heating? This company is good at digging trenches and laying pipes, which we will need to develop dense district heating networks in urban areas. Is that being considered? It seems to make sense.

We are talking about changing the mandates of these State entities. It seems like there is one there that might be changed quite positively and away from fossil fuels. I would be interested to get the take of the witnesses on that. I have just a few questions. I do not want to keep us here too much longer as it is late.

Ms Donnelly wrote to us. I thank her very much for her correspondence from about a month ago, on 16 October, to the committee. She said that the regulator should direct GNI not to sign any more contracts to connect data centres to the gas network, where the data centre would be powered mainly by on-site fossil fuel generation. She also stated that if there is a legislative barrier, the Government should take immediate action to revise the gas Act. That Act is being revised; the deadline for amendments is on Friday. As legislators, do we know exactly what needs to be done? I am sure Ms Donnelly is in constant communication with the Department but there is a broader piece for the Legislature, beyond the Department and the Ministers, to know what needs to be done. This is related to the communications piece as well. We have a role in communicating what needs to change vis-à-vis our legislation and putting pressure on the Government to drive those changes. I am very interested to hear more detail on that and, since we have both organisations in the same room, I would like to hear from the CRU on this issue as well.

Ms Marie Donnelly

Revising the gas Act presents an ideal opportunity to take on board what we recommended in general about including government priorities within the Act. I have not seen the amendments so I do not know whether that is foreseen in them, but that would certainly be an amendment in line with what we recommended and would be particularly opportune at this point.

I will jump for a moment to one possible area in respect of district heating. My understanding is that the policy paper that came out in the summer was a little open as to who might regulate or operate that. In that context, we could also think about Uisce Éireann because it is used to dealing with large pipes full of water. It is cold water for the most part but district heating is basically large pipes full of hot water. Uisce Éireann has an expertise there. This is something that will emerge from the discussions as they go forward.

One of the things we talk about as regards data centres and heat, and this relates to what Deputy Bruton raised, is that it is about a novel approach to looking at energy. We can neither create nor destroy energy; we can only change it. We change it from wind into electricity and from electricity into heat. It then dissipates or whatever. Part of the challenge we have is to be able to capture the movement of energy. The district heating system is a very good opportunity to capture one of the opportunities of moving energy around. It is something the council has been very strong about for quite a while now. It is a pity that we cannot be clearer about the opportunities it represents for local authorities to already start identifying areas where it can be rolled out. It will be an infrastructural roll-out. It will potentially mean digging up roads or whatever. It represents enormous opportunities for individuals and the country. It is something that is a priority to be done.

Does the CCAC take a position, and I do not expect it to be aware of it at this point, on the compact urban settlement guidelines that are being agreed, or at least drafted, at present with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage? It seems that for district heating to work, we need to get the right urban density. Those guidelines should speak to the decarbonisation challenge in getting the appropriate densities in our urban areas. I do not know whether the council has a view on that but I expect that those guidelines, when they are agreed, will be highly significant as we go forward in the years ahead in how we develop our towns, villages and cities.

Ms Marie Donnelly

In our discussions with the Department, we have raised this issue in our sectional dialogue. I am not sure that we have made any contribution to those guidelines at present. I can certainly check to see where we are with them.

That would be good. Does the CRU wish to comment?

Mr. Jim Gannon

On the district heating piece?

District heating would be very interesting, but maybe the legislative piece is more pertinent.

Mr. Jim Gannon

Under section 15 of the climate Act, the Minister has powers to direct. As we mentioned, the Minister directed GNI as a relevant body relating to the climate Act. We believe that the GNI is acting consistently with that direction. That is currently in place as an interim step. In parallel with that, in terms of our activity, as we said, we believe we will make a decision on the large energy users connections policy for both gas and electricity in quarter 1 of next year. An interim or bridging measure is in place.

Part of our review of that connections policy is not just about our own regulatory framework. It will also set out what will need to change if we need to make an optimal design that is not within our gift right now. It will also reflect on whether either secondary or primary legislation would need to change. Again, it is about reminding ourselves, and this is a specific example, that electricity and gas connections would have focused on the availability and ability of people to get a connection - to get the energy they require for their homes, businesses or social activity - as distinct from also considering security of supply, decarbonisation and flexibility, and how those things can contribute. It may very well be that with some of that empowering legislation, that piece will change. In the interim, however, direction has been made by the Minister, which we believe is being respected.

Ms Aoife MacEvilly

On the legislation or general policy in this area, and this was also alluded to in the opening statement, we are focusing on connection policy because that is in our bailiwick. However, some of this - the CCAC has also recommended this - might be better dealt with at the planning stage by planning authorities so that there is clarity for developers on what the requirements are from the earliest possible stage, rather than finding out later on at the energy connection stage that they need to do things differently. We probably need to take a holistic view across a range of State bodies in this space.

I thank Ms MacEvilly for that. I will not keep people here any longer. It has been a fascinating engagement. I only absorbed so much of it as it is so technical and complex. There is so much in it but it is brilliant that we have an advisory body, such as the CCAC, and the energy regulator in the same room for the same debate. It went in many different directions but they were all very worthwhile. We could have more and more of these sessions and stay longer. I see Mr. Melvin is indicating.

Mr. John Melvin

Deputy O'Sullivan asked me a question I was not able to answer at the time. I said if the Cathaoirleach let me in, I would answer it very quickly. The Deputy asked about costs relating to the security of supply programme. In 2023, €478 million was included in the transmission tariffs to cover the cost of the programme. In 2024, €371 million was included in the transmission tariffs to cover the cost of the programme. That was the whole programme and not just temporary emergency generation 1 or 2. Those numbers need to be understood in the context, for example, of an ESRI study from 2010, which estimated the cost to society of an electricity interruption to be in the order of €600 million a day. What does that mean to a customer at home? Of those costs, the estimated domestic bill impact in 2023-24 is approximately €49 per household per annum.

I thank Mr. Melvin. It is very useful to get that on the record. To echo Deputy O'Sullivan's comments, it is fantastic to hear that these new generation facilities are coming on stream in the next few weeks and months. It will certainly allay the concerns and fears of individuals, householders and businesses throughout the country. Those fears have quite legitimately been there in the past number of years.

We will finish there. Once again, I thank all our guests. I appreciate them coming in, staying so late and answering our questions. I also thank Members for their engagement, which was very good.

The joint committee adjourned at 9.10 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 21 November 2023.
Barr
Roinn