Joint Committee on Transport and Communications díospóireacht -
Thursday, 21 Oct 2021

Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals

Chairman

I apologise to the witnesses for the delay. I take full responsibility for it. Apologies have been received from Deputies Ruairí Ó Murchú and Cathal Crowe. Deputy Matt Shanahan is substituting for Deputy Michael Lowry.

We are dealing with further scrutiny of EU legislative proposals - COM (2021) 552, COM (2021) 556, COM (2021) 559, COM (2021) 561, COM (2021) 562 and COM (2021) 567. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the European Commission's Fit for 55 legislative package regarding COM (2021) 552, COM (2021) 556, COM (2021) 559, COM (2021) 561, COM (2021) 562 and COM (2021) 567. Following this engagement, the committee will make a decision on how it wishes to proceed in relation to these proposals. For this reason, I propose that we have a short private meeting immediately after the conclusion of this public meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome the officials from the Department of Transport, Mr. Eddie Burke, principal officer, EU and international affairs division; Ms Niamh O’Brien, principal officer, aviation services division; Ms Patricia Waller, assistant principal, climate delivery division; Mr Caoimhin O'Ciaruain, principal officer, climate engagement division; and Mr. Ronan Gallagher, transport counsellor, Permanent Representation of Ireland to the EU.

Witnesses are reminded 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 the person or entity. Therefore, if a statement is potentially inflammatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, the witness will be directed to discontinue his or her remarks. It is imperative that witnesses comply with any such direction. There are some limitations to parliamentary privilege for witnesses attending remotely from outside the Leinster House campus. They may not benefit from the same level of immunity to legal proceedings that a witness physically present does. Witnesses participating in this session from a jurisdiction outside the State are advised that they should also be mindful of domestic law and how it may apply to the evidence that they give.

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 House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

For anyone watching this meeting, members and witnesses now have the option of being physically present in the committee or to join the meeting remotely via Microsoft Teams. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit members to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will, reluctantly, be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I would ask any member partaking via Microsoft Teams, prior to making his or her contribution to the meeting, to confirm that he or she is on the grounds of the Leinster House campus. If attending in the committee room, you are asked to exercise personal responsibility to protect yourself and others from the risk of contracting Covid-19. I strongly advise the practice of good hand hygiene and to leave at least one vacant seat between you and others attending. One should also always maintain an appropriate level of social distancing during and after the meeting. Masks should be worn at all times during the meeting except when speaking.

I now call Mr. Burke to make his opening statement.

Mr. Eddie Burke

I thank the Chairman and members for the invitation to speak today regarding several of the proposals in the EU's Fit for 55 package. The package was published by the European Commission in July and will be the primary means by which member states working in co-ordination ensure that the EU achieves the ambition of its Green New Deal. Together the legislative proposals that make up the Fit for 55 package aim to support the reduction in the EU’s net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, and to set Europe on the path for climate neutrality by 2050. The package is among the most wide-ranging and ambitious ever proposed by the European Commission and includes proposals on climate, energy, land use, taxation, and transport. These proposals, which are now being examined in detail by the member states, in the Council working parties and by MEPs in the European Parliament, will have substantial implications for Ireland’s transport policy and investment decisions for the foreseeable future. They will impact on people’s daily lives, leisure, travel, and commutes. The package will frame infrastructure policy and the future development of our ports, airports and our national road network. In that context the Department welcomes the opportunity to discuss several of the transport related proposals in detail with members today to reflect on the views of this committee and, of course, to return to discuss progress on this package as necessary.

The proposals we will discuss today are, in aviation, a revision of the EU emissions trading system, ETS, legislation for aviation along with a separate proposal to align the EU system with the global Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, CORSIA, and the ReFuel Aviation proposal which aims to increase the use of sustainable aviation fuels.

In shipping, the fuel EU maritime proposal aims to increase the share of renewable and low carbon fuels in the fuel mix of international maritime transport. In road transport, a revised C02 standards regulation will set higher C02 emission reductions targets for manufacturers producing cars and vans. Finally, the cross-cutting alternative fuels infrastructure proposal seeks to ensure the availability of an infrastructure network that will support these low- and zero-emission vessels, vehicles and aircraft.

The first general observation to make is that nationally we are committed to delivering a 51% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050.

That commitment, as part of the programme for Government, is enshrined legally in the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021 and forms part of our international commitment to the UN Paris Agreement. The EU Fit for 55 package is the EU contribution to this effort. The committee will already have received information notes from the Department on these proposals but I will briefly set out the key elements of each ahead of the discussion today, beginning with the aviation proposals.

The EU ETS is one of the most important and effective instruments in the decarbonisation of the aviation sector. The revision of the ETS for aviation aims to ensure that the sector contributes to the EU’s 2030 emissions reduction target. The proposal will phase out free allowances currently granted to airlines and will integrate the global CORSIA system into the ETS. To explain briefly what is meant by this, the free allowances allocated to airlines mean that they only begin to pay for their emissions once they exceed a certain threshold. Allowances were originally afforded to EU airlines to maintain their competitiveness against non-EU airlines who were not participating in the ETS. Under this proposal, these free allowances will be phased out by 2026. The ETS will continue to apply to intra-EU flights and CORSIA will apply as appropriate to extra-EU flights. The manner by which CORSIA is integrated into a more ambitious ETS will be an important signal internationally of the EU‘s commitment to a global approach.

The next proposal, the ReFuelEU Aviation initiative will oblige fuel suppliers to blend increasing levels of sustainable aviation fuels in kerosene taken onboard at EU airports, including, when the technology is ready, synthetic low carbon fuels, known as e-fuels. EU airports, which process more than 1 million passengers or 100,000 tonnes of cargo a year, will be obliged to provide sustainable aviation fuels, SAF, while airlines will also be mandated to uplift 90% of their fuel requirement from EU airports to avoid tankering at airports that do not supply sustainable aviation fuels. Measures to increase the use of sustainable aviation fuels are an effective means to tackle the aviation emissions challenge comprehensively in the medium and long term. Such measures, coupled with new aircraft technology, can provide decarbonisation in the sector without suppressing or offsetting journeys.

Moving to the maritime sector, the FuelEU Maritime proposal aims to stimulate the uptake of sustainable maritime fuels and zero-emission technologies in ships calling at European ports. This is to be achieved by setting a limit on the greenhouse gas intensity of the energy used on board. This will begin with a 2% reduction in 2025 rising in five-year intervals to a 75% reduction in the limit allowed by 2050. The proposed regulation also requires passenger and container ships to connect to an onshore power supply or use zero emission technology while in the port of a member state. The proposed alternative fuels infrastructure regulation sets the corresponding mandatory date of 2030 for ports to have the necessary onshore power supply infrastructure in situ. These requirements will apply to vessels over 5,000 gross tonnes and will cover all intra-EU journeys as well as half of any journey between a third country and an EU port. Even though the ships covered by the regulation represent only 55% of all ships calling to EEA ports, they are responsible for 90% of the CO2 emissions from the maritime sector. The proposed regulation will apply to less than 20 internationally trading vessels currently on the Irish flag but will impact many more vessels that use Irish ports.

Moving to road transport, the Fit for 55 package also includes a proposal to revise the existing EU regulation on CO2 emissions standards for cars and light goods vehicles to reflect the EU’s increased climate ambition. The existing regulation sets EU fleet-wide CO2 emission reduction targets for manufacturers, which apply from 2020, 2025 and from 2030, and includes a counting mechanism to incentivise the production of zero- and low-emission vehicles. While no changes are proposed to the 2025 targets, the new proposal significantly strengthens the targets as of 2030. Under the proposal average emissions of new cars would be reduced by 55% from 2030 and 100% from 2035 compared to 2021 levels. This would effectively mean that only zero-emissions vehicles could be placed on the market from 2035, five years after Ireland’s targeted phase-out date. The proposal would also remove the incentivised counting mechanism for zero- and low-emission vehicles from 2030 as it is expected that by this stage the market uptake for these vehicles will be driven by the stricter 2030 and 2035 CO2 targets. These stricter targets are expected to accelerate the supply of zero- and low-emission vehicles on the market while stimulating innovation from manufacturers. As emissions from cars and vans in Ireland comprise 51% and 7%, respectively, of our land transport emissions, measures requiring manufacturers to produce cleaner vehicles can have a significant impact here.

I will turn to the European Commission’s proposal for a revised alternative fuels infrastructure regulation. This regulation seeks to ensure the availability and usability of a widespread infrastructure network throughout the EU to facilitate a quicker transition to cleaner vehicles, ships and aircraft. The proposed regulation will require member states to expand recharging capacity in line with zero-emission electric vehicle sales, and to install charging and fuelling points at regular intervals on major highways, every 60 km for electric charging and every 150 km for hydrogen refuelling. It also includes targets for shore-side electricity provisions, a mandate that all fixed and remote contact stands at airports supply electricity to aircraft on standby by 2025 and 2030, respectively, and proposals on the use of LNG as a transport fuel.

To conclude, through the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021, Ireland has committed to a 51% reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and to achieving net-zero emissions no later than 2050. At approximately 20% of the national emissions, it is clear the transport sector has a significant role to play in achieving this objective. The quantum and pace of the transformation needed over the next decade is significant. It will require a fundamental change in the nature of Irish transport. The transport proposals under the Fit for 55 package are broadly aligned with Ireland’s ambition and will support the achievement of our targets. The proposals are currently under consideration by all member states at EU level and Ireland will continue to participate fully in these discussions.

I hope this summary has been useful to members and I look forward to their questions. Ms Patricia Waller will take any questions on COM (2021) 556 in regard to CO2 emissions from cars and vans. Ms Niamh O'Brien my aviation colleague, will take COM (2021) 552, COM (2021) 561 and COM (2021) 567, the three aviation proposals. Our colleague on the maritime side unfortunately could not attend today and sends her apologies so I will take COM (2021) 562. My colleague, Mr. Caoimhin O'Ciaruain, will take COM (2021) 559 on the alternative fuels infrastructure regulation.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Burke. I call Deputy Darren O'Rourke, who has seven minutes.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I thank the witnesses. I am also a member of the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action, which met on this and came to the conclusion that there was a need for a reasoned opinion on behalf of the committee and I am of the same opinion in regard to this. It is a significant package and it has major implications for policy here. I would question about subsidiary and the control that we have in Ireland versus the control at European level. What is the status the package and the timeline for it? At what stage are the ongoing negotiations in the process towards the adoption of the package, if that is where we are going with it? I also have questions on the opportunity, as the Department sees it, to become a leader in the hydrogen space. Other countries have a hydrogen strategy. We have a suite of measures in these proposals to be used as levers to nudge sectors in a certain direction. A key part of that is the development of alternative fuels. Who wants to take a question on the opportunity to advance research and innovation and be a leader in the development of those alternative fuels? That is particularly relevant for aviation. As Mr. Burke identified in his opening statement, there is an opportunity for Ireland to be leader in that space and to play a big role.

For those working in the fishing sector, and I know there is an element of the scale of the fishing operation that people run, is this not just another punitive measure that is being introduced in an industry that is already under serious pressure, in an Irish context, at least? What is going to happen to the sector in that intervening period? Will additional levies, burdens and costs just be heaped on it?

There seems to be a concerning contradiction around the piece on LNG. We have outlined our policy position in Ireland on LNG. This proposal seems to be saying the opposite in stating that there is opportunity there to use it and an appropriate infrastructure for the sector. How do we square the direction of travel at a European level with that here in Ireland?

On the issue of electric vehicles, EVs, a change was made to the EV support scheme in recent days. It maps out further changes in that regard up to 2030. Are the witnesses aware of the reasoning behind the decision to introduce those changes at such short notice, and the degree to which the impact on people who had committed to purchasing EVs was taken into account? I have heard directly from taxi drivers who are going to be out of pocket because the vehicles will not arrive before the end of the year and they do not cost over €60,000. Where did the €60,000 threshold figure come from? Apologies; I did not address my questions to any witness in particular.

Chairman

Perhaps Mr. Burke can direct those to whomever can respond to the Deputy's questions.

Mr. Eddie Burke

I will take the first question and then hand over to my colleagues. I thank the Deputy for his comments. On the timing of the package, the main focus and intensity at EU level currently is around the alternative fuel infrastructure regulation, AFIR, and the ReFuelEU Aviation Initiative proposals. They are the two main areas of focus. We expect a possible meeting of the transport Council in early December, at which we will seek policy agreement on both of those proposals. We expect to see a discussion paper on the FuelEU Maritime Initiative proposal, because it is moving slowly. The other areas are moving at a slower pace again. The main focus will be on the alternative fuel infrastructure regulation and ReFuelEU Aviation Initiative, with the FuelEU Maritime Initiative proposal coming immediately after that. That is the current priority.

In terms of fuels, what the EU is trying to do is to stimulate the market to develop these fuels in the same way that we are developing technology for vehicles. Looking at the maritime sector, the legislative proposals are silent on the type of fuel to be used. They are neutral on the fuel types. That is because there is no predominant alternative fuel. In the maritime sector, there needs to be a complete switch from almost 99% use of fossil fuels currently to 90% use of renewable or low-carbon fuels by 2050. However, currently, the market has not determined which of those fuels will be the primary one.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

In respect of the aviation sector, the proposals mention the use of blended fuel up to 2050, more or less. Is hydrogen not an option there? Is that view coming from the industry? Where is it coming from? The use of blended fuel up to 2050 seems to me to be fairly carbon-intensive. It is hard to see how it is not, or perhaps I am not picking it up correctly.

Mr. Eddie Burke

The proposals are very careful in terms of the lower carbon-intensity and alternative fuels. In the maritime sector, the whole lifecycle will be taken into account. Biofuels and growth will be taken into account. There are questions around the sustainability of such fuels, which will be taken into account. Focus will be on the carbon-intensity of the fuels. In the maritime sector, the EU will seek to create that demand for alternative fuels. The proposals are neutral on which fuels will be used. In aviation, the proposal is to use blended fuel and the sustainable aviation fuels that are available. Perhaps Ms O'Brien might speak to that.

On the issue of EVs, there is a plan to roll out electric vehicles. The infrastructure that has been determined through AFIR and our own national plans will be slightly ahead of the pace in terms of the demand by users.

The roll-out of lower carbon-intensity and alternative fuels will be gradual. There will be an attempt to incentivise the market through the creation of demand. However, there is still a lot of work to be done in that area, including on our part. We need to do some research on how it will all fit together.

On the issue of LNG, there is no contradiction in the proposals. National policy is that LNG is not part of our mix. The requirement in the alternative fuel infrastructure regulation proposal is one that we are opposing. We do not support it from a policy perspective and we have made our position clear in Brussels. We do not agree with the use of LNG. The Commission itself accepts that the use of LNG is not the long-term solution. It will not meet the carbon intensity requirements by 2030 or 2035.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

We can see what is happening between Poland and the EU currently in terms of where the authority or the law stands. If this proposal is adopted as a policy at a European level, is there not potential for European policy to supercede Irish policy?

Mr. Eddie Burke

We are currently at the negotiation stage, so these are discussions.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

So, potentially that could be the case?

Mr. Eddie Burke

Yes. We have made our position clear that we do not agree with the LNG provision. It is contrary to Government policy. Other member states will make their own points also. The policy agreement that we are seeking will take into account the perspectives of the member states. I cannot say what the outcome on that will be, but the position that we are adopting is as I have outlined.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I appreciate that.

Mr. Eddie Burke

Perhaps Ms Waller can speak to the issue of emissions.

Chairman

What is the Government's policy on the use of hydrogen?

Mr. Eddie Burke

Green hydrogen is seen as the future. I do not have detail on it. It is being worked on. We certainly see green hydrogen as being part of the mix.

Mr. Caoimhín Ó Ciaruáin

I wish to make a few points to supplement what Mr. Burke said. On the development of green hydrogen technology, it is seen as the great white hope. There are trials happening, with it being used on buses. It is seen as a great opportunity for that technology to deliver, and deliver in a way that is green and can provide an alternative that works for the bigger vehicles. On the aviation side of things, it is a slightly different issue.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

It is not being considered for use in aviation?

Mr. Caoimhín Ó Ciaruáin

I am not too sure it is right now. The key thing with green hydrogen is that it can store energy in a way that we need for the way we are doing renewables. The use of hydrogen is being trialled on buses. In terms of the infrastructure piece around that, and I am covering the AFIR bit, there are targets in there around that which are quite stretched in the context of the wider European space, but particularly, for Ireland. We are placing a marker in relation to that. On the the level of investment, the key thing across the whole AFIR piece is that there is a trade-off between moving early on the infrastructure piece and watching what is happening where it needs to happen in central Europe, where there is a level of traffic that justifies it in terms of the business case. We are at the periphery of it. We will watch the space and the cost will come down. It is at that point that we will be looking to invest and support that type of investment. That is allowed for under the AFIR proposal.

This is all being negotiated, as Mr. Burke has said, in terms of the level of flexibility that applies. There is room there and hydrogen presents a real opportunity.

Ms Patricia Waller

The Department supports the green energy approach in taxis and we recognise the potential emissions savings for that high mileage user group. We spent €15 million in 2021 on the grants and there will definitely be a scheme next year. There is question of this week's plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, PHEV, announcement and how that affects taxi drivers. Any taxi driver with a vehicle that currently has grant offer with the National Transport Authority for delivery in 2021 would have it extended to the end of March next year to allow for delivery of the vehicle.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

Which vehicles does that apply to?

Ms Patricia Waller

It is any vehicle with an electric small public service vehicle grant. The €60,000 limit relates to a cap we put in place earlier this year on purchase grants for vehicles in the SEAI electric vehicle purchase grant scheme. Effectively, that was to cap Government supports and ensure they were targeted to the most efficient vehicles rather than supporting those on the higher or more luxury end.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

There are grants that have not yet been drawn down because the vehicles have not been delivered. They are secure until next March.

Ms Patricia Waller

Exactly.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

Right. That is not the understanding of some people, who have interpreted that in a different way. They will be glad to hear this. That is great. The maritime industry is vulnerable in Ireland and people are worried about the prospect of increased levies on fuel when there is no alternative in place. Is that a likely prospect? It seems as if it is on the back of this suite of proposals.

Mr. Eddie Burke

We take the point about the grant. If there is a misunderstanding out there, we need to clarify that ourselves. The maritime proposal before us today is generally related to larger ships, dealing with ships that are over 5,000 tonnes. By and large, they account for approximately 90% of our international emissions. I cannot speak to implications for fishers, for example.

This will be a difficult journey for everybody involved and it is a transformation in the way we transport and carry ourselves and the way we do business. The Government is committed to ensuring there are supports to allow us that transitional phase. I cannot speak specifically to the Deputy's point but particularly in the early days we expect those fuels to be dearer before supplies come on stream over time. It is still cheaper than the alternative, which is not a position they want to be in.

Deputy Steven Matthews

I apologise for my absence at recent committee meetings but it has been clashing directly with the housing committee.

Chairman

You have been greatly missed.

Deputy Steven Matthews

I am sure. When I saw this on the agenda I knew I definitely wanted to be here for it.

Chairman

I expected as much.

Deputy Steven Matthews

I am glad to hear Mr. Burke state we will be arguing strongly against liquefied natural gas, LNG, and our strong Government policy is to not accept its import or the construction of terminals for it. I hope that case is made very strongly in Brussels.

We have fantastic potential in wind energy and we have some of the best wind speeds in Europe. We started well with the Arklow Bank in 2003 but we never went any further with our offshore wind. The Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021 is now going through Committee Stage and there are programme for Government objectives and targets for approximately 35 GW of offshore wind, which would produce more electricity than we need in the country. There is huge potential for the conversion to hydrogen and we have heard the discussion about Moneypoint and offshore development, with the possibility of Moneypoint becoming a centre for hydrogen development and technology. We could be world leaders in that respect. We could put across a very strong point by saying we do not need to import liquefied natural gas because we have massive wind potential in the country and ambition to develop hydrogen. It should be our defence and I hope that case could be made in Brussels.

Many years ago the car industry was caught out with emissions and falsification of emissions data from engines. I will not name the companies involved but they are well known. How do we guarantee in this attempt to develop low-emissions cars that it will be governed properly and we will not end up in a position where it is just about marketing? We see how successful car companies can be at marketing electric hybrid vehicles that really just lock people into fossil fuel use. They have a certain use but the marketing is very good for those. Full battery electric vehicles, however, are the only way to go. How do we ensure the vehicles will have low emissions and who will monitor the car manufacturers?

Mr. Eddie Burke

On the first point regarding LNG, we have made a case and we will continue to make the case strongly with regard to LNG and the Government's policy in that respect. On the question of offshore renewable energy, ORE, we absolutely agree on the potential that is out there, whether is on the south-east, south-west or west coast. It is huge. We know ports are considering the opportunities it may be provide both for themselves and rolling out further. Currently in the Connecting Europe Facility and the Trans-European Network for Transport, TEN-T, there is a call that closes in early January next year. We know there is considerable interest from sectors with regard to the facilities that will be required to roll out offshore renewable energy.

Ms Patricia Waller

I have some information for the Deputy but I can get more and come back to him. In the budgetary implications document, the Commission is exploring the budget for data and reporting to monitor the implementation and compliance with additional legislative requirements being put in place under this regulation. That includes the verification of CO2 emissions of vehicles and ensuring the proper monitoring and reporting procedures being put in place. That is all I have today, I am afraid, but I can revert with additional information.

Deputy Steven Matthews

I thank Ms Waller. There might be something for the aviation industry as well. We know the aviation industry is a considerable contributor to CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions. I cannot verify the claim but I read recently that if aviation was a country, it would be in the top ten emitters in the world. I cannot be sure that is true.

Going back to targets, we know our programme for Government commitment and that climate action legislation commits us to the 51% reduction by 2030 and being carbon-neutral by 2050. This European objective equates to a reduction of 55% by 2030 based on 1990 levels but our commitment is a 51% reduction on emissions based on our 2018 levels. I remember the Kyoto Protocol and we were allowed a 13% increase on 1990 emissions levels. It is a mountain to climb for everybody because we have done, relatively speaking, nothing in this country to address climate emissions over past decades. That is why we are in such a difficult position.

If we look at the difficulty for Europe to reach a 55% decrease based on 1990 levels compared with our 51% reduction based on 2018 levels, would ours be a much more difficult target to reach? Where are we on the 1990 scale?

Mr. Eddie Burke

I cannot put a figure on it but we are working on achieving our national targets from a transport perspective. We are modelling to allow us identify the areas where targets can be met. It is a legal requirement for us to achieve those targets.

The work that is going on within the Department is to ensure we can map out the way for doing that.

Mr. Caoimhín Ó Ciaruáin

The Deputy is correct in that the baseline is different and is a more challenging prospect for us, particularly in transport. As Mr. Burke has alluded to there, we have the development of the climate action plan, which hopefully we will see in the next couple of weeks, that will set out how and what that pathway will be. Yes, it will be a big challenge to deliver on that. The EU has a 55% target across all sectors and for transport, we are talking specifically about a level of decarbonisation of approximately 51%. The type of proposals we are looking at today are in that space in respect of positioning us to deliver upon that. There is nothing incompatible in the types of measures that are being talked about in these specific files that will do any damage to the level of ambition in our own climate action plan. In fact, they are fairly well aligned.

Deputy Steven Matthews

There is no doubt any more in anybody’s mind as to where we need to get to. Although we are targeting the transport sector here to reduce emissions, the fact is that we must also consider the impact of climate change on our transport systems themselves. One can look at Ballycar in the Chairman’s own neck of the woods, where flooding closes the rail line down. It is something that has happened over the past 100 years but the intensity and rate with which it is happening now is increasing. We also need to look at the coastal defence works that are needed along the east coast to protect rail lines, as well as at the drought and heatwaves in which roads were melting back in 2016 or whatever year that was. There are significant impacts on our transport system from climate change and it is almost protecting its own function by addressing the emissions which come from transport. I thank the Chairman.

Chairman

Senator Gerry Horkan has seven minutes and I will give him some leeway.

Senator Gerry Horkan

I thank all of the witnesses and I read their opening statement last night. It is quite technical and may not necessarily hit the front pages or what people will be talking about if the late bars open tomorrow night and may not be the first thing on their agenda. At the same time, it is going to impact all of us in different ways, be that aviation travel or our own road transport or equally, in maritime terms and the cost of goods coming in and out of the country. People may be travelling differently rather than using aviation by using ferries and so on.

From the Department’s perspective, this Fit for 55 package and the 51% target are the only show in town. I appreciate there are different starting points. The Commission's 55% is from 1990 while we are talking about 51% from 2018, or whatever it is. Are we doing more or less than them? Are our targets more or less ambitious?

As well as that, we all want to try to reduce our carbon emissions in every different way, whether it is by using more efficient ways of transport, insulating our homes, putting up solar panels or getting new windows and we are all trying to cut down on our energy consumption, not just from a climate change perspective but also from a cost perspective. Fuel is increasingly expensive and carbon taxes are there to incentivise us to use less of them.

What are the penalties if we do not manage to get to these targets, that is, if these rules are implemented and people do not manage to achieve them, for whatever reason? If the sustainable aviation fuel is not available or if the airports are not providing it, what are the sanctions? I do not want to be negative about it but equally, I want to know the consequences, as this is all quite theoretical at the moment and is very much aspirational. I am not saying that it cannot be done because when one looks around, one sees more people on scooters, on electric bikes and in electric cars. Change does happen but it may not happen. We are almost in 2022 and 2030 is not that long away. What will happen if we do not meet these targets?

What engagement has there been, mainly with the larger airports, as the smaller airports are not really affected by this initially? Can the witnesses tell us what airports are not affected by this? Are Kerry and Donegal airports affected by it or is it just Dublin Airport or is it Dublin, Shannon and Cork airports or whatever? Equally, we had the chairman designate of Dublin Airport Authority before the committee yesterday, in a three-hour meeting. We were not discussing this and had many other things to discuss but perhaps if we had had our meetings in a different order we would have been asking him what is Dublin Airport doing in sustainable aviation, fuel, more electric infrastructure in order not having to use aviation fuel when aeroplanes are on the ground and so on in terms of recharging of various components on the aeroplanes.

On maritime issues, what of our ports? What ports are affected? I get the impression that this relates to the much larger ships, many of which do not have the Irish flag - a small number do - that are using Irish ports, as do some Irish-flagged ships. What ports are affected by this and has the Department spoken to the various ports to see how ready they are for it?

Obviously, we do not have car manufacturing in this country but we have many people driving and buying cars. Have we spoken to the motor industry as to where it is and how achievable they see these targets or how it affects them? Everybody wants to go in the right direction but there is the question of them having to physically make a change to their daily lives, whether it is changing the way they travel to work, how they go on holidays, what goods they buy, how they buy them and how they are delivered. All of these issues arise. What are the consequences, punishments and problems if we do not meet the targets? That is not to be negative about it but we need to know the consequences. If we are or are not doing a reasoned opinion, what are the witnesses' views on the proposals? Are they acceptable from a departmental point of view? As a committee, we have to make our own call but from the Department’s perspective, is it happy with the proposals and is it satisfied that Ireland can deliver on them?

Chairman

When responding to Senator Horkan’s comments, the witnesses might go through each of these legislative proposals or COMs and let us know what their views are, what the implications for Ireland are and how do they differ from what is currently happening in Ireland. I am just rounding up the question just given by the Senator. We are looking at the COMs and are required to consider whether there is a need for a reasoned opinion. As the witnesses are familiar with this area, this is obviously about whether they may in any way compromise what we are trying to do here and the benefits of that. I know this is a somewhat technical question but this is a technical meeting on an issue that has significant implications. In our role as a committee, we want to get this right.

Senator Gerry Horkan

To develop that point, we are not experts but are political people. I have read the brief a couple of times and have listened to our witnesses' opening statements and the other members' questions and answers and so on but this is something where we need to ensure that we do not, by accident, say that everyone is doing this and it is all fine. I am not against it and nor am I saying it is a bad thing but I would like to tease out each proposal by hearing if our witnesses are okay with it and what their reservations are because they are the experts and certainly are more expert than I am on these particular measures.

Chairman

Can Mr. Burke go through each of these proposals one by one? That is the key.

Mr. Eddie Burke

If it is okay with the Chairman, I will talk about the maritime proposal and I will then pass over to my colleagues and we will take them on that basis.

Senator Gerry Horkan

The witnesses might cover the other points I addressed as well.

Mr. Eddie Burke

On the proposals and the maritime proposal in particular, there are two key obligations. One is the reduction of the intensity of the energy being used on board ships. The second is that when ships are in port, they should connect to onshore electricity, which is a major move. Those are the implications. I mentioned earlier that it applies to vessels over 5,000 tonnes, which captures the bulk or 95% of the market. As to the views of the sector, so speak-----

Senator Gerry Horkan

Mr. Burke states that this proposal captures the bulk of the market. Is that every vessel and are we talking about container-type traffic or about fisheries?

Mr. Eddie Burke

We are not talking about fisheries.

Senator Gerry Horkan

That is my point. Mr. Burke is saying that it is 95% of the market. This is the market of what?

Mr. Eddie Burke

Some 90% of the emissions from the maritime sector will be covered by ships over 5,000 tonnes. That will include container and passenger ships and vessels such as cruise liners.

Senator Gerry Horkan

This will not necessarily mean 90% of all vessels.

Mr. Eddie Burke

Absolutely.

Senator Gerry Horkan

This will be something then like the 80:20 rule where 20% of ships are responsible for 80% of the emissions, or something similar.

Mr. Eddie Burke

There is a figure of about 55%, but I will check that for the Deputy as I could be wrong. What is being covered will cover 90% of emissions from the maritime sector and, therefore, it is the bigger shipping companies and ships that are being affected.

In terms of what their view is, the Department has had discussions with the maritime sector and generally, they are okay with the approach that is there. As I mentioned, there is a slight difference of approach in the maritime sector compared to some of the other ones, in that some of what is being proposed is neutral on the type of fuel. The market is going to have to find its way through that and see which fuels come out as market leaders. That gives a bit of uncertainty for shipping, particularly if one is investing in shipping, in terms of what fuel to opt for, but we expect that is something that will work out over time.

In terms of the ports, undoubtedly there will be a cost. The supply of onshore electricity is very expensive. If a cruise ship with 5,000 people has to plug in, it is effectively a small town that is being plugged in. That comes at-----

Senator Gerry Horkan

It would not be a data centre but it would be a considerable amount of energy all the same.

Mr. Eddie Burke

It would be. I will not do the comparison because I cannot but we are talking about 5,000 or 6,000 people, so it is the equivalent of a small town being plugged in for a few hours. That has to be installed and it is very expensive work that needs to be done. The implications for the network also have to be looked at because there is a big draw on the network. If there are a few ships in Dublin Port at the same time, there would be a fairly intense draw on the grid at that stage.

Senator Gerry Horkan

Is it only a small number of ports that would be affected by that? It is not all the ports like Killybegs, although I know there are big ships in fishing as well. Is every port affected or is it only three or four ports?

Mr. Eddie Burke

It is the ports on the trans-European network, which is five at the moment. Dublin, Cork and Shannon-Foynes are the three main ones in the core network, and Waterford and Rosslare are on the comprehensive network. It affects those five ports. What we are talking about is five ports that will be affected by it and that will be required to put in this infrastructure. We are talking about ships over 5,000 tonnes. The general view from the shipping sector is that they know this is coming, likewise the ports. It is a fact of life at this stage that this is the way we are going and I do not think anyone disputes that. What people are trying to do is find a way through it. That raises the issues I have talked about, such as the investment in ports that is required and the future investment in shipping that will be required.

Senator Gerry Horkan

Obviously, this applies right across the EU and it is not just Ireland. I suppose it will not affect Britain or is there some interlinking proposal? For example, a cruise ship might decide not to come to Ireland and to go to Southampton, Portsmouth or wherever because the EU ports are more expensive relative to the UK ones. Is that a consideration?

Mr. Eddie Burke

I will not speak about UK policy but the basic point is that it is not part of the EU and the rules we are talking about today, when they are adopted, will not apply to the UK.

Senator Gerry Horkan

They will apply to the other 26.

Mr. Eddie Burke

Exactly. But the UK will likewise-----

Chairman

I am conscious of time. We might get summaries on the other points and I have no doubt we will have plenty of time for speakers to come back in.

Mr. Eddie Burke

I will finish the point on the subsidiarity issue. We do not see a subsidiarity issue here. We think this is something that has to be done at EU level. We would prefer it is done at the International Maritime Organization level but, as it is, the EU has taken it on board to lead the way internationally. It is not something we see being done on an ad hoc basis by different member states as, otherwise, the whole thing fractures. There needs to be a concerted and consistent approach across the board. We do not see an issue there. I will hand over to Ms O'Brien.

Chairman

We might have a brief overview and members can then come back in. I want to bring a bit of structure to the discussion.

Ms Niamh O'Brien

I will first cover COM (2021) 561, otherwise known as the ReFuelEU aviation initiative. In terms of the overall proposal, the aim is to increase the uptake of sustainable aviation fuels, SAFs, in aviation. These SAFs are what we call a drop-in fuel, so they can be easily blended with ordinary kerosene and on that basis, it is not foreseen that there will be any kind of infrastructure requirements at the airports.

Senator Gerry Horkan

Will the fuel arrive already blended and just go into the tanks as is? It is not a case of the airport having to blend it.

Ms Niamh O'Brien

Exactly, that is what is expected. In terms of the scope, it would be the three main airports, that is, airports with passenger numbers over 1 million or 100,000 tonnes of cargo. At the moment, that would just cover Dublin, Cork and Shannon. We have been in consultation through our national civil aviation development forum, NCADF, and the airports have been in touch with us to give their views on it. As the Senator mentioned, Dublin Airport is undertaking a feasibility study in regard to SAFs at the moment so there is no great objection to this proposal. As Mr. Burke said-----

Senator Gerry Horkan

That is COM (2021) 561.

Ms Niamh O'Brien

Yes. In terms of the subsidiarity issue, again, this is something that it is considered most appropriate to be dealt with at a European level to avoid any fragmentation of different regulatory rules across the network. Given international aviation is so broad and transboundary, it is considered to be the most appropriate course of action. We do not have anything here currently in this field for aviation.

The Senator asked about the type of penalties that would be applicable. There are enforcement provisions.

Chairman

I am conscious I have other members waiting and we have a defined time. We will cover the questions broadly and we can then come back again.

Ms Niamh O'Brien

Yes. The two other proposals, COM (2021) 552 and COM (2021) 567, relate to the emissions trading scheme, ETS. The revision of the ETS will remove the free allowances that the airlines currently have on a phased basis. Currently, the airline sector has approximately 50% auctioning and 50% free allowances. The idea is to-----

Senator Gerry Horkan

That will most likely increase fares as it will put a charge onto the airlines.

Ms Niamh O'Brien

Any increased costs for airlines can find their way into air fares, ultimately. That is the general position when there are increased costs. The uncertainty is really around the ETS price because we do not know what that is going to be. I think it will fluctuate, so there are some unknowns in this regard. However, the aviation ETS has been operating since, I think, 2012 and it has been working quite well. Obviously, the removal of the free allowances will push up the costs.

Senator Gerry Horkan

From an Irish perspective, we are more dependent on aviation than any other EU countries except Malta and Cyprus. Everyone else is connected by rail.

Ms Niamh O'Brien

That is correct. We do not have the option for a modal shift and that is something we are very mindful of.

On the linked proposal in regard to COM (2021) 567-----

Chairman

We are not dealing with COM (2021) 567. It is COM (2021) 552.

Ms Niamh O'Brien

No, I think COM (2021) 567 is listed.

Chairman

My apologies, it is down as COM (2021) 559 in the briefing note. Is this the one on the alternative fuels infrastructure regulation? It is just that we do not have the briefing note on COM 567.

Ms Niamh O'Brien

That is quite a technical proposal and it is really just to provide, within the EU, a legislative framework for member states to notify their obligations under the international scheme, which is the carbon offsetting and reduction scheme for international aviation, CORSIA. It is quite a technical one so there are no real implications.

Senator Gerry Horkan

Is the EU scheme more onerous than the international scheme?

Ms Niamh O'Brien

Yes, the EU scheme would be considered to be more costly for airlines to participate in.

Senator Gerry Horkan

Is it 50% more expensive or 10% more expensive?

Ms Niamh O'Brien

I do not have the figures to hand but I can get that information for the Senator.

Senator Gerry Horkan

It would be useful for us to know because, obviously, we are competing with other parts of the world and places not too far away that are not in the EU scheme. If it is ten times more expensive or 10% more expensive, it is important to know that.

Chairman

Can we please move on and get a bare coverage of the issues? I am conscious members are waiting to come in.

Mr. Caoimhín Ó Ciaruáin

I will take the one on the alternative fuels infrastructure regulation, AFIR.

Chairman

I ask Mr. Ó Ciaruáin to be brief. I did not want this to be a very long debate. I just wanted a summary before we probed the various issues.

Mr. Caoimhín Ó Ciaruáin

The issue around AFIR in terms of the cost implications for delivering in airports and ports is quite significant. What we are saying, and the position we are taking in negotiations, is that we want some flexibility and it is around the timing issue. When we look at subsidiarity, we want others investing to bring down the cost of deploying that infrastructure because, at a global level and a European level, the more investment in those technologies, the cheaper they become. Therefore, we are signed up to delivering them.

Penalties-wise, what the Commission is saying in the regulation is that there will be fairly heavy reporting on member states' compliance with targets and corrective actions are suggested or proposed. In terms of penalties, it is more a reputational issue.

It is more in that realm of delivering on targets, or not, on a yearly basis from 2025 onwards. That is the regime for delivering on the AFIR targets.

Ms Patricia Waller

I will comment on COM (2021) 556. Effectively, this file introduces regulations that will encourage manufacturers to produce cleaner vehicles and sets stricter CO2 emission reduction standards for manufacturers, which is one of the most effective ways to reduce transport emissions. Ireland will be happy to pursue opportunities to accelerate the ambition of this file. It aligns with our national targets for the electrification of cars.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I apologise for not being in the committee room. I am in my office in Leinster House. I thank our witnesses for being here. This is extremely important and quite complex. The import could be gargantuan for a multiplicity of sectors of the economy and society. The last remarks were about heavy reporting and corrective actions. What are the implications and import of that?

Mr. Caoimhín Ó Ciaruáin

Is the question about what is required by the AFIR regulation?

Senator Jerry Buttimer

Yes. I apologise.

Mr. Caoimhín Ó Ciaruáin

Once the regulation and level of targets are agreed, each member state will be required to develop a national policy framework for delivering on that infrastructure and to report to the Commission on how they are delivering it. That will be the requirement once the thing is settled. From 2025 or 2026 onwards, we are looking at a reporting regime. The Commission will look at the report, say whether those requirements are being met or not and a member state will then be asked to put in corrective actions. It is a comply or explain approach to delivery of the targets. In the round, Ireland is probably in a good place but there are certain aspects of the AFIR regulation that present costs. By the time we are in a position to report on them, infrastructure costs should be more palatable, the business case will be better and we should be in a position to deliver on those targets. That is the trajectory.

Chairman

Senator Buttimer's point was on what the penalties are. If you are reporting-----

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I know the penalties are reputational. Mr. Ó Ciaruáin said that, in the round, we are in a good place. What does "we are in a good place" actually mean?

Mr. Caoimhín Ó Ciaruáin

As it stands, there is no reference to penalties, per se, for non-compliance with the regulations. A member state explains why it is not complying.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I apologise but I missed part of the meeting because I was on quorum duty in the Seanad. Senator Horkan asked a series of questions that were quite relevant in the context of engagement with the ports and airports. I apologise for missing the answer on which of our airports are affected. There was a comment that increased costs and airfares will be a knock-on effect. I will come back in on this issue, but I am concerned about the level of consultation and information. I am worried about the dissemination of information from the transport sector in explaining what is involved, not simply to stakeholders but to the general public. There is no painless way of reducing our carbon emissions, but the important point is we must bring people with us and explain to them properly what we are going to do and how we are going to do it. I am worried that we are going on a journey where we might not bring people with us, whether they are citizens or stakeholders. I would like an answer to that.

Mr. Eddie Burke

I will take that question from the start. The citizens piece is mainly affected by the roll-out of electric vehicles and infrastructure. Most of the other issues to do with aviation and maritime concern the larger airports, airlines and shipping companies. There has been consultation at that level. These proposals were published in July, so that was the start of the process. Having said that, some of the proposals are moving quite quickly, as I mentioned. There has been engagement on the maritime side. These proposals were subject to engagement and consultation in advance by the Commission at international level. The Department has engaged with maritime stakeholders looking for preliminary views and, generally, stakeholders are supportive of the ambition. They would prefer to see it being done in an international rather than an EU context, but we are where we are. The EU is the first to step forward and stakeholders accept that.

There are issues to do with the likes of enforcement about which stakeholders have some concerns, such as how where the fuel is coming from is monitored. We have to make sure people are compliant but there are provisions within the regulation to deal with that through verifiers.

I will pass over to Ms O'Brien on the consultations that went on in respect of aviation.

Ms Niamh O'Brien

The scope of the airports that will be caught by the ReFuelEU aviation measure will include Shannon, Cork and Dublin, that is, any airports with passenger numbers more than 1 million or with more than 100,000 tonnes of freight.

As Mr. Burke said, this has been subject to EU-wide consultation. However, we have also engaged via our national civil aviation development forum regulatory working group. We have sought the views of members of that group, which includes representatives of Dublin, Cork and Shannon airports and the major airlines. Broadly, this sustainable aviation fuel proposal is very much welcomed.

It is not considered that there will be any significant impact on ticket prices. The anticipation is for an increase of approximately 8.1% by 2050, but it is not anticipated that that increase will come into effect, or start to be felt, until around 2040. The Commission has put a review mechanism in place to see how the regulation is working and the impact it is having on the Internal Market. The first period is from 2028 and a five-year period will follow that. There will be a mechanism to see what impacts it is having. I hope that answers the question.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I take the point Ms O'Brien made. I take the point that these proposals have been there since July, but the one worry I have goes back to Ms von der Leyen's address to the EU in September when she spoke about the issue of reduction of targets and the revision of EU climate and energy legislation. Today is a positive in that we are having a transparent and open discussion about us as a country, and Europe, stepping up to their 2030 climate ambition, which is about investing in a climate-neutral future that we all support. I am a big believer in the middle-of-the-road and bringing people with you approach. From our perspective, and I know we say Ireland is well placed, how stands Ireland in the context of the Fit for 55 package? Where are we in terms of the EU and the wider world? We are an island nation that is very much dependent upon connectivity, as we all know. Is there any provision or allowance made for that from a European perspective, given our island nation status?

Mr. Eddie Burke

The Senator is correct in stating that we are more exposed because of our peripherality in the EU compared with other member states. We have a major reliance on both maritime and aviation to move not only people but goods. We are quite conscious of the overall cumulative impact of these proposals. We are looking to see what their impact on overall competitiveness will be and how they will affect those they feed down to who are - and I think this is the point the Senator made - in some cases the consumer. We are also looking at it from the wider competitor's point of view. That is something we will tease out but, at the moment, until we see how things settle down and the direction in which we are going, we have not got a full answer to that. We have given the estimated costs for pricing of aviation tickets by 2050. I do not have an equivalent for maritime. It will depend on the direction it goes in with the development of fuels and the costs of those fuels compared to what is there at the moment.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

Okay. I will finish on this. To be fair, all of us are on board, but I have a worry about the cross-sectoral damage, which is the wrong word, that will be done to our competitiveness.

Am I right in saying that these are going to be binding actions?

Mr. Eddie Burke

Yes.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

We have the European Green Deal of 2019 and our climate target plan, Fit for 55. On support measures and pricing, have support measures been put in place for Ireland, from an EU perspective? I apologise if I have used the wrong phraseology.

Mr. Eddie Burke

Yes. There is EU funding. I mentioned the trans-European network. Under the Connecting Europe Facility, CEF, which funds the projects on the trans-European network, funding of between €11 billion and €12 billion is available for the 27 member states, the non-cohesion member states. The first call for the CEF is out and some €1.8 billion of funding is available. As we speak, an information day hosted by the Department is being run with the Commission and the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency, CINEA, which is the body that oversees the funding call. Shannon Foynes Port is in on the call because it has been successful this year in securing funding through CEF. We are advocating that people use the funding available through CEF. This can amount to 50% of the cost of studies and up to 30% of the costs of infrastructure works. That is one of the supports available. Other funds, including the just transition fund, are available to support the whole transitional phase. The EU is not leaving us in a vacuum or on our own. In the European Union, we have consistently made a case on peripherality and the fact that Ireland is more affected, together with other countries such as Malta and Cyprus. This has been recognised by the Commission, and it continues to recognise this.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

If we consider the roll-out of alternative fuel infrastructure, the revised regulation will require member states to expand charging and refuelling infrastructure to support charging the vehicle fleet. If I am reading this right, major motorways would need to have minimum permitted intervals of 60 km for electric car charging points and 150 km intervals for hydrogen refuelling stations. Where is Ireland with this in the context of the overall movement towards we are trying to achieve? I am taking Mr. Burke slightly off-track.

Mr. Eddie Burke

No, it is a fair point. Mr. Ó Ciaruáin will respond to that question.

Mr. Caoimhín Ó Ciaruáin

I thank the Senator. Right now, in terms of that charging infrastructure we are in a good place. By 2030, we need to be a lot better. In terms of what we anticipate for the take-up of electric vehicles, we are looking at a target of having close to 1 million of these vehicles on the road. We have a good distance to go around that. What is in the AFIR is consistent with that level of take-up and we will need that. Right now, we are ahead of the curve in take-up. In the coming months, we will publish an infrastructure strategy setting out how we will get there.

The expectations in AFIR are focused clearly on public charging. One of the slightly different approaches Ireland has taken is around the promotion of home charging. This suits us with regard to policy approach as there are a lot more driveways in Ireland than in other member states. This is the approach we have taken and it works. There is very strong subsidisation of home charging. It works because it is cheaper to charge at night. All of that is good and we are pushing the Commission to accept that as an approach that works for Ireland. We are in a good place right now but there is a long way to go with it. There will continue to be supports available for it.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

Mr. Burke referred to an information day. In the context of the promotion of zero-emission and low-emission vehicles, has the Department given consideration to doing a road show for the general public?

Members visited National Broadband Ireland this week. It provided a very good information chart on broadband and showed us monitors, screens, different intervention points, breakdown points and so on. Does the Department have a map of Ireland showing all the charging points, so that a person travelling from Cork to Dublin, for example, can see the locations of all charging points? Is such a map available online or in an app? Has the Department given any consideration to that? I thank the witnesses for attending.

Ms Patricia Waller

On the public accessible network, ESB Ecars has funding to put in place a basic public network for us. The ESB Ecars website has a map of all of their locations and sites. The question the Senator might be asking is whether we have a map of the extensive network. While ESB Ecars has infrastructure in place, commercial operators in the market, such as EasyGo, Ionity and Tesla, also have charge point sites all over Ireland. We do not have a map at the moment that combines all of those. Early next year, we will establish the office of low emission vehicles and work is under way to prepare for that. The original AFIR placed a statutory requirement on us to do something like this and the new office will take that in hand.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

Is there no app available at the moment?

Ms Patricia Waller

There is no map of all of the-----

Senator Jerry Buttimer

No, I am referring to a telephone app.

Ms Patricia Waller

I believe ESB Ecars has an app.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I did not know that. I thank Ms Waller.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

I thank our guests and my colleagues who have covered most of the areas already. I will deviate slightly. There has been a lot of talk about sustainable energy, renewables and so on. Recently, a relative of mine purchased an electric car. I believe the carbon footprint of manufacturing that car would not be any different from that of manufacturing a fossil fuel petrol or diesel car. We must start looking at the next issue, which is the electric aspect of it. The car does approximately 30 km before the battery needs a recharge and then it switches over to petrol. I understand the vehicle is more expensive to run on petrol once the electric side is gone. That is a matter of concern to me.

Underpinning the electric side of the vehicle is the fact that it has batteries. There is no doubt that the batteries are made using materials that have been mined, in some places by children. I am not so sure that health and safety is foremost on the minds of those involved in mining for cobalt. When we in this wealthy part of the world talk about saving the planet, what are the human costs of what we are doing for poorer parts of the world? Are we once again going to places like Africa, which were raped of their resources for years, in order to feed the machine in the western world? Are we at this again? Is that what we are doing? When we talk about renewables and reducing our carbon footprint, I wonder what the cost will be to the humans involved in this. Who is paying the price for us reducing our carbon footprint? I would like the witnesses to address that.

When we consider sustainable fuels, are we growing crops purely to harvest them for fuel for the wealthy of this world? If so, how does this rest with half the planet starving?

Maybe it is slightly outside the witnesses' brief for today but I would welcome their view on that.

Mr. Eddie Burke

I will make a general point. I am afraid it will not answer the Senator's question. The alternative to what we are doing would have been a lot worse, so I think the consequences for all societies across the globe of not doing this would be worse.

The issue of batteries comes within the remit of the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, not our Department. I take the general point Senator Craughwell makes that there may be consequences for certain groups of people or certain locations around the world of actions taken in this part of the world. I cannot answer that for him. All I can say about the crops and so on is that there is now a much greater awareness, which I mentioned earlier, of the life cycle of biofuels and a move away from the type of practice the Senator talks about whereby we affect groups of people in other parts of the world in order that we can fuel cars on this side of the world. I have heard stories and seen some of the reports about where the batteries are sourced and how the material is mined and the circumstances surrounding that, but I do not have an answer to the Senator's question.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

I thank Mr. Burke for his reply. It was an honest one. I tire of listening to those who take the moral high ground speak of reducing carbon footprints and the like on the planet and moving the cost of global warming from the rich western world to the poorer parts of the world. The policies need to change in that they need to have a massive human rights aspect to them. When it comes to mining for cobalt, for example, unless the mining is done under exactly the same conditions as it would be done under European conditions and unless health and safety is met all the way through, we should not manufacture electric cars to travel 30 km in order to see children's lives destroyed. Similarly, I just cannot subscribe to growing crops to provide fuel when many millions of people in this world are starving or living in poverty. I therefore find it difficult to live with those who take the moral high ground on sustainable energy and the reduction of carbon footprints. I fully accept what Mr. Burke says, that is, that we have to reduce our carbon footprint in order to save this planet, but we must also save the inhabitants and citizens of the planet, particularly those who pay the highest cost. I thank Mr. Burke for his presentation but I would like that message to go out from this meeting.

Mr. Eddie Burke

I take the point the Senator makes about batteries, as I said, but I emphasise that the proposal on the maritime side has been criticised for indirectly promoting biofuels that can have questionable sustainability credentials, as the Senator mentioned. However, these fuels will need to be certified, and that certification is designed to ensure and to guarantee that the approach that has been taken is sustainable and that they are sustainable fuels. As I mentioned, this issue has been raised with the European Commission. The Commission has indicated that the regulation will use the well-to-wake emissions, that is, the whole life cycle of biofuels, to take account of the various issues. The reason for that is to help to address the kinds of concerns about biofuels that the Senator mentioned. Therefore, at Commission level and at a wider European level there is very much a consciousness of those types of issues. I just do not have the detail on batteries to answer the Senator in any real way. I apologise for that.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

No, I fully accept what Mr. Burke says and thank him. If the EU has policies in place on biofuel to ensure there is minimum impact on the humans of this world, we need to hear an awful lot more about it and maybe hear about it at the same level as we hear about the need to reduce global warming and our carbon footprint on the world. Maybe we need to start hearing also about the humans of the world, who need to live. I will not take the matter any further than that.

Deputy Matt Shanahan

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee. I thank also the witnesses attending from the Department. We are discussing a number of themes, including shipping, the aviation sector and the transport sector.

First, regarding shipping, Mr. Burke has highlighted that the infrastructural points being talked about and some of the carbon levies, for want of a better word, that will apply will apply to the main ports. He singled out, I think, that Waterford and Rosslare ports have a slightly different designation to the other three ports - Cork, Dublin and Foynes. He has also said more or less the same about the aviation sector, that the large airports carrying over a million people are being targeted and that they would be covered by these directives. As for competition policy, what will happen when people who are under the strictures of those guises - the large airports, let us say - look at the likes of Waterford Airport, which we want to see as a regional airport in the south east? Will they cry foul and say they face additional competitive restrictions because they are signed up to these initiatives whereas it looks like Waterford does not have to pay these levies or provide this infrastructure? That is the first question to which I would like an answer.

Second, Mr. Burke has spoken about the synthetic fuels, blended fuels and so on. It is like Groundhog Day to me. A number of years ago I was involved with a consortium that was trying to bring a plastics-to-fuel process into Ireland. We did a lot of work. We went and got changes to the European directive. We got it included on plastics-to-fuel. We could get no investment from the Government to support the economic development or employee take-up in this country, unfortunately, and that business was subsequently bought out and taken out of Ireland. What engagement does the Department have with key commercial players in all these sectors on energy generation, alternative fuel manufacturing and biogas generation? Is the Department speaking to people? Has it put people into its sights to talk to? Will it engage with commercial industry here to make sure we have something that is synergistic with the present commercial realities? We want to do this work and want to bring people in, but does the Department have a database, and what engagement does it have with industry players at present?

Third, I heard Deputy Matthews say we cannot have liquid natural gas, LNG, and that we must convert to wind. We have not got even as far as designating a wind port yet in our roll-out of offshore wind, so offshore wind is about ten years away. We will need LNG to continue. Also, we have no biomass plant in this country outside of one that has been privately supported financially, that is, not supported by the State. These are used for municipal heating systems throughout Europe. Has the Department any plans in that regard?

I think I have covered most of the main areas I wish to cover. I would like to hear the witnesses' thoughts on those three issues, please.

Mr. Eddie Burke

To be clear, when we talked about the different designations for the ports and airports, that is from TEN-T policy. It is not linked to these policies; it is just that those tend to be the biggest ports and airports and, for the purpose of these regulations, they have been tapped into.

As for the issue of competitiveness, the proposal is built on the fact that we take the heavy lifters, we use those and we roll out the policy through the people who have the capacity to do it. Taking the maritime one I mentioned, by targeting ships above 5,000 tonnes, 90% of the emissions are targeted. It would be similar, I would guess, on the aviation side. You are therefore targeting the larger ships and not hitting the smaller ports and building the heavy lifting at the larger end of the scale, which is a reasonable way to do it.

Again, the issue of fuels and alternative fuels is not a policy matter for this Department primarily. From the point of view of transport, we in Ireland tend to be fuel takers, that is, most of the fuel we get is imported and, as Ms O'Brien mentioned, for the likes of aviation and maritime, it will be blended at that stage, so the blending does not tend to happen here. It is a matter of finding those existing fuel suppliers in Europe or wherever else and using the blend of fuels they have.

Obviously, I cannot speak to the specific example the Deputy gave from his own experience but that is not to say there are not opportunities there as the market develops for businesses to grow in Ireland.

On the issue of offshore wind, all I can say from a transport point of view is there is a lot of work going on. I do not know if the Deputy was there when I made the point earlier that there is a call out at the moment under the Connecting Europe Facility, CEF, which is funding, and will fund, the likes of alternative fuels infrastructure. It will fund facilities in ports for offshore wind. There have been a lot of expressions of interest, or a few, in relation to ports and the facilities that can be built out to facilitate the future development of offshore wind. One of the key things offshore wind needs is the ability to assemble the turbines that will be required. That normally means within ports. That work is going on and we are in constant communication with our colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. We know the plans they have for rolling out the whole offshore wind energy piece and what is happening on that side.

Deputy Matt Shanahan

If I could come back to that last point where Mr. Burke said the officials are liaising with the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, he has correctly highlighted we need ports designated to carry out this wind infrastructure. My understanding is there is much work taking place on the UK mainland and that people are looking at the possibility of doing some of this in Wales. There are potentially issues around Brexit, taxes and all that. Mr. Burke mentioned this Connecting Europe fund. Has that been described as available? For instance, Rosslare Port is controlled by Irish Rail, as the officials probably know. Is it aware of that fund? Do the officials know if it is making applications to the fund for infrastructural developments down there? What quantum of money is available to any port that wants to make an application under that?

Mr. Eddie Burke

The application is under the CEF. It is a competitive process. This means one is competing across Europe with other applicants. Generally, they tend to be oversubscribed by a factor of two to three. In the case of the funding I mentioned earlier for studies, it can fund up to 50% of the cost. That is studies to bring one up to one's design, planning application and all that type of stuff. It brings one to being shovel-ready. In terms of CEF and the infrastructure and works, we are talking about 30%. We have talked to Rosslare and met management, as we have with other ports, about the opportunities available under CEF. I mentioned already that as we speak an information day is being hosted by the Department, with I think 50 potential applicants online. The Commission is there, as is the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency, CINEA, which is the body that evaluates these submissions. The whole purpose of that is to generate interest in it and to facilitate people in making applications. We know there is interest from our ports in making applications for this. The closing date for calls is either the 9 January or the 19 January. That work is ongoing. We expect to have a number of applications in for studies on the roll-out of offshore renewable energy.

Deputy Matt Shanahan

Are the officials looking at anything to do with biomass in terms of these other thematic structures they have spoken about? Surely there is a place within all that for biomass in the country.

Mr. Eddie Burke

I cannot speak explicitly to that. It is more an energy matter. I go back to the same point as before. What is happening with these proposals is there will be a range of alternative fuels within the solution mix. Which ones will be prioritised or will emerge as the leaders I cannot say at this stage. As Mr. Ó Ciaruáin said earlier we expect green hydrogen and biofuels to be in that mix. However, I cannot speak specifically to what the proposals are on biomass.

Deputy Matt Shanahan

Okay. I thank the Chairman.

Chairman

With respect to regulations that have been enforced by Europe on climate change, what have we signed up to? What has been agreed at European level that we are required to implement in Ireland, at this moment in time?

Mr. Eddie Burke

There would be a range of-----

Chairman

No, I am referring to targets we are to meet like the reduction by over 50% by 2030 and 100% by 2050. Is that coming from Europe?

Mr. Eddie Burke

We have set our own national targets but-----

Chairman

I am more interested in what Europe is bringing in. I have listened to it. There is a terrible lack of information for me as a public representative. I do not really understand the implications of what is being proposed here.

Mr. Eddie Burke

I apologise. The Chairman is talking about a lack of information.

Chairman

Yes. It is very abstract. We are getting something where we as a committee are being asked to make a decision with a turnaround time of virtually a week. Members feel it is too short a time and yet it could have huge implications.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

The Chairman is absolutely right.

Chairman

What I want to do here is try to distil it down to the decision we must make. At this moment in time, where do we stand in relation to EU directives and law on climate targets and climate change? These are measures we are implementing on the basis of items that have been agreed at European level.

Mr. Eddie Burke

I might come back to the Chairman with that. Is he asking whether the targets are across all the transport sectors?

Chairman

Mr. Burke may want to speak about transport but I am interested in what has been agreed generally. I need to find out what the situation is now. Ignore these COMs. What is the situation now? I want to feed that back into the climate change Bill that has come in as law and the climate action Bill with the climate budgets. I want to bring it down to the people who we represent, such as the farmers, the airports, the ports. Shannon Foynes Port is beside me. There is Shannon Airport, a huge dairy sector, taxis. I want to find out what these COMs entail but for me to do that I need to know what the current position is. Some of these questions may appear very stupid but nevertheless I am going to ask them because it is about the ordinary person out there. Senator Horgan made a reference to it not being "The Late Late Show". In a very short period of time it will be a little headline on the "The Late Late Show" because we all know we have to move on climate change.

Senator Gerry Horkan

I did not mention "The Late Late Show", I mentioned late bars, but anyway.

Chairman

Mr. Burke, I need to get a handle on where we are at the moment vis-à-vis Europe on the current items we have signed up to.

Mr. Eddie Burke

I will come back but what the Chairman is asking really is what are the current national targets we are obliged to meet and where does this move us to then under these current proposals.

Chairman

Yes, exactly.

Mr. Eddie Burke

Okay. Can I come back to the Chairman on that? We will come back with a submission in writing on that.

Chairman

Does Mr. Burke not even have the general parameters we have signed up to? We spoke with Mr. Ó Ciaruáin about it. These particular COMs look at achieving a target of 55% reductions from 1990 levels. Is that correct? We are looking, under the climate Act, to achieving a target of 51% by 2030. Is that based on a base year of 2018?

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

Chairman, what might be helpful is the ETS has been in place for a number of years now. It is the European carbon budgeting. It sets targets for a number of sectors. Some of them the Chairman will be familiar with, like the 2020 targets we have missed and in terms of renewables. It might be useful to give a sense of the ETS and how these proposals mean to change that. From the environment committee, some of what they were doing is saying individual countries have a competency in relation to transport and buildings and we collect carbon tax for that but in the future, based on these proposals, Europe is going to collect that. Maybe the officials can give us a sense of that.

Chairman

That is the space really.

To put it another way. If we go down through the COMs, COM (2021) 552 and COM (2021) 567 refer to the ETS scheme. They refer to free carbon. As it stands, airlines currently get free carbon emissions, is that correct?

Mr. Eddie Burke

That is correct.

Chairman

What is the cost of that per annum?

Ms Niamh O'Brien

We do not have a cost per annum specifically on the carbon targets because it can change. In 2019 the cost to all EU airlines was €900 million.

Chairman

To all airlines?

Ms Niamh O'Brien

All EU airlines.

Chairman

Is that a tax they pay or how does that work?

Ms Niamh O'Brien

Half of their allowances were free, and they must buy the other half. So that was the cost of what they had to buy.

Chairman

This proposes those allowances will be eliminated by what year?

Ms Niamh O'Brien

By 2027.

Chairman

So that is six years' time. Has the Department engaged with the airline sector? How do Ryanair and Aer Lingus view this?

Ms Niamh O'Brien

Obviously the airline sector is not broadly supportive of this proposal because the uncertainty as to what the ETS price will be is a concern, and how it might increase significantly over time. That is certainly a concern for them.

Senator Gerry Horkan

Who sets the price? What is the mechanism? Is it decided by the European Commission? Who does this?

Ms Niamh O'Brien

The ETS is not entirely under our Department's remit so I do not have much detail on the full ETS market. I think it is the market, I am not sure-----

Chairman

What I am more interested in is, there is a lack of detail from the Department, so I cannot make an opinion as a member of the committee as to what implications this will have. We have a very large airline sector.

The COM (2021) 561, the ReFuelEU aviation initiative, will take the form of a directly applicable regulation to ensure a level playing field across the EU air transport market. It will oblige fuel suppliers to blend increasing levels of sustainable aviation fuels in jet fuel taken on-board at EU airports. Did the Department consult with sectors in Ireland on that? What is the feedback? What are the implications? What are the views of the airlines and the airports? Has the Department had interaction of that kind?

Ms Niamh O'Brien

The airlines and the airports are broadly supportive of this, as they see it is a key measure in reducing emissions. A reduction in emissions will reduce the cost to them in regard to ETS. It would have a knock-on implication.

Chairman

In regard to COM (2021) 562, the maritime proposal, Mr. Burke has gone through that. How is it viewed by the ports? How do shipping companies feel about this measure being brought in?

Mr. Eddie Burke

They are broadly supportive. I have not personally met with shipping companies or ports but my understanding is that they are broadly supportive of where they want to go. They would prefer if this was led through the IMO rather than through the EU but they are happy the EU is taking the lead on it.

Chairman

Regarding CO2 emissions, we have a climate action plan. Returning to the differentials, this looks at a 55% reduction on 1990 and we are looking at a 51% reduction on 2018. That is enshrined in legislation. That is a competency of ours. At the moment, have we competency over setting how we reach that target? Why do we aim for 51% and this COM has a 55% target? Why is that the case?

Mr. Eddie Burke

All I can say is that it is going to be difficult but we are confident that we can meet the 51% target that we set for ourselves.

Chairman

I accept that but why are we looking at a COM which has a 55% target? As a Member of the Dáil I have voted in legislation that provides for 51%. We have a competency over that area. So if we take this COM at this rate we lose control, we would be signing up to a 55% target, is that correct?

Mr. Eddie Burke

Yes.

Chairman

The climate action Bill which involved a huge amount of work in all Houses and committees sets the carbon budgets, which I presume are tied in with climate action plans, am I correct?

Mr. Eddie Burke

Yes.

Chairman

There are major discussions on that at the moment, and the implications for various sectors. We are now discussing a COM which is for the next five years, while the Government has yet to finalise the carbon budget. I am very uncomfortable signing up for COMs ahead of it. Without in any way appearing to interfere or determine rates - although you say they are generally the same - 51% and 55% are two different figures. I looked at the other committee. Some of our members would be dual members. Much of what they said refers to the lack of detailed provision in terms of being able to make qualitative decisions. I have to agree. Because the carbon budgets are approaching, I would hate a situation where we would put forward something that may not be in compliance with something the Government is introducing. If we can deal with it competently at a national level, and we are now implementing it on climate change, with the lack of detail we have here, there is a danger we could find ourselves in a situation where any level of flexibility is taken away in areas. Generally many of the measures are fine. The climate action plan which would be the carbon budgets, am I correct in saying they are one and the same?

Mr. Caoimhín Ó Ciaruáin

Yes, the climate budgets will be set by the climate advisory council. They will be voted through by the Oireachtas, when they go to Government they will go through the Oireachtas process.

Chairman

When we hear people talking about the coming climate action plan, that is the five-year budget.

Mr. Caoimhín Ó Ciaruáin

There is a climate action plan currently, and a climate action Bill which talks about delivering that 51% reduction. We are legally lined up there already. Climate budgets are simply the administration of that, and what it means in terms of CO2 abatement. And then there is the sectoral aspect. It is not particularly accessible stuff and I am not that long in this position.

Chairman

Farmers want to know what is going to happen. On the ground, the people we represent are actively watching what will be in those climate action plans.

Mr. Caoimhín Ó Ciaruáin

The key thing is, the 51% abatement of CO2 from 2018 levels to 2030, is the amount of carbon that has to be delivered. Reduction has to be delivered. In transport we are looking a potential 51% delivery but it is an overall cumulative reduction in carbon across all sectors. The disaggregation of that budget will happen by Government and into the Oireachtas. Those decisions will be taken at that level.

Chairman

At this time is the percentage of that reduction transport will have to fulfil determined in law?

Mr. Caoimhín Ó Ciaruáin

No.

Chairman

Therefore we are discussing something here in terms of transport about which the actual practical import for the people who we represent is yet to be determined, based on national legislation that we put through with no detail on what this is going to do. Personally speaking I would be very uncomfortable with saying that these do not breach at this moment in time the Irish subsidiarity because I have no detail on the practical import.

The Government at the moment has introduced legislation which sets a 51% target. There are discussions currently taking place with the climate advisory council as to how that would break down between sectors and how it would operate over specific years, and we are looking to sign up to COMs. I want to be careful how I call it. Is this called the climate action plan or the climate budget that is about to be announced?

Mr. Caoimhín Ó Ciaruáin

Climate action plan, but I think both are about to be announced.

Chairman

The climate budget is an implementation of the plan.

Mr. Caoimhín Ó Ciaruáin

One is contingent on the other, yes.

Chairman

When would the Department anticipate they will be announced?

Mr. Caoimhín Ó Ciaruáin

The climate advisory council sits independently. It will do its thing. That is expected from what I hear in the next week or two. The latest deadline we have for the climate action plan being announced is towards the beginning of November. The two are linked.

The fundamental question the Chair is asking is whether the 55% we speak of achieving at European level is consistent with the 51% baseline nationally.

Chairman

Why did we go with 51%?

Mr. Caoimhín Ó Ciaruáin

All of this is about a pathway to zero carbon emissions by 2050 so we have to signal.

Chairman

Do we have the control to determine the 51% target by 2030? We could have set it lower if we had wished.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

However, we did not. The whole point of Fit for 55 is that much of that is going to be taken out of our hands for want of a better term. There might be an argument made specifically in terms of transport or buildings in that those are big areas where we need reductions and we have not seen them over a period of time. It is certainly a point, and it is why the Committee on Environment and Climate Action raised concerns in regard to the amount of control. I would make the point that, in this case, we have limited control as a starting point over some sectors such as aviation or maritime. They are a little bit different but I would definitely agree with that point.

Senator Gerry Horkan

I am trying to bring together all the different thoughts. As a State we have signed up to cutting our emissions and we have to get to that, regardless of how we do it. If we do more on transport, arguably we might have to do a little less on agriculture, if we did a bit more on agriculture, we would have to do a little less on transport. Whether we like it or not we as a Parliament, be it Seanad or Dáil, have signed up to cutting our emissions one way or the other. We might not like it, it might be painful, but we agreed it is the only show in town. This is part of it. Some of this is going to be less painful. It sounds to me that the maritime stuff will be less painful perhaps in that it is more doable in terms of the electric charging. I know we are saying it is 5,000 people on a cruise ship but it is doable. Some of the aviation stuff is a bit more aspirational.

I would be very wary of the emissions trading and the abolition of €900 million or thereabouts of free credits that are there now. That all has to feed back in and ultimately passengers right across Europe will pay that. It might not be a great deal per head but it is there. We as a committee have to decide which of the six proposals we can we live with and which do we have to raise flags about. Of the six of them, the Department is not telling us it wants to us to raise flags on any of them. Is that correct?

Mr. Eddie Burke

We are putting down a policy position on the LNG one.

Senator Gerry Horkan

Yes, but that does not affect us. We do not need to do a reasoned opinion on a COM because of the position on LNG. That is not one of the COMs-----

Mr. Eddie Burke

That is the position that we take within that.

Senator Gerry Horkan

What we are saying is there are six COMs, three of them are aviation related, one is maritime related and one is to do with cars and so on, and the Department is not telling us we need to flag any of them, but we may choose to say the aviation one is just too vague or that the car one is. We do not manufacture cars but obviously over time cars are to be become more efficient. We all accept that cars should become more efficient. At this stage, we could talk around this for a long time but there is nothing easy about the climate change stuff apart from certain things that are easy, relatively speaking, such as insulating houses and so on. However, this is quite difficult.

The Chair is right that it is very important, it is going to affect all of our lives, and it is going to affect Ireland more than many other EU states because it is aviation and maritime related. The maritime sector is not huge in the Czech Republic, Austria, Poland, Germany, Hungary and some other countries. Certainly there are alternatives to aviation we just do not have. As a committee we need to be aware that, for aviation, the emissions trading system, ETS, the optioning of rights and the abolition of the free credits are concerns. I do not know how much it works out at per flight. If the Department told me we are talking about 50 cent per flight, I might live with it. If the Department told me €50 per flight, I might be much more concerned about it. The vagueness is what concerns me about the whole thing.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I think the Chair's contribution is one we must be cognisant of. I am reluctant to make a decision but I think we need a private meeting.

Chairman

We will have a private meeting on it.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I thank the witnesses for coming in. It has been a very enlightening discussion. Reading the papers for today's meeting and our own previous meeting, I will not say it is confusing but it is complex and has implications we need to be cognisant of.

Chairman

Before we conclude I thank the witnesses for coming in at very short notice. Obviously, we as public representatives have a specific role in the subsidiarity. So much has happened on climate change at a national level over the recent past. We have had the climate change Bill and the climate action plan, and climate budgets will be coming out in the next week. Yet there is very little detail for us to consider. The Committee on Environment and Climate Action had the same concerns.

Just transition is a key feature of our model and something I support because it gives flexibility within the model. Are there any implications in any of these COMs here in terms of carbon tax? I saw in one of the COMs in the other committee that it was quite directly related. For example, is the ETS a form of carbon tax? It is a hard question but, once again, it is about filtering it down to the ordinary person. We are introducing a carbon tax, which is agreed, but that money is being spent to ensure we are able in some way to bring a just transition. For me, in layman's terms, it is about the groups Senator Horkan made reference to, those who are disproportionately impacted, the less well off, agriculture, and other groups. It is a direct question. Do any of these COMs have implications for carbon tax?

Mr. Eddie Burke

The one we have the most concern about is not one of the six we have here. It is one that has been reviewed already to do with the extension of the ETS into the road transport and buildings area. We would have significant concerns about that for the very reasons that the Chair mentions.

Mr. Caoimhín Ó Ciaruáin

On the subsidiarity question, which is the key thing the committee is deliberating on, what we are saying is that all these files are signalling to the market, to manufacturers and wherever this needs to happen that this is happening and they need to react to it.

They need to structure themselves, fund it and get into the technology as soon as possible so we can all deliver on this. There is that aspect of it. That has to happen at a European level or, better still, at a global level. It is not going to happen nationally. If Ireland signals that, it will not drive manufacturers of hydrogen into action. In terms of subsidiarity, from what we understand, the reasoned opinion from the climate committee was in regard to those aspects of-----

Chairman

There are other aspects; that was one of them.

Mr. Caoimhín Ó Ciaruáin

There could have been. The key subsidiarity question was related to the extension of an ETS where actually we are doing this ourselves. We do not have a concern around subsidiarity. There are aspects of some of these files where we will look for flexibility and that is what is happening around the targets. We have some degree of manoeuvrability on how it works.

Chairman

As Mr. Ó Ciaruáin will appreciate, we have a differ role. Deputy Shanahan wishes to contribute.

Deputy Matt Shanahan

I thank the Chair and share his reticence. I am not a member of the committee so I will not be deliberating on this. However, Deputy Lowry will do so. I would like to make a couple of points. I share the concerns of the Chair. We need to remember that Ireland is not joined to the European Continent. We are divorced now to all intents and purposes from the UK. The climate policy that is adopted will not impact on European states as it will impact on us. The simple fact Ireland has to access gas through converters, for example, shows we do not have control of our energy supply.

I have major concerns about the level of joined-up thinking between the need for commercial delivery and the Department's wish to adopt European directives. We are way behind in achieving our potential to roll out the wind energy aspirations we have. We are well behind in terms of alternative fuels development in this country. We will be importing all of this stuff and we will be subject to all the other costs coming from the EU. We may not get the climate advantage. The Chair is right to flag this issue.

The Department needs to be cognisant of what we are signing up for. While we have passed our climate agenda and are committed to making these reductions, we cannot cut our own throats to be the best in class. At the end of the day, we are a very small emitter globally of carbon and greenhouse gases, although our emissions per capita are high. We need to reflect Ireland's position. The Chair is taking the right point of view. More information is needed. What I would like to see, as Mr. Burke outlined at his symposium with many different actors coming in, is a high level of private engagement on these issues. These are the people who will tell us straight off the bat where the real problems are. I mean no disrespect to the Department and I know it is speaking to various people. Someone who tries to put together a commercial venture will very quickly find out what the difficulties are and, more important, the significant costs that all of this will impose on Ireland. We are not taking that into account.

Chairman

I do not know if Deputy Shanahan will regard this as good or bad news but as he is deputising for Deputy Lowry, he steps into the Deputy's role. He is, therefore, considered a full member of the committee and is more than welcome to take part in our private meeting.

Senator Gerry Horkan

The alternatives are, I suppose, matters for the Chairman or the clerk.

Chairman

These are matters we will consider in private.

Senator Gerry Horkan

Some people are suggesting the committee should bring in many more groups to discuss this issue. We may not be able to do that.

Mr. Eddie Burke

To finish on the issue of subsidiarity, the reason we do not see a subsidiary piece here is that there has to be, from our point of view, consistency of experience by all in the transport sector. Someone who takes a car by ferry to France can be sure there will be a network of electric charging points available. That information is available. In the case of a ship, fuel can be picked up wherever it is needed. In the case of an airline landing in an airport, whether in Paris or Estonia, the experience is the same. To pick up on the Deputy's point, the alternative is that one has mismatch. That is not what we want for businesses and consumers. As an island nation, that common experience is not within our gift. That is a very important reason for us. Road hauliers will not cross to the Continent using electric vehicles unless certain they can be serviced on the far side. It is that piece. We can all do our piece individually but the individual pieces may not match into one coherent piece. We need that coherent piece.

The other piece, which was already mentioned, is that in some cases the EU is leading the world on this. That is particularly the case in the maritime area. It sends a much more powerful message when the EU does this. Within that, we have concerns. To take the issue the Senator mentioned, in the maritime area, for example, we do not know what the solution will be in terms of fuel but a review will take place within five years to allow that. It will not be down to the ship owners. They could be impact by something over which they have no control, such as the availability of fuel. All of this will be kept in mind as we work together. From a subsidiarity point of view, we need coherence between all member states.

Chairman

Does the text of each of the COMs, the legislative proposals, provide a detailed analysis of how the proposal will impact on individual countries?

Mr. Eddie Burke

Impact analyses were done in some although not all cases. We can provide those, but not a cumulative analysis.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

On that point, I asked a question about Ireland being an island question. It would be important to have those analyses.

Chairman

Are they available?

Mr. Eddie Burke

If the question is whether they are available by country, they are not.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

Why are they not available by country? Is there any particular reason?

Mr. Eddie Burke

They are in relation to the individual. Some member states, including Ireland, have been looking for an assessment of the cumulative impacts of the package rather than the individual pieces. Our colleague, Mr. Gallagher, from the Permanent Representation of Ireland to the EU may wish to add to that.

Chairman

That is the kernel for the committee because that is our role. We are national rather than European representatives. Did Mr. Gallagher catch the question?

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Yes. There are a couple of points. There are impact assessments for each of the COMs that have been published and I am sure the Department can pull them together for the committee. They have been discussed at length among the member states at the Council working parties. There are various views about how satisfied a member state is with the quality and level of detail. It is very complex, to be fair to the European Commission. It does not have them broken down by country. In many respects, the Commission would say it is the mark of the member states to carry out a country analysis.

Generally among these files, the Commission is presenting them as the minimum member states must do to make sure there is consistency across the Community. Every member state is grappling with different elements of it. Few members have no difficulties with all of these. While we have issues with aviation and maritime connectivity, the eastern European countries have difficulties overall in terms of GDP, affordability and the impact on their populations. At the forefront of member states' minds is the impact on citizens, perhaps for political reasons, because of course one knows what happens when there is a detachment between public policy or government decisions and where populations are prepared to go.

It is important to distinguish between the setting of the targets and pathway and what member states individually might do to mitigate the impact of those targets on the population. It is a top-line exercise to set the targets, for example, to determine how many electrical charging points we need across a European network and what is the right price of carbon, all of those elements. There is a separate piece about how that will impact financially and socially on different demographics in different countries. That varies across member states and within member states.

It primarily falls to national governments to work out who they will provide grants and social protection for. It is a different suite of decisions and a real challenge. The issues before us today concern the targets we need to hit to get to zero emissions by 2050. If we-----

(Interruptions).

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

-----it backloads it and makes it much more difficult.

Chairman

Is the 55% target the first absolute target that has been set? We have set a 51% target here by 2030. Have specific analyses been done on the impact per country?

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

Not by the Commission. The Commission will have taken input from member states. Data has been collected from member states and compiled. From that compilation, impact analysis at a European level has been done and targets have been set for individual member states.

Chairman

On the issue with the 55% rate, we had flexibility to set the 51% rate. We have to meet the target by 2050 and have set a target by 2030. The 55% rate by 2050 is an absolute rate. All countries are duty-bound to meet that rate. If they do not do so, are they subject to penalties?

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

As I understand it, subject to colleagues if I make a misstep, these are related to the Paris Agreement and the Green New Deal at a European level. These are things that the country has been signed up to. Overall, there are a series of fines and financial penalties for not meeting the targets but within these provisions there is no fining basis. The Commission is presenting these as a roadmap, for want of a better term, to help member states move towards achievement of their target in a co-ordinated way. If we do not live up to the obligations in, for instance, the alternative fuels infrastructure regulation, AFIR, there is no direct fine associated with that. If in not living up to those targets we miss our overall targets, as I understand it, there are financial penalties for that and, of course, the reputational piece.

Chairman

Would Mr. Burke like to make any concluding comments? He gave an overview earlier. Will he give us what he has about the impact on Ireland Inc? Would he or his colleagues like to make any concluding comments?

Mr. Eddie Burke

I thank the committee. We are broadly supportive of the package. It is part of a wider package but the transport elements are not without pain. We have to work our way through some of the detail. We are still in negotiations. We are looking for certain flexibilities within it. We are broadly supportive of the direction it is going.

Deputy Matt Shanahan

I have a final question. Perhaps it is for Mr. Gallagher as well. What activity is going on in Brussels with DG CLIMA in terms of allowing Ireland derogations around our carbon sequestration? Will we have potential in terms of the targets and the initiatives discussed this morning to describe our sequestration activity and hopefully secure mitigation?

Mr. Ronan Gallagher

I do not know because it is in a different area. We can try to include it in our response. All these points under Fit for 55 cut across agriculture, energy, finance, tax, transport and housing. They are moving at different speeds. The transport element is moving much faster than some of the others, especially the more complicated ones. What the Deputy is asking about is in the more complicated batch. They have a long way to run. There are issues around tax. The decision-making framework is different, the nature of the negotiations will be different and the obligations on member states are different. In each file, the dynamics are different but together they form a package. I will try to find more information for the Deputy and feed it through the Department to the committee.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Burke, Ms O'Brien, Ms Waller, Mr. Ó Ciaruáin and Mr. Gallagher for today's engagement with the committee.

The joint committee went into private session at 11.55 a.m. and adjourned at 12 noon until 1 p.m. on Wednesday, 3 November 2021.