Alex White (Dublin South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Moynhihan. With regard to wind, as I said in my opening statement onshore wind has demonstrated its value and cost-effectiveness. That is clear and the information and data are available to prove that. We have installed wind generation capacity of just under 2,400 MW. The provisional 2014 figure indicates that 18.2% of electricity demand was met by wind generation. Almost 23% of our electricity is produced from renewable sources and approximately 80% of that, or 18.2% of electricity, is produced from onshore wind. It has been a successful initiative and has proven itself.

Do I think the entire renewable energy story can be reduced to onshore wind in the future? I do not. I agree with the Deputy that we must be mindful of the potential represented by technologies such as solar generation, biomass and offshore wind. On his question of whether we have been engaging, yes we have engaged very much with those sectors, and not just with the industry. People often wonder if this is driven by industry. The policy is the policy of the Government, which we hope will be endorsed by the Oireachtas. The Government must make policy and policy decisions must be made that the market will take up. We will trigger certain approaches in the market and we will trigger investment. People who are proposing to invest in a particular sector, not just in the energy sector but in any sector, must have an understanding of what government policy is. The Government's policy continues to be that onshore wind has played a very effective part in our renewable energy programme and will continue to do so, but it will not be the entire story. That is the reason I mentioned the consultation process we are engaged in at present regarding REFIT, so we can see what opportunities exist for solar energy, biomass and some of the other technologies.

As I said to the committee last week, one cannot help but be impressed by the fact that the cost in the solar area has dropped so much in recent years. It is a very short period of years. Some commentators describe it as the price having practically collapsed. It has certainly reduced enormously from what it was a few years ago. One must take account of that, but that gives rise to another question for the policy maker. Will it reach the stage where it is so effective that it might not necessarily need a high level of subsidy? If something is going to happen and the market is going to deliver a new technology in which people are willing to invest, while we must be careful that we do not wait around for years and not make any decisions we must also be careful not to make decisions too early and commit the people's resources too early to something that might be going to happen in any event. Putting on a commentator's hat, and people can make up their own minds, there are some countries in Europe that would probably admit they got involved too early in terms of subsidising solar energy, because the price has come down rapidly. I assure the Deputy that we are very much aware of the potential for solar energy. Personally, I believe it has very considerable potential.

Regarding offshore wind, the Deputy correctly stated that offshore wind also has a very exciting part to play in our future portfolio of renewables. The issue is the expense involved and the level of investment required this far in advance. The extent of the development of the technologies is at a relatively early stage. As I said last week, whoever is holding this portfolio next year, indeed six years hence rather than a year hence, would be looking at a real development in the evolution of our offshore wind.

Biomass also has a big role to play but more likely in the heat sector. I am aware of what is being advocated about Moneypoint; I have read the discussions. We must keep an open mind about Moneypoint but we will have to make decisions about it when it comes to the end of its current configuration in 2025. Decisions will have to be made about it in the forthcoming period. I have read and listened carefully to what is said about biomass as a potential replacement for coal in Moneypoint, but I remain to be convinced that it would make sense to have large scale importation from the US or elsewhere on a regular basis, with tens of thousands of tonnes of wood chip, pellets or whatever else being shipped across the Atlantic to feed Moneypoint. The type of subsidy that would be required would be considerably more than the subsidy we give to onshore wind at present, so that is a cost for consumers. It would also have to be converted, of course. However, none of these things should be rejected or ruled out, and I am not doing that. We can have a good debate about this. We do not need to make a decision about Moneypoint now, but we must make one in the five year period ahead.

I do not accept that we are at so-called saturation point, as some commentators say. I gave the figures earlier for the amount of onshore wind that is installed. We can and must do more in the period to 2020, but we certainly must start bringing our other technologies into the equation then, such as solar and offshore wind as they become viable.

With regard to energy prices, there have been reductions and that should be acknowledged. Most energy suppliers have reduced their prices this year and I welcome that. There were announcements by Electric Ireland, Bord Gáis and SSE Airtricity of savings to customers. I encourage other suppliers to follow suit and to pass on the reductions that have taken place in the wholesale sector to consumers in the domestic and business sectors for both gas and electricity. That is very welcome.

The CER plays a very important role. I heard the Deputy speak previously about conducting a review. I never oppose reviews. If there is a reason to conduct a review, it should be done.

If I am not mistaken, the Government has already committed to having periodic reviews of all the regulators and there is no harm in that. In my view, the regulator has worked well in the sector. We made a decision and people can have a view as to whether it was right or wrong. We have a situation where the prices are set in the market. We no longer have the old situation where a Minister could issue a directive as to what would be the price of gas or electricity. That is gone and we have a market now. The other side of the coin must has to be that the market must work for the consumer and the citizen. There is no point saying we have a market if the citizen is losing out. The consumer has seen prices come down. There is some resistance to the phrase that Ministers sometimes use to the effect that people should shop around. People do not like Ministers saying that because it sounds a bit patronising or whatever. I do not want to sound that way but it is true that people can make huge savings if they switch. In fact, we have one of the highest switching rates in Europe at present and people can make savings if they do it.