Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for the presentation. Vice President Šefovi was in Dublin two years ago setting out the approach the Commission would take. In the 2020 package, all the political agreements were done in advance before the poor Ministers of Finance knew what was going on. They learned of it in a state of shock. We had these targets and so on. This time, because there is less political support for action on climate and renewables, they are putting the pieces of the jigsaw together slowly and getting agreement. That is what we are seeing in this wide range of packages. I cannot remember who said that in Europe, to a certain extent, what we have done is stitched renewables into the system. In the first quarter, we have made the transition we need to make by stitching them into the existing system. Now we are planning the next quarter of the renewables being put in and we have to change the entire system because they are affecting the whole system. It is a completely different energy system. This is not small legislation. It is very important and significant and concerns how we change our entire energy system.

Mr. Confrey said that 16% would be our baseline but 16% is our current target. Are we saying that any ambition we have to plan for in the January 2018 big new national energy plan has to assume we are starting from 16% and we will go from there? We are currently at 9.1%. What will the cost be for not being at 16% in 2020 or whatever time the fines kick in? Surely that must lead to a huge increase in ambition for the scale we have. This is not like the climate package where we have a very soft deal in terms of baselines being set. I am sure Mr. O'Neill will have all the details. We have a soft option in terms of where we start. Mr. Confrey is saying we are starting with a harder option in renewables because in some ways we have to start from 16% even though we will be nowhere near 16%. If I am right about that, I would be interested to hear Mr. Confrey's thoughts.

The second question is on the 50-year plan. We have to write the plan within the context of a 50-year vision. If the Paris Accord is to mean anything and if European energy policy stacks up, it will effectively mean we have to go to a zero carbon energy system in that sort of timeframe. Does that mean the Department will have to change its entire energy White Paper, which gives us an out until 2100 before we go to that sort of an energy system? How will we ramp up and change our energy White Paper to reflect that greater ambition we are going to commit to?

In terms of our interconnection, Mr. Brady said we will have to try to secure future gas and electricity interconnection with the UK and that we will have to look for legal mechanisms for that. Is there an alternative to the European Court of Justice, ECJ, as the final arbiter on the legal structures? Have the witnesses met their UK civil service contacts in their counterpart Department? It is no longer called DECC but it is Mr. Chisholm's Department. Has it been an issue for discussion? Where are the discussions on the issue of legal mechanisms?

I am sorry for these rapid fire questions but I could ask questions all night on this because it is very interesting. How much money have we availed of so far? What projects have we planned to avail of from the Juncker investment fund in the clean energy area, whether efficiency, interconnection or generation? I understand they recently increased the fund by €200 billion and directed that 40% of it should be in the clean energy area. I am interested to know what we have so far availed of in the Juncker investment fund. What big projects are ready to go that we think may avail of the Juncker investment fund?

What was our lending in the past two or three years? What do we plan for this year and next year in the clean energy space in terms of European Investment Bank, EIB, lending? What sort of access to funding have we got from that? They are my immediate questions.