Michelle Mulherin (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

We rely on the private sector because that is how we have progressed our energy market. We have private generators and we do not want to have a dominant supplier, as was the case with the ESB. We have moved away from that in the retail and wholesale markets and apparently that is progress. However, as has been stated, some degree of certainty is needed if we are to attract private investors. Investment will always involve an element of speculation but there is a point at which people are turned off and they will then move and invest elsewhere. This occurred in wind generation when transmission issues arose.

We have consultants of international standing retained on this matter and there has been engagement with the CRU. Aside from the complexity described by the CRU and the methodology it must apply, this process appears to be something of a mystery and companies must take a punt. My experience is largely with the planning process. Under the local authority planning process, pre-planning gives a developer a clear indication of the way in which legislation or regulations will be interpreted to enable the applicant to tailor an application accordingly. I am confident that the people the CRU is dealing with are intelligent enough to modify their proposal if generating electricity using 70% of what they have dried is not considered efficient use. That the previous proposal to transport wood thinnings across the Atlantic is considered a more viable prospect sounds mad to the general public, me and possibly other members.

Documentation issued by the CRU does not provide conditions or reasons for refusal, as is done by An Bord Pleanála and other bodies. It does not indicate that the proposal to use 70% of the dried matter to generate electricity is not efficient under the economic justification grounds. There is nothing like that. There is a serious problem here. None of us needs to have a technical background. We can try to appreciate what the CRU is doing but we will never step into its shoes. This process is much too obscure to be healthy or democratic. We are asking people to invest to create jobs and economic benefits locally, as described, and to help us reach our renewable targets. We have heard many complaints from people who have not received feedback. The decision made has surprised everyone. This meeting has shed some light on the situation but I do not consider it satisfactory. What the CRU has done leaves an awful lot to be desired. It would be fine if we were discussing a project that had not been half built already. The CRU has basically said it has been on a learning curve in the past few years. That is not acceptable. I am annoyed and outraged that these people have gone through this. It took them long enough to get the certificate in 2012. It was not a knee-jerk reaction. The Commission for Energy Regulation, the previous iteration of the CRU, told them it would have to be biomass at a time when peat could not be burned because plants were to be co-fired with peat and biomass.

Surely the CRU could have communicated with them to tell them the proposal was never going to go anywhere. We have enough problems with our planning systems but what if local authorities or An Bord Pleanála operated like that? There is a provision for An Bord Pleanála to tic-tac on strategic planning applications because one has to tease out issues. I saw the document the CRU issued and it did not give reasons. If something is not 100%, it is not commercially viable. It is not academic for them and it is crazy.

Mr. Melvin spoke of the economic justification. We heard the case for a renewable heat incentive scheme, which we do not have. Is he saying that if there was an end market for woodchip, a district heating system or something else and that this would be more economically justifiable than recycling it and burning it in a plant to generate electricity, it would be acceptable? If Killala wanted a district heating system in the morning, is he saying it would be able to have one? If the CRU's interpretation was made plain in that way, people would understand it. The CRU accepted that another European Union country could interpret the directive differently but it does not give our people any benefit of the doubt. The CRU is on quicksand in relation to this. It is not at the cut and thrust of the industry, as are the people to whom I am referring.

The mystery around the engagement in this case is a hallmark of the case. We do not want to be dragged into this but it has been going for a full year. The CRU has had two sets of consultants, the first of which carried out due process for the bank, which justified the proposal in its entirety. My understanding is that this is the reason the consultant went. Are there not enough resources for the CRU to do the assessments itself? Why are assessments being handed out to consultants? It is very unsatisfactory.

What is the CRU going to do for these people? If it is now telling them to do X, Y and Z and to import the material from the United States, why did it not tell them to do so in the middle of the process? If it is acceptable now, with a bit of hocus-pocus, why was it not acceptable back then? Is it all such a mystery that no one can invest? Are we going to have no further CHP plans like this? I am baffled by it all.

This is a serious issue but I think the CRU is getting the message. We have skin in the game but there is a national issue in the form of heat and electricity. It will cost more for input material but we are also going to be fined. That makes no sense.