Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. O'Rourke. I want to follow up on a couple of issues that have already been flagged. A concern I would have is that it the ESB seems to be at a stage in its planning where it is chasing the regulations that might come in rather than anticipating them. I believe Senator Dooley was making a similar point, that we and the ESB need to be ahead of time. I am a little bit concerned, therefore, with regard to the investments. We say, "neither a borrower not a lender be", but the fact is that the ESB is borrowing heavily.

I am concerned that Mr. O'Rourke mentioned the generation portfolio. What is being promised to those investors in terms of a generation portfolio? What expectations are being giving to those investors? We have a rapidly evolving policy landscape. Are they being given an expectation, for example, that blue hydrogen will definitely be in the mix? There is a big difference between green and blue hydrogen. The ESB should anticipate that blue hydrogen will not be in the mix for very long. The move against it in Europe is strong and the scientific evidence we have heard previously in this committee against that kind of hydrogen is very strong. Therefore, is the ESB planning, and are its investors aware, that blue hydrogen might not be an aspect or an option in the mix, especially if we scale from €5 billion to €12 billion? What risk-proofing is there in terms of exposure on expectations in that regard?

Is the investment the ESB is making and perhaps anticipates making with the €12 billion in funding it hopes to draw down green investment and is it consistent with the spirit - I know it is not bound by the letter - of the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018, which we passed in the Oireachtas? I believe those are really important questions.

I am concerned by the emphasis Mr. O'Rourke has placed on financial markets as a priority. They are a priority but I believe energy supply and the environment will also be key priorities for the ESB in the longer term security picture.

Could and should environmental impact assessments be used earlier and better in terms of ESB infrastructure? That is really important.

Rather than looking to alternatives in terms of hydrogen, what percentage of this new funding will go into investing in the issue of storage?

That is the crucial issue. We do not want to hear in six years' time that sometimes the wind does not blow. That issue really needs to be dealt with and prioritised as an area of innovation. We hear much more about carbon capture than we hear about renewable energy storage. The emphasis needs to shift there.

In the previous Oireachtas, the ESB appeared before this committee regarding the unfortunate issue of leaks. Have Mr. O'Rourke or his colleagues heard, or do they have information, about whether the 75 new and historic leaks have been addressed or whether the decommissioning of the fluid-filled infrastructure cables has happened?

I note a new code of ethics has been introduced. Could Mr. O'Rourke comment on that because it is a governance code of ethics? Has there been consultation with the workers, unions and all relevant stakeholders around that new code of ethics for the ESB?

Finally, I note Mr. O'Rourke has a background in history and he spoke about heritage. I am extremely concerned by the proposed change of No. 29 Fitzwilliam Street from a public museum and amenity. With great respect, the new heritage measures suggested by Mr. O'Rourke do not replace what was in a way, as I see it, a penance for demolition and ruining of a 1 km-long Georgian street by ESB building works in 1965. I know that in 2015, the obligation on the ESB to restore it fully was lifted on the understanding that anything that replaced that site would be a public amenity. Does Mr. O'Rourke not regard that public museum as a key public amenity? I urge him in his new capacity as chairman to look strongly at reconsidering the removal of one of the few publicly accessible Georgian buildings in Dublin.