Mr. Terence O'Rourke:

There are quite a few questions. The Senator said that we appear to be chasing regulations rather than anticipating them. I have only been involved with the ESB for the past number of weeks but I have seen that it is well aware of the need to change. That issue of getting the legislative framework required for offshore wind in place is a matter of ongoing consultation between ourselves and the regulator and ourselves and the Department.

The ESB is absolutely involved in anticipating and shaping those regulations and trying to make sure they are the most effective way of getting to do the things we need to do. I therefore hope we would not be seen as chasing regulations but actually anticipating and helping to shape them. Our job is to be the experts on the ground and know the right way to make sure the regulations are effective, not only for the operations of the ESB but for the protection and safety of the community.

The Senator spoke about the investments and alluded to my reference to the need for the ESB to be financially strong. That is reality. The issue is that we need to make a lot of investment now. There is a big investment, which will be repayable over a long future. We have a situation where we need to make big investments now and the repayment will be over many years of supply of electricity. It is something that is entirely suited for borrowing. The Senator is correct. We must do that prudently and in such a way that the financial markets are helping it.

I should say that I have chaired another sale and investment forum in the last number of years, which is about trying to help our financial investor colleagues to understand the need for transformation in the economy, that is, the need to go to green energy. We found there was a great and growing interest from financial investors in decarbonisation because they did not want to invest in projects which are not sustainable and do not have a long-term future as we move to a zero-carbon world. Investors are well aware of this.

I am not aware of the detail of the mix. The Senator made a comment about blue hydrogen. As I understand it, that would not be a necessary part of the mix. If any blue hydrogen is involved, it is a matter of transition as we need to go to green hydrogen. Blue hydrogen is only a stepping stone as we go to green hydrogen. We will get there eventually.

I already mentioned the importance of battery storage and dealing with intermittent wind. I agree with the Senator. I do not want whoever is in my chair in ten years' time telling the committee the wind does not blow on certain days. That is the reality today as we transition, however. We need to deal with that because we need to keep the lights on, businesses powered and homes warm. That requires us to use an appropriate mix of generation but that mix is changing over the period in our plan. We plan to change it to 70% renewable energy by 2030 and earlier if we can, and as soon as possible thereafter with the technology and investment required to get towards zero carbon. Therefore, it is exactly in our lines to do that and we must do it in a way that ensures we remain financially stable. There is no point in us borrowing imprudently and not being able to make the investments and provide electricity to the people of Ireland.

We must balance the needs that the Senator, entirely appropriately, raised as a concern, but it is an issue of which we were already aware.

The Senator is correct in that, as an historian, I am aware of the importance of showcasing heritage and reminding current and future generations of its importance. That is why we have initiatives like the archives and the visitor centres in Ardnacrusha and Oweninny.

On the museum, my understanding is that there was no planning permission or anything else. It is something the ESB did voluntarily. It was not a quid pro quo, as we understand it. The museum comes in two parts, namely, the contents and the building. The contents have always been owned by the National Museum of Ireland and have always been borrowed from it. We returned them to the National Museum of Ireland when we started a redevelopment a few years ago.

I agree on what was done in the 1960s to the kilometre-long Georgian street. Nobody would want to endorse or support that now. I regret it also. We hope the redevelopment of the new building is more in keeping with the heritage and the streetscape. I hope members will see that. It involves two new office buildings to replace the 1916 buildings, one of which has been sold to help to finance the project. As part of the process, we are refurbishing up to 11 Georgian houses, three of which will be used for ESB's offices and eight of which will be returned to family and residential use. That is what we are doing.

I absolutely agree on the need to showcase the heritage. My contention is that it does not necessarily have to be in No. 29. We are going to work with colleagues in Dublin City Council, the OPW and the National Museum of Ireland to examine heritage-related initiatives that could address concerns. I recognise that point. I was a visitor to the museum myself even before I was involved in the ESB and I know it very well. My children visited and they were fascinated by it. We need to have the heritage available to people. The uses of buildings change. If we did not change buildings, the members would be sitting in a building that was the home of the Duke of Leinster or home to the Royal Dublin Society. We need to have the heritage available to people. We are going to work with all the stakeholders to make sure it is available, but it does not necessarily have to be at No. 29. As part of the project, it made sense to do significant refurbishment. When we sell these houses, we will not be a making profit. The houses were built a long time ago and need a lot of work in terms of refurbishment of floors and the fixing of windows and roofs. There is a considerable amount of work to return them to what they were built for, which was to house families. That is what all the houses are going to be returned to now. That is what we are about, but we are very conscious of the heritage point and we are going to commit to dealing with that issue.