Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It has been a very interesting debate. I was looking back to the CRU’s mandate, which is to protect the public interest in water, energy and energy safety. There is so much talk about the market, market factors, market encouragements and stimulus, that the core role in the public interest and safety seems to kind of perhaps slip away a little bit. At a very fundamental level we know that accelerating climate change is unsafe, not just for the public in Ireland, but more widely. What concerns has the CRU regarding the acceleration of climate change and its impact on public safety?

I would be interested in Ms Connolly’s comments on that as well, especially on the issue of methane. We have heard concerns, and Ms Connolly mentioned methane as a potential accelerant. I would like to hear about the impact fracked and shale gas may have on climate change and its acceleration.

We have heard that we need to do everything. However, in fact, when we do everything, what tends to happen is we do more of the same, when in fact we know we need to do less of the same. Prioritisation is very important. We had the EU taxonomy debate, which was meant to be about prioritising different kinds of energy. I am concerned when we hear about repurposing gas infrastructure being something that comes expensively on the table. That redirects potential energy focus away from things such as prioritising the development of green hydrogen. I would like to hear comments on the need perhaps for a green hydrogen strategy, as opposed to a hydrogen strategy that may contain green hydrogen or pipes that may or could carry green hydrogen. This is where thought the question around public versus private infrastructure is very important. Of course if it is private, one hopes that they might move to green hydrogen, but they may not. Whereas if it is public, one is looking at that issue of being able to have the control to say, “only green hydrogen”. Again, that is the problem if we invest heavily in things like pipelines that may only carry green hydrogen. We need to separate that. We also need to look at ammonia, specifically, as well as solar, as was mentioned.

In terms of the lock-in, I would like to hear a bit more on what analysis has been done of the dangers of lock-in if we continue investing in gas infrastructure, both in terms of the contracts, which I believe were mentioned, and also in terms of the Energy Charter Treaty. I would just suggest that regardless of whether the Minister asks the opinion of the CRU, if the CRU is going to give opinions, as it has today, on where investment should go in the next ten to 20 years, it actually has a responsibility to have risk-proofed those recommendations, that advice and those considerations in terms the Energy Charter Treaty and how difficult it might make it to change policy positions in three or five years.

My last point-----