Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have a few questions building on the questions asked by Deputy Cronin. I have another set of questions on the energy demand piece.

On the standing charges and the moving away from price regulation, I believe it is pretty clear that the position in the European Union is no longer about moving away from price regulation but is about much more hands-on measures on price caps and thresholds. This is clearly what we are seeing right now from the EU. In that regard, the standing charges piece seems to be absolutely central. The point was made previously by Senator O'Reilly and others about why we do not have the lowest cost of default. The witness mentioned that some prefer lower carbon options but now we know that the renewable energy or the lowest carbon options will be the lowest cost options. It is not just a matter of preference. We have a collective public priority to move towards the lowest carbon option and that also happens to be the lowest cost. Why would we not put a requirement in for the lowest cost and the lowest carbon option in that regard? This is around the transition from gas. I am really surprised to see the key role of gas in security of supply when we know that gas has this huge price volatility. I am aware that there is an emergency measure for gas because many people in Ireland are on gas heating, but we should look specifically at how we are helping people to transition away from that more volatile and more expensive fuel of gas and at supporting people more actively, not to just to choose, but to be supported into moving towards lower carbon options, be that individually or collectively with district heating.

I note that the EU directive is not just around giving back to customers. We do not want to end up with just another subsidy to fossil fuel companies. It is about channelling it to those who need it most. It may well be that those levies put on those companies, and on gas in particular with its huge profits, may be directed into supporting people proactively to make a transition to cheaper low carbon, which is something that people may not be able to do on their own. That might need to be fully funded by the State. I am thinking in particular of collective users.

On the standing charges issue, in all of this talk of smart meters and hubs it strikes me that first of all we need to be realistic that 42% of people in Ireland lack basic digital skills and will not be going online to deal with these issues. If the standing charges are allowed to increase regardless of use it completely undercuts such measures. It is not just bad in the context of energy shortages and the poverty impact this will have on people; it is also very impactful around the transition to low carbon. It seems that it is counter indicated with transition to energy reduction if the standing charges go up in any way.

In that regard, Ms MacEvilly might comment on the low-usage standing charge for those who have extremely low energy usage. The fact is that was removed, but as I understand it, from May, the standing charge for those with very low energy usage went up. They were effectively penalised, as they are no longer getting the benefit of being a low energy user. Could Ms MacEvilly comment on standing charges and how credible it is to talk about smart metering if it all gets undermined by a standing charge increase? There is a need for a far more hands-on approach to address the price thresholds and the transition to lower carbon options. I have a different set of questions, but I will group them.