Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank all of the witnesses for their evidence and time this morning. I have a few questions; I might start with Mr. O'Reilly. I will talk about something parochial, but it applies across the country, which is wastewater treatment facilities in many smaller towns and villages. In east Galway, for example, in villages like Castleblakeney, Creggs, Kilconnell and Caltra, wastewater treatment facilities are grossly inadequate and raw sewage runs onto the streets. Yet, nothing seems to be happening to address the capital needs for those treatment facilities. This forces many people in those communities to live either in Galway city or Ballinasloe. It is not possible for them to remain in their own parishes because there are no serviced sites available. This is replicated across the country. How can this challenge be dealt with? There is huge demand in growing towns to develop capacity and ensuring the construction of large numbers of houses but we will lose the fabric of rural Ireland if there is no investment in small-scale wastewater treatment facilities. What is Irish Water specifically doing to address situations like those in east Galway?

More for clarification more than anything, but ESB Networks stated that it has responsibility for maintaining the onshore electricity transmission network. As the witnesses know, there will be significant development of an offshore electricity network in the near future. What role does ESB Networks have in that regard or is it primarily an EirGrid issue? Will the witnesses elaborate on that? I wish to return to another question which I will put to the other witnesses.

On the CRU and the regulation of utilities, a primary responsibility of the regulator is to protect customers and ensure charges are fair. There is a weakness in assessments at the moment. Some electricity providers, EirGrid or ESB Networks, make a submission to the CRU setting out their plans for the next period. The CRU looks at them and the related costings. There is a weakness in getting an independent assessment and whether this is the most cost-effective and robust long-term solution. While the CRU looks at the proposals, it does not have a mechanism to say this is not the appropriate solution. There does not seem to be an independent mechanism to evaluate that. In theory, it comes before the committee and, in theory, the committee can scrutinise it but that does not happen. How can that particular issue be addressed? In that context, every cost in connecting to the grid is ultimately borne by the consumer either directly or indirectly. A practical example is in my parish, where a new peak gas-fired station is being built in Monksland. On two adjoining sites, a substantial solar farm and wind energy project are being built. Those projects bring three separate connections to the local substation, all going along the same road and into the same trenches. As we are talking about solar, wind and a peak plant, power will only be in one of those three cables at any one time. Why is there no joined-up thinking? This is also a question for ESB Networks. The customer is paying for three electricity connections when one would do, in all likelihood. There does not seem to be a mechanism to put the brakes on issues like that. Will the witnesses clarify that matter?

To the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, the witness is correct - the Government set an ambitious target of 80% renewable electricity by 2030. We do not know how we will do it. There is absolutely no information about how that will happen. In fact, Wind Energy Ireland published a report earlier this week stating that the industry does not believe we will achieve this within that timeline. In contrast, we heard evidence in September on Oileán Árainn Mhór about island communities wanting to export more renewable electricity to the national grid but they cannot get the mechanism to do it. In Mr. Finnegan's evidence this morning, he made the point that at least 15 applications will be reserved under the enduring connection programme for community projects. I presume - correct me if I am wrong - that these will also be subject to auctions like the others. If that is the case, the island projects will never get off the ground because their grid connections will be substantially more expensive than those on the mainland. Second, we do not have clarity on the planning process. When that happens, it will be more a complicated process than it is on the mainland.

Again it leaves the islands on the back foot as regards this. We heard evidence from the Department of Rural and Community Development. There is an EU islands initiative for renewable energy. We should be trying to front-load and support that. We cannot do that with the current approach that is being taken. Related to that, there is a plan-led approach for offshore renewable development, which is the right way to go on this. Is there a mechanism whereby, if some of the areas that are zoned are close to inhabited islands, we would be able to provide, in conjunction with connecting large areas of offshore renewables, a connection onto the islands? Is there any mechanism to facilitate that? There are a few questions there and we will start with Irish Water and work back from there. Will Mr. O'Reilly start?