Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is interesting that 80% of industry emissions are from 250 companies. There are two things. One is the business case. A concern I have about the climate fund is that this is where most of the resources are going. When a business case is being made, is there scope in that for preventative spending? Is there a narrative of "We are spending so that the State does not have to spend in other ways?" Profitability may be an issue with many of the things we do to reduce emissions. People's electricity bills may be going down but that is not the primary motivation. The primary motivation is emission reduction. I worry sometimes about really good ideas. There are really good ideas in that queue of ideas from the HSE and others but they have to put themselves through a business case. There is a problem if all the resources are coming through in that way. We should be publicly funding this area rather than public projects having to compete to do something which is a public good. How do the parameters work in the business case? Is there preventative spending? Can equivalent direct public funding be applied?

It was interesting to hear the representatives of the OGP speak of decommissioning. The SEAI is talking about decommissioning and the OGP is on the commissioning side, effectively. I talked about the quality criteria piece because that is a piece I have looked to legislatively. What firmer measures - rather than voluntary measures - could be applied, even in terms of baseline standards, so the public service would not commission, except in exceptional circumstances, things that require a gas boiler, for example?

Technical specifications were mentioned but am I correct that it is still all voluntary? Leaving aside what the EU requires us to do, is there potential for regulatory measures that would allow the State to set a higher threshold or a better example regarding what it commissions? For example, it could expect the default use of repurposed materials where possible or certain approaches to energy through certification. I am referring to the commissioning part, the objective being not to end paying for something because it is cheaper from the OGP’s perspective only for the SEAI, a few years later, to have to give a grant to decommission it and make it environmentally friendly. Could the delegates refer to the regulatory or harder measures? I am concerned that so much still seems to be voluntary or is done just because the EU makes us do it.