Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Judging by the Minister’s press release after the meeting in March, there seems to have been a good deal of discussion on energy co-operation. To what extent did that incorporate plans for exporting energy from Ireland? Are there discussions about plans to build an interconnector between Ireland and France and has anybody done a cost-benefit analysis on an interconnector between France and Ireland side by side with one between Ireland and Britain and the possibility of piggybacking on one system rather than developing two? What are the costs and benefits and the non-cost risks in that? Are there any discussions that would give us information from our European neighbours about their ability to reach renewable targets and the cost of doing that? I read that there are concerns in Germany that increased wind energy generation is resulting in sharp consumer price increases for customers.

There continues to be a stream of conversation, articles and commentary, some from credible sources, that question the real economics of planning for a major contribution from the wind energy generation to a low carbon future not just in Ireland but in Europe and elsewhere. This needs to be addressed. We need hard facts to prove the real cost of providing wind energy. Public representatives and the public need that information. It is separate from the debate about the impact on the landscape and tourism, house values and quality of life and all those factors. We need to discuss the economics of generation, direct costs, indirect support costs and the price the consumer pays.

Agenda item No. 5 for the meeting on 26 November states that the Commission is "launching [a] public consultation process on a new energy market" and that it will deliver "a new deal for energy consumers". Presumably this will be done within the context of the Aarhus Convention and yet there are many major developments here, including the North-South interconnector, wind energy developments and studies on fracking, which are outside the convention because of their start date.

I would argue that the Aarhus Convention is there because there were deficiencies identified in the then existing public consultation and participation protocols.

We should not be proceeding with any deficient process based on a calendar date.