Mr. Fintan Slye:

To pick up on Dr. Cotter's comments on modelling, only two weeks ago we launched a document around tomorrow's energy scenarios, looking to 2035 and 2050 and outlining the different scenarios around how our energy system could evolve. From our perspective, it asks what this means in terms of planning for the electricity system, both in terms of the type of generation portfolio and networks that are required and how think all of that will play out. We published four draft scenarios and we have done much consultation with our colleagues around this table and in other parts of the industry before their publication. The idea now is to do a number of workshops around the country and get stakeholder input to form what we believe are those scenarios. They incorporate elements such as what we think about the take-up of electric vehicles and whether it will accelerate dramatically or continue at the same pace. We have scenarios looking at both those options.

There is also the question of data centres and the extent to which they continue to come at the rate we have seen over the past two years. We have worked very closely with IDA Ireland over the past two years on a number of projects by high-profile American companies. These are the likes of Apple, Facebook and Amazon, Intel, Google and Microsoft. They are all siting big data centres here and some of them are very large users of electricity. Depending on the number, as Dr. Cotter pointed out, they have the ability to make a material difference to what one might think is the energy load to 2020, 2030 and beyond. That is the scenario piece we launched only two weeks ago. A consultation will now run for the next six weeks trying to get feedback on those scenarios and making sure we have captured all the key variables. Our plans will be tested against those scenarios so we can ensure any plan for investment we might have is robust. That is under way and it takes care of the various scenarios.

Deputy Ryan had a question about North-South interconnection and what authorities in Northern Ireland would do in the event that it did not go ahead. In the first instance there would be a very serious security of supply issue, for which they would need short-term solutions. The Deputy queried whether an interconnector to Scotland would be one of those. The timeline on that would be so far beyond what they would need in terms of security of supply as not to make it a solution for the next five or more years. It may be a longer-term solution but the time horizon for delivering something of the scale of an interconnector to Scotland would be way beyond addressing the real and urgent security of supply that they have. They have undoubtedly looked at all the possibilities, including commissioning, generation and other options, albeit with significant issues.

Before I speak about the Celtic interconnector, there was a question as to whether we examined other interconnectors to countries, with the obvious example being the United Kingdom. In 2010, when we were well on the way to finalising the east-west interconnector, which runs from Meath to Wales, we did a feasibility study on what would be the next interconnector or interconnectors that we should look at. We considered the UK and France. The French interconnector looked more beneficial in terms of Irish consumers and the benefit to the country and we sought to engage with the French around that. In the period since, some private developers came along and looked to build interconnectors between Ireland and the UK. Some of that was tied up with the proposal in approximately 2012 of a renewables export from the midlands to the UK but that proposal in terms of interconnectors and renewables export has gone. However, one of those developers is still pursuing the option of an interconnector between Ireland and the UK and looking at it as an option. As there is a private developer looking at it and we are involved with the detailed work on a French interconnector, which our initial studies indicated was more valuable, we have continued to focus on that.

There is a project that has projects of common interest, PCI, status and the private company examining it would have it as an interconnector available for use in the system not tied to any specific generation. That project is still there and that is why we focused on the French interconnector. The French interconnector made sense before Brexit was even a twinkle in David Cameron's eye but it probably makes more strategic sense, given the vote of the British people in the middle of last year in terms of strategic importance to this island and the country. That is where we are. The Deputy mentioned the Cohesion Fund and the most allowed into any project is 50%. All phases to date have been funded to that limit by the Connecting European facility. We will continue to seek for them to fund it.

The Senator had a question concerning the Celtic interconnector and a potential comparison with Moneypoint, asking if €1 billion for 700 MW made sense. One way of looking at it is we will pay half, which means it is €500 million for 700 MW. A typical 450 MW combined cycle gas turbine, which is the best-in-class type of unit, will cost approximately €450 million. On a megawatts of available capacity basis, it is probably a slightly better option. Celtic has the potential to deliver a number of benefits. There is the ability to access cheaper power in France, and it has a fleet of base load nuclear plants that it intends to maintain.

They are going to move it down slightly in terms of overall share but it will still be 50%, so there is a cheaper base load. There is also the ability to optimise the use of renewable resources here, so that, for example, when it is really windy we don't have to curtail wind power generation. Instead of curtailing it, we can get revenue from it by selling it to the French. There is also the security of supply benefit. Because there is an interconnector there, there is potentially no necessity to build as much capacity on the island to ensure demand is served. We must make sure that when all of those benefits are stacked up, that they outweigh the investment cost, and that it makes sense for Irish consumers. We are acutely conscious that investment costs are certain, and sunk. We need to make sure that the benefits which are projected out into the future will actually materialise. It is a lot of money. At the end of the day, it is Ireland and its consumers who are going to stand behind that, so we are acutely conscious of it.

Deputy Ryan mentioned the fuel mix in the future. We are looking at different options. If one thinks about how to get the power system up to 100%, there are only a number of levers available. The level of instantaneous renewables that can be managed on the system can be increased. We currently have it limited at 60%. We are going to get to 75% by 2020. If that can be pushed up, it will help. The technical analysis to date has not shown how that can be done. We can see how we can get to 75%. We have some really good engineers. We believe that it is possible to go beyond it, but we have not cracked that yet. No one has done 60%, anywhere in the world, but we are doing it. We believe we can get to 75%-----