Mr. Jerry McEvilly:

One important consideration is that, in the medium to long term, to align with our climate obligations, gas dependence or gas demand needs to reduce. I appreciate that, in the short to medium term, this is challenging, but in terms of reliance on fossil fuel infrastructure in the medium to long term, this dependence should be decreasing.

In terms of dependence on Moffat, I fully understand where the CRU is coming from. I note that, in terms of infrastructure, it is not only an issue of the impact. Evidently, if Moffat became unavailable, it would have an enormous impact but it is also important to consider the likelihood of this happening and how or why this likelihood would have changed in previous years. Regarding the point about the n-1 standard, in previous years, Ireland met this standard on a regional basis. If I remember correctly, GNI itself raised this issue and noted in the context of revision of relevant EU gas legislation that Ireland should be looking for some form of derogation or exception.

In other words, the UK's exit from the EU should not necessarily result in a shift in Ireland's approach.

Regarding the hydrogen strategy, it is worth considering, and I am sure it will appear before the committee in the future, the SEAI's national heat study. I do not want to speak on behalf of the SEAI but I note one point made in the study, namely, that net zero emission pathways with the lowest cumulative emissions use more electric heating technologies while scenarios focused on hydrogen gas grid have more cumulative emissions so green hydrogen is unlikely to be available at scale until the 2030s whereas electrification technologies are available now, which means that hydrogen plays a smaller role in rapid decarbonisation scenarios than electrification.