Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have just three questions and maybe one short comment which was a kind of a question I had asked the last time. A huge subsidisation has been made from 2010, a permanent rebalancing. During the 2021 consultation on a potential moratorium for large energy users when the public had their chance to give their views on large energy users, why was the relevant information not given to the public that they were subsidising these large energy users and their electricity bills every year? This came to €40 or possibly quite a bit more per household. That should have been relevant information in the discussion and in a public consultation on public policy towards the expansion of large energy users.

I have two other questions. We have heard about the CRU being behind the curve in addressing this issue despite lots of notice. It let it slide for 12 years. For the last five years of expansion, it let it slide further. We heard about being behind the curve and missed opportunities, including the one I just mentioned in the 2021 direction to data centres.

I wish to flag two other matters in respect of which there is a risk of CRU being behind the curve again. I do not see anything in its strategy for 2023 about exiting gas. There is stuff about renewables and so on. It is about gas security of supply. We know that the issue of gas is volatile in economic and political terms. Why do we not have a policy of having more domestic connections to gas? Why is there a focus on continuing to adapt or expand the gas network rather than looking to an exit strategy?

Earlier, the witnesses were asked about the very high bills and the extremely high level of arrears among gas customers. None of the solutions seems to be focused on offering incentives to support an exit from gas. I would like to know about the actual exiting from gas. I do not need information on what the CRU is doing about renewables. I want to know about the winding down of the expansion of gas networks and new connections or new lock-in on gas looks like.

Regarding smart meters, there is almost a fantasy version of how the market will work. I am concerned that there may be an ideological rather than an actual evidence-based version of how competitive markets work. We know that in competitive markets involving shareholders there is a lot of price gouging. Smaller customers do not have the same influence as big customers and large energy users. That is all over the policies here. Back in 2008 when they were being landed with these extra costs from large energy users, we saw this kind of cavalier attitude that customers should shop around. I worry that there is a bit of that cavalier attitude now with the smart meters, which is that customers can think carefully about their energy use and can shop around. That is still the response that is being given.

While there are standing charges, if customers shop around and reduce their energy usage, standing charges may still increase. If anything, standing charges are often increased in an arbitrary way to make up for the reduction in energy usage. How important is the standing charge issue from our climate goal perspectives if we are to reward people for changing their energy usage? Some people who have smart meters want to move away from having a smart meter because they realise they are giving considerable detailed marketing information in some cases to an electricity provider. They may have other ways that they want to manage their energy usage which may be environmentally appropriate. What are the options for exiting? One of the reasons people may be reluctant to take up smart meters is because it feels like a one-way street where they will not be able to change if they want to move away from a smart meter in the future.