Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have received apologies from Deputy Whitmore.

The first item on the agenda is engagement with the business sector on the climate change targets 2026 to 2030. The purpose of our meeting today is to continue our discussions with the goal for the committee of identifying the 15 to 20 barriers that would prevent Ireland from achieving its short-term climate change targets for 2026 to 2030. We have been engaging on this topic on a sector-by-sector basis, and today we continue with witnesses from the business sector. I welcome to our meeting the following witnesses. From IBEC, we have Mr. Gerard Brady, head of national policy and chief economist, and Mr. Conor Minogue, senior executive, energy and climate policy. From Chambers Ireland, we have Mr. Ian Talbot, chief executive, and Mr. Shane Hughes, policy and international affairs manager. They are all very welcome. I remind everybody in attendance to make sure their mobile phones are on silent mode or switched off.

Before I invite the witnesses to deliver their opening statements, I wish to advise them of the following in relation to parliamentary privilege. Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of that person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

In terms of the way the meeting will work, I will invite witnesses in turn to make an opening statement for a maximum of five minutes. Once those statements have been delivered, I will then call on the members of the committee in the order they indicate to me to put their questions to the witnesses. We operate a rota system, which provides each member with an initial six minutes to engage with our witnesses. It is important to note that the six minutes are for both questions and answers. Therefore, it is essential for members to put their questions succinctly and witnesses to be succinct in their responses. When all members who have indicated have had their initial engagement, time permitting, a second round will commence where each member will have up to three minutes for both questions and answers. Please note that the duration of this meeting is limited and, therefore, the times must be adhered to. I ask everybody to be focused in their contributions. I will now call each organisation to deliver their opening statements beginning with Mr. Minogue from IBEC.

Mr. Conor Minogue:

I thank the committee members for the invitation to present here this afternoon and share our perspectives on Ireland's ability to meet its 2030 targets.

Ireland’s transition is at a major inflection point. Our 2030 and 2050 targets are looking more challenging than ever. While emissions are falling and some sectors are performing strongly, it is not happening at the pace sufficient to keep pace with population and economic growth. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, projects emissions to reduce by up to 23%, which is well below the 51% target. Ireland faces an enormous challenge to get back on track. That task has not been made any easier by the current global economic and geopolitical volatility, which is undermining business confidence, risk appetites and investment certainty. Meanwhile, Europe faces a competitiveness crisis, bringing renewed focus on energy affordability, energy security, cost effectiveness and the threat of carbon leakage. However, while the world has changed in many ways, for Ireland, an open economy that is heavily reliant on imported fossil fuels and with enormous untapped renewable energy potential, the imperatives and opportunities of transition have not changed.

It is more important than ever, however, that the transition be pursued more effectively and mindfully. We have identified four barriers that must be overcome for us to meet our 2030 targets.

First, Ireland's transition lacks strategic direction. A recent National Economic and Social Council report notes Ireland's power sector transition is proceeding into fog, with limited visibility and strategic alignment. The same is true of the wider transition, from our perspective. Ireland's transition end goal must be more than a target. Ireland needs a compelling vision for what transition looks like and means in practice. There remains great uncertainty regarding the role and interplay of different technologies and climate solutions that compete for resources, skills and finance. There is also low visibility on the costs of transition, how it will be financed and how those costs will be distributed across society. We also do not know what the transition means for system reliability and affordability in the next decade, which will be a period of immense transformation.

Effective climate action is also hindered by a fragmented and complex policy landscape. There are multiple technology-specific action plans and strategies but no central co-ordinating instrument. Ownership of the transition is widely spread, with no single authority able to direct national resources, resolve interdepartmental conflicts and make decisions where trade-offs are necessary. The climate action plan is too narrow in that it does not take into direct consideration energy affordability and system security, which leads to policy gridlock, drawn-out processes and indecision. We believe there is a clear role for an all-of-government energy transition masterplan.

The ongoing economic and geopolitical volatility is also a threat to climate action. Investment confidence is weakening at a time when major investment is needed. The SEAI has estimated that €19 billion in capital investment will be needed each year by 2030. High electricity prices are a major barrier to decarbonisation through electrification. The gap between the natural gas price and the electricity price, called the “spark gap”, is a clear problem that needs to be resolved. Over the past decade, Ireland has faced some of the highest electricity costs in the OECD.

To scale decarbonisation, the State must play a more active role mobilising, derisking and “crowding in” private investment through more targeted and impactful supports. Renewed efforts are needed to reduce electricity costs.

The slow pace of energy infrastructure delivery is also a major barrier. The International Energy Agency and the 2024 Draghi report both single out Ireland as one of the worst performers in this regard. Ireland's lengthy and complex planning and permitting regime and the frequency of judicial review mean energy projects can take over a decade to bring to completion. There is also a wider problem with public support for critical energy infrastructure. This demands attention, including greater political championing of energy projects.

I thank the members for their attention. We look forward to answering their questions and discussing these issues in more detail.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Mr. Minogue. The next speaker is Mr. Ian Talbot of Chambers Ireland.

Mr. Ian Talbot:

I am grateful for the opportunity to address the committee today. In the interest of time, I will not read out the first paragraph of my written statement because it repeats the views of IBEC on where Ireland stands on its obligations. However, it will have been circulated.

In order to meet our climate targets, policy must be rooted in delivery, accountability and reform. Businesses are prepared to engage and to support the green transition but there are barriers constraining their full involvement. Security of supply is essential for businesses and communities. We consistently advocate the development of renewables to reduce our overall fossil fuel dependence and meet our climate targets. Delivering climate-aligned infrastructure by investing in renewable energy connections, electrification and smart grid technologies is essential to that objective. Without reliable energy, all businesses face operational risks, while the State risks losing its attractiveness for foreign direct investment, particularly in high-value manufacturing and data services. Equally, delays in customer connections and in generation and grid constraints can have broader economic implications, especially as the State competes globally for infrastructure investment and supply-chain capacity. This is because most other countries are seeking to do the same things at the same time.

Key barriers identified by our network include infrastructure bottlenecks. The opportunities presented by the green transition are significant but the delays and impediments to infrastructure severely hold us back from realising that potential. Onshore and offshore wind energy represent some of the most transformative economic and environmental opportunities for the State in the coming decades, but we need to put policies into operation that are conducive towards delivering renewables and the associated substantial benefits they present.

There are regulatory and planning challenges. While we acknowledge the planning reform that has taken place within the past 12 months, the planning system is still a significant barrier to infrastructure delivery. Further reform is required and the courts and all relevant planning authorities should be resourced to process the judicial reviews and appeals that hold up the planning system. Up to 76 windfarms across Ireland are projected to lose their planning permission between now and 2030, and a critical obstacle to delivery is that the planning system functions in essence as a reactive licensing regime. As such, the State's planning system has evolved towards negative development control rather than proactive infrastructure planning and is struggling to provide the type of system that is essential to co-ordinate grid upgrades, renewable energy integration and strategic infrastructure investment.

Our members in other areas are concerned about the pace of delivery of flood defences.

On skills and cross-sector learning gaps, we all acknowledge the critical importance of education, lifelong learning and the building of apprenticeship programmes. The unlocking of the National Training Fund to focus on the skills required for decarbonisation is critical to enhancing our competitiveness and underpinning progress towards our climate targets.

Let me refer to financial and capacity constraints. In terms of actions to help businesses to play their part, targeted supports, decarbonisation action plans and the expansion of circular economy initiatives are all essential to help businesses to decarbonise. Funding mechanisms like the climate planning fund and the green transition fund could be scaled up, while streamlining access to advisory services and capital grants will also help businesses to decarbonise. Unlocking access to Ireland's more than €160 billion in retail savings could help to mobilise the private capital needed to support the green transition.

Supporting the EU in the delivery of a capital markets union and the savings and investment union are all equally essential to ensuring private loan and equity finance are facilitated to ensure critical investment takes place, including in our ports. We must also continue our focus on the defence of critical infrastructure.

On the importance of being technology neutral, all renewable technologies – wind, biomethane, hydrogen and others – present a significant economic and strategic opportunity and will play a role in meeting our climate targets. An open mind should be kept on the continued evolution of technology such as nuclear technology.

We welcome the SEAI's multi-year study on decarbonising the electricity system. The State has within its grasp the potential to secure its energy future, but realising this vision will require significant progress across all areas I have referred to. The challenge is clear but so is the opportunity if we act with urgency and purpose. I thank the members for their attention. We look forward to their questions.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Mr. Talbot.

Malcolm Byrne (Wicklow-Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all our witnesses for attending and the work they do. There is nothing in their opening statements with which I disagree. With regard to part of the challenge with what we all want to do to meet climate targets, I want to ask two questions. Mr. Minogue mentioned our need to be politically brave and climate brave, which I believe we have to be. Part of this involves an obligation on businesses to speak out. There can be a difficulty in some of our communities when we speak out in support of, say, renewable energy, both onshore and offshore. What more can members of the witnesses' organisations do to speak out? It can often be a lonely place because not all political voices support renewable energy. However, having the business community speaking loudly and setting down the exact implications if we do not address the challenge is important. I am putting the challenge specifically back to the witnesses.

Colleagues will know I frequently mention the Draghi report. We can be competitive and green but we must have the necessary digital infrastructure in Ireland to compete. That also has to be green. Could the witnesses chat about where they see a role in this regard?

Mr. Talbot mentioned nuclear energy. He will be aware that the private wires Bill will be coming before the Oireachtas soon. What are his hopes and aspirations in this regard?

Mr. Conor Minogue:

Deputy Byrne is absolutely right. The industry has a critical role in making the case for the infrastructure delivery that is needed as part of transition but also for the delivery of a more competitive economy. We see them as twinned or extremely linked. I mentioned that we have the reliance on imported fossil fuels and gas in our electricity system and that we have a high electricity cost environment. We also see the potential of renewables, particularly offshore, which is moving in the direction that it makes absolute sense to do it. We need to be there advocating for that, and we are. In 2019, we issued our first low-carbon roadmap, which set out why this is good for business and for the economy.

The Deputy is absolutely correct. Specifically on the grid infrastructure delivery, IBEC came out very strongly in support of price review 6, PR6, and the scale of ambition envisaged for our grid in terms of delivering new capacity and new demand, unlocking inefficiencies and transforming the system to meet targets. It is very much industry leading support for that infrastructure delivery.

What is very clear in this period of global uncertainty is that the Draghi report and the clean industrial deal which followed from that report at a European level show that decarbonisation and competitiveness are absolutely linked. There is a lot of noise and we cannot ignore it. It just means looking at how we ensure that a strong enough enabling environment for that dual path towards competitiveness and decarbonisation is pursued.

Finally, I am strongly supportive of private wire. We think there is huge opportunity through private wire for the adoption of solar PV, onshore wind and the decarbonisation of industry. In fact, next Tuesday, I will be in the Department to look at next steps in delivering that private wire piece.

Mr. Ian Talbot:

The Deputy will be familiar with the efforts we go through as a network to try to get our chambers around the country to have critical mass and be able to engage in some of these policy discussions. As with anything, when you look back in retrospect, there is always more you could have done.

As the committee will know well, we have been strong supporters of the sustainable development goals, in the broader sense, since they were brought out, including climate change but also many other things. The key issue for us is to keep feeding our members around the country with the key information they need. It is also helpful when we hear from politicians of all views on what their challenges are, as this also helps us frame local messages. I do not think we can underestimate the importance, in respect of the judicial reviews and everything else coming through, that so many of them are local issues which are very hard to spot from a national perspective. However, if people on the ground were better briefed, maybe we could help to address some of the issues before they become court challenges.

I cannot stress enough the point about making sure the appropriate authorities have the resources they need, for example, that the courts have the resources to deal with and address issues quickly. Nobody wants to in any way damage our democratic right to monitor, object or whatever, but the quicker we can deal with things, the quicker we can move on.

Regarding the Draghi and Letta reports, I was reading this morning that only 11% of the Draghi report has been implemented. Progress is very slow. We are certainly working with our colleagues in Eurochambres to get the message delivered regarding its importance for Europe, and in the broader sense, for competitiveness. We also cannot forget we have all made commitments following on from Ursula von der Leyen's speech 18 months ago on the reduction in administrative and regulatory burden. There is not much sign of things happening there. We need to do more in Ireland and elsewhere to reduce the regulatory burden so people have more time available to focus on things that are really important.

On private wires, we have not studied this issue in great detail but, as far as we are concerned, if we can get private funding, public funding or a mix of funding to get things moving, we are fully in support of it.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have a question for IBEC. It said that we do not know what the transition means for energy prices and system reliability in the next decade. Could it clarify what it means around the uncertainty of prices going down? We know renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel energy and that, according to a report from the International Energy Agency, IEA, published this week, residential electricity prices in Ireland are three times higher than the wholesale cost and the most expensive in the world. Does IBEC not agree that renewable energy would be cheaper and cleaner, and that this transition should be a priority for the Government?

Mr. Conor Minogue:

I absolutely agree with the Deputy on the role renewables can play in improving competitiveness of supply. IBEC has repeatedly drawn attention to the high electricity prices we experience in Ireland. As the Deputy said, they are some of the highest in the EU. Given that the EU itself is uncompetitive globally, that is a major concern.

We published a paper last November setting out our analysis of what are the main cost drivers for electricity and where we see the solutions over the short, medium and long term. There are four areas which we believe need attention. The first is renewables, which play a suppressing role on the price, as we have seen over periods of high cost during the electricity and affordability crisis. The second is investment in the grid and the role an efficient grid has in reducing some of those costs that end up on the user's bill. The third area is the fixed-cost component of the bill, which accounts for between one third and half of a user's bill, particularly for the business user. That is more in the control of Government policy and it is an area that needs review, particularly for the period past 2030. The energy affordability task force that has been set up has huge potential and we ask that it examine, in a comprehensive and holistic way, what is driving those high electricity prices in Ireland.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The witnesses also said economic conditions cannot keep pace with population and economic growth. Are they suggesting we should be reviewing our targets? What is IBEC's position on that?

Mr. Conor Minogue:

The targets are extremely challenging. Marie Donnelly, chair of the Climate Change Advisory Council, was in here recently setting out the budgets for the next decade. Looking at the CCAC's figures, it is going to be extremely challenging. The decarbonisation of industry needed in 2025 is about 33%, which is a reduction that has never been seen in the history of greenhouse gas emissions reporting. What we are saying is the enabling framework to allow decarbonisation of that scale is not in place. We have many supports available through the agencies - the Sustainable Energy Authority if Ireland, SEAI, Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland - but there is nothing at present that can deliver the scale of emissions reduction required. We see a role for a multitechnology, high-value support scheme like those currently in place in Germany and the Netherlands and emerging in other member states.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I assume IBEC has spoken to the Government about that.

Mr. Conor Minogue:

Yes, we published a paper on a specific proposal of a contract for difference-type model. We use the phrase "climate action contracts", which would basically bridge the gap between a fossil price and the renewable alternative. It would be an operational support for 12 to 15 years. We published that paper last July and we still think there is huge potential for that. In the clean industrial deal I mentioned, this is one of the recommended ways for states to mobilise that level of decarbonisation.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

From speaking to businesses across my constituency in north Kildare, the price of electricity is a danger to indigenous growth. Small businesses such as shops have raised their prices to keep their freezers running, which is having a huge effect.

I have a question for Chambers Ireland on energy supply versus foreign direct investment. Chambers Ireland claims the secure supply of energy is essential for businesses and communities and that the State will lose its attractiveness for FDI if a steady stream is not secured. This statement kind of contradicts itself.

We know that the amount of energy that is going into data centres has placed a huge demand on the grid. We do not have the infrastructure to meet the demand for supply. Does Chambers Ireland recognise the impact these data centres are having on the grid and accept that our economy needs to move away from our reliance on FDI as a source of income?

Mr. Ian Talbot:

We certainly do not want to move away from FDI as a source of income but we-----

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not to move away entirely, but not place the emphasis that we do place on it.

Mr. Ian Talbot:

This is why we have have been talking about the need to get renewables improved for a long time now. We continue to call for the investment we need. We continue to call for things like the planning regime to be improved so we can get things delivered quickly. We have the situation at the moment where we had the first offshore wind farm in Europe off the coast of Arklow 20 years ago. It is the only one we got delivered. We were leaders and suddenly we are not anymore.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not mean to ignore FDI but are there any suggestions on how we can get into a more indigenous mindset to help to support Irish companies? This would shield us from the market volatility being experienced across the world.

Mr. Ian Talbot:

We have a very indigenous mindset. We have 36 affiliated chambers that are on the ground with those businesses, including FDI companies in their areas. That is where we spend a lot of time on things like, for example Mr. Minogue mentioned the PR6 process. We have made sure we have put in submissions in there reflecting what we need around the country.

On the PR6 process, contextually I find the terminology a bit funny because we talk about it as a price review. The context tends to be the impact on people's bills, which I understand, but ultimately it is the investment for the grid. We need to start talking more and sensitising people of the importance of developing that grid so that everyone has the electricity they need, not just businesses but also consumers. These bills impact the cost of living as well, which we are very concerned about.

The issue we have here is that for too long we have not done enough, whether it be housing, infrastructure building or so on, but we have to. In the scheme of the things, we have a relatively small population even within the European Union. We can do this, but we need to get better at delivery. That is what we are focused on. We do not want to be turning people away no matter what they do. When it comes to things like the data centres that the Deputy referenced, we have to look at the surge in how we are all using technologies. We are all now using ChatGPT that we were not using one or two years ago. That has a huge impact-----

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Our Oireachtas computers are not allowed to use it.

Mr. Ian Talbot:

We do. We are thinking about it more than we used to. It is a serious point. All the photographs we have stored in our phones are all developing data. That service is something that ordinary people want as well. It is a dilemma, but we need to get better at building key critical infrastructure. We know what we need to do. We can play with targets. We can talk about housing. Do we need 70,000, 60,000 or 50,000 houses? We need more than we are building at the moment. It is the same with onshore wind and offshore wind. We need more than we are delivering at the moment. It is getting more and more urgent every week and-or month and-or year that passes by. We are talking about it and not delivering.

Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the witnesses very much for coming in. My first question is for Mr. Talbot. I have read through the submission as well. He mentioned it briefly. What would his ideal roadmap be like if he could have everything his way and have no policy stopping him for the best placed scenario for Ireland?

Mr. Conor Minogue:

Is it the technology mix?

Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, technology. What is the biggest roadblock in the ideal roadmap at the moment? Deputy Byrne mentioned private wires. We have discussed this time and time again. We have been here seven months. This is nothing about the witnesses, but we have been saying the same thing to all the witnesses that have come in, but nothing is happening. It is pissing the public off who are just looking at us talking rather actually acting. What is the biggest roadblock?

Mr. Conor Minogue:

On the roadmap piece, it is the State's role to articulate that long-term vision. We can certainly share perspective on that but that is really a task for the State given that it has broad ramifications beyond just the business sector and the economy. We see that vision piece is more opportunity, such as moving from a language of target and obligation to opportunity. There is a real opportunity there.

On the specific technology mix, we have to consider every option in play. We support a technology neutral approach to allow the best options emerge. There is clearly a major role for wind and offshore wind in terms of a backbone of an electricity system. There is huge potential for electrification, including transport but also heat. We have a target that all low and medium heat is to be primary solution. Electrification also helps to suppress costs because it spreads costs across a wider pool. We have to look not simply at electrification and the other options, particularly for industry where electrification might not be technologically viable or cost-effective at this point in time. We have to look at the other solutions, such as biomethane, where we see huge potential. On the technology mix, we have to look at lots of different options. It is going to depend on location and industrial need. The roadblock is that infrastructure delivery piece is the fundamental piece that needs to be addressed.

Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree 100% with Mr. Minogue. I spoke yesterday in the Chamber. We have a clear deficiency in port capacity. It is great that we got the Port of Cork investment. I spoke to the Taoiseach. The Government said there is a Bill in that progress that will hopefully end the issue with the Irish Maritime Development Office, IMDO. Have IBEC and Chambers Ireland expressed their support for a Bill that would bring in planning, prioritising and funding for offshore? We do not want to give them complete control so that public has no say. If we are going to go this way with offshore renewable energy, ORE, there is not going to be enough grid capacity. If the case was that the ORE was success, would the witnesses be supportive of electrolysis factories? Would they be supportive of long-term energy storage? What would be the ideal scenario for Chambers Ireland?

Mr. Gerard Brady:

On the infrastructure piece, we have a long paper that I am happy to share with the committee. I have appeared before the infrastructure committee on the challenges in delivering major infrastructure. Some of the challenges are being dealt with through the planning Bill, but it probably will not be enough to bring schemes forward. Our members raised a number of issues. One is where they are looking at decarbonising in a major way on-site where they are trying to bring technologies on-site. There is the EPA licensing regime where they are trying to transition to green technologies. It can often take so long that it makes it difficult to fight within a group. If a company is part of a large multinational, it is fighting in global level within a group to an investment and there are delays in getting licensing decisions. It is not about the "Yes" or "No" in the decision; it is about the length of time it takes to get those decisions. The EPA Bill will be important in that. Regarding the challenges in the planning process, particularly on judicial review, we understand the Government is looking at ways to improve that and speed that up, which is welcome.

The other part is the funding and capacity of the administration. We have good improvements in An Coimisiún Pleanála with extra resourcing. One of the major blockages we see now is the time it takes to get through courts. The new planning division of the High Court will be helpful, but we have to make sure that is resourced. The feedback we get from members is about the time it takes to make the decisions rather than the number of decisions in many cases. It takes two years to get there. To give an example I gave to the infrastructure committee, we had colleagues over from Sweden's IBEC. I will not try to pronounce the name of the organisation. They were coming to Ireland to learn. They were doing a tour of different countries they saw as economically successful. They asked about what the key issues in the planning system were. Mr. Minogue and I both met them. They were saying, "You must have a great planning system to get all this investment into the country." When we explained the system to them, they nearly fell off their chairs because they were coming to complain to us that it took maybe six months to get decisions in planning system. It is not that it is European-level legislation.

There are other countries in Europe doing this much quicker. It was recognised by the Draghi report that that was the case. Speeding up the decision-making process is key.

Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My time has gone but I will come back and speak to the witnesses about Norway and Denmark, and how we can copy them.

Mr. Ian Talbot:

Before the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA, was established, we called for an IDA of the sea, which would be an organisation that could look at the whole development as well as the regulatory element. We got a body that was solely focused on the regulatory side. We all experience great frustration when we see things such as the new apartment guidelines coming in, against which a judicial review has been raised. I am not commenting on the rights or wrongs of any judicial reviews, but this is another one. It will take more time, which freezes investment. People who were considering putting the investment together to invest in apartments will be stopped doing so while the new standards are subject to judicial review. It will be another year or two before they mobilise it.

A point was made about foreign direct investment. Whether it be companies looking to establish or investors looking to invest in projects in Ireland, they are also looking at projects in Manchester, Singapore, the Philippines or wherever else. They will go where they think they are going to get a return quicker. If they are seeing delays in Ireland, they will say they can get back here in due course, but their plans for next year - and it is October now - will be to send investment to Singapore or wherever else.

Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree. We were unlucky that the crash happened when it did. We would have been in a far better situation, climate-wise, if it had not happened at that time. I know my time has gone. I will touch base on how better to copy Norway and Denmark.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have some questions. When I am finished, Senator Noonan will take the Chair. There is business in the Dáil Chamber that members will need to attend. The timing is excellent.

Mr. Minogue said in his opening statement that, "Ireland's transition end goal must be more than a target. Ireland needs a compelling vision", etc. That is hard to do because it is technology that is changing the whole time. From the country's perspective, it is difficult to lay out exactly where you are going to go in 30 years' time, given that the technology is changing the whole time. Would the witnesses agree that this makes it challenging for the Government? It is probably easier on a sectoral basis, but the Government has to deal not only with one sector but with every sector and the population. What do the witnesses think?

Mr. Conor Minogue:

It is difficult and we do not underestimate that challenge. On the level of detail in such a vision, we would not have to go into what specific technologies are in play. It is more an issue of tone, ambition and the language of opportunity. That is what we are getting at. Too often, the transition is presented as something we have to do and we will be fined if we do not do it. That is where we see a problem because it prevents buy-in and participation when it is so sorely needed across society. In the first instance, we should be setting out the long-term opportunity of transition. We should be targeting a more competitive economy, more affordable energy, better quality of life and greater connectivity. These are the pieces.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mr. Minogue has anticipated my second question. In his opening, Mr. Minogue said, "The climate action plan is too narrow in focus as it is not directly concerned with energy resilience and affordability." As IBEC sees it, affordability has not been considered in the context of the transition. Is that correct?

Mr. Conor Minogue:

Affordability is considered elsewhere in the State system. We have an energy affordability task force and the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU. Energy affordability is a responsibility for the regulator. There is an energy security plan through the Department, which encompasses-----

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mr. Minogue is saying that in the context of the climate plan, affordability should be included and is not. Is that really what he is saying?

Mr. Conor Minogue:

It is there as a kind of secondary consideration. The climate action plan seems to be a drain on resources at the moment, without properly improving policy and speeding up policymaking. We think that is probably something that should be considered in terms of the review and what it considers at its broadest reach.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Cronin mentioned the gap between wholesale and retail electricity prices. Some of the entities that are offering those gaps could be members of IBEC. What do the witnesses think is going on there? Have they a definite view on that issue and how it can be resolved? Representatives of the CRU were before the committee a few weeks ago and they did not offer any strong opinion as to how the situation could be resolved.

Mr. Gerard Brady:

For our members, electricity costs are probably the biggest cost concern after labour costs. We have a clear view on why the level of difference exists between here and Europe. That is probably the bigger issue for our members. That goes back to issues that Mr. Minogue has talked about already. One is the challenge we have with infrastructure delivery and the other is interconnection. We are less connected to the European grid than the rest. We also need more infrastructure than other European countries because population dispersion is a major challenge in terms of the level differences.

We do not have a very strong view when we look at the changes in wholesale costs, but the feedback we have is that we did not see, at least in the hedging strategies, as quick a rise on the way up and we are not seeing as quick a fall on the way down. That was the hedging strategy taken at the time. It probably protected us a bit on one end and not on the other. That should start to wash out. Those hedges are there for a period of time.

There is a continued level of cost difference when compared with the other EU member states. I know people have said that in purchasing power terms, we are not as bad but businesses do not operate on purchasing power terms. They compete on a nominal basis and in cash terms against other countries. We see the report coming from the expert group. We are hopeful it will start to answer those questions about the level difference and how we can start to make changes. We have set out some pieces in our budget submission last year, particularly around fixed costs. Those are the things we control on policy and a lot of regulatory and fixed costs have been added in recent years that differentiate us from Europe. Those could be addressed.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the same question, on that last bit, of the witnesses from Chambers Ireland.

Mr. Ian Talbot:

May I go back to the Cathaoirleach's first question?

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Please do.

Mr. Ian Talbot:

The speed at which technology is changing is a reason to get things done quicker. The danger at the moment is that if it takes you three, four or five years to get something ready for delivery, technology will have moved on in the interim. You are then back to saying that this is old technology now and we need to start again. I am tragically old enough that when I started work, I contacted many businesses around the country through the old switchboard in the post office. You had to ring Killorglin 5 and so on. We had not invested in our phone system for 40 years. In the 1980s, we spent a tonne of money on the phone system. We caught up and were then well set when the financial services centre came through, for example. That was at a time when technology was moving in ten- or 20-year gaps. It is now moving in three-, four- or five-year windows, if not quicker. All of those are reasons to get things done now and to get the benefit from them. There is the risk that we keep deferring things and they get worse and worse.

There are many things on the question of wholesale prices versus retail prices. We have made some political decisions about things such as population dispersal, which are causing increased prices. The lack of interconnection is key. There is also the fact that we are a big importer of gas and the electricity pricing mechanism across Europe depends on gas. That is what ultimately sets the price. The sooner we can get more renewables onto the grid, the better placed we are to address these issues.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am going to hand over the Chair to Senator Noonan.

Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the witnesses. It is one of those days. I have the witnesses all to myself.

Mr. Ian Talbot:

Does the six-minute time limit still apply?

Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am just off the airplane from a UN event on climate in Geneva. I apologise that I have not done my homework.

I have a couple of questions from my own perspective. The first is for both Chambers Ireland and IBEC. Do they have concerns at the absence of both marine protected area legislation and defined areas for MPAs in light of the ambition around offshore renewables? There is now a further delay in the legislative approach the Government is going to take on MPAs. There is a possibility that might leave some of the projects open to challenge at some point, if we do not have certainty about where MPAs might be situated.

Mr. Conor Minogue:

Nearly everything about offshore and the maritime has been fraught with delay. We are used to delays at this point. We see huge potential in the offshore renewable energy clearing house that has been established to resolve some of these issues and escalate things where there is a clear barrier preventing progress. It has only had one meeting so we have to reserve judgment fully, but the model makes absolute sense. We hope that is the kind of platform that can resolve some of those gridlock issues I mentioned.

Mr. Ian Talbot:

We agree that we need to be closing properly the windows that are threatening delays in the future. Some of that is back to the resourcing as well.

Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is the availability of all data relevant and necessary to move the project along that is important.

In relation to the Climate Change Advisory Council report this morning and yesterday's EPA report on water quality, we cannot disassociate the challenges around biodiversity and water quality, particularly with the storm events we are having and that resilience we need to build into our system. When the committee is giving consideration to climate targets, we do so in relation to nature as well. Again, this is a question for both IBEC and Chambers Ireland. Do they push or advocate for greater action from Government on meeting biodiversity targets or objectives in terms of building that resilience into the system and ensuring our water quality is up to standard? This is not just from a reputational point of view but also from the point of view of storm resilience, flooding, extreme weather events and all of the challenges that will pose. It will pose significant challenges to our economy. It already has done this year with Storm Éowyn.

Mr. Gerard Brady:

I will talk about the resilience piece and our work on biodiversity. There will probably need to be an exceptional amount of investment in resilience, probably much larger than we have had so far, over the next number years. We can see the impact, purely from a business perspective, of the lack of resilience in water and grid capacity after the storms recently. That had a major impact on lots of companies, where we saw some major manufacturing plants knocked offline for a number of days because, effectively, of a lack of climate resilience. We are going to need to invest materially in that. That has a material cost for businesses.

There are 39 trade associations in IBEC, most of which are doing work in one form or another with their own members. They are trying to encourage work on biodiversity, not just decarbonisation, and broader climate issues like water quality. We have groups working within the membership trying to encourage companies to do shared learning. We find the space we can probably play in most effectively is trying to share practice and best practice between companies across the different networks and sectors we have.

Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would be useful to have the business sector advocating for this, as well as the typical sectors on the environmental and NGO side of it, because this has a very significant impact on the cost of doing business and on business generally. It would be wonderful to see greater advocacy in that space from IBEC and Chambers Ireland.

Mr. Ian Talbot:

Similarly, we have 36 geographic locations. They tend to focus on things that are an issue locally. For some, it will be a particular grid shortage, while for others it will be flooding and so on. We try to provide some guidance from the top.

I have a blockage in my head at the moment about what used to be called the constitutional conventions and are now the people's-----

Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is it the citizens' assembly?

Mr. Ian Talbot:

Yes, the citizens' assembly on biodiversity. For example, we presented at that and tried to give a business perspective on it. Again, we have been talking a lot about things like wastewater capabilities. We know that storms, excess rainfall and so on are overwhelming some of our sewerage facilities as well, all of which feeds in. We talked last week about the tragic fish kill in Mallow. We are very aware of these things, but a lot of the time we can be people who are constrained as well. The biggest issue tends to bubble up the top. The biggest issues we have been having are the same things, which are housing, infrastructure, the cost of salaries and energy costs. These tend to dominate but it is a good reminder to us all. I have not been able to take it all in, but I saw the reports about the EPA report on RTÉ news last night and I have been going through the data, which is fascinating.

I am also struck by a silly benchmark. I used to drive up and down to Waterford a lot - I worked for a company in Waterford for a while - and the windscreen of the car on the way down and on the way back used to be covered, unfortunately, in biodiversity. I did the journey yesterday and there was not a thing - not a fly. That is the biggest thing for me. Something is very different from where we were 25 or 30 years ago as well. That is a good reminder.

Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For sure. Business for Biodiversity Ireland does a lot of good work in this space as well. Some of the work we did previously was with the NPWS and Intel around water management. There is a good opportunity there for the business sector and corporates to be involved in biodiversity restoration projects, which is something that is increasingly entering that space.

I have a final question. Alarm bells rang when I saw the word "nuclear" in the Chambers Ireland report. I think we will have a session here in the new year on nuclear power so it might be worth Chambers Ireland coming back in for that. One thing that rang alarm bells for me related to a report presented to our sister committee in the UK earlier this year on nuclear infrastructure in the UK being in a really serious state of decay. We have had brief discussions about nuclear energy here. I have written to the Taoiseach and Minister for the environment about us being the closest neighbours to the UK and the potential for something to go wrong with this infrastructure being quite significant. It needs to be taken quite seriously. Is Chambers Ireland of the view that at some place down the line, given the discussions we have already had about planning logjams, small-scale nuclear for Ireland might be somewhere in the mix into the future?

Mr. Ian Talbot:

I wrote that piece myself; Mr. Hughes did not know it went in. We both used the term "technology neutral" in our presentations. I specifically said to just keep an open mind on evolving technologies. If small-scale nuclear is developing, if it is safer and if we can manage it 20 to 30 years after it goes in, not just on the day it goes in, then we should be open to considering it as part of a range of choices. I also referred to the SEAI's work, which is just starting. We need to look at all the options available. I will go back somewhat to what I said about PR6 and getting the public on board with what this investment plan is all about. That is PR6 in the immediate term and, in the future, the range of technologies that are available and the risks associated with them in 2025 or 2030 versus the risks that were visible in the horrendous incidents at Sellafield, Chernobyl, Japan and so on. It was more about keeping an open mind and not just close off stuff because we have had a historical aversion to it for very good reasons.

Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Absolutely. That is what this committee is about. If there is an opportunity when we have that session, it might be useful to welcome Chambers Ireland back to discuss this.

Mr. Ian Talbot:

I am not sure I know a lot more about it than I said.

It is about keeping an open mind. There are new technologies and new opportunities coming on board,. I have solar panels up on the roof and they just amaze me. It is only a little thing, but it just churns away happily on the roof with no input whatsoever. It is great.

Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As there are no other members here, I will adjourn the meeting. I thank our witnesses for coming in. I had the opportunity all to myself to ask all the questions but, unfortunately, we will have to adjourn until Wednesday, 22 October 2025.