Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

The Minister is aware of our approach in this area. He has also met representatives from Endesa, the company to which we are referring. I am aware that it has written to his Department to seek understanding for its situation.

My amendment, which is similar to Deputy McManus's, is linked to the previous amendment, which was ruled out of order and to which I cannot speak directly. However, I can refer to it now because it is related to the amendment which was accepted.

There is something fundamentally wrong when a company is selling carbon allowances it received for free from the Government. We are not asking for any windfall levy on the profit made on the back of that. However, we are charging the company that had to pay for these credits as if it were getting them for free. We are putting it in the same category, which is wrong and should be dealt with in this legislation.

I tried to raise the issue of what to do with companies that have been given free carbon allowances which allow them emit carbon into the atmosphere. What is the position if they do not use the allowances and sell them to another firm which may need them? What should we do with the windfall profit made in such cases? The State is giving away an asset for free. Someone has made a profit on the back of that and we are not taking it back as a carbon levy. I refer to the principle that when generators make money on the back of selling electricity and charge for carbon for which they have been given free allowances, we take back a portion of that money. This principle is in the legislation, it is agreed and I welcome it strongly. Surely the same principle applies when we give the allowance for free but it remains unused and then sold on for a profit?

For example, there may be unused carbon allowances in Moneypoint because the station has not been used to its potential output for whatever reason. There is a very significant carbon allowance attached to Moneypoint because it is a large coal-powered plant. This means the ESB would have excess carbon allowances from there which are valuable. We must question whether we are serious about trying to get the cost of electricity down. Here is another windfall profit being made that the Stage should recoup and spend responsibly to try to bring down electricity prices. In this case, a company is being hit on the double. It also paid when carbon was at its maximum value in the past three years. I believe it paid €24 per tonne but the price is now down to €14 or €15 per tonne, although the Minister will correct me if I am wrong as he is an expert in these matters.

It is a new entrant into the Irish market. We are trying to attract new entrants, yet we are legislating to hit them on the double. This company paid over the odds, although I do not blame the ESB for this since its job was to maximise the value of its assets and it sure as hell did that. However, this new entrant into the market spent much money purchasing two plants and, in a separate transaction, spent a considerable amount of money purchasing carbon allowances which all its competitors got for free. We are now putting it in the same category as every other company which got carbon allowances for free.

We will charge the ESB nothing. It sold it the carbon allowances and made a big windfall on the back of it because it got the carbon allowances for nothing from the State. That seems to be warped logic if the essence of this legislation is about fairness and ensuring that companies do not make money on the back of free allowances.

Will the Minister consider what we have said? It is not in our interests to speak up for one company over another or any generator over another but the by-product of this legislation is to treat one company, which is in a separate category to every other one because it entered the Irish energy market so recently, very harshly indeed.

See this speech in context