Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I expect that the Minister of State will confirm that the role and responsibilities of the entities accountable for the energy sector, namely, EirGrid and the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, can be summarised as "EirGrid's task is to deliver a safe, secure and reliable supply of electricity now, and in the future" and the "CRU's mission is to protect the public interest in Water, Energy and Energy Safety" by ensuring "safe, secure and sustainable energy and water supplies at a reasonable cost" and "to help deliver a secure, low carbon future at least cost." It should be clarified by the Minister of State how the energy crisis has escalated to a stage where emergency generators are required urgently in Dublin. Are EirGrid and the CRU competent and capable of fulfilling their duties? Given that the buck stops with the Minister, what has the Minister of State's Department been doing to ensure that they are fulfilling their duties?

Deregulation of electricity generation started in the early 2000s with the aim of liberalising the market. It should be explained why, despite no longer proceeding because of a recent legal challenge, ESB North Wall was initially selected by EirGrid, with support from the Department, to provide 200 MW of emergency generation without due process. Will the Minister of State clarify whether there was any payment or advance made by EirGrid to the ESB associated with the emergency generation? If so, how much was it?

Since that controversy, it has come to my attention that EirGrid is now running a new tender process that has a strong bias towards the ESB North Wall site. I have learned that the technical criteria and timelines swing very much in favour of the ESB. One example is the six-month delivery timeframe between the contract's award in March 2022 and the commencement of service provision by quarter 3 of that year. Another example is the suggestion by EirGrid that fast-tracked planning should be considered because the standard planning process is unlikely to be open to being utilised for the successful delivery. However, this fast-track process under section 181(2)(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which was amended in June, only appears to be available to the ESB, as it is described as a "statutory undertaker". Is there a cosy relationship between the ESB and EirGrid that is enabling the former to get what is undoubtedly an unfair advantage?

Earlier this year, the ESB withdrew significant generation capacity and paid penalties to the tune of approximately €4 million in respect of 400 MW of generation that was due to become operational next October as part of the capacity market auction. Last December, it shut down the West Offaly power station and the Lough Ree power station in the midlands, removing 228 MW of generation capacity. This makes for a total of 628 MW. When the ESB's media spin is filtered out, one can see that it has abandoned the midlands, having profited from the region for decades.

Will the Minister of State please explain why the ESB, a semi-State company, is being rewarded handsomely despite exacerbating the supply shortage? Could the ESB have orchestrated this crisis by exercising its market power knowing that it would be rewarded as I have outlined?

See this speech in context