Dáil debates

Tuesday, 28 June 2022

EirGrid, Electricity and Turf (Amendment) Bill 2022: Second Stage

 

6:20 pm

Photo of Bríd SmithBríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

People Before Profit objects to the way in which this Bill is being pushed and rushed, to the fact that we were denied pre-legislative scrutiny of it and to the fact that it will be forced through all Stages tomorrow. It is not that that in itself is a bad precedent because it is a regular occurrence and there may be times when emergency legislation needs to be fast-tracked. We have known about this issue for some time, however, and it is clear from the briefing we received in private session from officials that many issues should have been examined but will not be because of the rushed panic now.

Like others, I ask where this rush is coming from. Essentially, we are being told of very dangerous blackouts in the coming winters if we do not immediately purchase additional emergency plant, most likely gas-fired, to tie us over for a limited period. How limited that period will be, however, is unclear. It may be three years or it may be more. Why? Old plants are being retired, we are told, but it is explicitly clear from the EirGrid and CRU statements that the real reason for the panic is to facilitate data centres, pure and simple. We need this measure because the State and the Government have refused to deal adequately with the unhinged proliferation of data centres, something a previous Deputy called a sensationalist old trope. He is completely wrong because, as has been said, 14% of our electricity is consumed by data centres now. That is set to rise to 28% and to 30% in the coming years. As a State, we are a complete outlier. We are essentially the data capital of Europe and, indeed, probably the globe. This is not because we are all streaming videos or constantly using Twitter. It has nothing whatever to do with the data consumption of the people in this country. It is driven by the needs and desires of big tech, regardless of whether it is sustainable globally or nationally.

There have been attempts by people who should know better to say that data centres are not a problem but a solution to the climate crisis because they produce smart devices and smart tech that can help us reach our emissions reductions. We have even been told that streaming Netflix is not as damaging in terms of CO2 emissions as was previously thought. That is nonsense. The only figure we need to keep in mind is the amount of electricity the data centres consume now and what they will consume in the years ahead, which is 30%, massively ahead of the global national average of between 2% and 4%, as in most other states. It needs to be said that technology, whether in the form of data centres, carbon capture and storage or feed additives for cows, will not stop the climate catastrophe now unfolding. Only actual reductions in CO2 emissions will. That requires deeper and more radical changes, not business as usual with a high-tech gloss on it. Instead of simply acceding to every whim of the technology industry and to every command from Amazon, Google, Facebook or whatever else for every data centre they ask for, we need to ask what purpose this serves society. It is an astonishing figure.

Some studies suggest that 51% of all data processed and stored is what is called dark data, that is, data that are essentially, by any measure, useless, unusable and unused. These are old files and old reservoirs of information that remain unused. Aside from that 51%, how much of the remaining data does society need to have stored and processed? How much are data processed and stored that could aid us in various ways in the future to deal with the climate crisis? In reality, we do not know because behind the walls of these data centres is a wall of secrecy, with an intent to keep it secret. We know, however, that a huge chunk of it is what is called surveillance capitalism, that is, the desire of corporations to monitor and to monetise all our personal data to sell us stuff. We know that a sizable chunk of the data is purely about the business models of modern capitalism, all of which have very little to do with saving the planet and a lot to do with extracting every inch of labour from workers and selling every product possible in any way possible.

I, therefore, do not accept that we must at all costs facilitate the proliferation of data centres as if our lives depended on it. It is an insane policy. It was clear from the briefing we received form officials that the so-called new restrictions on data centre applications apply only to new applications. We have, I believe, many existing applications that are open and approved, with promised connection to the grid. They will not be affected. This panic to bring in €350 million worth of gas-fired plant is designed solely, it seems to me, to facilitate these data centres. We have no study or impact assessment as to what these new plants will mean for our emissions targets or if they risk locking us into gas use. They may also strengthen attempts to build LNG terminals here. None of this has been looked at because of the rush and panic involved in pushing this legislation.

I wish to comment on some of the spin around the PSO levy. We are told that savings on people's bills could amount to €127 a year from the scrapping of the current levy on electricity bills and the potential for further refunds. I am sceptical about that. Again, it seems it would have been useful to drill down into these figures that are thrown around. We welcome any savings for consumers, but this is relatively small beans and we have no assurance as to when the refund will happen. We know, however, that the cost of this emergency plant may land on people's bills in the years ahead.

As for another aspect of the Bill, we have no issue with that the ability of EirGrid and Bord na Móna to borrow greater amounts as such. It seems sensible to allow State companies to invest and to borrow greater amounts given the scale of the crisis, what we need to do and the pace at which we face it. Again, however, we need to be assured that the borrowings and investments of State companies drive the transition away from fossil fuels and do not end up in any way facilitating continued reliance on fossil fuels or, indeed, bogus plans and strategies such as some forms of biomass, etc.

Finally, I will make a more general point. Much of this legislation is built around the restraints on EirGrid and other State companies in providing the plant and the planning for its use. Time and again we are told that the market must be protected and its working must be respected. A lot of this Bill is about safeguards as to who gets the plant and how it must not be interfered with because of the workings of the market. It seems clear that the current crisis in energy prices and the massive surge in the numbers of people in or in danger of energy poverty are not just about the war in Ukraine but also driven by the profiteering of various companies in energy, fuel production and electricity generation. The profits of many of those companies have never been better. This State went from having one of the most efficient and cheapest generators of electricity to having one of most expensive today. That has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine. It is a direct result of the deregulation of the energy industry in the early 2000s. This becomes more than an academic debate when we consider the climate crisis and the need to make investments in the grid and in renewable energies in the years ahead. It is clear that making allowances for the crazed market system we have here and in Europe is not an aid to better or more efficient use of energy.

It guarantees the opposite through profiteering, investment decisions based on what is best for individual companies and continued investment in fossil fuels. Indeed, the rush to build and import LNG from the USA in recent months has put a great question mark over our ability to hope to limit temperature increases to 1.5°C or even 2°C, with all of the horror that this means for our planet and its people.

It is becoming clearer as each record is broken and as each new crisis throws us off our path of reducing our CO2 emissions that the market is not a solution and is a big part of the problem. We need a rationally planned system to deliver energy and a rationally planned way to invest in renewables on the scale needed and this cannot be done in the current market system with competing companies vying for profits. All these crises, including energy costs, the possibility of power cuts and the need to move away from fossil fuels and invest in renewable energies, point to the need for the State to take a direct part in the future of energy. We need a State-owned and directed company to invest in the grid and in renewable energy and to deliver, as we did previously, the energy we need in an affordable way for citizens. We need to remove the danger of more and more people being submerged in energy poverty.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.