Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before the debate was adjourned yesterday, I was expressing my total opposition to the proposed North-South interconnector. I want to refer to a meeting of the all-party transport and communications committee held last April in which I participated, with others in the constituency. At the meeting the chief executive of EirGrid confirmed that it was technically feasible to place underground the North-South interconnector using an alternative method which employed HVDC technology. Such HVDC technology is employed in the case of the east-west interconnector between Ireland and Britain, which invoves undergrounding and an undersea cable. In addition, average overhead line construction costs for Grid Link projects are on a par with the average cost per kilometre for the east-west interconnector. Community groups in the path of the North-South interconnector have demonstrated that the Grid 25 review strategy document shows that the cost of undergrounding has reduced to close to 1.5 times the cost of overhead lines.

This a big climbdown from the Eirgrid-commissioned report by PB Power in 2013 which estimated the cost of undergrounding to be six times as much as the cost of constructing overhead pylons. I remember that when this project was first mooted in 2007-08, it was estimated that undergrounding the transmission lines could cost 30 times as much as placing them overground. This shows how the development of technology has dramatically reduced costs in the intervening period and that there is no justification whatsoever for EirGrid even considering the overgrounding of the transmission lines.

Fianna Fáil’s energy policy, launched in 2015, outlined that grid development such as that planned with the North-South interconnector should be subject to a full economic review in the light of our reduced energy needs. Fianna Fáil has consistently maintained that undergrounding the North-South interconnector is the preferred option, with upgrading existing infrastructure.

I mentioned in the House yesterday that I had participated, with many other public representatives from north of the Border and counties Monaghan, Cavan and Meath, in the oral hearing An Bord Pleanála had organised some months ago on this planning application. Last August I submitted a detailed objection to An Bord Pleanála, with Councillor Clifford Kelly. My Oireachtas colleague, Senator Robbie Gallagher, with his then Fianna Fáil colleagues on Monaghan County Council, Seamus Coyle, Padraig McNally and P. J. O'Hanlon, made a detailed submission, having commissioned and carried out research. We objected in support of community groups and development organisations in the three counties which have been particularly active in voicing their opposition to the proposed overgrounding of the transmission lines.

It will not be acceptable for EirGrid to try to proceed with the project if it receives planning permission which I sincerely hope it will not. The transmission lines would destroy the heritage and tourism potential of that entire countryside and be disastrous for the region.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to share time with Deputy Martin Kenny.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why is the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Denis Naughten, not in the House for the debate on Second Stage?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, is present.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I recognise that, but the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources should be here.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what we are faced with.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will pass on what is said to the Minister, as will the officials. I am sure he is temporarily delayed.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister should be here for it.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He will be here any minute.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Any legislation introduced through the House must ensure the people of the country are the primary beneficiaries. Sinn Féin welcomes many aspects of the Bill, but we must ensure any regulatory body under the State's watch acts in the best interests of the people, not solely the energy companies.

Whatever regulatory commission is in place - I note there will be a name change, as well as other changes - it must have the powers it needs to do its job effectively. As we have seen in the past, it was not an absence of power but a refusal of the CER to exercise its powers that allowed market forces to run rampant and destroy the lives of many people.

I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Denis Naughten, on his appointment. This is my first opportunity to address him formally in the House in his role as Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and I wish well.

The enhanced powers of the Commission for Energy Regulation are to be welcomed, but these powers alone will not be enough to dissuade bad practices, unless we also have a board which will consistently put the welfare of citizens first. The previous Government, unfortunately, allowed large energy companies to drive energy policy, particularly on the use of green energy. This was done without putting proper regulations in place, particularly for wind farms. It resulted in haphazard wind farm developments throughout counties such as Laois, Kildare, Meath, Westmeath blighting the landscape and causing problems for homeowners. Will the Minister address this issue as a matter of urgency?

Sinn Féin is committed to developing renewable energy sources and supporting efforts to do so. We must have the maximum use of such sources. We must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and imported energy supplies which account for 89% of our energy needs. In our focus we have been over-reliant on wind energy, almost ignoring other renewable energy sources. We want to see a mix of resources being brought onstream such as tidal, solar, hydro and biomass.

The semi-State bodies must take the lead in developing our renewable energy sources. We have identified the ESB, Bord na Mona and Coillte as having a central role to play in renewable energy production, with a proper focus by the new Government and the entire Dáil on the potential to create jobs, produce energy and ensure a balanced and secure supply.

With its additional powers, will the commission bring real savings or will the energy suppliers continue as before and tell the regulator where to go, as happened in the case of the banking sector? To date, the CER has failed to ensure suppliers pass on savings to customers. We have had a huge collapse in energy and oil prices, but the benefit has not been passed on. What guarantees do we have that the revamped agency will do better? We need to address this issue.

It is also imperative that we recognise the difference between sole traders and large companies with regard to installers which are dealt with in the Bill. The risks for small sole traders who are gas and electricity installers in taking on contractors are much higher, but the registration fees and red tape are the same. Sole traders must be given an equal opportunity to participate in the market, but the high fees give an unfair advantage to the large companies. Will the Minister address this issue?

What is also absent from the Bill is equality with regard to fines. A range of fines and penalties will be imposed on semi-State energy suppliers, but they are not the same as for retail companies. In Britain the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, Ofgem, has the power to impose substantial fines on retail gas and electricity suppliers, but this is noticeably absent from the Bill before the House. We need to address this issue.

The Bill also contains amendments in respect of the single energy market. We have all-Ireland integration in the electricity market. Wholesale electricity is traded on an all-Ireland basis. Last Thursday's decision by England and Wales - it was not a decision made by the North of Ireland or Scotland - to leave the European Union means major changes to the electricity market. Supervision on foot of this must take to deal with the changes. With Britain out and Ireland still in the European Union, how will this affect the all-Ireland electricity market? Will retail electricity prices be affected? Is there provision to sustain, if possible, the model in place or a similar model? Work needs to be done on this issue.

Changes to the electricity market will stem from within the European Union on wholesale energy trading. What does the future hold in this regard? There are ongoing proposals for common arrangements in the supply of gas. The future is now also in doubt because the pipelines run through Britain to here. Major changes are ahead for the energy market in Ireland. There may be a short timeframe and, given what has happened, it could be a very short timeframe within which to make changes and put proposals in place.

The North-South interconnector is a key component of the single electricity market and its completion is crucial to efficient energy provision for people throughout the Thirty-two Counties. It makes practical and economic sense to have one supply grid for all of Ireland and we must maintain it. I call on the Minister to ensure the necessary steps are taken to ensure this.

I would also like to use this opportunity to point out, regarding the underground-overground discussion surrounding the interconnector, that our party, Sinn Féin, has made detailed submissions on this. We have been active in campaigning on it for a number of years. The cost between undergrounding and pylons has narrowed. This needs to be revisited, and the Department and the new Government need to consider it because, as the Minister will be aware, there is huge resistance to pylons and in the medium to longer term the better option, we believe, where at all possible, is to go underground.

The Bill provides for the renaming of the Commission for Energy Regulation as the Commission for Regulation of Utilities in order to reflect the expanded remit of the commission to regulate water services. I reaffirm my position and that of our party that water is not a consumer product and we should never treat it as such. We are an independent State. It does not matter what everybody else does. The North of Ireland is doing its own thing on water, as is Scotland, and we can also. It is not a commodity and should not be treated as such. It is a crucial public service necessary for life, so we are not convinced and we do not believe that water needs to be brought under the commission's remit.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Energy is essential for life, for all production and consumption activities. It is necessary whether in the home or in the workplace. The supply of most energy is subject to regulation to ensure that there is continuity of flow of electricity, petroleum and fuel. Regulation plays an important role in the energy industry, and the impact of regulation reform and of the relationship between the level of regulation and the performance have been continually debated. Regulation is an important tool for Government and policy-makers. It allows the Government to assert a level of control over an industry which in recent years has witnessed major liberalisation and privatisation measures. This has allowed governments the opportunity to assert some form of authority in an area of great importance to its citizens. The level of influence which governments may or may not have is dependent on the strength of regulation and this is reflected in the importance the Government and policy-makers place on the Commission for Energy Regulation.

However, we must ensure that all energy projects - there are many crucial ones - are carried out in partnership with the host communities. There is widespread public opposition to high-voltage pylon towers passing through communities and near residential areas. In order to avoid putting these projects in jeopardy, consideration must be given to the concerns of affected communities and the new Minister should consider the undergrounding of cables wherever possible. The successful implementation of the Government’s energy strategy will be largely dependent on the way it communicates its plans to the public.

Enhanced consumer awareness and understanding of how we meet our future energy needs are essential requirements to allow citizens to properly grasp the importance of developing sustainable energy policies. The day of minimalist consultation with communities is long gone. Any future energy policy must engage citizens in the way the State produces, transmits and consumes energy. Public consultation must be placed at the heart of the process when formulating future Government policy. From an early stage, there must be clear and direct lines of communication established between the Government, industry and host communities. It is our hope that the new Minister for Communications, Climate Change and Natural Resources will learn from the mistakes of his predecessors in dealing with such matters.

Fuel poverty is in many respects a matter which greatly affects the elderly and the poorest in society who lack adequate heat and warmth in their homes. The consequences of fuel poverty are clearly evident. Not only does the lack of adequate heating make conditions more uncomfortable for those who must live in fuel-poor households, it also has a direct impact on their physical and mental health. Fuel poverty can also play a role in deprivation levels in other areas of the household. For example, if families are forced into a "heat or eat" situation, they may have to make a conscious decision whether to feed themselves or their children or provide an adequate level of heating in the home.

Research shows that changing energy supplier is an effective means of reducing energy costs. Energy companies do not reward loyal customers, instead those who remain with the same company benefit the least from possible savings on tariffs. Those who tend to be least aware of potential savings are those in low-income households, vulnerable people and the elderly, often the very same households who are at risk of fuel poverty. The new commission should take a greater role in educating households about the benefits of switching tariffs. There are already a number of websites that demonstrate to the public the savings that could be made if they changed their energy supplier. The commission could aid in tackling fuel poverty by making the public more aware of these facilities.

It is essential that transparency in energy pricing is an integral part of the system of regulation. Energy companies resist greater levels of transparency, which is hardly surprising as they do not wish to pass information on to others that could have an impact on their profit margins. It is therefore essential that the commission ensure there are consistent levels of transparency in energy pricing and that consumers have full knowledge of what energy costs. This is not just beneficial to the energy consumers, but also to Government and policy-makers as the more information that is made available to the public, the greater the options available to them.

This Bill provides for the renaming of the Commission for Energy Regulation as the Commission for Regulation of Utilities in order to reflect the expanded remit of the commission to regulate water services. We reaffirm our position that water is not a consumer product and should never be treated as such. It is a public service that is necessary for life. In fact, any time we see experts on space exploration wondering if life can be found on faraway planets, the first thing - in fact, the only thing - they look for is the presence or possible presence of water. Even from the first year of national school, children learn that water is critical for life. The protection of our water sources is vital and I can only assume it would be a central responsibility for this new commission if it is to regulate our water services.

One vital protection of water courses is to ensure that fracking for gas does not take place anywhere on this island. Sinn Féin is committed to renewable energy and supports the maximum use of renewable energy sources. We must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and our dependence on imported sources of energy. However, we feel that the current source is too heavily reliant on wind energy and that there should be a mix of renewable sources brought on stream. Sinn Féin has identified tidal or wave and biomass energy as possible rich sources of renewable energy in Ireland. Semi-State bodies must take a lead in developing these energy sources. The ESB, Bord na Móna and CoilIte have all been identified by Sinn Féin as potential leaders in the field of renewable energy production. With a proper focus from Government, there is a potential to create jobs, to create energy and to ensure a balanced and secure energy supply into the future. In recognition of our international responsibilities surrounding CO2 emissions and climate change, I suggest that the Minister consider not issuing any licences for fossil fuel exploration in the future and instead ensure that community-based ownership of renewable energy projects be supported as a priority.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We welcome the Bill-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabh mo leithscéal, a Theachta. We will take a break at 3.50 p.m.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine. I will be finished well before then.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will resume at 4.30 p.m.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I start by congratulating the Minister on his appointment as I have not yet formally done so. The Labour Party welcomes the Bill, which was introduced by the Minister's predecessor in the Seanad during the lifetime of the last mandate. We welcome the power to apply administrative sanctions which it is proposed to give the CER so as to reflect changes in the sector since it was set up in 1999. We acknowledge the 2013 Forfás report on sectoral regulation and recommendations on regulatory sanctions. We also acknowledge the International Energy Agency review, specifically regarding ensuring the enhancement of the powers of the CER so as to deliver ultimately in the public interest and in the interests of consumers. We have no issue with the name change from the Commission for Energy Regulation to the Commission for Regulation of Utilities.

We have some minor queries, which the Minister might address. Will the Minister, in his reply, give us some insight into the role and remit of the CRU after water charges have been suspended?

What is the Minister's perspective regarding the market provisions regarding the North-South interconnector? Where does the North-South interconnector project stand? Will the integrated single energy market be completed by the end of 2017? We welcome the Part 5 changes regarding the restatement in primary legislation of remit penalties. The harmonisation of penalties on a par with neighbouring jurisdictions is desirable.

Although it is not within the remit of the Bill, it would be remiss of me, given the vagaries of the House and the normal course of action whereby we take some indulgence on Second Stage speeches, not to mention Whitegate oil refinery in my constituency, which employs approximately 155 workers. The obligation to operate the refinery ends in July and we are all very conscious of the potential of the site to ensure security of supply. We are very conscious of the need for decarbonisation and the associated targets. Our obligations under transport for delivering non-carbon additives, for example, could be realised within a site such as Whitegate if the State can maintain a relationship with potential buyers. I ask the Minister to keep the lines of communication open and see if there are possibilities to partner strategically with any potential buyer of the site in the future to ensure we meet our biofuels obligations. This is just one element. We must also be mindful of the need to maintain a strategic site on this island for the provision of carbon-based fuel, which will be a feature of our economy and society for many years to come.

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to speak on the Bill, which we will support. There may be an opportunity for us in the House with the new Minister to demystify the energy market and try to distil the language we use when we discuss energy production into language that is easily understandable by consumers. Consumers, myself included given that I am new to this remit, see the public service obligation, PSO, on their bills. We refer to the market mechanism, market clearing mechanism, system marginal price, REFIT schemes and PSOs. We could work on a cross-party basis in the House to distil the language down, particularly regarding issues where there are sensitivities regarding, for example, the provision of pylons, wind energy and, now, solar energy, which is gaining more prevalence in our landscape. If we can distil the language of energy production, we can assist consumers and people living in communities to understand better the dynamics of the market as it relates to them as consumers. There is a job of work to be done and a challenge. We welcome the Bill and will support it.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Bill contains some positive elements, such as increasing the penalties that can be imposed on companies for market manipulation for insider trading. However, the enhanced powers are weak, given that they must be confirmed by the High Court, even if the company concerned does not bother to lodge an objection. This reflects a fear of interfering too strongly in the artificial market in utilities, which the EU is bent on creating, and the interests of multinational utility companies which would oppose regulators with strong powers to impose sanctions on them.

The Bill must be seen as part of a process of completing an all-island and EU-wide single market in utilities and EU markets that will enable large utilities and utility oligopolies to compete across borders, and of furthering the process of liberalisation and privatisation of public utilities. A single EU market in utilities would make privatisation of Irish publicly owned companies such as the ESB or Irish Water more financially viable by giving them easier access to foreign markets in which to expand and compete. It would also open the door to foreign multinational utilities buying up the Irish electricity, gas and water networks, which has already happened in the case of Transdev and the Luas, destroying the previous operation of rail transport as a fully publicly owned service.

Beefing up the powers of supposedly independent regulators of these markets is a further step in the process of capitalist accumulation by dispossession, whereby big business appropriates previously commonly owned public goods for private profits. This has had disastrous results across the world where utilities have been privatised with increased prices, power cuts, attacks on workers and so on. Supposedly independent, bureaucratic regulators are part of a wider trend of separating public services from democratic oversight. It allows governments to disclaim responsibility for important matters affecting workers, ordinary consumers and households, and for issues such as utility prices.

This is part of a broader technocratic process of what is called constitutionalising neoliberalism, whereby political aspects of economic policy are put beyond democratic discussions by bodies such as the Dáil and put beyond politics and democratic input. The defining characteristics of this include the delegation of economic policy-making, monitoring, supervision and enforcement to supposedly impartial, independent, technocratic experts. We have seen this process regarding the fiscal treaty and the fiscal rules. Another defining characteristic of constitutionalising neoliberalism is the enshrinement of neoliberal, free market norms in legislation, including by putting them in constitutions as we have done here, to make it as difficult as possible to reverse neoliberal policies in the future.

The EU's role in pushing this and the creation of a single European utilities market is another example of how the EU remains one of the prime actors in continuing to enforce neoliberalism internationally, even though the International Monetary Fund, IMF, is in some senses questioning the excesses of neoliberalism. We know the role the IMF has played in Latin America. In an article published a few weeks ago, the IMF questioned whether neoliberalism had been "oversold" and concluded there was little evidence that adhering to neoliberal principles had increased economic growth but stated it had definitely led to significantly increased inequality. In spite of this, the EU is pushing full steam ahead with the imposition of neoliberal dogma in as many fields as possible, just as it did when it imposed maximum neoliberal austerity on the Greek people at a time when even the IMF could see it was counterproductive, given the overall picture of world capitalism.

From the look of things, the EU and its ever faithful servants in the Irish Government will be the very last to notice what The Guardiandescribed as the "long death of an ideology" or the "death of neoliberalism from within". On the one hand, it is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions, despite the best efforts of the EU and successive Irish Governments to resuscitate it since the global financial crisis. On the other hand, it is being defeated by popular pressure, as the success of fighting water charges demonstrates. Not only did it rip off the veil of faux neutrality and independence of the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, and all the other so-called independent regulators, it exposed the neoliberal, political nature of seemingly technocratic directives such as the Water Framework Directive and showed how their creation and continued existence are a result of political decisions made in the interests of the 1% and which can be defeated by the struggles of the 99% against neoliberalism, the privatisation of public services and the erosion of democracy.