Annie Hoey (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House. I echo previous speakers' statements that it is frustrating that, as per usual ever summer, there is a rushing through of all Stages of Bills. I do not know why that seems to be necessary. The debate on the Bill could have been done over two separate sessions. To hear all Stages in one or two hours is poor practice, especially when no pre-legislative scrutiny is provided for this legislation.

The main purpose of the Bill is to ensure we have sufficient electricity generation in place from winter 2022 through to 2026. We understand EirGrid will then sell and transfer that capacity to an electricity generator and enter into an operating agreement. This emergency legislation is supposed to last for only three years, but we are investing an enormous sum of money in the building and preparation of something that is for three years. Is it reasonable to think that after three years we will say that is enough of that and we will have figured the whole situation out, or is it a Trojan horse in that we will have to rely on these beyond the three-year agreement?

It certainly raises questions as to how we have found ourselves so exposed to supply shortages and why this legislation has only been brought forward now. My colleague, Deputy Bacik, raised this and other such matters during the Order of Business in the other House. She raised the fact it is not good legislative practice to see legislation being rushed through.

It is often said the current crisis is because of the war in Ukraine, but we cannot wholly blame Ukraine or the rapid increase of gas prices. Clearly the war has exacerbated energy security and supply issues internationally, but the current crises in this country is as a result of a failure to plan long term for the transition to renewable energy sources. Throughout last summer and autumn, the pressure on the electricity supply grew due to the growing demands from data centres, which the Houses have debated, as well as the transition from dirtier fuels such as coal, and balancing the needs to support the generation of wind power. All of this happened before the war in Ukraine, so it is not feasible to say it is the only reason this is happening.

The CRU stated in its announcement that these emergency measures were needed due to the increased risk of older generators becoming unavailable and ageing out.Obviously, the older generators are not as efficient as the newer ones and have higher carbon emissions. We in the Labour Party, however, are concerned that the measures will lock in new fossil fuel generation capacity. I know this is an emergency but gas is a fossil fuel and when we are supposed to be transitioning away from fossil fuels, I am concerned, and my colleagues in the Lower House have expressed this concern, about this potentially locking us into new fossil fuel generation capacity. Once we go down the route of getting the transitional system operating to source emergency extra capacity, there is the potential it will become the default option if the electricity generation market does not operate properly.

The central question about these generators is what fuel they will run on. As I said, there is a concern about enhancing our fossil fuel dependency. Will EirGrid be told what it has to procure?

Another question is what the cost to the State of developing and running such generators will be. I know others have stated, and reports have indicated, that the costs will be recouped from customers over a three-year period, but is the State putting up the capital spend in the first place? The Minister of State might clarify where the €350 million in capital funding for these generators is coming from. A figure of €400 million has been thrown around as being what is left in the annual budget. If the €350 million is coming from that, it is a fairly sizeable amount.

It is prudent to point out that this is happening at a time when energy companies are making extraordinary and unexpected profits due to the soaring prices of fossil fuels. The Labour Party has called for a windfall tax on excessive profits as a measure that could and should be included in budget 2023. We think the revenue raised could be used to fund additional climate mitigation and energy efficiency measures that would reduce our reliance on energy imports at a time when we see unprecedented insecurity of supply. I recognise that is largely due to the war in Ukraine.

While we rush through this law in order that these new gas generators can be put in place this summer, it has not been adequately explained why the ESB, a publicly owned company, has previously pulled out of contracts to build a number of gas power plants. There was extensive coverage of this in the Business Post, and the matter was raised in the Dáil as well. I do not know if the Minister of State has any comment to make as to why the ESB did that. Now we find ourselves in an emergency, whereas the ESB potentially could have acted earlier. The question remains as to whether that contributed to the supply crisis that underpins this legislation. It is one of the reasons for the legislation and an expectation that we would have additional capacity for power generation but we can no longer rely on it. Is it likely that the ESB will be one of the electricity generators contracted to operate this emergency supply?

Data centres were mentioned. Is this new extra capacity really to allow for the development and operation of data centres? There is no question about the gobbling up of our energy supplies that they are doing and will do into the future. Many questions have been asked about data centres and their feasibility at a time when we are under enormous pressure not only on the grid but also to meet crucial emissions reduction targets. Friends of the Earth has asked a number of important questions about what alternative measures have been considered such as demand-side management.

Another provision in the Bill is to increase the borrowing capacity of Bord na Móna to €650 million to support its brown-to-green transition. That is a really important programme. As a previous speaker noted, the reference to turf in the Bill is unfortunate. It puts the Bill into a different frame. When I first saw the Title I was surprised to see the word "turf". We might all agree, especially considering that the aim of Bord na Móna is to move away from peat extraction, a move that is very much welcomed, that it would be useful if the Minister of State could outline what projects or investments this borrowing will support and if he could give a commitment that a strategy for Bord na Móna will be presented, maybe to the relevant Oireachtas committee. My colleague, Deputy Bacik, has also made that request. We have had an opportunity in Bord na Móna to build out a national wind energy and retrofitting company. It is to be hoped that this will be State-led and could secure an energy transition to underpin a just transition.

We need to accelerate our delivery of onshore wind and solar energy.Offshore wind energy will be the cornerstone of our future zero carbon electricity system. I do not know if the Minister of State has any thoughts on how these two sources will align. We need to accelerate the move to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.