Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator. As Senator Boylan is aware, the EIA directive continues to apply fully. We cannot pass legislation in this House that overrides the directive in any way. It must be compliant with the legislation.

I understand the concern is that the proposal may appear to be open-ended or that it could be used to approve other developments or projects. To be clear, what I am asking the House to approve is that the delivery of 450 MW of electricity generation for installation by next winter is considered to be an exceptional case for the purposes of Article 2(4) of the EIA directive and that alternative assessments can be carried out by the State. The individual components of elements, which themselves are the subject of a procurement procedure run by EirGrid on foot of the emergency legislation we passed in the summer, the EirGrid, Electricity and Turf (Amendment) Act 2022, will be the subject of a further assessment by An Bord Pleanála and approval by me. The Oireachtas is not approving any development or granting a development consent. There is an inextricable link between the preferred sites and the procurement process currently being concluded by EirGrid. Given that this legislation is passing through the Houses while that process is concluding, it is only prudent that we would ensure it will not be necessary to go before the Houses again in the event that an alternative site is needed. However, it is not open-ended, because as Senator Boylan states, there is a limited number of sites comprising existing power stations that can accommodate the capacity being proposed and supply the power to the grid when required. While the contractual arrangements are being finalised, it is important that there is a fall-back position out of caution and out of planning. The legislation specifies that the new generation capacity will be built at Tarbert and Shannonbridge, but there is a very small number of other sites that have the grid connection, are brownfield sites and have had recent environmental assessments that could possibly be used in the event that one of these sites cannot be used.

What is important here is that we have sites available to accommodate this temporary generation and that we can move on those sites in the quickest way possible. We are expecting to be able to commence construction before the end of the year. The removal of the reference to "alternative appropriate sites" would unnecessarily restrict the application of the processes provided for in this Bill to the two named sites and would provide no back-up options for the State. In that event, we would have to come back here again. I am sure Senator Boylan would not thank us for coming back a third time. The sites brought forward would be the subject of further assessments and public consultation. The Commission will also be notified prior to the final approval being made in full compliance with the provisions of the EIA directive. What is critical here is time. I cannot concede to an amendment that would tie the State's hands to the detriment of its citizens. I am satisfied that this approach is compliant with the EIA directive and I have sought the Attorney General's advice in this regard during the preparation of the Bill. I appreciate that Senators may have their own interpretation, but for that reason I am not accepting the amendment.