Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am grateful to the Senator for bringing this matter to the floor of the Seanad. I agree with her that it is very welcome €50 is being refunded into many people's electricity bills this month. However, I am under no illusion about this being a tiny amount compared with the substantial rise in costs that individual and businesses of all sizes have been faced with when it comes to energy prices, largely due to Russia's brutal war in Ukraine and the knock-on effect that is having on the Continent. It is important to remember the various measures the Government has brought in to support business through the temporary business energy support scheme, TBESS, which has been extended as per the announcement today, as well as the three €200 electricity credits that will be rolled out to households; not to mention the 80,000 additional households that will be eligible for the fuel allowance.

With regard to the matter of the reallocation of network costs, I remind the House that the CRU is the independent regulator of various utilities in Ireland, including the electricity sector. The allocation of grid costs to energy customers, which was the subject of the CRU consultation to which my Department's submission relates, is entirely a matter for the CRU. The CRU is the appropriate regulator to ensure that grid tariffs appropriately reflect the cost of providing grid services alongside national policy objectives such as developing a smart grid system and decarbonisation. The CRU is directly accountable to the Oireachtas, and questions on the allocation of grid tariffs would most appropriately be put to it. The CRU consultation to which my Department was responding was about a proposed change to electricity network tariffs, which was in response to the national energy security framework agreed by Government last April.

It is important to stress the consultation did not relate directly to the earlier CRU decision to unwind the rebalancing framework for large energy users which has been determined beforehand, to which I believe the Senator is referring. It is clear from my Department's submission that the word "punitive" was used to describe the cumulative effects of both the significant proposals that were the subject of the CRU consultation and the previous decision to unwind the large energy user rebalancing framework, which did not form part of the proposal. The submission made no judgment on the decision to unwind the large energy users rebalancing framework, except to highlight that it had been done without consultation. The Government is focused on facilitating investment in our energy system to deliver price competitiveness over the medium term for all users. We are determined to deliver a diversified energy system with significant support for energy efficiency and renewables, alongside independent regulation in the event the CRU implemented its proposals only in part, with the changes aimed at protecting security of supply.