Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I had thought this amendment was ruled out of order so some of the issues have been discussed and I will not go into them in much detail. Since it is in order, it is important we get a proper answer. We still have not really heard what demand reduction measures are being talked about or looked at. The first time we heard about it at the committee, only demand reduction at busy peak hours was being discussed, and indeed that is the focus today. However, what of overall demand reduction versus the increasing growth predicted by the Department? The briefing we got from the Department refers to that increasing growth and what we must do to meet it, but nothing is said about curtailing the increasing growth in demand. That does not seem to be the actual plan and goal. I am concerned because while we have an economy that is growing and developing, that must happen within constraints. I do not accept, for example, the premise the emergency is any time there is more demand than renewable energy can meet while we are moving slowly along on renewable energy and trying to get a bit more of it. Renewable energy, and ultimately renewable energy plus emergency energy, should be the constraint within which what we do as a society must fit, as opposed to thinking the emergency energy envelope must expand indefinitely, solely in order that we can meet the demand which is taken as an immutable fact of nature, despite the fact it can be managed. Some of the specific measures for such management have been talked about.

We have had a drip-drip of information. Senator McDowell was right when he talked about a blind eye being turned, flannelling and an unwillingness to give information on this area. We are only getting a drip feed of information on data centre demand. The Minister of State mentioned 2018, but an opportunity was missed in the lifetime of this Government, namely, with the CRU's consultation. I made a submission back in 2020 when the commission had the option of introducing a moratorium until all the ducks were in a row with respect to how data centres should operate. The choice was made not to do that and we have seen a number of data centres going ahead in the years since.

The amendment requests specific information, including the level of increased demand by large energy users in the last five years and a breakdown of whether such users are participating in voluntary demand-side reduction schemes or being required to do so. The Minister of State mentioned the voluntary and the involuntary. We need that general information so we can identify the pattern and see how we can make our involuntary measures more robust if the voluntary measures are not working, which they do not seem to be. We also need specific information on the days when we are using emergency generation. We want to know what happens in a week when we have to use emergency generation. We need that addressed with respect to both the general pattern and the specific instances when this special temporary generation capacity is being deployed.

The amendment also calls for a critical appraisal of existing demand-side reduction strategies. The Minister of State said households are the priority, but if I am understanding this correctly, it is not that households are the priority but, rather, the opposite. The Minister of State said households are the priority when it comes to electricity reduction whereas what he means is households get their electricity cut first. Is that the case? He mentioned households, then voluntary measures, then involuntary measures, so I would like clarity on that chain because it was a surprise to me. With gas, large energy users are cut off first and households are last, but I would like clarity on how the process is tiered when it comes to electricity. It would be useful if we could have the breakdown of how often we have gone to involuntary measures with large energy users.

The amendment would also require the Minister to prepare a comprehensive plan to ensure the prioritisation of demand-side reduction measures over increased electricity generation, by whatever method. When we talk about the gaps in our information, is it not disgraceful that a couple of years after we got our new legislation on climate, the CRU is still just demanding backup generation with no requirements around what it is? The commission does not know whether it will be diesel. How is it acceptable to not know or care what kind of fuel is being used for backup generation by some of the largest electricity users in the country? How is that in any way consistent with any kind of joined-up thinking or strategy around demand. If we take the demand off the grid by getting large users to engage their backup generation which is powered by diesel, then that is a problem. In those circumstances, simply having them move to their backup might not be enough. Maybe we should not be allowing them to move to backup. I worry a little about having these invisible pots of emissions and fossil fuel usage that are going to happen if every large company can have its own means to generate energy from fossil fuel sources. These will be pumping away while we pretend it is not affecting Ireland's emissions record.

These measures really matter. We are pushing hard on them because they matter and because we are constantly being told we must move the goalposts out on energy and allow for more and more emergency generation capacity in suspension of some of our concerns about climate, all while being given only a drip feed of demand reduction measures. Opportunities to curtail developments have been missed not just by the previous Government but also by this one.