Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Whatever energy crisis we may face, it sits within the climate crisis, which is ongoing and non-negotiable. Unfortunately, I must disagree with some of what we were told on Second Stage. Senator Maria Byrne stated that this was just for keeping the lights on and existing businesses, but we know that extra energy capacity is being sought - this information came from the Department last week and I will keep referring to it for the record, as it is relevant - because the anticipated increase in demand next winter will be due to large energy users necessitating growing levels of dispatchable generation capacity to be available for days with low wind and interconnector availability. The Bill is not about keeping the lights on and existing businesses; it is about anticipating growing demand form large energy users. It is not about anticipating how we will curtail that demand, which is specifically named by the Department in black and white as being the reason we will need emergency dispatchable energy.

We have a climate crisis and an energy crisis. We had concerns ahead of last winter, but we were lucky. We now have concerns for next winter. Why are we not dealing with energy demands that we can curtail instead of measurably undermining our response to the climate crisis just to meet an anticipated demand that we have decided we are okay with? These matters are not, as the Minister of State said, outside the scope of the Bill. Demand is the reason for the Bill. As such, it needs to be examined as part of our consideration of the Bill.

How on Earth are the provisions on backup generation acceptable? This is an example of the joined-up piece. There may be situations where we need this temporary capacity, which is why we did not oppose the Bill on Second Stage, but we need to know not just about the planning permissions and EPA licences, but about what conditions will be attached. Section 15 of the 2015 Act is not going to stand in the way of having this emergency energy generation, but it could mean that emergency energy generation licences have applied to them conditions that consider the climate crisis properly.

One condition could be that the first port of call should be to reduce demand. According to the Minister of State, it is his understanding that the data centres will be the first bodies asked to turn off. Will they be asked or required? As I understand it, there are no plans to require them to do so, but if they are going to be asked or required, what are the plans for measuring their response, for example, whether they demand a quid pro quoand whether they are agreeable? Was this made a condition of their licences in the first place? There is nothing to stop us introducing emergency legislation on how demand should be managed in a crisis, which would probably be more compliant with the 2015 Act. One condition might be that, if energy demand is exceeding capacity temporarily, there be clear measures that tackle demand from large energy users first and that these measures and the large energy users' response be recorded so that we can identify patterns and do better in addressing them.The other kind of condition that might get attached, which would not stop us having the emergency energy generation but would ensure it was used responsibly, could be conditions around the switch to backup generators in these large energy users whose demand has grown by either 260% or 280% in the past five years.

The CRU stated it was not interested and that it was the job of the EPA to consider what kind of backup generators are being used by large energy users. It stated that it had simply said these users should have back-up generation but did not specify the fuel type for the dispatchable generation. It could be diesel or petrol; who knows what it could be? The point is that the CRU directed that the EPA is responsible for the environmental regulation, yet here the EPA is being told not to consider its obligations under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. Does that make it more difficult for the EPA to attach conditions which, for example, would ask a firm to reduce demand rather than just switch to fossil-fuel powered sources of energy or diesel back-up generators? That would create a positive incentive for large energy users to have renewable backup energies, other sustainable energy, batteries or whatever else. It is joined up.

This idea that there will be days when the lights go out is being used disingenuously because we are actually talking about planning for one third of all energy being used to ensure Amazon advertisements update every millisecond and a video to advertise a product starts playing as soon as someone logs on. That is where a lot of the energy is going. All energy usage is not the same. Some of it is very important for society and the economy but other parts of it are simply profit maximisation. We know that because there are a lot of ethical issues around how energy is managed, even within data centres. Storing photographs and medical records is not the same as optimising the speed of turnover on advertising products. They are different things.

This is worrying and should cause concern. The provision is already flexible in that the section refers to the EPA having regard to rather than it being bound. I am worried that we are removing the suggestion that the EPA would have regard to our climate action and low-carbon development goals. The fact is that the planet is not going to wait. The planet will not decide that, because it is a busy time and because Ireland is very excited about the new money and believes the data centres, while there is no money in them, might employ someone else up the road in some other job, it will not warm up and will keep the glaciers in place. That is not how it works. We cannot suspend climate change and we should not suspend consideration of our climate change targets on developing policies. Policies should be developed that work with those targets. This is not saying we cannot have emergency generation but that we will have badly designed emergency generation and it will be used without proper scrutiny and conditions unless we have joined-up thinking on climate and energy. We are seeking to fix this section by reinserting the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act in the process. This is a no-brainer. I am confused about how it was ever allowed to be suspended or proposed to be suspended.