Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

I have several amendments in this grouping. It was interesting to hear the Minister of State describe the recouping of money by the ESB. I do not have an amendment on this issue but it is very important that in the recouping of those moneys over long periods, we do not see situations such as we have seen in the past whereby domestic and household energy users have, in effect, ended up subsidising large energy users. We saw that in measures that were rolled back disgracefully late, having been brought in during the recession. For a long time, households in Ireland were paying more in order that very large corporations, including data centres, could pay less. That policy was changed but it is a policy and a lesson of significant concern. Very serious diligence should be directed to exactly how the plans for the recouping of the money will unfold to ensure it is not the case, yet again, that we see public subsidisation of large companies.

As a way of protecting against that, my amendment No. 2 seeks to ensure the additional moneys borrowed by the board of the ESB and its subsidiaries are not to be used for the construction of, or investment in, energy infrastructure that relates to data centres. In 2024, data centres accounted for 22% of all electricity consumption in the State. This was more than all urban dwellings, that is, all homes in towns and cities right across Ireland, which accounted for 18%. As of June 2025, there were 89 operational data centres in Ireland, with 11 more under development and more than 30 granted planning permission. If those new data centres are built, there will be close to 130 across the country and it is estimated we could move to an even larger proportion of our electricity being used by these large energy users, which are predominantly owned and controlled by some of the wealthiest corporations in the world.

Between 2017 and 2023, all the additional wind energy in Ireland - the result of all the work we are hearing about on the need to drive forward wind energy and other green energy - was absorbed by data centres. Every additional piece of energy we managed to get from renewable sources rather than fossil fuels was immediately absorbed by the large users, which make up a very large sector of the economy. While the corporations that own them may be employers, although that is not true in all cases, the infrastructure of data centres, which Ireland carries so disproportionately to other EU countries, does not, of itself, generate very much employment. Electricity demand grew six times faster than renewable energy projects financed between 2020 and 2023. Dozens of data centres have secured or are seeking connections to the natural gas network to overcome local power network constraints. That is where the concern arises. The moneys borrowed by the ESB should not be contributing to or supporting electricity connections solely designed to facilitate data centres. If all the data centres with a connection to the natural gas network were operating, they potentially would account for 38% of total natural gas consumed in Ireland.

The Minister of State will be aware of the serious concerns EirGrid has raised with the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment at the saturation of Dublin's electricity network by data centres. Indeed, EirGrid has stated that the new bulk supply point in west Dublin was exhausted by data centres before the construction was even completed. Before the whole new energy infrastructure was even completed, data centres had already mopped up the additional capacity. According to EirGrid, the supply point was completely swamped by the sheer volume and energy density of data centre applications. Dr. Paul Cuffe of UCD has warned that the fear now is that EirGrid may soon be forced to decline or delay requests from ESB Networks for housing or other purposes. Mr. Conor O'Connell of the Construction Industry Federation has said house builders are reporting significant and ongoing delays in securing electricity connections for housing, with particular capacity constraints at substations in the east of the country.These are serious concerns. It is not an elephant in the room, but a whole series of elephants. It is 89 elephants in the room and 130 is what we are heading towards. Therefore, I would like to know, as we authorise the borrowing of money by the State and the ESB, whether that borrowing and the infrastructure facilitated by that additional borrowing will be used up by data centres and large energy users rather than facilitating the upgrading, fast-tracking and delivery of housing and public infrastructure, which we need upgrades to. I am not opposing an increase in investment in our electricity infrastructure but I am concerned about how it may be co-opted.

My other amendments in this section are on related concerns. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 relate to my seeking assurances that “Moneys borrowed by the Board and the subsidiaries shall not be used for the construction of, or investment in, energy infrastructure relating to a terminal used for the liquefaction of natural gas or the importation, offloading, and re-gasification of liquefied natural gas”. This is the gas that we know is an accelerant in relation to climate change. We know its devastating impact. That is why we banned fracking in Ireland on the initiative of someone who was a Fine Gael backbencher at the time. It is because we know the environmental damage, not just of fracking, but of liquified natural gas and its use.

I have two amendments here. I am conscious that the Minister of State may come back and say the Government has said we will have a public terminal and it will be temporary and only there for the emergencies and everything. However, we know when the planning Act came through that there were no constraints placed on commercial liquified natural gas development and we know there is a big push from the United States and others to try to have the liquified natural gas expand in Europe. Let us be clear and honest - that push for liquified natural gas and its expansion is directly in competition with investment in green and renewable energy. It is a doubling down on fossil fuels and we have seen that happening across the board. We have seen investors who are moving their money away from renewables and going into another level of one of the dirtiest possible fossil fuels, liquified natural gas.

In that context, I have two amendments. One says the ESB would not use any of these moneys to facilitate any of the infrastructure associated with LNG and its access to the grid, for example, but the other is specific around commercial. Amendment No. 4 says specifically it should "not be used for the construction of, or investment in, commercial energy infrastructure relating to a terminal used for" the liquefaction of natural gas, its importation, offloading, sale and distribution. If the Minister of State is going to tell us about the special public temporary emergency LNG terminal, surely he can at least accept amendment No. 4, which tries to explicitly exclude the use of ESB’s resources and the moneys for infrastructure that has been borrowed for commercial LNG, which is separate from this supposed public-owned emergency supply?

Amendment No. 5 seeks to ensure that any moneys borrowed by the ESB would “be used in a manner that is consistent with the national climate objective and the Climate Action Plan.”

Amendment No. 6 seeks to ensure that moneys borrowed by the ESB “shall not be used to invest, directly or indirectly, in a fossil fuel undertaking as defined in the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018.”.

This is about policy coherence. We have a national climate objective. We know there is a bit of a gap, which I have come up against in relation to Coillte, for example, and semi-State bodies. Public bodies have a clearly defined duty and the State has a clearly defined duty, but there is sometimes an ambiguity with semi-States. Therefore, I would like confirmation and clarity about whether ESB will be expected to ensure the moneys it has borrowed are used in a manner consistent with the national climate objective.

I will speak of investors' money internationally. Very often, those who are lending the money will come with a wish list of their own conditions and suggestions of how the money should be spent, so this is effectively a protection for the ESB so that, when potential lenders tell it they would like it to invest in something and that they want a mixed portfolio with fossil fuels, the ESB can say it is constrained because the enabling Act for the additional funding it is seeking makes it clear the ESB would need to be cognisant of and consistent with Ireland’s national climate objective, and also makes it clear that, while the ESB may not be directly named in the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act, the principles in the Act, which are that a very limited and small percentage of any investment relate to fossil fuels, must be consistently followed through with these moneys and how they are borrowed.

These are crucial amendments and a crucial signal to send that will, I believe, strengthen ESB’s hand when it engages with lenders who will often come with quite aggressive conditionalities and a recipe of where they would like it to spend the money. They are to make sure that money is not going in an inappropriate way and counteracting or working against other agreed State objectives in terms of climate and divestment from fossil fuels. I would appreciate if the Minister of State could take very due cognisance of these amendments and I hope he will be able to accept some of them.