Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)

I will take amendments Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, and respond to the Senators on their proposed amendments. On amendment No. 2, I thank Senator Higgins for her suggested addition. Amendment No. 2 relates to inserting a new subsection providing that money borrowed by ESB shall not be used for energy infrastructure related to data centres. As outlined to Senator Collins, the draft decision under PR6, which I am sure many Senators have read the detail of, takes account of Government targets across many sectors and clearly identifies what the grid investment will underpin. As we said earlier, it will support key priorities in the areas of infrastructure, housing and our competitiveness, investment growth and climate action. It would deliver energy security into the future, supporting Irish families and communities across the country while significantly improving network resilience, which will include future proofing it for generations to come. As Senator Cosgrove has outlined, we need to build that resilience because we have much more frequent storms. Indeed, we have seen from Storm Éowyn the significant destruction that occurred along the west coast. This is the reason the Government is investing record levels in our infrastructure delivery.

With respect to data centres, PR6 specifically takes into account the currently contracted data centre demand. That has been factored in up to 2030. As Senator Casey has outlined, this is not either-or. We understand the importance of data centres, which have been a significant component of Ireland's economic and digital future. We understand that. There is a reason we have ten of the top ten tech companies here in this country. They serve as an anchor for high-value investment in Ireland and reinforce our reputation as a global leader when it comes to digital infrastructure and support a crucial sector. As the Taoiseach said last week in the Dáil, there are Members of the Opposition who want to take those high-quality jobs away from us but those jobs put food on the table for many households and families.The Government is determined to continue to attract large energy users in the medium term by proposing an holistic approach that integrates the Government's ambition to decarbonise and digitalise but also to develop the economy. That is why it has included a commitment in the programme for Government to develop a comprehensive plan that will accelerate energy generation, connectivity and the planning process. That plan will guide the development of data centres in Ireland and provide certainty for industry with regard to making short- and medium-term investments.

I, too, was on a trade mission in Sweden with Enterprise Ireland where I saw the scale of Irish companies which are building out the Swedish economy in regard to data centres. They include Kingspan, Sisk, the Kirby Group and Suir Engineering. These Irish companies are providing high-quality jobs building data centres for the Swedish economy. It is very much the Government's ambition and commitment to support data centres that contribute to economic growth and efficient grid usage, such as prioritising waste heat and capturing district heating for other local use. That is an important element. As such, I cannot accept the amendment.

I propose to respond to amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together as both relate to prohibiting the money borrowed by ESB to be used for the purposes of energy infrastructure relating to liquified natural gas. I first underline that the investment required under PR6 relates specifically to investing in the electricity grid and its development. As we are all aware, electrification is crucial for decarbonising the energy system, while also reducing our dependency on natural gas and moving away from the use of fossil fuels.

Money borrowed by the ESB for the purposes of PR6 will be used to deliver over 500 capital projects right across the transmission and distribution networks. This includes 181 km of new overhead lines, 319 km of new underground cables, nearly 70 new and upgraded substations across the country and 50,000 pole replacements. The investment does not relate to energy infrastructure that is connected to liquefied natural gas. As such, I do not believe the Bill will benefit from the inclusion of either of these provisions. In addition, it is for the board of ESB to decide what projects it wants to consider in the best interests of the company. I am not, therefore, in a position to accept these additions.

Amendment No. 5 relates to ensuring that money borrowed by the ESB and its subsidiaries shall be used in a manner that is consistent with the national climate objective and the climate action plan. It is worth highlighting that ESB Networks is already a relevant body under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 in respect of its distribution system operator, DSO, functions. Duties of a relevant body include performing its functions in a manner consistent with the most recent climate action plan, national adaptation framework and approved sectoral adaptation plans, and the furtherance of national climate objectives, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change in the State.

In addition, the ESB has signed up to the climate action framework for the commercial semi-State sector, which was developed under the 2021 climate action plan. The framework includes a series of five commitments related to: governance of climate action objectives; emissions measurement and reduction targets; emissions valuation in investment appraisal; circular economy and green procurement; and climate-related disclosures. The commitments under the framework reflect requirements that apply to the public sector more generally, as set out in the climate action plan. Given the existing commitments and obligations that the ESB must take into account in the performance of its duties, I do not believe it is necessary to include an additional provision in this Bill. As such, I am not in a position to accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 6 relates to ensuring that money borrowed by the ESB and its subsidiaries shall not be used to invest, directly or indirectly, in a "fossil fuel undertaking" as defined in the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act of 2018. The ESB is not an investor in fossil fuel undertakings. It is also highly likely that investing in such an entity would be incompatible with the ESB’s net zero strategy. It is worth mentioning that the ESB’s net zero pathway report, which was published in 2024, specifically sets the ambitious goal of achieving net zero carbon emissions across its operations by 2040.

I recognise the very positive intent behind the proposed amendments by Senator Higgins, but I am not in a position to accept these amendments. I hope the Senator feels reassured that they are not necessary based on the information I have provided.