Gareth Scahill (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber and wish him and his family a happy Christmas. I hope he gets a chance to rest over the Christmas period.

Electricity is an essential service that every household and business in this country relies on every day. That is why decisions around electricity pricing, network investment and charges on consumers must be rooted not only in technical necessity but in common sense.In the coming year, electricity customers in Ireland will see increased costs of up to €1.75 per month, before VAT, introduced to fund critical investment in the upgrading of our national electricity grid. This investment, sanctioned by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, will see €13.8 billion spent by ESB Networks and EirGrid, with the potential for the figure to rise to €18.9 billion over the next five years if regulatory targets are met.

I have consistently supported investment in our electricity network. A resilient and modern grid is essential to meet the needs of our growing population and changing energy system. These upgrades will facilitate the building of 300,000 new homes by 2030, enable the connection of 1 million electric vehicles and support 680,000 heat pumps. That ambition is welcome and necessary.

However, ambition must also come with fairness. Domestic users will bear 55% of these costs, while businesses will carry 45%. Network tariffs already account for between 25% and 30% of the average electricity bill. At a time when households are under significant financial pressure, this cannot be ignored. While the extension of the VAT reduction on electricity, the widening of eligibility for the fuel allowance between September and April and targeted support for low income families are all positive steps, they do not address the basic issue of fairness. A standing charge is applied when no electricity is being supplied.

Across the country, thousands of households have experienced prolonged power outages over the past 12 months due to storms, network faults and planned maintenance. In some cases, families were without power for days. During these outages, people were not consuming electricity. They were not using appliances, heating homes or charging devices, yet they were still charged a daily standing charge. The standing charge is intended to cover the cost of maintaining access to the network. That is understandable, but what happens when access is not available? When homes are disconnected from the grid through no fault of the customer, continuing to apply the charges makes little sense and feels deeply unfair. If I have no electricity, I am not paying for units. Equally, I should not pay for standing charges for a service that I am not receiving.

The proposal is not about undermining investment or weakening the grid. In fact, it reinforces accountability and public trust in the system. Waiving the standing charge during verified power outages, whether due to storm damage or scheduled maintenance, would demonstrate that consumers are treated as partners in the energy transition, not simply as a revenue source. As we ask households to shoulder the higher costs of funding long-term resilience, we must also show that the system responds fairly when it fails them. Targeting resources at those on lower incomes remains essential, but fairness should apply to everyone. Waiving the standing charge during outages is a modest and practical reform that acknowledges real hardship, respects common sense and strengthens confidence in our energy system. Investment and fairness must go hand in hand. We can and should deliver both.