Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

"In page 4, line 15, to delete “or at alternative appropriate sites”."

This is to make sure that we are in compliance with our obligations under the environmental impact assessment, EIA, directive because I know that we are seeking an exemption. What amendment No. 1 proposes is to delete the phrase “or at alternative appropriate sites” from section 2(1). This is because the explanatory memorandum cites article 2(4) of the EIA directive as the legal basis for the exemption of the development specified in the Bill from the wider application of the directive. If one looks at the wording of article 2(4) of the directive, however, it explicitly states that member states may, in exceptional cases, exempt a specific project from the provisions laid down in this directive where the application of these provisions would result in adversely affecting the purpose of the project provided the objectives of this directive. The key term here for us and our concern is “specific project”. This is because to apply for the exemption from the EIA directive, it will be quite specific to a specific project. That is why we think the language around “alternative appropriate sites” is a little too loose and is not consistent with the stringent criteria that are set down an article (2)4 of the directive. The use of the term “alternative appropriate sites” also brings section 5(1) into conflict with the EIA directive, because that section 5(1) a designated development from the EIA directive on the basis of the legally unsound definition currently contained in section 2.Why is this term included, as it is not consistent with the directive? What is meant by "alternative appropriate sites"? When we met with the officials I asked a question about the criteria they had and how many sites there were. I know people are saying that it is specific, that it only relates to energy generation and that there is a limited number of sites that would be appropriate for this, but we are setting aside planning law and environmental impact assessments. "Alternative appropriate sites" is a very loose term. That could mean anything. We need reassurance that it is not going to fall foul of EU law, which would mean that it is rejected and we would have to go back to the drawing board. We understand that this is emergency legislation, but it is very vague language for something that involves a very specific derogation from the EIA directive.

Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator. As Senator Boylan is aware, the EIA directive continues to apply fully. We cannot pass legislation in this House that overrides the directive in any way. It must be compliant with the legislation.

I understand the concern is that the proposal may appear to be open-ended or that it could be used to approve other developments or projects. To be clear, what I am asking the House to approve is that the delivery of 450 MW of electricity generation for installation by next winter is considered to be an exceptional case for the purposes of Article 2(4) of the EIA directive and that alternative assessments can be carried out by the State. The individual components of elements, which themselves are the subject of a procurement procedure run by EirGrid on foot of the emergency legislation we passed in the summer, the EirGrid, Electricity and Turf (Amendment) Act 2022, will be the subject of a further assessment by An Bord Pleanála and approval by me. The Oireachtas is not approving any development or granting a development consent. There is an inextricable link between the preferred sites and the procurement process currently being concluded by EirGrid. Given that this legislation is passing through the Houses while that process is concluding, it is only prudent that we would ensure it will not be necessary to go before the Houses again in the event that an alternative site is needed. However, it is not open-ended, because as Senator Boylan states, there is a limited number of sites comprising existing power stations that can accommodate the capacity being proposed and supply the power to the grid when required. While the contractual arrangements are being finalised, it is important that there is a fall-back position out of caution and out of planning. The legislation specifies that the new generation capacity will be built at Tarbert and Shannonbridge, but there is a very small number of other sites that have the grid connection, are brownfield sites and have had recent environmental assessments that could possibly be used in the event that one of these sites cannot be used.

What is important here is that we have sites available to accommodate this temporary generation and that we can move on those sites in the quickest way possible. We are expecting to be able to commence construction before the end of the year. The removal of the reference to "alternative appropriate sites" would unnecessarily restrict the application of the processes provided for in this Bill to the two named sites and would provide no back-up options for the State. In that event, we would have to come back here again. I am sure Senator Boylan would not thank us for coming back a third time. The sites brought forward would be the subject of further assessments and public consultation. The Commission will also be notified prior to the final approval being made in full compliance with the provisions of the EIA directive. What is critical here is time. I cannot concede to an amendment that would tie the State's hands to the detriment of its citizens. I am satisfied that this approach is compliant with the EIA directive and I have sought the Attorney General's advice in this regard during the preparation of the Bill. I appreciate that Senators may have their own interpretation, but for that reason I am not accepting the amendment.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Two sites have been identified. Clearly, criteria were used in the assessment of the sites that could possibly be used for such a project. The two that made it through the assessment made it for a reason. The question is why the other sites did not make it. Is it the case that they did not make the selection relevant to the EIA and the planning criteria? That is our concern. If two sites were above all the others as being most appropriate, yet we are now leaving it open to some of the other sites that were not judged to have made the mark, could those other sites be used if the two earmarked sites do not work out? There is a concern if the process is open-ended because we do not know what the criteria were. We asked the officials if they would share the criteria with us and they said they would but we still have not seen them. What was it that made these two sites meet the mark and the others fail to do so, yet we are still leaving the door open to them? Is that relevant to what we are trying to waive here in terms of the EIA and planning?

Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of the criteria is that we have sufficient grid capacity to attach new generation capacity, so we can distribute and transmit the electricity from the site. Another is that we must have a brownfield site that already has a power station on it. We are looking for sites that have had recent environmental assessments carried out, which can help us with our future assessments and give us an idea that we are going to pass the environmental assessment. We also want to consider whether we expect that this is going to be the shortest planning application process that is going to be required. We have measured all of the sites on that basis. We have come up with the two sites that we thought were best. There is really only a very small number of sites that are possible, but it is all part of the same project. It is normal in a project that the project has a scope, which is the delivery of 450 MW of power by the winter of 2023, and there is an available set of resources that may be used, but we do not want to limit ourselves whereby if anything goes wrong on the critical path the whole project stops and has to be restarted.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, line 26, to delete "The Minister may" and substitute "Subject to subsection (2), the Minister may".

The amendments are pretty self-explanatory. It is essentially that the developments would be laid before the Oireachtas as resolutions. That is to ensure the backing of the Houses and parliamentary procedures.

Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am going to respond to amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together. They relate to the insertion of an additional Oireachtas approval between the assessment of An Bord Pleanála and the approval to be issued by the Minister. I propose to reject these amendments as they would add an unnecessary step to the process that could delay the commencement of on-site works.

The second amendment requires the Minister to only approve the designated development further to an additional process set out in amendment No. 3. That process requires the movement of a resolution in both Houses of the Oireachtas, with additional reports and conditionality over and above what is set out in the legislation. I reiterate that the purpose of the legislation being proposed is to remove all unnecessary administrative steps so that the relevant approvals can be issued as soon as may be possible. There is already a process available to the Minister to approve a proposed development to address an emergency under section 181(2)(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has done this for a development at the North Wall power generation station. What the Senators are proposing here goes beyond the existing provisions, and it would seem counterproductive to concede to such an amendment where time is of the essence. What is proposed here is shorter than the one that is already on the Statute Book. I have set out why that is necessary.

I want to address some of the potential concerns. The proposed legislation requires the Minister to arrange for an assessment of the proposed development in advance of approval. This goes beyond the strict requirements of the EIA directive, whereby member states are required merely to consider whether an alternative form of assessment would be appropriate. We will be carrying out the alternative form of assessment. The assessment will be carried out, although it may happen in a phased manner, something that is suggested in the Commission guidance on this matter. Moreover, provisions are included to comply with the birds and habitats directives to ensure Ireland complies with its obligations therein. These are set out in section 6. It is my intention to ensure there is public consultation on these assessments. I also draw the Senator's attention to section 7(1), under which the Minister is required to take into account the assessments of the board and any conditions recommended by it when approving a development. It is the Minister's intention to do that. During the debate in the Dáil yesterday, it was claimed that the wording of section 7 meant the Minister did not have to take into account the assessment of the board. I disagree with this assertion and note that the reference to "may" relates to the options the Minister has in terms of the types of decisions. However, in coming to that decision, he or she must take into account the assessment of the board.

What the Senator is proposing goes beyond this and requires, in effect, that a second assessment be carried out by Members of both Houses. In that regard, not only would the amendment add an unnecessary step to a process in which time is of the essence, but it would be a retrograde step in respect of powers already available to a Minister in the planning Acts. I therefore reject these amendments.

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: “(2) (a) If the Minister proposes to approve a designated development, whether subject to conditions or otherwise, he or she shall before doing so move a draft resolution in both Houses of the Oireachtas—

(i) setting out the particulars mentioned in paragraph (b), and

(ii) authorising the Minister to approve the development.

(b) The particulars referred to in paragraph (a)(i)are—

(i) a description of the designated development,

(ii) the estimated type, quantity and duration of any emission of greenhouse gases expected to result from its operation,

(iii) the assessments carried out by the Board under sections 5(2) and 6(1)and any conditions recommended by the Board arising from those assessments, and

(iv) any conditions proposed by the Minister under subsection (1)(c).

(c) If the draft resolution is approved by each House of the Oireachtas, the Minister may approve the designated development.”.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 4 has been ruled out of order as it is outside the subject matter of the Bill.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 7, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“Report on the implementation 11.(1) The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas following a post-enactment review.

(2) Within one month of the laying of the report before both Houses of the Oireachtas, the Minister and EirGrid shall account for the performance of their functions to the Joint Committee for the Environment and Climate Action and shall have regard to any recommendations of the Joint Committee relevant to its functions.

(3) The Minister and EirGrid shall provide any information requested by the Committee within two weeks of the receipt of such requests.”.

This amendment is self-explanatory. It sets out that within six months of the passing of the Act, a post-enactment review of the legislation would take place. This is the second time in a very short time that we have voted on emergency legislation in the House to deal with our crisis in electricity demand and power capacity.

Those of us who are members of the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action are often very frustrated that there are even disputes between some of the actors involved in sorting out this crisis. For example, we were told by EirGrid that growth in electricity demand of 9% was completely normal. When we pressed for international and EU comparisons, it was shown that it was not normal and that average growth in electricity demand is between 0.5% and 1% annually.

We are calling for a post-enactment review so that we do not end up back in the House in another six months having to deal with another crisis in our electricity capacity. It is not much to ask that we have a review. It would give some sort of comfort to those of us who are uncomfortable with what we are being asked to do today but who feel we have no choice but to support the legislation.

Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Political accountability is extremely important, and the Senator's proposal seeks to ensure the Minister is answerable to the relevant committee regarding progress on foot of the passing of the Bill. I agree with this but the requirement to report to the committee within a specified timeframe is not necessary. This is a project of critical national importance and every endeavour will be made to ensure it succeeds.

The Minister brought the Bill before the Oireachtas in a public manner that demonstrates openness and a desire for cross-party support. The Minister, EirGrid and the CRU have appeared before the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action on the serious issue of energy security, and they will continue to do so. Furthermore, the provisions of the Eirgrid, Electricity and Turf (Amendment) Act 2022 require that EirGrid report to the CRU on at least a quarterly basis on any measures taken pursuant to the Act, of which these measures are part. The CRU is answerable to the joint committee in the performance of its functions and will be able to further inform the committee of the progress and implementation of this legislation.

There is, therefore, no need to legislate for this in the Bill in such a specific and limiting manner. The joint committee is entitled to ask about the progress of this or any other policy measure within my remit, and it is only right and proper that it does so. Requiring this midway through the delivery process is unnecessarily binding. I, therefore, reject the amendment.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will respond only briefly. The Minister of State is probably very much aware of the tensions between EirGrid and the CRU. They are hardly speaking to each other. It is not easy for the committee to get answers when both parties disagree about how we got to this point. If we cannot include in legislation the provision of a post-enactment review after six months, we should at least have a debate, some sort of conversation or even a report back to the joint committee on how effective this legislation is and whether it is has been successful in achieving what we want.

Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I absolutely agree. Energy security is a critical issue and will continue to be the subject of debate in the Oireachtas. I am happy to facilitate such debate, which we will see in the joint committee, the Seanad and the Dáil.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 7, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: “Energy Storage System

12.The Minister shall, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, produce a report detailing how Ireland shall adapt a grid-connected battery designed to increase grid stability under adverse weather conditions and energy shortages or outages similar to the Hornsdale Power Reserve Australia grid-connected energy storage system.”.

This is the sixth amendment out of seven. As amendment No. 7 has been ruled out of order, this is the last amendment. None of the amendments have been accepted so far. I do not know what that means for this amendment but in any case I will get to the point quickly. I ask that the following be inserted on page 7, after lines 25:

The Minister shall, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, produce a report detailing how Ireland shall adapt a grid-connected battery designed to increase grid stability under adverse weather conditions and energy shortages or outages similar to the Hornsdale Power Reserve Australia grid-connected energy storage system.

To keep my contribution short and stop me wandering off, I have prepared a few thoughts on the rationale for the amendment and conscious of how progressive Australia is in this regard. It is using giant batteries, which the Minister of State will be familiar with, that pull energy from the grid at off-peak times, store it and push it back into the grid at peak times. This would be a much better way to proceed given it could use renewable energy as opposed to the carbon-based fuels we hear so much about and on which the Minister's solution relies, with his recently announced new fleet of jet engines.

The Hornsdale battery concept is the most sustainable and ecologically friendly solution. It would never have to be decommissioned unlike the turbines that run on the fossil fuels we hear so much about. The battery would aim to prevent backlogs during a period of network instability by providing grid support services, capturing and storing excess energy from sources such as wind farms and feeding into the grid during peak times or periods of outages.

As I said, the Minister last week announced that a fleet of jet engines will be bought to add power to the country's energy supply if outages loom. I understand the Minister has said he hopes some of the €350 million it will cost to purchase these turbines might be recouped by their onward sale. That is an interesting comment.

That is the rationale behind the amendment. I am interested to hear the Minister of State's considered response.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak briefly in favour of the amendment. I have raised the need to prioritise battery storage a couple of times at meetings of the joint committee. In Britain, battery storage is now displacing gas-powered generation. One of the concerns is about hybrid power plants for which we do not have the legislative framework, although it is part of the programme for Government. I would like to see that progressed so that battery storage can replace fossil-fuel generated electricity capacity.

Another area of concern is that this process is being controlled manually by the grid because the grid needs a software update to facilitate batteries providing that emergency capacity. We know batteries take power from the grid to charge up and then put that power back into the grid. This requires EirGrid to perform a software update, which I hope will be prioritised.

The other area of concern I have about batteries is one I will raise again when we debate horse racing and greyhound funding in the coming weeks.It is very clear that where applications are going in now for these battery storage facilities, very wealthy individuals are orchestrating very well-funded campaigns trying to object to battery storage. I hope that features when we are funding the industry.

Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It might be unexpected but I like this proposal. However, I question its relevance to the provisions of the Bill. This Bill is to provide for an exemption from the provisions of the environmental impact assessment, EIA, directive and for an alternative streamlined consenting process rather than determining particular types of storage technology.

The Senators appear to be proposing a policy paper to be produced on battery storage. I imagine that is to address issues they consider could contribute positively to the energy security issues that are at hand. While I am rejecting the amendment, I would like to take the opportunity to address this particular policy area. I hope I can reassure Senators that I share their concerns and interest in storage as a way to address these concerns. Work is already under way to investigate this area. The amendment is not, therefore, necessary.

Electricity storage refers to an array of technologies with the ability to capture energy at one time for use at a later time. Storage will play an essential role in the decarbonisation of the electricity sector because it can support the integration of high volumes of renewable generation and provide critical system services needed to manage a low-carbon electricity system. It can also support security of supply by storing electricity during times of excess supply and releasing it during periods where there is a shortfall between supply and demand.

Programme for Government: Our Shared Future contains a commitment to strengthen the policy framework to incentivise electricity storage. Building on this, the climate action plan in 2021 included a commitment to develop a storage policy framework that supports the achievement of electricity emissions targets, namely, action No. 124. My Department has committed to developing a storage policy that supports the 2030 Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, targets, with the policy to be published early next year. A consultation on the new storage framework will commence very shortly. In combination, the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, will be reviewing the regulatory treatment of storage including licensing, charging and market incentives, which is to be completed by the end of 2023.

However, it is also reported that a number of battery projects have been contracted via two mechanisms, that is, the single electricity market, SEM, capacity options and DS3 system services. These routes offer different but essential services to the power system on the island of Ireland. Therefore, while I am rejecting the amendment, I am sure the Senators will appreciate that policy work really is happening in this area. A consultation is about to start and the report is due to be published at the start of next year. I look forward to engaging with any Senators who wish to discuss the detail of it as it progresses.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his response, which illustrates what I set out today about whether any of the amendments be taken on board. The Minister of State has been given a script to read, which I respect; I know how this all works. I welcome his comments regarding the need for a policy paper on battery storage. As a matter of fact, I thought his commentary, or that of the civil servant which he read into the record, was quite positive and favourably disposed to the general rationale and concept I set out in the amendment. I do not take the Minister of State's contribution as being a negative. I thought it was very favourable and supportive. As he said on the record of the House, he was just not in a position to accept it. I accept that too.

I welcome the idea and would like to see some sort of policy engagement in terms of battery storage. When we look back on green policy, the Minister of State personally has been a strong advocate in this area of battery storage. It is something his party has very much promoted in the past. I ask him to perhaps provide detail on the public consultation. Things are moving on. As the Minister of State knows, we are on a political timetable with a countdown. We are halfway through our term in office, or I should say the Government's term in office.

Will the Minister of State take another look at or ask his officials to take on board Hornsdale and the Australian model? I think it is a good one. There is much information about it on the Internet. It is worth looking at that particular model. There is an important question around the whole issue of storage. Senator Boylan also touched on a number of issues about storage that are pertinent, although they are not necessarily for today; we do not have that sort of time.

I hear what the Minister of State is saying. I do not doubt his commitment to the area but we need to have more consideration of this issue. The Minister of State told us there will now be a public consultation, of which I was not aware. I welcome that. He might continue by telling us about the timelines for the public consultation he announced today.

Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am quite happy to look at the Australian model. It is very important to look at what is happening in other jurisdictions. That is cutting-edge technology and we will certainly look at that. Senator Boyhan should make those suggestions known when he is contributing to the public consultation, which I am sure he will.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will.

Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have not determined how long it will last.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When will it start?

Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Very shortly. It will be real soon.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will it be this side of Christmas?

Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just want to say something about the storage we have in Ireland at the moment. The Senator will be familiar with Turlough Hill. In total, in Ireland, we have 792 MW of storage. Of that, 500 MW is from battery. Therefore, we already have some battery storage in use. Those batteries have an average duration of less than one hour providing system services.

In addition to that, there is the 292 MW of pump storage at Turlough Hill, which provides system services to the grid and helps to balance the electricity supply and demand. Based on current activity, the system operator tells us that by 2026, it expects to have an additional 400 MW of batteries to provide further capacity and storage to the all-island power system.

I expect that the consultation will probably start within the next 30 days. That is something for the Senator to look forward to.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will not have enough time to get ready. I thank the Minister of State for that.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 7 has been ruled out of order as it is outside the subject matter of the Bill.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Now.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Fifth Stage?

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Now.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.