Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome staff from the Irish embassy in Berlin. I hope you enjoy your visit to Leinster House today and thank you for all of the work that you do. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, and thank him for coming to the House today.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(2) Section 4 of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act 1954 is amended by the insertion of the following:

“(4A) The Board shall borrow to invest in projects on the basis of a prioritisation framework which encompasses—

(a) congestion softeners in areas of high congestion,

(b) security encompassing hospitals, Garda stations, water safety and wastewater treatment,

(c) basic needs encompassing residential construction, and

(d) exceptional cases of public interest, and will exclude grid infrastructure upgrades or connections for data centres.

(4B) The Board shall, within 6 months of the commencement of this Act and annually thereafter, lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report detailing:

(a) the amount borrowed under section 4(4) of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act 1954;

(b) the purposes for which such borrowing was applied including a breakdown of project type;

(c) the projected borrowing required for the next year including a breakdown of project type;

(d) the impact on consumer electricity prices;

and the report shall be subject to review by the Oireachtas Committee on Climate, Energy and the Environment and the Oireachtas Committee of Public Accounts.

(4C) The Board shall ensure that any borrowing under this Act does not result in an increase in domestic electricity tariffs beyond inflationary adjustments, and shall publish an annual statement confirming compliance to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.”.”.

We have tabled two amendments in this grouping. Amendment No. 1 seeks to introduce a prioritisation framework for how the ESB uses this borrowing. We are all for the ESB being allowed to borrow extra money because we know it is needed in this country, but we need to ensure that what is being borrowed is being used for the public good. The bottom line is that we want it to be used for housing, Garda stations and schools before it is ever put into a data centre. The public good means for the good of the people living in Ireland so that we can actually build houses. We have umpteen houses that cannot get connections to the grid because it is already at capacity. We are all for the extra spending but we just want to see protocols put in place to ensure that this money is not pumped into data centres. We have to stop looking at the corporate side all of the time and start looking at the residential sector and at what is actually needed in this country.

We are asking for reports to be prepared on what this money is being used for and what projects it is being put into, in the first instance within six months and thereafter every 12 months. We are not seeking six-month reports constantly, but just in the first instance to see exactly how much has been borrowed, what it is being used for, if additional funds are needed and so forth.

Our amendments also seek to strengthen the governance around the ESB's capital stock by requiring the employee share scheme to be subject to an independent audit, with findings published every three months. What we are looking here for is oversight and proper governance. This is taxpayer's money and we need to ensure that we know where it is going and what it is being spent on. Again, we want it spent for the public good and not for corporate good. Members will be sick of hearing me say this but we housing over data centres, 100% and all of the time is what we need to be looking at.

Getting this extra money into the ESB is a good thing. We have seen from the most recent storms how much it takes to get electricity services back up and running and the levels of congestion on the grid. I live in rural Ireland and I know how difficult it can be after a storm. This money needs to be directed correctly to relieve grid congestion. We must make sure that the money is used for essential public service security in schools, hospitals and Garda stations, for housing-related basic needs and defined public interest projects. From time to time projects will come up that will need to connect to the electricity grid. Obviously we are not going to have it closed off or limited to four or five individual areas. Anything that comes under the term "public good" is what we want to provide for in our amendments.

Shane Curley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before I invite the Minister of State to respond, I congratulate Councillor Brendan Mulroy and his guests from the Jester Bar in Westport whose Relay for Life group has raised vital funds for the Irish Cancer Society. Councillor Mulroy also asked me to wish the best of luck to Kilmeena GAA club which is playing in the intermediate football final this weekend. I now invite the Minister of State to respond.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I join the Acting Chairman in wishing Kilmeena GAA club the very best of luck in the county final. I also acknowledge the tremendous Relay for Life team and committee. It is an outstanding organisation that has done Trojan work in terms of funding and continues to go above and beyond.

In response to Senator Collins, I thank her for her amendments. We certainly appreciate the wide support for this important legislation which is very much focused on the largest and most significant investment in our grid infrastructure in the history of the State. It is akin to rural electrification. This Bill is important because it allows the ESB to increase its borrowing and provides, for the first time, for an equity injection in the ESB which will reduce its overall borrowing. Unquestionably, we have a country that continues to grow and we have seen that in the demographics and in the national planning framework. There is ongoing monumental change in terms of usage and demand for electricity, so investment in the grid is critical. It will allow us not just to expand but also to modernise and reinforce our electricity network infrastructure. This legislation underpins PR6, which is our investment in the electricity grid and network over the course of the remainder of this decade.

Again, I thank Senator Collins for her suggested additions. She has explained that, under amendment No. 1, the proposed new subsection (4A) would involve the creation of a prioritisation framework. That framework would require investment in the grid to prioritise particular elements while excluding upgrades of connections of data centres. I genuinely recognise the positive intent of the proposal, which is to ensure that our electricity network development prioritises the connection and supply of hospitals, Garda stations, water systems and, of course, housing. However, we have seen the draft decision on PR6 and how it clearly itemises and identifies exactly what this grid investment is underpinning. It is underpinning the housing requirements of this country, the social infrastructure that we need, like schools, and the industrial infrastructure that we will require to facilitate future growth. I assure the Senator that PR6 takes many Government targets into account including, for example, the connection of up to 50,000 new homes per year and up to 1 million EVs.

Under EU law, connection and supply must be carried out in a non-discriminatory manner. We are currently considering this matter and will be happy to share this information once the review has concluded. Within PR6 there are 29 very significant projects for onshore network development planned and the vast majority of these will serve multiple needs. I have already mentioned enhanced security of supply, grid resilience and grid expansion.The project will enable us to bring additional renewable energy generation and distribution onto the grid. Ireland is a European leader when it comes to integration of renewables into our grid. While challenges remain, it is important to recognise that things have been done well, although we must do a lot more and in a quicker fashion.

The proposed subsection (4B) would place specific reporting requirements on the ESB regarding its borrowing. Those borrowings are already outlined and published in the ESB's annual report and its accounts are audited. In light of the significant investment by the State, and as part of the ongoing engagement with the ESB, we will develop a shared subscription agreement that will require ESB Networks to provide significant detail on how it is financing its programme of investment, including its debt-raising. As part of that agreement, the ESB will be required to deliver a quarterly report to the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, in relation to its ongoing expenditure, project management and delivery on the core infrastructure projects under PR6.

There will, of course, be the capability for the ESB, EirGrid and others to appear before the Oireachtas committees when required to do so, and rightly so. In addition to oversight by out Department, the CRU underpins the PR6 guidelines, which require a significant increase in reporting by ESB Networks on its expenditure and programme delivery. I am sure Members will agree that the combined effort of the CRU and my officials will result in significantly increased oversight of the Government's investment on behalf of its people. It will ensure value for money while also, and most importantly, focusing on assisting ESB Networks in any way possible to remove any roadblocks to delivery.

Regarding the impact of ESB borrowing on customer electricity prices, the amount charged to customers by electricity suppliers is a matter for those companies. We have already published the interim report of the national energy affordability task force and we introduced some additional measures in the budget. We are working on further long-term measures as we look towards the publication of the final report in 2026. We will look at issues such as network charges and the length of borrowing repayments with a view to reducing the charge on customers. The CRU will announce by the end of the year when it expects the impact of its major infrastructural delivery plan to be seen on people's bills. The cost of that work will be spread over a 25- to 50-year life span in terms of how it is recouped by ESB Networks for customers. Certainly, this investment in our grid will lead to lower system costs and reduced constraints on the network, including a reduced need to turn off wind turbines.

A significant investment that will drive down the overall cost of electricity is in the North-South interconnector. That is critical to delivering grid resilience and expansion and bringing the excess renewable energy produced in Northern Ireland to the areas of high-energy demand in the South. If we do not deliver that project, wind farms will not be able to generate at their capacity and we will be paying to turn them off. It makes absolute sense for this key infrastructure to be built. We must work collaboratively with local communities to ensure it is delivered.

The proposed new subsection (4C) would prevent any borrowing activity by the ESB that could lead to increases in domestic electricity tariff rates beyond inflation and would require the ESB to publish an annual statement confirming compliance. Under its legal mandate, the CRU, as the independent regulator, is responsible for the network tariffs and grid investment plans. Network charges are primarily a means by which grid infrastructure is funded. Through the equity investment in the ESB and the further equity investment we will make in EirGrid, we are reducing the amount of borrowing required. The CRU sets the network tariff to align with the grid investment plan. It would not be appropriate to legislate to restrict activities relating to that effort.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Nessa Cosgrove (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not oppose any investment in the ESB infrastructure - it is very welcome - but what I am concerned about, and what I do oppose, is where this investment will go and what the money is to be spent on. I will speak in support of the amendments tabled by both Senators Collins and Higgins. All their amendments are really well thought out. They make a lot of sense and they have put a lot of work into them. I really hope the Minister of State listens to these amendments because there is a very palpable feeling in the House and the country that data centres are taking more than their fair share of the energy available and are putting the stability of the grid at risk while offering very little in terms of direct employment or other benefits. There is a broad range of opinions in this and, in fairness, they should all be listened to. However, we know that data centres currently consume almost one quarter of Ireland’s electricity and that is predicted to rise towards one third in coming years. No matter how we look at it, that is not sustainable. If we do not start putting more rigorous controls in place around the construction and fuelling of often billionaire-owned data centres, we as a country are sending a very clear signal to the world and to extractive industries that we have basically abandoned our climate targets and we are open to any kind of business.

The effective moratorium on new data centres in the Dublin region, which has been in place since 2021, needs to be extended nationwide. I understand the presence of so many tech firms in Dublin means there is a logic to the housing of data centres in Ireland and that our cool climate seems to offer the perfect environment for data centres but their very presence is putting that very climate and environment at risk.

Data centres are dependent upon huge amounts of electricity - we know this. As Senator Higgins said, they are already using all the additional green energy we have generated over recent years, meaning that we have made no progress at all in our climate goals on energy use. By pure chance, the DataCentres Ireland conference starts tomorrow here in Dublin. A quick glance at the programme shows that the industry is fully aware of the challenges that face it and the impact its demand will place upon the grid. The sector is concerned about the grid capacity and the number of panel discussions and presentations due to take place tomorrow about the grid and its inability to supply the needs of the sector is noteworthy. Over the last 12 months, we have seen how fragile our electricity supply is. Living in the north west, I know this more than many. To keep adding more and more to the load will not only make matters worse. Providing power separate from the grid - perhaps a dedicated off-grid generation unit for each data centre - may be a solution and is certainly a solution that many data centres seem to be pursuing but that puts into sharp relief the link Senator Higgins’s amendments Nos 3 to 6 have drawn between data centres and the fossil fuel industry and fossil fuel infrastructure. We cannot allow the insatiable appetites of data centres to lead us down a path towards LNG. We know LNG is a gas that is rich in methane, which is 80 times more warming than carbon dioxide.We cannot be moving towards any other fossil fuel infrastructure that will do nothing for ordinary consumers and put us even further away from meeting our climate commitments. I find it baffling. Let us be clear that we do not need any more data centres. As both Senators here have said we need more hospitals, Garda stations, water safety, wastewater treatment plants and homes and we definitely need to meet our legally binding climate targets, which we will not be on course to do if we keep heading down towards this road. Until the data centre sector identifies and provides adequate supplies of renewable energy electricity to power itself, we should not be encouraging further development of data centres. We should not be funding them or the polluting fossil fuel infrastructure it requires, so I am happy to support the amendments raised by Senators Collins and Higgins.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will enter the debate on data centres. First, I put on the record that I have been working with Echelon Data Centres since 2017 to try to attract them out of a constraint area into the town of Arklow, County Wicklow. We must learn from our history, I will not deny that, but it is about how we can move forward with both data centres and housing. It is not about one or the other. In fairness, there has only been one grid connection given to a data centre in the past four years because of the continuous amendment of the CRU policy in relation to the large-scale energy usage policy, which we are still waiting for.

I will tell a slightly different story than is being portrayed today about Echelon and how it successfully got its grid connection, because no data centre can start without that grid connection. With that, you can proceed. Without it, you cannot. I ask Senators to look at that connection to see what is included in it. First, Echelon can no longer take energy from the grid if it is under constraint. If there is pressure on the grid, Echelon is not allowed take the energy from it. Second, it has to support the grid when the grid is under constraint. Third, all its energy has to be generated on-site in a sustainable manner. It is the first company to partner with an offshore supplier, SSE Renewables, to build the critical infrastructure Senators are talking about to land the energy from the sea onto the land for distribution. It is a model for how we can move forward with data centres and housing.

We have also just received a briefing at the housing committee from EnergyCloud Ireland about wasted energy every night from wind energy that is going absolutely nowhere. This is where data centres play a role. They have demand 24-7. They will use that energy when nobody else is using it. They have battery storage facilities. They are doing it in a sustainable manner and even have a guide path to carbon neutral by 2033. That is the model of data centres we need in Ireland. It is not about housing or data centres. It is about how we can both work together and come together because we need the offshore wind. If offshore wind does not have data centres tomorrow to use its energy it will never be financially viable and will never happen. We have the discussion about one or the other, but we have to be open and honest and look at the wider implications. Yes, Dublin is within the constraint area. That is why Echelon looked at Arklow. It is redeveloping the IFI site in Arklow, which has lain idle since 1,100 employees were left off when the fertiliser factory closed. We are regenerating a brown field site. We need to look at how we do this in the future and learn from the past. However, there is a pathway where both can be delivered together. Equally, in fairness to Echelon, which has yet to turn the sod, it has invested in communities in County Wicklow to the tune of over €3.5 million so far. It has yet to break the ground. It took it four years to get the grid connect, and rightly so. It has to be done in a sustainable manner. It is not about one or the other. It is how we bring both together, so we do not lose golden opportunities that this country has.

We are one of the leaders on data centre engineering. Our expertise in data centres is exported across the world. LMH Engineering in Arklow is fitting out all data centres for Meta across the whole of Europe. That is expertise Ireland has. It is scaling up now and will hopefully have 400 jobs on a site in Arklow based on data centres. Those are engineering jobs. The investment in Arklow from Echelon is approximately €3.5 billion before the occupier of the site comes in to employ. KPMG reports that 700 people will be employed across the two sites when that project is fully completed and operational in between five and ten years’ time.

We do need to have a conversation, but the conversation needs to be balanced. It needs to be balanced about how we can bring both together and not lose that critical investment for this country and the jobs it brings. It is not just the data centre jobs. It is the engineering jobs and the jobs in the locality that build off that. It is the commercial rates that every council will get from them. If that happens in Arklow tomorrow morning, the commercial rates in Wicklow will go up by 30%. That is a huge volume of money coming in for the county. The development levies are in the region of €30 million. Let us not lose sight of how important some of this investment is to Wicklow. It might mean nothing in Dublin, and it would not mean anything in Dublin. However, if you go to a community like Arklow, which has not had a private housing estate built for 15 years because there is no wastewater treatment plant, this brings new life to it. We have a new wastewater treatment plant. We now have significant capital investment and the likes of LMH delivering high-level engineering jobs based on that industry. Let us have a wider conversation and not just keep coming in here and blaming data centres for everything. That is just an observation.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As it is now past 6 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Seanad of this day: "That section 2 is hereby agreed to in Committee; in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section is hereby agreed to in Committee; the Title is hereby agreed to in Committee; the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment; Fourth Stage is hereby completed; the Bill is hereby received for final consideration; and the Bill is hereby passed."