Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 Oct 2024

I wish to ask the Minister what the Government's position on LNG is and whether the position has changed from the position outlined in the programme for Government that the Government does not support the importation of fracked gas and that "we do not believe that it make sense to develop LNG gas import terminals importing fracked gas." What are the implications the development of an LNG terminal of any sort would have on Ireland's climate targets and will the Minister make a statement on the matter?

The Government's policy has not changed. As set out in the Government's policy statement on the importation of fracked gas, the Government does not support the importation of fracked gas. Ireland is committed to halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and being carbon neutral by 2050. In future most of our energy needs will be met by renewable energy, which will be the anchor of our energy security. The only consideration by this Government of LNG facilities is in the context of energy security. The Government does not support the commercial import of LNG as the development of infrastructure for the commercial of import of LNG would be inconsistent with the decarbonisation strategy established under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021.

The Government does not support the commercial import of LNG as the development of infrastructure for the commercial import of LNG would be inconsistent with the decarbonisation trajectory established under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, as amended.

The Government's policy on energy security is set out in Energy Security in Ireland to 2030 report which was approved and published in November 2023. The report determines that Ireland’s natural gas supplies and infrastructure are adequate to meet our demand projections. However, Ireland does not have adequate resilience in case of a major disruption to our sub-sea gas imports pipelines and does not currently meet minimum EU standards in this area. It is in this context only that a State-led gas facility was recommended in the report.

A State-led strategic gas emergency reserve, operating on a non-commercial basis for use only in the event of an emergency, would provide resilience to the gas system and mitigate against the major consequences for our society and our economy that would arise from a significant gas supply disruption in Ireland.

As a final element of the energy security review, Gas Networks Ireland is undertaking a detailed analysis of the strategic gas emergency reserve. In parallel, my Department is developing the appropriate policy and legislative measures to ensure the facility could provide the resilience to our energy system.

One of the issues on which further research and information is necessary relates to the timeline for introducing such a facility and the timelines within which gas demand may fall to reduce the risk. We know that in this decade, we are at risk and are exposed. Given the likelihood that delivery of a strategic gas reserve facility may not happen until early in the next decade, analysis is required as to whether the planned dramatic reduction in gas use, particularly in the electricity generation sector, means that an alternative way to meet the energy security risk might be better. For example, further electricity interconnectors with the UK or France or what is fast-evolving long-term storage capability. This further research is something I have called for and that the Department is looking at it before going back to the Government and Oireachtas with detailed analysis.

There seems to be a contradiction in the Minister's response in terms of considering alternatives to LNG and the amendments that were rushed through at the eleventh hour for the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2023 last week. Is the Minister of the view that LNG that does not have fracked gas can be introduced? It strikes me as very difficult to separate the two issues at all. Does the Minister believe that, even theoretically, we could have LNG that is not from fracked gas?

Regarding the potential for LNG, how is it consistent with the criteria that were set down in the draft energy security review? These included that it needs to be State-led to avoid lock in; must not increase gas demand; must be temporary; must be for emergency use and, most important, must be in line with the climate Act. It strikes me that the amendments brought in the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2023 are a Trojan horse for LNG in the State.

I believe it is possible for us - if we require a facility - to set conditions in a State-led facility for security only, that it would only be non-fracked gas that would be held. That is possible as one of the conditions that a State-led facility might be set out. There is no Trojan horse here. People have completely misunderstood that amendment. It was purely technical in nature. It had been a long time coming in making sure that as we change the foreshore licensing system towards a new planning system that there would not be discrepancies between onshore and offshore facilities. The amendment was purely technical in nature, to make sure that all the various elements of existing legislation aligned. It gave no signal whatsoever - or should not have been seen as a signal in any way - that we are changing policy in terms of the switch back towards a commercial LNG facility. That is absolutely clear. We stick with the statement set out in November 2023 that any facility could only be temporary, security and State-led and could not breach our climate limits. All those conditions set out in the energy security paper in November 2023 still stand.

I am deeply concerned that if that is the Minister's assessment of the matter, it is entirely incorrect. Whoever steps in to Government buildings after the next election - particularly if it is Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael together - last week, driven through by Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party, we wrote into legislation what is essentially the formula to deliver LNG. That is my deep concern and my political assessment.

In terms of the Minister's assessment of where things go from here and those alternatives to LNG that have been offered for potential consideration, what does the Minister think they are? There were some reports that maybe some of GNI's latest reports might say that LNG might not be necessary or a solution. What does the Minister envisage? He mentioned interconnection. What does it look like?

This has been a long, drawn-out process, because it is important to get it right. The original study started in 2021. We approached SEPA, a consultancy company which did a lot of detailed analysis to the end of this decade. Furthermore, when we had agreed our energy security paper, we commissioned GNI to look at various options such as onshore, offshore, gas caverns and so on. They came back to us saying that it likely would not be until the next decade that a facility would be available and that it would have certain characteristics. They favoured a floating storage regassifacition unit, FRSU, system, which was different from what we had originally thought, in terms of the amount of boil-off gas and some other technical aspects.

What has also changed in recent years is that we have seen the ability for interconnectors to dramatically improve and help us in energy security and emissions in the State. Given that there is the potential for new interconnectors to be connected to us, early in the next decade, that may provide a much better security option than having to have a gas backup facility. We have to do the detailed analysis as to what is the demand curve on gas - particularly including peak demand - and can we cover that in other ways.

What has also changed and needs further analysis is short-term and long-term battery storage. This has dramatically changed in the past two years, since this research started. It is that sort of analysis that I am looking to see, that we may not need any facility.

My question is on the same topic. I do not know if the Minister just takes everybody for a fool. Does he really expect people to believe that after the Government brings in amendments to designate LNG terminals as strategic infrastructure, which gets to bypass the normal planning process, it is a technical thing? This is in the context of many of the Green Party's coalition partners being on the record forcefully and repeatedly advocating for LNG terminals. Get real here. Either the Minister is incredibly naive and I do not believe he is that naive, or he is playing a game. There is a massive push to get fossil fuel infrastructure, LNG terminals, developed. The legislation is being amended to make it easier for this to happen.

There is no game here and nobody is being taken for a fool. Not only am I not naive, I have a record going back 30 years of absolute commitment to climate action in our country, particularly in the area of keeping fossil fuels in the ground. For decades, we have campaigned and worked in that area and nothing has changed in that regard. The Government position has not changed. The Deputy has heard no one from the Government side say that we are going back on the energy security strategy statement, which said we would not have a commercial facility. This was very clear. The amendment was purely technical in nature but we also had a court decision. We have to be careful not to comment on court decisions but some may have drawn an inference from this that there was a change and Government policy would be undermined. I do not believe the court decision had anything really to do with Government policy. It was addressing more technical issues regarding how An Bord Pleanála goes about its processes. The actual Government position has stayed the same. We are not doing commercial facilities. That is rock solid, 100% certain and as clear today as it was three weeks ago, six months ago and a year ago. I hope that certainty puts the Deputy's mind at rest. We do have security issues that need to be looked at. We have always been upfront about this. We printed the policy and published it, agreed it in this House, and discussed in some detail how we would manage a situation where Russia or another actor was to be able to take out a gas pipeline, which has happened in other European countries. I have looked to see how we manage that question in a proper, scientific, engineering and analytical way. One option would be to go with a facility like the FRSU, which would be temporary, State-led and, as Deputy O'Rourke said when he set out all the conditions, not in breach of our climate laws

It is frustrating that it can take time, but further analysis is warranted to see if we could do it in a different way. That is what I am working on.

I am sorry but that does not assuage any of my concerns. Oisín Coghlan is chief executive of Friends of the Earth, which is not the wing of the environmental movement that is most critical of the Green Party. It has sometimes spoken positively about the party's record in government. Oisín Coghlan has said:

You don’t legally designate something you oppose, or aren’t sure we need, as strategic! The contradiction is so absurd it feels like the Government is gaslighting us.

He goes on to say that if facilitating an LNG import terminal getting approval is the last thing the Government does, the legacy of the Greens in government will be in tatters. That is the truth. That is the reality. The arguments the Minister has made about it do not give me any confidence. For example, in response to the earlier question, the Minister said that a way could be found to ensure that only non-fracked gas is imported. He keeps citing the Government's policy statement. That statement is very clear that there is no legal way of doing that under current EU law. It sets that out. Will the Minister outline how this is going to be done without EU laws being changed?

The key document here is our energy security paper from November last year, which looked at a whole range of different risks to energy security. That is the place where we say that the only facility we could or would introduce is one that is purely temporary, strategic and security oriented. In those circumstances, where the project is State-led, I believe conditions could be set as regards the amount of security to be provided, not having fracked gas and so on. I am absolutely confident that is deliverable and doable.

To my mind, Friends of the Earth is misreading what the amendment is about. It is complex and technical and goes back many months in a very complicated Bill. There was a potential risk arising from onshore facilities and offshore facilities being under different planning regimes. We had to ensure a standardised approach. Strategic infrastructure provisions are very common. A number of wind farms have to go through it. It is not just fossil fuel infrastructure. It does not mean that the planning process is avoided. It still has to go through An Bord Pleanála. The amendment was just made to make sure there were not inconsistencies in our planning system. The fundamental question is whether we want such a commercial facility. Clearly, the Government is saying "No"

The Minister is saying that it could be ensured that fracked gas is not used in this so-called State-led LNG terminal. However, the Government's policy statement from May 2021 is clear. It is not possible for Ireland, under the European treaties or EU directives concerning common rules of the internal market in natural gas, to legislate for a ban on the import of fracked gas into Ireland or to prevent the processing of fracked gas in the State. Will the Minister enlighten us as to how this is going to happen? The truth is that importing LNG is worse for the environment than burning coal. Oisín Coghlan made the point that we may as well leave Moneypoint open and burning coal rather than building a new LNG terminal.

The Minister relies a lot on the term "State-led". What does that mean? Again, under EU law, it is not possible for a State to exclusively own or operate a fossil fuel terminal. What does the term "State-led" actually mean? It is designed to give the impression that this is in some way publicly owned or controlled but that is not the reality.

I take the Deputy's point that LNG potentially has the same emissions as coal. We will not be increasing our importation of LNG gas. That is agreed. We are not going to breach our climate change targets through any of this. That is an absolute given. That will hold firm in any court, in any debate and in any government, whether a future government or this Government. With a State-commissioned facility, we would be within our legal rights to say we would like a given amount of security, for the facility to operate within certain conditions and for it not to use fracked gas. If that is outlined in the commissioning of a project, I do not see a prospect of it being legally challenged. In commissioning, we would be looking for a facility to have certain characteristics. It is just commissioning by the State. I believe it can be done without any fracked gas. The key question here is what type of facility we want and whether, based on the further analysis I have asked the Department to do, we need any facility, which we may not. That would require loads of different elements including further interconnection, better storage and using the new anaerobic digestion source of gas and back-ups in our power stations and strategic oil reserves. There are a number of ways in which we can provide security. That is the key thing we need to look at.

Under section 9F of the Electricity Regulation Act 1999, as amended, the Commission for Regulation of Utilities is responsible for the regulation of gas installers with respect to safety. I refer the Deputy to the CRU, as a statutorily independent regulator, for updates and timelines on this matter in the first instance. The CRU will shortly seek to introduce a statutory instrument to regulate non-domestic gas works by expanding the scope of the registered gas installers, RGI, regime. My Department has delegated to the CRU responsibility to carry out the proportionality assessment for this proposed regulation, as required under SI 413/2022.

The CRU has provided further detail. It will shortly commence a public consultation on aspects of the expanded RGI scheme. A decision paper on scheme rules and obligations and an updated criteria document will be published as part of the consultation. The CRU has consistently engaged with stakeholders and held multiple public consultations from 2014 to 2022. Recent feedback from industry is informing the forthcoming consultation.

With regard to training and standards, expanding the scope of the RGI scheme will mean that gas installers working on non-domestic gas works must comply with the CRU’s gas criteria document and complete the domestic gas assessment of competency every five years. RGIs must ensure they work on installations for which they are competent. This includes non-domestic gas installations in their specific sector. This means they must have the ability, appropriate training, knowledge and experience to supervise or carry out the work being undertaken in a safe and proper manner.

I have been in contact with the CRU and there has been some progress in this regard. This question was prompted by concerns among gas installers and the installer representative panel regarding the proposal that the non-domestic regime would be merged with the domestic regime without additional training, specific certification or competencies. There were concerns about safety. There were a number of specific queries on the new proposals. RGIs not trained or competent in non-domestic gas works would be registered with unrestricted scope in all aspects of non-domestic gas works, enabling them to carry out a significant scope of works. Training would not be offered within the current domestic gas assessment cycle. It is important to regulate this sector and to bring it into scope but it needs to be managed in the right way. I acknowledge the increased engagement from the CRU in this regard.

I am reassured by Deputy O'Rourke's comments that some of those concerns may have been addressed. This development has been under consideration for ten years, going right back to 2014 when it was first proposed. In the intervening years, the CRU has carried out a lot of consultation. I can understand why people would be concerned about the implications of any change in their industry but I am absolutely confident. The sign that we are going to get this right is that we are not rushing it through and that further consultation is ongoing. We can make sure that the industry has all the necessary notice, training and capabilities to meet the standards. I do not believe anyone would fundamentally disagree with the principle that it is good to have registered workers working in a technical area in which safety is important. Higher standards will benefit the industry in the end. I believe the installers know that.

I absolutely agree. On the Minister's earlier point, for me and for the industry as a whole, it is about managing this transition and ensuring that standards and oversight are maintained. I will raise a point related to this.

Many of these facilities are unregulated, including communal heating systems. I have one in my area. The Minister would have dealt with my colleague, Ruairí Ó Murchú, regarding Carlinn Hall in Dundalk. There a number of apartment blocks in the city. In my area in Kells, there is The Glebe housing estate which is on bottled gas. The bottled gas is unregulated and they do not have the same consumer protections. Are renewable options being considered to get them off bottled gas? We spoke to Codema, which talked about industrial scale heat pumps. Will geothermal be an option for these folks? They want to get off this bottled gas from the providers and onto a more sustainable and affordable system.

Those domestic areas have already been regulated for some time. Deputy Ó Murchú has been consistent in representing his constituents who, during the gas price spike, found themselves facing huge increases, so I am familiar with that. To answer Deputy O'Rourke's question, the options he mentioned, particularly the likes of heat pumps or other renewable sources to provide more predictable pricing and a secure solution, is one of the ways we need to go. We need to look at district heating in a variety of different guises to meet our heating needs, right down to the individual estate or apartment development. There is real efficiency when a heating source is shared. There will be much innovation and development in that area.

The programme for Government commits that carbon tax revenues will be used to ensure carbon tax increases are progressive by spending €3 billion on targeted social welfare and other initiatives to prevent fuel poverty and ensure a just transition; to provide €5 billion to part-fund a socially progressive national retrofitting programme; and to allocate €1.5 billion to encourage and incentivise farmers to farm in a greener and more sustainable way. Between 2020 and 2023, my Department spent €482.1 million of carbon tax funds. A total of €472 million of these funds have been invested in Ireland's world-leading retrofit schemes, delivering 108,000 home energy upgrades, increasing from 17,546 in 2020 to 47,953 in 2023, and an increase in free upgrades under the warmer homes scheme, from 1,473 in 2020 to 5,898 in 2023, at an increased average cost of €25,000 per free upgrade.

A total of €8 million supported Ireland's contribution to the green climate fund to support developing countries to respond to climate change. Half a million was spent on the national just transition fund, supporting 56 locally led projects. In 2020, carbon tax funds were used to fund electric vehicle, EV, grants and EV infrastructure. Responsibility for that has since been transferred to the Department of Transport. This year, an allocation of €388 million of carbon tax funds is in place and will be spent.

It is fair to say that with the €3 billion the Government collects, what the Minister really did was head off to COP and sign us up to targets that we could never meet. We face fines of between €3 billion and €8 billion as a result. The Minister will be long gone into the sunset when that occurs. The hardship he has caused people who have bought electric vehicles is pretty dismal. They bought them in good faith that the Minister would put the infrastructure in place, having given them a very small partial grant, and that infrastructure is not in place. Now many face the position where they cannot trade those cars because they have halved in value. The car dealers are not able to sell them and therefore cannot take them in, so we are left in a position where the Minister wrote to Ursula von der Leyen to make up for his mistake. He wrote to her on 7 October, along with some other ministers in the EU, and asked her to take advantage of the corporate fleet, those who have a car for work and get benefit-in-kind. He is asking her to look at that and, as he put it, to tap into it. The potential, however, currently remains untapped. The Minister now wants to force the EU to correct his mistake and bring in some further imposition where he lacked the capability to put the infrastructure in place to deal with the electric car market. He put the cart before the horse and now people are left footing the bill.

I believe we can meet our climate obligations and targets, which we need to do to protect our people from the incredible damage that will be done if we do not stop runaway climate change. The fact that last year, our emissions dropped by 6.8% shows it is possible. It is not just for environmental reasons. There are many social benefits as we make this switch to green. There are also, critically, benefits for the economy. I happened to be at the European Energy Council today and at the European Environment Council yesterday. We were discussing the Draghi report, which is the centre of the new European economic strategy. It is all about going green. I do not think there was a country there which did not think that if it does not do this, it will fall behind and its economy will not function. I disagree with the Deputy fundamentally. I believe electric vehicles have a real future and that new cars will all be electric, because they are better cars and are cheaper to run, especially when we can run them on our own renewable power rather than having to import and send money to the Middle East, Russia or elsewhere. This transition is coming. It will be good for our people. This Government has made incredible strides in that direction, as we can see with the numbers of houses being retrofitted. The number of electric vehicles on the road has taken a temporary reduction but it will come back because they are better cars and we will have the infrastructure to service them, including the renewable power.

They are better cars. yet the Minister is putting tariffs on Chinese cars at half the price. He really does not want people to drive them, does he? The Minister did put the cart before the horse. I am not denying that the transition will take place, but the reality is the Minister has left some people in a financially disadvantaged position because of his inability to provide the infrastructure. We have allowed the Chinese to flood the market with cars that are built at half the price, might I add, from coal-powered energy. Sometimes people see the Minister going off and signing up to targets that mean little or nothing except billions in fines for this country. That is what makes them suspicious of the green agenda. Everybody has bought into the green agenda, but it seems to be costing some people more. It seems to be costing our fishing fleet and farmers more, all because the Minister has signed up to targets which are just not achievable, not in the timeframe for which the Minister signed up to them. He has decimated sectors of rural Ireland without a second thought.

I fear that the Deputy's words may be stoking suspicion and are not a true reflection of what is actually happening. First, we will likely meet our target for the number of electric vehicles on the road by the end of next year. I would like to see it higher and faster but we are on track. We are providing infrastructure. This summer, we agreed major investment, which is actually happening and being built, with high-speed fast charging in our motorway stations, and in our sports clubs across the country, where people will be able to go to the match or to the kids' training and charge at the same time. We are putting €100 million into exactly that infrastructure. Some 80% of Irish vehicles are charged at home, which gives us a real advantage. Distances are not so long in Ireland. All these new cars can work within the ranges we might need them to do on our island. We have one of the more advanced and better developed systems. We were one of the first, because the Green Party was in government ten years ago. We started this transition then by building out the first national network of charging systems. The Deputy could stoke suspicions by saying it is all terrible and we are the worst. We are not. I agree with the Deputy that Irish people want to make this green leap. They want to make this change. They are doing it in their homes, in how they manage transport and on our farms. It is happening, despite the suspicions the Deputy refers to.

The reality is that, 20 years ago, the Green Party told everybody to buy diesel, that it was the energy of the future. The Green Party said that was the science. The science suddenly changed to buying electric. Now we are in a position where people bought electric but there is no infrastructure to support it. The electric cars are now coming from China at half the cost and are built with coal-fuelled energy. The Minister talks about suspicion.

There is a delusion in this country that we are going to take the cleanest diesel engines from trucks with euro 6 engines and put them on freight trains that are not even euro 1.

What I would love to see Deputy Murphy supporting, as part of this new investment to a green economy, is the investment in Rosslare Harbour. It is at the centre of a new, cleaner way of doing things, including the reintroduction of rail freight and the restoration of the rail line from Wexford to Waterford-----