83. Deputy Pa Daly asked the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment the engagements he has had with the regulator and energy suppliers to ensure that the determination of PR6 and the renewable heat obligation do not place upward pressure on household energy bills; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [60288/25]
Sentiment score: 0.30
The amount that can be raised through network charges to fund grid upgrades and the renewable heat obligation will come up soon. The Minister mentioned he has spoken to energy suppliers, but has he spoken to them as well as the regulator on the pressures these will put on household energy bills? While we accept that investment in the grid and transition to renewable heat are essential, what safeguards will be put in place to shield householders from increases?
Sentiment score: 0.26
Most people will know, and the people in the Gallery will know, that the need for the grid upgrades is driven in part by the growing energy demands of data centres, whose usage has increased by 400% since 2015. Therefore, all the extra energy we are creating in renewables is being gobbled up by the data centres. The Government's own officials last November, in a memo issued by the Department of public expenditure, pointed out that the upward pressure on energy bills is due mainly to data centre expansion. That followed a warning from the Secretary General of the Minister's own Department in May that data centre growth could threaten our ability to solve the housing crisis. We have repeatedly highlighted the unfairness in the funding model for our grid, but the draft or interim decision for PR6 in July seems to ingrain this. Under the CRU's draft decision, households and SMEs will see their electricity network charges increase but the data centre users will see reductions of up to 18%.
Sentiment score: 0.10
I think we all agree that the equity investment we were discussing last night is necessary. Unfortunately, however, there does not seem to be anything there to safeguard against repeating past mistakes to ensure that the investment is directed towards the social good and to prioritising energy affordability. One company, Energia, justified its recent price hikes based on the network charge increases. On its website it says that it has worked to minimise the impact on customers but that the price changes are unavoidable. At a recent appearance before the committee, however, concerns were raised that network charge increases could not be used to explain its recent price hikes because the network charges increased by €29 but its charges increased by €200. This suggests that the energy suppliers may be using network costs to facilitate extra profit, which is not surprising. To date, the committee has received no update from the regulator about its justification. At a minimum, we need transparency as to how the costs are translated into bills and mechanisms to safeguard against profiteering.
Sentiment score: 0.23
I am standing in for Deputy Carthy. I ask the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment his proposals to increase the amount of polyethylene terephthalate, PET, plastic recycled in Ireland. The EU is discussing collating data. We have to export a huge proportion of it. Since the deposit return scheme was introduced, the recycling rate has risen from 49% to 91%, 76% of which is from the deposit return scheme and 15% of which is from mixed recycling. Some €4.6 million was spent on public awareness last year and €50.7 million on administrative costs. While the deposit return scheme has achieved progress, there are serious questions about transparency, compensation and unreturned deposits.
Sentiment score: 0.17
What measures are being taken to ensure a greater proportion of the plastic is recycled? When will they be put in place? Schemes like the deposit return scheme can only be successful with public support. Of course it is, in effect, based on taxpayers' money via the rebate. With the most households already stretched, every additional cent has to be justified. We need transparency. I know that Re-Turn produced its annual report in August. It failed to disclose the CEO salary, but what we did learn raises questions about how the collected revenue is being used. Five members of the management team were paid €1.1 million in 2024, When it was questioned recently by the Business Post, Re-Turn declined to comment on how much compensation was connected to the package of the CEO. It is, therefore, the second year in a row that it did not disclose key management personnel compensation. The compensation increased by 50% when the board met less often in 2024 compared to 2023. Three quarters of the board is made up of representatives of the drinks industry. They are obliged to conduct a scheme. Will the Government disclose this information to increase accountability, transparency and support from the public?
Sentiment score: 0.17
I thank the Minister of State for that part of the reply, but the question about what happens to the Re-Turn money and the money made from the scheme requires a bit more clarity. The unredeemed deposits are worth over €100 million. Income generated from producer fees and recycled material is €50 million and although the report mentions unreturned deposits of €66 million, it was actually €103.2 million, so Re-Turn deducted €36 million as an estimate of how much deposits would be returned after the year end. These are substantial sums we are talking about, and the public is entitled to know how it will be used because the taxpayer, in effect, is paying the bill. Does the Minister of State know how long Re-Turn will hold the unredeemed deposits? What are its obligations? How will the other income generated be used or returned for the public good? It is scandalous that nearly 90% of the plastic collected is shipped out of Ireland - 7,000 tonnes of plastic - and Re-Turn claims that this is because we do not have the facilities. Has the Minister of State discussed how the unreturned deposits can be given to the public good, and what measures will be used to increase our recycling capacity?
Sentiment score: 0.21