I want to bring the Minister of State back to something specific which matters more than the amendment I tabled. During pre-legislative scrutiny, the joint committee made a recommendation which states: The Minister shall authorise a transparent and publicly available cost-benefit analysis not less than 60 days prior to any decision which shall inform the approval process of the proposed development. It recommended that this analysis should have regard to the adopted carbon budgets and sectoral ceilings under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Acts, the most recent climate action plan and the Government-approved electrification pathways. I had the backing of the committee on this. The Minister of State indicated that the Bill is just for planning. Why not put this into the Bill now in order that we, as legislators, can see a cost-benefit analysis done, particularly as the only publicly available one was done in 2023? In the context of a €900 million investment, it would be of much more benefit if we could see how many more GW or MW might possibly be added at multiple ports. We know Belfast is one of the only ports on the island that can handle large-scale offshore renewable energy, ORE. I urge the Minister of State to bring this to the Department. We have not seen that, so it is difficult for us to go in blindfolded. All the committee members received a letter saying that while the Bill before us will provide an expedited planning consent pathway, the next Bill will, as the Minister of State outlined, set out the operation, use and potential cost. With a €900 million piece of energy infrastructure, we need to know what is in scope and how much could have been done by means of an alternative approach. I am familiar with the argument about energy security and lower cost energy- and the Minister of State can correct me if I am wrong – in the first 24 hours of the Iran-US war, global LNG prices rose by 43%. If we are looking to secure energy, surely having our own low-cost ORE batteries would help. I like the fact that other Deputies mentioned my batteries. I would have loved for all of them to have come to my meeting in the audiovisual room. Some did not attend. Representatives from Energy Storage Ireland were there. They spoke about the difficulties the company is having at the moment. I welcome the announcements by the Department in relation changing the cost of battery chargers. That is brilliant. Sodium batteries are the best batteries. These will be how we can decentralise our grid. They need to be looked at as part of any cost-benefit analysis. That is not a radical ask, it would hold us to a correct standard. Will this matter be given the serious consideration it deserves? The members of the climate committee deserve to see this information. It was noted that while it will be taken into consideration, it is not relevant to this Bill. I am not opposed to the Bill in principle, but I would urge that we get a cost-benefit analysis because we are being asked to approve a framework that cedes significant planning and environmental disapplication powers worth hundreds of millions of euro. The estimated cost is €900 million, but other things were estimated at €900 million previously and ended up costing €2.5 billion. In that context, I ask that we take a good approach and that a cost-benefit analysis be carried out. It could strengthen the case. I might welcome this with more open arms if a cost-benefit analysis were done. I asked about this and was informed yesterday that Annex IV C is the most up-to-date analysis which considers the estimated cost of this Bill in comparison with the alternative mitigation options considered. There was no more detailed cost-benefit analysis publicly available, beyond the one conducted and the preliminary business case. I ask that it is issued to us as legislators as we are making a huge decision on the infrastructure of our country. I would like if that could be taken back to the Department.

Sentiment score: 0.17