I move amendment No. 2: In page 7, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: “ “emergency use only” has the meaning as defined by the N-1 infrastructure standard defined by EU Regulation 2017/1938 only. A Strategic Emergency Gas Reserve under this Act and all future Acts relating to its construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning cannot be used for management of day-to-day energy demand;”. What we want to do is provide a definition of "emergency use only" and insist on it. This is a simple-----

Sentiment score: -0.15

Is it section 2 or amendment No. 2?

Sentiment score: -0.15

Amendment No. 12 was grouped with amendment No. 1.

Sentiment score: -0.20

Should I move amendment No. 12 then?

Sentiment score: -0.15

Will I continue on amendment No. 2?

Sentiment score: -0.15

As I said, this is a simple, but critical amendment. It is because "emergency use only" must and should be clearly defined in law and a strategic gas reserve such as the one proposed should be a measure of last resort and a limited, emergency tool rather than a permanent fossil fuel lock-in. Therefore, we hope that this amendment will put clear legal boundaries on what the reserve is, as defined by the EU's N-1 standard. That matters because, without these definitions, the emergency reserve risks becoming business-as-usual gas infrastructure. Ireland is already reliant on fossil fuels for 81% of its energy. This Bill cannot deepen that dependency. The amendment proposes that the reserve be a backstop and not a crutch. It cannot be used to address localised network constraints or routine increases in gas demand. It should not be for day-to-day use. It is for emergency use, as outlined when it was proposed initially, and the Bill must not be used to construct infrastructure for business-as-usual operations.

Sentiment score: -0.09

Arising out of what the Minister said, if he does not have a problem with it being temporary or emergency, he should accept the amendments. The Minister mentioned renewable energy and the progress that, he says, has been made with offshore wind. However, in our view and in the view of some Government people also, the Government and previous Governments have been sitting on their hands in relation to offshore wind. We have untapped potential of 540 GW and by 2030, we will find it difficult to match 5 GW. The Minister also mentioned that he has no control over the planning process but, in fact, while he might not be making the decisions, he would have had the power to appoint more High Court judges and appoint more staff to an coimisiún, and previously to An Bord Pleanála, but that was not done. Most of the delays can be attributed to the lack of staffing in those organisations. This is all important. In the amendments about temporary use, which Deputy Cronin had moved, it is important that it actually be temporary use. The Government itself has said that it will probably take five years to create it and then it will be in existence for approximately ten years after that. Is that temporary then? Certainly, it is more medium to long term than a short-term solution to a potential problem that has been outlined. We have asked for a definition of temporary, whereby it should not become permanent by default, with a ten-year limit on the operation, regular reviews every three years and a clear expiry clause unless it is renewed by the Oireachtas. Critically, we want a requirement for a decommissioning plan, also within 12 months, because you cannot build infrastructure such as this without planning an off-ramp or out-clause at the end of it. If it is truly an emergency measure, it should not become an permanent feature. On a broader level, energy security is a fundamental responsibility of Government - keeping the lights on - and this Government has failed in that regard. Instead of delivering a secure, independent, all-island affordable and sustainable energy system, what we have is the first part of a Bill, which is rushed and flawed, repeating the exact same mistakes that have got us here in the first place, with ordinary people asked to pay the price and fork out. As the Minister himself said, we are exposed to geopolitical conflict. We import 80% of our energy. That was never a pathway to energy security but we are still vulnerable because of the failure to invest over the years in offshore wind, in renewables and in our energy future. As we move towards a united Ireland, we need to have an energy system that is destined to be used by the whole of the island. Rather than fixing these structural failures, this Bill is doubling down, locking us further into fossil fuel dependence. It would never have been suggested a number of years ago that we would have to bring in fracked gas, on which there was a ban, but in the immediate aftermath of the last election, it was trumpeted that the ban on fracked gas had been removed by this Government. That is why we have brought forward our comprehensive set of amendments, not to obstruct but to help and to protect households, the public interest and our energy future. We will get to some of them later when we are talking about the potential increase to household bills.

Sentiment score: 0.06

After the last general election, there was almost an unseemly rush to be out to congratulate the Government by some people for its change of mind in relation to fracked gas. It comes down to the basic issue of fairness and a just transition. We have heard about the issues in respect of destroying communities in the United States. Affordability of energy is also fundamental and is something that should be prioritised. Unfortunately, however, it has often been treated as an afterthought by this Government and previous Governments. When the strategic gas reserve was first announced, it was said that ongoing operational costs would be paid for through the introduction of a new levy or by being integrated into an existing one. In other words, ordinary people will foot the bill, or it is the intention that they will foot the bill, for the Government’s failure to guarantee our energy security over many years. Families across the State are already dealing with some of the highest energy prices in Europe. I do not need to go into this topic again today. Ordinary people paying their bills, ordinary householders, did not design this broken system. They should not, therefore, be forced to pay for a solution and a problem that the Government has created. The amendments that we brought forward, and the subsequent amendments, are clear that the Government must guarantee there is no socialisation of costs into the bills of households or SMEs. There should be a requirement for the regulator to assess the full cost of the impact on households. We have had other legislation giving more power to the regulator to hold energy companies to account, for example. There should also be an obligation on the Minister to mitigate the costs because energy security cannot come at the expense of affordability, given how tardy the Government has been with offshore and renewable energy over many years. The Government is supposed to be a safety net for people and not the other way around. This infrastructure, if it is strategic, must be State-led. Unfortunately, this State has less investment in offshore wind in our own waters than the French state and the Norwegian state. There should be more public involvement to move towards energy affordability, because private companies are obviously going to have to make increased profits year after year. If this infrastructure is State-led, publicly owned and operated in the public interest, that could go some way to reducing energy bills. Otherwise, it is hard to guarantee it. Without the guarantee of this being State-led, it could - and we have seen it in the previous amendments - risk opening the door to commercial LNG development and private profit. Energy security is not a commercial venture. Energy security, keeping the lights on, is a fundamental responsibility of the State. While this reserve has been justified as an emergency measure, it is important, as we have seen in the last amendment, that any strategic gas reserve should be for emergency use only. It should also not become permanent by default, and this is why we proposed the ten-year limit. The reserve must not be used to drive further fossil fuel lock-in. As we mentioned earlier, and as was discussed, we use 80% imported fuels. We also have an amendment to require annual reporting to the Oireachtas. Without this, the infrastructure creates its own momentum. We see that it will take five years to build this facility and that it will be in operation for ten years, at least, so that is 15 years in total, so there is a very big danger of lock-in. This Bill, as we said previously, is being rushed through without proper scrutiny, and this is unacceptable. Our amendments require independent assessment that this approach is necessary, proportionate and the best available option, and that there be an ongoing biannual review. Crucially, a future assessment of alternatives, including renewables, interconnections, storage and demand-side measures, should also be included in the Bill. The legislation is being rushed through, however, so the reality is that this is unlikely to happen. It is not good enough. Communities are being sidelined, and public consultation and democratic accountability, it seems, have not been used and are not going to happen.

Sentiment score: 0.13