Apologies have been received from Deputies Cooney and Kenny. Before I begin, I want to bring to everyone's attention that witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that witnesses have a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at the committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse the privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's discretion. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside of the proceedings held by the meeting of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against either a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of Members participating online in the committee meeting where their participation is from within the parliamentary precinct. Members may not participate online in a public meeting from outside the parliamentary precinct. Any attempt to do so will result in the Member having his or her online access removed.

We are following up with a further session on anaerobic digestion. Today the committee will hear from a number of witnesses. We are joined by Ms Moira Philbin. Ms Áine McCann, Ms Carmel Kelleher, Mr. Henry Mooney and Mr. Pat Shanahan of the National Biogas Concern Group. They have circulated the opening statement, and the members have had an opportunity to read over it. I will give Mr. Mooney five minutes to give an opening presentation and make his opening statement. At that stage then we will go into a question-and-answer session with the members.

I thank the Chairperson and members of the committee for taking the time to meet with us today. The National Biogas Concern Group would like to make one point clear at the outset: we are not against biogas or anaerobic digestion technology. When developed and located appropriately, this technology has genuine potential to support Ireland’s transition to a low-carbon, circular economy. However, biogas is a complex sector. It sits at the crossroads of agriculture, energy, the environment, planning and public health, yet it operates without a coherent, sector-specific legislative framework. At present, biogas development is governed in a fragmented way through planning law, waste management regulations and environmental licensing, none of which were specifically designed for this emerging industry. The result is inconsistency, confusion and a lack of clear safeguards both for communities and for developers who genuinely want to operate responsibly.

Across the country, planners have refused permission for industrial-scale biogas plants for reasons such as being "prejudicial to public health and seriously injurious to the residential and environmental amenity of the area"; generating traffic that would "render the road unsuitable to carry the increased loads arising from the development" and "would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and obstruction of road users"; and "such developments where chemical processing involving flammable or toxic substances should be located 1,000 m from an establishment".

The National Biogas Concern Group was formed in 2024 as communities across Ireland began facing a wave of poorly sited industrial-scale biogas proposals. We are now a coalition of more than ten communities from as many counties and the same pattern repeats itself everywhere: a lack of open, transparent engagement. In many cases, developers have not held a single in-person public meeting. Communities have had to organise their own meetings, and when they do, hundreds turn out. Our shared concerns as a group include the absence of clear, enforceable regulations on minimum setbacks from homes and waterways to mitigate environmental and health risks; industrial-scale plants proposed in the heart of rural communities without proper health, safety or infrastructure assessments; increased HGV traffic on small local rural roads; limited enforcement powers for the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, when plants breach conditions; poor transparency and almost no engagement from developers; and a growing trend toward large, centralised plants that rely on feedstock hauled from long distances, undermining sustainability, instead of local, farm-scale systems that could genuinely reduce emissions by reducing carbon emissions from transport.

These challenges are not unique to Ireland. Through our partnership with FoodRise EU, we have seen how biogas development across Europe can harm rural communities and local environments when regulation fails to keep pace with expansion. The agricultural implications are also significant. In Germany, by 2011, for the first time in 25 years, domestic grain production could not meet national demand, partly due to land competition driven by biogas. In both Germany and the UK, long-term feedstock contracts left farmers financially exposed when markets shifted, subsidies changed or plants went insolvent.

Biogas in Ireland is still a fledgling industry. That gives us a valuable opportunity to learn from these lessons before the mistakes are repeated here. Already, some Irish facilities have breached planning and EPA conditions with limited financial consequences. This is the moment to act, to build a solid foundation before large-scale expansion takes off. To achieve Ireland’s biomethane targets sustainably, we need dedicated statutory instruments, built on existing parent Acts like the Environmental Protection Agency Act, the Planning and Development Act, and the Waste Management Act.

Our goal is simple: to ensure biogas develops with oversight, community trust and environmental balance, not in a fragmented or reactionary manner. In short, we are calling for biogas done right, through a statutory framework that supports innovation, protects rural Ireland and delivers real climate benefits. We look forward to working constructively with the committee on these issues. The National Biogas Concern Group considers itself a relevant stakeholder in Ireland’s biomethane strategy, and we welcome continued inclusion in policy discussions.

I thank Mr. Mooney. I will open it to the floor, with six minutes per member. We will focus on the Senators first because I am conscious of that possible vote. I call Senator Collins.

I welcome everybody. I thank them for giving up time earlier as well today when we met over in Buswells Hotel for a conversation.

It is very nice to see the other side of the biomethane conversation happening this week so we can see the community side of it and the concerns there.

I have looked through the witnesses' opening statement. It alludes to jurisdictions in Europe and how they do biomethane differently. Are there any key lessons, best practices or things to avoid the Government can take from other jurisdictions? It is a very open question.

That is okay. Thank you, Senator. Denmark and the Netherlands have sector-specific biogas frameworks, which is, first and foremost, why we are here today and looking to move along the commitment to planning legislation in the national biomethane strategy published in May 2024.

European countries that may have rushed into biomethane and larger plants have now reined back. Germany is an example. There are 10,000 biogas plants in Germany but only 2% are the large industrial type - 238 of that 10,000. The remainder are single digester tanks on farms. We look at that as a model. When Germany started, it focused on high-energy crops, especially maize. As a result, between 2010 and 2015 they experienced food shortages. They were once self-sufficient from a green production point of view. Because they were feeding anaerobic digestive plants with so much high-energy crops such as maize, they were no longer self-sufficient. Publicly, people noted this and policy in Germany changed to rein that in. From a lessons-in-Europe perspective, we would look to those countries.

Emissions are an issue. The leakages in Europe average approximately 14%. Anything above 8% is harmful to the environment. Denmark targets 1%. They are the good citizens-----

The best practice would be------

Yes, the best practice, exactly. There are a lot of lessons to be learned and it is fledging in Ireland but we can look to experiences in Europe and dictate our strategy from there.

Yes, build ours around that. The witnesses are saying the EPA needs more powers. Have they suggestions as to the powers the EPA would need to regulate, observe and impose punitive measures?

The EPA can raise non-conformances and continue to raise them. It can then take a year or two years before a court prosecution. After prosecution, you may end up with minuscule fines that are not related to the type of turnover the non-compliant party has. While being prosecuted, they can continue to operate as normal and continue to have non-compliances. If you live beside a non-compliant biogas plant and are waiting on the EPA for two years, you could have some serious issues to deal with. We are looking for strengthened powers for the EPA whereby it can come in and if, say, a biogas plant is seriously non-compliant, it can shut it down until it has addressed the issues. That would reassure people in the community living beside these facilities.

In addition, we would like to see greater monitoring. Without the EPA being able to continuously monitor the emissions coming from these plants, it cannot see or monitor whether they are compliant. We are looking for continuous monitoring of facilities for gases such as hydrogen sulphides, sulphur dioxides and nitrous oxides, so we know what communities are being exposed to. With these licences, the odour or emissions are not supposed to go outside the boundary of the site. If there are monitoring points at the boundary, they could know that for sure.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. I will be brief and let them do the talking. At last week's committee meeting, we were told there is no gas escaping from these things at all, they are odourless and there is no problem with watercourses close by. I assume the witnesses were tuned in, if they are interested. Can the witnesses prove to me they are right? What back-up or scientific evidence have they?

The witnesses' written submission is saying "industrial, industrial, industrial". We had a man in here last week who had one on his own farm. In that situation, the witnesses do not have a problem. They have given the three main reasons they are being refused planning. Will they elaborate on the public health one? Roads can be changed and built up so I would not consider that. It is probably a reason to refuse but if you levy somebody you can bring the road up. That is a physical thing that can be overcome. Then there is the 1,000 m from an establishment - I presume by "establishment", the witnesses mean a residence. In rural Ireland it is hard to get 1,000 m of a clean run so that would limit it fairly well. Will the witnesses comment on that?

There are a few of these up and running in Ireland, though I know we are way behind. They may be small or private like the man in Galway. Have the witnesses evidence from ones in Ireland of leakage, water contamination and that the problems they have highlighted exist?

I am very much in favour of AD from an agricultural point of view but I agree wholeheartedly with the witnesses in that I cannot justify using food-producing ground to produce grass or whatever to go directly to an AD with no intermediary.

Those are very good questions. On the first one, I want to give context regarding the size of the plants. Riverview Farm was in here last week - a great news story of an on-farm plant. It processes less than 4,000 tonnes per annum, which would fit into the lower bracket of the biomethane strategy with widespread development, where it is less than 25,000 tonnes.

Sorry to interrupt. I am the Whip in Seanad and we are expecting a vote. If Mr. Mooney sees me looking at the television the whole time, it is not that I am not listening.

That is fine.

I am conscious of it because I have to keep an eye on that.

The widespread deployment with farm-scale plants is up to 25,000 tonnes. Then we have proposals for industrial-scale plants. In the biomethane strategy, it says they are to be between 25,000 and 60,000 tonnes but that is not what we are dealing with. They are not 60,000, 70,000 or 80,000. The biomethane plants proposed on our sites are between 90,000 tonnes and 200,000 tonnes. They are 50 times bigger than Riverview Farm. They are truly industrial and are on industrial sites of between 20 and 30 acres. They are planned to be located within 100 m of people's homes. If I want to build a slatted house at home, there are guidelines. I would have to be more than 100 m from a residential house or school. For industrial-scale biomethane plants, there are no regulations. These plants are being proposed less than 100 m from people's homes.

With regard to odour, biogas plants typically produce 60% methane and 40% carbon dioxide but they also produce hydrogen sulphide and that can be up to 1.5%. It depends on the efficiency of the plant. If they overload the plant or change the feed regularly, hydrogen sulphide can be significantly greater.

Hydrogen sulphide is a highly toxic, highly flammable gas with a very strong odour. A study done on biogas plants across Europe found that on average 2.4% of the gas is released into the local environment, although that varies. If gas is being released that contains hydrogen sulphide, there will be a smell in the area. That hydrogen sulphide is heavier than the air so it falls to the ground, moves along the ground and moves out into local communities.

These plants produce gas. We have spoken to some people who live beside these facilities in Ireland and they have told us that the odour is horrendous at times and can make them nauseous. What is even more interesting is that since we set up the National Biogas Concern Group, we have had people from different communities coming to us to find out how to address the smell in their local biogas plant. People were not aware, for example, that if there is a smell they can contact the EPA directly and do not need to approach the developer. There certainly are issues with them. Finally, there are well publicised examples, and reports in newspapers, of biogas plants that have been prosecuted for odour. There are also well-documented reports in Northern Ireland of significant issues with odour from industrial-scale biogas plants in particular.

Just to add to that in relation to public health, there was a planner's report recently which said that a new anaerobic digester plant will bring concentrated levels of nitrates and ammonia which, in the event of an accidental discharge, could prove fatal for children under four months old. That is the seriousness of being located close to homes.

In fairness, that was not a prediction. It was referring to a possibility if there was a leakage.

Yes, but it is in a planner's report.

It would not be a regular occurrence.

Yes, that is true.

It is only in the case of a potential leakage. That is important.

Having listened to all of the commentary here today, there seems to be a need for regulations specific to biogas. The witness are saying that the EPA has no powers. If the EPA has no powers, do the local authorities have powers? If a plant is not within regulation, somebody has the power to close it down. People cannot operate something that nobody has control over. I ask the witnesses to comment on that. When the witnesses talk about large-scale plants, are they talking about plants of 60,000 and above?

According to the biomethane strategy, between 25,000 and 60,0000 tonnes is large scale. What we are dealing with in our communities is between 80,000 tonnes and 200,000 tonnes. It is outside the scope nearly.

I ask Mr. Mooney to give us an idea of what it takes to run a plant of that size, roughly. What is coming in to the plant to run it? How many hectares will it take?

In relation to feedstock, if we take slurry from a dairy farm as an example, then 10,000 tonnes of slurry is equivalent to 15 farms with 200 cows on each farm. The cows would have to be housed for a lot of the year.

I ask Ms Kelleher to give us those figures again.

Essentially, 10,000 tonnes of slurry, approximating to 15 farms of 200 cows per farm, would be needed and you would need to keep those cattle indoors for longer periods than we do currently. Obviously, ours is a grass-based grazing model of farming-----

Can Ms Kelleher give us that figure again please?

We will provide the-----

Can I have that figure again now?

Please give us that figure again.

To provide 10,000 tonnes of slurry in the context of a 90,000 tonne plant, which is the size on a lot of the planning applications-----

Yes, 10,000 tonnes of slurry-----

The generation of 10,000 tonnes of slurry per year equates to approximately 15 farms of 200 cows each.

Can I ask one question please? How come Brendan Gildea, who has 230 cows, is able to produce 4,000 tonnes with one farm?

I looked into that. I believe he has a farm of 500 acres-----

I know what he has because I dealt with his planning. I know how many cows he has. Brendan Gildea has 230 cows and he generates 4,000 tonnes. The witnesses are saying that 10,000 tonnes equates to 15 farms of 200 cows. There is something not adding up.

We have our reference data here from Teagasc, the IFA and Agriland.

I am going by his figures.

If he has only 200 cows, I do not have an answer for that. That is from the farmers' journal, which says less than 4,000 tonnes and he has around 200-----

It is 230.

Does he have beef cattle as well? I am not sure but if he has 500 acres with 200 cattle, I am just wondering if he also has beef cattle.

It is organic.

Just before my time runs out, I have another question. The biomethane strategy was published last year. There must be guidelines within that because there has to be guidelines.

No, it committed to providing planning guidelines. That was part of the commitment of the strategy, that planning guidelines-----

So there are no guidelines within that strategic plan. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct.

They were due to be published in November 2024 but they have not been published to date.

To go back to my earlier question, is it the EPA or the local authorities who are in control? There has to be somebody-----

These biogas plants will be regulated by the EPA. They have a licence to run the facility. What I am saying is that the EPA does not have the teeth. It can issue a non-conformance decision. It can then decide to prosecute and bring the operator to court but that takes between 18 months and two years. Then, after that time, it is a minuscule fine that is typically less than €10,000.

Does the plant still operate?

Yes, the plant still operates.

Regarding the location of plants in towns and cities, are there any regulations around that?

There are no regulations at all for the siting of biogas plants that is specific to such plants.

Even though there is an odour-----

Yes, even though there is an odour. In planning terms, there is currently no guidance or regulations around the location or siting of biogas plants. It comes under general planning regulations.

The witnesses are saying that they have German data and data from across Europe which shows that mistakes have been made. We are going to make the same mistakes going forward, only on a larger scale. Is that basically what they are telling us here today?

That is what we are saying because without regulations, we are going to make the same mistakes.

That is very worrying for us, going forward. I am sorry, but as Senators we have to leave now to vote. We will leave the witnesses in the good hands of our TDs.

First of all, I agree that whether it is wind or anything else, there should be guidelines. I was googling what a cow produces and I would say the witnesses would want to go back and check their figures. I think it is fairly accurate to say 4,000 tonnes out of around 250 compared to the 10,000.

The witness talked about dangers due to flammability.

Has there been an accident anywhere?

Yes. We are producing huge volumes of methane in these facilities. It is extremely flammable and there is a risk of explosion.

Where was the accident?

A study done in 2024 looked at 75 accidents at biogas plants. Sixty-nine per cent of those-----

Was that in Ireland?

No. One happened in Oxfordshire in November 2023. Three of the digesters exploded when the plant was struck by lightning, which led to the release of toxic gases. It is worth looking the video up on YouTube. The explosion could be felt 20 miles away. There is significant risk associated with industrial-scale biogas facilities. Sixty-nine percent of accidents involving biogas plants involve explosions, and 22% of accidents involving biogas plants involve a release of toxic gases into the local environment. Again, we are talking about industrial-scale biogas plants. What happened in Oxfordshire was that a lightning rod pole was not put up. As a result, when the facility was struck, there was a huge explosion. We have to consider this. The facilities are being located in rural communities on rural roads. These are roads on which two cars cannot pass. There may be between 30 and 80 HGVs per day on these roads. If there is an emergency where a serious number of firefighters have to be brought in, they will have to travel on the roads in question and pass these lorries. How long will it take to get to a facility if there is an explosion? This is why we need regulations, and a setback distance from houses. We need the latter because if there is an explosion or a release of toxic gas, people should feel safe in their homes.

I agree we need proper roads where there are lorries. What size plant would have 70 lorries arriving per day?

We are talking about a plant with up to 200,000 tonnes-----

How many plants in Ireland are of that size?

There are none.

What is the biggest that we have?

The biggest one is in Meath and that it has a capacity of 190,000 tonnes.

That is here in Dublin. The tonnage means 3,000 loads per year.

When the Deputy says 3,000 loads, is he saying-----

There are 3,000 loads per year or in 365 days. Would that be fair to say?

That depends on the material and how it is transported.

I am talking about articulated lorry loads. Thirty tonnes can be brought in such a load.

We all know that 90% to 95% of the material comes back out of biogas plants, so if you are talking-----

Even if Sundays were left out, it would be about ten loads per day. Would that be fair to say?

Where there is a 90,000-tonne plant, the developers inform communities that there will be 14 truck movements in and 14 out. That is 28 truck movements in the day.

That is not every day because, obviously, when you fill the plant, it takes a week or ten days before the used material can be taken out. Is that correct?

That may be the case initially, but when the plant is up and running it will be continuous.

If you fill it, you generally have to leave the material there for a week or two.

That is true for the smaller plants. For the bigger plants, there is a continuous feed in and out. Obviously, we have to factor in that gas would have to be trucked out of bigger plants without a great connection.

In fairness to some of them, they are trying to get a connection to the grid in the areas where they are located. I agree they need to be regulated. I have looked at many anaerobic digestion, AD, plants in the North and here. The fact is that if an AD plant is run correctly, there is no smell. If it is not, there is a smell. That is the bottom line. I do not agree that they cannot be closed down. Councils have powers to close them if there are problems. Do the witnesses agree? I have seen it happen.

They are licensed by the EPA.

I have seen plants that can be closed down by the council if there is any problem.

Did the councils close them down?

If they stop a plant taking stuff in, it is closed down.

I, too, visited the plant in north Dublin. When I went there, I noticed there was very little smell. That said, however, there will be a smell from lorries that pass houses on their way to a plant. Near where I worked previously, there was a factory close to my house and the smell was horrendous. As much as complaints were made to the EPA, there was very little done. There was spillage on roads, so the smell lingered. That would be an issue. However, there was not much smell at the plant I visited. Are there gases that I cannot smell?

I find it very difficult to understand why the Government does not have regulations for this when there is a 20% grant. We are spending taxpayers’ money in this area but we have no regulation. The delegates referred to building breaches. What are these if there is no regulation? How are leaks found? Who is manning the system? What checks are carried out? It was implied that where there were leakages at plants in, say, Europe, the authorities just issued a fine and let them remain in operation. What are we learning? How quickly could regulations be put in place if we were really serious about this? When it comes to wind turbines, the attitude seems to be to urge people to plough on, assuming someone else will foot the bill, believing it will generate credits and hoping we will be seen as the best boys in the class, and so the Government will not have to put its hand in its pocket. However, we will soon have to meet our environmental targets and if we do not put our hands in our pockets, we will put a lot of noses out of joint, such as the noses of people living in rural Ireland. The facilities are literally at their back doors. On farms nowadays, a house may not be beside the farmyard. In the olden days, the smell was literally at the back wall. I understand it is very hard to have a plant a kilometre away from a house but we do have targets to meet. How can we make progress on this? The bigger plants, such as the one in Dublin, are huge. I definitely would not want it in my back yard. My questions are on leakages and checks.

What is the plant in Dublin? Reference was made to capacities of between 90,000 tonnes and 200,000 tonnes. What is the capacity of the plant in Dublin?

I believe it is 190,000 tonnes, but I will have to check that.

Currently there is no requirement to monitor the gases leaked from a biogas plant. I mentioned that 2.4% is the average rate of leakage from a biogas plant.

In Denmark, they have a target that the biogas plants' emissions to the local environment have to be less than 1%, and they have to complete regular monitoring by an independent consultant to make sure-----

Is that leakage gas or is it-----

It is gas.

-----from the raw material?

It is leakage gas, yes. It is leakage gas from the raw material. In Denmark, they are looking at 1%. That is the most that they can have and, as I said, they have independent monitoring. We would look to go even further to reassure the neighbourhoods and communities that there should be continuous monitoring, and even to make that continuous monitoring information live so that communities can be assured that whatever emissions are coming from the plant are below the limits and confined to the site of the biogas plant.

The first step would be if the biomethane implementation strategy would develop planning guidelines. One thing we have a concern about is that we have a significant number of members in the biomethane implementation group, but the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage is not in that group. Therefore, if it is not in the group, who is developing the planning guidelines and follow-on regulations from that? We do not know the background to that. We would be concerned that it is not included in that group.

If I could just follow on from that, I would say that the environmental impact assessment, EIA, process is at fault here as well, and we need to take that out of the hands of the developers. The planning process is at the minute developer-led, and that needs to be corrected, and that process should be led by the Government. Site selection is an absolutely huge issue in this instance. That very beginning point is one of the areas where it is going wrong.

I call Deputy Healy-Rae.

Can I ask one question? The EIAs and screening outs have to be done when people are putting in planning applications. Governments do not do that.

I am aware of that because I am an environmental scientist.

Governments will never do that. That is under the habitats directive.

That has happened at sea for the wind farms. That was taken out and it has been a Government-led strategy. This is my area. I know that this-----

However, an EIA and appropriate assessment has to be done on any site within 15 km of a designated area. Is that not correct?

The whole matrix is at fault here, and it should be a weighted matrix. I could take that site selection matrix and if I wanted to build, for instance, a block of flats somewhere, that is not the equivalent of wanting to build a biogas plant somewhere because that block of flats is not going to have the same environmental impact as a biomethane plant.

All right.

This is the problem. The problem I see when I am analysing these things is that when it comes to the site selection, what is happening is that someone could say they have a site and they are bringing a business partner in on this site, or that person is in some kind of financial straits so they can get this site for cheap, but another site might be the correct site. The EIA process and the site selection is being made and required to bend around the site that is inappropriate instead of being made to fit the appropriate site. That is the reality here. We can talk about what shoe to-----

In fairness, either something screens out-----

No, that-----

-----or it does not.

We can talk about the reality, or we can talk about what should happen on paper. What should happen on paper is that it should screen out on paper, but if someone is coming to a consultancy and paying the piper, this is the reality. I am explaining the reality to the Deputy. Then, the other situation is what should happen, so that is the reality of what is happening on the ground. I am sorry but I am in the business.

I am glad to get the opportunity to talk and to welcome these people here today. The more we talk about this, the more concerned I am getting. I remember when we talked about this back in my first term here in the Dáil. It was said that biodigesters were the way to go and it would help farmers to get rid of their slurry, and that is what it was to be about. Then, as for the Green Party, which did a lot of other harm, it was behind this as well. However, there is one thing I am very concerned about. The Department is saying now that to meet Ireland's target of 5.7 TWh of biomethane gas production, the required anaerobic digestion "developers and related infrastructure ... [are] subject to consent, including but not limited to planning permissions, licenses and permits approved by the ... [Department of agriculture]". It looks to me from that statement, wherever I found it, that people do not need planning permission for this. Is that correct?

I am sorry; they do need planning permission.

This comes from the Department. It states that the required anaerobic digestion and "related infrastructure ... [are] subject to consent, including but not limited to planning permissions ... ". I am worried about that.

I know; I would be worried about it too, especially subject to the recent Coolglass Windfarm Limited v. An Bord Pleanála ruling in 2025 where there was a wind farm application, and the judge overrode the county development plan. It opens the door for-----

In all this rush, we need to be very careful. I am fully behind anyone who wants it away from his or her house. I do not want it near my house. When I hear of explosions and all this, I would not want it near elderly people's houses. I would not want it near anyone's house. We know what it is costing to build them. We know what it is even taking to get planning permission. Young fellows cannot get planning permission. It is easy for someone to say here that roads can be fixed. We have a big enough job fixing the roads we have. We have 600 local improvement scheme roads going into farm families and we have no money for them yet. I do not know when we will get it. That is just in County Kerry alone. I see this as another way to meet these targets that some geniuses thought out in Brussels or somewhere, and it was voted for in the Chamber by every Member except me. I did not vote for the target of 2030. I was the only Deputy in Dáil Éireann who voted not to accept it and the record will show that. I did not want the 2030 deadline because people are going to suffer along the way and the closer it gets, the more people are suffering. I am very worried about it. Is there one of these plants in the North of Ireland?

There are a large number of these plants in Northern Ireland. I believe they are very much farm-driven and farm-based biogas plants in Northern Ireland. That was the strategy they focused on-----

I went to the North of Ireland yesterday. I went through four counties. A number of tractors were drawing maize - big, savage loads of maize - and I found out that they were going to one of these digesters. If that is what is going to happen in the South of Ireland, that is enough for me. I heard the other day about grass being put into these things. What we started out with was some way to help the farmers to deal efficiently with slurry and manure and waste in that kind of way. If we had bad hay or bad straw, that would be fine. However, it takes fertiliser to grow grass, and growing grass is a costly racket. From 1970 on, when I started becoming aware of things, our aim was to produce as much grass as possible to feed cattle, sheep or whatever we had. Now, we find that we are growing it to do this, and grass sequesters carbon on its own. To think that this is what this is about - that we will be feeding grass and maize into this at the level I saw on the road yesterday - is frightening. They were the biggest tractors and trailers, and I know what I am talking about, and I saw one of them after the other. There was another gang going back one after the other. I had to point to what was going on and that is what I was told was going on. It has me frightened anyway. I am very worried about the whole thing.

I do not think the planning authority is the same as the solar panels in that there are right guidelines there or there is a right understanding of it. However, this direction came and this agreement was made to sign up to these targets by 2030 come hell or high water, and to let people suffer once we will not have to pay this money. I will not stand and see people with their own houses local to these things having them shoved under their nose or having to suffer to meet these targets. I will be watching very carefully any other presentations being made here. It would be one thing if it were just farmer related, but it is different when there is another business-operated thing to create gas when it is much easier to import it and it is cheaper on the open market and we have nowhere to store it, even though there is a field in Kinsale that would store it and it could be bought cheaply at a different time. However, we are in a position where we have to buy it at the dearest time.

I welcome everybody here today. It is important that we have people like them here because we always have to hear both sides of the story. I spend most of my time now going to public meetings where there are proposals to put in large windmills, triple the size of what people were ever used to. The witnesses are correct and right when they say most of the windmills, because the size of them, were supposed to go out into the Atlantic Ocean but they have changed now and developers are bringing in ones of the same size. They are getting planning permission because there are not very strict guidelines that are copper-fastened. The local authority I sat on brought in a county development plan where we said what we wanted with windmills, but when they are being challenged now when they are brought to the furthest part of the court system, there can be a different opinion altogether from a High Court judge. They will come back then, bypass the reference the the local authority put in its guidelines and go back to Government policy.

I do not like that sort of thing because anybody who has served all their life on a local authority tries to do their very best and tries to take the interest of rural and urban people. Down through the years, we have done a fairly good job and there will be people who are critical - I agree with the witnesses 100% - because of the planning laws in rural areas. Members will have heard me say they all have to be relaxed and people have to be allowed to build or we will have no football teams, no schools and no nothing in rural Ireland. On the one hand, we are trying to protect it but that is another day's work.

Going back to this, people have to get assurances about one of these proposals of Bord na Móna very near where I live. It caused huge upset to many people. The organisation was granted planning permission by the local authority but it was never built and never used because Bord na Móna said it would not be viable to put it in and that it would not get enough stuff in to make it viable.

I do not think they will ever say to cut the turf.

Yes, it would lose money. I have to say, in Ireland, we need a lot more discussion about this. If the witnesses do not mind me saying so, when I was being reared as a little fella, we tried to produce enough food for the cattle for the whole winter and there was always be a time coming into the spring when you could feel the tension in the house if the weather was bad and we wondered whether we were going to run out of feed and all that. That is the way we were reared. To think we have to feed them out of good land, whereby we produce top-class quality feed, it takes a little bit of getting used to from a farming point of view.

If this is going to solve the problems we have, so be it, but we might have to take two steps back and do a little more research into it or think a little more positively about it. I agree there is certain waste that comes off of animals, like in Deputy Maxwell's area with the chicken litter and all that, that there is nowhere to put but we need to work on things like that.

I talk to people in the community and they see this huge change. We are talking about derogation and the fear of derogation in this country. The lifting of derogation is a hugely topical issue at present. If we have people going around buying up hundreds of acres of tillage land or whatever, we need time to reflect on this. We need time to think on this and time to get used to it. I am not saying I am opposed to this in any way but I want it done in a way where the laws brought in by the local authorities have to be adhered to and cannot be taken on because of deep pockets going to different layers of a court system that any normal person could not go through or even a local authority could not go through. These people have deeper pockets than even local authorities do.

In a nutshell, I welcome what the witnesses are doing because all this is an educational process. They are bringing education to us because we will hear from somebody else who, we will say, will reject everything they are saying. We are on a learning curve in that regard. We can see what happened today with the boys trying to see how much slurry cows were going to produce and what way it was going to be done and all that sort of thing. We have to get used to it as well because most farmers are trying to get the best quality slurry to put out on the land to grow grass and put nutrients back into the thing. That was the way the whole farming concept of 20 and 25 years ago was. Now we are moving on to this so we need a whole lot of education out of it.

Do the witnesses have anything to add to that?

In the minute that remains.

The Deputy mentioned farms. In Germany, the small farmers are in competition, if they want to expand their farm, with biomethane facilities. This has made land more expensive in Germany.

The other thing is that under the national biomethane strategy document, 5% of the land will be used to produce soilage for this between now and 2030, to give a figure of where we are at. The question is where it is going to go after 2030 when a lot of the slurry might be used up. Is it going to continue to be the case that it will be grass feeding these plants?

I have a few more seconds so I might ask one more question. If they cannot be fed with everything that was supposed to go into them, what happens then? Do we start importing boatloads of stuff from other countries? The reason I am asking is that they ran out of grain in Germany. We have a huge problem here. Right now, grain farmers are the poorest section of farming in this country. They are not getting the price they should be getting because part of the problem is we are importing grain, just as an overall picture. All I am asking whether we can see an imbalance happening.

We have three more offerings on it and we are tight on time. I propose that I will ask two very quick questions and then whatever time remains will be split between the two non-standing Members.

My first question relates to a point raised by developers who attended the last meeting. They had been engaging with local community and there was no objection to their planning application in the west of Ireland, for example. They were putting that down to community engagement. What kind of mix of engagement are the witnesses hearing from the different groups they are dealing with? Are there possibly other groups out there that the organisation is not dealing with because things are going smoothly, like this example from-----

Ballinrobe.

It was in Galway.

I will start. We had absolutely no community engagement. The builder told approximately five people and there was a huddled meeting in a pub. That was it. The committee can extrapolate up from there.

We had the same situation. We did not have any public meeting with the developers and we asked them to have a public meeting, which they did not do. We organised our own meeting and had two applications put in. The first time, 224 people objected and the second time, 434 people objected. That was from people coming to our meetings where we shared the information with them.

Is the Ballinrobe example an exception or are there other situations going on where there is strong engagement and no, or few, issues are emerging?

I consider it probably an exception. Regarding other communities, including the community I am from, the way of engaging has been individual house meetings.

From the point of view of how that works in the community, it simply does not. Different information is relayed in different houses. People are confused and do not know what the truth is. That is why we advocate from the outside for a public meeting without restriction and an open forum where there is no restriction on asking questions. If developers have nothing to hide they will be prepared to do that.

I have another quick question. The output from these plants can be gas or gas converted to electric or going to a mains pipeline. Is there a view on the outputs? Is there a preference or has the conversation taken place? Is there a preferred output from plants such as this?

Flaring is not discussed. I find developers panic when one mentions it because it is one of the things that the EPA does not monitor. It is the partial combustion of gases and causes a lot of problems. If anybody wants to read up on it, they can look at the gas industry. There is a large plant in the North of Ireland.

The plant has the capacity to go straight into the mains.

Regardless of whether it goes into the mains, there are two methods. One is a safety mechanism whereby gas can be vented directly. The second is a mix and a complicated process. The gas can be flared.

I am watching my time and want to get one or two other members.

It causes health issues for people.

I thank the witnesses for their presentation and time here today. I will try to ask questions they have not answered on matters I am trying to figure out. Last week, I asked a group whether it was a member of the biomethane implementation group.

No, we are not. We have requested to be a member of the biomethane implementation group and have not received a response.

That answers my next two questions. That was efficient. Community engagement was discussed here last week and I asked that question of the other groups before us. I asked whether they thought a community representative group should be part of the biomethane implementation group. They said it was not their space to answer, which I understand. They are not the group. It is my view that community groups should be involved because it is part of public engagement in a democracy, as far as I can see, in order to gather that learned experience.

I have raised in this committee and the Dáil, and we have discussed on previous occasions, the fines the EPA can impose and the powers it has. I am somewhat concerned about that. I also put a question to the group last week on protecting its reputation as an industry. Regarding fines, do the witnesses have any idea of the amount of some of the fines set down by the EPA at any stage?

Generally, it is less than €10,000. The EPA has been processing all the non-compliance cases for 18 months to two years. We all know that a fine of €10,000 for industries with millions of euro in turnover has no effect.

I am aware of one plant that has about nine non-compliances. One fine was for €15,000 and the second involved cumulative fines for each incident which added up to about €15,500.

Is it the group's proposal that we should have national regulations set down for every local authority rather than it being able to work at its discretion or to its county development plan? Should every local authority right across the board follow the exact same process?

There would be national regulations. There might be local provisions, but we find there is huge inconsistency across local authorities when it comes to local development plans in respect of anaerobic matters. High level regulations consistent across the country would be beneficial.

From the discussion last week, as well as today's discussion, the growing of crops specifically to feed plants has arisen. We could have two different discussions on anaerobic digestion. We hear a lot about one positive, which is the taking of slurry and something positive being done with it. There is also an argument about how many acres of land would be used to grow crops for plants. That leads me to my next point, namely the farm scale plant. The witnesses mentioned a distinction between industrial level and farm level, which is interesting.

The discussion last week with a man who has one on his own farm was very interesting. He was positive and it was interesting to hear how he has managed to make it work. There is probably an income source for such farms, which leads to a generational renewal argument for the family farm model. That is interesting and we are probably not exploring it enough. I would like to hear from the biomethane implementation group its views on the on-farm model which probably mitigates the argument of producing grain, grass or whatever to feed straight into a machine. I am one of the last to speak and the witnesses have answered most of my questions already. I thank them for their time and direct answers.

I have an interest in this area, coming from the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan which is the home of poultry. This debate has been happening in Monaghan among poultry producers in terms of how to deal with poultry waste. It is opportune that we are talking about this. We need to try and arrive at a consensus with the regulator, witnesses and everybody else.

Regarding the EPA, in Monaghan there is a line through the county, and north of that line one cannot get an EPA licence to open a facility. Many people have planning for chicken houses and poultry units, but cannot build them because they are unable to get the necessary licences due to air quality. This will be an issue in terms of getting rid of spreading poultry waste on land.

I have seen a number of small-scale ones on farms in Northern Ireland and visited one in Denmark about ten years ago. It was amazing to see the farm in Denmark which brought in pig slurry and silage. That was then put into a hopper and mixed to help fermentation. The farm then burned off the gas to generate electricity. We will have to grab the nettle, as they say. We will have to consider different ways of treating waste.

I do not want young farmers in County Monaghan, a county which has always been the home of poultry, whether eggs, boilers or whatever, to be told in eight, nine or ten years that things are finished because there is nowhere to get rid of the waste. That is something we have to consider down the line. It would be ideal if we could arrive at a consensus and everyone was happy. We will never make everyone happy, but we should arrive at a situation which extends to the poultry industry in this country. Other industries are affected. I take on board what my colleagues have said, namely that we do not want to grow crops simply to feed biomethane plants. That is not a good use of land.

It is a good time to talk about this and arrive at some sort of consensus with the regulator, the Government and witnesses so that people know where they stand. We need to take the fear out of this. I know that when people have applied for permission to build a biomethane plant, the first thing they are asked about is the incinerator. These plants do not have incinerators; they are not burning rubbish or whatever. I look forward to all of us arriving at a consensus so that we can move forward and every person involved in this works for the good of the country.

This is also a fear for developers. If there is a requirement for these facilities to be a certain distance from residential homes, they will not have to go through a planning process and can find a site that complies with the regulations. Developing those regulations involves community engagement. The Deputy made a good point on engagement.

It is a model that works really well in Denmark, whereby people come together and look to solve the issues together, with community and developer engagement. That seems to work very well in Denmark.

Senator Brady's time was cut short earlier. Does he want to make a brief contribution?

I thank the Cathaoirleach. My understanding of what the witnesses are saying is that they are looking for a Government, or Government-led, intervention and policies around that, with strict lines on one thing and another. An area we have not touched on, although perhaps it was discussed while I was away, is that we have businesses that use high-power gas or whatever to work their operations. In Longford, for example, we have Pat the Baker, Kiernan Milling, Kiernan Steel and Mulleady's Waste in Drumlish, which handles waste, including food waste. Is there scope there for a community-led project that is feasible for businesses, with no requirement to go back onto the ESB network, for the purpose of producing a gas product that can be used locally in industry? Is there a model of that nature operating in Germany?

We are not aware of any such model. A project like that would have to be looked at individually and probably would be complex in terms, for instance, of who would apply for planning permission. If we are looking at the regulations, those types of community projects would probably have to be taken as a sub-topic within them. It certainly is a great idea.

All waste facilities already have an EPA licence to take in waste and the product is already coming on site. Thought should be put into this. When waste is coming on site and being taken off site - it is gathered on one side and then taken out en masse - consideration must be given to whether it can be used for generation. Even if it is only going into houses in the local village, some thought must be put into that.

Absolutely. It fits very well into the circular cycle.

We hear a lot at the moment about community heat projects. It is not possible to build a community heat incinerator, digester or whatever one wants to call it that is not within 1,000 m of a house. There will have to be a bit of give somewhere.

We see projects like that in Copenhagen. There is an incinerator right in the middle of the city with a ski slope on it.

However, the witnesses are looking for incinerators not to be located within 1,000 m of a home.

There is a differentiation to be made between large industrial facilities and projects under a certain size. Back in 2007, I visited a district heating system down the country that took in slurry from three farms and provided gas for approximately 80 houses. There absolutely is scope for such projects. It is a case of apples and oranges in that we are not talking about the same thing when we discuss large plants. It goes back to regulation.

We need to finish up as another group of witnesses is waiting to present. I thank the representatives of the National Biogas Concern Group for their input and engagement. If there are points they did not have the opportunity to make or questions that are unanswered, they might write to the committee and their contribution will be taken as part of our considerations.

It is a pity the witnesses from the National Biogas Concern Group will not have an opportunity, as well as us, to put questions to the next group of witnesses.

The Deputy will have an opportunity to put questions.

I draw to the attention of the witnesses that, when giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that a witness has a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at the committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse the privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence at the issue of the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by them, outside of the proceedings of the committee, of any matters arising from the proceedings.

On the agenda for this session, we are staying with anaerobic digestion. The committee will hear from officials from the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment: Mr. Seán Kinsella, principal officer, and Ms Niamh Hamill, assistant principal. Their opening statement has been circulated. I will give them five minutes to read it and we will then proceed to questions from members.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss with it the topic of anaerobic digestion. I will be representing the chair of the biomethane implementation group.

Ireland is recognised as having one of the largest potentials for biomethane production in Europe per capita due to Ireland’s substantial agricultural sector. Biomethane can bring multiple benefits, including emission reduction in the energy sector; reduced agriculture sector emissions through diversification opportunities for livestock farmers; reduced emissions from animal by-products; and replacement of chemical fertiliser with bio-based fertiliser. A domestic biomethane sector can stimulate the rural economy as most biomethane production is envisaged to occur in rural Ireland due to the nature of feedstock required. It also improves national gas security and diversification of supply. Government has committed to supporting a production level of 5.7 TWh of indigenously produced biomethane per annum, which equates to approximately 10% of current gas demand in Ireland.

Delivery of this ambitious target will require the development of an anaerobic digestion sector at scale. A first key step in this regard was the development and publication of the national biomethane strategy in May 2024. The strategy sets out a pathway to address the challenges in achieving target delivery and outlines the necessary supports and policy enablers needed to drive growth across the biomethane sector. Shortly after the publication of the national biomethane strategy, the biomethane implementation group was established. The group is chaired by the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment, with the close support of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, reporting to the heat and built environment task force. The biomethane implementation group consists of representatives from relevant Departments, State agencies and semi-State companies, which bring their respective expertise to the sector and have specific responsibility for implementation of individual actions set out in the strategy.

While anaerobic digestors used to produce biomethane can bring significant benefits to the communities and local environment in which they are located, they are also significant infrastructure. Important deliverables under the national biomethane strategy include actions that will see the development of planning guidelines to support local authorities when assessing anaerobic digestion plants, and a communication strategy to ensure information on the sector is readily available for all stakeholders, notably, local communities in the vicinity of where anaerobic digestion plants are potentially being built.

The anaerobic digestion sector is regulated through a number of State agencies and Departments. To meet Ireland’s target of 5.7 TWh of biomethane production, the required anaerobic digestion developments and related infrastructure are subject to consent, including but not limited to planning permissions, licences and permits approved by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Environmental Protection Agency, the local authority or An Coimisiún Pleanála, as applicable. Anaerobic digestion and other integrated assets are required to undergo a planning process to ensure proper consideration of a range of factors, including location, visual impact, land zoning plans and ecology.

The implementation group has also developed an environmental sustainability charter. By following the best practices outlined in this document, operators, farmers, engineers, planning consultants, design engineers and developers demonstrate their commitment to maximising the benefits and valorisation of anaerobic digestion and bio-based products, while minimising its environmental impact, improving water quality and ensuring high-quality safety standards.

The biomethane implementation group is working hard to implement the 25 actions set out in the national biomethane strategy and is fully committed to the development of an anaerobic digestion sector that can maximise the benefits for Ireland, while ensuring it adheres to best practice and benefits all stakeholders. We are happy to answer any questions members may have on the national biomethane strategy and the implementation of the 25 actions it sets out.

I welcome the officials from the Department. I presume they watched the witnesses last week who were pro this. This evening, we had those who - I will not say anti - were a little more cautious about the whole thing. There was a big difference of opinion. Mr. Kinsella finished on the matter of water quality. Maybe he can be the judge and jury on where the axe comes down between the two.

On regulation of the sector, it is a highly regulated sector. You need to go through full planning permission, you need to get licences or permits from the Department-----

I am sorry to interrupt, but the people who are just gone said that while the EPA regulates it to an extent, the EPA does not have the powers. While it might be regulated, those witnesses seemed to think the EPA, even if it found a fault, does not enough power when it comes to finding for breaches of conditions or whatever.

I am not sure about whether it is enough. The EPA has powers. It has not raised any issues in relation to the level of powers it has with the implementation group but, if that is an issue, we are happy to hear about it and to engage with the EPA. The EPA is ultimately an independent agency on behalf of Government. We have limits on what we can say in relation to that as well.

I appreciate that but I am-----

We are happy to take that feedback and feed it back to the EPA.

-----saying what they said.

I will add to that. There is another key point. The length of time to handle enforcement issues was mentioned. Resourcing is a key-----

Sorry, I cannot hear you at all.

I will lean in. You will have to hear me shouting now.

Resourcing is a key issue. While it is a heavily regulated industry, it is called out in the strategy whether agencies are resourced enough to handle the level of applications that are going to be coming through. There are two sides to that. One is we have to help them to standardise that assessment process and make sure they are resourced to do it. Then, as the industry starts to grow at scale, we need to see whether that is adequate and whether it is there. The timelines for process enforcement issues were mentioned. That could be seen as a resourcing issue as well. It is not that the EPA does not have the powers, but how long it is taking to process. There are a couple of things. The strategy calls it out that we need to look at resourcing. That is a key action we are working on with the EPA and the Department of agriculture regarding animal by-products as well. Whether it is licensing, permitting or the whole works, it is about resourcing.

Even with the regulation in place, engagement must happen with local communities. This sector will not develop unless we have local communities on board. The developers working on these projects must respect the local communities where the plants are going to be operating. They must engage with those local communities. We heard from previous witnesses that they tried some of that engagement but it was not necessarily correct. We are looking to develop a communications strategy for the implementation and development of the sector. One of the key elements will be to establish best practice for engaging with communities. We are aiming to set that out in the near future.

Would community engagement be obligatory?

Yes.

The Senator asked if we are the judge or jury. We are the middle ground. We are the place between the two. Developers need to engage the communities. Anyone who is going to have to live beside the plants needs trust and a source of information. We see ourselves as that, rather than judge or jury.

If the witnesses were in my seat and I was in theirs, what would the Department like us to do? It can only enforce the legislation that we bring forward. If I were in the witnesses' seat and they were in mine, what would they be asking of me?

The strategy is there. All the policy that is needed is there. It is now about implementation and working through those 25 actions set out in the strategy.

It is down to the Department.

It is down to us and the owners of those 25 actions we are working through at the moment, including the various Departments and State agencies, semi-State companies, regulators, etc. They all have ownership of the various actions. They are all there. We just need to implement them.

The previous group of witnesses were looking for regulations. How would the Department compare and contrast the regulations that those witnesses were looking for and what is already in place?

As a starting point, we are looking to scale the industry. We are at a low starting point with the number of plants we have. The actions we have are starter actions. As was mentioned, different local authorities in different areas are assessing the plants and we need a standardised approach and guidance. They need to be able to see what is best practice, what they should be looking at and what types of plants should be coming in. That is the first key action we are taking.

Going back to the question, is that a body of work for the Department or for us?

It is for the key Government Departments, including the Department of housing and our Department, which has oversight, and for any key agencies that are involved. There are a few.

The Department can do it and does not need political-----

Not at this point of the process, no. Whether the powers are strong enough has been touched on. At the start, we need to standardise and offer support and resources. We will then be able to answer that question. Right now, we see the issue as more around standardisation and resourcing. We have the power to do that part.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. Concerns would be raised about regulation in the area of planning. You could get a planning decision for you in one place and against you in another. Are there specifics for proximity to roads or set-back distances from houses, no more than there are for wind turbines? Is the Department looking at anything in that regard? The witnesses can answer that before I go to the next question.

The action within the strategy is that we develop guidelines for planning. We started engagement with the Department of housing in that regard. Biomethane is recognised in the national planning framework and the Planning and Development Act. It is in there already. What we need to look at for guidelines is pulling all those various elements together to ensure local authorities have that information to hand.

Are those guidelines there for us to look at?

Yes. There is one in-----

I mean the guidelines the Department is developing.

The guidelines as per the actions are in development. They still need to be developed.

Can the committee see them?

We are still developing them.

In its submission, the Department referred to grasslands moving to alternative uses. I have followed that idea for a good while. I understand that slurry and chicken litter are pretty good options. The committee was out with An Bord Bia, which stated it could not afford to pay for grass coming into it. I would not be an admirer of too much grass cutting because we need it for cattle. If I want to build an AD plant in the morning, what support will I get from the Department?

I know that issue came up in the previous meeting and the one before that. The renewable energy directive sets out strict requirements for the production of gas for it to be determined as sustainable. That includes that there cannot be any impact on food security. There is a certain level of the amount of energy crops that can go into gas production.

In the strategy, and I may be a little off with my figures, approximately 0.8 TWh, up to approximately 1.5 TWh, of that 5.7 TWh will be waste based. That is already there and available. Once you try to move up to get to the 5.7 TWh, you have to shift into agriculture. The heat study was where that target was found. That was based on land that is already there and available. It was not about changing practices but maximising practices that are already in place so there would be no impact in that regard.

I do not buy that with the Department. In studying AD, you need grass at a certain height. We are not going to go into every 5 acre field for 40 miles around and pull 5 acres. You have to have 500 or 600 acres that you cut in one go, in a second go and a third go. At a certain height, a contractor is appointed. That is taking grass out of production, to be quite frank about it, no matter how you dress it up. If I wanted to build an AD plant in the morning, what funding can the Department give?

The national biomethane strategy has looked at two support mechanisms for the development of AD plants. The first is grants. The Department of agriculture-----

How much? That is what I am asking.

It was 20% of the build, to a maximum of €5 million. That was the first grant.

How much of a purse is there?

A purse of €40 million. That was from-----

That would mean eight per year. Is that correct?

No. Eighteen projects were allocated funding under that first grant.

Some of them were smaller. Is that right?

That is exactly right.

They range in size.

In the line of the farmer-led one, Mr. Seán Finan was before the committee. Mr. Brendan Gildea is near my neck of the woods. He has built one and it is impressive. The fund for that looks to be very low. Is there €3 million or €4 million available? How is it that the Department does not encourage more of that?

There is an action. The strategy was obviously developed in partnership with the Department of agriculture. It was for that reason. It was not seen as wholly an energy project. It was seen as also including feedstock production. There is an action in there around small-scale operations-----

I am on about the budget.

-----and looking at what supports might be needed.

How much is the budget?

There is no grant at the moment as far as I know. That is what is being looked at to actually-----

There is no grant.

Not on the small-scale side.

It is open to all AD developers but there were limited small-scale ones in the first grant round. For the second grant round, funding was secured by the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, in the recent budget. We will consider how we can support or encourage the building of more farm-based AD plants. We will look at that percentage and consider if we can up it.

The Department is generally looking at large-scale projects. Is that right?

No, it is open to all AD developers at all scales.

It is just that we see there is going to be a specific need for farm-led and smaller-scale projects. It is a whole different model and needs a tailored grant. There is an action included to do that.

Is there an obligation coming in, under the climate action plan, that 10% of all gas will have to be renewable?

The renewable heat obligation.

Am I right that the Department has some dream of importing some of that? Is that right?

No. At the moment, the obligation would be open and the supplier can choose to meet it. The obligation obviously has-----

Can it be brought in from abroad?

At the moment, because we are operating in the Single Market for EU trade, that would have to be allowed. However, the obligation has a second aim to support indigenous fuels.

Would the witnesses agree that it needs some bit of a poke or help if at the moment, it is 4 cent per KWh, as against roughly 16 cent per KWh? That is a huge difference. Would they think there is a need for more Government funding to entice it? People vote with their feet. I know there is an obligation coming in. When is it coming in?

The heads of Bill have been approved by the Government. We are now into the drafting stage. We are looking to have this implemented as early as possible in 2026.

When is that roughly? Will it be 2030?

No, 2026. We are trying to capture as much of 2026 as possible.

The obligation will be on every company.

Fuel supplier.

The way the witnesses are talking, they seem to be thinking there is going to be an influx of this. They are expecting a lot of applications in. Would the timeframe for it not be sooner rather than later?

Ultimately, what these developers need to get these plans built and for their business model to stack up is the renewable heat obligations scheme, RHO, which will place a demand on fuel suppliers to procure this type of fuel. They need it for their business model. The RHO should be implemented in 2026. What we see now is movement in relation to these plans being developed. We see a ramp up; we expect that to ramp up even more next year.

We got a bit of insight with the first grant where we saw those 18 plants that were already through planning and ready to break ground. That gives an indication of the volume there now. Once the renewable heat obligation comes in and the market starts to see there is long-term demand and large energy users are looking for the gas, we will see it to start to ramp up. The strategy talks about 200 plants. That is if we are to meet the 5.7 TWh target, but the roll-out and rate of development will be more staggered, but we need to make sure-----

How much approximately are they getting each? Does it depend on the size, that is, the grant they are getting?

Yes.

Is it a maximum of €5 million?

Yes, that was in the previous grant round. We are having new grant round going forward. We still have to do the terms and conditions in relation to that but there will be similarities. We want it structured in such a way that we provide additional support to smaller farm led plants.

I presume there has been an awful lot of studying done on this. The planners in local authorities depend on the Department to send out guidelines because they are not used to this. They will be looking for guidance. In the Department's vision, do the witnesses expect to see a lot of these in single farms?

That is what the Department of agriculture wants to see. It wants to see the co-operative model we brought in here, whether it is to do with feedstocks and then farmer project leads on that.

If we use the example of a town of 15,000 people - I do not want to go big - in the Department's vision, does it see one of these somewhere in the vicinity of that town?

There is no reason not to. However, what we see in regard to the trend, and what we see on the Continent, is that historically these have been smaller farm-led plants but we are now moving towards the larger commercial scale plants. They are not being built on the farm but the farmers are feeding into those plants. In terms of what the business model looks like, maybe they get a gate fee for their feedstock, or they might get the digestate in return. We are seeing mixed models in relation to that. What we are likely to see is a mix as well - commercial sized plants and farm-led plants.

The other side of it is that to own and operate a plant is a different world from the farming world where the farmer would be the expert in the feedstock. What we are trying to do as well - and we will mention it throughout the day - is that with the communications strategy we want to start looking at that. There are case studies here where a farmer can get an AD operator to come in, help them build and operate, show them how to do that and then move off site. There are lots of-----

These will be allowed to be work all year around. We will see the farmers drawing the slurries into these during the winter. Is that what the witnesses are saying?

Yes.

We will all need less capacity for storing slurry.

Exactly, that is one of the key benefits of it.

They will be selling the manure back out to the farmers.

It depends on the model that they set up. That is a possibility.

If a model is set up that cannot sell back, what do they do with the waste that comes off it?

It depends on what agreement the farmer would go in who is probably selling the feedstocks-----

We will say that farmer does not want the stuff back. When it comes out at the other end-----

They will be obliged-----

There will be a lot more than farmers. Will there be dead meat? Will knackers go out of existence now? Will all of the cattle go in there?

Sorry?

Will dead animals go in there?

No.

What cannot go in there?

It would be strict what can go into it. That would be regulated through the animal by-product regulation. They are quite sensitive pieces of infrastructure.

As a farmer, could I bring slurry into it if there was one beside me?

Yes.

When they talk about bringing in grass, maize and everything like that, is that the company buying it off them and doing a deal?

That would be the commercial arrangement between the farmer and company doing it. We would not have involvement in it.

In regard to a town with a population of 20,000 to 30,000, can the witnesses provide me with any guidelines to tell me how much land they have to take in order to feed that? Will they be out actively in the community taking land to feed it?

We could follow up with that. There are figures. Teagasc has done great work in that space on what it would take to feed it-----

Does anyone have an answer to that? I would like to know. I live in the growing town of Portlaoise. It has over 30,000 people. If there is one of them in Portlaoise now, would the people running that have to be going around and taking land in order to feed it because they would not be getting-----

They have undertaken work to get data from Teagasc.