We will suspend briefly.

Apologies have been received from Senator Malcolm Noonan.

The first item on the clár is the engagement with witnesses on delivery challenges facing the offshore wind sector. This meeting is the second of two public meetings on challenges facing the sector. Last week we met with industry representatives and practitioners. Today we meet with representatives from industry regulators and planning authorities. I welcome to our meeting the following witnesses: from the Department's offshore wind delivery task force Mr. Matt Collins, assistant secretary general, Ms Aisling Greene, principal officer, and Ms Kate Páircéir, administration officer; from the marine strategic planning unit within the Department Mr. Rory O'Leary, principal officer, and Ms Karina Fitzgerald, senior planning adviser; from An Coimisiún Pleanála Mr. Peter Mullan, chief executive officer, Ms Ciara Kellett, director of planning, and Mr. Stephen Kay, assistant director of planning; and from the National Parks and Wildlife Service Mr. Malachy Corcoran, director of the legislation and licensing directorate, and Mr. Paul Scott, senior ecologist. You are all very welcome to the committee.

I remind all in attendance to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent mode or switched off.

Before I invite opening statements, I advise witnesses and members of the following in relation to parliamentary privilege. Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

In terms of the format of the meeting, I will invite witnesses in turn to make an opening statement to a maximum of five minutes. Once they have been delivered, I will call on the members of the committee in the order in which they indicate to me to put their questions to the witnesses. This committee operates a rota system which provides each member with an initial five minutes to engage with our witnesses. It is important to note that the five minutes is for both questions and answers and, therefore, it is essential for members to put their questions succinctly and for witnesses to be succinct in their responses. When all members who have indicated have had their initial engagement, and time permitting, a second round will commence whereby each member will have up to three minutes for both questions and answers. Please note that the duration of this meeting is limited and, therefore, the times must be strictly adhered to. I ask everybody to be focused in their contributions.

I now call on each organisation to deliver its opening statement as follows: on behalf of both the OWDT and the marine strategic planning unit, Mr. Matt Collins; on behalf of An Coimisiún Pleanála, Mr. Peter Mullan; agus on behalf of the NPWS, Mr. Malachy Corcoran.

A Chathaoirligh, thank you, and I thank members of the committee for the invitation to attend. A lot of good work has been done in the past few years to progress the 5 GW target - for example, enacting the Marine Area Planning Act; awarding the very first maritime area consents to all phase 1 offshore wind projects; Ireland's first ever offshore wind auction, ORESS 1; and the establishment of the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority.

We have five phase 1 offshore wind projects in development off our east coast, which submitted applications for planning consent between mid-2024 and early 2025. Subject to consent, we anticipate they will be in construction in advance of 2030 and operational by the early 2030s, together delivering about 3.8 GW of capacity.

Separately, the south coast DMAP, Ireland's first spatial plan for offshore renewable energy, was approved by the Oireachtas in October 2024, designating four sites for future development. An auction process for the first site is under way, on which an announcement is expected today, and the Department is engaging with relevant Government bodies on bringing the remaining sites to market.

The offshore wind delivery task force was established by the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment to accelerate, co-ordinate and align work to deliver and support an offshore wind energy sector. The task force includes 16 Government Departments and State agencies working together on offshore renewable energy. This year the Minister invited industry to the task force, and industry representatives have attended the two most recent task force meetings. The task force provides a structure and a programme for aligning and progressing work across areas as diverse as skills and workforce requirements, supply chains and ports, onshore and offshore electricity grid development, and coexistence with other maritime uses and users.

A key action is implementation of the offshore wind energy programme, a singular, multi-workstream, cross-government plan of action. An annual report, which includes key actions for delivery in the coming year, is available on the Government's website, with the most recent dating from June 2025.

Key achievements to date include alignment and progression of a number of interrelated strategies and policies and legislation - for example, the Powering Prosperity industrial strategy by the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, the offshore wind skills action plan by the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, and EirGrid's Shaping our Offshore Energy Future programme. Further key achievements include: facilitating the progress of five phase 1 projects, currently in the planning process, which will together account for 3.8 GW of electricity capacity; and overseeing the transition from the phase 1 developer-led to the current plan-led development approach, as exemplified by the south coast DMAP.

As the committee is aware, offshore wind is highly complex, with many interdependencies. It is also a sector facing significant challenges internationally. However, Ireland has demonstrated commitment to the sector through this task force and through the recently set up Department of the Taoiseach "clearing house" forum, where any outstanding issues or challenges can be escalated to the very top of Government.

My marine strategic policy colleagues can elaborate more fully, but I wish to touch on some high-level progress made on marine strategic planning. Since 2021 the marine planning system has undergone significant reform. Legislative developments such as the national marine planning framework, the Maritime Area Planning Act and the establishment of MARA have been transformational. What is now a fully plan-led system for offshore renewable energy is underpinned by maritime spatial planning principles, in line with the EU MSP directive. This approach ensures full alignment with necessary marine protection.

A part of that marine planning framework is the use of designated maritime area plans, DMAPs, for offshore renewable energy. These plans apply an ecosystem-based approach and are subject to comprehensive environmental assessments. A single DMAP covering all of Ireland's maritime area is now under development and is to be published in late 2027. The process of making this national DMAP will be open, transparent and inclusive. A comprehensive engagement process for 2026 will involve the DMAP project team identifying and engaging with relevant marine stakeholders. The intention is to deliver a strong, well-supported DMAP which ensures a further pipeline of development sites from 2028 onwards.

I thank the committee for the invitation to attend. I am the chief executive officer of An Coimisiún Pleanála. We have been in existence, as I think all members know, from 18 June. We were previously An Bord Pleanála. I am grateful for the opportunity to assist the committee in its work. I am accompanied by my colleagues Ms Ciara Kellett, who is our director of planning, and Mr. Stephen Kay. We are here to assist the committee with its work and we will answer any questions.

As the committee heard last week in its deliberations, there are a number of phase 1 offshore energy applications before us, there are requests for further information and there are others pending. The committee will therefore appreciate that there are limits as to what we can go into, given that we are a decision-making body. Notwithstanding that, we are here to help the committee as much as we can in the context of these being live cases.

The commission has significantly expanded its resources and skills to undertake the consenting of offshore wind applications and other developments in the maritime area. Our director of planning, Ms Kellett, was appointed in 2023 and leads a dedicated team, with Mr. Kay the head of the unit. We can expand on that later if required. This team is supported by an external framework panel of consultants who have extensive experience in offshore energy projects, including a number of UK projects. We are the planning authority responsible for offshore wind applications following the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021. As I think all members know, there are six live applications before us - five on the east coast and a further one on the west coast. The timelines for these decisions at the moment are set out in the planning and development Act 2020 with an 18-week period. There is no reality to that. In fact, the Planning and Development Act 2024 makes a legislative change, which has not been commenced, allowing for a 48-week period, and we as an organisation have been working to those timelines in respect of these applications and lots of other applications before us at the moment.

There was a lot of discussion last week in relation to the requests for further information, which I would like to put into context. The requests for further information were prepared following a detailed review by our internal inspectors and external consultants of the very significant amount of information supplied with the applications, and members heard a lot about that last week. In addition, there were 82 submissions from prescribed bodies - this is in respect of all the applications - and 291 third party submissions. Members will appreciate, given their scale and complexity, that this takes time to review. The content of the further information issued derives from submissions received from the prescribed bodies and third party inputs. The prescribed bodies are the statutory consultees in the planning process, and the commission is required by the planning Acts to have regard to any submissions or observations received from them. They are the experts in their field and the commission gives their input significant attention.

We are happy to answer any questions. It was suggested last week that the request for further information went beyond what might be expected of such applications in other jurisdictions. I would like to make four points in relation to this. These phase 1 projects were being assessed without a DMAP, as my colleagues already mentioned, or other location-specific plan. There is limited data in respect of the Irish maritime area. The application of international modelling and its application to the Irish maritime area is an issue that was discussed last week and we would be happy to answer questions. Finally, there are issues in relation to the policy guidance we received in relation to this.

In summary, the phase 1 projects present the commission with a number of challenges around the need to add staff and skills, which we have done, build new organisational structures and develop relationships with external consultants, which we do and continue to do. The scale, complexity and number of applications and inputs received from prescribed bodies and third parties presents challenges, as does the fact that there is no location-specific policy framework in place or policy guidance relating to offshore renewable energy, ORE, to guide the assessment of projects by the commission.

With regard to timelines, all future ORE projects will comprise projects under the RED III directive. There was a lot of discussion about this last week. This streamlines permitting requirements for renewable energy projects and includes a requirement to determine renewable energy projects in the maritime area within a maximum period of 65 weeks. We are confident that, as an organisation, we can do that.

The commission looks forward to receiving the responses of the applicants to our requests for further information issued on the existing phase 1 projects. We are confident that we have the resources in place to determine these applications in a timely manner and aim to make those decisions approximately four months following the last period of circulation when the information has been supplied to us. There may be a period of circulation among third parties and they may need to be advertised.

This contribution is an edited version of the longer opening statement that was provided to the committee. If members have an opportunity to read that, and I am sure they have already, I would welcome that.

I now call Mr. Malachy Corcoran from the NPWS.

I thank the committee for the invitation to attend the committee. I am head of the licensing, legislation and guidance unit in the National Parks and Wildlife Service and my colleague Mr. Scott is head of ecological guidance and advisory unit within the NPWS. We are happy to assist the committee in any way we can to look at the delivery challenges in the offshore wind energy sector.

The NPWS is very conscious that developing offshore wind energy is a key commitment in the programme for Government. It is also conscious of the important role it plays in delivering on its mandate of protecting nature and biodiversity while also exercising its regulatory and licensing functions in relation to planning applications. Transitioning to renewable energy leads to cleaner air and water, healthier ecosystems and a more sustainable future for all. Clean, renewable energy has the potential to replace fossil fuel, which will bring about environmental benefits.

The NPWS has a number of roles in supporting the planning process, including for offshore renewable energy. Under the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, and associated regulations, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage is a prescribed statutory consultee for development proposals that may affect Ireland’s natural, built or archaeological heritage. The NPWS carries out the Minister’s statutory nature conservation functions in the assessment of development proposals and regulated activities.

Within the ORE space, the NPWS is the primary State body responsible for providing advice on assessing impacts on biodiversity, habitats, species and protected sites, including: special protection areas; special areas of conservation; marine mammals, seabirds and other protected species outside of these areas; and national biodiversity interests more broadly.

The NPWS advises the Minister in relation to the designation of areas, including maritime areas, as special protection areas or special areas of conservation under the birds and habitats directives. We assess applications for derogations under Article 54 of the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011. Such derogations may be required to inform the design of offshore energy projects. We engage in pre-planning consultations with potential applicants to provide guidance on compliance with the Wildlife Acts and the birds and habitats directives. The NPWS also provides updates to regulations to reflect changes in EU or national law.

The NPWS is currently expanding its staffing capacity to support offshore wind energy. A number of staff have recently joined our renewable energy team and we hope to increase this in the short term.

We are committed to working constructively with all stakeholders in the offshore wind industry, consistent with our responsibilities under national and EU law to protect nature and biodiversity.

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements. I want to remind members that the clerk circulated a list of the issues that arose last week, which may prove useful for questions to witnesses this week.

The first speaker is an Teachta Pa Daly.

I thank everyone for their opening statements and for attending the committee. The first question is for the Department. Its representatives are probably aware there was a lot of frustration from the industry at the previous meeting. There was a funding request from the CRU but there seems to be a blockage in that. Has the Department a view on this? What more should be done about this funding request from the CRU? Do the officials agree there is frustration that has not been delivered to date?

The CRU has prepared a resource proposal and has submitted it to the Department, which reviewed it.

Does Mr. Collins know when that went in?

I would have to check when it came into the Department but it was a significant time ago. It was reviewed by the Department earlier this year -----

Was it last year?

I think it was last year. It was submitted from us to the Department of public expenditure and is currently being reviewed by it in terms of the resources that will be approved.

When did the Department send it to the Department of public expenditure?

I would have to check but it was earlier this year.

Right. So, it has had the bones of a full year -----

No, I would not say that it has had that.

Earlier this year?

I would say it was more around the middle of the year.

Then it is six months for a reply from the Department of public expenditure for something that is seen as essential by industry. Would Mr. Collins agree it is seen as essential?

We are continuing to engage with the Department on that proposal as well, outlining why it is needed and what the strategic investments are. Obviously, it wants to ensure that the cost is value for money. As the Deputy knows, all these costs are ultimately borne by the users as well.

Does Mr. Collins feel it is value for money?

From the energy Department’s perspective, we are supportive of the proposals made by the CRU.

Therefore, the ball is in the Department of public expenditure’s court.

Now there is a process with the Department of public expenditure.

The next question is for Mr. Mullan and An Coimisiún Pleanála. Mr. Mullan will have known of the frustration. Sometimes, it is trotted out that there is a problem with judicial reviews. In my view, the High Court needs to be resourced better and have more judges dealing with it. It is easy to say that some institutions are too slow. Mr. Mullan mentioned An Coimisiún Pleanála had extra resources and he mentioned the various timelines. Some of them are unobtainable and some are more realistic. Is he satisfied that An Coimisiún Pleanála has enough expertise, inspectors, marine biologists, engineers and so on to deal with what he heard last week about the delays? If it does not, what more does it need in order to expedite any responses and get these things through an coimisiún in a more expeditious way?

I thank the Deputy for his question. I will start on judicial reviews and the judges issue. We welcome very much the resourcing of the Planning and Environment Court. I think I mentioned last week, in response to the Deputy’s question, that there were three judges there now and we had noticed a significant difference in the throughput of cases through the High Court. The timelines in relation to a number of current cases are down three and four months from when they are first initiated to when they are decided by Mr. Justice Humphreys in judgments there. There have been significant inroads. We have also noticed that cases coming on earlier have meant a significant increase in cases being withdrawn over our decisions. That is a good indication of our decision-making – we are standing over that. That is an initiative. Whether there are further resources there is a matter for the Courts Service-----

In relation to An Coimisiún Pleanála?

It certainly has helped. We will get onto the decisions around this in a minute but we are confident overall in our decision making. We instruct our appropriate solicitors and we defend-----

No, in relation to An Coimisiún Pleanála’s resources. What kind of resources does it need?

We are sufficiently resourced at present. Following the recommendations of the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, in 2022, we recruited an extra 117 staff members in total. There is natural attrition, as the committee understands. We are running at a 92% complement. We have sufficient resources to deal with this. It is not just about the head count, but also the specialisation. I will talk about that. We hired a specific planning director to deal with direct applications, particularly in relation to the marine. My colleague, Ms Kellett, can talk about that in a second. We have a team of ecologists, environmental engineers and scientists, but we also have a considerable resource in consultants, particularly in relation to specialist-type applications. These applications are quite specialist. We have a dedicated group of consultants who are working with us in relation to that. I might ask my colleague Ms Kellett to address the overall issue about the resources of our own unit, and Mr. Kay to talk about the consultants that are available to us to assist us-----

They are not working for An Coimisún Pleanála. It seeks their advice.

Yes. Perhaps I will let my colleagues address that.

I thank the Deputy. Within the direct applications, we have set up three dedicated streams that the marine projects would fall into. Mr. Kay, to my left, is the assistant director with particular responsibility for marine. Under him, we have a substantial number of senior planning inspectors, probably the most senior we have in the organisation. We also have marine ecologists. These have all been taken on board in the past couple of years. As Mr. Mullan alluded to, there are some specialisms it would not be appropriate to have full-time in An Coimisiún Pleanála. As a result, we have a framework where we engage certain specialists as we need them. Mr. Kay has numbers that might be useful in demonstrating how many we have engaged at the moment to assist us on these projects and the nature and expertise of those specialists.

As Ms Kellett said, we have a marine framework panel established. On the panel, we have 43 individuals and companies we can draw on. In terms of the phase 1 projects, we have engaged 21 of those individuals for their input into the projects to date.

I will elaborate on what Mr. Mullan said. We have nine in-house staff on the marine team, including myself and seven senior planning inspectors, who are very experienced and very well up to speed in terms of large-scale infrastructure projects and environmental impact assessments. They have qualifications across environmental engineering and environmental impact assessments, EIAs. We also have a full-time marine ecologist working with us. Among those staff are specialist marine skills. Personally, I have a marine spatial planning masters degree. We have a member of the team who has a masters in coastal and marine environments. We also have a masters in marine and coastal ecology. We have a lot of expertise and skills within the in-house team and we are able to draw on the people who are on the framework panel to supplement that.

I call Seanadóir O’Donovan.

I would like to come back in. I have a point to make.

We will come back to that on the second round.

When the time comes.

I thank the stakeholders for being here. As Deputy Daly said, there was severe frustration in the room last week, which the witnesses saw. My comments and questions may seem critical, but they are constructive in the overall to get the industry to where it needs to be.

I ask the departmental representatives to describe the Irish offshore wind energy industry at the moment. How many units are actually in position and working?

As the Senator knows, there is one wind farm operating off Ireland, which was constructed in the 1990s.

Is that operating fully?

I would have to check. We do not monitor the operations of the generators in the market.

What is the Department's view on where the sector has failed in recent years and why it is not in a place where it should be? What is the Department's view on the reasons for that?

I outlined some of our achievements. I mentioned them at the start. In the course of five years, we have gone from a position of having absolutely no monitoring regulatory regime for offshore to implementing a national marine planning area. National legislation has been implemented. It provides a modern regulatory regime for consenting activities in the maritime area. That was achieved in 2021. In 2022, the first ever maritime area consents, MACs, were issued to all phase 1 projects. That is a completely innovative. The MACs were implemented within 12 months of the legislation, allowing the phase 1 projects to enter into the auction. The first ever offshore auction in Ireland was conducted one year later in 2023. That time was necessary to give people time to develop their proposals and bids. We had the establishment of an independent regulator for the maritime area.

We have developed a regulatory regime for the use of maritime area and a route-to-market for the projects, and grid connections have been offered to all phase 1 projects. Significant progress has been made. The projects are now in the planning regime. They submitted their plans between the middle of last year and the early part of this year, and they are now subject to-----

I note all the positive movements in terms of the regulatory system, setting up of the bodies and all of that, but is the Department satisfied with the progress to date in terms of setting up the offshore regulations?

Absolutely. We have got to the stage where one final consent is required, and that is planning. The industry indicated last year that the regime we had put in place had brought about – this was an industry figure – approximately €20 billion in investment. That is ready to go into those areas once they are consented to.

To move on to the frustrations outlined by industry last week, this is an industry that operates in other jurisdictions throughout the EU and the world. It commented on the frustrations it had with gaining permissions here. What is the Department's view on the frustrations the industry has?

We have tried to respond to the industry's concerns. The Deputy will see that the Government has provided additional resources to consenting authorities and has provided additional resources to the courts so that they can deal with judicial reviews, JRs. We see that JRs are now being processed quicker through the court system. We also see an increase in the number of planning decisions being made by An Coimisiún Pleanála as well.

I will move on to An Coimisiún Pleanála. I believe that 47 pieces of further information were requested on the current application. Mr. Mullan is familiar with the exact application. It was first worked on in 2018 and submitted in 2024. The body of work that went into preparing that application was quite onerous and detailed. There was a comment from industry that it would like more engagement before an application was lodged. The consultants and people who were working to put in the application were critical of the engagement that was made prior to that. They see far more engagement in the UK in terms of applications. Although the commission was only recently set up, can we have its view as to how that process can be sped up and made more efficient?

I am happy to answer that question. There are a large number of moving parts within that question, but I will deal with it. It was 47 pages of a request for further information, but the Senator is right - it was extensive. I explained in my opening statement that that must be seen in the context of us not being able to engage with them. We engaged with them during the pre-application process but we could not do that until the MAC was in place. That only began in 2023, so there was limited engagement there.

The good news is that, going forward in the RED III process, which we will probably talk about later in the session, there is a mechanism in place to deal with that. There is a solution in place. In our view, there were significant deficits in the information in relation to the applications. The committee heard a different or alternative view. We are under an obligation to engage with the applications as we receive them, but more importantly, when we go out to talk to the prescribed bodies and get third-party submissions, we need to engage with the submissions that are made to us. A number of significant issues were raised. My colleagues can talk at length in relation to it, but there are two examples I will pick.

There is the relationship of the projects with their maritime area consents because it was not entirely clear whether they were all within their MACs. That issue needed to be engaged. That is a very high-level example. There was also the issue of cumulative assessment. There are five projects on the east coast. How do they all interact with one another? As regards the guidance they are using, there is no national guidance on this. We were inviting them to use UK guidance. There are a number of other examples my colleagues could speak about, but we are satisfied that, if we have asked questions and asked them to engage with us in this process, those are appropriate questions. Equally, we have given them a nine-month period in which to respond to those questions. If they want to come back to us with answers earlier than that process and they are satisfied those are sufficient, we will be in a position to assess the adequacy of those.

The process of preparing the report and it going to the commissioners to make the decision can then take place sooner.

I have a brief question on that point.

I am happy to answer.

Is there a statutory time period in terms of the pre-planning engagement? I do not think there is one at the moment. Would that be advisable going forward? Is there a statutory time period for a decision to be made once the further information has been resubmitted?

As I understand the question, there is no statutory period in terms of length for the pre-application process. The maritime applications are a tiny bit different in that we close them off. We closed them off in this situation. We had extensive engagement. We had five meetings. I suspect we will be happy to answer on those later. We had an average of five meetings with each of the applicants, one in relation to design flexibility and four in relation to the applications themselves. We then closed that off and then it was for the applicants to make the applications. There was a timeline and they made their applications in time. That is a good process and we are very satisfied with that. Going into the regulatory process, and we can talk about that, it will be better.

As regards the timelines in relation to this, it was an 18-week period in the old Act. There is no reality to that. In recognition of that, the new Act, which is not yet in place, provides for 48 weeks. We are working to the 48-week period, but there is also the stop-the-clock facility. It is actively with us for a 48-week period. If we have a deficit in the data or information we have or if there is a contradiction between what one party, perhaps the National Parks and Wildlife Service, is saying and what another prescribed body is saying, we need to resolve that. We essentially stop the clock, it goes to the parties and it is for them to answer. I heard comments last week that this was not international best practice, and I will be happy to address that. I am satisfied that if we ask questions, it is because we feel the issues need to be addressed as part of the planning application process.

When the question is answered and the information is back in, is there a timeline thereafter?

That is a very good question. Technically, under the old Act, it is 12 weeks. Perhaps Ms Kellett will correct me because we are operating with two or three Acts and three time systems at the moment. I have given a commitment in my statement on when we will aim to have our decisions. Once we get the information back, it will need to be circulated among the parties because they have to have an opportunity to think, it might need to be advertised etc. Once that process is over, which takes a month or two, we are confident we can do it within the four-month period. I am really confident we can do that.

As we head into the RED III process, and we can talk about that, I am confident we can do that within the 65-week period. Again, the complexity of these things has been recognised by the European Union. I am confident we can do it within that period.

I call Senator Higgins.

Deputy Heneghan is next.

Yes, the Deputy is back.

I thank Senator Higgins. I have a question on grid capacity. The committee discussed this issue last week and has been discussing it for the past nine months now. On the grid capacity and the targets we have set, we are clearly not going to be able to solve curtailment and anything in relation to that. Would the witnesses be in favour of private wires being used for electrolysis centres and industrial parks to help with the large amounts of energy coming into the grid? I will start with that query.

We are currently developing proposals for private wires. The Deputy will be aware that a framework was published by the Department on what private wires could do. On foot of that, the Government has asked us to develop legislative proposals for private wires. In principle, we are supportive of private wires but now we are actually doing the work on developing the legislative framework that would support this.

I am glad to hear that. It is very important that when private wires do come out, they cannot be used as a greenwashing tactic by big energy users to allow them to use diesel generators and things like that. That is why this is the perfect group to talk to about this.

On the amount of supply we need and the demand on the grid, what industries should we be encouraging to come to Ireland if we were to reach the offshore renewable energy targets we have?

In terms of the offshore sector we have developed plans for future development of offshore energy generation. Working with colleagues in the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, they are also developing an industrial strategy called Powering Prosperity, which outlines a number of options. We are interested in seeing the development of the potential on the supply chain, which would enable various levels of skilled workforce to contribute to the deployment and operation of offshore wind power, as well as looking at the potential for other industries to use electricity. We do not develop electricity generation to meet specific users and individual users but we are seeing that electricity demand is going to increase significantly over the next decade. That is why a lot of investment is taking place in the grid. As the committee will know, the Commission for Regulation of Utilities has its price review 6, PR6, out. We see all industrial activity, as well as electrification and population growth, as key needs to be addressed for increasing the supply.

Perfect. I really appreciate that. With regard to planning and private wires, I was at a meeting of the committee on transport when we had an electric vehicle, EV, group in. There is a huge issue now with local government and private wires going under roads. To hit our targets, we need cheap Chinese EVs. If we have a huge influx of these vehicles, the public charging points will not be there. Would An Coimisiún Pleanála be in favour of private wires being used? If so, would it have the staff capacity right now to do this?

I thank the Deputy for the question. As he will be aware, An Coimisiún Pleanála is the decision-making body in relation to direct applications. These are very complicated areas and I am not a planner, but, as I understand it, those are direct applications that will be made to us. The policies are a matter for the Government and other parties. If those applications are made to us, there is a 48-week timeline and we are confident we will meet that timeline. In fact, that is the outer limit and I think we can probably do better than that. The point is that if these applications come to us, we are sufficiently resourced, in my view, to deal with them. We have sought other additional resources as we head into the RED III process, and we can talk about that later. If the applications were to come in as normal as private wire applications, and they are direct applications, then I am satisfied we are in a position to deal with them with the team. Ms Kellett might have some further details on that.

It is interesting that we are dealing with two applications from EirGrid at the moment. Without going into the details of live projects, as I am sure members can appreciate, there are inspectors on those. One is for an amendment to a project that is already approved. We also have a number of applications in for connecting wind farms, solar farms or whatever to the grid. Once they are 110 kV or above, they come directly to us, whereas below that they would go through the normal process, which would be to the local authority. They may be appealed to us, which a number of them are. The direct applications are 110 kV and above. If that is the nature of the project, it will be a direct application into us.

I appreciate that. When we see the policy come out we can speak about it then. I have one minute left but then I have to run off. Given the amount of dispatch down and curtailment we face, electricity worth €2.7 million is being wasted every day on our grid. What are the major setbacks to our grid infrastructure? When we have OREs, such as the North Irish Sea Array, NISA, and the wind farms off Cork, would the witnesses be in favour of electrolysis being used as a way of storing energy or the long duration energy storage, LDES, to help our grid be as beneficial as possible to the Irish people?

I am happy to take that. Storage is a really important part of the renewable framework, so it is great to hear the Deputy mention it. We absolutely have targets for renewables, for solar and for onshore and offshore wind. We are actually seeing an increasing amount of storage coming on. Storage is commercially available now and it is being deployed. Both system operators have been asked to develop more storage to come on as well. That is really important because it will capture low-cost electricity being generated and then release it back onto the market when it is available. That is a really important part.

We do not have a view on particular technologies. It is really about what the market is able to bring to develop. Hydrogen, for example, is certainly a technology that we are really supportive of but it is still at early stages, so we tend to have relatively small electrolysers at this stage. There is, however, real significant potential. With the offshore sector set to develop over ten or 15 years, there is a huge potential there. That is something we are working on in the hydrogen strategy.

On the grid and dispatch down, this is a very important factor. It is one of the issues we are looking at in the accelerating renewables task force, which is dealing with our onshore programme. The grid is one of the pillars of that.

As the committee is aware, there are currently proposals from the CRU of approximately a minimum of €13 billion to €14 billion of investment in grid over the next five years. The Government has made available €3.5 billion to support the system operators to borrow to invest in that. The Houses have passed and the President has signed the legislation that allows the equity injection into ESB Networks to carry that out. Deployment of grid is one of our priorities to reduce that dispatch down.

First, to an coimisiún, it is terrible to be harking back to An Bord Pleanála, its predecessor, but it is important as a framework from what we have heard because we get judicial review cited as something of a red herring as the reason for delay when we know that there were substantial delays within the resourcing process. Frankly, we also know that there were issues with the decision-making under An Bord Pleanála. It is not that judicial reviews were vexatiously being taken. It was losing up to 80% or 90% of those judicial reviews. That means it was being found to have failed to apply the proper process, because that is all a judicial review is. It is not that somebody does not like something. It is that somebody says a proper process was not applied. As I say, 80% to 90% of those cases were being lost, although a small number of cases ultimately were taken. Mr. Mullan says he is confident that an coimisiún has resources in place, that its processes are in place. Could Mr. Mullan comment on how that is being addressed in an coimisiún? It is important. We keep talking about judicial reviews in the past but it seems that it is not the same kind of issue now and it should not be if the decision-making processes are being got right at an earlier stage. Could Mr. Mullan comment on that?

With that, Mr. Mullan mentioned that an coimisiún has access to a pool of 43 individuals and companies that it draws on for specialism in this area. Are there careful measures in terms of conflict of interest, if those are companies and some of them have commercial interests, for example, to ensure that there is not conflict of interest in terms of advice an coimisiún is getting? Are NGOs also part of that pool of 43?

In terms of an coimisiún's current decision-making, there was a slight shift in the planning Bill. The direct reference to the climate Act, which many of us would have liked to see, is not there but there is the reference to Ireland's climate targets in the national planning framework. Could Mr. Mullan tell me how Ireland's climate targets are translating into an coimisiún's processing? Of course, that is very significant in relation to offshore energy, etc., but it also becomes relevant in terms of an area which may be competing with offshore energy, which is liquefied natural gas, LNG. I know that An Bord Pleanála had looked for more guidance on the policy from the Government in relation to that matter, given that previously it had been signalled there were significant concerns in relation to climate and LNG and, indeed, if there is a choice to be made within how our ports are used, that LNG may, in fact, delay the deliverability of offshore wind.

Let us take those questions.

That is a set.

There are a number of diverse questions there.

I have a couple for the Department afterwards.

I am happy to address each of them. I might talk about judicial review in the first instance and then I will defer to my colleagues on the specialisation and conflict point the Senator raised and the current decision-making around climate targets. The LNG case and the policy around that is not a matter for us. That is probably for the Department. There is a number of live decisions there so we need to be a bit careful about that.

In relation to judicial review, there were questions historically regarding our decision-making. I accept that. One of the first steps that was taken in relation to the resourcing by the Government of An Coimisiún Pleanála was to take on a director of legal affairs, who is present with us today. That was a significant addition to our staff. He has a team of approximately ten, of whom four are lawyers. We also have the resource of our independent solicitors to advise us in relation to this matter.

It is fair to say as well the number of judicial reviews year on year has been going up significantly. Post Heather Hill, there was a very significant increase. It was 90-odd for 2022-2023. It then went up to 147 in 2024. This year, if you had asked me in the summer, I would have said we were probably going to hit the 200 mark in relation to judicial review but there has been a slowdown as the year has gone on. We are probably going to come in at around the same level. That is still, in my view, a difficulty. I still think it is too high.

In relation to the quality of the decision-making of the organisation, I produced some statistics on our win-loss ratio for last year. Last year was a particular year in point because we were dealing with a lot of historical cases. Last year we were winning 1.7 cases to 1. That was the ratio. This year it is over 2:1. Our defence of our decisions is getting better. I think our decision-making is getting better.

There is an issue as well in that our commissioners are now a full-time commission. Previously - I was one of them - we were interim commissioners who went in to fill the gap, so to speak. There was an issue in that we had to learn the job and all of that type of thing. Through the rigorous processes that we have with every written decision, both for and against, whether we win or lose, there is a learning throughout the organisation.

Another important factor - our annual report came out four or five weeks ago or maybe a little bit longer - was the number of concessions versus the number of withdrawals. There has been a very significant increase in the number of withdrawals. Last year there were more concessions than there were withdrawals whereas this year it is the opposite. There are certainly more and that ratio has changed around.

In relation to reform of judicial review - I think that is what the Senator asked about - our view is that there needs to be reform. I would be happy to answer questions on that but it is, perhaps, a more elaborate question and I know there are other questions the Senator wants to ask.

I will ask my colleague, Ms Kellett, to deal with the decision-making around climate. My colleague, Mr. Kay, will talk about the conflicts because we have considerable safeguards in ensuring that there are no conflicts of interest.

I am conscious of time.

I am sorry, Senator.

I will try to be brief. We were delighted to see that there were regional targets assigned within the national planning framework, NPF, and we look forward to seeing them translated down into county development plans. However, I would say we are a decision-making body. While we absolutely acknowledge those targets, at the end of the day we are a decision-making authority as opposed to a consenting authority. While we follow all policy and would be very conscious of policy and that informs decisions, at the end of the day we are a decision-maker.

The Senator mentioned LNG. I want to clarify we would not have either-or. Getting back to what I was saying earlier, we would consider all projects that come before us on their merits and look at policy because, obviously, that is what we have to have regard to and that is the role we have under the statute. We look at every project on its merit.

I want to get to the Department quickly.

We will do a second round. Mr. Kay still wants to come in on the safeguards.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and the Senator. The Senator made reference to the 43 individuals and companies that we have in the framework panel. The first step in that, in terms of advertising, was we had a session with them. We engaged with them and had essentially an interview with them where one of the issues we covered was potential conflicts of interests. We explained to them the nature of the work and asked them basically to give us a run through of their experience in the marine sector to date so we had a high level overview of what potential conflicts of interest might arise. I suppose it is fair to say there were companies and individuals who were involved in phase 1 projects whom we put on the framework panel on the understanding that we might use them on other projects, but understanding that they were lightly conflicted on phase 1 projects. I suppose the follow-up, in terms of conflicts and the checks and balances on that, is that if we go to appoint somebody to a particular project or a particular piece of work, there would be a second round of engaging with them about their potential conflicts on that specific item.

On the point regarding NGOs, if somebody had an involvement with an NGO, we do not want to put them in a position where they would be in a conflict if they come on behalf of that NGO to make a submission on a project. That was something that was flagged up as well.

Apologies for being late. I was asking a question in the Dáil. I am sorry I missed the opening statements.

In the opening statement, Mr. Mullan mentioned that section 295 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 sets an objective of 18 weeks for determining applications to the coimisiún. On commencement of the relevant provisions of the Planning and Development Act, this will change to a requirement for a decision to be made by the coimisiún within 48 weeks in such cases. Why has that timeline gone up so much?

It is a recognition by the Department - the Department of housing is the parent Department-----

Sorry, I thank the Deputy for her question.

That's all right.

I was forgetting the formalities. Excuse me for just launching into the answer.

It was a recognition by the Department of housing, when it was drafting the legislation, of the complexity. It is not just the offshore renewable energy, ORE, applications. All of the direct applications come to us. Ms Kellett heads the unit in relation to that. It is a recognition that the complexity of some of these projects requires a longer period than the 18 week statutory objective period. Local authority projects have been raised to 26 weeks and the direct applications for some of these strategic infrastructure development cases have been raised to 48 weeks. I should point out that in the renewable energy directive, RED III, which is also referred to in our opening statement, the European Union recognised that renewable energy projects are complicated projects. It set the limit at 65 weeks and I think that is a recognition of the complexity of the projects and to allow that additional time for us to make our decisions.

I am also a member of the infrastructure committee. When An Coimisiún Pleanála was in with us before the summer, it said it was confident and satisfied with the staffing resources and levels. Is it just that these offshore projects are so detailed? Does Mr. Mullan stand by the fact that it is adequately resourced?

I do. The Deputy's colleague asked a similar question and I was happy to------

I apologise, I missed that.

No, I am just saying it is a really valid matter to be questioned about.

We were resourced with 117 staff, the majority of whom are on the technical side on Ms. Kellett's team and we were able to resource it. I am satisfied that, in terms of the work in the organisation at present, we are able to meet the timelines that have been set out for us.

Slightly off the point, but a statistic worth thinking about is that in respect of our normal planning appeals, which are the less complicated cases, although they have their own complexities, we are at a 93% compliance for 2025 cases. We are steadily moving towards 100% compliance and as we head into next year we are looking at mandatory timelines. I am satisfied we have sufficient resources in place between the team in the inspectorate, the environmental ecology team and our use of consultants we can draw on as we need to. As we head into greater numbers of applications under the RED III process, we have sought additional resources and we are engaging with the Department on those. Ms Kellett might talk about this. She will know exactly what we have sought. We have sought ten in total, but they are six and four.

We have sought additional resources for environmental specialists. That will be a mix of ecologists, ornithologists and environmental scientists. We have put in for six of them plus a manager role as part of the workforce plan.

I have one more quick question for the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The offshore renewable energy projects are currently only in phase 1, the application stage. What kind of engagement has it had with the Department on the impacts they will have on habitats, biodiversity, species and so on?

Did the Deputy ask what engagement we have had with the Department of housing?

With the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment.

We have meetings with the Department. It has a task force on renewable wind energy. We are a member of that committee and we have communication and engagement with the Department through that primarily. However, we also engage with it on specific questions of a policy nature that might arise, not on particular applications or projects. That is our main engagement with the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment.

I have some questions.

To pick up on the point about the NPWS engagement, one of the things the industry raised here last week was that it felt it was getting caught out. The engagement was taking time and requests come back through the further information process, particularly about ecology, marine life and areas the NPWS advises on. The industry felt there could have been better engagement upfront and a lot of this stuff could be ironed out in what would effectively be a pre-application stage. Do the witnesses have any thoughts or comments about that? Is that where it is going?

I will ask Mr. Scott to come in on this in a second. However, we do and are willing to engage with industry. Mr. Scott will talk specifically about that, but certainly we are open to further engagement.

Are the NPWS's processes resourced to do that and is it set up to do it?

We put in a business case for resources for offshore renewable energy. We have approval for 17 staff. To date, we have got six staff but one has since moved on. There is a lot of competition for these ecology specialists between State bodies and with private industry so it is difficult to recruit the right staff and we need specialists. We are building up our team. We are not there yet and in the meantime we are supplementing the work of those people with our existing staff, but they are the same people who are trying to do the onshore renewable energy and other big projects. Mr. Scott and his team and our colleagues in the scientific advice and research team are doing their best, but a small group of people is being asked to do a lot of work.

Mr. Scott might come in specifically on engagement with industry as it is his team that does a lot of that and he co-ordinates it.

On the level of engagement we had with the existing phase 1 applicants, in a pre-application context, four of the applicants were met four times between 2019 and 2022. Those discussions would have been about the scope of surveys and the approach to the assessment. One of the applicants was met three times between 2021 and 2023. Then the applicants went away, carried out their surveys and prepared their documentation for submission to the coimisiún. When the request for further information was made by the coimisiún to the applicants, we met one of the applicants three times, and two of the applicants once and we are due to meet another of the applicants this week. There has been a pretty intense and focused level of engagement with the applicants, pre and post application.

Looking at it from the outside, they are three year engagement windows. That is a lot of time when people are not even in a planning process. It sounds like most of that is pre-planning. That was one of the concerns that was raised by the industry so it is good to hear the NPWS has resourcing plans, albeit that the resources are not in place yet. They are coming.

To An Coimisiún Pleanála, I welcome the four month timeframe to give a decision on phase 1, once information has come back and has been circulated. However, is there a nightmare scenario that some permissions would be granted under phase 2 and some of the phase 1 stuff might still be awaiting approval? Regarding some of the timeframes that were set out here last week, it is the industry's risk effectively, but the companies have been in these processes since 2018 and 2019 and still seem to be quite far away from a decision and the required certainty. Does An Coimisiún Pleanála have any comments on that?

I will talk in general terms.

General is fine.

In general, I do not think so. I think the phase 1 projects will be back with us - I hope - within an appropriate timeframe. We have given them nine months. One sought an additional nine months because of the complexity of some of the questions. One of the advantages of the pre-application process for the phase 2 projects, if and when they come on stream, is that we can see what is coming over the horizon. That auction is ongoing and announcements will be made reasonably soon so we can see what is coming down the line. At the moment, I am satisfied with the additional resources on Ms Kellett's and Mr. Kay's teams and with the pre-application process we can see the ones over the horizon clearly.

The auction results for the phase 2 projects are imminent. What will happen, as I understand it, is that they will have to apply for their maritime area consent, MAC, which will take time. Then they will engage with us in the pre-application process. Phase 2 will be under the Red III. We are dealing with three planning Acts at the moment, but the Red III will allow 65 weeks, so the phase 2 projects will have the certainty that it will be 65 weeks. That is coming from the EU and it is mandatory. However, as regards the awful scenario the Cathaoirleach suggested that we would have phase 1and phase 2, there will be MAC requirements and a pre-application requirement.

As Mr. Mullan said, in theory, the phase 1 responses to the further information should be back with us and those decisions made. There will be a parallel process and it is not that likely we will have large applications at the same time.

I have two points to add to that. The applicants last week very rightly pointed out that a greater engagement in the pre-application process was something they desire and we agree with them on that. The RED III process allows this; it is a more engaged process. There are two things part of this: a mandatory scoping requirement, which comes in in May, and a completeness check of the applications. Again, we will be the ones closing that process and will have better control.

The word "palpable", or whatever it was last week, was mentioned multiple times. There was frustration. We are in agreement with greater engagement around the pre-application process, and certainly on the projects as we head into phase 2. We are in a position to deal with that and all the industry and pressure will benefit from that.

Will the 65-week timeframe be on a statutory basis?

Yes, it will. It is being transposed.

That is fine. I have one more question to ask. An Coimisiún Pleanála's statement concludes: "There is no location specific policy framework in place or policy guidance in relation to ORE to guide the assessment of projects by the Commission." The witnesses are saying that is something that is missing and that they do not have that guidance.

We do not. I know a bit about it, but I have two experts beside me. One of my colleagues might deal with it.

Yes, phase 1 came in and there was an emerging policy context, as our colleagues in the Department have explained. This was a phased process from 2021.

Is this sorted for phase 2?

I presume. I am sure the DC will come in there on that. I understand there is ongoing work.

We welcome it.

The witnesses welcome more clarity on that.

Certainly.

The DMAP process will have that.

That is great. We are going into round two, with our first speaker, Deputy Daly.

On that question, I presume the witnesses are waiting on policy from the Minister and Government. They do not have that yet. For context, one Minister recently said that the Government in recent years - and I do not always agree with Ministers - had been sitting on its hands on the issue. If there are no policy guidelines coming from Government-----

The forward planning regime has been implemented. That was set out under the Maritime Area Planning Act, and we then implemented the south coast DMAP. That provides for designation of specific maritime areas for a range of activities. The Government has prioritised the use of maritime areas for ORE. The very first DMAP developed under that legislation was the south coast DMAP. That went through a public consultation process and took about a year, roughly, to develop. There was a public consultation process.

As far as Mr. Collins is concerned, that location-specific policy is in place. Is that what he is saying?

Yes.

I thank Mr. Collins. Apologies, Deputy Daly.

Following on from what Mr. Collins said, I understand the Department's objective is to have a national DMAP by the end of 2027, which is just two years away. Given that it took 18 months to get the recent one, is the Department confident they are going to achieve that? Are the necessary legal, technical experts in place? Are they there, given what we have seen?

I will let my colleague from the marine planning area deal with that question.

I thank the Deputy for the question. We are absolutely confident we have the resources in place to deliver the national DMAP by the end of 2027. We have a dedicated project team within the Department. That comprises staff from two sections: the strategic policy section and technical expertise from our marine environmental section. Importantly, we are augmented by expertise from relevant State agencies, in particular the Marine Institute. We have a service level agreement with the Marine Institute for specific expertise that does not reside in the Department, particularly in the area of mapping, data, etc.

Mr. O'Leary is not worried that it took 18 months for this DMAP and is now confident with the national map. That is the answer to the question.

Absolutely, yes.

There is question Chair raised with the NPWS about some developers mentioning a request for a meeting last April to iron out some issues. It was requested in April, but when did the meeting take place?

I am not sure which development that related to.

I cannot remember which one it was but they requested a meeting in April. If a meeting is requested, how long does it take for the meeting to take place?

Generally, it takes about a month to six weeks to secure a date in everybody's calendars. The Deputy will appreciate this is getting at least five or six officials from the NPWS, which are the technical experts, and then the applicants to come together as well. Sometimes, it can take five or six weeks to get that together.

Are they useful on both sides? Is the NPWS happy with them?

Absolutely. In a pre-application context, most of the applicants were getting three or four meetings before their applications were submitted. In this period now, it is all about clarifying our comments on the requests.

There is more coming down the tracks. Have more meetings been arranged?

We have got one tomorrow with one of the applicants.

Very good. Finally, I have a question for the Department. During last week's meeting there was a question on grid connections and any agreements that are or are not taking place with EirGrid. There were some comments made by CRU relating to this and EirGrid has been given until February to answer the questions posed quite strongly by CRU.

Obviously, EirGrid answers to the Department. Is the Department happy that will be completed by February? How often does the organisation report to the Department? Is the Department managing the replies on that so that what is requested can be achieved?

It is a good question. More important than just us, EirGrid is a licensed body operating under CRU and has to report to it directly. The CRU engagement with EirGrid is critical. CRU has a positive, constructive engagement with EirGrid and we have made it clear to EirGrid that we want it to answer all the queries from CRU. it has been conveyed at official and ministerial levels that this is a priority for Government and that EirGrid should respond to the questions set out and the steps that need to be taken by CRU. We will also engage with CRU to see what other systems are needed, and whether we need to look at legislation or any other policy developments.

How often does the Department meet with EirGrid?

There is ongoing engagement with EirGrid.

Is the Department happy it is on top of that and there will be a response by the end of February?

We will continue to pursue EirGrid to ensure the response to the regulator is provided. We are meeting EirGrid - if you looked at all the teams - at least every week across a range of issues. There is regular engagement on offshore.

I thank the Chair for the extra time. He did come in with a VAR check halfway through.

Just to assist the Deputy.

I have a question for the Department on the DMAP. Is there going to be a public consultation in 2026? Work is ongoing to plan a comprehensive engagement process. Will there be a public consultation as well?

Yes.

There will be challenges in its delivery. How different will it be from the current south coast offshore renewable energy DMAP?

It will follow a very similar process in terms of the assessment and identifying the criteria, as the south coast DMAP identified, at a national level. There will be significant public consultation and at present, we have that planned for the start of 2027.

Importantly, we have published a public participation statement as part of the DMAP process, which was laid before the Houses last month. That sets out our consultation plan and our comprehensive stakeholder engagement plan. It sets out in detail how we plan to consult and who we will consult with. We will keep that document updated as we go through the process.

I know Mr. O'Leary does not have to listen to me, but I think it is important. We now have the President of the United States saying that the climate issue is a hoax. We have to make sure the energy we are creating from this results in cheaper electricity prices. It is such a huge task we have ahead of us that people kind of prefer to take the easy option and say, "Grand, I do not have to worry about it now". This has to result in cheaper electricity for people. We have more people than ever in electricity arrears and we have to be able to say to people, "I do not care if you believe in it or not. This is going to result in cheaper electricity for you". I ask Mr O'Leary to keep that in mind.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. I apologise for missing most of this meeting. I was in the Dáil. This may have been covered already. In relation to the target of 5 GW of renewable energy coming from offshore by 2030, do any of the witnesses believe that is actually possible or is that target dead in the water now as far as they are concerned? Maybe they could start with that, please.

I thank the Deputy for the direct question. What we believe is that we hope to have the projects in construction by 2030. Taking account of the stage the projects are at with regard to planning permission, they are going to have to do some additional survey work, so we would expect them to be energised in the early 2030s. We would certainly still envisage that construction would be taking place by 2030. There definitely has been a change in what we think is achievable.

When these things are ultimately constructed, is he confident that the grid infrastructure will be there to take them on and that will be in place by the 2030s? Is where the investment is being directed at the moment sufficient? Is there need for investment in other areas that are maybe not being covered in regard to the grid and being able to use the energy that is ultimately produced, rather than it being curtailed or whatever?

I am happy to take that one as well. The phase 1 projects were selected because they had grid connection offers so that the assessments on the grid had already been made and that the power could be taken on board. That requires additional investment. I mentioned earlier that the CRU has published its draft price review six, which sets out a programme of at least €13 billion to €14 billion of investment over the next five years on the national grid. That will address additional grid requirements where needed.

On the onshore grid, the connections are being constructed by the phase 1 developers. They will control the development of those grid connection links to bring the power onshore. I am very confident that when developers are developing the wind farm, the grid connection will be put in place and EirGrid, having done the assessments and the reinforcements that are needed, will be able to take the power off those plants when they are energised.

Given that offshore is still so far away, do the witnesses believe there is any scope to ramp up onshore wind production or other types of renewables? Maybe that is slightly outside the scope of what we are asking today but given that offshore is so far away, in the interim, can we get those carbon emission savings elsewhere by ramping up other types of renewable production, in the witnesses' opinion?

I am happy to take that one as well because I also have responsibility for the onshore programme. There is a very ambitious programme for onshore. We are talking about 9 GW of wind in onshore. We have run five onshore auctions at this stage. The last one was during the summer and we are going to continue to run regular auctions to meet our targets. Solar is also progressing very quickly. It is gone from nearly nothing to a number of gigawatts already, including over 1 GW in terms of utility scale. We are seeing further investments in that area.

In regard to future development, those targets are probably matched to what the grid can take on at time with the reinforcements. A significant focus for us is the delivery of those targets. We are working very closely with EirGrid, ESB Networks and the Department of housing to ensure the appropriate planning framework is in place for onshore wind and solar. As the Deputy would know, the regional targets were included in the national planning framework that was published earlier this year. We are going to be working with the Department of housing and the regional assemblies on developing those regional targets and translating them down to the county development plans. That is what we see as the most appropriate way of trying to fast-track that legislation. We will also be implementing RED 3, and we aim to develop an accelerated area for renewable development as well, which is a requirement under European legislation.

I want to make one comment. I know offshore seems very far away - it all seems very far away - but these are major projects. The scale is in billions of euro. They are not easy projects for the private sector to do when you have international companies trying to develop. To be positive as well, it is good to know and to inform the committee that the Minister has welcomed the successful result of the second offshore auction today and that we have provisional results on who will develop the 900 MW Tonn Nua site. It is a joint venture between ESB and Ørsted. That is a major development. The bid price came in at €98.72 per megawatt hour, which is competitive. It is a very good signal from the international community that there is scope for development in the offshore sector here. It is a real vote of confidence. It was a competitive auction. The CRU validated that there was a number of competitors in the auction and it was satisfied that it was competitive. We had multiple parties with international participation taking place in the auction. That is very welcome and demonstrates that some of the work we are doing with the task force and the partners across Government is leading to encouraging inward investment.

The Deputy referenced other jurisdictions. At this time, it is a challenging market for the international industry. We have seen some difficult auction results in other countries but this is a real vote of confidence for the regime being implemented in Ireland, in terms of both the modern planning regime that is there, the route to market and the whole-of-government approach that is being taken.

I thank Mr. Collins. I call Senator Higgins. I suspect her questions will be for the Department.

Yes, for the Department. It may just be a comment on the question of the climate piece being policy. It is, of course, not just policy. There are targets and legal targets that Ireland is bound to. It has a significant remit, which is actually, perhaps, somewhat different from being solely a matter of policy. It probably needs an appropriate weighting. I would be a little concerned at it being just one of the policy factors to be taken into account. I know that was probably not the intention of the witness but I was concerned about that.

Turning to the Department, I want to come back on something that has not really been mentioned here today, namely marine protected areas. There was a lot of discussion about the cart being put before the horse in that we are moving ahead with all the marine planning legislation and with the designated maritime area plans, DMAPs. However, the Bill that was promised before all of that, regarding the designation of marine protected areas - the witnesses will be aware that the international target is 30% - seems to have just stalled completely and indefinitely. I say that it is very relevant in regard to offshore wind because it is something we have heard from the industry again and again. It has talked about regretting the fact that the marine protected areas had not been moved ahead and designated. As well as saying where we are going to introduce offshore wind, knowing the areas where we should not, it also sees off some of the concerns that were anticipated, like the environmental concerns etc., if you have clearly marked areas of protection.

This is a question for the Department but it is also for the National Parks and Wildlife Service. It has a special function in regard to assessing the impact on special protected areas and special areas of conservation but one of the issues is that we do not really have marine protected areas.

We have Lough Inagh. There are a few very small areas. Where is the progression in relation to that? I understand and accept the idea of moving ahead with the different DMAPs. I know that rigorous processes are going into them, but the new national DMAP seems to cover all the maritime area and that is being progressed. If we are not saying there is a designated area for offshore wind, but that all maritime area in the State is now an area for offshore wind, but we still have not designated the protected areas, where does that fit in? What is happening with that? Could the National Parks and Wildlife Service comment on that? I have an additional question for it. In the mappings it does, there are time issues, because we know there are areas that may be appropriate for development, except for certain times of year, with the migration patterns of cetaceans in particular, which we know play a key role in our climate too. Are the witnesses satisfied that those migration patterns are being captured by the input that is going to An Bord Pleanála and others to make sure there are protected periods for migration?

I will ask my colleague from marine environment and planning to address that.

I thank the Senator for that question. It is really on point. We are fully trying to align those two processes of marine planning and marine protection. There has been a transfer of functions in respect of the marine environment, which now sits in the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment. I also have policy responsibility for the marine protected areas legislation. We are aligning those processes really coherently. I will speak at a high level about where the legislation is. Last week, the Government decided to bring forward a proposal to amend the Maritime Area Planning Act which would allow the development of marine protected areas through the planning code, effectively through the DMAP process. A new Bill will be drafted, which will be an amendment to the Maritime Area Planning Act, which will incorporate marine protected areas. Work is underway to draft the relevant proposals around that. We are trying to align the designation process in respect of marine protection with marine planning. That is a key piece at a high level.

At the more granular level, regarding the processes, the south coast DMAP process conducted an ecological sensitivity analysis to identify areas of environmental sensitivity as part of the DMAP process. Our ambition for the national DMAP process is to do the very same. We will identify areas through the same process that will potentially be suitable for future marine protection. The processes are as aligned as they can be but they have to go through separate legislative codes in terms of the work that is ongoing and the data that feeds into that. Our full rationale for doing a national DMAP is to identify, at a national scale, what we want to protect from a marine protection point of view, but also ensure that we site the renewable energy in the right locations. That is a key focus of our work and will be instrumental in how we develop the national DMAP. We are joined in delivering that coherence.

And the National Parks and Wildlife Service?

I can take the comment about the migratory species. It is one of the factors that we would have commented on at a pre-app stage and it is one of the topics in the request for further information to existing applicants. Ireland is one of the most important countries in Europe for migratory birds and marine mammals which pass through our waters at certain times. It is just one of the many factors that goes into the mix when we are looking to protect the marine environment. That factor has also been considered when we have been feeding the data sets that we provide into the plan-makers for the south coast DMAP.

I thank everyone for joining us. Apologies for being in and out, because I am in two committees at once and have to bi-locate. My first question is about DMAP and spatial planning. I know a number of different projects are ongoing. It is no different to a county development plan where a county would designate land suitable for wind. DMAP is essentially the same thing. Are there any reasons or circumstances that we could find ourselves in where An Coimisiún Pleanála would override that DMAP guidance to grant planning for an offshore wind project?

There is an "A" question, Deputy. I am simply not qualified. I am not a planner. I do not want to defer. I am here as leader of the organisation.

That is why I gave the county development plans for wind as a kind of comparative example.

We have a new system in relation to that.

The south coast DMAP that is available identifications locations for the wind. That has already gone through a process. As the Deputy is saying, the county development plans that we are all very familiar with have gone through a process whereby these sites have been identified. It would be very strange for us to find something there that would mean we would go outside the areas that have been identified for offshore wind, which I think is what the Deputy is asking.

Yes, so generally speaking, where areas are identified through DMAP, no different to a county development plan, An Coimisiún Pleanála is working in that scope.

Exactly. A spatial plan. It is subject to all the environmental constraints and the normal assessment that we would carry out.

How do the witnesses feel we are comparing on pricing, auctions and so on? I know they made some reference to it. Can they address it with regard to near neighbours and auctions? How are we performing? Have they any concerns about viability of projects based on pricing and auctions?

It can be difficult to do direct comparisons between countries because each auction is different between countries. There is no figure that we use that says our figure represents a certain number which is equivalent to a particular other number in the UK.

Is there no benchmarking?

It is not really possible because there are many different auction designs and regulatory designs which change the cost and risk profile that developers are willing to bid on. Indicatively, I would say we are comparable to the pricing that is taking place in the UK at the moment. We would look at how our bids compare with the current wholesale price. The Deputy has probably seen the industry making quite significant reference to the impact on the wholesale price of electricity when wind is available on that day. When there are windy days, it tends to drive prices down. Low-wind days tend to result in a higher wholesale price. We are seeing pricing coming in close to or below the wholesale price at the moment. That would seem to be one indication of competitiveness being delivered. The other matter that is really important is that all our auctions are competitive processes. There are commercial companies that make bids and lose, so people walk away from auctions unsuccessful. That is a competitive pressure on them to provide the best costs to develop a project and sell it at a contracts for difference, CFD, price.

Has Mr. Collins any concerns about the future viability of development of projects?

We would continue to engage with companies all the time. What we have seen is that there have been changes in the marketplace, supply chain constraints, changes in the capital markets and interest rates have adjusted. We would have regular engagements with the phase 1 projects. They would outline to us that they are facing challenging conditions, just like other projects around Europe. At this stage, they are completely committed to the development of these projects, but we are continuing to engage with them on that. If a bid comes in, you have to accept that this is a private investor, and they have to make declarations that this is a viable bid and that it is based on the information they have about their cost of capital and the supply chain cost estimates that they have made. All the CFD is doing is removing the price volatility that they may be exposed to and providing a reliable price, so it reduces the risk of the returns and income for them. We do that because if they reduce the risk, it reduces their bid price.

That reduces the cost that the consumer may have to pick up in the future.

From a risk register perspective, what is the most significant risk on the radar right now for delivery?

On the risk register, we have identified that there is a very high risk of the projects not being energised by 2030 because of the process they are going through. The most significant risk is that they will be delayed. As I said earlier, we believe they will be in construction by 2030 and energisation shortly after that.

I have a couple of questions to the Department. When the sector was in here last week, ports policy came up as an area. There was a concern that ports policy being developed at the moment would limit the ability for our coastal ports to get the investment that they need to be able to service offshore wind construction. Where is the Department on that?

We have seen investment in ports already taking place. Cork has already got additional investment and that is taking place. We agree that there are additional needs on ports, so we can see as much as possible of the business being deployed from Ireland. There is also going to be significant operation support from smaller scale ports. I understand that a port policy is getting towards being finalised within the Department for Transport at present. That will set out what the future policy is on that. I do not have visibility on that because it is a different Department.

Does Mr. Collins accept that there is a risk? The sector was saying it depends on how the policy goes that it may be difficult to attract investment into the sector.

It may be. I do not know what the commercial situation of the individual ports is.

That is fine. Someone else mentioned grid capacity. One of the things that came up at the committee last week was the standardisation of grid connections, availability of grid connections and arguments over specifications in terms of linking up. I presume that will all be resolved by the Department or detailed out in terms of standardisation and certainly for the second round.

I think what they are talking about there is that they are still in the process of negotiating the agreements on the asset transfer. That process is still taking place between the operators and EirGrid.

Is the Department involved in that in any way?

EirGrid is a commercial semi-State. It carries out that. We give it the policy direction on what the Government’s and Minister’s objectives are and what our expectations are in how they respond to that.

Any technical issues are effectively between those two groups.

The technical issues would definitely be addressed by the engineering teams for both parties.

To pick up on Senator O’Donovan’s overall point, Arklow Bank Wind Park was built in 2003. It came on stream in 2004. That is 21 years ago. There is a sense that it was great at the time. What has happened in the interim with the industry and sector? Mr. Collins is talking about energising projects in the early 2030s. There is a large gap there that we have seem to have lost in terms of time. Mr. Collins set out the terms of Tonn Nua and that it is a positive response, which it certainly is. What does the Department feel about whether we can catch up effectively? To what do we attribute that long timeframe and delay?

The reasons there has been a long gap were mainly due to the lack of a modern regulatory framework for the maritime area and there were not any appropriate route-to-market support schemes in place. Back then, contracts for difference, CFDs, did not exist. That was a mechanism that was developed by the UK in its market and we have seen how they brought that on. There are a number of reasons. We have eliminated the causes of that delay now. There is some upside to that. We have seen significant reductions in the cost of offshore technology because of the scale of development that taken place in the North Sea area. We are now benefiting from those lower cost investments. That relates to foundation and turbine construction. While it was disappointing that there was a delay, there are some benefits.

On the other hand, we saw an enormous development in the onshore wind sector. We have a competent industry on the onshore. That has reached well in excess of 5 GW at this stage. Our peak demand is 6 GW. That is the level of investment that has taken place in the onshore sector. I previously mentioned the five onshore auctions that have been conducted by the Department over the past five years. There is a pipeline of projects being energised and constructed. Due to that commitment and target, it has given confidence to the industry. We would know that the industry is submitting applications to the planning authorities for future onshore wind and solar projects.

That is it. On behalf of both committees, I thank all the witnesses for taking part in this second session on offshore wind. I propose we will publish all the opening statement on the committee’s website. Is that agreed? Agreed.