Apologies have been received from Senator Alice-Mary Higgins. The purpose of the meeting today is to have an engagement with witnesses on the topic of energy affordability. This meeting is being split into two separate sessions. The first session is with officials from the national energy affordability task force, NEAT, in the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment, and representatives from the ESRI. Our second session will be an engagement with representatives from EnergyCloud and the Civil Society Network.

From NEAT in the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment, I welcome Mr. Robert Deegan, principal officer; Mr. Philip Newsome, principal officer; Mr. Daniel Carton, assistant principal officer; and Ms. Megan O’Leary, assistant principal officer. From the ESRI, I welcome Professor Niall Farrell, associate research professor; and Dr. John Curtis, head of economics division. They are all very welcome. I remind all those in attendance to ensure their mobile phones are on silent mode or switched off.

Before I invite the witnesses to deliver their opening statements, I advise them 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.

The format of the meeting is that I will invite witnesses, in turn, to make an opening statement of a maximum duration of five minutes. Once those statements have been delivered, I will call on members of the committee to put their questions in the order in which they indicate to me. The 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. 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, time permitting, a second round will commence where each member will have up to three minutes for both questions and answers.

Please note that the duration of the session is limited and, therefore, the times must be strictly adhered to. I ask everybody to be focused in their contributions. The meeting will be split into two sessions, with the first set of witnesses here for the first hour so we will try to manage engagement with them within an hour, and then the second set of witnesses for the second hour. I now call each organisation to deliver its opening statement. First is Mr. Robert Deegan from the Department, followed by Professor Niall Farrell from the ESRI.

Good afternoon. I thank the Chair and members of the committee for the invitation to today’s meeting on energy affordability and the work of the national energy affordability task force. As the Chair mentioned, I am joined by colleagues from the Department. Ms Megan O'Leary, Mr. Daniel Carton and I are the secretariat to the national energy affordability task force and Mr. Philip Newsome is a member of the task force.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, Irish households and businesses have experienced very significant increases in the prices they pay for energy. The latest data from Eurostat shows that, in nominal terms, Ireland ranked fifth for electricity prices and eighth for household gas prices among European countries in the first half of 2025.

When adjusting for purchasing power parity, Ireland is mid-table in terms of energy affordability, with the 12th highest electricity prices among the EU-27. The electricity and gas retail markets in Ireland operate within a European Union regulatory regime wherein electricity and gas markets are commercial and liberalised. Operating within this overall EU framework, responsibility for the regulation of the electricity and gas markets is solely a matter for the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU. Price setting by electricity suppliers is a commercial and operational matter for the companies concerned.

Retail prices are influenced by several factors, including wholesale energy prices, system operation costs and supplier hedging. In Ireland, our reliance on imported fossil fuels, particularly gas for electricity generation, has been a long-standing driver of higher energy costs. Furthermore, our location as an island on the periphery of Europe and our low-density and widely dispersed population also influence prices.

The programme for Government acknowledges the increased energy cost pressures on consumers. It also includes a range of commitments in relation to progressing the decarbonisation of the energy system while also enhancing energy security and affordability. This includes commitments to prioritise investment in our grid, intensify the transition to lower-cost renewables in power generation and ramp up the retrofit delivery to achieve targets set out in the climate action plan and National Retrofit Plan.

We have already seen progress across these broad headings. For instance, in July, the Government approved a landmark €3.5 billion investment in grid infrastructure as part of the national development plan. This represents the single largest investment in the country's electricity network. Legislation providing the legal mechanism necessary for the investment of €1.5 billion of this funding in ESB Networks has now passed all Stages and was signed into law by the President last month. Further legislation in relation to the investment in EirGrid will be progressed next year.

Accelerating the deployment of renewable electricity generation is fundamental to our transition to a renewables-led system. Greater deployment of renewables will also help to reduce volatility in energy costs, as well as making us more resilient to extreme weather, economic and geopolitical shocks. According to the SEAI, renewables met 41% of Irish electricity demand last year. This represents significant progress and the Department is working to ensure the policies needed to support continued growth are in place.

Energy efficiency is also a key contributor to enhancing affordability for households as well as improving industrial competitiveness. For that reason, the Government is continuing to make significant investments to improve the energy efficiency of our built environment. Budget 2026 saw a record capital allocation of €558 million for SEAI residential and community energy upgrade schemes. This builds on the almost €1.5 billion invested in SEAI schemes since 2019. Analysis by the Department and the SEAI indicates a household can save between €750 and €1,120 per year by installing a deep package of efficiency measures. The Government has also continued to invest significant resources in schemes for business, including the EXEED scheme, the support scheme for energy audits and the business energy upgrade scheme, among others.

In June, the Government established the national energy affordability task force in order to develop short, medium and long-term policy solutions to address energy costs. The task force is chaired by the Minister, Deputy O’Brien, and is comprised of representatives from across government and key energy sector stakeholders. The task force’s first report, which analysed recent trends in energy costs and set out a range of options to address energy affordability, was published last month. Many of these proposed measures were adopted in budget 2026, including the extension of the lower VAT rate on energy bills and expanding fuel allowance eligibility to working family payment recipients. The next phase of the task force’s work programme will include a process of stakeholder engagement and consultation to inform the development of an energy affordability action plan. This is expected to include recommendations for structural reforms and targeted supports that will benefit consumers, including those in energy poverty. The action plan will be published next year.

In conclusion, we are working closely with colleagues across Government through the task force to enhance energy affordability for households and businesses. I again thank members for the opportunity to address the committee. My colleagues and I are happy to answer any questions that they may have.

I thank Mr. Deegan very much. The next speaker is Dr. Farrell.

Dr. Curtis and I thank the Chair for the invitation to appear before the committee. For some context, Eurostat data show that in Ireland, residential electricity prices in the second half of 2024 were roughly double what they were in 2018, before changes to taxes and levies are taken into account. Policy measures, including energy credits and reduced VAT rates, helped shield consumers from some but not all of this additional burden. Irish electricity prices have fallen from their 2023 peak, but the decline has been less than in many other European countries. The exact reason is difficult to establish but several plausible factors exist. Ireland’s limited ability to diversify away from gas-fired generation, for example, reduces the scope for wholesale price reductions. As noted recently by the International Energy Agency, the gap between Irish wholesale and retail electricity prices has widened since the energy crisis. This has occurred in many other European countries, but to a greater extent in Ireland. Possible explanations include fewer risk-mitigation options and weaker competition in the Irish market. Limited public data constrains understanding and may suggest a role for regulator inquiry. Renewable energy deployment will be required to meet decarbonisation targets. Construction sector capacity and an efficient planning system will influence progress. Finally, rising network costs will increase our electricity prices over the next five years. According to the CRU, residential energy bills may rise by an estimated €80 per annum.

I move to tackling energy affordability. Tariffs should be cost reflective to guide efficient use and investment in the system. The unit price should reflect the cost of generation and standing charges should reflect each consumer’s fair share of fixed costs. Irish tariffs are currently not cost reflective. The CRU is undergoing a network charging review. This is welcome as a cost-reflective reform guides the efficient evolution of the system, minimising unnecessary costs for consumers. The principle of cost reflectivity implies social tariffs or VAT adjustments can undermine the efficient use and evolution of the system. It also undermines environmental objectives, counteracting efforts to reduce consumption and therefore emissions. There are more efficient and equitable options available to assist with energy affordability. There are three primary means by which policy may assist households with ability to pay: uniform transfers such as energy credits, targeted transfers such as changes to social transfers, and changes to energy prices such as VAT rate changes. Changes to energy prices are least progressive as a greater proportion of the financial transfer goes to those who are most well-off as they tend to consume more electricity. Uniform transfers are second least progressive. Targeted social transfers are most progressive. For each euro spent, social transfers benefit vulnerable households to a greater extent than changes to prices or uniform transfers. Policy may also seek to lower energy costs for vulnerable households. Such policies include the promotion of supplier switching or retrofit support. Some evidence merits consideration. Much evidence shows household energy savings are smaller than BER metrics imply. While retrofits may aid comfort and reduce energy expenditures somewhat, the magnitude may be overstated. Further research is required to fully understand why. Information campaigns are commonly used to prompt actions such as switching suppliers or to engage in more cost-effective behaviour. Evidence suggests careful design is required in that information campaigns that do not identify and target a specific barrier to a desired action have been found to be ineffective.

Salience is an important issue. Political acceptability will be an increasingly important component of decarbonisation policy and should be considered when designing energy affordability policy. International research has shown salient and visible benefits are more acceptable to citizens and therefore more likely to succeed. This may inform the design of energy affordability measures, such as a targeted energy credit for eligible households, via a bespoke cheque or an electricity bill adjustment. This may require the co-operation of multiple Government agencies and Departments.

The evidence presents some clear guidelines for energy affordability policy. Adjusting prices can undermine environmental policy and are also least effective in addressing distributional objectives. Targeted transfers are more effective. The design of a salient transfer can maximise the likelihood that decarbonisation policies are received positively. Data suggests that investment in insulation may have a lesser effect on consumption than expected, while information campaigns must target a specific barrier.

I thank Dr. Farrell. I invite members to engage with witnesses in the order in which they indicated. Deputy Whitmore will be first.

I thank the Chair and thank the witnesses for their presentations. I have one question I will put to both the Department and the ESRI. I thank the affordability task force for its work. It is a very good document with good recommendations. One recommendation I want to address is what we would call the analysis of price gouging or the potential for that. One of the recommendations made was that the CRU be tasked with an investigation into the pass-through of wholesale price reductions from retailers to consumers. It is the same question because the witnesses mentioned the risk of price gouging. Do they believe price gouging is happening or that there is potential that it is happening currently in the market? How important is it to have this analysis done to ensure we have the transparency but also that retailers are held to account for not passing on savings?

I thank the Deputy. It is important to say we share the concern about what the IEA report said about the disparity between wholesale and retail prices. While the IEA report acknowledges this is something seen across multiple jurisdictions it highlighted the fact Ireland had the greatest discrepancy. That is an issue that is of concern and something we certainly need to address. The CRU is responsible for monitoring on an ongoing basis and identifying whether any competition or pass-through issues arise.

It looked at this matter in detail in 2023 and found no market failure at that point. It also monitors and track the market on an ongoing basis and has raised no competition concerns. However, in light of the concerns that are being raised through the political system, through the IEA report, from ourselves, the task force and in the Department and more generally, the Minister wrote to the chair of the CRU and asked for this detailed analysis of pass-through, issues around competition, the gap between wholesale and retail costs and that a really detailed examination of those issues be undertaken by the regulator. The Department has also had engagement with the CRU on what the scope of that might look like. I know the CRU is prioritising the finalisation of that scope and moving into the development of the report stage. That report will very much inform the work of the energy affordability task force in a number of ways, including the identification of actions that need to be taken and identifying if it is determined that any additional powers need to be given to the CRU because it cannot do something it needed to do. Anything like that is on the table in terms of addressing this issue and affordability more generally.

I would agree with a lot of what colleagues in the Department said. I might add some extra information. With the IEA report, we can only interpret what we can see. We can see the difference between the wholesale price and the retail price. There is a gap between those in all countries and it is probably slightly larger in Ireland, so then the next question is what is driving that. With the information available to us we can only identify the possible factors and we do not know to what extent each is responsible. I will outline some things that come to my mind which might be driving this. The data is different. The way Eurostat collects data is a survey process which goes to different member states so there is a bit of difference there that could be driving some of it. There is also the fact that Ireland is a smaller market and therefore there is greater risk involved. The cost of hedging and making sure there is a secure supply is greater than other countries. There is an extra cost associated with hedging the risk. Then there could be market competition concerns. The question is to figure out the percentage to which each of these or other factors are driving the difference. A lot of the measures highlighted there by colleagues in the Department would be very useful. For us as outsiders looking in, with the publicly available data we cannot figure that out but with this sort of investigation that is something that might be seen.

If I may add to that, I agree entirely. We really need to diagnose what the problem is in the first instance and get fully under the bonnet of the IEA numbers and we will engage with the IEA further. We have already had some initial engagement around determining what is in there. Whenever you are dealing with comparisons of complicated systems across jurisdictions and you are trying to cram everything in to a template there is the possibility of comparing apples with oranges. We want to make sure that is not the case. The CRU review will happen one way or the other but the first thing is to properly determine in our own way with our own numbers what we think the gap between wholesale and retail is and compare that with the IEA and fully understand the reasons why there is a difference if there is any difference. The ultimate thing is to address the issue.

I really welcome that the Minister is being proactive and has requested the CRU look into price gouging. Has a timeframe been put on that? Obviously, we are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis and people are really struggling at the moment. We would not want a long extended period to go by while this was ongoing.

It is important to say on this and the whole energy affordability issue there is a sense of urgency. It is being felt by the Department, the Minister, the CRU and across the Government. There will be no unnecessary delays on this. We are scoping out exactly what will be covered by the review. I would expect good progress on that in the coming weeks and early next year and on whether the CRU needs to secure external support for any extras, but there will be no unnecessary delays. It really is a priority for the Department and the regulator and will be treated as such.

Thank you.

Deputy Ó Cearúil is the next speaker.

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements and for being here. The first question is for NEAT. When will the energy affordability action plan actually be published?

The first report was published last month-----

I know that, yes.

-----that informed the budgetary process. We are now moving to the next phase in the work of the task force where we will ensure that any additional workstreams or work programmes that need to be added to the existing work programme are added.

To answer the question directly the intention is to publish the action plan in the middle of next year – probably July is what we are looking at – well in advance of the budget next year so we can inform that and we can also look at medium- and longer-term measures that go beyond the next budgetary cycle.

Super. I commend the task force on the work it has done so far. Are there any stakeholders involved in the next phase that were not involved in the previous phase?

Certainly, there will be.

And who? Sorry.

I will say who was involved in the task force to date. It is all the relevant Departments and agencies and key stakeholders from the energy systems such as EirGrid, the CRU and ESBN.

For the next stage, we are conscious that we need to bring external stakeholders into the discussion. They have important views to provide and we are all ears. The intention is to have a consultation and engagement process commencing early next year. We are already developing that. We have done the stakeholder mapping and, at a high level, looked at the issues we are going to talk about. We will also lean on a lot of the work undertaken as part of previous consultation processes too.

Will Mr. Deegan indicate some of the high-level stakeholders that will engaged with who have not been to date, please?

They are the kinds of stakeholders the committee will be speaking to after today’s meeting. It is civil society, that is, the groups, NGOs and the public themselves. We know the advocacy groups will have perspectives and views to bring. There is a lot of research from the representative organisations for people in energy poverty. We will be engaging with-----

Sorry, I am just conscious of time. Both NEAT and the ESRI have referred to a lot of the cost-drivers from hedging to a reliance on gas-fired generation, weaker competition, etc. We sit 12th among 27 EU member states on energy. What measures and levers have other member states actioned to try to reduce energy costs? I appreciate it is comparing apples with oranges in some instances but have there been particular policy measures taken by other member states to try to reduce costs?

Part of the next phase of the process will be to really interrogate actions taken by countries which have been successful in driving down energy costs. We will also look at we have done to see what has worked and what has not worked. There will be a full review of international experience and best practice and learning the lessons from that and prioritising what we are going to do. Essentially we will look at every aspect of the bill, breaking it down to its components, drilling into each aspect and seeing whether any savings can be made or whether there can be a more effective or efficient way of driving value and getting better results in energy affordability for households or businesses.

Does the ESRI have any comment on the question of other jurisdictions?

I would bring it back to the question of what are the options available. They can be categorised in three different buckets, namely, changes to prices, targeted transfers and social transfers and forms of transfers like the energy credits. There is a clear order of merit. If your objective is to maximise the impact for vulnerable households of each euro spent, then targeted transfers get the best impact per euro spent. The second best would be uniform transfers and the third best is changes to prices. In the UK, price caps were put in place but that would be the third-best solution available. On the other hand if you want to help in the longer term you might want to move away from the amount of energy people consume. There is important research to be considered on what measures are most and least effective. For example, energy efficiency investments are good but perhaps not as good as we might have thought ex ante. Further research is required to understand why that is.

I have one follow-up question. Given the evidence that VAT cuts and universal credits are seen as somewhat regressive, are there particular design features that would make targeted transfers administratively more effective and efficient?

They are not necessarily regressive, just less progressive. In terms of what design would use be useful, ultimately we want to have a policy in place that people are accepting of and embrace and that they understand clearly what benefit they are getting. A salient, visible transfer is good in that regard. For example, the energy credits were quite visible. Everybody knew about them. If there is a targeted structure,such as an amount going towards people's electricity bills instead of the same amount being given as a benefit via children's allowance, that overcomes this sort of behavioural hurdle that might be there otherwise. It is the same Exchequer cost and it has the same social benefit but it might also have this political acceptability benefit. Alongside that there is an administrative effect whereby a number of Departments and agencies have to talk to one another and co-ordinate. That can be difficult. However, if these things were on the table, that could be very effective.

I thank Dr. Farrell.

Ultimately, in regard to vulnerability, we have a social welfare system which is designed to help those in need, rather than trying to engineer another system through the energy market. We have the mechanism there and it could be more effective.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. My question is to the Department. It was said that retail prices are influenced by several factors, including wholesale energy prices, system operating costs and supplier hedging. I might direct this to both groups. Five suppliers raised prices during the summer and some of them blamed network charges. However, the increase in prices was far more than the increase in network charges. Has the Department taken any measures or met with these suppliers to discuss this? With the measures that have been taken, is it not inevitable that there was some element of profiteering or price-gouging on behalf of some of those companies?

The Department - my colleagues and I - meet with the suppliers. As well as the task force, I lead the retail markets team in the Department. We meet with suppliers on an ongoing basis. This issue was raised at a previous committee meeting with the regulator. One supplier in particular was identified as perhaps focusing on the network and regulated charges and there was a big gap, as the Deputy pointed out. That would be a concern to us if communications were not entirely clear about what the drivers were. There was some follow-up between the regulator and the company concerned.

Has Mr. Deegan met the company concerned?

I have not met with it. I have only taken up this role since the week after the budget so I have not had an opportunity to meet that retailer yet.

Would Mr. Deegan accept that in companies with large shareholdings the desire to increase the profit, or price-gouging, are inevitable?

I do not necessarily agree that it is inevitable.

Mr. Deegan would not rule it out.

What we need to do is consider the evidence from the regulator that is actually examining competition in the market on an ongoing basis, either in its 2023 report or more recently in terms of the ongoing market monitoring it does. However, that is not to say we are resting on our laurels in any way.

Mr. Deegan does not rule out the possibility that there could be profiteering.

We have to look at the evidence. The review which the Minister has asked the regulator to undertake will give us the answers to these questions. To date, the CRU has not brought those concerns to our attention. However, that is not to say that we are not going to look at it in great detail.

Mr. Deegan said earlier that we are about 12th in terms of prices. Eurostat has stated that when taxes and energy credits are excluded we actually have the highest costs in Europe. Does Mr. Deegan accept that is the case?

Again, with Eurostat data, as with any comparisons, the way the data is captured will give the results that it ends up being. Some countries took different approaches to tackling the energy crisis. They will also be reflected in the energy comparison. If the supports are taken out from one, they need to be taken out from all in order to make sure there is a like-for-like comparison. We accept fully that energy prices are an issue. That is why the energy affordability task force has been established.

In which quarter of next year is that report going to be issued?

It is going to be in July of next year.

It will be before the summer recess.

The aim is to publish it in plenty of time to inform the budgetary process.

We brought forward legislation a few years ago in relation to the CRU to provide that it would be mandated and have powers to regulate hedging and standing charges and prioritise affordability. Would Mr. Deegan be supportive of that in certain circumstances?

I might hand this one over to my colleague, Ms O'Leary.

The role and the remit of the CRU is to ensure an open market and effective competition in both wholesale and retail markets. There is also a role for the CRU in relation to monitoring the evolution of grid tariffs and levies. It is important to say that the CRU currently has the power, should it identify any market failure, to intervene or take any corrective action that is necessary. The programme for Government, however, did commit to prioritise a review and reform of the legislation underpinning the CRU. The first phase of this has now been completed by Department officials and this involved a full review-----

I am sorry to cut in. Ms O'Leary would be open to that, if that was the recommendation.

Everything is on the table in terms of progressing energy affordability. If additional powers are required, so be it. They did look at hedging practices in a previous review. They were able to review and to look at hedging practices at that point. That is not to say that there are other powers required.

We are also currently transposing the electricity market design directive which will give additional powers to regulators to monitor the hedging practices of suppliers to ensure they are hedging responsibly.

I have one final follow-up question. Some 307,000 households were in arrears in August. A recommendation from this committee that the CRU will take into account is that the arrears data be updated monthly. It appears that has been done quarterly. When the budget was published on 7 October, the latest data available to the Department referred to June. Was the June data the latest data available to the Government when the budget was published in October?

Yes, that is the case. The figures that were provided on 15 September related to June. We got the July, August and September figures in November 2025. I would point out one or two issues. The latest data available is for September and that saw a 10,500 reduction in the number of customers in arrears. That brings the number to 297,300. In terms of people who were more than 90 days in arrears, the figure is 179,500, which was a reduction from 186,500.

Given the increase in arrears that took place between June and August, was the Government, in effect, flying blind without the most up-to-date data to take into consideration when deciding on a return to energy credits?

I am looking at the data here. The number in arrears in June was 298,336 and the number in September was 297,313. That is not to downplay the issue.

Just to come back on that point, the CRU said there were 307,000 in arrears in August.

Sorry, that is entirely correct. That is for August but I am talking about the September data, which is the latest available data.

Yes, but that was not available in October when the budget was published.

That is correct. However, the figure we had was the June data and that was actually higher than the September data.

Should we not be going back to the monthly release of data rather than quarterly, in a cost-of-living crisis?

It is provided on a monthly basis. There was a delay in some data for a couple of months which delayed things coming in over that particular period.

There is a lag in terms of when the data is produced but it is normally produced and published on a monthly basis.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations, which were very interesting. I have a question for Mr. Deegan. The regulation of electricity and gas prices is the sole responsibility of the CRU. It seems from price review 6 that the pitch has been tilted. The Government seems to be on team data centre rather than team Irish public. While retail prices are influenced, it is the case that the wholesale price of electricity is now 75% lower than it was at the height of the peak in August 2022 but ordinary consumers are not seeking the reduction. Are we team data centre or team Irish public?

I thank Deputy Cronin and I will hand over to Mr. Newsome.

I thank Deputy Cronin for the question. It is very important to say the energy system and the electricity grid are critical for the provision of power to all consumer types. Data centres and other large energy users are a really important aspect of our economy, our economic future and our development. In terms of the proportion of electricity demand represented by data centres, Ireland is one of the leading countries in the world.

Does Mr. Newsome think the CRU should have more powers? It seems it is quite restricted.

The CRU is conducting a review of how the network tariffs work. It has strong powers to look at the distribution of tariffs. I would say also there is an upcoming decision by the CRU on the data centre connection process. That is a critical piece in this.

Analysis by the Department and the SEAI shows that retrofitting can save significant amounts of money, from €750 to €1,120. A recent study by AIB showed that most people, certainly people on lower incomes, simply cannot afford a retrofit. Telling people they can make this significant saving is a bit like telling people who have trouble paying their shopping bills that caviar is half price. Is there more we could do about retrofitting homes for lower-income families?

This is a very important issue and it will be a key pillar of the work of the task force in terms of driving down energy costs for consumers. An important statistic of the retrofit budget is that over the period from 2022 to 2024, 64% of Government retrofit spending was on energy-poor homes, local authority retrofits and approved housing body retrofits. I do not have the data for a figure over and above this but some of the other schemes, such as the community energy grant scheme and the home energy upgrade scheme also provide fully funded upgrades, or near to fully funded upgrades, for energy-poor households.

There are so many people renting at the moment whose incomes are tight.

The rental market is a very challenging area because of what is called a split incentive between the landlord and the tenant. I used to work in the retrofit area. I used to be responsible for retrofit policy. This is an area we gave particular attention to. A range of supports is available but sometimes we have not communicated as effectively as possible on what these supports are. A range of grant schemes is available to landlords. All of the grant schemes, with the exception of the warmer home scheme which is 100% funded, are available to landlords. In addition to this, there is a tax incentive. There is tenant in situ tax support for the rental sector. The home energy upgrade loan scheme, which is effectively the cheapest money people can borrow in Ireland with rates as low as 2.9% or 3%, is also available to the rental sector.

The point Deputy Cronin is making is that from a socioeconomic perspective poorer households are really struggling to get over the line. This is the question. What does that data say?

Has the national energy affordability task force identified this as an issue?

Absolutely. Essentially, the pillars we are going to be looking at include tackling the price, reducing demand and increasing flexibility. Reducing demand means improving energy efficiency and retrofitting people's homes, customer supports and social protection measures. On the issue of energy poverty, every year the biggest proportion of the budget goes to the warmer homes scheme. This scheme provides fully funded upgrades for households at risk of energy poverty. Last year €230 million was spent on the scheme and it provided 7,750 upgrades. The budget this year is €280 million. The scheme has gone through a number of changes in recent years to provide better outcomes for homeowners.

The question is whether it is landing in the right place on the socioeconomic side.

People hear the figures but they are not seeing it as being affordable for them to retrofit their homes.

The warmer homes scheme is fully funded. There is no cost to the homeowner and it is targeted.

It is very slow though.

There is a very long timeframe.

It is very long but to give an indication of the work involved in these retrofits, ten years ago-----

Nobody questions that.

-----the value of the upgrade was €2,900 and it is now €29,000. This is the average value of an upgrade for these homes. Many of these homes are being taken apart and put back together again, giving the homeowner a much healthier, more comfortable, cheaper to heat and operate home. This has long-term benefits in terms of energy costs, affordability, health, well-being and all of these things. There is research to back up and underpin all of this. That is why the budget has increased every year. This year the budget was increased by €89 million. It will increase again because we are going to supplement the warmer homes budget with additional funding sources, such as the European Regional Development Fund.

When we look internationally there is nothing that compares with it. This scheme is internationally recognised as being best practice and best in class. When Europe is looking to talk to somebody about energy upgrades for low-income households at risk of energy poverty they ask the SEAI or the Department to come and talk to them about it because it is such an effective scheme. The thing about it is that when we offer €29,000 worth of value to people who need it, they will apply for it. The number of applications has grown exponentially in recent years, as has the support provided by the scheme. This is balanced by increasing budgets and expanded supplier capacity. Most recently, just this week, the SEAI launched a new procurement process to establish a €1.2 billion contractor panel to be in place by the second quarter of next year. This will expand the capacity to deliver. If we do not have an expanded contractor panel we could continue to pour more money into the scheme but there would not be the contractors to do the work. What we are doing is-----

This is an issue.

We are balancing both sides.

I have a question for Dr. Farrell. One thing that would help households to pay their bills is energy credits. What is Dr. Farrell's opinion of the Government removing the energy credits? People can say this is across the board but reducing energy prices would also be across the board and we want to see this too. Will Dr. Farrell give us his opinion on the removal of the energy credits?

If we think about it, long term we want the prices to come down and in the short term the objective may be to make sure everybody can afford adequate energy. If we want to make sure we optimise the money spent and get the best impact for vulnerable households per euro spent, a targeted transfer is the best. If we can identify who are the vulnerable people and who most need the assistance, and target money towards these people, that would be the best. The second best would be a uniform transfer such as what we had and next best would be changes to prices such as the VAT rate. The problem with changes to prices is that on average those who are more well-off tend to consume more energy. In terms of euro, we would be giving more towards those who are more well-off than those who are less well-off. The VAT reduction benefits households by an average of €70 but those who consume more energy benefit by more than €70 and those who consume less energy benefit by less than €70.

Poorer income homes feel the benefit from an energy credit more than higher income homes.

Yes, exactly. The €70 is the same, but that goes a lot further for somebody on the lower end of the income spectrum. That is exactly the point. In the long term it is about asking how we can reduce costs in the future. That is what we have been discussing and trying to see what the drivers are for costs in that regard.

I do not want to pre-empt the second half of the session, but it is important, while the Department officials are here, to ask about the amount of dispatch down energy that is there. According to the EnergyCloud proposals, there was 1,169 GWh of renewable wind energy that could be used. The overarching question around the energy affordability action plan is whether there will be a commitment in that plan to give active consideration to this fantastic open goal, which is targeted and measured and involves putting smart meters into homes and low-income households to provide a renewable source of energy into the households that need it most.

I thank the Senator. The EnergyCloud proposal is a very interesting and innovative approach. In order to address the challenges we have ahead of us innovation is going to be really important, so it is great to see new proposals and new ideas coming forward and being rolled out.

The team from EnergyCloud has met representatives from the Department and the SEAI on a number of occasions. They were very positive engagements. In terms of the way EnergyCloud is operating at the moment, as we understand it, the approach is primarily focused on local authorities and approved housing body homes. That is a sensible approach at the outset because it provides the benefits of aggregation and an area-based approach which can reduce costs and are very helpful. As the number of houses incorporating EnergyCloud technology continues to grow, there is a real opportunity to evaluate the progress that has been made under the scheme, see what impact it has had and continue to have engagement with EnergyCloud. I will be meeting with the CEO next week. There is a date in the diary for the Minister to meet with the organisation early next year. We will certainly be engaging constructively as part of the task force and also the Department itself on this. Regarding the dispatch down question, I will pass that to my colleague Mr. Newsome.

In a broad sense, moving to a renewables-led system, as we are, dispatch down is a challenge. We have a target of 80% renewables to be on our grid and that is mainly wind and solar. Accommodating that on our system involves a huge challenge. A big part of addressing that from our perspective - I also sit on the accelerating renewable electricity task force - is deploying storage technology so that it can match the output of wind and solar to demand. As colleagues have said, it is also about demand flexibility. The EnergyCloud proposal is interesting from that perspective. In a much broader sense, use of our electricity needs to match as close as possible the supply of it. Things like smart tariffs, deployment of battery storage and other storage technologies are how we minimise that dispatch down. There will always be some element of it unfortunately because that is the nature of the variable renewables.

The final piece, which is absolutely critical, is building the electricity network. There is a huge investment programme under way. That and the recent price control 6 by the CRU, with the final decision due to be announced by the end of the year, will see an investment programme of up to €18 billion in our electricity network. Delivery of big infrastructure projects like the North-South interconnector is absolutely critical to ensure that renewable energy can reach the homes and businesses across the country where it is needed. We are looking at these sorts of measures from a affordability point of view but also from a much broader energy delivery, flexible energy system and energy grid point of view.

Does the Department recognise that, given there are 150,000 households in energy poverty, this is scalable and has potential?

There are certainly plenty of households that fall into the category of energy poverty. As Mr. Newsome and I pointed out, this is the intersection of two policy areas. That is the benefit of having a task force that brings the two groups of people together to discuss issues in the round, rather than looking at them in isolation. That is a real benefit of the task force approach. It is something we are going to work to maximise the impact from in the months to come.

I think it was in the ESRI opening statement that insulation may have a lesser effect on consumption that expected. Why would that be the case?

There are a few pieces of research that have been carried out by me and colleagues, as well as in Trinity College, that try to examine what the change in energy consumption is once a retrofit is installed. It is a little bit less than what is predicted by BER. When there is a BER, the assessor goes in and has to fill out a spreadsheet. It predicts what the energy consumption is going to be and makes assumptions about the performance of different materials, about how people use energy in the home and assumptions about how people respond to the changes and the upgrade.

The data shows - this in line with other countries - that it probably overstates what is happening in reality. Why that is happening is still up for debate. There are loads of theories out there and the most compelling one is that when people are living in a colder home they underheat their home, but when their home is a bit warmer they heat it to a comfortable level and we see what is known as the rebound effect. There are elements like that which are happening. The lesson here is not that the retrofits are ineffective, but when we do the sums after calculating the retrofits we might not get the carbon reductions we thought we might have got beforehand. That might mean we need extra measures to meet our climate targets.

That is interesting.

I thank the witnesses for joining us today. Regarding arrears and disconnects, we had representatives from the CRU before the infrastructure committee last week. We have to get clearer regarding disconnections and arrears and try to determine whether we have 30, 60 or 90 days on arrears. My understanding is that there has not been a spike in disconnections since before Covid. Is that correct?

To give some data I have to hand here, the figure for disconnections in September of this year was 373 and in September 2022 it was 324. It is important to say regarding disconnections that if people engage with their electricity supplier, they will not be disconnected. If somebody is on the vulnerable customer list, there are particular protections and there are general protections as part of the CRU's winter protections where there is a moratorium in place on disconnections also.

Is there a standard across the sector on how to approach customers who come forward with problems paying a bill?

The regulator has guidelines in place for how supply companies should engage and communicate with their customers and the suppliers themselves also have rules.

In terms of a payment plan or agreement, is there a maximum term there can be? Is there an interest rate? Is it based on income? Is there anything done in that regard?

I will hand that question over to my colleague, Ms O'Leary.

Just to note, the NEAT interim report requested that the CRU carry out a call for evidence on bill transparency, including supplier offerings for customer acquisitions, and also to explore in more detail the issue Deputy Clendennen raised regarding how customers can be best supported by suppliers through that process, including the putting in place of payment plans.

There is a big problem with energy bill literacy.

I believe I am correct in saying consumption levels have stayed roughly the same in domestic settings but the cost has gone up. If we look at what has happened in insurance in recent years, the policy renewal document comes with information on what is and is not covered. We need a much clearer picture of what households are doing and how they compare with an average house in a similar setting. If I go online today to change my electricity provider, I have to provide information on my region, my tariff, whether I pay by direct debit, whether I am on a night-saver rate or a 24-hour rate and so on. Why can we not have something similar to car insurance where the customer goes online, types in the car registration and everything is pulled up? I do not understand my bill and I am sure there are plenty more out there like me. Our conversation is constantly about the bottom-line cost of a bill, rather than its composition.

There is ongoing work by the regulator to deliver greater transparency in the bill and greater understanding of the bill by consumers. The regulator, Department and task force are trying to get consumers to engage more but they need to be helped through that process by making it as simple as possible to compare tariffs and make savings. Switching is crucial to this.

We are not making it any easier. That is the point.

That will be considered by the task force. The work the regulator is undertaking on bill transparency will feed into the work of the task force.

I would like to see a system where someone enters their MPRN and gets all the detail they need. After three clicks, they would have a renewal, something along those lines.

That should be assisted. As more people have smart meters, they will be able to do that.

That is a good segue into smart meters. When will we have a smart meter in every home in the country?

We are very close to that. There are nearly 2 million smart meters installed. That is the latest data I have heard.

Is Mr. Deegan satisfied we have adequate resources being applied to commission every smart meter?

This is not my area of expertise but my understanding is the roll-out is nearly complete and will be complete in the near term. Now we are moving to the phase of-----

Mr. Deegan's colleague is nodding. Does she want to contribute?

We have had a very successful smart meter roll-out by ESB Networks. We are nearing completion of the scheme. It is a success from an Irish point of view.

Where there is microgeneration on site - I think that is the terminology - people are being refused, which is essentially resulting in further waste. Senator Noonan mentioned waste in general. Where efforts and initiatives are introduced on a micro level, we need to expedite efforts to address them. We need to tackle waste in every way possible. People are not being compensated for microgeneration at the moment. Addressing that needs to be a priority.

I would not disagree in any way. It will be very important. We will dig into all these problems, identify the barriers and challenges and come up with solutions.

I will mention one number related to the Deputy's previous point about switching. The latest data from the regulator is that almost 66,700 customers switched in September. That is the highest number ever. Those people are now benefiting from enhanced offerings from the electricity companies. We encourage everyone to do this and, if they cannot do it themselves, to reach out to registered switching support companies to avail of the better offerings that are there.

I thank the witnesses for coming in and for everything they have presented to us. The main question I want to ask, having listened to all the other members, is a new one, so we are not repeating ourselves. The slide showed Germany's energy costs are reducing. One of the big things Germany is doing is using plug-in solar panels for apartments and residences. It is a much easier system. Are the witnesses in favour of or against plug-in solar systems? These mounted solar panels are small and easy to access on balconies and in gardens. The inverter is connected and feeds directly into the home's internal grid. We talk about energy transition but it is more like energy demolition and rebuild. Will the future grid be designed with a vast number of distributed generators in mind? Can this be taken into account?

If the Deputy gives me a minute on plug-in solar, Mr. Newsome might be kind enough to take his second question.

The Deputy is absolutely right that distributed energy is a key part of our longer term energy transition. We need larger scale developments, whether they be offshore wind farms, solar farms, onshore wind or gas generation to back that up. In tandem with that, we are strong on having community and small businesses develop their own distributed small-scale energy projects. We have a number of schemes in place for that, including the small-scale renewable electricity support scheme, which is designed to do exactly that. The demand growth we have means we need large-scale projects but we are looking to harness as much on-site generation to supply a consumer's own demand, microgeneration and small-scale community-led generation as we can. That is critical.

I agree. I am asking about the grid being designed for widespread two-way flows in housing estates and apartment builds in the future. Germany has a large number of engineers. Everyone knows Germany for its great engineering. In Ireland, it is less favourable and our climate offers slower payback without subsidies. The climate and energy fund was recently announced. One of the people who applied for it told me they had to pay €1,100 for a BER before getting solar panels installed. They ended up getting about €300 off their solar. It did not really make sense. That should be reviewed for the next grant that is available.

That BER sounds very expensive.

I have looked at the cost the engineers are giving. A BER is a requirement to apply for the scheme.

It is a requirement but that number sounds a little high. I might talk to the Deputy separately about that, if that is okay.

Apartment buildings and multi-occupancy buildings are particular challenges. When trying to address a challenge as big as the one we face, there is one big problem. In fact, it is multiple smaller problems and groups of people who need tailored solutions to meet their needs. The first thing with apartment buildings and multi-occupancy buildings is to reduce use through energy efficiency and saving as much energy as possible. New approaches are being introduced by the SEAI all the time to try to do that.

I am not overly familiar with plug-in solar PV panels. We can come back to the Deputy separately on that. My colleague Ms O'Leary has just found something in the briefing document so I will pass over to her.

There is a provision in the electricity market design directive. It is an optional provision which allows member states to promote the introduction of plug-in mini solar systems. The Department held a consultation on the electricity market design directive in October of last year. Most stakeholder respondents highlighted safety concerns regarding the installation of plug-in mini solar, including a lack of manufacturing, installation and operational standards. The directive is currently being transposed. For now, the Department is not in a position to promote plug-in mini solar, but we may look to carry out a cost-benefit analysis and further research into it.

I appreciate that. When Ms O'Leary talks about stakeholders, who are the stakeholders who were concerned about safety? It is 2025, not the 1930s when electricity was seen as rocket science. It is a plug-in solar system.

It was a public consultation so there was a range of responses received from various-----

It would be very interesting to see who was against it. I would say it was probably energy suppliers.

Maybe the Department could provide the committee with some follow-up information on that.

Of course.

I am not going at the Department because of the stakeholders. I just think we are in a crisis at the moment. People are ringing me because they are consistently struggling with their bills. This is a simple solution. I would really appreciate it if the Department looked at it, especially for people in apartment buildings and social and affordable housing. I know we have EnergyCloud coming in, which is a very good system, and I think the smart metering could be done in conjunction with it.

Look at Denmark and Germany. I know the Cathaoirleach will ask why I do not go and live there, but when we look at countries that are doing energy correctly-----

He speaks for all of us.

It is a committee decision.

That is good. We need to look at countries that are doing this right. Despite the electricity Act and all that we have done, we need only look at the ESB at the moment. It still converts from digital to analog. We are not in the 1960s. Any energy producer has to use this system. It is ridiculous when the only one that sells it is the ESB. It is €100,000 for any energy supplier. What is the story with that?

We will get a response to that, preferably in German, so the Deputy can practise his language skills. I call Deputy Ahern.

I thank the witnesses for attending. I apologise for missing the start of the session, as I was in the Dáil.

To follow up on the point made by Deputy Heneghan, it is great that the Department continued the grants for solar panels, although not the plug-in ones. Batteries are an important part of the mix for all of us going forward. Is the Department thinking about giving grants for batteries for homes?

My other question is on the warmer homes scheme. I have had a couple of queries from people in the last few weeks. The witnesses mentioned that there were no costs involved with the warmer homes scheme, but there seem to be a few blockers. We welcome the increased investment in the scheme this year. However, a few people have said to me that, prior to being eligible for it, they are being asked to rewire their houses or install new, more efficient boilers. They pointed out to me that this was a cost they would have to take on prior to availing of the warmer homes scheme, which is supposed to be a scheme for people who cannot afford to retrofit their homes. Getting a new boiler is not necessarily linked to wrapping the home. Surely there is a benefit to wrapping and insulating the home without necessarily having to change the boiler. These are a few of the blockers that have been put to me. I would ask the witnesses to comment on how the scheme is operating.

Issues like rewiring arise when people are installing either solar panels or a heat pump into the electric heating system in the house. Some of these houses have not had the wiring touched in 50 years. It is just not safe to install a new load onto the house fuse board, effectively, without causing safety risks.

I understand that much, and it makes sense. However, it is not within the scope of the warmer homes scheme to pay for that.

That is not currently within its scope. It would really increase the cost associated with it. It is an issue that has arisen before. The scheme is kept under constant review. I am not entirely certain of the latest position on the rewiring issue because it has been some time since I worked on it. However, I know it was certainly something the SEAI was looking at. It would change the nature of the scheme. There could be problems with roofs and other structural issues with some of the houses that the warmer homes scheme contractors are going into. At the moment, rewiring is not a measure that is supported through the scheme.

The person I was speaking to was hoping to just wrap their house, but they were told they needed to install a new, more efficient boiler, or have some other scheme in place before the warmer homes contractors would agree to wrap their house. Is that something Mr. Deegan is familiar with?

It would be good to get a little more detail about that case. I am happy to get the details from the Deputy so that we can look into it. That would probably be best.

That is great.

With regard to grants for batteries for people's homes, is this something the Department is looking at? In the context of storms and all of that, it is good to be able to have your own energy at home for a certain amount of time.

There are solar supports across a number of schemes, such as the solar PV scheme and the solar PV for the medically vulnerable scheme. At the moment, they do not give batteries, as the Deputy said. The solar PV scheme has been growing rapidly in recent years. As we are entering a new phase, there will be opportunities to review both the offering and the way it is being operated. I am not entirely certain whether the intention is to incorporate additional measures, such as batteries, but I can see a logic to that. When the solar PV scheme was first in place, the idea was self-consumption and then people could sell the electricity they generated back to the grid, so there would have been an income coming from the solar panels and the electricity they were not using themselves. Batteries are certainly something that could be considered.

On the topic of solar panels in general, there was a report by RTÉ yesterday on the provenance of solar panels that were coming into this country from certain manufacturers. For example, they are being made in areas of China where there is forced labour, camps and things like that. Is the Department happy it is doing everything it can to ensure the supply chains here do not involve forced labour? Does Mr. Deegan feel there is anything more the Department can or should be doing in that regard?

I will hand over to Mr. Newsome on that.

The report last night was very concerning. It is important to say that, at EU level, a number of pieces of legislation are in place or being put in place to ensure these products do not enter Europe. One area in particular that the Department is leading on in regard to renewable electricity procurement is the Net-Zero Industry Act. Under this EU regulation and where the procurement of renewable electricity generation, including solar farms, is concerned, responsible business conduct, which that sort of forced labour would come under, is an actual requirement before a developer can enter into one of the auctions. We have just run a public consultation on that, and we are going to ensure it is in place next year. However, that is in within the much broader context of ensuring that these sorts of product do not enter Europe. That is being managed at an EU level.

Good afternoon. I am not a member of the committee, but I take the opportunity each week to pose some questions. I am from Meath East. As the witnesses may know, we have a very high concentration of solar farms. There will possibly be battery storage coming and also a gas peaking plant at Kentstown, for which a planning application has gone in. There is also a landfill and a solar farm, all in the same area.

In terms of mapping and distribution, what departmental co-ordination and collaboration, if any, has there been with local government and the Office of the Planning Regulator to ensure a fair distribution? The community would be well aware of the move to renewables and the aspiration that prices would come down accordingly. However, in the absence of the second land use review, and given the proximity to the greater Dublin area, certain areas are seeing an increased number of planning applications and judicial reviews, and all of that has been in the media. It is very real for people living in these areas, although not for any monetary motivation, other than the direct impact on land use, heritage, taking land out of food production and sustainability. Is that being discussed? Is there a formal plan in the offing? Is the Department aware of the land use review? What is happening and when?

That is the first piece. The second is------

We might take that first, as it is quite substantial.

I will ask Mr. Newsome to help the Deputy on that.

The Deputy had quite a number of questions, but I think they all boil down to a question around how co-ordinated the Government is in the deployment of energy and electricity generation.

It is really important to say that we are working very closely with our colleagues in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to ensure that, for renewable electricity generation in particular, which we touched on and includes large-scale solar energy generation and onshore wind, there is a co-ordinated approach under the national planning framework, which was published and reviewed earlier this year. For the first time ever, that sets regional targets and allocations for onshore wind and solar across the country's three regions. The intention with that is for those targets to be brought forward by the three regional assemblies. They will be worked down into each local authority, which will then have an all allocation for those two technologies.

Obviously, there is more to it than that. There is the deployment of the grid, which I touched on earlier, to support bringing that renewable energy into people's homes and businesses. The grid, and long-term grid planning that EirGrid and ESB Networks are driving, is a critical interplay there.

Certainly, there are challenges in meeting the national targets we have for renewables. We feel really strongly that development of this infrastructure has to be done in a sustainable way, in line with environmental regulations. There needs to be strong community engagement. Community benefits are another very important piece. All of that knits together.

In terms of land use, solar is definitely increasing. We can see it across the country. We are at a new record of 2 GW of solar energy, which is great because we came from almost nothing. In terms of the land use requirement for that, it would be for both wind and solar onshore. It would be a very small percentage. Together, I think it is under 1% of the total land use of the country. We are not talking about a big footprint for either wind or solar to meet our targets as they are now.

We have a very high concentration of it in Meath East. Following on from what Mr. Newsome said, and I thank him for that, I presume that the regional targets are with the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly, EMRA, and the other two assemblies. What is the timeline for that? In our area, applying for planning permission and granting of permission is continuing apace. The timeline probably will not be relevant, given the accelerated applications and granting of same in Meath East.

Regarding the timeline, working from the national planning framework to the regional social and economic strategies is where we are now. They have to be done by 2027, if I am not mistaken. After that, it works down into the next review of the relevant county development plan. I am not entirely sure where the Meath county development plan is in that cycle.

The new one is just starting.

That is the process.

I think the point the Deputy is making that-----

It will be too late for us.

It will be too late. Applications are going in and they are accelerating. Permissions are being granted. There is a spatial plan required around those two technologies to distribute them. Most of the investing could be done. That is the risk. Is that right, Deputy?

Yes. The Cathaoirleach has phrased it perfectly and I thank him.

What does Mr. Newsome say to that in terms of timing? From a spatial planning perspective, it is pretty urgent.

From our perspective, we definitely agree that urgency is needed here. The grid aspect is as important as the actual planning of where the generation projects are but it has to be done in a way that is consistent with the legislative framework. As the committee is well aware, there was a big reform of the planning Act done just recently that provided for a much stronger, broader framework for delivery of infrastructure. It strengthens the regional aspects. It introduces national planning statements for different sectors. I know colleagues in the Department of housing are working on a national planning statement for wind energy. After that, there will be consideration of a national planning statement for solar energy. That is another critical piece of it.

The need for urgency is something that this Department agrees with. There is a lot to consider in how we turn those national targets into regional and local targets. We need to make sure that we do that as quickly as possible to ensure we have a safe and secure power system that is able to meet our demand at an affordable price.

I am conscious of time, so I will ask two quick questions. In its opening statement, the ESRI mentioned, "Limited public data constrains understanding and may suggest a role for regulator inquiry." Effectively, that would be done by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU. What is the ESRI's view on the shape of that role? Does it have a view on what shape that inquiry would take?

It is a very good question. What has been outlined here by the Department sounds like it is along of the lines of what we have in mind. The inspiration for that comment is that this is an issue we would love to be able to investigate but we can only do so with the data that is available to us. The only thing we can do is say that prices are different. It is very hard to uncover what is driving that difference.

What additional data would the ESRI like to see?

It would be good if we had an understanding of what sorts of cost different firms are faced with, how they are hedging their risks and what sorts of contract they have to enter into. This would be a perfect world where we had access to everything. We are trying to understand what role the various factors play in this. For example, if I am an energy supplier in Germany and I have to enter into contracts for buying forward in liquid forward markets, I can buy, get a price and do that very efficiently. It is much more difficult in Ireland. That means there is more effort required to lock in a price. It has to be done via gas markets, usually. That adds an extra cost. What is that extra cost? We are trying to understand the added cost burden that places. What that exactly looks like is difficult to understand but if had access to the data-----

The ESRI will get "commercial sensitivity" thrown at you straight away in terms of all this stuff. Does Dr. Farrell know what I mean? How do we get around that? I know it is a big question but-----

It is a good question.

-----to follow Dr. Farrell's theory to its logical conclusion, we will need all of that data.

This is true. The only point I would make is that there are three different scenarios of the world we could be in. We could be in an uncompetitive market, we could be in a very competitive market or we could be somewhere in the middle where there is a regulated market. We need to figure out the extent to which we are in the uncompetitive market and what sorts of regulation do we need to put in place to bring us away from the least worst to somewhere that is a bit better than where we are. I am not sure exactly what data you could use there, to be honest.

Following on from that, Mr. Deegan mentioned at least one situation where the CRU was tasked with doing a piece of analysis - I think 2023 was mentioned - and CRU effectively came back and said there was nothing to see here. Has there been any situation where the CRU has been asked to do a piece of analysis where it has found something to see, in layman's terms? Has it found a genuine case that it needed to deal with and decided to act on that, particularly in the area of energy affordability?

I will ask Ms O'Leary to speak in a moment but on the data question, commercial sensitivity and all of those issues, the CRU will have access to data that, due to commercial sensitivity, no one else can get.

The CRU should be able to-----

The CRU will be able to interrogate an awful lot of the issues that even the ESRI or the Department cannot. As part of previous reviews, the suppliers have shown a willingness to share that data.

I will hand over to Ms O'Leary on the second part of the question.

I was actually going to enter into the discussion in support of the first part.

It is important to say that the research carried out in 2023 by the CRU was a very thorough analysis of supplier hedging strategies.

It was supported by the financial stability subgroup because it was during the time of the energy price crisis whereby there was serious concern throughout Europe given the degree of supplier exits due to the wholesale price crisis. The findings of that report were that suppliers had hedged very responsibly in the Irish market and they had protected their customers from the worst of the volatility at the time. That was evident from the number of supplier-of-last-resort exits that we experienced during the energy price crisis where three of our suppliers left the retail market whereas during a very short period of time in the UK, 29 suppliers left the retail market, which was attributed to poor hedging practices.

I might add that that conservative or responsible hedging practice may translate at other times to higher cost. It is the way risk is being managed and if companies take a conservative approach to managing that risk, it will translate into higher costs. The downside would be exactly what Ms O'Leary said about the 29 companies that went under in the UK. It is a question of finding the right balance.

I fully agree with everything there but we also need to think about it the other way. If there was so much profit and gouging here, companies in the UK and throughout Europe would be aware. I am sure they look around and there would be a movement of them in here. They know and understand the market and have enough people on board to know that if there is serious money to be made there-----

There is no evidence of that movement.

I do not think there is any evidence of that.

There has been no stampede of new entrants into the market, which would be expected if there were supernormal profits to be made.

Mr. Deegan said he hoped to have a report completed in July. Which piece of work is that?

That is the energy affordability action plan.

That means the stage 2 element will be completed and ready to go in July.

I am conscious of time.

May I ask a question?

I will give the Deputy 60 seconds.

What are the most effective and immediate actions we can take to cut energy costs for low-income and vulnerable households? How quickly can those supports be expanded? What structural changes to the energy system, renewables grid upgrade or regulation would genuinely reduce bills for consumers over the long term and how do we ensure those savings are passed on? Those two questions are for the ordinary people on the ground whom I represent.

I might deal with the first one and Mr. Newsome might deal with the second one. In terms of the things that could be introduced immediately, they were the options that were identified in the energy affordability task force interim report that have since been translated into budgetary actions. The Deputy will have seen the budgetary announcements such as the increase in the fuel allowance by €5 a week and providing an additional €140 during the annual fuel allowance season. The fuel allowance eligibility has also been extended to recipients of the working family payment. That is a very important measure because tens of thousands of people will now get access to the fuel allowance for the first time. They will be getting over €1,000 that they were not getting last year. That builds on the extension in respect of the carers last year. In the space of two years there have been significant enhancements in that regard.

There have also been other measures, which have got less attention and less mention. To ensure that no recipients aged over 66 lose their entitlement to fuel allowance due to the announced increase in core social welfare payments, the allowable means have been increased. From January, a single person over 66 can have means of €534 per week and a couple €1,068 a week. For those aged under 66, that means limit is linked to the rate of State contributory pension plus €200. That increases automatically if there is an increase in the rate of the State contributory pension. People moving from the disability allowance or the blind pension to take up work would be able to keep the fuel allowance for five years, meaning that that barrier has been removed. These measures are part of an overall allocation of nearly €29 billion for the social welfare budget.

In addition, the reduction in VAT that applies to energy has continued and been extended out to 2030. That will be of benefit to homeowners and in terms of competitiveness. The €400 income tax disregard for certain profits arising from the microgeneration of electricity is being extended for a further three years to 2028, again a taxation measure with a multiyear commitment. On the commercial or business side, the accelerated capital allowances scheme for energy efficient equipment has been extended to 2030. This will encourage investment in low-emission and energy-efficient technology for businesses.

Are private households included in that?

The accelerated capital allowance is for businesses but there are other supports for homeowners in terms of the €558 million that is being set aside for the national retrofit budget for the SEAI. There is a further amount - I think it was €90 million last year but I do not know what it is this year - for the local authority energy upgrade scheme as well. There will be very significant investment in structural issues.

The Deputy asked about structural change to the energy system. We plan to move to an 80% renewable-led system and in the longer term to get to a net zero power system. A really important aspect of that is the delivery of the infrastructure. We need a very strong programme to deliver those renewable projects which we have. We have two Government task forces in place for onshore and offshore renewables. Equally, we need delivery of the electricity grid to support that and to bring the power to people's homes and businesses. The recent report and action plan by the Government on accelerating critical infrastructure delivery are absolutely fundamental to making that happen.

The power system has to be flexible and that means in an engineering sense it has to be able to manage these variable renewables. It needs a lot of battery storage and backup. We need interconnectors with our neighbours to make sure we have sources of reliable power. All this needs to be done in a way that is supported by communities as we discussed a few minutes ago. It needs to be done within the context of the planning system.

The final piece is that the market and the wholesale market should and hopefully will reflect the value of that renewable power. It does not necessarily mean it will always be cheap electricity; I think we are clear on that. However, using more of our own indigenous renewable sources should mean that Ireland has an insurance policy against volatile fossil fuel prices. That is ultimately the long-term vision. It is challenging but that is the direction in which we are going.

Anybody who wants to have one minute can have it. We have a second group of witnesses to come in and we are a bit behind.

My question is for the Department. The regulator recently decided to scrap the 18-month minimum repayment plan for households in energy debt and to increase the maximum amount a supplier can recoup from pay-as-you-go customers from 10% to 15%. Was there any engagement with them or was there any analysis of the impact that will have on people in general who are in or close to fuel poverty?

I might ask my colleague Mr. Carton to respond to that.

In relation to the CRU consumer protection measures - the 15% figure the Deputy mentioned - following last year's measures these were reviewed by the CRU and discussed with suppliers and consumer support groups. It was agreed to increase it to 15%. It is generally 25% but it has been kept at a lower rate. This is to assist people to tackle the debt that has been built up. There was consensus that the 10% debt repayment figure was not making a dent in the arrears that were continuing to build up for people in financial difficulty.

Was there any analysis of the impact on pay-as-you-go customers, either before taking the decision or since?

Not that I am aware of, but the CRU spoke to a number of NGOs and energy suppliers. So, it was not just a decision-----

Does the ESRI have any comment on that?

I do not have any insight into that, I am afraid.

I remind the Deputy that we are very tight on time.

In the first round I asked about price gouging. Can that be ruled out, given what was previously said about some of these companies making a lot of profit?

We know from reports that there is a gap between the wholesale price and the retail price. The gap is greater in Ireland. There is a gap in all European countries and Ireland is no exception but it is a little bit higher in Ireland. What are the potential drivers of that? One could be seeking profit. A second could be a lack of competition in the market. A third could be risk, and there is an extra cost of hedging a risk in Ireland because, from what we can observe, that seems to be the case. Fourth, it could be the fact that the data are slightly different in other countries. There are probably other factors and the job of work then is to figure out the extent to which it relates an uncompetitive market. We do not know the percentage for each of these and we have to try to figure it out.

Certainly, the network charges would not justify the amount of the increases that were imposed.

This may be of interest, Chair, and I thank the Deputy for the question. Supplier profits is one of the areas we hope to have included in the regulator's review. We hope that will also include a benchmarking of supplier profits across different jurisdictions, so there will be comparability there as well.

I wish to follow up on our conversation about phase 2 of the land use review. I asked the Minister a question on this and he said that it is on his desk and he is hoping to release it before Christmas. I wonder if that is the witnesses' understanding as well.

Deputy Toole talked about having more certainty about where things are located. We obviously want to encourage wind farms and solar farms, and having a less ad hoc approach seems to make sense. There was a motion in the Dáil last week in regard to set-back distances for wind farms. I understand there has been talk of regulations coming in relation to that for years and years. I wonder where the Department is on that. Giving people certainty and having more spatial planning, as the Chair said, is really important for policy going forward.

I thank the Deputy. Mr. Newsome will answer that.

I do not have anything further to add to the Minister's response on the land use review. It is not within our area but that is the latest position he has given.

I think the Deputy was talking about-----

The set-back distances.

-----the Private Members' Bill on wind turbines, which was dealt with last week. The wind energy guidelines, as they were, are a matter led by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. It is, through our accelerating renewables task force, working in conjunction with us on what will become a national planning statement for onshore wind. That will include aspects like set-back distances, noise levels, community engagement and many other aspects. The movement from guidelines to a planning statement is quite significant under the new planning Act. As I said earlier, having that in place will be really important as well for the sustainable development of the sector. That is being worked on.

Does Mr. Newsome have any timeline at all?

It is not led by this Department but I understand it has begun a process on it. It requires a strategic environmental assessment, SEA, so it will be maybe not the first but one of the first national planning statements. I suspect it will be next year but I do not have the official timing on that from it.

Okay, that is great. I thank the witnesses for coming in today. Does Deputy Toole want to ask something?

I do but I am conscious that I am really pushing the boundaries, not being on the committee. I thank the Chair. I asked this of the CRU last week. Is there any type of modelling being done on the impact of the different stages of the development of a solar farm? There is planning and then the auction stage. Is there any impact on price? Presumably, different entities along the way would like to make a margin or a return on their initial investment. Is that something that is being considered? I am not sure whether this is for the ESRI or the Department but I refer to the future, with renewables and the cost to the consumer if everybody is to get their margin.

The simple answer is that we run a system of auctions for the larger scale renewable projects. The winners of the auction are guaranteed a price over a 15-year period. If the wholesale price of electricity falls below that price, the consumer, through the public service obligation levy, tops them up. If the market price goes above that, as it is now, those projects return money to the consumer. Through that IRES auction scheme, which is our flagship programme, we are actually seeing money returned to the consumer. It depends on what the wholesale price is and no one knows what that is going to do over time. It is currently running above the average auction price of the most recent auction. We also had a very successful offshore auction recently, which was below the wholesale electricity price. It works both ways. As I said, it is an insurance policy. Renewables do save money but they are guaranteed a fixed contract price in order to ensure that the projects can be built at a sustainable level. I do not know if that answers the Deputy's question but that is kind of the core of it.

A lot of the stuff the Deputy is interested in with regard to planning, regulation and spatial planning is dealt with in the Custom House.

Just to add to that, that is the insurance policy for the developers but when you analyse the wholesale price of electricity, when you have more renewables on the system - up to now it has been mostly wind - it does have a reducing impact on price. More renewables and more solar will reduce the price for consumers and improve energy affordability overall.

I thank Dr. Curtis. We are going to wrap up on this session. We will publish all of the opening statements to the committee's website. Is that agreed? Agreed. On behalf of the members, I thank the witnesses for taking part in the session today on this extremely important matter of affordability. We will suspend the meeting for two minutes and start the next session then.

The second part of the meeting today on energy affordability is an engagement with representatives from EnergyCloud and the Civil Society Network. I welcome to our meeting the following witnesses: from EnergyCloud Mr. Alan Wyley, chief executive officer, and Mr. Cathal Lee, co-founder; and from Civil Society Network Ms Clare O'Connor, programme co-ordinator with Friends of the Earth, Ms Allison O'Malley Graham, research and policy officer with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and Ms Louise Lennon, policy and communications officer with Irish Rural Link. You are all very welcome. I remind people in attendance to turn off their mobile phones or put them on silent.

In relation to 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.

As before, we will have opening statements from witnesses up to a maximum of five minutes. Once they have been delivered, I will then call on members of the committee in the order they indicate to put questions. We have a rota system of five minutes. It is important to note the five minutes are for both questions and answers. Please be as succinct as possible. When members have indicated and they have initial engagement, time permitting, we will do a second round with up to three minutes, depending on time, for questions and answers. Please note the duration is limited so I ask members and witnesses to be as focused as possible. I invite Mr. Wyley to make his opening statement.

Good afternoon. I am the CEO of EnergyCloud. I am here today with my colleague, Cathal Lee, co-founder and non-executive director of EnergyCloud. We thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for the opportunity to present today.

On 23 of January this year, the programme for Government was published and it contained a commitment to "Explore if legislation could be enacted to divert surplus renewable energy, that would otherwise be wasted, to those in fuel poverty. " It also committed, "To explore ways to use surplus renewable energy to help reduce energy poverty, ensuring that renewable energy benefits all communities." In the ten months to 31 October, since this commitment, we have seen 1,169 GW of renewable wind energy dispatched down. This is enough to heat 390 million tanks of hot water and has an average retail value of €414 million. This is an average of more than €1.3 million of clean, renewable wind energy being dispatched down, or wasted, every single day since the programme for Government was published. Over the weekend, there were much higher numbers than €1.3 million - between €3 million and €4 million during the storm. They are enormous numbers. EnergyCloud seeks to use that otherwise wasted clean energy and redirect it to heat water in the homes of families in social and affordable housing at no cost to them. This provides immediate relief to households in fuel poverty, which is particularly important at a time when over 300,000 households have arrears on their electricity bills and 175,000 gas customers, or one in four, are also in arrears. EnergyCloud is already working and live with local authorities and approved housing bodies across the country delivering free hot water to hundreds of homes today.

In addition to our initial projects with smart immersion controllers, EnergyCloud is working on new projects with new technologies that will provide longer duration benefits to the residents, heating their homes as well as their water. These projects include heat pumps, thermal batteries and smart storage heaters. With proper support, this approach is ready to scale nationally.

The Climate Change Advisory Council's annual review this year reports a reversal of positive trends, with emissions increasing in 2023 after previous decreases. EnergyCloud’s work can deliver measurable gains in emission reduction and energy efficiency and supports Ireland’s climate action plan. The NESC secretariat report No. 36, Energy Transition as an Opportunity to Eliminate Energy Poverty, published in May states, “Support for social enterprises such as EnergyCloud ... should be considered so that they can operate at a bigger scale.” It also recommends that there is a need to work towards the elimination of energy poverty in the transition.

EnergyCloud recently published its pre-budget submission, which included a suggestion to introduce a social tariff when there is waste in the system, targeted energy credits for those in energy poverty, and single measures for partial upgrades for those in private, social and rented accommodation as well as a suggestion that the Government announce, as the UK Government did, that as a direction of travel, all new devices in new builds and upgrades should support demand flexibility so that when there is surplus renewable energy in the system, these devices can be accessed remotely to use the energy.

We respectfully suggest that the Government, this committee and all Members of the Oireachtas face a clear choice. Option one is to maintain the status quo, to make no meaningful effort to deliver on the commitment in the programme for Government and to leave EnergyCloud to scale independently in the hope that, over time, more of the surplus renewable energy will be put to use. Option two, which we respectfully argue is the better choice, is to immediately commit to using this surplus energy and to collaborate with EnergyCloud and others in addressing what is now a major and urgent social challenge. In that context, we ask the committee to write to the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment, urging him to announce the Government’s intention to begin delivering, without further delay, on its programme for Government commitment. We ask that he deploy all relevant levers of Government to ensure that at least some of this surplus renewable energy is used to support households experiencing energy poverty. Otherwise, we can say with near certainty that, ten months from now, in addition to the €414 million wasted since January of this year, a further €414 million in surplus renewable energy will also have been lost.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for the invitation to speak today. I thank Senator Noonan in particular for ensuring civil society voices are represented today on this issue. I am programme co-ordinator at Friends of the Earth but am speaking today on behalf of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the National Women's Council, the Disability Federation of Ireland, Irish Rural Link, Social Justice Ireland, One Family and the Irish Cancer Society. Our organisations work directly with people experiencing energy poverty. We believe the strong policy focus on energy poverty in recent years must be retained. This cannot be reduced to a general discussion about energy affordability because energy poverty has clear structural causes, namely, low incomes, high energy costs and poor energy efficiency. Our organisations are concerned that the previous energy poverty action plan in which our organisations participated has been replaced with an energy affordability action plan with civil society excluded to date. While affordability does matter, it must not dilute the responsibility of the State to address the structural causes of energy poverty or to ensure a fair transition from fossil fuels. There is an urgent need for targeted supports alongside long-term solutions so that the energy transition does not create a two-tier system where high-income households benefit from cheaper, cleaner energy, while others remain in cold, damp homes, reliant on increasingly expensive and volatile fossil fuels. Recent Pobal research shows this divide is already emerging, with households in the most disadvantaged areas almost five times less likely to use renewable energy than those in more affluent communities.

Across our organisations, we see growing demand for help. Many of our organisations support people in cold, dark homes who are afraid to turn on their heating, households with medical or vulnerability-related heating needs and families who are skipping meals to keep their meters topped up. Research shows that experiences of energy poverty this winter will have long-term impacts on health. A recent UCD study has linked energy poverty to lower educational outcomes for children and cumulative mental health effects. Energy poverty is closely correlated with poverty overall and must be addressed with renewed political urgency. Data consistently show those most impacted include one-parent families, the Traveller community, disabled people, people with long-term illnesses, those needing end-of-life care at home, older people, women, carers, migrant families and rural households.

Any national strategy to address energy poverty or affordability must specifically target these groups. It must collect data, measure impact and address income gaps and the barriers to retrofitting. We ask that the committee write to the Minister to ensure any task force includes both civil society and people with lived experience of energy poverty.

For low-income households, energy obviously takes up a far greater share of their income. Many also have higher year-round energy needs due to disability or ill-health. Pre-pay customers, in particular, are rationing energy to avoid self-disconnection.

We recommend that the committee, in its letter to the Minister, also put forward the following solutions in the upcoming energy affordability action plan: increase and benchmark the fuel allowance to restore its lost purchasing power and so that it reflects real energy needs; introduce an energy guarantee scheme, ensuring everyone can meet basic energy needs based on income, dwelling energy efficiency and energy prices; provide targeted supports for those most at risk similar to previous lump-sum payments to fuel allowance recipients - universal energy credits were helpful but they were not targeted, and support for energy-poor households must be targeted; index core social welfare rates annually; and introduce a cost-of-disability payment.

The European Commission's 2025 country report highlighted rising energy poverty in Ireland. As has been mentioned previously, we have some of the highest household electricity prices in the EU. High costs are driven by fossil fuel dependence. As long as we are relying on imported oil, gas and solid fuels, households will remain exposed to global shocks. Our high prices stem from, as has been mentioned, our over-reliance on gas, high PSO levies and network charges, an ageing grid and weak interconnection with Europe. Until we reduce our fossil fuel use, particularly gas in electricity generation, and fully utilise our indigenous renewables through electrification of heating and transport, households will remain vulnerable to geopolitical and commodity shocks.

Household energy costs are also shaped by medical needs, vulnerability-related heating requirements and rural reliance on expensive fuels with limited alternatives. We recommend that the committee call on the Minister to expand the definition of "vulnerable customer" to include financially vulnerable, as was included in the 2022 energy poverty action plan but is yet to be legislated for; ensure that the national building renovation plan, which is due to be sent to the European Commission on 31 December but has yet to undergo any public consultation, includes a socially just plan to phase out fossil fuel heating, which is in line with the energy performance of buildings directive, EPBD, requirements; and ensure that households who switch to renewables are not paying higher than they would for a fossil fuel alternative. As committed to in the programme for Government, we must prioritise older homes using oil for retrofitting and renewable heat and exclude unsustainable solutions such as hydrotreated vegetable oil, HVO.

Ireland’s least efficient homes are overwhelmingly occupied by those least able to upgrade them. These groups face higher risks of illnesses due to cold, damp and indoor air pollution. Renters, in particular, are locked out of supports. In 2024, renters were twice as likely as owner occupiers to go without heating and three times as likely to be unable to afford adequate warmth in their home. However, renters cannot access most schemes and landlords are not obligated to act. Therefore, a large segment of the population is being left behind in our renewable and retrofitting schemes. We recommend that the committee urge the Minister, in its letter, to scale up the warmer homes scheme and expand eligibility to housing assistance payment, HAP, tenants prioritising long-term leases of over five years; support landlord participation in existing retrofit schemes contingent on security of tenure for the tenant; and resource the national building renovation plan, which, as I said, is due on 31 December, ensuring there is a meaningful focus on energy poverty in groups at risk. We also need to see retrofitting and the installation of solar PV across all social housing and an increase in the targets for social housing by 2030, which will significantly protect those households.

Energy efficiency is the most durable way to cut bills, improve health and meet our climate targets but it will only work if the people who need it most can access it first and can get advice on training in how to ensure they can feel the benefits when they get the retrofit.

We ask that the committee write to the Minister and recommend that the new energy affordability action plan be placed on a statutory footing, include clear, measurable and time-bound targets to reduce energy poverty, and ensure governance that embeds civil society and people with lived experience of energy poverty at its centre. I look forward to the committee members' questions.

I thank Ms O'Connor. We move to questions. I call Deputy Heneghan.

I thank the witnesses for coming in and for attending previous meetings. What is the current status of the roll-out of EnergyCloud and how is it being accepted by Fingal County Council?

Our project with Fingal, which we launched in July, is going ahead very nicely. It is not with the council, though; it is with Co-operative Housing Ireland. In July, we announced 500 homes, with the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien. This was co-funded by Amazon and we are rolling it out as we speak. We have a couple of hundred of those homes done at this point. It is moving. As with all these things, acceptance among residents is cumulative. You start and you get the early adopters and then the neighbours talk to the neighbours. It is dribbling out from there. So far, so good. We are really pleased with the project at this point.

Is EnergyCloud facing any roadblocks with this pilot programme with regard to the set-up? I know it is not coming until July, but is EnergyCloud experiencing any roadblocks from a legislation point of view that we should look at?

As I mentioned in the opening statement, the big issue here is that it is really about the desire. That is why it is so great to be here today. The roadblock, as I would describe it, would be the desire to use the surplus energy that is available because there is not a stated desire at Government level to do that. It does not require legislation necessarily, although, of course, that would support the programme. Deputy McAuliffe introduced the Energy Poverty Reduction (Use of Surplus Renewable Energy) Bill 2025 earlier this year, which is potentially great legislation. Even without that, it would help if, in Government policy, it was stated clearly that we want to start using it.

I met officials from one of the Departments yesterday. They said there will be €600 million of wasted renewable wind energy this year. They stated that €414 million has been wasted so far this year. The numbers are enormous. If we started using some of that, it could have an enormous transformational effect on people in energy poverty throughout the country, not only in Fingal.

I suppose I am being selfish, with Fingal being in my constituency. Mr. Wyley spoke about wind energy. Does he have figures on the amount of solar energy we have lost to curtailment or dispatch down?

I do not have those to hand but I know approximately 5.4% of solar energy is dispatched down. I do not have a retail figure for that. On wind, it is approximately 11.4%, so twice as much wind is being dispatched down. That figure is up from 10% last year and we expect it to continue to grow. This problem is not going to get better. While we welcome the national energy affordability task force, there is no reason, in advance of its publication next July, that they Minister and this committee cannot call for us to start using the surplus renewable energy that is available and being wasted right now.

Regarding the chip that would be installed in the boilers, how is that being accepted by other councils? Is that something EnergyCloud is pushing as well?

Our initial pilot is with smart immersion controllers. You take out the immersion switch and put a smart immersion controller in place. We are expanding to heat pumps, batteries, etc. In terms of people who have a hot water tank, it is brilliant. It is easy to install, quick and provides instant hot water.

The real benefit here, though, and we referenced it at a meeting with the housing committee a couple of weeks ago, relates to the 72,000 social homes it has been announced will be built over the lifetime of this Government. They should all have smart devices, so the heat pumps in those homes should be remotely accessible. Under current policy, they will not be and will continue to be dumb devices, if I can use that expression, but there is no reason for them not to be smart devices. A bit like using the waste, that is something that could easily be requested. The housing committee said it would write to the relevant Minister on this but if we stated we want to do that, as the UK has done, that would also be enormously useful.

I thank Mr. Wyley. My next question is for Ms O'Connor. What is Friends of the Earth's opinion on long duration energy storage being rolled out as regards future proofing the grid? Does it have an opinion on the private wire policy that was published by the Government before Christmas?

We absolutely agree that unlocking renewable electricity and reducing curtailment is essential, particularly when households are struggling with energy bills. However, private wires, as currently proposed, will not address energy poverty and could unintentionally deepen inequality if not regulated properly. Friends of the Earth is concerned that large energy users, particularly data centres, are likely to be the primary beneficiaries of the current model. Without strong safeguards, private wires would risk diverting renewable projects, land and labour away from the public good, reducing grid revenues and increasing system costs for households if major users are bypassing the public network, and enabling fossil fuel lock-in through private gas generation built solely to serve commercial clients.

If private wires are to contribute positively, they must be designed with clear conditions. There must be no fossil fuel generators behind the wire, no loss of grid revenue that ends up being recovered from households or small businesses, and guaranteed social benefits such as community energy access, protections for low-income households and prioritisation of public interest projects.

Across civil society, including environmental organisations and trade unions, there is a high level of concern about the private wires policy in its current form.

We strongly recommend that the Oireachtas examine the implications fully and ensure any final legislation goes through pre-legislative scrutiny, advances climate goals and protects households.

Can I come back in quickly?

I have a long list of speakers. The legislation will come to this committee so it will be back as a topic.

I thank the Chair.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations, which were very interesting. There are lots of good and interesting policy ideas there. I have a question for Ms O'Connor first. Households in the most disadvantaged areas have renewable energy adoption rates of less than 10% compared with nearly 50% in more affluent areas. How does Ms O'Connor think we could improve those rates? We were talking about retrofitting earlier on. We need to target those schemes at the people who really need them.

There is an argument to be made for a much better social housing retrofit programme that increases the targets. We should be aiming to retrofit 100% of social housing by 2030. The State should take a leading role in making sure all of our social housing is running on renewable energy and is retrofitted. Much more funding needs to go into social housing retrofitting. The budget annually for social housing retrofitting has not been increasing in line with our targets and what we need to be achieving, so much more funding needs to go towards social housing retrofitting. That would go some way in supporting those areas of higher deprivation in accessing renewables.

There is a need for prioritisation of people on the waiting list for the warmer homes scheme. Friends of the Earth believes the scheme should be prioritising energy poor households first, as well as households with lower BERs, which I know it is prioritising at the moment. When we talk about an energy poverty strategy there is a need for us to look at area-based approaches to retrofitting. Those areas with higher levels of deprivation should definitely be prioritised for retrofitting and for renewables.

Does Ms O'Connor have any comment on the "RTÉ Investigates" programme yesterday about solar panels? We talk about a just transition and how important it is but it is not a just transition if it is not just to everybody.

I did not watch the programme so I am not aware of it.

It was interesting.

I have a question for Mr. Wyley as well. Most energy providers are for-profit entities. We do not have State ownership of the ESB any more. Does Mr. Wyley find that most of these companies do not particularly like the idea of EnergyCloud giving free electricity to people? Might legislation be needed to protect that into the future?

I thank the Deputy for the question. I compliment the electricity retailers because they are providing free electricity to the EnergyCloud residents today, and very willingly as well. They are very good supporters of ours. Pretty much all of the retailers are behind us on this. From that point of view, our experience has been very positive. This is not to downplay energy poverty, high energy costs or anything like that but the retailers have been very supportive. Currently, the electricity retailers are paying 100% of the cost of the EnergyCloud credits, which of course is unfair because they are still paying EirGrid and the ESB for the various network charges. It is a conversation we have already started but we would certainly ask that this be changed and we hope to engage with the providers and the CRU next year on how we fix that so the system can support EnergyCloud at scale. It would be unfair to ask the retailers to pay for everything forever, so they should pay their share but not other people's share, if that makes sense.

Is EnergyCloud a non-profit organisation?

We are a charity. We are absolutely not for profit. That is correct.

Why does Mr. Wyley think we are in the situation where so much energy is going to waste?

That is a great question. We were at a conference on energy transition in October and several speakers, including me, asked that exact question - how did this become normal? If we go back seven or eight years, there was maybe €50 million of dispatched down wind energy. So far this year, that figure is €414 million. Of course it is complex but I think there is an element of a lack of political will to use it. As a result, as we mentioned in our opening statement, there is a clear choice now. Do we just sit with the status quo and let it become €3 billion or €4 billion during the lifetime of this Government or do we actually say "No" and decide to use at least some of this energy. That would have an enormous impact on those people in energy poverty, whether that is through a social tariff or expanding schemes like ours. We in EnergyCloud do not have to do everything ourselves. We are not trying to fix this on our own. We want to work with the Department, the Minister, this committee and so on. We think it is very clear there is a very simple step that could be taken and all it requires is a little bit of leadership to say that, yes, we would like to use the levers of Government to use this waste. That is what we would ask for.

I thank all of the witnesses for coming in today and giving us these comprehensive statements and a lot of practical suggestions, which are always very much appreciated from our side. I note the witnesses all sat in during the previous session with representatives from the Department and the ESRI. Do the witnesses have any comments generally on what the previous witnesses said or how their approach tallies with what the witnesses are seeking, as set out in their opening statements? That is the first question I would like answered, by whoever wants to go first.

I am happy to take that potentially loaded question. As I mentioned, EnergyCloud is meeting representatives from the Department next week and we are very anxious to engage constructively with the Department, the Minister and everybody else, for sure. My only reflection on it might be that the national energy affordability task force is something that we welcome but what we are concerned, or potentially worried, about is the fact that if we do nothing about energy poverty between now and next July, when the plan is to be published, that will be a huge wasted opportunity. We ask for an immediate response, without delay, which does not require legislation and does not cost the Exchequer anything because we are paying for this waste anyway. We respectfully ask that we do that now in parallel with the excellent work I am sure the task force will do. Mr. Lee may wish to come in on that.

Perhaps this comes back to the tail end of Deputy Cronin's question about how we have arrived at a point where there will be €500 million worth of energy waste this year and people look away. It is a moral question. Perhaps the answer lies in the previous session, and it is that there is always somebody else outside the room who is responsible. The law requires that the CRU, the Department and EirGrid have a function but the truth is there is no one entity responsible for using this waste and therefore it does not get measured or addressed. Quite simply, I saw Deputy Aird last week getting quite animated about the Mercosur deal. He knows the Minister for agriculture is accountable to the Oireachtas for that, through the European Council, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste etc., and the agriculture committee has a specific remit for those matters. In regard to energy poverty, I have sat in meetings where I have been told, "That is not our issue; it is for another Department". Quite frankly, the disappointing thing we see is that an issue is treated as one for social protection or housing or energy.

Listening to Ms O'Connor's opening comments, what the committee is really hearing, on behalf of those of us on this side of the table, is that there is no joined-up approach to this. Charities and organisations are saying there is an opportunity to do something. When we have the meetings, however, we are usually met with statements like, "We support this but we need to talk to someone else". All of the committee members, as politicians, will have dealt with cases in their constituencies where they are just going around in circles. We are saying to the members, as legislators, that it is in their gift to actually say who is ultimately responsible for using this waste.

Can I say one thing very quickly?

I will take Ms Lennon first, as she indicated, and then I will come back.

I only came in near the end of the first session and Ms O'Connor pointed out in her statement that the task force has been established and it is named "energy affordability" and not "energy poverty". Also, civil society is not represented on that task force. We have this group we are involved in and also the community and voluntary pillar is available to send a representative to that task force but we are never invited.

Ms O'Connor expressed our disappointment that it changed from an energy poverty action plan to an energy affordability action plan because that piece is there that it is not just energy poverty people are experiencing but, rather, food poverty and poverty in general.

I reiterate what Ms Lennon said. In addition, it is obvious that Department officials are doing some good work on the topic of energy affordability. I noted what the ESRI said around the need for a regulator inquiry on energy prices. We echo that as well. There needs to be transparency on the discrepancy in Ireland between wholesale and retail prices, which are, as we have heard, the highest in the EU. There is need for transparency in that regard. Suppliers need to answer for that.

As it was said, I wish to note that the ESRI stated that some retrofitted homes are not seeing their prices decrease. I am surprised to hear that and I seek more clarity as to what it means by “retrofitted homes”. Does it mean a full, deep retrofit? Is it expensive due to the fact that these retrofitted houses have heat pumps installed and the price of electricity is much higher than gas in Ireland at the moment? I am just not clear on it and I am concerned to take that headline statistic without knowing the underlying assumptions around it and what exactly it meant by a “retrofitted home”. My understanding is that an A-rated home is significantly cheaper to operate than a F- or G-rated home.

I refer to what Mr. Lee said, namely, that it is in the gift of this committee to ask the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, to state, in advance of the publication of the national energy affordability plan, that we wish to start right now to use the waste because once we do that we can measure it. Once we start measuring it, then we will start making significant progress. That is in the Minister's gift. It is in the gift of the Cathaoirleach and this committee as well. We respectfully ask that of the committee and the Cathaoirleach because it is something constructive, productive and immediate they can do.

I thank the witnesses. They have also made life a little bit easier in setting out some clear recommendations that they wish for us to include in a letter to the Minister. We should give active consideration to them, either taking all of them on board or considering them point by point, so that we can send them on to the Minister in a letter. I ask that we give consideration to them in private session.

I have a couple of questions. The point about energy affordability versus energy poverty is quite interesting. It harps back to the abolition of the Combat Poverty Agency and the word "poverty" itself. I feel strongly that language is important in these matters, especially when it comes to the State's perspective and its responsibility in this regard. I have a broad question for the witnesses: should we be ambitious enough to end energy poverty in its entirety in this country?

Yes.

It is a simple question.

The answer is 100% “Yes”.

Can we do it?

Ms Clare O'Connor referenced that there are structural causes of energy poverty that are fixable. The National Economic and Social Council, NESC, which is a Government think-tank, published its report in which it stated that the energy transition is the opportunity to eliminate energy poverty. That clearly answers the Senator’s question. Even if he does not want to take our word for it, the Government has been given clear guidance in that regard in May 2025. The NESC report uses the expression that there is a “moral obligation” to eliminate energy poverty because it is possible. We have the waste and other levers around charging, tariffs, etc., to do it. It is absolutely possible to eliminate it. We should do so without further delay.

Yes. I am sure it is obvious that, as a network, we absolutely agree that there is need to set a target to end energy poverty. Scotland has an energy poverty Act and has set targets to reduce energy poverty. In order to set a target to end energy poverty, however, energy poverty needs to be measured and the Government is not doing that right now. We are extremely concerned about that. When the Government was developing an energy poverty action plan last year, we highlighted that issue in our submission as part of that consultation. Obviously, that is gone now because the plan has been scrapped in favour of an energy affordability action plan. We highlighted the need for a specific, dedicated energy poverty Act and to measure energy poverty using the data that is available right now, which can include the survey on income and living conditions, SILC, data, data on energy deprivation and data from suppliers, etc. Without any working definition of energy poverty, we cannot end it because we are not measuring it. It is important we start to collect data, measure and then set targets to end it. That should be part of the new energy affordability action plan.

That is good. My next question is for Mr. Wyley. What jurisdictions are doing this well? Are there jurisdictions that are using surplus renewable energy and doing it well at scale?

It is a good question. People around the world are waking up to this possibility. Germany is one such interesting case. It has said it wishes to use the existing energy before it starts adding additional renewable energy. If I am correct, between the north and south of the country, there is quite a difference in the amount of energy available and the usage. There is a lot of dispatch down in the north but not so much in the south. It wants to fix the problem and use the waste. That is something that is coming through in legislation. That is a welcome trend that we are, hopefully, going to start to see. We do not have to look farther afield than Ireland, however. We know how much waste we have today and we know it will get worse. We know we have done nothing about it for the past seven years and now, over the next four years in the lifetime of this Government, there is an opportunity to make a significant impact and be a world leader in this regard. We should grasp that opportunity.

Absolutely. I have a question for the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, SVP. In terms of the breakdown of the caseload that SVP is typically taking across the country, where does energy poverty fit in versus food poverty? How do the two interact? Is there a rural-urban divide? On the Traveller committee, we have been dealing with this quite a bit with Traveller families. Can Ms O’Malley Graham provide a better picture of that for us?

I thank the Senator for the question. In respect of the breakdown of support that the Society of St. Vincent de Paul supplies, food-related support continues to be the highest proportion of support. Just this year alone, we have had over 100,000 requests for food-related support so far, which is over double what it was in 2019. Energy closely follows our food-related supports. This November, we had the highest monthly total for energy-related support that we have seen going back years. Requests for energy-related support this year are set to match or exceed the last three years of the energy price crisis.

Breaking the figures down into those segmented groups does not entirely paint the full picture, as I am sure the Senator will know, because we support many of these households across a range of issues. When I say there were 100,000 requests for food-related support, those requests are not just isolated to food-related support. We are also supporting many of those households with energy-related supports. Overall requests for support and assistance from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul have risen. As of 1 December 2025, we have already surpassed our 2022 totals and we are on track for 250,000 requests for assistance from the society in 2025. Clearly, when we are talking about energy poverty, it is energy poverty in the context of rising food and housing prices that households are not able to meet.

I thank the witnesses for joining us today. My first question is to Mr. Wyley. Believe it or not, it is one year to the day yesterday that he and Mr. Cathal Lee were in Offaly. I just wish to put that on the record that the late Mr. John Mullins was a strong advocate for the work EnergyCloud is doing. He has since passed. May he rest in peace.

This is a great initiative. It is obviously in Offaly already and it is working well, as far as I can gather. What have been EnergyCloud’s key learnings so far? What has also not worked?