No apologies have been received. Session one is from 12.30 p.m. to 1.45 p.m. and focuses on pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the private wires Bill which the committee previously agreed to undertake. This is the second meeting of the committee to engage with witnesses on the general scheme of this Bill. The purpose of today's sessions is to engage with representatives from a range of organisations with an interest in this legislation. I welcome from ESB Networks DAC, Mr. Nicholas Tarrant, managing director, Mr. Alan Rossiter, head of strategy and network development, and Ms Afra Ronayne, regulation and commercial manager; from Solar Ireland, Mr. Ronan Power, CEO, and Mr. Seán Sherlock, director of policy and regulation; from Wind Energy Ireland, Mr. Dave Linehan, head of policy and research, Mr. Marcos Byrne, policy manager, and Ms Margaret Nee, head of grid at Statkraft and chairperson of Wind Energy Ireland's grid committee; and from Ørsted Ireland, Dr. Laura Mehigan, grid services manager, and Mr. Thomas McHugh, head of public affairs and communications. You are all very welcome today. I remind everybody in attendance to make sure their phones are on silent mode or are switched off.

Before I invite the witnesses to deliver their opening statements, I advise everybody on 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 any charges against any person or entity by name or in any such way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

In terms of the format of the meeting, I will invite the witnesses to make an opening statement to a maximum of five minutes. Once those statements have been delivered, I will call members to put their questions in the order in which they have indicated to me. We operate a rota system that provides every member with an initial four minutes to engage with our witnesses. It is important to note that the four minutes are for both questions and answers and, therefore, it is essential for members to put their questions succinctly and for witnesses to be succinct in their responses. This is the first of two sessions. We have a changeover at 1.45 p.m. to another set of witnesses. Please note that the duration of this meeting is limited and times must be strictly adhered to. I ask everybody to be focused in their contributions. We will take the opening statements in the following order: Mr. Nicholas Tarrant from ESB Networks, Mr. Ronan Power and Mr. Seán Sherlock from Solar Ireland, Mr. Dave Linehan from Wind Energy Ireland and Dr. Laura Mehigan from Ørsted Ireland. I invite Mr. Tarrant to make his opening statement.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for the invitation to today’s meeting. I am joined by my colleagues Alan Rossiter, head of strategy and network development, and Afra Ronayne, regulation and commercial manager. I welcome the opportunity to speak to the committee today on ESB Networks’ view on the private wires Bill. ESB Networks supports the Government’s intention to introduce private wires in limited and clearly defined circumstances where the public benefits of allowing such developments are clear. I will start by outlining some key points that summarise ESB Networks’ role in the electricity sector and our engagement to date on the topic of private wires. ESB Networks’ role is to design, build, own, operate and maintain the electricity distribution network and as transmission asset owner to design, build, own and maintain the onshore electricity transmission network where we work in close co-operation with EirGrid as transmission system operator. ESB Networks operates under a regulatory framework overseen by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities. ESB Networks plans to invest up to €13.4 billion of capital investment under price review 6 for the period from 2026 to 2030. This is a critical programme of work to support a growing economy, increasing housing connections and to help Ireland achieve its climate action goals. The Government’s private wires policy statement published on 15 July 2025 outlines a set of guiding principles under which the objective of the policy, which is to unlock private sector investment in electricity infrastructure particularly renewable generation and storage, should be achieved. These guiding principles include the requirement that the national electricity grid remains the preferred way to connect generators and customers of electricity and that private wires should not undermine the financing of the national electricity grid. Private wires would not be permitted to undermine the efficient development of the national electricity grid in particular in relation to the potential for land sterilisation by private wires for future electricity network development. Any private wires would be required to be built to the same safety and technical standards as the national grid. ESB Networks has actively engaged with the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment throughout the development of the private wires policy. This included the submission of a detailed response to the consultation on private wires in October 2023 that is available on our website. We included a link for the committee in our submission. This detailed response includes the following recommendations: private wires should have no adverse impact on either the efficient development, operation and use of the national electricity system or on electricity system customers. Legal certainty and a strong regulatory framework are required. There should be no inefficient duplication of network assets. There should be no subsidisation of private wires by network customers. In relation to the four specific use cases put forward by the Department, ESB Networks believes private wires could play a useful role in the direct connection of generators to electricity customers and in the case where more than one generator or storage unit shares a grid connection.

For on-street electric vehicle charging, we are continuing to engage with the Department in relation to the scope of this use case. Regarding the fourth use case, for self-supplying customers providing electricity to a separate customer in a contiguous premises, ESB Networks has raised technical concerns with the Department in relation to this use case. We intend to submit a detailed response document to the Department on the general scheme later this week.

It is important to note that although private wires may not be directly connected to the grid, if they connect to a customer that is connected to the distribution network, ESB Networks will need to study the technical impact that the behind-the-meter connection could have on the wider distribution network and its customers.

Throughout the consultation and policy development period, ESB Networks has actively worked with the Department, supporting the development of the policy and providing information and clarifications. We remain firmly committed to assisting with the delivery of the private wires legislation. We will continue to work with the Department, the Commission for Regulation of Utilities and industry stakeholders to support the development and implementation of the private wires legislation.

We will be happy to take questions from the committee in due course.

As a former Member of these great Houses of the Oireachtas, I am absolutely delighted to be here on behalf of Solar Ireland. I am joined by my CEO, Mr. Ronan Power. We stand ready to assist the committee in any way we can with this legislation. We remain available to all members, the Chairman and the secretariat at all times in the promulgation of the Bill. I am delighted to be here. As I am conscious of the time, I will hand over to Mr. Power straight away.

I thank the Chair, Deputies and Senators for the opportunity to appear before the committee. I am chief executive of Solar Ireland, the national association representing the solar sector across the full value chain, from installers and commercial rooftop providers to utility scale developers, EPC contractors, technology suppliers and investors. Our members are responsible for the majority of solar capacity currently connected in Ireland and for a significant portion of the pipeline required to meet the State’s 8 GW target by 2030.

The solar sector has expanded rapidly in recent years under existing grid and safety standards. It is important to note that approximately 50% of solar currently deployed in Ireland is rooftop generation alongside utility scale, making solar energy a material contributor to Ireland's renewable energy mix.

In the interest of time, I will not repeat the written submission before the committee. Instead, I will briefly outline our key points, with particular emphasis on proportionality and implementation and the importance of safeguarding rooftop delivery.

Ireland’s electricity system is under structural pressure. We are electrifying heat and transport, competing internationally for industrial investment and we are legally bound to meet our carbon targets. At the same time, grid reinforcement is not moving at the pace required. Private wires are not a substitute for the national grid. The grid will remain the backbone of our system. However, private wires are a complementary mechanism. They allow a renewable generator to directly supply an energy user. Where grid connection costs or timelines render projects uneconomic, private wires can unlock delivery that would otherwise stall.

Solar Ireland considers the Bill to be directionally correct. Private wires exclusion from transmission and distribution is important. The tiered approach under head 7 is proportionate and the extension of CRU oversight under heads 4 and 5 is appropriate. However, careful consideration will be required in respect of licensing thresholds and administrative burden for both the CRU and the approximately 35,000 annual residential rooftop licence applicants. Rooftop currently accounts for approximately half of the deployed solar in Ireland and has become a central component of national delivery towards our 2030 targets.

Under the proposed definition of private wires, as currently drafted, all rooftop projects would fall within a full licensing requirement. Given the scale and volume of rooftop deployment, this would place substantial and additional demand on the CRU and would materially disrupt delivery. In practical terms, it would risk delaying thousands of households each year seeking to install rooftop solar, slowing climate progress and increasing uncertainty for consumers. It will, therefore, be important that the regime distinguishes clearly between large-scale infrastructure and smaller, on-site renewable projects to ensure solar continues to scale efficiently.

Safety must remain paramount. Implementation by the CRU must be proportionate, risk based and predictable. Over-prescription could unintentionally prevent viable projects from proceeding.

Solar Ireland supports safeguards ensuring that private wires do not undermine grid planning, do not attract statutory wayleave or compulsory purchase rights, and may be stepped into only in clearly defined and exceptional safety circumstances. We would welcome further clarity on the step-in provisions. At the same time, grid-based solutions must be assessed realistically. Where connection timelines or costs are prohibitive, private wires must be a viable complementary option in the public interest.

In implementing the regime, CRU regulation should build on existing ESB Networks technical and safety standards, where appropriate, avoiding duplication or unnecessary complexity. The solar sector has been designing, constructing and operating grid connected infrastructure under these standards for many years. Inspection, enforcement and emergency response arrangements should, therefore, remain clear, predictable and risk based.

The critical issue now is implementation. The regime must be proportionate, technically grounded and designed in a way that enables delivery rather than unintentionally constraining it, particularly in the rooftop segment that accounts for approximately 50% of currently deployed solar. If regulation reflects that balance, this reform can unlock additional renewable capacity, support industrial decarbonisation and relieve pressure on the national grid while maintaining the high safety and planning standards that already apply.

Solar Ireland wants to protect the national grid and stands ready to work constructively with the Government, the Commission for Regulation of Utilities and system operators to ensure that outcome is achieved. I thank the Chair and welcome questions from the members.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before them to represent the views of Wind Energy Ireland's more than 200 member companies.

Wind Energy Ireland's message is clear, namely, that private wires have a real and positive role to play in Ireland's energy transition. They can accelerate the deployment of new wind, solar, storage and hybrid projects, support large energy users and provide flexibility to integrate new technology. We already see this in the Irish system. A 5 MW solar farm has been providing power to Belfast airport for almost a decade, meeting more than one quarter of the airport's power needs.

Private wires can be particularly helpful in areas where the grid is constrained. Last year, 13% of wind energy was wasted, at an estimated cost to consumers of €450 million, due to challenges and congestion on the grid. By connecting generation to local demand, we relieve pressure on the existing grid, reduce waste of renewable energy and allow projects to come online more quickly. Every wind and solar farm we connect makes our energy system more secure and helps to lay the foundation for Irish energy independence.

The general scheme of the private wires Bill 2025 is an important step forward. However, several aspects of the Bill need to be improved to ensure that private wires can be deployed efficiently and safely. We will highlight four specific issues today.

Ireland already has hundreds of kilometres of internal collector cable systems across approximately 7,000 MW of existing wind and solar generation. Much of it was built and is operated by our members. Every day, these systems operate safely and reliably under existing licensing, electrical safety regulations, international standards and oversight by the local authorities. Our members do not compromise on safety and our record shows this.

The general scheme, in head 5, proposes that all cable systems be built to the same standards as the electricity network. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the different types of cables used to move electricity and what is appropriate for a specific task. Building cable systems to those specifications would significantly increase costs while providing no additional safety benefit. It may even make it simply unfeasible to build private wires. The committee should recommend the removal of the requirement to build internal cables to the same standards as the electricity network and keeping the existing regulatory and safety frameworks in place.

Subsections 11 and 12 of head 7 envisage that ESB Networks may have a "limited step-in" right over private wires in certain circumstances. Subsection 11 restricts this to where a private wire needs to be decommissioned in the interests of public safety and the owner is unable to do so. This seems appropriate. However, subsection 12 would give ESB Networks the right to take over the private wire where it believes this would be "beneficial" to the national grid. The right appears extremely broad and there is no clarity as to how the owner of the private wire could appeal against such a decision or even be involved in the process. Effectively, as drafted, the head suggests ESB Networks and the CRU can simply take over a private wire connection if they choose to do so.

It would be very difficult to persuade someone to invest in building a private wire if it could be seized at any time. The committee should recommend that step-in rights be reserved for high-voltage, strategic circuits of significant length or where it is in the interest of public safety, and that this right be identified and communicated in a timely fashion.

In head 6, the Bill provides for authorisation to construct a private wire, but does not mandate the need for an operator licence. This raises questions about how operation, maintenance and compliance with safety standards will be handled. While the term "private wires operator licence" is referred to in head 6, there is no definition of it. I ask the committee to recommend that clarity be provided on how operator licences are defined. We believe the best solution is to integrate private wires into the existing regulatory framework within the CRU, rather than creating an entirely new regime. In addition to this we also recommend that the ESB Networks dial-before-you-dig register of cables be extended to include private wires and internal cables.

Hybrid projects, which combine multiple generation and storage technologies at the same site, are central to decarbonisation. They allow more efficient use of grid connections, help balance renewable generation and support electrification. However, the Bill does not currently define the “multiple legal entities” referred to in head 7, creating uncertainty where more than one party seek to share a grid connection, and thus limiting the effectiveness of the private wire legislation. We ask that the committee recommend that head 3, dealing with definitions, include a clear and specific definition of "multiple legal entities".

Private wires legislation is not, as some have suggested, the privatisation of our electricity grid or a gateway to this. Let me be clear: the national grid remains, and should always remain, in the hands of the State as a critical national asset. Reinforcing and expanding the national grid is the best way to ensure a robust, secure and clean electricity system but private wires can be a valuable support. Done right, this legislation will enable faster renewable connections, support hybrid projects and strengthen Ireland’s grid.

Committee members should note that significant resourcing will be needed in the CRU, already severely under-resourced against its existing responsibilities, to take on the additional work set out here. We welcome the opportunity to engage further as the Bill progresses and to help unlock the potential of private wires for Ireland’s energy transition.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of this joint committee for the invitation to present today. As they may have seen last month, Ørsted recently agreed to divest its entire European onshore business in Ireland, the UK, Germany and Spain to Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners. I am speaking today on behalf of the Ørsted onshore team, which has 826 MW of renewables in construction and operations in these markets, alongside a multi-gigawatt development pipeline. The team remains the same and we look forward to continuing to work on our Irish projects under new ownership. We are proud to say the headquarters for our European onshore business will remain in Cork, and we look forward to building and operating energy infrastructure in Ireland for many years to come.

The public electricity network is fundamental to providing a safe, secure, and reliable power system to the people of Ireland. The recent significant commitment to invest in electricity infrastructure is both welcome and necessary. It represents an important step towards realising Ireland’s decarbonisation and energy security goals. However, other enabling measures are also required to make the fullest use of the existing grid. These include private wires, the sharing of grid export capacity, hybrid connections, and permitting multiple legal entities to operate behind the same grid connection point. We support the private wires legislation, subject to improvements to address our concerns about its workability in practice.

Our first concern is the impact on existing or advanced renewable projects. We operate 20 wind farms across the island of Ireland, generating enough electricity to power the equivalent of 250,000 homes. All of these wind farms have internal collector cable systems, some of which run in, across or along public roads. Safety is central to everything we do and we are proud to say we have a strong safety record across all our operations. This includes assets having operated safely for over 20 years. The issue we wish to highlight is the retrospective application of new standards to older infrastructure. Requiring them now to meet standards and functional specifications that did not exist when they were built could interrupt renewable power supply and create major financial pressures and, in some cases, threaten their continued viability. We have two solar farms and one windfarm in construction. We are concerned that advanced renewable projects, those that have secured route to market or that have already passed financial investment decision stage, could suffer costly delays and significant variation costs due to late-stage design changes on internal collector cable systems because of the legislation as proposed. To alleviate this concern, the legislation should focus on future projects, rather than retrospectively applying to projects that are already operating or at an advanced stage. For less advanced projects, any delay between the legislation coming into effect and the CRU putting the necessary rules and specifications in place could slow down renewable energy delivery. To avoid such delays, a key ask is that CRU be adequately resourced before this legislation is enacted.

Our second concern is the burdensome requirements and broad step-in rights. The current proposal would require all private wires to meet national grid standards and give the ESB Networks permanent step-in rights. We support step-in rights for the purpose of decommissioning and safety concerns and where they are genuinely needed for the development of the national grid.

We propose that the need for step-in rights for development of the national grid be decided on a case-by-case basis at the licensing stage or earlier, rather than universally applied. Where they are not needed, projects should be allowed greater flexibility in functional specification and standards, including the use of 33 kV², an important voltage for renewable energy projects.

Third, an opportunity to make better use of the existing national grid may be missed. Connection points at existing substations are limited given that many are already in use by existing demand and generation connections, yet some of those connection points are not used to their full capacity. Allowing multiple legal entities behind the same connection point would accelerate the connection of renewables, enable hybrid connections and the sharing of grid export capacity and ensure increased utilisation of existing connection points. As proposed, the legislation does not provide for two separate entities with the same technology to use the same connection point. Unless that changes, we risk missing an open goal to connect more renewable energy and make better use of the existing grid.

On behalf of Ørsted Onshore Ireland, I wish to extend my thanks to the committee for the opportunity to present our perspectives on the general scheme of this important Bill. Wehave invested over €800 millionin Irish energy infrastructure to date and look forward to continuing to play asignificant role in the delivery of a cost-competitive,secureand stable energy system for Ireland.

I am joined today by my colleague Thomas McHugh, head of public affairs and communications. We look forward to answering the committee members' questions and assisting them in any way we can as they progress the legislation.

I thank Dr. Mehigan. I invite members to speak in the order in which they have indicated to engage with the witnesses.

I thank the witnesses for being here and for all of their work. One of the most standout statements in all of the presentations was that of Wind Energy Ireland, which said that last year 13% of wind energy was wasted at a cost of €450 million to the State because of challenges with congestion on the grid. Given that a lot of focus at the moment is on energy, that is a very considerable sum and speaks to the importance of addressing this issue. Does Solar Ireland have an estimate as to what the statistic in relation to solar energy might be?

Last year about 16% of all solar electricity generated was curtailed due to system constraints.

Could Mr. Power put a value on that?

I would have to take it away and seek a value but it would not be as significant as €450 million. To put it in context, it would be enough electricity to have powered all of the EV car kilometres driven last year.

I thank Mr. Power. I have two questions for ESB Networks. Wind Energy Ireland stated, "The committee should recommend the removal of the requirement to build internal cables to the same standards as the electricity network and to recommend keeping the existing regulatory and safety frameworks in place." Do the representatives of ESB Networks agree with that recommendation?

Second, I welcome the statement from Wind Energy Ireland about the misrepresentation of this as some sort of privatisation of the network. We need to debunk that nonsense. This is much-needed legislation. Does ESB Networks agree that this does not represent a privatisation of the ESB network?

I thank the Cathaoirleach for his questions. I will answer the second question on privatisation first. Major investment has already happened and is increasing in PR6. We have a programme of up to €13 billion to be invested up to 2030. That is being done by EirGrid and ESB Networks combined, with huge projects to be delivered over the coming years to help address the point the Cathaoirleach made about congestion. Going back to 2023, we have indicated we are supportive of bringing in private wires in the limited circumstances we are talking about here, where there is private ownership of these direct connections in certain cases. However, there is in the policy a principle of first giving priority to grid connections in the context of the wider development of the grid and then targeting the connections around private wires in specific cases. We are supportive of that, as per our statement.

Mr. Rossiter will say something about the difference between private wires in general, the direct connections and the collector cables the Cathaoirleach asked about.

My understanding of the internal connector cables is that they are the cables between wind turbines that go back to the existing substation or between solar inverters and transformers back to the transformer station. Where they are on the premises or property on which the wind or solar is constructed, ESB Networks believes they should be constructed to international energy conservation code, IECC, standards and certified as such. Our main issue with this relates to where the cables traverse roads and interact with our existing networks. We have two main points on that. The first is related to land sterilisation, where it may, in the future, impact on our ability to efficiently build out the national grid. The second is to make sure the standards are in place such that it does not impact existing circuits because when collector cables or private wires are close to our network it can have a technical effect on that. That is our position; we have those caveats.

I thank the witnesses. I will direct my first question to ESB Networks. We had the CRU with us last week. Its representatives were of the view that, under section 37 of the Electricity Regulation Act, a legislative framework already exists that may obviate the need for this legislation. This relates to the direct lines rather than private wires. According to the CRU, this might provide a more efficient or streamlined basis for delivering some of the intended outcomes set out in the general scheme of the private wires Bill. Will the witnesses comment on that please?

As far as I know, the existing regulations allow for a connection application be made to ESB Networks or to EirGrid. I think this needs to be refused before a private wire can then be progressed. The intention of this legislation is to have a broader application. The rules of that have yet to be fully determined as regards how the sequence would work. There are different methods by which this can be introduced. I cannot comment further other than to say, in relation to my previous comments, that we are supportive of this specific case where you can have a direct line between a generator and a demand source, subject to the rules and having the right regulatory framework around it.

My next question is to the floor. A comment has been made twice about the CRU's capability in the context of its resources. I ask Mr. Linehan to address that. We have consistently heard about energy infrastructure challenges right across the system, from the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, to other agencies of the State that are completely under-resourced as a result of our inability to deliver infrastructure. On one side, we have a narrative that the reason for this is judicial reviews or environmental objections, but is the big challenge here the resources available in various sectors and arms of the State?

I will comment on the connection with ESB Networks first. Looking at our situation in ESB Networks, we have been growing our delivery capability over the last number of years to ensure we can keep pace with the level of investment to be made in the sector over the coming years. We have increased the number of internal employees in ESB Networks by approximately 1,000 net over the last five years. We are up to about 4,300 people in ESB Networks. In parallel, we have also significantly extended our contract partner base, which is crucial for delivering these major projects. There will always be risks that need to be managed around resources and supply chain, particularly with the geopolitical situation, but these are issues we are actively working on. I do not know if I can comment on the sector beyond ESB Networks but it is important that every relevant agency has appropriate resources to be able to deal with what is a growing work programme in general because of the scale of the transformation that is ongoing in the sector.

I thank Mr. Tarrant. I had a very positive meeting with ESB Networks in Kilkenny two weeks ago and I am very impressed with the work that is being done.

I will make a broader comment on the Senator's question around the CRU. From what we are seeing in general across the system in terms of capability and resourcing, the Senator is right to point out it is not just isolated to the CRU. There are other agencies, as the Senator mentioned, where we need to see that additional capability. Under this Government and the previous Government, we have seen a commitment to provide additional resourcing for ESB Networks, EirGrid and even Government Departments. One particular area where we have not see that come to fruition yet is the CRU, unfortunately. We constantly see examples of delays. With the best will in the world, the CRU is not geared up to the level of work on its desk right now. There is often a misconception about the remit of the CRU as the regulator. It also has a massive policy remit. There are aspects of what we are talking about today, and probably the more broader connection policy landscape, that the CRU is directly responsible for.

I will invite my colleague Ms Nee to speak to hybrids, which is a policy the industry has been seeking for years. It is currently with the CRU and we are waiting for it to happen. We hope to see it happen this year. Ms Nee will comment on that particular example. On the broader point, the Senator is 100% correct that the CRU is stretched today. If we add to its workload, it will exacerbate that issue.

On the particular example of hybrid policy, as an industry we brought this to a forum which involved ESB Networks, EirGrid, as the system operators, and the CRU. We identified this opportunity around hybrid policy and what needed to change. There has been some progress in this area, for example, a cap on the install capacity has been lifted. That was something we all worked on together.

There is another policy around maximum export capacity, MEC, share, where different units on the same site can share capacity between them. We see that as a way to optimise difficult to get grid connections between sites. The bottleneck on this is with the CRU. We have been waiting for some time for a decision from the CRU. Once that has been made, it will then move forward to the system operators for them to develop policy. However, this is an idea that came about ten years ago, so it is exactly as Mr. Linehan says. The CRU has so much it is considering and working on. It is about finding the correct amount of resources so that it can prioritise the key things we need to optimise the connection process.

On Senator Noonan's point, if we are going to achieve the targets on the energy transition - there is a very clear target of 8 GW for solar and we are at 2.35 GW at present - the extrapolation of that is that more resources will be required. For our part, in Solar Ireland, it is certainly part of our agenda to try to have more personnel deployed on the regulatory side in order to assist the State in its policy on this energy transition. Therefore, "Yes" is the answer to the Senator's question.

To pick up on the debate around the CRU's resources, which I noticed was mentioned in Wind Energy Ireland's statement, in less than ten years, both the number of employees at the CRU and its financial budget have doubled.

There was a reference in relation to EirGrid and ESB. Is it being based solely on a delay of publication and reports of policy, or are there other negativities around the engagement with the CRU that we need to be aware of?

I thank the Deputy for the question. Another example that we have been looking to have addressed for some time is that the forum I mentioned, which was in place ten years ago, is no longer in place. It was a liaison group forum that was in place at the time. That allowed us to come together as an industry - system operators, regulators and developers from all aspects of industry - to identify where there might be certain connection policy shortfalls.

Why did that conclude?

I think Covid was part of it, in that it stopped the ability to have the face-to-face meetings.

Surely the likes of that would be an obvious reintroduction rather than just piling more resources at the CRU.

We have asked for it. The bottleneck at the moment is the resources in the CRU needed to get it re-established. The CRU holds it and chairs it. Previously it had generated the minutes.

Has any study been done into what would be optimum resources in the CRU?

We have not done that. It just seems clear that everything that is being talked about seems to be falling on the same desk.

There is a need to try to measure what the productivity is in order to maximise optimisation. If the likes of that forum need to be reintroduced, maybe it could be a good option.

That is a key ask of ours. We can take away the question about what we are asking for specifically in terms of the resource question.

I welcome Wind Energy Ireland's statement on our decarbonising objectives and energy security goals. I am glad that this is not going to have an impact on our public infrastructure or impede on it. With regard to the retrospective application of new standards, I am conscious of the wind developments that are in the pipeline. If there is not going to be a retrospective impact, when is the opportune time to start this? When does the clock start?

We had been suggesting that it should be as early as possible in the development of the facility. What we are suggesting goes back to Mr. Tarrant's point. It is unclear as to exactly what the process is to identify how you engage with the CRU in identifying the private wires. Our ask is that it would be at the point during the process when the CRU is reviewing your private wires application that ESB and EirGrid would get involved in covering off their concerns around any sterilisation of roadways or private lands for strategic development. It is at that point that they would be identifying their step-in rights. In instances of projects where there would be step-in rights, the standards would have to match the ESB requirements.

My final point relates to organisations or entities that might be 100% reliant on their own renewable energy generation and private wires and no longer need a dependence on the national grid. They still have it there as a backup, but we are not getting any financial benefit for the national grid as a result. Should there be some insurance plan so that they have it in the background in the event of their own infrastructure letting them down?

Over the last ten years or so, the solar industry has been deploying behind the meter what are now direct lines or private wires in conjunction with the ESB. These assets are already in play and are still connected to the national grid. They are still part of our infrastructure. They are offsetting demand that we would have to otherwise provide centrally. Protections are in place that stop any interaction with the grid in terms of export limitation. This has been in place for quite some time and has worked extremely well to date.

I am conscious that we can be quite jargon-heavy in our industry. The thesis around the discussion on better engagement on policy is around the shared MEC, which is very simple in concept. That is not to say it is simple in execution. The idea is that where you have one connection, you can put more than one technology behind that connection. Being extremely simplistic, when the sun is shining and the wind is not blowing, you could have solar behind the meter. When it is the opposite, you can have the wind. It is just to clarify to that. A macro point that may sit over all of this policy discussion - this has arisen in our discussions - is that the legislation at its core needs to enable the policy that is required. There is a lot of detail and policy. I think everyone is speaking to that detail. If you look at this discussion in an overarching way, you will see that it is around the legislation enabling the fine-grained policy. To endorse what Ms Nee said, structured forums, such as today's meeting and the forums where we and our counterparts and regulators can get into the weeds on detail, are really important. There is definitely scope for improvement in that space for structured engagement on the fine detail, rather than necessarily on the overarching points.

I thank all our witnesses for coming in today. We are always grateful for their expertise. I give a particular welcome to my former party colleague, the former Deputy Seán Sherlock. It is lovely to see him. I welcome him back to Dublin.

I would like to put some questions to the ESB. I am trying to get to the bottom of where this ask is coming from and why this legislation is being proposed in the first place. Did the ESB ask for this? Is this something where it saw a gap that it was unable to fill or did not want to fill? Did it ask the Government for this, or is it simply supporting something that is coming from the Government?

I thank the Deputy. We did not look for this. This is something that came from the industry or the Government, and the Government is bringing forward legislation. Over the last three years, there has been consultation and we have responded to that. We have been engaged with the Department on it. It is not something that is coming from ESB Networks.

The ESB is supporting it. Is that in itself an admission of failure on its part, that it is not doing certain things that it seems the industry is looking for? Did it ever push back at the Government by saying that there are existing laws on our books, as Deputy Malcolm Byrne referred to, or by suggesting that if it were given additional resources, this is something it would like to do and be able to do? I am just querying that.

I do not think it is in any way a failure on the part of ESB Networks that this is being proposed. Ultimately, there has been huge success in the sector around the level of renewables that have been connected. Roughly 7 GW of large-scale projects have been connected. Mr. Power has mentioned the huge growth that has happened in solar. To take rooftop solar as an example, just before Christmas we celebrated the achievement of 1 GW of rooftop solar. This is a specific type of project where individual developers are looking to maintain the ownership of a direct line between a renewable project and a demand centre. It is separate to the development of the distribution or transmission system. Major investment has been delivered in distribution and transmission. A huge step change is coming as well as part of the energy transition. We are supportive of bringing in this specific use case in a measured way with the right regulatory framework. It is important that the guiding principle that has been set out in the policy around the national electricity grid remains the preferred way to connect generators and customers of electricity. Private wires should not undermine the financing of the national grid. That is our position. We support that in the policy from the Government.

I would like to add to that by making a point about the rooftop solar industry. The domestic side and the commercial side would fall under the current proposed definition for a private wire. This has been in existence for quite some time in conjunction with the ESB. We have seen great success in that roll-out. What is important here is that it is not about trying to replace a national infrastructure; it is about trying to offset demand and give people their own resilience, which should shelter them against some macroeconomic events.

I thank Mr. Power. To follow up on that, the ESB is saying it did not ask for this. Did any of the groups before us lobby the Government in respect of bringing in private wires legislation at any time?

From Solar Ireland's point of view, what we are ultimately responding to is the Government's own publication of its policy statement in July 2025.

I understand.

Have any of the groups represented here actively lobbied in respect of the proposed private wires legislation?

As I pointed out, it was the initiation of the public consultation in the first instance that encouraged the industry to see the potential here. The Deputy asked where was this initiated. With this proposed legislation, we, as a country, are effectively catching up with what many other countries across Europe have been doing for a long time. I referred earlier to Belfast airport, which, obviously, is in a different jurisdiction, but the authorities there have been embracing a private wire to a solar farm for more than ten years. What we see here is an additional complementary limited circumstance rather than going down the route of connecting to the national grid which projects producing gigawatts of energy will continue to do in the years to come. We see an additional route to market in the context of getting additional clean renewable capacity into the system. That is what the industry is responding to. We see our pipelines expanding, onshore and offshore. It is about how do you get the energy produced into the system as quickly as possible in the interests of improving both the country's and the planet's green credentials. Ultimately-----

On that point, we are trying to get to the bottom of identifying the bodies that will benefit. It has been stated that people are going to benefit from this. Which bodies or corporate entities will benefit? Wind Energy Ireland has indicated that this is to support large energy users. The committee has received submissions from mysterious pharmaceutical companies that are unwilling to put their names to those submissions. There is a fear that the new renewable energy that is going to be generated and that will be subject to this proposed private wires legislation is all going to go towards satisfying new demand from large energy users rather than towards decarbonising the grid. I am trying to find out who is asking for this and who is ultimately going to benefit from it. Do the witnesses see it generally as large energy users and new demand as opposed to a decarbonisation of existing demand?

I would not see them defining it as such. Private wires and the ability to connect direct generation to large energy users or consumer has to work in parallel with a wider strategy around the deployment of grid-connected utility-scale renewables such as wind and solar. Look at roof spaces, for example. Such spaces are not serving us in any way, shape or form. Proposed legislation of this type should bring in a mandate or direction that will look at new demand coming onto the grid in association with the ability to offset some of that demand by people privately generating energy and investing in their own infrastructure.

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements. My first question is for ESB Networks. Under what is currently proposed, some operations will be able to bypass the national grid while still relying on it for back-up. What guarantees should we be looking for to ensure that this will not give rise to loss of revenue and oblige the CRU to have to increase the price of electricity for customers, particularly small businesses?

I will ask Ms Ronayne to explain how the tariffs would work in practice. As has been recognised by the CRU and the Department, however, there is a need to look at this because there would be a need to retain the existing connections that customers have. For example, a factory would still need such a connection.

As the Deputy will probably be aware, in terms of demand connection, when somebody gets a connection to the grid, they pay 50% upfront. The other 50% is charged on the basis of their usage over the years. There are mechanisms that can be examined and ways to look at how this is taken forward if usage were to go down. Across the different customers, you will see that the companies have a balance between fixed elements of their charges and elements that are based on their usage. It is noted in the policy statement that any user that has a private wire will pay for the full cost of the service that they get from the grid, and there are mechanisms to look at that charge.

Is that only if they are connected?

It is if they are connected to the grid and have the back-up facility that the Deputy mentioned. The CRU is bringing forward a project, which we are working on, to look at the charging structure and the tariffs to ensure that they are appropriate.

Mr. Linehan mentioned step-in rights and the fact that Wind Energy Ireland would disagree to ESB Networks having the right to take over private wires if it were beneficial to do so. Could Mr. Tarrant give a quick opinion on that? I have a further a question for Wind Energy Ireland.

Mr. Rossiter might comment on this one.

In relation to the step-in rates rights, there are two instances. The first is if an entity goes bankrupt and we are the entity of last resort to go in and rectify that. The other is to enable the efficient development the grid through taking over a private wire. Internal collector networks and private wires are distinct in their definitions, and that needs to be brought out in secondary legislation or in the technical standards that will underpin what is in the general scheme. However, I would also see there being very limited occasions on which ESB would seek to step in.

Would that be as a last resort?

It would be in the scenario relating to the efficient development of the grid.

Okay.

The way it is currently worded means that people's homes, not just commercial businesses, would be included. People's homes would fall under the definition of what constitutes a private wire as a connection between a generator and a consumer. It would be quite concerning if that level of step-in right were to be put in place.

I take it Mr. Power means private homeowners who are just generating energy of their own.

Has Wind Energy Ireland any concerns about the fact that TDs and councillors know that the people they represent are never particularly delighted when they hear about wind farms coming to their areas? Is Wind Energy Ireland worried that this proposed private wires legislation might weaken public support for investment in offshore and onshore wind projects?

I can kick off on that and then invite my colleagues to come in. In the first instance, much like any form of infrastructure in our communities, it is all about the engagement that starts right at that early point once a project is proposed. Unlike the national grid, in project-specific infrastructure the same engagement would be critical in that phase.

It is early days, I suppose, in terms of formulating this proposed legislation and working through the details. We probably do not have a fully baked understanding or appreciation yet of what specific impact that might have. As I said, the pros outweigh the cons, from our perspective and from that of the State more generally in terms of this proposed legislation. That is why we, as a sector, are advocating quite strongly for it.

I suppose the only point I would add is that we have significant experience of the internal cables and working with communities, roads authorities, etc., to understand what the requirements are and to make sure that these projects are delivered successfully and to a good quality and safety standard.

On private wires, there is not going to be much community involvement. Is Ms Nee expecting the companies producing this energy to look after community buy-in and the other things you hear about, including community centres?

I see the private wires as a tool, but the fundamental is the facilities that exist at either end. Those facilities certainly would need local community support and for the developers to be transparent about what the connection is and what is required, be it a grid connection that will be constructed under a roadway or on private lands, or be it a private wire. The engagement with local communities is essential, regardless of what you are connecting.

Mr. Linehan mentioned that 13% of wind was curtailed last year at a cost of approximately €450 million. If this proposed Bill was implemented effectively, how much of such a curtailment could be avoided in the next three to five years in percentage terms?

I might pass to my colleague Mr. Byrne to answer on that.

That is a really interesting question. It is quite difficult to quantify how much of a percentage effect it would have, but what we do know is that private wires will be an important tool for tackling areas that see higher levels of constraint. The latter comes down to congestion on local networks. That is an issue where a wind farm cannot get its power onto the system because the system is full. Where a private wire could be beneficial would be where you can have these projects connecting local generation to local demand and not being impacted by some of these constraints.

We do not see it delivering gigwatts of power, but it will help in these areas in ensuring every MW gets delivered to the demand-----

It would be a useful exercise to even try to model it out a little bit as well. I know Solar Ireland mentioned 16%, but has it looked at how much curtailment could be avoided in the solar area?

It is genuinely difficult to quantify. Just as my colleagues in the wind sector have said, it shows that the private wire offsets that demand locally. Furthermore, behind the meter or private wire installations, you would typically see 80% to 90%, if not more, of the generated power being utilised In conjunction with battery storage, it gives a business or homeowner the ability to utilise all of the power they have invested in.

Would both witnesses agree there would be a reduction in curtailment if this Bill passes?

I agree there would be a reduction in demand at a local level, based on this.

That is fine, I thank Mr. Power. Going back to wind energy, it was argued that requiring internal cables to meet full network standard shows a fundamental misunderstanding. What specific International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC, or international best practice standard would be appropriate for the CRU to adopt?

I thank the Deputy for the question. When approaching this, it is important to stress that quality and safety are fundamentals and we are not suggesting there be any change in approach from that perspective. When you look at what is required to install the cables, there are the civil works. It is fundamental that we are aligned with the ESB standards and requirements there to deliver the infrastructure.

Where we differ in opinion and where we would like to have some opportunity to optimise is with the electrical and it relates to the voltage levels. There are certain voltage levels the ESB does not utilise in Ireland that are utilised internationally and that we certainly utilise on wind farm and solar sites to optimise the connections. Those are the 33 kV connections or, if it is offshore, the 66 kV connections.

That is really helpful. I thank Ms Nee for that. Mr. Tarrant of the ESB emphasised that the national grid must remain the preferred connection route and I completely understand his point there. Given the 13% curtailment in wind, 16% curtailment in solar and escalating grid delays, what specific criteria should determine when a private wire is justified in the public interest, rather than being seen as undermining the grid?

I might just go back briefly to the curtailment point. Curtailment applies to existing generation today. What is set out in the proposed legislation is for new generation. That is an important clarification because it would not change things today, unless it was in the case of hybrid connections where storage might be added behind a connection point to the grid today.

In terms of the criteria, there is work to be done to discuss and set out the criteria by which private wires would apply in place of a normal grid connection. Where grid connection is possible and it is feasible for a project, we would like that to be the preferred route. As the committee is aware, there are contestable connections today that have existed for many years where people can build those privately, but they are then adopted into the grid and they can be used for other connections or if a new substation was built, so there is an overall optimisation.

It is in cases where it is more difficult or not feasible for a project to get a connection in that way within the timeline that would be needed that there are specific cases, and hence our support for those narrow cases we have outlined going back for the past two or three years. It is broadly in line with the comments heard from the industry today as well.

Mr. Tarrant does think, however, that there should be criteria as to what level of public interest is at play with various applications.

Yes. For the rules that would be applied when the applications come in, there would have to be a defined way of doing that so there would be clarity for the industry and for us as the owners of the transmission and distribution network as to how it would apply. That rule set can be set out in a way that gives clarity. That would be a follow-on step around this.

That is really good. I thank Mr. Tarrant.

Picking up on a question from the previous speaker, I had been looking at that question again. We have heard that one of the principles should be that the national grid remains the preferred way, but where is the clarity around the test and what demonstrates that preference? Is it about having a clear test? It has been said there need to be certain criteria besides the very broad language of the four use cases, one of which is literally as broad as somebody wanting to make the energy and somebody else wanting to buy it. Within that, in the public interest, it would be useful if there were supplementary ideas about what that test should be.

I am wondering about one of those scenarios. If a new solar or wind power farm is coming on stream, could we see the State having to compete against a single customer for access to that wind or solar energy? Could an electricity generation source have to choose whether to go with a single large energy user or with selling to the national grid? In instances like that, is that an area where there is a danger the national grid might not be getting preference?

There are a number of factors to this. There are projects that bid into the marketplace as part of the wholesale market and supply the overall electricity needs in the country. There are already provisions today where companies sell through corporate power purchase agreements, PPAs, directly to specific customers. That exists today. The point in connection with us and ESB Networks is about the preferred development of a grid that supports the needs of all customers.

To go back to the criteria, what criteria should be used to decide when a private wire is or is not appropriate in the interests of the efficient development of the grid for the future? Such investment will needed on a national basis to support the development of the climate action plan targets and others that we have in the country.

There is a concern about the potential increase in costs if we have a secondary energy market that effectively operates like that. The CRU has pointed out that it is currently funded by levies on household customers. Does there need to be a new mechanism? Everybody says the CRU needs to be resourced better but the mechanism is currently a levy on others. Does there need to be a different contributory mechanism for funding the CRU? Does Mr. Tarrant have a perspective on that?

The other piece that was not very well defined was the question of promotion. Promotion of renewable energy is being mentioned but it is very unclear what is meant by it. The Bill, very concerningly, allows for fossil fuel development and generation to be part of it. Does that mean 90% of the generation could be from fossil fuels? Is it 80%, 20% or 70%? If it is a case of fossil fuel infrastructure, of course, that compromises the development. Does Mr. Tarrant foresee a situation where private wires are used to facilitate new fossil fuel infrastructure? That is what the Bill allows for. How can that be mitigated?

The two questions are about the CRU funding and the-----

Yes, on the first question about the CRU, I do not think we can really comment on the funding of the CRU. It is not our position to comment on that. Obviously, it is really important it is funded to be able to fulfil its role and it has a key role in the industry.

On the connection of renewables versus fossil fuels, I know this came up in the committee's discussions with the Department at the session last week. My understanding is that the way the heads of the Bills have been drafted is such that it is not specific about technology. Ultimately, as a network operator, our role is to connect parties under whatever the legislation is. We do not have a view on this. At a practical level, some of the projects that are looking to use private wires - other parties here might comment on this - are likely to be renewable projects. In the way the legislation has been drafted, it is open to interpretation but I think that was clarified by the Department last week----

For example, we know there are private LNG development applications. Is it the case that we could potentially see an LNG connection to a large customer under a private wire under this Bill?

If it is allowed under the policy and the legislation and it is covered by the general connection rules we apply to connecting to the network, then that is the framework in which we operate.

I have a quick question on step-in.

A very quick one, Senator, please.

I know. I support ESB Networks' position that we need to have efficient development of the grid, etc. There is quite a push towards the idea of removing rights of way and I think compulsory purchase order is overreach. I acknowledge the importance of the development of the grid as a grounds. However, this committee hears about extreme scenarios and concerns about energy security. If we have a national energy security crisis or issue, is that the kind of ground that should allow for a step-in or some other form of legal requirement in terms of feeding into the grid from this capacity? I am happy to get the industry’s comment on this, too.

I have not thought too deeply about the idea of linking the step-in rights to energy security. Mr. Rossiter might have already covered the point that two scenarios are envisaged – one on public safety and the other in the case where there might be an efficient development of the grid that would involve the use of this infrastructure that was built as a private line between a generator and a demand location. I cannot think of anything off hand that would be in the energy security territory that would need it.

If Mr. Linehan wishes, he may make a quick comment.

On the specific point around step-in rights, from an industry perspective - Wind Energy Ireland made this point in our opening statement - we are very much supportive for the safety reasons as outlined. There is a broader context around making sure there is certainty, for example, early notice of what is or is not included in terms of strategic infrastructure. There is also the question of proportionality. You do not want to create a scenario that is so restrictive that it completely stifles the investment proposition and there is no ability whatsoever to make a project investable. There is a balance that needs to be stuck there and we are very happy to engage further with the Department to clarify our views on that.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. The goal is for more homes to be powered, to use more renewable energy and to lower costs for the Irish public. That should be the goal for everyone.

It is good to see Mr. Tarrant again. Ireland is in the middle of a housing crisis and a grid capacity crisis. One potential offered by private wires is that they would allow new homes or developments to be powered faster, hopefully by renewable generation, hydrogen cells or something else, while they are waiting for grid connection. However, under head 7.4.a., developers must prove the project promotes renewable or sustainable energy without any clear threshold. I am concerned about the uncertainty in that. Does ESB Networks think the current wording creates unnecessary uncertainty for housing developments using private wires? Should the legislation instead set clear, measurable criteria so that projects can proceed quickly? I have spoken to developers who are still waiting for connections, not just for electricity, but also water and everything else. This is one thing that I think would be really good.

I will make a couple of general comments about housing. We are all aware of the housing crisis and the emphasis placed on accelerating housing targets. If you take 2025, and while I know the Government targets are more stretching than this, we saw a big increase in the number of housing connections completed and that momentum is continuing into 2026. We are putting huge effort into expanding the network to cater for new housing developments that would have been in effectively rural areas. There is huge focus on that.

What is envisaged in the heads of the Bills is a direct wire between a generator and a demand for electricity. From my read of it, it does not envisage a wider application of the private wires scenario beyond that. There are four use cases that we have commented on in our opening statement but it relates to a single wire between a generator and a demand.

I appreciate that and I appreciate the need to protect the grid and the future infrastructure. I do not want to see the wild west where roads are getting turned up for private wires. Would clearer thresholds in legislation help unlock projects faster while still protecting the grid in parallel with private wires?

The question is very general in nature. It depends. We have outlined a position to do with a limited number of specific use cases. On the use cases that have been put forward by the Department, we are still in discussions with it on EV charging as we noted in our opening statement and whether it is necessary in this legislation.

On contiguous sites, ESB Networks believes there are technical issues that make it something that should not be brought forward. It comes back to the scenarios we spoke about during the meeting so far relating to the direct connection between, for example, a new solar farm and a demand site. They are the use cases that we feel are potentially beneficial to bring forward, and not beyond that.

I appreciate that. I apologise, as I am running out of time. Ultimately, if renewable generation through private wires can help us build homes sooner, then it is in the public interest that we remove unnecessary barriers.

My next question is for Wind Energy Ireland. We just spoke about renewable generation. I saw most of the submissions. One concern raised on the Bill is whether generators will be allowed to connect to both the national grid via private wires and to a customer via the national grid. Without that dual connection, projects may not be bankable because if a single customer stops consuming power, the generator now has nowhere to export the electricity. From a renewable sector perspective, is dual connection essential if private wires are going to attract real investment into Ireland?

I thank the Deputy for that interesting question. It is quite difficult to paint each project as a single type of project. I do not believe that that would be the case in general. I think there will be several instances of projects that can stand on their own feet with the direct connection between the generator and demand. I am sure there will be examples of projects that would like to have a private connection as well as a connection to the system but that is very much project specific. That will depend on the type of demand customer in particular and what they are looking for from the generator.

If I can add, in existing solar installations that will be governed by existing legislation, the systems are connected to the national grid as well. Without getting technical, there are protections in place to protect the national grid, but the existing installations are self-consuming. The dual connection already exists in the solar market.

If the Bill effectively forces projects to choose between grid or private wires rather than allowing both, will that significantly limit the number of renewable projects that get built?

To add to what Deputy Ahern asked on whether lobbying was done for private wires, did any of the organisations present make submissions against plug-in solar in the consultation in 2024?

That predates me, so I do not want to comment on it.

No problem.

I am happy to revert to the Deputy on that question.

Which part?

On the 2024 question. That predates me, but I am very happy to revert.

These assets are not guaranteed generation 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, so there will always be a dependency on centralised generation of power and connecting to the national grid. This is not a silver bullet solution. It will not remove all of the need for the infrastructure. There will always be a requirement for dual power between on-site generation and national grid generation as well.

Just on a point of clarity, I have a question for ESB Networks. Its opening statement said that there should be no subsidisation of private wires by network customers. Then it said that private wires should not undermine people financing the grid. I think the question was more or less answered by Ms Ronayne when she spoke about 50% up front and 50% afterwards, but is it the backup that ESB Networks is talking about going forward or is it upfront payments? Will ESB Networks expand on its concerns?

To expand on what Ms Ronayne spoke about, I will use the example of a factory. If there is new solar or wind connected to the factory, what are the savings available to the factory owner in that situation?

First of all, they have the reduced cost of buying the electricity because it is generated by solar or wind farms. There is also the cost of the electricity network. As Ms Ronayne mentioned, there are a number of ways that the network charges are made up. There is an element of fixed charges and there are also variable charges. The variable charges are to do with the amount of electricity they are importing to use in the factory from the network. If you think about the solar project that is now feeding the factory through a private wire, the amount of power coming in externally will be reduced, so the network charge will come down in that situation. If that happens across a range of projects, it will mean that the revenue that underpins the funding of ESB Networks, ESBN, for those customers would come down. It was acknowledged by the Department, and also mentioned by the CRU last week, that there would be a need to review the tariffs so that the cost was not passed on to other customers in that situation. That is what we mean by needing to look at the whole area of cross-subsidisation and to ensure that costs are not going up for some customers, even if the amounts involved are small, when a private wire comes in for that factory in this case.

Mr. Tarrant is saying that ordinary households would end up subsidising this factory he is talking about. Is that it?

I am not saying that. I am saying that what we are calling out is the need, in introducing this policy, to take those factors into account so that there is a plan as to how those charges are recovered. Ultimately, it is a matter of policy as to how that is done. There was a previous reference to the tariff review project that the CRU was planning to introduce. I am sure these elements will all be factored in as part of that process.

I might just add that there are certain cases at the moment where this applies. Two examples would be-----

Where what applies?

Where we have to mind that there is no cross-subsidisation as a result of this specific type. One example would be temporary supplies for cranes and things like that. Obviously, a crane is not going to be in place for 45 years, so we charge 100% up front for those temporary supplies so that there is no knock-on impact on other distribution use of system, DUoS, groups. Another example is where a customer might choose to become an auto-producer. There is an existing regime whereby we adjust for the residual DUoS charge as a result of their moving to that auto-producer. There is existing precedent for how these situations are handled.

What is ESB Networks' preference with this proposal?

It is a matter of policy to work through these types of issues when they come up. It has been identified as something that needs follow-up. We will continue to work with the Department and the CRU around that as the tariff review process moves forward. This particular aspect of the private wires legislation would be factored into that process.

What ESB Networks is saying is it needs to be clarified and changed.

From our point of view, if you take it that we are a regulated entity that is a natural monopoly, we have certain revenue that is collected from all customers over the course of a year. That funds the operation, maintenance and future investment in the network. If charges, for whatever reason, come down on one group, we need to look at the overall situation to decide how that is addressed.

Is Mr. Tarrant saying that a situation could arise whereby, let us say, a data centre would end up being subsidised by the other people who are paying their network charges, including ordinary households?

There are a variety of circumstances that could arise.

Is that possible?

There are a variety of circumstances that could arise. I do not want to speculate about where the tariff process will end up. Going back to 2023 when we responded to the original consultation, we raised this as a point that needed to be addressed as part of policy. It has been acknowledged before the committee by the Department and the CRU that this is an issue that needs to be looked at. Ultimately, those decisions are yet to happen.

The issue has not been addressed to the final satisfaction of ESB Networks to date.

Something like this is not an issue for us and is not about our satisfaction or otherwise. It is a policy matter. We implement policy. What we did in the consultation, and it is not necessarily that it was new to people, was to state that this was a factor that needed to be taken into account.

Further review needs to be done. Is that what Mr. Tarrant is saying?

I think so, yes.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I want to make a note. There is a clear statement from Wind Energy Ireland about wastage and the €450 million cost that was put on consumers as a result of constraints. Deputy Ó Cearúil asked a straightforward question about whether this Bill would assist that. I thank Mr. Tarrant for coming in and saying that it will not and that the Bill relates only to future developments. That €450 million of a constraint will still be there. It is unfortunate that the other witnesses did not take the opportunity to clarify that. They danced around that answer. They gave the indication that there was potential for that €450 million to be offset. I think that is unfortunate. That, in my mind anyway, undermines some of their arguments in relation to this policy.

One of the things that was made clear last week by the Department was that future wires and those entities would be operating outside the transmission system. There would be no transmission system operator, TSO, requirements. Does ESB Networks have concerns about that? The TSO is obviously an agreement whereby people participate in the grid and there is dispatch and generation. It is all this big ecosystem in which everyone plays their part and there is central control over it. Is having large entities operating outside that system of concern to ESB Networks? Do Solar Energy Ireland and Wind Energy Ireland welcome that or would they rather their members were TSOs in that system?

The operation of any of the renewable projects through something like this is less of an issue for ESB Networks. Our concern is about the physical connection of the project to the network. As part of that process, there are studies that we have to do because there is a fundamental change once someone has, say, a solar or wind project behind the meter. Perhaps Mr. Rossiter could expand on this a little more, but we need to do technical assessments around that to ensure there is no adverse impact for other general customers as part of that.

There are a number of studies that we must carry out. This applies in the existing scenarios today. It is to ensure that other customers connected to the grid are not impacted by any generation or storage that may be behind the meter. It is outlined in our distribution code, which is backed into European network codes in terms of the different thresholds, which include, for example, noise on the system or short-circuit levels. Various technical parameters need to be complied with at the specific site of installation. We carry out those studies. That is even if the installation is not exporting to the grid. It is for self-consumption. We have to carry out those studies.

ESB Networks technically still has to ensure that is still the case even if there is not a second line to the grid. Am I getting that right? The intention is for a single line between two entities, a generator and a consumer, as such.

It is important to clarify that in that situation, consumers would still have a connection to the national network. They would be generating through the renewable project and that would be available, say, in the case of solar when the sun was shining. However, they would still need that connection. It is because they still maintain that connection that we have to do the studies that Mr. Rossiter has outlined.

ESB Networks is not aware at this stage whether this is technically feasible or preferential.

In the instance where, for example, you have a factory with solar panels on the rooftop, we carry out those studies. The studies we would carry out if those solar panels were in a field 1 mile or 1 km down the road would be very similar in terms of what we would have to carry out. I believe it is feasible to carry out the studies. Whether the installation requires further reinforcement of the grid as a result of those studies is measured on a case-by-case basis.

We have been working with ESB Networks for almost ten years now. Almost 50% of the total solar deployed at the moment would fall under the category of what we are talking about here today. Those types of grid studies, particularly on the larger systems, have export limitations so that we do not spill energy onto the grid in those situations. They are purely designed for self-consumption only.

That is the question. We have heard repeatedly that this is going to increase clean and renewable energy on our grid and that this is going to be a fantastic thing for every consumer and for the environment.

The reality is the energy that is going to be created will be for the company that has paid for that private wire. The chance of much of it spilling back onto the grid will be limited. This is, technically, a privatisation of part of our electricity grid.

I will follow on. Currently, just shy of 180,000 homes have deployed solar energy in the same manner as we are discussing. We are allowing the residents of Ireland to offset some of those increased costs associated with grid-supplied electricity and become more resilient. In that instance, we are now doing it in people’s homes. It is not limited to companies. It is not about the privatisation of the network; it is about displacing demand that we need to generate centrally and distribute throughout the country.

We need balance though to ensure we are not creating demand because that is what I see this doing. It will create demand, which will mean people will not get the renewable business.

It is important to note that it is not just for new demand; it gives existing demand an opportunity to meet their current demand directly with renewables. We have used the example of Belfast airport in Northern Ireland where it had an ability to connect 5 MW of solar energy in and meet 25% of the demand. If Dublin Airport were to replicate that, it would affect the constraints on the system and that €450 million. Having existing demand be able to seek and look at what a private wire can offer can have an effect on the level of constraints on the system in these local areas. That is an important point to note. Likewise, the decarbonisation of existing demand on our system is positive for the island of Ireland and contributory to our targets as a whole.

It is only contributory to our targets if we do not increase our demand accordingly or incur a whole lot of gas generation. This is an opportunity for us to interrogate this legislation. We are asking questions and we need straightforward answers from the witnesses, rather than answers where they are dancing around or indicating. I looked back on this and the Department was clear that this will be for future projects, not existing ones. That €450 million will not be impacted. To indicate or imply, directly or indirectly, is not what this discussion needs to be about.

I might just clarify-----

We are going to have to move on. Mr. Linehan can clarify very quickly. We have a second set of witnesses coming in.

The figure we are quoting is the current figure. That will get worse in the years to come due to the effect of local grid congestions. To put on the record, currently, we have 3,000 MW of wind consented but not yet in construction.

That is 100%. I know this is a huge problem and it needs to be addressed but the witnesses were specifically asked about the percentage of the €450 million that will be saved. No one said that this will not do anything for that €450 million figure but, rather, will be for future projects and constraint issues. That was a missed opportunity.

I thank the Deputy. I am conscious of the clock. I have a couple of questions. Ms Ronayne mentioned tariffs and the tariff review in the context of price. This will continue to be a regulated supply. Is that correct? How will the regulations be enforced if the supply consists of a consumer and generator with a private line in between? How does that enforcement come about in practice? I refer to ensuring there are no side deals happening along a private wire between a consumer and a provider. How will that regulation happen in practice? Does Ms Ronayne understand the question?

That is separate. The structure between the consumer and the private wire is between the two parties, namely, the customer and generator. The regulated piece is where networks interact with the customer. The tariff policy we have, which is published on our website, is approved by the CRU. As we described, it has varying elements to it. Any arrangements between the customer and the private wire are separate to that.

Therefore, the unit cost of the supply is negotiable.

It is a bilateral agreement between the generator and the demand location. They agree a price based on the development cost of the project, such as the cost associated with buying or leasing the land to build the solar project. They agree a price. I am sure Mr. Power can comment further in this regard.

These are capital projects that are funded either by residents in their homes or businesses that will utilise their land or rooftop.

The electricity price is not regulated.

Sorry-----

The tariff is not-----

It is a capital expenditure, CapEx, price. The generation is as a result of the investment into the building the system itself. It is not charged as a price per kilowatt, as such.

Dr. Mehigan mentioned retrofitting of collection cables. That concern has come up twice now. What is the issue in that regard? Does that mean that an existing wind farm would have to go in and refit all its cabling to meet some standard or system? Is that what she was saying?

That is exactly the concern we have. When it comes to our existing projects, as I said, we have over 20 wind farms operational. Internal collector cable systems are included within this legislation and there is the suggestion that there might be requirements to comply with modern day standards. These wind farms were built at a different time, however. I am not suggesting that we compromise on safety. We have no issue with safety oversight. The issue, depending on how it is implemented, is that it could result in the need for massive capital investment to go back and-----

Retrofit.

Yes, effectively. That is the concern.

What do the witnesses from ESB Networks think of that? Is that a possibility?

Maybe further clarity is needed in this regard. When I look at the general scheme or the regulatory impact statement on this, which is available and published by the Department, my read of it is that, similar to the way Safe Electric is in place for governing standards and the certification of houses, it is intended to put a similar arrangement of standards in place, be it the NSAI or whoever. That is yet to be clarified. Unless it comes out and it is impacting on roads or our existing network, it is not particularly an area for ESB Networks.

It was mentioned earlier by ESB Networks that there is the potential for step-in rights on internal collector cable systems. This is not necessarily private wires-related. Rather, this is for the way we currently build renewable assets. If this legislation comes in and there is a step-in right with that internal collector cable network, it completely changes the ball game. We have significant concerns about that. We suggest that the step-in rights are proportionate. In the area of private wires, for internal collector cables, there is already a connection offer policy in process where ESB Networks and EirGrid have a de facto veto on how they are developed. I am not sure why there is an extra need to legislate for step-in rights.

I am conscious of the committee’s time but I wish to refer to a point made by Mr. Power. For the purposes of considering a pre-legislative scrutiny report, we ask, on behalf of Solar Ireland, that the committee gives due consideration to the point that has been made regarding the licensing issue. Under head 7, the insertion of section 37A of the 1999 Act into the legislation provides that the commission “can grant or refuse to grant a Private Wires licence to construct a private wire”. In the context of our deploying solar energy on rooftops right across the land on a residential basis and helping people on the energy transition, I ask the committee to further consider the permutations of that for the householder. Will the householders have to apply for a license to connect solar panels to the roof? That question arises for us in Solar Ireland. If the committee could consider that, we would be grateful.

That is noted. I have a final question. Mr. McHugh mentioned jargon. His organisation’s opening statement states: "As proposed, the legislation does not provide for two separate entities with the same technology to use the same connection point." Can he provide the committee with a practical example? What does that mean? I ask for one example.

It could be that there are two different legal entities but with the same technology. To give one example – I am not saying it is every example – we could have two separate solar farms that are constructed at different points in time. They could both come behind the meter in that shared maximum export capacity, MEC.

Okay, so it would be two farms with the same technology side by side.

Does Dr. Mehigan wish to elaborate on that?

Yes. The connection points on the grid are a scarce resource. If I take the example of the capacity at a connection point being 200 MW, you can have existing renewables or conventional generators occupying, say, 50 MW and there will still be 150 MW of capacity available. In the example of a solar farm occupying 50 MW of it, the way it is written in the heads suggests it has to be a different technology type, so that would not allow another solar farm of another 50 MW to share that same connection point, which would reduce the workload in terms of what ESB Networks would have to deliver to deliver that connection point and give the ultimate benefit of the renewable energy to the country.

That is clear, thank you. Deputy Ahern just mentioned unidentified submissions and I had a few raised eyebrows there. We have checked that, and across everything that has come in, there have been some case studies but they all came in with a covering letter, so it is just to be aware of that. We do not typically get-----

What I saw was an unnamed submission from a large pharmaceutical user, so do you have the name of that?

I think that was a case study but it came in with a covering letter, so it is identifiable.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that.

Thank you, Deputy. I thank all the witnesses for coming in and giving their time. We will be publishing all their opening statements on the website. We will suspend for a few minutes as we bring in the next witnesses.

This is our second session of the day on the general scheme of the private wires Bill. I welcome the following representatives to the meeting: from ICTU, Mr. Paul Gavan, campaigns and advocacy officer; from Schneider Electric Ireland, Mr. Darren Kinsella, business development manager; from Mason, Hayes and Curran, Mr. Eoin Cassidy, partner and head of energy, and Mr. Keith Newman, partner; and from Friends of the Earth, Mr. Seán McLoughlin and Ms Rosi Leonard. You are all very welcome.

Before I invite opening statements I advise 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 that 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 invite witnesses to make an opening statement of a maximum of five minutes and then call members of the committee in the order they have indicated to me to put their questions. We will take the statements in the following order: Mr. Gavan of ICTU, Mr. Kinsella of Schneider Electric Ireland, Mr. Cassidy for Mason, Hayes and Curran, and then the representatives of Friends of the Earth.

I thank members of the committee for the invitation to speak on behalf of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions energy and natural resources committee. I am accompanied by the chair of that committee, Jim Dullaghan. We represent workers across Ireland’s energy and natural resources sectors, including ESB, EirGrid, Bord na Móna, Coillte, GNI, Uisce Éireann and related organisations. Our members plan, build, operate and maintain the electricity system that underpins Ireland’s society and economy. We recognise the need to address network constraints and accelerate renewable integration. However, as currently drafted, the private wires Bill presents significant risks to Ireland’s electricity system, climate ambition and the public interest.

First, the Bill opens the door to the privatisation of parts of our transmission and distribution networks by enabling private ownership and operation of electricity lines. For nearly a century, Ireland has benefited from a single, publicly owned electricity network that ensures common standards, system-wide planning, safety oversight and equitable access. Permitting private duplication of this infrastructure risks fragmentation, inefficiency, higher costs and weakened accountability. Generations of workers and taxpayers built the public network and we should not dismantle its remaining advantages in pursuit of short-term gains for a small number of very large commercial actors.

Second, Ireland is already on course to miss up to half of its legally binding 2030 emissions targets.

In this environment, it is essential that every energy investment clearly contributes to decarbonisation. The Bill does not require private wires to be used for renewable generation nor does it ensure that electricity supplied through them will displace fossil fuel use. This risks enabling new large loads, particularly data centres, to connect outside the public network without contributing meaningfully to emissions reduction. A State-led, planned approach is needed to ensure private wires support, rather than undermine, climate objectives.

Third, Ireland’s electricity system is increasingly characterised by high fixed costs. If certain users can use private wires to avoid paying their share of these costs while still relying on the public network for back-up, those costs will shift onto households and small businesses. This would be unfair, regressive and at odds with the principle that all beneficiaries of the public system must contribute their fair share.

Fourth, there are serious questions about compliance with EU electricity law. Recent European Court of Justice, ECJ, rulings indicate that private facilities supplying electricity to customers are typically subject to the same regulatory regime as distribution networks. Proceeding without clarity from the European Commission creates the risk of legal challenge, regulatory uncertainty, and cost exposure for the State.

Fifth, there are system integrity, technical, safety and other cost issues. Private wires may inflate land access costs for public projects, complicate system protection and fault restoration, and exacerbate existing stability challenges associated with large energy users.

The Bill also proposes allowing on-site generation to supply adjacent premises, which raises safety and legal concerns and offers limited system-wide benefit. The risk of exacerbating unresolved fault ride-through issues associated with large energy users, particularly data centres, with implications for system stability and security of supply is of particular concern. We are not opposed to innovation. In fact, we support facilitating on-street EV charging and enhancements to existing direct line arrangements that enable hybrid connections for renewable energy. These represent a practical, State-led approach to maximising use of the existing network and accelerating decarbonisation.

However, without robust safeguards, the Bill risks undermining our publicly owned electricity network, weakening Ireland’s climate progress, increasing electricity costs for vulnerable customers, creating legal and financial risks for the State and compromising system integrity and safety.

We therefore urge the Oireachtas to amend the Bill to protect the public network, prioritise decarbonisation of existing demand, ensure equity in cost recovery, guarantee compliance with EU law and maintain the safety and integrity of Ireland’s electricity system.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and committee members for the opportunity to speak to them today. I am appearing on behalf of Schneider Electric, a global energy technology leader, with over €40 billion in revenues and 160,000 employees worldwide. In Ireland, our expanding operation employs over 400 people across three sites in Galway, Cork and Dublin. Our headquarters at Citywest demonstrates our long-term commitment to Ireland’s economy, workforce, infrastructure build-out and climate transition.

Ireland is set at a critical moment. We face the twin challenges of accelerating decarbonisation while ensuring the resilience, flexibility and affordability of our electricity system. We welcome the committee’s focus on the general scheme of the Bill, as it represents a meaningful opportunity to unlock investment, ease pressure on the grid and enable faster progress towards Ireland’s climate targets.

The Government’s private wires policy statement rightly recognises that the grid constraints are now one of the most significant barriers to decarbonisation and to the industry’s ability to electrify operations at scale. Stakeholders across the consultation process, including system operators, developers and energy users, have consistently highlighted long lead times, curtailment and limited grid capacity as obstacles to meeting targets and attracting investment.

Schneider Electric sees three areas where a well-designed private wires framework can deliver real system-wide value. First, private wires can offer an efficient route for connecting renewable generation to load, particularly in cases where grid availability would otherwise delay projects by several years. The consultation evidence shows widespread agreement that private wires can enable localised renewable consumption, reduce curtailment, and support green hydrogen production, storage solutions and hybrid renewable assets. These are all essential capabilities if Ireland is to meet its 2030 and 2050 targets.

Second, private wires are not a substitute for continued large-scale investment in infrastructure but they can alleviate congestion, reduce local reinforcement needs and ensure that valuable grid capacity is reserved for projects that require it. Evidence from the industry indicates that correctly deployed private wires can help avoid unnecessary duplication of infrastructure while speeding up delivery of critical projects.

Third, Irish industry faces increasing pressure to decarbonise while maintaining cost competitiveness. The planned modernisation of manufacturing, logistics, digital infrastructure and transport will require clean, reliable and high-capacity energy supplies. The consultation process highlighted that private wires could unlock renewable energy parks, on-site generation partnerships and direct renewable connections for high demand users - solutions that are vital for maintaining Ireland’s attractiveness as a destination for investment.

From our work globally and our engagement with partners in Ireland, Schneider Electric recommends strong regulatory oversight and technical standards. The CRU will require clear authority, resources and guidelines to ensure safety, interoperability and system integrity. Respondents across the consultation stressed the need for clear technical standards equivalent to those used for the public grid. Private wires should operate as a complement to, not a bypass of the national grid. Clarity on cost allocations, network charges and responsibilities is essential to avoid unintended cross-subsidisation or inefficiencies. Private wires can unlock rapid progress, but equitable access, transparency and appropriate planning safeguards are essential, particularly in relation to land use, community engagement and alignment with national and regional energy strategies.

Ireland has set ambitious and necessary climate and energy goals. Reaching them will require all available tools, including continued investment in the national electricity grid, accelerated deployment of renewable resources and new flexibilities, such as private wires, that can allow industry, communities and innovators to participate directly in the transition. Schneider Electric stands ready to support Government, system operators and energy users in building a cleaner, more resilient and more efficient energy system for Ireland. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the invitation to join the committee today and we welcome the opportunity to participate in the development of the new private wires legislation. I am the head of the energy and infrastructure team in Mason Hayes and Curran. I am joined by my colleague Keith Newman, a partner in the construction, infrastructure and utilities department.

Mason Hayes and Curran is a leading Irish commercial law firm. Our energy and infrastructure team regularly advise domestic and international clients on all aspects of energy and infrastructure projects. We act for developers, investors, funders and other stakeholders in this sector, many of whom are investing from overseas.

Our submission focuses on the impact the proposed legislation may have on the required investment in Ireland’s energy transition and sets out why a robust, fit-for-purpose private wires framework is essential to meet the demands of Ireland’s energy transition and also make Ireland an attractive location for large energy users which will support a strong domestic economy.

Ireland has a commitment to generating 80% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030. This will require a significant acceleration in the delivery of wind farms, solar projects and grid infrastructure. International and domestic investors and developers in this sector make long-term capital allocation decisions based on regulatory certainty, predictable delivery timelines and an efficient electricity network. An effective private wires regime will assist in this respect.

The publication of the general scheme of the Bill is a welcome step towards making private wires a reality in Ireland. However, this is long-awaited legislation to bring Ireland in line with the electricity frameworks which exist in other jurisdictions, for example in Northern Ireland, which is part of the single electricity market and where a 5 MW private wire arrangement is in place already at Belfast Airport.

While welcome, there are aspects of the new regime that require further elaboration and amendment. In this submission, we would like to focus on those aspects of the general scheme where we think further legal clarity is required and where we have identified issues that could undermine the efficacy of the private wires regime, and hamper investment in Ireland and the progress of Ireland’s energy transition.

As a general and an overarching comment, we note that rather than relying upon the existing legislative arrangements in relation to “direct lines”, a new concept of “private wire” is proposed to be introduced to legislation. Direct lines are already legislated for pursuant to Article 7 of the EU directive on common rules for the internal market of electricity and this was implemented through amendments to the Electricity Regulation Act 1999.

A recent opinion of the advocate general in the ECJ has clarified the definition of what constitutes a direct line, and this is aligned to the proposed arrangements for a private wire in Ireland. It is not clear why an approach has been followed to introduce a new and distinct classification of electricity infrastructure when both domestic and European legislation already caters for what is proposed, albeit with the requirement for amendment to the Electricity Regulation Act to make it fit for purpose in respect of the application and approval criteria. We suggest it would be more appropriate and efficient to amend and expand the direct line provisions and we note this position is supported by the CRU in its submission to the committee.

Turning to some concerns we have with the general scheme, head 7(10) has expressly excluded the right of private wire permission holders to exercise wayleave and compulsory purchase order, CPO, rights. It is proposed that developers of private wires will not have any wayleave or CPO rights over lands in respect of the project's electricity cables and lines. Developers will need to secure land rights by agreement with respective landowners, which will include landowners adjoining the public road on which infrastructure is to be installed. Other electricity undertakings will continue to be able to exercise these essential CPO rights to deliver electricity infrastructure. It is notable that these rights actually can be exercised by the holder of a direct line permission under the current legislation. It does not seem reasonable or appropriate that this class of electricity undertaking would not be entitled to avail of the equivalent rights afforded to other electricity undertakings without clear justification. To proceed as proposed should be carefully considered in the context of Articles 6 and 7 of the EU directive on common rules to the internal market of electricity as regards its objectivity and equal treatment of electricity undertakings. In addition, head 7 includes in subsections (11) and (12) certain step-in rights of the ESB that will be granted by the CRU. The proposed step-in rights would interfere with economic rights, and this is of concern.

Subsections (11) and (12) in head 7 create uncertainty in relation to title and asset security. Subsection 12, in particular, is highly unusual from a legal perspective and will undermine investment in private wire infrastructure. To facilitate investment funders, investors will need to know that effective financial security can be put in place in respect of the relevant assets. There is no risk of unnecessary appropriation by State bodies.

Head 9 proposes a safety regime for internal collector cable systems. These are not private wires. These are internal cable systems of energy projects, which in effect consolidate electricity generated from across the wider project for export at the project's grid connection point. These collective cables form part of the existing regime for grid connection. An existing rule set approved by the CRU applies to internal networks and regulates the approval of these proposed internal networks.

We welcome the reference to private wire permissions being possible for the supply of electricity where more than one generation technology or electricity storage technology is intended to share a single grid connection, including if multiple legal entities are involved. However, a clear definition of what constitutes a multiple legal entity is required. I thank the joint committee for the opportunity to contribute. We welcome any questions members may have.

On behalf of Friends of the Earth Ireland, we welcome the opportunity to address the committee in relation to the private wires Bill. We are concerned that the general scheme, and in particular head 7, may not align with Ireland's climate law. While there are many use cases of private wires, we want to hone in on the potential risk of the Bill as it relates to data centres.

While Department officials stated before the committee last week that private wires legislation will be introduced on a limited basis, the legislation forms a core component of the Government's large-energy users policy, which, in its own words, seeks to attract "the next generation of investment in energy-intensive sectors, including data centres and AI". Specific problems with the heads of the Bill are also set out in the appendix we included with our statement. In its current form, we believe this Bill carries major risks of increased pollution, diversion of renewables and financial resources away from the public network, strain on the grid and increased costs. It will deepen inequalities in our energy system, leveraging significant resources for the primary benefit of one industry. CSO data shows energy demand from data centres grew by 412% between 2015 and 2024, but during the same time period, demand from other sectors grew by only 2.8%. The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, also notes that this extreme growth in demand results in higher electricity costs for households and will undermine the State's compliance with EU renewable energy targets, resulting in significant non-compliance costs, which will ultimately fall on the taxpayer.

On the issue of climate and pollution, the proposed Bill contains serious oversights in regards to climate obligations, which require the State to immediately decrease emissions in line with the climate Act. Officials confirmed this last week when they stated to a committee that there has not been a detailed analysis of emissions. Department officials also stated that head 7(4) in its current form, does not expressly prohibit direct connection to fossil fuel generators. Additional data centre demand, even where matched with renewables has resulted in increased gas reliance through build out of on-site generators and increased use of gas plants. This is a pattern globally, and it is especially evident in Ireland. Companies such as Microsoft, which two weeks ago stated its energy was 100% renewably matched, have built 170 MW of gas generation in Clondalkin. According to the company's own submission to the EPA, these generators will be switched on when the grid is experiencing peak demand for up to eight hours a day, 365 days a year. This company's own data states this will require 26.5 million m3 of fossil gas annually.

In Westmeath, Red Admiral, a subsidiary of Lumcloon Energy, is seeking to build a 250 MW data centre near the site of its own existing gas plant. Data centres seeking to co-locate with fossil gas infrastructure, prolonging the life of their assets, should be an issue of concern for the committee. In light of this relationship between data centres and gas, a thorough assessment of this Bill’s impact on carbon budgets and on the potential for fossil gas expansion should be carried out.

On decarbonisation, we believe a real risk exists that the Bill will end up diverting renewables and clean energy away from other sectors. As Professor Hannah Daly highlighted, all wind energy that came on stream between 2017 and 2023 was outpaced by additional demand from data centres. Put simply, data centres are being built faster than renewables can be developed, demanding energy that is equal to tens of thousands of homes for a single development and slowing down the electrification of other sectors, particularly transport and heating. If passed, private wires will allow companies with more revenue than the State to compete with it for access to renewables.

We note the considerable impact this policy could have on rural areas, particularly areas in the midlands where Bord na Móna has entered into partnerships with Amazon to build what it calls green energy parks on Bord na Móna land. A broader question must be asked: is an Amazon data warehouse a good use of such resources? There is also an issue of public faith in the energy transition. Data centres are simply not employers on the scale that Bord na Móna once was. In fact, they create exceptionally few jobs for the number of resources they demand. Creating these energy parks looks like a corporate capture of clean energy and semi-State land.

Serious inequalities are emerging in terms of the public cost of this policy. According to the policy statement, these companies would not be liable for the full amount of network charges paid by everyone else. If a data centre with a private wire keeps its connection to the grid, it could pay less to EirGrid and ESB Networks because it is using less electricity through that connection. However, the system operators must still maintain full capacity for it, so their costs do not decrease. As a result, the data centre pays less and the remaining network costs are shifted onto other customers, including households already facing high energy bills. This also means that data centre operators could hoard capacity on the public grid while primarily using their own private connection.

We are happy to discuss these recommendations more in depth. We urge the committee to assess the substantial risks with privatising our energy network in such a manner, and recommend that the committee calls on Government to; include a specific provision that development and operation of private wires must be in accordance with the climate Act. We also recommend that the committee amends the proposed Bill and, in particular head 7, to include a strict "renewables-only" requirement for private wires to explicitly rule out lock-in to fossil fuel generators, and include a specific provision to exclude data centres from the Bill for the reasons I have outlined.

I thank Ms Leonard. We move to the members.

I will address Friends of the Earth on this data centre issue. If I go to the Friends of the Earth website, it encourages me to email my TD. If I input my data, where is that data stored?

I presume it is stored in a data centre.

It is stored in a data centre. If I am encouraged to chip in, to contribute to Friends of the Earth, and I have to go through a financial product, where does that transfer take place?

Again, I presume that occurs in a data centre, but I do not think that level of use is what is driving up current demand by data centres-----

The challenge is Ms Leonard did not present any evidence. Data centres are pieces of infrastructure. They are not employers. They are as critical as the road and rail network, and water and sewerage schemes. We all use data. In here, there is data being transmitted all of the time. I really have a problem with this misrepresentation, because coming to this particular legislation, private wires is about much more than fuelling the digital economy of the future.

There is a requirement with regard to powering any new pieces of digital infrastructure, including data centres, that over 80% has to be through renewables. The continual misrepresentation, with all due respect, of what data centres actually are, that they are some sort of big box just gobbling up energy, is unfair. Our economy and society-----

Can I respond to that?

No. My question-----

Okay, I am chairing here. Everybody gets a chance.

I am coming to the point, Chair. Our economy and society is very much dependent on this. We already have private wires in operation within the State in terms of using solar and so on. Why is there not more of a focus on trying to encourage that kind of private wire investment on the part of Friends of the Earth rather than trying to undermine our digital infrastructure?

Can I respond to that?

Yes, go ahead.

First, just to say that the cause of data centre expansion is far more complex than simply e-mails and everyone in this room knows that. One cannot opt out of several new AI components that are being built into infrastructure that we see every day. That is a key driver of demand. The companies themselves say this and we need to be honest about that. It is about expanding the amount of products. On the Deputy's last point, we totally and explicitly encourage an increase in renewables. That is why we state in our recommendations that private wires should be permitted only when connecting to new and additional renewables generation.

Okay. My next question is for Eoin Cassidy. I was quite interested in what he said about whether the legislation was necessary. Does he see any drawbacks with not proceeding with this legislation in the context of the CRU and what he was talking about?

I hope I have not confused matters but I do see this legislation as being necessary because electricity regulation in respect of direct lines is inadequate as it is currently drafted. Amendments are required but the way in which the legislation is being structured could be better. The CRU agrees with that assessment. I would like to make a comment on the discussion around data centre development. It is not really appropriate to manage data centre development through electricity regulation in my opinion. Electricity regulation needs to support infrastructure, electricity consumption and how we generate electricity in Ireland. The management of whether a development is appropriate for an area in which it is being located is through our planning regime. I just wanted to make that point.

I agree.

There is a concern when the two issues get intertwined because while they are related, they are not co-extensive.

I agree entirely.

I thank everyone for coming in. The goal of private wires always has been and always will be to benefit the people, with more homes to be powered, more renewable energy to be built and lower costs for the public. Does anyone want to comment on the legislation that is currently before us, specifically head 7(4)(a), which I raised at the last meeting? It provides that developers must prove that projects promote renewable or sustainable energy but without any clear threshold. My concern about that is, as any TD, Senator or member of the public knows, that we have a huge issue at the moment with grid connection and people waiting for connection and this could slow progress on the current housing crisis. Do the witnesses believe that the current wording creates unnecessary uncertainty for the future of housing developments using private wires? Should the legislation set clear, measurable criteria so that house and apartment building projects can proceed quickly?

With a target of the best part of 100,000 houses, or 30,000 houses a year that we are still not achieving, it is crucial that we consider private wires to facilitate connection. Connection to the national grid is not just required to power homes, heat pumps and electrification of heat in general, as well as for electric vehicles and related infrastructure. There is also a requirement for wastewater treatment and we already have issues in that regard whereby capacity is not available to us. Limiting generation in different scenarios is not useful. We need to take a broader view. If we can have a hybrid connection until we can get a connection to the national grid when it is built out and has available capacity, we can do a transition over to the homes too. We also have to think about the future, prosumers and microgeneration within housing schemes. This is an area that we are forgetting about to some degree. We have enormous potential, with thousands of new houses coming on stream over the next few years alongside existing house stock. Those individual households can contribute positively in the context of our grid issues and concerns.

One hundred percent. As an interim measure prior to connection, private wires are a real option. Correct me if I am wrong but in a development of 40 apartments, if there were a private wire system, a single connection would power them all whereas, at the moment, an ESB roll-out involves 40 individual connections.

Yes, and the capacity has to be there and allowances have to be left there. Networks will design in line with the application by the developer. They will design out minimum criteria, which could be a 12 to 18 kVA connection. A multitude of that is not really warranted in today's world. We have heat pumps and we have electric cars and we know that the fixed load is. We can start utilising it. One could have a hybrid connection, on-site storage from a battery system and so on. I am here today representing Schneider Electric Ireland. The technology that we use globally across different platforms, including in the UK markets, is already available. The technology is there. We just need to implement that and private wires will help us to streamline and bring power to the public.

I am slightly alarmed by the conversation here because of the ability to fragment the public network if we are talking about delivering private wires for housing as well. One of the issues here arises when one comes along with a private network linking to customers. We heard previous discussions about step-in rights and concerns about that, but what rights do those customers have? They are being allocated to a single supplier or generator. The whole point of the EU market is competition in supply and people having choice, but this seems to limit that dramatically. Equally, we have the principle at the moment of supplier of last resort where companies go bust. Currently, companies do go bust and that is the reality we experience. We experienced it during the Ukraine crisis. We are currently in an AI bubble and the reality of life is that some businesses will succeed and others will fail. Are customers going to be left stranded, with no supplier coming in? Will ESB Networks be the network operator of last resort? Will ESB Networks be the generator of last resort that has to step in and operate these plants? We need to seriously think about the dangers of what we are opening up here, in terms of the advantages of having a system that everybody can access and through which they can have a secure power supply versus a fragmentation into different private networks. It is crazy.

I thank Mr. Dullaghan for his contribution. He said that we are fragmenting our system. In discussions at this committee, we are not talking about fragmenting our system. We are talking about a parallel, private network that would work in conjunction with the existing system. The current system, as Mr. Dullaghan knows, is not capable of taking on the current renewable power being generated or of meeting the current demand for housing. Representatives of Solar Ireland were here recently. I visited a solar farm that the company had to turn off at 12 p.m. in the day. It is frustrating for people. We have people here who are in energy arrears. We have seen other countries bring in private wires legislation successfully.

I welcome the contribution of Friends of the Earth in relation to some of the restraints they are seeking to put on this. I am working on a Bill separate to the Government's Bill that will help. I would take issue with the word fragmentation. This is about decentralisation. Mr. Dullaghan asked what choices people will have but what choice do they have at the moment? What choice do people in an eco village who want to have a completely off-the-grid network have? They cannot do that, so in that sense Mr. Dullaghan is not giving those people a choice. He is giving them a single, ESB monopoly. I would argue that it is similar to when we got rid of Telecom Éireann. Now we are giving people a choice.

I thank all our guests for coming in today and for giving us the benefit of their expertise. I was trying to get to the bottom of where the idea of private wires came from with the previous group of witnesses. Who asked for it? Why are we doing it? ESB Networks told me it did not ask for it. I am also pretty sure that the ICTU and Friends of the Earth did not ask for it, so my question is for the two other groups here today. Did they do any lobbying on behalf of clients, or directly, in relation to this?

I am happy to respond to that question. We did not do any lobbying on behalf of our clients for the introduction of private wires legislation.

We have been talking about private wires for a number of years because Ireland is an outlier in not having a framework equivalent to what nearly all the other jurisdictions in the EU, as well as the UK, have.

Deputy Ahern asked where all this came from. That is a good question. The first time I heard private wires being spoken about by specific investors was probably 2012 or 2013. At that time, a large number of prospective solar developers were trying to gain access to the grid system in Ireland. They were being met with a very difficult process to get a firm connection date for their projects to connect to the system. We were asked frequently why Ireland was different from other jurisdictions. A number of those developers got planning permission close to large energy users, such as Intel. Solar developers were getting options on sites to potentially connect into large energy users because they could see the connection of travel of those large corporates that were looking to green their power. These corporates wanted to have certainty that the power they were consuming was coming from renewable resources. That was the first time I heard about it. There has been more and more activity in recent years. As people looked at the grid constraints and the time it took to gain a connection and access to the network, they said there must be a potentially better way for these businesses to have direct access to renewable power.

There seems to be a tension between large energy users wanting to increase more power - albeit some of that will be from renewable sources, although this Bill would not require that it be from renewable sources - and the decarbonisation of our grid. There is a fear that this is going to be used primarily by large energy users and so on. I would be interested in getting Mr. Cassidy's experience of this. The only concrete example so far of private wires being used on this island has been Belfast Airport where a solar farm was installed. Internationally, what are private wires used for in practice? We can talk about eco-villages and small community power schemes, running a cable across the footpath to get from your home to charge a car, but that is small beer. What in practice are these things used for internationally? I would be interested in hearing that.

I will give the Deputy examples of case studies in Ireland where companies are looking to offer services to SMEs that are concerned about constant availability of power after storms when there are issues around the ability to get power from the grid. They are looking for back-up systems. They do not have the capital to invest in a generator that may not be used all the time, so they have sought to bring in other companies to run, operate and deliver capacity in certain circumstances. Currently, under the legislation, unless a direct line permission is granted, if a third party comes onto a site, owns and operates the equipment on the site to generate power and provide power to the business, that is technically non-compliant. There are ways in which it can be structured to make it compliant, but it ends up requiring quite a lot of legal work to get that to work. If there was a more straightforward Electricity Regulation Act which created an opportunity to get specific permissions, that would be more straightforward. That is an example.

Across Europe, there are lots of large private networks. There are large office developments, green parks and that kind of thing where this is happening a lot. For example, behind the meter, one company is operating battery infrastructure and another company is operating a wind farm or solar park and electricity is passing between those two entities for a particular purpose. Again, that kind of structure does not work in Ireland. It is non-compliant. Lots of those kinds of things are happening in other jurisdictions. We are behind the curve on this.

Does Mr. Kinsella have any international examples?

The Electricity Regulation Act dates from 1999, which is a long time ago. Section 37(1)(a) requires that EirGrid, ESB Networks and so on give permission or they allow a private wire or development of a private network system if an application is refused. There has not been any refusals. They are all on hold. I will have to double-check the dates, but going as far back as 2014 and 2015, there was a discussion, as part of the Government's climate action plan at the time, around private wires or the private wire network providing sustainable connections to grids. That is in the programme for Government of the current Government, so we have seen that.

As regards an example of a private wire, I will probably focus more on a scenario we are looking to potentially have in Ireland around the mobility sector and the electrification of our transportation fleet. We are looking at heavy fleets, trucks, buses and that type of scenario. We could be looking at the integration of a battery system for depot charging. When the grid has spare capacity, we would top up the battery, which could then be utilised to charge trucks, buses, cars and so on. We cannot put our finger on how many and which types of scenarios we will have. There are an awful lot of scenarios and solutions that we have not even considered yet.

Does Mr. McLoughlin have international examples?

I do not have anything to add on international examples. Last week, when the CRU appeared before the committee, it stated that its impression or understanding was that private wires will initially serve industrial or large commercial users. Beyond the question of what private wires are being used for internationally, we have to ask what our energy regulator understands they will be used for in this country, and that is its understanding.

It has to be accepted that over the last ten years, a growth industry has been data centres coming into Ireland. Mr. Cassidy might be able to give us further detail on that. I understand data centres consume about 50% of the electricity in Dublin at this stage. There has been huge growth, particularly over the past ten years. That has occurred in a context where there is no prioritisation network and we have seen difficulties with housing estates and threats to the MetroLink. The amount of electricity used by data centres has increased from 5% in 2015 to just under 25% and is expected to rise to about 33% of the electricity in the country. This needs to be addressed. The grid is creaking, or whatever phrase you want to use.

To get into the Realpolitik, there is also a concern among ordinary householders who have seen their bills massively increase over the last number of years, particularly since the war in Ukraine. Bills are not coming down at the same rate that they increased. With the network charges and PSO levies, percentage wise, ordinary consumers are paying much more than larger energy users. I would like a bit of clarity. The opening statement indicated that investment will be redirected where conditions are most favourable. Renewable energy and access to it were also mentioned. Are Mr. Newman's clients saying they want to commit to 100% renewable energy, or will they always need a gas back-up or some other type of fossil fuel backup until they get up and running on a permanent basis? He heard what was said about Microsoft having 20%.

To address the Deputy's first point around a general acknowledgement on data centre development in Ireland to date, it is fair to say that there has been a lot of such development. For any future development, at the forefront of any decision either to grant permission for a data centre or to issue it with a connection offer must be the need to ensure this is done with a couple of concerns in mind. One is security of supply to the network and the second is to ensure it is done in a sustainable manner.

Over the last three or four years, there has been an effective moratorium on new data centres connecting to the grid. In tandem with that, the CRU has run an extensive industry engagement process to come up with a new connection policy around what data centres need to comply with in order to connect to the grid. There are two key aspects of that that are really important. One is that a prospective data centre needs to provide 100% on-site or proximate generation to match its demand. Why is that relevant? It is relevant because it is offsetting the demand by ensuring that this on-site generation connects to the grid, benefits the grid and participates in the wider market.

However, it is not necessarily by renewable sources only.

No. As part of that industry engagement, the CRU made the decision to make that requirement technology neutral. Then, sitting alongside that, there is a requirement that at least 80% of the data centres demand is sourced from renewable energy sources, so that is-----

Is there not a danger there, given the increased capacity or increased demand on the grid, that if it is only 80% and it is increased by 400%, the backup of 20% may need to be from fossil fuels and will lock in the use of carbon emissions?

Potentially, but it is important to note that there is that requirement of around the 80% renewable energy demand. That was not there before. It is there now.

Obviously, where conditions are most favourable means where they can have lowest costs in operating. Are compulsory purchase orders also part of their high-priority list? Mr. Newman mention that in his opening statement.

I mentioned that in our opening statement. The CPO issue is probably not as material a point for data centres. It is potentially an issue for them, but the bigger issue there is actually for the renewable generation and the cable that would be run to the demand and the connection point. The complication in Ireland, particularly on public roads, is that landowners in Ireland own the land to the middle of the road. There have been a number of cases where projects have been effectively held to ransom around the running of cable even though the projects had permission to lay cable on the public road.

They were looking for it over private land as well, apart from just the side of the road.

Yes, and for private land. The point to be clear on here is that this is not carte blanche for anyone to exercise those rights. People need approach the CRU and look for a specific consent to exercise either of those rights, either on the public road or on private land. They need to make a submission-----

Is there a public good requirement in that or is it just for the benefit?

There is not-----

Shell in the Corrib field did cause a lot of problems for private companies with compulsory purchase orders.

I have a question for ICTU. Given that we have a finite pool of specialist workers - I am talking about engineers - and, indeed, a finite quantity of materials, how is this is going to affect workers being able to carry out this work? We were talking about securing the grid earlier and the fact there is going to be so much demand now for workers to create data centres. What effect will that have on us? We must also bear in mind that if we do not reach our targets for decarbonisation, we are facing fines of anywhere between €6 billion and €20 billion, which means we are inevitably going to be dependent on workers and families to come up with that money. The witnesses might talk a bit about that.

I also have a question for Friends of the Earth. I remind the representatives that they are at the climate committee and not the enterprise committee. That committee is meeting next door. It was mentioned that wind energy that came on stream between 2017 and 2023 was outpaced by initial demand from data centres. We know that artificial intelligence, AI, is insatiable; it really is. I asked about scarce resources in my question to ICTU, but the demand of AI is off the board. We have targets to meet. The witnesses might talk about that as well.

I thank the Deputy. I am really pleased she raised that issue of the scarce engineering labour because there is fundamentally a challenge here. That scarce resource can either be working on our current public system to decarbonise it in terms of our housing, transport and heating or it can be working on the new data centre projects that this Bill, apparently, is largely for - I am referring back to what the CRU representatives said last week. Therefore, if these workers are going to be working on the private wire projects, who is going to be decarbonising our homes, heating and transport? They cannot do both.

Does Mr. Duggan want to add anything on the decarbonisation?

Yes, I suppose that is a concern. There is limited resource of both people and materials, actually. We know the market out there is going crazy for all electrical materials, with data centres buying second-hand gas generators, pushing the development of newer plants. That is pushing up the price of everything. The concern would be that, obviously, a large engine like a data centre would basically take away some of that resource that is available for decarbonising. It is about how we get that balance right. Yes, we have to have industrial policy; I accept that. On data centres, we have been hugely successful in that, by the way. However, the question now is whether there is a practical limit. We seriously have to look at that. We are mixing our industrial energy policy-----

Does Mr. Dullaghan have an opinion on a public clause that-----

There has to be a balance in policy and an understanding of what the practical limits are. We are a small country with a small population and a small grid. Infrastructure was mentioned. We have proposals about accelerating infrastructure, which are very good to help to drive that. We could have those same issues coming up with private wires delaying those projects, which was mentioned earlier. We need to focus on making sure we are getting that balance right.

There is a separate issue around security on data centres that I want to bring up later, but I will not bring it up now.

On the question of wind energy capacity being outpaced by data centre demand, there is a fundamental misunderstanding that often happens with decarbonisation targets in that decarbonisation targets are not simply targets to build more renewable energy. That is, of course, a very important part of it, but carbon budgets are expressed in terms of the millions of tonnes of carbon that could be emitted in a certain period. Renewable energy is one part of it, but that renewable energy must be used to replace fossil fuels from existing demand, first and foremost, in order to actually decarbonise and meet those carbon budgets. Renewables are mainly a tool and not a goal in and of themselves. If the primary objective of the Bill is to promote the development of renewable energy, it must ensure the demand that renewable energy is decarbonising is existing demand, such as transport and heat, and not additional demand.

The witnesses mentioned the fines going onto the backs of workers if we do not meet our energy and decarbonisation targets.

I can respond briefly. Aabsolutely, that is a real risk that has been acknowledged by all parties. As the ICTU representative said, we need to think about limits and it is in the context of private wires. If we are allowing certain very large energy users to expand, what is the payoff here? To give some context to the scale we are looking at, I believe the Government recently finished the build on its own data centre in Kildare with a capacity of 4 MW. That was deemed to be sufficient to meet the medium-term needs of the Government. Down the road in Naas, however, a data centre developer is trying to build a 240 MW centre, which would triple the electricity consumption of Kildare. We need to think of limits to reduce those fines because it will affect public faith in the transition if people are facing these fines, which they are likely to do.

I have listened intently to the commentary. When we talk about decarbonising and security, there is an onus on us to try to secure our data needs as well. If we look at what Bord na Móna and Amazon did or are doing, is there not a synergy there in terms of where we are moving from with Bord na Móna and what we need for data centres?

On Bord na Móna, that supply will go towards Amazon's data centres and there is currently no limit on how big they can be built.

Ms Leonard previously commented that we do not need all of this data. Does she have a list of what she would see as good and bad data or is that something she can provide to the committee afterwards?

Sure, we can provide resources on what we see as efficient, but really, I think that is something for the Government-----

No, but what sector of society or the economy does Ms Leonard think we should leave behind here?

That is an interesting question. It should be for the Government to decide-----

Ms Leonard is advocating for this, so I am asking-----

I ask members to direct their questions through the Chair.

I apologise.

We could talk about what is a bad use of AI. We saw that quite recently with Grok. We can all agree that nudification apps are a bad use of AI. I understand that the Government is looking at putting in some kind of regulation in that regard. It certainly is an example of a bad use. Another bad use we have seen is where many of the big companies have deals with oil companies and militaries because AI is a product they want to advance. Moving towards a sufficiency argument as well, it behoves us to consider whether data centres already are at capacity. If they require more capacity, what should that capacity be for? That would require a longer conversation than we have time for today, including aspects relating to human rights.

I would be interested in seeing the list to which Ms Leonard referred.

Certainly.

We have a programme of work in relation to online safety, but it is to address platforms and apps rather than data centres. In the context of the latter, there is an issue with infrastructure. If a driver is speeding on the road, it is that driver who gets the penalty points as opposed to the county council for having built a fast road.

I will follow up on that and answer a couple of the Deputy's other questions. We need to look at private wires as being complementary to our national grid system. We are talking about data centres right now. Whether we want to talk about them as being negative or positive for the environment and for Ireland, they are here. We can work with private data centres and with private wires to address the issues and problems we currently have with freeing up grid capacity. Data centres have a fixed load the majority of the time. It is already in the plants and in ESB Networks-----

I apologise for interrupting, and I appreciate Mr. Kinsella's comments, but I have a question on ICTU's commentary around how this potentially will impact us on many different fronts. Is that view based on international experience or is it a hunch? From where is ICTU getting its evidence?

I also have a question for the representative from Mason Hayes & Curran in relation to the retrospective impact of removing this provision altogether from general scheme. Is there an issue with when this comes into play as legislation in terms of the standard that is required retrospectively versus the situation as we go forward?

In terms of the private wires experience, a model has been in operation in the UK since the early 2000s. Their usage at London Luton Airport has been cited here. However, Northern Ireland has a worse problem with constraints than does the South, despite having private wires in place for that length of time. Clearly, they have not provided the great solution that appears to be on offer here today.

I concede regarding the benefits of some of the uses we have been discussing. We favour the use of private wires in terms of hybrid connections, maximising the use of the network and having the storage there, and for EVs. They are good examples of private wires use. It is the more wide-open usage that concerns us and how that potentially could fragment. We are not a big country. Ireland is not going to be like Brazil, with different private operators all over the place. We need to be practical.

I have to bring up the security issue-----

I have noted that Mr. Dullaghan would like to come back in on that point but I must allow other witnesses to speak.

On the retrospective issue, we have a concern around the sort of cleaning up that is being attempted in the proposed Bill regarding internal collector cable systems. This question highlights the confusion that exists in the general scheme in that they are not private wires. A separate head is being introduced to try to manage the internal collector cables that are in place for existing wind turbines and solar parks where there are wires that connect different generators and then connect back into the grid connection point. Our concern is that if a new set of standards and criteria are imposed that impact upon all of those existing collective cable systems, it will cause havoc with the existing fleet of wind and solar parks around the country and also those that are in development. Developers may have gone to planning on one basis but may now be told that is not an appropriate or possible way of implementing their project. We have a really material concern around head 9.

My first question is for the representatives of ICTU and Friends of the Earth. My understanding is that they are calling for a cut-off point in terms of the exponential growth of data centres in Ireland. Looking at the energy demand, the pre-legislative scrutiny we did previously on proposals for LNG and the discussion we are having on the general scheme, is the concern that we are facilitating exponential growth in data centres and the ensuing energy demand and that while 80% of their additional demand comes from renewables, there is still a demand there and a potential demand from fossil fuels? Is that really the nub of the concern?

Yes, the nub of the concern relates to head 7.4(a), which deals with promoting the use of renewable and sustainable alternative forms of electricity. Last week, the Department stated that this does not expressly prohibit fossil fuel generation. For us, that is the core point and the core danger with the general scheme as currently drafted. It is interesting that the Department alluded to the responsibilities in secondary legislation and the CRU's responsibility to promote the use of renewable electricity, which might mitigate against that risk. However, later in the day, the CRU called for more clarity. It said it wants legislation that is as clear and tightly defined as possible when it comes to its developing criteria against which private wires should be assessed. It seems to me there is a very clear question around what should be permitted under private wires in terms of sources of electricity. I do not think the current heads of Bill answer that question sufficiently.

The concern around data centres relates to the assisting data centre issue and the fault ride-through issue. At the moment, and this has been the experience internationally as well as here, if there is a dip on the grid and data centres en masse switch to their back-up generation, that results in a large imbalance in supply and demand and a number of wind farms come off the system at that point. The data centre load then comes back on again en masse and, depending on the overall system load at the time and the available generation, that can then trigger a multiple cascade effect, like in Spain. EirGrid is currently trying to prevent that by limiting exports of electricity to Britain. There is also a grid code proposal for new equipment that existing data centres will have to install, but that has to go through a major approval process and it is based on the current demand level of approximately 800 MW. However, data centres have an agreement for up to 2000 MW. The grid has identified a multi-year plan of required reinforcements to cater for that and remove that risk.

Unfortunately, this brings me to an immediate issue I am concerned about and on which I might share more details privately. I believe bad actors could exploit this vulnerability during the Irish Presidency. I do not want to go into details about how they could exploit it during the Irish Presidency and cause major embarrassment. I would prefer to do that in private rather than public session.

Is that due to security concerns? Is the issue related to that?

Yes.

We can deal with that separately.

In the Schneider submission, key consideration No. 3 relates to enabling innovation and safeguarding public interest. I absolutely agree with the need for community engagement. Will Mr. Kinsella elaborate on the point regarding the implications for land use?

According to the general scheme, land use will be private access. The majority of it will cross private land. It will involve direct lines, hybrid connections or even just the facilitation of the generation itself. We do not have any concern specifically regarding land use. However, it must be looked after and done correctly and properly. The general scheme proposes that there be no compulsory purchase agreements. It is probably more of a business transaction. It is a different way of using up the land. We see that with solar farms, in conjunction with sheep farming and other sorts of agricultural activities.

There are a lot of pros to the fibre wires themselves. As I said earlier, there are a lot of areas where private wires probably have not yet even been considered. There are a lot of very positive outcomes to be had. We have been discussing data centres and issues around them. I assumed the discussion was about private wires. We are taking something that is potentially available to us and utilising it. As a nation and an island, the positive implications we can take out of that are incredible. We cannot knock it.

We have spoken a lot about data centres. I assume there is a data centre national entity organisation. I see they have a conference in November. Is there any way we could, perhaps as a separate piece of work, look at inviting representatives in?

Yes, we can look into that.

I have a couple of things for maybe a written note. It would be great to have a short supplementary note on the fault ride-through that Mr. Dullaghan hinted at. He also made the point that there was an ECJ judgment and that normally the same regulatory pieces would apply. Am I right that this would mean that distribution system operator, DSO, or TSO regulatory requirements would normally be applied in other situations where there are private wires whereas they would not be in this case? I will give the questions in reverse order.

The other piece was in relation to that question of promotion and that there was no target in it. Mr. Dullaghan pointed to the fact that we were being told that the CRU would do it and that that body said it wanted it defined. Be it a full requirement for renewables, which I think is the thing, or even the 80% that we know is policy and not law currently in a sense, how important is it that this be defined explicitly in the legislation?

If it is going to be a transition, why are we still transitioning on new energy use? What is the exit plan or exit date from any fossil fuels infrastructure? Will Mr. Dullaghan comment on the importance of really nailing down the definitions in terms of that?

This is the question we might begin with first. Mr. Cassidy, in his statement, referred to other electricity undertakings under CPO rights. Does he mean the ESB?

I mean the ESB plus any holder of an authorisation to construct-----

Mr. Cassidy talks about other energy undertakings being able to exercise CPO rights and wayleaves, and his concern that the private actors would not. He uses language about the potential for unequal treatment. What concerns me is that we know this is the language for legal challenges under, for example, the investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS, mechanism and the Energy Charter Treaty. I see Mr. Cassidy nodding his head. He might confirm that. In that context, is there a danger that we have a situation where either these private actors are being given compulsorily purchased sites and wayleave like the ESB has or the ESB is denied those powers or has them removed because it would be regarded as an unfair benefit for the ESB, which could delay our national infrastructure? Mr. Cassidy can see the concern. Is there a danger of legal challenges that could leave us in that situation?

I will take two elements of the Senator's question because both of them are related. The Senator referred to the ICTU reference and the ECJ case where there was an arrangement that was shut down. To give some context, that was a German case involving an energy facility that was a combined heat and power plant and electricity wiring system supplying heat, hot water and electricity to the tenants of a residential complex. In that case, it was found that the structure was equivalent to a distribution system. The court said that this must be generally treated as a regulated distribution system unless a specific exemption applied under EU law. I am saying this because there is a specific exemption under EU law for direct line permissions, which is the point I was making at the beginning of my statement. Direct line permissions are in the-----

I want to get to the compulsory purchases.

It is related. The holders of an authorisation to construct, namely, the holders of a direct line permission under the existing regulations, are entitled to exercise CPO rights and wayleave rights. What seems to have happened is we have introduced this new class of electricity undertaking called private wires and said it is permitted in this way. It is exactly what a direct line is. We already have CPO rights for direct line permission holders, the holders of an authorisation to construct and the ESB.

I need a one-liner on this. Is there a potential legal challenge, as that is what makes it hard?