The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the role of the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, in relation to supporting the delivery of high-quality national infrastructure, including those projects set out in the national development plan. I am pleased to welcome from the Commission for Regulation of Utilities: Mr. Jim Gannon, commissioner and chairperson, Mr. Fergal Mulligan, commissioner, Dr. Karen Kavanagh, director of networks and economic regulation, Ms Karen Trant, director of customer policy and protection, and Dr. Phil Hemmingway, director of decarbonisation.

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise nor make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

I remind members they will be afforded a six-minute speaking slot for questions and answers, with a second chance to contribute if they so wish.

I now invite Mr. Jim Gannon to make the opening statement for the Commission for Regulation of Utilities.

I thank the committee for inviting us today. As this is a new Dáil session and the first time that the CRU has appeared before this committee, I would like to note how much we value this engagement and the opportunity to brief members on our work. Given the notice to prepare for this meeting, we are focusing on the topics asked by the committee but are happy to answer questions in other areas where possible. We also look forward to future engagements on specific topics where we will be more than happy to provide deep dives for the committee should they come up. I would also refer members to the briefing note we prepared in support of the opening statement and to our strategic plan for 2025 to 2027, which provides more general background information on the work and priorities of the CRU.

The CRU plays a vital role in shaping Ireland's response to the climate challenge and ensuring that essential energy and water services are delivered efficiently and safely and in the interest of the public. The CRU is Ireland's independent energy, energy safety and water regulator. We actively serve the public interest by regulating the provision of these services to Irish homes and businesses. As such our work impacts every Irish home, business and citizen. We strive to ensure safe, secure and sustainable energy and water supplies for all.

The CRU's role in energy is to maintain security of supply, ensure efficient network delivery and promote competition and innovation in the generation and supply of electricity and supply of natural gas. As part of this role, the CRU jointly regulates the all-island wholesale single electricity market, the SEM, with its counterpart in Northern Ireland, the Utility Regulator. The principal objective of the single electricity market committee is to protect the interests of consumers of electricity wherever appropriate by promoting effective competition between persons engaged in, or in commercial activities connected with, the sale or purchase of electricity through the single electricity market.

Protecting public safety and the prevention of major accidents in Ireland's energy sector is also a role assigned to the CRU. This extends from upstream oil and gas activities, through to the delivery of the registered gas installer and registered electrical contractor programmes. Members might be aware of the recent fire at George's Dock in the IFSC. This is the type of incident that the CRU is responsible for investigating with other relevant authorities.

As an economic regulator for public water and wastewater services, the CRU sets targets and monitors the performance of Uisce Éireann in delivering services and investment in infrastructure in a cost-efficient manner.

We are integral to facilitating Ireland's climate transition and shaping the regulatory landscape to support Ireland's energy and water infrastructure delivery, security and decarbonisation targets.

The CRU and our staff are proud of its work and impact to date. Some recent highlights this particular committee may be interested in include: the publication of a draft determination on the price review 6, PR6, framework that will underpin a record investment of up to €19 billion in Ireland's electricity infrastructure from 2026 to 2030 with a final determination due in coming weeks; the introduction of new regulatory decisions to support hybrid electricity connection projects and continued progress in this area; upcoming publication of decision on a new electricity connection policy for large energy users, data centres, providing a pathway for connections to the Irish electricity system; key regulatory decisions on the Greenlink interconnector revenue process and initial assessment of the proposed Mares interconnector; various regulatory decisions on grid connection and charging for offshore wind, including - critically - the addition of a route to grid for projects that were unsuccessful in obtaining support in Ireland's first offshore support auction, providing them with a route to market and route to development; setting the foundations for Ireland's future offshore price controls and incentives for the delivery of infrastructure to develop a more resilient electricity system; publication of a draft determination on the revenue control 4 framework that will underpin a record investment of up to €13.6 billion in Ireland's water and wastewater infrastructure from 2025 to 2029; and publication of a consultation on a review of the biomethane grid connection policy to support the development of Ireland's biomethane sector while maintaining appropriate protections for consumers and aligning with national decarbonisation targets.

In an increasingly complex global and national environment, the challenges and importance of our work are increasing. The regulatory frameworks required for the integration of both offshore and onshore renewable generation are significant, as are the ongoing infrastructure development requirements in the electricity, gas and water networks, as well as increased needs in our energy safety mandate.

To meet these needs, the CRU has grown its resources and headcount in the last two years from 113 to 186. We are transforming as an organisation to better deliver and empower consumers, support policy development, support infrastructure delivery and private sector investment and deliver effective regulation but we are severely constrained in terms of capacity and capability. We are in ongoing dialogue with Departments to address this challenge and significantly expand our workforce to meet the growing needs of society and the environment in which we operate.

We look forward to continuing to work closely with the Government and of course this committee to achieve our collective ambitions for economic growth, the climate transition and the protection of consumers.

This concludes our opening statement; we are happy to take questions.

I thank Mr. Gannon for his opening statement. Before I got to the Vice Chair, Deputy Neville, I want to put two points on the record. Today, the Government published its accelerating infrastructure report or action plan. We will not discuss that in detail. Mr. Gannon may not have had an opportunity to fully review it yet as it was only launched today. The committee will come back to that very soon.

Second, I thank Mr. Gannon for his role as a regulator. I just want to make a comment about the issue of regulators. We look forward to seeing what is in this document about regulators. I saw information published very recently that in 1920, approximately 100 years ago, we had 25 regulators in Ireland covering everything. Seventy years after that, by 1990, we had about 50 regulators. Today we have 100 regulators. All are independent. All have their own strategy and statement of strategy. All are with their own brief. It might be a theme in this document of how all the regulators work together. Obviously everyone is independent but many projects involve different regulators. That is something that the committee is interested in its work. It is not specifically because the CRU is here today but as part of our work we are considering the individual 100 regulators out there today. Obviously they do valuable work but is there any way of co-ordinating some of this activity with their Departments because they are all under some Department somewhere along the line? The comment I am making about the number of regulators is that it is part of the problem, as far as I am concerned but it is not specifically directed at the CRU - it just happens to be here today when this document came out. I am just putting that comment on the record for us as a committee to consider carefully in our work over the coming year in relation to the number of regulators and how they help, improve, possibly delay or do not improve the infrastructure development and operations of the various utilities.

I will ask quick questions and I might be jumping across. It is not that I am being rude. It is just that I want to get as much information as quickly as possible on the individual topics because I want to learn myself.

Will Mr. Gannon highlight CRU’s role in setting prices for domestic users in Ireland?

In line with European policy, Ireland has a deregulated retail market for electricity and gas. The CRU does not set the price that retail suppliers would set, however, there are component parts of the bill that we do regulate. For example, with the networks component that drives some prices, we set annual tariffs that are then passed on to suppliers that are then passed on to consumers. That is one part of the bill. Another part of the bill is the PSO levy that supports renewables development that the Government provides for renewable electricity generators. We review what the level of that should be on an annual basis. That is another piece on top.

How much of an average current bill would CRU set as a percentage?

It is about 30% for the network tariffs.

Which utilities is that for?

That would be for electricity, for example.

When were those prices last increased?

We review those network tariffs annually. It is usually in September or October.

Will there be increases for 2026? Is it annual? Do the tariffs apply from January to December?

It is annual but they kick in on 1 October. Dr. Kavanagh might want to speak to the process.

We set the network charges annually from 1 October to 30 September. They would have come in last October.

That is for electricity and gas.

It is for both electricity and gas.

They come in at the same time.

The new tariff year for both commences on 1 October. The PSO levy also comes into play at that time. They are passed on to suppliers and it is then up to suppliers to decide how those costs are passed on.

That sits on top of the wholesale cost, which fluctuates. I just wanted to clarify that.

There is one point that might be useful for the future. We are currently working on a breakdown of the different components that drive consumer bills that are regulated and not regulated. We would be happy to share that work with the committee when it is completed.

There can sometimes be a lack of clarity. Sometimes we hear about gas prices in Ireland being significantly higher than in other countries. Is it the wholesale element or the fixed element that is driving that?

Taking the wholesale element, gas is still the predominant fuel source. It is not produced in Ireland. It is produced elsewhere. We are connected to the UK. We are a price taker. We do not set the price of gas. It is traded on the-----

I have heard that it is because our infrastructure is out of date. Is that correct? I have heard there are higher costs because our infrastructure is old.

Is the Deputy talking about the gas network?

Yes.

We actually have a fairly modern gas network but we are at the end of the pipe, which is a problem. As Ms Trant has said, we are a price taker in relation to paying for the commodity of gas.

Dr. Kavanagh is happy that no upgrade of the gas network in Ireland would reduce the price and that it is not an infrastructure issue. The cost does not relate to that.

No, we have a fairly modern network.

A very limited number of significant upgrades are required. In the past, we have spoken about our network costs to serve the public in comparison with other jurisdictions. In Ireland, per capita, we have about four times as many wires serving our public than would be the case in many other countries because of our dispersed settlement pattern. The Deputy would have heard about that.

It is about density in individual areas.

Yes, that contributes to the issue.

There is one thing I was wondering about. Commercial water prices are increasing next year, are they not? That has been set.

That is correct. We issued a decision earlier. From 1 October-----

It is 10% or 11%.

It is 9.8%. That is in line with the increased investment Uisce Éireann is making in the network.

For clarity, do commercial users get charged twice? Water goes in and water goes out. Do they get charged twice for that or how does it work?

Domestic customers in Ireland obviously do not get charged. We set the charges for non-domestic users under our water charges plan. They are charged for a water service and for a wastewater service.

How do you know what goes in through the meter?

It is water in and water out.

What happens if a business does not have water going out? I use the example of a brewery. That will take in water but it will use it so it is not going out. Would it get a credit for that?

There is always wastewater.

I know but it would not be to the same extent.

Businesses are still charged by the meter.

That is what I am saying. You get charged based on what is going in but the same amount is not going out.

It is by litre. Litres go in and litres come out. Businesses are charged on that basis.

They do not go out the pipe, however. They go out in a van. You might be using it for a product. I am just using that as an example.

The Deputy is talking about metering at the front end versus metering at the back end.

Yes. It is not metered at the back end. It is based on an assumption.

There is not double-charging. We can come back to the Deputy with specifics on the charging plan and how charges are levied on particular customers.

I was just wondering about it. I know I am jumping around a good bit but how many staff does the CRU have?

We have 187 staff members.

That has increased rapidly, has it not?

It has increased from 113 over the past two years.

I am sorry; from 130, what has it increased to?

It has increased from 113 to 187.

That is an increase of about 65%.

Yes.

What is the rationale for that?

The rationale for that was the taking on of new functions and roles and responding to the requirements of European regulations, to the expansion of Government schemes relating to renewable electricity and to the expansion in PR5 and PC5 of the electricity and gas networks. We can provide a breakdown. We provided significant justification for all of those staff and teams in our resource requirement ask, which preceded that growth by about two years. We can provide significant detail on that, if required.

It would be great if the CRU could do so. I am conscious of my time. I can come back in afterwards.

For the information of those here, the speaking sequence will be Deputy Clendennen, Senator Cathal Byrne, Deputy Peadar Tóibín, who has stepped out, Deputy Tony McCormack, Deputy Conor Sheehan and Deputy Louis O'Hara. That is the sequence I have here.

I will pick up on the issue of water charges. The justification for the 9% increase is that it is in line with the level of increased investment in our water infrastructure. Is that correct? As a result of the Government having committed to multi-annual funding of billions of euro, we are going to see continuous increases for businesses.

The Exchequer funding to Uisce Éireann and the charges to non-domestic users reflect a huge extra investment. Over the last five years-----

We are penalising businesses for investment in our infrastructure.

The way the model works across all of these utilities is that people pay-----

What was the justification?

The justification was the increased capital costs and operating costs of upgrading the networks.

If I am a business owner, I am still getting the same water through my door. Did all of this extend capacity?

In many situations, the quality of service has been improved. The network requires further investment. As we know, with all of these utilities-----

Are we investing in infrastructure to enhance it rather than to extend and increase it?

It is about extending it, upgrading it and replacing old pipes that have been there for the last 100 years. It is all about all of those things.

For argument's sake, if we are increasing our investment in water infrastructure by 40% over the coming years, would it be the CRU's objective to increase commercial rates for water in line with that?

It is certainly not our objective but the reality is-----

That is what it is looking at in terms of profit.

As my colleague has said, European rules require money to be recovered from non-domestic users based on the actual cost of providing the service. The cost of providing water and wastewater services is increasing by virtue of the increased costs of running the networks and the extra capital costs involved in bringing the network up to the standard businesses require. That is what is driving it.

On the other side, the domestic side, there is still leakage ongoing. Does Mr. Mulligan have any thoughts on what we should be doing on that?

Last week, we published our draft decision on the next five years' investment, an investment of up to €16 billion. This is an unprecedented investment that Uisce Éireann must undertake to address those leakages the Deputy has mentioned, the old network we have and the expansion of the network to serve new homes and everything else.

I am conscious that there are a few different reports here. When will all of these be finalised? They are in draft stage. What is the timeline for each of the different reports the CRU is expected to complete?

We have published the draft determination on revenue control 4, that is the Uisce Éireann report.

That is the draft. Is there a final publication?

There will be a final determination next year after a consultation. This is the opening of a consultation.

How long does the average report take from day one to final publication?

It can be quite different for different decisions we make. In some cases, a report could take a couple of months to prepare. We would then consult for four to six weeks and finalise it.

Let me take the example-----

For something like a revenue control, which sets a five-year profile in the teens of billions, or price review 6, it would take 18 months or perhaps more to work on the detail of the submissions with the network operators, Uisce Éireann or others, to get through the process and to ensure competitive delivery of infrastructure as best as we possibly can.

Looking at the large energy users, PR6 and so on, we are looking for final publication to give certainty so that we can deliver but the CRU keeps pushing out deadlines. How are we going to ensure deadlines stick so that we can give certainty?

We expect to publish PR6 in the next two-week period. With regard to connections for large energy users, we hope to publish that document imminently.

I am sorry. When will it be published?

It will be published imminently. We expect to publish it-----

We were expecting that in the autumn. I raised this with the Taoiseach in the Chamber and I was told that resources were required. What does "imminent" actually mean?

"Imminent" means in the next two-week period. Before Christmas we expect to be publishing the large energy users connections decision.

Okay. The CRU will be busy over the next couple of weeks.

We have been very busy for the past couple of years.

Okay, good. On PR6 in relation to the roll-out of upgrade and development, the CRU is reliant on ESB Networks and EirGrid to work with it. We hear a lot about the €19 billion, but we never hear about the number of cables or the length of cables or the capacity of houses or new users or whatever else. We get caught up in the money side of things. How do we ensure we are getting a bang for our buck here - performance-related pay, almost - from the likes of EirGrid or whoever will be delivering this grid? Do our mainland stakeholders, like Bord na Móna, have any role here? I gave the example last week of the pipeline from the mid-west to Dublin. Should we be looking at that as a potential services utility corridor?

It is very important for us that when we produce price controls or price reviews on these five-year timelines, we talk about the investment but not just about the numbers. We talk about the outcomes, the kilometres, the wastewater treatment plants, the water pipelines and the leakage reduction. I will pass to my colleagues, Mr. Mulligan and Dr. Kavanagh, to describe that in a little more detail.

As we do our revenue control, part of the reason it takes so long is because it is not just the cost assessment, where we look at historical costs and the forward costs; we are also looking at setting the regulatory framework. For PR6, there are four components. The first one is looking at how we manage uncertainty throughout the period. We have our reporting framework. We have our performance incentives, where we look at particular areas that we focus the company's attentions on and at delivering specific customer outcomes. Then we have the reporting structures as well. This package, which we call the agile investment and monitoring framework, is how we hold companies to account over the period. Particularly in terms of managing uncertainty through the PR6 period, we are looking at setting a baseline for allowances. Over that period we will allow the company to request re-openers, as they deliver and as they spend the money on certain aspects. On other aspects, things like housing, we will have mechanistic drivers, so the money will ratchet up in terms of the volume of delivery. We also have an enhanced reporting framework and monitoring for PR6. We have identified things like 36 delivery obligations. We have identified 29 priority transmission projects where we will have quarterly reporting on each of them along with some of the other key metrics. We will also have annual reporting. Some of this will feed into our incentive framework, where we have financial penalties and incentives for the companies, EirGrid and ESB Networks, as I said, on a range of key metrics. They are the ones that really matter to customers. In terms of customer satisfaction and reliability, we will report on all of those annually.

For PR6, we are also proposing to have a dashboard where we will pick key metrics for specific things that are of particular importance to customers, stakeholders and policy makers and we can give regular updates on all of those. For RC4 on the water side, we have a performance assessment framework at the moment but we are also looking at enhanced reporting around that. This would provide additional metrics around security of supply and additional reporting and also a dashboard. We are also in consultation on that. We would encourage any feedback on what is useful and meaningful reporting on some of those projects.

On the Deputy's question on where the €19 billion is going, we will in our report publish all the detail of what it has been invested in. This will include the upgrading of substations, the number of poles being replaced around the country and the winter resilience plan in the west of Ireland, which will mean a spend of between €500 million and €600 million on forestry work. We are going to publish all the detail about all the transmission network cables that are going to be built in Dublin, Cork and Limerick. All of this detail will be in our report, which will be published before Christmas, so that everybody knows exactly what is being done. Between them, EirGrid and the ESB are managing about 570 projects over the next five to ten years. This includes projects that are currently halfway through the project delivery stage, projects that have not yet started and projects that are coming to an end. In our PR6 documents, we have outlined all of those. There are 29 huge projects. Of the 570 projects, 29 of them make up probably 60% of the capital cost. As Dr. Kavanagh was saying, we monitor them every quarter with ESB Networks and EirGrid. Under PR6, people will be glad to know that our reporting framework will have a much more detailed reporting framework on delivery, which will address questions about project schedules and if a plan changes, why it is changing. We will bring that to all the respective stakeholders, who are going to be heavily engaged with the Departments, including the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation. The guidelines are about the transparency of delivery of these projects by our utility companies. As regulator, we are now playing a massive role in getting the quarterly information from these utilities on what they said they would deliver for the money they are getting from consumers, business and the Exchequer, in the case of Uisce Éireann. Holding them to account on delivery is a huge part of our role as regulator. This information will be published regularly and annually so that people and the Oireachtas Members can see if they have delivered as they promised they would.

Deputy Conor Sheehan is next.

Deputy O'Hara is before me, Chair.

Okay, sorry. Deputy O'Hara is next.

The energy regulator plays a very important role in ensuring that suppliers are playing by the rules so that households are protected. We have recent trends that would cause a lot of concern for people, such as 300,000 households in arrears on their electricity bills, so there is clearly an issue with affordability. The Government's recent decision to remove the energy credits is going to place a lot of pressure on these households. Does the CRU have a view on this?

I will begin in response to the final part of the question and pass over to my colleague, Ms Trant. The energy credits were brought in at a time of crisis and we think they were an appropriate and proportionate response at the time. As time has gone on, we have stated in previous joint Oireachtas committees that the type of support that may be required on a more ongoing basis is something more targeted. There are possibly various means by which this could be done.

Did the CRU provide analysis to the Department in relation to that in advance of the budget?

No, our role in the energy credits was to act as the administrator to assure and ensure that ESB Networks provided the credit through suppliers and that the money was transacted back to the Department.

Okay, I might move on because I am short on time. A recent report by the International Energy Agency found that residential electricity prices in Ireland are three times higher than the wholesale cost. I understand that the electricity and gas suppliers have hedging strategies, where they purchase electricity and gas supplies for periods of time in advance and the aim then is to smooth out price spikes and dips in the wholesale market. With households facing repeated price increases, there are legitimate questions to be answered about what role the energy regulator is playing to ensure there is no price-gouging. I am interested in understanding what role the CRU plays in auditing the hedging strategies of energy suppliers.

I am happy to pass to my colleague, Ms Trant, on that.

If I take the hedging strategy piece first, currently we can ask any supplier to provide information under their licence. In the past, when we looked at the hedging strategies they were employing, we found that some of the four biggest suppliers during the crisis did provide that highly commercially sensitive information, but they were willing to do that. We issued a report to the Minister on foot of that analysis. At that point, there was a lack of understanding of how the hedging strategies were working and why the wholesale price and the drop in the wholesale gas price was not feeding through to retail prices quickly. That is because the suppliers here take a prudent approach to profiling their customer base, and that is, they engage in hedging strategies to smooth out volatility in the market and the fact is we do have a peaky market. The hedging strategies smooth out the volatility - it is a forwards contract - so there is a lag before the customer will see the reduction in the retail price.

People are seeing repeated price increases over a sustained period of time. Ultimately, is this being passed on to the customer?

Yes it is. I do not think there is price-gouging. I have heard that allegation on a number of occasions but there is no evidence for us as a regulator to indicate that. We have carried out investigations - let us call them that - into those. In 2017 we carried out a review of competition in the market to see that it was adding value for customers. The market had been liberalised in 2010 or 2011.

We are now going to repeat that exercise and we are going to look at the structures. We will look at the retail market to see if it is offering competition and delivering for customers. The other part of that is around supplier costs. Going back to 2017, the supplier retail part of that bill was somewhere in the region of 9%. We will see what that make-up is in 2016. I do not believe there is price-gouging.

The opening statement indicated that under the PR6 determination, domestic customers are going to see an increase in the network charge component of their bills. The same network charges for data centres and other large energy users are to decrease. What is that rationale behind this decision? Is it the case that the CRU is following Government policy to give preferential treatment to data centres and other large energy users over domestic customers?

No, there is no policy. In terms of how we allocate costs for domestic and non-domestic customers, there is no disparity in terms of the treatment. The costs are allocated based on a methodology which is more than 20 years old and is due to be reviewed. In terms of PR6, at the time we were estimating that for domestic customers it was approximately €30 over the five years of PR6. The reason large energy users were seeing a much smaller increase and, in some cases, a decrease is the way in which large energy users are exposed to transmission tariffs. They are largely collected as a transmission network. Because of the security of supply costs incurred over the cost of PR5, they saw a much bigger increase in their costs over PR5, approximately 175% over the period, compared with domestic customers, who saw an increase of about 45% in the same period.

In the context of 300,000 households being in arrears on their bills, would Dr. Kavanagh not agree that households cannot take any more at this stage?

We are acutely conscious of the impact that any increase on households would have in terms of this investment. As such, through our PR6 process, we try to minimise the costs that are passed through to customers. We challenge the network companies to ensure that only those costs that are absolutely justified and efficient are included into the tariffs. We also ensure that we are setting a baseline for PR6 so that only as costs are incurred are they allowed through to the tariffs. This is to ensure that we are not front-loading costs on customers.

As I mentioned, in line with European policy and as a liberalised electricity market for retail, within that our mandate is to examine consumer protection and, separately, to examine and regulate competition in the market. In terms of affordability, which is the final cost to consumers, yes, we regulate the network tariffs and try to ensure efficient delivery of the infrastructure that is required to serve national policy. In terms of affordability, which is a slightly separate question but still very material to our role, we have supported and will continue to support the Government's national energy affordability task force. The first draft report has come out in the last couple of months. We have tasks under that which we are progressing with the Government. We will continue to work with the Department and other Departments in that role.

On large energy users, when is the new connection policy going to be published?

We intend to publish the final decision within the next fortnight.

I assume it will be enacted very quickly after that.

Policy decisions published by the CRU come into force immediately.

On the CRU's climate action plan, why does it not consider energy affordability?

For the actions that are set out for us in the Government's climate action plan, which is updated every year, we would act on those actions. We are subject to the climate Act and we should continue in our role, regulation tasks and regulatory vires in alignment with the climate Act. Separately, in terms of renewable electricity, we have a direct mandate in our own Act to serve the promotion of renewable electricity. In terms of the climate action plan, we do not have a role there for affordability, nor in our own Act do we have a direct role with regard to affordability. Notwithstanding that, we do have a role in respect of competitiveness and competition in the market, ensuring efficient delivery of infrastructure to minimise the cost while still serving the policy goal and, separately, protecting consumers such as bringing out the measures we did in advance of this winter.

In light of the Government's new infrastructure plan, which was published today, has the CRU got an adequate multi-annual funding settlement from the Government to get it through to 2030? What does that look like? We have had an abundance of witnesses before us in recent months and the lack of multi-annual funding settlement has come up frequently. Could Mr. Gannon comment on that?

In terms of the infrastructure task force report, we have not had the time to review it but we will be reviewing it. We are very happy to do anything that facilitates more efficient delivery of infrastructure. We have a number of examples where we have streamlined ourselves and our processes over recent years to provide quicker delivery of infrastructure where we can. In terms of funding, the CRU is levy-funded. We receive our funding not from the Government, not from the Exchequer itself, but through a levy that is brought back in from suppliers and network operators. Where we do interact with the Government is on our headcount in terms of staffing.

The staffing complement has grown and I think it is at 187 now. Is the CRU adequately staffed or is there still a staffing shortfall?

The increase in staffing that we experienced over the last years was in line with our strategic plan and the demands of policy up to that point in time. We are now on a new strategic plan. We have had additional functions, additional vires added to our brief. We have new regulations from Europe, a significantly expanded wholesale market, offshore wind and safety remit and so across all of our existing directorates and divisions, our workload has increased. Separately and in addition to that, new tasks, new vires and responsibilities as competent authority have been added or are proposed to be added to our brief. In terms of the coming couple of years, we find ourselves under capacity to serve those policy needs. We are in dialogue with Government Departments about serving those new policy functions and legislative requirements.

Would Mr. Gannon be able to put a figure on the additional staffing complement he would need?

We are still engaging in dialogue with the Government Departments but it would be a significant increase on our existing staffing.

What does significant mean? Does that mean 100 more, double what the CRU has at the moment or what?

In the order of double what we have now, depending on what does come through on additional functions and requirements of the CRU.

Some of my colleagues mentioned domestic energy users and the issue of alleged price-gouging in particular. As a regulator, does the CRU have adequate enforcement powers?

Our powers extend to compliance and enforcement. Suppliers have to adhere to their licence obligations under that. If we find there have been breaches of that licence, we can take action. Under legislation we have the ability to fine suppliers up to a certain percentage of turnover, including the network companies, which is new for the CRU. In terms of the price-gouging piece, we would carry out an investigation. We have the ability to go in under authorised officers to do early morning raids if necessary. We have found in dealing with suppliers that they are willing to give over the information and we can investigate.

We have carried out two in the past five years, which have proved nothing untoward but we will continue to do that and we continue to monitor that.

Is that because of hedging?

It was a question when we were in the middle of the crisis as to why that volatility - that drop in the gas wholesale price - was not feeding through into the retail price and that was because there were forward contracts if you like, that hedging piece.

The issue, from what I have heard from both businesses and consumers, is that when the wholesale price gas goes up, their energy costs go up very quickly. However, when the gas price drops, it does not drop as quickly, if that makes sense.

I am happy to come on this. In the latter stages of the recent crisis, after Russia invaded Ukraine, we produced a report at the request of the Minister, which we also published openly, and issued to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action. This showed how hedging occurred during that period and how it protected the consumer from the initial price spikes. It also showed how, when that flowed through to the retail side, the decline happened equally in a smooth manner. What would be helpful is if we offer to circulate that report to this committee and then engage in more detailed discussion-----

I am aware of that report. It sounds it sounds very familiar.

It would do. We will recirculate it and make sure it is there, and perhaps we could draw attention to that particular paradox. What Ms Trant said is quite important, in that in our work plan for 2026, we have two key activities. One of those key activities is to perform a competition review of the retail market and a competitiveness review to ensure there is efficient competition in the market and an efficient pass-through of costs from suppliers.

Does Mr. Gannon think that electricity suppliers should be mandated, as they are in the UK, to offer everybody the best possible or minimum tariff? Should they be obligated to offer the cheapest tariff possible, as I understand they are in the UK and not here?

I will come back to that in one second. The second work plan task we will be performing next year is issuing a call for evidence, and this is to look more explicitly at arrears and debt with consumers and how we address and understand that, and how transparently we report it. Separately, we will examine how offers are made in the market to consumers to make sure they are transparent and clear, and consumers can really shop around for the most effective price. There are two specific actions tackling this in the work plan for 2026 that will result in transparent reports being published. We will be have to come back to the Deputy on those.

In terms of the price cap approach, which is taken in the UK, that is not a regulated price where they literally set the tariff for consumers; it is that a cap has been introduced. The experience in the UK was mixed on that during the crisis where a number of suppliers went out of business. A supplier of last resort mechanism had to be brought in, and the cost of those supply companies going out of business because they were capped at how much they could recover from consumers, resulted in their failure. That then resulted in the costs of those failures and transfer of consumers being spread around to other consumers. With each intervention like that there are pros but also cons. Some of the cons of the price cap approach were experienced in the UK and very clearly so during the crisis, when significant challenges were experienced.

Good afternoon everybody. I am being totally opportunistic, as I say whenever I get the Cathaoirleach’s indulgence to participate. I am not a member of the committee but I saw the commission was on the schedule and I have a couple of couple of quick questions. I thank the Cathaoirleach for always letting me in. I will go in reverse order.

In relation to the commission's work plan for 2026 and the call for evidence of debt, pardon my ignorance of the intricacies of the legislation that underpins the commission's agency, but in terms of anecdotal evidence and discussion in the Dáil Chamber and constituents’ lived experience of debt and rising prices, how quickly can it pivot? Is it bound to a legislative-based timetable for its work plan, or is it resource-dependent? We can tell our witnesses around the table that there is an experience but it is in the commission's work plan for 2026. Can things move more expeditiously in that regard?

I thank the Deputy. Yes, in that we have based our current business plan on the resources we have now, rather than future resources if we get them. We will work as quickly as we can on that piece of work. The plan is to get something out early in the new year. We are looking at a number of areas within that call for evidence and to hear from all of our stakeholders. We engage with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the Money Advice & Budgeting Service, MABS, and the other NGOs, but this is about how best we can engage customers who are in distress to engage with their suppliers and to enter into repayment plans. We see there is an anomaly there. There are high arrears but very low numbers in repayment plans with suppliers. We do not know what is causing that. It could well be that customers are entering into repayment plans that are not sustainable or reflective of their income. They may be slightly panicked because of the threat of disconnection. We do not know, I am surmising, but that is all to come from the call for evidence, and we want to hear all of that. I do not think it is unique. The UK is dealing with significant levels of arrears.

On that point, we have heard the figure of 300,000 electricity customers in arrears. We gathered that information as a regulator to understand competition on the market. When suppliers are carrying that level of debt, it is a cost overall to all electricity consumers. From the Department's point of view, it is trying to look at customers who are in distress. I will not use the word “vulnerable” because it has a particular legal definition, but customers in arrears and in distress. That 300,000 figure includes customers who could be in debt for €10 and who may have missed their last bill for no particular reason. What we are trying to do is narrow that down and give that information a more granular use. Therefore, we are looking at more than 90 days, which reduces that figure of 300,000 down to 180,000 electricity customers and reduces the number of gas customers. That is more meaningful. It means that targeted approach is potentially achievable if we are able to look at those who are in continued arrears and distress. That is where we are going. That is the direction of travel. We have said it in the past, that one-for-all - I use that term very loosely but that sort of non-targeted approach – is really not ideal and it means that those who really do need it are potentially missed in the longer term.

As to Deputy Toole’s first point, when we go out for a call for evidence, sometimes we will pick up on actions that we can take in the short term. We have shown in the past that, let us say for infrastructure development and delivery for hybrid projects, which is where renewable generation and batteries can use the same infrastructure far more efficiently, effectively and cheaply for consumers and make a better business case, instead of waiting until we had done the full programme of work to make all three decisions, we have said the first part of this is far more important to do quickly. In our first call for evidence of effort around that, we said it is more important to make this change quickly and parallel than wait for the full programme to come through. Where we find things that we can act on more quickly, we will not wait until the final end-point of all of that scope of work, to do it all. If we think we can do something quickly that will have an impact for consumers, we will do that and we will be agile and will respond to that. Again, that is to provide more efficiency and more agile regulation and to hit the important things as quickly as we can. I wanted to say that out loud.

We probably can help with encouraging people to engage with the providers for the provision of a payment plan. In the remaining few seconds, if I may, does the commission have any jurisdiction, oversight or otherwise on the renewable market and the selling on at the different stages that can occur? For example, I am in County Meath, which has very high-density solar farm planning applications. I believe we have seven out of the nine that are active in the country. What I have noticed is a trend, which will have an impact on pricing ultimately. Correct me if I am wrong but where planning permission is granted, the entity may be sold. If it is successful at the auction, there may be another sale and I am fearful that this type of behaviour that I have witnessed may be contributing to elevated prices at the other end. Is that a space the commission is aware of or involved in or would be keeping an eye on going forward?

I am happy to pass that over to my colleagues but it is something that naturally occurs in many jurisdictions, namely, that people bring a project through to development, obtain planning or authorisation to construct or licence to generate and perhaps be successful in an auction, and would then sell on that asset to someone who would construct and then sell it on as an operator.

That sort of transaction is natural and rational. I will ask my colleagues to speak about the authorisations and a bit about the RESS side.

Licensing sits within my brief. We see change of control applications from people who have licences or authorisations to construct. Very few authorisations to construct go through change of control. It is usually when they get to a licence that they may be, for one reason or another, sold on to another licensee or look for a change of control. I am not sure about the pricing aspect. I do not see any aspect of that so I am not sure how the price would be passed on or elevated, but they operate in the market.

Perhaps Dr. Hemmingway will speak about the contract.

I do not think we have a particular role when it comes to individual entities bringing a solar or wind farm to a certain point and then selling it. Where we have a role is, for example, in large-scale electricity interconnectors. Two are live at the moment, between the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain. When they are sold, we go through a certification process where we look at the ownership structure of the entity that is buying the interconnector to make sure there are not any conflicts of interests with other assets. However, that would not apply at the level of an individual solar or wind farm or other generation asset.

Perhaps it would also reassure the Deputy that solar and wind farms that are built on land, that is, onshore, are largely being built by foreign direct investment funds such as pension funds but they are also competing with one another to be profitable. Therefore, competition, which is built up and down the country, will keep the price down. On being afraid of supernormal profits or consumers having to pay an extra premium or price, at the end of the day, there is competition in the solar-renewable area, where these guys have to make a reasonable profit. Again, there is no evidence these guys are coming in and buying wind and solar farms and the price just goes up. In some instances, when investors sell a solar or wind farm, they may not have the finance to keep going and someone may have to step in and buy it. That could even be at a knockdown price, where the person who built it may have lost money. There are many different aspects to what goes on in capital markets. We have seen no evidence that there is an issue there from a consumer point of view.

Are there any other questions?

Deputy Clendennen should go ahead. He waited. I had to go to speak about energy costs in the Dáil so I got some pointers. That is what I was doing.

I will pick up on Deputy Toole's point first. There is a fine balance between competition and saturation and so on, but we need to be mindful of it when we monitor the market to ensure we are getting a fair price.

Going back to the big increase in the CRU's resources in two years, that level of increase is significant. Is the CRU at capacity now or is it looking for more resources? How does Mr. Gannon see that panning out in the coming years?

To be clear, we grew to that size to serve the existing requirements on us from the expansion of policy, new roles and European regulation under which we just must do what comes through, regardless of national policy. What has changed in the past few years is that two or three things have happened. We currently have a number of additional roles we never had before, which have been added or are being added to our brief relating to district heating, a potential new brief as the competent authority for private wires, NIS2, which would make us a cybersecurity authority and regulator for energy assets-----

Will Mr. Gannon say that again? Who is the cybersecurity regulator?

It is NIS2. It is a regulation under which we would become a cybersecurity regulator for energy infrastructure to ensure the protections are in place and those people are there.

It is also in the pipeline for us to take on being the competent authority for critical entities resilience regulator, as for a number of different roles which are all new to us and all require teams and, in certain cases, expertise and competencies we did not have before.

On the other side, we have seen a significant increase in the size of the wholesale electricity market and the costs that come through there, so greater effort is required to make it more efficient. Offshore energy generation is new to Ireland and we will be looking at €5 billion worth of a regulated asset base in EirGrid that was not there previously, but could be there in the next six or seven years. We are mandating and ensuring it is delivered in an efficient way and that the right kinds of contracts are in place between EirGrid and others. That is significant.

On the safety side, which often does not get discussed, we have the potential introduction of hydrogen and biogas. There has been an increase in incidents recently due to new technologies coming on the market. We also have increases in, as I said, water and electricity infrastructure. Perhaps instead of looking at a particular number of projects in price review, PR5, my colleague, Mr. Mulligan, has noted that we are now looking at 570-odd projects and making sure they are delivered in an efficient way and reported on transparently. We are driving the incentives to make sure these are done in the public interest. Across all our parallel processes, including the supports for those, such as legal, compliance and enforcement, we must make sure that where people are not abiding by their licence conditions or normal market behaviour, we can identify and act on it. All of this must grow.

Do not get me wrong, in parallel to that, on the other side we are speeding things up and reducing things. I will be quick about this, but it is important. For authorisations to construct and licences to generate, starting in 2022, we said that for projects below 10 MW in size - a lot of projects were coming through on solar and wind at that time - we would reduce the requirements significantly to make it easier, quicker and more efficient for applicants and we are doing that now.

As for connections policy for renewable generators, last year we brought out a totally different process, which speeds up the process for ESB Networks. It has two gates for investors to come through, not just one per annum, so it is much quicker for developers and investors and that speeds up the timeline.

Separately, recently on section 39A, we identified there is a sort of doubling up between two of our licences on a consent to operate infrastructure. One is on the safety side and the other is on the gas networks side. We are about to consider taking away one of those to make things more efficient, quicker, less burdensome and less resource intensive and we have already-----

CRU is cutting the red tape.

Yes, cutting the red tape. We are about to go to procurement on the digitisation of all our authorisations, licences and consenting to make it quicker, more efficient and less resource intensive.

Considering everything the CRU is doing, is there anything from a regulatory perspective about which there is an element of uncertainty or doubt? Are there stakeholders who are relying on anything from the CRU that has not been forthcoming or that should be forthcoming or should be quicker? Is there anything in the pipeline we should be aware of?

I would say yes and we are not disguising some of these challenges.

On the offshore infrastructure in particular, we have been moving ahead of the critical path for bringing in the offshore wind farms but next year we could see ourselves, with some of our decisions, coming onto the critical path because we just cannot get there quickly enough. It is not extensive consultation periods. It is literally about doing the work to get there.

On investment in biomethane, it is capacity where we must, in terms of regulation and policy, bring in a new framework and process to allow these people to connect to the grid. It is just a processing capacity piece. We want the investment to happen and to happen in the right way but that we are able to do it as quickly as possible. There are a number of examples.

It is about staying ahead of the innovation because this is quite an innovative sector. As our regulator, the CRU has a responsibility to stay ahead of the pace. It is to ensure that is happening. The last thing I want to hear is that someone is not investing or progressing with a project or that a job creation opportunity is lost because the CRU did not have the right or adequate papers. That is where the committee needs to stay in tune about the work the CRU does.

The 90 days is a good move to give a more transparent view of where we are and understanding of what the issues are. However, will the CRU include something about disconnections? There is a moratorium now for the winter period, but we need to get a better understanding of the pace of arrears to disconnections so we get a clear idea. I am not trying to be ruthless about it but we need to get an understanding of that as well.

We publish those figures and we were always mindful, particularly as we are coming out of a crisis and there are no credits, of how quickly that would ramp up. It has not and we are still at pre-Covid-19 levels for disconnections.

We want people to engage. Once they engage that process stops. There is no disconnection. If people do not engage that process is almost automated and then 75% of those contacted during that disconnection period engage with the supplier. It is not the ideal scenario. We monitor the disconnections for non-payment of account and they are still very low. We want to see that. Suppliers do not want to do it. We do not want them to do it, and customers do not want them to do it but there has to be an alternative. That is the sort of-----

To be clear, 300,000 are currently in arrears, but when you take out-----

For 90 days, it is approximately 187,300.

It is 300,000 give or take, but 90 days is 170,000 or 180,000. We have seen no change realistically since Covid times in relation to disconnections.

Absolutely.

No change.

It is still relatively static. We can come back to the Deputy-----

That is hard to believe considering the commentary you hear in the political world. First, we deal with facts.

Those are the statistics.

We will give the Deputy those figures. We look for them and we report on them. We will give the Deputy those figures. As we have said, suppliers do not want to go down that route. They will do everything they can not to go down that route. ESB Networks, which has to go out in vans to disconnect the meters do not want to do it. It is a no-brainer. We need to get customers into repayment plans. That is the key to this.

We recently released our updated monthly reports for the most recent couple of months in the past two weeks. We can forward those to the committee in the coming day or two. We are also talking about red tape and efficiency. We last year completed a project in Power BI which is effectively trying to digitalise some of these data and statistics to take human effort out of it while still making sure they are right and we can bank on them in an effort to make these more quickly available to people such as the committee. There will be a dashboard and more frequent and more transparent reporting. It would take out the need for the hard copy PDF report. The data would just be accessible. That is to provide it more quickly and transparently and reduce the level of red tape and human resource related to delivering it. It is another effort to reduce inefficiency.

Is the CRU planning on recruiting more staff? Is it at capacity now or is it planning on growing further?

For what has been added to our brief over the past year and what we expect to be added to our brief we feel we require a significant additional number of staff across all of our divisions. That is what we are in dialogue with the Government about.

What does Mr. Gannon see the top number as?

It could be a doubling of the organisation if everything requested of us now continues to be requested of us.

A doubling from the current complement.

It could be, yes. There are a number of new remits we have never done before which have come to us in the past year or which are about to come to us across including cybersecurity, critical entities, district heating and private wires. There is a long list of new things like, potentially, hydrogen and biomethane.

Can we get that list?

Will Mr. Gannon forward what he has said in brief regarding the list of responsibilities the commission has now that it did not have in the past, in particular where that responsibility came from? Was it domestic legislation, EU guidelines, or where?

We will prepare a summary of that. As I have said, some of them are ones where we are waiting-----

I have gone way over, so work away and I will come back in.

-----and some where we have been notified that we are going to be made the competent authority. We have a list.

I will return to offshore wind. What is the story with the offshore wind plans around Dublin?

Speaking more broadly, offshore has been separated into two phases. Phase 1 has been a developer-led process where prospective offshore wind farms had reached a certain point of development over a number of years. There had been six of those. Four of those were successful in achieving contracts in the first State auction called ORESS 1.

Is this in the Dublin area?

There are five off the east coast and one off the west coast. Those five phase 1 projects off the east coast are progressing through the planning process. The sixth project in phase 1 has discontinued development. That is called Sceirde Rocks and is off the west coast.

I might come back to that.

Phase 2 is a plan-led or State-led approach where the Government defines locations where wind farms will be based. There will then be a programme of auctions. The first State auction referred to as Tonn Nua was for a wind farm off the south coast. Provisional results were just announced.

I want to go with the east coast for a moment. How does the power come off the coast?

The developers of those wind farms will be building transmission infrastructure that will connect to the national network.

Where does it come in?

They come in more or less directly from the coast. We can send details of the exact locations.

I am wondering what geographic location it comes in at. What substations?

That is ultimately a matter to be determined by EirGrid the transmission system operator, TSO, as it defines connection contracts with the offshore operators.

Can they CPO the land?

Of the phase 1 projects, the Codling Wind Park is off the east coast of Wicklow. That will come in off Wicklow. The Dublin Array is also off the east coast. The North Irish Sea Array is off Louth and north Dublin.

Are they able to get all of it through the locations through the land?

The developers are responsible for going through the consenting process required.

Are they getting any pushback from landowners?

I do not think that is something we would be aware of or involve ourselves in.

The CRU does not know if it is able to use the land. I am equating it with Uisce Éireann, which was before the committee a few weeks ago when we were talking about the water coming from the Shannon. There are obviously huge issues about if we can use the land because there are a couple of hundred landowners and getting the CPO process. The pushback from them would be key. Are we getting pushback here?

I do not want to speak outside of our brief too much but the first port of call for developers and for EirGrid and ESB Networks would be to agree contracts where they can with landowners. Where that is unsuccessful, it is possible to-----

Can Mr. Gannon not say, or will he not say, if they are getting pushback from landowners?

We are not involved in those processes.

They are just not aware.

Uisce Éireann has a few hundred kilometres of network going across a lot of farms between Dublin and the Shannon. For offshore wind, which has cables traversing from the sea to onshore, EirGrid will build the substations if the substation is not there already.

That is what I mean. They are tricky locations. I know even in places like Wicklow.

They could be on the east coast. EirGrid will pick the optimal location. It is doing that every day with all of its grid across the country. They will engage with landowners and pick the most optimal location.

As yet we do not know if we can get across.

We do not know of any issues at the moment. To be honest, we do not expect anything insurmountable.

From the wider perspective, is it 5 GW of offshore wind we are required to have by 2030? Is that the correct terminology?

That is the target for 2030.

Are we going to meet that?

We will not meet that. Some of those phase 1 projects will be delivered in the early 2030s.

We are not going to meet that. Does the CRU meet the developers to push on delivery of those projects? Is that part of its role?

Yes, we meet the directors of all the phase 1 projects on a regular basis. We are also members of the offshore wind delivery task force, chaired by the Minister.

This is a holistic and specific question. Dr. Hemmingway referenced Sceirde Rocks. Was that a failed plan?

It discontinued development after carrying out site investigation works.

Did that person win a tender? Is that how it worked?

Yes, there is a State tender process called the renewable electricity support scheme. That particular project won a State tender.

Is that on price? Did they win that on a lowball price?

It was a competitive bid. There were six entities eligible to bid in that. Four of them won and two did not.

The two that did not win State contacts are still progressing development and they are likely to-----

Just to bring that in, there are two of the phase 1 projects that also entered into the auction for ORESS contracts but were unsuccessful in terms of their price and their bidding. One of the actions we took following that was to ensure that if those projects wanted to proceed, they would be able to and that they would get access to the grid if they found a different way of funding their projects. This was in order to, effectively, get out of the way of projects and ensure they were also able to develop and try to streamline things.

Yes. If we keep expanding with the offshore, and it is a significant cost change, my fear would be that somebody can win a tender on price, which goes without saying in general. Then luck does not fall their way, they can walk away and we are left with an infrastructure gap. Has that effectively happened in this case?

I do not think we can speculate on the reasons-----

Mr. Gannon is not speculating in this case because it has happened.

No, but we would not speculate on the cause for that happening. In any competitive auction, it is always a possibility that a developer, or even a contractor on a particular contract, would or could fall away.

Did they forfeit a bond?

I do not think the whole formal process has been completed. We are not party to the process of them forfeiting a bond but there would be a bond associated with an ORESS contract.

While the auction has been won at this point in time, none of these pieces of infrastructure have been built yet, in terms of cost or-----

Are we talking about the west coast here as well at this stage?

Sceirde Rocks is on the west coast.

Essentially, the risk here is that we put out these tenders and a company hopes things go its way. It wins it, prices go the wrong way, it does not bother and it sits on it. Ultimately, then, as a State, we are left without offshore energy. Is that what happens?

It is always possible for someone who has either won a competitive contract or a competitive bid in an offshore or onshore auction that, for different reasons, their bid and project could fall away.

I take it they could not go back to the State and look for changes to their contract or else the other providers who tendered would.

That is entirely possible that people might seek a change to the RESS terms and conditions but again the auction was set at a point in time.

Something that does give some measure of protection as the State seeks to build out its offshore resources is the plan-led approach where the State sets the locations for the wind farms. If you are developing your transmission network to facilitate those particular locations and one entity, for example, seeks to develop and cannot develop, if the transmission infrastructure is being built towards that location, an additional auction could backfill. That is not to say that will happen in this case but that provides some measure of protection.

I thank the witnesses. I have a few miscellaneous questions. Will the witnesses from the CRU confirm, as much for the public as for the committee, who its shareholder is?

For us, as a regulator, we do not have a shareholder. As an independent regulator, we are levy-funded and our reporting line and our accountability is to the Houses of the Oireachtas. Notwithstanding that, we work under the auspices of the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment and the Department of housing.

What does "work under the auspices of" mean?

The Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment is our parent Department and the Minister, Darragh O'Brien, is our Minister.

On the energy side and then on the housing side, housing and water.

The CRU does not have a shareholding as such?

We are set up as statute.

A separate statute.

And we undergo the issue of processes where, on an annual basis, we report our compliance against the code of conduct for State entities. We have the report of the Auditor and Comptroller General and we are audited by it in line with-----

And published for the Oireachtas-----

And the PAC.

-----but not to a line Minister.

Correct.

My second question is on a broad thing. I refer to people, ordinary consumers, who want to set their price of electricity and they are paying every month. They have no contract and they want to set a contract. I am talking about electricity here. They can only get a contract for 12 months. Why so short? I know prices cannot be predicted but lots of people would like to enter a contract longer than 12 months. It is a very short contract.

I will hand over to my colleague, Ms Trant.

I suppose what the Cathaoirleach is referring to is nearly fixed term contracts?

Yes.

As Dr. Kavanagh has alluded to, there is a thing called the tariff year where suppliers will know what their costs are, what the tariffs will be and then how to recover that. If it was set out to two years I am not sure, from a commercial point of view, how viable that would be for the suppliers. I am sure they could offer that product. The reality is, from a European perspective, there is a move away from fixed-term contracts. They want a more dynamic and agile-type product on the market. We have issued a paper around that. Dynamic tariffs follow the wholesale prices, therefore it is around what the Deputies were alluding to earlier - that volatility and that spike.

That is what I am coming at from the opposite direction. I am referring to stability for customers.

There is that choice and that is what we want. Is our market ready yet? There will be other structural changes that we will have to put in place but we are moving towards that.

We are moving towards which?

We are moving towards more dynamic, more agile-type products that are out there.

Is CRU looking forward to the day then that people will not even be able to fix their price for 12 months?

That will always be there. Suppliers will offer that type of product if the demand is there. If customers want that-----

The demand is there. I am sure people would want it for more than 12 months. The demand is there but they cannot get it.

Mr. Gannon may want to come in on that. I think that is a commercial decision for suppliers. In a liberalised market, we could not set that, or demand to get it.

I think there are two parts of it. People could still enter into a contract for 12 months that sets the prices, let us say. However, instead of it being a single price throughout all of the days, the same price for every time of day, they could have something that is more dynamic. This means it is a little bit more expensive between 4 o'clock until 7 p.m. but the rest gets better.

Is that contract available for domestic customers-----

Yes, time-of-use tariffs-----

-----on the right meter?