Good morning all. The purpose of today's meeting is for the joint committee to discuss sustainable transport with Mobility Partnership Ireland, MPI, the EV Charging Alliance of Ireland, EVCAI, and EZO. Today, on behalf of the committee, I am pleased to welcome from MPI: Mr. Hugh Cooney, founder and CEO of Bleeper Active and chair of MPI; Mr. Gareth Evans, corporate development manager with Payzone, and vice chair of MPI; and Mr. Michael Baker, head of business rental Ireland at Enterprise Mobility and member of the MPI executive. From the EVCAI, I am pleased to welcome: Mr. Darren Kinsella, of Schneider Electric; and Mr. Hugh Hall of ePower. Finally, from EZO I welcome: Mr. Ollie Chatten, chief executive officer; Mr. David Fitzgerald, chief revenue officer; and Mr. Gerry Cash, founding director.

I will read a note on privilege. Witnesses 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 they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I also remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask members partaking via MS Teams that prior to making their contribution to the meeting they confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

I now invite Mr. Cooney to make his opening statement on behalf of MPI.

On behalf of Mobility Partnership Ireland, MPI, I thank the committee for the invitation to be here today. MPI is a coalition of leading companies operating in the shared transport sector that aspire to provide leadership and solutions to help Ireland’s future mobility needs. Membership is comprised of commercial companies who provide bike hire, car sharing, taxis, bus services and payment solution services.

MPI’s mission is to move sustainable transport forward. Working with Government, State agencies, and local authorities, MPI's aim is to make the Irish transport sector more sustainable through supporting and integrating more forms of sustainable transport and incentivising more commuters to use more modes of sustainable transport as practical alternatives to private cars.

Shared mobility is an important term at the core of MPI, so what is it? Shared mobility is defined as transport assets such as bikes, e-scooters, and cars that are provided for shared use on a private rental basis, as distinct from the sharing of journeys with other users. Shared mobility is growing in popularity across Ireland and offers substantial potential to increase the number of Irish sustainable travel journeys. MPI has assessed that our bike share services delivered in the region of 600,000 journeys in 2024, while our car share members are expected to support over 300,000 journeys, with these numbers expected to increase rapidly in the coming years. Shared mobility offers a particular benefit in terms of providing a flexible transport modes which allows commuters to take routes that public transport does not, and to join the dots between fixed public transport and where commuters want to go. This could involve last-mile journeys from public transport stops to the workplace or one’s home; or it could involve longer journeys which would normally require a private car, but for which shared mobility offers a sustainable alternative. Shared mobility can offer effective and accessible sustainable transport options for persons on lower incomes, persons with a disability and other persons for whom car ownership may not be feasible.

To help with the uptake of shared mobility, MPI is proposing that the extent of the taxsaver scheme be broadened. Since 1999, the taxsaver scheme has allowed workers to sacrifice a part of their pay tax-free in return for a monthly or annual fixed-price travel pass. The taxsaver scheme should be an important incentive encouraging commuters to take sustainable travel modes to work. According to estimates provided by the Department of Transport, there were 60,000 beneficiaries of the taxsaver scheme in 2019, but that fell to 25,900 last year. The cost to the Exchequer fell from €27 million in 2019 to €8 million in 2024. The taxsaver scheme could again work for more commuters in more parts of the country. This will require offering more flexibility in how the taxsaver ticketing model operates and extending it to more forms of sustainable transport, including shared mobility.

While extending the scope of the taxsaver scheme to include shared mobility services would make a difference, a simple digital solution for payment across multiple services would make an greater difference. Making it easy is key. Over the course of 2025, MPI engaged extensively with the Department of Transport and a number of members of this committee, and we hope to meet more members throughout next year, on our proposal to extend the current taxsaver scheme to include a virtual card account model which we call the sustainable taxsaver account. MPI hopes the committee sees the merits of this and that we can work alongside it to pave the way for this to become a reality in the near term. We will be releasing a new report in the next two weeks with further detail and analysis on why the extension of the taxsaver scheme can help to move sustainable transport forward in Ireland.

I thank Mr. Cooney. I now invite Mr. Kinsella to make his opening statement on behalf of the EVCAI.

Good morning Chairman and committee members. I thank you for the invitation to address the committee today. I am the spokesperson for the EV Charging Alliance of Ireland, as well as business development manager for new energy landscapes for Schneider Electric. I am joined by Mr. Hugh Hall, founding director of ePower charge point operators. Founded in June 2024, EVCAI represents Ireland’s leading EV charging operators and providers. We are Ireland’s only unified voice for the charging sector, working to ensure that industry can play a positive, proactive, and enabling role as Ireland seeks to electrify its transportation network.

EVCAI represents Ireland’s leading EV charging operators - ePower, Schneider Electric, Weev, ESB eCars, Tesla, Empower and EZO, formerly known as EasyGo. Since our establishment, we have had constructive engagement with the Minister for Transport, Zero Emission Vehicles Ireland, ZEVI, ESB Networks and members of this committee individually. We are now grateful to have this opportunity to address the committee as a group.

This committee hearing is very timely, given the upcoming publication of the new draft electric vehicle charging infrastructure strategy from 2026 to 2028. Last month, the Minister for Transport announced that Ireland had successfully met its target of having 195,000 electric vehicles on the road by the end of 2025. This is a huge achievement and reflects the hard work the Minister, the Department of Transport and, in particular, ZEVI have done over the past number of years. Notably, this target has been met without any of the public charging schemes being up and running. While a number of ZEVI and TII-funded schemes will come online in the coming months, it is the huge expansion of the private charging network - households, businesses and forecourts - that has allowed this target to be met. This is a testament to the investment that our members and the wider industry have made in Ireland. However, we know that much more needs to be done. In March, the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council and the Climate Change Advisory Council warned that failure to meet emissions targets could cost the State up to €26 billion in fines. Their analysis highlighted the electrification of transport, specifically a €4 billion investment in charging infrastructure, as one of the fastest, most cost-effective ways to avoid penalties and deliver real climate progress.

EVCAI's objectives are fully aligned with those of the Government. The first is to remove barriers to the roll-out of EV charging infrastructure. The second is to increase Government investment in public and private charging. The third is to increase the number of EVs on Irish roads.

In order to advance these goals, there are two major policy issues on which we would like to focus for the remainder of this statement. They are grid connectivity and investment in charging infrastructure. Across Europe, slow and opaque grid connection processes are the chief obstacle facing charge-point operators, and Ireland is no exception. Our members routinely face waits of more than 12 months before an application decision is granted, with limited transparency and unclear timelines. This undermines investor confidence and risks public and private projects missing deadlines. It makes forward planning nearly impossible.

We fully recognise the scale of the challenge facing ESB Networks, given the huge expansion not only of the EV charging network but also the increasing housing supply and associated infrastructure demand, as well as the electrification of heat and industry. The timelines of ESB Networks illustrate the scale of the challenge. Large low-voltage, LV, or smaller medium-voltage, MV, loads can take six to nine months to connect, while major business loads requiring high-power infrastructure can take more than two years. Without significant improvements to these timelines, Ireland will not reach the charging infrastructure required to meet its climate targets. Therefore, investment in the resourcing and capabilities of ESB Networks is pivotal and should continue to be a priority for the Government. In order to speed up the roll-out of EV charging infrastructure, ESB Networks should aim to ensure that power requests below 100 kW take less than 12 weeks, with requests between 100 kW and 350 kW taking no more than six months. As the representative group for the charging sector, we are ready to work in any way possible with ESB Networks to achieve these targets.

In addition to clear and standardised timelines, transparency over the status of an application and regular communication are critical for the EV charging industry. Ensuring applicants have ready access to viewing the status of their applications is important to future planning for infrastructure roll-out.

Grid reinforcement must also be accelerated. Significant portions of the future charging network, particularly in urban constraint zones such as Dublin and Cork, will not progress beyond the planning stage without strategic, prioritised investment. Reinforcement works under the national development plan must therefore be aligned with transport electrification timelines and be concentrated where demand and investment are greatest.

While the Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Strategy 2022-2025 has been a welcome first step in increasing the number of charging points in Ireland, without significant investment the number of public charging points will still fall well short of what is required to meet 2030 targets. Therefore, the next strategy for 2026 to 2028, set to be published in the coming weeks, must match this ambition.

Between now and 2030, Ireland has a narrow window to make decisive progress. With improved and streamlined grid connection processes, strong incentives and sustained investment, electrification can remain one of the State's climate success stories. EVCAI stands ready to work with this committee and all stakeholders to ensure Ireland has the charging infrastructure it needs to deliver a truly sustainable transport system.

I thank Mr. Kinsella. I call Mr. Cash to make his opening statement on behalf of EZO.

I thank committee members for their invitation. I am a founding director of EZO. I am joined by my colleagues, Ollie Chatten, CEO, and David Fitzgerald, chief revenue officer.

We welcome the opportunity to speak to the committee today about how Ireland can decarbonise by supporting up to 630,000 electric vehicles getting onto Ireland's roads by 2030. Having installed public chargers at more than 650 locations around Ireland, we recently won contracts in the UK valued at up to €500 million. These include a tender to electrify transport in the north of Scotland by rolling out more than 1,500 charging locations. I am pleased to announce that in recent days we also got news that we won a similar tender in the UK midlands. Today's priority is to highlight four key issues, namely, Ireland's huge challenge; how we can deliver faster; how we address grid constraints; and learnings that we can take from our tendering experience overseas.

Ireland has just over 1,500 public charging locations where fast chargers are either installed or can be added. We need fast chargers. The EU target is approximately one fast charger for every 11 electric cars. By 2030, to meet this target, we will need 59,000 chargers. To go from 1,500 public charging locations today, which has taken the country 15 years to put in place, to having upwards of 50,000 within four to five years is a massive challenge.

We have conducted extensive market analysis on Irish driving habits and behaviours and we conclude that Ireland can get by and support the electric vehicles on the road with perhaps as few or fewer than 10,000 fast chargers. That said, it will require more than five times the number of chargers being installed in the next five years than the number Ireland has put in the ground since the first charger went live 15 years ago.

In terms of working faster, we welcomed the formation of the Government body, ZEVI, in 2022. We are now delighted to see incentives in place that will deliver perhaps up to 500 fast chargers next year. In parallel with ZEVI activities, we and others in the private sector have hundreds of sites ready for development and there are thousands more in the pipeline that, critically, with grant funding and co-financing from the Government, can be brought to market more quickly. We believe that by supporting these shovel-ready sites, which can be quickly developed by the private sector, Ireland can decarbonise better and work faster.

In terms of the grid, if we get all these cars on the road by 2030, the power needed to drive them will be the equivalent of four new Ardnacrusha sized power stations. These will not be in place by 2030. We are not aware of any plans to build such massive new infrastructural engineering projects. To mitigate this challenge, we and other installers could and should be supported to co-locate battery banks beside each installation. This would enable off-peak electricity, renewably generated at nighttime, to be stored for use the following day. It would also enable grid balancing, which is where power can be released from those battery banks at times when the grid comes under pressure to support more general use.

I will outline our learnings from the UK tendering experience. Having successfully tendered for work in Ireland and in the UK, we are in the fortunate position of being able to compare best practice from both jurisdictions. A stand-out feature we respected, which we believe would greatly benefit Ireland in the future, was where in the UK, financial suitability audits were conducted in advance on bidders for Government projects. Essentially, what this means is that, should a company win a tender, the tendering authority will know beforehand that the bidder already has in hand the necessary finance and funding to deliver on the project from the get-go.

In concluding, I will make three key points. Electrifying transport is essential for decarbonisation, and it will help us to best utilise the renewable energy Ireland can harness. Second, and perhaps most important, Ireland's challenge is to massively accelerate the speed of delivery of charging infrastructure. As EZO has demonstrated in Scotland, England and Ireland, there is considerable private sector know-how, capability, appetite and capacity to do this. It could work faster with joint funding together with the Government.

I thank Mr. Cash very much. I thank all the witnesses for their comprehensive opening statements and engagement with the committee.

Clearly we are at a critical juncture in our transport transition. Today is about exploring some of the issues that the witnesses have raised in their opening statements, including the future of shared mobility, reforms of the taxsaver scheme, VAT treatment of sustainable transport services, barriers to EV charging deployment and the overall investment strategy required to meet electrification targets. I will now invite members to pose questions, starting with Deputy Boland.

I thank the witnesses for coming in today. This is an area in which I am very interested. I am a huge supporter of public transport but obviously cars are absolutely part of how we live in Ireland, particularly with dispersed housing. In terms of the infrastructure required, I note that all of the witnesses were talking about massively accelerating the speed of delivery of fast chargers. What is the one thing that they really want to see the Government do? What is the one thing that can really help us to deliver?

Additional funding is critical.

I am conscious that this is the transport committee but this obviously also relates to the Department of energy. I know that the Minister is the same but they are two different Departments. When Mr. Chatten says additional funding, where would he like to see that? Where would he expect that funding to come from?

The Government has invested a lot via ZEVI in the N-roads to roll out fast charging and that needs to be extended and rolled out further. It is a drop in the ocean. As Mr. Cash said in his opening statement, we will roll out about 500 chargers in the next 18 months but we need ten times that. We need significantly more funding.

Funding is one issue but in terms of actually rolling them out, is there a process that needs to be gone through? Is planning required? What does that look like? What are the other obstacles to delivering at scale?

The availability of power is an issue and that is why we have suggested that we should put funding into battery solutions.

On the batteries, how do they work? How are they charged? Are they solar or are they also connected to the grid?

One does not need the same level of grid connection. A 49 kVA connection could have a larger battery attached to it. It could trickle feed overnight and then it could feed fast charging during the day.

It is connected to the grid. It is not-----

Yes, it is connected to the grid.

In the future is there potential for solar batteries?

The amount of power needed to drive a car is significant. The only way it would work in a solar scenario is if we had fields covered with solar panels. What we need to do is look at the different types of energy sources, including wind, solar and so on, collect the energy at nighttime, store it in battery banks and then use it in the day time. We produce electricity at night time, whether it is used or not so if the national grid is feeding in off-peak electricity, that electricity will go to waste unless it goes into a store. We liken the battery to a toilet cistern. It fills up in a drip-drip manner and it flushes three, four, five or ten times a day. It is the same thing with fast chargers. If the battery banks are filled up at night time, they can flush the car with energy and charge the car in ten minutes. What Ireland needs is fast chargers located in faraway places like Donegal, Achill Sound and so on. People can charge their cars at home at night time and drive around every day. That is not a problem. The issue is when they want to go to Cahersiveen and get back in the same day. They need to get there and they want to get home quickly, so they need to be able to charge quickly. Having those battery banks beside the chargers, where there is a whoosh of power ready to go, will be really valuable.

Mr. Cash mentioned charging in ten minutes. Is that a reality now?

Yes, with those expensive, fast chargers. They are very expensive and this is the big challenge, going back to -----

How many fast chargers do we have at the moment?

We have 1,500 locations. Some of those only have low-speed chargers but all of those locations can be very quickly upgraded.

There is a big difference between the slow and the fast chargers.

Yes. There are 1,500 locations where we could have fast chargers overnight. We need about 50,000 but we could get away with 10,000. We have a lot of work to do.

In terms of the battery, what does that look like on the actual site? Does it need a large amount of space?

A single parking space would store a battery unit. It would be the size of a small container.

Could it go underground?

It would be like a small storage container.

Does one need planning permission for that?

No, not at present.

Is that because it is so small?

There are regulatory requirements around connecting the battery, running wires from the battery to the charger and all of these things would need to be addressed by the relevant regulatory bodies. Some change would be needed but from a policy perspective, if the Government directs the regulatory bodies to make it possible to do these things, then they can be done. Technically, they can be done but there are regulations that currently preclude those things from happening.

There would need to be some kind of regulatory amendment or statutory instrument to permit this. Is that correct?

Yes.

I want to briefly ask about the tender process. The witnesses mentioned the tender process in the UK and the fact that the bidders have the capability and the finance to deliver. I am a bit surprised that we do not have that here, but reading between the lines, it seems that we do not.

As part of our bid wins in the north of Scotland, the first thing we had to do was show proof of performance and that our balance sheet was strong enough to do it. It was not all based on price in the end. A lot of tenders in Ireland are based on price and not necessarily on whether bidders have the financial whereabouts to deliver.

That is a real issue. I would have thought that through a good, robust procurement process the tenderers would have to demonstrate that they have the financial wherewithal to actually deliver the contract.

Yes, absolutely but our experience is that there is a different rigour in the UK than there is here.

Are those tenders done through the Office of Public Procurement?

Yes.

That is certainly something I will be taking up with that office because it absolutely makes no sense that bidders should not have to demonstrate that they can deliver. I am sure that if someone is awarded the contract, it delays matters if they then have to go and seek finance.

Yes, absolutely. It can cause delays.

The determinant for winning in the UK is the ability to deliver the service over the term of the contract. If bidders are to have a 15 or 20 year relationship with councils, they need to have a really deep understanding of each other. Typically, the procurement process in Ireland would not go that deep. The engagement process in the UK was over five months, with multiple meetings with the councils to really understand each other and not be led on price.

Have the witnesses done a note on that? If they could they put something in writing on it and send it to me, comparing the two systems, I would be very happy to take that up with the Office of Public Procurement.

I ask that the witnesses would share that with all of the committee.

I have a few questions around the affordability and accessibility of charging points. A recent response to a parliamentary question gives a breakdown of all grant types paid up to early November of this year. A total of 1,955 were paid in Cork and 5,923 were paid in Dublin. Approximately 45% of the total amount of grants paid were paid to those two counties. The average vehicle cost for private grants in 2021 was €57,000 and in 2023 it was €50,250. There seems to be a good take up in certain areas. The charging points map that was provided by EZO shows a good concentration around Dublin and Cork but not so many across the south west, for example, where supply is very tight. I am glad that Mr. Cash mentioned Cahersiveen because people in peripheral regions do not have the same access to public transport.

They are slow, even if they could afford it, to purchase cars that require having to stop at Barack Obama Plaza or somewhere in Kildare on the way to and from Dublin. My sister-in-law was in Shanghai recently and she said 80% of cars there are electric. Electric car usage is not only good for the environment, keeping in mind the risk we face of €26 billion in fines, but she also said the silence, because of the lowered noise impact, in the city was striking.

Everyone accepts we need to increase the take-up of electric vehicles. A number of the witnesses have studied what is being done with charging points in the UK and around Europe. What needs to be done by way of grants and incentives? Reference was made to housing and associated infrastructure demand but the elephant in the room is data centres and the amount of energy they use, which is putting extra pressure on the grid. What have the witnesses seen in other countries in Europe in terms of increased charging posts and incentives to increase the purchase of electric vehicles?

From an industry point of view, we would, ideally, like a five- to ten-year view on grant structures and taxation around EVs. The main focus probably should be on investment plans. It is about knowing in advance about the phasing out of internal combustion engines, ICEs. We need that sort of security for the industry to enable us to forecast, and an investment-----

Mr. Kinsella would like a plan for five to ten years' time.

Yes. We need more long-term plans and structures in place. As an EV driver for the past 12 years, the incentives and grant funding are excellent. It is a great way of getting people out of vehicles with internal combustion engines and onto public transport or into electric vehicles. However, when people start looking at different grants and subsidies and there is a specific sum they are relying on to make the change, that value may not be there in six months or a year. People need to be able to take a step back. It is quite a substantial investment, not just in the vehicle itself but also the installation of a home charger, with 90% of charging being done at home. The other side of this is that a lot of people coming into the market are looking at other forms of generation within the home. Financially, it is a big commitment for them. For our members, we are looking for a little more security to enable us to forecast a number of years ahead and make plans.

With the average cost of a vehicle at €50,000, what about tiering the grants for people who are purchasing cheaper or even second-hand cars? Another idea would be focusing grants on people in rural areas, where the take-up is not as high.

We need to look at all aspects. Luckily, we are starting to see an increase in the second-hand vehicle market, which means there is a lot more choice out there. Mr. Hall might have more to say on that.

The grants follow through into the second-hand vehicles market and the home charger grant is still there for the vehicles no matter where they are. Going back to grid constraints in outlying areas, we touched upon the enhancement for the battery. That makes more and more obvious sense. We know there are grid constraints out there but we can solve them by enhancing it with a battery alongside it. It has been explained how this will solve the industry in the outlying locations where we have these problems.

There are another couple of incentives. Community measures are the best way to do it. We should be giving sustainability community groups the option of having a charging hub and a good, low-emissions or zero-emissions transport system. As EZO and Mr. Cash and his team pointed out, battery is a great concept. Reference was made to regulations, guidelines and standards around batteries. They are already in place. There is a certain amount of modernisation required; there is a system called distributed energy resources. If we end up having microgrid systems dotted around the country, this is where we really come together as a community group. We do it for ourselves, we help each other and we have energy security around it. That is where the peace of mind is. I know this from going from driving EVs with very small batteries to where we are today.

I am short on time. I see Mr. Baker wants to come in. I also asked about how things are done in other countries.

By way of a quick introduction, I am from Enterprise Mobility and, as part of MPI, I represent the car-sharing and rental companies as well. Within that, we have GoCar and Yukõ by Toyota.

What we see in other countries, particularly the UK and Germany, is that the grants are available to the rental companies as well, not just the private market. That means their EVs are then commercially viable. One of the challenges we see is that the rate for renting an EV is pretty much in line with that for renting ICE vehicles but the margins are far lower. Going back to the question of what the Government can do, if the grants were available to rental companies as well, those vehicles would be much more feasible, we would then get more EVs into the market and get them into the mobility hubs, which would give far more access to the vehicles.

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements and for making the time to be with us this morning. I have a few different issues to raise with the various witnesses.

My first question is to Mobility Partnership Ireland. I am hearing a lot about the need for regulation of e-scooters to ensure they are trackable and so on. In Italy, Germany and Paris, variants of the same regime have been introduced and there have been statements by rental companies there about the impact on the market. Among the proposals we are exploring in the committee is a requirement to register the vehicles, that users have operating permits that do not allow them to go above 20 km/h and requirements regarding insurance. I accept insurance is not as much of an issue for rental companies but I would like a steer from the witnesses on their views in this regard.

Is the Deputy asking specifically about scooters?

Yes.

Everything he outlined is really important. There absolutely must be regulation. We all see, walking down the street, people flying around on scooters. It is very clear this practice is unregulated and unsafe. Regulation needs to be introduced in a sensible way. Scooters form a really important part of the mobility hubs. None of us is a solution on our own. We need to combine to cover all aspects of the journey for the user. I absolutely agree with the Deputy that scooters must be regulated in the same way as elsewhere.

The taxsaver scheme idea caught my eye when I read about it. In terms of the infrastructure to put that in place, what sort of lead-in time would we be looking at to get to the virtual card functionality and so on?

Technically, that is not hugely difficult to do. There are already schemes in place, such as the One4all and Me2You cards, where a virtual card can be white-labelled and ring-fenced for certain companies. That technology exists and it would not be massively difficult to implement.

It it just a question of policy change and then enabling it.

I move now to electric charging. The witnesses outlined in their opening statements that the challenge we face is in scaling up very quickly and delivering the chargers we need, which I accept, and the issues with the connections around the grid. I have a question on battery, which I am not sure who is best placed to answer. What is the cost blocker or barrier with the batteries? It was clearly outlined that there is pressure on the grid and that while there is significant investment happening in the grid, the question is whether it will happen in time for the massive scaling up of chargers we need across the country. Batteries seem to me the way out in this regard but I am not fully informed about the related costs. Will one of the witnesses explain what the issue is in terms of cost and how realistic it is to look to batteries as an option?

I will start on that question before passing over to Mr. Cash to discuss the costing exercise. One of the big issues with the batteries is around policies on installing them. I can provide further information to the committee on this later. We will probably have to start looking at a private wires scenario by way of policy. We need a hybrid connection really. We need to be able to utilise the battery for the charging station but, likewise, we must also be able to use the battery to support the grid and be grid-tied, so we have an islandable microgrid system set within a charging infrastructure. There are cost implications of that, which Mr. Cash might outline.

Does legislation exist at the moment to enable private wires or is there an issue with legislation?

No, it is not there yet. It is getting close.

Okay, but it will be legally possible very soon.

Physically it is very possible. In a perfect world, we would love to do it. We would love to look at bidirectional charging, with vehicle to grid and vehicle-----

I get the point Mr. Kinsella is making that the new Bill that is being flagged will cover it.

In relation to costings, it is a very complex area and no one product is the same. What might be helpful for the Cathaoirleach and all of the members would be if we were to follow up with a typical example of what it looked like with a breakdown of the costs, what the total life funding cost would be - these things have to be in for 20 years and maintained - and to give an idea of the scale of investment that is needed. This type of investment allows us to harness the renewable energy that we should be able to produce. It gives Ireland as a country energy security. We all know how important that is going forward. Maybe I can follow up with the Cathaoirleach and members with a one-pager that breaks down all of the costs and gives a full lifetime analysis. We can follow up with that after the meeting.

I will move to another issue related to consumer costs. I get the issue around scaling in it. The visions laid out in the documents are clear on what needs to be done there. It is achievable. Constituents are coming to me now and they make the very fair point that when they go to charge their vehicles on the street, as opposed to charging it at home, it is more cost-effective for them to have a diesel vehicle than an electrical vehicle, such is the cost differential between what they are paying at home versus on the street. I am conscious that we are talking about the infrastructure piece, but I would like to get a steer from the alliance and EZO on what their thoughts are on the cost piece. What can we do with regard to that?

The single biggest cost would be the energy they are consuming. If you look at the average range per kW is probably between 65 cent and 70 cent. A total of 9% of that is VAT, which is standard for all electricity. The input cost to us is probably from 28 cent to 32 cent. A big portion of that is made up of the actual cost of electricity.

To add to that, there are different types of charging. There is the DC fast charging and the AC slow trickle charging. The DC fast charging carries significant investment in infrastructure costs; the AC less so. The best scenario is to work on the AC charging overnight in the form of what we would call neighbourhood charging. That could be done at reduced rates, which would work very well for those without private driveways. I think that is probably what the Deputy was referring to. They could get near the home charging rates.

We might come back to that. The last question I have relates to the security of the cables. I know this is something that a number of suppliers have already flagged with me in my constituency. Newcastle is an area where there have been issues with the cables in the past. Is this an ongoing conversation with An Garda Síochána? Is it something the witnesses are factoring in to planning of how to mitigate that or how to address that in the future? Do the witnesses foresee it to be an issue in terms of the security of the cables at the charging station?

The cables are not an issue for us yet. I think ten machines were damaged in Dublin. We are watching it. There are preventative measures that the manufacturers have designed relating to dye around the cables, but ultimately they only seek to be deterrents to stop poor behaviours and poor-----.

While it is not an issue for Mr. Fitzgerald, it ultimately has an impact on the success of the overall infrastructure. Is that right?

It could. In those sites, it was ten weeks before they were operational again. I refer to the manufacturer. We hold a stock of cables. We hope it does not happen. To the Deputy's point, it adds to the cost and risk for us.

There can be a lot of doom and gloom about the achievement of our overall climate targets and the sectoral climate targets. It is important that the witnesses have highlighted what has been achieved, particularly in terms of electric vehicles, that target by the end of this year of having 195,000 on the roads. I get regularly told when I am out knocking on doors that we are nowhere near our EV targets, but we actually are. We are on target. It is important that we say that because when it comes to climate action, I do not think we celebrate successes enough. The witnesses have also rightly highlighted that the next bit is going to be really hard. There has to be a steep increase in terms of the move to EVs. They have highlighted the importance of the infrastructure in delivering that. Mr. Kinsella noted that the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council gave a figure of about €4 billion needed to provide that infrastructure between now and 2030. Is that a figure that is broadly agreed by the witnesses? Is €4 billion the figure for infrastructure? Is it more or less?

I think the number is about right.

A new EV strategy is coming out for 2026 to 2028. Is there a date for when that will be published?

We were just told it will be in the next number of weeks. It will be before Christmas.

Are the witnesses clear that this is going to come with a funding package behind it?

Not at the moment.

There is no clarity on the funding for the infrastructure to get us to that €4 billion figure. Do the witnesses know which Department that funding will come from? Up to now, has it been the Department of energy or the Department of Transport that provides it? It is all coming from the Department of Transport. We know the Department of Transport is bringing out its sectoral action plan today. Are the witnesses hoping for clarity today in terms of them hoping to see a clear figure beside EV charging today?

This is an ongoing process. We first rolled out chargers in Ireland in 2010. We need to continue up to 2030 and beyond. Every step along the way is a good step. We take learnings from it and we make a better step the next time. We look forward to whatever is announced. We will take learnings from that and move forward. To the Deputy's point, it is fantastic that Ireland has achieved a number of electric vehicles. If we add to that momentum by adding the infrastructure, people will realise. To Deputy Moynihan's point about charging, if people avail of the SEAI solar grants, they can fuel their car for free. A total of 95% of journeys are near home. It is only one in so many journeys that goes a long way. We look forward to the announcement.

For clarity, the witnesses are expecting to see a figure beside charging infrastructure today. We do not what that figure will be. Is that important for the private sector enterprises in terms of having that degree of certainty that funding is available?

It is really important. As a Deputy said earlier, for us, we have roughly 30 rapid DC chargers in Mayo. As we build a network in rural Ireland, we take a gamble because it is chicken and egg. We have to build the network for the people to get the cars. For us, it is really important to have that support from the Government for that infrastructure because it takes a long time to pay back. The private sector is happy to take that risk, but ultimately we need that support to make all of the locations in rural and non-prime locations available, because that is how the network will work nationally. It cannot just be in the big supermarkets in the big towns and nowhere else.

We will all be looking closely at the figures coming out later today and look closely at that capital funding for EV charging figure.

To move on, this time last year we were in the middle of the general election campaign. I remember advocating for a Green Party policy to make the taxsaver public transport card more flexible. The witnesses might take us through the stats on the taxsaver again. Mr. Cooney might elaborate.

Going back to when it was first introduced in 1999, 60,000 people took part in the taxsaver scheme. It is down to 25,000.

That is a huge drop from 60,000 to 25,000. What is Mr. Cooney's sense of the reason for that? Is it flexible working?

That is a big part of it. The taxsaver scheme is very beneficial when you are commuting five days a week because it is the same price whether you buy a monthly or annual ticket, whether you use the bus or the train every day or five days a week. Working from home has impacted it in a big way.

That is one of the points we were making this time last year, that the taxsaver scheme is great but it has not evolved to match the changing patterns and the huge change we saw in work patterns post Covid. Would non-PAYE employees be able to benefit from the proposal being brought forward by MPI as well? That has often been a critique of taxsaver.

It does not directly replicate what the taxsaver scheme does.

It is a payroll deduction, so it is not in that sense. As Mr. Evans alluded to, if someone had €1,000 on their virtual card, the Department of Social Protection could make the payment to that virtual card on behalf of people who are not doing it through their payrolls. Showing the benefit of how significantly digital payments have evolved over the past number of years, something like this could be introduced widely. It would not just be ring-fenced for people in employment.

That would be really positive.

Returning to the issue of the battery banks beside chargers, Mr. Cash said planning is not the issue. Is it legislative issues or policy issues that are creating a barrier there?

EirGrid is the authority that looks after the national grid, and there are rules of engagement with the national grid. I think this is a great idea. If we had 10,000 charging locations, all with storage of electricity, we would have an alternative feed of electricity back into the grid different from the traditional feed of electricity which came from power stations. The rules of engagement will need to be rewritten and changed to accommodate a new player or players being on the field.

Is that a legislative issue or a policy issue?

With respect, that is something I could not answer authoritatively. I suggest we refer that question to EirGrid or ESB Networks.

That would be really useful. I thank Mr. Cash.

I know ESB Networks is looking at it and we await its guidance.

I thank the witnesses for giving their time today. Mr. Kinsella mentioned all the companies his organisation represents. Many EV chargers require that a customer download a specific app or that their card payments can only be processed through a specific app rather than at the charger itself. There are 22 different EV charger apps available. It is not exactly a user-friendly experience with so many different apps and accounts that people have to set up and so on. Have Mr. Kinsella or any of his members done any work to streamline that process and bring it all together?

The industry is evolving all the time. At the moment, people can make contactless payments - those are just credit card payments - on DC chargers. In time, there will be plug-in charge, meaning that people will literally plug their vehicle into the charger and there are no apps involved at all. The industry is evolving.

How will the payment work with that?

It is set up in a back-office system, but there is no app involved. It is just the car directly to-----

I might just add that we follow the alternative fuel infrastructure regulation, AFIR. As a result, interoperability will be a requirement within Europe. That is coming through. We have to hit different targets by certain dates. The Deputy mentioned the public payment system. I think that came in sometime last year. There will be changes at certain times over the next few years for the regulation to be adhered to.

Deputy Moynihan spoke about pricing. This issue has been raised with me quite a bit. Electricity providers are providing an EV charging tariff of 15 cent per unit of electricity compared with a standard rate of 59 cent for one public charger operator. Obviously, many households do not have the option. Someone might be living in rented accommodation and the landlord does not allow it. Could the State introduce any incentives to address the issue of affordability.

It could reduce the VAT rate from 9% to zero. The biggest element of the input cost is the electricity itself, which costs around 30 cent per kilowatt to the operator. Those are two things that could be looked at - the input cost and reducing the VAT rate.

There is also the shared living scheme run by the SEAI. We have not been successful nationally because it requires apartment block management companies to provide the money upfront. We and our competitors have probably worked to do that, and we do that. We could do a better job nationally at shared living accommodations, places where there are apartments, to support those entities to drive lower-cost property AC overnight charges to those developments.

What specific changes would Mr. Fitzgerald propose to that scheme?

I do not know the change, but I know the challenge was that management companies had to pay put money up front. They often do not have that money. I understand the reason that was probably in place, but it needs to be looked at to try to ultimately get more AC charging in places where people do not have driveways. We would support that, but we found it difficult because the uptake of the scheme nationally was quite disappointing.

Mr. Kinsella mentioned the upcoming publication of the new EV infrastructure strategy. Does he have any specific recommendations as to what should be included in this new strategy?

My original statement referred to removing the barriers on the EV infrastructure side and Government investment in that. We are looking to see it when it comes out. It is long overdue. It is nice that it is being introduced in 2028 and we are not pushing it out to 2030. We have had a number of issues and concerns over the past few years over the infrastructure roll-out. I refer back to my statement about the difficulties we are currently experiencing with the grid connections and some of the friction and policies with planning. We will probably have to wait and see. We are just being positive about it at the moment.

My next questions are for Mobility Partnership Ireland. How many of its members operate in a rural and regional areas? What plans does it have to expand to those areas that are underserved at the moment?

In terms of the car share and car rental sectors, we operate in most of the rural areas. Specifically, Enterprise has the car-sharing service through Car Club. We also have an extensive branch network, operating in over 30 locations across Ireland. All that means is that we are close to a lot of our customers. Although we are talking about mobility hubs and car sharing, we also see rental vehicles as very much part of same that same solution as well. They really help people to give up private vehicles and access transport solutions in those more rural areas. It is something we have coverage on, but we are continuing to invest. For example, we are expecting another three locations in 2026 and we will continue to grow from there as well.

Does Mobility Partnership Ireland have any specific targets in terms of inclusion for people with disabilities and making the services it offers more accessible for people in the years ahead?

Private vehicle ownership and even access to some rental vehicles can be quite expensive. The mobility hubs give people on low incomes the opportunity to access EVs at a more affordable rate. They can rent a vehicle by the hour. There definitely is a focus on that and we really see that as a benefit. When we are talking to local authorities about hosting Car Club within their regions, one of the things that should be considered is that people from lower income households should have access to vehicles. That has huge knock-on effects in other areas because socioeconomically it means they have transport available, perhaps to get them to job interviews or to training. We see a huge number of knock-on effects from that.

What about people with disabilities?

We partner with different companies to help adapt our vehicles. We also work with insurance companies so that when we provide replacement vehicles for people whose cars have been involved in accidents, we want to have a solution that is accessible to the whole population. The companies we partner with will adapt vehicles in preparation for people who need them.

I thank the witnesses for coming in and for their opening addresses.

I have questions for Mr. Kinsella and Mr. Hall. Planning is an issue as evidenced by the 12-month delay. I believe it was proposed to have a pilot scheme to connect chargers to lamp posts in Malahide in 2021. Did that happen? Would it be a solution to install small-scale places with charging points in the interim while awaiting larger projects?

It is a solution. From an electrical point of view, however, as the current infrastructure - as in the lamp-posts - uses a different type of electrical system and earthing, we have some safety concerns. Realistically, the way around that, for safety aspects is that it has to be a new installation. We cannot really utilise the current wiring that is in the lamp- post infrastructure that we have nationally.

Have the pilot projects finished or are they still going?

I am not too sure. I think there was another two. I know there were a few in Sandyford industrial estate. It is a great concept and a great solution.

It is a great concept, yes.

It is just the practicalities-----

And the infrastructure is there.

-----of it did not really kick off due to the requirements of the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI, and some of the regulations and safety standards.

Can we, as a committee, do anything around that if it is a good idea and a simpler one rather than waiting for big, long planning projects?

It still has implications from an infrastructure and civil installation. There are still cost implications for that too.

Yes.

It needs to be looked at and I am sure our members probably look at it.

One of the things about lamp-post supplies is that most of it is unmetered, whereas if it were a metered supply then it could be facilitated. Virtual metering is not a thing in Ireland whereas it is possible abroad. So it would be a case of getting our heads around that really.

It is an option and I know they do this abroad.

I agree that it is an option but the consideration needs to be examined from the points of view of safety and standards.

My next questions are for Ms Cash and Mr. Chatten. I know that charging points have been installed in Lidl in Sligo, which is fantastic, and I know there is a move to have faster charging. What about older cars that might not be able to use the faster charging system and obviously the batteries do not last as long? Will there be public provision for older cars as well?

Most of the chargers that were installed from 2010 had the capability to charge the older cars and newer cars. It is a different type of plug and system. None of the older cars with that plug system have been manufactured since 2019. What we find is that those cars when they were manufactured did not have a huge range anyhow so they tended to be used in the neighbourhood where people lived where, typically, they either had a home charger or those old chargers with the old-type of plug that were installed - of which there were about 1,000 - and they are still there. There is a reasonable coverage of chargers with the old plug still out there to cover a dwindling cohort of vehicles so it is not really an issue. The bigger issue is to expand upon where we are at now and cater for the flood of new cars that can come on the road. It is not in huge terms a practical challenge.

A lot of people cannot afford to buy EVs so older cars still have a use. I am thinking of friends of mine in my area. It is a rural area and they are constricted from going on long journeys because they are worried all the time. Should there be more investment in that to provide a public service?

On our public network at the moment that type of charging socket - the CHAdeMO - would be in low single digits. We see very low usage of that in the public arena. In the two years that I have been in this role, the number has dropped from double digits to single digits. In answer to the question, a lot of those folks charge at home so home chargers are critical for them. The range will be shorter but the vehicles are still viable because a lot of journeys that people make are actually short.

Battery storage is a great idea. How large are they? We spoke about planning. Is there a need to change the planning law to facilitate batteries being stored underground? Is there any way they could be stored underground?

Of course they can but there would be knock-on effects. There are standards around the operational usage, so the charge and discharge of a battery, which is called an S-system. The regulation will add quite substantial financial implications to it. It would not really be financially viable. As Mr. Cash mentioned, people can get a 1 MW battery that fits in a container, which is quite a substantial electrical loading. There are smaller footprints the size of an old-style metal filing cabinet. They go up to about 100 kW or 200 kW hours and then there is a larger scale. They are like a Lego system which means they can all be put together, and be added to and changed around.

That is great. I want to ask Mr. Cooney and Mr. Baker about the taxsaver scheme. How would the taxsaver scheme work if it was all incorporated into the Leap card? How will the scheme where the two are combined together? I know about the problems but how do they see things?

We would see a digital platform where money is lodged, and people could log into their account and decide whether to use some of the money to top up a Leap card, an Enterprise Car Club account or ePower bank account. People could log in and decide what whitelisted sustainable transport services you want to spend that money on.

The move to include non-PAYE workers would be something that we, as a committee, could discuss further. Has analysis been done on the viability of the VAT rate reduction? Will it be passed to the user? What is the justification for reducing the VAT rate on bike hire?

The straight answer is that it is unlikely to be passed over to the user but it will prevent price increases that would otherwise be necessary to cover the increasing cost of doing business. The plan is for it to offset forthcoming price increases.

If we got a VAT reduction for the EV sector it would be passed on to the consumer.

My questions are from the point of view of the guy or lady who is sitting at home thinking about buying an EV car and who is concerned about the cost, range and a lack of public charging infrastructure. First, it is good to see and I agree with Deputy O'Gorman, that we are due to exceed our target of 195,000 EV cars by the end of this year. What number is expected at the end of this year? Is it above or around 195,000 EV cars? Does anybody know?

We achieved that target in September. It is probably overachieved now.

The 195,000 figure was a target for the end of 2025 and we exceeded that in September.

Yes.

Does the figure of 195,000 cars represent pure electric cars or include plug-in hybrids?

I think it is an amalgamation of both.

It is a combination of both of them.

Zero-emissions and low-emissions vehicles.

Of that percentage of 195,000 cars that was achieved in September, how many are fully electric and how many are plug-in hybrid?

That information is available and we would have to come back to the Chair with it.

That is fine.

The Society of the Irish Motor Industry, SIMI, will have that information as well.

How many of the 195,000 car owners have home chargers and how many fully depend on public charging infrastructure?

All the early adoptors would have home chargers. Between 80% and 90% of all charging is done at home.

I drive a plug-in hybrid vehicle and use my home charger. I have had plug-in hybrids for three or four years and in all that time I have never used a public charging station. I do not have to use one. I get my 100 km range on my car and use a small amount of petrol, and charge the vehicle in the evening. It is my wife who really uses the vehicle. Of the figure of 195,000 vehicles, how many people just charge their vehicles at home? I want to discuss the EU and the really ambitious target to install a fast-charging station for every 11 cars and the need to scale up to 50,000. Is it fair to say that if nothing changes then that target is impossible to achieve?

I will take that. We engaged a Paris-based consultancy firm in 2021 called E-CUBE. We explained to it our view in terms of the future for Ireland and we compared that with the European view. It challenged our views initially. We are satisfied that Ireland can meet the needs of 630,000 vehicles with 10,000 chargers as opposed to 50,000. In simple terms, when any of us leaves here today, we can only drive 200 km or thereabouts in most directions before we need a boat. A lot of the new EVs have a 400 km range. We will not need the level of public charging infrastructure that is referred to in the EU. That being said, we still need to accelerate and we will still need 10,000.

It has taken us 15 years to get to 1,500 chargers. We are trying to get to 10,000 within the next five years. What I want to zone in on relates to where nothing changes from an investment, regulatory and legislative point of view and if there is no structural change in ESB Networks. Will each of the groups go on the record in terms of what they think a realistic target is by 2030 for fast charging, if nothing changes and if the status quo remains? Maybe the EV alliance would speak first.

Is the Cathaoirleach talking about the target of the vehicles?

No, the target of chargers, first of all. We have a target for vehicles, which is 630,000 by 2030. We will leave that to one side. In terms of the 10,000 fast chargers that are needed to reach the target by 2030, to what extent are we going to scale up from our current number of 1,500 if nothing changes? I am not even sure about that figure. We are at 1,500, and I believe it was mentioned that some might be added. Mr. Cash spoke about "1,500 ... where fast chargers are either installed or can be added." I am not clear exactly what that means. To get to the target of 10,000 fast chargers by 2030, what is a realistic target if nothing changes?

Probably adding 500 to 600 a year. It costs in excess of €100,000 to roll out a 200 kW charger, for example, and for the private sector to finance that by itself is a considerable investment.

Maybe 500 or 600 a year. Over the next five years, there would be another 2,500. There may then be 4,000 fast chargers. Would Mr. Hall agree?

Between the various schemes that are out there, the light duty vehicle, LDV1 and LDV2, on the different road networks and the sports clubs grants, there are probably 500 to 600 chargers involved that the industry has sight of. The rest of it is coming from private because the public procurement has not come through yet.

I am the guy sitting at home listening to that. It does not encourage me to buy an EV, which will have a knock-on impact in terms of achieving that target. What I want to zone in on now is what elements need to change from a Government perspective and an ESB Networks perspective. I will ask the alliance first of all. What needs to change in 2026?

On the grid side of it, we know there is investment coming in transport and in grid but we also need to see transparency around the grid as well. ESBN has a lot on its plate - that is well understood - but we are all trying to work with the various bodies. There are investors in play behind everybody. Investors will invest where they can see a return but if they do not know when the return is going to come because the information is not available, for example, if we do not know whether a site will go live this year, next year or in three years' time because we do not have that visibility, how do you place an investment into different locations? The industry needs visibility.

My time is up. Does Mr. Cash want to comment on what needs to change?

We have ZEVI doing its thing. It is fantastic. That should continue. The private sector is trying to do its thing but it is not receiving the level of funding that is being allocated to public. In simple terms, incentivise. Tell the private sector that if it has shovel-ready sites, it should go and develop them and get them up and running, and if they are up and running within two years, the State will contribute to the cost of getting them up and running.

We have a great relationship with Eir. We agreed with it that we would bring 244 sites live around Ireland in 2019. Of those, we only managed to get 108 live because there was not engagement. If we get engagement and partnership, two strings on your bow is better than one. We would say that the Government should fund local authorities, but the Government should also use a carrot and stick for the private sector. It should tell the private sector to go and get them in the ground and that it will reward the sector, but if the sector fails to get them in the ground within two years, then the reward is off the table. People like us, Mr. Hall and others in the industry have hundreds, if not thousands, of sites that we can turn on immediately. A two-strand approach would be the single biggest ask.

For that two-year timeframe, I presume Mr. Cash needs structural change. He needs that transparency and he needs that structural change within ESB Networks as well.

ESBN's oversight, especially from the network point of view.

I have gone over time. Deputy Currie is just after arriving. I will allow the other member in as well.

I thank the witnesses for being here today. Sustainable transport is an interesting, but important, topic. Obviously, we spend a lot of time talking about public transport but that idea of connecting the dots and the last mile, and offering commuters, passengers and travellers extra choice in the sustainability agenda, is important.

Last week, I received the reply to a parliamentary question about the fall-off in commuters availing of the taxsaver, which seems counterproductive, given the scale of the challenge in decarbonising transport. Can MPI tell us more about its proposal to reform the taxsaver and how it will benefit commuters?

I thank Deputy Currie. On the fall-off - Deputy O'Gorman was asking about it - we all know commuter habits have changed significantly since Covid. The taxsaver scheme was devised at a time when we all worked five days a week and there was no alternative. It just needs to be broadened. Our suggestion is to broaden it by allowing more forms of transport, such as the shared mobility sector, to avail of it. That could be done in two strands. The first is if it replicated the way the taxsaver scheme works today, namely, as a salary sacrifice. Second, an important part of it is that it takes advantage of digital payment solutions that are available today. It is a kind of account-based system where, for example, you will avail of €100 a month. That goes into your online sustainable travel wallet account and then it is up to you to choose what transport services you will purchase with that €100. The way that will be controlled is that the €100 will not be spent on other things. It would only work on white-listed services such as the operators that are part of MPI and any other sustainable transport solution that the Government felt should benefit from it.

None of these concepts is new. They are all based on projects and schemes that exist today. We hope that the committee will see that the taxsaver scheme served a good purpose when it was devised in 1999. Things have changed significantly. It is 26 years on. Hopefully, this can breathe new life into the need to incentivise people.

Is there an opportunity to rebrand and make it less about savings for commuters and more about stepping into more sustainable options in transport?

What needs to be done to transition car share and car rental fleets to EV? Is it down to grants such as those taxis can avail of or is it down to an EU mandate as proposed by the EU?

Grants would certainly help.

We spoke earlier about how making the vehicles more affordable on the front end definitely meant you could pass those savings on to the end user and they could rent those vehicles. That is one of the challenges at the moment.

The second point is the residual values of those EVs. It makes it very difficult to sell them on the back end because we just do not know the cost of those vehicles. It is hard for a business to invest in them. The EU greening corporate fleets is a big concern for all of us across the shared vehicle sector. It is looking to mandate everybody within the car sharing and rental sector to purchase electric vehicles based on EU set targets, as I am sure everyone knows. The issue is it is not led by customer demand currently or business suitability. That proposal from the EU is due on 10 December, which some members may be aware of already. It was going to be an ask from us for the committee to take a close look at that proposal and convene a separate session on the impact, particularly in the context of shared mobility, which we are all keen to grow across the country. The EU proposal would put shared mobility growth at risk in the shared vehicle sector, particularly in rural areas, which was asked about earlier, which rely on rental vehicles for residents and tourists alike.

What actual additionality can bike share and car share bring to the transport system and to reducing transport emissions?

It can get people out of their own private vehicles. We know that once people use a car share vehicle, they are not wedded to their second vehicle, so it allows them to give up that second vehicle. All the statistics show that once people use a car sharing service, they are much more likely to walk, use public transport and bikes, etc.

Does Mr. Baker have data on that?

We do. We partnered with different companies in the past that produce data on this. The Society of the Irish Motor Industry, SIMI, is one and Collaborative Mobility UK, CoMoUK, in the UK is similar. There is a lot of data on that. Perhaps we could share it with the committee afterwards.

That would be useful. What exactly would the Government need to do to extend taxsaver to shared mobility and introduce new digital solutions as Mr. Baker outlined? What are the steps?

There are two steps. First, there would need to be an amendment to the Taxes Consolidation Act because that defines what the taxsaver is today. Second, there would need to be an accelerated procurement process to appoint somebody to run this digital account-based system into which the moneys would go and users would pay. Those are the two next steps.

I am happy to let Deputy Heneghan in for four minutes.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. On the bottlenecks experienced across the board and foreshadowing what is coming, we all see the EVs being developed in China and Asia more widely. They are much cheaper options. The public will go for the cheaper option. From speaking to people on the doors and in the industry, there are huge issues with our grid and developments for EV charging. It is a huge priority for me in supporting the Government. Do the witnesses think private wire legislation would help the roll-out of EV charging? What about long-duration energy storage? How do they think that would help us reach our climate targets?

We discussed the battery containerised system - container battery energy storage system, or BESS - earlier. It is a solution for the grid restraints we have. From a timescale point of view, it is crucial that the private wires policy be pushed through as quickly as possible. There are certain incentives. A private wire is as simple as crossing a path. It could be a foot or two, a hybrid system or direct line services that would take the stress off the national grid and allow us to implement more infrastructure within the mobility sector.

It is great to hear the support. Given the cost per unit at the moment, especially with how people are installing their own EV charging points, do the witnesses think the Irish public could benefit if we rolled out private wires as a matter of urgency? The Government has developed its policy. I am currently working on mine as well. What are the key priorities for private wires to benefit the Irish public the most?

Innovation. We speak to the ESBN regularly. That innovation of form factor would be helpful for everyone in delivering the solution in the last mile, which was Mr. Kinsella's point about the driveway and the roadway. There are lots of solutions available - in-path, on-path, bollards, lamp posts. Currently, a lot of them are not acceptable in Ireland but are accepted in other European countries. In partnership with the ESBN, if that could be innovated through private wires, it would give us the capacity in local councils to have more solutions to tailor to users, not all of whom have driveways but who need charging.

That is exactly the point I am trying to get to. Mr. Fitzgerald mentioned the innovations and they are accepted in other European countries. Who determines these alternative solutions are not acceptable in Ireland?

ESBN.

Why is that? Have any of the witnesses had meetings with it?

I am not an expert in private wires - Mr. Kinsella would know more than I do - but if you are crossing or interfering with a pathway, there are rules about that, and with good reason. The challenge, which we are all talking about, is that we are in transition. This is an innovative sector. We have to adapt quickly. I hope in the coming months that there is quick private wires adaption and innovation.

I appreciate that. It is called the energy transition, but it is the "energy rip out and build another one" really. It is not really a transition. It is a nicer word for the public. If the witnesses had a magic wand and they could bring in the policy immediately, is there anything they would be worried about in terms of private wires that the Government should focus on, especially for the EV roll-out and growth of our fleet of EVs?

Short and sweet, no. It is just going to advance the installation of the infrastructure. It is the greater good. It takes the pressure off the national grid. It allows us to concentrate on other areas around housing and the electrical demands in terms of heat and industry advancements. It is a very positive area to be in. We need to expedite it as much as possible.

We will go to a second round of four or five minutes each, if members agree. I call Deputy Shane Moynihan, followed by Deputy O'Gorman.

To Mobility Partnership Ireland, one of the selling points the group has in the join-the-dots approach or the last-mile approach is around congestion and how it is addressed in our cities in the main. What thoughts do the witnesses have on congestion generally and the challenges it poses for the members of the organisation and the services they provide?

There is a lot of data that we can share with the committee afterwards about how shared mobility helps to reduce congestion in a city. From speaking to customers, the reason they have to travel in a private vehicle to their place of work is they rely on that vehicle for their onward journey. There is no provision for them when they get there. The onward journey is to a business meeting. If there is a provision for them when they get there such as a car share vehicle, that means they can then use another form of transport to get in, for example, the train or the bus. Instantly, that removes vehicles from the roads at busier times of the day when people are on their way to work.

Is there an estimate of what proportion of vehicles would be removed from the road?

It is one in eight. That is, for every car pool vehicle, we see eight privately owned vehicles taken off the road.

I would like to see that analysis. Will Mr. Baker share that with the committee afterwards?

On EVs, Ireland has a high concentration of its population in certain parts of the country and it is very spread out in others. We have a lot of people who live some distance from a town. What approach or thoughts have the witnesses given to the urban-rural split in the provision of chargers? As we saw with the national broadband plan and other such plans, there is a lot of infrastructure and coverage to provide in a country that has quite a dispersed population once you get outside the large urban centres.

The beauty about the rural areas is the majority of homes have private driveways. Home charging is very possible in those locations compared with the city where there are terraced houses.

What about the broader on-street piece?

Charging will still need to take place but more funding is required for that. It is not financially viable because the volume is not there. It requires funding in the more remote areas.

If we look to our history, when telephones came first, there was a telephone box in every town beside the church or supermarket. When water was first delivered, there was a water pump in every town and village.

What we say – it is important that this can happen – is that there be an electric charger in every town, village and neighbourhood area. The reason is that while most of the people who have an electric car in their driveway will have a charger, we need them to bring that electric car with them when they want to visit their friends and family or go on holidays. We need them to be able to get home and have the ability to charge quickly. My parents live in Piercetown, Wexford. When I go down there, I would like it if there were a charger in Piercetown, Wexford but it may not be financially viable because it is a small little village. We need people to be able to visit, charge and leave. To do that, it goes back to the thousands of charging locations we have in our pipeline that we can bring forward. They may not be so financially viable, but if the private sector is willing to invest, and public money is going to co-invest, these types of locations can be brought to market more quickly.

It can be done in doable, cost-efficient way.

Absolutely. We have thousands of those locations that we can develop quickly.

We have quite an extensive network in rural Ireland because we partner with Eir to roll out EV charging points where there were once phone boxes. We have done our bit to make that first step in building out in rural Ireland but we need more Government funding to continue that.

A lot of us in our homes are on electricity plans that give us a lower rate of electricity at night. Generally, my understandng of public chargers is that people cannot avail of a lower rate for night-time charging. Do the witnesses have any idea as to why that is?

Part of that is cost. Our input cost is the same whether it is day or night. We are on a 24-hour meter tariff, so costs are a big part of that.

Does that come back to the level of support the sector gets from the State with the capital cost?

Yes. Part of it is cost. If we look at battery solutions, we are looking to develop on night-time rates and we can pass them on to consumers as well.

The battery conversation we had earlier could be an important step to change that and allow a benefit from a night-time rate.

Yes, 100%.

Does Mr. Hall wish to come in on that point?

Yes. Neighbourhood charging is also there. On the AC side of it, it is everyone’s intention to attract night-time rates on the AC chargers. DC charging is a different and much heavier investment compared with AC trickle charging.

In Mr. Cash’s initial contribution, he described the overall electricity need as representing four Ardnacrusha power stations. We all know there is pressure on our grid at the moment. There is a national dialogue about data centres and their importance to the economy but also the huge sucking of energy they require. When we consider the amount of electricity that will be needed to power EVs and meet the targets we are looking to reach, does he feel there is an understanding in the public policy debate about how much energy will be needed for the EVs? Is that future need properly represented in that debate, particularly in a context where we still have to achieve our emission reduction targets on the climate side?

There is a recognition of the demand that electric vehicles will create. In addressing this demand, our proposal is that we are cognisant of that and we try to facilitate the charging of electric vehicles via battery and renewable energy that is captured at night time when energy is going to waste. There are many things that need to be done. One of the big ideas for Ireland is to have interconnectors. I think there is a second interconnector planned. We have great opportunities to harness renewable energy, primarily wind but also sun, believe or not, because it is about brightness. We can do a lot more ourselves. Energy security will be important going forward, but if we produce the wind at night time, we have to use it at night time or store it to use it the next day, hence the recommendation that battery consideration be given some greater focus.

Throughout a lot of the contributions here, the role of battery seems to be huge. We spoke earlier about the rules of engagement with ESB Networks. In Mr. Cash’s view, is this a priority for ESB Networks in terms of revising and preparing the grid for this new reality where battery storage is a much bigger part of it?

For the future, we have to rewrite the rule book. We have to make a choice. Someone recently said it is cows or cars. We need to feed ourselves but we can decarbonise transport with renewable energy. We cannot have less agriculture because it feeds us. We can decarbonise transport, however. We can do it quickly by harnessing these new innovations and technologies that, in many cases, are actually blocked by old regulations that were written for the old days and old times. I am old. There are new times coming and we now need to think about these new times. We need to think about the new challenges that will face us, in particular energy security, and rewrite the rule book. Tear up the old one, start again and do it quickly because time is not on our side. On that note, there are huge fines coming for Ireland if we do not deliver on those carbon targets. We are not talking about millions or billions of euro but, rather, €20 billion, €22 billion or €23 billion.

It is €26 billion.

We have an opportunity. The innovations are there. They are tried and tested in other jurisdictions. We only need to review our rule book to be able to avail of them. Companies like ours have the know-how, capability, appetite and experience to implement those quickly.

Would the witnesses benefit from having an approach to this similar to the likes of the national broadband plan? The national broadband plan became a national drive, whereas when it comes to electric vehicles, sometimes it is seen as a consumer decision. With regard to that transition piece, although everyone is behind it, it feels like it needs a bigger presence for the country to make the transition. That would also incorporate the big questions around the energy grid, sustainability and how we support the transition. Obviously, the national broadband plan was a national project. This would have to be done differently from a financial and funding perspective. How would the witnesses foresee a plan like that working in partnership with the Government to really grasp this opportunity and the transition that is required?

I see that as a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. With the national broadband plan, the demand is already there. We are in the digital age so that requirement is there already. In the case of the EV world, we reached 195,000 vehicles in September. We will reach over 200,000 vehicles by the end of December, but we have to get that to 630,000. Then we will have demand. That is what we have got to work on in order to follow the broadband plan, really.

Just as broadband was the big issue in the last election, we have an historic moment now because if we do not move quickly – we can move quickly – we expect that carbon emissions, our tax bills in that regard and the de-electrification of transport, whether it happens, to be big issues. There is always some surprise topic that influences an election. That could be the big one in two or three years’ time. We have an opportunity if we act right now, with a two-pronged approach, that is, both Government and private sector initiatives. They will get us there faster. That is what we suggest be considered.

That partnership is important.

Instead of starting from now and going forward, maybe we should start from 2030 and come backwards. Start with that €26 billion fine that is staring all of us in the eyes and work backwards from there to see how we can eliminate or reduce that fine with the adoption of EVs and so forth. We know we have to face this in 2030.

The other area in which we have an opportunity, in the context of partnering with the Government, is looking at business travel.

It is an area that is not being considered on the whole when we talk about decarbonising transport. There is a real opportunity with the NTA mobility hubs the Government is looking to support. We can look at how we can mandate it so that public sector travel actually utilises the mobility hubs that are going to be in place as the first point of call. By doing that, we are getting people out of their privately owned vehicles. The Society of the Irish Motor Industry has done some research on this. The average age of a privately owned vehicle is ten years and 50% of privately owned vehicles are older than ten years. They are big polluting vehicles. There is an opportunity to get people out of those vehicles and into these mobility hubs. On top of that, we will get all the other savings we have spoken about already, not to mention the huge cost saving in that because that mileage reimbursement point is a huge cost to the public sector. A lot of funding will be going into these mobility hubs already. We can move some of that cost away and put it into those mobility hubs and make them a long-term success. One of the challenges with that is the funding will dry up with those mobility hubs and if we do not have a commercially sustainable model, it will fall away in a few years' time. There is an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate what the best in class could look like.

That is an excellent idea. I thank Mr. Baker and the other witnesses for their time today.

We still have some time remaining. Would Deputy Moynihan like to come back in?

On the financial balance sheet issue that was raised earlier and the financial firepower to deliver it, I got a bit lost in the detail. Can Mr. Chatten talk me through how that is different from what is happening at the moment? When we see other companies tender for this sort of work in other countries, what is the key difference between that and tendering in Ireland?

When we took part in the tender in Scotland it was front and centre. We had to demonstrate we had the funding in place to do the roll-out. I have not seen that in Irish tenders.

From EVCAI's point of view, is that an issue? Has it been flagged and would it expedite the process?

It comes back to responsibility too. We do not want to see momentum stalled or additional timeframes put on the infrastructure going forward. Clarification at an early stage is warranted.

As time allows, I will ask Mr. Cooney, Mr. Kinsella and Mr. Cash make some closing remarks.

The main thing we wanted to focus on today was the broadening of the taxsaver scheme. We have done a lot of work on this and we have a lot of documentation on it. We hope we can work alongside the committee as we go into next year to present that to members' colleagues in Government and see it come about in the near term, rather than it being something that is lightly talked about every few years. We will follow up with that documentation. I am hopeful of further engagement on it.

I commend Mr. Cash. He gave a good overview of the critical areas we need to get to. We are here discussing cars. We also have to consider the electrification of our bus network. As somebody who has been involved in the industry and within the mobility sector for the last 12 years, I am privileged to have been in multiple discussions and conversations after the fact. Now is the time we should learn from mistakes and go forward. We have seen that with the local authorities and so on. I will leave it to members to go into that issue. Going forward, we have to look at the heavy fleet vehicles and the charging of our networks for our trucks and truck stops and how we can utilise that. BESS, battery systems, microgrid systems, digitisation of our national grid are where we need to be at today. We need an islandable system. Geographically, we are an island and we need a microgrid system within Ireland, or multitudes of microgrid systems, to supply the energy and have that security for industry and transportation going forward.

It has been a great privilege and opportunity to have this discussion. It has been a positive discussion. Lots of ideas have been aired and heard. It is incumbent on us, and not only from a financial point of view when we worry about carbon fines and so on, to think about the next generation. We need to think about our children and grandchildren and we need to do the right thing. Deputy Daly spoke earlier about being in another country where there was silence and clean air. That is an aspiration we can work towards. It is not just about money; it is about working together to deliver what is best for Ireland. Working together is all about partnerships between the Government and the private sector. We are in a privileged position that we have great financial backers. We work with a company called Rubicon which has helped us get to the point we are at right now. We can go forward. We can raise the money to make this happen in partnership with Government and we can do the right thing. I thank the Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach. We look forward to having follow-on engagements.

I thank all the witnesses for their contributions. It has been a very constructive, informative discussion. I am reflecting on my own notes. Several key issues emerged, not least the need to modernise and expand the taxsaver scheme to support that flexible commuting model; the clear potential of shared mobility to enhance our public transport network; the urgent need to streamline the whole grid connection process; the need to accelerate the delivery of high-capacity EV charging infrastructure; the importance of renewed investment; and, of course, the new EV infrastructure strategy 2026-2028, which we are preparing for and expect in the next few weeks.

I agree with Mr. Cooney and Mr. Cash that we are at an historic moment. There is a real opportunity here that we need to grasp. As was said, we have the innovation. I will not say we need to tear up the rule book, but we need to look at the rule book. We have the ambition. We need to benefit from those partnerships and the expertise we have. It is about money as well and investment. There is an opportunity here and we are at an historic moment.

The committee will consider the evidence that was presented, prepared and provided to us by the witnesses for any conclusions and recommendations we make to the Government. We appreciate this engagement, and it will be ongoing. There is merit in bringing other key actors into this committee, including ESB Networks, to support the urgent transition to a low-emissions transport system. I thank all the witnesses for their time.

I remind members that the select committee will meet on Wednesday, 3 December 2025 to discuss the Supplementary Estimates.