Energy Security: Statements Seanad Éireann — 2026-04-29 ============================================================ Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland I sit on the climate and energy committee and we discuss energy security all the time, or rather we discuss energy policy all the time. It is interesting that energy security gets invoked at certain points, and then at other points in the conversation it is missing as a topic. We heard a lot about energy security when the Government was pushing to introduce the LNG reserves and the floating storage regasification unit, FSRU. That was being cited again and again. The committee looked at it and it was clear that there although there was one very specific risk, one very particular scenario, to which this arguably could be one of the responses, this new infrastructure does nothing for most of the other very likely and predictable energy security risks and scenarios we are looking to in the future. Of course, the first energy security review the State did came down against LNG infrastructure. It said we should not do it because it was not the right approach. They did another energy security review, therefore, and certain factors went into the new review. I should note that the committee has called for a further energy security review. They took NORA, the national oil reserve, out of the equation, even though that is fuel substitution. In the cost-benefit analysis, they did not give consideration to using wind and battery together. A number of very strange decisions in the new energy security review and cost-benefit analysis seemed to be designed, frankly, or certainly came to the effect that the State was justifying this new LNG terminal. What do we know about the gas that goes in, the methane? It is 80% more impactful, as we have heard. Not only that, but this kind of gas, methane, hits faster. It is effectively an accelerant for climate change. If we look to the next ten to 20 years, the period in which we need to act, this is something that will have its most devastating impact in that period. Indeed, LNG will largely be bought from the United States, which has left the Paris Agreement. It is an extraordinary, wild idea that we are going to lean in and intensify one of the known security risks, including energy security risks, which is climate change, and contribute to that market and be part of it, in response to this one hypothetical case where cable might be cut prior to the arrival of the many new interconnectors. I welcome the reference to the new interconnectors to Spain and France and the many planned new interconnectors. For a hypothetical scenario, which will cover a few years, we are contributing. There is no such thing as just storing LNG; we use it. Six times a year one uses it. Once one has that facility, they are burning LNG off every year and six times a year they refill it. Even if it did exist, it would not actually be a reserve of energy that we could tap into because every two months it relies on new shipments. We see what happens to shipments of LNG in a time of crisis and energy crisis. It frankly does not deliver in terms of security. It is not a reserve that we have there. It intensifies what we know is the real risk. When we talk about climate and its impacts, we can talk about the past decade as the warmest on record. It is just like the warmest year and the warmest year in a row. There has been intense loss of species. A total of 45.8 million displaced due to weather related disasters in 2024 alone and 75% of the world's poorest, who are reliant on agriculture, are being impacted by climate change. A total of 189 million people potentially pushed into hunger. That is the threat. If the hottest years do not move us, perhaps the reversal of the gulf stream, which is now being talked about as a very terrible threat and possibility, should focus our minds. These are real statistically probable threats that we are facing. Why would we contribute to intensifying those risks for everybody? It is frankly unjustifiable. We heard a lot about energy security being quoted then. When private wires were discussed, we heard from everybody that 31% of our energy is now going to large energy users and 22% is just going to data centres. The 22% on data centres is what is driving the private wires legislation. One of the real problems with the legislation, which was identified when we examined it at the committee, if it does not include the usual obligations we would have in terms of if there was an energy crisis with transmission measures and demand side measures, then we see the increased demand from data centres and other energy users absorbing the renewables that have been coming on stream. Instead of that new renewable on stream contributing to decarbonising our economy, system and everything else, it is being absorbed by new uses. If we have private wires - those renewables that are going to particular clients - it looks like that they will not be given an obligation. I asked the Department because there are step-in rights for the State in certain safety and other circumstances. I asked the officials if it they considered that energy security should be a situation where the State can say, "That wind farm powering Amazon or whoever else's giant data centre at this point if we do have interconnectors cut, we need to be able to access that for the grid." They said they had not considered energy security. There is a big lecture on energy security for LNG but not a consideration of how private wires are going to intersect with our energy security issues and threats, even though that we know that up to one third of the energy users in the State may be using them and may be absorbing a huge amount of our renewable capacity. On energy security, there are so many more issues to focus on. I wish to focus on at the intimate level energy security of households. We still have an approach that tries to encourage the choice of retrofitting and trying to give it the plans and the loans. This is a point where if the State is serious, we need to be stepping in. There are 20,000 people on the warmer homes scheme waiting list. There should not be a waiting list of 20,000 people for the scheme. There should not be public buildings still piloting different Departments, making a business case and piloting this building and that building that they might upgrade. Any building that the State has the keys to, access to or can retrofit should be retrofitted. If that requires a State retrofitting agency, which is literally delivering, then that is the thing. This is where the public comes in. There was an appeal on public batteries. That was a good point in relation to that. If that is something to be looked at, let us have State infrastructure that is going to deliver, be it retrofitting or around battery storage locally. There was a reference to the 80% renewable supply. We do not have those figures. There is no guarantee at all of how much renewable versus electric will be happening with these new private wire developments. That is a real concern. They should be moving ahead and having no fossil fuels rather than having a further fossil fuel infrastructure in back-up generators existing across the country. It is something that we cannot afford from a climate perspective. It also creates a jeopardy. --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-04-29/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:52+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-04-29