Electricity Supply: Motion
Seanad Éireann — 2026-06-30
============================================================

Gareth Scahill (FG), Nominated by the Taoiseach

It is worth pointing out.
I am pleased to bring forward the motion because it deals with something that affects every household, farm, business and community in Ireland. Electricity is no longer simply another utility. It is a service that allows people to heat their homes, refrigerate food, milk cows, operate businesses, work remotely, communicate with loved ones and, increasingly, charge vehicles and power heat pumps. When electricity fails today, life almost comes to a standstill.
Before I go any further, I acknowledge what the Government has done. The Government has reduced the VAT on electricity and gas, locked in until December 2030; expanded the fuel allowance scheme and increased the household benefits package to €35 a month. It has invested billions of euro in strengthening our electricity network, with an €18.9 billion investment programme to 2030, representing the largest commitment ever made to Ireland's electricity infrastructure.
It will allow hundreds of thousands of new homes to connect to the grid, facilitate electric vehicles, support renewable energy and strengthen security of supply. These are investments that are very welcome.
Likewise, I acknowledge the outstanding work carried out by ESB Networks crews. Anyone who watched Storm Éowyn unfold last year knows the conditions these engineers had to work in. People were climbing poles in hurricane force winds, working around the clock and spending weeks away from their families to reconnect homes across the country. This motion is not a criticism of their work. They deserve enormous credit, but acknowledging the dedication of ESB staff should not prevent us from asking whether the system is fair for customers. Storm Éowyn was unlike anything Ireland has experienced before. At its peak, approximately 768,000 homes, farms and businesses were without electricity. That represents almost one in every five electricity customers in the country. After two nights, around 330,000 customers were still without power and, almost a week afterwards, approximately 77,000 customers remained disconnected. After ten days, around 39,000 customers still had no electricity. Some families, farms and businesses remained without power for more than two weeks. The final reconnections were not completed until 11 February almost three weeks after the storm.
Those numbers are extraordinary and they tell another story. While almost 70% of customers had power restored within 72 hours, thousands of families across counties like Roscommon, Galway, Mayo, Leitrim and Donegal experienced something entirely different. For them, this was not an inconvenience; it was a daily struggle. Families were throwing food away, older people were trying to stay warm. Farmers were relying on generators. Businesses were losing income. People could not charge devices for kids or mobile phones. Some people could not even access water because the pumps were dependent on electricity. Many had no broadband or mobile coverage either. Yet, every one of those households continued to pay their standing charge. That is what this motion seeks to address.
Let me be absolutely clear. This motion is not asking for electricity units to be refunded. If people are using electricity, they should obviously pay for it. Nor is it asking to undermine the investment programme that our network urgently needs. This is about one specific element of the bill - the standing charge. The standing charge exists to maintain and operate our network. That is understandable, but if the network is unavailable for prolonged periods through absolutely no fault of the customer, surely common sense tells us that people should not continue paying their charge during these outages. For many households today, the standing charge can account for around €30 per month. People accept paying it because they accept that maintaining a resilient electricity network costs money, but what people struggle to understand is why they continue paying exactly the same amount when the service simply is not there. If your broadband disappears for two weeks, most providers will provide some form of credit. If transport services fail repeatedly, compensation mechanisms increasingly exist. Why should electricity be any different?
We already recognise this principle in other ways. There is the network repair guarantee. Customers who experience prolonged outages caused by faults, not storms, can receive compensation. Therein lies the problem. The compensation scheme excludes precisely the circumstances that are becoming more and more common. Storms, extreme weather events and large-scale outages are no longer once-in-a-generation events. In fact, science will tell us that we can expect to see them far more frequently. Storm Éowyn may unfortunately represent the future rather than the exception and if that is the case, then surely our customer protection measures need to evolve as well. People understand that storms happen. What they do not understand is why the financial burden always seems to rest with the customers.
We also have to consider the rural dimension. Those living in cities generally experience shorter outages because of network design and population density. In counties like Roscommon, Mayo, Galway, Leitrim and Donegal, restoration can take considerably longer. Our geography makes repairs more difficult. Forestry creates additional challenges. Long rural lines increase vulnerabilities.
Those communities should not be financially disadvantaged because of where they live and where this happens. They already face greater disruption. They should not have to carry the cost.
I have spoken previously in the House about forestry management near electricity lines. That work remains essential. Tree corridors must be maintained properly. Investment in resilience must continue. Additional billions being invested through price review six are essential. Nobody disputes that, but investment alone is not enough. Public confidence matters and people will support investment when they believe the system is fair. Fairness builds trust. Trust builds public support. This proposal strengthens, not weakens, that relationship.
Some may argue that suppliers determine standing charges rather than the Government and that is true. That is what the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, said to me when I raised this as a Commencement matter on the last Thursday before the Christmas holidays. Some may argue that the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, regulates the market independently and that is true. That is precisely why the motion calls on the CRU to direct customers to establish a consistent mechanism for automatically crediting customers during verified supply interruptions. It is not complicated or bureaucratic. It is simple and fair. Technology already tells ESB Networks exactly where customers lose supply and when it will be restored. Surely the same information can be used to automatically calculate the standing charge credit. Customers should not have to complete forms or fight for compensation. It should happen automatically. This is the direction in which modern regulation should move.
The motion is ultimately about recognising the lived experience of people across rural Ireland, the people who were without power last year following Storm Éowyn for two, three, five, ten and up to 14 days. These are people did everything right, paid every bill, supported the investment being made in the network and waited patiently while crews worked tirelessly, but still found themselves sitting in cold homes wondering why they continued paying for a service they simply did not have. No one expects perfection in this situation or for storms to disappear. No one expects miracles from ESB crews battling impossible conditions.
As we continue investing billions in Ireland's electricity future, let us also invest in public confidence. Let us show customers that when the network fails through no fault of their own, the system stands with them rather than bills them as though nothing had happened. It is a modest proposal, but it is one I hope the Minister of State will listen to.

---

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/2026-06-30/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:07+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-06-30