Development (Strategic Gas Reserve) Bill 2026: Second Stage Seanad Éireann — 2026-07-07 ============================================================ Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland This legislation, which seeks to allow for the accelerated development of an LNG terminal by bypassing key planning and environmental processes, is a misguided, dangerous and reckless move by the Government that threatens to lock us into increased fossil fuel usage for years to come. During pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill in the Joint Committee on Climate, Environment and Energy, of which I am a member, the report we produced highlighted and noted that there was a significant divergence between the departmental officials and other witnesses who spoke "to the major climate, legal, social, and governance risks in the proposed legislative approach." These witnesses said, "Recurring concerns centred on compatibility with climate law, legal soundness, planningsystem integrity, demandside management, commercial LNG risks, and impacts on local communities." That is just to give a small set of concerns. They also included security risks. All of this was highlighted by the committee in its report. This was alongside a number of recommendations that have not been taken on board and are not reflected in this legislation. The committee called on the Government not to disapply the planning Acts and the climate targets and measures. It called for clarity on how decisions would be made and remarked on this process moving away from the Minister. The committee also said that there needed to be a definition of how consumption emissions were to be balanced to ensure that these would be offset by an associated reduction in the intake of gas through other mechanisms. There were concerns expressed in really clear language from the committee about the development or operation by a commercial operator and the need for it be explicitly limited to public bodies. The committee did not just say it should be State-led, but State-owned and operated with particular measures to ensure it would not be used as a precedent or as the opening of the door to commercial operators. The Government has disregarded all of these recommendations. The committee looked for safeguards including ensuring it remains in State ownership and operation and is only used for emergency supply. None of these measures from our detailed scrutiny are properly reflected in the Bill before us. Experts pointed consistently to glaring holes in the Government's plan to bring LNG to Ireland. They pointed out the energy security and supply arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. They do not show us, for example, that it was necessary for our energy supply. CSO figures released today show data centres accounting for 23% of metered Irish electricity consumption, which is up 3% on just two years ago. Use by data centres has gone up by 10% while all other industrial and household users have risen by only 2%. The Government has made it clear its plan is to encourage new data centres and new demand. If there really was a concern about security we would be looking for plans to, as was said, really intensify renewable energy and genuinely deliver on that and on storage rather than a measure that has so many negative side effects. I will address a couple of these effects in the context of security. On the economic side, the reliance on gas as a price setter has been shown to drive up bills in Ireland consistently. We have seen how the reliance on gas contributes to the escalation of energy bills and how gas is allowed set the price. The economic case for the terminal put forward by the Government was based on a low point in the highly fluctuating costs of LNG. Interestingly, there was no comparison in this cost-benefit analysis between the terminal a combination of renewables and batteries. It was decided to compare the costs solely with batteries or solely to renewables when clearly, the real alternative is a combination of renewables and batteries. That was not stacked against LNG in the cost analysis. The thing about the fluctuating price of LNG is that it is not a moment in time. We are going to be exposed to them constantly because LNG burns off. It is not a reserve. The Government is signing us up to the continued and sustained use of liquified natural gas, including fracked gas, because at least six times a year the reserve will need to be released into the system and replenished. That is the science of what is happening. As for the idea this is going to be a six-month reserve, it will never be more than a two-month reserve because every two months it will need to be renewed. If we were to be in a situation of conflict it would become a target and the supply of LNG itself would become an area of vulnerability. We want to put almost €1 billion into this, a cost that will be carried by the public, although it does not stack up from an energy security or economic perspective. Crucially, not only does it not stack up but it is an act of recklessness in respect of our climate targets. It does not stack up in climate terms to such an extent that the Government is having to disapply the climate Act because it knows no credible consideration of the climate Act would back this. The Climate Change Advisory Council has explicitly spoken about how the further expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure through an LNG terminal will commit Ireland to further fossil fuel lock-in, with serious concerns over the total emissions, including the upstream release of methane where LNG is sourced via fracking. A large amount of this LNG comes from fracking; a process that we outlawed in our own country because of its damaging impact. Moreover, much of that fracked gas is coming from the United States, which has left the Paris Agreement. The level of damage that is being done to other communities and collectively, globally, is not even being measured. What we do know, however, is that methane is an accelerant. We know that the LNG gas that is added to the system is actually a higher emitter and has a higher emission content than other gas that is currently in the system. This was emphasised in terms of the upstream impact in the 2026 electricity report from the Climate Change Advisory Council. Further investment in construction of fossil fuel infrastructure is going to destroy our ability to meet our targets and is an act of absolutely reckless abuse towards the rest of the world and those who are doing the work of trying to transition us to a liveable future. This is a security risk in the deepest sense because climate change is the greatest security risk we have. This is an accelerant on that risk and the damage will not only be felt by the population here in Ireland but by others right across the world. Again, this is a mistake and among a number of very poor decisions from the Government, this will go down as one of the historic mistakes. --- 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/2026-07-07/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:09+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-07-07