JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Tuesday, 16 Dec 2008

All-Island Grid: Discussion.

Chairman

The joint committee has invited representatives of ASKON Consulting and the North East Pylon Pressure group to the meeting. I draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Under the salient rules of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against persons outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I welcome the delegation, Professor Noack, Dr. Haas, Dr. O'Reilly and Dr. Andrew. I invite Dr. O'Reilly to address the committee.

Dr. Padraig O’Reilly

Go raibh maith agat. On behalf of the North East Pylon Pressure, NEPP, campaign, I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to present the main findings of the ASKON study. At considerable expense, and paid for entirely by voluntary contributions from our supporters, we commissioned specialist expertise to advise us on the comparative merits of underground versus overground transmission. The ASKON report is the first project-specific analysis to determine the feasibility of undergrounding the North-South interconnector. We believe this study is a significant contribution by NEPP to initiating a proper, informed national debate on this issue.

Before we delve into the details of the ASKON study, let me first place into context from an NEPP perspective the relevance of the study in relation to the subject of electricity transmission strategy for Ireland. In January this year the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources published the all-island grid study, outlining a strategy to generate 42% of our electricity requirement from renewable resources. Although the study examined progressive ways for harnessing energy from around our shores, it failed to examine progressive methods for transmitting this electricity from west to east, and has instead defaulted to the antiquated mode of using ultra high voltage overhead lines and giant pylon towers.

The option of undergrounding the ultra high voltage transmission lines was not even considered. No cognisance has been given to the fact that the proposed grid strategy would result in two and a half times more ultra high voltage lines and pylon towers than currently exist, a significant replacement of wooden poles with steel pylons at the mid-voltage ranges and an addition of a further 5,000 km of distribution lines. There has been no opportunity for any public stakeholder inputs of any description; instead it has been presented as a fait accompli.

The transmission system operator, EirGrid, likewise has not objectively examined all strategic options for rolling out the necessary upgraded transmission infrastructure. It might argue that its recent publication, Grid 25, meets this requirement. We beg to differ. It fails to examine undergrounding in any meaningful way. It fails to take on board the environmental consequences of the exclusive use of overhead lines to upgrade the grid network. It fails to address the public concerns around this strategy. It fails to be truly national by omitting the Oceanteam approved East-West interconnector project as part of the future transmission resources. It states that no country has adopted a policy of undergrounding high voltage line, a statement which is already out of date.

The ground is shifting across Europe on this subject. Age-old assumptions are being challenged. By 2025 Denmark aims to produce 50% of its electricity from renewable resources. Faced with strong political and local opposition to proposed new overhead lines in 2007, the Danish transmission system operator, Energinet, realised it would never achieve the necessary reinforcement of the grid if it insisted on overhead lines exclusively. Energinet commissioned a high level technical study including representatives of both local and nation government departments to study the issue and make recommendations. The result is a sound, scientifically-based political consensus across all the major political parties in Denmark that rules out the construction of any new overhead 440 kV lines where these do not already exist, and the longer term ambition of putting all of Denmark's grid underground, using AC cables. In future Danes will only see new overhead high-voltage lines where there are overhead lines today.

Energinet is rolling out a number of major activities, including the testing and planning of the first long 400kV AC cable in Denmark, and a general national cable action plan for the existing regional 132/150 kV grids, which will outline how the regional transmission grids can be undergrounded in the next few years. This plan has immediate relevance to the current planning application by EirGrid in Donegal.

The Ecofys study has been a useful contribution to this debate. It concluded with some challenges in relation to feasibility and cost of undergrounding, but by its own admission related to being a generic desktop study, it also states, "For specific projects, technical feasibility, design implications and operational behaviour have to be assessed with much more detail than in a generic perspective...and that conclusions can only be drawn on a project specific basis." In many ways the ASKON study is a logical follow-on from Ecofys in seeking to specify feasibility and cost for the North-South interconnector project. The ASKON study examined the feasibility and cost of undergrounding the North-South interconnector project on the basis of integration into the existing grid network managed by EirGrid and on adhering to EirGrid's benchmark criteria of affordability, reliability, safety, efficiency and security.

The costs reported in the study do not, however, take account of the undoubtedly substantial compensation costs arising from land and property devaluation. NEPP has carried out a detailed mapping of every existing and planned dwelling in the currently proposed route corridors. The estimated devaluation cost could be as high as €500 million. The commercial costs from probable years of planning delays, objections and associated legal costs have not been included in the study. EirGrid planned to announce its preferred route in early 2008. It now plans to announce it in early 2009. This is symptomatic of the delays that lie ahead if it persists with an overhead lines strategy.

Finally there is the stress and anxiety related to people's concerns regarding the health effects from the extra high voltage lines, which has a human if not an easily quantifiable cost. We reiterate our disappointment that the Government has failed to act on any of the recommendations of a major report on radiation caused by high power electricity lines. NEPP today repeats its call on the Government to act immediately to implement the full recommendations of its own expert group, including that of giving the existing Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland the necessary powers to become the single agency managing EMF issues, backed up by a high-powered scientific advisory committee and a policy co-ordination committee.

ASKON presented NEPP with its findings in early October this year. We have split the study into two separate reports. Report 1 includes the main analysis and the key findings. Report 2 includes the detailed technical analyses and route option criteria. Both reports will be presented and are open to questions today. I will now introduce Professor Friedhelm Noack, who will take the committee through the main findings of the study.

Professor Friedhelm Noack

Thank you for the opportunity to present some findings of our study. I have taught my students over many decades in the design and operation of overhead lines and cables. I have worked for some years in a large cable factory in Berlin for designing and commissioning high voltage cables. I have measured the real overhead lines and cables and I am very familiar with both technologies.

The objective of this study is to investigate the feasibility of such long underground cables as an alternative to the planned overhead lines. This study does not summarise the general issues of different overviews and test studies but focuses on this specific project. In extensive investigations, the electrical and thermal behaviour of the cables was simulated. The most important characteristics of overhead lines and cables are compared — operational performance, transient behaviour, security, reliability, availability, safety, environmental impacts and, naturally, costs.

Underground cables of such lengths are feasible and can be integrated in the grid without any operational restrictions. Cable options can be adapted to the required transmission power from the grid operator. Underground cables have many technical advantages over overhead lines regarding operational security, contingency, availability, smaller electrical stresses of the devices and loss savings. Underground cables have much lower environmental impacts than overhead lines and provide safety benefits compared with overhead lines. On affordability comparisons, not only the life cycle costs but also the technical advantages of cables, the value reduction of properties and the impact on the environment should be taken into account. We know from the Government White Paper that the second North-South connector will more than double the existing cross-Border electricity transfer capacity to over 680 MW. The EirGrid committee report declares that EirGrid is also developing a new transmission link to deliver between 200 MW and 300 MW capacity benefit. These statements show that a transmission capacity of the new lines of a maximum of only 500 MW is needed. However, EirGrid has planned a 400 kV overhead line with a transmission capacity of up to 1,700 MW. For this reason, we also designed the cables for this high capacity.

Slide 5 shows the proposed cable options and the trenches for the cables. We have selected two cable systems in parallel. Option No. 1 is the preferred option — two cable systems with 1,600 sq. mm. aluminium. The second option is 2,500 sq. mm. copper. These cables will be laid in a blend of sand and cement in the trenches.

Slide 6 shows the steady state operational performance. There are no problems in operational performance if cables are integrated into the grid. The decisive advantages of the parallel cable systems are as follows: a better load flow stability in the grid; much higher operational security and contingency in the grid; much higher overloading performance due to the inertia of the soil near the cables; and much higher availability.

Slide 7 deals with operational security. There is a well known N-1 criterion. This N-1 criterion is defined from the union of co-ordination of transmission of energy. This definition is given on slide 7. It means that during the outage of a transmission system the remaining systems should be able to accommodate the additional load.

Slide 8 shows what happens currently in the Irish grid. The N-1 criterion is not fulfilled by the 400 kV single system overhead line. During a failure or planned outage the transmissible load over the overhead line is zero. Slide 8 shows that the new line runs from Woodland through Kingscourt to Turleenan. If this line fails the load can only transport over the single lines from Woodland through Louth and Tandragee to Turleenan. This power transmission can only be handled if these 220 kV and 274 kV lines are able to accommodate the additional load from the 400 kV line. This is true in both directions, from the North and the South. The 400 kV overhead lines should only be loaded up to the load which can be accommodated from the other lines. This is the N-1 safe load criterion. With the proposed parallel underground cable system, the N-1 criterion is fulfilled. In addition, during the outage of one system we have the transmission of load over the remaining cable system.

Slide 9 illustrates reliability characteristics. We did a statistical reliability analysis and we can say the frequency of occurrence of failures in overhead lines is much higher than in cables. Most of the failures will be cleared by automatic closure. Failures on cable systems are very rare. They can occur in joints but they did not occur in the cable itself. It is known that cables have the disadvantage of a longer repair time. This time can be days or weeks. This disadvantage can be eliminated by the use of a parallel cable system. The unavailability of a single system overhead line is many thousand times higher than the unavailability of a parallel cable system.

Slide 10 illustrates electromagnetic fields. It shows the lateral distance of electromagnetic fields over the transmission lines. The blue line illustrates the field from the overhead line. The maximum field is 67 microtesla. At a distance of 93 m one has a magnetic field of one microtesla. Some countries have a precautionary field level for permanent exposure of one microtesla. We also propose this level. The slide illustrates the field from a cable in a flat arrangement. It has a lower maximum safe distance of 10 or 12 m, also with a precautionary field level of one microtesla. This means the magnetic field of an overhead line has an eight times wider spread than that of cables. Therefore, we need a precautionary distance from dwellings of 100 m or the overhead lines and only 12 to 15 m for underground cables. It is harmless to go over cables or to walk under the lines for a short time. The precautionary levels refer to permanent exposure. In Germany, a Bill has been drafted which will establish a precautionary corridor of 400 metres.

Slide 11 deals with costs. It shows the specific life cycle costs in M€ (mega euro) per kilometre for different transmission options. The first column shows the investment cost for an overhead line of €700,000 million per km and the operational cost over 40 years of €1.28 per km. The slide also gives the costs for other options. The underground cable option has a much higher investment cost but a lower operational cost. The life cycle cost of the underground cable option is approximately 1.8 of the overhead line. High loads during a 40-year lifespan will reduce the difference between the life cycle cost of cables and overhead lines.

Let me summarise in one sentence. If one really wants to have underground cable, one can install this cable in the Irish grid. There will be advantages with this cable system, as it will operate without any restrictions.

Dr. Pádraig O’Reilly

NEPP believes the work of Professor Noack and the ASKON study make a significant contribution to the debate which must be held on electricity transmission. However, no single study can be deemed definitive and further work is necessary. Our hope is the ASKON study will act as a catalyst in advancing the debate in a constructive manner. We want grid development, not gridlock.

The new political consensus in Denmark on the placing underground all future electricity transmission cables is a significant pointer to the development of policy in Ireland. We look to the committee for leadership in this regard. Perhaps some of the processes used in Denmark such as the establishment of an electricity infrastructure committee would be a relevant next step. The public is largely unaware of the major transmission infrastructure plans for the countryside in the coming years. Therefore, NEPP plans to move the issue to a national stage at public level, commencing with press advertisements and a national conference in spring 2009. We will invite the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and EirGrid to participate in the conference and engage with the people.

We should be clear about the respective roles. EirGrid is a State company charged with responsibility for the transmission of electricity in accordance with a specific mandate laid down by the ministerial order which established the company. Policy on electricity transmission is adopted by the Government on the recommendation of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources who is accountable to the Members of the Oireachtas and this committee for its implementation. Some months ago EirGrid conceded that if the national policy changed to put ultra-high voltage cables underground, it would implement that policy. Therefore, responsibility and accountability lie within the Houses. We would like the committee to have the time and access to the expertise it requires to complete a total review of existing policy.

We came to the meeting to present our case as best we could. We are fully aware that there are challenges in long distance underground projects but technology moves ahead rapidly and the contributions of our experts and the Danish developments suggest they are far from being insurmountable. To the uninformed or those unwilling to listen, some of our requests may seem unreasonable but as a man whose statue is situated not far from this room, George Bernard Shaw, once said: "All progress is down to the unreasonable man." We thank members for their time and will be happy to answer further questions.

Chairman

Apologies have been received from Deputy Johnny Brady, Senator Diarmuid Wilson and Deputy Thomas Byrne who had to leave the meeting because of other commitments but will return.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I welcome our guests, in particular Professor Noack and his team. They will know that this is the second report relating to the principled argument about the underground and overground options. There is a determination on the part of the committee to give both reports equal scrutiny and consideration. However, we are not comparing like with like, as the previous report, funded by public money, was the result of a desktop study of general principles such as relative costs, reliability and maintenance issues and forced outages. This report is far more focused, dealing as it does with the landscape and routes. It is very useful. I thank the North East Pylon Pressure group for making the considerable effort to finance what is a very comprehensive report which is credible and deserves serious consideration in the context of setting a precedent because this is the start of a very comprehensive, decade long process of upgrading the grid infrastructure in Ireland which will enable us to facilitate a new type of electricity generation, primarily using renewable sources, to develop interconnection between Britain and Ireland and manage the increased demand for electricity.

This issue is the subject of debate in counties Meath, Cavan and Monaghan but next year somewhere else will require an upgrade. We are spending a lot of time on the issue in order that we can establish what is possible, how much it would cost, what we can afford and what is reasonable to ask of EirGrid in managing new technologies.

This is an extremely complex report and most politicians are jacks of all trades, rather than technical experts. However, there appear to be contradictions between the previous report which we have analysed and this one. I have no difficulty in understanding the challenges in putting direct current, DC, lines underground such as for the east-west interconnector. However, questions have been raised about the viability of putting alternate current, AC, lines underground for distances of more than 10 km or 20 km. There are examples of urban areas all over the world where there are AC lines underground but the distance in our case is much longer. We have consistently been told that it is not possible to put lines underground for more than 25 km, because they need to be brought above ground at certain points which the report refers to as "shunt reactors". Will Professor Noack explain how this works because I am not clear on the point, in the light of what I have been told by EirGrid and Ecofys on the costs of these reactors?

I have a question on the conclusions drawn on the failure of overhead lines in comparison to underground lines. The most persuasive element of the Ecofys report was a diagram, with which I am sure Professor Noack is familiar, showing that the likelihood of an outage on an underground line was lower but that, when it happened, it presented a much bigger problem and took much longer to solve. The report addresses that issue by suggesting the provision of two parallel lines but if there is an outage, even if it is a one in 100,000 chance, it may be because it is cut by a machine or a plough. Therefore, parallel lines will not solve the problem. Parallel lines provide a solution if one line has a fault but do not do so if the duct is cut.

Previous consultants to us have suggested the underground option may be made feasible by burying cables but ASKON recommends that a duct be put in place with cables encased in a sand and cement mix. It would be helpful to explore the options: the requirement for a duct or tunnel that is accessible versus what is being proposed. There is an obvious question. If it makes more sense to put lines underground over a 40-year period, as suggested, why are other countries not doing this? If they are, will our guests tell us about it? My understanding is that many 400 kV lines have been put underground for short distances but, apart from DC interconnector lines, I am not aware of long distances being covered by underground lines. If there are plans for this to happen in other countries, it would be helpful to hear about them. I know about the proposed policy change in Denmark but what is the new approach to future grid developments in Germany? Will 220 kV lines or 400 kV lines be used? Knowledge of this would make the arguments more persuasive and help us move from an academic to a practical discussion that would allow Ireland mirror what is happening in other countries.

On electromagnetic fields, I am very interested to hear that the German Parliament is examining draft legislation to put in place a recommendation specifying a figure of 400 metres. Will our guests outline the thinking behind this? Even if the argument to persuade the Government to put this infrastructure underground fails, we still have the other issue that needs to be resolved. That may be one for another day but it interests me. Has the effect of electromagnetic fields on cattle and livestock been considered? A great deal of the land along the proposed underground route is agricultural. I would be interested to hear our guests' comments.

Does the affordability comparison of 3.4:1 take into account the likelihood that going underground would result in a shorter construction period due to objections, court rulings and so on? If not, it should.

Power transmission losses represent a major difference between the delegates' report and the Ecofys report. Specific figures have been given by them for monetary value and actual power losses and I am interested to understand how they have been calculated. Can this be explained by power losses over a period of 40 years? The figures provided do not tally with those included in the Ecofys report for power losses over the lifecycle of the infrastructure. This information is crucial if we are to persuade the Government that over its lifecycle the overground option will result in losses equivalent to a new power generating station. One of the final recommendations relates to the likely amount of time saved by going underground but that is probably not calculated in the capital expenditure calculations.

Regarding the consequences of a fault or outage, it is true to say if there is an outage on an overhead line, the rest of the grid must provide the extra power to compensate for it. This has worked effectively in Ireland on the 400 kV line from east to west, although I am not aware of any outages in that case. I can understand the argument that, having compared the two scenarios in terms of outages and reliability, having a parallel line would make sense. However, one could just as easily argue in favour of having an overground parallel line. Why is it assumed that an overhead line will not have a parallel line? Those in favour of having an overhead line will put the argument to us that a parallel line can be put overground. They suggest this would solve the problem that would supposedly be solved by putting a parallel line underground. Can our guests give us a better understanding of how the underground option offers something the overground option cannot regarding reliability?

Deputy Liz McManus

Many points have been raised by Deputy Coveney and I will add some of my own.

I welcome the delegates and believe the work that has been done and the fact that it has been sponsored by the local organisation are very important; dare I say it has been ground-breaking? We now have the general report from Ecofys and this one which is very specific about the particular project under discussion. From this point of view, we owe the delegates a debt of gratitude. It is clear that the technology we are discussing is developing all the time because five or ten years ago we would not even have discussed this issue. We must keep up with developments in this area.

I welcome the fact that, despite the enormous concern and protest about this project, nobody has argued against the development of our infrastructure. This provides an important bedrock for our discussion. It is clear that there is much work to be done in Ireland in developing the grid. It could be argued that Denmark is far ahead of us in this regard. Regardless of the outcome of this scrutiny, there is a major infrastructural project ahead.

A compelling case has been made for the underground option in terms of the positive impact it would have on Ireland as a whole. We are not just talking about this project, but about all projects from now on. That is the concern being expressed by EirGrid. It considers that if this is how the North-South connector proceeds, all future schemes will proceed in the same way. In many ways, it would be very attractive for Ireland to be able to present a magnificent natural environment, not constrained by overground infrastructure but there are major costs and technical issues. This is where the concerns must be addressed.

The argument about loss saving is logical and should be included in the equation. In terms of outages, there seems to be no doubt that if the underground option is chosen and something breaks down, including cables, joints and so on, fixing the problem will be a slow process. Such problems may be less frequent if the underground option is chosen but they will be slow to fix. I am not a technical expert but it seems the parallel arrangement would resolve this issue, in part. At the same time, I doubt that it would be 100% secure, as Deputy Coveney also said. Along major roads very large concrete pipes are used for essential services. If the underground option is chosen, such access should be available in case something goes wrong. This would deal with concerns relating to breakdowns. That is a key point which was not dealt with adequately in the last report.

The other significant issue is cost. EirGrid states it would be three or four times the cost. ASKON has considered various factors and the local organisation, NEPP, has pointed out there would be a loss of €500 million, which is a major factor. The technical issues are also a concern. This has never been done and it is challenging to ask us to take that leap, particularly as Ireland is not at the forefront of technical advancement in this area generally.

This assessment is academic and translating it into practical arrangements is an issue. For example, it would take years to manufacture the cable, which has not been done before. The demand for such cable restricts options when it comes to quick delivery. I have been told it would take up to seven years to manufacture a cable but do not know whether that is true. Perhaps Professor Noack will confirm on the basis of his experience whether it is.

EirGrid made a good suggestion which was not taken up — I do not know why — that its experts and the NEPP should sit down together. The conference planned in the spring is a welcome development but a face to face discussion was suggested. The expertise available to both sides is enormous and we are very much on the outside looking in. Having face time, when everybody could go through all the issues, would be hugely beneficial. Would it be possible to have a meeting?

I refer to the German legislation and the 400 m precautionary arrangement, which I take from the Professor Noack's comments are unique to Germany but perhaps he can elaborate on this. While international guidelines are in place with which Ireland complies, that does not allay concerns. Is the 400 m provision solely a German initiative or is it being rolled out across the European Union? It implies Germany will continue with overhead lines and it will not go down the route taken by Denmark, even though it has a highly developed infrastructure, grid, interconnection and so on.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

I welcome NEPP. I always take with a pinch of salt reports commissioned by a lobby group because I have never read a report with findings contrary to the group's wishes. My questions are framed on that basis.

What was ASKON asked to find by NEPP in the first place? Was the report edited before it was produced? Did NEPP have an input into the final report? Was ASKON asked to ensure it would be easy to repair its solution and that it would be reliable and economical, given that power lines could be much more expensive in the current economic climate? Was ASKON asked to suggest an underground route? Did NEPP outline the terms of reference at the outset? We have not seen them. When consultants were selected to carry out the study, was an open, public procurement process undertaken?

Deputy McManus has referred to interaction with those who put the report together. Did NEPP seek information from EirGrid, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and Ecofys which carried out an independent report earlier in the year and should have been consulted? If not, is it intended to do so because it appears there are fundamental differences between the two reports? Consulting Ecofys would have resulted in a greater understanding of the position in Ireland, the north east in particular.

Is it correct that NEPP has not submitted the full report which is lengthy to the Department or EirGrid and that only a summary has been provided without the calculations in part 2 of the report? We all want to achieve what is right and best. In the interest of stimulating debate on the project, everything should be in the public domain.

Has ASKON ever worked in the electricity transmission sector, putting power lines in place? As far as I am aware, the company has not previously worked in Ireland. Therefore, it is difficult to know how it could have been familiar with the Irish system which contrasts with the highly linked systems in place on the Continent. By consulting the bodies named, it would have given its representatives more of an understanding.

Deputy Damien English

I will not be able to ask all of my questions but we will have an opportunity to tease out this issue at a later date.

I very much welcome the report. I am happy about how well it has been researched and the detail outlined in it. I am happy with ASKON's credentials. There is no question about the expertise involved. I am impressed and give the report a great deal of weight. The producers of the eco-study clearly stated before the committee, "I agree that if one wants to arrive at a figure, then a complete study is needed" regarding costs and so on. They said this repeatedly during their presentation to the committee. That must be borne in mind but this is a more detailed study. There are differences in the information and statistics provided but these can be teased out. It may take more than one meeting to do so but there is an onus on all members to get to the bottom of these figures and not to rule one set out because it is different from the other.

The report has credibility because it does not dispute the cost of going underground outlined in the report conducted on behalf of the Minister. It stated the project would cost five times more, while the NEPP stated it would cost approximately 3.4 times more but ASKON uses a higher cost for the overground cable compared to that used in the previous report. The Minister used a figure of €700,000, while ASKON used a higher one. However, there is not much of a difference, which demonstrates the NEPP's report is balanced because it does not try to hide costs. ASKON put a significant value on the cost of lost or wasted electricity but the previous report failed to deal with that matter by stating it was not necessary and that there would not be much of a difference. It also stated there would be a significant loss of electricity, a key issue. I ask the delegates to elaborate on this, as it was not dealt with properly in the previous report to make a comparison. This report assumes a 40-year life cycle and that is reasonable, though it also suggests that a term of 50 or 60 years is possible, but I can find no reference to a life cycle in the previous report. The ASKON report states that the lifespan of a pylon is typically between 28 and 30 years, so is the 40-year assumption correct? Should it be 30 years or 50 years? This is a serious question and I would expect the Government to invest taxpayers' money over a 40-year period, rather than for five or six years. In encouraging people to invest in green energy in their homes it requires them to invest over a 30-year term to get a return on their money.

The report states the magnitude pertaining to an overhead line is the same as that for one underground line but the previous report suggests the magnitude of the former is greater by a factor of ten. Can Professor Noack explain the discrepancy in that regard? Previous witnesses before the committee have said it is difficult to get hold of research and information on underground lines but I find that hard to believe. They said it was difficult to obtain reliable statistics and that resulted in different estimates for reliability. EirGrid has convinced us that reliability and security are the key issues and there is an onus on us to get it right. The information seems to be available and ASKON was able to access it, so why could the other consultants not do so? Where is the information and how can we get hold of it?

The report states there have been no known failures in the 400 kV cables in 15 years of usage and that if failures were to occur they would be in the joints. One part of the report discusses failures in the system in Berlin but I do not believe they were in the cables. Can Professor Noack clarify that point? It is important for the committee to fully scrutinise the report.

We certainly do not need any more than one compensation shunt at each end of the system, even if it is over 80 km in length. Is there research to verify that or is it just an opinion? There seems to be a question mark over the reliability of underground cables but they are used in cities such as London and Berlin which have massive populations and massive energy requirements. They seem to think it is worth taking the risk of putting lines underground for 20 km. What changes when a line is 40 km or 60 km in length?

The argument will be made that there is a risk involved, so can the professor explain why there is a doubt about the claim in some circles? On pages 32 and 33 of the report we are told that many tests have been carried out to ensure the cables satisfy European standards, so we must have made a lot of progress in recent years. Have the fears and the doubts now been resolved? Will it now be the norm to put cables underground? Denmark is discussing the option and Germany will have to lay cables underground if the relevant legislation is passed. Has the argument been dealt with at European level, in light of the rigorous testing to which the report refers?

The summary of the report states that 95 m is the norm for overhead lines but that is not proposed in the plan, as we are discussing lines of up to 50 m. I hope the norm is 95 m as that would be great news and Germany wants to extend them to 400 m. What is regarded as acceptable in Europe as a whole?

Page 20 of the report discusses the use of lines of 400 kV, instead of 275 kV and 110 kV as are the norm in Northern Ireland. It questions whether a line of 400 kV is needed and whether we might use the same lines as in the Northern network. Can Professor Noack expand on that? The report also states that in the event of outages and the unavailability of the main line, the existing or parallel network would need to be able to take the existing power. It states the network of 220 kV lines would need to accommodate the power not taken by the 400 kV lines. Does this mean there will be substantial costs in upgrading the existing network for the purposes of back-up? The underground lines seem to be able to interact much better with the existing network. Which will interact better?

If the project went to tender, would a company be happy to put the lines underground, given the capital and operational costs as envisaged in the report? We have been given the impression that nobody will touch it, although I do not believe that. What is Professor Noack's opinion?

Deputy Peter Kelly

This is a major issue for the whole of Ireland and ASKON's CV is very impressive. Has the full report been released to the Minister, to EirGrid or anybody else? If not, will it be released today?

Why does this report differ so much from the independent report by Ecofys, which was commissioned by the Government? Is it true that only part of the report has been released to date? There is a Part 1 but is there a Part 2 or Part 3? If so, what is in the part that has been held back?

What public procurement process was used by the NEPP to recruit ASKON? Did any other firms apply? Why was ASKON chosen? Has ASKON been invited to meet with EirGrid to discuss the report? Was it given instructions to come up with a certain report or is it a completely independent report on the relative merits of overground and underground cables?

Deputy Seymour Crawford

I congratulate the NEPP on getting together the funds and expertise to commission this study. It certainly adds a lot to the discussion of the differences between the options and the possibility of putting cables underground.

EirGrid has invited Oireachtas Members to meet it on a number of recent occasions. It made it clear that if we were to put this underground it would take at least seven years to make the cable to do this job and only one firm could make it, otherwise it would not connect at the right joints. They showed us a piece of cable to demonstrate how complicated it would be.

There is clearly a difference between the costs of the underground and overground options. Given the current economic situation, can the delegates see the difficulty facing the Government in getting money up front for a 40 year project, despite its benefits? This may be contrasted with the short-term benefits of a lower cost installation. We must argue strongly in this area.

If the underground cable is as secure as the delegates suggest, and I do not doubt them, why should we incur the cost of a second cable running alongside it? This may be a belt and braces approach that provides extra security through a second structure, but will it raise the costs for the underground option to a level far above the over ground option?

The delegates have already been asked whether they have discussed the findings with EirGrid and it is important that they do this. Have they discussed the findings with Ecofys, the independent consultants? The delegates have been questioned on their independence and we wonder what Ecofys was asked to do. There is no harm in us asking what Ecofys was asked to deliver.

The Minister and EirGrid dismissed this report; can the delegates see why it is felt to be unsuitable for use in our region? In this context, I understand they have carried out a detailed study of the line this cable may take. How far has this study gone? Has it covered counties Meath, Cavan and Monaghan? Is it true that they have only carried out only a desktop study of the situation? The most serious thing is that we have been told that 95% of all such installations in the world go over ground and that this is the proper way to do it.

We must be assured by the delegates that this is the best way to go. I believe it is the best approach but convincing the Government and officials that this is the case will be a major job. We were delighted to hear that Denmark took an all-party decision to go underground in future but our Minister and his officials have carried out a study of their own. In the information we have been given they suggest that the underground approach will be taken only in the future; the over ground approach will be taken in the short term. Can the delegates comment on this? That the underground approach will be taken in future is a useful barometer but, looking at Denmark, as EirGrid pointed out to us, the main herringbone down the centre will already be in place. Therefore the distances to be covered in future would not be all that significant. I hope I have made it clear that I wish to see the underground option taken, if it is feasible. At this point the Minister has made it clear to Monaghan County Council that he sees the over ground option as the only way forward. A major argument must still be made to convince the Minister and his officials that the underground option is superior. We depend on the delegates to assist us in this.

Deputy Margaret Conlon

I thank the Chairman and welcome the representatives of ASKON and the North East Pylon Pressure group, NEPP. I am not a committee member but I am delighted to have the opportunity to be here.

It is important that we get all of the available information. A lengthy and detailed study has been compiled by the delegates and the devil is in the detail, as they say. We now have two reports and I share the view of other Deputies and Senators that the time has come for both sides to sit down and examine the information in both reports. Both sides have considerable experience and information, so concerns and differences should be discussed. This would be very productive.

In the compilation of the study by the delegates, was there contact with people in Northern Ireland, because this is a North-South proposal? What input was there from Northern Ireland?

Many of the questions I had were already asked but I share people's concerns about outages and the length of time it may take to source and repair faults. There are huge concerns on reliability and security and everyone wants to know, beyond reasonable doubt, that there will be continuity of supply. As has been mentioned, they want to ensure they will not be left without electricity for long periods. These are difficult economic times and businesses do not want outages that will leave them without power for long periods.

My final point relates to Denmark, which has been mentioned, and we must compare like with like. Denmark and Ireland are not similar in terms of the transmission of power; Denmark has a much stronger network than we do and does not need a widespread upgrade. When power lines are discussed by officials in Denmark they refer to new projects; they do not discuss putting existing 400 kV lines underground. Danish officials have discussed a test of a length greater than 40 km, which could take up to ten years. The harsh reality is Ireland cannot afford to wait ten years to upgrade its system. Irish businesses are crying out for an upgraded grid and time is not on our side. Denmark's decision is a factor but we must be practical and examine where we are, what we need and when we need it. We must compare like with like.

I apologise for having to leave at 4 p.m. because I must attend another meeting but I will watch the monitors for the reply of the delegates.

Deputy Shane McEntee

It is nice to have a third group here to give a presentation because it is more than 12 months since this all started with the people of Meath, Monaghan and Cavan getting together. I am here to represent those people, including those like Dr. O'Reilly and Dr. Andrew, who gave the presentation. They are here on behalf of the people who put forward money to ensure a proper report was done.

As Deputy Conlon said, we cannot afford to wait ten or 15 years for this to happen. I want to go back to the beginning and discuss the reasons we are here as representatives of the people. The main worries of housewives, farmers, doctors, gardaí and so on in counties Meath, Cavan and Monaghan are the health implications and unexplained illnesses. The issue is whether high voltage lines are causing a problem. Germany is introducing a 400 m electromagnetic field for cabling, which is a concern. If the underground option is adopted, will a proper service be provided? Will it be better for the health of our people? At the end of the day, can the project be delivered underground between Kingscourt and Batterstown in a similar manner to an overground project?

If an underground cable is laid between Rush, County Dublin, and Batterstown and we can be confident there is not breakage, I do not have a worry about that. Gas pipelines have been laid through our own farms and we have never had a problem. I am a farmer and I have moved from hand-milking a cow to staying in bed while machines milk the cow. I have no problem with modern technology but people must come clean and say, "Yes, we can do this". I do not care if Ireland is the first country to do this. The project will provide electricity, it is cost effective and it will not affect the health of our people, which is the most important issue at the end of the day. Will there be a significant reduction in the risk to the health of people? An individual stated on radio that it might only cause the death of two or three children and the people of Meath will not forget that comment.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

I welcome wholeheartedly the NEPP and its eminent experts, who have impressive curriculum vitae. I am encouraged that at every meeting we have had on this issue we have been given examples from abroad. When the issue was first raised, nobody understood anything about it and the various groups and individuals involved found out a great deal quickly. Their knowledge and, in turn, our knowledge has increased significantly over the past year. I am encouraged by what other European countries are doing. The Department provided the committee with a briefing note on the position in Denmark and, while what is happening there is positive, it is not as clear-cut as people believe. Replacement overground lines are proposed and an effort will be made to put everything else underground. A study is being conducted which will be completed by next February on how to reduce the landscape footprint of the 400 kV grid. What examples are there of legal requirements? I understood it was a legal requirement in Denmark to build new cables underground and that the transmission system operator regulations under EU directives were amended. Will the experts clarify this?

The fundamental question, as Deputy McEntee said, is can the line between Batterstown and Kingscourt be laid underground? That is all the people in my constituency want to know.

Deputy Johnny Brady

I welcome both delegations. I have not had an opportunity to study the report. We are all aware of people's concerns and we are trying to get those across to EirGrid. I would like both the NEPP and EirGrid to sit down and discuss this matter. When EirGrid representatives appeared before the committee, we were told their side of the story and now we have the NEPP's side of the story. There are many technical issues, which I do not understand, but there are many concerns and I would love it if both groups sat down to discuss them. Could the Chairman and his committee facilitate a meeting involving both groups? We would all like this issue resolved in the best interests of the people. Consumers have a problem because of the scarcity of electricity and so on. EirGrid, the IDA and local authority officials say there is not an ample supply of electricity in the north east if major industries want to locate there. I hope the Chairman can bring both groups together to resolve the issues in everybody's interest.

Dr. Pádraig O’Reilly

In the interest of ensuring clarity in the replies to the questions, particularly those to Professor Noack, we will deal with them in different sections. A number of members commented on the comparison between the ASKON study and the Ecofys study. They are two totally different studies. Ecofys produced a generic desktop study. Many people are capable of looking at the historic literature and examples across the world before producing a generic report. The ASKON report is site-specific and very specific to the north east. Professor Noack has a set of slides. Slide No. 17 highlights every detail about undergrounding cables in the north east down to the number of cables, the length of each cable, the weight of the cable drums, the cable terminations and so on and these have been itemised and costed specifically for the north-east project. Any comparison between it and Ecofys is like comparing apples with oranges and not apples with apples.

I will deal later with Deputy Kenneally's questions about the availability of the report, the terms of reference and the sections of the report. However, we live in a democracy. EirGrid was free to conduct an underground study on the north-east project from day one and it is our strong opinion that it should have done so. As a voluntary committee, we should not have had to conduct a site-specific study. It should still be conducted by the company. We would then have a much better comparison between site-specific studies by both ASKON and EirGrid.

The nub of the questions from members relate to a number of sections. The first relate to whether the project is feasible, its costs and the safety aspects. Professor Noack will deal with the fundamental aspects of feasibility and affordability.

Professor Friedhelm Noack

It is an independent study. I am a scientist and a power engineer and cannot change the facts. I have calculated the equations for underground and overhead lines and cables and the results are in this report.

High voltage networks have been installed in European countries for many decades. In Germany and other countries on the continent there are 400 kV networks over many thousands of kilometres. There was no need to extend the grids until there arose a need for very large generators on the coast. We now need 1,000 MW, 1,500 MW and more to install additional transmission lines and that has prompted a debate in Germany because people are not willing to have the high towers and transmission lines required for that purpose. Some 20 years earlier we did not have the option of underground cables with polyethylene insulation and improved joints and terminations, but progress in the development of cable technology has opened up their possibility. They were available formerly but they became oil impregnated and could only be used over short distances so were not an option.

Underground cabling is the way of the future. Many years ago all the overhead lines in cities and villages were 200 or 220 volts and went from dwelling to dwelling. In many cities nowadays there are no such lines but cables. The next step was to install cables in medium voltage regions, at between 10 kV and 30 kV and I am sure they are the future. In big cities there are no overhead lines on the streets or from house to house. Cables are a better solution as it is preferable not to have lines against one's windows. In growing cities in Japan the overhead lines are insulated in case people touch them. Cables represents progress and development in transmission technology.

In answer to Deputy Crawford's question, the second cable is the N-1 criterion. In Germany and other countries, for security reasons, there are only two double-single system overhead lines. If one system fails the other will be able to transport the power without any disruptions. That is the way to improve the security of our generation of power transmission and it is now normal in all high voltage lines.

I was asked how long the cable would take to manufacture. I am very familiar with both overhead and underground technologies and have contacted many of the companies on this point. They have actually extended their production capacities and I asked one of them, a well known company, how long it would take to produce a cable of 60 km. I was told it would take one year but for such a lucrative project one would commission a number of companies — maybe two or three — and they would co-operate. It may eventually take less than one year to manufacture a cable so there will be no bottleneck. There are many big companies in Europe and Japan which now manufacture cables and they are busy with many projects, though they might not be making them as long as we require. The cables are used in very sensitive areas to bring power from nuclear power generators and large power stations of many thousands of megawatts. They also supply cities of 1 million inhabitants such as London, which has a 20 km, 400 kW underground cable and Tokyo, where there is a 40 km cable of 500 kV. They are in very sensitive areas from the point of view of outages and far larger than Dublin.

These cables are used in many fields and experts in Copenhagen, Berlin, Tokyo and other cities would not recommend them if they were not sure they were reliable and could fulfil transmission capacity. If there is a technical need for a cable it will be installed without any discussion. The last one was installed in Milan, near the airport. There was a need for electromagnetic compatibility to prevent the overhead line influencing the airport's devices so some of the cable was installed underground. The line will not influence the airport and its devices and if there is a need to put a line underground there is no discussion.

To have cables of 60 km and 80 km in length is new for Ireland and at the beginning of the study we were not sure what would happen over such a long distance. We did hundreds of calculations and simulations regarding electric and thermal behaviour and the facts concerning the parameters of the cable and what would happen to it. I have one slide here illustrating this but there are hundreds of such examples. If committee members look at slide No. 20 they will see it is only part of the overall situation. The load current over the length of the cable is shown on the diagram in many colours. The upper diagram represents load and the lower one line-to-earth voltage. If we have an unloaded cable, as shown in the lower diagram, the voltage will increase from the middle to the end. It is an example of increasing voltage named the Ferranti effect. It is good to calculate this but to do so requires equations that may cover many pages. I can show committee members these equations if they like.

We did this calculation because the Ferranti effect on an unloaded cable is something we should consider. In the case of an unloaded cable, the increase of voltage found in the study was only 1.5%, which is far lower than the admissible level of voltage on such a line. If we have shunt reactors on both sides conditions will be very safe and we will have no problems with the Ferranti effect. The effect is also known to affect long overhead lines. EirGrid also did things to counteract the Ferranti effect; it arranged shunt reactors on both sides in woodland.

Deputy Simon Coveney

To be clear, is Professor Noack telling us there is no difference between having an AC line overground and having one underground, in terms of distance and the need for shunt reactors and breaks within the line? Is that a bogus argument as far Professor Noack is concerned?

Professor Friedhelm Noack

Yes. I will give more information on this. I ask committee members to look at the slide No. 14 on reactive power compensation. This relates to the physical effect of having surplus reactive power in cables. The same surplus of reactive power occurs in long overhead lines. The lines in Ireland are not as long as in other countries, such as Canada, the United States and Russia, where there are hundreds more kilometres of lines. The Ferranti effect occurs, so shunt reactors are installed on both sides of the line.

At the first stage I considered the need for additional shunt reactors but our calculations clearly show that more are not needed; two are sufficient. If such a site is to be installed one must break the cable, come over ground and install a site with devices such as surge arresters, circuit breakers, cable terminators and so on. Such a site costs around €10 million to €12 million so if one is not necessary it should not be installed.

Deputy Damien English

Are there shunt reactors on both sides of the 40 km line in Tokyo or is there a precautionary one in the middle?

Professor Friedhelm Noack

No. I am sure that it is sufficient to have them on both sides.

Deputy Damien English

Is there one on either side of the Tokyo line or should we check this?

Professor Friedhelm Noack

In Tokyo there is one on either side of the line, which is 50 km long. There is a 300 megavolt ampere reactive unit there; in other words, there are 300 megavolts on both sides.

I have a great deal more to say. I have already answered regarding manufacturing; I am sure there will not be a bottleneck.

Deputy Simon Coveney

What about transmission losses?

Professor Friedhelm Noack

I could give the Deputy a lecture on transmission losses but I will be brief. Voltage-dependent losses occur when there is only voltage on the cable and they are independent from the current. They are called dielectric losses and have properties relating to insulation. There are also losses in shunt reactors but we have calculated them. The other losses are called current-dependent losses, which means when the current increases losses also increase. However, they will increase to the power of the square of the current, which means they increase very quickly, almost exponentially, the higher the current. There are high losses with increasing currents and this is the problem that occurs in parallel cable systems. In a high cross-section there are lower losses than with overhead lines. Over a period of 40 years or so savings are made with regard to losses, though losses are a physical fact that I cannot change. Increasing loads mean increasing losses. We have calculated these losses and they are shown in diagrams we have produced. It is a very specific area.

Deputy Simon Coveney

This is an important issue. This is what leads to the conclusion in Professor Noack's report that, over the life cycle of this system, it makes cost sense to go underground. This also highlights the direct contradiction between the two reports we have had. I accept Dr. Pádraig O'Reilly's point that comparing the two reports is like comparing apples and oranges. However, on certain issues of principle they are dealing with the same issue. A desk-top study should come to the same conclusion as a site specific study on an issue like transmission losses, because that is something that should happen regardless of where one is. The Ecofys report is clear about transmission losses. It says:

Over the life cycle the costs associated with transmissions losses dominate the total operational costs of both overground and underground. Losses are strongly dependent on line loading (which is what Professor Noack said). Under the operational conditions typical of the Irish transmission system resulting cost differences between both options are likely to be insignificant.

That is what is being said in one report. The ASKON report points out a huge difference of €130 million to €200 million for underground and €375 million for overhead. There is a substantial difference there. I am trying to understand why there is this contradiction. I want to make the argument for putting this underground but I need to understand why different conclusions have been drawn in the two reports.

Chairman

Could I short-circuit the discussion at this point? Deputy McManus has already referred to this divergence. Dr. O'Reilly and Professor Noack, you are dealing with lay people. I re-read both reports last weekend. Lay people do not understand their detailed technical aspects. Could your technical people sit down with EirGrid and their consultants and iron out the differences which Deputy Coveney has outlined? This committee is not in a position to do that but we will facilitate you in doing so. Does it not make sense that both parties, with their respective consultants, would try to iron out a problem which we cannot solve? I suggest we proceed with other questions and come back to this matter at the conclusion of the meeting.

Deputy Simon Coveney

If there is a brief answer to my question, it would be helpful to have it on the record.

Dr. Friedhelm Noack

I can give a very short answer. The Ecofys study assumes, like EirGrid, that we have a very low load on this line. This is a major factor in all the studies. In my experience over many years dealing with high voltage grids, I cannot believe that a line with a capacity of 1,700 MW will be loaded over 40 years with only 200 MW. This is unbelievable. In my experience of all countries we will have, in some years, much higher loads on this system. This will be equally true for overhead lines and cable. With increasing loads we have increasing losses. Loads and losses are directly correlated. That is the difference in this assumption.

Dr. Udo Hass

I would like to point out only one thing in addition to what has already been said. It has been said ours is not a study on the real project. To give the committee an impression of the effort behind it, the many calculations Professor Noack carried out exceed €100,000. One can imagine the effort behind this. It is not a desk-top study. It is a real project. If the project were given the go-ahead tomorrow, we would need only a few weeks to arrange the project management. All the calculations are done.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

Have calculations been done along the entire route?

Dr. Udo Hass

It is a specific route.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

Have calculations been done through Meath alone or through Meath, Cavan and Monaghan?

Dr. Udo Hass

Yes.

Chairman

The Ecofys report states that prior to its commencement, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources sought submissions and received 522 responses, all of which were considered. It is a significant report.

Deputy Damien English

The submissions came from individuals and dealt with health concerns and land use. No one has done the maths, as has been done in the ASKON report.

Chairman

That is the point Deputy Kenneally made. We have only seen one part of the Ecofys report. I have asked that the full report be made available to interested parties.

Deputy Shane McEntee

I agree with you, Chairman. However, the people of Meath, Monaghan and Cavan should not fund this investigation. It is in the national interest that the second part of the report be made available. Five or six companies are now building incinerators in our area so as to be able to connect to this grid. The communities in those areas are fund-raising. The people of those three counties should not be expected to raise more money. Either EirGrid or the Government should pay to see the report

Chairman

The Government has commissioned an independent report.

Deputy Shane McEntee

That report cost very little.

Chairman

Where do we stop?

Deputy Shane McEntee

The Government report cost buttons compared with what the people of Meath, Cavan and Monaghan have had to do.

Chairman

If we are to make progress, the full report should be made available. That is, if we want to make progress.

Deputy Simon Coveney

It is important that we scrutinise this report as we scrutinised the Ecofys report, and give it the same respect. We must try to achieve as good an understanding as we can, as policy makers. We will raise questions on this report as we did to the Ecofys report. We need lay people's answers. We are gaining a better understanding of the issue. This is a big decision for us. Any recommendation we make will have an impact on every grid project in the next ten or 20 years. We are talking about spending €4 billion on grid infrastructure over a relatively short period.

Could we return to answering specific questions so as to finalise our scrutiny of the report?

Deputy Johnny Brady

Could the cost factors and the second report be discussed when representatives of the NEPP meet the Minister? I understand he has agreed to meet them soon. Many of these issues could be raised with the Minister and, possibly, State money used to cover the cost of reports.

Dr. Pádraig O’Reilly

Deputy Coveney's comments are apt. We will address the issue he raised before the end of this meeting. We now have an opportunity to go through specific questions with Professor Noack and try to elicit lay people's answers to them.

One of the two main challenges in the Ecofys study concerned the reliability of underground cables versus overhead lines. An order of magnitude of ten was mentioned. Professor Noack has made it clear that the issue of reliability does not exist when one gets down to a specific project level. The other aspect related to feasibility over long distances. Professor Noack has highlighted the fact that AC is being used over long distances in other parts of the world and will continue to be used at that level. Some other relevant points arise from questions. Some points overlapped. One was in relation to electromagnetic fields. A comment was made about draft legislation in Germany where 400 m is now seen as the acceptable distance. Perhaps you could comment on that. There is also the health effects of electromagnetic fields on people and livestock.

Professor Friedhelm Noack

The impact on animals and human beings is a matter of great discussion around the world. We have some values from an international commission. These values are also used in the European Community. Many people are against these numbers. They believe the numbers are too high and are not safe enough for human beings. Many countries have now set lower numbers for such fields. There are two aspects of the German precautionary corridor, the electromagnetic field and the visionary impact on cities and dwellings. There is a relevant law in Lower Saxony, which will be enforced throughout the country, probably in the spring. It is at draft stage.

Another question relates to protecting the cable against drilling. We have many methods to protect such cables against disturbances. One method involves some foils under the surface, another involves metal meshes. It is also possible to put concrete plates over the cables. There would be signs on the surface to protect against drilling, for oil or gas pipelines, for example. It would not be a case of digging a trench, placing the cables and forgetting about them.

A further matter relates to reliability. I have sent a questionnaire to grid operators and cable manufacturers asking how many failures there have been in the 400 kV cables. No failure in the cable itself occurred. This is a fact. It can be said that no technical arrangement is without any failures, but if failures occur it will be in the joints between the cable ends. There are many of these joints. It is also clear that in some countries failures occurred, but very seldom. I know of one cable failure in Berlin. Let me explain what happened. After seven years of operation, there was a discharge from the outer side of such a joint. It was a remarkable failure because it was a failure in a sensor cable to measure the partial discharges inside. During mounting, this cable was shifted slightly inside the joint. Though it was a discharge, it was not a discharge of the main insulation. The same day the cable was switched off, work began on dismantling this joint. There was not a spare part available. After one week the joint was replaced and there were a lot of additional voltage tests and so on.

The Berlin cable was a pilot project in Europe. In the development of this project, many of the manufacturers subjected their cables to a one-year test under very high pressure, with higher loads and voltages and so on. It can be said that the failure was not in the cable itself. During the one-week repair time, the remaining cable was still in operation without any loss of load. Then the whole cable was in operation again. Older values of reliability are not suitable. We must look at newer elements and devices of this technology and the voltage and then speak about reliability and the failure rate. We cannot compare the failure rate of cables of maybe 100 kV from a technology 30 years old. It is not comparable.

Dr. Pádraig O’Reilly

There were a couple of comments in relation to Denmark because of recent announcements regarding undergrounding. The comment was made that in the case of Denmark the infrastructure is already well developed and hence future undergrounding will not be significant. Two aspects are relevant. Denmark has led the way in terms of undergrounding technology. Over 15% of the lines at the mid or high voltage end have been undergrounded. Its policy, which has the long-term objective of undergrounding all of the transmission, is one of which we should take notice, given its expertise.

The second aspect is how it achieved a policy agreement for undergrounding. We feel the way forward is the setting up of an electricity infrastructure committee which involves the stakeholders, with cross-party involvement, to look at the challenge of underground cabling. The summary of the Danish results shows that far from being a small project for the future, its undergrounding policy is very significant. While we may say we cannot wait ten years to look at better techniques for undergrounding, the EirGrid strategy, Grid 25, is focused on the next 15 years at least, and will have a significant impact.

Deputies Kelly and Kenneally raised some questions about the independence of the ASKON reports and whether the full reports were published. As stated by the ASKON people, the report was totally independent. The terms of reference for people interested in reading Report 1 are contained in the first chapter and state that we asked ASKON to look at the North-South interconnector project, to consider whether it should be underground or overground, and to identify a feasible option. It was a study on the comparative merits of overhead lines and underground cables. It was not a direct mandate to look only at the underground option. The report is independent in that regard. As the professor said, he has spent many years working on both overhead and underground lines and he has used his expertise in this regard.

From an NEPP perspective, prior to the publication of the report we met EirGrid on a number of occasions. We outlined to them the details related to the report and offered the full study and complete access to the ASKON expertise, subject to one condition, namely a fair contribution to costs of the study. It is our strong view that EirGrid should have carried out a site specific underground study when it was was looking at the options for route corridors in the north east. We felt that the Ecofys study, at least as a portion of their analysis, should have looked at the site specific costing of the North-South interconnector. At the end of the day, it was left to the contributions from the 45,000 people in the north east who are keen to see transmission grid development, but from an underground perspective. Given that we did this study at great expense, we felt a fair contribution from EirGrid should have been acceptable to it. It decided against this. We believe this was for a tactical rather than a technical reason. It became quite clear in our discussions that there is a more fundamental issue at stake. We believe it has a strong policy not to examine undergrounding objectively. It might be claimed that this is easy for us to say, but let us look at the facts. The Grid 25 document published recently states that it will embark on a €4 billion programme, yet all it has produced to date is a nine-page document on undergrounding, the PB Power document which it used at the February meeting. It states that it will look at undergrounding, but at the barriers to it. It is wholly unfair to request us to give the second part of the report at no cost to EirGrid, given that it has not published any underground studies.

We see the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources as a willing accomplice in this regard. He has a very strong focus on renewable energy and that is to be applauded, but there has been no research in the all-island grid study in relation to transmission infrastructure. A sum of €1 million was spent on the study, but nothing on the mode of transmission. Arguments used against undergrounding include the fact that in the rest of the world 90% of lines are overhead. There is a certain irony in that since it could be argued that in the rest of the world, and indeed in Ireland, the vast majority of electricy comes from non-renewable resources, yet there is an open mindset and a willingness to change from a very small percentage of renewable resources to over 40%. We are looking for a willingness to look objectively at undergrounding. If that is done, we will be more than happy to share the details of the report. At this point we see no interest from EirGrid or from the Minister in looking objectively at undergrounding. We know the studies produced to date do not represent a definitive and final step, but it has been identified that this technology is feasible and can be moved forward.

As a voluntary campaign, we have to look at commercial aspects, fund-raising, etc. We are not fools. We run the campaign based on facts. We will not be dissuaded from a national discussion on this subject. We feel in the interest of everyone that the discussion should be at a national level. People do not realise that, apart from the North-South interconnector project, the Grid 25 strategy will result in a significant increase in transmission lines, not just at 400 kV but at 220 kV and even at 110 kV. This will be the single biggest project to affect the countryside in our lifetime, yet there has not been a proper debate on it. We are keen to get to that point and to have the full ASKON study discussed and analysed by whoever has an interest in that regard. First we have to see genuine intent and commitment to looking at undergrounding as a policy. To date we have not seen that interest from the Minister or from EirGrid.

Senator Joe O’Reilly

I join in the unanimous welcome to our guests. I sincerely congratulate the NEPP on the voluntary subscriptions that it collected. I understand my colleague, Deputy Crawford, was offering similar congratulations when I had to leave this meeting to attend a division in the Seanad. I have been involved in local and national politics since 1985. I have never yet met a pressure group so dependent on logic and reason, trying to approach this from a very logical perspective rather than creating an unnecessary furore without content.

A general observation is that, all things being equal, bearing in mind the precautionary principle, the quality of life issue and the environmental considerations, the logical thing to do is underground the cables. I do not think a rational person would contradict that thesis. The question of feasibility then arises and the study is a very welcome contribution to that debate. The first issue is cost. The study contends that there is real saving over a 40-year period, a long-term investment. That is very persuasive. Ecofys suggests a significantly higher cost. I presume you have addressed that disparity. I hope to raise this question in informal discussions tomorrow and in discussions with EirGrid. If we could establish a level of cost with a saving over a 40-year period, then despite the economic constraints under which we labour, we would have to accept that undergrounding would be the solution.

The responsibility given to me by my party leader in the Seanad is to pursue the issue of alternative energy. My colleague, Senator Walsh, will acknowledge the fact that I have been raising that issue, virtually on a weekly basis. That is my job. I am concerned about the issue and I believe we should establish co-operative windfarms around the country, just as we established co-operative creameries in the past. That energy should be going into the grid and there should be a consequent income from surplus energy. To what degree would underground cabling be compatible with a comprehensive and aggressive alternative energy policy? We could have co-operative windfarms, solar panels and micro-generators, with surplus energy going to the grid. Would access to the grid be damaged? I have heard that it would. Could alternative energy get to the grid satisfactorily via underground cabling without an immeasurable difference in cost? Is there an issue there? It is very important in the long term and would have to be a major consideration of policy makers in the final decision.

The 400 yd. factor that is emerging in Germany is critically important. If that arises from scientific evidence and from a national debate, implicit in that is an acceptance that there is a very real health issue from radiation within a 400 yd. distance. If that be the case, it opens up the entire debate. I am sure you have commented at length on that matter in my absence, but I would like you to address it. It is of critical importance because I am not sure how overground routes could be selected which would comply with the 400 yd. criterion.

Have you sought to work with either Ecofys or EirGrid in the preparation of your report? I welcome elected colleagues from Cavan-Monaghan who are here today, Councillors Carville, Bannigan and Keenan. They are voluntarily making an enormous commitment to this campaign. They raised the question as to the degree to which the report was a collaborative process. If not, is that because it was not possible to be collaborative? Did you interact with EirGrid in the process of developing your report? Why do you think that EirGrid has dismissed your report as not being viable? How would you respond to that? One is persuaded by the proposition made to me by a number of the voluntary members of the NEPP that there is a fear that if you underground this area, other people will seek to have existing overground cables placed underground and it will open a Pandora's box. I presume the Danish model would deal with that. I would be interested in a response.

We all feel strongly about this issue and want to do the right thing. If you can persuade us, individually and collectively, and persuade scientists and policy makers that it would be reasonably cost effective to underground, there is no logic in overgrounding. The only reason to go against the will of the people and decide to overground would be prohibitive costs in doing otherwise. That has to be established. You have gone a long way towards establishing that for us and I welcome your contribution. If these matters have already been dealt with, I will be happy to be informed informally.

Deputy Damien English

There are many questions to which it has not been possible to get answers because of the nature of the debate. Is it permissible to request responses to the committee? It is important that they should be on the record. An important factor is the life cycle of the technology, which impacts on costs.

Chairman

The questions which were not answered will be circulated by the clerk.

Dr. Pádraig O’Reilly

Some of the questons raised by Senator O'Reilly have been answered. On the question of costs and life cycle analysis, we would not like people to think that the ratio was 3.4:1. I will ask Colin Andrew to go through some of the costs for underground cables. In relation to working with EirGrid and putting the report together, all of the EirGrid data that is in the public domain, transmission adequacy reports, etc., have been used as a baseline by ASKON. All that information has been taken into account, as has the Ecofys report.

Dr. Colin Andrew

A year ago EirGrid said that the cost ratio was 1:25. Subsequently it reduced that to 1:10. The Ecofys average is approximately 1:3. We are now looking at numbers that are between 1:39 and 1:86. I contend that those numbers can be reduced further. EirGrid's capital cost for the entire project worked out at €2 million per line kilometre. The professor used €700,000. Make that €2 million and it is cheaper to go underground, when one takes the losses into consideration. None of those costs takes into consideration the very substantial cost of the devaluation of property. The right to property is enshrined in the Constitution. If an external factor diminishes the value of that property or land, it is a requirement that the negative externality has to be replaced by internalising the cost. That cost has to be borne by the developer of the project. Many papers have been published around the world on the diminution of value of farmland and property. It is very easy to see properties within 100 m of a power line becoming effectively worthless. Studies in Finland show that properties up to 2.5 km have been devalued if there is line of sight to a power line. We perceive that there could be a diminution of value approaching half a billion euro. This is based on precise factors, the distribution of land along the route corridors. If one adds the cost of another €2 million per line kilmetre, the cost of going underground is substantially less than putting lines on pylons. EirGrid mentioned in its report a time of four years for an underground cable; for an overhead line, 7.25 years. The delay is in using pylons and the cost is greater.

Chairman

This committee has received two very detailed reports, the conclusions of which are very wide apart. The only way we can make progress is by following our suggestion and working with EirGrid and its consultants. We are not in a position to adjudicate, nor do I think anyone would expect us to do so. I believe progress can be made by thrashing out the differences in the two technical reports. I also welcome the Minister's invitation to the delegation to meet him.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the delegates for their attendance. We hope progress can be made in the near future.

The joint committee adjourned at 5 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 14 January 2009.