JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, NATURAL RESOURCES AND AGRICULTURE debate -
Tuesday, 21 Feb 2012

North East Pylon Pressure Campaign

Chairman

We will reconvene. I thank everybody for coming back so promptly. We did not have a vote, so we will have to watch that. If we do have a vote, we will have to suspend for a few minutes.

The next session involves the North East Pylon Pressure Campaign. I welcome representatives from the group. We have Ms Aimée Treacy, chairperson, Mr. Padraig O'Reilly, Dr. Colin Andrew and Mr. John Farrelly, and they are joined by Ms Bernie Andrew. Before I call on Ms Treacy, I would like to remind witnesses about privilege. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, you are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence you give this committee. However, If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise nor make charges against any persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I ask Ms Treacy to make her opening statement. I understand Mr. O'Reilly and possibly Mr. Farrelly will also contribute.

Ms Aimée Treacy

Chairman, on behalf of the North East Pylon Pressure Campaign, I thank you and the members of the committee for the opportunity afforded to us this afternoon to advocate the case for putting the proposed North-South interconnector underground.

I am chairperson of the North East Pylon Pressure Campaign. With me are my colleagues Mr. Padraig O'Reilly, Dr. Colin Andrew and Ms Bernie Andrew and also councillor and former TD Mr. John Farrelly. After my short introduction, I will ask Mr. O'Reilly to brief the committee on the overall case in favour of undergrounding the power lines.

NEPPC is the overall representative group for some 45,000 people of the north east who advocate that high-power electric cables should go underground. The group was formed in November 2007, in response to the massive public outcry emanating from the EirGrid announcement of its plans for a North-South interconnector from Meath to Tyrone. The strong consensus is that the interconnector should be established using underground cables instead of overhead transmission power lines.

Our campaign objectives are as follows. We want to build a rational, cohesive and comprehensive case for an underground cable alternative; influence the political process to achieve consensus on undergrounding; and achieve a change in policy through public support. NEPPC has engaged a range of professional expertise and commissioned a significant number of reports in such areas as technology, agriculture, health, environment, ecology, geology, heritage, landscape and visual impact and land and property devaluation. These reports have resulted in a technically and scientifically well-researched case in support of undergrounding the North-South interconnector.

NEPPC made submissions to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources in February 2008 and December 2008. We made a submission and presentation to the Northern Ireland Environment Committee in Stormont in April 2009. NEPPC also met the Danish transmission system operator, Energinet and shared the reports with it.

We favour a strengthened national electricity grid, but it is a recognised fact that extra high voltage power lines and pylons are internationally regarded as being the most objectionable form of public utility infrastructure on land. In contrast to other countries, we have not yet been subjected to a blight of pylons across our countryside, and we must not allow it to happen. They impose significant negative effects when established, in respect of visual and environmental impact, land and property devaluation, and health and safety concerns.

NEPPC welcomes the initiative taken by the Government to engage a set of respected international experts to examine independently and report on the feasibility and cost of undergrounding the North-South interconnector. NEPPC has argued from the outset that undergrounding the North-South interconnector is feasible, given the technological advances happening at a rapid pace.

We welcome the joint committee's decision to hold public hearings on this issue. A decision on the undergrounding of future high power cables is not a single one-dimensional decision. It must be a balanced decision, encompassing not just cost or technology, but health, environment, heritage, tourism, agriculture and people's livelihood. Such a decision is the very essence of democracy and of politics. NEPPC is recommending that the North-South interconnector is constructed using the latest underground cable technology and furthermore, that this technology should become a core component of the overall Grid25 development plan.

Thank you Chairman. I now call on my colleague Mr. Padraig O'Reilly to outline the rationale behind this recommendation.

Mr. Padraig O’Reilly

The Grid25 development strategy lies at the heart of this hearing. Although the focus today is specifically on the North-South interconnector, it is important to bear in mind that each and every political constituency in the country will be impacted by the Grid25 development plan. The slides in front of committee members give an outline to that plan in the different parts of the country. The major backbone projects planned by EirGrid serve to emphasise this point. These include the Grid West Mayo project, the Moneypoint to Cork project, the grid link from Cork to Dunnstown in Kildare, the Dublin ring project, the North-South interconnector in the north east and the renewable integration development plan in the north west.

The North-South interconnector is the first of these backbone projects to have been submitted for planning approval to An Bord Pleanála in 2009, but was withdrawn by EirGrid in June 2010 under controversial circumstances. It is 140 km in length, and runs from Dunboyne in Meath, through Cavan, Monaghan and ends at Turleenan in Tyrone. EirGrid's published cost for the project is €280 million, as a 400 kV overhead line. It has never examined an underground specific route or costing.

As outlined by our chairperson, NEPPC has actually spent more money on commissioning expertise to examine undergrounding the North-South interconnector than EirGrid or any other organisation in this country. Importantly, we have commissioned studies on aspects such as the impact on agriculture, on land and property devaluation, on landscape and tourism and on rural business. These reports are crucial to obtaining an accurate cost-benefit analysis.

It is the contention of NEPPC that four decision criteria need to be met in justifying the recommendation for undergrounding the North-South interconnector, namely, feasibility, affordability, acceptability and achievability. First, the undergrounding option must be examined for technical feasibility, including safety, reliability and security of supply. Responsibility for this decision rests with EirGrid, but also important insights and inputs can be gleaned from the transmission system operators in other countries and from independent experts in industry and academia. In this regard, the international expert commission and the Meath-Tyrone report have particular relevance.

The next decision relates to affordability, and there already have been many discussions on that today. The full project cost-benefit analysis and value for money are critical. Responsibility for the decision lies with the Government, as part of its strategic direction on transmission infrastructure.

The acceptability of electricity infrastructure is very much centred on concerns related to impact on health, environment and local communities. Responsibility for this decision rests with the public in general, but particularly with affected landowners and communities. Finally, overall achievability of the North-South project is the responsibility of all stakeholders in terms of engagement, co-operation and a level of trust.

NEPPC believes that undergrounding the North-South interconnector is feasible, for a number of reasons. We have highlighted those in our slide. First, the Meath-Tyrone report points out that over the past few years there have been tremendous developments in transmission technology that were not considered by several previous reports and thus not considered as an alternative by EirGrid. It further states that for HVDC lines, undergrounding with cables is today a realistic solution. The most recently developed HVDC system using voltage source converter technology, VSC, has in recent years seen significant technical development and a commercial breakthrough, particularly in Europe. There are now three European manufacturers offering full off-the-shelf solutions for VSC-HVDC converters and three European manufacturers offering extruded HVDC cable.

Second, the choice of similar technology by EirGrid for the establishment of the east-west interconnector and its statements on reliability and security of supply are strong support for its use for the north-south interconnector. Some background to the east-west interconnector and security of supply can be seen in the slides. There has been increasing adoption by other countries of HVDC underground systems, as highlighted in the Meath-Tyrone report. As mentioned earlier today by various parties, many of these cable production factories are completely full up in terms of orders. Fourth, the terrain and sub-surface geology in the north-east are suitable for an underground project, and there are various options available including old rail beds, existing road infrastructure or agricultural land.

A key area of discussion centres on the affordability of the underground system. A comprehensive analysis of affordability needs to encompass the full range of costs and benefits involved. These clearly must include capital costs, operating or life-cycle costs, and impact costs such as land and property devaluation and project delays. The report estimates the capital cost of the overhead line option at €167 million, compared with costs of €286 million, €350 million and €500 million for the underground options, depending on the power flow capacities assumed. The slide highlights the power flow capacities that have been published by EirGrid in terms of its estimated requirement for the future. Given this published information, NEPPC is of the view that the €286 million or €350 million options are the appropriate comparisons to use. Using EirGrid's initial estimate of €280 million for capital costs alone - as has been mentioned here already - for the overhead line, the comparative capital cost of underground compared to overhead lines ranges from virtually equal to 1.25 times higher.

The Meath-Tyrone report highlights that costs can vary considerably depending on, for instance, the terrain involved, the tower design being used, metal prices and many other factors. From a solely technical perspective, the cost of undergrounding has reduced dramatically from an estimated 25 times the cost of overhead lines to between one and three times the cost of overhead lines. The key message is that with ongoing technological advances, and when all other associated comparative costs are factored in, the undergrounding option is now reaching a point of being more competitive than the overhead lines alternative.

The human impact of overhead lines on people's livelihoods and assets such as land and property is also a key component of an affordability analysis. A large number of international studies have been carried out over the last 50 years to assess the impact of overhead power lines on the value of residential property and land in close proximity to pylon towers. The results of numerous such studies have shown that such power lines have a statistically significant negative impact on both land and property values. Furthermore, properties up to several kilometres distant with unrestricted views of such overhead lines also suffer a significant negative effect. The most common effects identified and cited in court cases around the world are reductions in market value, difficulty in selling properties, unsightliness of pylons, and visual and noise pollution. In Denmark, Energinet, the Danish transmission system operator, routinely compulsorily purchases all residences within 80 m of new lines, and has a sliding scale of compensation to 180 m distant.

In 2009, a detailed route-specific study was performed by NEPPC in association with Lisney Associates, using international standards to estimate losses in property value along the proposed route. This took into account the proximity of a property to the line, the type of house and the market price at the time and applied a formula to estimate the loss in value. A similar study was performed by Farrelly & Scully to examine losses in land and agricultural productivity value. This very detailed analysis reported that property losses could be expected to total €387 million, with farm devaluation losses of €651 million. Even allowing for a 50% reduction in both property and land values since 2009, the combined devaluation and potential liability figure is nevertheless still over €500 million.

The delays incurred in upgrading the grid also carry a significant cost. Chambers Ireland, which probably received its statistics from EirGrid and ESB, estimates this at approximately €30 million per year. In an earlier session here, a figure of €25 million to €35 million was quoted by EirGrid. Planning delays are a significant obstacle to efficient roll-out of the grid upgrade. Undergrounding, however, does not require planning and so provides an immediate solution to this problem. It is often assumed that delays are caused solely by public opposition to new overhead lines. This is not the case. The North-South interconnector planning application was withdrawn by EirGrid after a 21-day hearing by An Bord Pleanála and awaits resubmission. Many of the challenges relate to onerous compliance requirements and the practical difficulty of finding a straight-line route option through a countryside where one-off housing has been facilitated. Other impact costs that have not been quantified relate to tourism and local business effects in the vicinity of an overhead line. Taking these costs into account, the overhead line option is between two and four times more expensive than the underground alternative, depending on the level of property and land devaluation. When one factors in all of the additional costs associated with overhead lines that are not covered in this report, it makes the undergrounding option economically justified and viable and thus affordable.

The next decision criterion is that of public acceptance. This is not specific to Ireland. Across Europe, 20 of the 32 main electricity infrastructure projects face delays. This is in stark contrast to the main underground gas pipeline projects, for which no significant delays have been reported. The reasons for delays in ten of the 11 top-priority electricity projects include the common theme of opposition from local populations for health, environmental and visual intrusion reasons. In this regard, the Commission has stated: "It is vital to reduce the planning and construction time for prioritised EU infrastructure, in a way that duly takes into account environmental, safety and health concerns."

Health effects from proximity to pylons are the key public concern. As evidenced from many international studies and opinion surveys, the overwhelming majority of people believe that electromagnetic fields emitted from overhead electricity lines adversely affect their health. Underground cable systems deal with concerns related to both health and proximity to property. No electric fields are emitted from underground cables, and, importantly, the magnetic field is also greatly reduced. Underground cable routes can if necessary be placed within 11 to 17 m from dwellings, versus 95 m for overhead lines, in order to comply with an exposure limit below the 1 microtesla level. Many European countries - for example Italy, Sweden and the Netherlands - have, based on research related to childhood leukaemia, set safe precautionary levels for human exposure to EMFs that are up to 500 times lower than the informal levels adopted in this country and used by EirGrid. The EMF from an overhead electricity line cannot be shielded, and residences need to be more than 90 m from the line to meet the precautionary safe reading currently adopted in this country. In contrast, even during peak loads, the EMF levels above underground cables reduce to 1 microtesla within 11 m or less. EirGrid is willing to commit, at the most, that overhead lines will be a 25 m distance from residential properties. This distance would be acceptable if undergrounding was adopted.

The key players in terms of acceptability are affected landowners. These landowners have recently signed form of authority contracts with NEPPC requesting that we represent them in all dealings with EirGrid related to the North-South interconnector. The form of authority contract also serves notice on EirGrid not to enter any lands or property without approval from NEPPC. We carried out a comprehensive survey of such landowners along the proposed route. The survey comprised more than 200 fully completed detailed questionnaires and interviews, representing 95.1% of the non-State landowners and close to 98% of the overall proposed route in terms of distance. Some of the results are highlighted on slides 30 and 31.

Some crystal clear messages were recorded. Some 99% of landowners "object strongly" to EirGrid's plans for overhead transmission lines. The same percentage, 99%, of landowners "prefer underground cables" as an acceptable alternative. It is encouraging to note that 89% have stated that they would permit their land to be crossed by underground cables. Achievability of this project requires clear leadership by Government, and full involvement of all stakeholders and this is highlighted on slides 32 and 33.

I will now hand back to Ms Treacy to make our concluding remarks.

Ms Aimée Treacy

The committee has heard the broad arguments justifying our recommendation to put the North-South interconnector underground. These arguments have focused primarily on the quantifiable costs and impact of the North-South interconnector project, but there are also unquantifiable effects. What value do we put on our heritage? What value do we place on our environment and on our landscape? What value do we place on the support and goodwill of our people?

Imagine a scenario where one of the most important and necessary infrastructure projects proceeds in a structured and progressive manner, with optimum cost-benefit efficiencies and with a spirit of co-operation and goodwill between all stakeholders. Imagine the message this will send out to our international business community and to the European Commission, which is desperate to see better progress on prioritised infrastructure. This would herald the beginning of a new era. This is the prize waiting to be grasped by taking the courageous but right decision to use the latest undergrounding technologies as a core component of the Grid 25 roll-out.

For our part, NEPPC commits to working very closely with EirGrid, in liaison with the landowners we represent, to ensure a smooth and efficient construction of the North-South interconnector using underground cable technology. The public is largely unaware of the major transmission infrastructural plans for our countryside over the coming years, but it is only a matter of time before this happens. Our campaign looks to our elected representatives, in particular this joint Oireachtas committee, to have the vision and the knowledge to understand the value of an underground strategy. We thank the committee for its time and will be happy to answer any further questions. Go raibh maith agaibh.

Mr. John Farrelly

Like my NEPPC colleagues, I take this opportunity to thank the Chairman and the members of the committee for conducting these hearings today and tomorrow. I want to focus on some specific areas and have no doubt the committee will give serious consideration to these issues. These issues are the effect on agriculture and property prices, the effect on tourism and the effect on the landscape. I was raised in north Meath on one of the farms on which these pylons will be erected if the go-ahead is given for them. In August 2008, some 1,200 farmers arrived on tractors on that farm to demonstrate in a protest in the shape of NO PYLONS.

If EirGrid's proposals go ahead, many of the small to medium-sized farms across north Meath, Cavan and Monaghan will not be viable due to the size of these pylons, which will create serious difficulties for farmers to farm their land to their full potential. As Mr. O'Reilly mentioned, it has been well documented that the value of residential property and land in areas where there are pylons will reduce substantially, to a far lower level than they are at currently. As chairman of Meath Tourism for more than 20 years and as someone from the heritage capital of Ireland I emphasise that to have these pylons erected across the landscape would be nothing more than sabotage and an insult to the people involved in one of our most prosperous industries. Some 6.5 million visitors came to our shores last year and every visitor we have contributes to creating a job, saving a job or to improving the livelihoods of people here.

The tourist business is everybody's business, from the farmer to the shopkeeper, the industrialist, parents and children and, if I may say it, all our semi-State bodies. Along with Fáilte Ireland, which promotes Ireland at home and abroad, our other semi-State bodies, such as EirGrid, Aer Lingus, Dublin Development Authority, Coillte and so on, have a duty to make it their business to make tourism part of their remit. There are thousands of jobs to be created, provided we protect our heritage and our landscape. If we take "protecting our heritage and landscape" as a slogan for all our semi-States, EirGrid should be forced to change its policy and to place all cables underground.

As a former Member of the Oireachtas for 21 years, and as one of the longest-serving members of Meath local authority, I urge the Chairman and the committee to see this as an opportunity to become pioneers for change in the way we deliver the necessary supply of power throughout the country, and abroad when possible. The committee can do this by recommending to the Government that it should direct EirGrid to place its cables underground. This will be a serious cost-saving exercise. It has been widely accepted by all parties and by EirGrid and the ESB that each year of delay in the building of the overhead lines, will cost from €25 million to €30 million. If this dispute continues for 14 years, as happened in Roscommon, and overhead cables are still not erected, we will be looking at a loss or cost of €450 million. That far exceeds the difference between the cost of putting the cables underground or overground. Why should the people of Meath, Cavan and Monaghan be treated differently from the people of north County Dublin, where a similar cable has been laid underground out to Batterstown in County Meath?

I thank the Chairman and hope the committee will take on board the serious issues that have been raised in today's debate, the first of four to take place across the country.

Deputy Martin Ferris

I thank the NEPPC representatives for their very detailed presentation which answers many of the questions. I concur totally that the underground option is the preferred and the best way to go. I agree too on the devaluation of property, the effect on tourism, and that from the health point of view, emissions affect people living in proximity to pylons. I agree with all the points made so eloquently.

The expert commission's report suggested it could envisage some of the line going underground and some overground. I cannot understand why all of it cannot be underground. In my experience from my constituency, the cables are practically all underground. Does the NEPPC group accept what the commission has to say in that regard? If not and it wishes to rebut its argument, how does it intend to do that? I was very impressed with the wholehearted support for the group. Mr. Farrelly mentioned that 1,200 tractors had turned out on the farm and that reflects how people in rural communities feel about this issue and their support in opposition to overground cables. The cost of the evaluation is estimated at almost €500 million when everything is taken into account. The two companies that carried that out, which are quite professional and very throughout, were named. The costs that cannot be quantified are the health aspects. Unfortunately, planners do not seem to take that into consideration when they are giving planning permission for mobile telephone masts, for example. It is wrong.

I wish the delegation well in this campaign. I believe it and concur with everything it said in its presentation. The only agenda it has is that of the community and families. The goodwill towards the project is striking. Support in favour of the project is almost overwhelming, albeit going ahead by a different method. What is also evident from the presentation is that the community wants the project to go ahead and to be proactive in support of it. Unfortunately, the powers that be are not listening to it.

Senator Thomas Byrne

I have nothing to add and do not have any questions. This issue has been substantially rehearsed. I wish the campaign well and, more importantly, congratulate the delegation for the tremendous work it has done over the past four and half years. It has built up the campaign and information available. I do not want to be too critical of semi-State companies but information has to be pulled out of people. The information has gradually emerged over four and a half years as technology has developed. NEPPC has played a key role in that.

I am not totally neutral. However, when EirGrid said it was working on the Rush to Batterstown sea link, knew about the cable and was involved in the biggest project in the world, if one was not interested in the project that information would be persuasive. Does the delegation have an answer to that? It is important it be answered because it seems the decisions were made by people not intimately involved in the project who could be persuaded. The question requires an answer from the campaign. Any time we ask questions of a voluntary campaign it imposes a burden. I do not like to ask difficult questions, but the delegation has done a lot of work and research on the area.

Is it a question of money? All things being equal, the international commission and the delegation's research shows this is technically feasible. ESB Networks say it can be constructed. Do we have to make a political decision as a society, which the Government has to reflect, to fund such a project? The delegation said it is not as expensive as other estimates, but it still costs money. Is the issue political, bureaucratic or societal? Do we all have to decide to pay more for electricity to allow projects like this to proceed? Has the issue been raised with the delegation? Was it aware of the cancellation of Moyhill?

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

I apologise for not being able to attend the last section of the meeting but I had a couple of prearranged meetings I could not cancel.

I congratulate the delegation on its presentation and the efficiency of its campaign so far. It is representative of the community and has relied, as we have seen from some of the reports, on a major amount of empirical research. The research is based on the facts and evidence and then reaches its conclusions, which is very important. It gives a lot of credibility and credence to the campaign.

It has been working in opposition to what I would see as an organisation with an almost bottomless financial pit which has fought it at every turn. Meath needs increased energy. I have been strong on that point. A company like IBM could not be located there at the current time because it does not have the electricity infrastructure. The bull-headed attitude of forcing through overhead pylons has slowed down the ability of Meath to get the electricity infrastructure it needs. Therefore, it is costing the county money and jobs in the long term by slowing the process down and not allowing for undergrounding which would be much faster in terms of implementation.

No facilities, such as electricity facilities, can be forced upon any community. They have to have the permission of the community which they go through. That is cental to any process, whether it is electricity, gas off the west coast or fracking in Leitrim. I cannot believe that a full cost benefit analysis has not been carried out by EirGrid with regard to all the alternative measures. Meath is considered to be the heritage capital of the country and the effects on heritage, culture and tourism have not been properly analysed.

The delegation has shown that its proposal is physically viable and within the financial range of what is possible. In many ways, it has blown the smoke of confusion away from the discussion. It now comes down to a policy decision by the Executive of the State on which the project proceeds.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

I commend the delegation on the work it has done and its presentation. I support everything Deputies Ferris and Tóibín said. The delegation has done a great service, not just to its community but to communities the length and breadth of the country. I represent Sligo North-Leitrim and I know the very same issues will arise there. The delegation has done the kind of research the committee and Government should have done. It has presented the results of that work before the committee. I do not think anybody can ignore the evidence presented. Given the value of the work the delegation has commissioned and produced, would it be possible to put it on a website in order that other communities the length and breadth of the country could access it?

Deputy Damien English

I concur with all the comments. The delegation has done great work which has been informative for us to tap into over the past couple of years. Many issues were discussed today. Apart from the presentation, does the delegation wanted to add anything else following the debate today? Is anything that has been said untrue, questionable or in need of being proved?

We have discussed reliability for years and the delegation commented on it, with particular reference to crossing the Border and tapping into the system in Northern Ireland. What is the view of the delegation on that?

The wind energy argument is new to me but the delegation might have comments on it. Apart from cost, we need to examine reliability and I would like to hear the delegation's comments on that. The costs in the figures presented by EirGrid are 2:1 but we started at 3:1. Things are changing as we go along. If the existing cost of €280 million is compared to the costs referred to in the report, plus a converter station costing €600 million, the costs are 2:1. We are making progress.

I ask the delegation to comment on the converter station at Woodland. I am not convinced of the need to have two, and then have a third. We should be able to do something. I ask for the delegation's comments or concerns.

Chairman

I believe the reports were sent to Energinet in Denmark. Did this sharing of information take into account the feasibility and the costs associated with an underground line? Were any comparisons drawn with the practice in Denmark? The information provided here differs in its approach from the study undertaken by the commission. I note Mr. O'Reilly referred to the report in considerable detail.

I refer to today's interactions between the committee members and ESB and EirGrid. It may be too soon to ask the delegation for a considered response but it would be of value to hear the group's response as soon as possible.

I invite Mr. O'Reilly to deal with the question about Energinet and also to address the questions from members.

Mr. Padraig O’Reilly

I will reply to the questions in order. Deputy Martin Ferris asked for our position on the possibility of partial overhead and underground lines. In our view, the crucial aspect is feasibility. If underground is feasible then the need for partial overhead lines is only driven by the terrain. If the land is difficult to traverse, then overhead lines may have to be considered. It should be noted with regard to some of the projects mentioned in the commission report that one project goes through the Pyrenees between France and Spain, which is very difficult mountain terrain and where a tunnel was built. When one compares such a project with the north east, we do not see any part of the north east requiring overhead lines if underground lines are to go ahead. We do not foresee any cost reduction in having a partial overground and underground situation. Based on the fact that feasibility is not an issue, in our view the lines should all be underground.

As regards Senator Byrne's question about the east-west interconnector as it relates to the North-South interconnector, in our view the question is more a matter for EirGrid given that the east-west interconnector goes from Rush to Woodland and given the statements made about its reliability and the safety and security of supply. Councillor Farrelly asked the question as to why it could not go between Woodland and Tyrone. In fairness to EirGrid and as the commission has pointed out, the HVDC technology has progressed in recent years. However, our first response would be that EirGrid never had an interest in looking at undergrounding, as opposed to the attitude in other transmission system operators in other countries. As far back as 2007, Eirgrid stated on the record that it did not intend considering the underground method; in its view it was not feasible and would be prohibitively expensive. Now it is proven to be feasible, thanks to the advanced technology and affordable, in our view. EirGrid need to look at it in a different way to how it is being presented here today.

Senator Byrne asked about Moyhill. This adds a bit to the east-west interconnector question because over the past four years there has been toing and froing and, in our view, a moving of the goalposts when the game has commenced, as regards whether it is an overhead line or an interconnector. In the original submission, the Moyhill substation was part of the justification by EirGrid as to why it could not be considered as a real interconnector. This has now been taken out of the equation. It had been removed from the preliminary evaluation report for the next submission issued last May and so it becomes a full interconnector. It was suggested today that it may be needed in the longer term but in our view, it is either an interconnector or it is not. If it is an interconnector, it adds even more weight to the argument for the underground option and the HVDC option.

Deputy Tóibín asked if money was the only issue and if a policy decision was involved. We do not regard it as a money issue. There is a difference between the definition of cost and of affordability. Something can cost very little and be too expensive for the buyer or it can cost a lot and be good value. In our view, the biggest challenge for us - and it may be a failing of the system - is the lack of accountability on the part of the transmission system operator for aspects such as land and property devaluation. We have heard very conflicting comments over the past number of years and even today with respect to the presentation. Deputy Colreavy asked the chief executive whether reports had been received on land and property devaluation and overall compensation and he replied by saying it was being investigated. On the other hand, Mr. Cooke was able to state that compensation is part of the €280 million figure quoted for the North-South interconnector. Either the analysis has been undertaken on the devaluation and there are correct figures or else this has not happened. This issue is not solely confined to Ireland. Hundreds of studies have been undertaken across the world. These can provide a very good analysis of devaluation, depending on the proximity of a farm or property to a line. This is neither rocket science nor a mystery but rather it is a case of collecting good, hard facts.

As regards the policy decision, we believe there is a Government policy on undergrounding for the Grid 25 development plan. Everybody would benefit if the policy was clarified. What might be surprising is that as a protest group we have participated fully in the democratic process. We attended the An Bord Pleanála hearing in 2010 and we will abide by whatever decision comes through as a result of any future hearings. Likewise, any such hearing must be fair and the policy needs to be clear as to the options for the North-South interconnector. It is not just an issue of public acceptance but rather EirGrid is not accepting the public view on the public's rights as regards this infrastructure. This attitude needs to shift and to change.

Deputy Colreavy asked about any research undertaken by our group. Our research and reports are available to anyone who needs them. We have shared them with the commission and with other organisations. We have shared most of our reports with EirGrid and we have met with the company on a frequent basis. We may have differences of opinion and on strategy but we have meetings at which we discuss our differences.

As regards the question of reliability and converter stations and options for using the east-west interconnector converter at Woodland for possible use for the North-South interconnector, in our view it is very remiss of EirGrid not to consider these options. Given the cost of a converter it seems to make a lot of sense to use a converter sitting in Woodland for the north-south interconnector.

Mr. Cooke mentioned that this is a possibility which could be considered for the future if a HVDC breaker were to be available. I refer the committee to page 55 of the commission report which states that those breakers will be available in 2013, next year. When figures are being bandied about regarding the cost of the North-South interconnector, there is a responsibility to ensure that those figures are accurate. Rather than throwing in another cost in regard to Moyhill, perhaps consideration should be given to the existing infrastructure coming from east to west and how cost savings can be made on that basis.

My colleague, Dr. Colin Andrew, might deal with the questions regarding the Danish approach to undergrounding. He has visited there and seen at first hand what is happening.

Dr. Colin Andrew

We met with representatives of Energinet in 2009 and had very useful discussions with their engineers. What came across very evidently was that there was a culture of seeking to solve problems rather than find them. That is very different from what we heard earlier today. In Denmark we saw that problems were viewed as challenges to be overcome rather than reasons that action could not be taken. It is an entirely different culture. The Danish Government, faced with the problems involved in installing electrical infrastructure, considered five options, from total undergrounding of the entire network through to zero undergrounding and no change. On 4 November 2008 the Government introduced its chosen strategy, whereby all new 132 kV, 150 kV and 400 kV connections would be laid as underground cables and all existing 132 kV and 150 kV grid connections would be undergrounded in accordance with a coherent cable action plan, which was published in 2009.

It was decided that existing 400 kV overhead lines would not be dismantled but, in step with developments of security of supply as well as technical and socioeconomic developments, they would all eventually be undergrounded as the technology became available. In the meantime, the visual appearance of the 400 kV grid would be improved by undergrounding shorter sections in urban areas and natural areas of national interest, replacing transmission routes with new designs and adjusting the tracks over shorter distances. The Danish Government presented its policy to the transmission system operator and the latter relished the challenge of achieving it. That is very different from what we heard today, where problems are seen as reasons not to act rather than as a challenge for scientists and engineers to relish with a view to overcoming it.

Deputy Shane McEntee

I thank the delegates for their presentation. Given that this is a joint North-South project, are they satisfied that enough has been done by the Government in this jurisdiction? I understand - the delegates will correct me if I am wrong - that planning permission will go through in Northern Ireland on 6 March based on overground only. A great deal of conflict and confusion may arise after that date if we are debating underground while our counterparts in the North have already made the decision to go overground. Should we be looking to intervene, either through the agency of EirGrid and its representatives or by the Government talking to the Government in the North? The situation could become very muddy the week after next.

Mr. Padraig O’Reilly

It is largely down to the degree of influence that EirGrid can exercise on the plans for the Northern section. That will be decided by way of a public inquiry rather than the type of hearing we are used to in the South, which takes place under the aegis of An Bord Pleanála. From an overall company strategy perspective, parties on both sides of the Border should be working in tandem. If undergrounding is still being discussed here, then there should be a hold on the Northern section. Otherwise it will get very difficult. One side cannot make a decision in isolation. We are talking about two sections of the same line, each in a separate jurisdiction. Either a policy decision should be made here prior to that time or work on the Northern section should be deferred. We are of the view that EirGrid has a great deal of influence in this regard.

Chairman

I thank the representatives of the North East Pylon Pressure Campaign for taking the time to address the committee and to answer members' questions. As I said at the outset of the meeting, if delegates wish to submit any further information they can do so through the clerk. The full transcripts of today's discussions will be sent on to our contact people in the commission for their observations. I cannot pre-empt what we will do, but I ask the delegates to make their submissions by next week. That will allow us to tailor our questions with that information in mind.

Sitting suspended at 5.45 p.m. and resumed at 5.50 p.m.