Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht debate

Electricity Generation and Export: Discussion

Chairman

This meeting will be in public session only. We will deal with the minutes of the previous meeting and outstanding correspondence at our next meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We will now consider with our witnesses the generation and use of electricity in Ireland and the potential export of surplus electricity to the United Kingdom. I welcome Mr. Tim Cowhig, chief executive officer, Mr. Kevin O'Donovan, chief development officer, Mr. Peter Harte, chief technology officer, and Mr. Tim Ryan, all of whom are from Element Power. I welcome Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy, chief executive, Mr. John Reilly, Mr. Michael Barry and Mr. Gerry Ryan, head of land and property and group secretary, all of whom represent Bord na Móna, and also Mr. Patrick Swords, Mr. Joseph Caulfield, Mr. Ultan Murphy and Ms Agnes Doolan, who are representing Turn 180. I thank them all for attending. I propose that we hear the opening statements of the witnesses in the order I announced them. Is that agreed? Agreed.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the joint committee. If they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. The opening statement and any document provided for the committee may be published on its website once the meeting has concluded. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Witnesses should speak directly through the Chair and not to one another. Members should be courteous and show respect for all viewpoints expressed today and respond in an appropriate manner.

I invite Mr. Tim Cowhig to address the committee on behalf of Element Power.

Mr. Tim Cowhig

I thank the committee for giving Element Power the opportunity to address it today. I am the chief executive officer and am joined by my colleagues Mr. Kevin O'Donovan, chief development officer, and Mr. Peter Harte, chief technology officer. The company was established in 2008 and specialises in the development of onshore wind electricity generation. It has a presence in 16 countries. We have Irish offices in Tullamore and Cork city. Through our Greenwire project, we propose developing 40 wind farms on 20,000 ha of land in the midlands to generate electricity for export to the United Kingdom on a new, dedicated grid connection.

Public debate on topics of national importance such as this is always welcome. It provides us with an opportunity to discuss the benefits of our proposal in a national forum and set out how the project can be a catalyst for economic recovery in the midlands. I acknowledge the anxieties that have been expressed by many in regard to wind energy in general, and the proposal for the midlands in particular. I am very much aware that we have an obligation to allay concerns and provide answers to many questions raised.

We are moving towards a European energy market where a trans-European power network connecting countries across Europe would facilitate surplus power flowing to where electricity is needed. It would make Ireland more self-reliant in the event of a crisis. In Ireland, we have an abundance of wind, much more than we need ourselves. Therefore, we have an opportunity to create a new export industry, such as our beef and dairy export businesses, creating thousands of jobs.

In its document Strategy for Renewable Energy: 2012–2022, the Government has identified the exportation of renewable energy as one of five strategic goals. With that in mind, the Irish and British Governments are hoping to deliver an intergovernmental agreement, IGA, very soon to facilitate the trading of renewable energy between the two countries. A strategic environmental assessment and new planning guidelines are being drafted by the Irish Government. Our project, therefore, is in line with Government policy.

The Greenwire proposal is very timely in light of developments in the United Kingdom energy market. Our British neighbours have been energy-independent since the discovery of North Sea oil and gas in the 1970s but these reserves are nearing depletion and the United Kingdom is once again facing reliance on imported energy to meet its demand. The United Kingdom is also decommissioning its ageing nuclear and coal power stations, which currently supply 20% of its energy. The United Kingdom has made a commitment that 30% of its electricity will be from renewable resources by 2020. While it has three times as much onshore wind as Ireland, it will need another 12,000 MW of renewable energy capacity before 2020 to achieve this target. This is why Britain's energy challenge should be seen as Ireland's opportunity. However, it is important to note that the United Kingdom has other options for meeting its energy needs, including offshore wind energy, hydroelectricity, thermal energy from Iceland and nuclear energy from France. Ireland must take the opportunity or risk missing the chance to create the new export sector.

The midlands possesses an enormous and largely untapped natural resource in wind energy. Tapping that resource could have a transformative effect on the economy in the region. Our planning laws require that for projects of such scale there must be a community contribution. If granted planning permission for Greenwire, Element Power intends to establish a comprehensive community-benefit programme to assist the community where the wind farms are located, particularly people living closest to the turbines. The entire local community would reap the dividends from our project, not just landowners, local authorities, businesses, tradesmen and others.

The community benefit programme would be established prior to construction and would operate for the duration of the wind farms' commercial lifetime. We have met numerous voluntary community groups, development associations, local enterprise bodies, sports clubs and societies across the five counties where the project is proposed. These meetings have taken place as a part of a series of public information days in addition to an extensive consultation programme, which has been under way since 2012. The feedback garnered to date has been extremely positive on many levels. The community benefit programme would have a number of components, particularly a near-neighbour fund for those living closest to the turbines, a local community fund, an educational fund and an enterprise fund. The near-neighbour fund would include the financing of practical energy projects for individual households. It would be established such that those living closest to the wind farms would receive direct supports from those farms. We propose that all families living within 1 km of a turbine benefit directly from the project. We are engaging with the community to see how best the fund might operate.

The local community fund would distribute finance annually to deserving projects within the communities where the wind farms are located. We have met over 100 community groups over the past two years that are interested in participating in this programme. The educational fund would help to finance educational initiatives for students in communities where wind farms are located. The local enterprise fund would foster local enterprise and employment creation through the support of small and local businesses.

We propose a total investment of €250 million into the midlands by way of community benefit for the 3 GW project. That would have quite an impact on communities in the midlands. This €10 million per annum benefit scheme added to the €50 million in rates and rent each year would see Element Power contribute a minimum total of €1.5 billion to the local economy over the 25-year lifetime of Greenwire. The payments to local authorities in Offaly, Westmeath and Laois would amount to between 40% and 50% of the entire rates incomes which those counties currently enjoy. That represents many additional services or it could be used to create a reduction in the rates burden on hard-pressed businesses of up to 50%.

In terms of employment potential, the construction works required for up to 3,000 MW of wind power as well as installing an electrical network underground can create approximately 10,000 construction jobs. The only way this project will be delivered is with locally sourced employees. It is normal procedure in Ireland that the balance of plant is sourced locally. The Construction Industry Federation, CIF, is already working with its members to ensure they can harness the benefits of such an enormous construction project.

There are more than just construction opportunities. Personnel with a range of different skills will be sought during pre-construction and construction of the projects, such as ecologists, scientists, environmental engineers, mapping and geographic information systems, GIS, specialists, experts in acoustics, landscape architects, archaeologists and hydrologists. Road construction companies, quarries and other building material suppliers, construction workers and so forth will be required to develop approximately 1,000 km of road networks. Civil and structural engineers, electrical and power engineers, geotechnical experts, transport and traffic engineers, wind assessment wind analysts, monitoring and mast direction crews will also be required. Logistics, travel, lodging and material supply will generate significant additional local revenue over the three year construction period between 2016 and 2019, meaning a spin-off for local shops, hotels, garages, construction companies, haulage firms, plant-hire operators and many other service providers.

Element Power is already working in the midlands to raise awareness of the need for training courses to equip local people with the requisite skills. We are liaising with education providers to add modules to existing courses and develop conversion courses for already qualified persons. Ireland already has a wind energy industry of almost 2,000 MW which currently employs 3,400 people, and that is without any turbine manufacturing. We are aware of interest from major international players to develop manufacturing facilities in the midlands should Greenwire or other projects proceed, but the job of bringing them here is one which rests with IDA Ireland.

Ireland has the potential to be involved even more significantly in the supply chain of the wind energy industry. Greenwire would act as the enabler for Ireland to become a key player in this sector. However, if we are to develop an export project in the midlands and capitalise on this pioneering opportunity, we must act swiftly. The window will not stay open indefinitely as Britain needs this renewable energy by 2020. If we are to embrace this opportunity, the Irish and UK Governments need to finalise a detailed intergovernmental agreement quickly, which will allow the trading of renewable energy between both jurisdictions. The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources must complete a strategic environmental assessment and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government must swiftly conclude the new planning guidelines for wind energy. These are some of the key requirements from the Irish side. We also must have strong signals and actions from the UK side, such as contracts for difference, CFDs, and a commercial strike price.

A project such as Greenwire cannot proceed without community support. We have had positive engagement with hundreds of voluntary, sporting and community groups in the midlands for the last two years. We have more than 1,000 farming families in the midlands that are anxious to see this project proceed. The views of local communities should not be casually dismissed because their voices are not heard daily.

Several claims were made to this committee on 8 October last by a group from Westmeath. Many of these claims were not based on fact and presented very clear evidence as to why much misunderstanding about the wind industry prevails. Our investors are not in the business of backing projects which might prove injurious to local communities.

Greenwire is, of course, a private development. It will not cost the Irish taxpayer one cent. We are proposing the creation of thousands of jobs and billions of euro by way of local spend by harnessing a natural resource. There will be no overhead lines and our infrastructure in Ireland and subsea cabling is completely independent of the Irish grid. The cost of the electricity generated will be borne by the UK consumer. While the cliché "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" is sometimes overused, Greenwire does represent such a prospect. It is innovative, and it can place Ireland firmly at the forefront of the cleantech industry. Let us seize the moment and develop this new clean export industry.

Chairman

Thank you, Mr. Cowhig. I invite Mr. D'Arcy to make his presentation on behalf of Bord na Móna.

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

I will talk a little about context. We have made our submission to the committee and I will not read it laboriously. I will just make some comments on the wider context.

Unless one understands the concept of climate change, the need for limiting unrestricted further penetration of fossil fuels, greenhouse gases and what they are and how they impact on global temperature and climate, it will be hard to convince any member of this committee of the benefits or otherwise of renewable energy and low-carbon energy. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its panel, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, have published reports clearly linking greenhouse gas emissions, global temperature increase and climate change. Indeed, this committee, in November 2013, referenced the conclusion that a 2° rise in global temperatures above pre-industrial levels was a trigger for dangerous climate change. This thinking has impacted on the global response and how the globe is trying to manage this clear threat to the world.

Restricting the rise in global temperature to 2° will require reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by 80% to 90% below 1990 levels by 2050. This equates to approximately 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalents. Actually, we have gone off that trajectory. This year, we are expected to breach the 400 parts per million for the first time. This has a massive impact and it is being clearly demonstrated. It has an ecological impact for wildlife and we see it already in rising sea levels. In Ireland, for example, it has been exacerbating the flood effects of heavy rainfall. These so-called one in 50 year weather events - Bord na Móna is familiar with this area and has very clean data dating back to the 1950s and 1960s - are now happening annually.

There has been little media or other comment regarding the devastating floods in Cork, Limerick and elsewhere pertaining to the impact of climate. It has been very much focused on response and whether we were ready for them. However, one person who must be listened to is the head scientist of the British Meteorology Office, Dame Julia Slingo. She said that while none of the individual storms had been exceptional - she was talking about Britain but one could reference it to Ireland - the clustering and persistence were extremely unusual. She said:

We have seen exceptional weather. We cannot say it's unprecedented, but it is certainly exceptional. Is it consistent with what we might expect from climate change? Of course, as yet there can be no definitive answer ... but if we look at the broader base of evidence then we see things that support the premise that climate change has been making a contribution.

In response to this global threat and notwithstanding the absence of a fully agreed global deal, the EU has embarked on a path to a low-carbon future, with targets to reduce 2050 emissions by 80% to 90%. Indeed, the recently published EU framework proposal for 2030, which is a follow-up to its 2020 framework, would see renewable energy targets of 27% above the 20% penetration and a greenhouse gas emissions reduction of 40% below 1990 levels, which is double the 2020 target.

In this global and regional environment, Ireland must recognise our outstanding renewable energy resources. We have outstanding renewable energy resources, not just in wind but also in biomass.

However, in the face of significant challenges from its agricultural and transport sectors, Ireland has adopted a target of 42% renewable energy penetration by 2020. This equates to approximately 0.3 kg of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour in its electricity generation. This is a continuum of very good progress that has been made over the past ten or 15 years. In 1990, we were producing approximately 1 kg of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour while by 2011, that had fallen to approximately 0.5 kg per kilowatt hour.

Consequently, given the clear policy objectives for the European region, achieving Ireland's targets regarding efficiency and low carbon will require a greater degree of interconnectivity. This is recognised in a European policy framework and will require greater integration of all the regional electricity networks. Moreover, rather than individual member states meeting individual targets in a much narrower mindset, there will be a requirement for greater energy co-operation. Having spoken about the global and regional markets, from a national perspective Ireland is recognised for its effective and secure management of a relatively isolated system. Instantaneous wind regularly meets 50% of the demand and the target is to push this even higher. However, this will come through enhanced integration. Ireland's wind resources have been well flagged and discussed at this and other committees. Those wind resources and the capacity factors for turbines for wind generation in Ireland are such that further interconnection capacity will provide a broader grid system across Ireland and the United Kingdom to balance the system and optimise the penetration of intermittent renewables with fewer constraints. In addition, it provides an opportunity to export Ireland's considerable excess renewable resources, thereby generating a new source of income, employment and strategic environmental and economic opportunity on the island of Ireland.

Bord na Móna is of the view that this opportunity should be explored fully. I will not go into the details of our proposals in this regard, which are contained in the submission. However, this is a unique leveragable strategic opportunity. It is not tactical and is not imitable in other markets and geographies but is highly strategic not unlike Ireland's water resources of which I have spoken to this committee previously. If we wish to capitalise on this opportunity, we must carefully site our turbines and clusters of turbines in those areas that are designated. For instance, isolated post-industrial cutaway peatlands are ideal for this purpose. There must be a proper and diligent planning process, because this is all about planning. I do not believe there is a major debate about the resources but the issue centres on where these turbines should be sited. Bord na Móna and I accept fully and endorse the need to have a proper planning process.

As for what are the benefits, they are massive sustainable investment on a scale that rarely if ever, has been seen before in Ireland. In addition, they include value-added sustainable job creation in both supply chain and maintenance - my colleague from Element Power has spoken a little bit about that - and huge import substitution. This morning, I heard the chief executive of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland point out that a relatively small amount of wind energy, namely, 2 GW, has caused import substitution of 20% on Ireland's imported fuel bill. This equates to approximately €1 billion.

Finally, this obviously provides the opportunity for a massive increase in export revenues. I revert to the point that a robust planning process is critical, encompassing clear spatial planning, objectives, targets and rules that are implemented. Wind farms, like one-off housing and ribbon development, cannot be inappropriately sited. As some of my colleagues like to quote celebrity economists, allow me to conclude by quoting one celebrity economist from whom the joint committee may hear, as I understand a submission already has been made to this particular committee hearing. In an article on 19 January 2014, Professor Richard Tol stated: "Climate policy, however, seems here to stay; and onshore wind power is still one of the cheaper options to reduce carbon dioxide emissions".

Chairman

I thank Mr. D'Arcy and invite Mr. Swords to make Turn 180's opening statement.

Mr. Patrick Swords

On behalf of Mr. Joseph Caulfield, Mr. Ultan Murphy and Ms Agnes Doolan, I thank the joint committee for the invitation to appear before it. My name is Pat Swords and I am a fellow of the Institution of Chemical Engineers and a chartered environmentalist. I have more than 25 years' experience in industrial design over a wide range of industrial projects encompassing food, drink, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and power stations. Moreover, I have spent ten years and more travelling to and from central and eastern Europe while helping to bring in the environmental legislation into the new and emerging member states. I have nothing to sell and do not have a dream. However, we seek one thing, and that is what Turn 180 is, namely, to turn around, go back and re-evaluate the situation, particularly within the legal framework in which we operate.

We have at present a recently appointed expert panel on pylons. Had the evaluation and assessments of that project been done three years ago in the legally required strategic environmental assessment process with the proper stages of public participation, we would not need that expert panel. It would have been done in accordance with the law and the obligation to have public participation and information. A strategic environmental assessment was never completed for the Irish renewable energy programme and no assessment has ever been done for it. It was on this basis, having documented it, that the United Nations Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee in Geneva took the communication in my name against the European Union as a party to the convention. At that stage, Ireland had not ratified the convention and consequently, I was obliged to take the matter against the European Union. The compliance committee ruled that the European Union had broken the terms of the convention with regard to the manner in which it was implementing the national renewable energy action plans. It failed to provide the necessary information to the public, it had failed to ensure the public participation was carried out when all options were open and effective public participation could take place and it had failed to take due account of the public participation in the final decision. Consequently, it has been told to go back and repeat and engage with the public and to do it again. As this is not happening at present, the compliance committee is engaged in compliance proceedings against the European Union at the forthcoming meeting of the parties' treaty convention in June 2014. There also are ongoing proceedings in the High Court in my name against the Irish State with regard to this matter.

The evidence given by the European Union to the compliance committee basically pointed out it is generally recognised that renewable energy - and wind energy in particular - is better from an environmental perspective than non-renewable sources. The point of it being "generally recognised" is what this comes down to, as no assessments have been carried out at European Union or national level to quantify what actually is going on. In fact, in its opening statement to the compliance committee in Geneva in 2011, the European Union made it clear the Irish public was not entitled to information, other than regarding what was a threat to its environment. In particular, the public most certainly was not entitled to information on cost-effectiveness related to renewable energy. Consequently, this matter led to a further communication, on which I assisted, with our near neighbours, the United Kingdom, which also ruled that its national renewable energy action plan had breached the terms of the convention, had not been assessed properly and had not gone through the stages of public participation with the public. Both countries in which this renewable export programme is being furthered have serious legal failings with regard to information and the public participation process.

As an experienced engineer who has worked on power generation projects and who has seen things work or not work, one keeps saying to oneself that when it comes to providing a reliable economic electricity system such as we have had for generations, all this talk about outstanding natural resources of wind energy is, I am afraid, bunk. It will not work. Experienced engineers are making this point all over the world. Even my own mother, who has no education beyond secondary school and is in her 80s, can figure this out. How is one expected to cook a turkey for Christmas when one is waiting around for the wind to blow in order to have electricity in the oven? That is the bottom line. Consequently, I refer to recent statements to the effect that the Irish renewable energy programme is a no-brainer and that Ireland will save huge amounts in respect of fossil fuels.

Let me put it to the committee this way. I do not dispute that €6 billion worth of fossil fuels are imported into this country each year, but less than 20% of that goes on electricity generation. By the time we have invested all that money, which when one clocks it up is rapidly approaching €20 billion, we would be lucky given the massive inefficiencies in our power stations to save €200 million a year. That is a one in 100 year payback. A conventional power station will last 35 years but a wind turbine would be lucky to last half of that.

To return to the unfortunate and recurring theme of lack of accurate information, the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland published a report that said there was €300 million of fossil fuel savings. Again and again in its reports it ignores the massive inefficiencies which are occurring in our power generation plants as they opt, like cars stuck in traffic, to try to compensate for the inefficient generation coming on and off the grid instead of running nice and smoothly on the motorways. We have a serious problem with transparency of information. We have no basis for the information. I do not refer to press releases but there is nothing from the scientists and technical people in terms of what is supporting such claims. That is why we must take a 180° turn and go back, develop the information and get it right. There is no panic or rush.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

I welcome the witnesses from the various sectors to the meeting. We should have had the debate long ago. People have many concerns, which is the reason for today’s meeting.

My first question is for Element Power. Reference was made to a lot of land lease options that have already been made in regard to its proposals. One is with the semi-State agency, Coillte. Could someone expand on the extent of the land lease options? It was also stated that 1,000 options exist with farming families. Could some information be provided in that regard? Are the arrangements ready to go, subject to planning applications being made?

Element Power also referred to local community dividend. I hear opposing views on the matter. There is much controversy in the public domain and opposition has been voiced at public meetings. How successful is the company in promoting local community dividends? Does the company have the support of any community groups?

Element Power also mentioned that no overhead lines are associated with its projects. I find that hard to believe. Is it proposed to underground all the lines from generation, transmission, distribution and for the connection with the grid? I would like some clarification in that regard.

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. O'Donovan might deal with the land lease options and the local community dividends.

Mr. Kevin O'Donovan

Typically, when a wind farm development is being considered the first stage is to look at suitable areas and identify them for wind development. That process involved looking at areas that are environmentally designated and carrying out a detailed analysis to identify regions that could be suitable for development. As part of that one has to meet landowners and see if they are interested in considering wind development projects. Agreements would be made with landlords to investigate the development of wind farms on their lands. We have option agreements in place with private landowners and with Coillte as well. Coillte lands have been used quite a lot for wind development already in other parts of the country. We are at the stage now of assessing those lands where we have agreements with the landowners to determine if the sites are suitable.

In terms of the local community dividend and community groups supporting the project, we have an office set up in Tullamore with a team which specialises in going out and meeting local community groups. We have published thousands of newsletters. We have a website and a lo-call phone number. The idea is to get feedback from the community in terms of reaction to the project. A range of reactions have been received to date. We found engaging directly with community groups to be very successful. We try to explain what is involved in the project, the stage it is at and at the fact that there is still a long process prior to the development of the project. The groups range from local voluntary groups, development groups, sporting organisations, local societies and anyone who wants to talk to our team in Tullamore.

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Harte will take the question on overhead lines.

Mr. Peter Harte

We can confirm that it is our plan to put the entire infrastructure for connecting the wind turbines to the grid underground. What that involves is groups of turbines being put together. The power from them is gathered onto low voltage cables and then they converge on intermediate step-up substations. Around 20 of those will be located throughout the midlands. From those 20 substations higher voltage cables - again underground - on public roads and on private lands, will gather the power to converter stations. We will have two large converter stations which covert the power to DC, which is the most suitable way of transporting the power over much longer distances specifically to take the power to the UK. That will deliver the power to two connection points, one in north Wales and one in southern Wales. We will put everything underground.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

I have some queries for Bord na Móna. I thank Mr. D’Arcy for setting the context around the climate change debate, something which we are not discussing enough in this country. In recent weeks there was extreme flooding on various river basins and in villages and towns in my constituency in Waterford. That should act as a wake-up call. Reference was made to one in 50 year weather events. The context is important in terms of energy security and how we will reduce our carbon emissions.

Bord na Móna has 80,000 ha of land in its stewardship. How much of that is redundant? Does Bord na Móna propose to introduce wind farms to its land holdings? Reference was made to isolated locations and that there are no dwelling houses within the vicinity. Could Mr. D’Arcy please expand further on the issue? If the wind farms were not to go ahead on the land, what other uses would be possible? Such land is a national asset as it is owned by a semi-State company. Mr. D’Arcy identified an economic use for the land which is now redundant. Could it be put to a better use?

I agree with much of what was said about a proper planning process. That is where public confidence comes into play in terms of proper spatial planning. It is important to note that the Government is putting out for public consultation new guidelines on the development of wind farms. I welcome that. No matter who the developer is – Bord na Móna or a private developer – proper planning process must be adhered to. Could Mr. D’Arcy clarify the position on the Bord na Móna lands?

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

In the first instance I will ask my head of land and property to comment on the proportion of the land that is currently in use and some other uses for our land bank.

Bord na Móna has been in transition for a number of years. Our contract with nature is a vision which plays to the concept of sustainability. Our definition of sustainability is not just economic. As a key semi-State organisation we need to be profitable, to deliver dividends to the State and to manage our affairs in a responsible manner.

We also need to be socially sustainable. We understand our service to the local communities in which we serve, which has been a tradition of Bord na Móna through the decades. Bord na Móna has been very responsive to the employment and sustainable development needs of the local community. The third leg of the stool is environmental sustainability. We fully understand the requirement that some peatlands are better left intact and not open or drained. We have good examples of this in Abbeyleix and elsewhere. We believe it is more sustainable to keep the peatlands in a native protected manner in support of fauna, flora, wildlife and biodiversity. Mr. Gerry Ryan, the head of land and property and company secretary, will speak specifically about land holdings and the percentage in use.

Mr. Gerry Ryan

Approximately three quarters of the 8,000 ha is in use for peat production activities. This is a finite resource and progressively over time less of the land will be related to peat production activities. As an entity licensed by the EPA under the integrated pollution prevention control licensing regime we have an obligation to stabilise the peatlands when we finish the production process. A team of ecologists is engaged in restoration and rehabilitation work designed to achieve stabilisation of the peatlands. We have a number of examples of projects where we have successfully rehabilitated and restored peatlands throughout the country, particularly in north-west Mayo and the midlands. This was recognised recently when the Minister for the Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht published the national peatlands strategy and the review of special areas of conservation, SAC, and natural heritage areas, NHAs. The review mentioned some Bord na Móna peatlands would be designated as SACs and NHAs, which recognises the work done by Bord na Móna in restoring and rehabilitating peatlands.

One of the great advantages of use of these peatlands for wind farms is, as we mentioned in our statement, it is possible to co-locate rehabilitated and restored peatlands and tourism amenities and activities on lands which are also used for wind farms. This is one of the great attractions of the wind farm project. By and large, it is true to state the range of uses for these peatlands after they have finished cutaway is relatively limited. In a large number of cases they will revert to natural amenities for the communities located in the areas. It is possible to place projects such as wind farms on these lands, which will help create economic as well as tourism amenity projects in localities throughout the country.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

Turn 180 clearly stated it is not selling anything. I note it has a very sceptical stance on the development of renewables and I would like a better understanding of this. Given what we have heard other witnesses state, does Turn 180 believe climate change is having a negative impact on the environment, particularly when one considers the Irish environment and the weather systems we have experienced in recent years? Does Turn 180 believe there is a need to address this particular problem with regard to climate change?

Mr. Patrick Swords

The actual figures show that in the past 16 years global temperatures have been static with no real increase. It is not that everybody thinks the same way we do. There are many parts of the world which do not think the way we do. The Chinese are very analytical. The Chinese Academy of Sciences, which I fully support, correctly pointed out the flaws in the scientific process which has led the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Many technical people do not support the position we are in now. A one in 50 year flood will occur once every 50 years; one must just wait around.

The renewable programme was first initiated 16 years ago by the European Union. No real assessment was done for it. Under the 2001 directive the European Union was required to conduct an assessment by 2005 of the external impact of non-renewable sources. External impacts are the environmental damage costs associated with non-renewable sources. The report was to be repeated every five years. I looked for it but it was never done. It then launched into a massive 20% renewable programme. At no stage was it worked out what was to be built, where it was to be built, what was the impact and what was the cost. People were not allowed to participate in the decision, which was taken at higher levels. With regard to climate change, a figure of €25 per tonne was pulled out of the sky because it did not know what carbon dioxide was doing. It also had a computer model in the National Technical University of Athens which stated we would save X tonnes of carbon dioxide. Nobody has been able to access this programme. It is the confidential property of the university. It is clear from reading some of the side notes to it that it completely fails to take account of the massive inefficiencies we carry on the grid in existing thermal power plants as more and more renewables are put on.

The 20% target was shared among the member states based on their existing renewable capacity and a factor based on gross domestic product. The European Union did not know what was to be built in Ireland, what good it was to do, and when we would achieve the 16% target. All of the member states had to implement in a rush a national renewable energy action plan. Such plans should have been subject to strategic environmental assessment but this was bypassed. Section 5.3 of the template for these plans asked for the expected greenhouse gas reductions, the expected costs and the expected to job creation. The Irish national renewable energy action plan goes from section 5.2 to section 5.4. The table was never filled out. It was not filled out in 19 member states. Other countries such as the UK fudged it. The UK referred to another document which did not assess it either. We need to go back and look at this from square one.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

Mr. Swords is aware the heads of the climate change Bill have been published, and the Government and some political parties are pushing for it to set targets. We all know the three main contributors to carbon emissions in this country are agriculture, transport and the energy sector. Given our economic dependence on agriculture and transport it would seem obvious the energy sector is the place to look to making the savings. Does Mr. Swords not agree with this? All political parties are pushing to set targets. I do not believe we should set targets. We should assess the situation. However I believe we do need to address it before it is too late. Mr. Swords believes we should not publish the legislation and that we need to do impact assessments beforehand.

With regard to energy security, Mr. Swords dismissed wind energy altogether in his statement. Does he not agree efficiencies are being made in power stations as we speak? I know the Great Island station in the south east is being converted from an oil station to a gas station and it is doubling its capacity. These measures are being taken but we need to do more than this. Wind energy can be part of the solution. I certainly would not state it can be the complete solution, but given the natural resources we have available to us does Mr. Swords agree wind energy can be part of the overall energy security solution?

Mr. Patrick Swords

What is the rush? As I stated, the planet has not increased in temperature in the past 16 years. I spent ten years going over and back to Eastern Europe. I sat for many months at the end of Bulevardul Unirii in Bucharest in the ministry of the environment looking at Ceausescu's palace. Something I learned there is the environment does not belong to the state but to the people. The people must be given robust procedural rights. As Deputy Coffey rightly pointed out, adopting climate change targets has a huge impact on agriculture and other issues.

People do not know this. They have not been informed. One of the issues is that such a programme is required to have a regulatory impact assessment with a cost-benefit analysis, but when I request the cost-benefit analysis it does not exist. If we examine the Climate Change Act which the last Government brought through, the regulatory impact assessment was less than four pages and the cost-benefit had words such as "improved feeling of well-being" and "better quality of life". We need to get this right before we rush into massive infrastructural developments.

Since 1999, power stations in Ireland have been upgraded. I have been involved with it. Our modern generation fleet of thermal plants is one of the best in Europe. We could keep operating our system for a number of years without any additional investment. I do not have to prove a negative. The Government has to prove a positive. What is this renewable development doing? We do not know.

Mr. Joseph Caulfield

What Deputy Coffey does not seem to understand is what wind energy is doing to fossil fuel generation in this country. There is a company called Kilpaddoge Energy, and one of the owners of that company is in this committee room now. Kilpaddoge Energy has applied to Kerry County Council to install 52 diesel generators in a plant in Kilpaddoge, County Kerry. On its website it clearly states that the purpose of this plant is to back up wind energy. We used to have a peat burner in Lumcloon, Ferbane, in west County Offaly. That will become a gas burner and the website of Lumcloon Energy states that the purpose of that gas burner will be to back up wind energy. Wind energy is adding more fossil fuel generation to the grid, not subtracting it, because it is not capable of displacement. Displacement means when one adds 1,000 MW of wind generation one takes 1,000 MW of fossil fuel off. It is not doing that. It is doing the opposite. It is adding, because of intermittency. On a calm day in this country we produce 95% of our electricity from fossil fuels. I will give Deputy Coffey a hint, and I hope he can read between the lines. Every day, France produces 5% of its electricity from fossil fuel generation, while we produce 95% from fossil fuel on a calm day.

Deputy Barry Cowen

I thank the troika of speakers for their presentations, pardon the pun. We import 88% of our energy, mainly gas and oil. In 2009 we set renewable energy targets of 16% for gross final consumption by 2020 and 42% for renewable energy penetration, as Mr. D'Arcy said. Wind can be part of the mix. As Deputy Coffey said, this source of generation can only be included through a suite of measures including wave, biomass and wind.

Mr. Caulfield mentioned areas such as Tarbert and Lumcloon, which are on the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER's to-do list regarding the provision of energy into the renewable and electricity markets. I am very disappointed at CER's progress on that. Companies such as Lumcloon, which has a connection to the grid, a licence and planning permission, can contribute to the energy sector and be a backup to the existing wind energy provisions without anything coming on stream into the future.

The big issue is that there is massive new technology and larger wind turbines are being contracted at a lower elevations than was previously the case. Everybody seems to agree that the guidelines are outdated. Even the proposed guidelines in draft form could be construed to be outdated based on the number of submissions being made. The other guidelines from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the EPA's guidelines on noise and best practice, published in 2013, have no statutory power. We must address that issue. Some statutory power must be given.

Mr. D'Arcy and I know that Bord na Móna, in its history, was one of the main drivers of the midlands economy, particularly in my county of Offaly. It had to evolve and meet changing demands, alter work practices, diversify and seek new revenue streams. It did that by consultation through communities and with its work force and by negotiation. No amount of imposition from the top down achieves the sort of results we all desire. It will be the same in this instance, in realising the potential that may exist, but only if there is proper consultation. Mr. D'Arcy mentioned that there must be a proper planning process. That is an indication that the existing planning process is not proper and does not meet with the satisfaction of those who will be affected most and who may benefit most from what is proposed by all and sundry.

There is talk of the benefits of value-added jobs but the numbers cannot be quantified now. Both governments have entered into a memorandum of understanding about the export of electricity from this source. The Element Power representatives said they were anxious that an intergovernmental agreement would supersede and take the place of the memorandum of understanding. If one does not have proper planning processes in place, and one acknowledges that, one cannot expect the memorandum of understanding to be replaced now with an intergovernmental agreement. Most of the cutaway bogs are almost entirely cut away. The day of the public service obligation, PSO, is coming to an end. We can see that with the proposed sale of power plants in Shannonbridge and Lough Ree. There is a role, as there has been, for energy production in our region into the future. The cutaway bogs are the prime location where that should begin. We will see how it progresses thereafter.

The new proper planning guidelines must be put in place. I hear the benefits that can accrue to localities, communities and local authorities. They would be great and most welcome and they would address many of the concerns and issues that many candidates will have when they put themselves before the electorate for the local authority election in May. This would make their job much easier when one considers the lack of funding available to them from the sources to which they have become accustomed in the past. It is simple to say that nuclear power would bring much economic benefit too. That is not to say it would meet with the approval of the localities where it would be sited.

We must ask some real and honest questions and I would like to hear the opinions of those before us today in answering those questions honestly. They might take stock of where they are regarding the consultations that are taking place with landowners in areas of counties that are not designated within county development plans, within counties which have had the foresight in the past to acknowledge the potential that exists in this area and consult with their localities, communities and county with a view to arriving at a consensus whereby areas might be designated for consideration where the experts with the planning expertise who are to protect society and communities thereafter would be charged with the responsibility for adjudicating on any such applications.

Do the witnesses agree that the existing guidelines are outdated as they stand? For example, in my county, Offaly, we devised a strategy in 2009 supported by areas of designation for consideration. At that time I never envisaged the advancement in size and technology of these fixtures that are in place. That never resonated with me when we put that in place at the time. As part of the process, should there be an independent economic review of wind energy seeking an input which might give us an indication of the impact on energy prices and the long-term sustainability of supply to the national grid?

Do the witnesses agree that all counties should have wind energy strategies within their remit as part of their county development plans? Do they believe and acknowledge that those development plans and the process in which they engage to arrive at a consensus should be given more weight when applications are made for large strategic developments to An Bord Pleanála? That consultative process is at its best in the localities where these proposals are being made. I have seen that at first hand, and the witnesses have all had representatives at various meetings throughout the counties of which we speak - Offaly, Laois, Westmeath, etc. Do they believe existing guidelines on setbacks are outdated? What improvements should be made and what is their opinion on what is proposed in the draft guidelines? Do the witnesses believe there should be compensation packages for properties that find themselves within whatever guidelines are eventually agreed? I might ask more questions later.

Mr. John Reilly

Deputy Cowen spoke about the revision of guidelines. It is necessary to revise guidelines for anything as time moves on. The interesting thing here is that we are currently erecting 28 3 MW turbines on cutaway peat land in County Offaly. That project was brought through the planning process in 2010. We conducted a very significant public consultation exercise as part of that. We got tremendous support from the local community. Of course the community had questions. These were the first large-scale wind projects to be developed in the midlands. The communities had questions and probed us in that regard. However, those wind farms received planning permission under the current guidelines.

The key issue communities want to understand is that noise will not emanate from them that will disturb their sleep or keep them awake at night. Setback distances sometimes get confused with the need to comply with very strict low night-time levels of noise. In this instance the noise limits with which that wind farm is required to comply are a couple of decibels lower than the noise limits with which the peat-fired power station just down the road must comply. There is a lack of consistency here. That peat-fired power station has been operating in the locality for 14 years. We have had a very small number of noise complaints operating at 43 decibels and 45 decibels at night. We do not believe operating a wind farm at roughly 43 decibels will cause any problem for local communities in terms of noise. In order to comply with those noise limits, the minimum setback distance on the project had to be in excess of 650 m. There are minimum setback distances and the reality is that in order to comply with the noise restrictions it will be necessary to set back these turbines considerably further from housing.

Mr. D'Arcy said we are also constructing a farm that straddles three counties in the south, Laois, Kilkenny and Tipperary. We had to submit three separate planning applications to the local authorities because at the time the planning guidelines were such that the planning application for that size of farm was submitted directly to the local authority. We had three different interpretations of elements of the guidelines.

Referring to Mr. Cowhig's point, there is no doubt that the review and tightening up of guidelines is always welcome. In developing any of these activities Bord na Móna will not be - nor ever has been - in the business of disturbing or trampling on local communities. We want to work with local communities and we will only propose to locate wind turbines - in this project or in any project we develop across our land holdings - where it is deemed appropriate to do so.

I believe it is entirely appropriate for the local authorities to designate areas for wind energy. That assessment can be looked at, and local authorities and communities can decide where it might be deemed appropriate to locate these, which would help everybody.

Deputy Cowen asked about having an independent economic review of wind energy. In a way it is a pity this does not happen because some of the facts relating to the economics of wind energy are clear to see. For example, in the wholesale electricity market today, the average wholesale price of electricity coming from the mix of fuels we have, gas, peat, coal and renewables, last year was €90 per MWh - €90 per unit of production. Today, the new wind farms under the REFIT support scheme are receiving €70 per MWh. In our view the economics of wind energy are clear to be seen. If somebody wanted to conduct an independent analysis, it might put to bed the debate on pricing.

On CO2 emissions reductions, in 2006 the electricity sector was responsible for the production of 15 million tonnes of CO2 emissions to meet a demand of 27 TWh. Unfortunately, owing to the economic recession in 2012, demand fell back to the 2006 levels. The provisional figures for CO2 emissions recently published by the EPA indicate that emissions in the electricity sector fell to 12.1 million tonnes. Wind energy has had a major contribution to make to the abatement of significant CO2 emissions in a cost-effective manner.

Mr. Patrick Swords

As regards our planning system here, in the UN proceedings at Geneva the written documentation from the European Union pointed out a number of issues in Ireland. In particular as regards planning of all medium and large-scale projects such as wind turbines and electricity generation systems, the environmental impact assessment directive dates back to 1985. It is also part of Article 6, the main component of the Aarhus Convention on citizens' procedural rights. The EU pointed out that it knew of no other member state that had been involved in so many compliance issues and actions at the European Court over failures to comply with one single directive as Ireland had with that directive. That is not a good endorsement.

It also pointed out our failure to transpose properly the strategic environmental assessment directive. That failure led to EirGrid bypassing the necessary Grid25 SEA and did not engage in proper public participation process. It only received 22 submissions, of which only three, including one from me, could be identified as having come from the public.

There is a massive problem with regard to access to justice. Dissent protects democracy. Ireland has had major problems with groupthink which led to our economic collapse. It is right that people should have the right to challenge when they see substantive and procedural breaches. That is part of the convention and part of people's human rights. However, we do not have arrangements for proper access to the courts that is not prohibitively expensive. Last week, the UK, where the cost of access to courts is lower, was ruled to be in breach of the European directive and the convention with regard to being not prohibitively expensive. Its legal system did not comply. The Irish Academy of Engineering has pointed out that the regulatory system in Ireland is dysfunctional and unfit for purpose. It leads to enormous frustrations for developers and citizens.

As with any development, with wind farms the purpose of environmental impact assessment is to weigh it up and identify the negative effects, which are considerable, and the positives. There is only one positive - an alleged environmental benefit. When that is summed up, all An Bord Pleanála can do, because it is the obligation of it or the local authority, is to make pub talk statements such as "makes a valuable contribution to climate change". It has no figures or data.

The national renewable energy action plan proposed to develop 7,145 MW of wind energy. How will we fit that in with a distributed rural population and ensure they will be protected? We never carried out a strategic environmental assessment before we adopted it to work out the impact on human beings and develop the necessary mitigation measures as required by law. We put the cart before the horse.

Pillar 1 of the convention is about access to information, not just press releases. People want more detailed information and are entitled to it. When we seek that information from public authorities we are denied it. When we appeal to the Commissioner for Environmental Information and pay €150, we are told it takes one and a half to two years if it gets addressed at all. Bord na Móna refused to comply with a request in January 2012. It finally went to appeal, which it lost in September 2013. It is required by law to comply within three weeks and is still refusing to provide access to information when citizens submit AIE requests. Citizens cannot access information to which they are entitled, such as the cost-benefit analysis for this programme.

The swoosh that comes with wind turbine noise is highly different from standard plant noise. We must address this issue, but we are not doing so. The noise guidelines fail to address the issue of health and the contributions submitted. Ms Doolan lives in the countryside which will be industrialised by this development.

Ms Agnes Doolan

I thank the committee for inviting me. I speak as a community member as I live in Banagher. No turbine will be built on its main street, but Taylor's Cross and Garbally are 2 km from the edge of the town. In October I happened to spot a map which Mr. Caulfield had put on the Offaly Facebook page showing a shaded area near Banagher which was marked as a proposed area of study. This is a euphemism for a wind farm and I was horrified. I must take issue with Mr. O'Donovan who portrayed-----

Chairman

I ask Ms Doolan to direct her comments through the Chair.

Ms Agnes Doolan

I take issue with his portrayal of good communication. The communities of Taylor's Cross and Garbally were not informed by Element Power that it planned to build a wind farm there; they were told by me. After seeing the map I telephoned a few people in the area and then decided I had better tell all of them. I made out an information sheet and headed into the area, which is quiet and rural. I went door to door and braved a vicious dog or two. Most of the people in the area had never heard of the export project.

I also take issue with the Government. In January I noticed the agreed memorandum of understanding signed by the Minister, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, but many people in the population had not noticed it. Many people do not read newspapers or press statements issued from the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. When I told the people of Garbally that they were to get a wind farm, most of them knew very little about it. That is how the communities of Garbally and Taylor's Cross learned about the wind farm.

I love my county.

Senator Denis Landy

There is no rush to make decisions on the issue of sustainability, as everyone involved in energy supply agrees that we have done enough to take us to 2030, even if we were to do nothing else. I am heartened in some ways and disappointed in others by the efforts invested in promoting bio-energy, which most of us accept is the most sustainable way of creating energy. It is done through the use of organic crops, rural-based initiatives and a never-ending crop cycle. Despite this, we only meet 1% of our energy needs through bio-energy production. The Government must give direction in terms of policies and subsidies.

Today I heard the CEO of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, speak about the savings derived from sustainable energy production. A figure of €1 billion was mentioned. When I had the opportunity to analyse the document which was, strangely enough, only produced today when the groups were attending, the reality is that, if every conceivable puff of wind was captured in the grid, the savings would amount to €1 billion. As everyone present knows, however, when the wind blows too strongly, turbines must be turned off. The figure of €1 billion, therefore, is mythical.

This feeds into my concern about some of the figures thrown out by others at this meeting when addressing the genuine questions ordinary people like Ms Doolan, others and I want answered. I support all alternative energy ideas, but I do not buy into the myth that, as laid out today by the SEAI, we are saving money through wind energy generation. In reality, the cost of energy in Ireland has increased by more than 100% in the past decade. This is the third most expensive country in Europe. At the peak of our requirements in January 2010 when we needed 5,000 MW, only 40 MW could be provided by way of wind energy generation. This figure debunks everything we have been told today. Wind energy production is not the solution to our problem. We have been told that it will reduce the cost of energy to the user. In Germany, probably Europe's most progressive country, it cost each user an extra €300 last year to buy into the concept of wind energy generation. It will cost the German state €23 billion in 2014.

Bord na Móna is proposing to install between 300 and 350 turbines in the Bog of Allen, each of which will be 190 m tall. It referred in great detail to its concern about communities. These turbines will be seen from at least 10 km away, never mind the noise generated. The turbines that produce noise of 45 decibels are only 60 m tall. What is Bord na Móna's proposal for the setback from people's houses? How many turbines does Bord na Móna intend to install in County Mayo? The carbon benefit of wind energy was mentioned, but for each of these pylons we need the equivalent amount of concrete poured for 150 houses. The improvement in the carbon footprint will be done away with in installing such tall turbines.

Peak demand is 5,000 MW. If we are to go ahead with everything that is in the pipeline, we will have between 2,000 MW and 3,500 MW of wind energy per annum. As we have already hit our target of 40%, what will we do with the energy we do not need? Exporting to the United Kingdom is a dated concept. As we all know, the European Union abandoned its renewable energy targets for 2020 in the past two weeks.

Mr. Joseph Caulfield

Post-2020.

Senator Denis Landy

My apologies. I will couch my next question properly. Mr. D'Arcy has stated words to the effect that we could average out our requirements between countries. That is news to me.

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

It depends on population.

Senator Denis Landy

Yes, but we and other countries still have targets to meet. Will Mr. D'Arcy clarify that point?

When it was put to Mr. Brian Motherway, CEO of the SEAI, today that between 25 MW and 28 MW would be generated from wind energy, he replied that we would never reach that target and that most of the projects would not go ahead. Bord na Móna is a semi-State company that uses taxpayers' money. Is it investing that money in projects that will never go ahead?

When Mr. D'Arcy's organisation made a presentation to us across the road in Buswell's Hotel a number of months ago, it told us that one of the reasons its project was sustainable, as opposed to those of its now strategic partner, Element Power, and Mainstream Renewable Power was that Bord na Móna did not need to lease land, worry about property devaluation, etc. because it had the Bog of Allen on which to install turbines. Now that it is linking with the other organisations, how will the taxpayer be satisfied that Bord na Móna's strategy has changed and how can it square the clear statement from the other companies in the field that they do not intend to run these projects in the long term but to flip and sell them? The companies' main investors are not from this country and have no community interest in sustainability which Bord na Móna claims it has. How can it propose this concept which will increase the cost of electricity and affect our economic well being and use taxpayers' money to do so?

Mr. Cowhig stated he would underground his network. Will he confirm that none of the Grid25 build which will cost the taxpayer €2.3 billion will carry any of Element Power's electricity? This is important from the taxpayer's point of view.

Can the idea of guaranteed prices be squared with the fact that American energy policy has been changed completely? America has moved towards fracking.

The inconceivable has happened. The Americans are now exporting coal to Poland. Apparently it is cheaper for them to do that than use the coal themselves. We are being asked to believe that the guarantee of price will continue into the next 50 years. Perhaps the witnesses would square that for me also.

We also develop other onshore projects. We have developed a number of projects over the past couple of years. Specifically on export, we will build our own infrastructure and will have no connection with the upgrade for 2025. However, so that there is no misunderstanding, there will be an opportunity for the Irish State, if it wants to, to tap into our infrastructure. There are huge benefits to the Irish State from that infrastructure. However, that is step two of any particular process. The export project we are discussing today stands up on its own economically. The off-take agreements will be fully funded by the UK, with no cost to the Irish taxpayer.

I am not denying that.

Senator Landy also mentioned the use of taxpayers' money, although I am not sure in what context. Technically, Bord na Móna is an unlisted PLC in which the State has a majority shareholding. We generate our own incomes and profits and do not draw any funding from the State. All of the investments are done on the back of the Bord na Móna balance sheet. None of it comes from taxpayers.

Senator Denis Landy

I can clarify that if Mr. D'Arcy would like me to do so.

Chairman

We have spent almost 16 minutes on this round of questions. We must move on.

Mr. John Reilly

Senator Landy asked how many turbines we proposed to build in Mayo. We have a planning application in with An Bord Pleanála to build 112 turbines on our cutaway peatlands in Mayo, which is representative of a project of approximately 350 MW, which will be a direct connection to the national grid in support of our 40% 2020 targets. Senator Landy also made reference to our having already hit our 40% target, which I did not fully understand. We have not hit our 40% target. The latest indication is that we hit the 20% target for renewable electricity in 2012. We still have a way to go to hit the domestic targets. Beyond that, there are sufficient projects in the pipeline between various players, including private developers and some of the commercial semi-state companies, to achieve that. I do not think anybody expects all of those projects to go ahead. There are various elements of projects that need to be assigned grid connections and, crucially, planning permission. Bord na Móna tries to ensure that it invests in the development of projects that have the best possibility of seeing the light of day. Thankfully, it has not failed yet. I cannot say, however, that we would never fail from a planning perspective.

In regard to the EU abandoning its targets beyond 2030, that is not the case. The recent EU announcement indicates that the European Union will move from a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to a proposed 40% reduction by 2030 and from a proposed 20% renewable energy target to a 27% target, which would not, as current targets are, be binding at member state level but at a European level. This will bring into play the spectre of energy co-operation between EU member states, which is vital to the achievement of future decarbonisation targets across Europe in a cost-effective manner.

The export project that we are here to discuss today could form the cornerstone of what Europe is doing as it seeks to decarbonise its power system in the period to 2030, 2050 and beyond.

Mr. Patrick Swords

In our opening statement we provided details on the projects of common interest, which are a series of massive projects interlinking Ireland with its European neighbours, including not only the UK but France. There was a failure under the public participation conducted on this in 2012 to provide any information other than the names of the projects. We requested the information from the Commission's Director-General for Energy, Mr. Philip Lowe, and the secretary general of the European Commission, Ms Catherine Day, and then took the matter to the Ombudsman, following which copies of the project questionnaires were released to us.

There is much concern about Grid Link, which is the massive pylon project running from Cork through Waterford and up the Wexford coast in some of the most beautiful areas of Ireland. These are obvious concerns. When we consider the information on the project questionnaire for Grid Link, it is clear it is part of an overall process to connect to France and Great Britain, and that is why it is put in the project as a common interest. It is admitted that if €500 million is spent on building Grid Link, it would reduce generation costs in Ireland by €11 million per annum because of more efficient power station operation. In other words the money is spent to reduce costs by €11 million per annum. If interconnection is facilitated to Great Britain or France, the saving could go to €40 million or €110 million, but an interconnector to the United Kingdom would cost an extra €700 million or €800 million, and one to France would cost even more. We would then be at a figure of approximately €1.5 billion.

It is stated that the investment is planned primarily to facilitate the integration of 1,283 MW of wind generation in the south of the country. That is what Grid Link is about. However, they also point out that the connection of such capacity can only be facilitated if further interconnection is installed to provide access for this generation to the British and continental European markets. We know already that the grid is operating in an unstable manner and we are dumping wind but Grid Link is connected to the building of interconnectors. If interconnectors are not built, there is no reason for Grid Link other than to save €11 million per annum from inefficient power station operation. There is much inaccurate information in the public domain and the committee is welcome to have this information.

Senator Denis Landy

I was asked by Mr. D'Arcy to clarify something.

Chairman

The Senator may do so before we move to Deputy Stanley.

Senator Denis Landy

Mr. D'Arcy is representing Bord na Móna, of which the Government is the largest shareholder. The Government and Bord na Móna are responsible to the taxpayer.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I welcome the three delegations. I come from County Laois, in the constituency of Laoighis-Offaly, and many wind turbines are planned for the area, and some have already been erected. It is a major issue. There is an underlying concern because for a number of years we went mad building houses and apartments, and we were going to generate wealth selling property to each other at inflated prices. We know how that ended. There is a concern, touched on today, about energy on a global scale, particularly energy trends. I am a passionate supporter of renewable energy but there are some alarm bells in my head when it comes to the wind energy sector.

I will direct my questions first to the Element Power representatives. Are we throwing all our eggs in one basket? It seems to be a questionable means of generating power as it is intermittent and must be backed up by gas or fossil fuel when there is no wind. We twice had a big freeze in the winter period two and three years ago but there was very little wind at a time when we depended much on electrical power.

There has been much discussion of how we are meeting our renewable energy targets and reducing greenhouse gases. This committee has put in much work on a related report, and nobody wants to see the goals realised more than I do. People in the midlands believe nothing is being achieved to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with the wind turbines because the cable is to be run to an interconnector and we are to help the Brits meet their goals. This will not help us meet our targets but England and Wales in particular will be helped in meeting theirs. Will the Element Power representatives address that?

The structure height is to be 185 m and I do not have a problem with modest wind farms properly located as part of meeting our renewable energy targets. The size of what is proposed is absolutely enormous on a flat landscape and the project will be seen from Portarlington to Mount Bolus. The structures will be huge. What does Element Power consider to be a reasonable set-back distance? My questions relate to whether we are putting all our eggs in one basket and if we are making the same mistakes as we did with the property boom. There is also the question of how this will help us meet our renewable energy needs and what is a reasonable set-back distance. If Mr. Cowhig lived in a rural area, how close would he allow a 185 m high turbine to be?

I travelled a road the other night which I had not used for four or five months. It was dark and because it is a rural area, there is only so much that can be seen. The road is smashed into bits and there are large potholes in it. I contacted the neighbouring council and our council about the damage done to the road. When I arrived at the destination the person I met raised the subject and pleaded with me to do what I could. There have been hundreds of lorries carrying concrete trundling along the road for a number of months. I had not been on it for three months but I could see that it was smashed to bits. The representatives of Element Power have spoken about community gain but in the area to which I refer the road network has been completely smashed to pieces. Would Element Power support the idea of a substantial bond being lodged with local authorities, if it could be retrievable rather than an insurance bond that is too hard to reach?

Mr. Tim Cowhig

I will take the last question first. There is an obligation on all developers to ensure that when they have a project, it is developed responsibly. They are not allowed to start development until there is a compliance document with the local authority. Any reinstatement required is agreed in advance.

With regard to the turbines being 185 m high, it is important for people to understand that we have not yet decided what size turbine to use. This is part of the process that must be gone through to see what kind of technology can be used after going through the various steps identifying location. We do not yet know what size or kind of turbine can be put in place, although we believe the most efficient will be one at 185 m high. That does not necessarily need to be the turbine height after going through consultation.

The Deputy asked if there will be another property-type bubble with wind turbines. Wind energy and the development of energy in general is very different from commercial development, where building is done one spec and selling occurs afterwards. Projects like this export programme will not proceed until all the necessary binding contracts are put in place, and one of the most important elements is a long-term off-take agreement. One should not end up in a position like we did with the housing boom.

The Deputy also asked if we are reducing our own emissions. This is an export opportunity open to us as a country. We believe we can meet our own 2020 targets and our UK neighbour has an energy shortage and needs to achieve its own targets. If we are rewarded as a country - and not just us as a company - it would make sense for us. There are ways for us to use in future elements like interconnection.

After the 20 years have elapsed we can use some of that technology or infrastructure to help reduce our emissions into the future.

I will ask Mr. Harte to deal with the intermittency question.

Mr. Peter Harte

If I understand the question, the concern is that we are putting all our eggs into one basket and that wind requires a 1 MW for 1 MW backup. Any power system, like Ireland's 15 years ago, requires a great deal of backup plant to make up for the fact that sometimes some plant is unavailable, and, more importantly, for the fact that there is a variation in demand between the peak in the winter, typically in December, and the lowest demand in the summer. The numbers in Ireland at present suggest there is a peak demand on the island of approximately 6,000 MW and we have 10,000 MW of generation installed to meet that. Ten years ago, the plant would have cycled day and night with fluctuations in load. More recently, it is cycling up and down with wind. Crucially, however, not one new megawatt has had to be built because of the new megawatts of wind. Over the last ten years we have built over 2,000 MW of new wind and not one new megawatt of conventional generation was required to back those up, simply because they were already there for the purpose of backing up what was previously a day-night fluctuation. I believe that is quite safe.

On the question of putting one's eggs in one basket, if Ireland were not to pursue a wind energy strategy, it would certainly be putting its eggs into one energy policy basket, namely, imported gas. Without wind energy, Ireland was heading to 80% to 90% dependency on gas. Energy policy in Ireland suggests we will go to 40% wind, and that will remove some of the dependency on imported gas.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I have a few questions for the representatives of Bord na Móna. They said that they do not have a problem with local councillors designating matters in the county development plans. In Laois and other counties, however, the designated areas for the planned locations are being ignored in many cases. The land rights for the plant and wind farms are being bought up completely off-pitch or off-stage. With regard to the guidelines, would they support proper statutory regulations regarding the siting of wind farms? Communities feel the guidelines are a little elastic and that they can be pulled north, south, east or west or be made as long or short as one wishes. There is a feeling that the new guidelines might not be much better than the old ones. There are planning regulations for most other things so how would Bord na Móna feel about reasonable regulations in terms of its developments locally?

The other question is about the entire alternative energy sector, where there is use of biomass, peat and wind. We only have a short time so perhaps the representatives would give brief answers. How much time or focus is given to looking at geothermal, anaerobic digestion and hydro options? Bord na Móna might not have many opportunities on site for hydro, but people involved in Spirit of Ireland, in many publications over a number of years, spoke about the potential of hydro. We have two huge examples of hydro, one in Wicklow and one on the Shannon. How much investigation has there been of hydro? I am a little concerned about this reliance on wind alone.

With regard to height, there is a maximum height beyond what is reasonable. As some speakers have said today, planning is about a balance and what is reasonable. Some buildings that were proposed for this city did not get permission from An Bord Pleanála or the city council because it was believed they would be outrageously high. It is the same in rural areas. The turbines are 185 m in height, which is almost 600 feet. We have never seen anything like that and it will change the Irish landscape forever, particularly in the midlands. If there was something that height within a five or six mile radius of where I am living, I would be able to see it. Would the representatives be prepared to buy into, or see a need for, a maximum height for turbines?

My final question for the representatives of Bord na Móna is about undergrounding cables, Grid25 and the debate about pylons as opposed to the underground option. Bord na Móna, like Element Power, is opting for underground. It might be a different system but it is an underground system to carry the cable to the interconnector. What made them decide upon the underground option rather than the overground one?

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

I will ask John Reilly to discuss the height, the undergrounding and statutory regulations. I will comment on low-carbon technology. The Deputy asked if we are looking at various different and alternative technologies. We have been and are doing that. There is quite an active innovation process in Bord na Móna. Deputy Stanley will be very familiar with the fact that we have a significant solid fuels business and we are developing a range of low-carbon replacement products for these, including briquettes, coal and so forth. It has required a great deal of technology and new product development, and it is ongoing.

We have looked at a variety of different technologies. All of them are proving challenging in terms of energy storage but with developments such as electric vehicles and so forth, it potentially has the opportunity to provide some solutions in that regard. We have put a great deal of time into areas such as landfill gas, which is another form of renewable energy, and particularly into technology relating to cleaning this gas and making it more useable. This has got applications throughout Europe.

Mr. John Reilly

To make a final point on the other technologies which we look at on an ongoing basis, the fact is that on a levelised cost basis, that is, when one looks at the cost of power produced from anaerobic digestion, for example, it is significantly higher than the cost of onshore wind. It is similar with geothermal and solar photovoltaic, PV. Germany was mentioned earlier. One of the reasons Germany is paying such large subsidies is that it has installed very significant levels of solar PV on its system. Onshore wind remains one of the most cost effective technologies and, in the Irish context, biomass, particularly when used on a co-fired basis with peat, because the stations are already there. That is the reason Bord na Móna's focus on renewable energy at present is primarily on onshore wind and biomass.

With regard to the undergrounding, it is to do with the design of the systems and the distances. The cabling that happens within a wind farm, the AC voltage cabling, and the distance one must travel there mean that one can, reasonably cost effectively, put those cables underground. It is similar with the AC network that will be used to link the farms to the central point. We are not travelling over very large distances. If one is travelling over very large distances, which will have to happen with Grid Link or Grid West, and moving high voltage electricity over distances, the cost of undergrounding that and the ability to underground it safely is very prohibitive. In our case, the distances being travelled are quite short so it is possible to underground the cables. That is the reason for our perspective on it. The other key issue is that Bord na Móna's land bank in the midlands is interlinked with the rail network. We can run the cables between the farms along that route or along that cable network.

On the issue of planning guidelines, we wish to make it clear that we believe a revision and assessment of the planning guidelines, as is being carried out at present, is appropriate. There was reference earlier to a wind farm in Offaly that was turned down by An Bord Pleanála because only the minimum guidelines were adhered to. From our perspective, on our Mount Lucas wind farm, the minimum setback we have from the nearest residence is over 680 metres. On the farm I referred to in Mayo, the minimum setback distance will be almost 1 km. That will be necessary to comply with the noise limits, which I believe is the most important issue.

With regard to the height of turbines, there comes a point where structures cannot and should not get any higher. The turbines we are installing on Mount Lucas are almost 160 m to the tip height and people should take a look at the structures. Many people in the midlands have commented to us, since the turbines started to go up since Christmas, that they are not as tall as they expected them to be. There has been so much talk about the heights of turbines. Nobody is saying they are not tall but, in general, people are satisfied they are appropriate for the large open landscapes in the midlands and that we can erect structures of this size or scale. Whatever the planning authorities decide and dictate, we have confidence in the planning system. Projects have been turned down due to the inappropriate siting of turbines and various types of developments. We will try to work with the planning authorities to ensure whatever we do is appropriate.

Deputy Stanley made a relevant point about local road upgrades. When one builds a wind farm like the Mount Lucas development in County Offaly, one has to agree a transport plan with the local authority, and that is right and proper. We had to give indications of the movement of goods and materials along the road and we had to upgrade the road to the required standard before we started to move the goods. For the Mount Lucas wind farm we invested more than €1 million in upgrading the local road network and 6.5 km of road network was upgraded, including the entire main street of the village of Daingean. The roads were upgraded to give them a 20-year life in order that the activity of transporting goods and materials during the project would not damage the roads. That is appropriate.

My final point is on the export piece and putting all our eggs in one basket. We have referred to the need for energy co-operation between member states, particularly small member states like Ireland that are not historically or traditionally resource rich. Today, to keep the lights on in this building, we must import almost 77% of the fuel required to do so, the majority of which comes from gas that is imported almost entirely on the back of the UK network and infrastructure of gas. If we did not have that option to support the Irish economy, we would be in a spot of bother. We believe in the principles of energy co-operation with our European neighbours because it will drive down costs and use resources across a wider power system. Interconnection and enhanced co-operation between member states, particularly neighbours, is the way forward in terms of our energy future. It will help to decarbonise our economies at the lowest cost to consumers.

Deputy Brian Stanley

The group called Turn 180 raised some valid concerns. Does it completely oppose wind farms? What is the alternative? Is nuclear power an alternative? What is the alternative if fossil fuel becomes more expensive? There is a new debate on nuclear power and some people have suggested it may be an option. What is the organisation's view of nuclear power? What is an alternative energy?

I have a few questions on climate change. Does Turn 180 not see climate change happening and think we do not need to replace or stop generating electricity using fossil fuels? Mr. Swords made the point that global temperatures had not risen in the past 16 years. Is the delegation saying that global temperatures have not increased in the past 50 years?

Mr. Patrick Swords

I said 16 years.

Deputy Paudie Coffey took the Chair.

Deputy Brian Stanley

That is fine, but I am asking Mr. Swords whether he is saying that global temperatures have not increased in the past 50 years. I hope that they have not increased but everyone else is telling me that they have, and there is all of the information that has come to us. What is the source of Mr. Swords' information? I believe we are experiencing and will experience serious changes in weather patterns in my lifetime.

I wish to recap on Turn 180's position on wind farms. Does it oppose them per se? Does it favour nuclear energy? What are the options? I would like to know because we need to examine all the options. I do not favour nuclear power.

With regards global warming, Mr. Swords referred to the past 16 years. We could say there has not been an increase in the past six years. I am asking if he is saying there has not been an increase in global warming in the past 50 years. If there has been an increase in temperature, what has been the cause?

Mr. Patrick Swords

There has been a pause and that has been recognised by the scientific community, even by the scientists on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unfortunately, the models that are used to predict a catastrophic global warming scenario have been wrong. There has not been a rise in temperatures in the past 16 years. We need to look at all this. There is huge disquiet that there is a catastrophic scenario and that scenario is deeply controversial. We can deal with the issue offline at some other time and I do not want to go into the matter.

As regards alternatives, I have already stated that we have a good generation system. We invested heavily in it between 1999 and 2012 so we are good to go for 20 to 30 years in advance and we do not have to rush into anything. We do not need to throw out the good power station that we have and build a nuclear power station but we should look at all of the options and find the right one. My approach is that the process should be done correctly and that is what the convention is about. The convention is not against nuclear energy and I am not against nuclear energy. The convention, as was said, is not against wind energy. There may be circumstances in which wind is suitable. Wind energy does not make sense when one looks at it from an engineering perspective and from the perspective of the large-scale roll-out of a scheme.

One reason it does not make sense is because it causes inefficiencies in other power stations. We have some of the most modern gas-fired stations. They are the most efficient stations in the world because they are 55% efficient at full load. That means that when we put in two units of gas we get more than one unit of electricity. If we ramp them back to less than 50%, they fall off a cliff and by the time we are down to 40%, we are down to percentages in the 30s in terms of efficiencies, burning three units of gas to get one unit of electricity. The combustion gases - the pollutants - increase by a factor of three when we throttle them back. Therefore, when one operates at one third of the load, one puts out the same amount of carbon monoxide and nitric oxide pollutants as one would if the station had a full load. That is not a sensible way of doing things so we must look at it from an engineering perspective and analyse the whole thing properly.

The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland's report has ignored the fact that these inefficiencies occur on the grid. Despite this, the REFIT for financing wind farms gives the wind operator €67 and gives the company €10. They take it because of the extra balancing costs and the extra inefficiencies they incur. At the same time we ignore the inefficiencies in our emissions calculations. We need to look very carefully. As we put in more renewables, the inefficiencies increase on the grid so it is a diminishing return with wind energy.

There were 11 sources of renewables identified in the directive. There has never been any consideration of technology alternatives in Ireland, and that is a legal binding from the Commissioner for Environmental Information. We just ended up with 90% wind. I spent 180 days working in Croatia between 2008 and 2009 getting the country ready for membership. Croatia joined in July and brought in its national renewable energy action plan in October. It has the same size of a population and relatively the same land mass as Ireland but it ruled out the large-scale deployment of wind because it was too expensive and too much of it would be imported. Instead, it went looking at agricultural sources such as biogas, etc.

For hydro power to work in a country, nature must do one a favour. If one was located between Serbia and Romania, where the River Danube is massive and bursts through the mountains, one could barely just generate enough electricity for Ireland. We only have the River Shannon, from which we get 80 MW on full flow, but we need between 2,000 MW and 5,000 MW so hydro power is not going to work.

We have too much slurry going into our waters. It is correct that biogas is not cheap, but it provides a steady electricity load. A rough rule of thumb calculation is that we have enough slurry - agricultural waste - to probably squeeze out 100 MW - 400 MW is the figure for 200 wind turbines - but it would give a steady load. We have waste to energy plants into which we have not tapped. We only have one working. Some 50% use renewables into which we could tap. We have options for heating systems with ground source pumps for heating communities which are not on the natural gas grid. We have biomass we could use to generate. However, the key aspect is that we have three modern ready-to-go peat-fired stations which would use biomass, wood chips or whatever else. They will need no modifications. We also have the Moneypoint plant, our coal fired station, which could easily be converted, as has been done in the United Kingdom, to using wood chips. We are going to import massive quantities of cables, turbines, steel and plastic to build all of this. If we were to import wood chips for our existing power stations, we would achieve the same renewables target at less cost and not blight the countryside with this investment. There are plenty of alternatives; we just have to go back and follow the procedure, as the United Nations has told us, and assess them.

I refer to the statutory guidelines. I am a German speaker and have worked in Germany where I dealt with planners. The statutory German noise regulations are very stringent. They date back to 1998 and everything hangs off them. The Germans recognise that they are insufficient to deal with the swish from wind turbines. When I compare the turbines which are being approved in planning here with the existing German noise guidelines and how they are assessed, there are many places where there are 20 to 30 houses within the zone of influence of a wind turbine which would rule out that planning development in Germany as not being compliant with the existing noise regulations which the Germans know are inadequate.

We need to look at all of these issues. There is no panic or rush. We should turn 180° and review everything.

Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy

I thank the representatives of Bord na Móna, Element Power and Turn 180 for coming. This is the second day of our hearings. Before Christmas, we heard from the Lakelands Wind Farm Information Group and we will hear from others involved in the industry, government and communities.

I have some questions on how wind energy supplies for export will be transmitted to the United Kingdom. There is the east-west interconnector between Ireland and Wales. Do Bord na Móna and Element Power see themselves using that interconnector? Who will build the connections between the wind farms and the station in County Meath?

I refer to land agreements with Coillte. Coillte has a lot of land in natural heritage areas and special areas of conservation. How much of it is suitable for wind energy generation, considering that it will be restricted by being located in special areas of conservation and natural heritage areas?

Have the two energy companies conducted cost benefit analyses of how this project will be advanced? A number of speakers referred to the requirement for backup by fossil fuels. Communities have contacted public representatives about this requirement. How can the energy companies square this with making up the deficit when there is no wind blowing?

There are queries about the option agreements being presented to local communities. Are we looking at lease or options agreements? What is the ratio between them and what is their duration?

The Aarhus Convention has been mentioned. What is the energy companies' understanding of their responsibilities under the convention? While there has been a degree of consultation, the fact that there have not been public meetings to advise communities has been a deficit. The fact that there has been a lack of public discourse during which we can obtain accurate information is causing a real problem for communities.

Mr. Tim Cowhig

I will deal with the cost benefit analysis. Mr. Harte will deal with the questions about the grid, while Mr. O'Donovan will deal with the land use questions.

As I outlined in my opening statement, we have looked at the benefits to the community in the midlands of developing an export project of around 3,000 MW. Our estimate is that it should be worth at least €1.5 billion to the five midland counties over the lifetime of the project. That is made up of community contributions of more than €10 million per year and €50 million per year between rates and rent payments to landowners.

Mr. Peter Harte

On the question of how power will be transmitted to the United Kingdom, the recently commissioned EirGrid east-west interconnector has a rating of 500 MW. We believe the scale of the resource and the combined projects in the midlands will probably account for around 3,000 MW; effectively, that is six times bigger than that for the existing cable, which could not accommodate that capacity. We have proposed as part of the Greenwire project - other projects have proposed similar connections - to build a new dedicated HVDC connection directly to the United Kingdom. That is the same technology as for the east-west interconnector but at much higher ratings. It will not look that different in terms of what goes in the ground. It is still a cable on a public road, but it is the technology which can move that quantity of power with very low losses and at reasonable cost to the United Kingdom. It has been proved the world over.

On the question of requiring backup power, it is indisputable that there may well have been a day when Ireland had a demand for power of 5,000 MW and the wind was not blowing, but for every day one can point to in that example, I can point to another when the wind was blowing and provided over 50% of our power supply. What matters is how much power one ends up with at the end of the year. Last year nearly 20% of all of Ireland's electricity was generated by wind energy, an impressive figure which will increase to 40% by 2020. That is what will give us a degree of energy independence compared to the use of gas. As I said, we can do this without requiring any new fossil fuel plant because we already have a generation fleet in Ireland, to which Mr. Swords referred, which is new, modern, efficient and large enough to cover all fluctuations in terms of wind energy and which is already doing this on a daily basis. It is still capable of doing so in the future; therefore, there is no requirement for further backup for the domestic market.

On the export project, the question of backup is one for the United Kingdom, but I believe is in the same position as we are and can easily accommodate the levels of wind energy it is planning to use.

Mr. Kevin O'Donovan

I will answer the question on land agreements and how they relate to designated areas, NHAs and SACs. This would have been one of the criteria in the site selection process at which we would have looked at the start.

I am not sure what proportion of Coillte's overall land bank is under environmental designation but we avoided those areas in the context of identifying sites in which we were interested.

On the land agreements, the process is quite long. We approach a landowner and explain the potential for wind development on his or her lands. There is usually quite an amount of back and forth communication between our land team, based in Tullamore, and the landowner, explaining the concept of the project and then getting into the finer detail of what is involved in wind farm development if the landowner is interested in continuing those discussions. At the end of that process, if the landowner is still interested, it proceeds to the point of drawing up an option agreement. The option agreement then goes to the landowner's legal adviser or solicitor. There is a back and forth process between solicitors to ensure the legal agreement backs up what was agreed with the landowner. Typically, with wind farm development, an option agreement is put in place during the assessment, feasibility and planning stages of the project. A lease agreement is only put in place if planning permission is obtained for turbines on the land and the project is about to proceed.

It is important that this committee has an overall understanding of how we have approached consultation and of what has happened to date. The committee must also understand that we have a long way to go yet. Initially, we launched the concept of this project for the midlands in 2012. At that time, we explained that there was a potential for this type of development in the midlands but that a lot of work had to be done to identify suitable areas and sites. We have a community-based team in Tullamore who are meeting and working with local groups in the five counties. We have had public meetings, distributed newsletters and have used various other forms of communication to explain what is involved in the project to the communities. However, that process is not finished. There is a lot more to be done and one of the key steps, towards the end of the assessment process, is to hold further public meetings to present to the public the exact location of turbines and the overall extent of the proposed project. That is a very important step and we are working towards that at the moment. In the overall context of consultation, the strategic environmental assessment is a key part of the process to allow export projects to be considered for planning permission applications. That is an important step in the process, particularly in the context of addressing concerns around the Aarhus Convention and the need for full consultation.

As I understand it, an enormous amount of feedback and submissions were received in response to the first stage of the consultation phase of the strategic environmental assessment process. The next stage will take place over the next few months and I have no doubt, given the number of submissions that have been made, that there is full public involvement in the process leading towards an overall framework and policy for the development of export projects. It is probably frustrating for interested parties that they do not have all of the details at the start, but that is the whole idea of consultation. This is not a fait accompli but an ongoing process of interaction between the various parties, including developers, other stakeholders and the public. That is what is going on at the moment. There is agreement that issues like planning guidelines, strategic environmental assessments and other parts of the process must be worked on to incorporate the concept of export, but we have long way to go in terms of consultation on these matters.

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Deputy Corcoran Kennedy asked how the renewable energy will be transported and connected into the UK grid and who will build and own the transmission infrastructure. While we are aware of other developers' plans in terms of how this would happen, Bord na Móna does not have a particular view on this matter because it is not our area of expertise. Transmission is not an area in which we are well qualified or have a history of involvement. We are aware that transmission is an issue in the negotiations between the respective Departments, EirGrid, National Grid and the regulators in both jurisdictions and will be a critical question to be answered as part of the intergovernmental agreement process. We await the outcome of those negotiations and will obviously comply with whatever is deemed to be the most appropriate approach, whether it be developer-led, grid operator-led or some other method.

Mr. John Reilly

On the question of the backup piece, it is important to note that managing demand on the power system is not new in Ireland. We have a very interesting situation in Ireland where we go to sleep at night, unlike most of the rest of Europe. Demand at night time drops to about 2,000 MW and rises at the winter peak to approximately 4,500 to 5,000 MW. Following demands on the power system and variations in that demand day to night, over the weekend, winter to summer and so forth is being done all of the time. The need for backup capacity, as has been explained, is not a new phenomenon. It is very important for people to understand that nobody here is talking about wind ever producing 100% of the electricity demand in Ireland. That is not what is in play here. We need to be sensible about this. At present, 20% of our electricity is coming from wind and that is being managed very well. It has been recognised globally that the management of intermittent yet predictable forms of energy is being done brilliantly in Ireland in the context of the isolated nature of our power system. Increased interconnection with neighbouring power systems will enhance our ability to put more low carbon energy onto the power system, which is a key challenge for Ireland in terms of our de-carbonisation agenda.

We completely agree that there is a need for consultation but it is sometimes difficult to know how best to do it. When we launched our project in October of last year, we held open days in halls in various communities. We had people in those locations for the entire day, which allowed mums on their way home from school runs or others on their way home from work to drop in and engage with us. We endeavour at all times to provide people with the most up-to-date information on what we do, and while I am sure we do not get it right all the time, that is always our intent. There is nothing to hide here. There is nothing terribly secretive about what we are doing. We are endeavouring to follow national and EU energy and environmental policies in a way that is best for the economy and the country while taking on board all the concerns of local communities. That is what we attempt to do. We may not get it right all the time but that is certainly what we try to do.

As I said earlier, as a company we also produce electricity from biomass. We are getting paid a lower price for our onshore wind energy than for our biomass energy. A lot of the biomass we will require in the future will have to be imported because we simply do not have the resources here, unfortunately. We are using the resource that is available in an optimal way. We have tried to develop this resource through an energy crop programme, but for a variety of reasons, that programme has not yet taken off to the extent that we would like. However, we will certainly keep working on it because we believe that the agricultural community in Ireland can play a very big role in helping to secure our energy future.

We also have significant agricultural exports.

Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy

Why are the midlands more suitable for providing onshore wind energy than other places? I would not have thought that the middle of Ireland was a good spot for wind speeds. Are the structures so high that the wind speed does not matter? What is the lifetime of the structure? When it comes to decommissioning, what will happen to the materials in the turbines? This is a technical question. Do the elements in the actual turbine have to be maintained at a constant temperature that is cooled in summer and heated in winter? If that is the case, what level of maintenance is required and what costs are involved in maintaining them?

In the presentation from Element Power we learned that the number of turbines in the midlands and Kerry is 750. Although the number of turbines is the same, are the heights of the turbines in Kerry the same as in the midlands? The questions of distance from turbines has been opened up for consultation. People have raised the question as to whether the distance from the turbine should be related to its height. Would it be feasible that the turbine be located at a distance of ten times the height of the structure from any building? We have very dispersed settlement patterns and in the midlands, homes are scattered across the landscape. It has been suggested there will be 3,000 turbines in the midlands. How can we ensure they are located so that they will not impact on people's homes as well as not having an impact on sound levels, property values and the health of the community?

Chairman

To whom are these questions directed?

Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy

Both the energy companies.

Mr. Kevin O'Donovan

I will deal with the question of onshore versus offshore turbines. The offshore wind turbines are more expensive and are more technically challenging. They are located at sea and it is significantly more expensive to install the foundations as well as getting the cabling out to them. There is also the challenge of operating in a harsh environment. Onshore turbines are far more competitive than offshore turbines in terms of the cost per MWh of energy. The opportunity for onshore wind turbines in Ireland is the ability to deliver power at a competitive price.

In response to the question on the lower wind speeds in the midlands, there has been significant advances in turbine technology in the past decade to the point that turbines in lower wind speed environments can produce quite high capacity factors and be very efficient. That is achieved by having a larger graded turbine in that environment.

As part of the compliance with planning permission, it is normal practice to put in place a decommissioning bond for the removal of the turbines and the restoration of the land. It is standard practice that an actual decommissioning plan would form part of the agreement with the planning authority of the county council. Both a decommissioning bond and a plan for decommissioning are put in place before the project is started to ensure that when it comes time to decommission the wind farm, it can be done as per the plan and the secure bond will cover the cost of it. Obviously, the turbines must be maintained and there are jobs in maintenance and ensuring that the turbines operate within their operating parameters. They have the capacity to operate in different environments, such as very cold to very warm weather, but there is a requirement for engineers and technicians to be able to operate and maintain the turbines.

The technology has evolved so that larger bladed machines are considered more efficient in lower wind speed areas. Our experience throughout Ireland is that we conduct an assessment on a site by site basis as to the most suitable locations for turbines and the most appropriate turbines for that location. That is part of the planning guidelines and feedback from the local authority on a particular site. A key part of our role is to work with each of the five planning authorities in the midlands local authorities as well as complying with the planning guidelines. The planning guidelines are being assessed and updated at present and, of course, we will comply with the guidelines when the project goes through the planning process.

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Mr. Reilly will take the questions.

Mr. John Reilly

I agree with Mr. Kevin O'Donovan on the comparison of onshore and offshore turbines. The cost of installing a wind turbine offshore is almost three times that of installing it onshore because one will be working in deep water and face all the challenges of working at sea. We have been monitoring wind speeds across our sites in the midlands for the past eight to nine years. The average wind speeds in the relatively flat landscape of the midlands are the envy of other member states such as Germany, where the capacity factors for wind farms are 25%. In the midlands one would expect with current technologies to get about a 35% capacity factors. This is one of the reasons that Ireland has a major competitive advantage in that we can produce renewable clean electricity from onshore wind at a price that is lower than anywhere else in Europe because of our wind speeds. There is no question but that one would need to build at the heights we are building at Mountlucas, which is at approximately 160 m.

Deputy Corcoran Kennedy referred to a set-back of ten times the height of the structures. Ten times the height of a 160 m structure, such as in Mountlucas, would require set-back distances of 1.6 km. In effect, on a site such as Mountlucas that would mean that the turbines would move into a very small cluster right in the middle of the bog. In terms of complying with regulations, for example, there would be no issue in terms of complying with the noise standards but one would be limiting the ability of the wind farm to capture its resource. As we have said, we believe there is an appropriate set-back distance and it should be related to noise.

Another point the Deputy raised - I understand the reason for the confusion on the issue because we have heard it also when we have spoken to people - is that it is proposed to install 3,000 turbines in the midlands. Nobody is proposing to erect 3,000 turbines in the midlands. People are talking about an export project that might have 3,000 MW capacity and using modern turbines that would involve a maximum of 1,000 turbines. The Bord na Móna proposal is a 2 GW project and we are looking at in the region of 650 turbines. We understand that misconceptions such as these are raising concerns among people. I do not think that one would install 3,3000 turbines in the midlands. That will not happen. One would not have appropriate locations across the midlands to put 3,000 turbines. We believe it is possible to install between 600 and 700 turbines in appropriate locations.

Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy

We have to try to realise what benefits will result apart from energy security and the impact on climate change.

The energy companies involved in wind power generation have already made a significant investment in the projects. What will happen if energy policy changes and the proposed projects do not proceed? Who will compensate the companies in question for the investment they have made? Will taxpayers be required to fund such compensation if the position changes?

On the option agreements that will be signed for areas that do not feature on county development plan maps, is the idea behind this to provide an enhanced package for potential future asset management investors? For example, if the proposal went to a particular company, would that company, based on these other agreements, increase the potential to move it on? In other words, will the companies which are actively interested in this project assume responsibility for its entire operation or try to move it on to an asset management company? If the companies sign option agreements with people living in areas not designated for wind energy project development in the county development plans, will this enhance the package they will be able to present to asset management companies?

Will the delegates explain the position on subsidies for wind energy versus fossil fuels? What benefits will the companies gain from these subsidies and who will provide them? Will the Irish Government or the British Government be responsible for the subsidy?

I was interested in the statement from Element Power that taxpayers would not incur costs. Will the representatives of Element Power confirm that taxpayers will not be required to foot any of the bill if the proposal proceeds and their company becomes the developer? I will ask more questions later.

Mr. Tim Cowhig

What happens if there is a policy change? We are developers and that is the business in which we operate. All we can do is monitor developments in the market and the signals the market is giving and work on that basis. If signals change in the middle of a process, our investors will lose the money invested in the project.

On option agreements outside the county development plans, most of our option agreements are in areas designated in county development plans. Those which have been signed outside county development plans are being assessed, as Mr. O'Donovan noted. If it is found that the options are not suitable to be included in the planning process or if they proceed through the planning process and planning permission is not granted for them, they will lapse at the end of the relevant period. There is no other reason for and no ulterior motive behind our signing up to these option agreements.

On the subsidy for the export project, as we are seeking a long-term project in the United Kingdom, the UK energy consumer would underwrite the long-term off-take agreement for this project. I confirm that there is no cost to Irish taxpayers for the export project.

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

I echo much of what Mr. Cowhig stated. The current investment is being made off the balance sheets of the respective companies. Will it fall back on taxpayers? Obviously, once an intergovernmental agreement is signed and subsequently backed by sovereign states, the sovereign states must deliver on requirements set out under that agreement. In that sense, there could potentially be exposure if the sovereign states do not follow through on whatever intergovernmental agreement may or may not be put in place.

As for the costs to taxpayers arising from subsidies for wind energy generation versus fossil fuels, Mr. Reilly may wish to comment.

Mr. John Reilly

Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy referred to fossil fuel subsidies. It is correct that Ireland and most of the rest of the world provide subsidies for fossil fuels. Much of this is linked with energy security. In Ireland's case, the subsidies afforded to peat-fired energy generation arise from the State's need at a certain time to increase its indigenous production of electricity. As I indicated, in 2000 Ireland imported almost 90% of the resources required to generate electricity. This is not a sustainable or secure position. The European Union encourages member states to use indigenous resources. Just as the Spanish Government subsidies coal-fired generation in Spain, there are elements of subsidies for various fossil fuels in Europe. This is allowed under EU state aid rules to encourage indigenous production.

For the purpose of moving forward, the International Energy Agency has much to state about the cost of electricity generation. If fossil fuel subsidies were withdrawn, renewable energy resources, for example, geothermal energy and some of the more expensive anaerobic digestion approaches, could perhaps compete better on a level playing field. That is an issue for policy makers rather than developers. We will follow policy and the price signals being given to us in terms of development. Bord na Móna is generating electricity from three sources. I forgot to mention landfill gas. The simple fact is that the lowest price paid to us is for onshore, wind-generated electricity.

Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy

I was interested in the comments made on the community gain issue. Has either Bord na Móna or Element Power considered taking a slightly different approach, for example, providing an investment bond which communities or individuals could purchase? Have they considered the option of compensating people with free electricity?

On Turn 180, I am interested in the delegates' thoughts on the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and whether this is having an impact on climate change.

On the amount of fuels we are importing to generate electricity, are the delegates concerned that Ireland is an island that is susceptible to the vagaries of world events which could leave us vulnerable in terms of energy security?

The delegates referred to hydroelectricity. Have Bord na Móna and Element Power considered the option of ocean energy? Do they have a policy on that energy source?

The potential of hydraulic fracturing or fracking is being widely discussed. Would fracking be a good idea in terms of Ireland's energy independence?

Mr. John Reilly

I will address the community gain issue. Bord na Móna recently completed a consultation on the development of the Mount Lucas and Bruckana wind farms which are domestically connected. Neither of these wind farms had prescribed community benefit schemes associated with them through planning. We indicated, however, that we would put in place such schemes. Bord na Móna is involved in such schemes; for example, we have a community benefit scheme as part of our landfill operation. We wanted to consult local communities on the formal nature of schemes and how they would be operated. We conducted an interesting consultation before Christmas and are considering the responses we received. As one would expect, we received a wide range of views from community organisations, local sports groups and individuals. A couple of themes emerged from the consultation. Element Power has referred to this issue. Many people want the benefits to be local with a capital "L". This alludes to the concept of near neighbours under which the people whose houses and properties are close to wind farms should be the first and largest beneficiaries of any benefit scheme. There is a sense that this is the correct approach. Bord na Móna is considering what it can do for near neighbours in terms of educational bursaries or support for energy efficiency improvements in homes, perhaps to the point of contributing to domestic electricity bills.

It is an issue that some wind companies in other parts of the island are dealing with in terms of developments. We are looking at all of that.

The community groups tend to want the money to move into capital projects that would upgrade local facilities which they claim would benefit wider swathes of the population. There is quite a strong argument in that area. One of the issues that did not raise its head during the consultation - we were quite surprised - was the concept of community involvement or shareholdings in wind farm developments. My personal view is that we should examine this strongly in Ireland and give people the opportunity to get involved in investment in this type of wind farm. We are looking at a model being used in Denmark. We were surprised it did not come through in the recent consultations. We will be looking at all of those issues.

With regard to imported fuels, as one who has operated in the energy industry for 20 years I do not think the general public is aware of the enormous challenges this country faces in keeping the lights on every day. Last year we imported gas that generated 50% of the electricity to meet our needs, all of which comes through a single pipeline in Scotland. This country is in a very tenuous position and, therefore, focusing on security of supply and enhancing the use of cost-effective indigenous resources has to be looked at. I just about remember the 1970s oil crisis. Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy's point is well made. Something can happen globally, such as the Fukushima nuclear disaster, that can have a very significant impact on the pricing of fossil fuels, as we have seen in the energy market. We have seen that happen many times in the past decade. The way Ireland is trying to deal with it through its energy policy is by not putting all our eggs in one basket. We are looking at a diverse mix of fuels, appropriate amounts of gas, coal and renewables, and using and optimising the indigenous resources available to the optimum level. That is what our energy policy states. We are trying to do that in a way that continuously decarbonises our power system. I believe the policy we are pursuing in Ireland, far from being flawed, is a very good policy. I accept that we need to continue to review it, but it is the right thing to do in securing our energy future.

The final question was on ocean energy and wave energy. That is a big-ticket item from a research and development perspective. Our company's balance sheet would not allow us to investigate everything to the extent needed. I am aware that other State energy companies are looking seriously at the potential of ocean energy but it is not something in which we in Bord na Móna are involved at this point in time.

Mr. Tim Cowhig

We concur with most of what Mr. Reilly has said. I would add that the community benefit programme is a very important part of the whole process. Community buy-in and acceptance of a project such as this is important. It is also part of the strategic infrastructure development, SID, process that a community benefit programme must be put in place. It could well be taken out of the hands of the developers, as it could be imposed on us through the SID process in terms of on how that money is to be distributed or who is to manage it. It is important that community consultation takes place around this whole process. We are open to looking at issues such as investment bonds and free electricity. We gave a commitment here today that we believe that everyone living within one kilometre of a turbine should be compensated in some way.

Mr. Patrick Swords

I will start off by talking about CO2 levels in the atmosphere, which is a controversial aspect. It boils down to whether there will be catastrophic or a mild warming. The actual catastrophic outcome exists in the models and nowhere else. As an engineer who works with heat transfer and other things, the idea that we can actually model the earth with any accuracy is appalling - we just cannot do it. We are failing to do so. These models have predicted a temperature rise of 0.2 of a degree in the past ten years and we had a flat. We need to go back and look at these models because if we are facing a mild warming instead of a catastrophic warming, everything is different. Also, we need to know what is the cost. If we are spending €180 to negate a tonne of carbon dioxide whose economic damage is worth less than a euro, that does not make much sense. We have adaptation policies also.

With regard to fuel importing, I would point out that in Saudi Arabia, where I worked and where there are 27 million people, all food is imported apart from a tiny amount. For as long as Saudi Arabia can afford to buy food, there is not really a problem. We export of the order of €150 million worth of farm and life science products and export approximately €150 million worth of other goods, including food and related products; therefore, we have €300 million worth of exports. If we are exporting, can we afford €6 billion worth of fossil fuel? Yes, but we have to look, first, at the competitiveness of that industry. With soaring electricity prices, the American Chamber of Commerce is constantly telling us in budget submissions that its industries are no longer sustainable here. Let us not kill the goose that lays the golden egg. We have ended up with an unhealthy situation involving a single gas pipeline going to Moffat in Scotland and running down to Ireland. There are other gas sources on the market. Great quantities of LNG are coming on stream. The US is looking to be an exporter and Shannon LNG is seeking to go ahead and put gas into the network, so there are other options out there.

Ocean energy is now working out at 22 cent by kW hour. We can generate electricity in conventional plants at about four to five cents per kW hour. Ocean energy is erratic. Wind and wave vary in the same way as on land, and tidal energy does not follow the curve demanded by the consumer; it follows the curve of the moon. It is a huge amount of money to force on people when one does not really know the benefit. What are we actually doing and what are we saving?

On the issue of fracking, whether we do it or not, other people will do it. They have already done it. There are approximately 50,000 wells in the US and it has been a roaring success story for the US. The way I look at it is quite logical, in the sense that I have worked in pollution control for more than 20 years. If significant pollution occurs which is unacceptable then we do not allow it to happen; we shut down that particular industry. If no pollution occurs and if the industry is of benefit to society then, obviously, we let it go. That applies straight across the board for everything.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

One thing that is causing confusion in the public mind is the number of projects that are taking place at the same time and that a different approach is being taken to each one. There is a presumption that the same approach is being taken by each one and it is not helpful.

I wish to direct some questions to Element Power. We have spoken about new planning guidelines which are coming on stream. Ideally, what would the witnesses like to see in them? I put this question to all three delegations. We tend to introduce planning legislation from a developer perspective which, in effect, diminishes trust in the system within the general community. I would like to hear a broad view of what each delegation has to say on what the planning guidelines should include.

In respect of the approach taken in dealing with each individual land holder in the first instance, while I do not take the climate sceptic approach, many of the points about the process are well made. A very legalistic approach is often taken to compliance, such as with the Aarhus Convention, rather than having a more holistic approach to the community as opposed to dealing with individual land holders. Mr. Cowhig started off by saying that mistakes were made, but there was very little included in his opening remarks that addressed those mistakes. Given that the approach the company took was to deal with each individual land holder, as opposed to taking a more holistic approach to the community, with benefits that might be derived by the community, does he see that approach as one of things he feels the company did not get right?

Mr. Tim Cowhig

There is an ongoing process at the moment and we are engaging in that. All we can say at the moment is that whatever the result of that process, we will have to abide by it. We have already given that undertaking here today. Even if they are guidelines, we as a company will comply with those.

The way things are set up in Ireland, we have to have a legally binding contract with somebody before a business transaction can take place. While it would be nice in theory to start off by trying to get the community together for a community based project, it is not possible. At the end of the day, we have to have an optional agreement over particular land where the turbine will be sited. If there was a way to get the community together first and then put the turbine in place, I would like to hear it, but this is the way it has always been done.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

We have just spoken about the Danish model, where a much more inclusive approach was taken and in which communities had a stake in the project. Is that not an alternative?

Mr. Tim Cowhig

We would be very open to something like that, but that is different from the land ownership issue. It is separate and I said earlier that we are open to looking ways that the local community can invest, be it by way of an investment bond or a share equity investment. As part of that, we have to engage with the community and get an understanding of what it wants. At the moment, people who neighbour these projects are coming to us and asking how are they going to be compensated for living near the turbine. That is part of the process we are working through right now. This has been happening on a small scale all along, but what is different now is the scale and the volume. We are talking about 40 different wind farms that are built at the same time, so we are trying to develop an overall package so that we can work on those projects at the same time.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It seems to me that the way the industry goes about it almost creates a reaction within communities. The community gain is seen as an afterthought, rather than starting out with getting buy-in from the community, and so friction is created. Perhaps Mr. Cowhig can tell us about some of the community gain that he has agreed to at this stage.

Mr. Tim Cowhig

When we started the process, this was a concept and an idea. When we brought it up at the beginning, people would have said that it would never happen, that we were mad or whatever. When we started this project back in 2011, we first had to socialise the idea and say that this was something that can happen, and explain to people the concept of building a cluster of wind farms and exporting the power to the UK. It took us a full 12 months just to get people to sit down and accept that this was something that could happen. As part of that, we had to look for a land mass where people were willing to participate in the project. It would be very difficult to go before a community with a blank sheet and say that this is a concept; it has to be built up in steps and made happen.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

There are some issues relating to the bogs themselves. Bord na Móna held a briefing in Buswell's Hotel not long ago during which I asked Mr. D'Arcy about the hydrological assessment of the bogs.

In parts of the UK they have done some work on wetlands, trying to make them accumulate floodwaters so that they do not end up very quickly in rivers and then flood towns. Bogs or wetlands can be incredibly important in that way in dealing with climate change.

We held hearings last summer about the climate change legislation and heard some very interesting contributions about the value of mothballing all of our bogs as carbon sinks to offset our obligations. Will the footprint of 600 or 700 turbines with large concrete bases squeeze the prospect of bogs being used as a sponge for flooding events? What hydrological assessments have been carried out?

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Mr. Ryan will answer that, but first I will make a couple of points. An important point to understand with regard to many of the bogs in Britain is that the bogs we are discussing here are cutaway bogs. We have gone past the peat layer into the mineral layer. The hydrological properties of that land are, as the Deputy rightly points out, somewhat different from the sponge effect of a bog. Some of these areas, not necessarily those we have identified for our clean energy hub, straddle the Shannon and in many cases are below its water table level. When the peat is cut away the pumps in many of these areas will be turned off and they will flood naturally.

Yes, it is possible to combine renewable energy and turbines on flooded peatlands, for want of a better term. The engineering process to create the foundation and so forth is different but it is eminently possible. As we are on the subject of water and water management, Bord na Móna has been before this committee talking about wetlands and flood management and the prospect of storing some of this water, treating, managing and disseminating it to attract water-dependent and other industries into the midlands. That is a very viable option for some of these peatlands.

Mr. Gerry Ryan

As I said earlier, we are governed by the integrated pollution prevention control, IPPC, licences issued by the EPA. That requires us to file a rehabilitation and restoration plan for each of our bog areas. We have 130 bog areas throughout the country, only some of which are encompassed by the clean energy hub project. That is only approximately 20,000 ha of the 80,000 ha we possess. In the past year we filed a rehabilitation plan for each of the 130 bog areas with the EPA. That includes a hydrological assessment of the bogs. The rehabilitation plan covers all of that in respect of the future use of those peatlands after peat harvesting is finished and they become cutaway.

There is some scope for flood attenuation along the Shannon using our bogs. It is important to put that into context. A few years ago we spoke to this committee about the serious flooding along the Shannon in 2010. Much of the midlands was flooded at the time, including many of our peatlands. Although the extent of the water was substantial and the extent of the peatlands appears substantial, the real contribution it could make to attenuation of flooding on the Shannon is relatively small, between 5% and 10%. Almost by default we understood in 2010 that it was possible and was a potential future use for the peatlands along the Shannon. It is not that big a factor in flood attenuation apart from the Shannon and the Suck.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I believe the report by the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, highlighted the opportunities for wind export. We are very well positioned on the periphery of Europe for what the report suggested would be the real opportunity for big industrial development with export potential, which would be offshore. In the past couple of weeks a report has come from the European Commission on blue energy. I understand that Bord na Móna’s land ownership, and what it will do with it, puts it in a position that is different from those of Element or the other developers, but is it factoring that in? The scope for putting turbines on land is finite. Already there is very significant resistance to large-scale proposals. Is Bord na Móna considering that?

Mr. Tim Cowhig

The opportunity we are exploring is an enabling project. There are huge opportunities offshore to build for hundreds of megawatts. While offshore development is expensive and there are commitments from the industry to reduce the cost of offshore technology, therein lies an opportunity for Ireland, if we want to take it. Ireland has to decide whether it wants to do this. There is a benefit in considering this opportunity. Blue energy is the way of the future. There will be many opportunities there but it is not commercial now. The costs of offshore development are being reduced and we are considering the opportunity for commercial development in wave and tidal energy.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I am not a climate change sceptic. With regard to 20% of the €6 billion worth of fossil fuel imported, which is beyond dispute, we are in a very precarious position in being at the end of a pipeline. We may well have reasonably good power stations, but if there is nothing to power them, would the witnesses accept that we are in a precarious position? Could that 20% be increased? For example, in the future, electricity is likely to be used to a greater extent in vehicles, whether rail or cars. That is one of the three big areas we have identified where targets are not met. We have signed up to them, whether or not one agrees with them. Do the witnesses accept there is a good economic argument for increasing the amount of electric energy we generate, and that it will be used more prolifically in the future because it is already being used?

Mr. Patrick Swords

The Deputy has raised a number of issues. I speak from an engineering perspective. The figure of 20% of €6 billion is correct. We have left ourselves in a very precarious situation. I must mention the Corrib development, which has been stalled because of the problems with the planning process. For example, an unnecessary tunnel was forced upon the developer and it is unacceptable that someone died in that tunnel. We also could have built the Shannon LNG and it would not have cost us very much. Instead, the arrangement with the State was unfavourable and the development did not proceed. We have options.

On the question of expansion of the electricity grid, I do not share the Deputy's optimism. If we do not keep the cost of electricity competitive, usage will not increase. We are in a very serious position because the cost of electricity in Ireland is highly uncompetitive, at 1.7 times the cost of electricity in France and 1.65 times what Finnish industry pays. The cost of gas in the United States is between three and eight times the cost in Europe; the cost of electricity is two to three times lower than in Europe. As a German speaker I am familiar with German industries, and they are walking out of Europe and moving elsewhere. The population of the state of Texas grew by 425,000 over a year ago because of a significant construction boom, much of which was funded by European money invested in production and chemical processing plants, in which I have had an involvement.

One of the most effective ways to use electricity is through what is termed a heat source pump, a ground source pump. This is a renewable device which provides three units of heat out of one unit of electricity. This is a renewable technology but it will not work if the cost of electricity increases. If we do not keep the cost of electricity competitive, the market will not grow.

Deputy Noel Coonan took the Chair.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

What does Mr. Swords hope for in the guidelines?

Mr. Patrick Swords

The guidelines are part of a legal due process. The current guidelines are being used in a compulsory manner by An Bord Pleanála for deciding planning permissions. They are legally binding norms. They fall under Article 8 of the convention in that there must be a public participation process. Once the public submissions were received there was only a two-week window in February last year. This is inadequate as a preparation timeframe and was not compliant. We requested and received more than 900 records, and more than 500 public submissions were received. The public submissions referred to concerns about health and annoyance issues, yet the Department decided to exclude health considerations from its guidelines. What is the point in the legal basis for these guidelines, considering they have failed to take due account of the public participation process, which they have ignored? We have requested the record but it has not been provided. Guidelines are put in place to protect residential amenity, which means that people should not suffer annoyance or adverse health effects. What is the point of these guidelines? They have absolved themselves from having any legal validity with regard to health.

Deputy Michelle Mulherin

I welcome the witnesses. I will be brief as it has been a lengthy meeting. Some interesting questions have been asked. This is a very important debate. The witnesses are representing energy companies who are responding to Government and EU policy on appropriate investment for the future. I note that Turn 180 challenges the renewable energy policy, but Ms Doolan described it best. I agree that the group should have the right to challenge the proposals.

I am from County Mayo and we have a lot of history with regard to energy. The first wind farm was at Bellacorick in 1992 and the Corrib gas project is in County Mayo. The county has the highest wind speeds and probably the best ocean energy off the coast. This is becoming an issue of national discussion, but it has already been discussed in County Mayo. These policies have been evolving and the debate is only now getting attention from the media. If we are all being honest, until something immediately affects us, we are not so concerned about it. Discussions about carbon emissions and proposed infrastructure might evince a passing interest in these matters, but that is all. Renewable energy technology has evolved and advanced, which means we should take a second look, because we are asking people in some areas to come to terms with wind farms. The 350 MW wind farm in County Mayo will be the biggest wind farm in the country and it will be built not far from where I live and near the existing small wind farm. This will have significant implications for the people in my area. If we had discovered oil in the midlands people would have concerns about the oil wells, because people regard the visual amenity of their environment as being very important.

As we try to navigate the future, there will be objections from every source. Some people campaign against fracking and others campaign against wind farms; I know of objections to bioenergy projects and also to ocean energy projects. It is reasonable to envisage that some fishermen may not be happy with ocean energy projects. Green energy and clean technology is the way to go. All the comforts of modern living require more appliances and it is a certainty that energy consumption will rise. The need to reduce energy usage will leave some people in poverty and disadvantaged. These are very tough decisions, which require a debate about energy security. I agree with Mr. Swords.

I refer to REFIT and preferential payment for wind energy. It is more expensive to set up a wind farm, but the wind is free and the farms require only maintenance. It is agreed that energy security is a problem. We have been dependent on technologies for the past 60 years which are based on fossil fuels and on oil in particular. Wind turbines were invented many years ago but it was decided to use oil to provide energy.

Perhaps we would not have had so many wars in the Middle East and so on if that had been done. However, that is history.

Vice Chairman

Does Deputy Mulherin have a question for the witnesses?

Deputy Michelle Mulherin

Vice Chairman, I have been here from the beginning and other speakers were given ample time. I ask that he bear with me a little longer. My point is that we need new thinking on this issue, and education has a role in that. We must have more engagement in primary schools, such as the green flag initiatives, to teach pupils about the environment, the importance of conserving water and that rubbish thrown on the ground does not simply disappear. It is about teaching the next generation to be responsible citizens. Oil and gas are finite resources. We do not have any of the former in this country and the latter is causing a great deal of trouble. We must think responsibly as citizens, with a view to moving our eggs out of the basket they have been in thus far.

It will always cost more to do that. Renewables are a more expensive endeavour because our lifestyles are based around fossil fuels. We have been discussing when it should be done and how soon is too soon. The bottom line is that there is no good time to move towards something more expensive, but we have to take the long view. An issue we need to address in this regard is the disconnect between the massive plans being brought forward, whether in regard to pylons, wind farms or anything else, and people's perception of the benefits or otherwise of these projects. The policy documents the Government produces make wonderful reading with their talk of targets, indigenous resources and so on. I accept we have to deal with the practicalities of engineering etc., but there is a gap between what is being proposed and people's understanding of the potential benefits for the country as a whole into the future.

As I said, the largest wind farm project in the country is based in my area. The energy it generates will not be for export but will instead contribute to the 650 MW we are putting into the system under the Gate 3 programme to bring us up to our 2020 targets. Bord na Móna has a history in Mayo. Its peat-fired power station has been dismantled and a wind farm will come on stream once there is some upgrading of the transmission lines. People in the area are open to this type of project because we have a tradition of energy projects. Bord na Móna and the ESB are undertaking this project as a joint venture but they are not doing themselves any favours by the manner in which they are proceeding. We have heard fine talk today about community gain and the delegates have invited us to visit one of their projects. However, what I mean when I talk about community gain is actual on-the-ground benefits for people in the form of local employment in both the construction and operational phases.

Mayo County Council has a very advanced renewable energy strategy, including wind energy, which takes into account all potential benefits in a type of blueprint that can be modified. The council has set out a tangible community gain, for example, of €2,000 per megawatt of wind installed. Bord na Móna and ESB will not go even to that amount, notwithstanding the fact that the land they are operating came from local farmers by way of compulsory purchase orders. What the witnesses from Bord na Móna are describing does not match what I am hearing at public meetings in regard to their company's engagement with people in respect of community gain. There must be a recalibration of approach. As public representatives, we must listen to people and show better leadership. That leadership should focus on a recalibration of our engagement with the issues to put communities at the heart of the process. The companies involved in these projects cannot treat communities as an afterthought or present a package and simply say how great it is. People are much more discerning than that.

I have put forward a proposal in regard to the project in Mayo which I have checked with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Bord na Móna, as a public company, has to follow certain rules on tendering which, on the face of it, seem to preclude it from prioritising local workers for the construction phase of its business. However, it is entitled to apply for a derogation from the Commission for Energy Regulation which would allow it to do so. Many young families in my area are struggling. The power station is closed. For those with small farms, their only off-farm income is in construction. These people are looking at outside workers being brought in by Bord na Móna to build roads and so on. Where is the local employment gain in that?

My first question is for the representatives of the two energy companies. They might be aware of the Bill that is down for First Stage on the Dáil Order Paper. It was originally tabled by Deputy Willie Penrose and, in addition, some colleagues and I, in an attempt to have the proposal debated in a speedier fashion, have also put it forward.

It would create a situation in which the set-back distances would increase by ten times, up to 1.8 km. It would also place the public on a more equal footing in the context of fighting against any proposals relating to this. I imagine those from the two companies are aware that this is out there, particularly as they have invested everything - including all the money they can get their hands on - into what they are doing. What capacity would there be if the set-back distances were of the levels suggested in the legislation to which I refer?

The amount of money that would accrue to the area was mentioned. Has an analysis been carried out in respect of the damage that would be done to existing and future tourism potential if a 1,000 turbines were placed on the landscape? It must be remembered that people often visit Ireland in order to escape from industrialised landscapes.

The core difficulty in respect of this matter, yet again, seems to relate to the fact that a decide-act-defend, DAD, attitude has been taken in the context of the development of the process. Earlier, Mr. Cowhig appeared to make an attempt to make us feel a little bit better about this. I must admit I do not feel any better when I consider the process he stated his company uses. He stated that the first thing the company does is to identify a suitable area, and then it meets the landowners. There could be some big landowners involved but there could also be many individuals living in the chosen area who do not own land there. Did Element Power ever consider holding public meetings and indicating to people what it plans to do? Ireland was mentioned on so many occasions earlier, I gave up counting. What is Ireland? The answer is that Ireland is its people. Without the people, Ireland does not exist; it is merely a rock in the Atlantic. If it is Ireland that is important and if the people are Ireland - I would love someone to prove me wrong on this one - why do our guests wait until the process to which I refer is halfway to completion before they decide to inform citizens of what is happening? If they really cared about Ireland, they would care about its people and include them in the process.

Numerous reassurances have been offered but Ms Doolan blew everything apart when she indicated how she had found out about what was taking place. She discovered what was happening when it was potentially too late and when those operating the process had their minds made up and there was no turning back. Would there not be a greater community gain if the process was actually led by the community? I was extremely concerned by what our guests from Bord na Móna had to say. I noted Mr. D'Arcy's frustration regarding the fact that different counties have different plans. He suggested that perhaps there should be more of an alignment of local plans with regional and national plans. All I can say is, "Well, sorry." I am not a europhile but I like the idea of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity involves a bottom-up approach. It does not involve someone who is damn close to the top bemoaning the fact that the people at the bottom are not co-ordinated in the way he wants them to be. That is what Mr. D'Arcy suggested earlier. This is where the problem lies. That problem arises in the context of pylons, turbines, turf-cutting and everything else in this country. What tends to happen is that something is rammed down our throats and then those doing the ramming return and pour some olive oil down after it in order to make it feel a little better.

What is being suggested and what our guests from Bord na Móna are doing is not going to work with the way they are going about it. The worst aspect of their earlier presentation was the lecture it included with regard to what constitutes global warming and the dangers relating thereto. This was from an organisation that raped and destroyed our bogs. I cut a small amount of turf each year and I and others like me have been blamed for the damage that has been done. I know what global warming is and I understand and have my opinions on it. If Bord na Móna wants people to follow it, I suggest that it should not lecture them and say that they have developed certain opinions on the basis that they are uneducated or do not really understand what global warming involves. This is where our guests are going to fail, because people understand. The problem is that our guests do not understand because they are not listening to people. Citizens have never had greater access to real information. They can now read up on any matter they desire. If one wants something to work, one does not tell people that if they understood the position they would agree to what is envisaged. That will not work.

The other side of the issue, speaking from my perspective as an engineer with 25 years' experience of major projects ranging in value from €50 million to €500 million, is that projects have to be delivered on time, on budget and safely round the globe. If I do not deliver on those criteria I am out of a job - or prosecuted, in various places such as Ukraine where I have worked. One of the issues with the engineering profession is a tendency to deep conservatism. We assess things. When a dream salesman comes in we know it is a dream salesman. Our energy policy in Ireland is dysfunctional and it is all over the place. Whatever sort of dream comes along, everybody jumps on board. At the same time, 50% of the money, if not more, that is being paid in electricity bills comes from industry or commercial entities. They cannot carry this charge and be competitive - they are going to walk out.

As regards the Bill, an assessment has been done of what land is available. If we had followed the strategic environmental assessment process and adhered to it, which we did not do and which is now subject to legal proceedings at the UN and elsewhere, we would know what the proper distance is to protect the human population. Therefore, we could have planned - taking account of the scale of our landscape that needs to be protected, special areas of habitat, etc. - what exactly we could build. Yet we have a plan to provide for capacity of 7,145 MW.

Vice Chairman

I thank Mr. Swords for his contribution.

Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan

We have an abundance of wind in Ireland. We export beef, fish and other products without anyone decrying that. When we start to export wind, there is a big singsong about it. Could one of the witnesses remind me how much wind energy was worth to this country in the past five years? I have forgotten the amount but it was of the order of billions. The worth was given in production terms. One has to ask whether it is worth that much when one takes into account the reserve and the cost of production. There are swings and roundabouts. I thank the witnesses for attending today’s meeting. The committee has a lot of questions to ask of other people as well as today’s witnesses. I hope the climate change Bill will improve our energy situation. We must do something to ensure the lights do not go off.

Vice Chairman

I thank Senator Keane. I call Deputy Colreavy and thank him for his patience.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

It can be difficult to come up with questions that have not already been asked. However, I will try. I have five themes and a couple of questions to ask.

Vice Chairman

There is no pressure on Deputy Colreavy to come up with questions.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

I know. Pressure is what one puts in the tyre of a car. I understand that. I do not respond to pressure. First, I would be disappointed if renewables such as wind, hydro, tidal and wave, geothermal and biomass could not be used to significantly reduce our dependence on dwindling and increasingly expensive fossil fuels. I like to see the reality of situations as well.

My first point relates to the companies themselves. There was speculation that many of the people involved were close to Government, that they were sitting on boards and advising the companies. I refer to former politicians, former advisers to Government and former civil servants and the relationship between the political and governance system and the energy companies. Could the witnesses tell me whether they have people on their boards or as advisers or consultants who were politicians?

On the export of energy to Britain, what was the nature of discussions or negotiations with the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and-or their equivalents in Britain?

The third theme relates to leasing or purchasing land options. The witnesses explained how they identify the areas where they hope to put pylons. Have the negotiations with landowners involved goodwill payments? How much has it cost the companies to date? Are the agreements subject to planning permission being granted? Could those who signed the leases or options renegotiate or back out of the agreements?

Can they otherwise dispose of the leases or options, having signed an agreement with the witnesses' companies? What is the immediate payment required to get the commitment of the landowners? I would not pay for a site unless I had a very good nudge and wink that I would get planning permission for it. Nobody will offer to sell me a site when it might take up to seven years for planning permission to be decided on it. I do not understand that process.

There is a fourth item on which I wish to speak. I am concerned that Ireland does not have a strategy on energy, let alone on wind energy. I believe that companies that have a well-thought-out strategy can run rings around Government. When I first said that to the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, he took issue with me, but two weeks ago in response to a question he said he would produce a Green Paper on energy. A Green Paper is the vision; policy and legislation follows. Therefore, the companies are a very long way ahead of Government on this issue. That frightens me. What is the point in introducing policy and legislation if the horse has already bolted? I do not understand what is happening in that regard.

Mr. Caulfield did not count the Vice Chairman in that number.

Mr. Joseph Caulfield

A point that has not been made at this meeting thus far is there is no law stating we must help the United Kingdom to meet its targets. If the United Kingdom wishes to meet its targets, the best of luck to it. I do not know how it will so do and do not really care. No regulation, rule or resolution states that Ireland has an obligation to help the United Kingdom to meet its targets. Essentially, what is being pursued here is profit. Ireland is not attempting to abide by a law and is not trying to be compliant with a rule or regulation. What is being pursued here simply is profit and Ireland has no obligation to help the United Kingdom in any way, shape or form. We can wish them the best of luck in meeting their targets, however they do it. They probably will meet them through the use of nuclear power and fracking anyway but we have no obligation to do this. What is being pursued here is pure profit on the part of a number of different entities, including a Wall Street hedge fund based in Teaneck, New Jersey.

Mr. Patrick Swords

There has been a lot of discussion and it is scaremongering to suggest that lights will go out. We have a single pipeline going up to the south west of Scotland and it is undesirable that we have that. We have a fully functional gas terminal at Corrib and were we obliged to lay the pipeline in a hurry, we could drop it along the beach in about four to six weeks. It is only a distance of 9 km and laying rates of pipelines on ground often can exceed 1 km per day. We have a flexible connection of approximately that length, which must be connected at the wellhead. This has not been done to prevent it from corroding. They are waiting until the entire project, which is ten years out of date, is completed. In reality, we could switch over to the Corrib field and keep everything going. We have alternatives and there is no rush. Even were that pipeline to western Europe through Scotland to go bang, we still would have other alternatives.

The other issue when it comes to wind is that many things can be done. Man went to the moon and back in 1969 and 1970. However, it is a question of economics and sense, as no one has been back there since. The question is whether it is sensible, not because it looks good or appears nice. When it comes to wind, in simple terms one must consider what it is, namely, kinetic energy and that is half the mass multiplied by the velocity squared. As for the mass, there are 30 km of air above me but that does not weigh very much and is very poor. The velocity squared pertains to the velocity of the wind, which only has a velocity of 4 m/s to 6 m/s, which is only 14 km/h to 15 km/h on average in the midlands. Consequently, the amount of energy one gets is very low, highly distributed and very erratic. Moreover, there is no way this will change and therefore one must build more and bigger wind turbines, as one must catch more air. If one wants more energy, one must catch more air and therefore one needs a bigger project.

Another aspect concerns the power that comes from a wind turbine. While it actually is turning and appears as though it is turning, the power is fluctuating all the time because it is related to the velocity cubed. If the velocity is halved, the power falls by one over two cubed, which is eight. In other words, if the wind speed halves, one gets 12% of the power even though it actually is turning around. This leads to the fact that someone must balance all this and our power stations are operating like cars stuck in traffic, that is, inefficiently. In fact, we are only getting approximately half of the savings claimed and this was known before this programme was started because EirGrid drew up the report on it. Even though a figure was reached of having 50% of our electricity being generated by wind, the fuel saving achieved was less than half that. Moreover, at that point the grid was being destabilised and tripped and we were dumping wind because the grid was being destabilised. We must go back and assess all these things. We must work out the benefit and there is no point in creating huge grids all over the countryside, connecting this, that and the other at a massive cost that does not work out on the basis of cost benefits but which merely really annoys people because of the visual and other intrusions on their society.

Mr. Tim Cowhig

As for Deputy Colreavy's point on policy and legislation, there is a framework both in the United Kingdom towards which we are working in the United Kingdom and in Ireland. From an Irish point of view, the Strategy for Renewable Energy 2012-2020, published by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources in 2012, has the export of wind power as a strategic goal. In the United Kingdom, the authorities are in the process of introducing a new energy Bill and as part of that, they have introduced a mechanism to support importation projects from their point of view. Consequently, there is a policy context. The Deputy is correct that it is being developed as we move along. In an Irish context, the planning guidelines and the strategic environmental assessment is being done. We only have a memorandum of understanding between Ireland and United Kingdom at present and await the completion of a full intergovernmental agreement. The Deputy is correct that waiting for all these things to happen would be a nice way to do it and had we the luxury of so doing, that is what we would do as investors. It would be much easier for us to sit back and not to be investing the millions of euro we are investing. However, this is not an opportunity that will stay there for ever and a day. Consequently, as a company, we are trying to position ourselves in order that if the opportunity does arise, we will be able to take the benefit of that opportunity. It is a risk strategy but that is what one must do in business.

Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy

On the question mentioned by Mr. Caulfield regarding hedge funds, is a hedge fund involved in this somewhere along the line?

Mr. Michael Barry

On the part of Bord na Móna, there certainly is no hedge fund involvement. All the expenditure involved in this project to date and in the foreseeable future on Bord na Móna's side is purely generated from Bord na Móna's other operations. No hedge fund is involved.

Mr. Tim Cowhig

We are being fully funded by Hudson Clean Energy Partners, which is a billion dollar fund raised in 2008 and headquartered in New Jersey.

Vice Chairman

Mr. Cowhig has had the last word. I thank everybody for coming today and the professional people for their advice and contributions to the committee. I also thank members for their questions, contributions and patience.

The joint committee adjourned at 7.10 p.m. until 2.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 25 February 2014.

Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht debate - Tuesday, 18 Feb 2014

Electricity Generation and Export: Discussion

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Mr. Patrick Swords

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Kevin O'Donovan

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Peter Harte

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Mr. Gerry Ryan

Mr. Patrick Swords

Mr. Patrick Swords

Mr. Joseph Caulfield

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Kevin O'Donovan

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Mr. John Reilly

Mr. Patrick Swords

Ms Agnes Doolan

Ms Agnes Doolan

Ms Agnes Doolan

Ms Agnes Doolan

Ms Agnes Doolan

Mr. Joseph Caulfield

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Mr. John Reilly

Mr. Patrick Swords

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Peter Harte

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Mr. John Reilly

Mr. Patrick Swords

Mr. Patrick Swords

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Peter Harte

Mr. Kevin O'Donovan

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Mr. John Reilly

Mr. Kevin O'Donovan

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Mr. John Reilly

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Mr. John Reilly

Mr. John Reilly

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Patrick Swords

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Kevin O'Donovan

Mr. John Reilly

Mr. John Reilly

Mr. John Reilly

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Mr. Gerry Ryan

Mr. Tim Cowhig

Mr. Patrick Swords

Mr. Patrick Swords

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht debate -
Tuesday, 18 Feb 2014