Joint Committee on Transport and Communications debate -
Tuesday, 28 Apr 2015

North-South Interconnector: County Monaghan Anti-Pylon Committee

Chairman

I welcome the delegates. I ask everybody to ensure mobile phones are switched off as they interfere with the transmission of the proceedings. Apologies have been received from Deputies Timmy Dooley, Helen McEntee and Michael Moynihan. Deputy Brendan Smith is attending in substitution for Deputy Michael Moynihan.

The meeting will be carried live on UPC channel 207, eVision channel 504 and Sky channel 574. The purpose of this meeting is to engage with the Monaghan anti-pylon committee in a discussion on the North-South interconnector. On behalf of the committee, I welcome Ms Margaret Marron, Mr. Terry Lynch, Mr. Nigel Hillis and Ms Mary Marron.

I draw the witnesses' attention to the fact that 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 committee. However, if they are requested to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of today's proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Any submission or opening statement they have submitted to the committee will be published on the committee's website subsequent to the meeting. I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Ms Margaret Marron to make her opening statement.

Ms Margaret Marron

I thank the Chairman and members for the invitation to appear before the joint committee today. I am accompanied by my colleagues Mr. Terry Lynch, Mr. Nigel Hillis and Ms Mary Marron.

We are all members of County Monaghan anti-pylon committee.

As we approach the centenary celebrations of the Easter Rising, it is fitting to recall the words of W.B. Yeats in one of the most powerful political poems of the 20th century:

All changed, changed utterly,

A terrible beauty is born.

The change referred to by Yeats was the 1916 Rising which saw the transformation of ordinary citizens into revolutionaries and the fact that the “terrible beauty” was born in Easter week made it simultaneously a crucifixion and a resurrection. We can very easily identify with the disillusioned Yeats. For the past seven years we have sought to inform and educate ourselves on the implications of EirGrid’s plan to run 400 kV lines on pylons up to 40 m high through our drumlin landscape.

We come here today on the back of a public meeting held last week in Aughnamullen social centre, which is situated right in the heart of Monaghan through which these pylons are proposed. The people we represent are very angry at how they have been treated by EirGrid and the political establishment. They are absolutely infuriated that they are being discriminated against and treated as second class citizens. This is the message we have been tasked with bringing to this forum today and given the passion of the contributions from the floor at that meeting, we feel totally inadequate for the task. We are ordinary people, doing ordinary jobs. We are the people in Yeats’s poem whom he met “at close of day, coming with vivid faces from counter or desk". Like them, I can honestly say we too feel crucified because nobody is listening to our concerns. We have been treated appallingly from the outset. When it becomes apparent that one is just engaging in box-ticking exercises and it would be much easier to give up, we keep going. We do what we do in the best interests of our county, our communities and our future generations.

Last week, Mr. Fintan Slye said that open engagement with communities is a key pillar of the draft strategy but that barriers to effective engagement were being put up. County Monaghan anti-pylon committee has never put up any barriers to effective engagement, in fact, quite the opposite. Maybe he might explain why the issues raised over three days of open engagement, organised by this anti-pylon committee, at which more than 600 people attended in May 2013, were totally ignored. I have here the stamped and dated copy of issues and questions I personally raised and submitted to EirGrid and to which I requested a written response. To date, I have received no reply.

Since the collapse of the oral hearing in June 2010, we met the independent expert commission in July 2011, took part in the Oireachtas committee hearing into the expert commission report in February 2012 and travelled again two weeks later as observers to the Oireachtas committee hearing with the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. In March 2013, we were on the road again to EirGrid headquarters to discuss our concerns and we met the EirGrid project team a month later in Carrickmacross. In November 2013, we gave a presentation to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Communications and were back again for the EirGrid presentation in December. In May 2014, we met the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in Carrickmacross regarding EirGrid’s consultation review and we met EirGrid again in Carrickmacross in November 2014 to outline our concerns. Meanwhile we were meeting regularly with affected landowners and residents along the proposed route. We have tried to engage openly in a constructive way and if any barriers have been put up, then they have the EirGrid logo on them.

Why the total change for the other projects and not for us? On 4 June 2014, the then Minister, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, appeared before this committee to discuss the energy Green Paper and he stated that because the North-South interconnector was so urgent, he would "strip it out" from the debate but other issues could be discussed at leisure. A political decision was made to "strip out" the North-South interconnector.

Mr. Fintan Slye set out the reasons the interconnector was so urgent in his opening statement last week. He said:

The interconnector is needed now, as a cross-Border bottleneck has developed on the all-island electricity system, which is having serious financial consequences. Last year the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, reported that the North-South interconnector would remove the bottleneck and reduce electricity costs by €30 million per year.

At the last oral hearing, EirGrid gave evidence that due to the risk of system separation, the interconnector could not be used to the fullest extent and the maximum power flows were capped at 400 MVA from South to North and 450 MVA from North to South. The bottleneck was in the context of a loss of either one or both circuits resulting in system failure, in other words, a brownout or a complete blackout. According to Mr. Slye, this could occur if a lorry crashed into one of the pylon towers. The daily power flows on the SONI website are consistently well below the 400 or 450 MVA danger zone. No bottleneck currently exists.

Regarding the €30 million saving, EirGrid kindly sent us a web link to the referenced ESRI paper. The document is entitled Irish Energy Policy: An Analysis of Current Issues; Fitzgerald et al. 2014. This paper itself does not directly analyse the impact of a second North-South interconnector but suggests that an earlier ESRI document, by Curtis et al. opines that a second North-South line would result in a €30 million per annum saving within the single electricity market. This Curtis et al. 2013 document is a working paper and comes with a serious health warning: "ESRI working papers represent un-refereed work-in-progress by researchers who are solely responsible for the content and any views expressed therein”. The Curtis et al. paper again references the €30 million savings as coming from other sources, which we have been unable to locate. However, correspondence from EirGrid to an Oireachtas committee in February 2012 throws some light on the issue:

Current cost benefit analysis studies show that in 2017 the presence of a new high capacity North South Interconnector will result in a saving to electricity customers in the region of €20 to €30 million per annum. That saving estimate is based on, among other things, an assumption as to the network configuration in 2017, in particular the amount and location of renewable generation that will be connected to the system. It is not necessarily correct therefore to assume that if the Interconnector was available today that similar cost savings would now accrue.

The key factors are amount and location of renewable generation, namely, wind and the network configuration. These factors have been studied in a very recent report dated March 2015 commissioned by the Irish Wind Energy Association entitled The Value of Wind Energy to Ireland. This report concludes that wind generation will decrease wholesale prices, resulting in savings to the consumer, but will be offset by other system costs. This report states:

It is not transparently clear what proportion of EirGrid’s planned investment in the electricity network is required solely for the development of wind capacity. Nor has it been determined how the system services outlined in the DS3 program will be paid for. But if all these are passed through to customers, they offset the wholesale price benefit, meaning household and industrial electricity prices rise slightly.

We can only conclude that the €30 million saving is dubious at best if not totally delusional. Mr Slye went on to say that, according to their estimates, the North-South line would cost €500 million more to underground than if it were overhead. He quoted a letter from the Commission for Energy Regulation stating that the additional cost would not be acceptable. Does Mr. Slye have a letter from the CER in regard to the extra €500 million to underground Grid Link and Grid West? Does he have a letter from the CER in regard to the €1.2 billion that could be saved if all the cheapest options were chosen with regard to the revised Grid25 strategy? If not, is he expecting a letter from the CER anytime soon and what does he think it might contain?

In any event, we saw from the Irish Water debacle that when push came to shove, the CER was sidelined and political decisions were taken at the highest level. Mr Slye stated that the international expert commission found that AC overhead technology was the “standard” in Europe for implementing projects similar to the North-South interconnector.

The commission never used the word "standard" in this context. It used the word "traditional". It found that AC overhead was the "traditional technical solution" in the context of solutions other than the traditional solution which could be employed to overcome major public resistance to overhead lines.

With regard to implementing projects similar to the North-South line, the commission stated: "When looking at all projects finalized or designed during the last decade in Europe, it becomes clear that for "green field" projects, i.e. connecting two nodes that were not connected before in a 400 kV grid, few have been built by using standard steel high voltage towers".

Reference has been made to the project of common interest, PCI, process. One of the underlying tenets of the PCI process is transparency and enhanced public participation. It has done absolutely nothing to enhance our public participation and its implementation is about as clear as frosted glass. An Bord Pleanála approved EirGrid's concept for public participation in retrospect under Article 9(3) of the authority's manual, despite the fact that no consultation had taken place with regard to an underground route option, a fact admitted by Mr. Slye to this committee last week. The PCI regulations clearly state that they are without prejudice to the Aarhus and Espoo conventions and relevant European Union law. Showing a route corridor on an Ordnance Survey map at a scale of 1:50,000 hidden at the back of the PB Power report does not constitute public consultation.

Mr. Slye commented on the independent expert panel chaired by Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness. The panel members are highly intelligent people who are to the forefront in their own fields, and we do not question their integrity. However, we believe EirGrid was economical with the truth in reply to the panel's request for more information regarding the feasibility of undergrounding the line along public roads. The Tobin report, published two days after the panel had made its decision, threw a different light on the topic in respect of using high-voltage direct current cabling. EirGrid subsequently admitted that the panel was not in receipt of the Tobin report, which clearly showed very different information regarding undergrounding.

We have had the vexed issue of repositioning pylons at the 11th hour, with no prior consultation whatsoever with the affected landowners. Despite all the glossy brochures with cute children and babies on the front and promises of a changing culture, we still have the jackboot approach when it comes to this project. The final line and pylon positions were issued to landowners in December 2013 with the objective of submitting a planning application early in 2014. If they were good to go then, why are changes required now? Have they been moved for genuine engineering or design reasons, or is there some other strategy behind it? At the least we deserve an explanation. We do not even know the extent of the pylon changes because in December 2013 the maps were removed from the website. So much for openness and transparency.

In conclusion, our research shows that there will be no security of supply issues in Northern Ireland until at least 2021; there is currently no operational bottleneck; the €30 million saving is illusory; and, according to information in the draft application file, the maximum typical power flow on the interconnector is expected to be 500 MVA.

Mr. Slye admitted last week that undergrounding was feasible in an engineering sense as well as technically feasible and that we had never been consulted on that option. The only urgency with this project is that it needs a proper independent review and consultation, as is the case with Grid West and Grid Link. All we are asking for is fair play and equality of treatment, as is our constitutional right.

This is the revolution of Yeats's poem. We sincerely hope it will not lead down the road to resurrection.

Chairman

Do any of the other witnesses wish to add to what Ms Marron has said? No. We will go straight to questions. Deputy Smith is substituting for Deputy Moynihan.

Deputy Brendan Smith

I appreciate the facilitation of this meeting by the Chairman. My colleague, Deputy Moynihan, who is our party's spokesperson, is unable to be here due to another meeting this morning. I welcome Ms Marron and her colleagues and thank them sincerely for their presentation and for the huge amount of work in which they have been engaged over the past eight years or more. I recognise the presence of Councillors McElvaney and Keelan here as well. I had a call just before the meeting from Councillor Seamus Coyle, who was unable to make the meeting on time due to a family commitment. I want to recognise that all councillors of all parties and none throughout County Monaghan have been very supportive of the work of the County Monaghan anti-pylon committee.

Ms Marron referred in the concluding remarks of her detailed and fair presentation to the absence of fair play and equality of treatment in the case of the North-South interconnector compared with the Grid West and Grid Link projects. She called for a proper independent review and proper consultation. Sadly, such consultation has been lacking to date. This was a constant theme at last week's meeting of the joint committee. Along with my colleagues, I put it to the officials from EirGrid that people in counties Monaghan, Cavan and Meath should not be treated as second-class citizens and denied proper consultation.

I was glad that the chief executive of EirGrid agreed with my colleague, Deputy Moynihan, that the undergrounding of these transmission cables would be feasible "from an engineering and technical perspective". That was a very important response to Deputy Moynihan's question. It was estimated or quoted some years ago, perhaps in 2009, that the cost of undergrounding would exceed the cost of installing overhead lines by a multiple of 20. The chief executive of EirGrid said last week that the cost of undergrounding had decreased to the point at which it is now a very small multiple of the cost of providing overhead lines. I think that has to be taken into consideration as well.

It is worth reiterating three strong points that Ms Marron made in the presentation she gave on behalf of her colleagues on the anti-pylon committee. She said that the committee's detailed research, which stands up to the utmost scrutiny, shows "there will be no security of supply issues in Northern Ireland until at least 2021 [or well beyond that]; there is currently no operational bottleneck; [and] the €30 million saving is illusory". This committee, EirGrid, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Government need to take those important points into consideration before any attempt is made to advance this project.

As I said earlier, we gave EirGrid a clear message last week that it is not acceptable to treat people in our region as second-class citizens. We are glad that a meaningful review has made the situation much more acceptable for people in the west, the south east and the midlands by comparison with the proposal they were initially presented with. As Ms Marron has outlined, all we are asking for is a proper and independent review, as opposed to what was merely an add-on to another review. This add-on meant nothing, in effect, because it did no more than kick the can down the road for some time.

Before I got an opportunity to speak last week, a question was asked about the devaluation of land and property. I found it incredible that Mr. Fitzgerald, who is a member of EirGrid's senior management team, responded to that question by referring to an international qualitative assessment. I said last week that it beats Banagher to think that an international qualitative assessment is needed. I will repeat today what I said last week to the EirGrid people. I told them they should go down to any suckler farm or farmyard where a man or woman milks 40 or 50 cows a day. Farms of this size and type are prevalent in our counties.

The disruption that would be caused by the placing of pylons right in a farm or community is evident. It would mean that farmers would have to change their entire farming practices in terms of going about their daily chores. It would make dairy farming impractical. We are also aware of the huge damage that would be done to the landscape from the point of view of the local people living in the area and also from the point of view of tourism and the protection of the heritage we have inherited. I totally support the committee's request for a proper, independent review. That is absolutely essential. The answers that were elicited from EirGrid following questioning from members last week demonstrate clearly that the undergrounding of this project is feasible from an engineering point of view. It is also feasible from the point of view of cost. At one time the proposed cost was alleged to be 37 times that of a pylon-based project, but that multiple has decreased from 20 to ten to seven, and it is now an even smaller multiple when we get the correct figures. I again welcome Ms Marron and the presentation by the committee and commend its members on its ongoing work on this very important issue for the people of the north east.

Senator Terry Brennan

I welcome the County Monaghan anti-pylon committee, which has previously been before the committee. I also acknowledge the presence of two former colleagues on the Border Regional Authority, Councillor Hugh McElvaney and Councillor Noel Keelan. Those people have been fighting this case for seven years. I admire them for their tenacity. They should keep it up. I will address another issue of concern in a different meeting today which I have been fighting for almost eight years but I have not got to the bottom of yet. I encourage the group and I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said. People are angry, and rightly so, about the lack of consultation. There is nothing worse than being told what is going to happen without any consultation. As far as I am concerned, open engagement in any project, whether it relates to road infrastructure or any other issue, is paramount.

It is incomprehensible that Ms Marron got no reply from EirGrid. It is definitely not good enough that EirGrid totally ignored communication from the group. I took up the interconnector issue last week. I explained the situation to Ms Marron prior to the meeting. We have existing interconnectors between Northern Ireland and Scotland and between Dublin and Holyhead in Wales. Ms Marron corrected me on the matter. I am not sure whether there is an interconnector between Rosslare and Fishguard, but there is a proposal to have an interconnector between Ireland and France. The main reason for interconnectors is for countries to help each other at times of maximum demand for electricity in one country and for us to reciprocate with Northern Ireland and England. I asked about the size and length of each interconnector but I did not get a satisfactory answer. Some of my colleagues are still present. We have capacity of 400 kV between Scotland and Northern Ireland and a similar interconnector of 500 MW capacity between Ireland and Wales. The capacity of the proposed interconnector with France is 700 MW.

I am not convinced that we need a 1,500 MW interconnector between Northern Ireland and the South. I do not understand why we need an interconnector twice the size and, in some instances, three times the size of existing ones. I need to be convinced that the interconnector between North and South cannot be the same size as those between Northern Ireland and Scotland or Ireland and Wales. I agree with Deputy Smith that we got assurance last week that an underground solution for the North-South interconnector was feasible and would be available. That was the message I got. I am not convinced that we need two in parallel, which Mr. Hillis mentioned to me outside. In my experience, two overhead lines in parallel would be used in order that if one breaks down, it is possible to transfer to the other. We do not have them between here and Wales, underground, or between the North and Scotland, nor is this proposed for the future. Why is it necessary with Northern Ireland? A 400 MW supply to Northern Ireland will suffice, mainly in times of maximum demand in either country.

I support the call for an independent review that does not involve EirGrid or the State at all. The question of the AC overheads and of the need for DC given their length and size is an issue. If DC is run for 50 miles, it has to be converted to AC, and it is expensive to build stations to do that. However, if that is what the people want, it is the answer, and I think it is.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh, agus cuirim fáilte mór roimh gach éinne. The witnesses are very welcome and I thank them for their clear, concise presentations. There is very little with which I would argue, except one sentence, which says that nobody listened. I must say that the Sinn Féin councillors and Deputy Ó Caoláin have been bending my ear to make sure that I listened at every stage. It is great to see the councillors here today.

I was surprised at the very last word before "Thank you" in the witnesses' submission. After my last discussion with Deputy Ó Caoláin I would have said they would write "and we sincerely hope it will not lead down the road to insurrection rather than resurrection." The witnesses made it clear that feelings are running very high in the locality.

We have had a lot of discussion about this with various groups. I always try to simplify things in my own mind and look at the main factors. The first question in my mind, which has not been fully answered despite all the discussion, is that of immediate need or urgency. We are being told that unless this is done more or less immediately, the whole economy is going to collapse.

I have not yet seen any conclusive evidence of that.

The second issue about which I am unclear is capacity requirements, now and in the future. On behalf of Sinn Féin, I have stated that we have the benefit of time on the issues of need and urgency. Figures were quoted five years ago based on projections of Irish society and industry growth rates which are not being achieved and my party has argued that we have the luxury of time on this. Time is a significant asset because it enables us. It enables technology and energy companies to come up with the best possible solutions. Rushed decisions are generally bad decisions and if we rush a decision now that will be in place for the next 30 years, we will regret it. Those who will most regret it are those who are most immediately impacted - the witnesses and those they represent. My party's position on that is clear. We have the asset of time and we should use it.

An area which ties in with that is the capability of the technology, which is improving year on year. It is now possible to do technically what was not possible two years ago, or so we are led to believe. Again, using the asset of time to consider and to study, undoubtedly there will be further technological and capacity improvements.

The group is correct in stating that there are serious question marks over figures that are quoted for the additional costs. Those costs have not been established. There may be additional costs, but what we have not looked at is the financial, never mind the social and other, impacts of the imposition of these pylons on the landscape and on the people in the community. At the meeting with EirGrid last week, I asked the question, how could it be called public consultation when the design papers, which are not cheap, have been done over the past several years, have been submitted in support of a planning application and were not open to change following the public consultation? To me, that is not consultation. That is telling people this is what they have done and this is why one should like it, but it is not public consultation where those who are being consulted have an opportunity to influence the direction or design of the project. It certainly was not that.

A point I have made previously, not only in the context of pylons but in the context of any onshore energy developments, is that we do not have a proper landscape management policy in this country. This means that every time, whether it is hydraulic fracturing, pylons or wind turbines, we have to start looking afresh or, more often, not looking, at the impact on the landscape and the people who live on that landscape.

We need a landscape management policy that examines the interests of home owners, families, businesses, towns and villages and considers the impact on agriculture, tourism, road maintenance and the additional cost of that, insurance costs, the protection of our heritage and so on. That is not being done and it needs to be. In the absence of that landscape management policy, we will continue crisis planning. I am not sure Government is completely in control of it.

We do not have a comprehensive energy strategy. Government has only lately acknowledged that by producing a paper on energy and a renewable energy strategy. We need a comprehensive strategy to cover cross-Border, British and possibly European interconnectors and should proceed only when we have that agreed energy and renewable energy strategy and when we have a comprehensive landscape management policy, including the kind of impact analysis I have outlined. The very preparation of those three pieces of work will inform Government, the companies and communities on how best to address whatever problems there are in energy provision.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I thank Ms Marron and her team for the presentation and I welcome Councillors McElvaney and Keelan. Last week we found out that while this charade was going on of making people feel good that every option would be considered, the proposal for the pylons had been submitted to An Bord Pleanála. People were wondering were they going to get underground or overground connections but the overground plan had been submitted. It was very wrong to do that to people. Deputy Conlan gave us statistics last week on what was needed in Northern Ireland. If they are correct I do not know why we are doing this.

If we are to get people working, we have to look at where we are going. I have called for a moratorium on the wind farms because I do not believe in them. We have signed up to things in Europe that have created 50,000 jobs for the Danes or the Germans but we are paying the price for it all.

The witnesses spoke about Grid West but it needs more undergrounding than is being proposed. People have spoken about overriding public interest. What does that mean? The phrase "imperative reasons of overriding public interest", IROPI, is used in Europe. In the west of Ireland, one cannot build a road because of do-gooders trying to stop one doing X, Y and Z. If the Government wants to persist with going from North to South and if, in the overriding public interest, it listened to the people of Monaghan and Meath, it would have to underground it. There are no ifs or buts about that.

If we place wires and pylons around this country - north, south, east and west - and find out in ten to 15 years' time that we have made a mistake because the British or the French can send us power at a fraction of the price, will we have white elephants around this country? Ireland must examine whether it is working and whether it is profitable.

I spoke to a person over the weekend who knows a bit about turbines. I asked this person whether it would be economical if I paid when I needed the power rather than when it was whizzing away at night when I did not need it. The answer was "No". There is a bigger picture. To grow a nation, we need business and to be competitive compared to the rest of Europe. We need to ensure that we do not bring about a situation whereby it costs businesses or people around this country more by putting in place something that we could buy for a fraction of the price in ten to 15 years' time. I am not saying I have all the answers but I would certainly like people to come up with the figures because then we can start making decisions. I support what the witnesses are saying but I am making it very clear that I will not be an admirer of wind energy around this country until I am proved wrong.

Deputy Seán Conlan

I welcome the witnesses from the Monaghan anti-pylon committee and commend them on their work over the past seven years in getting the real message out there to the public and the rest of Ireland about what this project is really about, how it is affecting the community, the lack of fairness regarding how EirGrid has dealt with the community and the lack of equality of treatment of people in the north east by EirGrid compared to what has happened in the west and south of Ireland in terms of public consultation.

I support the goals of the Monaghan anti-pylon committee. These people are not against progress. They have said all along that they are against the overgrounding of power lines in the absence of any underground options being put forward to the public for public consultation. They have carried out considerable analysis of issues surrounding security of supply, or rather the lack of security of supply that exists. I expanded on that last week regarding the position in terms of energy production in Northern Ireland, what this new proposal proposes regarding the transfer of energy from North to South and the cost of going underground versus that of going overground. I did not get the chance last week to expand on the actual cost of a 220 kV underground route compared to a 400 kV overhead line or a 400 kV underground route. We never got those figures. Ms Marron stressed the dubious cost savings of going ahead with the project on an annual basis.

It is quite clear to me that there are no operational bottlenecks at the moment. The current North-South interconnector between Louth and Armagh is operating well below capacity. It has the capacity to be a double circuit interconnector but is not being used as such. It could be expanded significantly. Could the witnesses tell the committee and the public the personal impact of this project on them, their families and their community and the attitude of the landowners in County Monaghan towards EirGrid and its proposal? Could the witnesses expand on what level of engagement has taken place between landowners and EirGrid over the past number of years? Could they comment on the level of public participation regarding the projects of common interest, PCI, process engaged in by EirGrid because it is a key tenet of the PCI process? We hear about public meetings, including the one in Aughnamullen. At the previous oral hearing and all the public meetings so far, we have heard the health concerns of members of the public and concerns about family members with special needs. There are a number of very significant and worrying cases relating to the proximity of this project to families. Farming families and people living along the route have concerns about the devaluation of property and there are concerns about the visual impact, the project's effect on tourism and the lack of local and regional gain from the project.

One of the specific provisions of the planning Acts 2000 to 2007 was that in any strategic infrastructural project there would be a regional gain. A 400 kV overground power line without any convertor stations brings no regional gain, because it is not possible to tie into it. Given that there is no proposal in the application to have convertor stations along the route, there can be no regional gain in Monaghan or Cavan whatsoever. I would like some comments on this.

Further to our previous meeting, I have contacted the Taoiseach, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy White, and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Heather Humphreys, and asked them to bring the issue to the Cabinet. We were concerned about what they were telling us about going ahead with an overground project, and it must be addressed. The issues raised here about the cost implications and the lack of consultation are so major that EirGrid should halt the application until it has addressed the issue of providing a properly costed underground option to the community for public consultation. Then, people can have a proper appraisal of the merits of the project, which we have not had. The people of the north east demand such a consultation on a specific underground route. As Fintan Slye admitted to me here last week, there has been no public consultation on an underground route in the north east. It is fundamental to public participation and public consultation. EirGrid has admitted that it is feasible and technically possible to put the lines underground, as confirmed several years ago by the international commission. Could the witnesses expand on the personal impacts for them and their community, the attitude of the landowners to EirGrid and their level of participation thus far, the level of engagement between EirGrid and the landowners on the project of common interest, PCI, and the concerns around health, property devaluation, visual impact, the effect on tourism potential and the lack of regional gain?

Chairman

I would like to ask about the document to which Ms Marron said she received no reply. Since the recent reports, has the Monaghan anti-pylon committee had any direct engagement with EirGrid?

Ms Margaret Marron

No. The document arose due to EirGrid's lack of public consultation. We did not want the people to be on the back foot and EirGrid to be in a position to say we had a chance to consult it and did not. Relations have deteriorated to such an extent that people do not want any engagement with EirGrid at this stage. We organised the public meetings in 2013 and if people did not want to speak to the EirGrid personnel or if they felt they were not getting any satisfaction from them, they were invited to submit written questions. I have here the list which I personally submitted. Almost two years later, I have received no written reply.

Chairman

Does Ms Marron want direct engagement with EirGrid following the report? Does she wish us to ask EirGrid why it did not respond to her questions?

Ms Margaret Marron

I know the answers to these questions.

Chairman

I am not saying otherwise. I am asking for information. If EirGrid wanted to meet the Monaghan anti-pylon committee next week-----

Ms Margaret Marron

While we have never refused to meet it and probably never will, we feel we are getting nowhere. Although people are listening, when push comes to shove, a political decision could be made about this, as was made about including us in the review. It has been suggested that the people in our area are paying the price for what happened at the oral hearing when we exposed EirGrid's inadequacies and shortcomings, that it is payback time and EirGrid is not going to let it go.

We travelled to Moygownagh, where one of the Grid West sites is located, with the late Owen Bannigan - a founder member of our committee - in order to help the people there to organise. Since then, the cables at Moygownagh have been run underground but we remain in the position we occupied seven years ago. It just does not make sense. Those involved with the project do not listen.

Chairman

I am not sure that all the cables at Moygownagh run underground, or that Grid West is run underground.

Ms Margaret Marron

Grid West, in theory-----

Chairman

Extra options have been put in place.

Ms Margaret Marron

We have been given no options.

Chairman

I am not arguing the point, I am just seeking to clarify the position. As far as I am aware, those who are objecting to Grid West are still not overwhelmingly happy with regard to some of the issues involved. However, I must admit that there has been a degree of movement.

Deputy Seán Conlan

Will our guests respond to the question I posed?

Chairman

A large number of comments were made. If our guests wish to respond to those and to the question posed by Deputy Conlan, I will give them the opportunity to do so now.

Mr. Terry Lynch

I would like to respond on a personal level. I thank the Chairman and members for all the questions they posed and comments they made.

My father worked as a member of Dublin Fire Brigade for 35 years and was stationed not far from here in Tara Street. When he retired, he returned to his homeland in Cavan. He built a house there on land which my grandfather bought for the family. In the past a plantation house stood on the land and there was a hospital located there during the Famine. There are rumours that bodies were buried on the land during the Famine era. It is an elevated site which is very beautiful. My father spent his retirement fund maintaining that beauty. He went to great expense to maintain both the hospital to which I refer and the sheds used by the labourers who used to work on the farm. He also spent a huge amount of money integrating the farm, putting in place slatted sheds and reseeding the land in order that he might make it a viable enterprise he could pass on to his sons. EirGrid is now going to erect pylon No. 190 on an elevated site directly behind and above the house. The pylon will be visible for miles around and will probably be the area's most distinguishing feature. It will scar and ruin what my father has spent his time doing since he retired.

I will provide the committee with an example of what EirGrid considers to be consultation. We discovered that the company plans to use our personal driveway in order to facilitate the putting in place of 100 m of additional road to service the site. EirGrid did not inform us that this would be the case. We obtained the relevant information from An Bord Pleanála when the planning application was released, either by mistake or by design. It was in this way that we discovered what the company intends to do. That is EirGrid's idea of consultation. However, consultation means meeting people, listening to what they have to say, taking their concerns on board and then using them to shape progress. That is all we are seeking but none of it has happened. We do not want to stop progress, regardless of whether there are reservations about windmills or anything of that nature. We are small businessmen and we recognise that any improvements will be to our benefit. We do not want to stop the project but we do want the methods currently being used in respect of it to be discontinued, particularly as they are leading to what we have being destroyed.

Representatives from EirGrid referred last week to an additional cost of €500 million. What about the additional cost to my father and me? Ours is just one of 115 families involved. We are talking here about 115 homes, 115 histories and 115 futures. The homes of those 115 families, all of whom live on the proposed route through Monaghan, are going to be affected, as are their futures. Is it fair that we should bear the burden of an indefinite cost, namely, that brought about by the devaluation of our homes? Is it fair that our ability to borrow against the value of our properties should be affected?

My brother had a child recently. He is doing well now but he had to undergo open heart surgery and have a pacemaker fitted almost immediately after he was born. My father is concerned about whether he should allow his grandson to visit if the plan to erect a pylon behind his house proceeds. He is not a man who is given to believe in false science but he is concerned. It is that type of concern which leads to property devaluation and to something for which one has worked no longer being one's home.

Mr. Nigel Hillis

I am a civil engineer. As a result, I take more of a dispassionate view of this topic while many other people are extremely annoyed about it.

We had a meeting last week in Aughnamullen and feelings ran very high. There were all sorts of things said such as the reason the line is undergrounded in Mayo is it is the Taoiseach's constituency and the reason it is undergrounded in the south is the big farmers and the equine industry while they think they can walk over the small people of County Monaghan. I tend to take a more dispassionate view on it.

The Gunning principles are very important for consultation. They very much go along with the Aarhus Convention and they say that consultation must take place when the proposal is still at a formative stage. Sufficient reason must be put forward for the proposal to allow for intelligent consideration and response. Adequate time must be given for consideration and response and the product of consultation must conscientiously be taken into account. The obvious point of the Gunning principles is that the decision-maker cannot consult on a decision that has been made, otherwise consultation is not only unfair but the outcome has been predetermined and it is pointless. That is exactly what has happened with regard to the North-South interconnector. It was predetermined from day one back in 2007 that it was to be an overhead line. A route was chosen and the position has not changed from that day to this. All the consultation has been pointless because we still have the same route. What is missing from the development is the substation in Kingscourt and, in 2010, at the oral hearing, EirGrid said that the substation was an integral part of the development because the power supply and the quality of electricity in the north east and in Monaghan would be substandard from 2012 onwards.

Senator Terry Brennan

Who said that?

Mr. Nigel Hillis

EirGrid said that. This substation in Kingscourt was the lynchpin of the application, yet after the oral hearing collapsed, less than one year later, in May 2011, when the company issued its preliminary re-evaluation report, it said the substation would not be needed for at least ten years. In 2015, it is still the company's position that the substation will not be needed for ten years. Will it ever be needed?

How can anyone trust EirGrid when it says that the project is urgent because there is a security of supply issue in Northern Ireland? The issue has been rectified. It arose because two of the plants in Northern Ireland at Kilkeel and Ballylumford are old and, in 2012, under EU directives, parts of these plants were to be decommissioned. A four-year derogation was granted until 2016 but the dirty plant must be decommissioned that year. Essentially, the North will lose approximately 500 MW of generation capacity. That would create a risk to security of supply in Northern Ireland but, in the meantime, the regulator there has put in place 250 MW of new generation capacity in one of those plants. That has been ordered. The Moyle interconnector will be repaired by 2016. It is only operating on one line at the moment, but when it is back in action, it will provide a further 250 MW. That takes care of the 500 MW and, therefore, there is no security of supply issue in Northern Ireland.

EirGrid has said that the interconnector is needed for the operation of the single electricity market. We do not see the €30 million that can be saved as any saving at all.

They are contradictory arguments because if a security of supply situation arises in Northern Ireland from 2020 or 2021 onwards, then the single electricity market, SEM, cannot operate effectively because it will be a one-way street. The electricity will go from South to North and therefore, as Mr. Slye admitted last week, Northern Ireland will be obliged to build new plants from 2021 onwards to operate the single electricity market effectively. Therefore, there is not an issue or situation regarding the security of supply in Northern Ireland now and nor will there be in the future if it is desired to operate the single electricity market in an efficient way.

It has been put forward that the €30 million is a saving to consumers or customers; but it is not. It is a saving within the single electricity market. It is a wholesale saving and there is absolutely no guarantee that a single cent of that €30 million will be passed back to the consumers. At the meeting last week, Mr. Slye stated that the east-west interconnector had reduced wholesale prices by 9% but a much more interesting figure would be by how much has the east-west interconnector reduced my electricity bill or those of members. I do not believe it has reduced them by a single cent.

The issue was raised about technology and how it is advancing all the time. It is advancing all the time. In 2008, permission was given in France to place underground the France-Spain interconnector. While it is not quite as long as the North-South interconnector, it must go through the Pyrenees. The project was given permission to go underground in 2008. It is now 2015 and that project has been inaugurated and delivered within a timescale of five to six years.

Senator Terry Brennan

Does Mr. Hillis know what size it is?

Mr. Nigel Hillis

It is 1,400 MW. Before this, there existed a total interconnection capacity from France and Spain of 1,400 MW. This project doubled the interconnection capacity to 2,800 MW, which members can see would be needed for countries the size of Spain and France. It was placed underground and it was necessary to drill a dedicated tunnel 8 km in length through the Pyrenees, which cost approximately €120 million to €130 million. The reason this was placed underground was due to public opposition that could not be overcome. It is an underground high-voltage, direct current, HVDC, line embedded into a high-voltage alternating current, HVAC, system.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Is it is envisaged that Spain will be buying from France?

Mr. Nigel Hillis

While it is envisaged that primarily it is for Spain to take electricity from France, there is a great deal of wind power in the north of Spain and whenever the wind blows, it is to go in the other direction. I do not know whether members have ever flown down to Faro in Portugal, but if one looks out, as one is coming in over the north of Spain on a good clear day, the number of wind farms on top of mountains is unbelievable. The interconnector would be to export this to France. The project has been delivered and I have read some of the technical detail on it. The direction of the power flow can be switched in milliseconds and the technical controls are in place to integrate it seamlessly into an alternating current, AC, system. It has been lauded throughout Europe as a model and the first of its kind, that is, integrated into an AC system. Were EirGrid to place underground the North-South interconnector, it would have a model to follow. It would be the second in Europe. I note EirGrid always likes to be the first in Europe. It states it is first in Europe to integrate wind and the first in Europe to do this. This would be another first in Europe for the company.

Deputy Colreavy mentioned the landscape guidelines. While I could be wrong on this, it is my understanding that at present the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government is conducting an electromagnetic field, EMF, review that in due course will feed into pylon siting guidelines.

At the committee's last meeting on this issue, Senator Thomas Byrne mentioned that a pylon should not be located within 50 m of a person's home or 400 m of a whooper swan's habitat. The guidelines might state that a pylon should be 60, 70, 80 or even 100 m from a home or whooper swan habitat but we are stuck with the 50 m figure which EirGrid appears to have pulled out of the sky.

The project of common interest, PCI, process was mentioned by Deputy Conlan. This is an administrative process that is being undertaken by An Bord Pleanála. EirGrid does not have a lot of say in it. It more or less has to do what it is told and follow what has been laid down. We are disappointed with An Bord Pleanála because, as provided for under the PCI process, we were not consulted in any way. The PCI process is very strong on public participation and engagement. It specifically mentions the Aarhus Convention. An Bord Pleanála accepted in retrospect a concept of public participation which was undertaken before the project was declared a project of common interest. In other words, consultation took place prior to the commencement of that process. There was no consultation after the project had been declared a project of common interest. We do not believe that is right. An Bord Pleanála's view on this may have to be tested in some other forum.

The issue of health concerns was mentioned. The health concerns remain real. People are afraid they will get cancer or that their children will get leukaemia if the microtesla level exceeds 0.4%. If pylons are located closer to houses that level will be exceeded. That concern still remains. I hope I have covered all of the issues raised.

Deputy Seán Conlan

In regard to the lack of regional and local gain, Mr. Hillis mentioned-----

Mr. Nigel Hillis

There is no regional gain. For example, the motorway between Dundalk and Derry-Londonderry passes through County Monaghan but if a person from County Monaghan wishes to access that motorway he or she has to drive to Dundalk to do so. As there are no other entrances or exits onto that motorway there is no regional gain from the motorway to County Monaghan. It is simply being hosted by the local communities.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

I would like clarification on the landscape management strategy. The distance of a pylon from a property or home is, of course, hugely important. To my mind, landscape management is about more than the distance of pylons from homes or properties. This relates back to the fundamental question of the impact of the presence of pylons on a landscape. I did not heard any mention of this.

Mr. Nigel Hillis

The argument we put forward at the last planning oral hearing was that this development is not appropriate or sustainable to the area in which it is proposed to be sited. That is what planning is all about. We will make the same argument at the next oral hearing. It is not an appropriate development for the area. We will also argue the question of scale because in our view 1,500 MVA is not required.

At the last oral hearing we did not dispute the need for the second interconnector. That was never disputed. However, we now dispute the scale of it. In 2008, peak demand was 5,000 MW. It was projected that in 2025 peak demand for the Republic of Ireland would be 8,000 MW.

In Northern Ireland it was set at 2,000 MW. This would mean 10,000 MW of peak demand for the island of Ireland. These figures dropped down and changed unbelievably, and have started to rise again very slowly. Current projections are that in 2025 there will be only 5,300 MW on the island of Ireland. In this context we must question the need for the scale of the project, particularly given that the other projects were downgraded from 400 kV.

Senator Terry Brennan

I fully agree with Mr. Hillis on the scale of the interconnector and the necessity for the capacity proposed. This is the kernel of the issue. Whether right or wrong, or whether or not it would come before us, I suggest the Northern Ireland electricity board should come before the committee to give us its proposals.

Chairman

EirGrid came before us last week and-----

Senator Terry Brennan

Should we consider it?

Chairman

We will consider it at our meeting following all of the consultations. It is open to the Senator to suggest anything at that stage.

Senator Terry Brennan

I would like to hear its proposals.

Senator Paul Coghlan

Is there an independent arbitrator to set the guidelines? In Kerry, the pylons must be at least 500 m from the nearest residence.

Chairman

The Senator might be mixing it up with wind turbines.

Senator Paul Coghlan

There should be an independent arbitrator. Who is setting the details on how this operates?

Chairman

The 500 m is with regard to wind turbines.

Senator Paul Coghlan

We have heard about 50 m today. Who independently assessed this?

Chairman

The Commission for Energy Regulation has a part to play. Other people will come before the committee.

Ms Mary Marron

Deputy Conlan asked about landowners and consultation. In June 2009, our landowners were presented with maps from EirGrid showing what would be done on their farms, where the line would run and where the pylons would be placed. This was the first most of them had heard or seen about the process. They met, and 115 of the 128 landowners decided they would only engage with EirGrid through a solicitor. They put their hands in their pockets and engaged a solicitor. It was unprecedented that such a group of people would have gone this way about it, and the reason was that there was no consultation. We all know the definitions. There still has not been any meaningful consultation. Nothing has changed.

Several weeks ago through the project of common interest, PCI, process the summary of individual land parcel impacts was published on the Bord Pleanála website. It shows what EirGrid proposes to do on each landholding, how it proposes to do it, where it proposes to access property and how long it will take. Again, there was no consultation and nobody was made aware of it. It has never asked whether it can walk property or do anything. We are just told what it will do and people have no say. EirGrid has lost any credibility it had with the landowners. The landowners will only engage with it through a solicitor but this has not happened. In two instances landowners had specific problems and the solicitors spoke to EirGrid, but halfway through the process everything stopped.

Rearranged maps landed out again so nothing changed. The landowners are absolutely resolute that this project will not be going ahead in its current form.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

There was an implication, rather than a direct statement, by EirGrid at its last engagement here that the anti-pylon committee was somehow not encouraging or was perhaps discouraging engagement between the landowners and EirGrid.

Ms Mary Marron

The landowners group was formed before the committee was formed. At all stages, the committee reverts to the landowners. There is nothing the committee does that the landowners group has not sanctioned or that has not been discussed with it.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

I may have misinterpreted the statement. It may have been the landowners group that was the subject of the implied criticism.

Ms Mary Marron

Quite possibly. At all stages, the landowners group has made EirGrid aware that it will consult it only through the solicitor.

Deputy Seán Conlan

The petition I handed to the Minister, Deputy Alex White, is specifically from the landowners, and it was produced at the landowners meeting. It is a true reflection of the strength of feeling among the landowners along the route.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I had not intended to pose questions to the anti-pylon committee representative, who represents communities that I am honoured to represent along with Deputies Conlan and Smith. The deliberations of the committee subsequent to these hearings will not necessarily involve our direct input in terms of decision-making. It is important to point out that Government and Opposition voices representing all political opinions across the area represented by the anti-pylon committee are, in drawing attention to the united position not only of those who are threatened with becoming members of host communities, but also of those of all political opinions in the affected counties and certainly in the constituency I am proud and happy to represent, 100% behind the case presented both today and heretofore. This is very important because there are rarely issues in respect of which those of every opinion forge a very strong alliance. Deputy Conlan, as a Government representative, Deputy Brendan Smith, as a Fianna Fáil representative, and I, as a Sinn Féin representative, in addition to others who are unable to join us here today, will confirm that what has been presented today is not only the view of an isolated body of people who may be directly affected by EirGrid’s plans or proposals, but the view of the people of County Monaghan who most certainly feel threatened indirectly, if not directly. Each and every one of them, irrespective of where he or she is domiciled, will express full support for the position of the anti-pylon committee. Although I am not directly affected, I have only to put my mind in action and put myself in the shoes of those who are directly affected, and I have no hesitation in presenting the same analysis.

I appeal to the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications in its deliberations following this meeting and after last week's engagement with EirGrid to take that on board very seriously. It is a strength that few constituencies would have experienced on critical issues such as this. It is very important that this unified decision is reflected in the decisions this committee will take subsequently. I strongly appeal to this Oireachtas committee to reflect the same determination that has been presented here today. I commend the voices we have heard today.

Chairman

I thank all those who have attended. These delegates appeared before the committee on a previous occasion and I know the frustrations they are experiencing. The picture that has emerged is fairly clear as a result of the questions asked and the comments made. The committee will send a transcript of today's meeting to EirGrid and to the Minister. We met with EirGrid last week and we will meet a representative of the single electricity market committee of the Commission for Energy Regulation in the next few weeks. We will consider this matter further when all the hearings have been concluded.

As there is no other business, the meeting is adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. when we will meet representatives of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann to discuss the heads of the road traffic Bill 2015.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.10 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 29 April 2015.