Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Feb 2008

Electricity Generation: Discussion with EirGrid.

I welcome Ms Bernie Gray, chairperson of EirGrid, Mr. Dermot Byrne, chief executive, Mr. Andrew Cook and Mr. Fintan Slye. We are meeting to discuss the options for EirGrid in respect of the North-South interconnector. Before we begin, I draw everybody's attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Further, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Before I invite Ms Gray to make her opening remarks, I will let members know of the speaking order. I will call on the main Opposition spokesperson, Deputy Coveney, first, followed by Deputy McManus. I will then take questions from the Government side. If a member offers to speak I will take that member's questions first. In the absence of a member so offering, I will take questions from the substitute members present.

During a response in the House last night to a matter raised on the Adjournment the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources said:

I will continue to facilitate and encourage active debate on all of the issues, to ensure a better understanding of the technical, economic and environmental aspects to transmission system development. To this end, I have written to the Chairman of the Oireachtas joint committee committing my Department to a further supportive role in this area. I believe that the Chairman will make these details available to the committee tomorrow.

I will now put on the record the letter I received last night from the Minister. The letter is dated 5 February 2008 and reads as follows:

Dear John,

I refer to last week's meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, in which we had a lengthy and constructive discussion on Ireland's future electricity transmission system needs.

During the course of that debate, several committee members, and particularly those representing local communities in Meath, Cavan and Monaghan, raised the issue of EirGrid's current proposals in relation to the Cavan-Tyrone and Meath-Cavan transmission lines. I noted in particular the request by public representatives for an independent study on the implications of underground relative to overhead transmission lines.

In light of these requests, and of the considerable public concerns expressed directly to me on this issue, I have asked my Department to commission such a study, with a view to providing the best available professional advice on the relative merits of constructing and operating overhead transmission lines compared to underground cables. The study will have regard to technical characteristics, reliability, operation and maintenance factors, environmental impact, possible health issues and cost. The terms of reference for this study will be to provide professional advice covering:

- the factual position regarding current practice for constructing transmission lines worldwide, in terms of when such lines are constructed as underground cables, and why

- the relative technical performance of overhead lines and underground cables, in terms of losses, reliability/security of supply, impact on delivered power quality, electromagnetic field generation

- implications for national policies in energy, environment and enterprise (including employment) of implementing underground cables rather than overhead lines

- relative capital costs, annualised operation and maintenance costs and impact on unit electricity prices of both options:

- generally internationally

- in defined topographies and network configurations typical of those found in Ireland

- construction times for both options with consequential impacts on security of supply.

The consultants will be required to provide evidence-based international best practice for their analysis and if specific network situations are deemed to be very relevant to Ireland, these will be identified.

It is my intention that the study will be commissioned immediately, with a view to a final report being submitted to me in April.

The study will be in addition to the briefing on underground and overhead transmission lines which EirGrid is making available to the Committee tomorrow, and to the full brief which it will provide to An Bord Pleanála, in the context of its planning application.

I would be grateful if you could bring this to the attention of the Committee Members tomorrow, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Committee once again for its positive engagement on this important issue.

Yours sincerely,

Éamon Ryan, TD,

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

Can we have copies of the letter?

Yes, it will be circulated to members.

Can I make a brief comment on the letter, as it includes quite a significant development?

Yes, if the Deputy is brief.

I welcome the letter. Fine Gael raised a matter on the Adjournment of the House last night to try to establish the Government's position on this matter. There was a lot of confusion following reports in the weekend newspapers. I am glad it has been confirmed for the record that, as a result of this committee's insistence, the Minister has taken an interest in the issue. Because of the level of public concern it is important that we at least explore, in an independent way, whether an underground option is viable for this very necessary infrastructure.

It is a good day for this committee, in particular, and it means the work we and other Opposition parties have been doing in calling for an independent study has paid off. I am also glad the Minister has set a tight timescale for the review because we need to move ahead with this piece of infrastructure in the near future. The communities involved recognise its importance but they want an independent study so that we can begin a constructive debate in good faith, based on independent research. It is a positive development.

I too welcome the fact that the Minister has responded to the committee's call. I also welcome the fact that he is taking ownership of the review because he seemed to try to distance himself somewhat from the legitimate questions that were raised.

I have two concerns. I fully appreciate the need for a very tight timeframe but it is important local communities have the chance to contribute to the findings and there needs to be some consultation for that to happen. The second concern relates to An Bord Pleanála and whether there will be any difficulty in terms of the report feeding into An Bord Pleanála's decision. I take it the process of making a decision will begin after the report is completed. It is an important step forward. It is a pity, from the point of view of EirGrid and the nation as a whole, that it has taken so long to have a close look at the choice which needs to be made. It is, however, good news and I hope it is successful.

I welcome this announcement. The Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brendan Smith, had arranged a meeting with the chief executive of EirGrid and his colleagues last Thursday. The Fianna Fáil Members of the Oireachtas from the four counties affected all emphasised the importance of this independent study being carried out. On behalf of our colleagues in the north east I thank the Minister of State and EirGrid for acceding to the request.

Ms Bernie Gray

On behalf of the board of management of EirGrid I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to make this presentation and to answer any questions they might have.

EirGrid is a commercial semi-State company which was given the role of independent transmission system operator in the Republic of Ireland on 1 July 2006. EirGrid's role is to deliver quality connection, transmission and market services to generators, suppliers and customers, utilising the high-voltage electricity system, and to put in place the grid infrastructure required to support the development of Ireland's economy. In doing so, EirGrid operates according to statute and is conscious of delivering on public policy as set down by legislators. I emphasise that our key priority — one that we share with members — is to deliver a safe, secure, reliable, economical and efficient transmission system, delivering good quality power when and where it is needed at an affordable cost for all consumers.

In 2004, when representatives from EirGrid previously appeared before the joint committee, membership was different. At that time, the company had not been vested as grid operator, an agreement on the management of infrastructure had not been reached and a staff transfer agreement was not in place. I am pleased to inform the joint committee that solutions to all of these issues were reached within two years. EirGrid is now fully vested with its powers as transmission system operator, we have an agreement for the operation of the transmission infrastructure and the transfer scheme for staff was very successfully accomplished. EirGrid is also wholly independent of all parties in the electricity sector, a critical factor for the development of a competitive market.

Significant achievements in recent years include the establishment last year of the single electricity market for the island of Ireland, which we managed jointly with our counterparts in the system operator, Northern Ireland. The single electricity market operator manages the operation of a market in which power valued at more than €4 billion is traded each year. This was delivered on time and on budget last November with the assistance of the regulatory authorities and relevant Departments, North and South. Other examples of major progress include the project to link Ireland with Britain using a 500 MW capacity interconnector. Undersea surveys are under way for this project which is on schedule for delivery in 2012.

Key tasks ahead include a major reinforcement of the national transmission system. This will ensure continued high quality and reliable power supplies throughout Ireland, facilitate economic development and competition in the electricity market and bring benefits to consumers. It will be critical in enabling Ireland to move to more sustainable, renewable sources of energy. I emphasise that it is not in our interest to place anyone at unnecessary risk in the pursuit of the expansion of the transmission network. To this end, EirGrid welcomes the proposed independent study on transmission line infrastructure announced by the Minister. Such a study will underpin an informed debate that will ultimately facilitate the implementation of an optimal solution to meet Ireland's needs. We welcome the support of all members in this regard.

Our management team representatives are Mr. Dermot Byrne, chief executive, Mr. Andrew Cooke, director of grid development and commercial, and Mr. Fintan Slye, operations director. Before I hand over to Mr. Byrne, as chairperson I emphasise our commitment to making EirGrid a world class, customer focused organisation that will deliver the services the economy needs. Our executives and I will be pleased to answer any questions members have. Mr. Byrne will make a brief presentation examining some of these issues in more detail.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

Chairman and members of the committee, I join our chairperson in welcoming the opportunity to appear before the joint committee to brief members on aspects of EirGrid's operations, specifically the development and expansion of the transmission grid. As members will be aware, the electricity industry is a complex and sophisticated sector which generates electricity from multiple fuel sources. It transmits electricity across the country to more than 100 bulk supply points located in each region, from which it distributes power to each home, farm, industry and office block. It also arranges for the tariffs and financial flows that keep the whole operation flowing smoothly.

The electricity grid is central to the electricity industry. It is effectively the backbone of the power industry, holding it all together and ensuring that the same quality 50 Hz alternating current received in County Mayo or County Clare is the same 50 Hz supply received in County Cork or County Dublin.

EirGrid is the State owned company charged by the State to plan, develop, operate and ensure the maintenance of the transmission grid. We do this through the national control centre on a day-to-day, 24-7 basis. The engineers in the centre balance supply and demand to ensure sufficient supply is available at all times to meet demand and control the flow of power over the grid from the sources of generation to the different regional bulk supply points.

I have provided details on the big picture of the electricity industry and EirGrid's role in it. We have submitted a detailed report to the joint committee on our activities and a number of the significant issues and challenges we face. I will now specifically address the issue of grid development and expansion, an issue of fundamental strategic national importance in the first decade of the 21st century.

The first slide shows the transmission grid. We have three voltage levels at transmission level. The 110 kV network is shown in black, the 220 kV in green and the 400 kV network in red. To use a road analogy, the 110 kV lines are similar to national roads, the 220 kV lines are higher capacity and can be compared to dual carriageways, while the higher capacity 400 kV lines can be compared to motorways. This network has evolved over the years to keep pace with economic growth, from the first double circuit 110 kV steel line bringing power from Ardnacrusha to Dublin in 1930 to the more complex network now serving all regions and communities.

Historically, the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s saw major expansion of the 110 kV network, while the higher capacity 220 kV network was overlaid on the 110 kV network to further strengthen it during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Also in the 1980s, the 400 kV transmission lines were introduced to take output from Moneypoint in County Clare to the major load centres near Dublin. However over the past 20 years and through the high growth period of the Celtic tiger economy, investment in the grid has mainly been at the 110 kV level. To use the roads analogy again, this equates to widening the national roads and establishing roundabouts.

There has been effectively little or no development of the high capacity network, as is shown starkly in slides 2 and 3. Slide 2 shows the high capacity 220 kV and 400 kV networks and the lower capacity 110 kV lines are stripped out. Slide 3 compares the high capacity network in place in 2007 with that in place in 1989. The extent of the development of this network is highlighted in red on the 2008 map. It is clear that very little development has taken place despite an increase in flows on the network of more that 2.5 times and a doubling of the peak load from approximately 2,500 MW to 5,000 MW.

I will now examine future demand on the transmission grid as the population grows and the economy develops and how EirGrid, society and policymakers will respond to this challenge. Demand growth is one driver of grid development. During the next 20 years overall demand for electricity is projected to grow by approximately 70% to 80%. The need to provide the critical infrastructure required for balanced regional development will also drive grid development. No industry, be it pharmaceutical or information technology, will locate in a region in which there are question marks over the reliability of future power supply.

The third factor in driving grid development is the need to connect new generation plants to the grid to maintain security of supply and link the power output from these stations to the centres of customer demand. During the past nine years we have connected approximately 3,500 MW of generation plant to the networks. During the next 20 years we will need to connect another 7,000 MW. Of particular relevance are the sources of generation. We already face demand for connection to the grid from a variety of dispatchable plant, mainly gas-fired plant, and from a large number of proposed plants using renewable sources, for the most part wind farms.

We are all aware of the challenges posed by climate change and our responsibilities under the Kyoto Protocol. The Government set a target of 33% of electricity demand being met by renewable sources by 2020. The recently published all-island grid study presented to the committee last week provides evidence that it may be feasible to go beyond this target. Ireland has an abundance of renewable resources, mainly along the west coast. Meeting these targets will require major development of the grid to bring this renewable energy to where it is needed. This echoes earlier phases of grid development to bring about Ardnacrusha generation plant during the 1930s and the Moneypoint generation plant in the 1980s. The all-island grid study indicates a requirement for approximately 650 km of additional transmission infrastructure to deliver on our targets. This is the national challenge we face.

EirGrid has particular challenges, including to maintain quality, reliability and stability of the power system through the major configuration we face. It must also provide transmission access for the many power plants using renewable and conventional sources needed and provide the necessary grid capacity in a safe, reliable and affordable manner.

The question of how EirGrid and policymakers will respond to these challenges brings me to the projects in the north east. We have a number of projects in construction or development. Of particular interest to the committee are the 400 kV projects in the north east linking the Woodland station in County Meath to a new station to be built near Kingscourt, County Cavan and on through County Monaghan into Northern Ireland. The projects are required to provide for essential reinforcement of the network in the north-east area and facilitate the free flow of electricity between the two jurisdictions. We propose to develop these projects using 400 kV overhead line technology to a total length of approximately 140 km. I emphasise this is the standard form of construction for such applications globally and contains nothing new. Ireland already has 439 km of this type of construction, while Europe has more than 100,000 km. The percentage of the European 400 kV network underground is less than 1%, usually in congested urban areas or where water crossings are involved. Nowhere in the world has a line of this length and type been placed underground.

In developing the grid we are bound by statute to develop a safe, secure, reliable, economical and efficient transmission system. In developing a safe system we adhere to all national and international standards and guidelines. They include the guidelines on exposure to electric and magnetic fields promulgated by the World Health Organisation and adopted throughout Europe. These guidelines were reviewed as recently as June 2007 and the conclusion of the review which was undertaken by a panel of experts and involved evidence from the thousands of studies carried out was that there was no reason to redefine the existing guidelines. The Government published its review in March 2007 and came to the same conclusions as the World Health Organisation. EirGrid operates well within the established guidelines and will continue to do so.

As part of our application to the strategic infrastructure board we will submit a detailed report being prepared by our consultants on the cost and feasibility of putting lines underground. To facilitate the committee in its consideration of these issues, we asked our consultants to prepare an early briefing document which we circulated to members. It is based on cost information prepared for the Beauly-Denny 400 kV line project in Scotland which is going through the planning process. The consultants adapted the cost information for the Meath-Cavan and Cavan-Tyrone 400 kV projects. Extensive public consultation on these projects has been ongoing and will continue.

The Minister has announced an independent study to review all of the issues involved in underground and overhead transmission lines. EirGrid welcomes this move and notes the request across the political spectrum for such a study. I reassure the Chairman and members that EirGrid is happy to assist the study in whatever way it can.

New transmission infrastructure is vital if Ireland is to enjoy continued economic progress with the benefits it brings to all parts of the country. EirGrid is fully committed to putting in place safe, reliable and affordable infrastructure to support the needs of sustained and balanced economic development and secure energy supply, while also meeting Government targets on renewable energy and climate change. We are grateful to the Chairman and members of the committee for their time and attention and are happy to answer any questions they may have.

I thank Ms Gray and Mr. Byrne. I appeal to members for brevity because all members wish to speak.

I thank the representatives from EirGrid for being here. We all recognise EirGrid has a substantial job to do during the coming years in reconfiguring Ireland's electricity grid to accommodate the plans and aspirations of a changing electricity market which we hope will be more reliant on renewables. This means the shift and focus of the grid must be changed to the west. I recognise that this will not be easy.

With regard to EirGrid's independence, the programme for Government states the ESB and EirGrid will be structurally separated. Last week the Minister seemed to suggest the Government would row back from this thought process. What indications has EirGrid received from the Government that it is happy to leave the situation as it is with functional separation from the ESB? Does it expect to see legislation by the end of the year to provide for structural separation?

Why will work on the east-west interconnector take until 2012 to complete when private companies state they will deliver east-west interconnectors by 2010? There has been a great deal of frustration due to the fact that the east-west interconnector is not in place. Why is it taking so long to put it in place?

I welcome the Fianna Fáil party delegation from counties Meath, Cavan and Monaghan which, for the first time, has shown a real interest in this committee.

EirGrid claims it is a customer-focussed organisation. With respect, the way in which it handled the consultation process with the public for these infrastructure projects has been nothing short of a disaster. That is why this committee is discussing it this morning.Meetings have been organised and boycotted. The level of public frustration and anger with this project is unparalleled in the three counties concerned. EirGrid must recognise this. The consultation strategy needs to be changed to assure people EirGrid is not in the business of putting any infrastructure in place that is not in the public interest of its clients and of those living along the routes of the proposed power lines. The real issue is whether it is possible to put the lines underground. EirGrid has strong views that it is more expensive and less efficient to go underground as opposed to overground. Time will tell. The independent study will show whether that will be the case.

What is the age of the 100,000 km of 400 kV power lines infrastructure across the EU? In the past placing the lines underground was not a viable option. However, some members have received information that new technologies exist which viably allow lines to be placed underground. Some engineering companies wish to tender to offer this type of option. Is EirGrid familiar with this changing technology? Did recent projects in Slovenia and Australia put transmission lines underground?

I recognise EirGrid has a difficult job, particularly with these projects. If we get this one right, it will make it easier for future projects with similar challenges. Members of the committee have the job of representing people's concerns as well as ensuring infrastructure is put in place in a timely and affordable fashion.

Ms Bernie Gray

I will address the question on the independence of EirGrid and the structural separation of assets as outlined in the White Paper. We have no indication the Government is considering a change in its position from that expressed in the White Paper. In that respect, we seek to co-operate fully with the Department and other stakeholders in bringing to the Dáil as quickly as possible the legislation the Deputy described.

Regarding the consultation process, EirGrid is conscious it is entering a new phase in meeting the information requirements of those involved in the process, be they consumers or stakeholders. We have invested hugely in the current consultation process and are aware people are concerned it has not met all their needs. We are continuing to learn and improve as we go through that process. We will continue to do so — with the input of committee members and that of others — until we have arrived at a model that is the best balance between all factors involved. Please be assured of our commitment to do so.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

To back up what our chairperson has said and to clarify the independence issue, EirGrid is structurally independent of any participant in the market. It is a separate State company. EirGrid has its own board of directors--

Except it does not own its assets.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

That is correct.

Regarding the 100,000 km of 400 kV cable in Europe, of that 907 km — less than 1% — is underground and located mainly in congested urban areas. Underground alternating current cables have a natural limitation of 15 km to 20 km. The longest underground alternating current cable is in Tokyo, comprising 40 km but using tunnel type technology which is very expensive.

On new technologies, the Deputy is probably referring to high-voltage direct current, HVDC, technology which we are procuring for the east-west interconnector. This type of technology, which is very different, has its uses mainly for long-distance bulk transportation of energy. In Brazil, for example, it is used for taking energy from the Itaipu dam, a major hydroelectric scheme, all the way to load centres across the country. It is also used for linking two separate grids such as that in Great Britain to the one in Ireland. We are using this technology on the east-west interconnector.

However, it is not suitable for use in an alternating current transmission grid. The grid is designed to facilitate the free flow of electricity between the generators, right around the interconnected grid, so that if one circuit is lost or trips, the power automatically finds a way around that and still delivers a reliable power supply to the bulk supply points. That technology is not appropriate in a transmission grid. It is appropriate in linking and bringing power into the grid, which is why it is appropriate in the east-west interconnector.

The technology to which I refer has been described to me as DC plus technology. It would have some of the features of AC except on a DC line. In other words, one would be able to take power from a DC line at various different stages, which has not been possible before. That is the change in technology, not available six years ago, that has been sold to me.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

I appreciate that. HVDC has been around for some time. This new technology, which is voltage source commutation, is a possibility for the east-west interconnector. We will compare that to the older type technology.

Regarding teeing off technology, every time one tees off, one has to build a converter station, a major piece of infrastructure in itself, whereas with alternating current, one just taps into it with DC. It has not been done to any extent.

For example, if a new Intel factory were built, a converter station would also have to be built to convert DC into AC and vice versa. It has not yet been done. If it were possible, it would pose reliability issues for us in delivering a reliable power supply.

The issue of a timescale for the link with the UK was mentioned. We all agree that such a link is essential to ensure security of supply and to help us to facilitate the introduction of more renewables into the power system. This link has been spoken about for many years. I worked on it as a young engineer in ESB. We were charged with carrying out this project at the end of 2006 and we are now fully up and running. We assembled a team and the project is now out to tender. As the chairman said, a boat is carrying out a seabed survey in the Irish Sea at the moment. The Commission for Energy Regulation has a role in this and we are working very closely with its representatives. Once we were charged with delivering this project we were up and at it and we will deliver it in the timeframe that has been set for us.

The members of the delegation from EirGrid are very welcome. Generally, EirGrid provides an excellent service to the Irish people and I hope it continues to do so. I am curious about the response of the representatives on the issue of transferring assets. There has already been quite a flip-flop in Government policy between the White Paper and the Green Paper, but the replies I have received from the Minister and the Taoiseach indicate that another change in policy is taking place. EirGrid has proved it is independent, so that is not an issue. I do not expect a political answer to this, but if it did not go ahead, what difference would it make if EirGrid did not own the assets?

At the moment EirGrid does not have the power to raise loans to carry out work. Perhaps the representatives could explain a little about the funding requirement. EirGrid is in a unique position in that it is providing essential infrastructure and is not part of the national development plan. The customer will presumably pay for development of the network, which is crucial. We now have a renewable energy target of 42% and I understand the cost to EirGrid is between €600 million and €800 million. I ask the representatives to give more details about the cost of developing the network and how it will be funded.

I appreciate that the issue of the North-South interconnector is a sensitive one and I hope lessons will be learned. I take that on trust. The presentation contained a rather bald statement that going underground would cost nine times more than building the project overground. We need to hear more than such a bald statement if we are to accept this. We have seen various presentations by companies in the private sector. Yesterday I saw a presentation from representatives of one company who said the company could do it underground for €320 million. I am not a technical person so I cannot argue the toss on the technicalities, but I recognise that this is a fundamental political question as much as it is technical. Due to recent advances in technology, we should at the very least have a policy that from now on going underground will be the preferred option. This probably applies in Sweden at the moment, notwithstanding what has already been built.

I understand there are plans for the private sector to build two east-west connectors along with the EirGrid one, although I do not know whether these are absolutely certain to proceed. It seems curious that there is no licensing regime for this type of work. What happens if we end up with too many interconnectors? It seems to be quite haphazard. Perhaps the representatives could comment on the need for the Commission for Energy Regulation to introduce a proper licensing regime, because there seems to be quite a lacuna.

My last question relates to generating capacity. EirGrid has been successful in setting up the all-Ireland market, which presumably provides more security. However, there does not seem to be a large cushion or margin to allow for exceptional circumstances. Presumably, this is for historical reasons and EirGrid has not had a chance to invest. Perhaps the representatives could comment on this.

I do not know whether EirGrid is interested in nuclear energy or whether the representatives have any comment to make on this issue. Lastly, when discussing the all-Ireland grid study last week, we asked the expert, Mr. Hanna, a question related to storage, but I felt the answer we got was a little dismissive. My understanding is that EirGrid is responsible for the Turlough Hill storage facility. I presumed it was an ESB facility but was told that EirGrid has responsibility for it. The European Commission has argued cogently that we need more storage capacity for reasons of security and efficiency. If we are to see more development in the renewables area, we will need much more storage. We will at least need a back-up energy supply, and storage seems to be the way to provide it quickly. It will also allow us to offer excess electricity to the market at times when prices are higher.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

The first question was about the transfer of assets and the funding requirements. To clarify this issue, under the current model, we plan the development of the grid and take each project as far as the planning permission stage. ESB is then obliged to build the project, but when it is built and commissioned, we take it back and operate it. Thus, we operate the grid and plan its development, but we do not fund it. We have no role in funding individual projects. Under the model that is announced in the White Paper--

What about the plan for the east-west connector?

Mr. Dermot Byrne

This does not apply to the east-west connector as it is not an integral part of the transmission grid. The interconnector sits outside two grids and links them. The Government has decided that we will own that grid.

Under the proposed legislation?

Mr. Dermot Byrne

Yes.

I know from discussions with the Department that the proposed model is still Government policy, so we will co-operate with Government in terms of putting it in place. There is no change to that model as far as I am aware.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I wish to clarify one point. In my view, the legislation for the east-west connector will go ahead. It is the Bill dealing with the transfer of assets that I suspect will not be introduced for a while.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

I have no information other than that it is still Government policy and that the legislation is being worked on. That is my information and it is what we will go on. We will co-operate with that process.

The target for renewable energy use is still 33%, as clarified by the Minister last week. The island grid study indicated that it might be feasible to go beyond that, but there has been no change in Government policy. We obviously have a key role in terms of facilitating that target and we work closely with all stakeholders, including the Irish Wind Energy Association, to move towards achieving that target. We are actively involved in this. In fact, the board of EirGrid has adopted a policy of working towards being the world leader in integrating renewables into the transmission system. That is what the target requires of us and it is our stated policy.

The PB Power report, which members have in front of them, shows a cost difference of nine times for the underground option. PB Power is a well respected firm of consultants. There have been different estimates. Another firm of consultants, totally independent from us, recently informed Meath County Council that the multiplier was of the order of six to 12 times and sometimes up to 25 times.

They claimed that those were figures that had been reported to them by other companies. They are not exact figures. It was information that had been gathered and they were passing it on.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

I thank the Deputy. The reason there is such a variation in the numbers is simple. This has never been done before. That is the key issue. We are talking about desktop exercises carried out without detailed knowledge of how one might do this. This is not an easy technical matter. That accounts for the variability in the numbers.

This is the nub of the issue in terms of why there is a credibility issue for EirGrid with the communities involved. They have been told on numerous occasions, as have I, that putting this infrastructure underground would cost between ten and 20 times more. That is not based on fact. It would have been more honest if EirGrid had stated it did not know how much it would cost because it had not been done before and that was why it was sceptical about putting it underground. Everybody would understand this. Giving estimates of what it would cost when we know it is impossible to do this is what gave rise to scepticism and mistrust.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

The figures are extrapolated from cabling done in congested urban areas. There was an example in the Vale of York in England where 5.7 km of 400kV cable was put underground in a particularly sensitive landscape. Consultants are drawing on the information available and coming up with the best estimates. That is the background to the figures. I understand that is straightforward in that once an application is made for an authorisation, the regulator will respond to it. I am not aware there are difficulties, but I cannot speak on behalf of another developer.

Has an application been received from the private interests building the interconnector?

Mr. Dermot Byrne

We have received no application for connection to the grid from a private interest.

Even preliminary.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

There was a preliminary meeting, but we have received no formal application for an authorisation. We have a well developed application process overseen by the regulator to deal with matters as soon as any developer applies for connection of a wind farm or generator. When we receive an application, we will deal with it, but we have not yet received one.

I am sure my colleague, Mr. Slye, operations director, would agree that we love storage. Power system operators love storage because it gives us a lot of flexibility. Turlough Hill is owned by the ESB. We dispatch Turlough Hill in the same way as we dispatch any other plant on the power system. We dispatch Moneypoint to meet demand at any point in time. Storage gives us flexibility.

Mr. Andrew Cooke

We have some applications for connection to the transmission system from third parties who are interested in developing other pump storage schemes. That looks hopeful from our point of view. We are also aware that there is much research into battery storage technology. It will, perhaps, be some time before that is available on a large scale that would feature on the power system. We welcome developments in any of those areas.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

We support research and development in the universities. This is one of the topics we will support, working with researchers in various universities in Ireland, because it is a hot topic.

I have publicly indicated my stance on nuclear technology and in the recent generation adequacy report. Looking towards and beyond 2030 I expect the existing coal-fired power station in Moneypoint will be at or near the end of its lifetime. I expect also that peat will no longer be used in generating on the system.

In that timeframe, under a business as usual scenario, we will have renewables and gas supplies. That worries me to a certain extent because there will be two legs of the stool instead of three.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

As Moneypoint will be closed, we need to look at what the third leg of the stool will be. The options are clean coal technology and, possibly, nuclear technology. We need to examine those options because both have long lead times. We need to look at these technologies now in terms of having a well informed debate on what the third leg of the stool will be. The debate is not about taking or not taking the nuclear option. It is about what the balance of the portfolio should be in that timeframe.

I welcome everyone, particularly my colleagues from counties Cavan, Meath and Monaghan, the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Mary Wallace, the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Deputy Brendan Smith, Deputies Thomas Byrne, Johnny Brady, Margaret Conlon and Rory O'Hanlon, and Senator Diarmuid Wilson who are all very concerned on behalf of the people they represent. I also note there are some councillors from the area, including Councillors Clifford Kelly, Shane Reilly, Liz McCormack and others, present. I welcome Ms Bernie Gray and her colleagues. We are very lucky to have somebody of her calibre serving on the board and her country.

EirGrid's role is to develop, maintain and operate a safe, secure, reliable and efficient electricity transmission system. That cannot be sufficiently emphasised. The staff and board of EirGrid are sensible, reasonable, decent individuals who work in the interests of the people. To say otherwise is unfair and not factual.

I welcome the Chairman's comments. To those of us who know him, he is a common-sense politician. I hope all parties will agree with an independent report.

I welcome the presentation made by EirGrid. It is impressive and very interesting but raises many questions. This has nothing to do with the efficiency with which EirGrid does its business. It has more to do with the strategic issues raised. Questions arise in regard to the mix of underground and overground cabling and the costings were it to be put underground in specific areas, as opposed to putting all of it underground. This jurisdiction also has an interest in that there are 80 km here, as opposed to 60 km in the North. There are also other factors we need to examine.

Mr. Byrne referred to the cost of going underground in a congested area, which would obviously be far more expensive. There is information about which we genuinely know. It is difficult to take a disinterested view on any of the issues because there are people living on the proposed route who are, understandably, emotionally concerned about it. As politicians, we need to have all the information at our fingertips. Whereas I welcome what we heard, it does not answer all the questions. I understand this information was put together very quickly. However, I would like there to be a commitment to take this matter further and come back with other options, as at least three or four are available.

I will return to the question on storage. I echo the question about assets. I am still not clear about the answer given so we will have to come back to the issue. Mr. Byrne mentioned two things about which I was not aware. First, EirGrid will have control of the east-west interconnector. Looking at the slides provided earlier in the meeting I am trying to establish where the east-west connectors might hit the coastline. It strikes me we will have to have another discussion on having a 400 kV line from the coast to the main grid at some time in the future. Can I have some indication as to which part of Dublin, Wicklow or Louth will experience that aspect of the system? It would be better to have all the bad news together to make it easier to come to a political decision when we add up the votes.

On renewable energy, Mr. Byrne said EirGrid had control of Turlough Hill. From a commercial point of view, does it buy the juice on the way in or the way out? Who does the bargaining? I do not know what the efficiency is — maybe it is 80% — but there could be a great deal of money at stake. This is the first time I heard EirGrid had received interesting proposals on further pump storage. I have not read or heard that before. Can Mr. Byrne give me some idea, without divulging commercially-sensitive private sector information, what part of the country we will flood to do that? I am completely in support of pump storage but, politically, I am giving a biased view. We like to see the full picture and where all the plans lead. I support pump storage greatly in preference to any of the other options.

Mr. Byrne replied to Deputy McManus to the effect that EirGrid had not received formal expressions of interest on connections to the grid for storage facilities. These seem to be different from pump storage facilities. Are they thermal? I would like to know what they involved and what was planned. I would also like to hear Mr. Byrne's view, which he has carefully avoided giving us, as to the preferred option for storage. Should it be pump storage or another method?

I presume the battery is a vanadium flow battery but can Mr. Byrne tell us more? I raised the question last week about storage. What investigations have been carried out into hydrogen generation as a storage facility? The cost of extracting hydrogen from water is almost exactly the same as the value of the storage at the end but there is no waste whatever. Pump storage and some kind of a hydrogen-based system is the cleanest, from an environmental point of view, if we are working on renewable energy. Are there other possibilities? It is an area that has not been discussed at all.

I am sorry Mr. Byrne mentioned nuclear power and we will have to come back another day to discuss that. In considering its possibilities does he distinguish between fusion and fission? That would be a major issue for the Irish people and politicians alike. I am trying to gain a perspective from the point of view of a public representative because we must find a balance between our need for electricity and the impact on ordinary people's lives of living under or over power cables or beside a pump storage area. We need to look at many things.

Mr. Byrne made the sensible point that EirGrid works within the requirements of the World Health Organisation and various other groups. However, I used to have an advertisement in my office from 1910 for a particular wonder drug, sold by a company which I will not embarrass by naming as it is still a very well-known pharmaceutical company. It was a cure for colds and flu and was called heroin. Its availability was based on the best information available at the time. When I see people walking across the high plains of Meath holding electric light bulbs in their hands which they light from the sky it raises questions for ordinary people as to whether the technology is up to speed.

I have said many things but they are only the tip of what I would like to say. We will rue the day we set up EirGrid as a company separate from the ESB, though that is no reflection on the delegates present today. It will eventually be sold off but it is far more important than generation. It connects the network to power and it does not matter where the power comes from. If we can put in enough interconnectors we can buy it from China as it makes no difference. It is the most strategically important part of the whole system.

My final question concerns the connection between the grid and the local networks for ordinary people. How does EirGrid decide who is responsible? If Mrs. Murphy lives three miles out of town whose responsibility is it? I know it is that of the network but if the network states it cannot afford it we, as public representatives, recognise there will be a problem, as we have seen in New Zealand and other places.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

I was asked specifically about my position on the nuclear question so I responded directly. I was not advocating nuclear power, just that there be a broad debate on the issue.

I appreciate that.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

I agree with Senator O'Toole's comments about the grid to the effect that it is central to the whole power system. The Government's policy decision cements the transmission grid in public ownership. We are a State-owned company and totally committed to public service, which is my background. It will continue and I see nothing on the horizon that would change that.

It would take ten minutes in Cabinet.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

Representatives from all political parties agree the network must be kept in public ownership. We have all learned, from the experience of other industries, of the strategic need to keep it in public ownership.

Tell that to Mary Harney.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

On the question about pump storage, we do not own Turlough Hill but we despatch the generation. We call on the output of Turlough Hill when we need it but do not buy or sell the juice. We operate the market, as our chairperson said earlier, and the market is where the trades are done and the money flows. None of that comes in or out of EirGrid — we just manage the flows. I hope that clarifies that issue.

Senator O'Toole mentioned hydrogen. He is thinking in the very long term and it will be part of the solution at some point in the future. It is possible to envisage a situation where a great deal of wind power can be used to generate hydrogen and that is a possible solution to transport, but only in the very long term. I agree there is merit in the idea and it needs to be looked at.

We are driving ahead with the east-west interconnector because it is defined in the national development plan as strategic energy infrastructure. We have been tasked to deliver it by 2011 or 2012. It uses high-voltage direct current technology, which is a very different type of technology. It will be cabled under the Irish Sea as far as the points at either end, because the technology lends itself to that. We are already incurring the very high cost of the terminal stations.

Where will they come ashore?

Mr. Dermot Byrne

They will come ashore in north County Dublin and will travel to the Woodland 400 kV station in Meath.

I welcome the opportunity to attend again today. Along with Deputy Kelly I welcome our Fianna Fáil colleagues from the three counties involved. I also welcome my Fine Gael colleagues from Cavan-Monaghan and thank them for attending on the last occasion during our crucial meeting with the Minister. I welcome the Minister's announcement today in respect of the independent study. I welcome my council colleagues from Cavan-Monaghan, Councillors Owen Bannigan and Sean McKiernan and all others present. The main issue today is the restructuring of power in the island of Ireland.

I thank the chairman of EirGrid and his colleagues for attending today and for being prepared to listen to us. Coming from a Border area I, too, support the proposal for an all-Ireland single electricity market and competition. I do not wish to be hypocritical today or to state what I do or do not support. Like many of my colleagues I, too, have highlighted the serious situation of Wellmans in Mullagh which was paying twice as much for electricity here as its company in France and, to a much lesser extent, in Holland. We need competition and we need to put in place the structures in this regard.

I welcome the independent study that will be important in terms of clarifying the situation. The Minister for Finance stated in the Dáil that running the network under ground would cost ten times as much as running it over ground. Others have stated that to do so would cost 20 or 30 times as much. One of the most important comments made today as far as I am concerned is that much of this information is based on what it will cost to run the network under ground through a congested area. With all due respect, the cost of running the network through a congested area as compared with running it through open countryside requires further consideration. People in the countryside are entitled to an independent study in this regard. There have been many public meetings on this issue and there is a great deal of anger and frustration about how the situation has been presented. There is a need for further examination of this matter.

It was stated earlier that only 1% of networks throughout Europe are located under ground. However, as Deputy Coveney stated, consideration must be given to what is happening in terms of new technology. The Government will at the end of the day make the final decision on this as it is the Government rather than EirGrid who will fund the project. I accept the comment that EirGrid plays no role in funding projects.

We must have full information going forward. I assure the delegation that I will work as I have in the past with EirGrid on the matter. At this point, I thank EirGrid for meeting my colleagues and providing us with a further breakdown on the matter as requested. Another issue of concern is the delay in respect of the transfer of assets. Can the delegation clarify the current situation? Obviously EirGrid operates under ESB legislation in regard to access to property. Is it expected this will change when EirGrid takes over full responsibility in this area? Is a delay in this regard expected to allow EirGrid to work under previous regulations?

There is genuine anxiety throughout the country about the cost to individuals of electricity in the future. I know massive charges are currently being incurred in respect of line instalments. A council colleague, Mr. John Keenan who previously worked with EirGrid has drawn this matter to my attention. This issue is causing great anxiety for people in rural areas wishing to obtain power for business or domestic purposes. It is felt that the new structure will be so costly it will eliminate this option.

At this point, we will group questions to make progress. I ask members to be brief.

I thank the Chairman for convening this meeting and for his work on behalf of the committee in calling for an independent study on this issue. I thank EirGrid for attending all of our meetings to date. I am sure we will have many more meetings with EirGrid. I also thank the Minister for meeting our group on numerous occasions.

I thank Mr. Byrne for the letter I received from him this morning inviting the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to visit EirGrid. I will bring the matter to the attention of the committee which will meet later this morning. We will let him know in due course if there is need for such a meeting. Many agriculture issues will also be affected by this.

I will confine my comments to the situation in County Meath. People in County Meath are angry about the effects of the proposed pylons on their health and environment. Meath is an historic heritage area with many areas of conservation and listed buildings. Property owners are concerned about the valuation of their homes and farms. Farmers are also concerned about the restrictions the pylons will have on planning permission in rural areas in terms of proposed housing for their sons and daughters. We all know in County Meath how difficult it is currently to obtain planning permission. The erection of these lines will have devastating consequences for young couples.

Can we have a copy of all reports with regard to the proposed routes selected? When will the proposed route option be decided upon? Will this decision be held up pending the court decision or the outcome of the independent study? What surveys have been conducted by EirGrid on the proposed routes? Can these reports be obtained? By what means have the routes been surveyed? Have they been surveyed by map, foot or helicopter? When were the surveys conducted and by whom? Many of us have had experience in terms of county council consultancies. Recently, the local town council in Kells employed consultants to draw up plans for a bus stop. When the proposal was put before the council the area engineer was asked to consult the objectors and was told by a young lad that the location he had for the bus stop was not where it was to be located. It was to be in a different place and it transpired that consultants had a design for the middle of the N3. That is why I do not have much faith in consultants.

Why has EirGrid not considered alternative routes, particularly underground? We talked about roads and old railway lines. There is a disused railway line running from Navan to Kingscourt, where an underground line could be put, as well as the N3. Has an underground route analysis been made? If so, has a cost analysis been completed? Can EirGrid provide the international data which it analysed to determine that putting cables underground would not provide a reliable, secure or economic service? The barriers identified to the feasibility of going underground are the time it takes to repair a fault and the cost. As these are the only two barriers, can EirGrid provide details of the data on repair times for underground faults and all relevant data to support the cost analysis?

Can EirGrid advise as to the percentage split of the current electric unit cost and the cost of supplying to the consumer? I assume this will include capital transmission infrastructural costs, maintenance costs of the infrastructure, electricity production costs and management costs. Can EirGrid provide the data relating to international experience which show the cost of going underground to be between three and ten times higher than for overhead transmission systems?

If the technology is being used to lay cables underground from Rush to Woodland, can it not be utilised to lay them underground the rest of the way? Has the possibility of laying the line along the east coast, under the sea to Northern Ireland, been looked at? Is this project part of the electrical link with the rest of the European grid? Could this infrastructure be connected at any stage to networks using nuclear power from Great Britain? Professor Mike O'Carroll took a reading at the Woodland pylon and it was 5 microtesla. He advised that anything above 0.4 microtesla was deemed to be above the level of public concern. As the reading at the pylon was over 12 times that level, does that cause concern for EirGrid?

We are told that the wayleaves necessary for underground cables are the same width as is necessary for overhead lines but that statement does not make sense to me. I imagine that putting something underground would take up approximately one quarter of the space required for the overground option. I will await EirGrid's comments on this aspect.

People who have asked questions at the public hearings are angry that, having asked up to 15 in some cases, they have only received two or three answers. Is it a tactic on EirGrid's part not to answer questions until a public hearing is conducted?

I am sorry for taking so long. I thank the Chairman and apologise for having to leave but I have to attend a meeting to at noon.

Ms Bernie Gray

I will take the first question and Mr. Cooke will answer some of Deputy Brady's questions.

Deputy Crawford asked about asset transfer. As the chief executive outlined, access to and maintenance of the assets currently owned by the ESB are governed by a comprehensive infrastructure agreement which will remain in place until such time as there is no need for it, which will be the case when ownership of the assets is transferred to EirGrid. The agreement reached between ourselves and the ESB prior to the vesting in EirGrid sets down the ways in which we can access, maintain and set forth the blueprint for transmission development, as well as the respective responsibilities of EirGrid and the ESB. We have received no indication that the position on the transfer of assets has changed.

Mr. Andrew Cooke

There are a number of questions. If I fail to answer any of them, members should feel free to remind me.

One question was on the method of selecting the route options and the survey methods employed. There were a number of methods, including maps, aerial photography and surveys — including road surveys — and personal inspections. They were predominantly carried out by our consultants, Tobins, in the case of Meath-Cavan and ESBI in the case of Cavan-Tyrone. We work very closely with them. As they work under our direction, we hope to avoid the issues identified in other instances. It was our intention that all reports relevant to the selection of routes and, ultimately, the preferred route option, would be made available as part of the planning application process. As members are probably aware, we are subject to the court process under way, but it is our intention to make all reports available when the matter is resolved.

On the question of alternative routes, we looked at all route options for overhead lines within the broad study area. We did not look at specific routes for underground lines. There has been much discussion of our concerns about cost, reliability and technical performance in going underground. These issues will be looked at again, as part of the independent report. We will contribute to that process the information available to us.

The measurement of 5 microtesla under the 400 kV Woodland pylon is perfectly possible directly under the line. The reading of 5 microtesla equates to 5% of the World Health Organisation guideline figure, which is set at 100 microtesla. The reading we would expect at 50 m is 1 microtesla or less.

I do not have a full answer to the question on wayleave width. However, the wayleaves used in the case of cables are significant. There would probably be a need for two separate cables to achieve the thermal capacity needed for those circuits. Joint bays are needed every 700 m or so, depending on the cable type used, to link one section of cable to another. If there are two cables, this will involve approximately six separate phases. Therefore, the width measurement could be significant. I will seek further information on this question but would not be surprised if the width measurements in such cases were comparable for cable and overhead lines.

It has been suggested that we did not answer questions in the course of the consultations. At the open days a large number of our staff were available such as in Monaghan where there were between 20 and 30 present. They spent an hour or more dealing with a lot of people on a one-to-one basis. There are times when it gets very busy and individuals may have felt their questions had not been answered. If that is the case, we would welcome questions by letter, e-mail or telephone call. We have received several thousand communications by letter and e-mail and every one is being answered individually by our staff and consultants. We are making every effort to ensure we do not leave unanswered any question arising from the consultation.

I asked a question about laying the line under the sea on the east coast.

Mr. Andrew Cooke

The sea is a long way from the route we are trying to establish. While an under sea route would avoid some of the public issues arising, it would require the use of a different technology. DC technology, which would be necessary for the distance in question, does not perform as is required to be part of the Irish meshed AC grid. The cost issues would be a major factor in any proposal to go under sea.

In terms of connection to the United Kingdom this project does not connect into the European network as such. Obviously, our east-west project to Wales connects into the transmission system in the UK. However, it does not connect into any particular power station, nuclear or otherwise, but into the bulk transmission system in the area of Deeside in north Wales. The UK meshed system, like the Irish meshed system, is all connected. This means all generation feeds into the system and all demand is taken out of the system. Fundamentally, the electricity delivered at Deeside can come from any part of the UK system and can be delivered across the east-west interconnector into Ireland.

What is the position on laying a line along the M3 or the old railway line?

Mr. Andrew Cooke

In terms of overhead lines our consultants have examined options in the full study area. The three routes selected for each of the projects were based on a number of criteria. If the route in question was not considered suitable for an overhead line, documented reasons would be available.

If the study shows that an underground line was possible without excessive cost, will EirGrid consider the M3 and railway line options?

Mr. Andrew Cooke

Yes, but our current position is that the underground option would create excessive cost and does not meet the technical performance and reliability requirements of the electricity system.

Will the work be suspended until the independent study is completed? Many people are concerned about this.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

We need to know the timescale of the study. Foremost in our minds is EirGrid's remit to ensure a reliable power supply is available in every region. However, if an independent study is being carried out, it is a given that we will not take a case to the strategic infrastructure board before the study has been concluded.

I welcome the delegation. Last week, we discussed the issue of storage, to which Senator O'Toole referred. While I do not want to go over old ground and I accept that we should focus on the link from County Meath to County Tyrone, Bob Hanna appeared to rule out the pump storage option last week. What added value would a pump storage plant provide the grid in terms of its ability to cope with large amounts of renewable energy given that we have a renewable energy target of approximately of 6,000 MW? This is a wider issue but I ask for clarification on this matter.

I welcome collaboration between EirGrid and its counterpart in Northern Ireland and the decision to have 80 km of line in the North. Has there been consultation with Northern Ireland Electricity on extending it further? At the end of the 80 km, will it tap into a 400 kV line in Northern Ireland or will there be a missing link in terms of this type of voltage? I ask this question not because Derry city, the fourth largest city in the country, is the ultimate destination but because much of the urban sprawl from Derry is spreading into east Donegal, which comes within EirGrid's remit. Have consultations taken place on the issue of extending the line into County Donegal, which has a weak 110 kV system?

The Minister indicated that an independent report will be made. The report must have the widest possible terms of reference. There is no point allocating a budget for the report if parameters are set for it. Deputy Johnny Brady referred to the possibility of using disused railways. Will dialogue take place between various Departments and between EirGrid and Iarnród Éireann regarding the link between Navan and Kingscourt? Will Eirgrid consult the Department of Transport regarding ongoing surface area works on the M3? Discussions must take place on all aspects of the issue. Deputy McManus referred to best practice in Sweden where underground work is being carried out along railway tracks. We need this type of integrated approach to service delivery.

If there is to be proper terms of reference, the group campaigning in favour of underground provision should be involved in the study. EirGrid will contribute an expert opinion on international best practice but the independent report must facilitate the campaigning groups from counties Meath, Cavan and Monaghan.

I welcome the delegation from EirGrid. It would be unwise for members of the joint committee, pressure groups or EirGrid to pre-empt the outcome of the independent study because to do so would negate its value.

I have questions about the route selection. Why is it necessary to route the interconnector through County Monaghan? While I welcome the interest shown by EirGrid in consulting and debating with members of the public, pressure groups and politicians, I wonder why it has not given public access to the pre-constraints report, even if it is in draft form. As it supports EirGrid's route selection, it would be wise to publish it.

On repair times for underground cables in the event of a fault, cable companies inform us that, using advanced technologies such as satellite navigation, they can pinpoint a fault within hours and, in many cases, more speedily than in the case of overground cables. Technology is improving and advancing. Who would have believed a few years ago that one could drive from the wilds of Connemara to someone's door in Donegal using directions on a screen?

Is it true that routing the proposed overhead interconnector underground would reduce our carbon footprint, as is required under the Kyoto agreement? I understand our carbon footprint will be much greater if the line runs overground. This is an important issue. With regard to distance, EirGrid speaks about 50 m whereas NIE speaks about 60 m. Surely the same standards should apply North and South if we are discussing an all-island project.

It is stated the EMF readings on the lines are highest at the mid-point of the sag. When was the last EMF measurement reading taken on the existing 400 kV line at the mid-point of the sag and what was that measurement? If the delegation does not have the information with them I would appreciate if it would be forwarded to me.

I join in the general welcome to the EirGrid personnel and I acknowledge the enormity, sensitivity and difficulty of the task they perform in all our interests. I also welcome those who are here in a voluntary capacity at their own expense who have the best of motivation and are present in the interest of the public good. Those who voluntarily give up a day's work to be here deserve all of our commendation because it is what makes a healthy society and democracy. I also join in the welcome to elected colleagues from Cavan and Monaghan county councils.

I welcome the Minister's announcement last night of an independent study. I do not propose to labour this point, but I am extremely proud my party has been in the vanguard and has called for such a study for a number of months. I am proud to have been there at the inception of this policy position within my party and I am happy it will happen.

I would like assurances that the underground or overground question is put on hold pending the outcome of the independent study. I take the point EirGrid will continue with its other business. I hope the study has a general remit to examine routes, the overground or underground question and, as Deputy McHugh stated, has a significant input from the people who must live with the outcome.

To what degree has EirGrid studied the health issue and the Draper and SAGE reports? The Draper report identified the child leukemia issue, which I do not state flippantly as it is extremely serious. The SAGE report suggests dwellings must be 600 m away from cables. What is the view of the EirGrid personnel with regard to the internationally accepted precautionary principle taking precedence when a doubt exists and not proceeding where a risk exists?

As I stated last week, unfortunately, perhaps with the exception of Deputy English, most of us must confess that we were reared at a time when cigarette smoke was considered fine and, as Senator O'Toole stated, when heroin was not considered dangerous. Bearing this in mind, to what degree has EirGrid seriously analysed the health risk, taking cognisance of the fact that the WHO is only concerned when it identifies a positive danger? These reports suggest a danger.

To what degree has EirGrid examined in its initial position the suggestion that voltage will be lost along the overground lines? I appreciate this will be covered by the independent study but it is worthy of being teased out by this committee. It is suggested the loss of power would be 30%. This is important economically in the context of the EU Single Market. It is fair enough if EirGrid can contradict this suggestion satisfactorily.

I take the point that EirGrid never seriously examined the underground option. Is it in order that the option of going along the M3 should have been examined or that it could be pro-actively examined in anticipation of the independent study? The project is at an early stage and the potential to lay the cable along the M3 still exists.

To what degree did EirGrid analyse the visual impact in terms of tourism or subcontract such analysis? I appreciate it is not necessarily its remit but, as EirGrid stated and as we acknowledge, it is part of our important public service. This is a critical point which could be lost. We have an extremely valuable tourism product and it is becoming increasingly so. Visitor numbers increase annually. The potential for tourism must be enormous in a global context as the years progress and it is still untapped. To what degree did EirGrid factor in the loss to the tourism industry in these areas as an economic loss and a cost of the project?

I join with my colleagues who referred to the documentary evidence which underlies EirGrid's studies and we would be happy to receive it. I would be happy to have these points addressed. I appreciate they will be included in the independent study but as Mr. Byrne stated, it is important that this body is not lost in the debate.

I ask speakers to be brief as a number of members remain to speak.

I will do my best to be brief. It is difficult because it is the most important issue to hit the county in many years. I am glad the Minister ordered an independent review. The nine-page document with which we were presented this morning by EirGrid is an insult to intelligence and to the people of counties Meath, Cavan and Monaghan. A company paid by EirGrid to work on the east-west link was asked to compile the report. In no way can it be called independent. The company, PB (UK) Power, describes itself as independent, although on its website it states it is working for EirGrid. The dismissal in a couple of paragraphs of the idea of underground lines is also extremely insulting. It is stated it will not be examined in the preliminary document.

EirGrid has serious questions to answer. It was stated that individuals may feel questions were not answered. I am one such individual. After having met a number of people from EirGrid I received answers to some of my questions from the former Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, at a Fianna Fáil meeting. The individuals from EirGrid were not able to answer my questions. This is a common experience in County Meath and the perception is that EirGrid has been unwilling to answer questions. It is a fair perception. EirGrid may state it has responded to letters but the people feel they are in the dark.

Representatives from Meath Pylon Pressure Group are present at this meeting. Such voluntary committees from small parishes, which may not be urban but are rural congested areas, have learned about these issues to the point of almost being expert and have explained them to me and other public representatives. When I met with EirGrid approximately three months ago I requested it organise meetings on the issue in County Meath with the same frequency and at the same locations as members of the public organised meetings. This was not done until it was too late and anger had swelled up because people felt they were in an information vacuum.

Today it was stated that consultants would have examined the M3 and the old Cavan railway line. Did the consultants do so? We did not receive a satisfactory answer to questions on this issue. An answer has not yet been given on how the precautionary principle dictates EirGrid's policy in this regard. I understand EirGrid has used the precautionary principle but I want to know to what extent. Will EirGrid publicly comment on the Draper report? Privately I asked EirGrid how anyone can state no health risks are associated with this project. As Deputy Conlon stated, we do not want to pre-empt the independent report. How can anyone claim there are minimal or no health risks when EirGrid cites the Draper report which pressure groups and those concerned about health risks also cite?

EirGrid must go back to the drawing board with the public consultation process, as it was unacceptable. While we may not get all the answers we like, the information given to representatives is only starting to come out now. While I thank EirGrid for attending the committee, it has a duty to do so as a semi-State body. Members are only articulating the concerns addressed to us as representatives for the various counties.

What are the proposals for the substation at Kingscourt? Will they include Meath Hill, adjacent to Kingscourt?

Mr. Dermot Byrne

EirGrid did not present the PB (UK) Power report as an independent study. This is our view, based on a report from consultants we employed. PB (UK) Power is a well regarded and respected company and will not simply give us what we ask them. We put forward this as our input to the committee as we were asked. We also welcome the earlier announcement by the Chairman that a separate independent study will be carried out, with which we will work. Many studies have been conducted on the health effects of power lines. We have been very open and have not tried to hide any of them.

The World Health Organisation, WHO, assembled a panel of experts across all disciplines to carry out a risk assessment of the health effects of power lines. It took on board the Draper report, the UK childhood cancer study which did not show a relationship with cancer incidence and power lines, and other studies. Last year, it came to the view the existing guidelines are fine.

We as a State company must work to these guidelines. We would not do this if we did not think it was the safest thing to do. The guidelines have been endorsed through the Government's report published last year. The WHO advocates the use of a precautionary principle, at little or no cost. Our view is that undergrounding of cables does not constitute a precautionary principle in the way it is understood in the guidelines. In taking a precautionary approach, we site the lines at a minimum distance of 50 metres from dwellings. In most cases, we site them in excess of that distance. Few dwellings will be in or near that distance and we are confident this can be achieved.

Having a higher voltage line is also an element of precaution. Power is a product of voltage and current. It is the current flowing through the cables that causes the magnetic field, not the pylon or the voltage. The higher the voltage, the less is the current for the same power. In a sense going for higher voltages is delivering a reduced impact for the same power transfers. We are well within the guidelines which state the limit should be 100 microtesla. Ours is one microtesla. To put it in perspective, the natural magnetic field of the earth, by which one steers a compass, is about 50 microtesla. I accept that is a static field and not an alternating field.

Mr. Andrew Cooke

The proposed 400 kV line will connect into the Northern Ireland transmission system at a new substation in the vicinity of Moye, County Tyrone. The backbone of that system is 275 kV.

We are increasingly engaging in joint planning exercises with Northern Ireland Electricity. There is a formal basis for this under arrangements established under the all-island market model. The Donegal and Tyrone-Derry areas are being examined for joint proposals for development as there is a great deal of renewable energy sources interest there. While it is at an early stage, we are progressing.

On the difference between the 50 metre and 60 metre clearance from dwellings, both have grown up over decades of practice. Northern Ireland would have followed UK custom and practice in working to 60 metres while Ireland worked to 50 metres. I accept this is an issue that must be re-examined. As Mr. Dermot Byrne said, we would not expect to see a large number of dwellings at less than 60 metres in these projects. The formal guideline we have worked to for many years is 50 metres.

What about repairs?

Mr. Andrew Cooke

International statistics are available on that, but I do not have them to hand. Practice and experience bears out that while finding a fault is a small problem — improvements have been made in fault finding — repair time can still be very significant. We can garner some of these statistics and provide them to the independent study and the committee.

What about the preconstraint reports that were not made available to the public?

Mr. Dermot Byrne

This issue may be sub judice. Our intention is to make all available information fully available as part of the SIB. That is the forum for making this information available.

Last year, there were a number of cable faults. For instance, one in the Dublin area of a 220 kV cable had outage duration of 35 days, one of the lowest we have had. More importantly international experience shows duration can last from 35 to 40 days and even 50 to 60 days.

A question was raised on the added value of storage. The key issue is how to manage a system with significant amounts of wind energy, a variable resource, which is a particular challenge to operators. Wind patterns change, so flexibility of the other electricity producing plant is important. If a wind source drops, we can bring on the other plant. Storage has a role to play in this regard and we cannot ignore its cost. Pumped storage, in particular, is a costly option. As Mr. Cook said, some developers are coming forward with proposals. Therefore, they have clearly satisfied themselves that they can make a business case for that storage. We have no role in that regard. My colleague, Mr. Slye, may wish to say more about the challenges of operating a wind-based system.

Mr. Fintan Slye

The key is plant flexibility. This was alluded to in response to the grid study question last week. As we raise the level of renewables, we need plant flexibility in order to respond as the wind and demand change. Pumped storage is one of the potential solutions. It has traditionally been expensive but, as Mr. Byrne and Mr. Cook mentioned, there are certain developers who are considering such projects. There are also other storage options at earlier stages of development and commercialisation around the world. The use of compressed air was being considered as a possibility in the United States earlier this year. Diversity in the portfolio and our ability to provide flexible responses is always good from the point of view of system operation.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

Our role is to give information to the industry. We conduct workshops at our annual customer conferences in which we bring together members of the industry and go through the issues in order that the industry is fully informed of what the system needs. That enables them to put together proposals for their own developments that will complement our requirements.

There was a question mark over losses in the system and overhead versus underground which I will clarify. The total losses on the transmission grid are of the order of 2% to 2.5%. This takes account of all the power generated that feeds into the transmission system and is transported over the grid. It then goes through the lower voltage distribution system, in which losses are, I suspect, of the order of 5%, although I do not have a figure. Perhaps this clarifies the issue of losses. I am not sure where the figure of 30% came from but it certainly has no grounding in fact.

I agree that visual impact and the possible effects on tourism are very important. It is one of the key aspects we consider in selecting routes. We have seven criteria which are spelled out in all the documentation we have made available to the public. These are the visual impact and the impact on communities, cultural heritage, ecology, landscape, geology and waters. We have used these criteria when working with our consultants to select routes. The strategic infrastructure division of An Bord Pleanála will expect us to have used them in our consideration. Having applied them, we now have three routes, on which we do not necessarily have all the information, which is why we went through a public consultation process which has brought us additional information that was not available to us to enable us to move towards selecting a preferred route. That is the process in which we are engaged. One of the main purposes of the public consultation was to obtain the additional information on such matters as the locations of cultural sights and dwellings from people on the ground, as we do not have all of this information on our maps. We did obtain significant amounts of additional information through the public consultation process.

Did EirGrid consider costings of potential losses in tourism revenue?

Mr. Dermot Byrne

We would have been conscious that certain landscapes were designated in the county development plans as being of particular importance for tourism. Our approach would be to minimise any adverse impact. We have 2,000 km of this type of line, of which 440 km is at 400 kV. Therefore, we have done this before. We worked with local regions and landowners and have been successful in this regard. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the independent review but I expect that whatever we decide to do, we will again be successful. This is also about local jobs. Our role is to ensure development of the grid occurs to support industries and balanced regional development. That is also critically important. We must balance the pros and cons. That is what I expect the strategic infrastructure division to do.

I asked some questions that were not answered. It is unfortunate that the representatives from EirGrid keep using the grammatical construction "would have". In answering Senator O'Reilly's question, they kept saying that they would have done this or they would have looked at that. It was stated the consultants would have considered the M3 and the old Cavan railway line. I want to know whether they did actually consider this. I also asked what was proposed for the Kingscourt-Meath Hill area.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

In the matter of whether the consultants considered the M3, they looked at all the options for overhead transmission lines, including along the M3. We did not ask them to consider placing the lines underground because our information was that to do this would be very expensive and the lines would be less reliable. Therefore, we did not intend to embark on an underground solution. Our obligation is to develop a safe, reliable and affordable system. Thus, we did not instruct our consultants to consider placing the lines underground along the M3.

On the matter of underground lines, mention of the M3 does not really add anything to the debate because that option would not fundamentally change anything. I do not want to pre-empt the findings of the independent review. We will await its outcome.

Mr. Andrew Cook

It is our intention to develop a transmission station in the vicinity of Kingscourt at a site we will procure there. At that point we will step down from 400 kV to the local network voltage of 220 kV and 110 kV to provide the injection of power that is necessary in the north-east region.

Has a site been acquired for that purpose?

Mr. Andrew Cook

A site has not been acquired at this stage.

I know the Chairman is in a hurry but I will finish in three minutes. It is good to be part of this meeting and see everybody involved here in the room at this crucial stage of the fantastic programme EirGrid is undertaking. The representatives have confirmed everything the Minister said to us last week.

I do not want to go into the details. At my first meetings I was struck by the technicality of the discussions. When I heard the term "AC/DC", I rang my wife and told her our favourite band was coming to Slane and that she should go to Ticketmaster in the morning. I will leave that to the experts. I thank EirGrid and its personnel, particularly the ones at the coalface and those present in the Visitors Gallery. It has not been easy for anybody in the last three months but it has been a great exercise.

I am particularly grateful to the Chairman. A week is a long time in politics. At last week's meeting, although we were not supposed to discuss this particular project directly, the Chairman allowed it to happen and we had an effective discussion. The Minister saw that day that all the main parties — Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party — were speaking with one voice on behalf of the people and we got our message across. When this is over, I will ring the Cork County Board and suggest that a Limerick man go down and sort out its problem.

On behalf of all our councillors I thank my party's spokesman on energy, Deputy Simon Coveney. Deputies English, Crawford and others would agree that he has been very strong on this and very cool and calm. He steered it a certain way and everybody in the party is very proud of him. All of the other political representatives from all the parties have spoken to each other on and off the record. We all speak with one voice. I also thank all of them for their advice, particularly the people in the Gallery who brought the issue to this point. We know we have a long way to go but at least we are all on the same side.

I come to what is probably the most important part of this process which is deciding where we go from here. The chairperson will have a deciding role in this. We have agreed to an independent study. That study must be agreed to by EirGrid and the members of the committee and by nobody else. I ask that, along with the Minister, the representatives of the people in the Gallery, who are very well educated people, be brought in. An agreement on who will do the study is crucial.

I want to ask EirGrid in particular whether it will progress any of this project before this study is done. Has any company been approached or any materials purchased or sourced in connection with the plan so far? My last question relates to the cost of the line from Rush to Batterstown, Dunboyne. What would it cost to put the line underground? Has it been costed?

Over the past three or four months a number of very well attended meetings have taken place in the north east to discuss this issue. I attended a number of them along with colleagues from all the parties represented here. There was no disagreement on the need for an interconnector. There was agreement that we need to develop the infrastructure. However, a common thread ran through all of the meetings I attended. There was unanimity that the cable should go underground. There was a call for an independent feasibility study. I and my party colleagues carried that back some months ago to the four Ministers who represent the north east in Government and also to EirGrid.

Another issue common to all the meetings was the question of communication. I was glad to hear the chairperson and the CEO talk about what they intend to do and what they have been doing more recently. Certainly at the start there was a serious issue. It is very important that communities who are genuinely concerned have all their questions answered and their fears alleviated.

On the issue of health, I have no difficulty in accepting the guidelines from World Health Organisation, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection and the European Union. However, on the question of danger to health — and I do not see a danger to health — there is also the fear of danger to health. If one is lying awake at night worrying about a health hazard it does not really matter whether there is a health hazard. The fear must be addressed. Whatever can be done to alleviate people's fear should be done.

There are two questions I would ask. One of them follows up on Deputy McEntee's question. What impact will the Minister's feasibility study have on the progress of the project? Will EirGrid go ahead and select the preferred route from the three proposed routes? The other relates generally to the route through Meath to Tyrone. Is there any technical reason the line must go that way. It has been suggested that the cable could be put under the sea or along the M1 if this is a North-South connector. On the question of putting it under the sea, Mr. Cooke stated that it would be very expensive. I was of the view that it would be cheaper because a different type of cable could be used and the sea would cool the cable. If there is no technical reason for the route through Meath to Tyrone, the issue might be re-examined to see whether it would be feasible to route the cable along the M1, the M3, the old railway line or under the sea.

I welcome the chance to ask questions. I apologise for hopping in and out of the meeting. There is another committee meeting next door that I had to attend.

EirGrid states that it must work to the WHO guidelines. It does not have to. As a minimum it must work to those guidelines, but it can go a step further. Ireland could lead the way in this area if it chooses to do so. The cost will be paid out of taxpayers' money. That is down to the Government and to us as Deputies. It is up to us to take advice on the different options, costs methods, technologies and so on. If it is five times the cost or ten times the cost, it is up to the taxpayers to decide whether they want to spend that money, led by the Government. We can have a debate on that. However, we cannot have that debate without proper figures and proper information. I have been very disappointed that we have not had proper information and proper figures.

At one of my first meetings with EirGrid we asked for information in regard to going underground and were told it would be between six and 40 times the cost of going overground. That is not a proper answer. I then asked what was the basis for that estimate and the EirGrid representative said it came from the sky. That is not how I would expect a body working for the Government to provide information on something as serious as this. It is essential that this project is halted now until we have real figures. I welcome the letter from the Minister to the chairperson. We had a debate in the Dáil on this issue for the first time in months and the Minister gave us the impression this would happen. I welcome that. However, I ask EirGrid to stop until we have the information we require.

Was EirGrid asked in its initial brief to investigate going underground? It is very important we know the answer to that question. Did EirGrid assume it would be too expensive? It would be wrong to make that assumption. In a letter to the council in January the CEO claimed that nowhere in the world has a line of this length or type been placed underground. I accept that a line of this type may not have been placed underground. The question Deputies representing the county and members of the public are asking is whether other types of line could be used. Companies we have met have advised us that a high voltage DC line might be used rather than an AC line and that it is possible to achieve the same results. EirGrid has a duty to explain why it believes that cannot be achieved. We are told that power can be transmitted through a different type of DC line and still serve the community.

EirGrid claims it would be harder to tap into other high tech industries. If Intel were in Kells or Navan, would it be possible to transmit power from Tyrone to Meath using a DC line and then re-transmit it to the various companies using existing channels? Is it essential to have an AC line? I am not convinced of that. None of the EirGrid representatives have been able to explain very well why that is the case. Perhaps now is not the time to debate that, but we need to be convinced in regard to why different technology cannot be used to carry power.

EirGrid states that for reasons of technical feasibility, reliability and cost, undergrounding transmission lines is not consistent with EirGrid's obligations. What does that mean? Surely, EirGrid's obligation is to transmit power around the country. If cost is the issue, that is a matter for the taxpayer and the Government. EirGrid stated in January that it regularly liaises with the National Roads Authority on relevant aspects of transmission developments but that, for the reasons outlined, undergrounding, whether along the M3 or otherwise, is not an appropriate solution for its project. How was that decision reached? If EirGrid has not checked it out, how can it say it is not an appropriate solution? EirGrid also states that the M3 does not change the debate. It does change the debate. The State has compulsorily purchased the land for the M3. It owns the motorway and the land on each side of it. It would be very easy to put a line, whether DC or otherwise, down the middle or on each side of the motorway. We now own the land and this changes the debate. Furthermore, the machinery is on-site so that it would be possible to install a line. Discussion of the M3 is, therefore, relevant and should not be put to one side.

We have been told in written presentations from EirGrid and again today, that the fear of the line being dug up by a farmer or contractor is a serious one. I cannot believe this issue is a concern for EirGrid. A gas line runs through County Meath and other counties. It has not been dug up by anyone because it is clearly signposted and everyone knows where it is. Surely the same can be done with a power line. I ask EirGrid not to insult anyone's intelligence by saying the fear of the line being dug up is an issue. If it is not an issue for gas it should not be an issue for power.

I accept that reports can be quoted on both sides of the health argument. Nevertheless, there is fear and doubt and we all have a duty to do everything we can to prevent any risk or perceived risk. The Draper report claims that in the past 30 years no more than four or five children in England may have lost their lives through proximity to electromagnetic fields. While the report does not find a definite risk, no one can guarantee that there is not a risk. Recently, it was stated by an adviser to other governments that this was an acceptable figure. It is not an acceptable figure. We must do anything we can to prevent such deaths and people's fears must be allayed. We cannot point to any individual who became ill due to electromagnetic fields but neither the Government nor EirGrid can guarantee everyone's safety. Guidelines and figures are quoted but there is no guarantee. Therefore, we must fully investigate every option.

Why are maintenance costs of an under ground cable so much higher? We are told it takes much longer to find a fault on an under ground line. I do not accept this. With modern IT a fault can quickly be found by a fibre-optic cable. EirGrid told us today it intends to build the east-west line itself. EirGrid does not have assets yet such a line would cost a couple of hundred million euro. Will this amount be borrowed? EirGrid and not the ESB will own this line and there is no guarantee of customers for it. I question where this money will come from and why is it being financed differently.

We need more information. EirGrid was let down by its representatives in the field, who failed to provide information and answers. People deserve respect and to be given proper information. Many EirGrid documents claim it is not technically possible to go under ground. It is technically possible to put any line under ground. It is costly but it is possible. It is untrue to say it is not possible. Mr. Byrne quoted consultants to Meath County Council. Those consultants also said it is possible to put the line under ground. They said it would be complicated but possible. It is misleading to say it is not possible to put the line under ground. EirGrid should correct these claims and stop making them. It is also untrue to say that placing the line under ground would be ten times more costly. We do not know that. I ask EirGrid to stop using those figures until we get proper information. They are not proven.

The Department, when doing its study, must check out the different types of technology that can go under ground. I accept that it is more costly to put AC under ground but a modern DC line, if it can perform the same function, is as cheap as over ground lines.

I welcome EirGrid to our meeting. I also welcome our colleagues. I am conscious that my Seanad colleague, Senator Diarmuid Wilson, may not get a chance to speak as time is limited. I also welcome the Ministers of State, Deputies and members of the public.

I was particularly delighted to hear the Chairman read the letter from the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources announcing an independent study of this issue. It is important that the implications for health and the environment, as well as the economy, be examined. The risk associated with the project must also be evaluated. I welcome the undertaking given by EirGrid not to proceed to the Strategic Infrastructure Development Board pending the outcome of the independent study. That is an important commitment. I am delighted the representatives of EirGrid were here when we received the letter so that they could give that commitment.

This morning's presentation has been very informative. EirGrid has a big responsibility and faces a complex task in ensuring a sufficient supply of electricity to meet demand. How confident is EirGrid that we have sufficient capacity in the short to medium term? In the course of the presentation representatives of EirGrid spoke about projected demands in the context of regional economic development. Is this a real hindrance to further regional economic development?

Mr. Byrne mentioned challenges that need to be addressed in the context of the consultation process. He said he intends to reply to the thousands of letters received. Will deficits in the consultation process be addressed in other ways?

At our meeting last week the committee looked at various portfolios on offer to meet the demand for electricity. Portfolio No. 5 had a considerable renewable energy component with a significant wind factor. How confident is EirGrid regarding the security and reliability of wind to provide electricity capacity? EirGrid has mentioned the risk to supply in periods when there is not sufficient wind to generate energy. It is also my understanding that in phases when the wind is too strong it would be necessary to cease using wind for energy generation. This must have implications for the consistent supply of electricity. Is EirGrid confident that wind generation is sufficiently secure and reliable? In other parts of the world the possibility of electricity generation using wave power is being investigated. Should we examine these possibilities?

Could it be feasible for individuals who invest in renewable energy generating systems in their own homes to access the grid? If such individuals generate electricity in excess of their own needs could it be feasible for them to send that excess energy back to the grid?

Deputy Margaret Conlon asked if placing the line under ground would reduce our carbon footprint. I would appreciate hearing an answer to that question.

I accept EirGrid's point that nowhere in the world has such a length of cable been placed under ground. While I appreciate the difficulties involved, we could see this not as a deterrent but as an opportunity to pioneer.

I congratulate the joint committee. We have come a long way. I join my colleagues in Meath East in stressing the importance of working together to make a difference in respect of this issue. This has been achieved by a combination of the work of this all-party committee and Fianna Fáil's meetings and correspondence with EirGrid before and after Christmas, during which party politics were left to one side. I also join colleagues in recognising the way people in the Visitors Gallery and those who have attended the meetings or written to us have given a lead by working together and presenting a united voice.

The Minister's announcement of the study represents a very important moment and it is important we take full value from it. I agree with Deputy Brady on the importance of agricultural issues and I am pleased that the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is meeting EirGrid to examine the issues that arise in that sector.

The key issue from the point of view of families living in the areas affected remains, as Deputy O'Hanlon said, the fear of the dangers to health. Deputy Coveney said this was an important piece of infrastructure and that we needed to move ahead with it in the not too distant future but we must communicate properly with people. A number of points made during the meeting flagged the difficulties there have been with communication and public consultation. We remain convinced that the people we represent deserve clearer information. Their fears over health are not being allayed by the manner in which the information is being communicated.

I was promised a map at the meeting last week but have still not received it. Can Mr. Cooke let me have one? In the context of the overall consents, Deputy O'Hanlon said there was unanimity at all of the meetings he attended that the cable should go underground. However, EirGrid does not leave us with the sense that the underground option is being looked at. We and the people we represent would like to hear it state it would love to put the cables underground, to allay people's fears over health, and that it was looking at the possibility of doing so. As a speaker said, we have a duty to represent the people who elected us. That is why we are present today and have attended all the other meetings.

As I said, health remains the number one concern of the people other members and I represent. We are grateful to the Minister, this committee and everybody who has brought about the commission of an independent study and must use our time well to provide good, clear information that people can understand. We also need a clear sense that the wishes of the people that the lines be put underground are being seriously addressed.

I am grateful to the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to say a few words. With other speakers, I welcome EirGrid and thank its representatives for answering the questions put to them and attempting to answer those of a more difficult nature. I join members of the committee in welcoming the voluntary groups present in the Visitors Gallery. I also welcome the councillors who have attended at their own expense. I refer to Councillor Liz McCormack from Meath County Council, Owen Bannigan from Monaghan County Council, and Councillors Clifford Kelly, Shane P. O'Reilly and Seán McKiernan from my own county of Cavan.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has announced, through the Chairman, the independent feasibility study. It is very important that this study is seen to be independent and that its terms of reference address not only the cost factors, as outlined by Senator Corrigan, but also the health and environmental concerns people have. I thank EirGrid for clarifying that it is a totally independent body, because this is contrary to the impression being given by some at public meetings I have attended.

There is genuine concern among the people of counties Meath, Cavan and Monaghan. They are concerned at issues such as the devaluation of property, planning permission difficulties, the health implications and the impact on tourism, as Senator O'Reilly mentioned. They want to know why it is not possible to put the cables underground, a subject on which we have heard a number of arguments. The public consultations could have been handled better by EirGrid and the representatives it sent to speak in the counties involved. As Deputy Byrne said, there is concern in Kingscourt, County Cavan, about the proposed location of the substation. While I accept the answer given to the effect that no site has yet been identified, that is not the impression local people have. There is grave concern the substation could be located on Loughinlea mountain, an important tourist attraction. Councillor Clifford Kelly has been in contact with EirGrid and proposed that one of the disused gypsum mines in Kingscourt be considered as a possible location. Can EirGrid clarify the position in that regard?

Ms Bernie Gray

A number of questions have been raised and we will do our best to deal with them. If we do not answer any today, we will return to members with detailed responses. If we overlook anything, it is because of the range and detail of some of the questions.

A number of members asked about EirGrid's obligation and what exactly that meant. We set out our statutory responsibility which is to provide a safe, secure, reliable and economic electricity system. A compromise is inherent in all those factors. EirGrid's obligation in terms of transmission development is to take cognisance of all of them.

Concerns have been raised about the fact that the available studies seem to indicate the underground option has not been explored. If it has not been explored, it is because EirGrid, in seeking to deliver on its obligation, does so on the basis of the available information, which indicates that the underground option is excessively costly. I know there are significant concerns. As Deputy O'Hanlon said, the key issue is not so much the danger to health but the fear of the danger to health. In the absence of any definitive information, however, EirGrid must act in the most responsible way possible, taking everything into account. That is the way it has sought to conduct its business heretofore.

A number of other issues were raised such as the communications process. I thank Deputy McEntee, as he is the only person who has praised the efforts of EirGrid in this respect in the past few months. EirGrid has sought to communicate its plans through a series of open days, e-mails, etc.

The question of how we can deal with the issue of the fear of danger as distinct from danger was raised. The only way that can be done is through open communication. I hope members of the committee feel that our presence here and our attempt to answer questions indicates that we are as convinced as they are regarding the merits of open communication and that we are doing all we can to address the issues. We are happy to co-operate with the independent study in this regard and we will do whatever we can to facilitate it. We are happy to take on board any comments in regard to our communication process and how it could be improved. We will do what can be done within reasonable boundaries.

In regard to EirGrid's stance on the progression of this project while the independent study is being conducted, no submission will be made to the strategic infrastructure board until such time as the independent study has been completed. My colleagues will deal with the other questions.

Would Ms Gray agree that in the interests of bringing everybody together it is crucial that the people of Cavan and Monaghan, not the elected representatives who were elected from across the political spectrum, will be part of the mechanism of ensuring this process is independent? Given that this is potentially a grey area, would she accept that two or three representatives of the people should be brought into the process to ensure from day one that there will be no such grey area?

Ms Bernie Gray

The independent study is not a matter for EirGrid. EirGrid will co-operate fully with it but it is for this committee to determine appropriate avenues.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

We will do our best to answer all of the questions. If we overlook any, members can return to them. There were questions regarding security of supply in the short to medium term. I will ask Mr. Fintan Slye, our operations director, to talk about that.

Mr. Fintan Slye

There were a few interrelated questions regarding security of supply. We publish a winter outlook annually which looks at the next winter period and the adequacy of supplies. We did that last August and published a report which found, in summary, that there was sufficient generation capacity, either available or coming on stream, to ensure that security of supply standards will be met over the winter months. That was aided greatly by the commissioning of a new power station at Huntstown in October last year, just before the winter. That 400 MW helped greatly. We also publish a monthly availability report which looks at the performance of generation plant in the previous month and looks ahead to security of supply over the coming months to assess adequacy.

Looking to the medium term, there are some key developments that affect security of supply. There are two new large generating stations planned for the Cork area, one being developed by the ESB and one by Bord Gáis. Other significant interests have been widely signalled in other areas for other large-scale power plants by 2011. All of those are very welcome additions that help security of supply. It is also helped by the commissioning of the east-west interconnector. That provides a link with the British power system and assists security of supply. The North-South interconnector links the two grids North and South and enables a greater sharing of reserve and sharing of security of supply.

There are two other dynamics going on in the timeframe about which we are talking. One is the divestment and closure by the ESB of some of its older power plants that it has signalled in agreement with the regulator. It is examining the possibility of selling or closing approximately 1,300 MW of its older, typically oil-fired, plant over that period. That removes that source from the system. Where the advent of the new plants was a positive, this is a negative, but it involves some of the older power plants.

The other dynamic is the availability of the power stations that are connected to the system. The generator performance overall on a system level is below what we would expect internationally. The amount of time for which generators are available obviously has negative connotations for security of supply. At the moment generator availability on a rolling 52-week basis is running at below 80%, taking the system as a whole. We would like to see higher levels of around 85% to improve this situation. In regard to the medium term, if the various developments I outlined take place, security of supply will be adequate over that period.

There was a question about portfolio 5 and the amount of wind energy, for which the target is 42%. Levels of that order are higher than anywhere else in the world on an interconnected system at that level. Key to enabling that to happen is a range of flexible conventional plant behind that which can step in when the wind is not blowing and provide the back-up power for that degree of flexibility.

There were a few questions regarding pump storage. Such technologies can be extremely helpful and come into play when, for example, a cold front brings very cold, still days with no wind blowing anywhere. That is one of the things that are necessary in order to get us to those levels of wind energy. The other key issue is the east-west interconnector to the UK which, at times of high wind, would potentially allow us to export wind power to the UK or import energy at other times when wind power is low.

At times of high wind, wind turbine technology cuts out. For safety reasons, the blades feather. The wind speeds at which that happens are getting higher as the various manufacturers produce stronger wind turbines. As wind increases across the country, the amount of electricity delivered from wind increases up to a point at which the wind turbines begin to cut out because their blades feather and output reduces. The response to that is to have flexible plant and better forecasting tools. EirGrid is investing quite a lot in improving its forecasting tools so that it can forecast what the wind output will be.

Wave power was identified in the White Paper as a component of the then 33% target. It is quite a bit behind wind in terms of commercialisation of the technologies. There are at least two research development projects going on in the country and one of them was spoken about at our annual conference towards the end of last year. In the timeframe out to 2020 we hope wave power will get to a commercial stage where it could be part of the overall portfolio and provide some diversity and mix in that renewables space.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

I will pick up on some of the other questions. There was a question about regional development. That is an issue we take seriously. It is our job to make sure that the full network in all areas in the country meet the criteria we set and that are approved by the regulator. We do that through a very open, transparent planning process. We develop transmission plans and put them out to consultation. We are about to publish our second five-year transmission plan, having consulted with interested parties throughout the country. I have attended presentations on this subject by various regional development authorities. It is something we take very seriously because we understand the importance of regional development for inward investment and jobs in those areas. That is fundamental to what we do.

The question of the carbon footprint of underground versus overhead lines was raised. My earlier answer about losses put that in context. The losses are very small. They are about 2% on the total system. Our chairperson has addressed the issue of the consultation process. We will be working to improve it in whatever way we can. It requires help from public representatives. We would welcome assistance from public representatives in the consultation process. There will be ongoing consultation as we go through this and other projects. This is not the only project.

Senator Corrigan asked about the feasibility of access to the grid. This is not really an issue for the transmission grid, which sits at the very high voltage level. At the distribution level it is a question for ESB Networks. I know that ESB Networks is in discussion with the regulator regarding smart metering. All of these technologies will facilitate that in some sense. It is not really an issue for EirGrid.

Mr. Andrew Cooke

A point was made about the basis for our figures. Any figures we provide are solidly based. If any impression to the contrary was given I regret that. There are unknowns, which is why we and others tend to talk about ranges. There is a very small manufacturing capability for cables of this type in Europe. It is difficult to know what the price would be if one were to order cable on this kind of scale. We do not pull figures out of the air. If we offer figures or technical opinions they will be solidly based. I regret if anyone representing us gave any indication to the contrary.

It was mentioned that high voltage DC is less expensive than AC underground. That is probably true for the actual cables. High voltage DC cables are cheaper per kilometre than AC. However, if one uses HV DC for any purpose one must also install a converter station at each end of the project and that is an expensive item of equipment. When looking at overall project costs one must take both into account.

There is already a converter at Woodland and I believe there is one in County Tyrone at the DC line coming from Scotland. Would that reduce the cost of using the DC line?

Mr. Andrew Cooke

The converter station at Woodland is to take the power coming on or off the east-west interconnector to Wales and convert it to AC. To transmit it onward by DC one would need another converter station to convert it back to DC. At every point where one wants to take power on or off the DC link one needs a converter station. Mr. Dermot Byrne made the point about the additional cost of tapping into the DC line for generation or to take customer demand off it. We intend to address the issues of HV DC technologies in our submissions as part of the planning application. In deference to the independent study, which I presume would also intend to look at some of these issues, I will not go into that any further. There will be further investigation into that matter.

It is certainly technically feasible to install a DC link over a long distance underground. The cost is very significant and it does not perform in the same way as an AC system. Whether it is technically feasible for a project of this size on the Irish system is a different question. One can put a line underground over long distances but how it will interact with the system is another question. I cannot say it is feasible at this point.

Deputy English mentioned the consultants to Meath County Council. I believe they also acknowledged this. If I recall correctly they used the term, "subject to systems studies". This would relate to issues such as short circuit and system dynamic performance, which I will not go into here. I do not know if it is feasible in a project of this scale. Feasibility is one issue. The issues of cost, reliability and performance remain.

Is Mr. Cooke willing to check it out?

Mr. Andrew Cooke

We can certainly look into the systems study side of it. Feasibility is one of a number of issues to be considered. The reliability and cost issues are different with DC and AC. The cost implications of an underground DC line would still be several times the cost of an overhead AC solution.

Will the preferred route be announced before the study? That issue is causing much anxiety and clarification would be a help.

Mr. Dermot Byrne

Because of this morning's announcement we will not be going to the Strategic Infrastructure Development Board. We have given that commitment. We need to work with the Department on timelines. We have a commitment with the people of the north east to provide a reliable power supply. We do not want this committee to come to us in a few years time complaining about the lack of infrastructure when someone wants to build a factory.

It is crucial that it be made clear within the next 48 hours where we stand in relation to the feasibility study and the project. This project will not get off the ground with goodwill if routes are announced and the project launched at this point. The project will do more than bring power to the people in the north east. It is about selling electricity on.

Mr. Andrew Cooke

I did not answer the question about the site in the Kingscourt area. I said no site has been acquired. In the same way that we are looking at route options we are looking at potential site options. We have had some engagement with landowners regarding those sites. At this point, no single site has been identified and certainly no site has been acquired.

I thank Mr. Cooke for that clarification. Has EirGrid looked at the disused gypsum mine? If not, will it be looked at?

Mr. Andrew Cooke

We have not looked at it. I am not aware that a substation of this size and technology has ever been put underground.

There is a first time for everything.

I thank Mr. Fintan Slye, Mr. Andrew Cooke, Mr. Dermot Byrne and Ms Bernie Gray for their attendance. We have given the issue a thorough airing. I thank the members of the public and local representatives who travelled to observe our proceedings and the members who participated.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.40 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 13 February 2008.
Barr
Roinn