JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES díospóireacht

North-South Interconnector: Discussion with North-East Pylon Pressure.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Francis Lally, chairman of the North-East Pylon Pressure campaign, Mr. Padraig O'Reilly, Mr. Colin Andrew and Mr. Paul Anderson. I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee which cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Furthermore, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I understand the presentation is being divided. I invite Mr. Lally to make his opening remarks. He will be followed by Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Andrew.

Mr. Francis Lally

On behalf of North-East Pylon Pressure, I thank the Chairman and members of the joint committee for the opportunity afforded to us to advocate the case for putting the proposed EirGrid high power electric cables underground in the north-eastern counties of Monaghan, Cavan and Meath. I acknowledge the courtesy shown to us by the clerk to the committee, Mr. Eoin Faherty, in making arrangements for today.

I am chairman of North-East Pylon Pressure. With me are my colleagues Mr. Padraig O'Reilly, Mr. Colin Andrew and Mr. Paul Anderson from County Monaghan. After my short introduction, I will ask Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Andrew to brief the committee on the overall case in favour of putting the power lines underground.

The North-East Pylon Pressure campaign is the overall representative group for the people of the north east who advocate that high power electric cables should be put underground. We have active local committees in more than 30 towns, villages and parishes, representing more than 45,000 people who will potentially be affected. Our core committee is representative of the local committees. Within the ranks of our committees and supporters we draw on an impressive depth of expertise and experience in areas such as health, technology, heritage, the environment, law, farming, tourism and property values.

We are not professional protesters. We are not from "rent-a-crowd". We are ordinary, decent people who have been galvanised into taking action in this campaign because of the threat we face. Let me stress, too, that we favour increased recourse to renewable energy sources for the generation of electricity. We favour a strengthened national electricity grid. I need hardly add that as ordinary hardworking citizens we are for economic development but not at any price — not at the price of people's lives and health and irreparable damage to our environment, heritage and livelihoods.

We welcome the committee's decision to hold public hearings on this issue. We have also given a qualified welcome to the decision by the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, to appoint international consultants to report on overground versus underground power lines in the context of the future development of the national grid but we assert it is not enough. The consultants' report must not be allowed merely to end up in the clutches of the Department or of EirGrid. EirGrid is a State company. It is not the private plaything of some senior executives in a corporate headquarters. As a State company EirGrid, taking into account the outcome of the proposed consultants' report, must be made accountable to the political system, this committee, this House and the people.

A decision on the undergrounding of future high power cables is not a single one-dimensional decision. It must be a multi-faceted, balanced decision to include not just our technology but health, environment, heritage, tourism, property values and people's livelihoods. Such a decision is the essence of politics.

We urge this committee to play a role in debating and evaluating the consultants' report. We believe a decision on this major national issue should not be left to a relative handful of unelected EirGrid executives but brought to the floor of Dáil Éireann for open and public debate and for amending legislation to direct EirGrid that all future high powered lines in every part of the country be placed safely underground. I now call on my colleague, Padraig O'Reilly, to outline the thrust of our case in favour of undergrounding.

Mr. Padraig O’Reilly

Chairman, Deputies and Senators, I have a background in science and business but, like my colleagues, I am here in a private capacity and on a voluntary basis. Before I agreed to get involved in this campaign I carried out some research on the subject. It became clear to me from an early stage that the concept of undergrounding is a legitimate, well-founded, rational and responsible argument that deserves not just the attention of the people of the north east but of the nation and its policy makers. It is fair to say, however, that no policy or project decision is ever black or white. There is always a trade-off involved. Our campaign is firmly rooted in the trade-off of what is acceptable and what is right for the people of this country versus the potential technical and cost hurdles to be crossed.

I will move on to the cornerstone of our arguments in favour of undergrounding the North-South interconnector. The following aspects will be positively impacted by choosing the underground alternative: our fears and anxieties regarding perceived health risks will be alleviated; our environmental and ecological responsibilities will be better served; our agriculture and farming industries and communities will not be penalised; our land and properties will not be devalued; our tourism industry and areas of scenic beauty will be preserved; our heritage and landscape areas will be protected; and our responsibility as guardians of the countryside for future generations will be fulfilled.

I will deal first with the important argument for undergrounding in respect of health. There are two aspects at play here, concerns about the potential health effects of overhead lines and the health effects caused by the stress and anxiety of being in proximity to these lines. The old truism remains steadfast, namely, that reality is the perception of the majority. The majority of people believe that electromagnetic fields from overhead electricity lines adversely affect their health.

EirGrid has clung dearly to its mantra that the North-South interconnector complies with all the World Health Organisation guidelines. However, I wish to point out the following. It is incorrect for EirGrid to state that there are no ill health effects because these lines are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a possible carcinogen or group 2b for childhood leukaemia. Other agencies have the same classification for other forms of cancer. The World Health Organisation's agency admits, albeit reluctantly, that it is a possible carcinogen.

International limits set for exposure to electromagnetic fields were never designed to protect against cancer. The compliance levels currently set are 250 times higher than the levels being observed to cause a doubling of the risk of developing childhood leukaemia. Threshold levels should be set well below, rather than above, where increased health effects are being documented.

Since 2000, 107 scientific papers have been published in peer reviewed journals. Sixty nine of those linked electromagnetic fields to various forms of cancer, 30 were inconclusive and only eight showed no links. In Britain, research by Draper et al in 2005 found that living within 200 metres of high voltage power lines increases a child’s chance of getting leukaemia by 69% and within 600 metres it was increased by an average of 20%. EirGrid will not even commit to placing the lines a minimum of 50 metres, without exception, from existing dwellings.

A report in May 2007 by the UK Government stakeholder advisory group on electromagnetic fields notes that there is a cost-benefit analysis for all health issues of 1:50. That is, €1 million spent on reducing electromagnetic field exposure is recouped in €50 million worth of health benefits.

Regarding health, it is fair to say that at times the precautionary principle can be misused as a barrier to technological progress. When taken to its extreme, the principle of precaution would prevent us from getting out of bed in the morning. All technology carries benefits and risks, which must be carefully weighed. No one doubts the major benefit of a sustainable electricity supply. In this case, however, there is a crucial dimension, namely, an alternative that eliminates the risk. It is our contention that when the risk involved is related to childhood cancer and other diseases, it should be avoided, no matter how potentially small it might be considered. Where there is a viable alternative it is our responsibility to use it.

Closely linked to health and caring for our people comes caring for our environment and our ecology. The whole subject of climate change and our responsibilities in regard to greenhouse gas emissions has been brought centre stage. It is undeniable that undergrounding the North-South interconnector and future proposed extra high voltage lines is significantly more environmentally responsible than the increased construction of overhead pylons. First, there will be reduced greenhouse gas emissions through reduced power transmission losses. Transmission losses are the power losses in an electrical system and are typically approximately 5% to 7% of the total power put into the system. Transmission losses represent a loss in value and an increase in fuel burn and environmental impact. In Europe, transmission line losses alone represent the waste of approximately 20 million tonnes of coal, 3.1 million tonnes of gas and 1.7 million tonnes of oil. The annual loss in value is approximately €12 billion.

The annual increase in greenhouse gas emissions is approximately 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. In some countries, older transformer infrastructure and lines can yield losses as high as 21%. Ireland's grid losses are above the European average. Reducing these power transmission losses makes a valuable contribution to lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

Second, there will be a reduced carbon footprint through reduced land use and material choice. Underground cables and overhead lines have significantly different footprints throughout the countryside when completed. While an overhead line requires a strip approximately 60 m wide to be kept permanently clear for safety, maintenance and repair, an underground cable of the same capacity requires only 10 m or so.

The use of high quantities of steel and concrete in the construction and placement of pylons on land adds greatly to the carbon footprint in comparison with the latest advances in underground cabling. The material intensity of an alternating current overhead transmission line is considerably higher than a direct current cable. Using life cycle assessment to analyse the "cradle to grave" material impact, the direct current underground cable has only 17.6% of the environmental impact of the alternating current overhead line.

Noise is one of the most pervasive pollutants of the modern world. Overhead extra high voltage lines contribute to noise pollution.

Agriculture and farming is an integral part of the region proposed for the North-South interconnector. Farmers and landowners are opposed to these pylons being placed on their land. There are a number of practical reasons for that. Overhead pylon towers are a source of significant intrusion and invasion on to farmers' lands, both in the construction phase and when established as permanent fixtures. Everyone involved in farming knows how troublesome and time-consuming it is to have to work around poles, never mind pylons, from the perspective of machinery and working the land. Undergrounding eliminates all these problems forever.

Farmers and their employees will be most at risk from overhead lines. The public is concerned about the distance they will be located from these lines but farmers will have to walk and work under them on a daily basis.

Farmers are very concerned about exposure to future litigation issues. This relates to the grey area of ownership and responsibility for health claims that might ensue from neighbours and neighbouring housing estates where adjacent pylons exist in farmers' fields.

The obvious and major concern of land and property devaluation looms large on people's minds. Associated with the reduction in land utilisation from the use of overhead lines is the loss of potential value of the land for construction of residential or commercial dwellings. It is our understanding that planning permission for a new house will not be allowed within a 200 m distance from an overhead 400 kV line. This will virtually eliminate the possibility of many fields with roadside frontage being suitable for planning applications.

More than 60 studies have been carried out during the past 50 years to assess the impact of overhead power lines on the value of residential property. The most common effects identified and cited in court cases in the US are claims of a reduction in market price, properties being slower to sell and a decrease in sales volume. Factors such as unsightliness and visual and noise pollution were often identified as negative influences on property values. A study carried out in Britain in 2007 showed the value of detached properties at a distance of less than 100 m from overhead transmission lines was 38% lower than comparable properties. The effect of devaluation has been up to 2.5 km from such lines. In regard to non-residential holdings, a rigorous and comprehensive study in Canada more than 20 years ago found that the per acre values from more than 1,000 agricultural property sales were 16% to 29% lower for properties with easements for transmission lines than for similar properties without easements.

I will move on to the linked arguments of visual and landscape impact and the central role they play, particularly in the overall vision of our tourism industry. The future of Irish tourism is inextricably linked to the quality of our environment. Ireland's distinctive scenic landscapes, rivers and lakes, and cultural heritage are the bedrock upon which Irish tourism has been built. Ireland is marketed heavily worldwide for its natural scenic landscapes and for its unspoilt environment.

In 2006, overseas tourist visits to Ireland increased to an estimated 7.4 million; tourism total foreign exchange earnings were €4.7 billion; and the tourism and hospitality sector supported 12% of jobs in Ireland. Annual visitor surveys repeatedly confirm that Ireland is prized by overseas visitors for its clean, green image. In 2006, 80% of visitors rated Ireland's scenery as an important reason for visiting Ireland; 75% of overseas visitors agreed with the statement that "Ireland is a clean and environmentally green destination"; and 74% said they were attracted by the natural unspoilt environment. Construction of extra high voltage lines across the north east will negatively impact on tourism in this region. Furthermore, special tourism attraction activities such as equestrian, angling and ballooning will be negatively affected.

I wish now to address the important topic of heritage and landscape. Our heritage is inextricably linked to our identity as people, communities and as a nation. It, although dynamic and constantly evolving, is a non-renewable asset and resource that requires careful and informed management. It plays an essential role in maintaining a high quality of life and is the basis of our tourism industry. The north east is the heritage capital of the country. It includes sites of world renown, such as Brú na Bóinne, one of only two world heritage sites in the country, and Tara. County Monaghan has a unique natural, built and archaeological heritage. The unique features include the drumlin landscape from which the county takes its name. The landscape has given rise to a variety of natural and semi-natural habitats including wetland, woodland, lake, river and upland habitats that support a wide range of plant and animal species. These areas are in the main extremely sensitive and are susceptible to any change that affects the ecological balance. County Monaghan's rich archaeological heritage includes a collection of ring forts, crannogs, burial grounds as well as industrial archaeology including the dismantled Great Northern Railway and the Ulster Canal.

Future generations will not thank us if we needlessly erode the special character and quality of Ireland's landscape. It would be a fitting legacy of our campaign that, despite the excesses of the Celtic tiger era, we took the time to provide a sound basis for protection of what is one of our irreplaceable assets, the Irish landscape.

I will now hand over to my colleague, Mr. Colin Andrew, to outline the technical and cost arguments.

Mr. Colin Andrew

Like my colleague, Mr. O'Reilly, I have a background in science, engineering and international business and, like my colleagues, I am here in a private capacity and on a voluntary basis.

For more than a century electrical transmission systems have been based mainly on overhead transmission lines. The principal reason for this has been the cost advantage when compared to high-voltage underground transmission. Up to the late 1990s this cost premium against underground transmission was in the range of five or even perhaps 15 times the traditional overhead transmission alternative. However, this comparison is already dated and multiples can now be as low as equal to or only twice the capital cost of overhead transmission lines. This can be seen in the increasing utilisation of underground cable methods throughout the world and in Europe in particular.

Two main factors are affecting this change. The first factor is that environmental restrictions are increasing the costs and implementation time for overhead transmission. EirGrid, in its draft transmission plan 2007-2011 published last October, highlights that the time from design to construction of an underground cable project is approximately four years, compared to 7.25 years for a 400,000 volt overhead line. The reality is that this is often being exceeded in many cases resulting in perhaps ten to 15-year delays because of landowner and public opposition. The second factor is that technological developments in recent years by companies such as ABB, Siemens, Pirelli and Europacables have significantly reduced unit and capital costs of underground line construction, and of the terminal and in-line installations. In addition, technological developments have also included new trenchless methods of cable installation such as thrust boring and directional drilling, which substantially reduce the time for installing cables under roadways, railway crossings and in rural areas where habitats need to be preserved.

With new burial and jointing techniques, underground cable projects that once took years to complete now only take months to install. There has been general industry acceptance that underground cables are far more reliable, have a lower maintenance cost and a greater longevity than overhead lines. Several studies confirm the reliability of underground transmission. The North Carolina Utilities Commission in November 2003 found that underground outage rates are 50% less than with overhead transmission. The Maryland Public Service Commission in February 2000 found that underground systems of urban utilities have a lower frequency and duration of outages than overhead transmission. The Australian Government in November 1998 found that high voltage underground systems had 80% less outages than overhead lines. Accordingly, maintenance costs are substantially reduced to perhaps only 10% that of overhead power lines.

Developments have been made in improved monitoring techniques and to reduce outage time, power system operators can monitor underground cables through built-in temperature sensors. These sensors allow the cable to safely accept enormous emergency power overloads when other parts of the network are down. This means that the overall system becomes more robust and supply is maintained. In the rare event of a cable fault, which is generally caused by an external disturbance, advanced monitoring of temperature and integrity in real time will allow faults to be located immediately to within 1 m and repairs to be carried out in a much shorter timeframe than in the past. Clearly, these have cost benefit analysis and a central tenet of EirGrid's preference for overhead lines is its claim that underground cables involve significantly higher installation costs, higher maintenance costs and a reduced security of supply. These assumptions are generalised and are mostly misleading.

When considering a power project, one must consider the costs over the life cycle of the system installed as well as the upfront costs. The upfront cost is paid in the first instance but the life cycle cost includes not only the upfront cost but the costs of maintenance and cost of power losses in the system over time. Efficient modem systems of any kind in any walk of life usually cost more upfront but, ultimately, will save money in the long term.

While every cable system has project specific costs, one such as an interconnector running through counties Monaghan, Meath and Cavan would be in the lower quartile of such cost profiles due to flat terrain, favourable geological conditions in the cover units for trenching and cable emplacement and relatively few infrastructural barriers.

North-East Pylon Pressure, NEPP, has used a number of cost models using the above parameters and on the reduction in transmission loss alone we believe that no additional costs would ensue to the consumer or to the transmission system operator if underground costs were even two and half times that of overhead lines on a 30 year lifecycle basis. NEPP also estimates that even at the extremely unlikely multiple of five times the cost for overhead lines that the additional cost passed on to the consumer would be no greater than €2.20 per month. Hence, we ask the question, is €2 a month too much to pay to safeguard our children's health for generations to come and to save our country from the blight of pylons for generations?

There is even a further option. We believe that following considerable research there are no impediments or technical difficulties to run this interconnector offshore and sub-sea, either from south-west Scotland or from the Northern Ireland grid. Not only would this make logical sense in that it could be laid at the same time as the east-west interconnector to Wales, using the same vessel and utilising the same onshore corridor, but it would be much cheaper than either overhead transmission lines or underground cables. Not only would this make logical sense in that it could be laid at the same time as the east-west interconnector to Wales using the same vessel and utilising the same onshore corridor, but it would be much cheaper than either overhead transmission lines or underground cables.

Let me put it very simply. When the members leave these buildings this evening and walk through the gates of Leinster House they should look around them — right, left, up and down. They will not see a single electricity pole or overhead line. Why? The lines have been placed underground. This has been achieved in the centre of the city, on one of the most valuable pieces of land in the country, despite all the technical hurdles of buildings, roads and a densely populated area. Yet we are led to believe by a State company that it is not feasible to place these lines underground in wide open countryside. I rest my case on that point. Mr. Francis Lally will make some concluding remarks.

Mr. Francis Lally

The committee has heard the broad arguments justifying our campaign. I will briefly follow up on the last point Colin made. There is deep frustration in rural communities on this issue and how it has unfolded. EirGrid wants to burden us with an unsafe, unsightly and outmoded technology. The Minister has proposed a total of 650 additional kilometres of these extra high voltage lines. This represents a two and a half fold increase over existing lines. The proposed Meath-Cavan-Monaghan line represents only 12% of the extra lines proposed. It will be the spine of the new strategy. However, all the vertebrae will be added on at various angles, criss-crossing the country from west to east like the bones of a dead dinosaur.

We call on the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and his Department to reveal all of the remaining 600 or so kilometres of overhead lines so that a proper assessment by this committee can be made of the scale and impact of this project on rural Ireland. Our campaign looks to our elected representatives and in particular this joint Oireachtas committee, to have the vision and the knowledge to understand the value of an underground strategy. What value do we put on our heritage? What value do we place on our environment and on our landscape? What value do we place on the support and goodwill of our people? I thank the committee for its attention. We will be happy to answer questions.

Chairman

The members of the committee will contribute in the following order: Deputy Coveney, Deputy McManus, Deputy Brady, Senator O'Reilly, Deputy O'Hanlon, Deputy English, Deputy Byrne, Deputy McEntee and Deputy Conlon. I ask members to be brief. They are speaking to the converted and Second Stage speeches are not necessary. Everybody wants an opportunity to contribute. Some members must also attend another committee meeting so they will have to leave and return during this meeting.

Before calling Deputy Coveney I have a question for Mr. Andrew. You referred to the cost in one part of your presentation. We have been hearing exorbitant figures from different sources. Can you give an example to prove your case?

Mr. Colin Andrew

There are many examples around the world. Perhaps the easiest is the Murray link in Australia. I can give the committee the precise details but it was built at a cost of approximately €1 million per kilometre. It was also commissioned, built and completed within two years. It was built expressly for environmental reasons. If one can underground a cable through red dirt desert in Australia, where nobody lives, why can it not be done where thousands of people live?

Deputy Simon Coveney

I welcome the members of the NEPP and acknowledge the volume of work they have done. The fact that all the concerned people in three counties trust the group to represent them is a substantial political achievement in itself, apart from the issue being discussed at all. I have been to Meath to meet a number of the members of NEPP and various concerned residents. NEPP is absolutely right that they are not a rent-a-crowd or group of seasoned campaigners who are against everything. They are normal people going about their business, living and working in the areas concerned, who are very worried about what is proposed. NEPP has succeeded in achieving a shift in Government policy and getting the attention of politicians in Leinster House.

The result is what a number of us have been calling for over a period of time — a genuinely independent study examining global best practice and what is possible with the technology currently available that was not available five or ten years ago. I hope the report will challenge the consensus put forward by EirGrid, that the only practical and viable solution is to go overground. A number of members have challenged EirGrid on that but the only way to do so viably is with the independent study that has been commissioned. Well done to the NEPP in that regard. The members of the committee are open to the ideas being proposed by NEPP. If my questions are challenging it is not because I am attempting to undermine NEPP's arguments but to understand the facts. I hope our guests will take the questions in that vein.

Mr. O'Reilly suggested that this interconnector could go offshore and essentially be a DC line rather than an AC line. I have some concerns with that. My understanding is that this is not the same as building an east-west interconnector. A direct current line is not required. It is an extra piece of grid backbone, as it were, which must be either an AC, alternating current, line or some sort of hybrid DC, direct current, line. I cannot remember the name of the line concerned. It must be a line from which one can take power at various segments along the line and it must be able to carry current both ways. I am aware of the technical challenges with the east-west interconnector and why that infrastructure will go underground. There are no technical barriers to putting a direct current line underground. It is like a train tunnel in that the current starts at one end and is transferred to the other and vice versa. The alternating current line is more complex infrastructure because current is travelling both ways all the time. I understand from EirGrid that this infrastructure is not just an interconnector but is also a part of the national grid on which we need alternating current. We have challenged EirGrid on this. We have been told by companies such as ABB that there is technology available to allow for the equivalents of AC lines along the route we are discussing. What are the NEPP’s views on this?

It is important to be up front on this issue. The resolution of this problem will set a precedent for other pieces of infrastructure throughout the country. One can tell people that if it costs twice to put it underground what it would cost to put it overground, it will cost the Irish consumer an average of €2.20 extra per month and that is the end of it. However, I do not believe that is the case. If this goes underground, the next piece of infrastructure we have to build will go underground as well on precedent and for the same reasons being offered today, which are valid arguments. It is a little simplistic to say this will not cost any more than €2.20 per month for the consumer. As Mr. Andrew correctly pointed out, there are another 650 km of line, although I accept it will not be a 400 kV line. Communities in other parts of the country will certainly make the case for going underground. Potentially, communities currently living under or near the 400 kV line linking the Moneypoint plant with Dublin, may well make a case for compensation if the arguments of putting infrastructure underground are valid on health grounds. They may also feel they have a case for putting their infrastructure underground as well. There is a lot of precedent but we need to be brave enough to take it on. If the arguments that Mr. Andrew outlined, particularly concerning health and the technical and financial viability of putting it underground, prove to be the case with the independent study, and if we set a precedent then so be it. We will see in a number of weeks when we get the independent study. I look forward to talking to the representatives at that stage again, whether at this committee or elsewhere.

Mr. Colin Andrew

Unfortunately, we are also a little confused as to what exactly is this development. Initially, it was presented as being an interconnector as part of the EU TENs initiative. It was project EL6. We understand that EU funds were drawn from this and used to pay consultants for the various studies so far. More recently, EirGrid has claimed the reasons for the Tyrone woodland link, which is now called a powerline, included the following:

To provide high quality bulk power supply for the north-east, to support growth in the region and ensure continuing reliability of supply [that is, notwithstanding that demand in Monaghan is currently falling], to boost existing industry in the north-east when competing for business and inward development in the area, and to guarantee the security of supply for future decades.

Their quote was that if nothing is done now, by 2012 there is likely to be insufficient network capacity required to supply demand in the north east. This statement was made notwithstanding EirGrid's admission that 7.25 years would be the minimum expectation to completion, i.e. 2016. On this basis it looks like the north east will have no power for four years according to EirGrid's pronouncements. EirGrid also claimed it would increase competition and therefore reduce the cost of electricity to all customers, and increase reliability of the local network in the north east for all electricity customers. Members of the committee will notice that the north east figures heavily here. Subsequent to this we have now heard pronouncements that this is not an interconnector, and is only grid reinforcement. Therefore, if it is not an interconnector, we believe we are entitled to ask if it qualifies as being strategic infrastructure and has planning exemptions accordingly. If it is only part of the gird, surely it must be subject to the rigours of a full planning inquiry by the local relevant authorities — the county councils.

Even more recently, we note that in EirGrid's submission to this committee only two weeks go, it appears the real purpose is the export of 688 megawatts of power to Northern Ireland on an annual basis. Consequently, we find it rather difficult to make a suggestion as to which would be the appropriate technology: DC, direct current; HVDC, high-voltage direct current; or alternating current technology such as XLPE cross-linked polyester. It is difficult to make a judgment on which technology is the most appropriate. There is no doubt that AC cable is more expensive. We have done some cost models using available public information. Even taking a capital cost multiple of five times, which we believe is extremely high and was from EirGrid's P.B. Parke consultancy, it would raise the capital cost of the estimated €280 million for this powerline to €1,400 million. However, taking into consideration the maintenance savings we mentioned earlier and the cable savings in terms of lost energy, we believe that cost ratio comes down to 1.5. On the basis of a 1.5 multiple, that is less than 3 cent to every electricity consumer per month. Therefore we do not accept the cost information as being a reason for this.

The final remark was about people being adjacent to power lines to Moneypoint, but we understand that Moneypoint is going to be closed in the not too distant future.

Deputy Simon Coveney

But the powerline will not be. I will come back again after the others have asked their questions.

Deputy Liz McManus

I welcome the witnesses to this important meeting. They have certainly given us a comprehensive presentation. People have been struck by the scale of the approach that has been adopted to this particular development, including the size of the meetings and the way the North-East Pylon Pressure committee has organised its business. It has made a strong impact again today in a clear-sighted manner. It is helpful in terms of the process that has now been embarked upon as a result primarily of the group's work concerning the independent study. I have made a submission on behalf of the Labour Party asking for the study to include the under-sea option. I accept the points that Deputy Coveney made and it may be that the under-sea option is not appropriate, but at the moment there is nothing there on which we could make that judgment. The EirGrid material does not go into that option, yet we were given information by people who are technologically sophisticated and who argue that it is an option. It is important this matter is dealt with correctly and the only way to do that is to consider the three options. I have made a strong case to the Minister to include the under-sea option. Deputy Brady has also raised this point with EirGrid. This will be a test for the Minister and, as the delegation said at the beginning, it is crucial that it will not simply be an empty exercise. Much of the responsibility will be on us to ensure that it will not be an empty exercise and we are taking that point on board.

I am also interested in the point concerning the two purposes: is it an interconnector, is it supplying the north-east or is it doing both? In a sense, Mr. Andrew has raised an important point about planning law and I suspect it will be pursued further if the decision to go underground goes ahead.

I have a couple of other questions. First, does everybody support the underground option or would there be difficulties in gaining wayleaves to put cable underground? Second, the point was made about landowners being concerned about litigation. Does the delegation know what kind of guarantees of protection against litigation landowners would have if there were overground cables and such a case arose?

My last point concerns the visual impact, which is a significant issue. It may not be seen as important as health issues but I note that some other countries have decided to put cables underground from now on. Perhaps the delegation can comment on that and whether it is deemed to be an important issue in terms of its approach.

Mr. Francis Lally

I will take the first point concerning landowners. As a landowner myself and a person who is continually in touch with farmers throughout the community, I feel that EirGrid does not have the backing of landowners for this project in its present form, including no other option but the overground one. Having attended meetings and having spoken to those concerned, I know that if the underground option is to be considered, local people will be in a position to support it by working through us with EirGrid. It is felt that there would be public goodwill for an underground option and the North-South interconnector could go ahead in a very short time. The present overground proposal does not have public support, however.

Mr. Padraig O’Reilly

The litigation issue was raised but the problem is that it is a grey area. It is not clear what legislation would apply if a pylon is in a field belonging to a farmer, particularly if a neighbouring housing estate is built at a later date and there are health concerns. Our position on this is that if the line is underground and the high use of copper as a conductor is present in the underground cable, it eliminates the electromagnetic field and hence there is not an ability to have any concerns about health, and leukaemia in particular, whereas if it remains an overhead line, the electromagnetic field remains high and remains a health risk. Farmers really cannot get clear legal opinion on whether they would be liable and that is their concern with the overhead line.

Deputy Johnny Brady

I welcome the group to the committee and compliment it on its submission. Like everybody else, from meeting people and attending meetings I am aware that people are concerned and horrified at the prospect of these pylons and wires being close to their houses.

Given the submissions the committee has got from the different groups, they must be complimented on the amount of history they have complied. It will be beneficial to many historical societies in years to come. Even in my area, there are monuments and wells of which we never heard. In all fairness to the people who carried out these surveys, they must be complimented.

I have a few questions. I will not delay the committee because I must attend another meeting. Has the group carried out a study on the devaluation of farm land, residential property or commercial property close to where the pylons will be erected? Has the group carried out a study of the number of farmers whose planning permission for their sons or daughters will be affected? I have done some of this locally, where I know farmers and cottiers whose planning permission will be restricted. In this country there are many cottiers in whose garden a son or daughter would be able to build a house, and they will be restricted. Farmers with little road frontage will have to buy a site away from the farm. As we who are involved in farming know, it is important that whoever takes up the reins after their father or mother retires will be able to live close to their work. Particularly at calving or lambing time, it is important to live close to the farm. That type of restriction will arise if they cannot build on their own farms.

I asked questions of EirGrid a few weeks ago. Of course the company did not give us all the replies and yesterday I got some answers to the queries we raised. One reply states that as EirGrid previously noted, there are no examples anywhere in the world of AC projects at this voltage and length being placed underground. I am sure the group will be able to reply to that.

Another states that as it is expected, the east-west interconnector will continue underground to woodlands from the coast as the increased cost of equipment and installation is relatively small, possibly in the range of 10% to 20% of the project cost as compared to several hundred per cent in the case of other projects. I am sure that is untrue as well.

I thank the group and compliment it on its presentation.

Mr. Paul Anderson

I thank Deputy Brady for his questions. On property devaluation, across Meath and Monaghan we have had auctioneers working tirelessly looking at this issue and there are at least six studies carried out in the past five years from which we could draw. The bottom line is that extensive literature shows that for marketable properties, proximity to high pylon voltage lines reduces property values significantly. In most cases located within 500 m or so, in other words in clear sight of the power lines or the pylons, property values reduce by up to 20%. Then there is an upward scale depending on the value and location of the property.

There is a reduction of property values which applies to landowners. Already, development has become stagnant in some sites in counties Meath and Monaghan. We know of auctioneers who do not want it brought out in the public domain for obvious reasons, but the bottom line is that development has stopped until this proposed route is confirmed and people know where they stand. There are people on our committees who own sites that have been withdrawn from the market because they cannot sell them currently with the EirGrid proposal up in the air. It is a significant worry in terms of future development.

I am here representing Monaghan. While Mr. Padraig O'Reilly will talk about this as well, in Monaghan EirGrid has used the drumlin landscape as an excuse for using pylons. The company has stated the landscape suits the placing of pylons because the drumlin landscape will hide them. In fact, the only place in which the people of Monaghan can build is in between the drumlins where the pylons will be located and where most people currently live. By doing this, they are bringing the pylons much closer to the properties throughout the county than they can do in open areas, having a serious affect on our land, and particularly farmers' land. Deputy Brady mentioned this. If a farmer wants to get planning permission for family members, it will not be achievable. Between the environmental impact of the drumlins and the pylons, the space is limited. I hope that answers Deputy Brady's questions.

Mr. Colin Andrew

I will add a little to the detail. We have done much work looking at various studies published around the world on property devaluation. There is no doubt that devaluation is a fact. One can plot simple graphs of depreciation percentage against distance from lines. Most of these studies show that depreciation extends to at least 600 m from lines. Some studies published in Finland in 1998 show that this devaluation was up to 2,500 m away from lines, where even at that distance they were seeing a 2% devaluation. The devaluation curves run right down to the point where within 50 m of the line one's property is unsaleable, that is, it has no value. Who is covering the cost of this depreciation in value?

One can use formula to calculate estimates for the overall cost along the lines. It depends, of course, which route is chosen because of the population density. For example, one of the routes through Meath goes through two of the most densely populated electoral districts in the country. I am a little bemused at why they chose that route. If one takes the likely cost looking at the property density, one could have a devaluation value in excess of €500 million. Who will be responsible for that?

There were some other questions about AC voltage and about the length of power lines. Most alternating current power lines tend to be shorter at this sort of voltage, however there are a number of examples of equivalent distances. I can cite examples, one which is 53 km and one which is 80 km. The key aspect of alternating current is that these lines come back to surface to reactive power compensation stations approximately every 30 km or 40 km. Therefore, the length of each individual line is only 30 km. Around the world there are dozens of lines in excess of 30 km and one must look at the individual component parts of it when discussing the length of a system, not on the total infrastructure.

Senator Joe O’Reilly

I welcome our guests. Their presentation was extremely professional and nobody could detract from that. I congratulate them on their enormous voluntary activity. I also congratulate them on their degree of achievement. They are professional in the way they go about matters. Those of us who have been calling for the independent study are happy it is in place. By embracing that study, our guests have distinguished themselves from the rent-a-mob element. They are engaging with the study as part of a process rather than dismissing it out of hand. The latter would have been a negative development and would not have been the way to proceed. I compliment our guests on what they have done in this regard. Our ultimate goal is to arrive at the truth and discover the best options.

To what degree have our guests examined the option of running cables underground alongside the proposed M3? Do any of the three proposed routes offer a better proposition? To what degree did our guests consider the option of running cables beneath the sea?

It is stated in the submission that a great deal of technological development has occurred. Will they expand on the information provided in that regard? Deputy English informed me some days ago that he has been examining alternative technologies and has a proposition to put forward in that regard. That proposition appears sensible to me but it would obviously have to be subjected to some scientific or technical evaluation. I suggest that our guests should consider developing specific options in respect of this area. I accept it is difficult for a voluntary group to do so but I am of the opinion that it is a necessity.

It has been put to the committee that it will be more difficult to locate faults and carry out repairs in respect of underground cables. The issue of the visual impact on the landscape is extremely important. To what extent has the route been considered from that perspective? Have our guests examined the county development plans in that context? I accept that if a matter is dealt with under a certain aspect of the planning process, such plans do not come into focus in the same way. However, such plans are critical. Are the routes proposed at variance with or do they conform to the county development plans?

I understand it is proposed to put in place a transformer in the hinterland of Kingscourt. This matter is of particular interest to me. In the words of the great Tip O'Neill, "All politics is local". Do our guests consider that transformer will be safe and sightly or do they have an alternative view in respect of it? If the latter is the case, why are they not placing more emphasis on the fact that the transformer may be located in the Muff area of Kingscourt, County Cavan, which is particularly scenic? The people of the area wish to know if the transformer is to be located at Muff. If so, to what degree are our guests focusing on that issue? I fully appreciate that our guests represent a voluntary group but I must be mildly critical and state that the transformer appears to be a Cinderella issue for them. This matter is of particular concern to the people I represent and it would not be fair to them if I did not raise it. Individuals have written to me to indicate that the group before us has not focused on the issue of the transformer.

The question of diversification in agriculture — I refer here to agritourism — is extremely important. To what extent have our guests considered the three proposed routes in the context of agritourism?

Since I was appointed my party's spokesperson in the Seanad on communications, energy and natural resources, I have developed an interest in green energy and wind energy, in particular. The counties in which our guests live have great potential as regards wind energy and there are a couple of successful wind farms in place in them. Access to the grid is important. Will running cables underground be compatible with gaining ready access to the grid? To what degree might the underground option prejudice such access? That must be a major consideration in the context of future economic development and meeting our carbon emissions targets.

I empathise with the important points made by Deputy Johnny Brady in respect of cottiers. In that context, there is great potential for small farmers to make some money by putting in place wind turbines on their properties. Will there be ready access to the grid if the underground option proceeds? Will alternative energy projects obtain such access? Our guests may say that I should know the answers to these questions. I do not have the technical competence in respect of this matter but I will be engaging in research because this is matter is of critical importance.

I do not intend to be patronising. However, I must state that for a voluntary organisation, the presentation put forward was extremely professional in nature.

Deputy Rory O’Hanlon

I thank the delegation for a detailed and informative presentation. It is not necessary to state that our preferred option is underground. We have made that clear in the House and at the meetings we attended.

There appears to be some conflict regarding what our guests had to say and what we were told by the representatives of EirGrid. Mr. Andrew referred to running the cables under the sea in an east to west direction. I do not know whether it would be practical to run cables under the sea along the east coast or along the M1, particularly in the context of an interconnector joining North and South. Is there any particular reason it would have to be run as far inland as is envisaged?

Mr. Andrew also referred to the cost of running cables underground as opposed to that of running them overhead. A number of sources have indicated that 97% of the cable in Europe is overground. Are there any examples on the Continent of 400kV cables being run underground and what were the costs involved in this regard?

I am interested in the issue of health. If there are health hazards, there should be no overhead cables. If there are proven health hazards, overhead cables should be removed. The World Health Organisation, the International Commission on Ionising Radiation and the European Union all accept the standards in place at present. I understand that Ireland, like other European countries, is well below danger limits in this regard. I take the point that cables should be at least 50 m from the nearest house. If there are health risks, Ireland and other European countries will be obliged to take action in respect of existing pylons. People fear there is a health risk and this must be addressed.

The other issue to which I wish to refer is that involving communication with EirGrid. Would it be possible to develop a better two-way communication system with the latter? How do our guests see the relationship developing? Everyone supports the putting in place of an interconnector because we need to develop our electricity infrastructure. It is, therefore, a question of doing it underground or under the sea. What would the committee like from EirGrid in terms of improved communications? We all welcome the review body appointed by the Minister and I hope it will produce a valuable report. I presume the committee will submit this document to the body.

Mr. Padraig O’Reilly

We will split the questions. Senator O'Reilly asked about underground cabling and the M3. It is not within our remit to access details on that but we have posed the question to EirGrid about underground cabling. Its reply stated it did not examine that option nor was it requested to do so by any Government bodies. We would like that option to be pursued. As the Senator said, it is still in the mud stage and if it was provided for, an underground line would be put in at the end when all the earth works have been completed.

Another question related to which route we feel is the best of the three options. We are firmly of the belief that none of the routes is suitable for overhead power lines. To give the underground cabling option a fair chance from a cost perspective, a totally new route would need to be examined. It is clear, from a topographical standpoint and for other reasons, that a route suitable for overhead power lines is not necessarily suitable for underground cabling. Though we welcome the independent report, we are concerned about the brevity of the time for it to be produced. Only 40 days are allowed and that will be challenging in terms of conducting a proper analysis of a suitable underground route and a proper costing. Of the three routes proposed by EirGrid, it has missed many important things from a heritage and landscape perspective. Monuments and so on have not been placed on the map and there is also a great deal of variation in the population figures used. A great deal of homework remains to be done on the three routes.

Senator O'Reilly referred to landscape, agri-tourism and the county development plans. There has been much focus on the technicalities of overhead versus underground but little focus on landscape and tourism. Fáilte Ireland has carried out many surveys over the past few years and has adopted an entirely new strategy for the next five years, which includes a tourism impact assessment. It is our understanding that EirGrid has not conducted such an assessment in choosing the three routes to date or in the selection of the preferred route. We are reliably informed the company is doing this currently but if it had been given sufficient priority, it would have been included in establishing the three route corridors. We have examined the county development plans and many aspects are at variance with them. Mr. Andrews will deal with that shortly.

I refer to the health and safety issue. I appreciate Deputy O'Hanlon's comments on the health concerns and the fear and anxiety caused by potential health concerns. We are at variance with EirGrid on both of these issues. There is only an associative link between electromagnetic fields and cancer rather than a causal effect and we are not in the business of scaremongering. Nevertheless, it is classified as a possible carcinogen. EirGrid has stated this is the lowest class. However, in practice, there are five categories because category 2 comprises 2a and 2b. The other categories are unclassified and definitely not carcinogenic. Although the association with childhood leukaemia is unproven to be causal, the association statistically is very strong and many countries, including Ireland, have stated further research on the health effects of exposure should be carried out. As recently as last year, the Government report published by the expert group on the health effects of electromagnetic fields additionally recommended that because there are no exposure data in Ireland on such fields that such data should be obtained and the proper research should be conducted. We agree it is not a causal effect. Anecdotal evidence is not as scientifically rigorous as one would like but it is often a portent of issues down the line. This evidence on its own is very strong and, therefore, this needs to be examined in more detail.

We are concerned about the approach taken by EirGrid, particularly in regard to its statements about the World Health Organisation. It is complying with the lowest levels of exposure, 100 microtesla. Other countries have taken a much more proactive approach. Sweden, for instance, has a threshold level of exposure 500 times lower than Ireland. Even in the case of Ireland, compliance is voluntary on the part of the ESB at the request of the Government. In other countries, it is decreed in legislation. In Italy and other reputable countries, the exposure level is much lower. It is 100 times lower in Italy and between 20 and 30 times lower in the US. Although we accept the company is in compliance with the WHO standard, it does not go far enough.

Likewise, EirGrid is very reluctant to ensure a minimum distance from these lines of 50 metres. We have yet to obtain a clear statement that this will be the absolute minimum. The company will strive to achieve that distance but we are not sure whether it will do so. Countries such as the UK impose a 60 m distance while in Denmark it is 160 metres. EirGrid is, therefore, adhering to a loose compliance level and a short distance.

Fears and anxieties are valid. The Government report dwelt on this and it is very relevant. It concerns risk acceptance and risk perception. There are two important aspects in accepting risk whether it is voluntary or involuntary. Where it is voluntary, if I wish to mountain climb or hang glide, that is my decision and risk can be accepted easily on a personal basis. Where it is involuntary and where the risk involves a disease such as cancer, particularly in children, and where it involves long-term exposure of an unknown quantity, it is very difficult to accept it. This must be faced up in addition to the hard facts about cancer. The expert group recommends that a response to this risk must be taken by the authorities to eliminate it. The fear and anxiety is strong enough for people not to want to accept this and I am sure members will hear about this in their constituencies.

Mr. Colin Andrew

I will take the two questions about the county development plans. Regarding transmission lines, the Meath county development plan states:

To ensure that the development of high tension power lines will be restricted and that new high tension lines will not be permitted adjoining existing dwellings except where no other alternative can be shown to exist to locate all services wherever possible underground and existing overhead cables and associated equipment should progressively be located underground.

The Meath plan is similar to the Monaghan county plan, which requires that the lines be laid underground.

Mr. Paul Anderson

The County Monaghan development plan for 2007 to 2013 has a vision statement which reads: "The county development aims to protect and enhance the amenities of the county and to preserve the environmental quality of the natural and built environment in rural areas". In our view pylons will destroy this. The project is a total breach of the county development plan. Furthermore, the policy on the visual amenities of an area, section 14, clearly states that we must protect the views along these routes — see appendix 2 — and no development will be permitted that will detrimentally impact on the visual character of the amenities of these views. In all of the plans for counties Cavan, Monaghan and Meath, there are dozens of areas where there is a total contradiction in this regard with this project. This is a serious concern for us.

It is important we raise this issue. It is one of the main reasons Deputy Coveney's question about AC versus DC and whether the AC line is a viable option for us is so important. EirGrid needs to be up-front to us and to the members of this committee as politicians and tell us exactly what this is. Is it an interconnector or is it an infrastructural improvement to the grid? It is only when we know this that we can start answering the questions about the DC-AC options. To answer the Deputy's question, both options are there. There is an option to go AC underground.

Mr. Colin Andrew

Senator Joe O’Reilly

What does Mr. Andrew have to say about the linking of wind created energy into the grid?

Mr. Colin Andrew

I am not an electrical engineer, but I understand that wind power is generated in direct current. That must be converted to AC to put it into the grid and, therefore, there is a loss in the converter station also.

Deputy Damien English

I will be brief. With regard to development plans, from the outset Eirgrid has tried to convince all involved in producing development plans, namely, planners, council officials, An Bord Pleanála, etc., that it is not possible to take the lines underground. That was a lie from the start. This helped EirGrid overcome any difficulty with the development plans, which stated the lines should, if possible, be placed underground. Of their nature development plans have very grey areas and are very flexible and easily twisted. EirGrid spent its time convincing us and others that it was not possible. That is over now.

We need to clarify the terminology being used. For example, the use of the term "short distance". In electrical terms a short distance appears to be a distance of 60 km, 80 km or 90 km, the distance we are discussing. EirGrid claimed in one of its discussions with us that bringing the connector from the sea to Woodlands was only a short hop. That short hop is 40 km. The short hop we are discussing is 58 km. There is not much difference between them. We need clarification on terminology because EirGrid uses whatever terminology suits it.

On behalf of the people of the three counties involved in this, I thank North-East Pylon Pressure for all the work it has done. Its members have put in a lot of time day and night working on the issue and attending meetings. I thank them on behalf of the people. Their work has been very helpful to us in arguing the case. I am glad they mentioned that when we receive the study it should be debated here. I hope we analyse it thoroughly. The pylon pressure committee acknowledges that amending legislation or some change of direction will be required from the Minister. That is the situation now and we must apply pressure for that.

The group mentioned the study carried out by the Department last year. I get the impression Mr. Anderson has read it thoroughly. EirGrid has selectively cited that report and suggests the Department has more or less said it is not worth spending money to prevent the risk to health because it is an insignificant risk. Mr. Anderson's comments suggest there was more to the report. I have not read all of it and would like to hear further comment on it. Has EirGrid improved at all as a result of its meetings with the pressure group or since receiving a reprimand from this committee with regard to the poor job it has done in its negotiations? Has it treated the pressure group any better?

The answer to the question whether the line is an interconnector or back-up infrastructure for the north-east region is probably that it is both and has always been. In the past few months, EirGrid has tried to over emphasise the benefits to the north east in order to convince us we should accept it. In fairness, from the beginning I always understood from my meetings with EirGrid that it was both. It seems the interconnector is the priority now and the back-up and use are for a later date. We were told that if more factories or industries in Navan, Kells or Trim wanted electricity, they could tap into the AC line easily. Those are the facts of which I am aware from negotiations. Has the group any comment to make on that?

I asked a question of EirGrid last week but it could not give me confirmation on it. Perhaps Mr. Andrew will be able to confirm it for me. I understand from EirGrid that it wants to use AC so that it can be tapped into along the route, even though it is an interconnector. I understand that the new technology, the DC light line, is easily adaptable and could also be tapped into very easily, for a factory for example. Can Mr. Andrew comment on whether the new DC technology could be used in that manner as easily as AC technology? I do not believe using old type DC would suffice for the project.

If we did use a straightforward DC line as an interconnector to join the two areas, would it not be possible to deliver the power back to the north east through the existing technology? I understand the problem is not that there is a shortage of infrastructure to distribute the electricity in the north east, but that there is actually a shortage of power. The question is how to get to power into the north east, which an ordinary DC line can do. Then we could use the existing AC line to distribute it. Is that correct? Will Mr. Andrew comment on that?

The pressure group pointed out the seven or eight positive results of going underground. It could add one further positive impact. I believe there would be a value for money benefit from this. If we use the new technology, HVDC Light, there would be a saving to the taxpayer which should be of interest to all politicians and Government officials. As there are concerns and doubts over health, we cannot win the argument on that issue alone; we also need to include the value for money concept.

The information given about the positive benefits for the environment is very interesting and needs to be highlighted as it has been little discussed up to now. There was a comment regarding the guidelines and research of the World Health Organisation. I have been told by some members of the North-East Pylon Pressure campaign that the World Health Organisation based its research on very low exposure time. Is that true? I have been told it is only using six minutes exposure time in its analysis. If that is the case the information does not really stack up. People will be exposed to these lines for considerably more than six minutes at any given time.

The group's interpretation is that planning permission will not be granted within 200 m. I am not convinced that is true and I would like to know where it is getting that information. I accept that EirGrid will aim to be more than 50 m away — although I am not convinced of it. From my discussions with the planning authorities, it will not be their decision to prevent somebody from building a house within 200 m. If we change the regulations to state that magnetic field lines must be at least 200 m from a house, then planning permission will not be granted within 200 m. However, as it stands if these lines got built that would not be the case. It is important to have all the right information on this matter. The group's information is not technically true. EirGrid is not asking Meath County Council or any other council not to grant permission and the planners will not place that rule upon themselves. If we change the laws here, it will affect planning permissions. It is important for us all to have our facts right on the matter. The group may have got some solicitor's view on the matter.

Mr. O'Reilly stated that €1 million spent reducing electromagnetic field exposure would be recouped in €50 million worth of health benefits. Where did those figures come from and can we stand over them — they seem to be quoted from some report? I like the assertion if it is true.

On the issue of using the AC line, I believe we need to consider other types of DC lines to win the argument. If we are to put an AC line underground when it has to come back up, Mr. Andrew said 30 km, I believe it is 15 km to 20 km, it may be stretched a bit on that. I ask Mr. Andrew to explain what is involved in the converter process when it comes back up. I understand it is not a big deal. It comes up out of the ground held in a pipe and goes back down again. Am I right in that? Is there a big cost in that? Regarding power losses we have figures indicating the benefits of less power loss when the cables are underground. Do we lose that benefit by having to come back up? I am somewhat confused as to how that works. It is important for it to be clarified for future reference.

If we use AC and we need transformers at each end or at the middle to allow for a big batch or something like that, what is the cost involved in them? I understand the converter stations for the new type of DC line are very small and might nearly fit in this room, compared with a 20-acre transformer site, which would be very unsightly and costly. There appear to be considerable gains. I would like Mr. Andrew's comments regarding appearance and size also.

One of the witnesses mentioned people not buying and selling property, which is very true. I am dealing with many people who are refusing to purchase the house they intended to purchase because of this issue. I can confirm this is actually happening. Much of it is fear with people not knowing where it will go. They should look at the M3, but they are not doing so. However, we covered that last week also.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

I thank the witnesses for attending. I will not ask any questions because it is not correct for us to be asking questions. I pay tribute to the work they have done. We have learned a considerable amount from them. We have come a long way from the original public meeting when people had a week to gather information. That was not very impressive and some of the information was incorrect. The witnesses have returned and I am amazed at what they have done, which is a fantastic example to any voluntary group.

I have some comments. As Deputy Coveney said, while they might be challenging, they do not mean I disagree with them. In the group's submission to the independent review it will need to be considerably more objective regarding its health arguments than it has been here. I would prefer to see a list of the scientific papers — preferably supplying copies of them if possible even though it would be a big undertaking for the group — including the ones showing no links. If the health risk exists, which I believe to be the case, the papers should stand up for themselves. I would not describe Draper as being the most credible unless there is scientific evidence to prove it because it takes away from the submission's objectivity. The Draper report should be there and obviously it is the best known. However, I do not know who claims it is the most credible. The group should be more objective on that point. On a different health issue of concern in north Meath, I told people the other night not to let the fear over those health concerns overtake them at this stage. Some people in north Meath are scared stiff about this project. I am trying to encourage them not to be afraid because they are not there yet and I hope they will never be there.

While I know there is considerably more background information than was given in today's presentation, the group will need to be as strong as it can on the issue of cost. I accept as a voluntary group it can only go so far. EirGrid certainly still has the upper hand on that matter. An independent company, whose name I forget, gave a presentation to Meath County Council which mentioned a figure of 25 times the cost. These are the kinds of figures that are bandied about. I encourage the group to be as precise as possible and give all the evidence it has. It should not hold anything back from the independent review.

The witnesses have made a great case for Monaghan. I always knew Patrick Kavanagh's Stony Grey Soil. On a serious point on the drumlins, Hunterstown Cross on the N2 close to Ardee is drumlin country and the pylons are extremely visible there when coming down the hill. I spend considerable time travelling on that road to Drumcondra, Meath Hill and places like that. In my childhood I went up that road regularly. The most noticeable thing about that road outside Ardee is the line going overhead, because of the hill and drumlin nature of the area. That is a strong point in favour of what Mr. Anderson said.

I echo what Senator O'Reilly said about Muff and Kingscourt. It is causing considerable concern in north Meath, Kilmainhamwood, Meath Hill, Moynalty, Cormeen and places like that. We do not have enough information. EirGrid stated on the record at our last meeting that no site had been purchased for that transformer. That is certainly at odds with what we are hearing on the ground and what I have heard from EirGrid employees. I thank the witnesses again and urge them to keep at it. I congratulate them on having brought it to this stage.

Chairman

We will take responses to Deputy English's questions before I call the final group of speakers.

Mr. Padraig O’Reilly

The Government report on risk regarding electromagnetic fields is quite detailed and a lot of research is going on in the area of non-ionising radiation. Some of the researchers involved believe that over the next 30 years the health link to electromagnetic fields and power lines will be stronger than has been seen with passive smoking in the past. A lot of research is going on there. While we may have missed this, one of the report's recommendations was for the Government to set up a single State agency to cover both ionising and non-ionising radiation. The recommendation would be to extend the statutory powers of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland to include responsibility for matters relating to both. I am not sure whether that has been set up. We would welcome it being set up so that there would be a statutory body to consider this whole area.

Deputy O'Hanlon also asked a question regarding communication with EirGrid and we did not answer earlier. We are very open to communication with EirGrid. However, we have been very disappointed with the public consultation process. There were many genuine people with questions to ask throughout the counties of the north east. The last round of so-called "public consultation", in particular, was not acceptable as far as the people were concerned. EirGrid has a great deal of work to do if it is to improve its communication with the people of the local area and have a genuine debate on this subject. We are open to further communication, under the right terms of reference.

An advisory group that was established by the UK Government specifically to give advice on electromagnetic fields claimed that expenditure of €1 million on reducing electromagnetic field exposure is recouped in €50 million worth of health benefits. I can pass the group's report on to the committee if it wishes.

I assure Deputy Byrne that every aspect of today's submission can be supported by attributable references. The Draper report, for example, was published in the British Medical Journal, which is a highly reputable publication. We will provide information at a later stage about the formal submission that was made during the tendering process and the independent report.

Deputy Damien English

Where does the saving of €50 million arise? Is it a health saving or an environmental saving?

Mr. Padraig O’Reilly

It relates to savings which can be made in the cost of the health effects of electromagnetic fields.

Deputy Damien English

That is very important.

Mr. Padraig O’Reilly

The 1:50 ratio applies to therapy that is no longer required, etc. My colleague, Mr. Andrew, will make a few technical points.

Mr. Colin Andrew

As we mentioned earlier in our submission, we are confused about whether it is proposed to develop an interconnector or to supply power to the north east. If the latter is the case, it is clear that the ideal form of distribution would be alternating current. We do not know whether it will be used as an interconnector, to export power or to supply power to the north east. Everything we have heard to date seems to be contradictory.

Proprietary technology, called "high voltage, direct current, light", has been developed by ABB. The problem with the use of direct current is that it cannot be distributed in the grid. A converter station has to be used to convert it into the three-phase or two-phase alternating current that we use in our houses and businesses. I will explain how that affects the installation of the cabling. In this instance, it does not matter whether the cables are on pylons or underground. Direct current uses two cables whereas alternating current uses three cables. Clearly, there is a material saving and a cost saving when fewer cables are used. Trenching is cheaper than building pylons. The converter stations at each end have a significant cost, which affects the overall transmission efficiency of the line. One also has to distribute from the converter station. One will not develop converter stations anywhere other than the top and the bottom of the line. That would be ideal if the proposed development were an interconnector. We do not know if is not an interconnector and therefore not strategic infrastructure.

We were also asked about savings to the taxpayer. It is clear that putting the cables underground would lead to a significant health saving. Members also asked for statistics on how many people could be affected, or how many instances of various diseases there could be each year. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for a statistician to respond to such questions. It is clear that a health saving can be made. It has been noted widely in the UK that increased levels of depression are suffered by people living near these things. Depression leads to suicide and other risks. Dr. John Swanson, who is the adviser to National Grid Transco in the UK has said that one would have to be crazy to live under a power line.

We should also consider the carbon dioxide footprint associated with this project. I recently read that Ireland had been fined approximately €300 million under the Kyoto Protocol. It is clear that overhead transmission is a major contributor to further emissions and would therefore lead to further fines. The cost of compensation is another factor that must be taken into account in any consideration of the capital cost. Who is liable if somebody's property is halved in value? I do not doubt that property prices will be decimated if this project goes ahead. I could give the committee instances of that happening all over the world. There can be no argument about the contention that property prices will be slashed. Who will pick up the cost of that? I do not think the taxpayer should be liable.

I will conclude by speaking briefly about the size of in-line converter stations. If alternating current is used underground, the size of a reactive power compensation station would be approximately 50 m by approximately 80 m. Five such stations would probably be needed along the line, which covers a relatively small area. If a high voltage, direct current line is used, there will be a converter station roughly the size of a tennis court at each end.

Mr. Paul Anderson

Deputy English rightly mentioned that current laws state that planning permission cannot be given for pylons within a 50 m zone. The reference to 200 m comes from the only successful public consultation meeting that was attempted in Monaghan. It was put to a senior member of the EirGrid council that reports in the UK found that when applications are made for planning permission for an industrial or domestic building, the power provider usually objects if the building is within 200 m of the power line. EirGrid was asked to confirm in writing that it would not do the same thing here. We have not yet received notification to that effect from EirGrid. That is where we took the reference to 200 m from.

Deputy Damien English

I thank Mr. Anderson for clarifying the matter.

Deputy Margaret Conlon

I welcome the representatives of the North-East Pylon Pressure and compliment them on the presentation they made to the committee. Those of us who live in the counties affected by this proposal appreciate the voluntary effort being made by the organisation. The members of NEPP are to be commended on the great deal of research they have undertaken. It is laudable that so many people, including those who have travelled in support of the delegation, have taken time off work to come here in a private capacity.

I will make a number of observations and ask a few questions. I am concerned that there has been a lack of public consultation on the part of EirGrid. I have mentioned it to officials of the company on a number of occasions. I appreciate the concerns of NEPP in that regard. When members of the public met representatives of EirGrid at the various consultation meetings, they were bamboozled by some of the terminology that was used. The compilation of so much information by NEPP has helped to improve our knowledge and understanding of these proposals. Its representatives know what they are talking about.

There is huge merit in the proposal to discuss this matter with EirGrid. For what it is worth, I urge NEPP to seek a meeting with EirGrid to present the valuable research it has done. It would benefit EirGrid as well. NEPP should put its strongest foot forward at the start of its submission. I appreciate that there are significant concerns about the health implications of this proposal. As Deputy O'Hanlon said, one will have health problems if one is not sleeping at night. I do not think NEPP will win the argument by focusing on health, however. It needs to start by highlighting other aspects of its case. A strong argument can be made that this project would contravene the county development plan.

Does NEPP have evidence to prove that the carbon footprint of this project could be reduced by up to 3%? If so, I would like to know more about it. When officials from EirGrid attended a meeting of this committee, I asked them about the measurement of electromagnetic field readings at the mid-point of the sag. I understand that the readings are higher at that point. Does NEPP have information on that? It has been suggested that some risks are associated with putting the cables underground. How far below the surface would the cables have to go to alleviate people's concerns in that regard?

It was suggested at a previous meeting that if the cables are placed on the sea bed, the water will keep them cool. It was argued that the further underground one goes to make the cables safer, the more difficult it is to keep them cool. Does NEPP have information on that? Does NEPP have data about the length of time it would take to source a fault and then have the fault repaired? That would also be helpful.

We are informed that when cable is being placed underground, it must be brought to the surface at 20 km intervals. Would that pose a problem? Would certain landowners be unhappy if a substation had to be built every 20 km? The devaluation of land is an important issue.

I am concerned about those who would find themselves in the unfortunate position of living between pylons. Notwithstanding consultations with those on whose land the pylons will be erected, no such consultation will be held with those who will find themselves living between pylons. Tourism is important for County Monaghan and I do not want our attractive, unspoilt, drumlin landscape to be destroyed for future generations. This is a strong argument in favour of the campaign. I thank the delegation for its presentation.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

I apologise for my absence at the start of the meeting. I had a pre-arranged appointment. I congratulate the panel on its fine presentation and the able answers given to questions on a broad range of issues. I do not intend to delay the meeting unnecessarily by repeating questions asked by other members.

I welcome visitors to the Visitors' Gallery. It is important that people attend these hearings to observe proceedings and the progress being made, including agreement by the Minister to have an independent study carried out. The study's independence will hinge on whether a truly independent person is appointed. I hope the appointee will be from outside the jurisdiction. We will carefully watch events as they unfold.

My second concern is the limited time available to complete such a massive study. If necessary, the timeframe must be extended because it is important to get this issue right, irrespective of time considerations. We cannot have a rushed study which does not have the full or correct facts.

I asked a delegation from EirGrid how the company arrived at its position that underground cabling would cost nine times more than overground cabling. The only information the delegation could provide was that the estimate was based on its experience of placing cables underground in densely populated areas. However, one can use a machine to lay cable in the flat land of County Meath, as we saw in the film shown in Annamullen. The two types of terrain cannot be compared. It is important to make available to the independent study facts from areas where underground cabling has been used and to be able to show the cost of laying underground cables based on examples from elsewhere.

If the project proceeds underground, EirGrid will need to re-examine the chosen route. If it were to proceed through flatter terrain rather than the drumlin hills of counties Cavan and Monaghan, the cost of an underground cabling option could be much less. While the option of laying cable alongside the M3 was raised by the Minister for Transport, Deputy Noel Dempsey, the road does not lead to the destination in County Tyrone. An alternative must be found.

I have received many personal calls and letters from the Muff area of County Cavan. The potential impact of constructing a major substation in the area needs to be researched.

Having spent a great deal of time in a voluntary organisation before being elected to the House, I appreciate more than most the work of the group. At a function yesterday, I discussed with a person a legal case involving grant moneys owed that took 19 years to get through the courts. Some of us used to sit up until 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. selecting appropriate cases to deal with. I am sure the group before us have spent similar hours on its project and I congratulate its members on their efforts. I want to work with it to ensure we achieve the best possible outcome.

Senator Maria Corrigan

I join Deputy Conlon and others in welcoming the group. My colleague, Senator Wilson, who had to leave to attend to Seanad business, asked me to welcome the group on his behalf. I compliment the delegation on its detailed presentation. It has clearly taken considerable time to produce such a comprehensive presentation.

I was struck by the point that existing dwellings may be within 50 m of the lines, while applications for dwellings within 200 metres of the lines will be objected to. I can understand how this stark reality can give rise to anxiety among those living in dwellings within 50 m of the proposed route.

We heard there are dozens of underground lines in excess of 30 km in length. What is the longest such line of which the group is aware?

I was impressed by the section on technical and cost arguments and particularly struck by the section on maintenance and repair. The detail provided on faults and maintenance, including the citation of examples to support the group's case, was especially impressive. I am curious as to whether European statistics are available on the impact of maintenance and repairs.

To follow up on the points made by Deputies Byrne and Conlon, as regards the submission for an independent review, the arguments made against undergrounding are mainly economic. At our previous meeting, all members sought an assurance that the independent review would take into account health and environmental as well as economic impacts. The justification for refusing the underground option is economic. If the group can back up its arguments in the technical and cost section of its presentation, it will have a strong case to take on the economic argument against the underground option.

I was impressed by the section on maintenance and repair. If the group has the same practical examples and studies in the areas of improved monitoring, cost-benefit analysis and cost comparisons, it should not depend on readers consulting the appendix to find them. It is most important that they are cited in the submission. Deputy Conlon suggested that earlier.

We have met with EirGrid, the Minister and the north-east pylon pressure committee. The independent commission will also appear before us, as it is part of the terms of reference set down by the Minister. We will resume discussion of the issue then. We will continue our discussions with RTE at the next meeting.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.35 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 27 February 2008.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES díospóireacht - Wednesday, 20 Feb 2008

North-South Interconnector: Discussion with North-East Pylon Pressure.

Mr. Francis Lally

Mr. Padraig O’Reilly

Mr. Colin Andrew

Mr. Francis Lally

Mr. Colin Andrew

Mr. Colin Andrew

Mr. Francis Lally

Mr. Padraig O’Reilly

Mr. Paul Anderson

Mr. Colin Andrew

Mr. Padraig O’Reilly

Mr. Colin Andrew

Mr. Paul Anderson

Mr. Colin Andrew

Mr. Colin Andrew

Mr. Colin Andrew

Mr. Paul Anderson

Mr. Colin Andrew

Mr. Paul Anderson

Mr. Colin Andrew

Mr. Colin Andrew

Mr. Padraig O’Reilly

Mr. Padraig O’Reilly

Mr. Padraig O’Reilly

Mr. Colin Andrew

Mr. Paul Anderson

Mr. Padraig O’Reilly

Mr. Colin Andrew

Mr. Padraig O’Reilly

Mr. Padraig O’Reilly

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 Feb 2008