Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the engagement with EirGrid and thank the witnesses for the presentation. It is important for public confidence and public information that this engagement continues at every level. I wish to take it a step back to before the consultation period and the very formation of the Grid25 strategy, as well as its strategy. I understand this was adopted in 2008. The witnesses have spoken in general about the need for this grid and investment in order to keep the lights on, and it is also good for jobs. These are generalities that we can all understand and they sound very good, but they are not convincing the public. This is where I see much of the problem. We must get back to the justification for this investment in the first instance, and it must be demonstrated clearly by EirGrid why the strategy is needed.

In this regard, is the investment based on growth figures from 2006 to 2008? It seems fairly logical to think that the economy was booming at that time and there was a much higher demand then than now, as we are in a slump or recession, despite strong signs of recovery. Has the strategy been re-evaluated to analyse the immediate need for the grid and future requirements? In other words, has the strategy been updated? It is a very important question for public information and I am interested to hear the views of the delegation.

Before going to consultation, any reasonable person would expect that a full cost-benefit analysis of all technologies, including overhead, underground, alternating current and direct current would have been carried out and readily available. Has that cost-benefit analysis, including full life-cycle analysis of all extraneous costs, been done? I am sure the delegation has read the committee's discussions in which the concerns of communities were expressed. It is not just the cost of constructing the line, as there is an additional cost for legal proceedings or challenges in the courts, etc. Are these taken into account in the full cost-benefit analysis? That is necessary in order to gain public confidence.

There must be more specific details. The delegation mentioned the North-South interconnector and how the cost-benefit analysis used a factor of three with regard to cost. I am from Waterford and one of the proposed lines would go right through the county. There is an existing corridor in the form of the N25. If a DC cable were put along the route, what would be the cost? I am sure the cost would be smaller if there were no land access issues, because we already have a public highway. These are the kinds of specific detail that should be put on the table so people can clearly see and understand them. This should happen before the next step - where EirGrid is now - in establishing overhead lines. The public cannot understand why we have arrived at that stage without full consideration of the cost-benefit analysis.

I have some criticisms of the consultation stage. We have heard from groups around the country that it seems EirGrid is ticking boxes and going through the motions as meetings are being held. In County Waterford it is proposed that a line will go right through from west to east, but there is no public office there. The people of the county find that very strange. If EirGrid is talking about real engagement, surely it should address basic issues of access to information, and I recommend that it does so.

It was mentioned in the opening statement that EirGrid has no vested interest in any particular technical solution. Is that correct, or does EirGrid have a vested interest in building a line at the smallest cost? I understand that is the policy, and if that is so, it is clear that EirGrid has a vested interest in building the line at least cost, which would utilise overhead lines.

There is a conflict there and we must clarify that, in the interests of public information.

My final question relates to the UG. The witness showed the EMF fields on the various areas and I note the 400 kV AC underground cable is included. Why is the DC not demonstrated? I understand it has much less EMF. That is, as the witness said, possibly the only technically feasible underground solution for long distances.