Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the EirGrid representatives. It is important to continue to tease out the issues. There are two aspects to what we are dealing with, the first of which is the need for infrastructure and the second of which is the question of where infrastructure goes. One does not need to be an expert to know that pylons do not look nice. Pylons have a downside from the point of view of visual amenity and tourism.

There is broad agreement that we need infrastructure and the case can be made for how to build up the grid so that we have a proper secure energy supply and to address the deficit, particularly into the west and in the area I live, which is Mayo. That is the idea of Grid West.

We can talk about consultation and use words that are clichés because we trot them out so often. We are not getting to the point. The EirGrid presentation states that overhead lines remain the best solution at 400 kV. The EirGrid witnesses are the experts and are telling us this is the best solution. Sometimes we get confused between what is an option and what is not. An environmental statement examines the environmental impact underground and overground. Different options exist. Committee members will not be electricity experts or health experts and we are trying to do our best for the people who elect us. For GridWest, I would like to see EirGrid set out the options from the technical, environmental, visual amenity and tourism, energy security andaccessibility points of view. We should hear the pros and cons of each option for overground and underground. This should include running a DC line from Moygownagh to Flagford. What is the downside to that and what are its costs? The advantage is that we will not have to look at pylons in what is an attractive area. EirGrid is not giving people the options. In respect of the Corrib gas fields, we have learned to our cost in County Mayo what happens when experts come from outside. Perhaps the nation has learned too. EirGrid has already thought about this, and I do not want to detract from their expertise, but there are pros and cons in all the options. The EirGrid representatives have not set out the pros and cons other than in generalities. We need a document that explains the costs of putting a project underground and explains that we will lose out because a certain business will not be able to connect. If a business wants to connect and we only have a DC line, this is what it will mean, with a different type of pylon. EirGrid is not doing this. We can talk about things in this meeting but we need to see the options set out in a paper document. It is a complex matter but it can be set out for people. We will accept EirGrid's points about a constraint on the AC line and the fact that we cannot put more than 15 km underground on the network. If we had point-to-point DC cabling, what would we lose out on? What are the cost implications? It can be called a cost-benefit analysis or whatever, but it should be set out to people.

People see the need, but they differ on the detail. Mr. Slye has said it is three times more expensive. I ask for a paper document setting out the options to let people see the upsides and the downsides. EirGrid is in a position to do this and it is its job to do so.