Mr. Fintan Slye:

I welcome the opportunity to address the broader strategy and any of the other projects proposed, aside from the North-South interconnector. The Chairman has mentioned that different solutions are appropriate for different projects. There is no one bespoke solution that works for all projects. I will talk about them in turn, indicating the differences between them. I will deal, first, with the North-South project which is at a significantly more advanced stage than both the Grid West and Grid Link projects. It has been the subject of extensive analysis and consultation for a number of years. A number of reports have examined the undergrounding of the interconnector. In 2009 EirGrid commissioned PB Power to produce a detailed report which was published. It included a route specific evaluation of the underground option. The analysis was updated in 2013 and made available. In addition, in 2011 the Government appointed a commission of three international experts to look specifically at the project. Its terms of reference included an examination of the cost of, and the case for, undergrounding the interconnector. The commission reported in 2012. At the time its members appeared before the committee to brief members on their findings. The underground option has, therefore, been analysed extensively.

The independent expert panel was established at the start of 2014 by the then Minister, Deputy Pat Rabbitte. It is chaired by Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness and includes Professor Colm McCarthy, Professor John Fitzgerald, Professor Keith Bell and Dr. Karen Foley. It was asked to examine the analysis and assessment of the different technical options, specifically the undergrounding of the North-South interconnector, and come to a view on whether the analysis was the same as that being proposed for the Grid West and Grid Link projects. It concluded that it was. Therefore, the same rigour and analysis has been applied to the alternatives, in particular, the undergrounding option for the North-South project.

I will address the question of the new advanced technology that has been potentially deployed for the Grid Link project and the extent to which it may or may not be applicable to other projects. It is a technology that relies on upgrading the existing grid; therefore, the Grid Link project is about transmitting large power supplies effectively from the Munster region to Leinster and, in particular, the east coast centred around Dublin where there has been and continues to be significant growth in demand. However, there is a multiplicity of transmission lines between Munster and Leinster. The new technology which has not been deployed anywhere else for this purpose in Europe before relies on maximising the utilisation of these lines.

In the case of the North-South project, it is about joining two transmission grids - the grid in the Republic and the grid in Northern Ireland. There is a single link between the two. While we have two transmission grids, there is a single all-island energy market. To have the infrastructure underneath to support that single energy market, it is necessary to reinforce it. Unfortunately, there is only one link and we do not have a multiplicity of lines, the use of which we could maximise. Therefore, new infrastructure is needed.

That technology is not appropriate, which means the main technical option for the North-South interconnector is an underground solution using HVDC technology. As I pointed out, this technology has been the subject of extensive reviews.

The Chairman asked about the other two major projects. As part of the Grid West project, EirGrid examined overhead and underground options. We established that by reducing the voltage from 400 kV to 220 kV, we could potentially underground up to 30 km of the circuit. We identified and analysed this option. The analysis of the three options was conducted in line with the terms of reference established and set out by the independent expert panel. The analysis has been submitted to the panel which is in the process of reviewing it. Once the review has been concluded, the panel will provide an opinion to the Minister as to whether the analysis meets the terms of reference and the options are set out in an objective and comparable manner. EirGrid will then publish the detailed analysis that has been submitted to the independent expert panel and engage with local communities in the area in an extended project specific consultation on the three options.

Grid Link has always been approximately six months behind Grid West in terms of project development. In addition to an overhead option, which is the one on which we have been engaging with communities and for which we have identified multiple line routes, we are in the process of developing an underground cable route. This would be a direct point-to-point route from Cork to Kildare rather than a three-point solution, as is the case with the overhead line. As part of the Grid25 review, which we have been carrying out for the past year, we identified this new technology which is deployed in other parts of the world. For example, it is deployed in the United States on very long transmission lines that are hundreds of kilometres in length to enable them to be used effectively. EirGrid has established that in the context of a relatively small system such as the system in Ireland, the technology can be used for a different purpose on existing lines to maximise the power throughput on them. This is another option in respect of these lines.

EirGrid will develop these options in further detail. They are clearly very different across a range of criteria in terms of their impact on the environment, both visual and natural, cost implications and technical characteristics. They all meet the needs of the regional economy for the next decade or until 2030. We have stress-tested them specifically against the IDA's regional development strategy and the plans for the region in terms of existing industries and their anticipated development over the relevant period.