Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegation for coming before us. This is a very contentious issue and there are different aspects which cause concern for people. Everybody agrees that in this country we need secure, affordable and sustainable energy supplies. Everybody is conscious of that but how can we get there in an economic way and in a manner that respects people's lives and ways of living? How we can we do it in a way to deliver the benefits we are seeking? There are a few components to consider.

The witness mentioned the technological advances that have been made since the last proposals were put forward, particularly in terms of Grid West and Grid Link. I am unclear about the financial impact of those as there seems to be some contradictory information in the material that we have. If I read this correctly, the projected cost of €3.2 billion in 2011 will now range from €2.7 billion to €3.9 billion in 2015. Another document indicates that there is the option to use existing infrastructure, at least in part, for Grid West and Grid Link, so I would have expected a big reduction in the cost. Undergrounding is argued to be three times more expensive for the North-South interconnector but people still have serious doubts about that figure. It is moving around the place.

People will not be reassured by the witness stating that the project is of common interest. Basically, the indication is this can be fast-tracked through the planning system. There was mention of consultation with the community.

Design documents are being drawn up to support planning applications. As that costs money, it means effectively that decisions have been made. It is difficult to know what difference public consultations can make as the design decisions have been made. Otherwise, EirGrid would not be in a position to produce design documents for planning applications. Am I wrong in saying this?

EirGrid referred to series compensation technology, which will allow existing infrastructure to be used, but dismisses it for the North-South interconnector project. As I am not technically knowledgeable enough and do not have technical staff who could advise me on why this must be the case, will the delegation explain to me in simple English why it is that series compensation technology can be used elsewhere but not for the North-South interconnector project?

Several times during the presentation it was mentioned that too much of a burden must not be placed on communities. I agree completely, but the burden seems to be in terms of energy bills only. While this is important, there are other impacts such as on house and home values, agriculture and those involved in the tourism industry. Has any analysis been carried out of these aspects? I would have expected one to have been carried out.

There has been a difference in approach between the North-South interconnector project and projects in the rest of the country. Will this have an impact on future discussions or proposals for an interconnector project with Britain or France? If there is to be wider interconnectivity between continental Europe, Britain and Ireland which is not beyond the bounds of possibility, will the same restrictions apply to such a proposal?

Nowhere in the documentation is the impact of further delays in the North-South interconnector project addressed. There have been many delays in the project up to now. I do not see any evidence that progress has been made in getting those who will be immediately impacted on, namely, the host communities whose lands and lives will be impacted on by the interconnector, to understand or to at least accept that this is the way this needs to be done. The fact that they do not understand or accept this means that some people will resist the project in every legal way they can, despite the object of common interest designation, allowing it to be fast-tracked through the planning system. What will be the impact if there are further delays?