Ms Rosemary Steen:

I am EirGrid's director of external affairs. Grid West is an excellent example of a project where EirGrid is taking a changed approach. When the project was originally conceived in 2008, there were approximately 647 MW of renewable generation projects in the west that required a connection. An overhead project was developed and put out to public consultation on that basis. In 2014, we agreed with the feedback from the public that we had ruled out the underground alternatives too early in the process. We agreed with the concerns of the public in this regard. We have reassessed the project in the context of the options that now exist.

Earlier this year, we published our new grid development strategy, which has resulted from public consultation. This document sets out three main options for the Grid West project. Some of the options include overhead lines and others involve undergrounding. We are considering whether local reinforcement might solve the issue. We are currently engaged in a process of consultation with those customers to move the project forward. We are working with the original renewable developers who were seeking the connection to ascertain where their projects now stand, whether the connections are still required and the timeliness of their projects. On that basis, we hope to bring a revised solution into the public domain for public consultation later in the summer. This is an example of where we applied a new approach to the considerations around a project. We hope to be able to reveal the outcome of that later this year.

Senator Mulherin is correct that we are currently in the process of reassessing fundamentally whether the Grid West project is required. That links to what we are trying to do in terms of public acceptance. Under the new framework for grid development that we have adopted, which involves a six-step process, we engage much more carefully with those who will be affected at every stage of every project to make sure they can make a greater input at an earlier stage into the types of projects that are proposed. We have a number of pilot trials at the moment.

The document I have mentioned has been very well received. It received an award from the National Adult Literacy Agency earlier this year. It is part of a suite of tools we are using as we work to improve public acceptance. We accept that we might not have used engagement tools like plain English, which are useful in accurately capturing the feedback of local communities, to a sufficient extent in the past. We are committed to trying to do that as we go forward. Following a Government policy directive in 2012, we put in place and rolled out a new community fund for various projects. We recently piloted that on a line between Mullingar and Kinnegad and it has been very well received by the local community. We have a centralised fund, but we also provide proximity payments to residents who are affected along a route.

All of those initiatives have enabled us to continue developing lines across the country. Maybe there is less commentary about them from media and other sources. We are working harder on the ground to ensure we take on board the feedback about the way the projects are rolled out. I have to say we are committed to ensuring that, as an organisation, we learn the lessons of what happened in 2014 and put new approaches in place. I am happy to provide those publications to the clerk for circulation. They might help the committee to understand the current position.