Mr. Noel Cunniffe:

I will take a few of those questions and then I will pass the question on public acceptance to my colleague, Justin Moran, who leads much of our public engagement work. Starting with the number of onshore wind farms that can be expected across the country, it is safe to say that onshore wind farms are getting more efficient. Turbine technology is always progressing well. This means that to deliver the equivalent amount of onshore wind energy to that we already have in the system will require far fewer wind farms and turbines. That is because they are more effective and efficient and can deliver more energy for the same number of turbines. I do not have an exact figure for how many wind farms can be expected. They range, quite dramatically, in size from perhaps 5 MW up to more than 100 MW, and the exact number will depend on how successful various wind farms are at auctions. It is safe to say, however, that meeting the capacity needed will require fewer wind farms and turbines than we have today.

Turning to the planning aspect which was mentioned by the Deputy regarding the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, I think that is definitely an issue. Much planning of renewable developments today is done on a county-by-county level and often one county might designate a certain portion of its area as suitable for wind energy development, whereas a neighbouring county might have ruled out the area right on the other side of the border for renewable development. What we are looking for, therefore, is a more regional approach to planning, which is led by the three regional assemblies where there is an overarching renewable policy framework for developing renewable energy across the country, rather than on a county-by-county level.

Moving to the wind energy guidelines, those are still outstanding. We are very keen to see them, and I imagine we want to see them more than anyone else. For us, there are several issues in the draft wind energy guidelines, especially related to the noise element. We want the final guidelines to be based on scientifically robust and implementable solutions. Whatever is published in the wind energy guidelines from a noise perspective, therefore, needs to be deliverable and implementable.

I refer also to several other areas of the wind energy guidelines, such as set-back distance being increased to four times the tip height of turbines. That is a change from the current set-back distance of about 500 m. It is likely to go out to 750 m or 800 m, which will reduce the land area available for onshore wind energy generation by about 40% compared to today. However, we recognise this is necessary and it is something we are absolutely willing to work with. There is also a point in the wind energy guidelines on reducing shadow flicker, which is an issue. We again absolutely accept that is something that needs to happen. For us, therefore, we want to see those guidelines published quickly and they must be based on scientific evidence, especially concerning the aspect of noise, and they also need to be implementable.

The last point I will mention concerns EirGrid's consultation, and then I will pass over to Mr. Moran to comment on the public acceptance issue. This is the biggest consultation I have ever seen EirGrid do. Its level of engagement has been exceptional and it is reaching out to all parts of society. The consultation proposals regarding the future of the electricity grid, the markets and how the system is operated are well considered. There are four options for grid and network development. We will be asking for a blend of those four options. We do not believe that any one option will be the solution and I think EirGrid acknowledges this point as well. Our focus is on trying to deliver the capacity targets set out in the Climate Action Plan and the programme for Government, and we would like to see an electricity grid developed which can help to meet those capacity targets. I will pass over to Mr. Moran now to respond to the aspect of public acceptance.