Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for appearing before the joint committee. I reviewed the questions I asked on the previous occasion they appeared and I wish to indicate that I will be asking some of them again today.

I like to start from a point of agreement. I think we would all agree that every business, agency, politician and person on the island of Ireland wants adequate, reasonably costed, secure green energy now and into the future. After that, we seem to run into difficulties. It seems to me and many others that but for the massive public opposition to the overground Grid Link project, the rethink would not have happened. Massive public opposition and serious political concerns meant that a rethink happened and a solution was found, which solved many of the problems that were causing distress to people in the path of Grid Link. Let me say "Well done" to those people. Were it not for their opposition, an incorrect decision that would have led to an increased cost being incurred by the State and taxpayers would have been made.

I have a number of specific questions which I will put to the delegates before I deal with the lessons to be learned. One of the key lessons from the rethink on Grid Link is that people re-examined the forecast demand and came up with a realistic estimate of the projected demand for the next 15 to 20 years.

Has that been done regarding the North-South interconnector? Are we dealing with reality when we talk about projected demand in the North-South interconnector scenario?

My second question is on the regional option or series compensation. Am I correct in believing that means that supply can be taken from a low demand area to be used in a high demand area? I do not know how it works so will somebody explain to me whether that involves taking supply from low demand areas and putting it into high demand areas?

My third specific question is about the series compensation or regional option. Does that facilitate integration with supply in Britain or on the European mainland in terms of future energy security? Does the technology support that integration?

The points I made at the last meeting lie at the heart of the North-South interconnector issue. I suspect that the witnesses believe that because something has gone to An Bord Pleanála the job is done and there is nothing people can do about it. When I asked questions at the last meeting such as whether the impact of over-grounding on house values, land values and tourism had been considered, the replies were to the effect that they looked at what happened elsewhere but it is subjective and difficult to put a measurable impact on it. Is that fair on the farmer who will have pylons on his or her land or whose house will be overlooked by pylons? Is it fair to the owners of hotels, guest houses, pubs and cafés who will see a reduction in the number of tourists coming into their areas and who depend on tourism in those areas? We need to be able to measure the impact of any developments. If there are adverse impacts from good developments, that reality has to be taken into account. Adverse impacts arising from good developments can happen. I was not satisfied with the answers I got on the last occasions so could we explore that issue this morning?