Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I say to Deputy Browne and his colleagues opposite that I am not opposed to independent assessment but we are in the middle of a public consultation. This motion prejudges the outcome before the public consultation has been completed, and for that reason I must oppose the motion, although I accept that it raises some very important issues. The motion does not adequately acknowledge existing Government policy, the planning process and the legislation, which together provide a framework for ensuring that comprehensive statutory and non-statutory consultation is built into the process for rolling out major infrastructure and that all necessary standards for health, safety and environmental protection are met.

Energy is the lifeblood of our economy and society. Electricity and gas demand for business and households must be met safely and securely on a continuous basis every hour of every day, 365 days a year. The backbone of the power system is the transmission grid. We need the grid to ensure reliability of supply to businesses and households. We need the grid to take the power from where it is generated to where it is needed. Grid25 represents an investment in the transmission system of €3.2 billion over approximately 15 to 20 years, and it is central to ensuring Ireland develops a power system that meets our future energy needs in a sustainable manner. Grid25 will reduce our dependency on imported fossil fuels by putting the infrastructure in place to enable us use our own natural resources, help us create less carbon waste and enable us to reach our mandatory 40% renewable electricity targets by 2020.

As colleagues opposite have noted, building major infrastructure is becoming more challenging, yet most people understand that Ireland cannot attract investment and provide jobs without a modern energy system. Energy supply is at the top of the priority list of those thinking of investing in Ireland and our ability to rebuild the economy, attract and retain foreign investment, sustain Irish enterprise, create jobs and growth and deliver regional development and ensure the well-being of our people all depend on excellent energy connectivity. The Grid25 programme will facilitate both conventional generation and renewable energy projects and it will support future international interconnection. However, I emphasise that Grid25 is completely separate from the work under way in my Department on a possible intergovernmental agreement with the UK on wind export. As Deputy Sean Fleming pointed out, Grid25 was under way long before the notion of exporting renewable energy was conceived. Grid development is required to serve our own domestic energy needs and it will be still required regardless of whether any agreement with the UK emerges. The domestic grid will not be used to carry the energy we are contemplating exporting to Britain.

The Government established the statutory agency EirGrid to deliver a safe, secure and affordable electricity supply and although the Government will not direct EirGrid to particular sites, routes or technologies, as was made clear in the policy statement referred to by Deputy Fleming, the Government requires EirGrid to take account of all relevant national and international standards, to follow best practice and to ensure value for money. I want to reaffirm that it is Government policy and in the national interest - not least in current economic circumstances - that infrastructure investment programmes are delivered in the most cost efficient and timely way possible on the basis of the best available knowledge and informed engagement on the impacts and costs of different engineering solutions, including undergrounding.

With regard to the merits of an overhead or underground option, the House will know that the report of the international expert commission on the case for, and cost of, undergrounding all or part of the Meath-Tyrone line noted that there is no single "right" solution and that technical solutions must be project-specific. The commission estimated that the cost of a high voltage direct current, DC, underground cable would be three times the cost of a traditional overhead line. On the basis of the information available to me, I cannot say for certain that undergrounding other 400 kV lines in Grid25 would automatically be three times as costly.

In Europe, overhead is the norm for high voltage transmission infrastructure, although there is undergrounding of a small fraction of such infrastructure for various reasons. This does not obviate the fact that undergrounding remains the much more expensive option and it is considered to reduce system security. EirGrid is, under its licence, obliged to plan the transmission network in the most safe, secure, economic and reliable way possible. EirGrid has stated that underground cables are less reliable and more costly and can introduce technical difficulties. Moreover, underground DC cables are not the right fit from a technical perspective on major projects such as the 400 kV proposals. I have listened to Deputy Fleming challenging that assertion and it is clearly an issue that should be established beyond doubt.

Currently, short sections of underground alternating current, AC, cables would be considered by EirGrid where an overhead line solution is not practical or environmentally feasible. For example, this could occur in densely populated areas where no alternative exists; in congested areas of infrastructure where no alternative exists; where it is necessary to cross water and no alternative exists; or where no alternative exists except to route through an environmentally sensitive area and undergrounding is deemed to have less impact on the environment. Reference has been made to DC underground cable schemes in service in Europe today, including our own east-west interconnector, but these all involve submarine crossings. A few on-land schemes are planned, and Deputy Browne noted there will be a line from France to Spain, but these are not representative of the transmission system in Ireland because they will be interconnectors between two different grids as opposed to being part of a meshed backbone grid like ours. In Denmark, although there was a national desire and a willingness to pay for the undergrounding of the entire 400 kV grid, it was decided that this was not in fact achievable due to the technical difficulties, uncertainties and risks associated with installing long lengths of 400 kV underground cable, and the process would carry too high a risk for system security and stability. However, Denmark did agree to the undergrounding of lower voltage lines.

It is also important to realize that connecting any proposed new industry to an underground DC cable would cost in the order of five times to ten times more than would be involved in connecting to an overhead line because of the need to convert the power back to AC. This could act as a significant barrier to new industrial investment in areas along the route of an underground DC transmission system. Those areas would not benefit from the power lines they are hosting. This is a very important point with regard to regional development, as if somewhere along the line from Great Island to Dunstown a project was landed by IDA Ireland, the business of connecting the power supply from the DC underground system as opposed to the overhead system would be somewhere between five times and ten times as expensive, according to the professional advice I have. The thrust of reasoning for Grid West coming from Bellacorick in north Mayo to the midlands, or the line from Knockraha in County Cork through to Waterford and so on, is as a critical element of regional development and the capacity to use the transmission system to fuel that development.

I am however aware, as has been noted here, that many people are concerned about the impact that new transmission lines and other energy infrastructure can have on the landscape, the environment and on local communities. I have repeatedly stated that it is essential that Grid25 and other energy infrastructure plans be taken forward on the basis of the best available knowledge and informed, meaningful engagement on the impacts and costs of the various options.

EirGrid must now undertake and communicate a well informed, objective and authoritative analysis, a thorough impact assessment and engage in pre-planning consultation in arriving at optimal routes, technology choices, design and costings. It is required to address and, where possible, avoid any human, environmental or landscape impact in delivering the best possible engineering solutions for our small and still isolated electricity system. It must adhere to national and international standards on health, the environment, biodiversity, the landscape and safety as an intrinsic part of the planning process. Factors such as population density, visibility, biodiversity, water catchment areas and areas of outstanding natural beauty all have to be taken into account in planning the route. In addition, EirGrid must comply with electro magnetic field, EMF, exposure limits set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection guidelines and with associated EU recommendations and environmental, habitat and biodiversity national and EU legislation. I must point out that national and international health and scientific agencies have reviewed more than 30 years of research into EMFs. None of the agencies has concluded that exposure to an EMF from power lines or other electrical source is a cause of any long-term adverse effect on human, plant or animal health.

I am disappointed to hear colleagues on all sides of the House criticise the quality of engagement in the consultation process. The planning framework which includes the national spatial strategy, regional planning guidelines, the local development planning process and the strategic infrastructure Act, collectively, provides the necessary framework for extensive statutory and non-statutory consultation, which is key to public confidence in infrastructural development. EirGrid has stated it will fully consider the views submitted. Ultimately, it will fall to An Bord Pleanála to decide whether the views expressed have been listened to, understood and properly dealt with in the final project design. Contrary to the impression given by recent headlines, I understand EirGrid is working closely with Fáilte Ireland on Grid25 to ensure it can outline its objectives of protecting key tourism assets and amenities. I expect EirGrid to continue its engagement with Fáilte Ireland and that it will reflect its views in its planning for and roll-out of Grid25 so as to minimise any impact the projects will have on tourism.

The decision to extend the current phase of public consultation on Grid Link until 7 January 2014 will provide EirGrid with an opportunity to reflect further on the valid concerns raised about various aspects of the project. EirGrid has set out the rationale for why overgrounding is preferred to undergrounding, both generally and in relation to Grid Link specifically, but it has also made clear that undergrounding at some locations will be considered in order to deal with environmental constraints and that this issue will be thoroughly investigated during the project development process.

Grid West, a €240 million project, is needed to connect the north west's huge renewable energy resources to the grid and also to facilitate significant job creation and investment. Grid West is being planned in accordance with a five stage roadmap. The timescale for stages 1 to 4, inclusive, is three years. All stages include opportunities for public feedback. Currently, Grid West has completed stage 1 of the roadmap, the information gathering stage. The project stage 1 report was published in March 2013. The report identified a number of route corridor options for the new line and the preferred route corridor was announced after full consideration of the report.

Grid25 will have positive impacts for local communities in underpinning regional and economic development and jobs, but any negative impact needs to be mitigated through the consultation process and also, where appropriate, community gain measures. My colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for planning, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, and I are agreed that a greater focus must be given to co-operative work with local communities and local authorities on the landscape, biodiversity and civic amenity benefits that bring long-lasting benefits to communities. We fully support a community gain approach in delivering energy infrastructure and underline the appropriateness for State companies to build community gain considerations into project budgeting and planning.

This House has not debated Grid25 since I became Minister. Therefore, I welcome this debate. This is the biggest energy network investment programme undertaken by the State since rural electrification. I hesitate to say Deputy Moynihan's motion is motivated by the controversy that has arisen surrounding the adequacy or otherwise of the public consultation process. He is entirely justified in raising the matter for debate. It is amazing that such a major investment plan has not been debated in the House. However, we should also debate the project's economic significance, as well as the need to deliver such an investment programme in the most cost-efficient and timely way possible in the interests of the energy consumers who need this investment and also pay for it. Once again, I urge citizens and public representatives to make their considered input before 7 January. As the amendment I propose sets out, I will return to the House to respond to the issues raised following the closure of the public consultation stage.

See this speech in context