Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to introduce legislation to regulate the construction and siting of and associated matters connected with high voltage electricity transmission lines in Ireland, in particular to make provisions for the placing of such high voltage electricity transmission lines underground where physically possible.

I welcome the Minister to the House. We stand on the brink of a project unprecedented in scale and geographic spread in the history of the Irish energy sector. Currently, EirGrid has in various stages of planning projects including the Grid West project in Connacht, the Cork to Kildare project and, in collaboration with Northern Ireland Electricity, it is proposing to build a North-South electricity interconnector through Meath, Cavan and Monaghan. In all these projects it is proposed to construct high voltage power cables suspended from massive pylon towers, and the proposals are based on overhead lines only, with no consideration given to an underground cable alternative.

In January 2008 the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, as it was known, published the All-Island Electricity Grid Study, outlining a strategy to generate 42% of our electricity requirement from renewable resources. The report suggested this would require a major upgrade of the electricity transmission network, with an estimated combined public and private industry investment cost of approximately €10 billion. This study took two years to complete and involved spending €1 million of taxpayers' money. It is noteworthy that the option of placing the high voltage cables underground was not considered, and perhaps this is the position that officialdom in Ireland has adopted. If so, it is both high-handed and dismissive, and the same attitude has been adopted by EirGrid in its treatment of any suggestion that the proposed power lines be placed underground.

EirGrid envisages erecting approximately 4,000 new high voltage pylons over much of rural Ireland. In addition to the pylons that will form part of these massive projects, there are planned industrial scale substations, such as that planned for the Laois-Kilkenny border area. I have attended public meetings where the suggestion has been made that these projects are designed to facilitate the proposed wind farms for the midlands. We are confronted with the prospect of hundreds of turbines, pylons and power lines that will become part of the landscape and consciousness of rural Ireland for generations, outlasting any of us in the House and shaping the perception of rural Irish landscapes that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have. As we speak today we are witnessing a movement of ordinary, concerned people gathering momentum, with dozens of towns and villages across the country banding together to fight the plan.

With regard to the visual impact of projects, I have mentioned the perception of rural Ireland. It behoves us to remember that these projects will form part of the fabric of the landscape and the art and imagination of future generations, who will be affected by the physical marks we leave on the island. The scale of what is proposed makes me shudder. We will bequeath to future generations a corridor of 45 m high pylons for electricity lines through some of Ireland's most scenic areas, that is only 10 m shorter than Liberty Hall in Dublin, which stands at 148 ft. Imagine how the people of Dublin would feel if they were confronted with a long line of buildings placed at 250 m intervals in a row approximating the height of Liberty Hall? It would never be allowed but the people of rural Ireland are expected to accept such a proposal. They were never given an alternative and no underground option was considered. They were presented with a fait accompli.

People are sick of being held in contempt by decision makers in this country and people in Mayo, Galway, Roscommon, Leitrim, Meath, Laois, Kilkenny, Cavan and Monaghan deserve better, as do their communities. Better politics is about finding acceptable solutions to problems affecting the lives of citizens, and politics fails when technocrats present plans which are uncritically accepted by government and all objections are silenced in the Oireachtas by the power of the party whip.

EirGrid insists these developments are vital for prosperity and economic growth, health fears are without foundation and going underground is both too costly and technically unfeasible. With all due respect to EirGrid and its engineers, they do not get to decide what goes in this country simply because they argue that their plan is best. In this building, we, on behalf of the people who elect us, bring other considerations into the mix. We ask what price is to be put on our children's health where there is even a possibility that there may be adverse consequences. We ask what price can be put on the environment or the views of people in our communities. If the Government and politicians continue to treat the views of people with contempt, they will earn only contempt in return.

EirGrid's attitude is both dismissive and arrogant but in these Houses we are not bound to follow its example. That is why I will introduce legislation that will require the placing of high voltage energy transmission lines underground where physically possible if the Government does not do so. If a power operator suggests it is not physically possible - as opposed to technically desirable or cost-effective - to place lines underground, the burden of proof should rest on it to show that to be the case. As it stands, each route for these power lines is a 1 km wide corridor, and the planning applications for the final route will be lodged in 2015. At a proposed height of 45 m, the pylons would be ten times the size of an average bungalow, such is the visual obtrusiveness of these lines. It is in the broader public interest that these structures be placed underground.

EirGrid is a semi-State company, and such companies are supposed to manage strategic assets. Such an interest does not just extend to the transmission of power and it also goes to concerns about the environment, the quality of rural life, the value of land, tourism and so on. These are strategic matters. EirGrid has refused to build the proposed high voltage network underground, indicating that it would be too risky and expensive, and it could jeopardise the entire electricity network. All of those claims are dubious.

The North East Pylon Pressure group has argued that an independent study it commissioned indicates that the combined investment in transmission costs over 40 years would be €968 million for overhead lines, which compares with €805 million for an underground system. There is a credible case for an alternative. EirGrid has argued that no line of this size and type has ever been placed underground and labelled such an action a high-risk experiment that could result in failure and waste many hundreds of millions of euro while jeopardising security of supply to the north-east region and the electricity system throughout Ireland. Nevertheless, EirGrid has no qualms about splashing tax euro on teams of barristers at €3,000 per day and a panel of experts and consultants. It also had a €600,000 advertising campaign last year.

We must also consider the cost for landowners. Over 60 studies have been carried out over the past 50 years to assess the impact of overhead power lines on the value of residential property in close proximity. The most common effects identified and cited in court cases in the US are claims of a reduction in market price, properties being slower to sell and a decrease in sales volume. Factors such as unsightliness and noise pollution were often identified as negative influences on property values. A study carried out in Britain in 2007 indicated that the value of detached properties at a distance of less than 100 m from overhead transmission lines was 38% lower than comparable properties, and the effective devaluation has been seen up to 2.5 km from such lines. A rigorous and comprehensive study in Canada over 20 years ago indicated that per acre values for more than 1,000 agricultural properties were 16% to 29% lower for properties with easements for transmission lines than similar properties without easements.

Above-ground cables have a longer construction time and the cost for overhead lines and implementation time for overhead transmission is increasing all the time. EirGrid, in its draft transmission plan for 2007 to 2011 and published in October 2007, highlighted the time from design to construction of an underground cable project is four years, compared with 7.25 years for a 400 kV overhead line. That estimate is being exceeded in many cases, resulting in ten to 15 year delays because of landowner and public opposition.

Underground line construction saves significant time and cost. The use of underground transmission is increasing rapidly worldwide.

Currently there are approximately 5,500 km of high voltage underground cable in Europe. In the past ten years there has been a 73% rise in underground cabling. Denmark, for example, now has 19.43% of all of its transmission lines underground. In France, 25% of all high-tension lines must now be placed underground. Even in this country we see from EirGrid statistics that 5% of such lines are underground. Importantly, EirGrid has already announced that it proposes to build a 30 km underground cable from Rush in Dublin to Batterstown in Meath. One could ask why it does not take more of that kind of approach. Other options have worked. NorNed is a 580 km long HVDC submarine power cable between Feda in Norway and the seaport of Eemshaven in the Netherlands, which interconnects the electricity grids of both countries. It is the longest submarine power cable in the world. A submarine power cable is being constructed in Shetland in Scotland. I would be happy to discuss the Scottish project further. The point is that it can be done and now the grid operators must be compelled to do it.

The precise legitimacy of health concerns is disputed. If there is any doubt then we must follow the precautionary principle. My main focus is on the quality of life of people and communities in rural areas. Even if there is a differential in the cost of placing lines underground as opposed to the allegedly cheaper overground option, the cost will be borne by the communities - landowners who see a decrease in the value of their land and in the longer term by the country as a whole as tourism is affected. No doubt the Minister has been in countries, as I have, where there are massive metal monstrosities and it does not feel like one is in the countryside anymore. How can we claim we are in favour of a cleaner, greener country and talk about this country's unique selling point being its green grass, rural life and countryside if at the same time we attack the countryside because we are penny wise and pound foolish and we refuse to invest in our physical landscape? It is vital that there would be a rethink on the proposal. I am of the firm view that environmental, social and even health concerns demand of us an approach which minimises the impact of grid modernisation, which I do not oppose in itself, but what I do oppose is an approach that asserts that overhead power lines are the only option.

The legislation I propose to introduce if the Government does not do so would compel EirGrid or any other operator proposing to develop high-voltage power transmission lines to bury them underground, unless they could show that it is physically impossible to do so. That would be a measured response to the proposed plans for the future development of our electricity grid. It is already in the gift of An Bord Pleanála to require that lines be placed underground in certain circumstances. It takes those decisions on the back of powers from European legislation that will require environmental impact assessments to be done over a certain level of voltage. It is clear that there already exists the power to require that certain lines be placed underground. What I propose is an extension of the principle to require that such lines must be placed underground unless it is a physical impossibility. I propose that because it is in the public interest and there has not been adequate consultation by EirGrid and the Government to date with the communities that will be most affected. I dislike and am concerned about a situation where it would appear to be a case of divide and conquer, where those who might allow the pylons to be anchored on their land will be offered a certain level of compensation but there will be nothing for those over whose property the lines would fly extremely close. I hope such a divide and conquer approach will be resisted by communities, as is already evident in some cases.

If we are to learn any lesson from the widespread public exasperation with politics we must learn that advice from the technocrats in Departments, semi-State bodies or the European Union must always be tempered by consideration of the best interests of the people we represent. Politics is reputedly the art of the possible. In this case is possible to modernise our electricity network while at the same time not bequeathing future generations a ruined landscape and a divided community.