P.O. Box 106,Navan,County Meath,Ireland.18-November-2014

Ms Catharina.Sikow,Mr Olgerts.Viksne,Mr Adam.Romanowski,DG Energy,Directorate B,European Commission,B-1049Brussels,Belgium

Subject: Formal complaint to EU Commission by North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Group in relation to EirGrid’s planning applications for the North-South interconnector project, Ireland, listed as PCI001 (WE ELEC 155)

North East Pylon Pressure Campaign (NEPPC) is the overall representative group for some

45,000 people of the North East of Ireland who advocate that high power electric cables should

go underground. The group was formed in November 2007, in response to the massive public

outcry emanating from the EirGrid announcement of its plans for a North-South Interconnector

Project (NSIP) from Meath to Tyrone. The strong consensus is that the interconnector should be

established using underground cables instead of overhead transmission power lines.

Our campaign objectives are as follows:

Build a rational, cohesive and comprehensive case for an underground cable alternative

Influence the political process to achieve consensus on undergrounding

Achieve a change in policy through public support

1

NEPPC has engaged a range of professional expertise and commissioned a significant number

of reports in such areas as technology, agriculture, health, environment, ecology, geology,

heritage, landscape and visual impact and land and property devaluation. These reports have

resulted in a technically and scientifically well researched case in support of undergrounding the

North-South interconnector.

NEPPC has made submissions to the Irish Parliament, through the Joint Oireachtas Committee

on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources in February 2008, December 2008 and

February 2012. We have made a submission and presentation to the Northern Ireland

Environment Committee in Stormont, Belfast in April 2009. NEPPC also met with and shared

the reports with the Danish Transmission System Operator, Energinet. NEPPC has initiated and

held a number of meetings with EirGrid personnel over the last 6 years, but none of our

concerns or requests have ever been acted on during this time.

NEPPC has been working diligently for the last 7 years to find a solution to the negative impact

and to the concerns of the affected communities by the proposed NSIP. This, regrettably, has

been to no avail, for a number of reasons. The core reason for this has been a total lack of

respect by EirGrid for the integrity of the public consultation process, a process that is a central

pillar of our democracy. The public have been met by a semi-state company which has shown

total disregard for its duties and responsibilities to the very public it is charged with serving.

NEPPC is now making a formal complaint to the EU Commission, as is our right, in relation to

numerous unacceptable activities by EirGrid, The Irish Government and An Bord Pleanála

concerning their behavior on a number of different aspects of the project. The specific

complaints are outlined in the next chapter.

NEPPC is requesting the following:

1. That DG Energy reviews the details of the submission and commences an investigation

into the matters outlined.

2. That the EU Commission requests to EirGrid that the imminent resubmission of the

planning application is postponed until a proper investigation of this complaint is

completed.

2

NEPPC requests, for a number of reasons, that the EU Commission gives this complaint its

urgent and serious attention. The people we represent are ordinary EU citizens, who are not

involved in any type of protest groups, but who are looking for nothing more than fair play and a

functioning democratic process. We have been failed by our local Government politicians, our

national Government and by our semi-state company in the underhanded and dishonest

manner in the way they have conducted their affairs and in the process treated us with

disregard and contempt. This is despite the fact that NEPPC has always followed the

democratic process. We raised significant monies to provide funding for research into the

options to underground the North-South interconnector project (NSIP). We subsequently

presented all of our facts and arguments in a professional manner at the oral hearing in 2010, at

a cost of c. €700,000. EirGrid withdrew its application in the middle of the oral hearing, without

any accountability or responsibility for its actions.

Since 2010, EirGrid has been preparing for a resubmission of its application. It has continued to

refuse to acknowledge public concerns, to consult or engage with the public, or to genuinely

search for a solution. Instead it has adopted the aggressive approach of assuming it will obtain

planning permission and then use its assumed statutory powers to forcibly construct over 400

pylons and overhead lines.

EirGrid, the Government and ultimately the EU Commission are missing the point on projects

such as the NSIP. These projects will only ever happen with the consent of the citizens it

ultimately represents. Consent will only ever be obtained if people feel that they have been

given a fair hearing and are part of a democratic, independent process. The complaint

submitted clearly shows that this is not the case. It is the EU Commission’s duty to step in and

avoid a deepening of conflict between EirGrid and the public. Otherwise, approval for the

planning application will be nothing but a pyrrhic victory.

EirGrid’s intransigent position of exclusively focusing solely on overhead transmission lines can

only lead to complete stalemate and represents a dereliction of duty in terms of its accountability

for achieving the required upgrade of the Grid. EirGrid’s intransigence stems from its refusal to

acknowledge the public acceptance challenges and to accept its socio-economic responsibilities

in this regard.

3

We request that you give this complaint your urgent attention.

Yours faithfully

Aimée Treacy

Chairperson,NEPPC

Executive Summary

4

NEPPC has submitted a formal complaint directly to the European Commission concerning the

activities and behaviour of EirGrid in particular, but also of the Irish Government and of An Bord

Pleanála (ABP) in relation to their failure to perform their duties in a professional, objective and

impartial manner concerning the NSIP to date. The substantive issues that form the essence of

the complaint relate to EirGrid’s failure to objectively examine the strategic need and scale of

the project, the failure to fulfill its public consultation duties under EU regulation 347, the failure

to engage with the affected landowners’ concerns and recommendations, the refusal to carry

out a proper cost-benefit analysis of the project, the waste of taxpayers’s monies and

associated lack of accountability, the numerous incorrect and misleading claims to the public

and EirGrid’s provocative and intimidatory approach in its dealings with concerned communities

in the designated route corridor. The complaint also highlights the current Government’s

discrimination against the NSIP, by refusing to allow it to be included in independent review

being held on all other main grid infrastructure projects. Finally, the complaint highlights the

concerns of the public regarding the conflict of interest and apparent lack of impartiality that

exists within An Bord Pleanála on this project.

The complaint by NEPPC, on behalf of affected communities and landowners in the North-East,

contains detailed and specific facts that have occurred over the last 7 years. It includes the

following issues:

1. Failure by the Government and by EirGrid to prove the strategic need for the scale of the

project and its investment cost to citizens.

2. Failure by EirGrid to review and downsize the project seven years after the initial

planning application, in light of significant documented long-term reductions in projected

demand.

3. Failure to objectively examine all technology alternatives, especially the rapidly evolving

option of underground cable technology.

4. Failure to carry out a professional cost-benefit analysis of the technology alternatives

5

5. Pre-meditated refusal by EirGrid to carry out an objective public consultation exercise

6. Refusal by EirGrid to engage with landowners concerns’ or recommendations

7. Refusal by EirGrid to respect landowners requests and rights for the last 7 years,

resulting in provocative and intimidating behaviour by EirGrid and/or its appointed agents

8. Lack of accountability by EirGrid and by the Government for the waste of taxpayers’

monies in the project to date

9. Consistent use of incorrect, biased and misleading claims and statements to the public

over a 7 year period.

10. Discrimination against the NSIP by the Government, in agreement with EirGrid, in

specifically excluding it from an undergrounding analysis study

11. Failure of Government to act on a 2007 report commissioned to take action on health

related issues regarding extra high voltage lines and EMF/health concerns.

12. Biased claims by Minister of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources that will be

prejudicial to a proper oral hearing by ABP.

13. Perceived failure by ABP to act in an impartial manner on the NSIP

14. Conflict of interest in appointment of ABP as Competent Authority for PCI

6

15. Failure by ABP to properly engage prescribed bodies in its handling of EirGrid

submissions to ABP

Each of the above 15 points is substantive in its own regard and merits investigation. But the

overriding substantive issue is that of the continued refusal and repeated failure to carry out a

genuine public consultation on this project. This is all the more unforgiveable given that EirGrid

is going through the process of a resubmitted planning application, over a 7 year period.

Eirgrid’s brazen approach of paying lip-service to the option of undergrounding and to ignore

public concerns and recommendations strongly indicates that it carries the imprimatur of the full

backing of Government to steam-roll the North-South interconnector through the planning

stages, and in so doing break the will of local communities opposing the Grid Link and Grid

West projects. The current EirGrid Project Manager Mr John Fitzgerald recently stated on the

airwaves that: “..public acceptability is key. We have to have these projects accepted or they

simply won’t be built..”. In a sworn affidavit to the High Court, dated 19th May 2008, EirGrid’s

then Project Manager, Mr Tomás Mahony, stated: ‘It is recognised by the Respondent that such

infrastructure cannot be put in place without the general acceptance of the people of the North

East...’ NEPPC concurs with Mr Mahony’s assessment.

It is an alarming development for the public that the new EU regulation 347, which espouses

greater public consultation as a core component of PCI projects is in fact being ignored and

manipulated by EirGrid and by An Bord Pleanála in a rush to force through the planning

application yet again. It is incumbent of the EU Commission to investigate this aspect in

particular and not to allow the whole issue of respect for the integrity of the public consultation

process, a process that is a central pillar of our democracy, to be hijacked.

NEPPC Complaint to EU Commission – Supporting Facts

7

1. Failure by the Government and by EirGrid to prove the strategic need for the scale of the project and its investment cost to citizens.

2. Failure by EirGrid to review and downsize the project seven years after the initial planning application, in light of significant documented long-term reductions in projected demand.

Strategic Need

The ‘Grid 25’ strategy from EirGrid, which outlines the plans to significantly upgrade the

national grid, is based on the ‘All Island Grid Strategy’ (AIGS) policy document jointly

commissioned by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (DCENR)

and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) in Northern Ireland. The policy

has set a target of producing 40% of Irish electricity from renewables by 2020 and EirGrid has

produced a plan for grid investment (Grid 25) costing more than €4bn (subsequently reduced to

€3.2bn) to accommodate total transmission investment. A significant portion of this cost arises

from the requirement to connect very large quantities of renewable generation (wind).

There was no public input or involvement into this policy, and no opportunity to challenge the

assumptions made. NEPPC challenges the assumptions, methodology, analysis and

recommendations related to the conclusions arrived at by EirGrid in forming a justification for

the project. NEPPC concurs with the findings of the Irish Academy of Engineers Report in June

2009, that:

the Study is quite clearly not a sufficiently robust exercise on which to base

Ireland’s future energy policy. The target of 40% of Ireland’s electricity

supply to come from renewables by 2020 greatly exceeds the target

agreed at EU level;

8

the assumptions used in the Study are “pre economic crisis” and are no longer

valid. This is particularly true of the demand growth projections used in

the Study;

the Study itself contains many serious inconsistencies and flaws;

the Study authors themselves recognise that it has been under resourced and

that the results are not reliable for large renewables penetration; and

Ireland’s policy regarding renewable development in light of changed

economic circumstances and international competitiveness be re-

examined and a robust techno-economic analysis be undertaken.

NEPPC submits that the project is not proposed to address an immediate or recognised

strategic or national electricity demand or shortfall nor is the project considered necessary or

justified on the grounds of imperative reason of overriding public interest. The proposed project

is clearly based upon significant commercial interest. NEPPC has no objection to EirGrid

seeking to enhance the existing electricity infrastructure to facilitate an all island and trans-

boundary exchange of electricity but only where it is done in accordance with the proper

planning and sustainable development of the area and where it can be demonstrated that the

proposed project would not result in adverse effects on the receiving environment.

At the Oral hearing in may 2010, when the first and only opportunity for the public to challenge

the strategic need occurred, counsel on behalf of NEPPC requested that the strategic need for

the NSIP be justified by the DCENR and Mr Bob Hanna, chief technical manager of the project

within DCENR was called as a witness to the oral hearing in June 2010. But he refused to

attend and the strategic need was refused to be discussed.

Scale of the NSIP

It should be noted that the Government White Paper from the Department of Communications,

Marine and Natural Resources ”Delivering a Sustainable Energy Future for Ireland” describing

9

The Energy Policy Framework 2007 – 2020 (March 2007) formulates as part of the Strategic

Goal 1:

“3.2.3. We will ensure delivery of the second North-South electricity connector by 2011 which

will more than double the existing cross border electricity transfer capacity to over 680 MW.”

The EirGrid submission to an Oireachtas Committee Report (February 2008) declares on page

12:

“EirGrid is also developing a new high capacity transmission link to Northern Ireland which will

facilitate greater access to generation in Northern Ireland and the UK (via Northern Ireland’s

interconnector to Scotland).Such enhanced links with Northern Ireland are likely to deliver a

200-300 MW capacity benefit, along with greater market integration and scope for integration of

renewable generation”

These historical statements clearly show that a transmission capacity for the N-S Interconnector

of a maximum of 340 MW is planned.

EirGrid claimed in the original planning application that a 1500MW NSIP was necessary. This

contradicts its own published data on the requirements for the NSIP, which state that 750MW is

the maximum requirement.

10

EirGrid will again be making the claim for a need for a 1500 MW interconnector in the

application being prepared for resubmission. This is despite the fact that two significant shifts

have occurred:

1. The Electricity Supply Board (ESB) submission to the recent DCENR Energy Green

Paper highlighted a number of major concerns related to EirGrid’s Grid 25 strategy for

upgrading the electricity grid infrastructure. These concerns carry significant weight in

light of the fact that ESB is actually the asset owner of the transmission grid. The main

issues outlined by ESB are that:

The scale of the Grid 25 plans far exceeds what is now actually needed.

Grid 25 is founded on a projected 60% increase in overall

electricity demand by 2025, whereas EirGrid’s own latest projections

now declare a mere 5% projected increase.

11

The significant reduction in overall demand results in a reduction in the

level of renewable energy required to meet our binding EU targets.

Hence there is a need to reassess the timing and scope of plans for

many of the Grid 25 initiatives.

2. In the planned application resubmission EirGrid itself has taken out the originally

planned substation at Kingscourt in Cavan, because of the lack of demand for at least a

decade.

NEPPC has argued consistently that 500-700MW is more than adequate. This would reduce the

technical costs significantly, and make it the undergrounding option even more compelling.

3. Failure to objectively examine all technology alternatives, especially the rapidly evolving option of underground cable technology (UGC)

EirGrid, to this day, refuses to entertain undergrounding as a feasible technology, despite the

fact that it is removing the substation from the application to be resubmitted; despite the fact that

it is an interconnector, and despite the fact that VSC-HVDC underground cable technology has

progressed considerably since 2007.

NEPPC has communications from EirGrid, as far back as 2007 stating that EirGrid would not

consider UGC as a technology alternative. It has refused to move from this position, despite the

fact that, in particular, the Meath-Tyrone report, commissioned by the Government highlights

quite clearly that an underground option is feasible and reliable.

Excerpts from the World Bank review are relevant to the North-South interconnector project:

‘Modern HVDC systems combine the good experience of the old installations with recently

developed technologies and materials. The result is a very competitive, flexible and efficient way

of transmitting electrical energy with a very low environmental impact.

· The need for ROW (Right Of Way) is much smaller for HVDC than for HVAC, for the

same transmitted power. The environmental impact is smaller with HVDC.

12

· VSC technology gives a good opportunity to alternative energy sources to be

economically and technically efficient.

· HVDC transmissions have a high availability and reliability rate, shown by more than 30

years of operation.

HVDC systems remain the best economical and environmentally friendly option for the

above conventional applications. However, three different dynamics - technology

development, deregulation of electricity industry around the world, and a quantum leap

in efforts to conserve the environment - are demanding a change in thinking that could

make HVDC systems the preferred alternative to high voltage AC systems in many other

situations as well. To elaborate:

· New technologies, such as the VSC based HVDC systems, and the new extruded

polyethylene DC cables, have made it possible for HVDC to become economic at lower

power levels and over a transmission distance of just 60 km’.

EirGrid claims that the Overhead Transmission Line (OHTL) option is necessary because of the

need to link in to wind farms along the route. The largest proposed wind farm, however, in

North-Meath, is using underground cable technology and linking in to a local substation.

4. Failure to carry out a professional cost-benefit analysis of the technology alternatives

The statements and claims by EirGrid on cost of underground cable technology have varied

wildly over the last 7 years. Despite its refusal to carry out a site specific underground route and

cost analysis for the North-South interconnector EirGrid has not been shy in making apparently

authoritative statements on cost.

In 2007 EirGrid estimated the cost of underground cable technology to be 25 times that of

overhead lines and pylons. In 2009 this figure was reduced to 7 times the overhead line cost.

The most recent statements by EirGrid and by Minister Rabbitte refer to 3.5 times the cost. All of

these cost claims are based on hypothetical estimates from various reports.

13

The reality, however, is very different. EirGrid has direct knowledge of the construction costs of

overhead transmission lines. EirGrid recently completed the construction and installation of the

underground and undersea 256 km East-West interconnector from Wales to Woodland in

Meath, and therefore has direct knowledge of the construction costs for undergrounding,

especially HVDC cable systems. This is exactly the same system that the Independent Expert

Commission report is recommending as suitable for the North-South interconnector.

All of this information is now in the public domain. The average cost for EirGrid’s planned

overhead lines Grid West, Grid Link and North-South interconnector is €2.1M per kilometre. The

construction cost for the East-West HVDC underground and undersea cable is €2.2M per

kilometre. Hence, based solely on EirGrid’s own cost figures the construction cost of overhead

lines and underground cables is similar.

These costs refer to construction costs only. EirGrid has refused to accept or factor in any

devaluation of property or land caused by extra high voltage overhead lines. It also refuses to

accept any tourism or landscape impact. EirGrid refuses to accept any health risks associated

with these overhead lines.

A large number of international studies have been carried out over the last fifty years to assess

the impact of overhead power lines on the value of residential property and land in close

proximity to pylon towers. NEPPC, using international studies criteria, has performed a very

detailed analysis of land and properties along the proposed route of the North-South

14

2007 2009 2010 2012051015202530 25

9 73

interconnector. This analysis found that property and land losses can be expected in the order

of €310Million.

The delays incurred in upgrading the grid also carry a significant cost element. EirGrid and

Chambers of Commerce Ireland, estimates this at circa €30Million per year. Planning delays on

the North-South interconnector, self inflicted by EirGrid, are now running at a minimum of 7

years behind schedule at best, totalling €210 Million. Undergrounding, however, does not

require planning and so provides an immediate solution to this problem.

It is high time that EirGrid is taken to task for misleading the public on the important argument

around costs, when the company itself possesses accurate figures on both underground and

overhead options. These figures explode the myth being peddled by EirGrid and by the Minister

that undergrounding is too expensive. On the contrary, it is more economical. When you factor

in the huge public acceptance value of the technology and the elimination of any health risks it

really is a simple solution.

15

EirGrid has NEVER included lifetime cost elements, such as project delays and

valuation impacts, in its transmission investment decisions, as admitted at the 2010 An

Bord Pleanála oral hearing.

EirGrid misleadingly states that should the Underground HVDC option be required,

another convertor station will be necessary at the Moyhill substation:

‘Based on the converter station costs estimated by the expert commission, it will add at

least €100 million to €150 million to the cost of the scheme when it is required’

It fails to mention that this substation could be fed from the convertor at Turleenan, ruling

out an extra cost of c.€150Million. It also fails to be consistent, as the Moyhill substation

is no longer part of its next planning application.

EirGrid admitted at the hearing that it had not considered the planned convertor station

for the East-West interconnector being also used for the North-South interconnector,

stating that the required VSC ‘breakers’ would not be available for a number of years,

despite the Commission stating that these would be available in 2013. The lack of

objectivity towards an undergrounding alternative is evident by the fact that EirGrid never

considered the joint use of the planned convertor station at Woodlands for both E-W and

N-S projects, allowing for huge potential savings.

EirGrid misleadingly introduced the findings of a recent UK report which it purportedly

claims to have been carried out by independent experts Parsons Brinckerhoff and to

have pertinent facts related to HVDC underground cable costs: “The report to which I

referred was the Electricity Transmission Costing Study, which was carried out

independently by experts from Parsons Brinckerhoff in association with Cable Consulting

International and was endorsed by the Institution of Engineering and Technology in the

16

United Kingdom. The study gave detailed consideration to the comparative costs of AC

overhead, AC underground and HVDC underground”.

Both of these statements are incorrect. Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB Power) works very

closely with Eirgrid on a number of fronts:

It is a key consultant on the East-West interconnector project

has been used by Eirgrid to examine worst case scenarios for undergrounding the

North-South interconnector

More importantly, the report does not examine costs related to HVDC underground at

the relevant lengths, it rather examines HVDC undersea cables.

5. Pre-meditated refusal by EirGrid to carry out an objective public consultation exercise

NEPPC contends that EirGrid has taken a very simple but unacceptable approach to the NSIP.

It has decided, in a semi-state environment devoid of any accountability or any private industry

competition, that it was going to build the NSIP using the technology it is most familiar with –

OHTL and pylon towers. It will construct this line using the shortest possible route and lowest

cost. All of this was decided PRIOR to any public consultation. EirGrid then set about going

through the motions regarding public consultation, but purely for compliance reasons.

NEPPC wishes to highlight the following episodes as examples of EirGrid’s total failure to

perform its public consultation duties and more recently to fail to comply with Regulation 347,

Article 9.

Failure to adhere to the Gunning Principles of public consultation for the original

application

Failure to comply with the public consultation requirements of new regulation 347

The Gunning principles are that:

(i) consultation must take place when the proposal is still at a formative stage;

(ii) sufficient reasons must be put forward for the proposal to allow for intelligent

17

consideration and response;

(iii) adequate time must be given for consideration and response; and

(iv) the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account.

(i) ‘Proposal at a formative stage’

The obvious point of Gunning principle (i) is that the decision-maker cannot consult on

a decision that it has already made. Otherwise, consultation is not only unfair – the

outcome has been pre-determined -- but it is pointless.

A public consultation report issued in April 2008 by Mary Murphy Associates, on behalf of

Eirgrid, states the following:

‘Many members of the public have been keen to discuss the possibility of placing the power

lines underground. The request by stakeholders for undergrounding the line has been seen as a

solution to prevent the problems that may be caused by overgrounding the lines. It is generally

felt by many members of the public that if the lines were placed underground, the problems with

health, visual impact, land devaluation, and many of the other constraints would not be an issue.

EirGrid is taking this concern into consideration. These concerns will feed into the decision

making process’.

This statement and many other similar statements to members of the public infer that placing

the power lines underground is an open option yet to be decided on. Nothing could be further

from the truth. In December 2007, EirGrid responded to a submission and a set of questions

from the Rathmore Action Group in County Meath.

Q. ‘Has an UnderGround Cable feasibility study been performed?’

A. ‘No. For projects like this, making this connection using an overhead connection is a

preferred option as a matter of EirGrid policy’.

Q ‘Has an UnderGround route corridor been examined?’

A. ‘No, an underground corridor has not been examined as typically for projects like this,

making this connection using an overhead connection (is) a more feasible option’.

18

Q ‘Has a proper cost analysis specific to this route corridor been performed?

A. See question above’.

The EIA Directive and Irish planning regulations require an Environmental Impact Assessment

to set ‘ an outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an indication of the main

reasons for his or her choice, taking into account the effects on the environment’

EirGrid prejudged from the outset and made a predetermined assumption that, irrespective of

any available or newly emerging data or commissioned reports, overhead transmission lines

were the only option that they would pursue. As stated in their constraints report they have ‘an

absolute preference’ for overhead transmission lines. The public consultation report clearly

misleads members of the public on this subject.

EirGrid, having withdrawn its application in June 2010, commenced preparation for a

resubmission. But nothing changed , in terms of its refusal to properly consult with the public.

This is evident from a statement in one of the pre-application meetings with ABP, in December

2010:

‘Following the conclusion of the route-selection process the prospective applicant intends to commence a robust and intensive public consultation process with direct and face-to-face contact with affected landowners, where possible’.

This approach of so-called consultation after the decision of technology choice and route

selection has already been made contravenes the Gunning principle of:

(iv) Conscientious consideration of the fruits of consultation

The fruits of consultation must be conscientiously considered. This ties in with the first

Gunning principle which is really a proxy for whether the decision-maker has made up

its mind. If the decision-maker does not properly consider the material produced by

the consultation, then it can be accused of having made up its mind; or of failing to

take into account a relevant consideration.

19

These actions by EirGrid contravene Article VI.3.a of regulation 347:

(a)’ The stakeholders affected by a project of common interest, including relevant

national, regional and local authorities, landowners and citizens living in the vicinity of

the project, the general public and their associations, organisations or groups, shall be extensively informed and consulted at an early stage, when potential concerns by the public can still be taken into account and in an open and transparent manner’

The public consultation shall inform stakeholders referred to in Annex VI.3(a) about

the project at an early stage and shall help to identify the most suitable location or

trajectory and the relevant issues to be addressed in the application file

In essence, UGC was not considered; OHTL was the sole option; the route was chosen and

then, after the fact, the public would be ‘consulted’. This approach demolishes any claims of

legitimacy of the consultation process.

Bear in mind also that from the outset EirGrid refused to reveal to the public the rationale for its

choice of route corridors. NEPPC was forced to take EirGrid to the High Court to obtain this

information, which is a fundamental component of public consultation.

On a more general note EirGrid refuses to discuss the NSIP with affected communities,

landowners or representative groups in a public forum. It has been invited to participate in public

debate fora, but has refused, stating ‘health and safety’ concerns, which is an insult to both the

communities concerned and to its representatives. It refuses to debate the NSIP on radio

directly, instead only offering to speak on air unchallenged. This leaves a very sour taste with

the public, and makes a mockery of EirGrid’s claims of ‘public consultation’.

In summary, not one single input from the public has been taken on board by EirGrid. It is

ploughing on with the OHTL technology along the same route, in the same route corridor it

outlined in 2007. The public concerns have been treated as an irrelevancy by EirGrid.

20

6. Refusal by EirGrid to engage with landowners concerns’ or recommendations

EirGrid, even after 7 years, has to this day refused to meet the affected landowners as a group,

to hear their concerns and discuss the best way forward.

The subject of landowner consultation has not been addressed with either the appropriate

expertise or with genuine intent. It was quite clear that the purpose of the so called

‘consultations’ with landowners prior to the original planning application was confined to EirGrid

seeking merely to ascertain the identity and addresses of landholders and/or occupiers for the

serving of notices on them in respect of individual plots of land. No proper assessment of these

landowners was at any time being carried out by Eirgrid. This ploy was received by landowners

as an insult to their intelligence. This tactic by agents of the Applicant is conceded in the Oral

hearing submission of Ms. Hogan, acting as an agent of EirGrid, on 11th May 2010, where she

states:

‘The ultimate aim of the consultation was to collate the best available information from land

registry, coupled with on site contact with landowners to identify insofar as possible the names

and addresses of all landowners, together with the size of their individual holdings’

At the oral hearing in 2010 EirGrid’s senior counsel strenuously attempted to prevent a

landowner with an existing 400kv line and pylon at the commencement of the route from making

a damming witness statement submission, based on the ill-health of the landowner and his

family. This aggressive behavior resulted in zero credibility of EirGrid at landowner and public

level.

At the same Oral Hearing in2010 EirGrid stated that:

‘the landowner consultation process followed the principles of consultation established since the

time of building the Country’s first 400kV lines’, in partnership with landowner and

representative organisations’

NEPPC is of the opinion that this is a very misleading statement, on two accounts:

21

The country’s first 400kV lines and subsequent other extra high voltage 220kV and 110kv lines

have encountered severe landowner and public resistance. These projects have centered on

conflict rather than on consultation.

1. The two largest landowner organizations in this country, the Irish Farmers Association

(IFA) and the Irish Creamery & Milk Suppliers Association (ICMSA) have both stated

their opposition to the NSIP, their support of their landowner members, their support of

NEPPC’s objectives and their recommendation for using the alternative of underground

cabling.

At the Oral Hearing EirGrid stated that ‘In the case of this project, a detailed questionnaire

delivered to each landowner on the line route gave an opportunity to inform EirGrid of any

specific concerns which the Landowner may have had relating to the project’.

NEPPC is of the opinion that this statement is inaccurate and misleading

1. EirGrid could not have delivered a detailed questionnaire to each landowner on the line

route because it has to date failed to identify all of the landowners affected.

2. Landowners on the line route from Woodlands to Moyhill have not received any detailed

questionnaire from EirGrid or its agents at any time.

3. NEPPC, however, have conducted an in-depth landowner questionnaire of all

landowners on the Woodlands to Moyhill proposed line route. A response level of 95.1%

was achieved. Some very clear results were observed

There was not a single landowner in favour of EirGrid’s proposals for overhead lines and pylon towers.

98.9% of respondents ‘strongly objected’ to Eirgrid’s proposals.

22

98.5% of respondents preferred the alternative of underground cables

89.3% of respondents were in favour of underground cables crossing their land

In January 2014 EirGrid was forced to embark on a review of its public consultation process. It

made laudable claims of genuine intent:

“.. we must do everything we can to address the concerns of communities and gain their support

and trust.” (J O’Connor, EirGrid Chairman).

In March 2014 it published its terms of reference, stating that it had commissioned the

Chartered Institute of Arbitrators to do an external review, and would produce a report, including

recommendations, in June 2014:

‘The overall review is expected to be completed by June and its findings will be published,

including recommendations to improve future public engagement. This demonstrates our

commitment to listening to, and responding to, feedback from communities and stakeholders in

relation to our grid projects’

The public consultation review was given further weight by the composition of the working

Group:

‘The review will be undertaken by a Working Group which will be chaired by the Chairperson of

the EirGrid Board and will include two further Board members, the Chief Executive, the Director

of Grid Development and two EirGrid staff’.

NEPPC has requested clarity on the status and findings of the report, but nothing has been

forthcoming to date.

Eirgrid has decided to ignore this whole review by recently submitting its NSIP Concept for

Public Participation (CPP) public consultation file to ABP for approval. The file includes all

activities related to the original planning application, although this application is null and void.

ABP has, with great haste, approved the EirGrid submission, without even requesting any inputs

from prescribed bodies.

23

NEPPC wishes to make the following comments:

The submission by EirGrid to ABP makes a mockery of its public consultation review

process. It demonstrates, yet again, that it intends to plough on regardless of public

concerns and regardless of direct feedback from public consultation reviews. EirGrid

continues to treat affected communities with disdain. The public do not accept to be

treated in this manner.

The approval of the EirGrid submission by ABP raises a number of serious concerns for

the public in relation to the impartiality of the ABP process:

Why did ABP not demand that the findings of the major consultation review be part of

the EirGrid submission?

Why did ABP accept from EirGrid all activities from the original formally withdrawn

application, presided over by ABP itself?

Why did ABP allow EirGrid dictate that no prescribed bodies or authorities be involved in

the approval process, despite this being part of the documented preferred procedure?

It is clear to NEPPC and to the public that EirGrid could only act in this cavalier manner

because it has full Government backing to drive on with the project. It is clear, from the

resounding silence from all Government TD’s in the North-East, that they have no

stomach to stand up and be counted on this issue, despite their constituents being

treated in a wholly unjust and undemocratic manner.

NEPPC, for the record, will be writing to the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural

Resources, highlighting our concerns regarding the lack of impartiality of the public consultation

process, although no response or action is expected. NEPPC will also be writing to the Minister

for Environment to highlight the EirGrid’s refusal to comply with the spirit of the Aarhus

convention. We are requesting the EU Commission to investigate these matters.

In October 2014, the vast majority of affected landowners in the Meath-Cavan area placed an

advertisement in the national press, outlining their position on the project and all putting their

names to the statement – Appendix A. This was deemed necessary, four years after it was

24

made clear at the oral hearing in 2010, about the need for a new approach to the public

consultation process (Appendix B).

7. Refusal by EirGrid to respect landowners requests and rights for the last 7 years, resulting in provocative and intimidating behaviour by EirGrid and/or its appointed agents

EirGrid has refused to respect the wishes and requests of landowners that EirGrid, or its agents,

should not arrive unannounced on landowners’ property, without making an appointment.

The dictatorial approach taken by Eirgrid in relation to visiting affected landowners and

neighbouring householders is extremely unsatisfactory. It is important to stress the fundamental

right of landowners to each be treated individually by EirGrid, not collectively, and not on terms

dictated solely by EirGrid. The issues arising for landowners are too sensitive and far-reaching

in their consequences and EirGrid’s approach to their concerns was not sufficiently well

designed and executed to manage these.

Many landowners stated in writing to EirGrid that they were prepared to meet with company

representatives if certain basic conditions were adhered to, as outlined in our submission. Given

the sensitivity of the issues involved, landowners have a right to be consulted in a manner that

is appropriate to their specific needs and that respects the sensitivity of their position as

landowners. Any contact with landowners should have taken place within an appropriate and

agreed framework that they were comfortable with. EirGrid had no legal or moral right

unilaterally to impose their framework for contacts on landowners.

Instead of accepting landowners’ requests, EirGrid’s agents for the Woodlands to Moyhill

section, TOBIN Consultants, attempted to embark on a series of unannounced visits to

landowners. Landowners found that the agents sent to meet them were inexperienced and

poorly briefed about the many sensitive issues involved. To many of the questions raised, their

responses consisted of either ‘We do not know’, ‘We will get back to you’ or silence. Such

contacts do not fall within any reasonable definition of consultation.

25

We have already referred to the basic flaws in the design and implementation of the landowner

consultation process and the resulting poor quality of consultation. However, following the

issuing by EirGrid of formal letters and accompanying maps to individual landowners on 7th

April 2009, the issues arising from the process became even more acute. Many concerned

householders and landowners contacted NEPPC to voice their extreme annoyance at EirGrid’s

agents appearing on their doorsteps unannounced. NEPPC wrote to EirGrid highlighting these

concerns and recommending a practical course of action, centred on common courtesy. The

submission on public consultation by Elizabeth Arnett on 13th May ,2010 selectively quotes

from this communication. The communication and press release of April 20th states that ‘older

people, especially those living in rural areas, are understandably put in fear by the unannounced

arrival of unknown persons on their property’. It subsequently makes a common sense

recommendation to the Applicant that ‘ if an agent wishes to meet an individual landowner, a

prior request should be made in writing to the individual landowner and any such meeting

should take place only after agreement on a date, time, place and agenda by the landowner in

writing’.

In individual letters sent to EirGrid, many landowners requested a written response to their

specific queries on legal, technical and other matters. They made it clear that they required a

written response so that they could have clarity and lack of ambiguity in any consultations they

might need to have with professional advisers. EirGrid did not reply to them individually, as

requested, contrary to a claim made in the EIS that they provided feedback ‘in writing as

requested.’ Instead, the company issued a generalised, public document entitled ‘Questions

and Answers’. This was contrary to what each landowner had requested and was entirely

disrespectful of their reasonable requirements as to how they wished to be consulted.

Some of the queries from landowners related to ascertaining if EirGrid or its agents had by that

time already entered their property or landholdings, without notice or permission. These queries

have never been answered directly or individually.

EirGrid ignored a number of further written requests from landowners for specific individual

replies. A collective response to the second set of questions was only received after EirGrid

26

made its planning submission. Therefore, it is not correct to refer to the consultation with

landowners as having been ‘completed’.

It was because of EirGrid’s lack of respect for landowners’ wishes that these landowners signed

long term ‘Forms of Authority’ contracts with NEPPC, requesting that NEPPC represents them

in all dealings with EirGrid and demanding that EirGrid does not communicate with the

landowners or dare enter its property.

EirGrid plans to plough ahead and resubmit for planning approval to ABP, despite the fact that

the only land ‘access’ they can currently achieve is to use helicopters for aerial photography

over the proposed route. In 2012 EirGrid attempted to intimidate landowners by sending each

one a certified letter stating that if landowners did not allow voluntary entry of EirGrid personnel

onto their lands that EirGrid may force its way onto the land using its alleged statutory powers:

‘In the event that entry onto lands for the purpose of surveying the route of an electric line

across such lands, is not forthcoming on a voluntary basis, then EirGrid may require entry,

pursuant to section 20(4) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1927, as amended by Regulation 8 of

S.I. 445/2000’.

This heavy-handed approach does not bode well for making any progress on the NSIP.

In 2011-2014 EirGrid and/or its agents have behaved in a very aggressive manner towards

some landowners, resulting in local police being requested by EirGrid to formally serve

‘cautions’ to law-abiding citizens.

In 2011-2014 Eirgrid has directed its agents to take photographic images of many landowners’

properties, without the courtesy of asking the landowners for permission. In EirGrid’s view

permission is not necessary, so it refused to even bother informing landowners

… see email response from EirGrid.

Aidan,I am very surprised at your provocative and aggressive position outlined in your response, highlighting that your instruction to consultants totally disregards any respect or common courtesy towards landowners, who have been placed in the unfortunate position of having your project foisted upon them for the last 6 years. As outlined in my email below,the least they deserve is the common courtesy of

27

asking permission for such photographs of their property to be taken. This also applies to calling, unannounced on their property, which continues to this day for those who have not ( and some who have) signed Forms of Authority, despite requests from us many years ago for this to happen. I attach a copy of such correspondence.I wish to put on record that EirGrid has refused point blank to take on board this request regarding landowner meetings and consultation.Padraig----- Original Message ----- From: Aidan.Geoghegan@eirgrid.com To: pjboreilly@eircom.net ; deborah.meghen@eirgrid.com Cc: maustin@efc.ie ; aimeetreacy@hotmail.com ; bernie.andrew@iol.ie ; candrew@iol.ie ; michaelk@insightconsultants.ie Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 10:48 AMSubject: RE: Photographing of landowners property without permission - Bohermeen area today

Padraig,

We have instructed our consultants to take whatever photographs they need to assist them in carrying out their environmental assessment and further that this is done in compliance with the law. Any such photographs may form part of the planning submission.

Regards,

Aidan

Aidan GeogheganProject ManagerNorth South 400kV Interconnection DevelopmentEirGrid plc

From: P OReilly [mailto:pjboreilly@eircom.net] Sent: 15 August 2013 15:57To: Geoghegan, Aidan; Meghen, DeborahCc: Margaret Austin; Aimee Treacy; Bernie Andrew ; Colin Andrew; Michael KeaneSubject: Photographing of landowners property without permission - Bohermeen area today

Aidan,We have been contacted by a landowner this afternoon who stated that a Tobin's employee was driving around this afternoon taking photos of landholdings in the area, related to the Meath-Tyrone power line project. The employee was approached by a landowner, but she refused to give her name. Car was silver Skoda Octavia 05-D-120426.

On the same day last week (8th August) in the Bective/ Dunderry area a number of people from Tobin's were seen taking photographs of landowners property and land in the area.

We have had similar issues in the past in relation to the contract company you have hired to take photomantages (Scott Wilson), with a specific incident on 13th July,2011, where the Gardai advised that landowner permission be sought prior to taking any photographs.

I wish to highlight our annoyance and objection to the persistent actions of Tobin's, who are under EirGrid's instruction, to continue to take photographs without permission. It cannot be argued that these are general photgraphs of the locality, as you have landowner lists and contact numbers, which facilitates the common courtesy of at least asking the landowner in question if permission can be granted to take any photographs.

28

I would further request that none of the photographs taken in this regard should be used for eventual commercial purposes or for submission in any planning application.

Can you please clarify the situation as follows:* Has EirGrid instructed Tobin's to take photgraphs of landowner's land and/or property, without obtaining such landowner's permission?* Will EirGrid confirm that this will no longer continue?* Will EirGrid confirm that all photgraphs taken to date will not be used for any planning submission or other commercial purpose?

Finally, I would add that this type of activity goes very much against the much publicised requests by EirGrid for consultation and cooperation.Padraig

8. Lack of accountability by EirGrid and by the Government for the waste of taxpayers’ monies in the project to date

The original planning application by EirGrid in 2010 was both woefully inadequate and

incompetent. A number of facts support this assertion:

The maps used as a core component of the submission were 4 years out of date,

resulting in new house constructions and approved applications being omitted. No

liaison had been made with the local planning authorities as part of the planning

application submission

The planned substation was outside of the study area and also did not comply with

planning stipulations

EirGrid sought an unprecedented 80 metre planning approval leeway to move the pylon

towers in any direction as part of the planning approval

The withdrawal of the planning application carried no responsibility, accountability or penalties

for EirGrid. Yet, all of the community groups, especially NEPPC, who put a substantive case

together, were left high and dry in terms of the very significant workload, time and costs of the

hearing. This was a hugely anti-democratic outcome. The public, who raised funds to participate

fully in the democratic process, were victimized by the process. NEPPC spent two years

pressurizing EirGrid to show some responsibility for its actions and had to settle for receipt

eventually of less than 25% of its costs. This has resulted in a double negative outcome for

democracy, namely:

29

The public are in a much weaker financial position to represent its case at the

next hearing

There is a very strong level of skepticism regarding the futility of participating in

the democratic process a second time around.

This is added to by EirGrid’s lavish promotional expenditure on non-direct business

sponsorships, in a bid to buy favour in the area. The lavish expenditure by EirGrid in many

areas highlights issues of uncontrolled spending, unaccountable behaviour and a blatant

attempt to use what is in essence taxpayers’ funds to influence the same taxpayers’ in favour of

its Grid 25 projects. NEPPC has written to Eirgrid requesting details of its promotional

expenditure, but has yet to receive a response. The following spending activities, however,

provide examples of the promotional expenditure by EirGrid on sponsorships and programmes

that are totally unrelated to its functions and duties:

August 2011-2013 - EirGrid committed €50,000 to the Cavan Fleadh festival per year for 3

years. NEPPC is of the opinion that this is a blatant attempt to buy support for the North-South

interconnector, using taxpayers’ monies.

August 2011 - EirGrid sponsored the Ratoath GAA club for the recent Intermediate football 7’s

tournament.

May 2011 - Eirgrid gave €100,000 to 39 Fingal community groups.  These included chess,

cricket, badminton, GAA, and parent and toddler groups.

May 2011 - Eirgrid sponsored the 'Best International Trade Award ' at the Midlands Ireland

Gateway to Excellence Awards, Mullingar

April 2011 - Eirgrid sponsored a Welsh Irish Cultural event to celebrate St David's day and St

Patricks day. Over 100 people attended dinner and evening entertainment.

Oct 2010 - EirGrid sponsored the 'Euro Toques Food Awards' (the Irish Branch of the European

Community Chefs and Cooks).

Spring 2010 - EirGrid has shown disregard and disrespect for the integrity of the 2010 Oral

Hearing process by launching a national media blitz in the run-up to this event, including:

National TV advertising across all of the main channels, amounting to 1,555 TV ‘Spots’

in the month of April alone.

30

Numerous Press advertisements in the main national newspapers.

The costs of such advertising activities were estimated to be €600,000, even though the

company has no product to sell directly to the public.

EirGrid has admitted that the self inflicted delay in progressing the NSIP is costing c.€30M per

year to the taxpayer. This is currently accumulating to at least €210M. Yet EirGrid is not being

held accountable by our Government or by the EU Commission. The project is continually being

presented as ‘urgent’, with a view to being rushed through as fast as possible. This only serves

to further victimize the affected communities, who have nothing to do with the delay up to now.

9. Consistent use of incorrect, biased and misleading claims and statements to the public over a 7 year period.

There are numerous examples in this regard, but the most recurring issue relates to cost of

undergrounding. EirGrid has wilfully misrepresented the facts regarding options and costs for

undergrounding the North-South interconnector project. It has treated the public with contempt

in making glaring contradictions to its own previous statements on the subject of

undergrounding.

For the North-South Interconnector Project EirGrid has publicly stated on many

occasions that the only feasible route for undergrounding would be cross-country and

not along public roads. In fact, in formal presentations to An Bord Pleanála it rejects the

option of a route along public roads, and instead seeks to place the route through

agricultural land, recommending the construction of a ‘20-22 metre haulage road which

would be as wide as a four lane dual carriageway and would require 390,000 tonnes of

hardcore’ (Aidan Geoghegan, Project Manager, North-South Interconnector Project)

For Grid West, however, as recently as this July, EirGrid is making the completely

opposite statements to the public: ‘: ‘why we did not consider a cross-country

underground option, one that did not follow the public roads...“We clarified that it is

preferable to route underground high voltage cables along public roads to allow ease of

access for monitoring and maintenance of the cable. A cross-country cable route would

result in significant construction costs in addition to increased environmental impact. By

31

constructing the cable in the existing public roads, access would be automatically

provided’ (Sean Meagher, Project Manager, Grid West).

The choice of a bogus underground route for the North-South Interconnector Project,

with associated bogus costs, has led to a total misrepresentation of the facts concerning

comparative costs of underground cable and overhead lines technologies.

10. Discrimination against the NSIP by the Government, in agreement with EirGrid, in specifically excluding it from an undergrounding analysis study

There are 3 major electricity transmission infrastructure projects being advanced by EirGrid as

part of its ‘Grid 25’ strategy, namely:

1. The North-South interconnector project, announced in 2007, stretching 140 km from

Meath to Tyrone.

2. Grid-West project, announced in 2012 running c. 110 km from Mayo to Roscommon,

and

3. Grid-Link project, announced in 2013, stretching 250 km from Kildare to Cork.

The Government has appointed an Independent Expert Panel (IEP) to examine the

undergrounding of the Grid-West and Grid-Link projects, but has excluded the NSIP, on the

grounds of ‘urgency’.

The exclusion of the NSIP from this analysis is an illogical and unjust decision. It is deeply unfair

and discriminatory to the affected communities across the North-East.

The admission by EirGrid that it has not adequately examined an underground cable option for

Grid-West and Grid-Link is equally valid for the North-South interconnector. Why then is EirGrid

forging ahead with an overhead lines and pylons planning application for the North-South

interconnector? A decision on the feasibility, affordability and acceptability of underground cable

technology is a strategic decision. It is also a national decision. The exclusion of the North-

South interconnector is a cynical exercise in regionalising the issue and in alienating the

communities in the North-East.

32

The difference in public consultation and engagement on undergrounding between the North-

South interconnector project and that planned for Grid West and Grid Link could not be more

extreme – see Table 1below. For instance, currently with Grid West EirGrid has consulted with

local authorities in Mayo, Roscommon and Galway, as well as the National Roads Authority and

other relevant agencies, identified a number of underground options along public roads, is

eliciting feedback, producing a landowner information brochure on undergrounding options

(http://www.eirgridprojects.com/projects/gridwest/projectactivity/) and producing a report for

public consultation and engagement. In due course EirGrid will send a letter and detailed map to

relevant landowners. None of this has been done for the North-South interconnector, despite it

being the oldest project (7 years) and despite these requests being made formally at the

planning hearing in June 2010, prior to EirGrid’s withdrawal of the project from the oral hearing.

Table 1: Process and public engagement comparison of 400kv ‘Grid 25’ projects

Undergrounding Criteria Plans

East-West 400kV

Grid-Link 400kV

Grid West 400kV

North-South 400kV

Identify route alongside existing public

roadsYES YES YES NO

Select emerging preferred route along

public roadsYES YES YES NO

Feedback period from public YES YES YES NO

Liaison with local authorities YES YES YES NO

Liaison with NRA YES YES YES NO

33

Liaison with other relevant agencies

YES YES YES NO

Landowner information brochure on

underground route optionYES YES YES NO

Public consultation process on

underground route optionYES YES YES NO

Letter and maps to landowners of

underground route optionYES YES YES NO

Route chosen with lowest environmental

impactYES YES YES NO

Recommended use of HVDC cable

technologyYES YES YES NO

The above facts highlight the following:

The NSIP is being blatantly discriminated against by Eirgrid and by the Government. The

undergrounding analysis currently underway for Grid West and Grid Link has never been

afforded to the NSIP.

11. Failure of Government to act on a 2007 report commissioned to take action on health related issues regarding extra high voltage lines and EMF/health concerns

The Government has failed to act on any of the recommendations of a major report on radiation

caused by high power electricity lines, drawn up by a high powered committee of international

experts.

34

The report, from the Expert Group on Health Effects of Electro Magnetic Fields (EMF) – has

been gathering dust on the desk of Environment Minister Phil Hogan TD. The Expert Group

involved leading experts from Italy, the Netherlands, Ireland, Sweden and Britain.

The experts told the government that ‘the possibility cannot be excluded that Electro Magnetic

Fields (EMF) cause cancer’. They said the limited scientific evidence in support of this

conclusion ‘should not be discounted’. Accordingly, the experts recommended that ‘As a

precautionary measure, future power lines and power installations should be sited away from

heavily populated areas to keep exposures to people low. Where major new power lines are

to be constructed, there should be stakeholder input on the routing.’

The Expert Group criticised the lack of focus and co-ordination among state agencies on the

issue of EMF radiation. The government, the experts said, should ‘take a more proactive role in

providing health advice in relation to EMF’ and they recommended that there should be a single

government agency managing the issue. The Report recommended that government expand

the scope and increase the funding of the existing Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland to

give it the necessary powers to become the single agency managing EMF issues. In addition,

overall responsibility for EMF should be given to the Department of the Environment.

The Expert Report recommended that the EMF Agency be backed up by a high-powered

Scientific Advisory Committee, an EMF Safety Users Group and a Policy Coordination

Committee on Health Effects of EMF. More money should also be made available for scientific

research in Ireland into the health effects of exposure to EMF.

The Expert Report on EMF underlines the alarming policy and regulation vacuum regarding this

major public health issue. There is no Irish baseline data on exposure to EMF. There is no

Irish scientific research into the effects of EMF. Seven years after this report was produced, the

Government has still not set up the specialised agency recommended. In the absence of a

proper policy and regulatory regime how can EirGrid be allowed press ahead with a proposal to

string hundreds of kilometres of high power electricity lines across many counties in Ireland.

35

NEPPC has called on the Government to act immediately to implement the full

recommendations of the Expert Group. The campaign has written to former Minister Phil Hogan

and subsequently current Minister Alan Kelly outlining the need for urgent action.

12. Biased claims by Minister of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources that will be prejudicial to a proper oral hearing by ABP

On 29th January, 2014 (Irish Times, page 1) former Minister Rabbitte, in discussing the

proposed North-South interconnector stated the following:

“Apart from the question of money there is a technical issue about meshing the two systems

which means that the cables cannot go underground”.

The Minister clearly needs to read his own commissioned Independent Expert Commission

(IEC) Report, which states that an underground cable option is both feasible and reliable and

can be integrated into a meshed system.

The report does not make a recommendation in favour of overground or underground, but it

makes it clear that undergrounding, using HVDC cables, is an entirely viable option:

“DC technology becomes a viable option as the cable itself is comparable in cost to an

advanced overhead line, while major steps forward are seen in costs and losses in the

converter stations” (IEC Report, page 3)

This is further emphasised in subsequent statements by the Independent Expert Commission

authors at a Joint Oireachtas Committee hearing in February 2012:

 ‘In our opinion it is possible to go by DC up to the North. It is a very small system in Northern

Ireland. Still in our view it is possible to go with a DC line also in parallel with an existing AC line.

That is done elsewhere in the world with success.... That means that with this technology it

should be possible to serve all Northern Ireland, in those situations where that is needed, by this

HVDC line’ ..’ In my view, DC interconnectors are just as reliable as AC interconnectors.’

36

Additionally, the IEC authors highlight in their report the need for an open minded approach to

looking for new solutions and alternatives to the highly unpopular overhead lines and pylons:

‘The design used has always been a standard 400kv AC overhead link......This approach has

been used in many of the TEN-E projects, with a very low rate of success if the projects that are

still to be built from the 1997 plans are looked at. Therefore, it should be studied whether there

exist techno-economic alternatives for an overhead approach.’ (IEC Report, page 14)

NEPPC called on Minister Rabbitte to withdraw this misleading statement, but he has refused to

do so. NEPPC has participated fully in the original oral hearing process for the North-South

interconnector in 2010, and presented strong and factual arguments in favour of an

undergrounding alternative, for consideration by the An Bord Pleanála inspector. The Minister is

in charge of policy for electricity infrastructure. The Minister’s incorrect statement, if not

withdrawn, sets out a biased position prior to the submission of all the arguments for the next

hearing, and raises serious questions about the value of public participation in the whole

process.

The appointment by the Minister when in office of the former Chairman of An Bord Pleanála,

who presided over the initial EirGrid application in 2009/2010, as Chairperson of EirGrid in

December 2013 has not been helpful in instilling public confidence in this regard.

13. Perceived failure by ABP to act in an impartial manner on the NSIP

14. Conflict of interest in appointment of ABP as Competent Authority for PCI

Argument:

1. That there is a perception that An Bord Pleanála (ABP) is not acting with independence or impartiality in relation to its handling and decision making on the NSIP.

2. That the dual powers of An Bord Pleanála as planning authority for Strategic infrastructure Development (SID) and Competent Authority for Projects of Common Interest (PCI) are not being exercised in an independent and impartial manner in spirit or in practice.

37

Background

The 400 kv North-South interconnector is the first of the major ‘Grid 25’ strategy projects to

have been submitted for planning approval to An Bord Pleanála. It was unveiled to the public in

2007, submitted for planning in 2009, but was withdrawn by EirGrid in June 2010, under

controversial circumstances. It is 140km in length, and runs from Dunboyne in Meath, through

Cavan, Monaghan, Armagh and ends at Turleenan in Tyrone. EirGrid is adamant that the

interconnector has to comprise of overhead lines and giant pylons. It has steadfastly refused to

take on board any public concerns or feedback and has never seriously examined a realistic

underground alternative.

EirGrid is in the process of re-submitting for planning again. It has held a number of pre-

application meetings with ABP on the matter between December 2010 and December 2013. In

February 2014 the project was again deemed by ABP to fall into the category of Strategic

Infrastructure Development (SID) from a planning perspective. EirGrid had planned to submit

the new application to ABP in February/March 2014 timeframe.

The European Parliament, however, published a new regulation on guidelines for trans-

European energy infrastructure in April 2013 – Regulation 347/2013 – with the objective of

setting out a comprehensive legal and policy framework to optimize network development

at European level by 2020 and beyond. The regulation introduces the concept of ‘Projects

of Common Interest’ (PCI) which relates to identifying the key projects across the EU and

affording them priority status, including:

Accelerated planning and permit granting procedures

A single national competent authority which will act as a one-stop-shop for permit

granting procedures;

Increased transparency and improved public participation

The North-South interconnector was designated PCI status on 14th October 2013.

38

DCENR appointed ABP as Competent Authority for PCI’s on 4th December 2013. ABP

confirmed its appointment as Competent Authority (CA) for PCI on 20th December 2013

Because Eirgrid was on the cusp of submitting a planning application for the North-South

interconnector this new regulation, although aimed at accelerating key projects, would in fact

require EirGrid to re-examine its activities to date and ultimately delay its application timing.

Article 19 of the Regulation allows for transitional provisions for projects submitted for planning

at local member state level prior to November 16, 2013. Such projects shall be exempt from the

provisions of Chapter 3 of the new regulation 347/2013. This relates primarily to permit granting

procedures and to transparency and public participation, but also includes the area of cost-

benefit analyses and financing.

ABP Activities regarding North-South interconnector re-applicationCase made by ABP that North-South interconnector is exempt from Chapter 3 of new regulation

347/2013:

ABP decision that North-South interconnector was SID was made on 4th February 2014. On 6th

February ABP forwarded its case to The European Commission that the project should fall

under the transitional provisions of Article 19 and hence be exempt from Chapter 3 of the new

Regulation 347/2013. This would be highly advantageous to EirGrid in terms of workload and

timing of planning application submission. Nine arguments in favour were proposed, including

the fact that a previous application for the North-South project had been lodged in 2009.

On 11th February, three senior officials from ABP met with DG Energy in Brussels to advocate

its case. ABP even queried DG Energy if the project was undergrounded would it remain as a

PCI? DG Energy stated that it was of the view that because no planning application prior to 16

November 2013 had occurred for the N-S interconnector that the transitional provisions of

Article 19 would not apply.

39

On 17th February, DG Energy responded in writing to ABP stating that, having consulted its

legal experts that indeed the transitional provisions would not apply. DG Energy stated that for

an official position the Commission Legal Service would need to consulted.

On 10th March, ABP sent an expanded reasoning case to DG Energy, again recommending

that the transitional provisions for N-S interconnector should apply. Arguments put forward

included:

That the project was conceived years before the adoption of the regulation and that a

planning application had been made in 2009

Pre-application consultations with EirGrid and ABP had commenced in 2010 and as

such, the permit granting process had commenced.

That the pre-application consultations included advice given by ABP to Eirgrid in respect

of requirements for public consultations, and reporting back by EirGrid of public

consultations carried out.

That the ‘splitting’ of the project may leave the overall consent process open to legal

challenge.

On 7th April, DG Energy responded, reiterating its position that if the N-S planning application

was withdrawn in 2010 then the transitional provisions of Article 19 would not apply.

On 15th April, ABP notified EirGrid that it was ‘still considering whether or not the transitional

provisions of Article 19 concerning Chapter 3 apply to the North-South interconnector project’.

On 2nd May, the Inspector’s report reaches the same conclusion as DG Energy that the N-S

interconnector project does not come under the transitional provisions of Article 19, and hence

is subject to the requirements of Chapter 3 of regulation 347/2013.

NEPPC Concerns regarding ABP actionsThe speed of action by ABP to make a case to DG Energy is unusual for ABP. The day after it

informed EirGrid that the project was SID three senior ABP officials were meeting DG Energy in

40

Brussels. There seems to have been undue haste in making a case that, if successful, would

ultimately favour EirGrid.

It is our contention that ABP should not have taken sides on whether the transitional provisions

of Article 19 of the new Regulation applied to the N-S interconnector project. ABP should have

sought guidance from DG Energy in an objective and impartial manner. Instead, it put a one-

sided case forward, which DG Energy gave clear guidance on, only for ABP to put a more

detailed and elaborate version of its case forward again, requesting legal input.

The fact that ABP even asked DG Energy that if the project was undergrounded would it remain

as a PCI reveals a very biased position for an independent body. Eirgrid has steadfastly refused

to contemplate the people’s preference of undergrounding. It is a heavy irony that ABP should

ask DG Energy such a question, on the assumption that it would waive the requirements for

PCI.

The Inspector’s report on 2nd May is particularly concerning from an independence and

impartiality perspective. Paragraph 3.5 states that:

‘In my opinion this focus on the ‘application file’ does not address or respond directly to all the

circumstances relating to the North-South project highlighted in the Board’s written submissions

and on which clarity was sought. These highlighted matters such as, for example....the fact that

an application was lodged prior to the 16th November 2013 in the State (albeit withdrawn),..”.

This opinion raises an issue of either competency or bias. It is quite clear on public reading of

regulation 347 that the crux of the matter regarding applicability of article 19 relates to

application submission prior to November 16, 2013. The N-S interconnector re-application file

had not been submitted prior to this date. Yet ABP make reference on many occasions to the

original application submitted in 2009. But it was formally withdrawn in 2010. ABP was the

presiding body in this process. ABP received the formal letter of withdrawal from Eirgrid. The

Eirgrid website states quite clearly:

‘This is the planning application and associated EIS that was submitted by EirGrid in December

2009 and which was subsequently withdrawn by EirGrid in June 2010, before a decision by An

Bord Pleanála. This application is therefore null and void’.

The Inspector, having examines all options regarding Article 19, concludes:

41

‘In light of the above I must conclude that the withdrawal of the original application by Eirgrid

was made “in the knowledge of the national rules applicable at the time of the submission of the

file” and that it could have only been done in the full knowledge of the implications that a new

application file requiring new examination would have been required’.

It should be noted that, despite the DG Energy direction, there was not unanimous approval by

the Board of ABP, with a 4:1 decision being recorded.

The N-S interconnector is now a SID project and also a PCI project. The dual role of ABP as

statutory planning and consent granting body and Competent Authority for PCI raises public

concerns regarding conflict of interest. The pronouncement from ABP in the PCI ‘Manual of

Permit Granting Process Procedures’ is that its duties under Regulation 347 will not affect its

impartial assessment of planning applications’ and that ‘ neither role will impinge on the other

and the separate administrative unit will maintain this division of function’. It is our

understanding, however, that such separation does not exist – letter from ABP 19 September

2014:

An Bord Pleanála was designated as Competent Authority for Projects of Common

Interest on 4th December, 2013 in accordance with Regulation 347/2013. The

Manual of Procedures was published on 15th May, 2014. The Manual states that An

Bord Pleanála “will establish a PCI Unit to administer the PCI process separate from

its Strategic Infrastructure or Planning Appeals Units”.

The PCI Unit was established shortly afterwards. Projects of Common Interest are

still a relatively new function for the organisation and the PCI Unit is still in a

transitional phase. The Unit is an administrative unit reflecting the Board’s view

that under the “Collaborative Scheme” approach adopted by the State the Board’s

PCI permit granting role is principally one of co-ordinating the issuing of all the

consents and decisions, including planning consents, required from all relevant

authorities and to monitor compliance with time limits agreed for the issue of such

consents. The Director of Planning has managerial responsibility for Planning

Appeals, Strategic Infrastructure and Projects of Common Interest and directs and

advises all 3 Sections.

42

Eirgrid is currently engaging with administrative staff of the PCI Unit of An Bord

Pleanála.

The administrative staff meeting with Eirgrid in relation to PCI are a Senior

Administrative Officer and an Executive Officer. The Senior Administrative Officer

involved has roles in relation to both strategic infrastructure work and PCI work. This

results from essential functional and logistical arrangements arising from the Board’s

new role as Competent Authority for PCI. The Senior Administrative Officer was

involved in pre-application consultation meetings with Eirgrid. The Executive Officer

concerned has no involvement with the Strategic Infrastructure Section’.

13. Failure by ABP to properly engage prescribed bodies in its handling of EirGrid submissions to ABP

NEPPC submits that the decision by ABP to accept the Concept for Public Participation

(CPP) from Eirgrid, with only minor modifications, is contrary to the requirements of

Article 9, Chapter 3 of Regulation 347/2013

Original Message ----- From: P OReilly To: An Bord Pleanála Cc: Finola Igoe ; Margaret Austin ; Olgerts.VIKSNE@ec.europa.eu ; Catharina.Sikow@ec.europa.eu ; Adam.ROMANOWSKI@ec.europa.eu Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 11:00 PMSubject: Clarification on letter 10th September to Eirgrid re N-S Interconnector - attention Diarmuid Collins

Dear Diarmuid,

ABP wrote a letter to EirGrid on 10th September in relation to the CPP submitted by

EirGrid on 31st July.

ABP states in the latter that it has ' decided to modify the concept, as detailed below...'

I have the following queries, on behalf of NEPPC:

1. Page 8 of the Manual of Permit Granting Process Procedures published by ABP on

15th May states that ABP as CA will: ' modify or approve the CPP submitted by the

project promoter'. Can I assume from the letter that the CPP is proposed to be modified

43

by ABP and hence is not yet approved?

2. Page 19 of the Manual states that ABP ' will seek the opinion of other relevant

authorities concerned on the concept'. Can you clarify what 'relevant authorities' were

opinions sought from and whether their inputs will be published?

3. In your letter to EirGrid the last paragraph states that there is a requirement on page

19 of the Manual 'for the modified concept to be published on EirGrid's project website'.

Page 19 does not actually make this statement. It requires the project promoter to

publish 'the approved public participation concept on its project website'. Is this a

misdirection?

4. In your letter you state that ABP had regard to....the extensive consultation and

participation process undertaken by the project promoter before the start of this permit

granting process and which the CA is obliged to take into consideration under Article 9.3

of the regulation'. This is not the full sentence or full thrust of the statement in Article 9.

The full sentence reads:

'The competent authority shall request modifications or approve the concept for public

participation within three months; in so doing, the competent authority shall take into

consideration any form of public participation and consultation that took place before the

start of the permit granting process, to the extent that such public participation and

consultation has fulfilled the requirements of this Article'.

This includes the principles for public participation set out in Annex V1.3., which further

states that:

'The stakeholders affected by a project of common interest, including relevant national,

regional and local authorities, landowners and citizens living in the vicinity of the project,

the general public and their associations, organisations or groups, shall be extensively

informed and consulted at an early stage, when potential concerns by the public can still

be taken into account and in an open and transparent manner. Where relevant, the

competent authority shall actively support the activities undertaken by the project

promoter.'

You should be aware that EirGrid has never mapped out a proper underground cable

alternative route along public roads and has never consulted with the public or allowed

feedback on this option, despite the fact that it is now planning to do so for Grid West

44

and Grid Link 400kv projects. Furthermore,in your published pre-application meeting

minutes EirGrid stated, as far back as December 2010 that

‘Following the conclusion of the route-selection process the prospective applicant

intends to commence a robust and intensive public consultation process with direct and

face-to-face contact with affected landowners'.

This makes it clear that EirGrid only planned on consulting on an overhead line

option,never on an underground cable option.The obvious point is that Eirgrid cannot

consult on a decision that it has already made. Otherwise, consultation is not only unfair

– the outcome has been pre-determined -- but it is pointless.

On the basis of the above points can you clarify if:

- the so-called public consultation material submitted by EirGrid prior to the withdrawn

original planning application (2007-2009) is deemed relevant to your modification of the

CPP?

- ABP accepts that there has been no public consultation on a proper underground route

alternative along public roads?

Regards

Padraig O'Reilly

on behalf of NEPPC + 353 87 233 43 81

----- Original Message ----- From: Seamus Grant To: pjboreilly@eircom.net Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 4:33 PMSubject: Re: Clarification on letter 10th September to Eirgrid re N-S Interconnector

Good afternoon,

In response to your queries of September 28th:

1. An Bord Pleanála as competent authority takes the view that Regulation 347/2013 provides that the competent authority “shall request modification or approve the concept of public participation”. An Bord Pleanála modified the concept and regards the concept as approved subject to the modifications.

45

2. EirGrid has informed An Bord Pleanála that it did not anticipate that other consents were required in the jurisdiction to realise the project. Accordingly, no other state body/authority was contacted in relation to the Concept of Public Participation.

3. The intention of the paragraph is to require the project promoter to publish the Concept of Public Participation with any modification on the project website for the information of the public and to enhance transparency and participation. That has been done.

4. The central issue for An Bord Pleanála as competent authority in relation to the Concept of Public Participation was if the concept complied with the Regulation 347/2013. An Bord Pleanála as competent authority made the decision that, subject to the modifications, the concept satisfied the requirements of the regulation.

Regards,

Seamus Grant

NEPPC submits that it is entirely inappropriate for ABP to be taking direction from the Applicant

of the planning application as to how ABP should handle the Applicant’s submissions, especially

in relation to the subject of public consultation in the form of the CPP submission. We request

that DG Energy urgently address this matter, by requesting that the CPP be circulated to the

appropriate prescribed bodies for their input.

46

Appendix A

47

Appendix B

48

In the matter of an electricity development application to

An Bord Pleanála

(Reg. No. VA0006)

And in the matter of an oral hearing

Statement of evidence dealing with

Public Consultation

49

Padraig O’Reilly

May 2010

Background and experience

My name is Padraig O’Reilly I hold a B.Sc Honours degree in Science and a Ph.D in Plant

Pathology. I also carried out postdoctoral research and teaching for 2 years in University

College Dublin. For the last 23 years I have worked in private industry in varying roles, including

product research & development, marketing and commercial, and strategic business analysis.

Overview

In December 2007 I was invited to support the then recently formed NEPP campaign group.

Before I agreed to get involved in this campaign I firstly carried out some research on the

50

subject. I have to admit that, given my background in private industry, I came to this campaign

with a certain sympathy for EirGrid, in terms of the challenges facing it on this project. But I also

have to state that, after two and half years of frontline experience on this campaign my view has

evolved from being sympathetic, to being disappointed and frustrated, to being appalled at the

behaviour of EirGrid, particularly in relation to its approach to public consultation.

There are many submissions that highlight specific aspects and concerns related to the

planning application. The NEPP submission itself focuses on various inadequacies and

deficiencies in EirGrid’s submission to the Bord. We have approached the process in a

respectful manner and have endeavoured to make our submission as professional as possible.

The formation of NEPP and its campaign to date is founded on five main criteria:

1. The virtually irreversible negative impact of EirGrid’s proposal on our countryside and on

our homes, for our families and for our future generations.

2. The complete failure of EirGrid to carry out proper research, prepare a proper design

and/or proper assessment of the impacts of the proposed development.

3. The blatant disregard by EirGrid for the potential impact of its proposal on individual lives

and livelihoods and on overall communities.

4. The massive public anxiety around health and safety concerns related to extra high

voltage overhead transmission lines.

5. The refusal by EirGrid to objectively examine all possible alternatives to overhead

transmission lines, and its adoption of a prejudged assessment of same, which ruled out

any underground cable option.

51

The depth of public concern and scale of opposition has never been properly recognised nor

adequately addressed by EirGrid.

The NEPP campaign group was formed in November 2007 as an apolitical, voluntary

organisation of concerned rural communities in the North-East. The objectives of the group were

defined at the outset, namely

1. To support the upgrading of the grid network.

2. To determine if viable and realistic technology alternatives to overhead transmission

lines exist.

3. To seek solutions through research, analysis and consultation, especially with

Transmission System Operators (TSO’s) and relevant specialised private industry

expertise.

4. To utilise all of the available democratic processes to communicate and gain support for

our arguments and recommendations.

To this end, NEPP is very much a progress group rather than a protest or pressure group. We

have made submissions to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Energy and

Natural Resources in February 2008 and December 2008. We have made a submission and

presentation to the Northern Ireland Environment Committee in Stormont in April 2009. We have

commissioned the first detailed technical study specific to this project, at great expense,

outlining the feasibility of using underground cables as an alternative to overhead transmission

lines. NEPP has shared this report with EirGrid, in the interests of making progress. We have

also met with and shared the reports with the Danish TSO, Energinet.

52

In May 2009, NEPP produced a policy paper -’A Powerful Challenge’1 (Appendix 1) which

addresses the challenges related to implementing a new strategy for the future development of

Ireland’s electricity grid.

Our statement synthesises the diverse experience and information we have gathered since

NEPP began its campaign in favour of underground cables as the appropriate technology for

the transmission of high voltage electricity in Ireland. Our policy position is informed and

underpinned by robust research and analysis by reputable international consultants and is in

line with the emerging best practice in other countries. It has been refined, too, by carefully

listening to and considering the questions and issues raised by local and national politicians and

by representative groups.

Fairminded public representatives and representative organisations have shown that they are

keen to understand the issues and to adopt a reasonable way forward, once they are convinced

that undergrounding is feasible, affordable and attainable within a reasonable timescale.

We have a very clear conscience on how we have conducted our campaign. This in turn

imposes reciprocal obligations on EirGrid which, to our deep disappointment, have not been

met.

The research and analysis by NEPP revealed a number of key findings:

1. The justification for the scale of the grid upgrade proposed by EirGrid is very much

driven by the All – Island Grid Study2 target of achieving 40% of Ireland’s electricity

supply from renewable sources, primarily wind.

2. This All –Island Grid Study is viewed as an insufficiently robust exercise on which to

base Ireland’s future energy policy.3

1 A Powerful Challenge – Achieving a green grid for a green island, NEPPC,May 20092 All-Island Grid Study, Department of Communications,Energy and Natural Resources, January 20083 Irish Academy of Engineers Report, April 2009

53

3. The European Commission has identified critical issues related to the unacceptability of

overhead transmission lines as a means of upgrading grid networks4

4. Underground cable technologies are emerging as a viable alternative to the

unacceptability of overhead transmission lines. A ‘best practice’ model for how to reach

political and technical consensus on grid advancements has been developed and

implemented in Denmark.

5. The current consultative and Environmental Impact Assessment process fails to

adequately address many issues that are pertinent to this project, such as the impact on

our countryside, on farms and farming, and on devaluation of businesses and properties.

EirGrid views the project purely on a technical and engineering basis. This has led to

EirGrid adopting a laissez-faire attitude to the real concerns and challenges inherent in

the project and to an abdication of responsibility for the non-technical issues.

EirGrid has an ‘absolute preference’ for overhead transmission lines, because of its

expertise in this technology, its confidence in its performance and the risk-averse culture

of their organisational structure. All the risk and negative impact of this project is

therefore transferred from EirGrid to the rural communities directly affected. This is the

void that NEPP has had to fill, and proceed to challenge EirGrid’s failure to deliver on its

public service responsibilities.

The narrow technical approach by EirGrid has done a great disservice to the so-called public

consultation process. I wish to highlight some of the most common issues that the public

attempted to consult EirGrid on during the course of the project to date, and the highly

unsatisfactory and misleading responses received.

I now refer to the public consultation aspects outlined in Volume 1 of the EIS, Chapter 2

‘Consultation and Scoping’ and Volume 5A Chapter 3 ‘Public Consultation’. I will also refer

specifically to some of the submissions made last week at this Oral Hearing.4 Priority Interconnection Plan, EC, COM 846, January 2007

54

Paragraph 3.4.1 Approach to Public Consultation

EirGrid did not achieve the primary purpose of the consultation process as stated by the

company itself: ‘Approach to Public Consultation. The primary purpose of the consultation

process has been to:

o Provide members of the public with accurate, up-to-date information on the

development5’

The published reports on the selection of routes contained numerous inaccuracies and

omissions. It did not consider many important aspects of the archaeology, environment, tourist

attractions, proximity to housing developments and current planning applications, schools and

sporting facilities. In addition, it is significant that it gave no consideration to the community

aspects - despite claiming that this was a prime consideration in the consultation process.

In the route selection reports6, EirGrid’s consultants interpreted information ambiguously and

inconsistently throughout the reports. This approach led to diametrically contradictory

statements relating to the route selection process and the basis of its route selection process

was flawed. It is quite clear that the overriding factor for selection of route 3B from Woodlands to

Moyhill is because it is the shortest route.

A key failure of EirGrid has been the lack of provision to members of the public of accurate and

up to date route selection and planning application information.

Provision of inaccurate route selection information

EirGrid has failed to inform some landowners of the proposed route through their lands, the

siting of towers and failed to provide relevant aerial map information. Some landowners, known

to be potentially affected by the proposed route, have never been contacted by EirGrid.

5 EIS Volume 1 Chapter 3 paragraph 3.4.1 page 426 Published September 2007

55

The preferred route selected by EirGrid from Woodlands to Moyhill and made available in

electronic format through their website, was substantially different in certain locations, from the

route maps posted to landowners. This created much confusion and consternation for members

of the public, and in some instances created divisive situations among neighbouring

landowners, as to whether EirGrid had been influenced to redirect certain parts of the proposed

route.

Provision of inaccurate and out-of date Planning Application information

I refer to the ‘Statement of Evidence dealing with route selection from Woodland to Moyhill’ by

Mairead Hogan on 11th May,2010 and the ‘Statement of Evidence of Kevin Coffey, consultant,

ESBI engineering, dealing with Route selection from Moyhill to Border (Lemgare)’, also on 11th

May,2010.

Section 3.2. page 10 from Ms. Hogan’s statement declares:

‘The planning application data was not mapped onto the planning drawings submitted to An

Bord Pleanála, but has nonetheless been taken into consideration during the route selection

process and in determining the final line route’

Although the Project Team (Tobins) were aware of all the new planning applications within the

corridor, members of the public were provided with inaccurate and out-of date information, and

were requested to pay €1,000 for a hard copy of such information.

Provision of misleading statements on power lines lengths, loads and losses

An important factor in the feasibility of using the alternative and strongly preferred public option

of underground cables is related to the length of the lines. NEPP is of the opinion that both

Eirgrid and the consultants commissioned to carry out an underground study, PB Power, have

56

consistently misled the public in relation to line lengths. Numerous contradictory statements

exist in EirGrid literature and in the PB Power Report7 in this regard.

PB Power Report

1 ‘‘NIE and EirGrid have proposed two new 400Kv 1500MVA single circuit overhead transmission lines ..’

16 ‘ a 140 km installation would comprise a world first’

EirGrid freely quote the 140km length as a single line, when advancing the argument that

nowhere in the world does a line of this length exist underground. This line length is also used

when looking at availability and reliability aspects. In reality there are two power lines of 60km

and 80km in length. NEPP notes with interest that in December 2009 a commercial contract has

been given in Australia to supply an 87km long 275Kv underground cable – creating the world’s

longest high voltage AC underground link

operating at this power level.

Similar contradictory statements have been made in relation to power loads and losses, the

specifics of which are being dealt with by NEPP in a separate submission.

Provision of inaccurate and misleading photomontages

The selection of photomontages as presented in the EIS, failed to meet the required standards

of public consultation. This issue will be dealt with in greater detail by a separate submission

from an appropriate expert.

7 Comparison of high voltage transmission options, PB Power report, February 2009

57

Crucial information provided to the public in these reports, therefore, fails EirGrid’s proclaimed

test of being ‘accurate’. Accordingly, it did not form a proper basis for ‘consultation’ with the

public.

Paragraph 3.4.1 Public inputs into each phase of route selection process

‘Provide opportunities for the public to input into each phase of the route selection process and

to raise issues or concerns with any of the corridor options presented’.

A public consultation report issued in April 2008 by Mary Murphy Associates states the

following:

‘Many members of the public have been keen to discuss the possibility of placing the power

lines underground. The request by stakeholders for undergrounding the line has been seen as a

solution to prevent the problems that may be caused by overgrounding the lines. It is generally

felt by many members of the public that if the lines were placed underground, the problems with

health, visual impact, land devaluation, and many of the other constraints would not be an issue.

EirGrid is taking this concern into consideration. These concerns will feed into the decision

making process’8.

This statement and many other similar statements to members of the public infer that placing

the power lines underground is an open option yet to be decided on. Nothing could be further

from the truth. In December 2007, EirGrid responded to a submission and a set of questions

from the Rathmore Action Group in County Meath.

Q. ‘Has an UnderGround Cable feasibility study been performed?’

8 Public Consultation Report prepared for EirGrid by RPS/MMA 4th April 2008

58

A. ‘No. For projects like this, making this connection using an overhead connection is a

preferred option as a matter of EirGrid policy’.

Q ‘Has an UnderGround route corridor been examined?’

A. ‘No, an underground corridor has not been examined as typically for projects like this,

making this connection using an overhead connection (is) a more feasible option’.

Q ‘Has a proper cost analysis specific to this route corridor been performed?

A. See question above’.

The EIA Directive and Irish planning regulations require an Environmental Impact Assessment

to set ‘ an outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an indication of the main

reasons for his or her choice, taking into account the effects on the environment’

EirGrid prejudged from the outset and made a predetermined assumption that, irrespective of

any available or newly emerging data or commissioned reports, overhead transmission lines

were the only option that it would pursue. As stated in its constraints report it has ‘an absolute

preference’ for overhead transmission lines. The public consultation report clearly misleads

members of the public on this subject.

Paragraph 3.4.1 Addressing issues directly, with appropriate experts

EirGrid did not achieve the primary purpose of the consultation process as stated by the

company itself: ‘Approach to Public Consultation. The primary purpose of the consultation

process has been to:

o Address directly, with appropriate experts, the issues, questions and

concerns that stakeholders have in relation to the project.9

9 EIS Volume 1 Chapter 3 paragraph 3.4.1 page 42

59

Inadequate addressing of Health Concerns

When the project was announced the first and natural public reaction centered on potential

health and safety concerns related to the Electromagnetic Field Radiation (EMF) from overhead

transmission lines and because these lines are classified as a possible carcinogen or Group 2b

for childhood leukaemia by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The imposition of

an involuntary risk on the public, especially where there is evidence of potential adverse health

effects, places a high responsibility on EirGrid to examine each and every alternative that would

reduce or eliminate the public’s exposure. The degree of dread associated with even the

smallest possibility of cancer from EMF exposure, especially in children, requires significant

public consultation10. EirGrid has failed miserably in this regard.

EirGrid’s response to public concerns on this subject has not followed a proactive strategy of

providing appropriate expertise or a forum to directly address genuine public concerns. EirGrid’s

reponse has consistently centered around the aspect of compliance with World Health

Organisation guidelines. But compliance is not a measure of safety.

Dr Bailey has provided a detailed presentation to the Bord on 11th May last. Members of the

public have never been afforded access to such expertise over the last few years, despite

continually voicing their fears and concerns. In meetings with EirGrid NEPP recommended that

such expertise be made available directly to the public. Despite this recommendation, EirGrid

has consistently failed to do so.

Inadequate addressing of Landowner concerns

The subject of landowner consultation has not been addressed with either the appropriate

expertise or with genuine intent. It was quite clear that the purpose of the so called

‘consultations’ with landowners was confined to EirGrid seeking merely to ascertain the identity

and addresses of landholders and/or occupiers for the serving of notices on them in respect of

individual plots of land. No proper assessments of these landowners was at any time being

carried out by EirGrid. This ploy was received by landowners as an insult to their intelligence.

10 Health Effects of Electromagnetic fields, Dept of Communications, Energy & Natural resources, March 2007

60

This tactic by agents of EirGrid is conceded in the submission of Ms. Hogan on 11th May (3.8

page 18), where she states:

‘The ultimate aim of the consultation was to collate the best available information from land

registry, coupled with on site contact with landowners to identify insofar as possible the names

and addresses of all landowners, together with the size of their individual holdings’

It is clear that EirGrid has failed and refused to properly address landowner issues. EirGrid has

previously stated to this hearing that it maintained two offices for public consultation, but our

experiences with these offices were that the staff present appeared to be poorly briefed and not

capable of proper consultation.

Paragraph 3.4.1 Relevant Stakeholders

‘Ensure, within reason that all relevant stakeholders were aware of the development and had an

opportunity to have their inputs taken into account’

It is the contention of NEPP that EirGrid failed to consult or engage in a constructive manner

with significant stakeholders, particularly in relation to objectively evaluating the transmission

technology alternative favoured strongly by members of the public. We refer in particular to the

National Roads Authority (NRA), Iarnród Eireann, private industry and the relevant County

Councils.

Lack of consultation regarding M3 and the proposed Leinster Orbital Route

More than 5 years ago ESB and the Government recognised the need for increased electricity

transmission and a North-South link. More than 5 years ago the Government and now the

National Roads Authority recognised the need for a new motorway to supercede the N3. The

Eirgrid overhead lines proposal from Woodlands to Moyhill commences close to Clonee and

finishes in close to Cavan, being approximately 58 km in length. The M3 motorway commences

61

close to the Clonee area and finishes north of Kells, with potential to extend into Cavan at a

future date. The route is approximately 60km in length.

NEPP has been informed that no consultation took place regarding the option of using

underground cables alongside the M3. In December 2007, EirGrid responded to a submission

and a set of questions from the Rathmore Action Group in County Meath.

Q. ‘Was there any request by any Government Department or related body to examine

placing the line alongside the M3?’

A. ‘We are not aware of this having been done.’

Q. ‘Was there any feasibility study carried out by EirGrid to examine this possibility?’

A. ‘There is no feasibility study considering this.’

Members of the public have expressed deep frustration that these two projects were not even

considered being performed jointly. The Code of Practice between the ESB and the Minister for

the Environment, Heritage and Local Government states that “high voltage underground cables

are generally built along public roads”.

It is estimated that the proposed Woodlands to Moyhill route overlap between the 2 projects is

approximately 48 kilometres of the 58 kilometres proposed (82%). This would have a very

significant impact on overall project costs, when one considers aspects such as joint

Compulsory Purchase Orders, joint Environmental Impact Assessments and easy access to the

line for future maintenance purposes.

NEPP further notes with deep concern that the failure to consult with other key stakeholders

continues to occur to this day, in relation to the proposed Leinster Orbital Route (LOR). NEPP

notes in the submission by the National Roads Authority (NRA) to this hearing (12th March,

2010) the following:

62

‘The proposal to develop an Outer Orbital Route is included not only in the Meath County

Development Plan but also in the National Development Plan and as a key objective of the

Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area.

It is noted that although the Authority brought the LOR to the attention of the project promoters

through pre-consultation EIS scoping, the EIS submitted in support of the application does not

make reference to the LOR or how the interface between the proposed power line development

and the LOR will be addressed’

In its conclusion the NRA tellingly further states:

‘Furthermore, the Authority requests that the Board include a specific condition requiring the

developer/scheme promoter to consult with the NRA and agree detailed design specifications

for the proposed 400kV line in relation to the LOR in advance of any works in the vicinity taking

place’

This statement clearly confirms EirGrid’s unacceptable and inadequate approach to consultation

with relevant key stakeholders. NEPP and members of the public are acutely conscious of the

impact of inadequate consultation on significant infrastructural projects in the North-East from

both a personal impact and taxpayers cost perspective.

Lack of recognition of private industry electricity transmsission companies

EirGrid outlined its general plans to upgrade the grid network in their ‘Grid 25’ publication

published in October 2008, and gave details of the power capacity required. The report,

however, fails to be truly national, by omitting any reference to the activities of private industry

operators such as Oceanteam/Imera who are also developing an East-West interconnector

project. This will be part of the future transmission resources in this country, and have an

influence on the scale of grid upgrade actually required by EirGrid to consider.

63

Paragraph 3.7 Methods of consultation11

‘EirGrid provided diverse methods of consultation, in order to facilitate a wide-ranging, highly

accessible public consultation...12

This statement is incorrect. The essence of ‘consultation’ is that there is a two-way flow of

information and that each party has regard to the views expressed by the other. Instead, the

range of communications media deployed by EirGrid was in ‘broadcast’ mode only. It did not

adequately receive, take on board or respond or have regard to feedback provided by the

public.

A report prepared for EirGrid in April 2008 by RPS / Mary Murphy Associates (now part of RPS

Group)13 stated ‘In total EirGrid has been in contact with over 11,000 stakeholders since starting

work on the project. This has been through phone calls, emails, letters, feedback forms, Open

Days and personal meetings.’14 The use of the term ‘EirGrid has been in contact with...’

suggests that the company pro-actively went out to contact a large number of people. This is

misleading. The opposite is true. The majority of people contained in the figure of 11,000 took

it upon themselves to contact EirGrid to express their objection to the project: ‘Fig. 4.1 illustrates

the main primary queries for members of the public and shows that the majority of stakeholders

contacted for the purpose of lodging their objection.’15 When secondary queries are added to

the public’s primary queries sent to EirGrid, it becomes clear that a very high percentage of the

‘contacts’ claimed by EirGrid were, in fact, objections.16

EirGrid made no attempt to address the objections and queries raised by these thousands of

communications, demonstrating that, although it deployed an apparently impressive array of

communications methods, it was not in listening or true consultative mode.

11 EIS Volume 1 Chapter 3 paragraph 3.7 page 4412 EIS Volume 1 Chapter 3 paragraph 3.7 page 4213 Public Consultation Report prepared for EirGrid by RPS/MMA 4th April 200814 Public Consultation Report prepared for EirGrid by RPS/MMA 4th April 2008 page 415 Public Consultation Report prepared for EirGrid by RPS/MMA 4th April 2008 page 2316 Public Consultation Report prepared for EirGrid by RPS/MMA 4th April 2008 pages 21, 22

64

EirGrid describes its web site as ‘the primary medium for providing stakeholders with immediate

access to all relevant information.’17 Note the use of the word ‘immediate’. In many cases,

detailed reports, maps, press releases and other documentation were only published on its web

site several days after they appeared in isolated sections of the media and, occasionally, only

after enquiries by stakeholders as to their existence. The construction and presentation of the

materials on its web site was counter-intuitive and not user-friendly.

Paragraph 3.8 Key Consultation Milestones18

In this section of the EIS EirGrid lists what they describe as ‘multiple methods of consultation for

all types of stakeholders’.19 These are listed as including the PB Power Summary Brochure,

EirGrid Position on NEPP Askon Study and the Railroad Report. In all of these cases, the full

report was accompanied by a press release from EirGrid that distorted the findings contained in

each report. The main examples chosen relate to those of comparative costs and reliability of

overhead versus underground transmission alternatives. EirGrid consistently headlined the

comparative capital costs of Overhead Lines and Underground Cabling as if this represented a

fair comparison of the full, lifetime costs.20 NEPP asked EirGrid on a number of occasions for

the breakdown of the overhead line costs, but this was never forthcoming.

3.8.16 PB Power Preliminary Report 2008 and PB Power Report 2009

PB Power were commissioned by EirGrid and NIE in order to examine the feasibility of

alternative underground technologies by making technical, environmental and cost comparisons

with the proposed overhead lines project. The final report was published in February 2009, as a

follow-on to a preliminary report in February 2008. In February 2008 the CEO of EirGrid

presented to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural

17 EIS Volume 1 Chapter 3 paragraph 3.7 page 4418 EIS Volume 1 Chapter 3 paragraph 3.7 page 4519 EIS Volume 1 Chapter 3 paragraph 3.7 page 4420 EirGrid press statement to the ‘Cavan Post’ 16th February 2009

65

Resources a seven page preliminary version of the PB Power Report, with a headline statement

on costs, without any supporting data. In January 2009, the CEO of EirGrid presented from the

PB Power Report, unprompted, headline figures on the alleged capital cost of underground

cables to the Committee, PRIOR to publication of the final Report, thereby unfairly preventing

NEPP from properly analysing and responding to this cost claim when requested to do so.

Additionally, it is the opinion of NEPP that EirGrid has persisted in using misleading

assumptions and statements from this report to the public21 and to elected representatives22 in

relation to the comparative reliability of underground cables and overhead lines.

3.8.16 Railroad Report July 2009

This report arises from a recommendation by NEPP that a rail option should be properly

examined as a realistic underground route. NEPP has a number of concerns in relation to the

terms of reference, methodology, references, assumptions and conclusions made in the PB

Power Report.  One of these related to whether the rail option was considered as part of the

terms of reference of the PB Power Report. We have had a wholly unsatisfactory meeting with

EirGrid and PB Power in this regard.  Responses to our requests for information on aspects

such as the terms of reference have not been forthcoming. We were led to believe that it had

been considered but subsequently ascertained that no communications had at that time

occurred between Iarnród Eireann executives and either PB Power consultants or EirGrid.

Paragraphs 3.18.13, 3.18.15 Attitude to landowners and visits23

The dictatorial approach taken by EirGrid in relation to visiting affected landowners and

neighbouring householders was extremely unsatisfactory. It is important to stress the

fundamental right of landowners to each be treated individually by EirGrid, not collectively, and

not on terms dictated solely by EirGrid. The issues arising for landowners are too sensitive and

21 Today with Pat Kenny , RTE , Friday May 7, 201022 Joint Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources hearing, 24 March 2010, page 3023 EIS Volume 1 Chapter 3 paragraphs 3.8.13, 3.8.15 page 48

66

far-reaching in their consequences and EirGrid’s approach to their concerns was not sufficiently

well designed and executed to manage these.

Many landowners stated in writing to EirGrid that they were prepared to meet with company

representatives if certain basic conditions were adhered to, as outlined in our submission. Given

the sensitivity of the issues involved, landowners have a right to be consulted in a manner that

is appropriate to their specific needs and that respects the sensitivity of their position as

landowners. Any contact with landowners should have taken place within an appropriate and

agreed framework that they were comfortable with. EirGrid had no legal or moral right

unilaterally to impose their framework for contacts on landowners.

Instead of accepting landowners requests, EirGrid’s agents for the Woodlands to Moyhill

section, TOBIN Consultants, attempted to embark on a series of unannounced visits to

landowners. Landowners found that the agents sent to meet them were inexperienced and

poorly briefed about the many sensitive issues involved. To many of the questions raised, their

responses consisted of either ‘We do not know’, ‘We will get back to you’ or silence. Such

contacts do not fall within any reasonable definition of consultation.

It is not correct to state that ‘the landowners did not in most instances, provide any input as to

their concerns about the placement of towers on their lands’24. Nor is it correct or fair to refer to

the ‘unwillingness to engage with the consultation process’ of ‘certain landowners’25.

24 EIS Volume 5A Chapter 2 paragraph 2.5.2 page 30

25 EIS Volume 5A Chapter 2 paragraph 2.5.2 page 30

67

We have already referred to the basic flaws in the design and implementation of the landowner

consultation process and the resulting poor quality of consultation. However, following the

issuing by EirGrid of formal letters and accompanying maps to individual landowners on 7th

April 2009, the issues arising from the process became even more acute. Many concerned

householders and landowners contacted NEPP to voice their extreme annoyance at EirGrid’s

agents appearing on their doorsteps unannounced. NEPP wrote to EirGrid highlighting these

concerns and recommending a practical course of action, centred on common courtesy. The

submission on public consultation by Elizabeth Arnett on 13th May selectively quotes from this

communication. The communication and press release of April 20th states that ‘older people,

especially those living in rural areas, are understandably put in fear by the unannounced arrival

of unknown persons on their property’. It subsequently makes a common sense

recommendation to EirGrid that ‘ if an agent wishes to meet an individual landowner, a prior

request should be made in writing to the individual landowner and any such meeting should

take place only after agreement on a date, time, place and agenda by the landowner in writing’.

In individual letters sent to EirGrid, many landowners requested a written response to its

specific queries on legal, technical and other matters. They made it clear that they required a

written response so that they could have clarity and lack of ambiguity in any consultations they

might need to have with professional advisers. EirGrid did not reply to them individually, as

requested, contrary to a claim made in the EIS that it provided feedback ‘in writing as

requested.’ Instead, the company issued a generalised, public document entitled ‘Questions

and Answers’. This was contrary to what each landowner had requested and was entirely

disrespectful of their reasonable requirements as to how they wished to be consulted.

Some of the queries from landowners related to ascertaining if EirGrid or its agents had by that

time already entered their property or landholdings, without notice or permission. These queries

have never been answered directly or individually.

68

EirGrid ignored a number of further written requests from landowners for specific individual

replies. A collective response to the second set of questions was only received after EirGrid

made its planning submission. Therefore, it is not correct to refer to the consultation with

landowners as having been ‘completed’.26

The submission on public consultation to this hearing on 13th May reveals the authoritarian

approach taken by EirGrid in relation entering private property: ‘In making a decision about

whether or not to walk the lands..’.These ‘lands’ are private properties and landholdings. They

are owned by real people with real concerns about EirGrid’s project, and should be treated with

due courtesy and respect.

Oral hearing 10th May ‘Strategic Overview of Proposed Development’

4.7 (page 18) Detailed Landowner questionnaire

EirGrid states that the ‘ landowner consultation process followed the principles of consultation

established since the time of building the Country’s first 400kV lines’, in partnership with

landowner and representative organisations’

NEPP is of the opinion that this is a very misleading statement, on two accounts

2. The country’s first 400kV lines and subsequent other extra high voltage 220kV and

110kv lines have encountered severe landowner and public resistance. These projects

have centered on conflict rather than on consultation.

26 EIS Volume 1 Chapter 3 paragraph 3.8.13 page 48

69

3. The two largest landowner organizations in this country, the Irish Farmers Association

(IFA) and the Irish Creamery & Milk Suppliers Association (ICMSA) have both stated

their opposition to EirGrid’s project, their support of their landowner members, their

support of NEPP’s objectives and their recommendation for using the alternative of

underground cabling.

EirGrid states that ‘In the case of this project, a detailed questionnaire delivered to each

landowner on the line route gave an opportunity to inform EirGrid of any specific concerns which

the Landowner may have had relating to the project’.

NEPP is of the opinion that this statement is inaccurate and misleading

4. EirGrid could not have delivered a detailed questionnaire to each landowner on the line

route because it has to date failed to identify all of the landowners affected.

5. Landowners on the line route from Woodlands to Moyhill have not received any detailed

questionnaire from EirGrid or its agents at any time.

6. NEPPC, however, has conducted an in-depth landowner questionnaire of all landowners

on the Woodlands to Moyhill proposed line route27 (Appendix 2). A response level of

95.1% was achieved. Some very clear results were observed

There was not a single landowner in favour of EirGrid’s proposals for overhead lines and towers.

98.9% of respondents ‘strongly objected’ to EirGrid’s proposals.

98.5% of respondents preferred the alternative of underground cables

27 NEPPC landowner questionnaire, 2009

70

89.3% of respondents were in favour of underground cables crossing their land

Media statements/advertising

Oral hearing 10th May ‘Strategic Overview of Proposed Development’ 4.8 (page 18)

EIS Volume 1 3.9 (page 49)

Advertising

In December 2007 EirGrid placed advertising in regional press, with the stated purpose of

correcting ‘incorrect information in circulation in relation to these projects’28

The advertisement (Appendix 3) stated:

‘EirGrid is currently undertaking a consultation process on a number of possible

routes, with a view to lodging a planning application in 2008’

‘ EirGrid aims to build the power lines a minimum distance of 50 to 60 metres from

existing dwellings to the centre of the line and not 25m as has been claimed. ‘

NEPP notes the following

1. Although EirGrid was obviously resourced to apply for planning in 2008, the application

was not made until the end of 2009. This gave more than the expected time to carry out

a thorough consultation process with members of the public, an opportunity which was

not seized upon.

28 EirGrid information in relation to two proposed overhead power lines, 2007

71

2. EirGrid has consistently misled the public in its communications around minimum

distances from existing dwellings. The proposed power lines route does not adhere to or

achieve EirGrid’s stated commitments to the public.

Media activities April - May 2010

NEPP is of the opinion that EirGrid has shown disregard and disrespect for the integrity of the

Oral Hearing process by launching a national media blitz in the run-up to this event. This

includes the following

National TV advertising across all of the main channels, amounting to 1,555 TV

‘Spots’ in the month of April alone.

Numerous Press advertisements in the main national newspapers.

A lengthy interview by the CEO of Eirgrid on prime time national radio (‘Today with

Pat Kenny’, Friday 7th May29) on practically the eve of the commencement of the

Oral Hearing

A full page interview in the Irish Times (‘The Friday Interview’30), also on May 7th last.

NEPP notes the following in relation to the radio and press interviews given by the CEO of

EirGrid just prior to the commencement of the Oral hearing:

29 ‘Today with Pat Kenny’, Friday 7th May (19 minutes)30 Irish Times, Friday 7th May

72

1. The CEO clearly attempts to influence and prejudge the findings of the Oral Hearing in

his statements:

Presenter: ‘And if the oral hearing said or the planning, Bord Pleanála finally said no

we want you to build it underground, what would you have to say to

them?’

CEO Response: ‘Well as I said it is just not possible to build it underground’

2. In the Irish Times interview on the same day the CEO of EirGrid states in relation to the

transmission technology alternative of using underground cables that:

‘It’s not feasible. Even if it were technically feasible, it would be horrendously expensive and

it would be unreliable’

This again is an aggressive attempt to pre-position the public perception of the arguments at

the Oral Hearing around cost and reliability.

We note, however, that in both interviews given by the EirGrid CEO, his statements on

the unreliability of the underground cables system proposed for this project are

contradicted by the Eirgrid submission of Mr Geoghegan and Mr Winfield on 10th May

when dealing with the subject of transmission and technology alternatives31:

‘EirGrid’s opinion of this is that, for this development, and from an operational point of

view, the availability performance of two separate ‘on land’ UnderGround Cable circuits

would probably be a close enough match to that of the proposed single circuit OverHead

31 Transmission and technology alternatives,section 6.6, page 29

73

Line. The ‘on land’ UnderGround Cable alternative was not therefore deemed

unacceptable for the development on the basis of reliability and security’

3. NEPP also notes with disappointment the diametrically opposed approach to public

consultation and engagement by the CEO of EirGrid, in this same timeframe, when

dealing with a request from the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Energy

and Natural Resources to hold discussions on the recently published TEPCO report and

the PB Power report. In a letter to the Committee on 24th February 2010, he states the

following:

‘ We would also note that while we are happy to facilitate appropriate discussion relating

to the content of the above two reports as they apply to the development of the Irish

Transmission System, we have some concerns as to the appropriateness of the

discussion specifically in relation to the Meath-Tyrone 400Kv Interconnection

Development Project, as that project is currently in a statutory planning process in

Ireland, and also in Northern Ireland. We are aware that NIE have similar concerns in

this regard. We would therefore request that the Committee give consideration to these

concerns in the context of the proposed briefing. By way of a copy of this letter, we wish

to advise PB Power and TEPCO of our views on this matter’

This request is in stark contrast to the subsequent actions of the CEO in openly giving

his views directly related to the Meath-Tyrone 400kV Interconnection Development

Project to the hundreds of thousands of listeners to the ‘Today with Pat Kenny’ show on

7th May, 2010.

NEPP wishes to record its objection concerning the disrespect and scant regard shown by

EirGrid to the Bord, the representative groups and individuals participating at the hearing and

74

the members of the public concerned about the EirGrid proposals. NEPP, for its part, have

refrained from any advertising or any substantive media interviews prior to the Oral Hearing.

We wish to highlight the substantive point that such calculated actions do nothing to engender

public trust or confidence in EirGrid, qualities that are essential in achieving genuine public

consultation and progress.

3.10. Strategic Stakeholders

3.10.1 Elected Members

‘From the outset of the project, EirGrid recognised Elected Members as key stakeholders who

have a mandate to represent the interests of the public. Therefore EirGrid paid much attention

to ensuring that Elected Members and their delegates were fully briefed on the project’

NEPP is of the opinion that EirGrid has failed to recognise the mandate from the public that

Elected Members hold and has failed to objectively inform and brief Elected Members on

transmission infrastructure advances, such as in the case of Denmark’s activities in this area.

NEPP has been urging Elected Members and EirGrid to study and emulate the energy and

electricity situation in Denmark because of the remarkable similarity of their renewable energy

potential and challenges to Ireland’s.

Like us, they have abundant wind and wave resources off their West and North West coasts.

They want to turn that resource into electricity to power Denmark and to export the surplus to

Scandinavia and other European countries.

75

Faced with strong political and local opposition to proposed new overhead lines in 2007, the

Danish Transmission System Operator – Energinet – realised they would never achieve the

necessary reinforcement of the grid if they insisted on overhead lines exclusively. Energinet

commissioned a high level Technical Study including representatives of both local and national

government departments to study the issue and make recommendations. The result is a

sound, scientifically based political consensus across all the major political parties in Denmark

that rules out the construction of any new overhead 400 kV lines where these do not already

exist, and the longer term ambition of putting all of Denmark’s grid underground, using AC

cables. In future Danes will only see new overhead high-voltage lines where there are overhead

lines today.

Energinet are rolling out a number of major activities, including the testing and planning of the

first long 400 kV AC cable in Denmark, and a general national cable action plan for the existing

regional 132/150 kV grids, which will outline how the regional transmission grids can be

undergrounded over the next few years. This plan has immediate relevance to the current

planning application by EirGrid.

NEPP have observed, through various communications with Elected Members, that EirGrid

have not properly or accurately briefed the Elected Members of the Danish political decisions

regarding future undergrounding of transmission infrastructure.

Engagement with NEPP

The public representative position of NEPP has been acknowledged by the Houses of the

Oireachtas, the Minister for Communications Energy and Natural Resources, other Government

Minister, State organisations, local authorities, the media and the general public. It seems

inexplicable that, nowhere in the EIS, has EirGrid referred to the contacts it conducted with

NEPP.

EirGrid conducted a series of meetings in 2008 and 2009 with NEPP during which views on the

project were exchanged. In particular, at the request of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on

Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, NEPP representatives attended two days of

technical discussions with EirGrid on 31st March / 1st April 2009. The company was

76

accompanied by the authors of the PB Power Report while NEPP was accompanied by the

authors of the Askon Report. At the end of the two days, both sides agreed that further

technical discussions would be convened, specifically on topics related to load flows and

utilisation levels of infrastructure in the Irish grid as well as further meetings on the many non-

technical issues raised by NEPP. Instead, on the evening of the second day – and despite a

specific agreement that neither side would issue a press release while the discussions

continued - EirGrid unilaterally terminated the consultation process by issuing a press release to

selected media.

In response to a written complaint by NEPP about EirGrid’s behaviour, the CEO of Eirgrid

claimed in his reply32 that the press release arose from its ‘obligation to communicate with

stakeholders’.

This episode underlines what has been wrong about EirGrid’s approach to this project from the

beginning. It has focussed on one option to the exclusion of all others. It has never looked at

the alternative options in an open-minded way and while it has employed a great deal of rhetoric

about being ‘open and transparent’, in reality, it has not liked being challenged by stakeholders

with an alternative viewpoint, particularly by lay people and non-engineers. While it has paid lip

service to ‘consultation’ it has become clear it always intended to do no more than make a few

cosmetic changes to its original proposals and press on regardless to do what it had intended

doing all along.

EirGrid has talked the language of ‘consultation’, ‘stakeholder input’ and ‘feedback’ but the

reality has been very different.

Conclusions

It is abundantly clear to NEPP and to members of the public that EirGrid has failed to provide

adequate public consultation on this project. It is also clear that EirGrid is sitting in a comfort

zone of reliance on using the existing technology of overhead lines to the exclusion of any

32 Letter of Mr Dermot Byrne, CEO, EirGrid to NEPP dated 17th April 2009

77

possible alternatives, with no intention or incentive to do otherwise, irrespective of public opinion

or concerns. No attempts to look at alternatives have been made since the last 400kV lines

were erected in the 1980’s, despite clear direction from our elected representatives.

As far back as 1985, the following comments were made by leading politicians in the Dáil

debate on the Electricity Supply Amendment Bill.

‘ I am especially aware of the situation that has arisen with regard to bringing electricity from

Moneypoint power station to the East coast. In my view, that has produced an environmental

horror. These great gangling pylons seem to march across the countryside like an invading

army of Martians. They are marching in a dead straight line up hill, down dale, across valleys

and through woodlands without any regard whatever to their visual impact on the countryside.... It is from the air that the enormous ugliness of this new power lIne is most obvious. It seems

that the engineers in charge have no regard for anything except the straightness of the line of

those pylons. They cut through woodlands, across valleys, through the most scenic areas

without regard. This development is changing the aspect of the Irish countryside for the worst’

(Charles Haughey, former Taoiseach)

‘There is no doubt that the huge pylons now being erected have a horrific effect on the visual

aspect of the environment. In my constituency, historic hillsides have been marred by the

presence of huge electric pylons’ (Bernard Durkan, TD)

‘Placing such cables above the land has detrimental effects on the natural beauty of the

environment. The placing of cables below the land does not seem to be practised

sufficiently....and in this respect the ESB could make a greater contribution towards the

preservation of the natural beauty of our environment’ (Albert Reynolds, former Taoiseach)

It is clear that an impasse exists between the proposed plans of EirGrid and the acceptance of

such plans by the members of the public, especially those directly affected. This is a Europe-

wide issue. Currently twenty of the 32 main electricity infrastructure projects face delays. This is

78

in stark contrast to the main gas projects, where no significant delays have been reported. The

reasons for delays in ten of the eleven top priority electricity projects includes the common

theme of opposition from the local populations.

Eirgrid on the one hand claim that the underground cable option is not technically feasible, but

then often follow this up with statements such as ‘except where no other practical option exists,

such as in towns and cities’. For concerned members of the public, this smacks of a rural-urban

divide and is no longer viewed as an acceptable argument to dismiss undergrounding.

At no stage has NEPP seen a comparative risk analysis examining the trade-off between the

technical challenges posed by using alternatives to overhead transmission lines versus the

public acceptance, visual intrusion, devaluation impact and other equally important challenges

posed by continuing to use overhead transmission lines. This exercise would perhaps herald

the start of a proper public consultation process.

79