RESTRICTEDF r1tCOPY

Report No. PU-56a

This report was prepared for use within the Bank and its affiliated organizations.They do not accept responsibility for its accuracy or completeness. The report maynot be published nor may it be quoted as representing their views.

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCflON AND DEVELOPMENT

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION

APPRAISAL OF THE SECOND POWER PROJECT

(TARBERT 3)

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD

IRELAND

January 29, 1971

Public Utilities Projects Department

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENC E4UIVALES

Irish T1 O US$2.40US$1 ' Irih h0J417 ("-/A4)Irish Shilling i(s) a US$0.12Irish Penny 1(d) - US$0.01

WEGS AND MEASURES EIIVALETS

1 mile (m) - 1.609 kilometer (km)1 foot (ft) a 30.48 centimeter (cm)1 pound per square inch a 0.070 kllogrs per

sq ure centimeter(jWCm2)

1 megawatt (MW) 1,0ooo kilowatts (kW)1 gigawatt hour (OWh) 1 million kilowatt

ho, (klWh)1 kilovolt (kV) - 1,000 volts

ACIRDNXHS AND ABBREVIATIWNS

ESB or Board : ELectricitiy Supp3y BoardNIJEA : Northern Ireland Joint ELectrici¢ t AuthorityGDP : Orosa Domestic ProductGNP s Gross National Product

ESB's fiscal year enis March 31

IRELAND

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS i

I* INTRODUCTION 1

II. THE BORROWER 2Economic Background 2Electricity Supply Board 2Use of Peat 3Future of Peat Stations 3Rural Electrification 4Tariffs ,4Accounting and Audits 4Electricity Output and Sales 5Existing ESB Facilities 5Interconnection with Northern Ireland 6Future Expansion Program 6

III. THE PROJECT 8Description of the Project 8Status of Engineering and Procurement 8Construction Schedule 10Cost Estimates 10Disbursements 11

IV. JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROJECT 12Load Forecasts 12Evaluation of the ESB Plant Installation

Program Against Alternatives 12Estimated Internal Financial Rate of Return 12

V. FINANCIAL ASPECTS 14Past and Present Financial Position 14Financing of the Project 16Future Financial Position 16

VI. AGREEMENTS REACHED DURING NEGOTIATIONS 18

This report is based on the findings of a Bank mission composed ofMessrs. J. Beach, S. S. Scales and K. Stichenwirth which visitedIreland in July 1970.

LIST OF ANNEXES

ANNEX

1. Organization Chart.

2. Particulars of Generating Plant and Details of Performancefor Year Ending March 31, 1970.

3. Actual and Forecast Sales by Categories.

4. Estimated Disbursement Schedule.

5. Forecast of Maximum Demands, Generation and PlantInstallation Program.

6. Generation Development Plan for the Combined Systems ofthe Electricity Supply Board and the Northern IrelandJoint Electricity Authority.

7. Internal Financial Rate of Return.

8. Estimated kWh Generated and Cost of Fuel forThermal Stations.

9. Actual and Forecast Income Statements, 1967-1977.

10. Actual and Forecast Sources and Applications of Funds, 1970-77.

11. Actual and Forecast Balance Sheets, 1967-1977.

MAP Layout of Main Transmission System as at September 1976.

IRELA'ND

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARDAPPRAISAL OF THE SECOUID POWER PROJECT

(TARBERT 3)

SUDIMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

i. This report covers the appraisal of a project consisting of a250 MJ oil-fired thermal generating unit required for the expansion ofthe electricity supply system in the Republic of Ireland. A loan to helpfinance the project has been requested by the Electricity Supply Board(ESB), a Government agency responsible for electric power supply through-out the country. A loan of US$20.0 million equivalent is proposed. Theloan would cover about 95% of the project's foreign exchange requirementsand would represent about 71% of the estimated total cost of the project.This would be the second Bank loan to the ESB; the first (Loan 591-IRE)for US$14.5 million was made in March 1969 to help finance the TurloughHill Pumped Storage Project. Experience with that Bank-asaisted projecthas been satisfactory to date.

ii. The electric power system in Ireland has been expanding atabout 9% per year over the past decade with the average growth rate overmoving five year periods showing a steady upward trend from 8.2% at thebeginning of the period to 10.6% at the end. Consumption is expected togrow at 10% per year over the next several years.

iii. The project is an essential part of the program to increasegenerating capacity to meet anticipated load growth. The program hasbeen formulated in collaboration with the Northern Ireland JointElectricity Authority (NIJEA), responsible for the co-ordination of allpower operations in Northern Ireland, and has been designed to promotethe most economical use of the generating capacity of the two interconnectedsystems, consistent with acceptable service standards. The proposedproject would represent about 9% of the cost of the ESB investment programfor the five-year period 1971/72 through 1975/76.

iv. The project is technically sound and the estimated cost isreasonable. All engineering planning has been carried out by ESB staff,who will also supervise construction. The staff has had considerableexperience in the design and construction of large generating units andis capable of carrying out the project without the assistance of consultants.

v. The ESB is a stable organization with a successfal operatinghistory. A reorganization of management was carried out recently todifferentiate more clearly the policy-making and operational functions.Although the old organization functioned well, with the reorganizationthe ESB will now be better able to meet the demands of the rapidlygrowing system.

-ii-

vi. The ESB's financial position is regulated by the Electricity(Supply) Act of 1927, which provides essentially that revenues shouldcover all expenditures including depreciation and debt service, andshould allow for appropriate reserves. This criterion has in the pastproved adequate to produce a return which has ensured sufficient fundsto carry out its operations.

vii. The internal financial rate of return on the project isestimated to be about 28%. This comparatively high figure reflectsthe fact that the new oil-fired facility will be more efficientthan existing thermal plants, a large proportion of which is comprisedof peat-burning stations that have relatively high fuel expenses.

viii. The project would form a suitable basis for a loan of US$20.0million equivalent for a term of 17 years, including a grace period ofabout five years.

.

LU !ND

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARDAPPRAISAL OF TE SEOND POWER PROJECT

(TARBERT 3)

I. INTRODUCTION

1.01 The Government of Ireland, on behalf of the Electricity SupplyBoard (ESB), has requested a loan to help finance a project consistingof a 250 MW oil-fired thenmal unit as an extension to the generatingfacilities at Tarbert, which now comprise two recently commissioned60 MW thermal units. Tarbert is on the south bank of the broad estuaryof the Shannon River in County Kerry, western Ireland (see Map).

1.02 The Borrower would be the ESB. The proposed loan amount ofUS$20.0 million equivalent would cover about 95% of the estimated foreignexchange requirements of the project. Its cost is estimated to beUS$28.1 million equivalent, which is about 9% of the ESB's capitalexpenditure program for the period 1971/72 through 1975/76. This wouldbe the Bank's second loan for power to Ireland, the first one beingLoan 591-IRE (US$14.5 million) to the E5B in March 1969 to help financethe 280 MW Turlough Hill Pumped Storage Project. Construction of thatProject is proceeding satisfaetorily.

1.03 This report is based on the findings of a Bank missioncomposed of Messrs. J. Beach, S. S. Scales and E. Stichenwirth whichvisited Ireland in July 1970.

II. THE BORROIER

Economic Background

2.01 The Republic of Ireland, about 27,000 sq mi in area, has apopulation of 3 million and a population growth rate of about 0.4% peryear. Some 650,000 of the people live in Dublin, the capital and largestcity. The recent progress of the economy has resulted in 4% real growthin GNP in 1969, accompanied by a rapid growth in the use of electricityby industrial consumers (para. 2.02). The industrial sector accounts forone-third of total GDP and is responsible for 50% of total exports. In1969 the principal industrial exports were metal ores, chemicals, clothing,electrical machinery and equipment, beverages and tobacco. During the lastfive years, the value of industrial exports has increased by nearly 130%,or an average of 18% per year.

2.02 The Government's Third Program for Economic and Social Development,1969-72, emphasizes the need for continued expansion of the industrial sec-tor. A growth of 6.5% in real terms for this sector is expected to beachieved during the plan period.

2.03 The electric power sector absorbs over 10% of the funds allocatedto the Public Capital Program. This high percentage is to ensure that theESB system expands rapidly enough to meet future demand for power. Thedemand is expected to grow at not less than 10% per year, particularlybecause of the emphasis being placed on industrial development. The percapita consumption in Ireland of 1,370 kWh is among the lowest in Europe,ranking Ireland above only four other European countries (Greece, Portugal,Spain and Yugoslavia). Its consumption is only one-third that of theUnited Kingdom.

Electricity Supply Board (ESB)

2.o4 The Electricity Supply Board was established in 1927 to re-organize and regulate the generation, transmission and distribution ofelectric power throughout the country. The ESB gradually acquired some160 local undertakings engaged in the business of electricity supply, sothat today it is the sole agency providing public electricity supply inIreland. Its activities cover all aspects of electricity supply, fromconstruction of its own power stations to the sale of all types of elec-trical appliances. The ESB is one of Ireland's largest enterprises. Itis the largest in terms of assets and revenue and second in the number ofemployees (about 10,000), being surpassed only by the Government transportcompany.

2.05 The ESB, a Government statutory body, is generally free ofgovernmental control except for the obligation to burn indigenous fuel(paras. 2.07, 2.08 and 2.09), development of rural electrification(para. 2.10), and approval of tariff changes and borrowing. The sevenmembers of the Board, including the full-time Chairman, are selectedfrom business and the professions. The Cabinet appoints them for

individual terms of up to five years; reappointments are customary, whichcontributes to the Board's high degree of responsibility and continuity.Until recently, the Chairman was the chief executive officer. He and theChief Engineer, Chief Accountant and Secretary formed an executive comaitteethat dealt with routine matters.

2.06 ESB's rapidly expanding operations influenced the Board to under-take a reorganization to differentiate clearly between the policy-makingand operating functions. Consultants (Messrs. McKinsey of London) assistedin this reorganization, which is now completed. Under the new organization,the Chairman and the Board are concerned only with policy-making, establish-ment of guidelines and objectives, and such vital areas as tariff changes,fund-raising and senior executive appointments. Details of the ESP manage-ment structure following the reorganization are in Annex 1.

Use of Peat

2.07 Two-thirds of Ireland's total peat production is consumed in theESB power stations (most of the remainder is sold as briquettes for domesticand industrial uses). The production of commercial milled peat, briquettesand other peat products is the function of the Peat Board, a Governmentagency that started intensive development of the bogs some 19 years agowith the goal of relieving the country's dependence on imported fuel. TheFESB supports the Peat Board's activities by buying peat at rates fixed byit with Government approval. Although the peat-fired stations and theassociated bog development were all originally designed for 20 to 25 yearsolife, a recent survey indicated there is enough peat on the bogs to fuelthese stations until the late 1980s.

2.08 Peat costs more than twice as much as imported coal or oil. In1969/70 the fuel cost for plants burning peat averaged 0.78d/kWh whilethat for oil-burning stations was only 0.31d/kWh. Moreover, the locationof the peat stations on the bogs involves heavy investments in transmissionto convey the output to the load centers. Since the weather determines toa large extent the amount of peat that can be harvested, a good harvestyear for peat has the effect of increasing the ESB's generating costs;this is because, regardless of the disparate cost of peat, the ESB has acommitment to buy all peat that is delivered. But with the percentage oftotal electricity generation supplied from peat declining rapidly -- froman estimated 31% in 1970/71 to 18% in 1976/77 -- the problem is becomingof less imprtance.

Puture of Peat Stations

2.09 Because supplies of peat will be available on the present scalefor another 15 years or more, the Board has had to decide whether tomaintain existing peat-fired stations for a very long period at heavyexpense or to install new and more efficient peat-fired plant. In con-junction with the Government, the Board has decided to proceed withinstallation of a second 40 MW generating unit at the Shannonbridgestation, using milled peat, for commissioning in 1974/75. Under theeircumstances this decision is justified. Preliminary site construction

- 4 -

work for the station has started. The ShannonbEidge extension togetherwith existing peat stations is expected to fully utilize the remainingpeat resources, hence no further investment in new peat stations iscontemplated.

Rural Electrification

2.10 In an effort to check migration from rural to urban areas and toother countries, the Government in 1946 initiated a social program to improverural living conditions. The ESB was required to contribute to this programby carrying out a country-wide rural electrification project. The Govern-ment accepted liability for payment to the Board of a subsidy averaging 50%of the capital outlay for the project. Though discontinued in 1955, un-fortunately during the years of maximum expenditure, the subsidy was restoredin 1958 and increased to 75% in 1962. At the 75% level of subsidy, whichwill continue until at least 1975, the ESB is able to recover its investmentin rural electrification. An estimated 90% of the rural areas have now beenserved.

Tariffs

2.11 The Act that created the Board in 1927 stipulates that electricitytariffs should be set at levels to produce revenues which, together withrevenues from other services, cover the following:

(a) operation, maintenance, adninistration, taxes and similaritems properly chargeable to income

(b) depreciation

(c) interest chargeable to revenue, amortization of debt, andallocation to the sinking fund reserve (see Chapter V)

(d) sums that the Board considers proper to set aside for thereserve fund, extensions and renewals.

Tariff increases are subject to approval by the Minister of Industry andCommerce.

2.12 The provisions of the Act and the way they have been adiministeredhave proved effective in adjusting tariffs so as to maintain the soundfinancial position that has characterized the Board's operations. As inLoan 591-IRE, the documents for the proposed loan include, as an event ofdefault, any change made in the Act of 1927 (and as subsequently amended)that in the Bank's opinion would adversely affect the execution of theproject or the financial condition of the Board.

Accounting and Audits

2.13 The Act requires the Board to have its accounts audited annuallyby a qualified auditor appointed by the Government. Kennedy, Crowley andCompany, Chartered Accountants of Ireland, has been the auditor for theBoard for several years, has given satisfactory service, and meets the

requirements of the Agreement for Loan 591-IRE with respect to the appoint-ment of independent auditors. To ensure that these requirements arecontinued, Government and Board have agreed to continue to appoint auditorsacceptable to the Bank.

Electricity Output and Sales

2.14 For the year ending March 31, 1970, the ESB Stations generated5,242 GWh -- an increase* of 497 GWh over the previous year. The rise inmaximum demand was 7.4%. Electricity supplied by the system was as follows:

GWh Generated Percentage

Hydro 594 11.3Peat (sod) 543 10.3Peat (milled) 1,377 26.3Coal (local) 92 1.8Oil 2,636 50.3

Total 5,242 100.0

Output from local fuel sources was 38.4% of the total. This high pro-portion of generation from indigenous sources was due to the excellentweather that prevailed during the year, resulting in higher than averageutilization of peat and reduced generation from hydro sources.

2.15 Sales increased by 10% over the previous year. Increases bycategories are shown below.

1969/70 1968/69 PercentageGWh GWh Increase

Industrial 1,414 1,303 8.5Domestic 1,964 1,791 9.7Commercial 1 ,034 918 11.3

For further details of historic and forecast sales, see Annex 3.

2.16 The high growth rate in demand for electricity (10% in 1969/70,12.4% in 1968/69 and 10.3% in 1967/68) reflects the greater use of electricalappliances by cammercial consumers and the success of the Board's promotionalcampaign directed at the domestic consumers with a view to developing thecooking, water-heating and off-peak night storage heating loads. Industrialgrowth in 1969/70 was lower than in previous years (Annex 3) but is expectedto recover as a result of the emphasis being placed on industrial develop-ment by the Government.

Existing ESB Facilities

2.17 At the end of fiscal year 1970, thf ESB generating capacityamounted to 1,410 MW: 220 NW of hydro capacity, 407 MW in peat-fired steamstations, and 783 MW of capacity in thermal stations fuelled by coal orimported oil. Generating stations and load centers are interconnected bymeans of an extensive 220 kV and 110 kV grid network. The transmission anddistribution systems are well built and maintained and the ESB uses the

- 6 -

latest in construction materials and techniques. In 1970, transmission anddistribution losses averaged 11% of units sent out from generating stations;this is satisfactory. Annex 2 gives details of existing generating stations,and the Map shows the 220 kV and 110 lcV transmission system as it is ex-pected to be in 1976.

Interconnection with Northern Ireland

2.18 A basic agreement setting up the objectives and authorizing con-struction of a two-circuit interconnection between the systemsiof the ESBand the Northern Ireland Joint Electricity Authority (NIJEA) was signedin October 1967. In early 1970 the first 275 kV circuit of the inter-connection, with a capacity of 300 lMW, was commissioned. Construction ofthe second circuit is under way and should be ready for operation in mid-1971.

2.19 This interconnection will bring considerable economic advantagesto both parties, the most notable being the reduction in reserve generatingplant to be held by each system with a consequent reduction in capitalinvestment. The reduction in reserve generating capacity requirements isstriking (see Annexes 5 and 6). Following the interconnection, both partieshave agreed to the joint planning of future generating plant requirementsof the combined system. Apportionment of the total required generatingplant between the individual systems is made so that equal risk of failureto meet peak demand will exist in each system in the event the intercon-necting tie becomes unavailable.

Future Expansion Program

2.20 Analysis of the various alternative plant installation programsis discussed in paragraph 4.03. That which has been adopted by the ESBin agreement with the NIJEA as the optimum program is given below (loca-tions of the facilities are shown on the Nap). Construction work hasstarted on all units preceding Shannonbridge, and Board approval has beengiven to construction of the remaining facilities.

Commissioning Date Plant Size Type

1970/71 PigeoniHouse 'B' No. 1 1 x 120 MWi Oil-fired1970/71 Pigeon House IB' Gas Tur7bine 2 x 113 MW Oil1971/72 Pigeon House 'B' No. 2 1 x 120 MW Oil-fired1971/72 Great Island No. 3 1 x 120 1TW Oil-fired1973/74 Turlough Hill Nos. 1 and 2 2 x 70 MWi Pumped Storage1974/75 Turlough Hill Nos. 3 and 4 2 x 70 MW Pumped Storage1974/75 Shannonbridge No. 2 1 x 40 1MW Milled Peat1975/76 Tarbert No. 3 1 x 250 MW Oil-fired1976/77 Pigeon House 'B' No. 3 1 x 250 MWi Oil-fired1977/78 Tarbert No. 4 1 x 250 MW Oil-fired

- 7 -

2.21 The program beyond 1977/78 is uncertain at this time, but theESB is seriously considering building a nuclear power station for com-missioning in 1978/79.

2.22 The high voltage transmission system is being expanded byinstalling single-circuit 220 kV transmission lines betwieen Tarbert andKillonan and between Killonan and Dublin. The route of these circuitsand forecast commissioning dates are shown on the Map. This program isadequate. The 110 kV transmission system will be expanded each year tocover requirements, and there will continue to be a systematic expansionof distribution facilities. Through 1970/71-1976/77, ESB's total invest-ment is expected to be L186 million; the percentage for generation will be33%, for transmission 16% and for distribution 51%.

- 8 -

III THE PROJECT

Description of the Project

3.01 The project proposed for Bank financing (Tarbert No.3)would consist of a 250 MW extension to the Tarbert generating station,situated on the Shannon River in western Ireland (see Nlap). Thestation's existing plant comprises two recently commissioned 60 MWoil-fired thermal units.

3.02 Tarbert No. 3 would consist of a single oil-fired generatingunit, tandem compound, operating at a pressure of 2,350 psi and tem-perature of 1,0000 F with reheat at 550 psi, 1,0000 F. As in the caseof the existing units, the electrical and mechanical systems wouldbe arranged on the unit system basis. The generator would be linkedthrough a 300 IiVA unit transformer to a 220 kV outdoor switchyard.Its output would be transmitted to the main system at Killonan over a220 kV line which is to be constructed (para. 2.22).

3.03 Foundation conditions are excellent, hence foundation pilingwould not be necessary. No ecological problems are anticipated.Ample supplies of cooling water are available from the Shannon River;as the volume required will be small in relation to the river flow,marine life would be unaffected by the warm water discharge from theturbine condensers. Also., though the station site is remote frompopulated areas, the boiler stack would be tall enough (400 ft) toensure that waste boiler gases will be sufficiently dispersed tomaintain atmospheric contamination well below acceptable levels.

Status of Engineering and Procurement

3.04 Except for projects requiring specialized design experience(such as the Turlough Hill Pumped Storage Project the Bank is helpingfinance), the ESB staff normally undertakes all of the engineeringand design work for new projects. This will be the case in the pro-posed project. The staff has considerable experience in designingand supervising the construction of large thermal stations and there-fore is capable of undertaking the work without consultants' help.

3.05 Bids for the boiler and turbo-alternator for Tarbert 3which were invited in May and July 1970 respectively in accordancewith the Bank's procurement guidelines have been received and arebeing evaluated. Looking to its future requirements, the ESB hasinvited bids to cover not only the procurement of Tarbert No. 3(the object of the proposed loan), but also for identical units forPigeon House 'B' at an existing site in Dublin, and Tarbert No. 4.Alternative bids have been invited as follows:

- 9

(a) one 250 14W unit at Tarbert

(b) one 250 MW unit at Pigeon iouse 'B'

(c) one 250 M1W unit at Tarbert and one 250 1IW unit atPigeon House 'B? to be ordered simultaneously

(d) one 250 14W unit at Tarbert with option of purchasing asecond unit within two years

(e) two 250 MW units at Tarbert and one 250 1W unit atPigeon House 'B' to be ordered simultaneously

(f) one 250 NW unit at Tarbert and one 250 NjiW unit at Pigeon*lHouse 'B' to be ordered simultaneously, with option of pur-chasing a second 250 14W unit at Tarbert within two years.

3.06 The ESB believes, with some justification, that it can expectto gain financial advantage by placing definite orders for more than oneunit at the same time. Even though the first units at Tarbert and PigeonHouse 'B' may be ordered together, construction of the latter would bephased one year behind Tarbert in accordance with estimated system require-ments (see Annexes 5 and 6). The ESB has declared its intention to re-quest the Bank to help finance the PigeonHouse 'B' unit early in fiscalyear 1972. The ESB will likely decide to order the two units simultaneous-ly, as this would be sensible should the price be attractive. It wouldthen probably request Bank financing for the second unit, which wouldhave been procured after international competitive bidding, but theESB of necessity would have entered into a supply contract before theExecutive Directors could consider a further loan. ESB's action wouldhave been similar, though different in form, to exercising an option topurchase equipment at a price obtained after international competitivebidding. The idea of Bank financing of equipment under option provisions0 was accepted recently in the case of Thailand (South Bangkok Unit No. 4),although in that instance the option will not be exercised until theExecutive Directors have approved the loan. It has been emphasizedto the ESB, and the ESB understands, that the Bank is not making anycommitment at this time, moral or otherwise, to finance the PigeonHouse 'B' Project in fiscal 1972.

3.07 Bidding documentation for other plant and works required forthe project are under preparation.

* 10 -

*onstruction Schedule

3.08 The Tarbert site is excellent from the viewpoint of construction,as no site preparation of any magnitude is needed. Consequently, with thelong lead time required between placing of orders for major plant andarrival at site of the main components, the site work would not commenceuntil about mid-1972 and the schedule of disbursements (Annex 4) allowsfor this. The construction provides for full commercial operation ofTarbert No. 3 in October 1975. This is reasonable.

Cost Estimates

3.09 The cost estimates for the project were prepared by the ESB.Civil works costs are based on unit prices for similar works being carriedout for the 120 MW extensions at Pigeon House'B' and Great Island generating0 stations. Major equipment cost is based on recently received bids forboiler and turbo-generator plant. A price contingency allowance of 10%has been included for both equipment and civil works especially with a viewtowards the price escalation clause included in the bids for equipment.The overall cost would be about US$112/kW installed which is attractive.The fact that a number of common facilities are already at the projectsite -- e.g., basic fuel handling and cooling water equipment, watertreatment plant, station offices and access roads -- contributes to thisquite low unit cost.

COST ESTfIATES

Irish F. US$(thousands)USt

Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total

Civil Works 1,120 380 1,500 2,688 912 3,600Boiler Plant 510 2,240 2,750 1,224 5,376 6,600Turbo-generator0 Plant 450 3,750 4,200 1,080 9,000 10,080Mechanical Auxiliary

Equipment 227 1,270 1,i497 545 3,048 3,593Electrical Auxiliary

Equipment 83 290 373 200 696 896Ehgineering 300 - 300 720 - 720Price Contingencies 270 800 1,070 648 1,920 2,568

Total Pro.ect.Cebt 2960 8,730 11,690 7,105 20,952 28,057

- 11 _

Disbursements

3.10 The proposed US$20.0 million loan would cover the actualforeign exchange cost of generating plant and associated equipment forwhich contracts would be placed after international competitive bidding.The main civil works (including the turbine house and boiler housefoundations, plant foundations, structural steel work and cladding) arecorventional in nature. These works, which would be undertaken bycompetent Irish contractors, would not be put out to internationalcomipetitive bidding and would not be financed by the loan.

3.11 The turbo-generator and boiler specifications request thattenders allow for such items as stairways, galleries, tanks,boiler andturbine structures to be manufactured in Ireland as sub-contracts tothe main contract. Tenders include alternative prices for the importof equivalent items. In deciding whether equipment should be wTholly_imported or manufactured locally, the ESB may at its discretion apply0 a preference not exceeding 15% or the prevailing duty, wlhichever is less,to the cost of locally manufactured goods. An analysis of the aboveitems which could be manufactured in Ireland suggests that about 70% ofthe orders for such equipment with an aggregate value of about 1900,000are likely to be awarded to Irish sub-contractors. For orders placedwith Irish manufacturers, disbursements would be made from the loanaccount for 70% of expenditures in local currency representing theforeign exchange component of such orders subject to a maximum sum ofUS$2 million equivalent.

3.12 The loan would represent about 71% of the estimated projectcost and would cover about 95% of the total foreign exchange requirements.Expenditures prior to signing of the Loan Agreement would not be eligiblefor reimbursement. Should the project be completed for less than theestimated cost, any undisbursed amount of the loan would be cancelledunless there were good grounds for applying savings to related works.

3.13 It is estimated that the loan would be disbursed accordingto the schedule in Annex 4.

- 12 -

IV. JUSTIFICATION OF THE P1)OJ2CT

Load Forecasts

4.01 For planning purposes, ESB's generation development reports of1963 and 1967 adopted an annual growth rate of 9% for units generated.The substantially increased growth rate for the past two years, however,indicate6 that 9% is too low. Therefore, for assessing load growth forthe decade ending in 1979/80, the 1970 generation development report hasadopted an annual growth rate of 10% (see Annexes 5 and 6). Analysis ofthe annual growth rate over successive five-year periods since 1957-1962revealed a steady upward trend ranging from 8.2% in that first period to10.6% in the 1965-1970 period.

4.02 In view of the substantial increases in sales in the past threeyears (10.3% for 1967/68, 12.4% for 1968/69 and 10% for 1969/70), thereis every indication that the higher level of growth will continue. Infact, recent growth in industrial sales and continuing enquiries fromindustrial consumers concerning future power requirements indicate thatthe assumed 10% growth rate may be too low. However, the growth rateand accumulated error are both reviewed annually and planning targetsadjusted if necessary.

Evaluation of the ESB Plant Installation Program Against Alternatives

4.03 Following a determination by the FSB and NIJEA of the amountof generating capacity required in their respective systems for theperiod through 1977/78 (see Annex 6), a number of alternative plantInstallation programs were considered by the ESB that involve generatingunits of various sizes and the consideration of advantages to be gainedby using existing sites rather than developing new ones. After a costanalysis of the various alternative programs, the one selected (seepara. 2.20) represents the least-cost solution on a present worth basisusing discount rates in the range of 8-12%. The proposed project -- asingle-unit 250 MW extension to the generating facilities at Tarbertthermal power station -- is the first major generating facility to beconstructed as part of the program approved by the Board in 1970.

Estimated Internal Financial Rate of Return

4.04 Tarbert No. 3's generating capacity is necessary to meet marketconditions expected at about the time the unit would come into serviceat the generation security standard set by the ESB and NIJEA.

4.05 The internal financial rate of return for Tarbert No. 3 is thediscount rate at which the present worth of the facility's cost, in-cluding operating charges but excluding taxes and depreciation,is equalto the present worth of the benefits to be obtained over the life of theproject. Capital charges include the cost of the facility and the es-timated cost of the attributable transmission and distribution facilitiesrequired to transmit and distribute the power generated by Tarbert No. 3to the ultimate consumer. Until the new unit's full output can be

- 13 -

apportioned to new sales, the benefits include cost savings realized fromthe initial displacement of less efficient generating plant. Thereafter,the benefits are valued at prevailing rates for the sale of power,estimated to average 2.17d/kWh in 1975/76 and 2.14d/kWh thereafter.

h.o6 On this basis, a rate of return of 28% is indicated (see Annex7). This comparatively high internal financial rate of return reflectsthe low investment cost of the new oil-fired facility and the fact thatit will be more efficient than existing thermal capacity, a large pro-portion of which is comprised of peat-burning stations that have rela-tively high fuel expenses for operation.

- 14 -

V. F2NANCIAL ASPECTS

Past and Present Financial Position

5.01 ESB's finances are sound. This is made possible by the stipulationsof the Act (para.2.11) and the way they are applied. The Act enables theBoard to set tariffs at levels which produce revenues sufficient to coverall costs, including debt service and provisions for extension and renewals.

5.02 Average revenue per kWh rose from 1.98d per kWh in 1967 to 2.14dper kWh in 1970, as the result of tariff increases in November 1968 andJanuary 1970 of 7% each. Since higher consumption per customer leads tosales in lower priced tariff categories, the average revenue per kWh in-creased by only 2% to 4% per year during the past four years, a trendwhich has been assumed also to prevail in the future.

5.03 In the past, operating and administrative expenses have reflectedthe trends in costs of materials, labor and other items and are reasonableconsidering ESB's operations, which comprise generation, transmission anddistribution of electric energy. Fuel prices increased in fiscal year1968 by about 21 .3/ton for oil because of the Suez surcharge, and by afurther LO.8/ton due to the devaluation of the Irish pound in November1967. Both these charges increased the oil price from about B3 to h5 perton. These oil price increases were offset to a large extent in 1968 byfavorable hydro conditions, but in fiscal year 1969 resulted in a sharprise in fuel costs which were offset by the 1968 tariff increase. Theoperating ratio (operating expenses as a percentage of revenues) was 80%in fiscal year 1970 and is expected to improve gradually to 70% in 1977(see Annex 9). This ratio, being relatively unfavorable even for a pre-dominantly thermal system, reflects the burden that the cost of peat isimposing on the ESB operations (para. 2.08). However, a gradual improvementcan be expected from the installation of the additional oil-fired plants,whose fuel cost is considerably lower (see Annex 8).

5.04 ESB's depreciation policy and procedures result in an annualaverage depreciation rate on a straighti4ine basis of about 3.7%, which issatisfactory for reflecting the average useful lives of ESB assets and forcreating internal funds for renewals. The actual method of calculation isdescribed in Annex 9.

5.05 By law, the ESB is liable to taxation on income. In assessingits impact, ESB is authorized to charge accelerated depreciation againsttaxable profit in addition to the normal depreciation. The accelerateddepreciation is calculated on the basis of new assets; since the Board'sheavy investment program is estimated also to prevail in the future,accelerated depreciation, in fact, relieves the Board from paying incometax during the forecast period.

- 15 -

5.06 ESB's capitalization at the end of fiscal year 1970 was as follows:

millions of h %Equity 38.6 22%Long Term Debt

Government Repayable Advances 55.8 31%Redeemable Stock 61.3 34%Loan 591-IRE o.6 -Other Long Term Debt 22.7 13%

Total Long Term Debt 140.4 78%Total Capitalization 179.0 100%

5.07 The equity consists of reserves built up from retained earnings,and of nonrepayable Government financing of rural electrification. Govern-ment repayable advances were made prior to 1954 under the Act and its amend-ments and consist of 50 year loans at annual interest presently averagingabout 4.5%. At that time, the Government was essentially the only sourceof borrowings for the Board. The Act Amencnent of 1954 authorized the ESBto borrow money by issuing Redeemable Stock, essentially 19 to 25-yearsinking fund debentures, and other types of securities, subject to priorapproval of the Minister of Finance (para. 2.05). Since then the Boardhas borrowed about 169 million from the local market in issues at interestrates between 5% and 9.5%. In addition to Loan 591-IRE for the TurloughHill Pumped Storage Project, two foreign loans with an aggregate nominalamount of 114.1 million equivalent, for a 15-year term including a graceperiod of 5 years and interest at 6-3/4% per annum were contracted re-centlzy. ESB's long term debt also includes a 6%, h500.000 loan from NewIreland Assurance Company Ltd., and three suppliers' credits totallingh7.8 million over 7 to 10 years and at interest rates between 5-3/8% and 6.6%.

5.08 The terms of ESB's redeemable stock (34% of the capitalization)require that certain fixed annual sums be set aside from revenues and allo-cated to a sinking fund reserve. This reserve is a pool out of which pay-ments for amortization, purchase of sinking fund investments and earlyrepayments (cancellation) are being made.

5.09 Sinking fund requirements need a careful calculation in order tokeep tariffs at appropriate levels, because they are one of the "expenses"to be covered by revenues. Loan 591-IRE therefore required that chargesshould be made each year sufficient to ensure full repayment of all issuesof the Borrower's redeemable stock, created after 1958, by their latestredemption dates. Because of the present tight money situation in Ireland,however, the Board issued in early 1970 and recently medium-term stock ofabout E3.2 million and about E3.5 million, the terms of which do not pro-vide the funds for total amortization by the latest redemption date. TheBank, aware of the present difficulty in raising sufficient long-term capital,waived this stipulation in both cases, and subsequently agreed during negotia-tions that the Borrower may issue in future stock of 15 years or less if itprovides for at least 15-years sinking fund allocations for any such issue;the outstanding amount of such stock should not exceed 20% of the totaloutstanding debt in any given year, otherwise the Board would have to consultwith the Bank prior to a new issue. For long-term issues (more than 15 years)sinking fund allocations have to be sufficient for repayment by the latestredemption date.

- 16 -

5.10 In fiscal year 1970, the value of current assets is about 2.1times the value of current liabilities. This current ratio includes an in-creased amount for accounts receivable that is due to a prolonged strikeof ESB administrative staff, causing delays in bill collection and recording.Current assets further include temporary cash investments arising from thefact that the ESB normally raises the major portion of its loan funds towardthe end of the fiscal year and invests money not immediately needed in short-term Government bonds.

Financing of the Project

5.11 The Project would be financed by the proposed Bank loan (71%) andby local borrowing and intemnal sources (29%). rThe proposed Bank loan wouldnot finance interest payments during the construction period of the Project.

Future Financial Position

5.12 Annex 10 shows the detailed financing plan of the ESB for theyears 1971 through 1977. A condensed version for the estimated projectconstruction period (1972 through 1976) is given below.

CONDENSED FDTANCIAL PLAN

1972 - 1976is Equivalent

millions US$ millions %SourcesInternalOperating Income 90.4 217.0 -Depreciation 129.1 -

1 d-.2 346.1 -Less: Debt Service excluding

Interest during Constructior, 60.2 192.5 -Internal Cash Generation 77.3 1g3.6 45.2

ExternalIssue of Redeemable Stock 39.1 93.9 27.7Loan 591-IRE 3.8 9.1 2.7Proposed IBRD Loan 8.3 19.9 5.9Supplierst Credits 7.6 18.3 5.Foreign Loan for Pigeon House 'B' 6.8 16.3 4.8Rural Electrification Subsidies 10.8 25.9 7.6Consumers' Contributions 1.0 2.4 0.7

Total External Sources 77:1 185.8Total Sources 171.3 100.0

ApplicationsConstruction ExpendituresTarbert 3 13.0 31.2 9.2Other Construction 123.8 297.1 87.5

Total Construction Expenditures 136.8 328.3 96.i

Increase in Working Capital 4.6 11.1 3.3Total Applications 1l 1 .7 -394 100.0

- 17 -

5.13 The financial projections for the E3B were prepared on the basisof current prices, with no allowance for possible future changes of pricelevels. This is appropriate as the Board is able to adjust tariffs quicklyin response to changing conditions.

5.14 The projected revenues from sales take into account the 6% tariffincrease of January 1971, and are based on an estimated 10% annual increaseof units sold. It is estimated that the larger part of this increase willbe in the lower-priced brackets of the tariff, so that the growth ofrevenues is only around 8% per year, and the average revenues are expectedto decrease from 2.29d/kWh in 1972 to 2.14d/kWh in 1977 (in 1971 tariffincrease in effect only for 3 months).

5.15 Although the ESB in the past has had access to finances on reason-able terms in local capital markets, conditions have become less favorablerecently, hence the Board will find further borrowing on a larger scalesomewhat more difficult. The future issues of redeemable stock are there-fore estimated not to exceed 1l1 million per year for long and medium-termissues during the forecast period. The proposed Bank loan of US$20.0 millionequivalent at 17-year term including a five-year grace period would putthe financing plan on a sound basis. The remaining requirements of theprojected period for funds are expected to be covered by Loan 591-IRE(15.5 million), an assumed foreign exchange loan for PigeonHouse 'B'(18.3 million), Government subsidies for rural electrification (B12.6million), consumer contributions (11 .4 million) and future loans(Fs13.3 million).

5.16 The Board's financial prospects are satisfactory. The forecastratio of current assets to current liabilities would average a satisfactorylevel of 2.4 throughout the period under review. The ratio of long-termdebt to total capitalization was 78% at the end of fiscal year 1970, andis expected to decrease gradually to 58% in 1977, as retained earningsincrease. These debt levels are satisfactory and reflect the long-standingpolicy of financing expansion principally by debt, which is acceptable inthe stable circumstances in which ESB operates wherein revenues can beadjusted readily to requirements. Total interest would be covered between1.3 and 2.3 times by operating income, and the debt service co-verage byinternal sources averages 1.6 during the forecast period.

5.17 The projections show a rate of return on net fixed assets inoperation of 8.0% in fiscal year 1971, gradually increasing to 10.5% in

IS fiscal year 1977. Revenues are such as to produce internal funds sufficientto finance about 45% of requirements during the project construction period,which is adequate.

- 18 -

VI. AGREEMENTS REACHED DURING NEGOTIATIONS

6.01 During loan negotiations in January 1971, the following agreementswere reached:

(a) the Government will continue to appoint qualifiedindependent auditors acceptable to the Bank (para. 2.13).

(b) the loan documents will include as an event of defaultany change made in the Electricity (Supply) Act 1927as amended which in the opinion of the Bank adverselyaffects the carrying out of the Project or the financialcondition of the Board (para. 2.12).

(c) the Electricity Supply Board agreed:

(i) to make adequate sinking fund provisionsfor the repayment of stock issues, createdby it after 1958, by the latest applicableredemption dates, except that for any stockissue of fifteen years or less, the latestredemption date for the purpose of sinkingfunds will be a date not more than fifteenyears from the date of issue;

(ii) the total of stock issues of fifteen yearsor less shall not exceed 20% of the totalborrowings outstanding in any given yearwithout prior consultation with the Bank(para. 5.09).

0

January 29, 1971

IRELANDELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD

ORGANIZATION CHART

BOARD

|CHIEF EXECUTIVE

IECRITAR:1:::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. I~~UBLIC RELATION

3-ARY - MANAGER

DIRECTOR FINANCE DIRECTOR COMMERCIAL DIRECTOR OENERATION/TRAN DIRECTOR PERSONNEL

Fi-- P,.j. t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Thermal Projects PERSONNEL.. 1

R.~~~~~ ... 6 & A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~dit PRJETDesiRe & Develpment Electricl PESONE RESEARCH &

DEPARTMENT ~TcrlocRh Hill Sire Sparietedent 'I POLI Cy I PLANNING ON

Projet Eu giHeer,Turau hll COMMITTEE IPERSONNEL MAT

System Planming and ProgramminR_ DISTRIBUTION F _ Plort Deoign aed Ccnstruccin_ DEPARTMENT _Stores and PjrchosieR

Opnratice,Maieteaooe & Transport Maintenance & EfFiciency

Revenue Divisi=M MANAGER

_ ACCOUNTS J C.pit.1 =nd Exp-Pditu,P Div4isi=n-_ PERSONNEL

_ DEPARTMENT _ _ Gen-r.1 Accou-Hing Div4ision-_ St=ti=n . SERVICES

St.ff G.=up L _ TRANSMISSION _ ne_ DE PARTMENT _ =nenc

En-ergy S= r MANAERTrosmiss ion MOnRanieatioo ~~~~~~~~INDUSTRIAL2 SALES-_pinstoll=1=ns l RELATIONS

_ Adverh sing SYSTEM Tr=nsmissi=e Control

_ C-mputer Division _1 &OPERATION _ enCoesrol & Commcnioatins

_ S1.re. & P elti... Division PI...DEPARTMENT _Plo 9 & Dncalopment

_ GENERAL l_ _ Cu,t-ms & Freight sechon MANAGER

TMyiRnd DopictiR_ MANPOWER

| Typing =nd D.plic=Hng DEVELOPMEDV

Senminas

CIVIL oCooatrucotio Deaign_ WORKS | New Works Co-str-otion

_ DEPARTMENT Mainte nannasin St-ctcua1 Dinisioc z

SEPTEMBER 1970 X

IBRD-5235(R) -

*mIRELAND

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD

PARTICULARS OF GENERATING PLANT AND DETAILS

OF PERFORMANCE FOR YEAR ENDING MARCH 31, 1970

HYDRO STATIONS GENERATING UNITS Total Costper kWh

CAPACITY TOTAL GWh Plant Load Sent OutSTATION RIVER NO. KW KW Sent Out Factor % (pence)

ARDNACRUSHA SHANNON 3 20,000 85,000 244.7 33.3 0.5361 25,000

POLLAPHUCA LIFFEY 2 15,000 30,000 19.2 7.7)

GOLDEN FALLS LIFFEY 1 4,ooo 4,o00 7.6 22.3) 1.121)

LEIXLIP LIFFEY 1 4,ooo 4,ooo 11.5 33.2)

CLIFF ERNE 2 10,000 20,000 68.3 39,4)) 0.592

CATHALEEN'S FALL ERNE 2 22,500 45,000 160.5 41.3)

CARRIGADROHID LEE 1 8,ooo 8,ooo 16.5 24.2)

INNISCARRA LEE 1 15,000 19,000 4.5 27.2)11 4,00o2o2

CLADY CLADY 1 4,ooo 4,000 13.3 38.3 1.689

TOTALS 219,000 586.1

PUMPED STORAGE STATIONANNUAL OPERATING AVERAGE ANNUAL GENERATING

STATION LOCATION TIME GENERATION UNITSGWh

TURLOUGH HILL Upper reservoir 1,300 hours(under construction) Turlough Hill, approximately 325 4 x 70,000 kW

lower reservoir O Lough NahonaganCo. Wicklow 0

2 sets to be commissioned 1973/742 sets to be commissioned 1974/75 m

October 23, 1970

Revised January 22, 1971

* A'

IRELAND

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD

PARTICULARS OF GENERATING PLANT AND DETAILS

OF PERFORMANCE FOR YEAR ENDING MARCH 31, 1970

THERMAL STATIONS GENERATING UNITS Fuel Cost Total Costper kWh per kWh

CAPACITY TOTAL PRESSURE TEMP. GWh Plant Load .;Bent Out Sent Out

STATION LOCATION NO. KW KW psi OF FUEL Sent Out Factor % (pence) (pence)

PIGEON HOUSE DUBLIN CITY 1 10 ,00 90 '°° 250 750 Coal and Oil

(stand-by station) 4 20,000

NORTH WALL DUBLIN CITY 3 16,000 48,000 400 800 Oil 24.1 6.6 - -

(Peaking Station)

PORTARIINGTON CO. LAOISE 3 12,500 37,500 400 800 Sod Peat 169.8 55.2 1.026 1.503

ALLENWOOD CO. KILDARE 2 20,000 40,000 400 800 Sod Peat 206.3 62.7 0.998 1.482

MARINA CORK CITY 2 00,000 120,000 600 850 Coal or Oil 487.6 48.9 0.335 O.71141 oO000 3450 950 Oil

RINGSEND DUBLIN CITY 3 60,000 60o0 850 Coal or Oil 1255.9 S6.3 0.337 0.6723 0oO,OO7O 00 1150 950 Oil1259 63 037 o62

FERBANIE CO. OFFALY 3 20,000 40 800FR90FF30,000 900 950 Milled Peat 392.9 54.0 o.840 1.357

FOUR 5 MW STATIONS WEST COAST 4 5,000 20,000 400 800 Sod Peat 30.8 19.6 1.336 3 5

ARIGNA CO. ROSCOMMAN 1 15,000 15,000 400 800 Coal 85.7 69.8 0.910 1.446

LANESBOROUGH CO. LONGFORD 1 20,000 4o00 800 Sod Peat 3 57.5 0.726 1.1631 40,000 6ooo 900 950 Milled Peat 326 5. .2 .6

RHODE CO. OFFALY 2 20,000 80 000 65o 850 Sod Peat 329.6 50.6 0.796 1.2821 40,000 900 950 Milled Peat

BELLACORICK CO. MAYO 2 20,000 40,000 650 850 Milled Peat 165.9 50.9 0.803 1.438

SHANNONBRIDGE CO. OFFALY 1 40,000 40,000 900 950 Milled Peat 195.7 59.7 o.668 1.165

GREAT ISLAND CO. WEXFORD 2 60,000 120,000 1150 950 Oil 537.0 54.0 0.310 0.689

GREAT ISLAND / CO. WEXFORD 1 120,000 120,000 1800 995 Oil - - --- -

(under construction)

TARBERT CO. KERRY 2 60,000 120,000 1150 950 Oil 189.6 44.3 (not yet available)

PIGEON HOUSE 'B' ,DUBLIN CITY 2 120,000 1800 995 Oil - - - _

(under construction)E/ 2 14,000 268,ooo Gas Turbines Oil - - - _

aq

Expected commissioning dates: 1971/72 pi01

1 - Set 1970/711 - Set 1971/72 D

Gas Turbines 1970/71 pCaq

October 23, 1970Revised January 22, 1971

ANNEX 3

IREIAND

ELECTRICZT! SUPPLY BQARD

ACTUAL AND FORECAST SALES BY CATEGORIES

Year ending March 31

YEAR DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL TOTAL

1966 Sales (GWh) 1325 716 912 2953Increase over previous year % NA NA NA 10.1Percentage of total sales 44.9 24.2 30.9 --

1967 Sales (GWh) 1452 777 1009 3238Increase over previous year % 9.6 8.5 10.6 9.6Percentage of total sales 44.8 24.0 31.2 --

1968 Sales (GWh) 1581 842 1147 3570Increase over previous year % 8.9 8.3 13.7 10.3Percentage of total sales 44.3 23.6 32.1 --

1969 Sales (GWh) 1791 918 1303 4012Increase aver previous year % 13.3 9.1 13.6 12.4Percentage of total sales 44.6 22.9 32.5 --

1970 Sales (GWh) 1964 1034 ll44 4412Increase over previous year % 9.? 12,6 8.5 10.0Percentage of total sales 44.5 23.4 32.1 --

1971 Sales (GWh) 2147 1090 1624 4861Increase over previous year % 9.5 9.0 11.4 l0.2aPercentage of total sales 44.2 22.4 33.4 --

1972 Sales (GWh) 2351 1188 1808 5347Increase over previous year % 9.5 9.0 11.3 10.0Percentage of total sales 44.0 22.2 33.8 --

1973 Sales (GWh) 2574 1295 2013 5882Increase over previous year % 9.5 9.0 11.3 10.0Percentage of total sales 43.8 22.0 34.2 --

1974 Sales (GWh) 2819 1412 2239 6470Increase over previous year % 9.5 9.0 11.2 10.0Percentage of total sales 43.6 21.8 34.6 --

1975 Sales (GWh) 3087 1539 2491 7117Increase over previous year % 9.5 9.0 11.3 10.0Percentage of total sales 43.4 21.6 35.0 --

October 23, 1970Revised January 22, 1971

ANNEX 4

Estimated Disbursement Schedule

(Thousands of uS$)

Undisbursed Balance in the Loan Account

Jan.-Mar. April-June July-Sept. Oct.-Dec.

1971 --- 19,500 18,200 18,o4o

1972 17,840 17,360 16,46o 15,260

1973 13,760 11,960 9,960 8,160

1974 7,0040 6,240 5,44o 4h,64o

1975 3,920 3,320 2,400 1,400

October 23, 1970

Revised January 22, 1971

ANNEX 5

IRELANDELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD

FORECAST MAXIMUM DEMANDS, GENERATION AND PLANTINSTALLATION PROGRAM

4,000 1 I 1 1 1 IPLANT INSTALLATION PROGRAM 3

MINIMUM PLANT REQUIRED BASED ON RISK OFFAILURE TO MEET THE UNRESTRICTED DEMAND OF _3,800 ONE DAY IN FIFTEEN YEARS:

ESB SYSTEM ONLY -COMBINED WITHNORTHERN IRELAND SYSTEM 3- u

3,600 'PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT __ _z

3,400___

3,200 _

z

3,000 . o__ _ _

2,800 ___

______ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ rz_ _ __ ____..

ZX800 3 - R i- e r - -___: IPLANNED i STALLED *| < I = _ j ~~~~~~CAPACITY

2,600 N o Z 13,000

3 3<I O ; V | I DEMAND (MW)

2,400 N5 ___ _ _ 12,000

2,200 -- - - - - < C 11. ,I

- I.z I

eX u0 lr --- '-'---- * _2,000 zoO__ _ _____ …0to I

18-00GENERATION (GWH) 9 ,000(Right Scale) ZI ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

1,600 I - -,.- 8,000

1,400 '-'r -- . I 7,000

1,200 -< ' " 6,000

1,000 5,000

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980YEAR ENDING MARCH 31

IBRD-5236 (R)

IRELAND

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD

Generation Developinnt Plan for the Combined Systems of

ESB and the Northern Ireland Joint Electricity Authority

E.S.B. 1/ NORTHERN IRELAND i/ COlINED SYSTEM1Demand at 10% Total Surplus/Deficit Demand at 10% Total Surplus/Deficit Total Surplus/p.s. from 68/9 Plant p.a. from 68/9 plant Plant Deficit

Proposed Capacity as by Proposed Capacity as by GWH Median CapacityYear Status GWH Median Plant to date separate * EWH Median Plant to date separate * (Million Peak to date

(Million Peak Additions NW system ESSIR (Million Peak Additions NW MW system ESSIR Units) ! )W/ 14Units) MW MW IW MS Units) 14 1 __

69/70 PreviouslyApproved 5204 1142 Tarbert 2x60 1380 + 27 +127 4°55 957 Bally1dafordB2xl20 1204 - 71 + 82 9259 2033 2584 +209

p.S.E. -5570/71 n Pigeon House B 120

5725 1247 Pigeon House B 1526 + 16 +126 4460 1043 1204 -137 + 11 ll85 2224 2730 +137Gas Turbine 2x13

Pigeon House B 12071/72 n n 6297 1363 1766 + 47 +175 4906 1139 1204 -230 - 80 11203 2434 2970 + 95

Great Island 120

Ballylumford B20072/73 6927 1491 1766 - 31 +110 5397 1244 1464 -253 - 37 12324 2666 3230 + 73

Gas Turbine 60Pumped Stor. 2x70

73/74 7619 1632 1846 -145 + 3 5936 1360 Ballylumford B200 1664 -169 + 45 13555 2920 3510 + 48Pigeon House A -60

Pumped Stor. 2x7074/75 8381 1787 2026 -164 - 11 6530 1487 Ballylumford B200 1864 -113 +106 14911 3200 3890 + 95

Approved in Shanonbridge 401970

75/76 n n 9219 1957 Tarbert No.3 250 2276 -260 - 52 7183 1627 Pumped Stor. 115 1979 -133 + 90 16402 3508 4255 + 38

76/77 n n 10141 2144 Pigeon House B 250 2526 -318 - 72 7901 1780 Pumped Stor. 115 2094 -157 + 66 18042 3846 4620 - 6

Tarbert No.4 25077/78 11155 2350 Erne 5 25 2801 -346 - 51 8691 1950 New Oil 300 2394 -267 + 39 19846 4218 5195 - 12 l

78/79 Outlook 12271 2577 Nucfear 2x200 3201 -328 - 17 9561 2136 2394 -351 - 70 21832 4628 5595 - 87

79/80 13498 2626 Oil 250 3451 -349 - 20 10517 2341 New Oil 300 2694 -353 - 36 24015 5079 6145 - 56

* ESSIR - Equal Separate, Standard Interconnected Risk. The criterion of equitable divisionof total plant between Northern Ireland and E.S.B. Systems (see paragraph 2.19)

The surplus/deficit figures refer to the extent to which the separate or combined systemsare able to meet peak demands with the accepted generation security standard and forall probable plant outages.

November 6, 1970

ANTEX 6Page 2 of 3 pages

Determination of Required GeneratingCapacity and Size of UiI-ts to be Installed

Generation Security Standard

The ESB's generation security standard and that of theNIJEA are based on a risk of failure to meet demand once in fifteenyears. This means that in the long run, once in every fifteen yearsthere will be insufficient plant capacity available to meet the dailypeak even when all the spinning reserve has been utilized. Loadrestriction is, therefore, inescapable on that day. Since thecapacity of a generating unit could form an appreciable proportionof the total system it is not possible to maintain a constant risklevel from year to year and in the case of the ESB3 and the NIJEA thesecurity risk averaged over a five year period is expected to meetthe standard. For comparison the security standard adopted by someother countries are shown below:

Failure RiskCountry 1 Day in

Norway 10 yrs.France 1 yrs.Ireland 15 yrs.Spain, Portugal 20 yrs.Sweden 30 yrs.Great Britain 33 yrs. - after voltage and

frequency reductionBelgiurr 100 yrs.Netherlands 300 yrs.

Generating Set Forced Outage

A method involving probability is used to assess whethera given plant program will meet the generation security standardadopted. In order to make this assessment a forced outage figuremust be assigned to each generating unit. This figure representsthe likelihood of that particular set being unavailable to meet peakdemand on a particular day for which the trial is being made. Care-ful records of plant outage are kept and, as a result, future forcedoutages of existing plant can be estimated with some confidence. Forthe larger 120 1TW and 250 7" sets of which ESB has no direct experiencit draws on the experience of electricity authorities in Britain,France, Germany and the U.S.

Determination of Required Generating Capacity

Until 1961, the total capacity needed in the ESB systemwas determined by the amount of thermal plant capacity needed tosupply back-up energy for the hydro and peat-fueled plants, both of

November o, 1970

AMTEX 6Page 3 of 3 pages

which are weather dependent. Thermal capacity sufficient for this pur-pose inherently provided enough capacity to meet peak power demands.After 1961, as the proportion of hydro and peat-fueled stations de-clined, system peak demand became the determining criterion. Since1964 the System Operations Department (see Annex 1) has had the exclu-sive use of a computer for construction and generation programming,and other engineering studies. The availability of thzis machine hasled the ESB to develop advanced procedures in the planning of itsgeneration construction programs.

The method used for programming construction of generatingcapacity for the joint systems of the ESB and the NIJEA involves ademand forecast using as input the 100 growth in generation (kWh) andthe historical relationship between the annual generation and the 50highest peaks occurring during the same year. Generating plant isthen fitted to the demand curve using the historical outage data,refered to above, until a system is developed which has, on the average,a probability of failure to meet peak demand on not more than one dayin 15 years.

Apportionment of the total required generating plant betweenthe systems of the ESB and the NIJ$A is made in such a manner that,should the interconnecting tie between the systems become unavailable,equal risk of failure to meet peak shall exist in the separate systems

Size of Unit to be Installed

Large generating units are attractive because of their lowerunit capital cost and also because of their lower unit operating costs.The ESB has estimated that to install one 250 ]1W unit at Tarbert in-stead of two smaller units will result in a capital saving of B700,000and a 2% saving in annual fuel costs. The 250 P1W capacity of Tarbert3 will represent only about 7% of interconnected system capacitywhich is very conservative indeed. A more normal figure would be inthe region of 10-15%. The change to larger size generating units isclearly in the ESB's interests.

November 6, 1970

ANNEX 7Page 1 of 2 pages

Internal Financial Rate of Return

The method followed to determine the internal financial rateof return on the project consists of discounting the net cost/benefitstream attributable to the project to find the rate at which thepresent value of the stream becomes zero. In the calculation, thefollowing elements have been taken into consideration:

Costs

(i) capital investments, net of all duties, taxes anddepreciation, in the project and associated transmissionand distribution facilities necessary to convey the energyproduced by the project to ultimate consumers.

(ii) operating and maintenance costs for the project and forthe associated transmission and distribution system.

(iii) the cost of fuel used by the project. It was assumed thatthe project would be base-loaded as soon as commissioned(80% plant factor) and would so remain for the first fouryears of its life. Thereafter, because of the introductionof other even more efficient generating facilities, plantfactors of 75% and 65% have been assumed for the periods1980-91 and 1992-2001 respectively. It was also assumedthat the unit heat rate and therefore the cost of fuelper unit generated would increase by 10% during each of thetwo aforementioned periods due to a reduction in thermalefficiency.

Benefits

(i) fuel savings in 1975/76 and 1976/77. These were determinedfrom a reduction of units generated at less efficientthermal stations at prevailing unit fuel costs (see Annex 8).After 1976/77 all units generated were assumed to representnew sales (after deducting units used in auxiliaries andlosses in the transmission and distribution system).

(ii) revenues on sales, attributable to the project, calculatedat tariffs expected to be realized at the time the facilityis commissioned (2.17d/kwdh in 1975/76 and 2.14d/kWh there-after).

The cost/benefit stream is shown on page 2. The equalizingdiscount rate is approximately 28%. This comparatively high internalfinancial rate of return reflects the louz investment costs of the newoil-fired facility and the fact that it will be more efficient thanexisting thermal capacity, a large proportion of which are peat burn-irng stations which have relatively high fuel expenses for operation.

November 6, 1970Revised January 22, 1971

S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 9l

IRELAND

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD

TARBERT NO. 3 THERMAL PROJECT

COST/BENEFIT STREAMS(Thousands of i)

Year ending March 31 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980-91 1992-2001_____________ _ _ _Annually Annually

1. Investment in Project 1140 2470 3960 2130 1990 ---- ----

2. Investment in transmissionand distribution ---- 3000 3000 4000 2500 2500 ---- ---- ---- ----

3. Operating costs ---- ---- ---- ---- 1290 2200 2200 2200 2240 2140

4. Revenues ---- ---- ---- ---- 5500 12200 12800 12800 12000 10400

5. Fuel saving -410 100 ---- ---_ ____ ____

(Cost)/Benefit (1140) (5470) (6960) (6130) 130 7600 1o600 1o6oo 9760 8260

0November 6, 1970 "

Revised January 22, 1971 *

ANNEX 8

IHgLhND

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD

Estimated kWh Oenerated and Cost of Fuel for Thermal Stations

1970/71 - 1976/77

1970/71 1971/72 1972/73 1973/74 1974/75 1975/76 1976/77

STATICN MR_ _X106 .H lO6 anWH O6 ,H Ex10

6aWIH h106 aWH Ex106 GW hxlO

Pigeon House A 4 0.011 34 0.095

North Wall 59 0.106 60 0.108 60 0.108 56 0.101 22 0.040 14 0.025

Marina 30 MW Sets 164 0.256 100 0.1O6 60 0.094 186 0.290 336 0.524 268 0.418 208 0.324

Marina 60 M! Sets 345 0.421 256 0.312 234 0.285 247 0.301 278 0.339 279 0.340 210 0-256

Total Marina 509 0.677 356 0.468 294 0.379 433 0.591 614 0.863 547 0.758 418 0.580

Ringsend 30 MJ Sets 286 0.384 150 0.234 90 0.140 280 0.437 504 0.786 402 0.627 312 o.487

Ringsend 60 ?W Sets 1,034 1.261 769 0.938 701 0.855 742 0.905 833 1.016 836 1.020 680 0.830

Total Ringsend 1,280 1.645 919 1.172 791 0.995 1,022 1.342 1,337 1.802 1,238 1.647 992 1.317

Great Island 60 MW Sets 690 0.842 512 0.625 468 0.571 495 o.604 555 0.677 557 0.680 455 0.555

Great Island 120 Mf Set 453 o.485 747 0.799 867 0.928 867 0.928 843 0.902 790 o.846

Total Great Island 690 0.842 965 1.110 1,215 1.370 1,362 1.532 1,422 1.605 1,400 1.582 1,245 1.401

Tarbert 60 ri Sets 690 o.842 512 0.625 868 0.571 495 0.604 555 0.677 557 o.680 470 0.573

Tarbert 250 Mi Set 1,010 1.060 1,750 1.840

Total Tarbert 690 0.842 512 0.625 868 0.571 495 0.604 555 0.677 1,567 1.740 2,220 2.413

Pigeon House B 120 MN Sets 907 0.970 1,893 1.598 1,733 1.854 1,733 1.854 1,687 1.805 1,515 1.620

Pigeon House B 250 1W Set 980 1.029

Total Pigeon House B 907 0.970 1,493 1.598 1,733 1.854 1,733 1.854 1.687 1.805 2,495 2.649

Total Oil 3,228 4.112 3,723 4.464 4,355 5.116 5,045 5.923 5,717 6.902 6,461 7.572 7,384 8.385

Native Fuel 1,853 6.742 1,853 6.742 1,853 6.742 1,853 6.742 1,945 7.022 2.037 7.302 2,037 7.302

TOTAL 5,081 10.854 5,576 11.206 6,208 11.858 6,898 12.665 7,662 13.924 8,498 14.874 9.421 15.687

NOTE:

Above costs have been estimated using current fael prices as follows:-

Oil b5.05/ton.

Peat Milled (55% moisture) b2 Os. Od./ton

Peat Sod (35% moisture) L3 14s Od./ton

Cost per million BTU's

Oil 31.2d.

Peat Milled 64.4d.

Peat Sod 72.7d.October 23, 1970

IRELAND

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD (ESB)

Actual and Forecast Income Statements 1967-1977(in millions of t unless otherwise indicated)

Rate of Exchange:= 2.40 us$

------------- ACTUAL ------------- --------------------------- FORECAST ---------------------------Year Ending March 31 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977

Energy Sales (in GWh) 3,238 3,570 4,012 4,412 4,861 5,347 5,882 6,470 7,117 7,828 8,611Average Revenue per kWh Sold (pence) 1.98 2.01 2.06 2.l4 2.23 2.29 2.27 2.24 2.21 2.17 2.14

Operating RevenuesSales of Energy 26.690 29.898 34.457 39.388 45.269 51.103 55.555 60.356 65.455 70.893 76.861Other Revenues 3.847 3.553 4.278 4.657 4.700 4.700 4.700 4.700 4.700 4.700 4.700

Total Operating Revenues 30.537 33. 451 434.05 73 5 055. 205 70.155 75.593 ?l.561

Operating ExpensesFuel 5.713 6.789 9.314 9.994 10.854 11.206 11.858 12.665 13.924 14.874 15.687Purchased Power 0.012 0.010 o.oo8 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009Operation and Maintenance 4.988 4.827 7.003 7.900 8.973 9.616 10.240 10.932 11.653 12.452 13.262Administration and Overheads 7.282 7.422 8.373 9.747 10.645 11.033 11.588 12.011 12.312 12.795 13.303Turnover Tax 0.365 0.397 0.360 0.473 o.565 0.588 o.634 0.692 0.743 0.809 0.882Depreciation 5.843 6.160 6.735 7.312 7.938 8.900 9.940 10.720 11.700 12.530 13.710

Total Operating Expenses 2203 1.705 .793 O35 3.984 41.352 47.029 50.341 53 .4 69 56.853

Operating Income 6.334 6.846 6.942 8.610 10.985 14.451 15,986 18.027 19.814 22.124 24.708

Interest 5.o88 5.421 5.856 6.699 8.183 8.776 8.983 9.367 9.627 10.107 10.445Interest Charged to Construction (0.762) (0.789) (0.878) (1.302) (1.490) (1.300) (1300) (1.40) (1.650) (1.0)

Interest Expense .326 4632 4978 5.397 6 77 763 7.977 9-8U-367 8.495

Net Income 2.008 2.214 1.964 3.213 4.292 6.975 8.303 10.060 11.837 16.213

Rate of Return on Average Net Fixed Assetsin Operation 6.2% 6.2% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.3% 9.5% 9.9% 10.0% 10.3%o 10.5%

Operating Ratio (operating expenses aspercentage of operating revenues) 79% 80% 82% 80% 78% 74% 73% 72% 72% 71% 70%

0

August 12, 1970First Revision: October 20, 1970Second Revision: January 15, 1971

Da

ANNEX 9Page 2 of 2 pages

Depreciation

The method used by ESB for computing depreciation charges isbased on the concept that the original cost of assets is regarded as thevalue of an investment to be recovered by charging depreciation on thebasis of an annual fixed sum which, if invested at a theoretical 2.5%interest, would produce the original cost by the end of the assumed lifeof the asset. The annual depreciation charge therefore consists of twoelements, an annual fixed charge, and a sum representing the interestdeemed to have been earned. Compared to the equal annual charges producedby the straight line method the sum of the two elements commences with alower charge during the early life of an asset and gradually increases, throughout its lifetime.

It is furthermore the Board's practice to continue depreciationcontributions on assets which remain in service after the expiration oftheir hypothetical lives which it is reasonable to consider as a contri-bution towards obsolescense and an offset to assets retired before thedue date.

ANNEX 10

IRELAND

ELECTRICITY SUFPLY BOARD (ESB)

Actual and Forecast Sources and Applications of Funds 1970-1977(in millions of4

Rate of Exchange:lb = 2.40 us$

ACTUAL --------------------------- FORECAST --------------------------- TOTALYear Ending March 31 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1971-1977

SOURCESInternal Sources

Operating Income 8.610 10.985 i4.451 15.986 18.027 19.814 22.124 24.708 126.095Depreciation 7.312 7.938 8.900 9.94o 10.720 11.700 2530 13.710 75.438

Subtotal Internal Sources 15. . 333 2 25.926 20.747 31.514 O4F 351 410 201.533

External SourcesGovernment Subsidies for RuralElectrification 1.709 1.812 2.214 2.478 2.838 3.300 - _ 12.642Consumers' Contributions 'Ajar 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 1.400Borrowings

9.5%F Long-Term Redeemable Stock 1985/90 4.609 0.991 - - - - - - 0.9919.5% New Long-Term Redeemable Stock - 3.500 4.000 6.ooo 5.500 6.oo0 6.ooo 6.ooo 37.0006* Medium-Term Redeemable Stock 1975 3.250 - - - - - -6% New Medium-Term Redeemable Stock - 3.500 2.000 - - 4.600 5.000 5.000 20.100Loan 591-IRE 0.593 1.600 2.000 1.300 0.549 - - - 5.449Proposed IBRD-Loan 0.900 1.700 2.800 1.300 1.634 - 8.334Foreign Currency Loan forPigeonHouse 'B' - - - 0.800 2.000 2.500 1.500 1.900 8.700Other Loans 16.698 3.700 4.ooo 3.600 2.000 13.300

Subtotal External Sources 27. .3 35 _ _ I2470 t77 737 5 .OO5 r0_7 _9

Variations in Workin CapitalDecrease (Increase in I otherthan Cash (5.934) 3.715 (0.021) (1.788) (2.510) (1.247) (1.200) (o.630) (3.681)Decrease (Increase) in Cash (1.597) (0.336) 1.220 0.461 0.260 (0.170) 0.268 0.040 1.743

TOTAL SOURCES 35.437 37.605 5.864 37.077 40.384 51-997 51.656 52.928 307.511

APPLICATIONSConstruction Expenditures

GenerationTarbert 3 Project 1.140 2.470 3.960 2.130 1.990 - 11.690Other Generation Facilities 10. 91 8.361 4.875 3.320 3.52 7.567 9.463 12.856 49.968

10.491 -- 3.361 6015 5.790 7.466 9.697 11.45 12.656 51 .50Transmission 3.276 5.322 3.374 3.725 3.800 4.o63 4.457 4.988 29.729Distribution 8.o64 8.358 9.864 10.859 12.173 13.747 13.938 14.723 83.662Premises and Others 2.577 1.439 2.651 2.078 1.426 1.436 1.319 1.283 11.632

Total Construction Expenditures __._40_ 2 22.45 2 24.oo5 20.943 31.167 33.o50 i

Debt ServiceAmortization

Long-Term Redeemable Stock 1.644 1.675 1.917 2.142 2.389 7.077 2.576 2.902 20.678Medium-Term Redeemable Stock - - 0.057 0.247 0.444 3.459 3.816 1.988 10.011Loan 591-IRE - - - - o.148 0.156 0.169 0.473Proposed IBRD-Loan - - - - - 0.454 o.488 0.942Foreign Currency Loan forPigeon Rouse 'B'Government Repayable Advances 0.924 0.953 0.995 1.037 1.081 1.125 1.170 1.215 7.576Other Loans 1.762 3.314 2.215 2.216 2.218 1.618 2.210 1.871 15.662

Subtotal Amortization .3305.942 6.32 13.427 10.302 o.633 _5.347

InterestLong-Term Redeemable Stock 3.051 3.878 4.068 4.285 4.679 5.002 5.134 5.483 32.529Medium-Term Redeemable Stock 0.011 0.309 0.519 0.633 0.616 0.587 0.515 o.448 3.627Loan 591-IRE 0.019 0.116 0.217 0.310 0.367 0.396 0.388 0.377 2.171Proposed IBRD-Loan _ 0.092 0.176 0.323 o.456 0.518 0.536 2.101Foreign Currency Loan forPigeon House 'B' _- - 0.078 0.176 0.295 0.429 0.581 1.559Government Repayable Advances 2.554 2.512 2.470 2.428 2.384 2.340 2.295 2.250 16.679Other Loans 1.220 1.7% 1.695 48 1.392 1.216 1:735 1.720 11.102

6 o55 .61I 9.06 9.45 937 10.292 11.014 11 393 69=.76Interest Revenues from Investments (0 156) (o2) (0.28) (0475) (0 ) (.665) (0.907) (0.950) (4.280)

Subtotal Interest 7C99 m.lo3 -77 6.963 9.367 9.627 3E 0` 10.45 65 .4

Total Debt Service 11.029 14.125 13.960 14.625 15.499 23.054 20.489 19.078 120.830

TOTAL APPLICATIONS 5487 64 37.077 40.34 51.997 51.656 52.928 307.511

Times Debt Service covered by Internal Sources 1.4 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.4 1.7 2.0 1.7

August 12, 1970First Revision : October 20, 1970Second Revision: January 15, 1971

IREIAND

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD (ESB)

Actual and Forecast Balance Sheets 1967-1977(in millions of b)

Rate of Exchange:li = 2.40 US $

------------- ACTUAL ------------- --------------------------- FORECAST ---------------------------Year Ending March 31 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977

ASSETSFixed Assets

Gross Fixed Assets in Operation 162.976 177.651 186.591 205.008 230.260 258.064 276.016 307.001 331.094 363.161 397.661Reserve for Depreciation (54.749) (60.196) (66.353) (73.338) (81.276) (90.176) (100.116) (110.836) (122.536) (135.066) (148.776)Accumulated Consumers' Contributions ( 2.374) ( 2.638) ( 2.750) ( 2.937) ( 3.137) ( 3.337) ( 3.537) ( 3.737) ( 3.937) ( 4.137) ( 4.337)

Net Fixed Assets in operation 105.o53 114.l87 117.4 i 1277 145.o47 164.551 172.363 i1927.4 204.62T 223.954oWork in Progress 12.868 12.106 21.666 28.082 27.800 23.200 29.000 24.300 30.800 31.700 33.000

Total Fixed Assets -T 139.1 54 156. l 5 T 7777 I7-77 5 I 7 7I =. 7;_77

Sinking Fund Investments 0.907 1.257 1.357 1.824 1.824 1.824 1.824 1.824 1.824 1.824 1.824

ESB Stock held by Banks as the Board's Depositaries 2.313 2.246 2.958 2.673 2.673 2.673 2.673 2.673 2.673 2.673 2.673

Current AssetsStocks, Tools, etc. 7.057 6.583 6.716 7.980 8.100 8.200 8.300 8.400 9.500 9.700 10.100Accounts Receivables 10.436 11.762 12.832 21.137 12.815 12.100 13.100 14.200 15.500 16.700 18.100Other Current Assets 0.351 0.412 0.603 1.047 1.200 1.200 1.200 1.200 1.200 1.200 1.200Cash-Temporary Investments 5.500 6.ooo 5.000 6.250 6.250 5.700 5.240 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000Cash on Hand and with Banks 0.396 o.484 0.301 o.648 o.984 0.314 0.313 0.293 o.463 0.195 0.155

Total Current Assets 277X 5 25.752 37.062 30.349 57 =I 2 3 29 93 32.795 34.555

TOTAL ASSETS 145.681 155.667 168.921 198.374 208.493 219.762 234.013 250.318 271.581 292.950 316.600

LIABILITIESEquity

Capital Reserve 26.655 28.801 32.760 36.510 39.043 41.976 45.162 48.705 52.705 53.375 54.056Revenue Reserve 2.404 2.401 2.056 2.131 6.423 13.398 21.701 31.761 43.598 57.415 73.628

Total Equity 29-059 31.202 34I1 3c.641 4 55.374 6 o.6 96.303 7 1

Sinking Fund Reserve 0.920 1.263 1.363 1.830 1.830 1.830 1.830 1.830 1.830 1.830 1.830

BorrowingsLong-Term Redeemable Stock 49.916 56.235 55.284 58.041 60.136 61.500 64.650 67.056 65.279 68.033 70.450Medium-Term Redeemable Stock - - - 3.250 6.750 8.693 8.446 8.002 9.143 10.327 13.339Loan 591-IRE - - - 0.593 2.193 4.193 5.493 6.o42 5.894 5.738 5.569Proposed IBRD-Loan - - - - - 0.900 2.600 5.40o , 6.700 7.880 7.392Foreign Currency Loan for Pigem House 'B' - - - - - - 0.80 , 2.800 5.300 6.800 8.700Government Repayable Advances 58.449 57.614 56.742 55.832 54.879 53.884 52.847 5.51.766 50.641 49.471 48.256Other Loans 2.607 1.955 7.272 22.664 23.050 20.635 18.619 16.401 18.783 20.173 20.302

Total Borrowings IIT77 1 119.296 10=3 0 ___ = i53.455 157.47 Ir77 IM72 T7rW

Current Liabilities 5.730 7.398 13.444 17.523 14.189 12.553 11.865 10.555 11.708 11.908 13.078

TOTAL LIABILITIES 145.681 155.667 168.921 198.374 208.493 219.762 234.013 25.IL8 271.581 292.950 316.600

Debt/Equity Ratio 80:20 79:21 77:23 78:22 76:24 73:27 70:30 66:34 63:37 60:40 58:42

August 12,1970First Revision : October 20, 1970Second Revision: January 15, 1971

MAP

IRELAND

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD-E INORTHERND

CATHALEENtS F>*ICLIFF IRELAND LAYOUT OF MAIN TRANSMISSION SYSTEM AS AT SEPTEMBER 19760 SLiGO

LOUTH 11I *LANCNDOROUGC XDUBLIN t DRYBRIOGE

\ ~~~~ShANNON RNDDE jNORTO WALL I T s\

-o, FHR.ANE * GOLDEN FALLS RI NOSELIMULLINGAR

PROJECT LOCATION NIS TURLOAH LETTERKENNY FINGLASRHODE |

TA .... TUR..... LOUTH I 1 A

194

D\NMANWAY 22GN KLNb ODERA TED ATE10ND)

ALLENW~~01) GENER9TIN STAIO

PROEC SHOW I ESEPTEMBER 19700 \BRD- 7 \1 D97

\ \ \ 8 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DRYBRIDGE\ / CORO <2< aP~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LATI N

\ / \ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NAVAN ||1970

\ < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~MULLINGAR \ / ) ~~~~~ATHLONE SEPAL

GALWAY SHANNALLENWOOD ABOVE

197UGHR,s PO~~~~RTARLINGTON/<

> / 11975 yP/ORTLAOISE ~ ~~~~~~~/ FFE 71973|

t / / R~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~OSCREA TURLOUGHN

ENNIS(< / CARLOWv /S~~~~~~~~~~~~~HELTO ARK LOW

RINEANNA 92 ABBEY /, ,_ <ARDNACRUSHA THURLES///

TARBERT LIM~ElIK ll 1 9 755 KILLONAN / KLENNY 0 17

193/ RATHKEALE / /\ //

// 1972 / | 1 CARRICK-ON-SUIR\ //

gTRALEE ~~~CHARLEVILLE' CAHH 1974FORD

\ \ \gERMOY T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ERFORD NTH.

\MALLOW / /WTRORD STH.

\1972 \ 97

MCROOM O NCKRAHA

/LEE 1972 AIA

19 TRBG@91,WHITEGATE _ _ 110 KV. OPERATED AT 38KV,

j J RAFFEEN ~~~~~HAULBOWLINE -220 KV.

DUNMANWNDOAY_ 220 KV, OPERATED AT 110 KV.

(3 GENERATING STATION

PROJEa SHOWN IN RED

SEPTEMBER 1970 IBRD-5237 (2R)