Independent report on pylons is welcome but long overdue
The decision by the Minister for Energy to establish an independent three-man commission to examine the feasibility of underground versus overground cables for Eirgrid's North-South interconnector is welcome but curious.
Given that the main area of contention over the proposed 'pylons' project is the issue of undergrounding versus overgrounding, an independent report on the issue is a good idea.
But seeing as EirGrid is about to lodge its fresh plans for the project directly to An Bord Pleanála under Strategic Infrastructure Development legislation, what real good can come of the report now?
Does the commission or the Minister for Energy have power to foist the report's findings on An Bord Pleanála in making its decision? One would imagine not.
The Commission has until October to consider all the issues and a further six months to file the report. It's possible, therefore even given the need to hold another round of oral hearings, that a decision could in theory have been reached before the report is published.
This report should have been commissioned by the last government when this important infrastructural project for sharing power north and south of the Border was first mooted. Had the first planning application by EirGrid not been withdrawn due to the debacle over the incorrect height of pylons on a planning notice, the high-voltage pylons could well have long since been erected on the landscape despite the protestations of local landowners, farmers and residents.
Furthermore, this latest report will perhaps be the third on the issue with both sides of the debate (the North East Pylon Pressure Committee and EirGrid having commissioned their own reports in the past). How curious it is that often times opposing sides of a particular project can both produce high-quality technical reports saying the opposite!
The Askcon report, already commissioned by NEPPC, contradicts the EirGrid argument to some extent that undergrounding is cost prohibitive and inconvenient for maintenance and repairs on the lines.
Askcon already points that failures in overhead lines are significantly higher than in underground and that undergrounding is safer as far as the potential effects of electro magnetic fields go.
On the cost issue, Askcon accepted that to put the lines underground would cost more than three times that of the pylons initially. However, it made detailed arguments as to the long-term costs of both models when factors such as maintenance and higher power transmission losses in overhead lines are considered.
Over 40 years, the total cost of electricity transmission losses in overhead lines was estimated to be more than €850m.
Either way, a detailed independent report should have been completed from day one for consideration by An Bord Pleanála when making its decision on the project.
Let's hope it's not too late for the eventual report to be taken into consideration perhaps at the oral hearing stage of the planning process.
Even if the monetary value of putting the cables underground is still greater than that for overhead lines; the views of the local people, not to mention health and safety concerns and the affect on the picturesque landscape, should carry greater weight.
