Proposed Flagford/Srananagh

PRESENTATION

by Roy Henry

I have been told that this presentation is a waste of time. I have been told that the decision has already been made. I don't believe that.

I believe that because we have always looked to our State and Semi-State Organisations in the past for guidance and direction, we have always believed that what they were saying and doing was right for us and in our best interests. No questions asked. It is our contention that rather than continue will old, discredited answers that alienate people, our leading Suppliers of Energy, State, Semi-State and Private, should be working in partnership with the people. The importance of energy was recognised early by the state and ESB were to the forefront with ambitious projects and rural electrification. Bord Na Mona's role should not be overlooked either. Both organisations were socially focused rather than market focused and played an important role in supporting local communities. Both organisations are now in the process of maintaining their own viability against aggressive international competition and issues such as rural economic revival and care of the environment for future generations are not practical concerns.

Bord Gais was established in 1976 and since then has made considerable progress. For many years they have been active promoters in the area of Combined Heat and Power Systems (CH Ps?) culminating in the formation of BG Cogen, a dedicated business unit within Bord Gais, which specialises in the development of such systems. They are now responsible for more installed capacity of this nature in the State than any other entity.

We have accepted that what they were doing is right because it has always been done that way. In other words, we have continued to put old solutions on new problems.

The world has moved on, the State has moved on, the County is trying to move on. Technology has moved on and we should be learning from the past. So instead of using old discredited, contentious solutions, we should be examining why they are discredited, correcting the mistakes and be addressing the medium and long-term future.

The Board has issued a glossy consultation document and I will use this as a basis for this presentation. Consultation implies getting or having all the available information, reviewing it with all interested parties and then making a decision. It does not mean making a decision and then expecting everyone to fall into line without challenging it. That certainly does not seem to be the democratic way.

There are genuine concerns which are being ignored and which will affect us all. Because the problems have not been addressed properly in the past, we are now looking at symptoms and trying to get a quick fix solution. Answers that would address those concerns and problems are being ignored. Little thought is being given to the present day reality and no thought is being given to the medium and long term prosperity of the County and the West - despite what we are being asked to believe.

Progress and Development

The first part of the briefing document deals with the need for the line. Growth in the economy, County and Regional Development plans, growth in the demand for electricity and the need to secure a high quality electricity supply which is necessary for all of us are the main reasons for this line. Objective One status and the requirement that the IDA locate 50% of green field jobs in the BMW Region.

We would agree that it is essential to have a secure electricity supply. ESB are working on an average of 5% growth per year. This is less than the actual economic growth but it is perfectly acceptable figure. So we would strongly endorse the reasons even though it seems to be tacked on to the end of the other necessary infrastructural developments.

We would ask - Why now? Why at this particular time? Last year the electricity industry was de-regulated in Ireland and there are other players, with modern technology, waiting to enter the market. It has been suggested to us that all of the present line reinforcement from Cork to Donegal, including the strategic liaison with NI Power where Ł250 million is being spent to upgrade the existing Coolkera power station outside Derry, has more to do with the positioning by the Board of ESB for privatisation and less to do with the future sustained growth in the economy. We don't know.

What we do know is that these concerns about future power needs in the West and Northwest were first raised over 8 years ago when this line was first talked about. The same arguments were used then as are being used now. In fact 'Fruit of the Loom' was one of the companies quoted as needing more power. What have the Board been doing in the meantime? It appears to us they have ignored the West and now when they have been forced to face the reality of economic growth, they are looking at a quick fix way to find the solution. To do this, they are using the same old solutions that have become discredited in the 21st Century on every new transmission problem and have failed to take account of modern and up-to-date technologies. These new solutions would deliver a cheaper product, an environmentally friendly one, create jobs for local people, give sustained progress and continuing development and will be able to attract inward investment that will last.

If approved, this line will take another 4 years to put in place. So, over 12 years after the concerns were first identified, we will have action of a sort. That action will be to go back to the same old solutions and give no thought to modern technology and the concerns of the people. In any case the whole question of energy in the West will need to be reviewed again in a short few years time as I will explain later. Is that progress?

Technology has moved on in leaps and bounds and ESB have failed to take account of that. If anyone had said a few years ago that you could make a telephone call from the middle of a field, you would have looked at them as if they were mad. If the telephone industry had not kept up with technology, we would still be tied to the walls of our homes or offices. These technological advances in the telephone industry have also driven down prices to the Consumer in real terms. Similar technological leaps have been made in the electricity industry and we would say that these should be considered.

We have heard it said that if any groups are set up to ask for more information and proper consultation; or if groups object to 123 ft high pylons marching across the landscape they are against progress and development. Are they not aware that genuine concerns are being expressed and have been expressed before? These concerns are being voiced by people from Cork to Donegal. Does that mean that they are all against progress and development? I think not! [How else can the normally silent majority have their voices heard if others are not prepared to ask these questions on their behalf. The decisions, which affect the majority of people in the County, are still being made behind closed doors by very small groups of un-elected people with little or no consultation or thought given to the concerns of the majority.]

 Details of the Line.

The proposed line will stretch from Flagford, just outside Carrick on Shannon to a new sub-station being built near Srananagh. It will be 63 kilometre long going south of Croghan, over here and along to the west of Boyle and to the East of Gorteen. It will go north and veer over to the N4, near Riverstown into the substation.

To call it a line is a misnomer. It will in fact be 5 lines on 38 metre pylons. The brochure uses the word 'masts'. 38 metres may not sound much but this line will be on 123 feet high metal pylons. They will be on a concrete base 6 feet deep and be about 9 metres or nearly 30 feet square at the base. The distance between pylons will be about 250 metres to 500 metres depending upon the terrain. The line will be a minimum of 50 metres from habitation but in fact it could be more. There will be a sterile corridor of 50 metres either side of the line. That is 1557 acres for this line. If you add in the effect of the electro-magnetic waves from the overhead line, a further 14,000 (thousand acres) will be affected. This is a conservative estimate. Can we afford that?

ESB say that they have used objective route selection criteria to minimise the impact of the overhead line. It is designed to ensure that it will be as unobtrusive as possible and masts will be sited where possible close to existing fences and boundaries to minimise interference with farming activities. You have heard Mr O'Reilly say that they could not be considered things of beauty and that no Power Company has found a better way of dealing with the bulk transport of electricity. That is not true. They have found a way. Underground lines can transport bulk electricity. He also says that 99.9% of countries adopt the method of transporting electricity in overhead lines. That was once true but no longer. It was always seen as a cheap way of doing it but Power Companies are now finding that people are more aware now and are asking why other alternatives are not being used. Especially as people are beginning to pay more for their electricity. We would ask why is it necessary to engage in the bulk transport of electricity over long distances? It is now proved to be an inefficient way of doing it. Why not have a generating capacity nearer to the places in most need? Don't be alarmed that does not mean large Power stations as you will see.

No-one knows what the objective route selection criteria are. It seems a long way round to get from Flagford to Srananagh and it seems to us that it is over the least populated part of the area. We calculate that there will be about 430 landowners directly affected although countless more with no say in the matter will be affected in terms of visual aspect.

The Board is required to select 3 Routes for the Environmental Impact Study that will accompany their Planning request. This is the one that they have picked and have put down in print. It will affect certain people directly by having pylons on their land and it will affect others in terms of visual aspect for a distance of up to 3 miles. It could mean that if this line is rejected, the problem will be pushed over to some-one else.

 Development

Health I was surprised to learn that this has no relevance in the planning application. ESB know this and yet they raise it in their document - why?

Is it to distract people from the real issues? Is it because they know people will get upset about it? Might it also be because it is another area where their research is suspect.

Cost - sometimes it is necessary to invest properly to gain more in the medium and long term. If we keep throwing good money after bad, we end up in debt. Who ends up paying that debt?

Health

The Board recognise that there are concerns about the effect of Electric and Magnetic fields but are dismissive of them. You may have heard Mr O'Reilly say that the issues on health had been around for 20 years and were now in their 'dying throes'. An unfortunate choice of words.

They quote guidelines published by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection. They also cite an article in the Lancet of December 1999 as being proof that there is no proven link between power lines and the adverse health effects. The World Health Organisation is not convinced. They question the research quoted by the Board and say it is flawed. They are awaiting more detailed research being carried out in Japan and Germany. In the meanwhile many European and other countries are not taking the risk. They are already putting high tension cables underground.

The Board recognises that many people are concerned about health issues. They also know that health issues are not considered in the planning process. They cannot influence the decision. We would say that because ESB have brought the Health issues to people's attention in all their literature, then health issues should be a admitted as evidence and considered in the same way as other planning considerations.

 Environment

The Board list 'care of the environment' as one of their core values. They are preparing an Environmental Impact study to accompany the planning application. They say that they have engaged experts in the area of visual aspect and landscape, soil/land use, flora and fauna, cultural heritage and socio-economic impact. Our County Development Plan talks about visual aspect and protecting the environment. It states that our major industries are Tourism and Agriculture.

What kind of hypocritical message does it send if this is ignored and we allow 123 foot high pylons to march across the landscape when better environmental options are not even being considered? We may as well tear up the County Development Plan.

We want to attract investment to the county - decentralisation. How do we sell it? Come to a polluted area like the one we are asking you to leave. No. We sell the better quality of life.

 Devaluation

Auctioneers and Estate Agents will tell you that it is difficult if not impossible to sell property once pylons are put nearby. When asked by a property owner if he would be able to sell his house once the pylons went up, an ESB engineer said that in his opinion he wouldn't stand a chance. Neither would he be eligible for compensation as he was not a landowner.

Landowners will be faced with a 100 metre sterile corridor across their land. The compensation that they are being offered will not match up to lost income or the future prospect of selling it.

 Compensation

Kyoto Protocol

It may not seem important now but it will be in the very near future. The Environmental Protection Agency along with others have just warned (25/8/00) this Country about its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol for Carbon Emissions. The Electricity Industry accounts for 38% of those emissions. At current prices, the fine will be about Ł1000 million pounds paid by the people, not the Industry.

On the tape Mr O'Reilly mentioned the BMW Region. We are part of that Region and this report 'Powering the BMW' written by the Association of Irish Energy Awareness Agencies. The Agency Offices, there are 9 in this Country and 3 in the North, are funded by the EU and Local Authorities. They perform an important role on the whole question of Energy in this Country. They act as advisors to the Country and the BMW Region. They have published 2 important documents. The first related to the Country's position and was in response to the Government's Green Paper on Sustainable Energy. They have just published another document concentrating on the BMW Region and sent to the BMW Executive.

The Association of Irish Energy Agencies (AIEA), of which ESB is on the Board of Management, have produced a commentary in response to the GP ( December 1999). This report identifies disturbing insights which could affect us all if we do not begin to take remedial action now. A final report is due in September 2000, which is unlikely to brighten the picture. There are a number of issues to be addressed.

The backdrop to this is the 'Kyoto Protocol' to which Ireland is a signatory. The Protocol is concerned with carbon emissions from a starting point in 1990. Each Country that has signed up to the Protocol has undertaken to reduce the amount of carbon emissions by designated amounts over specific periods. There are severe penalties for countries that do not comply with the Protocol. These are currently Ł68 per tonne.

Ireland will need a reduction of 13% or 13.5 million tonnes to comply with the Protocol based on existing and projected usage. Non compliance will result in a fine of Ł918 million for the Country at present day prices. Renewable energy electricity supply will form part of the emissions reduction in the Energy sector as this area is currently contributing 38% (15.5 Million tonnes) to total carbon emissions. The growth rate in this sector is expected to be 5 - 6% per annum.

At present Ireland is well above the guidelines and defaulting on the agreement. There is an imbalance in the Country that is clouding the issue. As an area, Connaught is well below the international guidelines while the East and South East of the Country are well above the guidelines. Connaught is therefore subsidising the rest of the country to help keep the numbers down even if they are still above the recommended levels.

Internationally, Countries trade on 'Carbon Credits' to comply with the Kyoto Protocol. In this scenario, Connaught would be an exporter of such credits similar to Denmark. While this imbalance continues the underlying problems of sustainable energy are not being addressed. There is also little chance of inward industrial investment to the Region and future sustainable growth. On a day when 114 much needed jobs were lost in Belmullet, 880 new jobs were announced for Arklow. We believe that the situation is not irreversible, providing we act now.

We mentioned the implications of Kyoto in our submissions to the Chief Executives of the BMW and WDC and in our correspondence to the Ministers. These last few weeks it has been mentioned on the news several times. It was even quoted last week in relation to the Road Hauliers dispute about diesel taxes. Several reports have come out. I have heard that it was mentioned at a County Council meeting last week. Even the Board of ESB has suddenly begun talking about the Kyoto Protocol? Why as our leading supplier of power, have they not been giving advice and guidance before now? The research and information has been available since December 1999.

At this point I would like to take a break and allow you to have a chance to have your say. We have other information that we would like to share with you and which we think is critical. It concerns suggested alternatives and a possible way forward that will give jobs to the area, be community based and be environmentally friendly.

One of a cluster of homes near the ESB substation at Flagford in Co Roscommon.

Local residents and at the site of the 'Srananagh Stones', an ancient monument which once contained a collection of cursing stones. This and several other important monuments are within 100m of the proposed 14 acre ESB substation.

Transmission

This is a transmission line to reinforce the existing grid. It is not a supply line. Not 1 extra job will be created in the area by this line itself. The existing Grid is well capable of supporting the needs of the area. Even ESB will admit to that. They have the capacity to deliver 4,500 megawatts of electricity while demand is expected to top 3,900 megawatts this winter. What they are now trying to do, rather belatedly, is to address future demand. Consequently they are going back to the old discredited solutions of 50 years ago in a quick fix solution. Why are they not addressing the 10% wastage of electricity caused by using long transmission lines? Why are they not addressing the 50% wastage of power at the generating points? I have been told recently that the wastage is nearer to 70%. I don't know. The new technological options would enable them to do this and have a more efficient, and cheaper, product.

Generation

This is critical to the future prosperity of the West and Northwest. Many people will be aware of the obvious alternatives - wind, wave and hydro-electric power. These can be placed closer to the areas that need power and they also create local jobs. There may be objections to some of these suggestions. The objections may be justified but there should be proper consultation about them. We will need to face the prospect of renewable energy in the very near future. For example it should not be assumed that wind turbines should always be placed on the top of mountains. They can be placed out to sea. There are also other systems.

Our present systems are inefficient and environmentally damaging. They also need long transmission lines that do not in themselves add one job to an area. For example at Moneypoint in Co Clare, 1800kw must be input to generate 900kw of electricity. The 50% wasted is dumped in the Shannon. A further 10% is lost in long transmission lines. That is 60% lost power from the generating point. Why for example, are small Combined Heat and Power Units not being considered? The technology exists. They are smaller ( about the size of the Longford Shopping Centre/ Quinnsworth, Sligo) can be placed closer to the User, for example in an Industrial Estate, they are environmentally friendly using natural gas, economical to run once they are set up, offer cheaper electricity and are over 90% efficient. They will also offer employment to people in the area. Something this line will not do.

You may have seen recently that the ESB have rented, at a cost of Ł1 million per week, 4 generators from GEC which can be carried on the back of a low-loader and can produce enough power for a large area and a population of 100,000. So they recognise that the mini technology does exist. What has it not been placed on a permanent basis nearer to the areas most in need? Why must we persist with old quick fix solutions with no thought to the medium and long-term consequences.

Micropower

This is the generation of electricity by small-scale fuel cells and gas turbines. Some of this technology is over 100 years old. Thanks to investment and modern technology, it is now a commercial reality.

This may seem far-fetched. It is not. This technology exists now. So much so that the World Bank and other International Agencies as well as private sector operators and non-governmental groups are devising financing to enable many of the under developed countries to skip the existing inefficient and environmentally generating systems and go straight to micro-power.

Partnership

Why is ESB, which is a semi-state body for the time being, concentrating on the 'semi' part of its mandate and not listening to the 'State' in other words the people part of its brief. ESB has been a great servant to this country but in the last few years it seems to have lost its direction. We wrote to the Minister responsible for Energy some weeks ago. We received a reply last week. If ESB were truly consulting and working in partnership with the people, there would be no need to set aside Ł78 million pounds from Customer accounts for Public Relations work. By working closely with the people and considering all the options they would get all the free publicity they need.

Money/Cost

Why is so much money being wasted on compensation, pseudo-consultation exercises, public relations and lobbying and long litigation arguments when it could be channelled effectively into underground and indeed underwater lines if that is what was needed. These costs remain hidden in the true cost of an overhead line. A radical rethink of outdated and discredited policies would give a PR victory to ESB and at the same time give the vast majority of people what they want.

There is also the added factor that people in rural areas are being asked to pay again. If those of you who live in rural areas look at your next bill you will see that there is a standing charge of Ł7.10. People in the town pay Ł3.95 That is Ł 3.15 of a difference. This is paid every 2 months. If we guesstimate that there are a million rural consumers - that is an extra Ł 3.15 million for the month or Ł 18.9 million for the year. You also pay vat of 12.5% on top of that.

It was mentioned at the last meeting that a local farmer could not get extra power for his milking machines. ESB would not make that claim. What was not mentioned is that ESB will levy a charge to make new connections. Sometimes over Ł1000.

The rural community is being asked, on the one hand, to protect the environment for future generations through RE Ps? and other schemes, and on the other hand, to sanction the destruction of the landscape.
At what price?

Choice

The choice between having pylons or no electricity need not arise. You can have electricity and no pylons. The St Stephen's Day storm of 1998 left most of the West without electricity for long periods. ESB personnel on the ground risked their lives to put it right. Recently, lightning strikes left 20,000 without electricity. All of this was caused by the fall of overhead power-lines. Had they been underground or had there been small Combined Heat and Power Units closer to the Users, this would not have happened. Weather experts predict that these climate changes will happen more often in the future not less. Who faces the considerable cost every time this happens? The Customer

The electricity industry was deregulated in 1999 and there are players waiting in the wings who would be only too glad to get into the market. They are aware of all the new regulations and improvements in technology. Why are they being marginalised? Does anyone else not find it strange that all our information about electricity comes from our leading supplier of power and there appears to be no effort made to check the accuracy of their claims?

We would ask that there be a moratorium on all grid reinforcement until such time as certain questions have been addressed.

We have no senior Minister for Energy or a Commissioner for Energy who would protect and speak for the public. Yet we are being asked to support National Energy week on 24th September. Why? If our leading supplier of power who should be giving us guidance and direction is not bothered why should we be.

We would ask that there be a considered approach to our needs. We believe that there is a way forward. This is the last chance we will get to use Structural Funding. Does anyone agree that it is important to get it right this time if we wish to encourage sustained economic growth in the County and the Region?

Conclusion

We believe that the opportunity now exists to correct many of the past mistakes perpetrated in other parts of the Country and Internationally. We should not encourage a repetition or continuation of them. What we do today becomes part of tomorrows history. The ESB have learned from past experience, hence this consultation process. They have experience and expertise. Unfortunately we consider that they have locked out the future as they have relied too heavily on the past for present day solutions. They should be asked to make the final step with us and be part of a vision for the West and perhaps the Country. Failure to do so will mean that others will be only too glad to do so.

We ask that there be a more considered approach to this apparent necessity in which all the options can be considered. This quick dash for growth and the need for immediate progress is making us blind to other considerations and future realities. It is leading to a profligate waste of Public Money. We are getting caught up in the mythology and publicity of a very short-term gain and ignoring a constructive and more beneficial approach for the future that could probably have a higher yield in the long term.

We will need to face the changing role of sustainable energy in the next 5 to 10 years. There are other issues allied to it that must also be addressed. These will require making the right economic and technology choices. At a time when we have the resources, we should be considering them now and putting the necessary structures in place to meet our future obligations. We should not be waiting for the axe to fall and then find that we are not in a position to pay off our executioner.