ACCC/C/2010/54 Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee – Meeting 21 st September 2011

1. ACCC/C/2010/54 Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee – Meeting 21st September 2011 Presentation by Communicant: Pat Swords BE CEng FIChemE CEnv MIEMA

2. ACCC/C/2010/54: Presentation by Communicant to Compliance Committee 21st September 2011 • Contents of Presentation • Introduction to EU and Irish Renewable Energy Programme and its Environmental Objectives • Development of Renewable Programme / REFIT – Responsibilities of the EU • Interconnection Project – Responsibilities of the EU • National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) – Responsibilities of the EU • Conclusions

3. Ireland: Current Renewable Energy Programme • Government target of 40% of electricity to be generated by renewable sources, almost exclusively wind, by 2020. • Masive intrusion on Ireland’s unique landscape by the installation of more than four thousand turbines and an extra 5,000 km of high voltage lines.

4. It’s like building Hydo plants which only operate during a flood • Power is proportional to cube of velocity. 26 knots (50 kph) for turbine to reach design output. • At 13 knots – 12% of power output. • Ireland’s average wind speed ≈ 11 knots. • Ireland’s average wind graph – significant power is only going to be generated to the right of the line.

5. The result? Entirely predictable but ignored in Policy Development for 40% target • Wind turbines cause massive inefficiencies in other generating plants, which have to compensate for them. • It’s like stop / start urban driving instead of steady motorway fuel consumption.

6. Eirgrid’s modelled emissions: 4th April a record wind day and 19th April no wind • 1 MW of wind does not displace emissions from 1 MW of thermal plants

7. Trends in Eirgrid’s modelled emissions Detailed study:http://www.clepair.net/IerlandUdo.html • Clearly the benefits of additional wind generation diminish as additional wind turbines are installed.

8. AIE Request to Department in July 2011 in relation to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions • DCENR and SEAI assess emissions on basis 1 MW of wind energy displaces 1 MW of normal generation – no verification exercise required nor completed. • “No commitment to contribute to any quantified environmental target”. • No requirement in National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) to estimate GHG savings nor requirement to estimate for State Aid applications. • Verbal agreement between DCENR and SEAI not to complete Section 5.3 of the NREAP on impacts (GHG savings, costs, jobs, energy use).

9. Assessment of principal justification – CO2 Emissions not completed (Assumed 1:1) • REFIT Application 2006: Environmental Protection Aid • State Aid application based on claimed annual savings of 0.19 million t of CO2 per 100 MW. • SEAI 2010 Renewable Energy Update- Figures for 2008: • Reported savings 1,309 kt of CO2 for 1,000 MW installed (0.13 million t per 100 MW). • Appendix 1: Simplified calculation of CO2 savings in relation to thermal plant inefficiencies. • SEAI Figures for 2009: • Quote ≈ 0.12 million t per 100 MW

10. Administration ignored 2004 Eirgrid Report on impact of wind power on conventional plant and economic implications • Report clearly demonstrated loss in potential as wind power increased. • Predicted GHG savings from 1,500 MW of wind: 1.42 million t/a of CO2, which equals 0.095 million t per 100 MW. • Generation cost increase by 15%. €138 per t of CO2, very expensive compared to other alternatives.

11. Plenty of alternatives were available to achieve CO2 savings at far lower cost • Waste to Energy Plants were obstructed by the Administration in Ireland, but: • About 2% of Ireland’s GHG emissions are waste related due to 100% reliance on Landfill for disposal  1.19 million t/a could be eliminated by Waste to Energy and compliance with Landfill Directive. • Plus 155 MW of high grade renewable electricity equal to 0.7 million t/a of GHG savings with additional potential for savings through use of heat. • In total nearly 2 million t/a of GHG savings, cost ≈ €1.5 billion. Wind programme of €30 billion unlikely to generate more in real GHG savings.

12. The financial costs are simply staggering and have never been properly quantified • The capital cost of the 40% renewable target (NREA)) is over €30 billion, electricity costs will rise by over 60%. • Electricity in Republic of Ireland could be generated for €1.7 billion per year (fuel, plant, labour, etc). • Lifespan of wind turbines less than half the 35 years of a conventional power plant. • Over €3 billion of capital costs already occurred with REFIT and interconnector. • Significant impact on population and human health (fuel poverty) as electricity charges soar.

13. Conclusion on Environmental Objectives • No proper quantification of GHG savings of REFIT and wind energy policy – 2004 Eirgrid report ignored. • No verification of GHG savings achieved by current 12% penetration. • No quantification of GHG savings in policy (NREAP) to increase from 12% to nearly 40% penetration. • How can there be consideration of the environmental aspects if the environmental objectives (GHG?) are unknown? Where is the environmental foresight?

14. Development of Renewable Energy Programme and REFIT approval • REFIT led to 1,384 MW of 1,685 MW of Irish wind energy expected by end 2011. • Department’s Position AIE Request Aug 2011: • “REFIT introduced to ensure delivery of an enforceable EC obligation”- Directive 2001/77/EC. • EU’s Position Point 25 of Response to UNECE: • “Aid not linked to any breach by Ireland of the three Directives or the Aarhus Convention”. • Directives on Access to Information on the Environment (AIE), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

15. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) • Directive 2001/42/EC became an Irish Regulation in 2004 • CEI/09/0016 in September 2010 – No SEA completed in renewable energy area, no information on a ranking system for technology options and options to reach the objectives in the legislation. • A legal basis for consideration of the environmental aspects is a prerequisite for the Application of Article 7 of the Convention.

16. Strategic Environmental Assessment – EU Position • “It is generally recognised that renewable energy, and wind energy in particular, is preferable from an environmental point of view from non-renewable energy”. • However, no environmental assessment ever completed by EU of their mandatory renewable targets. • Point 25 of EU Response to UNECE: • State Aid (REFIT) was approved as there was no breach of the SEA Directive.

17. Strategic Environmental Assessment – Position of Communicant • Environmental Report followed by Public Participation was required in the development of this programme. • What are the environmental objectives? E.g. GHG reductions at various levels of wind penetration. • What were the alternatives to achieve these objectives? E.g. Waste related or other technologies. • What was the likely state of the environment without implementation of the programme? In particular the damage cost of CO2. • Effects on Population, Landscape, Human Health, etc.

18. Articles 5 (7a) and 7: Policy Development - Necessary Information to the Public? • Energy Policy Green and White Papers: • No technical, environmental or economic assessment of proposed policy. • No information on costs, benefits, impacts or alternatives to renewables, despite renewables set to play a ‘major role”. • Public clearly informed: • “Renewables will play a pivotal role in the achievement of the Government’s climate change targets”. • “Ireland has rich potential in renewable sources of energy”.

19. Public Participation in Relation to Policy Development (Article 7) • CEI/09/0016: Position of Department - “Energy policy Green and White Papers were considered, deliberated on and agreed by Government” (not Department). • Deliberate non-transparent information on Nuclear (CEI/09/0016). Submission of Irish Academy of Engineering clearly ignored. • No public participation in increase in target from 33% to 40%. • No proper public participation in choice of renewable scenarios, i.e. wind.

20. Public Participation in Relation to Planning (Article 6) • EU Response Points 25 and 45: No breach of EIA Directive – Developers prepared EIS for wind farms. • Irish Planning legislation and procedures do not comply with EIA Directive and Article 6: • European Court C-50/09 in relation to Directive 85/337/EEC: No assessment by competent authority. • Wind farms ‘rubber stamped’ by reference to White Paper / NREAP “in the interest of proper planning and sustainable development”.

21. Public Participation in Relation to Planning – Availability of Access to Justice (Article 9) • Ireland non-compliant with Access to Justice: • European Court C-427/07 in relation to Directive 2003/35/EC (amended EIA Directive for public participation). • Klohn v An Bord Pleanala (€86,000): [2011] IEHC 196 “Aarhus Convention not applicable as Ireland has not formally ratified it”. • Report by Milieu for EU Commission • Section 4.5 of Communicant’s Response in relation to Corrib Project.

22. Access to Information in relation to Wind Programme - Articles 4, 5 and 9 (1) • Directive 2003/4/EC on Access to Information: • Not properly transposed (Point 55 of EU Response). • Commissioner for Environmental Information: “Implementation at a fairly minimalist level”. • Response of the Communicant: Regular refusals to provide information on request, failure to possess and update environmental information, failure to disseminate environmental information which is transparent. • Article 9 (1): Appeal process not timely.

23. EU Approval of REFIT – Access to Information Request and Note to File 0645 • Reply by EU after 4 months to Information Request in relation to approval of REFIT and adequacy of environmental assessment and public consultation: • Only document which fell within scope of my Request was Note to File 0645, all other documents were submitted by myself. • “So far as approval of the feed in tariff was concerned, this appears to relate to Commission State Aid approval managed by DG COMP”.

24. Development of Renewable Energy Programme and REFIT approval - Conclusions • Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 not complied with by Ireland in the development and implementation of this programme. • Despite Convention not implemented and adhered to EU approved the State Aid, which led to majority of wind farms in Ireland  Failure with respect to Article 3. • Approval process by DG COMP with no consideration of environmental objectives, public participation and Aarhus Convention. • Objective of State Aid N571/2006: “Aims at protecting the environment and saving fossil energy resources”.

25. Interconnector Project and approval of €110 million in Financial Support • Project identified as essential to facility the development of Wind Energy in Ireland (All- Island Grid Study). • Part of EU’s Priority Interconnection Plan Com(2006) 846. • Irish Academy of Engineering: Absence of “a robust techno-economic study or cost-benefit analysis”. • Communication to UNECE: Three studies have shown no economic justification for this €600 million project.

26. Interconnector Project – Information for the Public (Article 5) • Sub threshold project for EIA Directive. However, Environmental Impact Assessment completed at discretion of competent authority. • Need for the project: Energy Policy White Paper and to provide access to wind power to cut Ireland’s carbon emissions. • Information in Project Environmental Report not transparent: Article 5 (2): • Particularly with regards to needs, benefits and costs of this project.

27. Interconnector Project – EU’s Responsibilities EU’s Response to UNECE Point 43: • “The Interconnector will provide the capacity and the stability that is required to support the increased penetration of renewable generation including wind generation”. • However, no SEA or compliance with Article 7 for Irish renewable programme or EU’s ‘Priority Interconnection Action Plan’. • Article 3: Responsibility of the EU to maintain a clear, transparent and consistent framework to implement the provisions of the Convention.

28. Development of National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) • ‘Political Consensus’ for 20% renewable energy contribution: SEC(2008) 85/3. • No proper technical, environmental or economic assessment completed. • Mandatory Member State targets set based on existing renewable contribution and GDP. • Irish public never informed or consulted in development of 16% target set in Directive 2009/28/EC  Non-compliance with Article 7 (early and effective public participation when options are open).

29. EU: Dissemination of Information and Public Participation • Article 5(2): EU Institutions are deliberately misinforming the Public, see Section 11 of Response of the Communicant. • Point 33 of EU Response: NREAP fully complies with Article 7 and SEA Directive, However: • Nothing remotely resembling an Environmental Report available, environmental objectives unknown, impacts unknown, alternatives unknown, costs unknown, feasibility unknown… • No active public participation on above issues.

30. Development and Implementation of Renewable Energy Action Plan - Conclusions • Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 not complied with by Ireland in the development and implementation of this renewable programme. • Mandatory targets set by EU in non-compliance with Article 7. • Failures with regard to Information: Article 5. • Failure with regard to Article 3: Responsibility of the EU to maintain a clear, transparent and consistent framework to implement the provisions of the Convention.

31. Conclusions - General • Aarhus Convention grants the Public Rights and imposes on Parties and Public Authorities obligations regard access to information, public participation and access to justice. • The EU ratified the Convention in February 2005, but in Ireland, a Member State: • The legislative provisions are not in place. • Public authorities ignore its provisions. • The EU has failed to apply its provisions to the Renewable Energy programme and apply proper enforcement measures to Ireland (Article 3).

32. Conclusions - Specific • Points 51 to 55 of EU Response to UNECE in relation to absolute discretion in relation to infringement proceedings. • Section 4.2 of the Response of the Communicant: “The Commission has no discretion not to undertake proper enforcement to implement the provisions of the Convention in Ireland”. • With regard to Points 56 and 57 of the EU Response: Bad application of EU law is not the responsibility of Irish citizens, particularly given no Access to Justice.

33. Conclusions – Renewable Energy a programme with massive impacts on Ireland’s landscape and citizens • The Public have not been informed so they can understand what is happening in the environment around them and are able to participate in an informed manner (Pillar I). • Decisions have been made by Public Authorities without active public participation (Pillar II). • No access to legal provisions, which are fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive (Pillar III). • When is this going to ?

34. Conclusions – Clarification on Further Communications in Relation to Ireland / EU • The position with respect to Ireland and the Aarhus Convention has and will continue to cause confusion. • Clarification from the Compliance Committee is necessary for Members of the Public with regard to accepting further Communications, with regard to the EU as a Party to the Convention, and matters of compliance which occur in Ireland.

35. Finally • I would like to thank the UNECE Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee and Secretariat for providing me with the opportunity to present this important case. • Particularly as I would not have had the opportunity to do so at National and EU level.