Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The ESB And Eirgrid can go f*ck themselves - Merge
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Zen65,
Here is a link to a CER decision paper on the matter.
http://www.cer.ie/GetAttachment.aspx?id=1355e301-239e-4e5a-b621-aacc076ed008.
Section 2.2 of the document explains the legal basis by which the CER allows the ESB or Eirgrid to acquire an easement under Section 45 of the 1927 Electricity Supply Act.
There is an error, perhaps a deliberate one, in the document.
Eirgrid call it the acquisition of a wayleave. It's not. It's an easement.
Thanks for that clarification loremolis, it was very informative.
The document to which you linked refers to the East-West Interconnector (EWIC) which is a slightly unusual piece of infrastructure. I say it is "unusual" only because unlike all of the Transmission Assets which are owned by ESB Networks, the EWIC is owned by EirGrid.
However that's not relevant. What is relevant is that the legislation to which the CER referred relates only to the powers of Compulsory Purchase Order which were conferred on ESB under the 1927 Act, but rarely if ever used. After the 1999 Act EirGrid now has all the same powers. However, with the exception of the EWIC (the only asset EirGrid owns) EirGrid cannot hold an easement or wayleave for themselves but they given the authority to negotiate all wayleaves and easements for Transmission wayleaves on behalf of ESB Networks.
The rationale for this was to ensure that ESB could not obstruct the development of the Transmission system.
Under normal circumstances ESB Networks serves a wayleave on landowners. The wayleave provides for the power of entry onto land and the erection of such poles and masts that are necessary to construct electricity networks. The wayleave also allows for entry to land for subsequent maintenance. You are right to point out that these wayleaves are not exactly the same as an easement. The wayleave is not entered as a legal encumbrance onto the title of the land, which is the major difference.
However in other ways the terms "wayleave" and "easement" are often used interchangeably.
ESB Networks do not require approval from CER for each easement however. The power to compulsorily acquire land or the use of land does require that CER gives approval (in lieu of the minster in the 1927 act), but some 99% or more of the easements which ESB Networks has acquired are not acquired compulsorily but are acquired by negotiation. None of these require CER approval.
In the case of forestry, there is a specific form of easement which ESB Networks acquires as a standard from commercial forest owners. This places an onus on the forestry operator to maintain certain clearances below the overhead line. In fact this is where I have personally dealt with ESB Networks and hence am familiar with their ways. Unfortunately I was not negotiating the deal on behalf of myself, as I do not own enough land to plant a forest
I might just about plant a tree or two!! As an aside, I found the ESB Networks staff to be exceptionally courteous and sympathetic in that instance.
Anyway I do know that they did not require CER approval. They based the valuation on a mechanism that they have agreed with IFA & Coillte.
In the case of Ms Treacy, EirGrid could agree a forestry easement quite simply if she would negotiate. There would be no need for CER to be involved. I don't know much about the Ms Treacy land issue, but I'm pretty sure she must have been totally entrenched for the matter to have ended up in court.
Z0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Thanks for that clarification loremolis, it was very informative.
The document to which you linked refers to the East-West Interconnector (EWIC) which is a slightly unusual piece of infrastructure. I say it is "unusual" only because unlike all of the Transmission Assets which are owned by ESB Networks, the EWIC is owned by EirGrid.
That must mean the North South Interconnector will be owned by Eirgrid also?However that's not relevant. What is relevant is that the legislation to which the CER referred relates only to the powers of Compulsory Purchase Order which were conferred on ESB under the 1927 Act, but rarely if ever used. After the 1999 Act EirGrid now has all the same powers. However, with the exception of the EWIC (the only asset EirGrid owns) EirGrid cannot hold an easement or wayleave for themselves but they given the authority to negotiate all wayleaves and easements for Transmission wayleaves on behalf of ESB Networks.
Not all the same powers.
If you thought the last link was interesting then check the last 7 or so pages of this.
http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/4319FA63-D2D7-4E76-9A8F-B69016A1B63E/0/FOI20112RequestandReply.pdfThe rationale for this was to ensure that ESB could not obstruct the development of the Transmission system.
Under normal circumstances ESB Networks serves a wayleave on landowners. The wayleave provides for the power of entry onto land and the erection of such poles and masts that are necessary to construct electricity networks. The wayleave also allows for entry to land for subsequent maintenance. You are right to point out that these wayleaves are not exactly the same as an easement. The wayleave is not entered as a legal encumbrance onto the title of the land, which is the major difference.
The problem is that most landowners don't know the difference between an ESB wayleave and a full legal easement. Paricularly when it comes to compensation and the rights of the landowner to plant trees or erect buildings near powerlines.However in other ways the terms "waleave" and "easement" are often used interchangeably.
ESB Networks do not require approval from CER for each easement however. The power to compulsorily acquire land or the use of land does require that CER gives approval (in lieu of the minster in the 1927 act), but some 99% or more of the easements which ESB Networks has acquired are not acquired compulsorily but are acquired by negotiation. None of these require CER approval.
IMO they pay way way over the odds to acquire easements by negotiation.
They spend the extra money to avoid the statutory CER approval process which is far more transparent but a lot cheaper in terms of compensation paid.In the case of forestry, there is a specific form of easement which ESB Networks acquires as a standard from commercial forest owners. This places an onus on the forestry operator to maintain certain clearances below the overhead line. In fact this is where I have personally dealt with ESB Networks and hence am familiar with their ways. Unfortunately I was not negotiating the deal on behalf of myself, as I do not own enough land to plant a forest I might just about plant a tree or two!! As an aside, I found the ESB Networks staff to be exceptionally courteous and sympathetic in that instance.
You say "acquires". Do you mean compulsorily acquires?
The "certain clearances" you mention do not exist in the Electricity Supply Acts.Anyway I do know that they did not require CER approval. They based the valuation on a mechanism that they have agreed with IFA & Coillte.
In the case of Ms Treacy, EirGrid could agree a forestry easement quite simply if she would negotiate. There would be no need for CER to be involved. I don't know much about the Ms Treacy land issue, but I'm pretty sure she must have been totally entrenched for the matter to have ended up in court.
It strikes me as strange that the ESB acquire an easement in some forestry situations but in the case of this woman, they go in on a wayleave even though a wayleave doesn't allow then to take any forestry rights.
IMO they had no right under their Acts to allow them to destroy an existing forest without an easement.0 -
-
-
-
That must mean the North South Interconnector will be owned by Eirgrid also?
AFAIK they don't own it, because under the Single Electricity Market the N-S interconnector is no longer considered to connect separate systems. EirGrid purchased SONI (the NI System Operator) so they do operate both systems. Each system is regulated separately but they are operated as one.
I think it's a great case of politics meets energy!!
Z0 -
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,011 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 89250
Just to be pedanticI expect Iarnród Eireann were big into it at some stage.
and because it's a very good example of what happens if you don't continue to invest in infrastructure.
we've lost most of the rail network since the founding of the state. (look at the maps / images here)
especially this large image
We even had monorails back in the day.
And besides CIE didnt' start till 1945.
Love this bit there were NIMBY's in 1834 tooAlthough a railway between Limerick and Waterford had been authorised as early as 1826 (the same year as Britain's first locomotive-drawn line, the Liverpool and Manchester Railway) it wasn't until 1834 that the first railway was built, the Dublin and Kingstown Railway (D&KR) between Dublin and Kingstown (Dún Laoghaire), a distance of 10 km (6 mi). Due to local opposition the first terminus, Kingstown Harbour, was adjacent to the West Pier. It took a further three years before the line reached the site of the present station.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement