10. Managing Adverse Effects of the Transmission Network
10.1 Objective: Use and Development of Existing Lines
One aim of an NPS with respect to effects of transmission lines should be to ensure:
- that Transpower and communities do not have to rely on existing use rights to define what activities are authorised in relation to existing lines;
- that there is some consistency in the way plans provide for activities associated with existing lines; and
- that plan provisions set standards and thresholds that allow Transpower to proceed with works of a minor nature, but which ensure that appropriate level of scrutiny is applied to more significant activities.
If an objective was to be defined specifically in respect of the rights associated with existing lines, it might simply state:
To ensure the efficient and effective operation, maintenance and upgrading of existing lines, both within and between local authorities, while protecting the environment from significant adverse effects.
10.2 Evaluation of Appropriateness
Work on existing lines is important for ensuring efficient use of the existing transmission network. That is appropriate in terms of section 7(b) of the RMA which refers to "the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources".
The efficient operation of the transmission network is also appropriate for achieving the purpose of the RMA because electricity supply is central to enabling people and communities to provide for their economic, social and cultural wellbeing, and for their health and safety.
10.3 Policy: Low Impact Activities
One way to ensure that the transmission network can be efficiently operated, maintained and upgraded, is to ensure that activities with little or no adverse effect on the environment are provided for in district and regional plans as permitted activities.
There are three ways in which that might be promoted.
10.3.1 Option (a): A General Policy Requiring Plans to Address the Issue
An NPS policy could encourage district and regional plans to distinguish between transmission activities which have low impact and those with potentially more significant impact. Such a policy might state:
(a) District and regional plans should identify and provide for activities associated with maintaining, repairing or upgrading the electricity transmission network where any adverse effects can be readily avoided, remedied or mitigated; and provide separately for activities that would have adverse effects that are less likely to be able to be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated.
10.3.2 Option (b): A Policy Specifying Low Impact Activities
Alternatively, an NPS policy might seek to specify what the low impact transmission activities are. Such a policy could state
(b) District and regional plans should recognise that the following activities associated with the operation, maintenance and upgrading of the electricity transmission network may have either no adverse effects or adverse effects that may be readily avoided, remedied or mitigated though the specification of performance standards:
- [Activities to be listed]
10.3.3 Option (c): An NES Specifying Consent Categories
An NES could specify the consent categories for particular activities associated with transmission. In that way, it could ensure that activities with significant actual or potential adverse effects are subject to resource consent requirements, while other activities are permitted.
The Resource Management Amendment Act 2005 now allows an NES to specify permitted activities (provided that a permitted activity cannot have significant adverse environmental effects and only on terms or conditions specified in the standard). A standard may therefore state:
The following activities associated with the maintenance, repair and upgrade of transmission lines are permitted activities:
- [Activities and appropriate terms and conditions to be listed]
Further technical work may be needed to determine the appropriate nature and scope of activities to be permitted.
Such an NES might also specify the consent categories for:
- new lines and structures not located within designations made for that purpose;
- structures located in the beds of lakes and rivers;
- earthworks associated with the construction, repair and replacement of structures;
- transmission activities in areas of significant indigenous vegetation; and
- upgrades to existing lines that have more than minor effect.
Alternatively, an NES might simply state that all activities associated with the electricity transmission network that are not permitted activities are discretionary activities.
10.4 Evaluation of Appropriateness Options (a)-(c)
If the aim is to ensure that minor activities are permitted by plans, then neither policies (a) and (b) above, may not be entirely effective. A policy of an NPS cannot specify that an activity must be permitted. Both policies (a) and (b) do suggest that minor activities should be "provided for" in plans, and local authorities may well do so by permitting such activities. But they would not be inconsistent with the NPS if they provided for such activities as, for example, controlled activities. The flexibility and discretion inherent in an NPS policy means that its effectiveness in providing for the efficient operation, maintenance and upgrading of the transmission network cannot be assured.
Option (c) would be more effective than either option (a) or (b) in the sense that there would be much greater certainty about how the activities are to be managed.
10.4.1 Evaluation of the Costs of Options (a)-(c)
Public Compliance Costs
It is possible that neither option (a) nor option (b) would require any district plan to be changed. In a plan monitoring report commissioned by Transpower,73 all but one district plan already permits some level of maintenance and upgrading even if not in all parts of the district. (The one district plan that did not permit any maintenance or upgrading is subject to appeal). It should be noted, however, that there is little consistency in the way these plans address the issue.
Option (c) would mean that many plans would be inconsistent with the standard. The Transpower report indicates that at least 11 district plans do not provide for maintenance and upgrading in a comprehensive manner.74
However, it should be remembered that district plans need not be changed just because they are inconsistent with an NES. The RMA allows for inconsistency to remain but states that where there is inconsistency the NES prevails (unless a plan rule is more stringent). A plan drafted subsequent to an NES being promulgated may not be more lenient than an NES.75
Option (c) is therefore likely to have a low public compliance cost. (Although territorial authorities may choose to change district plans to make them consistent with any NES they are likely to do so as part of planned reviews. If so, the marginal cost would be low).
Private Compliance Cost
If as noted above, neither option (a) nor option (b) led to changes in existing district plans then there would be no change to the consenting costs faced by Transpower.
There is considerable uncertainty about how the policies would be interpreted and applied at the local level.
If policy (b) omitted to describe activities as having "no significant adverse effects" that are currently permitted, it is conceivable that territorial authorities would be obliged to change their district plans.76 If that was the case, Transpower could face greater compliance costs from needing to make resource consent applications for activities that it had previously undertaken as permitted activities.
Option (c) is similar to the extent that the cost implications for Transpower depend very much on the detail of the activities specified. In the absence of the detail of this standard it is difficult to determine its cost. Again, however, if the NES replicated the existing practice of the majority of district plans (and interpretations) the cost to Transpower would be low.
Local Environmental Cost
The extent to which local environmental costs result from option (a) and (b) that might otherwise not, depends on implementation and how the policies would be translated into plan provisions (or how interpretation of existing provisions might change).
If the policies resulted in activities being permitted that would not otherwise be permitted, then the local environment (which might include matters described in section 6 of the RMA) could be argued to be at greater risk.
Similarly, the extent to which option (c) might generate an environmental cost depends on the detail of the standard and the extent to which it departs from existing provisions and existing practice.
However, option (b) or option (c) are unlikely to lead to any marginal environmental cost provided they are designed to replicate the current practice as followed by the majority of local authorities.
The benefits of the policy would be as follows.
Private Benefits
Although it is not possible to predict precisely how the options (a)-(b) would be implemented at the local level, they are likely to result in at least some (and possibly considerable) reduction in costs associated with both Transpower's programme of submitting on plans, and on seeking resource consents for minor works.
It is also likely that there would be benefits in terms of reduced delays in undertaking necessary works on lines.
There could also be benefits for both Transpower and local landowners and communities associated with greater certainty about the future use of lines.
Based on those criteria, option (c), having the greatest certainty and least opportunity for local discretion, offers the greatest benefit.
10.4.2 Overall Assessment of Options
In summary, the effectiveness of the options (a) and (b) is questionable. The costs would depend on the detail of implementation. They are unlikely to be high but the benefits are also likely to be marginal. In particular, neither option would reduce the potential for district variation or, therefore, for the need for Transpower to engage heavily in district plan development processes. For those reasons, the Reference Group considers that, the appropriateness of the policy has not been clearly demonstrated.
Option (c) would clearly be more effective, particularly since the enactment of the Resource Management Amendment Act which specifically provides for such a standard.
Option (c)'s public compliance costs would be low since NESs do not necessitate changes to district and regional plans.
Other costs may arise from option (c). These would include:
- costs faced by Transpower for any consent it requires that it would not have otherwise required; and
- costs faced by the environment that are permitted that would otherwise require consent.
The extent of these costs could only be measured by comparing the detail of the NES against the current provisions of plans, and current practice in the interpretation of those provisions.
While that exercise has not been undertaken, it is relevant to note that Transpower's own research indicates that 52 district plans already permit maintenance and upgrading works. (A number of others have yet to issue decisions in response to submissions from Transpower).
This suggests that costs resulting from activities being permitted, that would otherwise not be permitted, are unlikely to be significant.
In addition, Federated Farmers is concerned that landowners may face costs if, by an NES permitting certain activities, Transpower was able to argue (in Electricity Act processes) that those activities did not injuriously affect the land. It seems unlikely that classification in the RMA context could have significance in the Electricity Act context, however, the Reference Group agrees that care would need to be taken in preparing any NES to ensure that there are no unintended consequences for the land access regime.
For all the reasons given above, the Reference Group considers that the most appropriate option is an NES that specifies the maintenance and upgrading activities that should be permitted and those that should be subject to resource consent process.
10.5 Objective: Managing Visual Impacts and Land Disturbance
Many stakeholders will undoubtedly look to the NPS to provide guidance on how to manage one of the most significant environmental impacts associated with transmission. As discussed earlier, where overhead transmission is the only viable option, visual impacts cannot be avoided altogether. On-site mitigation options are limited. While avoiding these impacts altogether is not feasible, minimising impacts (by controlling the location in which they arise) is possible and is a realistic aim for the NPS. Some level of mitigation is also possible by careful route design (such as the placement of towers along a given route) and by the design of those towers.
Similarly, construction of transmission lines requires access tracks, preparation of building sites and digging of foundations. These activities produce adverse effects on the environment that can be managed "on site" by conditions aimed at avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects. However, there will usually be some residual impacts. These impacts can also be minimised by careful route selection and route design in the first instance.
It is important to ensure that minimisation of impacts occurs in ways that recognise and protect the range of values people see in the landscape, including those set out in Part II of the RMA.
An appropriate objective might state:
To minimise by appropriate route selection, route design and component design:
(a) the visual impact of transmission lines on the landscape, and the values people and communities associate with landscapes (including outstanding landscapes); and
(b) the impact of land disturbance on:
- areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna;
- historic heritage;77
- water quality;
- natural character of the coastal environment, and margins or rivers lakes and wetlands.
10.6 Evaluation of Appropriateness
The objective is appropriate to the extent that the protection of natural character of the coast and outstanding landscapes are matters of national importance under section 6 (a) and (b) respectively. Section 6 (c) of the RMA refers to the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna. Similarly, section 6 (e) requires recognition and provision for the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga. The protection of historic heritage from inappropriate use and development is provided for in section 6 (f)
The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values is also provided for in section 7 (c) of the RMA.
In addition, there are policies in the NZCPS that require avoidance of adverse effects within specified areas of the coastal marine area.
The Reference Group considers that an objective of minimisation of, in particular, visual effects is appropriate since the means of mitigation of visual effects are limited to route selection which avoids impacts in one location by directing impacts to another location.
Through that process, management of effects occurs principally at a strategic level (avoiding high value or sensitive areas) rather than site-specific level.
The other adverse effects identified in the objective (relating to land disturbance) can be minimised by careful route selection but their on-site effects will also need to be avoided, remedied or mitigated by the use of established methods and practices consistent with Part 2 of the RMA.
10.7 Policy: Route Selection
A principal means of minimising landscape, cultural, archaeological and biodiversity impacts is to direct transmission to routes that avoid compromising high value landscapes, natural character of the coast, and known sites of cultural, archaeological and biodiversity value. Landscapes can be valued for many reasons. Typical landscape evaluation criteria consider matters such as historical, cultural and community association, in addition to aesthetic and scientific (including ecological and geological) values.
An NPS might provide high level guidance on areas to be avoided. For example, a policy might suggest that:
Wherever possible, transmission lines should be located along routes that avoid adverse effects on:
- [key nationally important values to be listed]
The key to this policy will be to identify those matters that are significant at a national level. The policy needs to be able to provide guidance but not be so limiting as to foreclose all opportunities for future transmission line development. The detail of the policy will need to be developed at the drafting stage but the Reference Group would anticipate that it will direct transmission projects away from areas such as nationally outstanding landscapes and seascapes, national parks and other areas that have recognised cultural or aesthetic value the devaluing of which would produce a significant national cost.
10.8 Evaluation of Appropriateness
An NPS cannot direct Transpower as a requiring authority or resource consent applicant. It can only guide the actions and decisions (in relation to plan content, resource consents and designation recommendations) of a local authority.
The route selection process is carried out as a matter of practice by Transpower. It is not required by the RMA. Therefore, an NPS cannot directly seek to require or specify the route selection process, nor can it seek to require a local authority to consider whether the route shown in a notice of requirement or resource consent application is the best option.
An NPS policy can, however, ensure that when a local authority considers a notice of requirement or resource consent application for a new line, it considers whether the route proposed will compromise key values. That is what the policy proposed above seeks to do.
By setting down those matters that are to be taken into account by a local authority in assessing the notice of requirement or resource consent application, the policy provides indirect guidance to Transpower, and would influence Transpower's route selection process.
The effectiveness of the above policy would depend on the definition and specificity of the matters listed in the policy. While matters such as "nationally significant landscapes" would appear relevant, they are not defined by the policy (or anywhere else) and there could be on-going debate about what such landscapes are, and where they do, and do not, exist. That is an issue that is discussed further in the evaluation of costs and benefits that follows.
10.8.1 Costs of a Route Selection Policy
Public Compliance Costs
It is unlikely that district plans have policies relating specifically to the location of transmission lines (certainly the Reference Group is not aware of any such plan). However, most if not all plans will have existing policies relating to managing the rural landscape. Some will have identified landscape areas, while others will have more general policies relating to the maintenance of landscape values, and rural character and amenity.
It is possible that, should the policy list matters such as "nationally outstanding landscapes", some local authorities may consider it desirable to assess and map such areas and include appropriate material in their plans. That would obviously involve some cost.
However, the policy suggested above does not require local and regional policies and plans to include any additional provisions. It relates only to local authorities' consideration of notices of requirement or resource consent applications. Whether values such as "nationally outstanding landscapes" exist can be assessed within the context of individual resource consent or notice of requirement processes. The effectiveness of the policy is not dependant on changes to district plans.78
For these reasons, public compliance costs are likely to be minimal.
Private Compliance Costs
Transpower's existing route selection process assesses possible routes against a range of criteria. These criteria include, but are not limited to, the matters set out in the indicative policy above. Therefore, the compliance costs faced by Transpower are unlikely to be significant.
However, Transpower could face higher compliance costs if the policy was interpreted in such a way as to require the undertaking of landscape or archaeological assessments it would other wise not have undertaken. There is a possibility that emphasis on landscape values that have not been assessed and mapped in district plans (such as nationally outstanding landscapes) will lead to debate about whether such landscapes exist along a proposed route. This could result in additional costs if uncertainty has to be resolved through expert evaluation, peer review and Environment Court consideration.
The compliance costs faced by landowners would also depend on whether the policy led to greater uncertainty and debate. In addition, if the policy resulted in changes in preferences for routes, then there would be some landowners who benefit, and some who face costs they might otherwise not. While there could, conceivably (though not necessarily), be some winners and some losers as a result of the policy, the net cost to landowners in the collective would not change.
10.8.2 Benefits of a Route Selection Policy
Transaction Costs
The principal benefit of the policy is that it would provide a nationally endorsed framework for determining what is relevant to consider when assessing the impacts of a new transmission line. The matters listed in that framework are, as indicated above, unlikely to differ significantly from those matters that would be considered in the absence of an NPS. However, simply having that framework nationally endorsed through an NPS does remove opportunity for debate and would standardise procedure. This provides greater certainty for all parties that could lead to reduced transaction costs.
Environmental and Community Benefits
There should also be greater assurance that appropriate consideration is given to highly valued landscapes and cultural/archaeological and biodiversity values. This may well mean that, at the margin, those matters specified in the policy receive a higher level of protection than they otherwise would.
Overall, the Reference Group assesses the policy as having low cost and probably also moderately low benefit. Whether the policy is efficient depends on detailed wording that is agreed, and the extent to which that wording would generate more or less uncertainty and debate.
The Reference Group considers that further analysis is required to determine that question but suggests that, as the policy addresses a critical issue, it be included in a draft NPS for public comment. If, after further consideration, it is determined that an NPS policy on visual impacts is not efficient, a non statutory guideline could be investigated.
10.9 Objective: Managing Noise from Substations
The aim of managing noise from substations is to ensure that people and noise sensitive activities generally are not exposed to unreasonable noise from substations.
An NPS policy might read:
To protect people and activities sensitive to noise from the noise emissions associated with the transmission network's electricity substations.
10.10 Evaluation of Appropriateness
The objective is appropriate because to seeks to address an adverse effect on the environment as is therefore consistent with, amongst other sections, section 5 (2) (c) of the RMA.
10.11 Policy: Use of Noise Contours
One way to ensure that noise levels are appropriately controlled is to impose maximum levels measured at a specific point (e.g. at the closest residential boundary). However, as noted earlier there is little evidence that noise levels typically set by district plans are inappropriate. They key issue appears to be that as land uses change, noise controls that were appropriate become inappropriate. The Reference Group believes that the transmission network should be managed in a similar way to other major utilities (such as airports and ports) that receive some protection from "reverse sensitivity" and escalating demands for noise level improvements. This might be encouraged by a policy that states:
District and regional plans should provide for noise limits to be applied to electricity substations associated with the transmission network. These standards should be:
(a) measured in accordance with the requirements of NZS6801: 1991 Measurement of Sound, and assessed in accordance with the requirements of NZS802: 1991 Assessment of Environmental Sound; and
(b) recognise the potential of substations to be subject to reverse sensitivity and should accordingly:
- be complemented with the identification of noise contours that identify maximum noise levels in concentric areas extending outward from substations;
- promote the use of noise attenuation measures for all noise sensitive activities occurring within the areas defined in accordance with (i) to a level that ensures compliance with specified maximum noise exposure levels;
- ensure that the responsibility for providing noise attenuation specified in (ii) above, rests with the developer of the noise sensitive activity.
10.12 Evaluation of Appropriateness
The policy set out above would be effective if it led to district plans requiring noise attenuation measures (particularly insulation) in new development. This would be achieved by plans including such a requirement as a standard or term of the activity and/or imposing suitable conditions on resource consents.
While the policy does not require the use of rules (i.e. "promote" can take many forms) it is likely that local authorities would adopt a regulatory approach in response to a clear policy direction.
10.12.1 Cost of a Noise Contour Policy
Public Compliance Costs
While no specific research on the use of noise contours has been conducted as part of the Reference Group's process to date, the Reference Group understands that no district plan currently takes the approach promoted by the above policy (although some do so for other major facilities). The public compliance costs are therefore likely to be high with all district plans needing to be changed to set appropriate controls around the country's 170 substations and switchyards. This would involve the use of noise engineering expertise and could be a costly exercise.
Private Compliance Costs
No quantification of the private compliance costs has been attempted. This is difficult to determine since much will depend on:
- The noise levels set (something the policy leaves to the discretion of local authorities)
- The number of dwellings that may be located within the contour areas
- The cost of the insulation requirements.
It would be possible to estimate the per dwelling insulation costs but this has not been attempted at this point. Further work on these costs would be required to satisfy requirements section 32 of the RMA.
It is likely that the overall cost of the policy could be reasonably high.
10.12.2 Benefits of a Noise Contour Policy
Environmental Benefits
There would be some environmental benefit in the sense that those people occupying dwellings built in close proximity to substations would not be exposed to unreasonable levels of noise. These benefits are difficult to quantify.
Benefits to the Transmission Network
The transmission network would benefit from a more certain regulatory environment. The potential for increasing demands for improvements to the noise level from substations could reduce. These benefits are also difficult to quantify.
The Reference Group's overall assessment is that the costs of the policy could be high and the size of benefits uncertain. The policy could, however, be effective in addressing the core issues and further work on identifying the costs and benefits will need to be carried out as part of the drafting and consultation process.
If in the process of drafting and subsequent consultation the costs prove to be too high relative to benefits, consideration should be given to preparing non statutory guidance.
10.13 Managing Electric and Magnetic Fields
Given the inconsistent way electric and magnetic fields (EMF) associated with transmission are understood and managed, and the inadequacy of the existing ICNIRP guidelines, an NES that established standards for EMF in New Zealand would seem a sensible approach.
However, this is a highly technical and contentious field. The Ministry of Health has advised the Reference Group that the existing standards and guidelines such as ICNIRP 1998 and the Institute of Electrical Engineers and the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety 2002 on EMFs have both strengths and weaknesses. Although the detailed approach to such guidelines has evolved, the ICNIRP Guidelines continue to be widely accepted and they were adopted by the United Kingdom in 2004, and they continue to be the standard applied in the European Union.
The Ministry has also advised that there are a number of other developments and revisions of existing standards currently underway that may have a bearing on the development of an appropriate EMF standard for incorporation into a NES. For example, the Australian Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) is currently developing an Australian Standard on Extremely Low Frequency (ELF)79 Fields as an alternative to the ICNIRP guideline. A revision of the ICNIRP guidelines at power frequencies is also being undertaken as are initiatives as part of the World Health Organisation International EMF Project. This project includes the publication (due soon) of a review of EMFs in its Environmental Health Criteria series.
The New Zealand Inter Agency Committee on Non Ionising Fields (a committee that advises the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry for the Environment on these matters and of which Transpower is a member) is taking an interest in the development of these standards and their potential for application in New Zealand.
In summary, the Reference Group considers it desirable that an NES on EMF is promulgated. It recommended that the Minister for the Environment should seek advice from the Minister of Health on an appropriate standard and subsequently lead an EMF NES development process including preparing a discussion document on a proposed standard.
Back to Top