Table 1: Summary of Comments on General Issues

This Document is Archived

Summary of Submissions on the Draft Report of the Reference Group on Electricity Transmission

Reference Group on Electricity Transmission

[ Last Updated 22 August 2006 ]

Issue	Submitter	Summary of submission	Comment
Level of support for intervention in RMA's management of transmission	Manukau City	Supportive of a consistent resource management regulatory regime for transmission lines but has concerns about proposed approach.
	Environment Southland	Support for improvement in processes and practices to prevent transmission being unduly restricted. Merit in NPS and NES but full support deferred until the detail available.
	Otago Regional Council	Strategic leadership appropriate but should start with a strategic statement of energy and electricity in particular.	Outside the scope of the process. May be addressed by the National Energy Strategy.
	Environment Waikato	Agrees with reports finding that further work into a potential NPS is worth pursuing (subject to further information being provided to support the case.
	Waipa District Council	Merit in development of more consistent national guidance on transmission through NPSs and NESs Supports NPS that reinforces a balanced approach acknowledging both strategic importance and local adverse effects.
	Taranaki Regional Council	Support the preparation of a NPS and NESs for electricity transmission (conditional on provisions not derogating from the purpose and principles of the RMA).
	LGNZ	Appropriate to use NPSs and NESs for matters of national significance. Some matters need to be further considered before NPS as proposed can be confirmed as appropriate.
	NZPI	Supports the use of national mechanisms such as NPSs and NESs where appropriate to provide national guidance and direction on matters of national importance.
	Historic Places Trust	Supports NPS/NES based on expectation that adequate provision will be provided for historic heritage.
	Perry Group Ltd	Supportive of need to streamline regulatory processes (via an NPS and NESs) for infrastructural assets of national importance provided all parties harmed are fairly and fully compensated.
	WR Storey	Does not support NPS on electricity transmission. Would make more sense to have an NPS on Energy (in which transmission is just one element).
	Federated Farmers	Strongly opposed to an NPS on transmission. NPSs need to be shown to have applicability to all environments. This is not the case for transmission.
	New Zealand Law Society	Support in principle greater central Government guidance to decision-makers through NPSs and NESs.
	New Zealand Geothermal Society	Concerned at transmission constraints. Supports efforts to assist the on-going development or maintenance of the national transmission network with framework of RMA.
	New Zealand Electricity Engineers Association (NZEEA)	Supports transmission as a matter of national importance. Security of electricity supply imperative. Transmission fundamental to that goal.
	Institution of Professional Engineers (IPENZ)	Agree transmission is of national importance and NPS would be beneficial. Support NESs
	New Era Energy	Strongly oppose NPS or NES aimed at smoothing the processes to be followed for transmission. Implementation will come at the expense of the environment.
	Powerco	Supports any tool that facilitates grid enhancement. Can see benefit in an NPS and/or NES.
	Transpower	Supports the Draft Report's findings that there will be benefits from an NPS and NESs
	Major Electricity Users Group (MEUG)	Does not support NPS as it believes that Transpower must use existing commercial and legal procedures to obtain easements and access for lines. Supports the three proposed NESs.	The NPS will not affect the existing legal requirement for Transpower to obtain easements for both upgrades and new lines.
	Westpower	Generally supportive of approach (but given linkage between national and local transmission networks it is important that processes are not arbitrarily fragmented).
	Meridian Energy	Supports that formulation of a well conceived national guidance (NPS and NESs) on the management of transmission.
	Contact Energy	Support removal of all unnecessary constraints in developing transmission projects and endorses the NPS and NES recommendations of the Reference Group.
	Genesis Energy	Supports development of NPSs for nationally significant activities. Supports development of NPS for transmission. Generally supports wording of objectives and policies proposed in Draft Report.
	Mighty River Power (MRP)	Supports the use of NPS/NESs as mechanisms for facilitating investment in electricity transmission.
Justification for an NPS	Environment Waikato New Zealand Law Society	It is unclear whether there is a real problem which justifies national intervention. The report is light on examples and data on problems that have occurred as a result on the RMA. More thorough investigation of actual problems facing transmission is required. Concerned the report may create perception that councils are at fault for not protecting transmission lines when that was not the case.	The question of whether there is sufficient justification is always going to be debatable. It is valid to say that the report provides little quantitative information about, for example: The number of consents and NORs approved (or declined) in relation to the transmission network under the RMA, the length of time these took to gain, the number that have been appealed, the outcome of any appeals and the restrictiveness of conditions imposed The number of plans that do and do not have provisions that Transpower sought through the submission process and the extent of variability in plans. The report does include some information on the number of breaches of NZECP 34. Gathering further information on consents and NORs is unlikely to provide much assistance as we know that there has been very little "new build" under the RMA. Better information on the state of plans (and on Transpower's previous efforts to get provisions into plans) could be useful. Transpower has collected some information on the provisions of plans for its own purposes. To the extent relevant, this should be referenced in the report. Some case studies of upgrade projects could, if available, also be useful to confirm difficulties and unjustified variability. Transpower is preparing such material and this could be reviewed before the report is finalised.
	Environment Waikato New Zealand Law Society	The length and multi-jurisdictional (cross boundary) nature of transmission lines is not a justification for national intervention. Local authorities can develop common integrated consenting processes (witness the Waikato project)	Consenting issues are just one aspect of the difficulties created by a system that spans multiple jurisdictions. The other is the multiple plans and potential for variation in regulation that that creates. Although the Waikato councils are participating in a joint process for the Whakamaru to Otahuhu project local authorities have not entered aligned plan provisions despite efforts by Transpower seeking that they do so.
	Taranaki Regional Council	Issues associated with transmission are unique and require special recognition. However lack of investment in transmission has little to do with the RMA.	Accepted that the lack of recent investment in transmission is not related to the RMA. However, there are inherent issues with the RMA that are likely to cause difficulties (particularly as major new investment is proposed). These include the local costs/national benefits issue and the need for cross district consistency discussed in the Draft Report. It is also important to recall that the proposed NPS is not just about new investment but also addresses the protection of existing investment.
	LGNZ Dr Mike Patrick NZPI New Zealand Law Society	Singling out transmission is a piecemeal approach that lacks justification (other infrastructure can also be considered to be of national significance)	If the government decides that an NPS on transmission is warranted it does not mean that an NPS on other infrastructure might not also be warranted. The fact that other activities might face similar issues under the RMA to those faced by other transmission, is not a reason not to prepare an NPS on transmission.
		Not clear why existing legislative provisions are not adequate. Further analysis of affect of recent amendments required.	Reliance on existing provisions (and untested new provisions) is high risk. By providing for NPSs the RMA acknowledges that Part 2 (and other provisions) may provide insufficient policy guidance.
		Different treatment for transmission not justified. Transpower could have used designation provisions like other utilities.	Transpower is using the designations process for all new lines. It has not used designations for existing lines for reasons explained in the draft report.
	Dr Mike Patrick	No case made for NPS or NES rather every reason to remove consideration of transmission projects from local government and have them considered at central government.	Call-in is the only means this could be achieved. The limitation of call in is that it does not change the decision-making framework. Having an NPS/NES does not mean that future transmission projects will not be called in. Furthermore, the NPS/NES are about more than just the large transmission projects that could justify call in. They are about a clearer regulatory framework for transmission projects - large and small, and about the many activities that might affect the grid (which again would not warrant call-in in their own right).
	Federated Farmers	Little evidence that local authorities have failed to acknowledge benefits of transmission.	This would be a very difficult matter to gather evidence on. Some work was undertaken at the outset of the process that reviewed plans to see the extent to which benefits were acknowledged. It found little evidence of explicit recognition of benefits on the face of plans. It is true that decision-makers can take into account benefits irrespective of what a plan says and they may well do so. However the key point is that the system currently offers no guarantee that these matters will be relevant considerations.
	Federated Farmers	Transpower should participate in the plan-making process like anyone else. If the costs of that are too high then the process should be adjusted to meet the needs of all participants	The NPS proposals aim to assist in the management of transmission so that there is a clear and consistent decision-making framework across the country. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve that without national intervention. (Transpower has attempted to do so through participation in plan making processes but has had limited success).
	IPENZ	Reference group has recognised urgent need for clarification of decision-making environment.
	Transpower	[No comment on strength of justification in report but reiterates point that policies and plans under the RMA currently deliver neither consistency for an asset of national importance, nor an enabling framework recognising national benefits.]
	Contact Energy	[No comment on strength of justification in report but reiterates many of the points raised in report (including inconsistency in approaches across districts)]. The section 32 report should be made available when the NPS is notified. A section 32 report should also be made available when an NES is made available for public comment (not just when the regulation is made as is required by the Act. Furthermore a change to the Act is suggested to make sure the section 32 reports on NESs are available before NESs are made.
	Genesis Energy	[No comment on strength of justification in report but implies justification based on value of central government leadership; guidance of weighing of national benefit vs local effects; and need for consistency in both plans and in application of principles established by case law].
	MRP	[No comment on strength of justification in report but agrees that there is regulatory failure because (a) costs are localised but the benefits may be national; and (b) investment involves multiple districts and is subject to inconsistency in processes and decision-making. Transpower's claims of $3.4 billion required grid investment is also noted].
Scope of Reference Group Brief	Meridian Energy	Consideration of transmission separately from generation is artificial and unhelpful. Consideration should be given to bringing the transmission and generation processes together.
Affect of NPS	Taranaki Regional Council	NPS: must not lower environmental bottomlines needs to give meaningful guidance on the trade-offs between local effects and national interests cannot require the consents be granted carte blanche there will be some issues that the national interest cannot over-ride	Agreed. The proposals attempt to acknowledge these points but it is very difficult to given meaningful guidance on trade-offs as suggested.
Legislative framework within which Transpower operates	Manukau City Council Environment Waikato	Legislative framework is too narrow (requiring consideration only of operational and cost matters). Grid upgrade proposals will not address "whole of community" issues. The NPS has the potential to further reduce the limited obligations for Transpower to consider alternative solutions. New legislation to require consideration of wider matters (similar to Land Transport Act) is sought.	Principal issue relates to the Grid Investment Test (GIT) applied by the Electricity Commission. While the point made may be valid, relief sought is outside the terms of reference of the NPS process. Unclear how NPS could exacerbate problem as suggested. Requirement in Act for decision-maker to consider whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative routes and methods remains unaffected by the NPS suggested in the report.
Legislative framework within which Transpower operates	Manukau City Council Environment Waikato	Wider community concerns are not dealt with through the RMA designation process because alternatives cannot be considered.	It is true that the RMA does not require consideration of alternatives by the decision-maker (except in the limited way discussed above) but that is not something that can be changed via an NPS.
Strategic integration of infrastructure and land use	Environment Southland	Support for national guidance on regional council's "strategic integration of infrastructure and land use" function under section 30 as introduced by the 2005 Amendment Act	As noted in the new, this is a relatively new provision in the RMA. There has not been sufficient time for it to bed down - and there is no indication that it is in any way proving problematic. No case law has yet emerged. Given these circumstances it is difficult to see how the NPS could add value.
Impact on District Plans	Waipa District Council	No need for NPS to impact on district plans. Waipa plan already contains relevant provisions	According to statute an NPS must affect district plans. It is impossible to avoid. However there are many ways the costs and impact on district plans can be minimised. (See below)
Cost implications for local authorities	Wellington City Council	Mechanisms to give effect to NPS and NESs need to be further considered to reduce potential costs on local authorities. Consider: Allowing changes to be made as part of programmed plan reviews Don't require plans to be changed that already include provisions with similar affect Change sections 6 or 7 of the RMA re positive effects rather than including a policy in an NPS	The Act does allow plans to be changed to give effect to an NPS as part of planned reviews. That is an option that will need to be considered as part of the drafting process. The Act also allows for an NPS to insert policies into a plan without formality (or cost for local authorities) Finally the Act requires plans to "give effect to" an NPS. If existing provisions already do that then no action by a local authority would be required. Changing Part 2 of the RMA was considered as part of the recent review but rejected by Cabinet in favour of a programme of NPSs. There seems to be no grounds for re-litigating that decision (on the basis that the only grounds would be that it was not possible to develop an NPS that has similar effect -that does not seem to be the case).
Cost implications for local authorities	LGNZ	Paper lacks detail on the effects of the proposed NPS/NESs on each council. Potential costs need to be fully quantified in the cost/benefit analysis. Additional costs imposed in local authorities should be met by central government.	Analysing the proposals against 80 district plans and numerous RPSs and regional plans would be a monumental task. The evaluation included in the draft report does take into account the costs, in broad terms, on local authorities. It could do little more without massive additional work. To some extent, consideration of more detailed costs relies on each council assessing the effects themselves and bringing this to the attention of policy-makers through the submission process. There are several ways the costs on local authorities can be minimised (including requiring certain provisions to be included in plans without formality). These will need to be considered at the next stage.
Change Part 2	LGNZ Wellington City	Change Part 2 of the RMA so the positive effects are taken into account for all nationally important activities	This has previously been considered and rejected by Cabinet in favour of NPSs. LGNZ opposed changes to Part 2 during the recent RMA review process.
Change Part 2	Law Society	Change part 2 (possibly by introducing an "economic benefit" test) in preference to an NPS. Draft report provides no real discussion on whether changes to Part 2 are preferable.	See above comment
Status of NESs	Manukau City Council	Its is not clear whether NESs would be mandatory and take precedence over any more restrictive provisions in district plans	Under s 43B of the Act, a rule in a plan that is more restrictive than an NES prevails over an NES - provided the NES states that a rule may be more restrictive. Whether the NES proposed in the draft report would allow for plans rules to be more restrictive is a matter of detail yet to be determined.
Guidance	LGNZ	Non statutory guidance needs to be more carefully considered. Use of guidance can improve consistency without the compliance costs. Even if NPS developed guidance needs to accompany it.	An argument can always be made for non statutory guidance over a formal NPS. However guidance is generally only preferable when there is a genuine willingness by decision-makers to promote the same outcome as the guideline proponent but a lack of understanding as to how this might be best achieved. An NPS will be preferable when there is a clear need to align objectives and promote, and if necessary enforce, common effort on a nationally significant issue. Electricity transmission would seem to fall into the latter category.
Under-grounding of lines	Manukau City Council	Report should discuss when under-grounding is appropriate	For the reasons advanced elsewhere in the submission (namely the need to consider land uses and local conditions) national level policy guidance on under-grounding could only be at a high level. While high level guidance would be possible it is doubtful whether this would increase certainty.
Use of term "natural character"	Owen McShane	The Draft Report makes several references to the impact of transmission lines on "natural character". The Act uses this term only in respect of the coast whereas the Draft report applies it generically.	Strictly speaking the RMA does only use the term "natural character" in relation to the coast. However that does not mean to say that the term can't be used more widely. That said, the term "amenity values" may be more appropriate and is, in any case, broadly defined and arguably encompasses the concept of natural character.
Heritage value of transmission	Historic Places Trust	Draft Report should give greater recognition to electricity transmission heritage and the need to identify, recognise and protect significant electricity transmission heritage.	The Draft Report currently does not recognise this issue. However, historic heritage receives recognition and protection under Part 2 of the Act. This means that the issue needs to be considered by plans and in very resource consent/designation regardless of any NPS. The implications (including costs) of giving transmission heritage greater prominence through an NPS have not been assessed but there is obvious potential for such a move to inhibit the upgrading or decommissioning of lines. Although some assets may be regarded as historic heritage not all historic heritage will be of equal value to the community and not all will be worthy of recognition by way of an NPS
National costs of transmission	Environment Waikato	Little recognition of potential national costs in foregoing the opportunities of distributed generation.	The Report does not provide any such discussion. However it was assumed that the relative costs and benefits of transmission versus other options will vary depending on the circumstances and is a matter best left to the Electricity Commission's GIT process. There is no mandate for the Reference Group to consider whether transmission should be preferred ahead of distributed generation or visa versa.
National costs of transmission	New Era Energy	The national interest must be balanced by a requirement to consider national costs (such as economically preventing construction of generation close to load, or reducing the need for energy conservation).	Agreed but that is a test that ought to be (and is) applied by the EC. What the NPS would say is that once the EC has decided that a transmission project is the best option then that option becomes a matter of national importance.
Compensation [see also detailed remarks in relation to section 9]	Taranaki Regional Council	There is a case for addressing compensation for existing lines (as well as new lines). There is a case for community compensation for on-going effects (in terms of social and visual amenity). This is particularly so when you consider that transmission does not have to pay development contributions as other activities must do Consideration should be given to establishing a code for land access and compensation as the petroleum industry has done. This might include rentals for on-going effects.	This raises issues outside the brief of the Reference Group process. Compensation is available for new lines (including upgrades that have an injurious effect). The issue of wider compensation has previously been considered by Parliament. Community scale compensation (in lieu of development contributions) would require a change in the law.
	Perry Group Ltd WR Storey	Draft Report places insufficient weight to the relationship between RMA and Public Works Act. RMA and property rights issues are inextricably linked. Landowners lose rights when NOR is lodged (i.e. even before a designation is made). If any adverse effect (on a landowner) cannot be avoided the landowner should be entitled to compensation. Report should recommend that compensation be paid to landowners for loss of property rights as a result of proposal contained in report.	While it is true that landowners lose some rights when an NOR is lodged that situation is not unique to transmission. Responding to this submission would require significant revision of the designation provisions of the RMA and as such is outside the brief of the Reference group process.
	WR Storey	Compensation should be payable to landowners for participating in transmission planning process Easements (and compensation) should be available for all parts of grid (not just post 1988 lines) Compensation should be payable as an on-going rental (as in UK)	These are issues with the Electricity Act not the RMA and an NPS cannot therefore assist.
	MEUG	Any costs which relate to historical easement/access issues must be a cost to the shareholders of Transpower and not the current users.	This is not a matter that ought to be addressed in the Reference Group's Report since it deals with matters not directly related to the RMA.
Treaty of Waitangi	Historic Places Trust	Draft Report should give greater recognition to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In particular report should examine principles of partnership, self-management, equality, and reasonable cooperation and their application to transmission issues.	No discussion is provided of how these principles ought to be applied. Difficult to see application except in (a) involving Māori in the development of the NPS; and (b) ensuring the relationship of Māori with ancestral lands, sites, waahi tapu etc is not compromised by the NPS. An extensive list of iwi/hapū was provided by TPK at the outset of this process and these contacts have been kept informed and were invited to comment on the draft report. Several of the policies suggested in the draft report acknowledge and seek to protect Māori interests that might be affected by transmission lines.
Process from here	LGNZ	Process from here should involve comprehensive involvement of LGNZ and the local government sector
	NZPI	The full consultation process should be used if Cabinet decides to proceed
	New Zealand Law Society	Further public consultation on whether the Government should proceed is urged
	NZEEA IPENZ	Welcome opportunity to be involved in development and peer review of technical engineering standards for electricity
	Powerco	MED should consider steps to accelerate process of developing NPS
	Transpower	It is essential that a decision be made quickly to proceed with the NPS and NESs and that they be developed expediently. Clarification of process and timeframes is sought. Transpower requests that it be closely involved given the importance of the detail and the need for specific industry knowledge.
	Westpower	Given its assets (which include some transmission assets as defined in the draft Report) Westpower is a clear example of the potential overlap of "transmission lines" and local distribution and it expects to be closely involved with any further development of the proposals.	Westpower does own lines that fit the definition of "transmission" as set out in the Draft Report. Its lines are leased to Transpower. This is the only known anomaly.
	Meridian Energy	This is the first opportunity Meridian has had to input. It is hoped the Meridian will have an opportunity to discuss comments on the Draft Report with the reference Group and/or its advisor officials.
	Contact Energy	Appointments to any board of inquiry for an NPS or drafting group for an NES should be on the basis of competence both in electricity transmission and RMA processes. NPS and NESs development for transmission should be priority issues for government action.
	Genesis Energy	A full consultative process is essential.

Jump to main page content.

Printed: 25/11/2009