Table 3: NPS and NES Evaluation

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
Section 7 - Possible Scope of an NPS and NES on Transmission
General	NZEEA IPENZ	Proposed NPS goes beyond a statement of objectives and policies and begins to address technical requirements that should be addressed in an NESs. NESs should cover, EMF, visual impacts, noise and public safety.	The proposed NESs do cover all these matters except visual amenity. It is unclear how an NES might address visual amenity.
General	IPENZ	The NPS should endorse energy efficiency and demand side management in order to reduce demand and the subsequent need for, or timing of, investment in transmission.	Energy efficiency and demand side management cannot be controlled via the RMA. These tools are outside the scope of the RMA it is not clear that an NPS could endorse them.
Distribution lines	Powerco	May be merits in extending NPS to distribution lines but agrees transmission require higher priority.
	Westpower	Concerned that local lines companies might be caught by same constraints (and consent requirements) as transmission but would not have access to the "nationally important" status. Similarly, concerned that requirement to manage adverse effects on lines will be applied only to transmission lines. These effects ought to be considered for local networks as well. Again local networks will have no ability to argue "national benefit" when requesting provisions in plans to protect assets.	The risk pointed out by Westpower is acknowledged but it is considered to be small. It relies on local authorities being "tougher" on distribution lines than they currently are simply because they have not been identified as being nationally important. This doesn't seem likely.
	MRP	NPS should be written such that it covers all transmission assets, regardless of whether or not they are owned by Transpower. Generators presently own and operate transmission circuits in New Zealand that exist to connect generation stations to the nearest Transpower owned transmission grid injection point. These generator-owned transmission assets should be afforded the same protection as Transpower assets.	The Reference Group did consider this point at some length before agreeing to the definition set out in the Draft Report. The definition used is consistent with that used in the Electricity Governance Rules.
Section 8 - The positive effects of electricity transmission
General	NZPI	There is scope within the Act to consider benefits so national intervention on this matter may not be necessary, However for the purpose of guiding and clarifying, an NPS could assist on this matter.
	Meridian Energy	Enabling and supporting renewable energy is a positive effect that has not been recognised.	Agreed. Report could be amended in this regard. (See also comments made in relation to section 8.5).
	Contact Energy	There are a number of reasons why positive effects might not currently be taken fully into account. These include (a) section 30(1) limits regional functions to achieving integrated management of resources of the region; (b) district council functions are similarly constrained to integrated management within their district; (c) from a local perspective, projects may seem to impose local environmental costs for little or no apparent local benefit.	The Draft report already notes the last of the points made. Points (a) and (b) were previously discussed by the Reference Group (and were identified in early working papers). However it is unlike these provisions constrain local authorities in practice. The Act is clear that, although a local authority may only exercise its functions within "its region", in exercising those function it may taken into account effects outside the region or district. While there may have been debate about this point from time to time it is not considered a major issue.
	Genesis Energy	The Environment Court has decided that … electricity is a vital resource for New Zealand. There can be no sustainable management of natural and physical resources without energy of which electricity is a major component. [Genesis v Franklin DC (2005) NZRMA 541]. Therefore transmission is in the national interest and objectives and policies that recognise this are supported.	Would be useful to refer to Genesis v Franklin DC ("the Awhitu case") in the report.
8.1 - Objective: positive effects	Meridian Energy	Strongly supports intent. Preference for new wording for objective: To ensure that in exercising functions under the RMA appropriate regard is to had to the national benefits of transmission A second preference is expressed for option (c) although the deletion of the second part of the proposed objective is suggested.	It is true that the functions are not limited to considering specific project proposals. However the RMA requires NPSs to be applied in both plan making and consenting processes. The introductory words are probably not critical and it may only be possible to say "Appropriate regard shall be had to the national benefits of transmission".
8.1 - Objective: positive effects	Genesis Energy	Supports option (a) as good starting point.
8.3 - According nationally significant status	Environment Southland	Policy may set a precedent with other works/activities also qualifying. According national significant status to Transpower may enable it to undertake works that are beneficial rather than necessary without the same scrutiny as other activities.	Possibly but this is for other processes to determine. Two factors should guard against this possibility in most situations. The first is the GIT process. The second is the requirement in the Act for designations to be "reasonably necessary". While the point may be made in reference to existing (pre 1988) lines, there is no suggestion that significant activities on those lines would be permitted. What is permitted and what is subject to consent will (if the proposal goes forward) be determined by an NES.
	Meridian Energy	Support for either option (a) or (b). Policy could be made more certain by replacing "should recognise" with "shall recognise and provide for".	Matter of detail to be discussed and agreed in the drafting process.
	Genesis Energy	Option (b) is a good starting point
	MRP	Policy supported
Section 8.4.1 -Environmental costs of policies on positive effects (also executive summary)	Environment Waikato	While it might be true that soundly based projects will proceed anyway, one cannot assume that all transmission projects will be "soundly based". NPS must allow projects that are not soundly based to be amended or declined.	Reference to "soundly based" was included on understanding EC process would ensure this. As other submitters have pointed out this may be debatable. NPS does need to acknowledge that it is not designed to promote any transmission project and that projects need to be designed conscious of RMA requirements.
	Manukau City Council	Statement that EC process will result in projects of low environment cost proceeding ahead of projects with a higher environmental cost is incorrect.	Agreed. The EC's GIT test will only ensure costs of compliance with RMA are taken into account. Text should be modified.
Section 8.5 -Policy: specification of positive effects	Meridian Energy	Policy supported. Not accepted that it could result in trading away of environment. The definition of the environment is broad and many factors are relevant.
	Environment Waikato	Transpower can, and does already, submit evidence on the extent to which benefits will accrue.	Undoubtedly true. But policy will provide a framework within which effects are considered. Will also provide a legitimacy and relevance that may not always be apparent to local decision-makers.
	Genesis Energy	Suggested policy is a good starting point (although the list of positive effects could be improved).
	MRP	Policy supported but policy should provide clarity about what the positive effects are. The positive benefits include: Security of supply Competition benefits Environmental benefits (facilitating efficient operation of generation plant, and development of renewable generation) Should make specific reference to GIT and EC's consideration of national benefits.	The currently wording emphasises security of supply matters and to a certain extent environmental benefits. The framework suggested by MRP does seem useful and could form the basis of a revised policy without significantly changing the intent.
Footnote 58 - environmental benefits of transmission	Environment Waikato	Transmission can enable electricity from low impact sources to be used before electricity from high impact source but it can also do the reverse. Point not well founded.	True. Key driver is cost of electricity. However point being made is that if there is "low impact" electricity not being used because of transmission constraints, the potential of that electricity to be used should be a valid benefit to consider when determining a transmission project that would allow that electricity to be used. Some rewording required.
Section 9 - Managing adverse effects on the transmission network
General	NZPI	Caution against any highly specific NPS or NES.	Reason for this is not clear in submission. Appears linked to questioning of need (given existing requirements for consents) and the existence of NZECP 34. However the report does provide some evidence that NZECP 34 is frequently breached.
	Manukau City Council	Council is concerned at potential for adjoining landowners' rights to be further curtailed without redress. Seeks consideration of compensation for landowners.	The objective/policies focus on achieving clarity and consistency in the way plan managed the transmission system to protect safety and integrity of the system. Whether compensation was payable (or rather what restrictiveness of provisions permissible) would be governed by section 85 of the RMA which sets out tests for whether a plan provision is reasonable.
	Manukau City Council	Also seeks that NPS/NES should not apply in respect of new lines which ought to be the subject of designations.	It is arguable that Transpower should have to seek designations of sufficient width to protect interests. This is a debate the Reference Group has had on several occasions. The draft report reflects that majority view on that point.
	Environment Southland Manukau City Council LGNZ	While local authorities may not have adequately managed impacts on lines in the past (and this ought to be addressed) there is nonetheless a need for Transpower to have some responsibility. While accepting reverse sensitivity, the Environment Court has confirmed that the existing operator must take all reasonable steps to internalise or minimise adverse effects.	Agreed. The onus of care is not only on parties that might affect the transmission network. Transpower ought to have responsibilities including through the designation process to ensure it does not unnecessarily create potential for reverse sensitivity. Rewording required to clarify that Transpower also has responsibilities.
	Contact Energy	Support focus on managing effects on the network.
	Genesis Energy	Supports these objectives and policies. Approach to "reverse sensitivity" is supported by case law. [Independent News v Manukau City Council]
Section 9.1 - Objective: Incompatible activities	Meridian Energy	Intent of objective supported. Wording could be modified to include consideration of safety.
Section 9.1 - Objective: Incompatible activities	Genesis Energy	Supported as good starting point.
Section 9.3 -Policy: Activities under and around lines	Manukau City Council	Section raises reverse sensitivity and compensation issues (as above). Establishment of "buffer zones" should be done through a transparent process of consultation which gives affected owners the right of legal redress.	If any one of policies (a) - (c) advanced by an NPS, district plans would have to be changed through a transparent process (i.e. the First Schedule process).
	Environment Waikato	It is not clear how the retrospective nature of controls on activities affecting the network will be addressed.	This is not explicitly addressed in the Draft Report. The various options identified (a)-(f) could have different implications and these should be pointed out. In general existing use rights should apply. If the NES option is progressed, existing activities that would be in breach of the standard would have existing use rights meaning they could continue (provided the conditions set out in section 10 applied).
	Meridian Energy	Supports a combination of option (e) [the NES] and option (a) with option (a) modified to include the words ""and shall discourage such activities." Option (d) is not supported because it would not cover all activities and would add regulatory costs for Transpower.	This suggestion has merit. Especially as option (d) cannot take affect as intended.
	Genesis Energy	Support policies (a) and (b) as good starting point.
	MRP	Support the NES but should be combined with NES permitting low impact activities.
Section 9.3.5 - A NES based on NZECP 34	Perry Group Ltd	Proposal for NES based on NZECP 34 should be countervailed by appropriate amendments to the PWA & Electricity Act 1992 requiring Transpower to fairly and fully compensate landowners for any injurious affection arising from the introduction of any NES for electricity transmission.	This argument would have greater weight if the NES was proposed to go materially beyond NZECP 34 (or if NZECP 34 did not already exist). However, NZECP 34 is existing regulation, compliance is mandatory and compensation is not currently payable. To recommend paying compensation for the NES proposed would be to extend the compensation regime which would be outside the Reference Group's brief.
Section 9.7- Depicting transmission lines on planning maps	Manukau City Council	Not currently shown on planning maps because they were deemed to be permitted under previous legislation. An alternative would be to record lines on property information files (so that they appear on individual PIMs and LIMs).	Reason why the alternative is suggested is not clear. Recording lines on property files would not appear to have the same benefits as showing lines on district plans because information is only available when requested.
	Environment Waikato Taranaki Regional Council	Supported and already a policy in the Waikato RPS.
	New Zealand Law Society	If Transpower has consistently sought designations for its work, this would not have happened.	There are genuine reasons why Transpower has not sought designations for existing lines. These are already set out in full in the Draft Report (see Appendix 3 in particular).
	Meridian Energy	Policy supported. This is common sense and involves very little cost for genuine benefit. Option (a) is preferred. Could be given effect to in the next plan review to minimise costs.
	Genesis Energy	Support policy option (b).
Section 10 - Managing adverse effects of the transmission network
General	Otago Regional Council	Constraining the impact of electricity to defined corridors is an appropriate method of managing adverse effects.	The Draft Report does not advocate for this. It would seem to unduly restrictive of Transpower's options and cut across the need to look at alternative routes which is currently anticipated by the RMA Act.
	New Zealand Law Society	Because transmission works have significant adverse effects, there should be a greater obligation on Transpower to consider these effects at the investigation/consultation stage.	This is related to the question of whether the GIT ought to more fully consider environmental and social costs. As such it is outside the scope of an NPS.
	Meridian Energy	Enabling low impact activities should be a separate section of the report being "Efficient use and development of the existing network".	This is an arguable point. Because the section is about deciding which transmission activities require consent and which don't, it is about managing the effects of transmission and is therefore appropriately located.
	Contact Energy	Effects are relatively uniform and an NPS and NES is supported.
Section 10.1 - Objective: Use and development of existing lines	Meridian Energy	Intent supported. Words "while protecting the environment from significant adverse effects" are unnecessary.	This raises a bigger point about whether objectives and policies generally need to include reference to managing adverse environmental effects - an obligation that is imposed by the RMA and is unavoidable regardless of what any NPS might say.
	Genesis Energy	Supports objective as good starting point
Section 10.3 - NES permitting low impact activities	NZPI	Clarifying the extent of maintenance and minor works permitted within the scope of existing use rights would be beneficial.	NPS can't define what existing use rights are. That is why the Draft Report proposes an NES to set out permitted activities - an option that would have similar affect.
	Manukau City Council	An NES specifying permitted activities would improve consistency but actual and potential effects depend on adjoining land use.	Point made is valid but much depends on NES design. For example it would be possible for standard to vary depending on adjacent land use or for local authorities to impose more restrictive standards in certain circumstances.
	Waipa District Council	Not supported. Issues can be addressed through the district plan review process.	The issues can be addressed through the district plan but there is little indication that they will be (at least in the absence of clear policy direction)
	Federated Farmers	Not supported. Not a one size fits all issue. Undermines fundamental basis of RMA - devolved decision-making. Should seek to limit effect of activities to property boundaries. Proposal would allow upgrade activities to be classified as maintenance and this will be used to in the Electricity Act process to argue that there can be no injurious affect.	RMA does provide for NESs so it clearly assumes that absolute devolved decision-making won't always be sensible. Agree that effects should be contained to the boundary but there is an question of scale and severity to be considered. Any activities permitted by an NES would need to be low impact. Care will need to be taken in preparing the NES that unintended effects are not created for the land access regime.
	Meridian Energy	Supported. A combination of option (a) and option(c) is likely to be most effective.	It would be unnecessary to have both a policy in an NPS [option (a)] and an NES [option (c)]
	Genesis Energy	Supports approach of making minor activities permitted. Prefers option (a).
	MRP	Support the NES but should be combined with NES based on NZECP 34.
Section 10.5 - Objective: Managing visual effects and land disturbance	Waipa District Council	Proposed objective too narrow as it only refers to route selection. Objective should expanded to include reference to "route design" and "component design".	It is assumed that "route design" refers to pylon placement and "component design" refers to the style and height of towers. These are matters that can influence overall visual effect (and acceptability). It would be possible to include reference to these matters in the NPS. While it is unlikely that any specific design guidance in relation to these matters could be offered at the national level, reference to these matters in the NPS could usefully support local authorities' interest in these matters. There is an issue about whether such matters are best referred to in the objective or (as seems more appropriate) in the policies. However, this is a matter of detail that should be revisited in the drafting process.
	LGNZ	Options to manage visual effects need further consideration. This is a key issue but the option included is identified as having low benefit.	See above.
	Meridian	General intent and specific wording are opposed. There is no evidence to suggest the local decision-makers have insufficient regard to these matters. These effects will differ from place to place. It is transmission that is of national significance not the effects of transmission. It is not always possible to minimise these effects. The policy might undermine and constrain the overall judgement that must be made.	The key test here is whether an NPS can add value by specifying those matters/values/areas that should be protected from the visual (and related) effects of transmission. Clearly some submitters believe that effort should be put in to ensuring that an NPS can add value. The Draft Report is currently cautious on this point suggesting that non statutory guidance be prepared if development an NPS policy proves unviable. It does seem important to the acceptability of an NPS that it deal with key community concerns with transmission. A policy that only deals with the positive dimensions of transmission while ignoring the need to manage the negative dimensions may struggle to win widespread support. In any event, poor or inconsistent management of adverse effects will also be an issue for Transpower and for the efficient consideration of notices of requirement and resource consent applications.
	MRP	Opposed. It is inappropriate to include within an NPS a policy that sets out what local authorities are required to do in accordance with the RMA. Local authorities generally manage these effects/activities well. The effects are localised and local authorities can deal with them.	See above.
Section 10.7 - Policy: Route selection	Meridian Energy	Intent and specific wording opposed.
	Manukau City Council	Policy cannot ensure that Transpower avoids inappropriate routes as suggested (in executive summary). Policy needs to be evaluated with much wider consideration than just "efficiency". Specification of areas to be avoided cannot be the subject of national standards as each must be assessed in the context of land use activities and amenity.	Policy can ensure Transpower is aware of the areas where it is likely transmission will be regarded as having a significant effect. Minor redrafting warranted. "Efficiency" is used in sense of benefits outweighing costs. Reword to make clear. Some high level guidance may nonetheless be feasible especially if in the form of non statutory guidance rather than a formal NPS.
	Waipa District Council	Policy supported. Policy needs to specifically identify nationally important values.	See earlier comments.
	LGNZ NZPI	Report should discuss non-RMA options for controlling route selection process. More robust analysis required.	It is not clear what non-RMA options are being referred to. However, as noted in response to other submissions, it is agreed that the Report should more fully discuss the Grid Investment Test and its relationship to the RMA.
Section 10.9 - Objective: managing noise form substations	Meridian Energy	Supports general intent and wording of policy.
Section 10.11 - Policy: Use of Noise Contours	LGNZ	Report does not provide robust analysis or detail about noise effects or benefits or costs of noise contours.	The Draft Report does set out the benefits and costs of noise contours in some detail. It is unclear what further is being suggested.
Section 10.11 - Policy: Use of Noise Contours	Meridian Energy	Supports general intent of the policy. This approach has worked well in context of airport noise. Proposed policy should be clarified to make clear that it only applies to new substations and new activities so as to avoid an unfair outcome and existing operations be they substations or adjoining owner.
Section 10.13 -Managing electric and magnetic fields	Manukau City Council Waipa District Council Federated Farmers IPENZ	Support NES for electric and magnetic fields.
	Environment Waikato Taranaki Regional Council	Supports view that no further work be undertaken until the ARPANSA standard is completed.
	LGNZ NZPI	It would be inappropriate for any NPS/NES to proceed without addressing EMF.
	WR Storey	ARPANSA publications display a degree of bias and may not suit the New Zealand situation.
	New Era Energy	Strongly opposed to NES on EMF based on the ARPANSA standard.
	Westpower	Concerned that this NES would not apply to local lines. The question would then be what standard should apply (and if local lines are not nationally significant other the standard be more stringent).
	Meridian Energy	Supports approach outlined.
	MRP	Supports an NES on EMF based on the ARPANSA standard.
Appendix 2 Use of the Building Act to enforce NZECP 34	Manukau City Council	Consideration should also be given to amending the Building Code which is currently under review.	No investigation of this option has been carried out. The Draft Report's recommendation on the Building Act is peripheral to the main focus on NPS and NES. Rather than examining this option in detail, it might be preferable simply to include reference to the building code review in the recommendation.
	Dr Mike Patrick Federated Farmers MRP	Support use of Building Act to enforce NZECP 34.
	Perry Group Ltd	Proposal unnecessary for transmission built after 1988 because Transpower should have secured property rights necessary to safely maintain and operate the transmission network.	While this is true in part, in reality Transpower may not know when activities are being proposed in breach of easement agreement and the link to the Building Act would provide a safeguard against Transpower having to take action after the event.
	Westpower	It is not clear if this would relate to all networks (i.e. including local lines). If it did not it would cause fragmentation in approach.	The Draft Report is only intended to address transmission lines as defined. However the point made is valid. It does not seem to make sense to enforce NZECP 34 via the Building Act in respect of transmission lines but not in respect of other lines. Report should be amended to note that it would seem to make sense to use the Building Act for enforcement of relevant parts of NZECP 34 in respect of all lines.

Jump to main page content.

Printed: 25/11/2009