Interference and Hazards
Proposal: That s24 of the Electricity Act 1992 be amended to clarify the notification and imposition of reasonable conditions for the alteration of electrical characteristics of any works.
34 submissions were received. 15 were in support. 11 did NOT support. 8 proposed an amendment for changes in characteristics of ALL utilities. Of note, the predominant opposition was from the electricity sector.
There was significant agreement that this is a highly technical/contentious subject and requires specialist input before determining specific measures, and that this is outside the scope of this review. It was suggested that this should be undertaken by an industry working group such as NZUAG or NZCCPTS. It was also submitted that the term "alteration of characteristics" needs to be clarified and clearly defined.
Those opposed, submitted that the proposal would impose significant costs and risk implications on the electricity supply industry, cause an increase in compliance costs and delays in work completion, give Telecommunications providers unlimited and unfair advantage over electricity supply providers in road locations, and see electricity infrastructure remain unchanged or be forced out of road corridors.
The electricity sector submitted that EPR is only a problem because Telecommunications operators choose to run conductive cable adjacent to poles. Most of the problems occur where Telecommunications operators have installed cable close to existing poles. The fact that the poles may have been wooden without earths at the time the cable was installed is not the issue; the nature of overhead reticulation is that any pole may become conductive. It was suggested that the cables were generally knowingly installed in potential problem areas without the approval of the power utilities. It was suggested that existing legislation and guidelines allow Telecommunications operators to create potential problems and leave them for Power Utilities to resolve. It was submitted that there should be much stronger requirements for Telecommunications operators to consult with Power Utilities so that Telecommunications plant is not located in such a position where normal power company activities will trigger a problem.
It was felt by some that the current legislation and guidelines (such as those by NZCCPTS) are adequate.
Those in favour of the proposal submitted that it will have the benefit, that even if the impact is zero, it makes that utility declare its awareness of the advised notification and therefore acts as an acceptance and thus removes the likelihood of issues later. It was also suggested that it is important for all utilities to consult affected parties on any changes on any network characteristics.
Question: What solutions do respondents consider would best improve the management of interference between utilities?
34 submissions were received.
There was some suggestion that current legislation and regulations are inadequate. In terms of legislative remedies, there was strong support for a declaration and response process with notification procedures set by legislation or regulations. There was also support for a mandatory communication requirement to all affected utilities, and the provision for other utilities to impose reasonable conditions.
Alternatively, there was support for industry initiatives over legislation. There was strong support for the extension and use of the Code of Practice, Partnering Agreements, and guidelines (e.g. OSH, NZCCPTS).
It was also suggested that RCAs take more responsibility for location allocation of network assets in the corridor and publish rules and procedures in a Road Network Management Plan.
Question: What solutions do respondents consider would best improve the management of hazards to equipment and people from utility works within the road corridor?
29 submissions were received.
The general feeling was that industry initiatives were more appropriate. There was significant support for the Code of Practice, Guidelines, and Partnership Agreements (e.g. by NZUAG or NZCCPTS) being extended and more widely adopted. Other industry initiatives included:
- Local changes to Code of Practice should be discouraged to ensure consistency for those utility owners operating in different RCA areas;
- Utilities must require contractors to comply with the Code of Practice for Working in the Road and audit performance accordingly;
- More emphasis on training and qualifications for works personnel; and
- Utilities and RCAs should have internal safety and risk management processes and procedures to force workers to adopt safe working practices and hazard management.
There were mixed feelings as to the adequacy of current legislation. It was submitted that all RCAs should be required to comply with the requirements in the Code of Practice to ensure consistency. It was also submitted that a section be added to NZS HB 2002:2003 part 3 to educate and highlight these hazards to all construction and management people dealing with the road corridor.
Other Issues Raised
It was noted the Discussion Paper did not cover contaminated soil/groundwater in Road, Rail and Motorway Corridors. It was suggested that the presence and management of contaminated soils/groundwater should be considered prior to work in a road or rail corridor commencing as there may be environmental or health risks. Consideration also needs to be given to appropriate disposal methods and sites for contaminated soil and/or groundwater.
It was submitted that interference provisions must also cover gas networks as electricity lines can also affect gas reticulation networks. It was also acknowledged that contractors are not adequately familiar with the safety requirements for working in corridors with gas networks as low quality contractors often strike gas pipelines.
It was noted that the Discussion Paper did not cover emergency management issues in the road corridor. It was suggested that the Ministry and stakeholders must consider what solutions would best improve information sharing in relation to emergency management.
It was noted that the Discussion Paper did not appear to have considered OSH in the discussion on hazards to equipment and people.
RCAs suggested that "interference" could also encompass the issue of damage to the road surface and foundations from utility works as extensive trenching can affect the lifespan of the road as well as create surface irregularities which are unpleasant for road users and are sometimes dangerous.
Telecom NZ made a significant submission proposing amendments to the Electricity Regulations to resolve issues of interference from electricity lines. Refer to the Appendix - Analysis of Submissions: Results for the specific proposals.
Both the MOT and Transit NZ made significant submissions on the issue of road hazards, in particular, poles. Issues arise over the disparity between the Road Safety view and the Utilities' view. The Road Safety Strategy perceives poles as a hazard solved through undergrounding or moving away from the carriageway, whereas utilities view poles as a superior cost-effective and ease-of-maintenance network asset which they are forced to locate in the road corridor due to the loss of their right to locate on private land.
The MOT suggests case-by-case cooperation and negotiation with legislative backstop favouring road safety if compromise and cooperation cannot be achieved. Transit NZ submits that it has a clear zone policy in place for all State Highways, but recognises that it will not always be possible to comply with its clear zone policy. It advises that it now has an annual programme for managing existing hazards in the road corridor; however, Transit states it cannot accept the creation of new and unnecessary hazards, such as the erection of new utility structures and poles in dangerous places.
Back to Top