Policies directed at explaining how electricity transmission should be regarded within the purpose, principles and terminology of the Act.
Policies directed at the adverse environmental effects of electricity transmission.
Policies directed at the effects on the transmission network.
Policies that address matters of process.

Following the previous meeting's discussion about the possible scope of an NPS, one stakeholder questioned the need for an NPS on transmission suggesting that:

There is nothing unique about electricity transmission that would warrant giving transmission special treatment via an NPS.
There is no evidence of a particular problem with the way transmission is currently regulated by the RMA and in particular no evidence that local costs are given greater weight than national benefits.
The benefits that may be ascribed to electricity transmission could be achieved by further distributed generation. The reduced need for distributed generation is not necessarily a benefit.
The national transmission network is no more a physical resource of national interest than is the network of facilities that comprise the production chain of other industries.
Any policies aimed at managing effects on the transmission network would constitute a requirement for a buffer zone within which established activities would be controlled. This would be inappropriate since the onus of proof should be on Transpower to prove incompatibility of adjacent activities and demonstrate that the costs outweigh the benefits.
Clarifying process requirements (about matters such as charging, integrated decision-making and consultation) should be done for all RMA issues, not just transmission.

Other Reference Group members contested those views making opposing arguments that:

Transmission does not need to be unique to warrant being the subject of an NPS (uniqueness being just one of the criteria specified in section 45 of the RMA). The issue simply needs to be of national significance.
Evidence of specific problems can be assembled (and Transpower was invited to do this - see following item).
On any reasonable assessment, the transmission network must qualify as nationally significant. It has major economic significance, it crosses almost every local authority in the country and can have a significant impact on the environment (particularly on landscape values and rural character).
Further work is required on analysing and identifying the actual and potential benefits that might be relevant for decision-makers to take into account under the RMA.
Controlling activities that might adversely affect other activities has precedent. It would be efficient to establish, at the national level, that such affects result from certain activities.

As requested by the Reference Group at the previous meeting, Transpower presented examples of consenting processes and district and regional plans that have given rise to costs and delays that Transpower considers unreasonable or inefficient.

Due to time constraints the Reference Group did not discuss Transpower's evidence. That discussion has been scheduled for the next Reference Group meeting to be held on 8 April 2005.

It was also agreed that at the next meeting the Reference Group should also consider the appropriateness of the proposed scope by reviewing what the law provides for, what Environment Court case law may have added, and what precedent there might be in existing district and regional plans.

It is too early to say whether the Reference Group will reach a convergence of views about what a NPS could say and whether such an NPS would be beneficial.

Certainly it is clear that, currently, there are different views about the need for an NPS and indeed, what might justify an NPS.

Work over the next three weeks will focus on assembling and debating further information on some of the key issues discussed in this information sheet.

Section 32 / Option Evaluation Clarified

In the last information sheet the Reference Group's obligations under section 32 of the RMA were outlined.

Since then the Reference Group has discussed the need for the policy process to include a broad evaluation of issues and possible responses. This contrasts with a narrow focus of section 32 of the RMA which requires evaluation of possible NPS provisions only.

The approach proposed by the Reference Group will be to ask and answer the following questions:

What problems does the electricity transmission sector face in expanding and maintaining its network?
Which of these issues relate to the RMA (or can be solved though the RMA)?
Is the NPS the best way to address the RMA issues?
Are the proposed provisions of the NPS the most appropriate?

The Process: A Reminder

The Reference Group is required to develop and report on the possible scope and potential benefit of an NPS in the first half of 2005. The government will consider that report and make a decision on whether to proceed with the actual drafting of an NPS in July 2005.

Figure 1

Figure 1: Work Process of the Reference Group

→ Text Description of Figure 1

Note that dates are indicative only. Stakeholders will be advised of specific dates for consultation in subsequent information sheets.

To subscribe (or unsubscribe) to this information sheet email:
transmission-nps@med.govt.nz

Jump to main page content.

Printed: 25/11/2009

Information Sheet 3 - Discussing the Scope

Contents

First Things First - What Might an NPS Cover?

Section 32 / Option Evaluation Clarified

The Process: A Reminder