3. What are the options?

3.1  Options considered by the Reference Group on Electricity Transmission

• the activities associated with transmission that should, and should not, be permitted as of right (ie, those activities for which no resource consent is required)
• the resource consent categories (and associated requirements) to apply to the various activities that might adversely affect the transmission network (based on key mandatory restrictions already included in NZECP 34).

In arriving at this conclusion, the Reference Group examined and discarded a number of non-RMA options, including using the Building Act and the Electricity Act to resolve the issues. Only RMA and Electricity Act options are examined further in this discussion document. The report and preliminary analysis undertaken by the Reference Group forms the basis of the more detailed analysis of options in this document. An overview of the analysis is given in the following sections, and the full analysis is provided in Appendix 2.

3.2  Re-evaluation of the option of improving the enforcement of NZECP 34

Analysis of the option of improving the enforcement of NZECP 34 confirmed the Reference Group’s conclusion that this would not deliver the protection required. It would also require duplicating an existing permit and enforcing system at the local level. The principal difficulties are as follows.

• The Electricity Act is about electrical safety and regulating the operation of the electricity industry. It does not contain a mandate for making regulations for planning or environmental matters. In particular, the Act as it stands could not address subdivisions, or building controls beyond matters of immediate electrical safety.
• Extending the mandate of the Electricity Act would not be appropriate when the RMA is specifically set up to provide for the management of natural and physical resources (including structures) – it would result in unnecessary duplication and confusion.
• The distances specified for electrical safety are generally considerably less than would be good practice for land-use planning provisions (which take into account additional factors such as amenity and reverse sensitivity), and are difficult for a lay person to understand (see section 2.5).
• The activities of greatest concern - excavation, building and subdivision - are already managed by local authorities; these agencies have expertise in these matters and a local presence.
• Enhancing enforcement of the existing NZECP 34 for electricity transmission would require establishing a system of prior approvals for work adjacent to lines, and a local agency to enforce these approvals (particularly for excavation and buildings). This would add another approval layer for landowners, and potentially duplicate some of the existing work of local authorities. It would not resolve the issues relating to building and subdivision close to lines, and (as explained above) there is no mandate in the Electricity Act to extend the regulations beyond electrical safety.

3.3  Re-evaluation of RMA options

The following options under the RMA for addressing the issues identified in chapter 2 of this document have been re-evaluated:

• enact legislation to deem designations for existing transmission lines
• have Transpower obtain designations for existing transmission lines through the process set out in the RMA
• rely on a national policy statement alone to address the issue (by setting out policies and objectives, and local authorities creating rules to give effect to these if necessary)
• use national environmental standards which prevail over plan rules relating to electricity transmission.

The results of the re-evaluation of these options is summarised in the following sections, and presented in tables 1 and 2. Appendix 2 contains further details about the options and an evaluation against specific criteria.

Option 1: Deemed designations

Deemed designations would require amendments to the RMA to ‘deem’ designations to apply to existing transmission lines.

Deemed designations have the potential go some way towards resolving some of the issues with pre-1988 lines. They would provide nationally consistent authorisation for transmission activities (subject to conditions to control effects) and restrictions on what anyone other than Transpower could do on the designated land. However, there would be no local input to the process except via select committee hearings, and the cost would be considerable: Transpower estimates the cost of acquiring an interest in the land to be in the order of $7 billion. Deemed designations were not recommended by the Reference Group.

Option 2: Transpower obtain designations

Under this option, Transpower would issue notices of requirement for the transmission network. The notices of requirement would be assessed by each local authority, and would be subject to submissions by the public and appeals to the Environment Court.

Acquiring an interest in the land would cost a similar amount to deemed designations, although this option would give more flexibility to roll out notices of requirements over time and come to arrangements with landowners that could be less costly than outright purchase. However, the cost of the actual designation process in each district would be considerable: for Transpower in preparing notices of requirement, for local authorities and for the public in assessing notices, and in appeals to the Environment Court. Each council would recommend on designations, so there would be no national consistency. This option is also not favoured because of the extremely high cost, and it is likely for implementing this option to take several years.

Option 3: National policy statement alone

In this option the NPS would be the only national guidance provided: there would be no NES developed. The NPS would provide policies and objectives, which local authorities would implement by developing appropriate rules. Although giving an opportunity for local involvement, it would not provide national consistency because implementation would depend on the rules developed locally. It could impose considerable costs on local authorities in plan changes to implement suitable rules. This option was rejected by the Reference Group and is not favoured because it does not resolve the issue of inconsistent provisions in plans.

Option 4: NES for transmission activities covering only permitted activities

Permitted activity standards would set out activities that Transpower could undertake to maintain and upgrade the network without needing a resource consent. NES terms and conditions would define the activities and set thresholds of effects. This option was recommended by the Reference Group, and a detailed investigation of the effectiveness, costs and benefits was undertaken.

It was found that the benefits only just exceed the costs. The present value of the net benefit (over a 10-year period) is only $48,500, and the ratio of benefits to costs is 1.08. Although a permitted activities standard would provide a nationally consistent approach for minor activities, a serious disadvantage is that it would provide no guidance on how to treat activities that do not meet the effects thresholds set out, or that are not listed. The question is complex and open to different interpretation by different local authorities. It appears that a permitted-activities-only NES may in fact make the situation more confusing for activities other than permitted. This confusion could result in an increase in costs and project delays, and in widespread plan changes to accommodate the NES.

Under this option Transpower would continue to advocate for changes to district plans to incorporate provisions for activities that are beyond permitted status, at significant cost to both Transpower and the local authority. This option is not favoured because it does not fix the problem.

3.4  Preferred option: NES for managing transmission effects and risks to the grid

NES to provide consistent provisions for managing the environmental effects of transmission activities

In this option, in addition to making provision for permitted activities, the standard would set out consent categories for activities that have effects greater than envisaged for permitted activities. For example, the standard would set out the consent categories that apply to specific activities that fail the permitted activity terms and conditions (eg, increases in tower height greater than a set limit), and for activities not listed as permitted.

This option addresses the problem of inconsistent plan requirements. It would provide a nationally consistent approach for the management of the adverse effects of electricity transmission, and provide certainty of the consent requirements. It allows for more consistent management of adverse effects than the current system, and at the same time enables Transpower to carry out transmission activities without procedural delays. It also provides for local input into decision-making on resource consents. A standard could be implemented with relatively low costs, and in a timely fashion. This is the preferred option for addressing inconsistent plan provisions for transmission activities.

NES for managing activities that could put the national grid at risk

A standard that builds on the controls on earthworks and buildings in the electricity code of practice would provide national consistency in the management of such activities that could put the national grid at risk. The key advantage of an NES over NZECP 34 is that an NES is enforced at a local level, requires approval in advance of the activity being undertaken, and local authorities have access to the full range of RMA enforcement, from infringement notices to prosecution.

This option provides national consistency in the management of activities that could adversely affect the transmission network. It provides protection for the network, while allowing for local decision making on resource consent applications. A standard could be implemented with relatively low costs, and in a timely fashion. This is the preferred option for providing protection for the transmission infrastructure.

Table 1: Assessment summary of options for managing the environmental effects of electricity transmission

Table 2: Assessment of options for managing the adverse effects of third-party activities on the national grid

One of the key issues is the risks to the national grid from construction of buildings and structures adjacent to lines. Two variations on the preferred option are evaluated: building controls mirroring the provisions of NZECP 34, and a 20-metre zone within which resource consent is required for building.

Tables 1 and 2 compare the options discussed above, both for managing the environmental effects of electricity transmission (table 1) and for managing risks to the national grid (table 2). A more detailed analysis of the options is provided in Appendix 2. Two options for controlling building activity around transmission lines are proposed, and are discussed in more detail in chapter 4.

3.5  Conclusions

National environmental standards meet the objective of promoting the sustainable management of electricity transmission. They satisfy the key criteria, in particular they would be nationally applicable, provide a consistent framework for managing the effects of transmission activities on the environment, provide protection for the national grid, and provide consistency and certainty for the public, landowners, local authorities and the grid operator Transpower (see tables 1 and 2). The two proposed NES could be introduced in reasonable timeframes and with minimal implementation costs. The costs and benefits of the NES will be assessed in more detail in chapter 6.

In the following chapter we look more closely at the two proposed NES for electricity transmission and how they might work.