3. Summary of submissions

3.1 Key themes

Table 2: Key themes

View key themes (large table).

3.2 Applicability of the standards

The issue of whether the standards are the most effective tool for managing national electricity grid issues in New Zealand was split into three parts:

• the appropriateness of the standards

• the objective of the standards and its relationship to the purpose of the RMA

• alternative options.

3.2.1 Appropriateness of the standards

The discussion question about whether the proposed standards are the most appropriate way of providing detailed national direction for managing the national electricity grid (Question 1) was addressed in 46 submissions. Twenty showed overall support for using the standards to address electricity transmission issues.

Six responses supporting the proposed standards were received from electricity industry submitters, with three saying that the standards will provide a consistent national framework for managing the environmental effects of the operation, maintenance and upgrade of the national grid. One submitter also mentioned a possible reduction in environmental compliance costs and increased certainty to grid planners when planning transmission line maintenance and upgrades, and four suggested that other high-voltage electricity networks should also be covered by the proposed standards.

Five responses supporting the appropriateness of the proposed standards were received from territorial authorities (city and district councils), with two acknowledging that the proposed NES is the most appropriate tool to address inconsistencies in plans and provide for greater certainty for the line owner and councils. There were some qualifications, however. One submitter emphasised the need for the proposed standards to be combined with a strong and balanced national policy statement (NPS) on electricity transmission, and one territorial authority acknowledged the value of having standards but remained unconvinced as to the appropriateness of the NES as proposed.

Four responses in support of the appropriateness of the standards were received from individuals and NGOs. One described the proposed standards as being fundamental to achieving the electricity outcomes specified in the New Zealand Energy Strategy, and one believed that the proposed standards could fill the gap in the current provisions for electricity transmission operation, maintenance and upgrading and increase certainty and security of electricity supply. One suggested that the proposed NES should provide a standardised framework consistent throughout all districts, while another submitter agreed with the proposed standards in principle but suggested that designation would be a better option.

Twenty-six submitters questioned or opposed the appropriateness of the proposed standards. Seventeen responses were received from landowners, with 11 claiming that the proposed standards would allow for the transmission line owner to “circumvent the obligations placed on all activities by section 5(2)c of the RMA” to avoid, remedy and mitigate adverse effects on the environment. One claimed the standards were poorly drafted and did not encourage considering other alternatives to transmission upgrades. Another submission noted that the standards as proposed are entirely one-sided, but admitted that an NES might be appropriate once easements and other land access issues are resolved. The suggestion was made that a combination of the NZECP 34 rules, easement agreements and normal planning process would be the most appropriate way of addressing grid management issues. Another submitter questioned whether the standards constitute sustainable management and suggested that subsidised electricity generation closer to the point of use would be a more sustainable option.

Three responses questioning the appropriateness of the proposed standards were received from territorial authorities, with one claiming that insufficient regard was given to the impacts of transmission lines on third parties, one saying that the standards as proposed do not evaluate competing objectives, and one noting that the national policy statement on electricity transmission should be sufficient to guide local authorities down a “national perspective path”.

Three responses received from individuals and NGOs argued that the proposed standards are not the most appropriate tools for electricity grid management. One submitter suggested that the standards are an attempt to transfer powers to Transpower, allowing it to control the area around the grid, which should be covered by a properly negotiated easement agreement. One submitter opposed the standards on the grounds of restricting landowners’ property rights, and one suggested the standards would need to include environmental outcomes, amenity values and compensation for landowners in order to be appropriate.

3.2.2 The objective of the standards and the purpose of the RMA

A total of 42 comments were received on this subject (Question 2), and they can be divided into two main groups.

Ten submitters agreed with both the objective of the proposed standards and its ability to meet the wider sustainable management purpose set out in the RMA. The proposed standards were generally acknowledged to achieve the objective of sustainable management of the national grid as a physical resource, adequately address relevant environmental issues and complement the NPS. In addition, seven submitters agreed with the objective of the standards as proposed, subject to various amendments. Widening the objective, increasing clarity and adequacy, providing interpretation and guidance, and taking land use into account were among the issues raised.

The second group includes submitters who disagree with the objective of the proposed standards and do not believe it meets the purpose of the RMA. Twenty-three submissions expressed this view, the majority from landowners (16 submissions, including 11 that were substantially identical). The predominant argument against the objective of the proposed standards and its consistency with the RMA was that it overstated the importance of electricity transmission infrastructure in comparison with the assets of other network utility companies, which could also claim national significance and request similar treatment under the RMA. Many submitters opposed promoting the national significance of electricity transmission above other land uses − which also have to be sustainable.

Two territorial authorities remained unconvinced about whether the objective aligns with the RMA purpose, and believed further assessment is needed.

Other comments included that the scope of the proposed NES is too narrow because the objective focuses on the sustainable management of the grid only from the operator’s perspective, and only addresses national and business interests.

3.2.3 Alternative options

The issue of analysing and presenting options for providing detailed national guidance under the RMA for the sustainable management of electricity transmission (Question 3) was addressed in 42 submissions.

The majority of submitters thought that alternative options were not given enough consideration and should have been explored to a greater level of detail. A number of respondents suggested implementing alternative solutions, including:

• designations (28 submissions)

• easements negotiated with landowners (eight)

• Minister’s call-in (five)

• risk management under the NZECP 34 (two)

• clarification of existing-use rights provisions under the RMA (one)

• promoting distributed generation and demand management to reduce reliance on the grid (four).

Figure 6 summarises submitters’ views on the most appropriate electricity management option and shows a breakdown of alternative solutions suggested by respondents.

Figure 6: Submitters’ views on the most appropriate grid management option

 

Text description of figure

This bar of pie chart illustrates that:

• 9 submitters thought national environmental standards are the most appropriate grid management option
• 48 submitters proposed an alternative approach to national electricity grid management

Alternative options suggested included (most numerous first): designations (28), easements negotiated with landowners (8), Minister’s call-in (5), promoting distributed generation and demand management to reduce reliance on the grid (4), risk management under the New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice 34 (2) and clarification of existing-use rights provisions under the Resource Management Act 1991 (1).

 

Twenty-eight submitters said that alternative options were not given enough consideration and that the entire analysis was heavily weighted towards Transpower, with insufficient consideration given to sustainable management of the environment.

Submitters noted that the RMA enables Transpower, as a requiring authority, to arrange for designations for existing transmission corridors. While it was acknowledged that this would result in costs to Transpower, this was seen as more appropriate than the proposed standards, which could be construed as a “blanket designation of all existing transmission lines” without providing landowners with any compensation.

Eleven submitters said that no detail was provided on how the $7 billion Transpower estimate for purchasing the land for designations was reached. Submitters commented that this estimate seemed very high and requested a more detailed examination of this issue before a decision was made to proceed with the standards. It was also noted that the analysis did not “extrapolate the $7 billion value down to landowners’ assets”, and suggested that the cost of acquiring the land under the transmission lines represents the amount by which landowners subsidise the transmission network.

Landowners argued that the issues the proposed transmission risks NES is intended to address would be better handled through easements negotiated with landowners. Landowners suggested that easements would give Transpower control over landowner activities adjacent to the transmission network, but allow landowners to be compensated for the restrictions on their activities. It was estimated that the annual cost of easements for Transpower would be around $100 million (although no details were given on how this figure was calculated or whether it applied to all land under the network or only to rural land). One submitter estimated that landowner agreements would cost one-third of a cent per electricity consumer. It was suggested that this alternative should be included in the analysis of options.

Eleven submitters also noted that no consideration was given to the findings of the New Zealand Utilities Advisory Group (NZUAG), formed to investigate legislation governing access to national road corridors as “utility corridors”, as suggested in the Utilities Access Amendment Bill. This concept was acknowledged to be of significant merit, especially in congested urban areas where accumulation of utility services conflict with urban activities, and land use is constrained.

One submitter questioned the effectiveness of local input under the proposed standards, and two noted that the proposed measures simply transfer the costs from Transpower to the landowners rather than promoting any gain in economic efficiency.

Full support for the proposed standards as the “best” option, after a thorough consideration of all existing alternatives, was expressed by nine submitters: four from the electricity industry, three regional councils, one territorial authority and one unitary authority.

3.3 Scope of the standards

Comments on the scope of the proposed standards are divided into two parts. The first summarises points of view on whether the standards should cover the construction of new transmission lines, and the second addresses the issue of applying the proposed standards to other high-voltage lines owned by distribution companies.

3.3.1 Construction of new transmission lines

The issue of whether the proposed standards should cover the construction of new transmission lines (Question 10) was addressed in 42 submissions. Thirty-one submitters said that the standards should not cover the construction of new lines. Of these, most were landowners (14 submissions), territorial authorities (10), regional councils (two) and individuals and NGOs (three). One unitary authority and one “other industry” representative also expressed a similar opinion.

Only three submitters explicitly stated that the proposed standards should apply to the construction of new transmission lines. A further two felt the standards should apply to only those new lines (once they are built) that are not covered by a designation. One submitter suggested that the standards should not be considered the only appropriate mandate for establishing new lines. Four submitters found it difficult to comment on the issue due to insufficient information on how the proposed standards might apply to new lines.

A number of alternative mechanisms were proposed to address the construction of new transmission lines, including negotiation with landowners and the use of designations (seven submissions).

Transpower expressed general support for the maintenance and upgrade of new transmission lines (after they are built) to be included in the proposed standards, provided they only apply to lines that are authorised by resource consent but not those established by way of a designation. According to Transpower’s submission, such a course of action is not possible under the RMA as it stands. Transpower supports applying the proposed standards only to existing assets at the time the regulation commences and suggests introducing amendments to the RMA to clarify the relationship between the standards and future designations.

3.3.2 Other high-voltage electricity networks

Seven submissions suggested that the scope of the proposed NES should be extended to high-voltage lines owned by generation and/or distribution companies. Four electricity industry submitters and one NGO stated that applying the proposed standard to assets other than those owned by Transpower would enhance the viability of renewable energy projects, which are promoted in the New Zealand Energy Strategy and in section 7 of the RMA. One submitter proposed that the standards should include both the generation and distribution of electricity, and another proposed that they should apply to all high-voltage lines.

3.3.3 Proposed definitions

Several submitters made editorial comments and suggestions on ways of improving the clarity of the definitions provided in the discussion document. For example, Transpower proposed that small structures such as swimming pools, sheds and garages be included in the definition of “buildings”, and that no distinction be made between occupied and unoccupied buildings, as this issue should be considered at the resource consent stage.

3.4 Transmission activities NES

3.4.1 Permitted activities

Twenty-five responses were received on whether more transmission activities should be permitted than are currently proposed in the transmission activities NES (Question 5). Nine submitters (four local authorities, three landowners and two individuals) thought no more activities should be permitted by the NES, and two individuals claimed that too many activities are already classified as permitted. Three submitters said there was no justification for a number of activities to be subject to more lenient measures than at present, and one noted that the proposed NES would lock in the effects of existing lines and encourage upgrading in preference to constructing new (and perhaps more appropriate) lines.

One submitter from the electricity industry proposed that all existing plans be taken into consideration, and that if any of the activities are permitted in the majority of local plans then those activities should be permitted. The rationale given for this is that local authorities have accumulated experience in dealing with such activities over time. Another electricity industry submission suggested that if there are any activities that do not have significant adverse effects, they should be put forward to be considered as permitted at this stage of the process.

One of the NGOs and one electricity industry submitter suggested that the proposed NES needs to specify that transmission activities as such are permitted, because defining specific components as permitted runs the risk that some minor activities may be overlooked and therefore default to discretionary. It was also suggested that the NES should include a catch-all statement that “all transmission activities are permitted” and that “the terms and conditions apply to specific aspects”.

Transpower and one other submitter noted that a number of activities are currently not listed as permitted (or controlled, restricted discretionary) and therefore would default to discretionary. Because these minor activities are currently permitted in most districts as “operation, maintenance and minor upgrading”, they should be permitted in the NES. The list could be expanded to ensure complete coverage, or the NES could specify that all “operation, maintenance and minor upgrading is permitted, provided that terms and conditions are met, and that the activity is not listed in another category”. Such activities include inspection of a line, switching circuits on and off, varying currents and removing birds’ nests.

Three submitters proposed that the undergrounding of transmission lines be included in the permitted activities category, and one individual felt that height decreases of poles and towers should also be permitted.

Two submitters expressed concern at the proposal to allow voltage increases as a permitted activity, arguing that due to potential site-specific health and environmental effects, voltage increases beyond the original design capacity should be subject to resource consents.

Three submitters noted that any activities that cannot be authorised under section 23(3) of the Electricity Act should not be scheduled, to avoid councils being involved in property rights conflicts. The same rule was said to apply to any activities that compromise landowner rights. Several submitters noted that activities that result in an increase in the land or air space occupied by transmission lines constitute “encroachment” and should not be permitted. Submitters quoted the 2007 Environment Court decision on Fernwood Dairies¹ application for compensation under the Electricity Act in support of their argument.

Terms and conditions

Thirty-one submitters commented on the appropriateness of the terms and conditions for permitted activities (Question 7), and the matters that councils could take into account when considering applications for controlled and restricted discretionary consent applications. Ten of these submitters provided detailed comments on the specific proposals that were listed in the appendices to the discussion document.

In general, submitters were concerned that the terms and conditions be expressed clearly to ensure that activities listed as permitted did not have significant adverse effects on the environment. One felt that many of the standards are poorly drafted, that it is not clear what activities they apply to, and that it is difficult to identify the cascade of standards. Other specific issues raised and suggestions made by submitters included:

• the proposed NES does not address cumulative impacts

• ensure that height increases and relocations are only allowed once (in relation to a baseline height and location), and that line supports cannot be moved closer to buildings (see further discussion below)

• ensure that certain activities are not permitted in locations where they may affect landscape and amenity values, and that references to special areas include regional plans and regional policy statements as well as district plans

• ensure that effects on historic heritage are minimised (and use commonly accepted terminology), and that there is wider recognition of recorded sites (eg, via the New Zealand Archaeological Association register)

• consider whether earthworks conditions should be customised for specific plans around the country

• address “non-operational” activities through existing regional and district plans

• do not default to plans, otherwise the NES will not provide national consistency

• ensure that all effects are covered, so that local authorities do not resort to covering additional effects in inconsistent ways in permitted rules in their plans

• restrict the ability of councils to set terms and conditions for activities permitted by the NES

• terms and conditions should be aligned as closely as possible to plan requirements

• consider requiring Transpower to notify councils of work being undertaken under permitted activity status

• add “earth potential rise hazard” to matters to be considered for activities that could create or worsen this hazard.

Resource consent requirements

Twenty-two responses were received on the question about whether the proposals for permitted activities are likely to generate additional resource consent requirements (Question 4).

Ten submitters (four individuals and NGOs, two regional councils, two submitters from the electricity industry, one territorial authority and one landowner) thought that introducing the standards would lead to an increased number of resource consent applications. Regional councils said the reasons for additional consent requirements would be not providing for permitted activities in beds of lakes and rivers and the coastal marine area, as well as the specific condition on the volume and extent of earthworks. One regional council submitted that some activities (namely those in the beds of lakes and rivers, coastal activities and discharges to air and water) will be subject to more stringent consent requirements, leading to additional resource consent applications; whereas in other areas, such as activities related to discharges to air, consent requirements would be less stringent and the number of applications will decrease.

Submitters from the electricity industry noted that resource consents might be required where there are discharges of contaminants, earthworks and changes to the landscape at specific sites, as well as for matters such as:

• adding circuits

• removing existing lines

• (in some instances) matters relating to conductors

• adding earth wires and aerial communication cables

• vegetation trimming or removal for maintenance.

Four submitters thought that additional resource consents were unlikely because the standards are permissive enough, with one territorial authority suggesting that consent should be required for thermal upgrading of the lines, alterations and replacement of wires, and to cover remediation of areas where lines were removed. One electricity industry respondent argued that the proposed standards would ideally be made applicable to a wide range of activities relating to electricity transmission. One unitary authority said that the proposal for permitted activities was broadly similar to its resource management plan.

Two submitters remained uncertain about the effect on resource consent requirements of introducing the proposed standards. One territorial authority sought further clarification on the requirements − whether they should be in place and whether up-skilling of local government staff would be needed.

Five submitters (two territorial authorities, two individuals and one landowner) sought clarification on the extent of existing-use rights, and one territorial authority requested an explanation of whether Transpower would be required to obtain a Certificate of Compliance for activities proposed as permitted.

Transpower suggested that the transmission risks NES needs to clarify the process of bundling consent requirements. The prevailing approach is that where one proposal requires consents under a range of resource consent categories, the whole project is to be considered under the strictest category. Transpower argued that such an approach is inconsistent with the purpose of the standards and suggested that the concept of bundling be specifically addressed and clarified in the regulation.

Coastal marine area and beds of lakes and rivers

Transpower expressed concern that the proposed standard does not provide for any activities in the coastal marine area (CMA) or in/over the beds of rivers or lakes, and argued that sections 12, 13 and 14 of the RMA do not make any provision for an NES to establish these activities as permitted on a nationwide basis. Transpower proposed that making these activities discretionary was unreasonably restrictive for existing assets with existing effects. According to Transpower, such restrictions − particularly for activities that do not create disturbance (eg, increasing the capacity) – are not justified. Two regional councils also submitted that the proposed NES is too restrictive and would generate additional consents in the CMA and the beds of lakes and rivers for activities currently permitted in their regional plans. One regional council suggested that activities in the beds of lakes and rivers and in the CMA and minor discharges should be permitted. However, another regional council wanted to ensure that transmission activities in the beds of lakes and rivers and the CMA are not permitted.

Transpower suggested that a possible solution would be to specify that all the activities generally listed as permitted be controlled activities if they occur in the CMA or beds of lakes and rivers, provided they meet the permitted activity terms and conditions. Otherwise, if the terms and conditions are not met, activities should default to restricted discretionary and the decision left to councils. Transpower recommended that a legislative amendment be made to the RMA so that an NES could provide for permitted activities in the CMA and the beds of lakes and rivers.

Height increases

Eleven submitters expressed concern that the 15 percent limit for height increases as a permitted activity was too lenient, and did not take adequate account of the effects on sensitive receiving environments, and landscape and amenity values. Most of these submitters proposed that all height increases should require resource consent, and one felt that height increases in special landscape areas should require consent. One submitter proposed a 10 percent limit on height increases as a permitted activity, and one local authority suggested a limit of 5 percent for towers and poles in scheduled landscape areas.

These submitters also opposed the proposal for a 25 percent height increase to correct NZECP 34 violations by third parties, and suggested that these violations should be corrected by other means. All submitters who commented on height increases noted that the proposal as worded would allow for sequential height increases, and suggested rewording the regulation to allow a single height increase over an established baseline height.

The electricity industry supported a more lenient height increase. Two submitters favoured a more lenient allowance for adding earth peaks² to the top of towers rather than increases in overall tower height (which result in raising the tower cross-arms).

Landscape and heritage

Seven submitters commented on landscape and heritage issues.

The sole iwi authority submitter requested that the NES include a statement in relation to archaeological sites, waahi tapu and cultural heritage areas, such that “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi will be observed at all times”. One regional council noted that there are inconsistencies throughout the discussion document when referring to heritage values, and opted for a standard term applying to all natural and heritage values. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust proposed that different heritage types be adequately differentiated, and that their definitions be standardised and explicitly defined in the proposed standards.

Two submitters said that outstanding landscapes and natural features as well as visual and amenity values in the coastal and rural environments need to be provided for in the proposed standard. One territorial authority also suggested that other issues be taken into account, including recognising notable trees and setting a limit on the amount of vegetation that can be removed for electricity transmission activities.

One of the NGOs noted that there may be scope for variability in permitted activity standards relating to vegetation trimming and earthworks in relation to scheduled vegetation, landscape, ecological or archaeological features in district plans. The submission also argued that all permitted activity standards should be consistent across districts, and not defer to district-level scheduling provisions, in setting the scope of a permitted activity. This was based on the argument that localities occupied by existing transmission activities would presumably be unlikely to be scheduled as outstanding features, which may result in archaeological sites being destroyed or diminished by transmission activities.

Another regional council argued that the provision in the proposed standards for a more restrictive activity status due to the listing or special recognition of an area or site may not always be effective, because some worthy landscape, ecological and heritage sites and areas are not currently scheduled or listed in plans.

3.4.2 Controlled and restricted discretionary activities

Twenty-nine comments were received on the appropriateness of the categories that transmission activities were assigned to (Question 6). Ten submitters provided detailed comments on the specific proposals for regulations.

Five submitters agreed with the appropriateness of the proposed categories and the range of activities assigned to each of the groups. Two noted that the proposed NES categories were more restrictive than the current plan, and one suggested that a review mechanism be used once the standards are in place.

Two submitters argued that the NES should provide a uniform framework of standards (a “one-stop shop”) and not default to local authority plans, nor allow these plans to be more stringent than the NES. Three submitters suggested that the NES should not be more lenient than district plans.

Two submitters stated that it was difficult to comment on the appropriateness of the categories for transmission activities, with one landowner saying that such an assessment would depend on the local environment in which the activities take place. One territorial authority submitted that not enough information was provided on how the categories were selected, and so they could not comment until a full section 32 analysis³ is completed for each standard.

Seven respondents addressed the issue of undergrounding existing overhead transmission cables and were generally in favour of encouraging such practice, especially in road corridors. The views on how this particular activity should be classified varied, however, and the following categories were proposed:

• permitted – three submitters

• controlled – two submitters

• restricted discretionary – two submitters.

One submitter said there should be a requirement to convert existing overhead lines to underground as they come up for renewal or upgrade.

Submitters were also concerned about the provisions for abrasive blasting, and thought these should take more account of the potential for wind-blown contaminants affecting neighbouring properties. One regional council submitted that the provisions for discharges to air from abrasive blasting were too lenient, while another suggested that the provisions were too strict and would generate additional resource consents in that region.

Several submitters thought that the effects on landscape and amenity need to be considered on a site-specific basis through the resource consent process.

One individual submitter also mentioned that standards should include measures to prevent and control impacts on terrestrial habitats during construction. One territorial authority felt that building new overhead lines in urban/suburban areas, parks or reserves should be prohibited.

3.4.3 Provision for ‘non-complying’ activities

Eighteen submitters expressed their views on whether the proposed NES should make any provision for activities to be “non-complying” (Question 9).

Seven submitters agreed the provisions should be made, with three suggesting that such matters should be addressed through a consent process – provided this would be consistent with the activity hierarchy of a relevant regional or district plan. One submitter said that provisions for non-complying activities should be included in the proposed standards to increase their consistency.

Four submitters disagreed with the idea, with one justifying this view by saying that it would be contrary to the objective of the NES, and one suggesting that such an approach might lead to inconsistency with the management approach in certain plans. One regional council noted the potential for conflict with plans that currently classify some transmission activities as non-complying or prohibited. For example in the Bay of Plenty, transmission lines within navigable harbour waters are prohibited, and some plans may list transmission activities as restricted coastal activities.

One submitter stated that any activity that impinges on the property rights of landowners should be non-complying, and one individual submitted that the following activities should be classified as non-complying:

• increasing line voltage, thermal upgrading and increasing capacity

• new access tracks or permanent deviations of existing tracks

• increases in tower or pole height

• permanent deviation of the line

• the addition of conductors (including duplexing).

One unitary authority suggested that any activities disturbing the bed of any wetland be classified as non-complying, and one territorial authority strongly opposed placing transmission lines and associated equipment along the foreshore.

One regional council suggested that non-complying activities need to be supported by appropriate policies, and noted that these cannot be provided by the NES.

3.4.4 Other transmission activities

Twenty responses were received on the question of whether any other activities should be listed in the proposed transmission activities NES (Question 8).

Three submitters thought the list of proposed activities “appeared to be” comprehensive and no further additions were sought. However, a number of submitters suggested expanding the list of proposed transmission activities to include the following:

• decrease in tower height

• decrease in conductor size

• decrease in voltage

• minor discharges

• replacement of transmission lines over the beds of rivers and lakes

• electric and magnetic fields (EMF, see section 3.8).

One territorial authority proposed that the NES should prohibit new overhead lines in urban/suburban areas, parks or reserves, and require the conversion of existing overhead lines to underground when they are renewed or upgraded. One individual submitted that the standards should include measures to prevent and control impacts on terrestrial habitats, including site selection and making maximum use of existing routes and utility corridors.

Transpower proposed a number of additional transmission activities with minor effects to the list of permitted activities (see section 3.4.1).

3.5 Transmission risks NES

3.5.1 Appropriateness of the proposed transmission risks NES

Analysis of the submissions showed that 38 submitters opposed the proposal for a transmission risks NES, and a further eight were conditionally opposed to the NES. Eight submitters indicated full support for the proposal and another 22 indicated conditional support (see section 2).

Fifty-two submitters made specific comments in response to the discussion document question on the appropriateness of the proposal for an NES to control risks to the transmission network from third-party activities, and to control risks to the public from transmission lines (Question 11). Of those who made detailed comments in support of their position, 36 opposed the proposed transmission risks NES and five indicated conditional opposition. Three submitters supported the proposal, and a further 13 indicated conditional support.

Ten submitters supported the general concept of using an NES to protect transmission lines from the activities of third parties, but only two indicated unqualified support for the NES as proposed. One local authority submitter suggested that the NES would avoid reverse sensitivity issues. One unitary authority considered the range of activities suitable and that the NES was appropriate because the effects of these activities on transmission lines are the same regardless of location. Four submitters supported the proposals subject to modification.

Three submitters indicating conditional support expressed concerns about the effect of the NES on other infrastructure:

• stopbanks could be prohibited by the deposition proposals

• bridges and other roading activities could be prohibited by the NES

• the NES could prohibit above-ground and underground telecommunications infrastructure such as cables and pipelines

• the NES would over-ride future designations for other infrastructure.

Other submitters indicating support in principle for an NES addressing transmission risks expressed concern that the NES as proposed is highly technical and would be difficult for councils to implement and for users to understand. It was noted that councils do not have the technical skills to address some of the issues in the NES and would require additional resources to implement it.

One submitter questioned using NZECP 34 as the basis for the NES. If NZECP 34, based on electrical safety, fails to provide adequate protection to the transmission network, some submitters could not see how an NES based on NZECP 34 provisions would be any more effective. One submitter noted that NZECP 34 gives Transpower the authority to approve activities within a certain distance of the transmission lines, whereas this ability would be lost under the RMA. Another suggested that the proposed transfer of responsibility to councils could result in contingent liabilities if activities approved by a council damaged the lines. Two territorial authorities expressed concern that the responsibility for enforcing NZECP 34 would be moved from the Electricity Safety Service of the Ministry of Economic Development to territorial authorities, without a transfer of resources.

Forty-one submitters opposed the proposed transmission risks NES. Two key reasons given were the effects on landowners through restrictions on land use and loss of property value, and the cost of obtaining resource consents arising from the NES (see section 3.6.1). Submitters also queried the justification of standards as the preferred option and were concerned that landowners had not been directly consulted on the proposal (see section 3.10). Nineteen considered that the best way to protect the transmission lines from third-party activities was for Transpower to arrange easements with landowners. One submitter stated that the 5,000 breaches of NZECP 34 would not have occurred if proper land-use agreements were in place. Two submitters were of the view that Transpower, as the line owner, should bear the responsibility and cost of protecting the transmission lines. A further 11 submitters noted that the proposed standard would shift the cost and responsibility to councils and, as a result, ratepayers (see sections 3.6.1 and 3.7.2). One submitter considered that the case for the proposed NES had not been established, and another described the proposed NES as “horribly flawed” in purpose, intent and construction.

Submitters opposing the NES, as well as the majority of those indicating conditional support, were concerned at the transfer of the costs of implementation and enforcement to councils. The NES proposals were seen as shifting responsibilities, currently residing with central government and Transpower, to local councils without providing any additional resources. There was also concern at the transfer of costs to landowners in the form of restrictions on land use (and decrease in land value) and direct costs of obtaining resource consents. This was seen by one submitter as selectively burdening landowners hosting transmission lines.

3.5.2 Activity types

Nineteen submitters commented on the proposed activity types for the transmission risks NES (Question 11). Four comments were received from territorial authorities; three from regional councils, individuals/NGOs and representatives of the electricity industry; two from landowners and unitary authorities, one from the central government, and one from the industry sector.

Four submitters generally agreed that the proposed activity types were appropriate. One unitary authority questioned the prohibition of earthworks in the vicinity of transmission lines, saying that a prohibited activity status should only be applied to an activity that no party can safely carry out under any reasonable conditions. The submitter suggested that discretionary or non-complying activity status would be a preferable option for controlling potential earthworks effects. A similar point was also raised by another submitter from the electricity industry. One regional council, which supported activity types in general, questioned why a boat ramp within 9 metres of a transmission line was classified as non-complying.

Eleven submitters expressed concerns about the proposed activity types. The main points raised in the submissions were as follows.

• The hierarchy of activities should be consistent with relevant regional or district plans (five submitters).

• Activities listed as prohibited could be dealt with through enforcing compliance with the NZECP 34, where relevant, or classifying these as non-complying or full discretionary (four submitters).

• The proposed activity classifications are too stringent and the “prohibited activity” status does not provide the flexibility of the NZECP 34, which provides the line owner with the discretion to allow activities that would not affect the transmission line within the proposed prohibited zone (two submitters).

• Good justification is needed for the “prohibited activity” status, and the description of one prohibited activity (ie, excavation that “creates an unstable batter”) is not sufficiently defined (two submitters).

• The thresholds for triggering a consent seem, to some extent, to be arbitrary (one submitter).

• Monitoring and enforcement responsibilities and their associated costs will be passed on to local authorities (one submitter).

• The NES could affect the ability of other network utility companies to do routine work, which at present is carried out in consultation with the line owner. Network utility operators should be excluded from the NES and a memorandum of understanding could be developed (one submitter).

• Damming and diversion of waters should fall under the restricted discretionary activity category and matters of discretions should be set out in plans (one submitter).

3.5.3 Other activities

Twenty submitters expressed their views on whether any other activities should be managed by the proposed NES to prevent risks to transmission lines, and whether any additional provisions are required to manage activities such as damming and diversion of water (Question 14). Many sought clarification of the proposals.

Six submitters acknowledged the role of regional plans in controlling activities outside the proposed NES that may pose a threat to transmission lines and felt that these activities are best addressed by regional councils.

Four local government submitters, one electricity industry submitter and one individual argued that the issue of damming and diversion of water is given adequate protection by regional plans. Two regional councils and one territorial authority also provided a brief description of how damming and diversion of water are managed in their plans.

One electricity industry submitter, two local authorities and one individual proposed other activities that should be included in the NES, such as undergrounding cables, recreational activities (swimming pools), a range of farming activities (eg, shelter belts, stock-control structures), formation of roads under the line and the associated high use of such roads, the operation of construction equipment under lines, and any other current and future works within the transmission corridor that need to be addressed by the proposed NES.

Other comments received from submitters included the need to:

• tighten the proposed NES to outline the specific circumstances in which damming and diversion activities are considered to adversely affect the structural integrity of transmission lines (one submitter)

• consider the removal of the prohibited activity status for activities not complying with the NZECP 34 (one submitter)

• reconsider the point of adding any activities to the proposed list on the basis of looking at the impact of other activities on distribution lines (one submitter).

Transpower submitted that the proposed transmission risks NES should not apply to underground cables, as there are only a few of these and all within one local authority. As the risks covered by the standard do not affect underground cables, Transpower felt that the status quo planning regime is satisfactory to manage activities related to underground transmission cables.

3.5.4 Building options

Thirty-three submitters commented on proposed building options under the NES (Question 13). The comments received on this subject are discussed in two subsections below. The first presents submitters’ preferences for proposed building options, and the second is a brief overview of alternative building solutions suggested by a number of respondents.

Preferred building option

Seven submitters, while opposing the proposed transmission risks NES in general, preferred building Option A over Option B.⁴ Option A was thought to be less arbitrary, closer to the status quo, and allowed for more flexibility and the greatest possible freedom to landowners to develop their properties by allowing for under-building. Option A was also believed to align the NES with the existing NZECP 34, as well as with the RMA. One submitter, who supported the NES, favoured Option A but noted this could still constrain the ability of other network utility operators to install, maintain and upgrade services adjacent to transmission lines (eg, buried cables).

The majority of submitters (22) preferred building Option B, with a 20-metre “no-build” zone on each side of the transmission line, mainly because this:

• would enforce a higher standard of safety

• is relatively simple, is more practical and workable in terms of administration, and is easier to assess

• assures a predetermined safety zone

• provides clear directions for any construction operations.

Of this group, one regional council, two individual submitters and the National Radiation Laboratory would prefer a larger “no-built” zone, but in the absence of other solutions, supported building Option B. Three submitters from the electricity industry, while supporting Option B over Option A, would prefer a modified option based on Transpower Corridor Management Policy (see “Alternative building options” below). Two submitters did not have any option preference, perceiving that both have advantages and disadvantages, while two others disliked both options as neither had any merit from the perspective of landowner interest or land use in general.

Figure 7 summarises submitters’ preferences for proposed building options, and shows modifications suggested by a number of respondents.

Figure 7: Building options preferred by submitters

 

Text description of figure

The bar chart shows that most of the submitters, 22, supported the proposed Building Option B. Of these, three submitters supporting Option B suggested that either a larger “no-build” zone be proposed, and three suggested that the Option B align with the current Transpower’s Corridor Management Policy.

Seven submitters preferred the proposed Building Option A.

Two submitters did not state their preference and two disliked both of the proposed options.

Alternative building options

A number of alternative building options were proposed by submitters.

Three submitters, including a territorial authority, a landowner and an individual, recommended adopting an approach based on compliance with NZECP 34, together with a new national standard addressing EMF issues (see section 3.8).

One NGO suggested that establishing easement strips of 400 metres and 600 metres would be prudent for 220 kV and 400 kV lines, respectively, in order to take account of potential adverse health effects on people living in the proximity of transmission lines.

Transpower supported Option B in principle, but noted that the 20-metre zone is not wide enough, given the swing on long spans and consideration of wider risks, and therefore suggested amending this option. Transpower advocated a new approach that would involve creating a 12-metre non-complying zone on each side of the centre line and a restricted discretionary zone a further 20 metres outside the 12-metre zone. Submitters from the electricity industry noted that such a solution would be in line with Transpower’s current Corridor Management Policy and was considered to be more user-friendly for developers, councils and the general public.

Two other electricity industry submitters supported the new building option proposed by Transpower. The National Radiation Laboratory expressed a preference for Option B but noted that the separation distances for long-span high-voltage lines in NZECP 34 are greater than the 20-metre proposal, and that greater separation distances would have benefits in terms of reducing potential exposure to EMF (see section 3.8).

Definitions of buildings and structures

A number of submitters thought the definitions of “structures” and “buildings” should be clarified for the purpose of this NES. Five submitters made suggestions for the appropriate definition of “buildings”, proposing that habitable buildings be included in the definition. One regional council noted that if the intention is to protect human health, restricting the definition to habitable buildings would be sufficient, but if it is to protect transmission lines then the definition should include a wider range of structures. One industry sector submitter suggested the definition of “structure” should exclude structures up to 3 metres high and 10 square metres in floor area, and emphasised the need for utility cabinets to be exempt from the definition. Two territorial authority submitters suggested that the definition of “buildings” and/or “structures” be amended to capture structures of significant size and habitable buildings, while excluding minor structures, such as bridges, culverts, sheds and fences.