2. The Status Quo - Present Controls over the Electricity Transmission Network

2.1 Overview

All district plans contain objectives and policies relating to the facilitation and/or control of transmission network activities. Many regional policy statements and regional plans also have relevant provisions. However, no district or regional documents recognise the nationalbenefits of transmission.

In addition, the objectives and policies used are not consistent across local authority boundaries, which is inappropriate for a national network that must be operated as a whole. The question therefore arises as to whether the status quo is appropriate in terms of recognising a nationally significant physical resource.

Planning documents usually contain a range of objectives and policies that address the adverse effects of transmission on other activities, and vice versa, and describe the benefits. However, research suggests that district plans are heavily weighted towards a clearer recognition of transmission's adverse effects. There is therefore also a question of balance in the status quo.

All district plans contain rules and standards that relate to the control of 'minor works', whether or not they are expressed as such. Some regional plans also have relevant provisions. However, there is significant variability between plans in terms of the activities covered by the provisions, and in the specific wording of provisions covering the same activity. These issues are sometimes compounded by uncertainty over the interpretation of the provisions. The status quo therefore has issues of consistency (important in the context of a national network) and ease of management for what are generally acknowledged as works with minor effects.

2.2 Current planning controls (Resource Management Act 1991)

Most of the transmission network was established before the RMA, which means its basic existence relies on 'existing use rights' (RMA section 10). Extensions, alterations and maintenance relating to the network are managed through a variety of provisions, including designation, resource consents, certificates of compliance and existing use right certificates.

There are 73 city, district and unitary local authorities in New Zealand, which all have electricity transmission lines crossing their territories, [The exception is the Chatham Islands.] and 12 regional councils with resource management responsibilities that potentially affect transmission operations. Currently these various councils approach transmission issues in their areas in their own particular ways, resulting in variability in the treatment of transmission in local plans. The national electricity grid operator, Transpower, expends considerable effort in making submissions on these plans to achieve a less onerous and clearer set of rules in each district, but the variability of approaches magnifies this task.

A consultant's report [Burton Planning Consultants Ltd,District Plan Stocktake Report(2006).] prepared for Transpower examined the current approaches across all district plans, and concluded that the council-by-council approach is uncertain, inconsistent and produces inappropriately variable outcomes that are not necessarily effects based. In summary, it found that:

• 82% of district plans contain an adequate policy framework relating to the adverse effects of infrastructure
• 78% of district plans contain an adequate policy framework relating to the benefits of infrastructure
• 41% of district plans contain an adequate policy framework relating to adverse effects on infrastructure.

The consultant's report concluded that only 27% of district plans make acceptable provision for activities other than minor upgrading activities. In the majority of district plans, upgrading activities that fall outside the definition of a minor upgrade are treated in the same way as proposals for new lines, despite clear differences in the baseline conditions of the existing environment.

Overall, current plans place more emphasis on the adverse effects of transmission infrastructure than on the potential adverse effects of other activities on that infrastructure. Such a slant on the planning provisions for infrastructure is important for transmission because of the elongated network on which it operates and the potential for problems in one locality to spill over as 'externalities' in other parts of the country.

District (including city) and regional councils are responsible for considering applications for works under the provisions referred to above. The decisions of those councils are guided by the content of district and regional plans, and regional policy statements. Within their planning documents each local authority has its own set of objectives, policies and rules. Transpower has recently sought to introduce some commonality by engaging in advocacy on plan development. For instance, some district councils share the same or similar provisions relating to 'minor works' for maintenance or upgrading. [Transpower has sought a consistent definition of minor upgrading in district plans since 1997, so some of the variability in plans is due to earlier versions of the definition that it advocated.] Transpower also advocates network-friendly provisions in a range of other (non-RMA) documents produced by local and central government agencies.

However, Transpower has had uneven success in achieving the provisions it has advocated for in district plans. Related issues are the perceived lack of clarity of provisions, the inconsistency of interpretation by local authorities, and the variability of provisions across local authority boundaries.

The Ministry of Economic Development has found that no district or regional plans make specific reference to the national benefits of electricity transmission, [Stocktake and Analysis of Regional and District Plans and Policy Statement, a report prepared by Beca for the Ministry of Economic Development, June 2005.] while a Transpower study has found that most district plans deal with the adverse effects of infrastructure on other activities. [District Plan Stocktake Report, a report prepared by Burton Consultants for Transpower, May 2006.] Therefore, a central element of the status quo is that in most planning documents Transpower's activities are prima facie considered as having adverse effects, without balancing recognition of the transmission network's national benefits.

Transpower also seeks to protect the network from the effects of other activities in two ways. One is via the use of negotiated easements on some lines, but this only covers a small part of the network. The other way is via monitoring and responding to resource consent applications, although this is limited to situations where the consent is notified or the local authority requires the applicant to obtain Transpower's written approval.

In summary, Transpower engages in RMA processes in three ways, as an:

1. advocate - seeking network-friendly provisions in local authority planning documents that will either:

• make the planning processes for future Transpower works easier and/or clearer, or
• protect the network from the potential adverse effects of other activities

2. applicant - seeking approval for proposed physical works (new, upgrading or maintenance) via:

• an existing use certificate
• a certificate of compliance
• a resource consent
• a designation and outline plan [This also links to acquisition compensation provisions under the Public Works Act 1981.]

3. opponent - seeking control over the outcomes of proposed third-party activities, where these are notified or a local authority requires an applicant to gain Transpower's written approval.

The ongoing costs of dealing with transmission network issues under RMA processes are borne by Transpower, local authorities, landowners and the general public. Much of the cost − and the key issue for Transpower − relates to the need to minimise the uncertainty of outcomes. In part, this uncertainty is a consequence of the variable approaches to policy and regulation adopted by local authority planning documents. Transpower therefore engages as an advocate to reduce variation and enhance certainty.

The remaining costs relate to Transpower as an applicant, or as an opponent to third-party development. In both cases, the need for Transpower to engage in the process depends on whether the relevant planning document has network-friendly provisions, which links back to the success of advocacy. For local authorities, landowners and the public in general, costs arise from responding to Transpower's ongoing engagement in planning processes.

The benefits of the status quo in relation to the sustainable management of the transmission network appear to be limited. Transpower, as the authority responsible for managing the network, has been unable to achieve network-friendly provisions in the majority of planning documents. Even where there are such provisions, there is still some uncertainty as to whether the provisions will remain unchanged or will be interpreted consistently. For local authorities and landowners, the main benefit of the status quo is that transmission network issues are addressed via local responses, providing the ability to take account of local concerns.

There is significant public interest in the exercise of control over future development of the transmission network. To some degree, communities have been sensitised by the publicity surrounding proposed major grid projects and by Transpower's day-to-day interaction with landowners over general access and maintenance issues. The economic consequence is that transmission work is likely to be more costly − and not necessarily with any commensurate benefit − because processes in a sensitised setting are likely to be subject to a degree of 'scope creep' and to incur increased transaction costs in their resolution.

2.3 Network mandate (Electricity Act 1992 and 2001)

The Electricity Act 1992 provides the mandate for the construction and operation of a national transmission network. Most of the network was constructed before 1988, and the Act maintains the right to occupy private land without the need for landowner agreements. Lines built from 1988 onwards require negotiated agreements with landowners. The 2001 amendment to the Act established the role of the Electricity Commission. Transpower must submit grid investment proposals to the Commission and can recover the costs of the investment from customers if the Commission approves the investment.

There is limited interaction between RMA processes (eg, for resource consent or plan preparation) and activities under the direction of the Electricity Act. The links between the two include:

1. the nature of restrictions on Transpower/landowner activities via negotiated agreements will differ from restrictions imposed by district and regional plans, even though both may seek to control the same activity
2. the Electricity Commission considers the cost of complying with the RMA as part of its grid investment test.

There is therefore some potential for confusion in the community where agreement restrictions differ from district/regional plan provisions. In the absence of knowledge about landowner agreements, local authorities may issue certificates of compliance or existing use certificates that are inconsistent with landowner agreements, but this does not affect the landowner's ability to enforce such agreements.

Existing district and regional plan objectives and policies on infrastructure or transmission will have some effect on the ease or difficulty of establishing new grid investment. To the extent that the status quo lacks clarity and recognition of the national benefits of transmission, RMA processes will be relatively costly. The Electricity Act (via the Electricity Commission) allows Transpower to pass those costs on to its customers. The status quo may therefore impose an unnecessary level of costs on Transpower customers.

Transpower is required to negotiate easements with landowners where its actions would cause an 'injurious effect', as provided for under the Electricity Act. At the same time, existing district and regional plan objectives and policies often seek to control adverse effects arising from transmission infrastructure. Therefore, under the status quo there is an issue of consistency between RMA plan provisions and Electricity Act easement requirements, and an associated question of whether the inconsistencies have any material effect.

2.4 Other regulations and guidelines

A number of other regulations and guidelines influence the physical environment of the transmission network, including the:

• New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice 34:2001 (the NZECP 34)
• Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003 (the Trees Regulations)
• Building Act
• RMA regulations
• ICNIRP Guidelines. [International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz).Health Physics1998, 74(4): 494−522.]

These provisions contain a level of detail that is generally not addressed by objectives and policies in planning documents. To this extent, the status quo represents a lack of integration of transmission-related matters.

2.5 Conclusions on the resource management issues created by the status quo

Before beginning the evaluation of the NPS we need to consider the appropriateness and validity of the issues the NPS seeks to address. While these are not stated in the NPS, these issues are central to the requirement for it and their resolution (either partial or full) will ultimately determine the effectiveness of the NPS.

The Reference Group report identifies the following issues as being relevant to the NPS:

• the consideration given to the national benefits of transmission in RMA decision-making (in addition to local costs)
• management of the effects of activities on the transmission network
• provision for the efficient operation and maintenance of the existing network
• management of certain adverse effects of transmission.

With respect to these issues, the evaluation of the status quo above found that:

• a central element of the status quo is that in most planning documents the transmission network is, prima facie, considered as having adverse effects, without any balancing recognition of its national benefits, which means there is a question of balance in the status quo
• there is significant variation in how different district plans provide for the operation, maintenance and upgrade of the existing network
• substantial material is already included in policy statements and plans regarding the potential adverse effects of the transmission network.

As a consequence of this evaluation, it is considered that the first two issues identified in the Reference Group report represent resource management issues for which consideration of alternatives to the status quo is warranted. However, in relation to the adverse effects of the transmission network the conclusion is not as clear, but can be warranted to ensure an internal balance within the NPS itself.