Chapter 7: Consideration of Alternatives
Introduction
485. By section 171(1)(b) of the RMA, a territorial authority considering a requirement is, subject to Part 2, to have particular regard to:
Whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes, or methods of undertaking the work if –
- (i) the requiring authority does not have an interest in the land sufficient for undertaking the work; or
- (ii) it is likely that the work will have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
486. Transpower does not have an interest in all the land sufficient for undertaking the work of the grid upgrade; and there was no dispute that it is likely that the work would have a significant adverse effect on the environment. So, in considering Transpower’s requirements for the grid upgrade, the Board has to have particular regard to whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes and methods of undertaking the work. That does not extend to the Board substituting its own choice for Transpower’s choice among alternative sites, routes or methods of undertaking the work.1
487. Transpower referred to the process of developing and propounding the original project, the ACRE (Area, Corridor, Route, Easement) route selection process, the exhaustive scrutiny of technical alternatives by the Electricity Commission, the developing and propounding of the amended project, and the scrutiny of that by the Electricity Commission process. Transpower contended that through this sequence of processes, the consideration given to alternative sites, routes and methods of undertaking the work had been adequate in the sense of sufficient and satisfactory, and, indeed, that it had been meticulous and exhaustive.
488. Those contentions were directly disputed by a number of submitters who, in different ways, contended that alternatives had not been adequately considered. Particulars of submitters’ contentions are summarised:
- a) the choice of a 400-kV overhead transmission line had been predetermined, and there had been no genuine, serious or complete consideration of methods other than transmission
- b) there had been no ‘holistic’ consideration of all the transmission alternatives, including evaluating together the technical, economic, environmental and planning aspects of all of them
- c) the Electricity Commission processes had been for other purposes, and have limited relevance to the Board’s Inquiry
- e) the ACRE process of route selection had deficiencies, especially of limited information and understanding of potential impacts, being too inflexible, and not properly balanced.
489. Those are summaries, to illustrate the general scope of the submitters’ contentions. The Board addresses the issues raised about methods other than transmission; then those about transmission alternatives (including the relevance of the Electricity Commission processes); and then those about the claimed deficiencies in the ACRE process. Having addressed those subtopics, the Board will then be able to review the adequacy of consideration of alternative sites, routes and methods as a whole, and reach its finding on that issue.
Alternative methods other than transmission
Submitters’ cases
490. The Manukau City Council contended that Transpower had not undertaken the consideration of alternatives process with an open mind, or a willingness to put itself through a rigorous consideration of alternatives, but that the process had been predetermined from the outset, with a rigidity of view that had never wavered. The Hunua and Paparimu Valley Residents Association (HPVRA) asserted that Transpower had determined, before obtaining any independent assessment of visual impact, that a 400-kV line was the form of work that it would implement, precluding consideration of relative adverse visual impacts of alternative methods of implementing its objectives, such as a 220-kV-capable line. Dr McQueen also asserted that the 400-kV solution and route had been predetermined.
491. In his evidence, Mr Freke gave his understanding that the Board had to be satisfied that the consideration of alternatives undertaken had been a genuine one, approached with an open mind, and with all relevant considerations appropriately taken into account.
492. This witness gave evidence that from when the project had first been the subject of consultation, it had always been based on a 400-kV transmission solution, and that had never been negotiable. Transpower’s initial operational policy decisions had been the best route and design for a 400-kV solution, rather than seriously exploring transmission alternatives that might result in lesser environmental impacts.
493. Based on his reading of the evidence and his experience of discussions with Transpower, Mr Freke gave his opinion that the consideration of alternatives undertaken by Transpower had not been genuine; and that, at all points, Transpower had allowed the GIT, and the narrow economic imperatives enshrined in it, to dominate its approach to the exclusion of all other considerations. He based that on his opinion that Transpower’s focus had always been on internal costs, rather than full costs (that is, internal and external), and his not having seen any proper analysis of those full costs.
494. Asked in cross-examination about whether, when it first began consultation in 2004, Transpower had told him that it was a 400-kV project or whether it was a bit more general than that, Mr Freke agreed that it had been even more general than that. The witness confirmed that later on, there was a 400-kV project proposed, and Transpower had then been proceeding to look at routes and corridors through the ACRE model. He asserted that Transpower had formed a very early conclusion, based on a few considerations.
495. Asked if he knew anything about the process Transpower had gone through up to the time it went public with the 400-kV proposal, Mr Freke acknowledged that he could not comment on their internal workings, and did not think they had involved the Manukau City Council in them. Asked the basis for his evidence that Transpower’s assessment of alternatives had not been genuine, the witness answered that it had been based on the fact that the first wave of material had not addressed a lot of considerations and had been very coarse; and that it had only been after the project had been identified, that further, more specific material had been released.2
496. More directly, this exchange followed:
Laing: So if we look at the situation up to the time when Transpower went public on a 400-kV proposal, just looking at it at that time, you’re not seriously suggesting that Transpower’s early consideration of transmission alternatives was done in bad faith or a sham and not genuine? You’re not suggesting that, are you?
Freke: No, what I’m suggesting, that was being done at a very coarse level, and the implications, certainly the environmental implications of its conclusions and its recommended options hadn’t been fully worked through.
Laing: See Mr Freke, when you use the word ‘not genuine’, that, to me, is quite a serious allegation and we need to be very clear as to what you are saying, because that very point was never put to any Transpower witness that I can find, so if we can just move on. But, at least, until that stage, you are saying that your criticism is that it was coarse-grained or words to that effect, but you’re not, in any way, suggesting that Mr Taylor or any other Transpower officer didn’t genuinely carry out their task, are you?
Freke: No, I don’t have any issues with the professionalism of Mr Taylor and his staff, but I do think they were working under high-level predetermined parameters, which were largely operational against supply and demand.
Laing: So are you saying that Mr Taylor and others, who put together this report here, were writing the report to a fixed agenda. Is that your evidence?
Freke: No, it’s my evidence that I don’t believe those early discussions and documents, necessarily, fully looked at the environmental implications of what it was they were recommending, and if there was more weight to those then you might have a different outcome.
Laing: Yes, well, that’s your criticism you make and what your counsel also makes. But I’m asking you, you have said, basically, that Transpower’s consideration of alternatives was not genuine. Now, I’m wanting you to either tell me categorically that’s not the case or provide the evidence.
Freke: No, I acknowledge that the word ‘genuine’ implies an ill motive and on that basis ‘inadequate’ would have been a better terminology, so to the extent that besmirch the Transpower officials, I withdraw that.
Laing: And thank you for that. I think that I’ve, therefore, covered your paragraph 33 where you use the word ‘genuine’, but just so there is no misunderstanding, if there’s anywhere else in your evidence where you have implied improper or wrong motives to Transpower staff members, do I take it that no such inference should be intended from your evidence?
Freke: That’s correct. If I can replace ‘genuine’ with ‘inadequate’ that addresses the concern.3
497. Mr D A Parker gave evidence on behalf of the HPVRA. He gave his understanding that early attempts to engage directly with Transpower had seemed fruitless, and there were no route alternatives, and no technical or design alternatives discussed by Transpower or its consultants at that time, and the then 400-kV design was effectively presented as a ‘fait accompli’.
498. In addressing the Board in support of his submission, Dr McQueen discussed an alternative method of increasing the capacity of the OTA-WKM A, B and C lines, and gave his opinion that from environmental impact, that is one of the primary considerations that Transpower should have put forward when it was discussing alternatives to its proposal. He continued:
Now, in my opinion, the reason it hasn’t done that, is that this approach would blow the proposed 400-kV capable line out of the water, in terms of capability, in terms of net present value…4
…I believe the 400-kV solution and the route, was pre-decided. I believe the east/west route, consultation and choice of the western route was really a sham process, and that route, both the route and the use of 400 kV were never seriously compared against the alternatives, like the one I just discussed a few minutes ago…
The so-called consultation processes used by Transpower were a sham, in my view, and was never intended to enter into a true bilateral dialogue in environmental alternatives …5
But never was any dialogue entered into, to sit down at a table and run through some numbers, saying ‘well, here’s the Whakamaru Upgrade cost, and the pros and cons, and we’d like to deal with those … discuss those with you.’ That never happened. 6
It is my belief that some of the original managers that constructed and decided to push this monstrous unneeded 400-kV proposal, were doing it more to build reputation and … reputation and personal CVs than they were doing it for the good of the country.7
499. Dr McQueen’s beliefs about Transpower having pre-determined the choice of the 400-kV transmission line are clear from those passages. However, he did not articulate the grounds on which he came to those beliefs, other than by saying that Transpower had not entered into dialogue with other people.
Transpower’s case
500. Transpower contended that non-transmission alternatives had been investigated, and, overall, had been found inadequate or uncertain to meet demand in the short or longer term.
501. Transpower contended that at an early stage in developing the grid upgrade, it had considered non-transmission alternatives; and, again, as part of the Electricity Commission process, that it had considered non-transmission alternatives (including new local generation, reticulated natural gas, and solar heating, and their likely timing, scale and effectiveness) as part of the GIT.
502. Transpower reported that in October 2004, it had issued a request for further information on non-transmission options, and that the responses had revealed there was little prospect of deferring the grid upgrade. Peak demand management (such as commissioning a special peak-demand generator) could delay the need for about 12 months, which would be insignificant in the context of the lead time for the project; and, in any event, Transpower has limited ability to influence that peak-demand management, or to influence willingness to invest in such a plant.
503. Transpower submitted that the regard to be had to the adequacy of consideration of alternative methods of undertaking the work has to be confined to alternatives that are legally available to it under the RMA – in practice, transmission alternatives – as it is not authorised to pursue alternatives such as generation at a sufficient scale to address the security of electricity supply in Auckland. The legal basis of that limitation was not disputed by any submitter.
504. Transpower contended that of the non-transmission options for security of electricity supply in Auckland, it is already trialling demand-side management; and that other options (such as new local thermal generation, and energy efficiency measures) are beyond the scope of its approval as a network utility operator and requiring authority under the RMA, or are otherwise beyond its legal ability to influence to any significant degree.
505. In October 2004, Transpower produced a report titled Security of Supply into Auckland Assessment of Alternative Solutions.8 Section 5 of that document identified non-transmission alternatives that Transpower had considered: new local generation, and new demand-side management solutions. The report summarised the contribution of each to system security; addressed availability, economic benefit, environmental impact, and timeliness; and gave summaries of the conclusions reached in respect of each. Appendix A described the generation scenarios that had been modelled.
506. The Electricity Commission approval process included a comparative analysis according to the GIT between a number of short-listed alternatives, themselves derived from a longer list of other alternatives, with no presumption in favour of any of the alternatives, all of which were assessed in detail.
507. Transpower contended that numerous potential methods of addressing security of electricity supply to Auckland had been considered and analysed for the purpose of the Electricity Commission process. Transpower also contended that environmental considerations had been part of the development and assessment of different transmission alternatives, particularly with regard to minimising the number of lines and corridors in the long term which, by clause 88E of the GPS,9 the Commission is required to take into account.
508. Transpower’s contentions were supported by evidence. Transpower’s acting Grid Programme Manager Mr Coad gave evidence confirming that at least 11 alternatives (transmission alternatives and non-transmission generation and demand-side management) had been considered and analysed in the original 2005 proposal, and a further nine alternatives in the amended proposal. The witness confirmed that Transpower had considered generation as an alternative solution for security of supply into Auckland, and was exploring contracts with generation companies; and he remarked that, if the latter chose not to invest, there would presumably be good reason why they had not done so already.10 He confirmed that the basis on which an option was considered was that it must be credible and able to be relied on.11
509. In cross-examination on behalf of Federated Farmers, Mr Coad was asked about supplementary generation in Auckland to cope with failure in the generation plant at Otahuhu. The witness explained that any generation would have to be substantial, of the order of hundreds of megawatts, and would have to be extremely reliable and probably independent: a single 200‑MW generator would not be sufficient.12
510. Transpower’s General Manager, Grid Investment. Mr George gave evidence that Transpower recognises, and takes into account in its planning processes, the contributions that demand management and the use of local distributed generation (including renewable generation) can make to the grid to potentially defer some transmission investment.
511. This witness gave his opinion that non-transmission alternatives have to be practicable, technically feasible, have reliability comparable to transmission investment, and be able to defer transmission investment by at least one year.
512. Mr George stated that in preparing the original proposal, 11 options had been considered that were technically feasible to meet the need, including peaking generation (available during times of peak demand).
513. He reported that in considering the original proposal, the Electricity Commission had made a thorough investigation of alternatives, including alternative generation and demand-side options. The Commission had published a consultation paper on alternatives to the proposed grid upgrade, and commissioned expert reports on demand-side and renewable generation options. The Electricity Commission had produced a further consultation paper on alternatives to Transpower’s original proposal, and had ultimately narrowed its consideration to a set of three options against which the original proposal was compared.
514. Mr George stated, in summary, that the analysis and review of the upgrade project by Transpower and the Electricity Commission had included identification of over 60 technically feasible options, including energy efficiency measures, energy substitution programmes, peaking generation plant, wind generation, tidal generation, and coal or gas generation. He gave his opinion that the process followed and analyses undertaken by Transpower, the Electricity Commission, and the industry as a whole, had been robust and complete.
515. The witness also reported that some non-transmission alternatives for improving reliability and security of supply to Auckland had been adopted and are being implemented: improvements to existing substations, and new substations and generation connections.
516. In his rebuttal evidence, Mr George confirmed the Electricity Commission had developed an exhaustive list of alternatives that had included non-transmission alternatives.
517. In cross-examination on behalf of the HPVRA, Mr George denied that, in considering alternatives, Transpower had had a preferred proposal and had tried to benefit it, as opposed to anything else.13
518. Mr Boyle gave evidence that the options to solve the issue of security of supply to the upper North Island had included non-transmission alternatives such as local generation and demand-side management that would provide equivalent availability and reliability to that provided by new transmission lines.
519. In his evidence, Mr Boyle described the results of Transpower’s investigations about methods alternative to transmission, including energy efficiency initiatives, peak-demand management, and peaking generation, of which only the latter had been considered viable. The witness explained why uncommitted generation prospects had not been taken into account; and he also explained why continued growth in demand had been assumed, even if forecasts of the timing of a particular level of demand might be uncertain to some extent.
520. Mr S Taylor, employed by Transpower as an environment projects manager, gave evidence that the potential environmental effects of various options had been identified and considered during Transpower’s system vision investigations commencing in 2002, and that this had continued during preparation of materials for the grid upgrade plan. He explained that the identification of environmental constraints had been based on a review of environmental effects within the context of the RMA, and identification of environmental considerations determined by environmental sustainability.
Consideration
521. The Board has reviewed all the evidence bearing on whether adequate consideration was given to alternative methods other than transmission methods, including whether Transpower’s consideration of those alternatives had not been genuine, but predetermined.
522. The Board is not aware that Transpower had any obligation to enter into dialogue with the community about its consideration of alternative non-transmission methods, or about its decision to prefer transmission methods. The Board does not accept that predetermination or a sham process can be inferred from any absence of community dialogue at that stage.
523. Having reviewed all the evidence on the point, the Board finds no basis at all for accepting the assertions to the effect that Transpower had pretended to consider non-transmission methods when it had already determined that it would proceed with a transmission method. The Board rejects as unsubstantiated the assertions to that effect.
524. The Board also finds that consideration was given by both Transpower and the Electricity Commission to methods other than transmission methods. Although consideration was mainly when the original transmission proposal was among the alternatives, rather than the later amended proposal, that did not make the consideration inadequate. The Commission’s part, even though for the purposes of the Electricity legislation, adds to the totality of the consideration given.
525. The Board is not persuaded that the limits on Transpower’s approval as a requiring authority prevented it from exercising its authority to contract for generation for deferring investment in the grid. Even so, the evidence establishes that Transpower did, by its request for information in September 2004, investigate the practicability of doing so.
526. The summaries of the environmental impacts of alternative methods, as set out in Chapter 5 of the Transpower report on its assessment of alternative solutions, were brief to the point of being unmeaningful. Further, the ways in which they were taken into account in the decision rejecting non-transmission alternative methods were not articulated in the report. Evaluation of the relative environmental effects of the respective alternative methods, and explanation of their part in the choice of the short-listed alternatives, would have remedied that meagreness of the alternative solutions assessment.
527. Even so, the Board accepts that this was appropriately early in the process, when decisions were being made at a high level, rather than in detail. The consideration processes – as described in the report on assessment of alternative solutions, and in the evidence of Messrs Coad, George and Boyle – show that substantial consideration was given to several methods other than transmission, and outline acceptable reasons why alternative solutions were not pursued. The Board accepts that evidence, and despite the weakness in the alternative solutions assessment report, sees no reason for classifying that consideration as inadequate, either on account of the grounds on which those alternatives were found ineligible or infeasible, or on which transmission alternatives were preferred.
528. In summary, the Board finds that adequate consideration was given to alternative methods other than transmission methods.
Alternative methods of transmission
529. Next, the Board addresses the adequacy of consideration given to alternative transmission methods of undertaking the work. The main alternatives that submitters contended had not been adequately considered were upgrading existing lines; high-voltage, direct current; extending the part of the line to be placed underground; and constructing a new 220-kV line instead of a 400-kV-capable line. Each of these is addressed separately, before addressing the question more generally.
Upgrading existing lines
530. Some submitters contended that inadequate consideration had been given to a particular alternative transmission method of upgrading existing 220-kV transmission lines which, they asserted, would have very low environmental effects compared with the proposed 400-kV-capable transmission line.
531. Dr McQueen had investigated how upgrading the existing OTA-WKM A, B and C lines could be done. As it is not for the Board to decide which alternative should be adopted, it suffices to describe reconductoring both circuits on the C line with duplex ACCR conductors; and either using similar conductors simplex on the A and B lines, or replacing the towers on those lines so they could support double circuits with ACCR duplex conductors.
532. Mr Copstick asserted that in considering this alternative, Transpower had shown bias towards the 400-kV-capable proposal by maximising the costs of the upgrade alternative.
533. Transpower agreed that it would be good practice to maximise use of existing assets first, where that is practically and economically feasible, before constructing new transmission assets. However, it had identified upgrading and reconductoring the existing OTA-WKM A, B and C lines as among the three principal transmission alternatives for analysis against the amended upgrade project, had explained the main points of comparison, and had reported the reasons why upgrading and reconductoring existing lines had been rejected.
534. Mr George gave evidence that the Electricity Commission’s shortlist of three options had included 220-kV duplexing of existing lines; that the Commission had challenged Transpower on costs and its analysis of duplexing existing lines; and had concluded on its own GIT analyses that the amended grid upgrade proposal is superior.14
535. Mr Boyle gave evidence that of three principal transmission alternatives that were assessed against the amended proposal, two involved augmentation of existing 220-kV transmission lines. He described features involved in comparing duplexing the OTA-WKM A and B lines with conventional conductors, and duplexing the OTA-WKM A, B and C lines with high-temperature conductors.
536. Cross-examination of those Transpower witnesses did not reveal manipulation of putative costs of upgrading existing lines, or other facts from which the bias alleged by Mr Copstick could be inferred. Therefore, the Board finds no basis for Mr Copstick’s assertions to the effect that consideration of alternatives had been biased in favour of the 400-kV-capable transmission line.
537. The Board finds that alternative methods involving upgrading existing lines were given substantial consideration by both Transpower and the Electricity Commission. The reasons given for rejecting the alternative of upgrading existing lines appear persuasive. It is not the Board’s function to revisit the choice among alternatives, or to decide that another of those alternatives should have been selected.
538. The Board has no reason to doubt that alternative methods of upgrading existing lines were adequately considered, and finds that they were.
High-voltage direct current
539. Several submitters, and notably Dr McQueen, contended that Transpower had not adequately considered the alternative method of constructing a high-voltage, direct-current (HVDC) line, which they asserted would have less environmental effects than an equivalent high-voltage alternating-current (HVAC) line.
540. Mr Boyle gave evidence that Transpower had assessed conventional HVDC and ‘HVDC Light’ alternative transmission methods as part of the development of the grid upgrade proposal. He described relative environmental effects of HVDC in terms of the heights of line-support structures, sizes of conductor bundles, interconnections with alternating current equipment, reliability, and economics, stating that HVDC had been found to be significantly more expensive. He reported that HVDC was considered to be an inappropriate solution due to high costs and risks, lack of reliability and practicability.
541. Relying on Mr Boyle’s evidence, the Board finds that HVDC was considered as an alternative method, that it was not preferred for reasons that appear rational, and that this consideration was adequate.
Extent of undergrounding
Submissions
542. A number of submitters contended that inadequate consideration had been given to an alternative method of transmission by using underground cables. (A number of submitters also asked that the Board require stretches of the line of interest to them to be laid underground. That is considered in Chapter 13. It is only the first question that is the subject of this chapter of the report.)
543. The Manukau City Council submitted that this alternative should have been considered in the context of a wider analysis of environmental effects of the 400-kV line proposal, accounting for the avoiding of visual effects of the overhead line by extended undergrounding. Similarly, Underground in Manukau contended that the extent of the greater cost of undergrounding had not been compared with the environmental benefits; and that the premise that the additional cost, distributed amongst consumers, would be very small, had not been rebutted. Dr McQueen contended that Transpower had overestimated the cost of undergrounding.
544. New Era Energy and the South Waikato District Council contended that inadequate consideration had been given to undergrounding through South Waikato district, or populated areas of it.
545. Transpower denied the assertions of inadequate consideration of undergrounding, and asserted that, at earlier stages of the project, it had given ample consideration to a range of transmission alternatives, including undergrounding more of the route and having different transition points; and that in doing so, environmental considerations had not been overlooked or undervalued, but had been a key input.
546. Transpower contended that widespread undergrounding would not be technically or economically feasible if it is to effectively resolve the identified security of supply problem in a reliable, economic and environmentally sustainable way. It asserted that long sections of underground transmission cable affect system reliability, and are difficult and costly to repair. Even small sections being laid underground would lead to high cost, and reduced availability of the circuit
Evidence
547. Mr George gave evidence that in its 2005 original proposal to the Electricity Commission, Transpower had reported on 11 options, including underground cables. He gave his opinion that the use of underground cables is typically restricted to urban areas; and stated that intermediate substations are required to control voltage.
548. Mr Boyle explained that the longer the length of underground cable, the higher the probability of failure; and stated that currently, underground transmission cables cost in the order of ten times more on average than equivalent capacity overhead lines.
549. In his rebuttal evidence Mr H R K Wildash corrected an error and stated that underground double circuit 400-kV 2700-MVA cable costs are $25.6 million per kilometre; but qualified that by stating that simple ratios do not accurately cover the various issues. The witness stated that terminating the 400-kV overhead line at Tower 14 had been investigated as an option (citing the relevant consultant’s report), and that it had been one of the least favoured alternatives, mainly due to cost and engineering difficulties, and increased operational risks from longer time for repairing cable faults.
Consideration
550. The issue on the consideration of the extent of underground transmission cables is not whether or not more extensive undergrounding was considered. Transpower’s evidence that it was considered was not seriously disputed or contradicted. The issue is whether the consideration given to that alternative method was adequate.
551. The issue arises because undergrounding could largely avoid adverse landscape and visual effects of support towers and conductors of an overhead line, effects which could not readily be mitigated or remedied. Even so, the test of what is adequate calls for a judgement of degree about a standard that is sufficient and satisfactory, rather than perfect or ideal.
552. A process of considering alternatives may start by identifying numerous possible alternatives, then discarding many that on an informed and genuine but relatively superficial screening are unappealing, and make a short list of more prospective candidates for more profound evaluation and comparison. The evaluation and comparison of the relative advantages and disadvantages of alternatives that survive to that stage would explicitly include relevant factors indicated by Part 2, such as environmental effects.
553. Submitters interested in the benefits of a particular alternative may challenge its having been discarded at early screening, and may contend that it should have been included in the short list of alternatives accorded more profound evaluation and comparison. Counsel for the Waipa District Council warned of a risk that such a screening process could be self-serving by reason of the choice that Transpower can make, being precisely what section 171 is intended to prevent. But the standard set by that provision is adequate, not perfect. The territorial authority can assess the screening out of a particular alternative by that standard.
554. The Board accepts the evidence of Transpower witnesses about the rough order of magnitude of the greater cost of undergrounding transmission cables, and of the technical issues associated with longer lengths of them, including voltage control, reliability, and delays for repairs. The relative environmental benefits of underground cables instead of overhead lines are obvious, even though difficult to evaluate in money’s worth.
555. The Board also accepts that screening out the alternative method of more extensive underground cables, and discarding that alternative prior to more complete evaluation and comparison, was reasonable in the process of selecting, from among alternatives, a method to be pursued. That did not render the consideration inadequate, even if it may not have been perfect or ideal.
556. In short, the Board finds that the consideration given to more extensive underground transmission cabling was adequate.
New 220-kV line instead of 400-kV-capable line
Submissions
557. Federated Farmers submitted that no assessment had been made of the option of building no more than a 220-kV line along the proposed route. The Manukau City Council submitted that Transpower had not adequately assessed the alternative of a 220-kV overhead line in that it had failed to consider Part 2 of the RMA in reaching the preferred options; that it had not adequately informed itself as to environmental effects of preferred options before reaching its decision; and that making a decision now to avoid a possible need for a future line in 34 years is an exercise in guesswork. Hunua and Paparimu Valley Residents Association submitted that Transpower had failed to carry out the analysis required of it by precluding consideration of relative adverse visual impacts of alternative methods such as a 220-kV line.
558. Those and other submitters contended that a new 220-kV line would be a more appropriate alternative; and some asked the Board to require that the designation be limited to 220-kV overhead line maximum design capacity for stretches of the designation in which they were interested.
559. Some submitters also presented their criticisms of the processes leading to the Electricity Commission’s decision approving the amended 400-kV-capable proposal.
560. Transpower disputed the submitters’ assertions, and contended that it had given thorough consideration to the alternative method of a new 220-kV line, including its relative environmental effects. It acknowledged that a high-capacity double-circuit 220-kV line is a truly viable alternative to the 400-kV option; that there is an environmental cost from localised effects of the 400-kV alternative; and contended that the latter would maximise the use of transmission corridors and minimise the number of additional new lines. It maintained that its long-term approach to grid planning is sound, and appropriately reflects the sustainable management purpose of the RMA.
Evidence
561. Mr Freke gave his opinion that Transpower had not adequately explored an option around less intrusive 220-kV lines over the overhead parts of the route. He doubted whether the current legislative regime on electricity generation and transmission will be sustainable in the long term over the 35-year period before the 400-kV solution is considered by Transpower to be needed. He considered that there are genuine uncertainties whether a second 220-kV line would ever be needed, depending on locations of new generation needed by 2033, and the relative costs then of undergrounding and of lower impact overhead lines.
562. Mr Freke asserted that Transpower had not seriously attempted to develop a minimum-impact 220-kV alternative; and that if Transpower were directed to use 220-kV technology, designed to reduce effects on communities, it could easily do so.
563. In his evidence Mr D A Parker gave his opinion that a 220-kV line would be sufficient and preferable, having shorter towers and reduced environmental effects. He criticised assumptions made by witnesses called by Transpower (Messrs Khot, Noble and Lister) in their consideration of a 220-kV alternative.
564. Mr Copstick gave his opinion that in evaluating a 220-kV line as an alternative to the proposal, Transpower had shown bias in that it had minimised the cost of the proposal and maximised the cost of alternatives; and had used exchange-rate factors that unfairly favoured the proposal. Mr Copstick was also critical of the Electricity Commission’s comparison of the 220-kV option with the 220/400-kV option, leading to its approval of the proposal. He too criticised assumptions made by Mr Lister in respect of comparative landscape and visual effects of 220-kV and 400-kV lines.
565. Mr George’s evidence described Transpower’s consideration of 11 technically feasible options, including 220-kV overhead line, which became one of two shortlist alternatives. He reported that the Electricity Commission identified and considered in excess of 40 separate alternatives, reduced to a shortlist and then to three options, one of which was a 220-kV overhead line (which was preferred in the Commission’s April 2006 draft determination).
566. The witness also stated that in development of the amended proposal, a 220-kV overhead line remained one of nine alternatives that were analysed and reviewed, and one of three in the final short-list that were peer reviewed by a range of independent organisations. Mr George described further analysis of options carried out at the request of the Electricity Commission, leading to its decision to approve the 400-kV-capable amended proposal compared with the 220-kV alternative.
567. Mr Boyle confirmed in his evidence that a high-capacity double circuit 220-kV line had been one of three principal transmission alternatives that had been assessed in detail against the amended proposal. He described the main points of comparison between them, including ultimate need for an additional 220-kV line to provide corresponding capacity, and relative heights of its towers (on average 10 metres shorter), compared with the proposed 400-kV-capable line.
568. This witness also described 17 sensitivity analysis calculations that had been used in the comparisons, stating that 14 of them had been found to favour the proposal; and he also described other points of comparison that had been considered, including flexibility in higher-than-predicted demand; optimising power flow; relative transmission losses; and environmental advantages of maximising use of transmission corridors and minimising the number of transmission lines.
569. As already mentioned, Mr Taylor’s evidence showed that potential environment effects of various transmission options had been identified and considered commencing in 2002; this had continued during preparation of the grid upgrade plan materials; and the identification of environmental constraints had been based on review of environmental effects within the context of the RMA, and identification of environmental considerations determined by environmental sustainability
570. In his rebuttal evidence, Mr Taylor stated his disagreement with Mr Freke’s criticism that environmental impacts had not been adequately considered. The witness referred to the October 2004 report on assessment of alternative solutions, and also to a September 2003 report on environmental assessment of upgrading options.
571. Mr Taylor gave evidence that in considering transmission alternatives, Mr Boyle’s team and he had had regard to the principle in the 2003 report that more significant environmental impacts are likely from the number of lines in a corridor than from the height and size of towers along any particular transmission line.
572. Mr Taylor also referred to the direction in the GPS that to the extent the Electricity Commission considers environmental effects, it is to take into account any longer-term benefits that larger-capacity lines may provide by avoiding multiple smaller lines.
Consideration
573. The Board’s function does not extend to deciding that another alternative method is more appropriate, let alone that it is to be adopted; nor does it extend to deciding on criticisms of the Electricity Commission’s processes. This chapter of the report is confined to issues arising from section 171(1)(b): whether adequate consideration was given to alternative methods of undertaking the work.
574. The Board accepts the evidence of Messrs George, Boyle, and Taylor summarised in the previous section. The assertion by Federated Farmers that no assessment had been made of an alternative of a 220-kV line is not substantiated, and is contradicted by that evidence.
575. The only issue is whether the consideration given to that alternative method was adequate in terms of including the contents of Part 2, in particular relative environmental effects. In that respect, the Board applies the law as declared by the High Court in Auckland Volcanic Cones Society15 that each alternative does not have to be tested against Part 2.
576. Further, the evidence of Messrs Boyle and Taylor shows that relative environmental effects were included in the consideration of alternatives. It is clear that some submitters consider that greater weight should have been placed on environmental effects so that the 220-kV line alternative should have been selected. However, it is beyond the scope of the Board’s functions for it to repeat the comparison of alternative methods itself, and decide whether it would place greater weight on one factor or another.
577. Transpower had the advice in the September 2003 report on environmental assessment of upgrading options. The evidence shows that it included environmental impacts (in particular landscape and visual effects) in its consideration of alternative transmission methods.
578. Even though the October 2004 report does not explain how those factors were taken into account, on the evidence of Messrs Boyle and Taylor the Board finds that they were included, and continued to be included right up to the final selection of the amended proposal for the 400-kV-capable line.
579. On that evidence the Board finds that the consideration of an alternative method of a 220-kV overhead transmission line was substantial and extended, and the Board judges it to have been fully adequate.
Alternative routes for overhead 400-kV-capable line
Submissions
Submitters
580. Several submitters contended that adequate consideration had not been given to alternative routes for the proposed 400-kV-capable overhead transmission line. Some contended that no consideration, or no genuine consideration, had been given. Others contended that the consideration given had been inadequate, on various grounds.
581. In particular the Waipa District Council, and Underground in Manukau contended that Transpower had failed to give any regard to alternative routes for undertaking the work. Dr McQueen asserted that the route had been pre-decided, that the selection of the western route had really been a sham process, and that the route had never been seriously compared against the alternatives.
582. Contentions that the consideration of alternative routes had been inadequate were put forward on several grounds, now summarised:
- a) the ACRE process had not been applied to any other method of undertaking the work
- b) there may be alternative routes that were not evaluated
- c) the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives had not been evaluated and compared
- d) the consideration of alternatives had omitted certain factors, namely: non-market costs including public good and environmental costs, in particular adverse effects on special landscape character areas in the Waipa district; relative effects on landscape values and visual effects; alternative routes across areas of outstanding natural landscape; effects on pastoral landscapes; international practice about types of landscape in which transmission lines are best accommodated; effects on farming along alternative routes; potential for reverse sensitivity effects along alternative routes; and detailed assessment against relevant district plans
- e) expert witnesses called by Transpower Ms Allan, Mr Lister and Mr Hall had not made assessments of alternative routes
- f) the route in section 14 through the South Waikato district had in reality been determined to meet with the preferred route selected through the adjacent Waipa District to the north
- g) more weight should have been given to using the existing transmission line corridor to the west of the Waikato River; and to a further alternative transmission corridor to the east of the proposed route, particularly as the ACRE model resulted in preference for the eastern route rather than the western route
- h) the policy imperatives in the GPS are not achieved by the route selected through the South Waikato district.
Transpower
583. Transpower submitted that the proposed route had, amply by any standard, been ‘adequately considered’ against alternatives in terms of section 171(1)(b).
584. In particular, Transpower submitted that it had developed a methodology for identifying alternative and final route options (the ACRE model) that is flexible enough to allow a wide range of variables to be taken into account, and which had been systematically applied regardless of the scale or type of area under consideration. Transpower contended that this process ensured that the consideration of alternative line routes had been robust.
585. Transpower disputed the contentions that the route through the South Waikato district is not supported by the ACRE process, and that this part of the route had been determined by factors relevant to other districts. It accepted that the route through section 14 was linked with the adjoining sections 11 to 13 for which the process had showed a clear preference for western options. The route through the South Waikato District had been chosen by applying the ACRE process, recognising the limits placed on a linear route with fixed end-points.
Evidence
586. In his evidence Mr S Taylor described the development of the ACRE model for identifying an appropriate transmission line route, including thorough assessment of environmental effects, flexibility to allow for changes as a result of consultation or engineering requirement; and facilitation of consultation to inform the assessment of environmental effects and alternative routes. The process was designed to be applied by a multi-disciplinary team, involving engineering, environmental, property and technical disciplines.
587. Mr D J Campbell, Transpower’s senior environmental planner, described in more detail the way the ACRE model had been used to guide identification of alternative routes in successive stages focused on identifying a study area (and its constraints and opportunities); identifying a corridor and alternatives; ranking the alternatives and selecting a preferred corridor; selecting and evaluating alternative routes within a preferred corridor for consultation; and confirmation of a preferred route and centreline.
588. This witness also described an iterative process by which participants with different disciplines interacted at each stage. He also explained how the notices of requirement allowed flexibility to move tower sites up to 40 metres along the alignment; up to 5 metres laterally; and consequentially to increase tower heights up to 5 metres consequential on lateral movement, or 3 metres otherwise.
589. Ms Allan described responding to likely physical impacts of the line in the environment, and avoiding constraints such as archaeological and ecological sites, areas of Crown land and Maori-owned land; settlements and individual dwellings. Effort was made to avoid effects on such specific areas, and to minimise likely visual effects.
590. For example, Ms Allan explained that a range of possible routes had been identified in the vicinity of Morrinsville, to bypass the town; and reported that none of them was considered particularly acceptable.
591. The witness also reported that on most of the route the transmission line would have visual impacts, and that engineering constraints had also to be considered to achieve an efficient and effective alignment, access for construction and maintenance, construction impacts and severance effects. She stated that district plan provisions had been carefully considered, as had avoidance of areas of highest landscape and natural character values; social and cumulative effects, the presence of the existing Arapuni-Pakuranga A transmission line in visual and recreational assessments and, where relevant, the evaluation of airstrips.
592. Ms Allan explained that only in three route sections had the analysis resulted in complete consensus of outcome; and that the differences between the alternatives had often been found to be quite subtle and complex. She reported that the results had indicated that a western route should be preferred, with the exception of the southern end where the route could follow an eastern alternative. The analysis had favoured the eastern alternative for route sections 14 and 15, but that section 14 is inextricably linked to sections 11 to 13, where a clear preference for the western sections was found. When considered together, the evaluation had indicated that the western route should be followed. The possibility of linking from the western to eastern route alternatives in sections 13 and 14 had been investigated, but it had been found not possible to make a satisfactory cross-route connection until south of section 14, though this allowed section 15 to largely follow the eastern alternative.
593. In her rebuttal evidence, Ms Allan added that at the route interim decision stage, the relevant aspects had been grouped and evaluated on the ‘quadruple bottom line’, which features in decision-making under the Local Government Act 2002; and that a range of other analyses had also been made, as described in the reports on the interim route decision and the final route decision. Those reports included the range of weightings applied to the scores to test the robustness of the analyses.
594. Ms Allan confirmed her confidence that the process adopted had involved appropriate systematic analyses, using logical processes of refinement from broader analysis of area to corridor and route stages; and had determined the most appropriate route alternative.
Consideration
595. The Board considers the contentions and related evidence according to subtopics.
No real consideration
596. The Board starts with the contentions that serious comparison had not been made of alternative routes for undertaking the work; that the route had been pre-decided: and that the selection of the western route had really been a sham process.
597. The evidence of Messrs Taylor and Campbell, and Ms Allan, just summarised, shows that alternative routes for the overhead line were compared and considered in the course of methodically following a systematic process developed for the purpose. As is to be expected with numerous possible alternative routes, some were considered less fully than others. Even so, the Board accepts that the process was followed as described in the evidence; and does not accept the contentions that no consideration, or no genuine consideration, had been given to alternative routes; nor that Transpower had failed to give any regard to them.
598. The evidence does not support Dr McQueen’s contentions that the route had been pre-decided, that the selection of the western route had really been a sham process, and that the route had never been seriously compared against the alternatives. The Board rejects those contentions too.
ACRE process not applied to alternative methods
599. The ACRE process was designed to guide the process for selecting from alternatives a route for the overhead transmission line method of undertaking the work. It was not applied to choosing from possible methods of undertaking the work, nor was it designed for that earlier stage of the planning. The Board does not accept that this indicates inadequacy in the consideration of alternative routes.
Possible alternative routes not evaluated
600. On the submission that there may be other routes that were not evaluated, the Board accepts that this may be so. However, it cannot sensibly be suggested that all possible alternatives should be considered.16
601. The Board finds unpersuasive a general contention to the effect that one or more possible (but unidentified) routes were not evaluated; only if an alternative route that was not considered is identified might it then be possible to address whether the consideration of alternative routes was thereby inadequate.
602. Given the multiplicity of possible alternative routes, it would be realistic to screen out, at an early stage, those routes obviously less likely to be chosen, and confine the fuller evaluation and comparison process to the remainder.
603. The existence of alternative routes that were not evaluated, and others that were not evaluated as fully as those in the final shortlist, does not indicate that the consideration of alternative routes was inadequate.
Advantages and disadvantages of alternative routes not compared
604. Another ground for the contention that the consideration of alternative routes had been inadequate was that the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives had not been evaluated and compared.
605. The process described by Ms Allan in her evidence is more fully detailed in the reports of the several stages referred to by her, which were common exhibits in the Board’s Inquiry. The reports describe a systematic multi-criteria analysis using consultation and decision-conferencing of a range of experts, and scoring and weighting of various aspects and factors. Although the terminology used was not that of evaluating and comparing advantages and disadvantages of alternative routes, that process was included in the more sophisticated ACRE model that was followed.
606. The statutory direction for adequate consideration of alternative sites routes and methods does not require that consideration to be carried out by any particular method. The Board is satisfied that the ACRE process is rational and systematic, and was more appropriate in the circumstances than a simple comparison of advantages and disadvantages of alternative routes. Transpower’s use of the ACRE process is not a ground for concluding that the consideration of alternative routes was inadequate.
Factors omitted
607. The next ground for contentions that consideration of alternative routes had been inadequate identified several factors that were said to have been omitted from that consideration.
Environmental effects
608. First, the omission of consideration of non-market costs, including public good and environmental costs. A particular instance is adverse effects on special landscape character areas in the Waipa District.
609. In October 2004, Ms Allan had identified that the southern end of Section 11-W from Wairama Road to State Highway 1 (partly in Waipa District) just extends into an area of significant landscape values along the Waikato River and its banks; that Section 12-W from State Highway 1 to south of the Waikato River is very sensitive, and is entirely within an area of landscape and natural feature significance; and that Section 13-W from the Waikato River to north of Arapuni impinges on significant landscape areas.17
610. The features in Section 11-W were described as factors reducing the ability of the landscape to absorb the line; the river crossing in Section 12-W was described as relatively unobtrusive; and the visibility of the line in Section 13-W against a backdrop of Maungatautari and the picturesque qualities of the landscape were also identified.18
611. Failing to give as much weight as a particular submitter would to adverse effects of a particular alternative route on the environment, such as on special landscape character areas, is not itself a ground for concluding that consideration of alternative routes was inadequate. On the evidence, the Board finds that the existence of special landscape character areas in the Waipa District that might be adversely affected by one of alternative routes of the overhead transmission line was included in the consideration of alternative routes.
612. The only example given of the alleged omission of consideration of non-market costs, including public good and environmental costs, is not substantiated on the evidence. The Board does not accept that non-market, public good, environmental costs were omitted from consideration of alternative routes.
Relative landscape and visual effects
613. The more general omission of relative effects on landscape values and visual effects can also be tested by Ms Allan’s October 2004 report. That document contains many instances of consideration of the landscape and visual effects of a transmission line on various alternative routes. Again, the Board understands that a submitter may have put higher value than Transpower’s independent consultants did on the effects on a line on a particular alternative route. Even so, the evidence shows that Transpower did not omit to consider relative effects on landscape values and visual effects; and the Board does not accept this ground as indicating that its consideration of alternative routes was inadequate.
Routes over outstanding natural landscapes
614. The omission of alternative routes across areas of outstanding natural landscape was questioned on the basis that the national importance of the proposed transmission line would justify alternative routes even across areas of outstanding natural landscape otherwise protected by section 6(b) of the Act.
615. In theory that might be so. But if an alternative route, not significantly affecting an area of outstanding natural landscape, is reasonably acceptable, it would accord with the RMA to prefer that route.19 The Board does not accept that Transpower’s consideration of alternative routes was inadequate for having discarded any alternative routes that might cross areas of outstanding natural landscape.
Effects on pastoral landscapes
616. The omission of consideration of effects on pastoral landscapes was also raised.
617. Ms Allan’s October 2004 report shows that in three successive sections chosen at random pastoral landscapes were identified, and effects of a transmission line on them considered.20
618. Some people may have put higher value than Transpower’s independent consultants did on the effects on a line on a particular alternative route crossing pastoral landscape. However, the evidence establishes that the consideration of alternative routes did not omit effects on pastoral landscapes.
International practice on accommodating transmission lines
619. Another omission raised by a submitter is international practice about types of landscape in which transmission lines are best accommodated. However, no evidence was given about any generally accepted international practice of that nature. There is no basis on which the Board could find that the consideration of alternative routes was deficient for such an omission.
Effects on farming
620. The next alleged omission is effects on farming along alternative routes.
621. The Board accepts that an adequate consideration of alternative routes might reasonably include consideration effects on farming, at least at a broad level. Plainly Transpower and its independent consultants shared that view. Ms Allan’s October 2004 report contains this passage:
Effects on dwellings are one of the most important aspects of route selection, along with individual farming operation considerations, so this remained an important evaluation consideration at Route stage.21
622. Neither cross-examination, nor contradictory evidence, called in question that this correctly records what was done in the consideration of alternative routes. The Board does not accept that the process was deficient in that respect.
Reverse-sensitivity effects
623. The alleged omission of the potential for reverse-sensitivity effects along alternative routes was raised as deficiency. However, the avoidance of potential adverse effects on the proposed transmission line was among considerations of alternative routes. It is implicit in the consideration of land use, settlement, lifeline, tourism and recreation, district plan, property and engineering factors addressed at each section of an alternative route. For example, the recommendation against Option 5d was based on existing development strongly influencing the line and tower location, which would be less efficient as a result.22
624. The Board does not accept that the consideration of alternative routes omitted potential for reverse-sensitivity effects.
Detailed assessment against district plans
625. Another alleged omission was detailed assessment against relevant district plans. Plainly the emphasis must be on the qualifier detailed, as the applicable district plan was an item for consideration in respect of each of the alternative route sections the subject of Ms Allan’s report.
626. For instance, in considering the Whitford Valley, Ms Allan’s route study report identified a proposed outstanding landscape notation (subject to appeal) and advice that it would not limit a well-sited line or termination pole, bush protection requirements, a proposed structure plan and draft plan change that would (if adopted) allow more intensive subdivision and identify ridgelines as having amenity significance. In respect of the Brookby area, the report identified that the zoning is Rural, and that the area is outside the draft Whitford plan change, and concluded that there appear to be no current district plan issues associated with that route section.
627. The Board is not aware of any respect in which the summaries of district plan provisions in Ms Allan’s reports would be inadequate for considering alternative routes for the proposed transmission line.
Conclusion on omissions
628. Submitters raised several alleged omissions from the consideration of alternative routes. On considering them separately, the Board has found no basis for finding that there is an international practice about the types of landscape in which transmission lines are best accommodated that should have been included in the consideration of alternative routes; and that none of the other factors raised was omitted from the consideration process.
Experts had not assessed alternative routes
629. The Board now addresses the contentions that expert witnesses called by Transpower, Ms Allan, Mr Lister and Mr Hall, had not made assessments of alternative routes.
630. In respect of Ms Allan and Mr Lister, this assertion is plainly contradicted by the October 2004 report, in which Ms Allan presented her assessments, with inputs from identified colleagues of other professions (including Mr Lister), of a number of alternative routes. In respect of each section, possible alternative routes are described, with assessments on the topics visual and landscape, ecological, tāngata whenua, archaeological and heritage, land use, settlement, lifelines, tourism and recreation, district plan, property, and engineering. Appendix 2 is a 28-page discussion of landscape and visual factors in respect of route options in the 15 catchments; and Appendix 3 is a discussion of 20 route options that Ms Allan and her colleagues recommended should be discarded from further consideration.
631. Mr Hall is an agricultural consultant who was engaged by Ms Allan’s firm in March 2005 to assess physical effects of the construction and operation of the proposed transmission line on farm management activities. His participation succeeded selection of the proposed route, and did not include assessment of effects on farm management along the alternative routes.
632. However, the Board has already found that effects on farming along alternative routes had not been omitted in the consideration of alternative routes, so the more limited scope of Mr Hall’s assessment is not an indication that the consideration of effects on farming on alternative routes was inadequate.
Route in Section 14 pre-determined
633. Another allegation about the consideration of alternative routes was that the route in Section 14 through the South Waikato District had in reality been determined to meet with the preferred route selected through the adjacent Waipa District to the north.
634. In cross-examination, Mr Lister agreed that the South Waikato route was really determined on the basis of a requirement to fit with the routes further north.
635. That may be, but other factors were also influential. The report on the route selection refers to the sensitivity of landscapes and development further to the west; that the indicative route alignment crosses the prominent escarpment in a saddle to reduce its impact; and north of the State highway the route follows the Mangawhero Valley, with features that assist to reduce visual impact.23
636. It is the essential nature of line utilities, such as transmission lines, that to enable them to function the line has to be continuous. To the extent that the consideration of alternatives for a route for the transmission line through the South Waikato District was influenced by fitting with a route through adjoining districts to north and south, the Board does not regard that as indicative of inadequate consideration of alternative routes.
More weight should have been given to certain factors
637. Some submitters contended that greater weight should have been given to various elements in the route consideration process: namely, using the existing transmission corridor to the west of the Waikato River; or using an alternative corridor to the east of the proposed route (preferred by the ACRE model).
638. The existing corridor to the west of the Waikato River was identified at the corridor stage of the ACRE process as the Central Corridor, and the relative advantages and disadvantages of the Eastern, Central and Western Corridors were described. The evaluation and comparison between them, (including sub-corridor options) according to the ACRE process, was summarised in another report, as was the outcome leading to the consideration of alternative routes.24
639. On the eastern route, Mr J B Olliver gave his opinion that it would not cross any areas which the relevant district plan showed as outstanding landscapes.25 However, that was not a persuasive factor, because the district plan applicable to the eastern route (the South Waikato district plan) contains no landscape identifications at all.
640. In the final decision report it is recorded that if both western and eastern alternative routes had been ‘green fields’ sites, the eastern route would have been favoured; but the existence of the existing ARI-PAK A line, and the opportunities to improve the alignment at this location, balance the choice between them.26
641. The Board accepts that the scoring and weighting given to individual choices among alternatives are matters of judgement rather than calculation. There could be differences among well-informed and disinterested experts about the scoring and weighting to be ascribed to any element in the process. That is partly why the ACRE process was designed for systematic multi-disciplinary decision-making.
642. The fact that a submitter, or its professional adviser, would have placed more weight on some factors, and less on others, than the team following the discipline of the ACRE process did, does not itself render the consideration of alternatives by that process inadequate.
643. The Board is not persuaded that Transpower’s consideration of alternative routes was deficient in the respects alleged.
GPS policy not achieved
644. The next alleged deficiency in Transpower’s route consideration was that the policy imperatives in the GPS are not achieved by the route selected through the South Waikato District. The reference is to the policy of maximising the use of transmission corridors and avoiding multiple new lines and creation of new transmission corridors. In the South Waikato District the existing transmission corridor will not be maximised in that the proposed route is a greenfields route determined in spite of more significant environmental effects associated with that route.
645. As stated in Chapter 4 of this report, the GPS was made under the Electricity Act, and for the purposes of that Act compliance with it is mandatory for Transpower and the Electricity Commission. The GPS is not an instrument under the RMA, nor is it an instrument to which a territorial authority is directed by section 171 to have regard.
646. Therefore, the Board does not consider that any failure to give effect to policies under the GPS is indicative of inadequacy in the consideration of alternative routes for the purpose of section 171(1)(b) of the RMA.
Alternative widths of designation
647. For the overhead section of the proposed transmission line, Transpower proposed a designation having a minimum width of 65 metres, expanding in places to a maximum width of 125 metres. The minimum width was ultimately determined to allow for the swing of conductors. The wider designation in parts was determined to allow for transposition stations, increased risk of fire in forestry areas, and for construction purposes.
648. Some submitters asked for a narrower designation, on a perception that farming practices would be less affected. Others sought a wider designation in forestry areas, or on a perception of risk of health effects, of risk of tower collapse, or of risk of trees falling on the line.
649. The Board has considered whether it should address the disputes about the width of the designation in the context of assessing the adequacy of consideration of alternative routes for the work, or should address those disputes in the context of considering whether the extent of the designation is reasonably necessary for achieving Transpower’s objectives.
650. As assessment of the consideration of the extent of designation would give submitters broader opportunity to challenge Transpower’s proposal than would assessment of the adequacy of consideration of alternative routes, the Board will address the width of the designation in Chapter 8 on whether the work and designation are reasonably necessary for achieving Transpower’s objectives.
Conclusion on adequacy of consideration of alternatives
651. The Board has had particular regard to submitters’ contentions that adequate consideration had not been given to alternative methods and routes of undertaking the work in respect of alternative methods other than transmission; alternative methods of transmission; and alternative routes for the proposed 400-kV-capable transmission line. In doing so, the Board has focused on the evidence given at its hearing of the submissions, and stated its findings on that basis.
652. In having that particular regard to the adequacy of consideration of those alternatives, the Board has not identified any respect in which the consideration that had been given to alternative sites, routes or methods of undertaking the work was inadequate.
653. The Board has also reviewed the process of planning for the proposal in an overall way. The duty to have particular regard to whether adequate consideration has been given to alternatives is expressed to be subject to Part 2. That is a conventional expression with the effect that, if the exercise of the duty conflicts with Part 2, that Part is to prevail.
654. The Board is not aware of any respect in which its having particular regard to the adequacy of consideration to alternatives is in conflict with Part 2, or with any content of that part. Rather, the Board finds that it conforms with applicable provisions of Part 2, and especially with the contents of section 5(2)(c) about avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment; the contents of section 6 about providing for the protection of outstanding natural landscapes, and of areas of significant indigenous vegetation; and of section 7 about having particular regard to the efficient use of natural and physical resources; the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values and the quality of the environment; and the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy.
655. Considered over all, it is the Board’s judgement that adequate consideration had been given to alternative sites, routes and methods of undertaking the work.
Endnotes
1. See Chapter 4, para [183].
2. Transcript 11/09/08, p16.
3. Transcript 11/09/08, p 17.
4. Transcript 22/07/08, p 6.
5. Transcript 22/07/08, p 7.
6. Transcript 22/07/08, p 8.
7. Transcript 22/07/08, p 10.
8. Published by Transpower, October 2004; produced in Common Bundle of Exhibits, Vol 1, Tab 5.
9. Cl 88 E was inserted in the GPS 2004 by the 2006 amendment. The GPS 2008 contained a corresponding provision in cl 104. The corresponding provision of the now current GPS 2009 is cl 94. See Chap 4 para [328].
10. Transcript, 27/03/08, pp 30-31.
11. Ibid, p 29.
12. Ibid, p28.
13. Transcript 1/04/08, p 49.
14. Transcript 1/04/08, p 19.
15. Auckland Volcanic Cones Society v Transit NZ [2003] NZRMA 316, 334 (FC).
16. Major Electricity Users Group v Electricity Commission and Transpower [2008] NZCA 536 para [85].
17. Allan, 2004a, pp 60, 62, 64.
18. Allan, 2004a, Appdx 2, pp 22, 24, 26
19. Cf McGuire v Hastings District Council [2002] 2 NZLR 577;[2001] NZRMA 557; 8 ELRNZ 14 (PC) para [21].
20. Allan, 2004 b, Appdx 2, pp 20-25.
21. Allan 2004 b, p 10.
22. Allan, 2004 b, Appdx 3.
23. Allan, 2004 b, p 46.
24. Allan, 2004 a.
25. Transcript 9/07/08, p 25.
26. Allan, 2005, p 32.
