i PROPOSED ELECTRICITY SAFETY (ELECTRIC LINE CLEARANCE) REGULATIONS 2010 Regulatory Impact Statement (FINAL 15/02/10) This Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) has been prepared in accordance with the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 to facilitate public consultation on the proposed Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2010. A copy of the proposed regulations is provided as an attachment to this RIS. Public comments and submissions are invited on the proposed regulations. All submissions will be treated as public documents. Written comments and submissions should be forwarded to: Mr Andrew Padanyi Legal Officer Energy Safe Victoria PO Box 262 Collins Street West VIC 8007 email: [email protected] and must be received no later than 5pm on Tuesday 25 May 2010. ii Frontispiece © State of Victoria, Energy Safe Victoria 2010 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1986. This regulatory impact statement was prepared for Energy Safe Victoria by Tim Harding & Associates in association with Rivers Economic Consulting. Disclaimer: This publication may be of assistance to you, but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for an error, loss or other consequence that may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. iii Summary Introduction In Victoria, contact between overhead electric lines and trees can have dire consequences, including bushfires, electrocutions and power loss. Such events can result in deaths, injuries and economic loss. The risks of such events can be reduced to as low as reasonably practicable by maintaining appropriate clearance spaces between overhead electric lines and trees. Part 8 of the Electricity Safety Act 1998 specifically requires responsible persons to keep the whole or any part of a tree clear of an electric line. ‘Responsible persons’ include electricity distribution companies; occupiers of land, public land managers and VicRoads where there are electric lines; and owners or operators of electric lines. A breakup of the category and number of responsible persons is illustrated in Table 1 below: Table 1: Category and number of responsible persons in 2009/10 Category of responsible person Number of Responsible persons Transmission Businesses 2 SP Powernet Pty Ltd Basslink Distribution Businesses 6 Jemena NE SPI Electricity Pty Ltd Citipower Powercor + Powercor (Docklands) United Energy Distribution (UED) Country Energy Other responsible persons under Sec.84 of the Act 104 70 councils Melbourne Water Vic Roads Yarra Trams MainCo Parks Victoria Melbourne airport Bendigo Trams Tramway Museum Society of Victoria Ballarat tramway Museum Falls Creek Alpine Resort Management Board Mt Buller Mt Stirling Alpine Resort Management Board Perseverance Corporation Limited 22 Wind farms Total 112 To achieve this, section 89 of the Act requires that there shall at all times be regulations in place prescribing a code of practice for electric line clearance. That is to say, there cannot be a situation where regulations cannot exist. The Act also specifies that such regulations have a life of not more than five years. The existing Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2005 (‘the existing regulations’) will therefore automatically expire on 30 June 2010. The proposed regulations are required to be open iv for public comment for a period of ninety days in accordance with section 89 of the Electricity Safety Act 1998. This Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) assesses the proposed Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2010 (‘the proposed regulations’), which are intended to replace the existing regulations on or before their expiry date, with some modifications. A summary of the differences between the proposed regulations and the existing regulations is given in Part 5.2 and Appendix 1 to this RIS. The modifications to the existing regulations contain improvements recommended by the regulator established by the Act, Energy Safe Victoria (ESV) in consultation with the Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee (ELCCC) established by section 87 of the Act and other key stakeholders. These improvements draw on the operational experience of the existing regulations since 2005. The main changes are in the following six areas: 1. Under the proposed regulations, only major electric companies would need to submit their management plans to ESV for approval; whereas under the existing regulations, all responsible persons (except for land occupiers) need to submit their management plans to ESV for approval. 2. The definition of environmentally or culturally significant trees is more specific under the proposed regulations, and the new clause 2(3) of the Code restricts the cutting of these trees to the minimum extent necessary. Greater protection is to be given to: areas of native trees, trees of ecological, historical or aesthetic significance or trees of cultural or environmental significance; vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered faunal species under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. As a result of these changes, the advice of a qualified arborist or horticulturalist will no longer be required before cutting or removal of these trees under the proposed regulations. 3. Responsible persons would need to notify and consult occupiers or owners of private land or affected persons (as the case requires) before pruning or clearing vegetation under the proposed regulations. The existing regulations require firms to either obtain permission or to give at least 14 days written notice to occupiers or owners of private land or affected persons before cutting or removal of vegetation. As part of the permission seeking process, it is assumed that there are, at times, some negotiations between responsible persons and occupiers/owners of private land/affected persons about a variety of issues (including: the nature of the cutting or removal; when it will occur; special trees; access to property etc). Negotiation is, of course, a natural consequence of many situations where permission is required by one party from another. ESV has no empirical data in relation to the number, duration or frequency of these negotiations. It is possible that negotiations occur each year with some land owners or occupiers. An example of a need for negotiation might be that a landowner does not want to allow access to their property; however, the responsible person can comply with v the regulations only by accessing the land to allow physical access to the trees and to do so in a safe manner. These negotiations can be an important aspect of obtaining permission as land owners of even small parcels of land can hold up major works or cause re-visits. This is particularly the case where the land is in remote areas or fire prone areas. Finally notification and consultation under the proposed regulations can be by written notice or newspaper advertisement; whereas under the existing regulations, consultation by newspaper advertisement is permitted only after taking reasonable steps and being unable to give written notice. 4. Under the proposed regulations, minimum clearance spaces surrounding aerial bundled cable or insulated cable would also apply to small tree branches; whereas under the existing regulations these minimum clearance spaces do not apply under specified conditions. 5. Under the proposed regulations, minimum clearance spaces surrounding powerlines in hazardous bushfire risk areas would apply to tree branches above a powerline of 22,000 volts; whereas under the existing regulations these minimum clearance spaces do not apply under specified conditions. 6. The penalty for a breach of proposed subregulation 9(4) is also increased under the proposed regulations from 10 penalty units (i.e $1,168.20 in 2009/10) to 20 penalty units (i.e. $2,336.40 in 2009/10), bringing it into line with other penalties imposed by the proposed regulations. This subregulation relates to the requirement on major electric companies to ensure that a management plan is prepared and submitted to ESV by the specified time, which is now 31 March in each year. Under section 157(3) of the Act, 20 penalty units is the maximum penalty that can be imposed for a breach of the regulations. Management plan requirements help to safeguard public safety and the reliability of power supplies, and it is appropriate that the penalties reflect their importance to the greatest available extent. The other offence provisions ensure that all duties set out in the proposed regulations are enforceable, which is not the case with some duties in the existing regulations. The problems The problems underlying this regulatory proposal are discussed in some detail in the body of the RIS, but generally arise in relation to the following specific sources of risk arising from contact between electric lines and trees or other vegetation: 1. Extreme risks to public safety and property from bushfires; 2. Severe risks of loss of power supplies; 3. Safety risks to individuals from electrocution; 4. Environmental risks from overcutting or excessive removal of vegetation; and 5. Risks of inadequate notification and consultation. Each of the first three risks can result in deaths and injuries, if not adequately managed. Fire risks and power loss can also result in economic loss. The relationships