Editorial: All power users are not equal

In an ideal world, Transpower's electricity-supply policy would be highly commendable. Its ambition is to treat all areas, and all people, as critical, and therefore to deliver the same standard of care throughout the country. If it were left to its own devices, even the power failure that crippled much of Auckland on June 12 would not change this approach. So much for principle. Now it is time for the national grid operator to move into the real world.

In that world, the road to Waikikamukau is not built to the same standard as the motorways into Auckland or Wellington, and inhabitants of rural settlements are apt to be cut off by floods in a way that would not happen in a major city. In that world, the bigger the city, the more attention it is paid by service providers.

The reasons are simple enough. The more densely an area is settled, the greater is the opportunity for garnering profits by reducing capital expenditure to a minimum. Equally, however, the vast majority of service providers recognise that the larger the population, the more people are inconvenienced when a service fails. Last month, when two severely corroded shackles at the Otahuhu substation failed, half the country's most populous region was deprived of power. When much is at stake, including a provider's reputation, services must be as reliable as possible.

A review of the Auckland blackout by consultants Connell Wagner leaves no doubt about Otahuhu's significance. It was an "absolutely critical" element of the national grid. Yet Transpower had no special inspection and maintenance procedures. The report does not mince words about the failure to maintain the substation. If the shackles had been closely inspected in 2003, "their poor condition would have been obvious", it says.

That raises questions about the standard of care throughout the grid and whether there are other points of frailty that could deliver unpleasant surprises. The Minister of Energy, David Parker, has asked Transpower for a list of risk points and what mitigation measures are in place. That seems only prudent. In addition, he has questioned Transpower's suggestion that it will maintain its current maintenance policy, and, quite properly, asked if it will adopt a tiered scheme.

Nobody wants the grid operator to lower its standard of care in rural areas. But its procedures should reflect the seriousness of the impact when a piece of equipment fails. Connell Wagner suggests Transpower implements an Otahuhu maintenance and inspection regime "above and beyond" what would be applied to similar system elements in "normal" situations. The same logic suggests crucial elements in the supply of the likes of Wellington and Christchurch should, likewise, receive a higher-than-usual standard of care.

Transpower's attitude towards opponents of its plan to string 430 huge power pylons across the Waikato and South Auckland landscape earned it a well-warranted reputation for arrogance. That will not have been ameliorated by its response to the Connell Wagner report. Its statement that all its facilities were critical to some degree and that it would "not want to be seen to deliberately treat some areas of electricity supply as non-critical" may raise a cheer in smalltown New Zealand. But it shares nothing with common sense.

This is not a question of sacrificing rural areas to the exigencies of metropolitan New Zealand. It is about acknowledging that a blackout will be far more serious for some locations than others. And of safeguarding the national grid appropriately.