Editorial: Putting our power needs on the line

No company that proposes erecting a string of giant power pylons across private land is ever going to be greeted with open arms. Duly, as reported this week in the Herald's "Battlelines" series, Transpower has run into a storm of protest. Those affected by the national grid company's plan to build 480 towers up to 70m high in a transmission line from the middle of the North Island to South Auckland say it will hinder land use, destroy land values and present health risks. They have set up a fighting fund to thwart the project. Thus it is that the Electricity Commission will face an early test of its mettle.

The power sector monitor must, as its first exercise in line approval, decide whether the $500 million plan goes ahead. It will have to balance the anger of the Waikato land-owners against Transpower's plan and, most importantly, alternatives to it. The background is straightforward enough. Even the land-owners concede something must be done; that Auckland is the powerhouse of the country and that its future electricity supply must be guaranteed. The real question is the means of providing that guarantee.

Transpower argues that the 400kV line, which will almost double existing capacity, is the only valid option. A major upgrade is necessary, it says, because essentially nothing has been done to the grid infrastructure for 50 years. It can also point to the fact that Auckland's burgeoning growth will mean a corresponding surge in power demand in the years ahead. Indeed, the grid company's stance was done no harm whatsoever when the city almost ran out of capacity last week as high temperatures in the Waikato River affected generation from the Huntly power station.

For all that the Waikato farmers and townies have legitimate concerns about pylons being inflicted on them, Transpower's case will be undercut most effectively by the presentation of a better option, or set of options. Several have been suggested; all, however, have wrinkles.

Putting the transmission line underground is simply too expensive. Equally, firing up Northland's Marsden B power station might delay but not eradicate the need for the transmission line. It would also not supply the required reliability. Similar questions of supply abound over other potential power sources such as gas and wind.

The Greens, strange bedfellows with Federated Farmers on this issue, say smaller power stations, mostly using renewable energy sources, should be built closer to demand, thereby negating the need for a more powerful national grid. They also advocate energy efficiency. A common drawback of all these ideas is the time required for implementation. People's power-consumption habits will not be changed in a year or two, renewable energy technology is still being developed, and firing up Marsden B would not take place until 2008 or 2009. The Electricity Commission will have to gauge the time scale and difficulties inherent in many of these proposals against the need to secure Auckland's power supply in quick time.

At the moment, it is steering a sensible course. A twin-track approval process seems likely, with Transpower able to keep planning its transmission line while opponents are given time to come up with alternatives. Commission chairman Roy Hemmingway has also stated, quite correctly, that fuzzy notions will not wash. "By the time we get to a point where a transmission line really needs to be committed to or not, then we would expect an alternative to be as far along."

In another time Transpower would probably have received the go-ahead without too much trouble. Public objection would have been pondered briefly - and then dismissed. A far higher degree of fairness will attend the consideration of this transmission line. Greater powers of examination, and flexibility of thought, will be required of the Electricity Commission. And that is how it should be.