Editorial: Time to get on with pylon plan

Opinion

For some time, the Government has hinted it was uneasy about the standoff between Transpower and the Electricity Commission over the grid operator's plan to upgrade the power supply into Auckland. That disquiet has been replaced by decisiveness in the wake of the city's power blackout in mid-June. Directives contained in a draft National Policy Statement on Electricity tell the commission that its paramount consideration should be the maintenance of a secure power supply. In effect, the Government has given the go-ahead for the controversial 400kV transmission line from Whakamaru to Otahuhu.

That is a victory for practical decision-making. Transpower's proposal has been much criticised, but such will always be the case when landowners are confronted with the prospect of pylons up to 70m high crossing their land. Transpower has also diminished its own case by treating objectors arrogantly. But despite all this, the bottom line is that no one has presented a compelling or cogent alternative. Talk of power stations being built closer to the area of demand, thereby negating the need for a more powerful national grid, has remained just that.

Equally, the Electricity Commission's draft ruling in April, which put the brakes on Transpower, was unconvincing. The commission concluded that a $140 million investment in the existing network, and perhaps the building of power stations near Auckland, would delay the need for a 400 kV line until 2017. That is seven years after the deadline laid down by Transpower for avoiding the risk of power cuts. Yet, the commission also noted that farmers who objected to the pylons on their land needed to accept that a new transmission line was inevitable.

Given that certainty, there seems little point in delaying matters for seven years, especially if the postponement could imperil Auckland's supply security. The blackout probably confirmed to the Government that this was a risk not worth taking. Its new directive, in dictating the paramountcy of supply, removes any potential for the commission to be swayed by conflicting objectives. A further directive allowing Transpower to recover the costs of acquiring land corridors in advance of approval of its plan merely confirms the Government's intent.

This means Transpower's original contention that there was no alternative has been proved right. But it would be wrong to imply the consultation process has been a waste of time. In times past, the grid operator would probably have received the green light without too much consideration being given to objections or alternatives. But the commission's procedures have ensured a fair hearing for farmers and townies concerned about the risk of the pylons to land uses, land values and their health. It has also provided a platform for the airing of alternative schemes and power sources. That none has measured up is hardly the commission's fault.

But at least one constant refrain from the consultation process should find its way into Transpower's final plan. Placing the whole line underground would be far too expensive. But there is a strong case for using that method when it traverses heavily populated areas. That, at least, would mitigate the varied concerns of a large number of people, and heighten the environmental acceptability of the project.

The Energy Minister has acknowledged that the need to knock heads together "a little bit" underlies the Government's directive. Transpower is required to ensure that Auckland has a guaranteed power supply; the commission has now been told that maintenance of a secure supply is its paramount consideration. That should be enough to get them singing from the same songsheet.