Kiwiblog

The SST reports on likely changes to the RMA. They are:

• enable local councils to make planning changes more quickly (currently takes six years on average)
• prevent companies using the law to stymie competition from rival firms
• no change to the environmental purposes of the act
• major projects could now be heard by a board of inquiry headed by an Environment Court judge or a retired judge
• local bodies could nominate people also to serve on the board
• limit the number of appeals that go further up the track
• increase the power of the courts to be able to ping players that have abused the RMA process
• maximum fine for breaches of RMA to increase from $200,000 to several million probably

In summary it is not about changing what projects get consent, just about speeding up the process which is insanely long at the moment.

Something else Labour forgot to mention before the election – Eden Park probably won’t be ready in time for the 2011 Rugby World Cup because of the time taken to get consents.

And this is Labour who claims the RMA doesn’t need reform!

The new Government may have to pass a special law over-riding the consent process for Eden Park. Let’s hope not, as that is unfair to residents – but not having Eden Park ready in time is not an option.

Frog is upset about Rodney Hide wanting to restrict appeals from deecisions of consent panels to directly affected persons.

Frog thunders:

And in a society governed by rule of law, the citizens should be able to appeal the decisions of council hearing panels to the courts. But I guess all Act’s talk about ‘rule of law’ is only when it suits them not when it might stand in the way of making a buck at the expense of the environment.

This sounds superficially appealing, until you realise Frog is not talking about being able to appeal against what Councils do with public land but appeal against what citizens do on their private property.

Does Frog then think I should be able to appeal to the Enviornment Court his or her decision to paint their house a particular colour? Even when I’m not a next door neighbour, but live 1000 kms away?

Those who are affected by a resource consent should be able to follow the legal process around that consent. But I don’t see why me in Wellington should be able to delay for months and years a resource consent in Dunedin, if it has the support of everyone in Dunedin.

Good news that commissioners have given consent to Meridian Energy for a 1100Gwh to 1400GWh power station on the Waitaki River.

If we want to transition away from non-renewable energy to renewables, then projects like these are essential.

Of course this is just the first step of the consent process. There are inevitable appeals to the Environment Court. Actual construction is still four years away from beginning!

Nick Smith makes a very good case for RMA reform in the SST:

Smith replies that he doesn’t so much want to alter the environmental outcomes of disputes under the law, but the process. At present, decisions are made by dozens of local bodies, some of them tiny, and then routinely appealed to the Environment Court. The result is often expensive and unnecessary delay.

Yep, it is not about getting different decisions made, but the idiocy that it takes longer to get a resource consent for a road, than it does to build it.

He offers a couple of examples. “TrustPower has applied for a quite controversial power scheme on the Wairau River in Marlborough. The process has been awful. It went to a commissioners’ hearing and it dragged out for more than two years, but everybody knew from the word go that it would be appealed to the Environment Court. I have sympathy with the Marlborough District Council, which is the administering body for the law. They don’t have a high level of expertise with a very large hydro development. They’ve never had one before.

“And an organisation like Fish and Game has spent hundreds of thousands of their environmental money [fighting the proposal] knowing all the time that the thing was going to the Environment Court.

“Another example is a highly controversial Mokihinui hydro scheme on the West Coast proposed by Meridian. Now Buller District Council is one of our smallest councils in the country. For them to be dealing with a $200m proposal… You’ve got a council with a population of 3000 or 4000 processing a consent that’s got major implications way beyond the Buller District.” The officer concerned with processing resource consent applications, he says, was probably also the dog control officer.

If it involves national infrastructure, it inevitably is dealt with nationally. This doesn’t mean no local input, just that the actual Councils may not be best placed to deal with it.

Smith wants to set up a new body, the Environmental Protection Agency, with a trained and professional staff equipped to do the administrative work with these complex proposals, which would be considered either by the Environment Court or a board of inquiry. Time-wasting and expensive hearings by tiny local bodies would be omitted.

The EPA may actually result in a better level of environmental advocacy.

The RMA, he says, is an impediment to efficient investment in infrastructure “and that’s not helping the environment either”. Auckland has a worse air pollution problem than Los Angeles, he says, with cars stopping and starting in congested traffic. A better roading network would help the environment.

The Greens have an extreme anti-road views, but the reality is that NZ’s future includes both more roads and more public transport. Only extremists think it is a choice of one over another. And delaying much needed roads does have a toll – on the environment, on the road toll, and on the economy.

The RMA, despite some changes by the Labour-led government, presented huge difficulties for the development of environmentally friendly electricity projects such as wind and geothermal. Smith believes there is great potential for green power in New Zealand. The geothermal area of the central North Island had the advantage that it was close to the major growth areas of Auckland and the Waikato. There was some potential for hydro although “we’re certainly not going to be damming every last river”, he says. “And there is some longer-term opportunity around tidal and wave energy.”

A considerable number of renewable energy projects have been killed off due to the RMA process.

The Infrastructure Forum has just started. I’m only half taking it in, as was a pretty late night out with the Young Nationals celebrating the All Blacks massive victory.

Got absolutely soaked to the bone getting home – it was thundering down, and taxis were scarce with a 30 minute delay if you phoned for one.

Anyway back to infrastructure. First up was Maurice Williamson on transport and he summed it up himself with a one liner – National will build more roads – lots of them! He gave some staggering figures on the massive increase in costs that some roading projects have incurred due to consent delays. He stressed this wasn’t about even getiing enough roads for future volume, but just getting us enough for our current needs.

Then Gerry Brownlee on energy. Gerry said that if we found Maui field today, it would be worth around $50 billion. Said that concern over carbon emissions doesn’t change the fact that replacements for current fuel sources are not extensively available, so demand will stay high. NZ second only to Canada in our mineral endowment.

Third up was Nick Smith on RMA reform.  Round up of how multiple business organisations, government advisory groups and surveys all rate this as the highest priority. Will be enacted within months not years of the election.

Questions were fairly as expected. A patsy on why broadband is a better infrastructure investment than trains. Some discussion on coal and carbon emissions and whether one can sequester the co2 from coal. Also focus on consenting for roads – the desirability of having one consent application for an entire motorway, rather than breaking it down into lots of small packages – each of which has its own process.

NBR have an NZPA story on National’s policy programme. Details are:

• Tax policy to be released in first week of the campaign – is locked in and takes account of worsening economy
• KiwiSaver policy and Working for Families policies to be released
• These would be minor changes to current settings only
• Planning for a 8 November election
• Would introduce an RMA Amendment Bill within 100 days of office
• Aims to make the Emissions Trading Scheme a priority and pass legislation within nine months of office
• Stressed no change to the $1.5 billion fibre to the home broadband infrastructure proposal

All sounds good.

First of all, here is Colin Espiner on David Parker’s handing of the issue:

Okay then, so the Government says there’s nothing to worry about and the head of the company that transports electricity around the country says that there is. Hmmmmm. Who to believe? Hang on, isn’t there an election at the end of the year?

The best part was near the end of the press conference when Parker rounded on the media for supposedly beating up the story of a crisis, adding that no one could really expect to have a hydro-based power system AND keep the lights burning and industry making things.

Hmmn, this has some implications, such as:

The thing that disturbs me about this comment is that we’re less reliant on hydro power than we used to be. Fast forward ten years. I can almost hear whoever is Energy Minister saying: “You can’t have a wind-based electricity system and still have enough electricity to run everything flat tack in a really calm year.”

Yup. That’s why the rest of the developed world still burns coal and oil, or has nuclear power. You can’t rely on a network dependent on rain and wind – even in Wellington. Was it really only a few months ago that the Government was promising to make New Zealand 95 per cent dependent on renewable energy? Now Huntly’s running full tilt and we’re cheering on Mighty River Power to get its new gas-fired plant up and running as soon as possible.

But why don’t we have enough power? Usage patterns are well known and for years people have been saying we need more. Well Not PC looks at the problem – the RMA. Go read his whole post because it has a huge amount of data, but here’s just one aspect:

Projects Abandoned/Delayed/Restricted due to Resource Management Act :

· Project Aqua, hydro (520 MW) – abandoned 2000-2004
· Marsden B, coal (320 MW) – abandoned 2007
· Wairau Valley, Marlborough, hydro (75 MW) – abandoned 2007
· Whanganui/Tongariro, hydro – Environment Court effectively reduced the Tongariro capacity by one-third due to the “mauri” of the Whanganui river …
· North Bank Tunnel, hydro (260MW) – delayed until at least 2016
· Makara, wind – reduced from 210 to 140MW in 2007
· Project Hayes, wind (150MW) – still in delay
· Te Uku Wind (72MW) – awaiting consents
· Te Waka Wind (111MW) – consent overturned by Environment Court in April, 2007

There isn’t a market failure with energy generation. There is a regulatory failure.

The Environment Court has turned down the proposal for a 5 star Hilton to be built on the Wellington Waterfront.

I was generally supportive because the current location is occupied by an ugly warehouse used for indoor sports which just doesn’t make any use of the stunning views of its location.  There may have been features of the actual proposal which made it undesirable -but  I haven’t studied it in detail.

Wellington has no top class hotels at all. The Intercontinental (which fought the proposal as they don’t want competition) is closest, but we will struggle to attract certain conventions and conferences without a five star hotel.