Open Hydro tidal turbine
(source NZ Energy Strategy to 2050)
The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stones, and the fossil-energy age is not going to end any time soon because we’ve run out of cheap fossil energy … There is no way to compete with technology that consists of just taking concentrated energy sources, like coal and oil, pulling them out of the ground, and burning them. We can discuss the true costs of putting carbon into the atmosphere, but on the current economic basis, if we wait for price signals to drive us away from fossil energy, we’ll be waiting a very long time.[1]
1. Introduction
In September 2008, the proposed National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy (NPS) was publicly notified, and the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Act 2008 and the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008 were passed into law. Together, these represent the next stage in addressing the demands for a secure supply of electricity in a carbon constrained global environment, as outlined in the New Zealand Energy Strategy to 2050.[2]
This paper briefly examines the global context of New Zealand’s contribution to climate change, and considers the NPS in more detail in the context of the proposed 200 MW tidal energy project being undertaken by Crest Energy Kaipara Limited at the mouth of the Kaipara Harbour in Northland.
2. Climate Change in New Zealand Context
A. New Zealand’s Contribution to Global Climate Change
Global rankings
Ranked 73rd for cumulative emissions and 57th for annual emissions of greenhouse gases, New Zealand is a minnow in terms of global climate change.[3] Our total emissions are 70.4 million tonnes of CO2E, which is 0.20% of total global emissions. There is, therefore, some justification in the observation that, if we did nothing, the impact would be negligible.
However, on a per capita basis New Zealand is ranked 12th, and when the measures are limited to key agricultural indicators of CH4 and N20, the ranking rises to 3rd (10.0 tonnes CO2E per person), after only Antigua & Barbuda (with 20.8 tonnes CO2E per person) and United Arab Emirates (with 11.0 tonnes CO2E per person). This does not sit at all well with how we like to perceive ourselves, and others to perceive us.
One can argue that this reflects the importance of the agriculture sector to the New Zealand economy, and perhaps a general level of complacency about climate change due to our relative remoteness and the limited extent to which we can affect climate change. However, these are not statistics which support our Clean Green and New Zealand Pure marketing image. On a more positive note, New Zealand has a very low ranking at 91st for the greenhouse gas intensity of the economy, and an even more encouraging position at 104th for the carbon intensity of electricity production. In overall energy use, we are also modestly ranked at 66th (24thper capita).
This is perhaps more a factor of relatively low population density, a temperate climate, low levels of manufacturing and industrialisation and relatively energy rich environment, but with industrialised farming practises which have been slow to address climate change issues. It is also fair to say that, while our impact is small, there is little that New Zealand has done consciously to be a responsible global environmental citizen, or to address critical climate change issues.[4]
Contribution by Sector
Figure 1 - GHG Emissions by Sector in 2000 (CO2, CH4, N20, PFCs, SF6)[5]
By sector, agriculture accounts for 50.9% of greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand, followed closely by the energy sector at 44.7%. So, we may ask, why focus so heavily on energy generation, given what many view as a free pass for farmers when it comes to responding to the pressures of climate change?[6]
The answer lies in a combination of the political difficulty of addressing agricultural emissions, and its relatively low energy intensity. For the energy sector, at current generation levels, an impressive 70% of electricity generation is from renewable sources. However, at projected growth rates, that position quickly changes.
It is also perhaps inevitable the increased awareness of anthropogenic climate change has coincided with the realisation that cheap and plentiful fossil fuels may be a thing of the past.
B Energy Generation in New Zealand
Generating Capacity in NZ
Total generating capacity in New Zealand depending on rainfall and average ambient temperatures, is approximately 8,250 MW.
New Zealand currently generates 70% of its energy needs from renewable resources, principally hydro (88%), geothermal (10%) and wind (2%), with the balance made up from thermal generation, using gas and coal.[7]
It is interesting to note that this limited reliance on imported fossil fuels for generation has meant that New Zealand has been insulated from much of the increase in fuel prices, resulting in relatively cheap electricity prices.
Figure 2 – New Zealand’s Electricity Supply[8]
Fossil fuel generation released a realtively modest 8.3 Mt of CO2E into the atmosphere in 2006.[9]
However, projections are that 2,325 MW of additional generation will be needed in New Zealand by 2030, which if provided from fossil fuels alone, will result in a 50% increase in greenhouse gas emissions.[10] This is a large part of the focus of the New Zealand Energy Strategy (NZES), and the efforts of the Government to establish the true cost of the use of fossil fuels for generation and to establish an environment which encourages generation using renewable resources, and by extension removes the constraints on developing new generation.
It is the Government’s position that, using existing technologies, 90% of the country’s electricity needs, including the anticipated growth can be met by generation from renewable resources. What is required, however, is an appropriate disincentive to increased thermal generation and a price for electricity which makes expanding renewable generation economic.
Renewable Energy
The definition of renewable energy was brought into section 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) by the 2004 amendment. The definition is relatively brief, limiting renewable energy to “energy produced from solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass, tidal, wave, and ocean current sources”.
There is little or no explanation of what these expressions mean. If the intention is to exclude forms of generation which produce greenhouse gas emissions altogether, the inclusion of biomass taken in isolation is curious, and the exclusion of other forms of generation (eg kinetic hydro or nuclear) inconsistent. Pragmatically, there is potentially considerable benefit to be gained by including generation resources which, while producing greenhouse gases themselves, reduce or displace other emissions. Where generation from biomass reduces the release of methane (which is 72 times more damaging from a climate change perspective than the same quantity of CO2) directly into the atmosphere in favour of less harmful carbon dioxide, its inclusion is understandable.[11] So while generation from biomass does not eliminate CO2 emissions, by displacing more harmful methane, it has a considerable positive impact.
Conversely, nuclear power generation produces no greenhouse gas emissions, but is not included in the definition, and nor is it an option in the NPS. The NZES notes that while design and safety of nuclear fission has improved, plants are still too expensive. Nuclear generation may be enjoy reconsideration in some parts of the world (notably the US), however the significant concerns over:
- safety, particularly arising from leakage from the system, accidents, earthquakes and terrorist attacks,
- disposal of waste, and its potential for use in weapons, and
- political opposition from a staunchly nuclear free electorate,
mean that generation from nuclear fuel is unlikely to be an acceptable option in New Zealand for the foreseeable future.
Peak Oil and alternative fuels
The discussion of the availability of renewable resources to limit the effect of climate change is all too frequently confused by the discussion over whether or not we have achieved the much anticipated midpoint of global hydrocarbon production. [12] It is inevitable that the growing concerns about anthropogenic climate change will also stimulate discussion about diminishing reserves of cheap and available fossil fuels, but these are completely separate and in many respects contradictory issues.
On the one hand, climate change concerns are about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whereas the Peak Oil debate turns on using substitute fuels or finding new, accessible and plentiful oil reserves which does little to ease concerns about greenhouse gas emissions. The only common thread is that high spot oil prices make renewable generation and further oil exploration more economic, and diminishing supplies and climate change pressures are forcing communities to focus on the impact on their lives of not having cheap and plentiful fossil fuels available.
If anything, cheap and plentiful oil makes raising climate change issues, and reducing the rate of acceleration of the emission of greenhouse gases, even harder to achieve.
Generation in the US
By way of comparison, electricity generation in the US is far more reliant on fossil fuels:
Figure 3 – Fuel Sources for Electricity Generation in the US in 2000
With only 9% of generation from renewable resources (if you include hydropower, but exclude nuclear), it is hardly surprising that the Federal Energy policy focuses on increasing efficiency of thermal generation, easing dependence on imported oil and carbon capture and storage (CCS).[13]
The US generates 71% of its electricity from thermal plants, ranking it 1st in yearly emissions of greenhouse gases. However, the US has a far more modest ranking of 42nd for emissions from energy production with 559.0 g CO2/kWh (compared to 161.2g CO2/kWh for New Zealand – which reflects roughly the same levels of efficiency of thermal generation for a comparable output).[14] It is easy for the rest of the world to point the finger at the US for its addiction to fossil fuels, however for thermal generation, New Zealand is no more efficient. The issue is simply one of scale and awareness.
Generation in the EU
In the European Union, generation from renewables varies considerably from 64% (Austria) to no renewable generation at all (Malta & Cyprus), with the average being 13.97%, made up of biomass (66.1%), hydro (22.2%), geothermal (5.5%), wind (5.5%) and solar (0.7%):
Figure 4 – Share of renewable energies in gross electrical consumption
in European Union countries in 2005 (in %)[15]
The EU objective for generation from renewable resources is to achieve 21% in 2010, built up on a country by country basis, depending on the resources available. Issues of efficiency may or may not be taken into account. [16]
Consumption by industry sector
Energy consumption within New Zealand in 2006 on an industry sector basis is dominated by national transport, with agriculture not surprisingly the lowest user:
- Agriculture 4.3%
- Commercial 9.1%
- Residential 12.6%
- Industrial 30.0%
- National Transport 44.0%
The focus on electricity is understandable, notwithstanding the position of agriculture as the single biggest contributor to emissions (at 50.9% - producing more emissions than all other sectors combined). Agriculture will need to work to address its emission problems before it becomes subject to the emissions trading scheme in 2013. The energy sector has the more difficult issues of growth in energy demand and the national importance of security of supply to contend with. New renewable generation needs to be planned for now if we do not wish to double our emissions from electricity generation over the next 12 years.[17]
Dispatch
The electricity market in New Zealand is divided between retail (with retailer competing for customers) and wholesale (where generators sell electricity to retailers and large commercial and industrial users).
The wholesale electricity market in New Zealand operates under a pool in which generators bid to supply electricity (typically on a station by station basis) at a spot price set by demand. The price paid for the entire pool is set by the last accepted bid on the spot market.
In practice, this will mean that a generator will bid in the entire output from a base loaded station at the lowest price it can achieve to ensure continuous generation for that plant. As the demand increases, the spot price rises and more expensive offerings are taken up by the grid operator (Transpower). The critical issue is that dispatch is determined by the offer price in relation to the spot price, rather than being set with regard to whether or not the fuel sources are renewable or the need to balance the demands on the entire energy resource (eg, reducing hydro during dryer years, increasing wind generation during windier periods and “storing” energy by not burning fossil fuels or keeping hydro lake levels high).
This can have unfortunate consequences, particularly where the four main generators have exposure to a particular energy source. When the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand was split into four new competing generation companies in 1998, each inherited different generating assets:
- Contact Energy – Clyde/Roxbrough (hydro), New Plymouth (thermal), Wairakei/Ohaaki (geothermal), Whirinaki (thermal) & Otahuhu (thermal)
- Genesis Energy – Huntly (thermal), Tongariro, Waikaremoana and Kourarau schemes (hydro)
- Meridian Energy – Lake Manapouri, Waitaki River and Tekapo Basin schemes (hydro)
- Mighty River Power – Waikato River (hydro)
As Contact Energy historically sourced its Maui gas under a take or pay agreement, when its new 400 MW station at Otahuhu went online in 2000, it brought in the gas at no cost from a pricing perspective, which enabled it to offer output from Otahuhu B at an almost nil price. This ensured that the station became base loaded (bumping Genesis’s Huntly station off its baseload position).
This does not, of course, mean that the price paid to Contact for electricity from Otahuhu B was paid at this low price. As demand increased, more generation was brought online in the order in which the generator priced for the supply. The price for all electricity dispatched is paid at the last bid price. [18] While the market is relatively unregulated,[19] it is also relatively unsophisticated, in that it takes account of no other drivers than price and availability.
Since the separation of the Electricity Corporation into the four generation companies, each has moved to improve generating efficiency and to remove any exposure the companies may have to their originally very narrow energy sources – for example in drought years, or when gas or coal prices increase (for thermal plants). Much of the new development has been in renewable generation, principally wind power.
It is fair to say that a lot of the low hanging renewable generation fruit has probably been picked already. The easy, major hydro has been developed, geothermal tapped and the industry is only now coming to terms with the more difficult and remote sources like wind and tidal flows. This is not helped by the relative expense of developing renewable energy, the difficulties with consenting, the fact that it is relatively low yield compared to the carbon based fuel alternatives, the energy sources (for wind generation, at remote coastal locations) are often well removed from the national grid,[20] and there is little certainly over when and how much electricity will be generated. With the exception of geothermal, renewable energy sources are not very predictable or reliable.
All this makes a market based pricing mechanism problematic.
From an operational perspective, there is also little incentive for the generators to select a more environmentally friendly method of generation; especially if it is more expensive and uncertain.
As companies, the major generators are also focused on maximising the returns for their shareholders. In the case of Contact Energy and TrustPower, they are listed companies. Todd Energy is an unlisted company (held by family and related interests), and TransPower (the grid operator managing dispatch and electricity availability), Genesis, Meridian and Mighty River Power are state owned enterprises (under the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986).
Companies have separate legal personality from their shareholders,[21] and in managing companies, directors are to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company.[22] Similarly, the principal objective of a state owned enterprise is to operate as a successful business, which is defined as including being as profitable and efficient as comparable businesses that are not owned by the Crown.[23] In lieu of regulatory intervention, there is no responsibility on any of these companies to have regard to climate change issues, or to give priority to generation from renewable energy sources.
Though undoubtedly laudable, there is nothing inherent in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, or reducing thermal generation from fossil fuels, which would require these companies to do anything other than to maximise the returns to their respective shareholders, and to act in a way which is consistent with the best interests of the companies themselves.
3. New Zealand Energy Strategy to 2050 – Powering Our Future
A NZES Overview
The New Zealand Energy Strategy to 2050 (NZES), issued by the Ministry of Economic Development in October 2007,[24] sets as its vision:
A reliable and resilient system delivering New Zealand sustainable, low emissions energy services. [25]
The NZES has a very wide focus on energy, dealing with security of energy supply, efficiency of use and conservation. In relation to electricity generation, the strategy proposes that the vision will be delivered by:
(1) using markets and focused regulation to provide secure energy services at competitive prices
(2) reducing greenhouse gases through an emissions trading scheme
(3) maximising the contribution of cost-effective renewable energy resources
The NZES then introduces the concept of generation of 90% of our electricity needs from renewable resources by 2025 (based on delivered electricity in an average hydrological year), which is then taken up in the proposed NPS for renewable energy.
In the context of a relatively unregulated electricity market, where the generating companies are commercial entities focused on generating returns to their shareholders, it is difficult to envisage how the generators are to be incentivised to adopt more expensive and inherently more inefficient methods of generation without direct regulatory intervention. While the purchasing public may have a preference for less carbon intense methods of generation, electricity is a uniform product, supplied from the national electricity grid by local network operators (who both enjoy natural monopolies). We cannot chose electricity only from renewable generation. We get what the grid operator provides.
Any strategy aimed at increasing the proportion of electricity generated from renewable resources needs to address:
(a) the real cost of generation by burning fossil fuels – cost in this respect is not the financial cost of finding, extracting and delivering the fuel, but also the environmental, social and other costs of the entire activity, for example the rectification of the impact of extraction (whether reinstating open cast coal mining, energy and water use in liquefying heavy hydrocarbons, or rehabilitating sites used for drilling and piping gas or oil), safe and effective transportation (pipelines across sensitive waste and shipping by supertanker), the construction and operation of thermal generation plants and the impact of greenhouse gases emitted during generation.
(b) the cost and relative inefficiency of generating technology – this is a research and development issue that markets are probably best at addressing. In order to establish an effective generation plant using a renewable resource, generators need to access increasingly remote resources, find appropriate technologies which efficiently capture the available energy with the least environmental impact, and then dispatch the electricity onto the national grid at a time when generation is at its most efficient, for a price which gives the best return on the investment.
(c) the compliance cost of developing and operating power stations fuelled from renewable resources – the consent process under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) is lengthy, expensive and uncertain, as can be seen from Meridian’s Project Aqua in 2004 (a vast hydro project which failed to get consent) and Project Hayes (a 150 MW wind farm which is still in process).
The NZES acknowledges that, while existing technologies are capable of meeting 90% of projected electricity demand by 2025, this is unlikely to be achieved without considerable intervention.
Markets and focused regulation
The Electricity Commission was established in September 2003 (under the Electricity Act 1992) to ensure that electricity is produced and delivered to all classes of consumers in an efficient, fair, reliable and environmentally sustainable manner. [26] The current investigation by the Commerce Commission into electricity pricing by both generators and network operators [27] provides pause for thought on the strength of markets to meet the demands of climate change. Certainly the market does not seem to be delivering the cheap electricity prices consumers had been encouraged to expect.
The Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Act 2008 introduces a new Part 6A to the Electricity Act, under which no new plants over 10 MW in generating capacity using over 20% of fossil fuel may be connected to the national grid. The Act effectively bans the development of any new baseloaded thermal plants for the 10 year period during which any new renewable generation will need to be planned, consented, constructed and commissioned. It effectively, if rather inelegantly, provides a head start for renewable generation.
There are exceptions in the Amendment Act in relation to low emission, non-baseload plants (peaking plants), emergency plants, cogeneration and new thermal plants which displace older less efficient plants. The grant and monitoring of exemptions is, however, very tightly controlled under the Amendment Act.
Emissions Trading Scheme
The emissions trading scheme introduced in September of this year by the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008 is intended to support and encourage global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to assist New Zealand to meet its Kyoto Protocol obligations.
While the “cap and trade” approach of the system is intended to factor in the cost of greenhouse gas emissions into the market price for electricity, among other things, it actually does no such thing. The prices established for units to emit greenhouse gases are not based on the environmental cost of such emissions, but on the value generators place on the continued ability to emit. While the trading system imposes a constraint on emissions (at a proportion of 1990 levels) and it does impose a financial penalty on those who wish to exceed those limits (each of which provide an incentive for generators to explore renewable alternatives), neither the units nor the prices attaching to them bear any relationship to the cost to the environment of continuing to emit greenhouse gases. They establish a price the market participants are willing to pay to continue to emit. These are not the same thing.
There is no doubt that imposing a cap and trade scheme on existing thermal generation will make renewable generation more attractive and financially viable, by simply making generation above the agreed limits more expensive. It may be splitting hairs to point out that the price of emission units does not need to reflect the actual cost of emissions. All that is needed is a financial disincentive to continue emissions beyond 1990 levels, and a financial leg up to renewable generation. The problem with this, however, is that we are totally reliant on a market to provide the driver for renewable generation. The market (demand) will be driven by growth and, until recently, by the expectation that the price for emission units will increase (speculation). The current credit crisis can only put the efficacy of a market driving renewable generation into doubt.
Maximising the contribution of cost-effective renewable energy resources
The NZES identifies the need to balance the national imperatives to increase renewable electricity generation against the local impact of such projects, by giving guidance to consent authorities. This has been addressed by the issue of the proposed NPS for renewable energy, which is considered in the next section.
The Government has also provided financial assistance to the cost of new renewable energy projects through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA). While subsidies have the immediate effect of easing the financial disadvantage renewable generation typically suffers under, they are not without their critics. As The Economist observes, “subsidising clean energy requires politicians to decide on the best way of delivering it, and their judgment is likely to be worse than the market’s”. [28]
Without a true market price, however, it may be that a properly advised political judgment is as good as we can hope for.[29]
B Proposed NPS for Renewable Energy
Part of the third limb of the NZES drive to renewable energy is the proposed National Policy Statement for renewable energy, released by the Board of Inquiry for public comment in October 2008 (NPS).
When considering an application for resource consent, under s 104 of the RMA, the consenting authority must have regard to (a) the effects (actual or potential) on the environment of allowing the activity, (b) the provisions of any relevant national, coastal or regional policy statement and a plan (proposed or operative), and (c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant. Where the consent is for a renewable energy project, the effects are most likely to be local, from a consenting perspective, yet the benefits of renewable generation are primarily national. It is a difficult task for a consenting authority to balance local objections to the appearance of a 150 MW wind farm (for example Meridian’s Project Hayes), against the national need for secure, low emission power generation as espoused in the NZES.
National policy statements set out objectives and policies for matters of national significance that are relevant to achieving the purpose of the RMA.[30] In terms of section 104, national policy statements are at the top of the hierarchy of matters to be considered when considering applications for consent (ie, in priority to the provisions of any coastal or regional policy statement, or any regional or district plan).
The draft NPS is intended to provide the guidance consent authorities may need in balancing such conflicting interests.
Objective
The objective of the draft NPS is to recognise the national significance of renewable electricity generation by promoting renewable generation, with the aim of achieving the 90% level of generation set by the NZES in 2025.
This objective must also be read in the context of the requirement of all persons having a function under the RMA to have particular regard to the effects of climate change and the benefits of renewable energy, inserted into s 7 of the RMA by the 2004 Amendment.
Policies
The draft NPS sets out five proposed policies consent authorities must have regard to:
(1) the benefits provided by renewable energy generation, particularly increasing capacity while reducing or displacing greenhouse gas emissions, and security of electricity supply through diversification
(2) the practical constraints on developing renewable energy, particularly the nature and location of the energy source, technical difficulties with the development, existing renewable energy developments, and the location of existing structures
(3) the relative reversibility of adverse effects
(4) enabling identification of potential sites and research into emerging technologies, through plan and policy statement changes and variations
(5) supporting small scale renewable generation
These policies go way beyond the traditional effects based assessment under s 104.
A consideration of overall benefits from renewable generation brings with it not only climate change issues, but also the efficiency and security of supply of the national electricity grid. Similarly, concepts of the relative efficiency of different modes of generation from competing sites will need to be taken into account. This involves a consideration of the entire activity proposed, and not just its effects.
Taken together, the NPS also potentially goes well beyond the inclusion of issues of climate change and the benefits of renewable generation introduced into s 7 by the 2004 Amendment.
Policy 1 is couched in similar terms to s 7(j) (benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy). The similarity seems to end their, with Policy 2 bringing in the relative benefits of competing renewable generation projects, and the practicalities of developing the proposed generation activity, and Policies 4 & 5 imposing a positive obligation on local authorities to be pro-active in seeking out new generation opportunities, and supporting small scale distributed generation initiatives.
The reason for this more assertive role for local authorities almost certainly comes from the experience of consenting wind generation projects (the largest sector of renewable energy generation in New Zealand), and the weight attached to visual impacts in applications to date. [31] There are currently 11 wind farms operating in New Zealand, with 241 turbines in operation with a total installed capacity of 321.8 MW.[32] A further 14 wind farms have been, or are in the consent process, but have not been commissioned. This totals a further 1,517.70 MW of potential renewable generation.[33]
The difficulty with visual impact is that it is the single biggest adverse effect from wind farm generation, but it is largely subjective. While a court might form the view that certain landscapes (eg in and around Palmerston North and the lower North Island) do not enjoy the same attraction as others, that cannot create a carte blanche for wind farm development. While a landscape might not be marred by one wind farm development, no landscape can easily cope with unlimited turbines spread across it. [34]
Notwithstanding the lack of any clear direction or preference for renewable generation, it is reasonably clear that the Environment Court has been prepared to recognise the inevitability of renewable generation, and to discount local resistance to issues like visual impact accordingly.[35]
In his paper, Wind Power Consents in New Zealand, Associate Professor Palmer pushes for a national policy statement which could encourage a more coordinated approach to wind farm development, rather than the less structured and narrow focus of an effects based consideration. The planning policies (Policies 3 & 4, imposing obligations on Councils to include provision for renewable energy in their plans, and encouraging them to promote distributed energy) take a considerable step towards a planned and prospective approach to consenting renewable energy projects. The proposals do not, however, go as far as Palmer proposes.
Process
Submissions on the proposed NPS on renewable energy closed on 31 October 2008. Further submissions may then be made in support or opposition to those submissions by 19 December 2008. Public hearings will then be held in early 2009. The Board will then report to the Minister for the Environment, who will then consider the report, and may then recommend that the Governor-General approves the NPS (with or without changes).
Once the NPS has been approved by the Governor-General, local authorities must, in terms of s 55 of the RMA, amend its regional policy statements and plans (and proposed statements and plans) to give effect to the NPS.
The importance of the NPS is that it redirects the attentions of consent authorities away from purely considering local effects under s 104, and the sustainable management of resources under s 5, in favour of matters of national significance (not just in terms of s 6) by providing overriding policies for local authorities to incorporate into their resource management controls.
4. Crest Energy Kaipara Tidal Generation Project
Figure 5 - site map, showing proposed location of the turbines
A Overview
The Applicant
The applicant is Crest Energy Kaipara Limited, a single purpose company formed for the project, and funded by private individuals.
Crest has no property interests in the area, and has no other generating assets. Its involvement in the project rests entirely on the success of its application for resource consents and the grant of coastal permits for the occupation of the seabed for the life of the project.
As the turbines are to be placed on the seabed, which has vested in the Crown pursuant to s 13 of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, the consent application will necessarily also result in the grant of a property right through the issue of a coastal occupation permit. This must widen the scope of the scope of the consent authority’s consideration as the occupation of the seabed will be to the exclusion of other users.
The Project
Crest proposes to develop a 200 MW tidal energy generation plant on the seabed at the mouth of the Kaipara Harbour, in the region indicated in Figure 5 above.[36]
Generation is to be by 200 OpenHydro induction turbine units[37] anchored to the seabed in the deepest part of the harbour entrance, where the tidal flow is strongest. Electricity generated (in high voltage direct current) would be transmitted by a buried cable to Pouto, inside the heads, where it would then be transmitted through the Northpower network onto the national grid.
The anticipated cost of the project is in the region of $500 million.
It is proposed that the development would be phased, with 20 generation units being installed initially, followed by further developments of 20, then 40, and a final stage of the remaining 120 units. The first phases would effectively be pilot developments, giving Crest the opportunity to test available technologies, and to monitor and adapt to the effects of the development on the environment.
It is unlikely that the plant will cover the cost of funding the consents, procurement, installation, commissioning and monitoring until the final phase is installed and operating at full capacity. Much will depend on the cost of installation, and the overall cost of funding, which cannot be assessed with any confidence at this stage.
The Kaipara Harbour is located in the remote west coast of Northland, and is relatively wild and undeveloped. Up to 8,000 million cubic metres of water pass in and out of the harbour each day, which Crest estimates is equivalent to flooding the island of Manhattan to half the height of the Empire State Building (185 metres / 600 feet). Tides in the harbour average 2.10 metres.
Being in Northland, the Kaipara Harbour is also conveniently located to the north of Auckland, which gives the project the considerable advantage of dispatching 200 MW of generation above the transmission constraints of the Otahuhu substation. This would provide for greater security of supply for the Auckland Region, and would also meet the projected demands for growth in the Northland Region.
Funding
The consent phase has been funded by private subscription for shares in Crest.
Crest has also been offered a grant of $1.85 million from EECA, under its marine energy generation fund. The funding would meet Crests costs to date in obtaining consents, and would also cover the costs of the appeal, but the release of the grant is conditioned on obtaining consents and contracting for installation of a pilot turbine, which is not ideal. In order to satisfy the conditions, Crest will need to have made further additional capital arrangements which will defeat the immediate benefit of the grant funding. The grant will simply augment its funding arrangements, rather than advance the project in any material way.
The shareholders propose to fund the development of the power station by either negotiating for venture capital with an investment bank (unlikely in the current environment), bring in one of the existing generating companies as a cornerstone shareholder (or sell the company outright), issue a public offering for shares, or a combination of them.
Having obtained consent, albeit subject to conditions which Crest is itself appealing, the company has effectively established that the project is viable from a consent perspective, and short of entering into procurement contracts and developing the project itself (which it does not have the capital to do), it is their belief that they have probably added as much value themselves as they can. Once the consents have been resolved, they will have reached a stage where they need to bring in the capital and expertise one of the existing generators could provide, whether with or without additional shareholders.
C Implementation
Figure 6 – OpenHydro turbines mounted on the seabed[38]
Tidal energy generation is still in its infancy, with Irish company OpenHydro Group Limited being the market leader. Crest has used the OpenHydro turbine and its modelling for the purposes of obtaining consents, but it has no formal contractual arrangement for the supply and installation of the turbines at the Kaipara Site. OpenHydro is itself heavily committed to a project in the Bay of Fundy, in Nova Scotia, Canada with Nova Scotia Power (a subsidiary of its principal shareholder Emera Inc).
Crest is therefore considering alternative technologies which may be developed and trialled at the Kaipara harbour site.
Connection to the transmission lines, and ultimately to the grid, would either be by an extension to the national grid by TransPower (with or without a contribution from Crest to the cost), or through NorthPower, the local network operator.
D Operation
Tidal energy is entirely predictable, and once the technology has been tested and installed, the entire generating output for the 35 year consent period can be assessed and valued.
It is ideal for baseloading, if its entire output can be dispatched in such a manner that it could ebb and flow based on the tidal current.
E Resource Consents
Process
Crest lodged its application for coastal permits in July 2006 with the Northland Regional Council, the Auckland Regional Council and the Rodney District Council.[39] The application was notified on 24 November 2006.
Requests for further information were issued in terms of s 92 of the RMA on:
- August 2006 – seeking clarification on wordings and grid references, and in relation to navigation, energy extraction, heat generation, the use of lubricants, impacts on marine mammals and other issues.
Crest responded in September 2006.
- April 2007 – similar issues.
Crest responded in July 2007
- December 2007 – raising noise monitoring and modelling issues.
Crest responded in January 2008.
242 submissions were received at the closing date, of which 122 were in support, and 118 opposed the application, and two were unclear as to whether they supported or opposed. 97 of the submitters indicated they wished to be heard on the application.
The hearings were held over a week in May 2008 before three independent commissioners appointed by the Northland Regional Council and the Ministry for the Environment.
The Hearing Committee issued its report, decision and recommendation on 21 August 2008, over two years after the initial application. By its own estimation, Crest has expended over five man years of effort in submitting and managing the applications for consent, at a cost of over a million dollars.
Four appeals have been received, including from Crest itself, the Ministry for the Environment and local iwi. The Environment Court hearing will be a de novo hearing, and is laid down for March 2009, with a decision anticipated some time in July 2009, if urgency is awarded. The cost of the appeal is likely to be in the region of a further $500,000.00. At that stage, it will be three years since the applications for consent were originally lodged.
Activities
Thirteen activities requiring consents (coastal permits) under Northland’s Regional Coastal and Regional Water and Soil Plans. As the most restrictive activity was a non-complying activity, the entire application was considered on that more restrictive basis.
Under s 77B(5) of the RMA, a resource consent is required for the activity, and the consent may be granted with or without conditions. For non-complying activities, under s 104D, consents can only be granted if the adverse effects of the activity on the environment will be minor, and the activity will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant plan.
Principal Issues
Eight principal issues were identified by the Hearing Committee:
(a) marine mammals – collision/obstruction, noise and electromagnetic fields
(b) fisheries – fish passing into and out of the harbour, restrictions on fishing
(c) navigation and safety – restriction on navigation over the area of the turbines
(d) hydrodynamics, sediment transport and morphology/erosion
(e) tangata whenua – kai moana (seafood) gathering[40]
(f) maintenance – contamination of the sea
(g) heritage – disruption to the remoteness and heritage values
(h) decommissioning
The fundamental nature of a tidal generation project is its high generating efficiency compared, for example, to wind generation, and its low visual impact. There is little or no data on any adverse effect of passive generation on marine mammals or fish, and there was also little evidence that marine mammals ever enter the Kaipara Harbour.
Similarly, as the turbines would be out of sight, and at a depth well below being a navigational hazard, their impact would be restricted to the prohibitions on anchoring and fishing within the area in which the turbines are to be located. The balance of the operational concerns (for example, electromagnetic effects or effects on tidal flows) amount to little more than speculation.
Without the data, the Hearing Committee could not assess all the effects of the proposed activity; and the only way to assess the effects is to allow the activity to proceed. This resulted in some understandable, yet Kafkaesque requests by Council staff, like asking Crest to advice on the impact of extracting 10% of the energy from the tidal flows of the Kaipara. While this issue may be germane, there was simply no way Crest could answer a question like that.
Crest therefore proposed an adaptive management approach, under which the Council should set an envelope within which Crest could manage the effects. During the one year monitoring period following installation of the turbine, Crest proposed that it would measure the identified effects, and if necessary would revert to the Council for a variation to the consents.
Findings of Fact
After reviewing the submissions of the parties, the Hearing Committee made a number of critical findings:
(a) There is a national need for renewable energy generation. The project has the added advantage of being near to the point of consumption, and of increasing security of supply.
(b) Electromagnetic fields, collision and noise were unlikely to have any effect of mammals or fish.
(d) The Committee could reach no conclusion on adverse effects on fish entry or exit from the harbour.
(e) More research is required on effects on marine mammals.
(f) There is no evidence the adverse effects would be more than minor.
(g) The turbine array would be unlikely to affect the passage of vessels over the array.
(i) If the transmission cable became exposed, it could easily be reburied.
(j) The transmission cable landfall could be dealt with by directional drilling to avoid the impact on other users.
(k) The potential for erosion etc is unchanged by the proposal.
(n) Visual effects would be no more than minor.
(p) The Committee was not presented with any assessment of the effects on shipwrecks or other heritage sites.
In terms of negative impact, the Committee also came to the view that:
(c) There would be an adverse effect on fishing.
(h) The generation array would not be a safe area to anchor, fish, dive or carry out similar activities.
(l) There will be an effect on tidal flows.
(m) The harbour is the food basket for the local iwi.
(o) Contaminants used during biofouling needs to be dealt with so as not to have adverse effects on water quality.
(q) Provision needs to be made for decommissioning the turbines.
The Hearing Committee effectively came to the conclusion that the adverse effects on the environment would be minor, or would be such that, where the effects were unknown, they could be monitored and dealt with by further conditions; which was effectively the adaptive management proposed by Crest.
The finding of minor effects also addressed the criteria in s 104D(1)(a) of the RMA in relation to non-complying activities. The Committee’s conclusion was that the effects of the first stage of the development (the 20 turbine test) were sufficiently minor that the proposal could proceed. While it may be splitting hairs, sufficiently minor is a somewhat different formulation to that established by the Court of Appeal, which was whether or not the adverse effects to be remedied or mitigated are more than minor, taken as a whole, which the Court took to mean less than major. [41] This finding could as easily have been expressed in that way, so not a lot turns on this issue.
The Committee then applied the criteria in s 5 (sustainable management), s 6 (matters of national importance), s 7 (other matters, including climate change and renewable energy which were included pursuant to the 2004 Amendment) and s 8 (principles of the Treaty of Waitangi). While criteria were provided for all other issues, it is not at all clear how the Committee considered and applied the principles of the Treaty.
Recommendation and decision
The Hearing Committee recommended to the Minister of Conservation that the consent be granted for the applications for coastal permits to occupy the seabed with the generation array of turbines, and for the transmission cables (applications (1) & (2)). In relation to the balance of the applications, the Hearing Committee granted consent on behalf of the Northland Regional Council.
The consents were subject to the adaptive management approach proposed by Crest, with provision for detailed monitoring of the first year of generation to ascertain the impact of the turbines on cetacean (fish) and elasmobranchs (marine mammals), and to satisfy the Council that it is very probable that implementation will not give rise to significant adverse effects. The data accumulated during monitoring is then to be used to determine whether or not to proceed to the next stage of development.
During monitoring, the results will be assessed against agreed criteria to determine the affect the development is having. The assessment will result in one of three decisions by the Council:
(1) the effects are acceptable, and the development may proceed to the next stage.
(2) the effects are unacceptable, and a downscaling of the existing array is required to achieve acceptable levels, and the operator may adapt the proposal to deal with the adverse effects.
(3) there is insufficient understanding, and further development is put on hold until there is a better understanding.
This is an understandable consequence of the adaptive management approach recommended to the Council, however it is problematic for planning and funding the development of the project.
The decision appears to have taken account of the benefits of renewable generation in terms of section 7 (at least it states that it does), but it does not accord renewable generation any particular status and the decision is silent on the wider benefits of renewable generation and the alternatives to tidal generation. Taken in balance, the decision appears to be overly focussed on ensuring that there are no adverse effects on the marine environment. It is interesting to note that little or no guidance is provided to the Council in determining what effects are acceptable when reviewing the monitoring data.
In relation to the adverse effects identified by the Hearing Committee (see above):
(c) There would be an adverse effect on fishing.
The exclusion zone in which the turbines are to be located was reduced. Of particular concern to Crest was that there was no discussion or forewarning about the reduction of the area, and the committee members appear to have formed their view from their site visit and the helicopter over flight of the array area.
(h) The generation array would not be a safe area to anchor, fish, dive or carry out similar activities.
The consent entitles the operator to prohibit anchoring, fishing and diving within the array, but navigation remains permitted.
(l) There will be an effect on tidal flows.
The committee accepted that the project would have no discernable impact on tidal flows, however, this is an issue which will be picked up in monitoring, and can be dealt with under the overall review condition.
(m) The harbour is the food basket for the local iwi.
Crest is to establish a trust to provide benefit to the local community, by financially supporting projects which promote environmental health and advance the vitality of the harbour, and associated socio-economic benefits. Crest is to fund the trust in the sum of $(2007) 100,000 per annum during stage 1, and $(2007) 250,000 for the balance of the consent period.
(o) Contaminants used during biofouling needs to be dealt with so as not to have adverse effects on water quality.
All contamination is to be identified, stopped and mitigated.
(q) Provision needs to be made for decommissioning the turbines.
At the end of the consent period (unless the consent is extended), the turbines and cable are to be removed, and the foreshore and seabed reinstated.
Crest is to enter into a bond with the Council to cover the cost of decommissioning and removing the turbines and the cable for the sum of $(2007) 3,100,000 for stage 1, and thereafter for a sum determined by the Council to represent the cost of decommissioning (such cost is to be provided by the operator and peer reviewed).
In each case, the Committee appears to have endeavoured to address and where possible mitigate all adverse effects, in some cases without consulting the applicant (the reduction of the array area) and in others without considering the impact the conditions would have on the development and operation of the turbines. Until the matter is considered by the Environment Court, it is difficult to assess how these issues might be determined.
F Impact of the Proposed NPS for Renewable Energy
Turning to the proposed NPS, it has to be acknowledged that the NPS would not have had a direct impact on the applications as it is focused on providing direction to consent authorities and to local authorities on the content of their plans.
It is interesting, however, to consider how the application would have fared under the proposed NPS (policies 4 & 5, dealing with revisions to plans, and supporting small scale generation are not considered as they are not particularly relevant to this application).
Objective
The project would certainly make a significant contribution to renewable energy generation, and to security of supply by providing reliable generation north of the Auckland Region.
Certainly, the project is one of national significance.
Policy 1 – recognising national significance of the benefits of renewable generation
The policy requires decision-makers to have particular regard to the national, regional and local benefits relevant to renewable electricity generation activities.
While the policy is aimed at ensuring that decision-makers must not “under-emphasise” the benefits of renewable generation, this does not provide a “free-pass” to applicants. The fact that a project increases electricity generation capacity without increasing greenhouse gas emissions must be taken into account, but the obligation remains to balance the benefits with the overall effects against Part 2 and the purpose of the RMA.
The difficulty remains that decision-makers are required to balance national interest in the benefits of renewable generation with the local cost of immediate environmental impact. Some solace may be taken from the Awhitu decision [42] that the Environment Court may observe that all opportunities for renewable generation have to be considered and accepted as part of the future. We all must accept some loss of amenity, including the loss of fishing grounds.
The is some justifiable concern (and not just in relation to the process taken by the Committee in reaching the decision) about the reduction of the array exclusion area to lessen the impact on fishing grounds.
Similarly, in an area where there is no identifiable marine mammalian activity (as opposed to an area where there is significant activity), the provision that the monitoring might result in a decision by the Council that the impact on marine mammals is unacceptable elevates the adverse effects on mammals to a very high level.
When accepting the adaptive management approach, the Committee appears to have avoided balancing the potential adverse effects and it did not reach a decision based on the national significance of renewable generation. Instead, what the Committee seems to have done is to treat the monitoring programme as an opportunity to require the operator to address any adverse effect.
Applying Policy 1, it would have been preferable if the Committee had accepted that the national significance of the project outweighs the interests of recreational and commercial fishermen to access this part of the fishery, and to also have accepted that, there being no discernable marine mammal presence and no data which suggests that marine mammals might be at risk from the project (in a similar vein to the Environment Court’s approach to bird strike at wind farms), any issues can be dealt with if they materialise.
Policy 2 – acknowledging the practical constraints associated with the development, upgrading, maintenance and operation of new and existing renewable generation
When considering measures to mitigate effects, consent authorities are to consider those measures in the context of the nature and location of the energy source, the logistical and technical practicalities of the activity, and the location of existing renewable generation activities and other structures.
By accepting an adaptive management approach, coupled with monitoring of the effects of the development, the Committee has clearly accepted the practical constraints associated with sustainable management. However, as with Policy 1, the consequences of the monitoring identifying a potential adverse impact, and the Council’s response to such impact is not at all clear.
The combined effect of the Council being able to impose unmanageable constraints on operation (or even requiring the removal of the turbines), with the financial burden of maintaining a bond to cover the cost of the Council removing the turbines and funding the environmental trust, will have a significant impact on the decision of investors to fund the project, and the anticipated returns.
Having assessed the effects as being “minor” in terms of s 104D, the Committee’s apparent insistence that there be minimal impact and the overall cost of the conditions to the operator do not appear to be at all proportional.
Policy 3 – having regard to relative reversibility of adverse effects
It is a condition of the consent that, upon the expiry or cancellation of the consent, the operator must restore the consent area to the satisfaction of the Council. In order to secure this obligation, the operator is to provide a bond to cover the cost to the Council to decommission and remove the turbines and transmission cables. Presumably, this also includes associated equipment, though the consent is not clear on this point.
The striking issue about this condition is that, aside from the turbines themselves, the obligation to remove the plant is unrelated to the adverse effects identified.
In relation to the turbines, they have no visual impact, and the only potential adverse effect is on fishing and possibly marine mammals (in lieu of any evidence that any do enter the Kaipara Harbour, and that the turbines would have an impact). Removing the turbines would, clearly, address much of the concern expressed at the hearing. It is not at all clear, however, why restoring the area is at all related to adverse effects.
The only concern expressed about the cable is that it may be exposed by erosion or tidal current where it crosses the beach. Again, removing a section from the foreshore area is quite a different obligation from removing the entire transmission cable. As with the equipment associated with the turbines, there do not appear to be any adverse effects associated with the majority of the cable.
In general terms, had the Committee applied the proposed NPS, they could have done more to acknowledge the inevitable consequences of developing a tidal generation project at the Kaipara Heads, and they would not have taken the approach they appear to have taken that there should be no adverse effects as a result of the project. A more balanced approach might have prevailed.
5. Conclusion
Achieving 90% renewable generation by 2025 is laudable, and should not be overly difficult.
The constraints on developing renewable generation will always be the expense and complexity of obtaining consents, and a regulatory environment, with or without market pressures, which balances the comparatively low cost of fossil fuel based generation with the environmental and social costs of climate change.
The combination of the prohibition on the development of new baseloaded thermal generation, the emissions trading scheme, and the recognition of the importance of renewable generation in the consent process through both the amendments to the RMA and the NPS, will help to promote renewable generation projects and to level the playing field from a cost perspective.
What the NPS does not appear to achieve is to provide an guidance on balancing the national significance of renewable generation with the cost of completely mitigating the effects of installing such generation, especially where such effects are unknown and their impact, adverse or otherwise, cannot be assessed. There seems to be tendency to impose conditions which are intended to entirely remove any adverse effects, rather than to accept that there will be some effects, and to mitigate them to a manageable level.
[1] Nathan S Lewis, Powering the Planet (2007) Engineering & Science No. 2 13, at page 14. An interesting contrast to Lewis’s paper is a comment by Republican US Presidential candidate, John McCain in Hershey, Pensylvania on – “You know, when we talked about offshore drilling, [Democrat candidate, Barack Obama] said he liked it, blah blah blah, all this, and then he said “I will consider – I will consider offshore”. We don’t need to consider, we need to drill now!” (source New York Times, October 28, 2008)
[2] For a discussion of the 2004 and 2005 amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991 in the context of wind farm developments, see Richard M Fisher, Wind Energy in New Zealand: Regulatory and Policy Lessons to Date (2005) 9 N.Z.J.Envtl.L. 307
[3] The comparative figures used in this article have been taken from the online Climate Change Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) provided by the World Resources Institute on their website (http://cait.wri.org/), The yearly emissions figures (which include for CO2, CH4, N2O, PFC, HFC & SF6) are for the year 2000, the cumulative figures are for the period from 1950 to 2000 and the figures for greenhouse gas intensity of the economy are for the year 2004. National generation and energy use figures used in this article are for 2006, provided by the Ministry for Economic Development.
[4] On the issue of methane emissions from dairy herds, Hamilton based scientists with Dexcel and with AgResearch have been investigating the causes of bovine production of methane, including DNA and feed research (Waikato Times, 21 August 2001, Edition 2, page 13).
[5] Source World Resources Institute’s Climate Analysis Indicators Tool.
[6] The most graphic examples are that agriculture is the last sector to join the Emissions Trading scheme on 1 January 2013, compared to the energy sector which joins in 1 January 2010, and the withdrawal by the Government of the much derided Fart Tax in October 2003.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Source – Concept Consulting Limited.
[9] New Zealand’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990 – 1006, Ministry for the Environment, April 2008. In 2000, annual fossil fuel emissions from the electricity sector were 6.6 Mt of CO2E.
[10] NZ Energy Strategy ibid, at section 9.1.
[11] This reflects the greater warming potential of unburnt CH4, when compared to CO2. Over a standardised period (20 years) a tonne of CH4 has the same warming potential as 72 tonnes of CO2, and a tonne of N2O has the same warming potnetial as 289 tonnes of CO2. For comarison purposes, it is helpful to reduce greenhouse gases to carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2E) calculated on global warming potential for a give time period. (Source – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Working Group 1, Science, FAR, Summary for Policymakers, Table TS.2.)
[12] See the Peak Oil website for a more detailed discussion of the consequences of living in a world where.
[13] See National Energy Policy, US Department of Energy.
[14] Source – World Resources Institute’s CAIT site.
[15] Source - http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/index_en.htm
[16] For an interesting discussion of the wisdom of subsidised investment in solar generation in Germany, see Green, Easy and Wrong, The Economist, November 8, 2008.
[17] Source NZES.
[18] Grid operator Transpower Ltd provides live data on spot market pricing, generation modes and demand on its Electricity Market Overview website.
[19] A position which may change with the relentless, and unexplained, electricity price increases over the last few years. The Commerce Commission is currently undertaking an investigation into electricity pricing (see the Commerce Commission website for updates) and the Electricity Commission has released an Options paper on Market Design Review – submissions closed on 1 September 2008.
[20] The Electricity Commission issued a draft report on Transmission to Enable Renewables for discussion on 7 April 2008 (submissions closed on 9 May 2008) discusses transmission planning for renewables.
[21] See section 15 of the Companies Act 1993.
[22] See section 131 of the Companies Act 1993.
[23] See section 4 of the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986.
[24] Available for download from http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____19431.aspx
[25] See NZES at section 3.
[26] See the Electricity Commission website for further detail on its role and activity.
[27] The Commerce Commission is undertaking an investigation into the electricity industry under section 36 of the Commerce Act 1986, and as at the time of this paper, is awaiting a preliminary report on that investigation.
[28] Green, easy and wrong, The Economist, 6 November 2008.
[29] There is clearly some sense in the point made by The Economist, however a truly market based approach can only succeed if the true cost of an adverse activity which the community wishes to discourage (as opposed to the market) is brought into market pricing. Otherwise, the market will always prefer the lowest cost option, regardless of any adverse impact. The issue is only made worse by the difficulties with measuring and “proving” anthropogenic climate change. Adam Smith remains the spiritual father of proponents of the free market. However, even Adam Smith felt the invisible hand had its limits, and he pointed out that we also have a responsibility to participate in government, like tenants in great estates (see An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith, 1776). The assumption of the purchaser being the rational actor has met its limits where climate change is concerned. The market, without regulatory intervention, has been signally ineffective in meeting its challenges.
[30] See section 45 of the RMA.
[31] See Wind Power Consents in New Zealand, Kenneth Palmer (2007)
[32] See the Wind Energy Association website for details
[33] It should be noted that these figures include the Baring Head development (albeit at zero output), which was not consented, and the Awhitu project, which was consented on appeal, but has been abandoned by Genesis Energy.
[34] For a discussion of the cumulative effects of wind farm development, see The Outstanding Landscape Protection Society inc v Hastings District Council Environment Court, W24/2007, 13 April 2007 (Thomson J).
[35] See Genesis Power v Franklin District Council [2005] NZRMA 541
[36] More accurately, Crest proposed a larger area than that shown on the site map. The recommendation of the Hearing Committee reduced the area too reduce the impact on the local fishing community, after flying over the site in a helicopter.
[37] An OpenHydro turbine unit is shown on the cover of this paper.
[39] The project was subsequently amended by re-routing the transmission cables to Pouto, bringing the development entirely within the Northland Regional Council’s area. This amendment was notified on 24 August 2007.
[40] It is fair to say that the iwi’s particular concern in initial discussions was to participate in any income generated from what they viewed as their traditional coastal resource which should be protected by their treaty rights. This translated into a demand for a 20% equity stake in the company. Crest argued that as the seabed vested in the Crown pursuant to s 13 of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, the consent hearing was not the appropriate forum for raising what is effectively a Treaty of Waitangi claim, or a challenge to the Foreshore and Seabed Act.
[41] Stokes v Christchurch City Council [1999] NZRMA 409. Also in Bethwaite v Christchurch City Council C085/93 (PT), the Tribunal took the view that minor suggests effects that are less than major.
[42] See Genesis Energy v Franklin District Council above.