Submission in response to the Energy
Safe Victoria `Review of Statutory
Provisions relating to the Mitigation of
Bushfire Risks Arising from Electricity
Assets’ White Paper
Municipal Association of Victoria
December 2012
6
This submission has been prepared by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) in
response to the Energy Safe Victoria (ESV) `Review of Statutory Provisions relating to
the Mitigation of Bushfire Risks Arising from Electricity Assets’ White Paper.
The MAV is the statutory peak body for local government in Victoria, representing all 79
municipal councils within the state. While this submission aims to broadly reflect the
views of local government in Victoria, it does not purport to reflect the views of every
individual council.
© Copyright Municipal Association of Victoria, 2012.
The Municipal Association of Victoria is the owner of the copyright in this publication.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any
means without the prior permission in writing from the Municipal Association of Victoria.
All requests to reproduce, store or transmit material contained in the publication should be
addressed to Claire Dunn on (03) 9667 5555.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 3
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5
Fire Risk Classifications .................................................................................................. 5
The basis for categorising areas as having high or low bushfire risk ............................ 5
Two tier versus three tier risk classifications and definition of “urban” .......................... 6
Declared Areas ............................................................................................................... 7
Responsible Persons in Declared Areas ......................................................................... 8
Impact of the Adoption of the 2010 Electric Line Clearance Code of Practice................ 10
Pruning cycles............................................................................................................ 11
Other Issues .................................................................................................................. 12
Shutdowns and live line works ................................................................................... 12
Engineering solutions and powerline construction ...................................................... 13
Data collection and sharing ........................................................................................ 13
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 14
2
Executive Summary
Although the Energy Safe Victoria (ESV) review of statutory provisions relating to the
mitigation of bushfire risks arising from electricity assets purports to be “a comprehensive
review and reform of the legislation, regulation and associated administrative provisions 1”,
the White Paper, like the June discussion paper, limits much of its focus to the issue of
managing vegetation in close proximity to powerlines.
The clear implication is that vegetation within the clearance space poses a serious, if not
the most serious, bushfire risk in relation to electricity assets. It is noteworthy then that
neither the discussion paper nor the White Paper provides any information about the
number and scale of bushfires known to have been caused by vegetation within the
clearance space.
Conversely, the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission, which ESV cites as important
context for their review, found that five of the Black Saturday bushfires were caused by
electricity asset failures that were not attributed to vegetation within the clearance space.
Given this finding, it is concerning, and somewhat remarkable, that the issue of how to best
ensure the distribution businesses’ safely maintain and operate their assets has been all
but ignored by the review.
In relation to what is dealt with within the White Paper, the Municipal Association of Victoria
(MAV) supports the ESV proposal to retain the current bushfire hazard rating classification
system. In recognition of councils’ critical role as a public land manager and `responsible
person’ under the Electricity Safety Act, and in acknowledgement of their often detailed
knowledge of local terrain and conditions, Section 80 of the Act should, as a matter of
priority, be amended to require the fire control authorities to consult with the relevant local
council when undertaking an assessment of, or reviewing, an area’s fire hazard rating.
Regarding the ESV proposal that the high bushfire risk area (HBRA) and low bushfire risk
area (LBRA) classifications be retained, the MAV remains of the view that a third tier of risk
is needed in order to satisfactorily discriminate between areas where the risk of bushfire is
high, where the risk is low but very real, and where the risk is negligible. Retention of the
two tier classification system means that areas that have quite different risk levels will be
assigned the same classification. That is, areas that have zero or negligible bushfire risk
have to be assigned the same LBRA classification as areas that have a low but real
bushfire risk.
In relation to the proposal to amend the definition of “urban area” to mean areas where
residential blocks are predominantly 0.1 hectare or greater (rather than 0.4 hectare as the
Act currently provides), the MAV questions the need for the amendment given that the fire
control authorities currently have the power to override default fire risk classifications, and
are therefore already able to assign a HBRA rating to areas with high bushfire risk,
regardless of block size. We are also concerned that the proposed change may lead to a
1
3
Page 3 of White Paper
significant amount of land being reclassified as non-urban and therefore HBRA, where the
bushfire risk is not genuinely high. This could lead to excessive pruning and therefore
significant negative environmental and amenity outcomes for the communities affected.
The MAV supports the retention of the Declared Area concept and councils continuing to
be responsible for line clearance on land they manage. We also support the ESV proposal
to negotiate with councils that have responsibility for HBRAs within their Declared Areas in
relation to councils ceding the HBRAs to the distribution businesses for line clearance
management.
Subject to the consent of the relevant public land manager, the MAV does not object to the
reallocation of public land manager line clearance responsibilities to the distribution
businesses. That said, we have serious concerns about the distribution businesses’, and
their contractors’, destructive pruning practices in a number of areas across the state and
oppose these practices continuing to be applied anywhere, let alone in potential new areas
of responsibility.
The electric line clearance regulatory regime urgently needs to be reworked to balance
safety, amenity and environmental considerations. Risk management must be made the
paramount consideration, with vegetation only pruned to the minimum extent necessary to
ensure safety.
While we welcome ESV’s commitment to reinstate the flexibility provisions contained within
the 2005 Code of Practice in the 2015 edition of the Code, we note that this will not
address our and councils’ concerns regarding clearances around uninsulated cable,
particularly in relation to existing structural branches.
Ever since the introduction of the 2010 Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance)
Regulations, the MAV and councils have called for acceptance by ESV of the flexibility
provisions as they were applied by councils under the previous regulations. Councils
maintain that the practices employed under the 2005 Regulations enabled a much better
balance of safety, amenity and environmental values and, as far as councils are aware, did
not result in increased bushfire, electrical safety or supply outage incidents.
In the context of electric line clearance, we note that the White Paper does not include
any consideration of how a powerline construction type might be varied to better suit the
risk profile and character of its surrounding environment. The options of increasing pole
heights, insulating, bundling or undergrounding powerlines, or re-routing lines are not
even mentioned. ESV’s underlying philosophy appears to be that vegetation is the
problem, regardless of the powerline construction type or the condition of the electricity
asset. Worryingly absent is any acknowledgement of the social, environmental and
economic benefits of vegetation.
4
Introduction
The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) welcomes the opportunity to provide a
submission in response to the Energy Safe Victoria (ESV) Review of Statutory
Provisions relating to the Mitigation of Bushfire Risks Arising from Electricity Assets
White Paper (the White Paper).
The White Paper follows the release of an ESV discussion paper on the same topic in
June, to which the MAV provided a detailed response. A copy of that submission is
available on the MAV website. All of the positions taken by the MAV in that submission
remain current. We therefore recommend that our submission in response to the
discussion paper and this submission be read in tandem.
Councils are committed to working cooperatively with relevant agencies, including ESV, to
minimise bushfire risks related to electricity assets. Both the June discussion paper and the
White Paper raised issues of importance to local government, most notably in relation to
councils’ role as a `responsible person’ under the Electricity Safety Act.
It is concerning to the MAV that although the ESV review purportedly seeks to address
bushfire risks in relation to electricity assets, the White Paper, like the June discussion
paper, limits much of its focus to the issue of electric line clearance activities. This is
despite the fact that the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission found that five of the Black
Saturday bushfires were caused by electricity asset failures that were not attributed to
vegetation within the clearance space.
The tragic events of Black Saturday and the inquiries and committees that followed are
clearly identified within the White Paper as the driver and context for the ESV review, yet
there is an obvious disconnect between what we know about the causes of the bushfires
and the areas focused on in the review. Entirely missing from both the discussion paper
and the White Paper is an analysis of how best ESV, as the safety regulator, can ensure
the distribution businesses safely maintain and operate their network assets. It’s a
remarkable, and concerning, omission.
Fire Risk Classifications
The basis for categorising areas as having high or low bushfire risk
The MAV supports the ESV proposal to retain the current bushfire hazard rating
classification system whereby urban areas are, by default, categorised as low bushfire risk
and non-urban areas are categorised as high risk. That said, there are issues with the
implementation of the system which need to be resolved in order to ensure that an area’s
risk level is correctly identified.
5
Section 80 of the Act empowers the fire control authorities to assign a “high” or “low” fire
hazard rating to any area. The fire authorities’ willingness and capacity to be responsive to
stakeholders’ concerns about the accuracy of an area’s risk classification is therefore
critical to successful implementation of the current hazard rating system. The four year
assessment cycle adopted by the Country Fire Authority (CFA) for their fire hazard
mapping, for example, should not preclude an earlier assessment being done if key
stakeholders believe the current hazard rating is wrong.
It is essential that the fire authorities:
 support the continuing use of the current classification system;
 understand their powers under the Act in relation to overriding the default risk
classification; and
 commit to working cooperatively with stakeholders, including councils, to help
achieve accurate and accepted risk ratings.
A number of councils have expressed concern to the MAV that the CFA does not
adequately engage with local government when undertaking bushfire hazard rating
assessments. Indeed in some instances the only contact councils have had with the CFA in
relation to a risk assessment is notification by the CFA of the outcome.
It is the MAV’s view that Section 80 of the Electricity Safety Act should, as a matter of
priority, be amended to require the fire control authorities to consult with the relevant local
council when undertaking an assessment of, or reviewing, an area’s fire hazard rating. In
recognition of their critical role as a public land manager and `responsible person’ under
the Act and in acknowledgement of their often detailed knowledge of local terrain and
conditions, councils must, as a matter of course, be afforded the opportunity to provide
input.
In relation to anticipated future reforms, the MAV welcomes ESV’s undertaking to consider
the Bushfire Prone Mapping as a possible future alternative approach to classifying an
area’s bushfire risk. As noted in our response to the discussion paper, one of the strengths
of the Department of Planning and Community Development’s bushfire hazard mapping, as
far as the MAV is concerned, is that it identifies three tiers of risk, namely high risk, low risk
and no risk. The MAV firmly believes that a three tier system is superior to that currently
applied under the Act.
Two tier versus three tier risk classifications and definition of “urban”
The MAV does not support the ESV position that the current two tiers of risk – namely high
bushfire risk area (HBRA) and low bushfire risk area (LBRA) – provided for under the Act
are adequate. The MAV remains of the view that a third tier is needed in order to
satisfactorily discriminate between areas where the risk of bushfire is high, where the risk is
low but very real, and where the risk is negligible.
6
Retention of the two tier classification system leads to areas that have quite different risk
levels being assigned the same classification. That is, there is no option but to assign
areas that have zero or negligible bushfire risk the same LBRA classification as areas that
have a low but real bushfire risk. Retaining the two tier classification system essentially
leaves the fire control authorities in the unenviable position of having to assign areas a risk
rating that doesn’t accurately describe the area’s actual risk level.
In the White Paper, ESV notes that the core rationale underlying the LBRA classification is
that LBRA land is land that cannot carry fire. They argue that given that most urban land
meets this criterion, there does not appear to be a strong case for adopting a new
negligible risk classification. Having articulated that position, however, ESV then
immediately seek to have the definition of “urban area” amended to reduce the threshold
residential block size from the current 0.4 hectares to 0.1 hectares.
The consequences, both in terms of nature and scale, of altering the definition of “urban
area” are unclear. It is of concern to the MAV that the proposed change may lead to a
significant amount of land being reclassified as non-urban and therefore HBRA, where the
bushfire risk is not genuinely high. Unless the fire control authorities commit to using their
power under Section 80 of the Act and assess the affected land in a timely manner, this
could lead to excessive pruning and therefore significant negative environmental and
amenity outcomes for the communities affected.
The White Paper notes that if the change were to proceed, the Metropolitan Fire Brigade
(MFB) will assign a low fire hazard rating to established areas within the Metropolitan
District that should remain LBRA. It is concerning that no such provision seems to have
been made for CFA areas, which include substantial parts of greater Melbourne and large
provincial cities of similar urban environment and risk.
It is the MAV’s view that prior to any change being made to the definition of “urban area”, a
state-wide mapping exercise should be undertaken in consultation with key stakeholders,
particularly councils, the fire control authorities and the distribution businesses, so that all
parties can better understand the potential scale and implications of the change.
Given that the fire control authorities currently have the power to override default fire risk
classifications, and are therefore already able to assign a HBRA rating to areas with high
bushfire risk regardless of block size, the merits of amending the Act seem questionable.
Declared Areas
The MAV welcomes ESV’s acknowledgement that “there appears to be little evidence to
suggest that higher fire risks are arising as a result of municipalities’ performance in
relation to tree clearance.” We also welcome their recognition that “councils value highly
the amenity provided by trees and are well placed to determine an appropriate approach
7
that will both maintain streetscape values and meet clearance, hence safety, obligations.”
This is a significant and welcome change from the position taken in their discussion paper.
The MAV supports the retention of the Declared Area concept and councils continuing to
be responsible for line clearance on land they manage.
The MAV also supports the ESV proposal to negotiate with councils that have responsibility
for HBRAs within their Declared Area in relation to councils ceding the HBRAs to the
distribution businesses for line clearance management.
As noted in our response to the discussion paper, feedback from councils with Declared
Areas that include HBRAs suggests that there is a general willingness among councils for
the distribution businesses to assume responsibility for all HBRAs. That said, councils
provided that feedback with the current classification of areas in mind. If, as ESV proposes,
the definition of “urban area” were to be amended and this were to lead to significant
parcels of land being reclassified as HBRA, it may be that individual councils will resist
ceding management responsibilities to the distribution businesses.
In relation to the lack of clarity regarding Declared Area boundaries, the MAV welcomes
ESV’s undertaking to work to address uncertainties through consultation with councils and
to refine its existing set of Declared Area maps. As stated in our response to the discussion
paper, the MAV believes that ESV, as the safety regulator, is the appropriate agency to be
charged with ensuring the Declared Area mapping is current, clear and accessible.
Responsible Persons in Declared Areas
The White Paper includes a discussion about the various public land managers that are
made `responsible persons’ under the Act. The discussion focuses on the appropriateness
of small entities such as schools and committees of management having electric line
clearance responsibilities when they likely have minimal understanding of or capacity to
meet these obligations.
The White Paper mentions that none of the submissions received in response to the
discussion paper addressed this issue, however the MAV notes that the discussion paper
itself only fleetingly raised this issue and instead largely focused its attention on a critique
of councils’ line clearance performance.
The MAV agrees that, in accordance with the principles of good regulation, resources and
expertise are important considerations when determining appropriate allocation of
responsibilities.
Subject to the consent of the relevant public land manager being obtained, the MAV does
not object to the reallocation of public land manager line clearance responsibilities to the
distribution businesses. That said, as noted in our response to the discussion paper, we
8
have serious concerns about the distribution businesses’, and their contractors’, destructive
pruning practices in a number of areas across the state and oppose these practices
continuing to be applied anywhere, let alone in potential new areas of responsibility.
The electric line clearance regime urgently needs to be reworked to balance safety,
amenity and environmental considerations. Risk management must be made the
paramount consideration, with vegetation only pruned to the minimum extent necessary to
ensure safety.
The policy proposals contained within the White Paper in relation to responsible persons in
Declared Areas are somewhat unclear. The first option put forward is that the Act be
amended so that larger public land managers, explicitly named, retain their line clearance
responsibilities and the distribution businesses assume responsibility in all other cases.
The MAV understands this to mean that councils, the Department of Sustainability and
Environment (DSE), Park Victoria and VicRoads would retain their line clearance
responsibilities and the distribution businesses would be responsible in all other areas.
The second, and ESV’s preferred, option is less clear:
“the Act could be amended to require that the distribution businesses take on this
role in most cases. This would mean that they would be responsible for pruning
trees overhanging electricity lines in the street regardless of whether the land on
which the tree was located was public or private land. On the other hand,
municipalities would continue to be responsible for pruning trees located on the
road reservations for which they are the responsible road authority in Declared
Areas.”
This option, as articulated in the White Paper, raises a number of questions for the MAV,
namely: what is meant by “most cases”; who would be responsible for trees on public land
in declared areas that are not “in the street”; and why is reference being made to “road
reservations” and “responsible road authorities”.
Assuming the MAV understands the proposal correctly, if this option were accepted only
councils and the distribution businesses will continue to have line clearance obligations
under the Act. The larger public land managers such as Parks Victoria, VicRoads and DSE
would no longer be `responsible persons’ under the Act despite the fact that, as ESV itself
notes in the White Paper, they “clearly do have the capacity to acquit this role in respect of
trees located on land for which they are responsible and that overhang electric lines”.
Again, while we do not necessarily oppose this reallocation of responsibility, we have
serious concerns about the potential negative amenity and environmental outcomes if the
distribution businesses are not required (and held to account by the State) to genuinely
balance safety considerations with environment and amenity values when undertaking line
clearance works. Councils are particularly concerned about the distribution businesses
taking over VicRoads’ areas of responsibility given that these areas are often of high
9
amenity value. Consideration should be given to allowing councils to accept additional
areas of responsibility subject to councils being able to access the same cost recovery
through electricity tariffs as the distribution businesses.
In relation to seeking to define the boundaries of councils’ line clearance responsibilities,
the MAV strongly recommends that ESV not complicate matters further by referring to
“road reservations” and “responsible road authority”, which require understanding and
interpretation of the Road Management Act. A suggested approach is to simply make
reference to council-managed land in low bushfire risk areas in Declared Areas (subject to
the option of councils’ agreeing to cede their responsibility for HBRAs, as discussed
above).
Impact of the Adoption of the 2010 Electric Line Clearance Code of
Practice
The White Paper acknowledges concerns raised by the MAV, the North-Western
Municipalities Association and a number of councils about the unacceptable negative
financial, environmental and amenity costs of complying with the 2010 Electric Line
Clearance Regulations, which incorporate the Code of Practice for Electric Line Clearance.
Compounding local government’s concern is the apparent lack of scientific or empirical
evidence to justify the clearances required by the Regulations.
Ever since the introduction of the 2010 edition of the Regulations, councils together with
the MAV have sought to have the 2005 Regulations, as they were applied by councils,
reinstated. Councils argue that the practices employed under the 2005 Regulations
enabled a much better balance of safety, amenity and environmental values and, as far as
councils are aware, did not result in increased bushfire, electrical safety or supply outage
incidents.
As noted in the White Paper, the 2005 Regulations allowed for reduced clearances on the
condition that appropriate risk management activities were undertaken. Lack of compliance
with these risk management activity requirements is cited as the reason for removal of the
flexibility provisions from the 2010 edition of the Regulations. Nowhere does the White
Paper mention the consequences of this alleged lack of compliance, nor is evidence of the
non-compliance provided. Following the introduction of the 2010 Regulations, the MAV and
councils requested details of the empirical and scientific basis for the minimum clearances
contained within the Regulations, however to date no such evidence has been provided.
It should be noted that non-compliance with existing regulation does not necessitate
regulation change. ESV has referenced the Victorian Guide to Regulation both in its
discussion paper and the White Paper. The MAV notes that page 16 of the Guide states
that the increased enforcement of existing provisions “may be appropriate when there is
awareness of relatively low levels of compliance with existing provisions. It may simply
involve upgrading existing enforcement mechanisms.”
10
While the MAV welcomes ESV’s undertaking to reinstate the flexibility provisions contained
within the 2005 Regulations within the 2015 edition, this does not address our and councils’
concerns about clearances around uninsulated low voltage cables, particularly as they
relate to existing structural branches. ESV is aware that the flexibility provisions relating to
insulated and aerial bundled cable in the 2005 Regulations were, in practice, also applied
by councils to uninsulated cable. Neither the MAV nor councils have been provided with
any data that suggests this resulted in fire, power outage or electrocution incidents. It
remains unclear on what basis ESV can reasonably justify its change in approach.
The MAV has been provided with a copy of the “detailed guidance” provided by ESV to one
council that unsuccessfully lodged an exemption application seeking reduced clearances
from the 2010 Regulations. The council in question had applied the risk-based approach
developed by a consultant (engaged by the MAV) over a period of more than 12 months in
consultation with a small working group of councils and with input from the MAV and ESV.
In response to the application, ESV provided the council with “detailed criteria and
guidance which, if adopted, would enable council to make a revised application that could
be approved by ESV.” Entirely missing from ESV’s response is an evidence-based
explanation as to why the risk-based approach used by the council for its exemption
application was unacceptable.
The clearances contained within the risk-based framework developed by the MAV
consultant were determined drawing on third party research papers and practices applied
in other comparable jurisdictions. A project report explaining the rationale for the
clearances adopted within the framework was provided to ESV. Frustratingly, given the
time and effort committed by the MAV and councils to the development of the risk-based
approach, it is unclear on what basis ESV has decided that the framework is unacceptable.
The fact that the clearances are not consistent with the 2005 Regulations is not an
adequate explanation.
ESV’s priority concern should be ensuring the proposed approach delivers the same safety
outcomes as intended by the 2010 Regulations. Application of the MAV risk-based
approach is limited to low bushfire risk areas in Declared Areas – areas where the bushfire
risk is predominantly negligible. If ESV has determined that the MAV risk-based approach
does not achieve acceptable safety outcomes then an explanation together with supporting
evidence should be provided. The MAV is yet to provide a formal response to ESV
regarding the guidance they’ve provided to the council, we will therefore refrain from
providing comment in this submission.
Pruning cycles
In relation to preventing excessive pruning by the distribution businesses, the MAV
welcomes ESV’s willingness to consider amending the regulations to, in effect, incorporate
a minimum pruning frequency. The MAV’s concerns about the distribution businesses’
11
pruning practices, which we suspect are driven by cost savings considerations, are detailed
in our response to the discussion paper.
It is critical that the management of vegetation around powerlines is driven by riskmanagement considerations. Worryingly, the current approach taken by distribution
businesses in a number of areas of Victoria, in terms of excessive pruning, actually
increases risk in that severe pruning of certain vegetation can result in vigorous regrowth
and also leave trees structurally unsound.
The MAV’s preliminary thinking is that stipulating a maximum clearance would be the
preferable course of action, although we are concerned that the distribution businesses will
then, as a matter of course, prune to the maximum clearances. It may well be that both a
maximum pruning cycle and maximum clearances should be inserted into the Regulations,
with parties required to meet both elements.
We ask that the MAV and council arborists be given the opportunity to provide further input
on this issue as ESV advances its thinking. Determining an appropriate pruning cycle
and/or maximum clearance distances will require consideration of the tree stock species,
local climatic conditions etc. and, we believe, should be agreed through the Electric Line
Clearance Management Plan process at a municipal level.
Other Issues
In our response to the discussion paper the MAV raised a number of important additional
issues that we believe warrant action by ESV in the context of the review. We note that
none of these issues have been addressed (or indeed even acknowledged) in the White
Paper.
Provided below is a restatement of those issues. We ask that ESV take note and work to
resolve them.
Shutdowns and live line works
Several councils have had, and continue to have, unacceptable difficulties securing
shutdowns and live line work approvals from the distribution businesses to undertake
pruning works in Declared Areas. Councils advise that requests often take months to
resolve, if indeed they’re resolved at all, and consequently councils find themselves in the
absurd position of being prevented by the distribution businesses from meeting their
obligations as `responsible persons’ under the Act.
In relation to live line works, the distribution businesses require councils to use the
distribution business’ own approved live line workers. Councils have been presented with
exorbitant and inconsistent quotes and lengthy time delays to secure these workers’
services. Despite the fact that these issues have resulted in councils’ being unable to
12
undertake important pruning works around the distribution businesses’ own assets, the
distribution businesses have resisted allowing councils to source their own live line workers,
even if they have the same skills and qualifications as the workers used by the distribution
businesses. Compounding the problem is the fact that shutdown requests by councils are
frequently refused, leaving councils with no option other than to pursue live line works.
Engineering solutions and powerline construction
Entirely missing from the White Paper is any consideration of whether a powerline
construction type is appropriate given the risk profile and character of the surrounding
environment. The options of increasing pole heights, insulating, bundling or
undergrounding powerlines, or re-routing lines are not even mentioned. ESV’s underlying
philosophy appears to be that vegetation is the problem, regardless of the powerline
construction type or the condition of the electricity asset. Entirely absent is any
acknowledgement of the social, environmental and economic benefits of vegetation.
There should be an obligation on the distribution businesses to invest in powerline
construction (such as aerial bundled cabling and undergrounding) that both improves
safety and minimises impact on environment and amenity. At a minimum, electricity
infrastructure at the end of its life cycle should be replaced with construction types that
will minimise impacts on amenity and environment.
A number of councils have had recent dealings with distribution businesses where they
have refused to even discuss the possibility of using a construction type in an urban area
that minimises impact on amenity. This is a short-sighted approach that is costly
economically, socially and environmentally. In the case of Declared Areas, it is also
effectively a cost shift to councils.
Where councils have sought quotes for engineering solutions as an alternative to pruning
trees away from powerlines in Declared Areas, they report that they have significant
difficulty getting timely and accurate information from the distribution businesses and that
the costs vary markedly from one distribution business to another. There is a notable lack
of transparency about how the distribution businesses determine these costs. The
estimates of cost provided for works are often excessive and do not reflect the scope of
the works. Furthermore, significant portions of the prices quoted are not contestable,
thereby preventing councils from seeking cost effective alternatives.
The discontinuation of the Powerline Relocation Scheme (through which the State cofunded amenity-driven community powerline relocation projects) only months after the
2010 Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations came into effect has further
hindered, and in many cases prevented, the implementation of engineering solutions.
Data collection and sharing
There seems to be a striking lack of data available to properly assess the performance of
a responsible person and the impacts of vegetation within the clearance space. In order
13
to improve safety, amenity and environmental outcomes, there is a pressing need for
systematic collection of data that is specific and verifiable. Noting that all stakeholders
stand to benefit from a regulatory regime that balances safety, environment and amenity
values, this data should be accessible and provided to all responsible persons as a
matter of course.
The distribution businesses should be required to provide councils with the details of any
outage and fire incidents that have been attributed to council trees, both at the time the
incident occurs and through a consolidated monthly report. This would enable councils to
check the veracity of the data and to respond accordingly. It should also help improve
communication channels between councils and the distribution businesses and ultimately
reduce outage and fire incidents. Councils have made clear to the MAV that they would
have little faith in data collected by the distribution businesses that councils have not
been given the opportunity to validate.
Conclusion
The MAV and councils are committed to working cooperatively with the State and the
distribution businesses to mitigate bushfire risks arising from electricity assets.
The MAV is very concerned that the ESV review, although ostensibly about bushfire
mitigation, continues to focus on electric line clearance activities and all but ignores the
more critical question of how to best ensure electricity assets are safely maintained and
operated.
In relation to electric line clearance, a key issue that the MAV and councils would like to
see resolved is agreement on a risk-based approach that balances safety, amenity and
environmental considerations. There is an urgent need for an electric line clearance
regulatory regime that, while prioritising safety, is empirically sound and genuinely values
the very real environmental and social benefits of vegetation.
14