Regulatory Impact Statement - betterregulation.vic.gov.au · Final Version: 19 September 2014...
Transcript of Regulatory Impact Statement - betterregulation.vic.gov.au · Final Version: 19 September 2014...
1 Final Version: 19 September 2014
RegulatoryImpactStatement
ElectricitySafety(ElectricLineClearance)Regulations2015
September2014
PreparedforEnergySafeVictoriabyJaguarConsultingPtyLtdwww.jaguarconsulting.com.au
2 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Summary
The proposed regulations will adopt a new Electric Line Clearance Code (ELCC or Code), to replace
the current Code, adopted in 2010. The Electricity Safety Act 1998 requires that regulations
specifying an ELCC be in place at all times, but also establishes a five‐yearly sunset provision for all
ELCC. This means that new editions of the Code must be developed on a regular basis.
An early review of the ELCC in a 1996 RIS reported that, when the Code was first introduced in 1983,
it significantly reduced the incidence of fires due to contact between power lines and vegetation.
Given the complexity of the environment in which contact between power lines and vegetation
occurs, however, subsequent iterations of the Code have rarely been able to be assessed on the
basis of data measuring the effectiveness or cost of incremental changes to the Code.
Following the adoption of the 2010 Code and the additional focus on compliance and enforcement
adopted by ESV in the wake of the Black Saturday bushfires, stakeholders raised concerns about the
costs of compliance and the impact on the amenity value of trees being pruned. The changes to the
Code proposed in this RIS are aimed at reducing compliance costs and reducing the aesthetic costs
imposed by the Code in LBRA, without compromising the level of safety and reliability of supply
provided by the existing Code.
Values presented in this RIS as estimates of the costs and benefits of the options considered are
based on limited available baseline data, qualitative discussions with stakeholders, and assumptions
made by ESV. In several cases, stakeholders' likely behavioural response to the proposed changes
(and therefore the associated costs or benefits) are subject to significant uncertainty. ESV invites
any and all comments from stakeholders regarding the estimates or assumptions used in this RIS. A
summary of key estimates and assumptions can be found in the notes below Table S1 on page
The purpose of the ELCC is to ensure systematically that contact between overhead electric lines and
trees is avoided as far as is practicable. Such contact has the potential to cause bushfires,
electrocutions and loss of power supply. These events can result in deaths, injuries and major
economic losses. The risk of these events occurring can be substantially reduced by maintaining
appropriate clearance spaces between overhead electric lines and trees.
Available data1 (MECs) for the period from 2009 to 2013 (that is, under the existing and previous
Codes) shows that electricity supply interruptions resulting from contact between vegetation and
power lines due to failure to maintain the required clearance distances (so‐called “grow ins”) are
around 100 times more numerous than fires due to the same cause. However, while the data
suggest that fires are a far less likely result of contact between power lines and vegetation than
power supply interruptions, the consequences of bushfires due to contact between power lines and
vegetation can be catastrophic.
1 i.e. Data relates to four Victorian Major Electricity Companies (i.e. Electricity transmission or distribution companies) and is published by the Australian Energy Regulator.
3 Final Version: 19 September 2014
The importance of the issue of contact between power lines and vegetation has been long
recognised: The adoption of the first ELCC followed an inquiry into bushfires in Victoria conducted in
1977. This inquiry concluded that it was imperative that trees and power lines be separated in order
to avoid bushfire ignition due to contact and recommended that a consultative committee be
established to determine principles and standards for establishing and maintaining an adequate
degree of separation. Amendments to the then State Electricity Commission Act 1958 established a
legislative requirement for an ELCC to be in place at all times, superseding the then current
voluntary code arrangements. They also implemented the recommendation to establish a
consultative committee. Other bushfire‐prone states have also legislated along generally similar
lines to address the risks from contact between power lines and vegetation. These include
Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania and South Australia.
The episodic nature of the problems being addressed and the complexity of the natural environment
mean measures of effectiveness of individual versions of the Code are subject to great uncertainty.
However, the RIS in respect of the 1996 edition of the Code found it substantially reduced costs due
to fires caused by contact between vegetation and power lines following the introduction of the
Code, compared with the levels previously observed. That RIS reported that the cost of fires due to
contact between vegetation and power lines averaged approximately $104.5 million per annum
between 1975 and 1983 (in 2014 dollars). By contrast, annual losses from the cost of fires due to
contact between vegetation and power lines were reported as having been reduced to an average of
$0.13 million per annum (in current terms) following the adoption of the Code (though the 1996 RIS
is not clear about the period over which this average was measured) .
While electricity supply interruptions are not necessarily a safety issue, the ELCC has also led to a
substantially reduced incidence of these, and the value of the improved reliability of power supply is
estimated to be very large. While significant uncertainty surrounds the estimation of these benefits,
an indicative estimate of $388.8 million in annual benefits has been derived. This represents the
reduction in the Value of Unserved Energy (i.e. reductions in losses to electricity consumers due to
interruptions in electricity supply) which result from lower levels of outages due to contact between
vegetation and power lines.
While there are significant private incentives for MECs and other responsible persons to maintain
clearance between vegetation and electricity infrastructure, the above data indicate that actual
performance proved to be sub‐optimal prior to the initial introduction of the Code, with substantial
external costs being incurred. The experience with the implementation of successive editions of the
ELCC since the 1980s indicates that they have, as expected, led to substantially increased
expenditures on vegetation clearance. However, the estimates set out below, while subject to
significant uncertainty in some areas, strongly suggest that benefits obtained are significantly larger
than these additional costs.
That said, there are substantial difficulties in evaluating the effectiveness of different editions of the
Code. The impact of year to year variations in weather patterns is particularly significant and
combines with and other external factors to make it very difficult to observe the impact of different
variants of the Code on the incidence of contact between electricity lines and vegetation. This means
4 Final Version: 19 September 2014
that changes to the Code are rarely driven by clear effectiveness data derived from research on the
current edition of the Code.
However, the legislated mechanism of frequent review and revision of the Code, under the auspices
of a dedicated Committee (the Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee, or ELCCC) enables
the Code to be kept up to date, with improvements being made in response to new technology or
other advances in management and any issues being identified and addressed. The Committee is
composed of key stakeholder representatives and receives detailed briefings on specific issues
associated with the content of the Code and the results of research on these issues.
The issues raised by stakeholders in response to the experience of implementing the current Code
have focused on the costs of compliance and the impact of the Code on the amenity value of the
trees being pruned. In this context, this RIS considers three options. These issues have therefore
been the major focus of the deliberations undertaken in recent times and underpin the changes
contained in the proposed Code
The proposed regulations, which incorporate the prescribed Code, are broadly similar in content to
the existing regulations. However, they will incorporate a number of changes that are designed to
provide greater flexibility in compliance, on the one hand, while also better protecting the amenity
value of trees, on the other. The key changes to the current edition of the ELCC contained in the
proposed new edition of the Code are as follows:
Amended method of specifying minimum clearance distances
Minimum required clearance distances vary with the length of the power line span between poles.
At present, these minimum distances are specified as a “stepped” function so that, for example, for
insulated cable spans, the minimum clearance distance for all spans of less than 40 m in length is
300 mm, while the required minimum distance for all spans of between 40 and 70 m in length is
600 mm. This means that a marginal increase in span distances can, in some circumstances, give rise
to a major increase in required clearance distance.
The proposed ELCC will, instead, establish a linear relationship between span distance and required
clearance distance. This means that there will be a better match between the required clearance
distance and the maximum amount of potential movement of cable spans across the range of
different span lengths. This change will thereby reduce required clearance distances in many
circumstances, without compromising safety performance.
Provision of alternative compliance mechanisms and exceptions to minimum clearance
spaces
The ELCC requires larger clearance spaces in respect of an uninsulated cable than insulated cable.
This difference recognises the greater risk associated with contact between vegetation and an
uninsulated cable. The proposed Code will allow persons responsible for vegetation clearance to
propose alternative technological solutions to improve safety in this regard and, where these are
accepted by ESV, to benefit from reduced clearance distances. This change will therefore encourage
innovation and potentially reduce compliance costs, although ESV may require the responsible
person to perform specific actions or monitor the use of the ACM in a specific manner as part of the
5 Final Version: 19 September 2014
approval, and the views of power companies consulted in preparing this RIS regarding the effect on
compliance costs varied.
In addition, ESV has re‐introduced provisions that allow for certain structural tree branches to
remain within the specified minimum clearance distance of the electric line in LBRA, under a number
of specific conditions. This will be referred to as exceptions to the minimum clearance distances in
the proposed Code.
Expanded definition of “insulated cable”
The proposed Code would provide additional detail on the types of cable that are regarded as
"insulated cables". This is intended to, in effect, expand the definition of ‘insulated cable’,
recognising that there are various technical means of achieving the equivalent safety and
performance standards of insulated cables. By recognising the range of engineering solutions
available, this change would enhance flexibility and provide opportunities to both limit the aesthetic
impact of pruning and reduce clearance costs. The expanded definition of ‘insulated cables’ would
be supported by recognised published technical standards, which will be referenced in the Code.
Adoption of the Australian Standard for the pruning of amenity trees
The proposed Code would incorporate a requirement for responsible persons to cut trees in
accordance with the Australian Standard AS 4373‐2007, Pruning of Amenity Trees. This is intended
to improve minimum standards and practices for tree cutting and establish mechanisms to manage
the pruning of established trees. The underlying purpose of the change is to address community
expectations in relation to the maintenance of the amenity value of trees being pruned, as well as
assisting in the preservation of the health of these trees following pruning.
Enhanced notification and consultation requirements
The proposed code would specify in greater detail the notification and consultation requirements
applying to responsible persons and is intended to encourage more open and transparent
communication between the responsible persons, the community in general and, in particular, those
occupying or managing the land on which the trees are located.
Specifically, responsible persons would need to write to the relevant persons notifying them of
intended pruning or tree removal, as well as publishing notices to this effect in a generally circulating
newspaper. In addition, fuller disclosure of their dispute resolution provisions would need to be
provided by responsible persons in this context.
Three options have been assessed formally in this RIS. The three options are as follows:
Option 1 would involve replacing the existing regulations and Code without amendment;
Option 2 would involve adopting a revised Code incorporating the changes highlighted
above; and
6 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Option 3 would constitute a variant of Option 2 which also responded to concerns regarding
excessive pruning by adopting a minimum pruning frequency as part of the Code.
It can be noted that the published AER data suggests substantial variation between different MECs
and between MECs and other parties that take responsibility for pruning trees (predominantly local
councils) in terms of the relative incidence of fires and supply interruptions in their areas of
responsibility. This could be regarded as suggesting the potential to develop regulatory options that
are “risk based”, in the sense that they respond to these apparent differences in performance.
However, ESV believes that the data in question is not currently sufficiently robust as to justify such
an approach. Problems include the need to recognise different operating environments and,
importantly, questions regarding the accuracy of the attributions of causes where outages and fires
have occurred. Thus, options of this type have not been explicitly considered in the current context,
though there is potential for future movement in this area as AER continues to refine its approaches
to data collection and publication. Table S1 sets out the estimated benefits and costs associated with
each of the three options that have been formally assessed.
Table S1: Estimated benefits and costs of the alternative regulatory options (indicative estimates
shaded grey, notes provided after table).
Option 1: Remake existing regs/code
Option 2: Make proposed regs/code
Option 3: Include min pruning frequencies in LBRA in proposed regs.
Costs
Clearance costs $119.2m p.a.1
Gross cost of $123.4 – $127.6m p.a.2, comprising:
$119.2m as for Option 1; plus
indicative estimate of $4.2 – 8.4m for compliance with AS4373.
Gross cost of $194.8 ‐ $202.4 m p.a.3 , comprising:
Costs of $123.4 ‐ $127.6m as per Option 2; plus
$71.4m ‐ $74.8m additional clearance costs due to specified pruning frequency.
Electric Line Clearance Management Plans
$0.13m p.a.4
$0.16m p.a.
$0.16m p.a.
Enhanced notification and consultation
$0m p.a.5 $4.13m p.a.6 $4.13m p.a.
Aesthetic costs
$107.4m p.a.7 $85.9 ‐ $96.7m p.a.8
$55.1 ‐ $62.0m p.a.9
Administration & enforcement costs (ESV)
$0.8m p.a.10 $0.88m ‐ $1.0m p.a.11 $0.88m ‐ $1.0m p.a.
7 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Benefits
Reduced fire incidence
$88.7 ‐ $156.6m p.a.12 $88.7 ‐ $156.6m p.a. $88.7 ‐ $156.6m p.a.
Reduced supply interruption
$364.7m p.a.13 $364.7m p.a.
$373.8m p.a. (notional)
Total Costs $227.5m p.a. $214.5 ‐ $218.8m p.a. $255.0 ‐ $262.8m p.a.
Total benefits $453.4m ‐ $521.3m $453.4m ‐ $521.3m $462.5m ‐ $530.4m p.a.
Net Annual Benefits
$225.9 ‐ $293.8m $238.9 – $302.5m $207.5 ‐ $267.7m
Net present value14 $1.02 ‐ $1.33 billion $1.07 ‐ $1.37billion $0.94 ‐ $1.21 billion
Benefit/cost ratio 2.0 – 2.3: 1 2.1 – 2.4: 1 1.8 – 2.0: 1
Notes:
1. This is equal to the current estimated cost of pruning activity, of $161.8m (based on questionnaire responses
from all six MECs and from 39 out of 67 local governments responsible for pruning vegetation) less the estimated
pruning costs of $42.6m incurred prior the Code being made (based on the estimate reported in a 1996 RIS for
the Code).Note that this is a conservative estimate, as the “unregulated” expenditure on pruning would likely be
higher in real terms than previously. See pages 46‐47 for details.
2. ESV expects that Option 2 will increase the costs of pruning compared to Option 1. This is due to the requirement
to prune in accordance with the Australian pruning standard AS4373. Though the likely costs are unknown,
based on direct consultation with MECs (see page 57 for details), an indicative estimate of these costs is an
additional $4.2m p.a. to $8.2m p.a. This gives an indicative estimate of the total pruning costs for Option 2 of
$123.9m p.a. – $128.1m p.a. ESV expects there will be offsetting cost reductions from reduced clearance
distances in some areas, though these cannot be quantified. ESV expects that the availability of ACMs may
further reduce costs, though some MECs suggested that the reverse may be true (see page 54). Any reduction in
costs due to an ACM may be partly offset by any additional compliance or monitoring that ESV may require in
order for an ACM to be approved. These costs are also not able to be quantified.
3. ESV expects that Option 3 will increase the costs of pruning compared to Option 2. This is due to the inclusion of
minimum pruning frequencies. Though the likely costs of this change are subject to some uncertainty, this
estimate is based on the difference between the current average pruning frequency, as reported by councils and
MECs and the required pruning frequency under Option 3. The estimate effectively assumes that pruning cost
per tree is invariant with pruning frequency, at least within the relevant frequency range. The increase in
pruning costs is thus estimated at $71.4m p.a. – $74.8m p.a. (see page 72 for details).
4. The estimates of the costs of preparing a pruning plan are based on questionnaire responses from all six MECs
and from 39 out of 67 local governments responsible for pruning vegetation (see pages 46‐47 for details).
5. Remaking the existing Code would impose no new notification requirements.
6. The cost of the new notification requirements was estimated based on direct consultation with MECs. This
consultation suggested the costs would be $4.13m p.a. (see page 57 for details).
7. The aesthetic value of urban street trees subject to the Code is estimated to be $537m (see pages 65‐68 for
details). The decline in aesthetic value due to pruning under the existing Code is unknown. As an indicative
estimate, it is assumed that under the current Code the aesthetic value of trees is reduced by 20%, a reduction or
aesthetic cost of $107.4m p.a.
8. ESV expects that Option 2 will result in lower aesthetic costs due to the adoption of the Australian pruning
standard AS4373 and some reduction in clearance distances. The likely effect of these changes on aesthetic costs
is unknown. As an indicative estimate, it is assumed that it will reduce the aesthetic costs of $107.4m p.a. by 10%
to 20%, resulting in aesthetic costs of $85.9m p.a. – $96.7m p.a.
9. ESV expects that Option 3 will further reduce aesthetic costs due to the inclusion of minimum pruning
frequencies. Though the likely effect of this change on aesthetic costs is unknown, based on consultation with
MECs and councils about the frequency of their existing pruning and the number of trees they are responsible for
pruning, it is estimated that aesthetic costs under Option 2 would be further reduced by 35.9%. This is equal to
8 Final Version: 19 September 2014
the percentage reduction in material removed, on average, as a result of the increased pruning frequency. On
this basis, aesthetic costs of $55.1m p.a. – $62.0m p.a. would be incurred under Option 3.
10. See page 48 for estimate of costs for ESV under the current Code.
11. Costs for ESV under Options 2 or 3 are assumed to increase by 10% to 20% compared to costs under the current
Code (see page 49 for details).
12. Estimated benefit of $156.6m p.a. is based on the difference between the estimated cost of fires prior to the
introduction of the first Electric Line Clearance Code and the reported cost of fires immediately after the
introduction of that Code (reported in the 1996 RIS for the Code), adjusted to account for estimated rates of
underinsurance of property. The indicative estimate of $88.7m p.a. is based on the difference between the
estimated cost of fires prior to the introduction of the Code and the current estimated annual cost of fires due to
contact between vegetation and power lines. See pages 60‐62 for details. It is noted that the current and
proposed Code are expected to be of equal effectiveness in fire prevention. Specifying minimum pruning
frequency in LBRA is not expected to affect overall fire incidence, given the lower risk of fires in LBRA.
13. ESV expects that an increased clearance frequency in LBRA would slightly reduce outages due to reduced
incidence of greater than anticipated regrowth causing contact between power lines and vegetation and leading
to outages. However, this effect is likely to be marginal in size. An indicative 2.5% further reduction in outages
would yield an incremental benefit of $9.1m p.a. (see pages 63‐65 for details).
14. NPV calculated over the expected 5 year life of the regulations, using the VCEC benchmark real interest rate of
3.5%.
Table S.1 shows that the two major costs associated with the regulations and code are the cost of
additional clearance activity, beyond that which would be undertaken in the absence of the
regulations, and the cost incurred by the community due to the reduction in the aesthetic value of
street trees as a result of the additional vegetation clearance undertaken. In the first instance, the
cost of clearance activity is borne by MECs and other Responsible Persons, while the operation of
the price regulatory regime for the electricity industry (through the provisions relating to the “pass
through” of major costs) implies that most or all of these costs will ultimately be borne by electricity
consumers.
As discussed above, a number of the benefit and cost estimates included in the table must be
considered to be only indicative in nature. However, two broad conclusions can be drawn from the
summary of benefits and costs provided. The first is that although the cost of the Code exceeds the
identified safety benefits, the total benefits of the code, including the benefits of reduced supply
interruption are positive. ESV believes that all three options would result in significant net benefits
being achieved, with the present values of the options being in the range of $0.94 ‐ $1.37 billion over
five years, as shown in Table S1. Moreover, the benefit/cost ratios of the various options are in the
range 1.8 – 2.4: 1, indicating a strong cost‐effectiveness performance. Thus, all three options can be
considered to be effective regulatory interventions, in that they would enhance overall economic
welfare.
The second conclusion that can be drawn from the table is that the three options differ relatively
little in terms of aggregate benefits and costs, particularly where Options 1 and 2 are compared.
This reflects the fact that the three options that have been compared represent relatively minor
variations on the same general approach to addressing the risks of contact between vegetation and
power lines.
Within this framework, review of the specific cost and benefit estimates contained in Table S1
highlights the key points of difference between the options considered. Both Options 2 and 3 would
9 Final Version: 19 September 2014
entail increased clearance costs due to the adoption of a requirement to clear in accordance with
AS4373 as far as practicable. However, these costs are expected to be quite modest and ESV
anticipates that they will be more than offset by cost savings due to the combination of smaller
required clearance distances in many areas (due to the change in the manner of determining
clearance distances proposed, which is entailed in the adoption of the new “linear” approach to
determining clearance spaces) and to the provision for exceptions and alternative compliance
mechanisms to be adopted, thus again reducing the required level of clearance activity in certain
circumstances. Option 3 entails a significant further cost increase, which is the result of requiring a
minimum annual pruning frequency in LBRA. Adopting such a requirement is estimated to increase
the required level of pruning activity by around 56 per cent from current levels.
The cost increases resulting from the adoption of AS4373 are expected to be offset by reductions in
the aesthetic costs arising from clearance activity. This reflects the fact that the adoption of the
standard should minimise damage to trees and promote better outcomes having regard to matters
such as symmetry, as well as avoiding “over‐pruning” – i.e pruning to an extent that goes beyond
that required to ensure the maintenance of clearance distances over the regrowth period. In
addition, and perhaps more significantly, changes in the means of specifying clearance distances will
have the effect of reducing the required clearance distance in a wide range of circumstances. The
fact that local authorities with responsibility for vegetation clearance in declared areas widely adopt
AS4373 on a voluntary basis at present can be taken as strong supporting evidence for the
contention that the aesthetic gains involved in so doing outweigh the additional costs in a wide
range of circumstances: that is, local authorities have voluntarily incurred the additional costs
involved, knowing that they need to account for these to their ratepayers. That said, it also implies
that the benefits of legislating to require AS4373 be followed as far as practicable will, to a large
extent, arise where MECs have clearance responsibilities.
There is necessarily significant uncertainty as to the relative size of the aesthetic benefit associate
with moving to the proposed Code – i.e. the percentage reduction in the aesthetic costs due to
clearance activity undertaken in accordance with the proposed Code vis‐à‐vis the existing Code.
Table S.1 has therefore included two scenarios, based on a 10 per cent and a 20 per cent reduction
in aesthetic costs in order to illustrate the size of the associated impact on the net benefits of the
Code. However, it can also be noted that, given the estimated aesthetic costs associated with the
current code2, the NPV of the proposed Code would be equal to that of the current code if a
reduction in aesthetic costs of 7.8 per cent were achieved (in the lower bound cost scenario
presented) or an 11.8% reduction (in the higher bound cost scenarios)3. If the improvement in
aesthetic outcomes is greater than this “break‐even” figure, the proposed Code would have a higher
NPV than the current Code. Conversely, if the benefit is smaller than this amount, the proposed
Code would yield a smaller NPV.
The estimated aesthetic costs associated with vegetation clearance would be further reduced under
Option 3 because it is expected that the adoption of an annual pruning cycle in LBRA would
significantly reduce the amount of pruning undertaken (i.e. the amount of vegetation removed from
2 i.e. an estimated 20% average reduction in the aesthetic value of street trees that are subject to pruning for line clearance purposes. 3 That is, if the average aesthetic cost of pruning declined from 20% of the value of the affected trees to (92.2% of the 20%) = 18.4%.
10 Final Version: 19 September 2014
the tree) compared with current practices in many areas due to a smaller regrowth allowance being
required. As noted in Table S1, given the current estimated average pruning cycle of 1.56 years, a
move to an annual pruning cycle would imply an increase in the amount of pruning undertaken of 56
per cent and an associated reduction in the average amount pruned of 35.9 per cent4. This is
assumed to yield a proportionate reduction of 35.9 per cent in the aesthetic costs incurred due to
pruning.
The estimated cost of adopting an annual pruning cycle in LBRA is 56 per cent higher than under
Option 2, as the only difference between these two options is that the number of trees pruned
annually would increase by this percentage under Option 3. The incremental benefits of adoption
Option 3, by comparison with Option 2, also flow from this increase in pruning frequency. Given
that the average amount of vegetation pruned will be around 35.9 per cent less under Option 3, the
aesthetic costs of pruning are assumed to be reduced by this amount. Option 3 has a lower NPV
than Option 2 essentially because this reduction in aesthetic costs falls well short of being sufficient
to offset the increase in pruning costs incurred.
In sum, the estimates contained in Table S.1 indicate clearly that remaking the regulations and Code,
as required by the Act, will yield net benefits to society. Option 2 is clearly preferred to Option 3 in
NPV terms. Moreover, Option 2 has been found to have a higher NPV than Option 1 provided the
reduction in aesthetic costs produced via the combination of changes in the specification of clearance
distances and the adoption of AS4373 exceed the threshold levels of 7.8 or 11.8 per cent (low and
high cost scenarios respectively). This outcome is considered by ESV to be highly probable.
However, given the combination of the relatively similar level of benefits and costs between Options
1 and 2 and the dependence of this outcome on the assumption made as to the aesthetic costs of
the current Code5, it is not possible to make a clear case for one option over the others on purely
quantitative grounds. That is, while the comparison estimated total benefits and total costs suggests
that Option 2 will entail slightly greater net benefits than the two alternatives, it cannot be
concluded with a high degree of certainty that this will be the case.
Consequently, the key factors determining the choice of Option 2 are, to some extent, qualitative in
nature, as discussed below.
Choosing among the options
Work on development of revised regulations and code has been commenced in advance of the
normal timing in part in response to concerns raised by affected parties – including both responsible
persons and community groups ‐ about the impacts of the current regulations. While, as discussed
above, a significant part of the claimed additional cost impact of the current regulations may have
resulted from greater compliance and enforcement activity initiated by ESV, rather than to changes
in the standards per se, a key issue identified by a wide range of parties during recent consultations
4 Since the time elapsing between pruning is reduced by 35.9%. 5 ESV believes that the estimated 20% reduction in the aesthetic value of trees pruned due to the Code is a plausible estimate given the extent of the canopy reduction that is required in the case of mature trees located adjacent to power lines. Stakeholder inputs, particularly from local councils, have highlighted a strong view that these aesthetic costs are very substantial, while photographic evidence of “worst case” outcomes provided provides clear examples of situations in which aesthetic costs will be far greater than this assumed average percentage.
11 Final Version: 19 September 2014
has been the need to reinstate the potential for flexibility in meeting compliance obligations which
existed in the 2005 edition of the Code. Both Options 2 and 3 respond to this identified need to
achieve greater regulatory flexibility, while ensuring that adequate mechanisms are in place to
prevent safety performance being compromised. This is done by reintroducing some exceptions
from the need to ensure the required clearance space is maintained at all times, as was the case in
the 2005 code, and by introducing provision for Alternative Compliance Mechanisms to be
approved, enabling a reduction in the amount of vegetation clearance required to be undertaken in
circumstances where it can be shown that technological solutions can be implemented to reduce
risk to acceptable levels.
A second key issue identified in consultation is that the aesthetic costs of the additional clearance
activity being undertaken since the adoption of the current regulations and Code are widely
considered to be substantial and, in some cases, excessive and unnecessary in relation to the safety
objectives of the regulations. While some MECs state that they currently adopt clearance practices
consistent with AS4373 as far as practicable, many other parties have argued that this is not always
the case in practice and have provided evidence of poor practice in the context of ESV consultations.
In this context, the adoption of a formal requirement for the Code to be adopted by all responsible
persons as far as practicable will establish clear expectations as to how pruning is to be conducted
and provide the basis for enhanced monitoring and enforcement activity. In this area too, Options 2
and 3 respond to significant identified problems with the current regulations and Code, thus yielding
potential for a significantly improved outcome in aesthetic terms, at an incremental cost which
distribution companies have generally indicated is likely to be modest. The estimated benefits of
this change are relatively modest in dollar terms, but ESV expects them to significantly exceed these
identified costs. Moreover, while these dollar estimates of benefits are relatively modest, ESV’s
consultations with stakeholders indicate clearly that this is a major area of concern for some in the
community. In this context, it should be noted that methods for valuation of the aesthetic benefits
of street trees are still evolving, while the estimates used of the extent of the aesthetic
improvements likely to result from this change are necessarily imprecise.
Options 2 and 3 differ only in that the latter would establish a minimum pruning cycle of one year in
LBRA. This would have the effect of doubling the current frequency of pruning in LBRA for three
distribution companies, but would have little or no impact on pruning conducted by local councils as
responsible persons. The purpose of setting a minimum pruning cycle is largely consistent with that
of specifying AS4373 as the required pruning standard, in that it seeks to minimise the aesthetic
costs of ensuring that vegetation is kept clear of electrical infrastructure. As indicated by the cost
estimates set out in TableS1, it would be expected that adopting a minimum annual pruning cycle
requirement would yield improved aesthetic outcomes. However, ESV believes that the adoption of
AS4373 in the current context will have a significant impact in this regard and thus constitutes a
proportionate response to the concerns raised regarding aesthetic issues. By contrast, the adoption
of a fixed minimum pruning cycle reduces the level of flexibility that MECs have available in
managing their clearance activities and, to this extent, is inconsistent with the direction of change in
other areas of the proposed regulations.
In sum, it is anticipated that the adoption of AS4373, in conjunction with the changes being made to
clearance distances, will respond adequately to the concerns expressed by stakeholders on aesthetic
issues and that, in this context, the imposition of the additional cost of a fixed minimum pruning
12 Final Version: 19 September 2014
cycle is not warranted at present. However, this issue will necessarily be kept under review, with the
possibility of this decision being revisited in the context of the development of a future edition of the
regulations and code.
Given both the fact that Option 2 entails the highest net benefits of the three options considered
and the importance of the factors discussed qualitatively above, it is intended to proceed with
Option 2. Adopting this option is expected to improve amenity outcomes while also providing for
some reductions in net compliance costs to occur where these can be achieved without
compromising safety and supply reliability.
13 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Contents1. Background ................................................................................................................................... 14
2. Objectives...................................................................................................................................... 17
3. Nature and extent of the problem ................................................................................................ 18
3.1. Nature of the problem ‐ overview ........................................................................................ 18
3.2. Nature of the problem ‐ market failure issues ..................................................................... 19
3.2.1. Externalities................................................................................................................... 19
3.2.2. Differential discount rates ............................................................................................ 21
3.3. Extent of the problem ........................................................................................................... 22
3.4. Current Context: Impact of the adoption of the 2010 Code ................................................ 28
3.5 Factors influencing the policy response to the problem ...................................................... 34
3.5.1. Value of maintaining community confidence ............................................................... 34
3.5.2. Nature of the problem: differing perspectives ............................................................. 35
4. Summary of the proposed changes to the regulations and code ................................................. 36
4.1. Amended method of specifying and presenting minimum clearance distances .................. 36
4.2. Provision of exceptions to clearance distances and alternative compliance mechanisms in
respect of clearance activity ............................................................................................................. 41
4.3. Expanded definition of ‘insulated’ electric lines ................................................................... 42
4.4. Adoption of AS4373 (2007) Pruning of Amenity Trees ......................................................... 43
4.5. Enhanced notification, consultation and dispute resolution provisions .............................. 44
4.6. Administrative and housekeeping changes .......................................................................... 44
5. Expected costs of the proposed regulations ................................................................................. 47
5.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................... 47
5.2. Historical estimates of compliance costs .............................................................................. 48
5.3. Costs of the existing regulations and code ‐ ex post estimates ............................................ 49
5.3.1. Current clearance costs................................................................................................. 49
5.3.2. ESV administration and enforcement costs .................................................................. 51
5.3.3. Cost changes due to the adoption of the 2010 Code ................................................... 53
5.4. Expected incremental cost impacts: proposed regulations and Code ................................. 55
5.4.1. Amended method of specifying and presenting minimum clearance distances and
expanded classification of insulated electric lines ........................................................................ 55
5.4.2. Adoption of AS4373 (2007) Pruning of Amenity Trees ................................................. 59
5.4.3. Enhanced notification and consultation provisions ...................................................... 60
5.4.4. Summary of expected incremental cost impacts of proposed regulations .................. 61
6. Expected benefits of the proposed regulations ............................................................................ 62
14 Final Version: 19 September 2014
6.1 Benefits of the existing regulations and Code ...................................................................... 62
6.1.1. Benefits due to reduced fire incidence ......................................................................... 63
6.1.2. Benefits due to reduced loss of life and injury ............................................................. 66
6.1.3. Benefits due to reduced power outages ....................................................................... 66
6.2. Incremental benefits of adopting the proposed regulations and code ................................ 68
6.2.1. Benefits due to improved amenity outcomes .............................................................. 68
6.2.2. Benefits due to improved notification and consultation .............................................. 72
7. Identification and assessment of feasible alternatives................................................................. 73
7.1. Options considered as discrete alternatives to the base case .............................................. 74
7.1.1. Adoption of a minimum pruning frequency ................................................................. 74
7.2.1. Preservation of trees provisions – buffer zones ........................................................... 77
7.2.2. Restrictions on tree climbability ................................................................................... 78
7.2.3. Unsuitable species ........................................................................................................ 79
7.2.4. Notification of interest in a tree or trees ...................................................................... 81
8. Summary of approaches to line clearance in other jurisdictions ................................................. 83
9. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 85
9.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................... 85
9.2. Summary of benefits and costs of major alternatives .......................................................... 85
10. Consultation .............................................................................................................................. 94
11. Evaluation ................................................................................................................................. 95
12. Statement of compliance with National Competition Policy .................................................... 96
Appendix 1: Summary of proposed changes to the current regulations and Code ............................. 98
Appendix 2: Exposure Draft of the proposed Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations
2015 .................................................................................................................................................... 106
1. Background
Section 89(2) of the Electricity Safety Act 1998 requires that there shall be at all times regulation in
force that prescribe the Electric Line Clearance Code (ELCC or Code), but that these regulations
cannot have a lifespan of more than five years. The proposed regulations are therefore being made
to replace the current Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2010. The proposed
regulations, which incorporate the prescribed Code, are broadly similar to the existing regulations in
content although the format has been significantly restructured to conform with current drafting
practice. However, they will incorporate a number of changes that are designed to provide greater
15 Final Version: 19 September 2014
flexibility in compliance, on the one hand, while also better protecting the amenity value of trees, on
the other.
Contact between overhead electric lines and trees has the potential to cause fires (including
bushfires in extra‐urban areas), electrocutions and loss of power supply. These events can result in
deaths, injuries and major economic losses. The risk of these events occurring can be substantially
reduced by maintaining appropriate clearance spaces between overhead electric lines and trees.
The importance of this issue has been long recognised, with the result that the legislated
requirement for a compulsory Code of Practice to be in force at all times to specify obligations in this
area has been in force for three decades.
The adoption of the ELCC followed an inquiry into bushfires in Victoria conducted in 19776. This
inquiry concluded that it was imperative that trees and power lines be separated in order to avoid
bushfire ignition due to contact and recommended that a committee be established to determine
principles and standards for establishing and maintaining an adequate degree of separation.
Amendments to the then State Electricity Commission Act 1958 (SEC Act) to give effect to these
recommendations by establishing both a Tree Clearing Consultative Committee and a Code of
Practice for Tree clearing were passed following the Ash Wednesday bushfires of 1983. However,
the Code adopted in regulations in January 1984 was a modified version of a pre‐existing voluntary
Code that had been developed by the SEC in conjunction with local government. The equivalent
legislative requirements are now contained in the Electricity Safety Act, which superseded the SEC
Act.
Box 1: Responsibility for vegetation clearance
The Electricity Safety Act 1998 refers to “Responsible Persons” in respect of vegetation clearance
around electricity lines. For the most part, Responsible Persons are the electricity transmission and
distribution companies (or Major Electricity Companies). However, in some cases, the Responsible
Person is the local authority. This is the case where the Governor in Council has nominated a
“Declared Area” under Section 81 of the Act. Such declarations occur where local authorities apply
to take over the vegetation clearance role in certain areas within their authority, but can only occur
in areas classified as having low bushfire risk (in essence, urban areas) at the time of declaration.
Some local authorities have taken on this role out of concern to ensure that the aesthetic values of
street trees are not unnecessarily compromised by excessive pruning undertaken for line clearance
purposes7.
6 Historical material sourced from the RIS published in respect of the 1996 edition of the Code, which states that the inquiry was conducted by Sir Edward Elser Barber. 7 There are other responsible persons too, but their clearance responsibilities are generally more limited.
16 Final Version: 19 September 2014
The RIS in respect of the 1996 edition of the Code reports that the cost of fires due to contact
between vegetation and power lines was $184 million in the years between 1975 and 1983. This is
equal to approximately $835 million in current dollar terms, or around $104.5 million per annum. By
contrast, annual losses from this cause were reported as having been reduced to an average of $0.13
million per annum (in 2014 dollars) in the years immediately following the adoption of the Code
(though the RIS is unclear about the period over which this average is calculated). As discussed in
more detail below, other bushfire‐prone states have also legislated to address the risks from contact
between power lines and vegetation. These include Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania and
South Australia.
The current legislative provisions in Victoria in this regard are contained within Part 8 and Part 10 of
the Electricity Safety Act, which deals with bushfire mitigation requirements. Section 98 of the Act
creates a general duty for major electricity companies (MECs) to “design, construct, operate,
maintain and decommission its supply network to minimise as far as practicable…the bushfire danger
arising from the supply network”. Section 83B of the Act creates a similar general duty which
requires "Specified Operators" to "design, construct, operate, maintain and decommission an at‐risk
electric line to minimise as far as practicable the bushfire danger arising from that line." Regulatory
monitoring of the steps that are to be undertaken by MECs and specified operators to acquit these
duties occurs through the requirements of Section 113A for MECs to submit bushfire mitigation
plans for acceptance and, similarly, for specified operators under Section 83BA for a Bushfire
Mitigation Plan to be developed and submitted annually to Energy Safe Victoria (ESV) for
acceptance.
More specific requirements in relation to maintaining clearance between vegetation and power lines
are also specified in the Act. Section 84 establishes a general requirement for electricity distribution
companies to keep vegetation clear of electric lines within their distribution area8. Clearance
activities are required to be conducted in accordance with the Code, which is established via the
regulations. The regulations require preparation of electric line clearance plans annually (for
councils, owners or operators of electric lines) and, in the case of MECs, the submission of these
plans to ESV for approval.
8 However, other parties are the "responsible persons" in limited circumstances. In brief, these are a) The land owner, in respect of private electricity lines; b) The council of a declared area responsible for managing public land; c) The owner or operator of an electric line the distribution company in its distribution area unless there is another person responsible for keeping trees clear of lines.
17 Final Version: 19 September 2014
2. Objectives
The objective of the proposed regulations and the Code which they adopt is to reduce to a level that
is as low as reasonably practicable the risks of:
fire, electrocution and power loss; and
consequential deaths, injuries and economic loss;
as a result of vegetation coming into contact with electric lines.
The term ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ implies that the risk level to be achieved must be
consistent with the imposition of reasonable compliance costs.
18 Final Version: 19 September 2014
3. Natureandextentoftheproblem
3.1. Natureoftheproblem‐overview
As noted above, contact between vegetation and power lines can give rise to three major problems:
Bushfire ignition (fire ignition in urban areas);
Electrocution; and
Interruption of the power supply.
While the genesis of the current legislative arrangements in this area lay in concern over the
problem of bushfire ignition (fire start), the problems of electrocution and interruption of the power
supply are also significant. In general terms, the importance of bushfire is greatest in non‐
metropolitan areas, while electrocution and interruptions to the power supply are the major
concerns in the metropolitan context.
Discharge of electricity from an electric line can occur when contact is made with the line, including
contact with branches or leaves of trees. In the case of a high voltage line, actual contact is not
required, as the electricity will discharge through the air (known as a ‘flashover’). The magnitude of
the electrical discharge that will occur due to contact or close proximity with the line varies with
atmospheric conditions. However, electrical discharges can cause serious or fatal injury to persons
and animals and are likely to cause a fire if the discharge is through combustible material, such as
tree branches and leaves.
Trees, including even small branches, interacting with electric lines can also damage the lines. For
example, the insulation on insulated cables can be damaged, often resulting in arcing over the
insulation and the ignition of fire. Another possibility is that the cable will be broken, resulting in a
live cable resting on the ground. Any person or animal coming into contact with, or approaching
close to, the live cable could be seriously or fatally injured. Branches or whole trees falling vertically
on to electric lines can have similar effects as the horizontal contacts discussed above, with an even
greater risk of cables breaking or being pulled off their insulators.
For these reasons, it is essential to minimise, as far as possible, incidences of contact between any
part of a tree and a power line, particularly uninsulated lines, whether that involves branches or
leaves touching, branches dropping or trees falling9. The Code and regulations attempts to address
the problem of branches and leaves touching, but necessarily has limited impact on the incidence of
branches dropping or falling onto power lines.
9 Note, however, that for insulated electric lines in LBRA some infrequent contact or brushing of small tree parts against the line may occur without likelihood of harm resulting. This is why clause 4 of the code allows for the existence of branches <10mm within clearance space in addition to structural limbs. These provisions provide flexibility in relation to the “clearance space”, thus avoiding over‐pruning in circumstances where the risk posed would be very low.
19 Final Version: 19 September 2014
3.2. Natureoftheproblem‐marketfailureissues
The following discusses the theoretical rationale for regulatory intervention in this area in economic
terms, highlighting the specific sources of market failure that exist in this context and which imply
that regulatory intervention is potentially required and capable of yielding net benefits to the
community.
The electricity assets addressed via the existing and proposed regulations are privately owned.
Asset owners have significant incentives to manage their assets in ways that reduce the likelihood of
their contributing to bushfire ignition. These incentives derive in part from the fact that bushfires
may cause significant damage to these assets, implying substantial costs to asset owners. In
addition, where fires are caused by these assets, those who incur losses as a consequence will
potentially take legal action to recover those losses from the electricity asset owners. Indeed,
several actions of this kind have been concluded since the Black Saturday fires, with significant
payments being made by electricity asset owners. Thirdly, electricity asset owners may suffer due to
negative community perceptions if it is believed that the ignition of fires resulted from a failure to
maintain those assets adequately so as to prevent bushfire ignition. Finally, where interference
between power lines and vegetation causes supply outages, asset owners both suffer revenue losses
due to power not supplied and may risk action being taken against them by businesses that suffer
consequent losses in some circumstances.
The presence of these incentives toward appropriate asset management/maintenance practices
means that it is necessary to identify specific rationales for regulatory intervention to affect practice
in this area. Two basic rationales can be identified: market failures and the need to maintain
community confidence. These are considered in turn, below.
Market failures of two types can be identified: externalities and differential discount rate issues.
3.2.1. Externalities
In practice, it is unlikely that legal action will be successful in forcing asset owners to bear all of the
costs associated with fires caused by electricity assets. That is, it is unlikely that those who suffer
property loss, are injured or have relatives who are killed by fires would be successful in being fully
compensated for their losses via the legal system. Reasons for this inability to obtain full restitution
would include the transactions costs of taking legal action, disincentives to taking action due to
uncertainty as to the outcome, and uncertainties as to the cause of many fires leading to limited
awards being made.
To the extent that parties suffering losses are unable to retrieve those losses from asset owners,
those asset owners do not bear the full cost of the losses caused by those assets. This, in turn, will
mean that they will have sub‐optimal incentives to invest in inspection and maintenance activity to
20 Final Version: 19 September 2014
reduce the risks of externalities arising due to causes such as contact between electricity assets and
vegetation.
Recognition of these issues has led in recent years to the adoption of the "S‐Factor" and "F‐factor"
concepts, which aim to improve the market incentives for electricity businesses to improve the
reliability of the power supply and to reduce the contribution of their electricity assets to bushfire
starts respectively.
Box 3.1: F‐Factor and S‐Factor
Broadly speaking, the F‐ and S‐Factors are fines that are levied on electricity distribution companies
for failure to meet target levels of performance in terms of fire starts and supply outages,
respectively. The targets are set by the Australian Energy Regulator in the course of their periodic
price determinations. The S‐Factor affects future distribution tariffs, which rise if target supply
reliability is exceeded and fall if it is not met10.
The establishment of these penalties can be seen as constituting recognition of the existence of
market failures of the kind discussed above by the economic regulator.
The F‐factor scheme has been in place since late 2011, while the S‐factor scheme was included in the
2006‐10 Price Review.
In proposing the adoption of the F‐factor scheme, the Department of Primary Industries argued that:
"Following the 2009 bushfires, concerns were raised that the existing incentive schemes do
not adequately target the arrangements that electricity distribution businesses have in place
to mitigate the number of fires caused by electrical assets. In addition, concerns have been
raised that the current service incentive scheme provides greater incentives for electricity
distributors to improve services in “high density areas” which are less exposed to bushfire risk
than “low density areas”.
To address this concern, the Department of Primary Industries developed the concept of a
financial incentive scheme (also referred to as an f‐factor scheme) to encourage
improvements in the management of electricity assets to reduce the number of fires started
by electricity assets.
Through the f‐factor scheme, the electricity distributors have a financial incentive to reduce
the number of fires started by electrical assets where the costs to do so are less than the
benefit received through the financial incentive scheme.
10 See: http://www.aer.gov.au/sites/default/files/Final%20decision%20‐%20S%20factor%20final%20decision%20%2820091221%29%20‐%20supply%20interruptions%20January‐February%202009%20‐%2021%20December%202009.pdf (page 2) for a more detailed explanation of the S‐factor scheme.
21 Final Version: 19 September 2014
It is proposed that the f‐factor scheme will operate in a similar way to the current service
incentive scheme. It will balance the service/price trade‐off by linking annual changes in the
electricity distributors’ regulated revenue to the number of fires started by its electricity
distribution assets each year. However, while the service incentive scheme is based on
averages and is therefore skewed towards “high density areas”, the f‐factor scheme will be
based on absolute numbers and is therefore skewed towards areas where the likelihood of
fires starting is higher."11
The adoption of the S and F‐factor schemes constitutes an example of the use of market based
mechanisms, implemented via the regulatory process, to address identified market failures.
However, these mechanisms have been adopted as complements to the existing suite of regulatory
controls, rather than being seen as potential alternatives to regulatory mechanisms.
The substantial program of action to reduce bushfire ignition caused by electricity assets
recommended by the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (VBRC) also clearly indicated that
the Commission took the view that adequate (i.e. economically efficient) market incentives on
electricity companies do not currently exist.
3.2.2. Differentialdiscountrates
Differential discount rates are widely argued to be a feature of the current operation of investment
markets. One key mechanism said to drive this problem is that of incentive based remuneration for
senior management, which can give rise to situations in which company managers face strong
incentives to maximise short‐term profits, even at the expense of higher long‐term rates of return.
The long economic and technical lifespans of most electricity infrastructure imply that optimum
maintenance profiles can be difficult to identify and sub‐optimal outcomes due to deferral of
maintenance investments may not be apparent in the short‐ term. This dynamic provides scope for
managers operating with shorter‐term time horizons to act to increase short‐term profits in ways
that are sub‐optimal from a longer‐term, societal perspective.
Even in the absence of these specific incentives, it is likely that the effective discount rate applied by
company management, which is based on the cost of capital, will be higher than the implicit social
discount rate ‐ the latter concept being based on the social "rate of time preference"12. This reflects
the fact that the latter concept is not based on the cost of capital per se. The difference between
these concepts is readily apparent in the fact that Victorian regulatory impact statements (RIS) are
required to adopt a real discount rate of 3.5 per cent in most cases, whereas required Internal Rate
of Return (IRR) thresholds for corporate investment expenditures are uniformly significantly higher
11 Department of Primary Industries (2011). Establishing a financial incentive scheme to reduce fire starts from electricity
distribution assets ‐ the F‐Factor: Consultation Paper.
12 The rate of time preference pertains to how large a premium a consumer places on enjoyment nearer in time over more remote enjoyment. The higher the time preference, the higher the discount placed on returns receivable or costs payable in the future. The social rate of time preference is defined as the rate of time preference of society as a whole. In general, the social rate of time preference is regarded as relatively low, implying that society as a whole discounts long‐term projects less than individuals do.
22 Final Version: 19 September 2014
than this level: the former is a proxy for the social rate of time preference, while the latter is based
on the opportunity cost of capital.
If the discount rate applied by company management in determining expenditure decisions is higher
than the social discount rate they will have insufficient incentive (vis a vis the social optimum) to
spend money in the short term to avert longer term harms. This may constitute another factor
contributing toward inadequate maintenance expenditures (from a societal perspective) being
undertaken voluntarily.
3.3. Extentoftheproblem
Prior to the introduction of tree clearance legislation and code of practice in 1984, the interaction
between vegetation and electrical lines had historically been a major cause of fires. The devastating
fires of 1962, 1969, 1972 and 1977, as well as the Ash Wednesday fires of 1983 were all, at least in
part, caused by electric lines contacting surrounding vegetation. The Ash Wednesday fires at East
Trentham and Mount Macedon were attributed to power lines arcing when they came into contact
with trees. This fire alone resulted in seven fatalities, the loss of 157 houses, 628 other buildings,
7,700 head of cattle or sheep and an area of over 29,000 hectares being burnt.
As noted above, the cost of fires ignited by contact between vegetation and power lines in the years
between 1975 and 1983 ‐ i.e. immediately before the adoption of the current regulatory structure ‐
has been estimated as being $835 million in current dollar terms, or around $104.5 million per
annum. Moreover, these are likely to constitute significant under‐estimates of the true costs of
bushfire ignition due to contact between vegetation and power lines since, as the VBRC noted, most
such estimates include only a subset of the total cost impact of fires, often focussing on insurance
payouts and other readily quantifiable factors.
Moreover, research conducted by the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE) in 200113
highlights the fact that, in addition to the economic costs arising due to destruction of property,
bushfires are more likely than other forms of natural disaster to lead to physical injury and loss of
life. Comparing a wide range of natural disasters occurring across Australia over a period of more
than three decades (1967 ‐ 1999), BITRE found that:
The costs ($2.5 billion) associated with bushfires represent a relatively small proportion (7.1
per cent) of the total disaster costs. However, as discussed later in this chapter, bushfires are
the most hazardous type of disaster in terms of deaths and injuries.
The expansion in the electricity network that has occurred in recent decades necessarily also implies
that the potential for such occurrences to arise in an unregulated environment would be significantly
greater than was the case historically. The electricity supply system currently constitutes:
The transmission system, which comprises approximately 6,600 kilometres of overhead
electric lines supported mainly by tower structures. These transmission lines typically
13 Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (2001). Economic Costs of Natural Disasters in Australia. Report No. 103.
23 Final Version: 19 September 2014
operate at voltages between 132,000 and 500,000 volts. The transmission line system
interconnects Victoria with New South Wales and South Australia as well as connecting
electricity generators with the major consumption centres across the State.
The electricity distribution system, which comprises 160,000 kilometres of low voltage and
high voltage overhead electric lines that operate at voltages between 240 volts and 66,000
volts. These power lines are, for the most part, located on over 1.3 million overhead pole
structures. The distribution system serves over 2.7 million electricity customers within
Victoria.
As noted above, estimates published in the 1996 RIS in respect of these regulations suggested that
the regulations and the Code that they adopt were almost immediately highly effective in addressing
the issue. Thus, annual losses from this cause were reported as having been reduced to an average
of $0.03 million per annum in the years immediately following the adoption of the Code. Given that
the average annual cost of such fires had averaged $23 million14 over the preceding eight years, this
represents a 99.87 per cent reduction in the previously observed level of economic harm due to
bushfires caused by contact between electricity lines and vegetation. These observations indicate
that the specification of the regulations and Code proved almost immediately to be a highly effective
intervention, albeit that the specific size of the impact is necessarily subject to uncertainty, given the
episodic nature of the problems being addressed.
Another observation tending to support the effectiveness of the regulations and Code is that, in
contrast to previous major bushfire outbreaks, since the introduction of the Code no major fires
have been caused by interaction between vegetation and electricity assets. (While several of the
Black Saturday bushfires of 2009 were found by the 2009 Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission to
have been caused by electricity assets, these were not due to contact with vegetation).
Data for 2012‐13 provided by electricity transmission and distribution companies in response to a
questionnaire developed as part of this RIS project suggest that significant residual risks remain. A
total of 68 fires were reported as having occurred as a result of contact between vegetation and
power lines. These resulted in "F‐factor" penalties of $1.7 million being applied15. However, one
distribution company indicated that it adopts an estimate of $1 million as the long‐run average cost
of a fire involving its assets. If this estimate were to be extrapolated across the total number of fires,
it suggests that the total cost of the fires experienced in 2012‐13 could be as high as $68 million. It is
important to note, however, that this represents an indicative estimate only, as significant
uncertainty necessarily attaches to such an extrapolation from a single data point. Given the very
large difference between the size of the F‐factor penalty and the estimated total cost of
interruptions to the power supply, this figure could be seen as representing something close to an
“upper bound” estimate of the relevant cost.
Moreover, while these data would, on their face, suggest that significant residual risks remain, it is
important to also take account of the disaggregated data on fires due to this cause that is published
14 Original dollar values. This is equal to $0.13m and $104.5m per annum respectively in current dollar terms, as noted in Section 1. 15 A penalty of $25,000 per fire is applied.
24 Final Version: 19 September 2014
by the Australian Energy Regulator. Table 3.1, below, provides a breakdown of reported fire‐start
data for the sector for the five years to 2012‐13, separating fires due to:
“Blow‐ins” – i.e where contact between the vegetation and power lines was due to detached
branches being carried onto the power line, or similar causes; and
“Grow‐ins” – where contact occurred due to the required clearance distance being
breached.
The data also distinguishes between fires caused in circumstances in which the MEC is responsible
for vegetation clearance and fires caused where another party is responsible for clearance. This can
include local authorities, in the case of declared areas, and landowners, in the case of power lines on
private land. Table 3.1 shows that, of 29 fires caused by “grow‐in”, only five occurred in areas where
vegetation management was under network service provider (NSP) responsibility, while 24 occurred
where other parties were responsible. This result is notable, in part because a substantial majority
of the electricity distribution infrastructure would fall under the responsibility of the electricity NSPs.
This observation could suggest that the greater incentives faced by local councils, in particular, to
ensure that the aesthetic value of trees is not unnecessarily compromised are resulting in some
increase in fire risk in practice in urban declared areas. However, ESV notes that the local
government sector has argued strongly, in comments received in response to its 2012 Discussion
Paper and elsewhere, that the allocation of fire starts to particular causes in these contexts is
undertaken by the NSPs and that there is often little or no evidence to support the view that a fire
start was due to grow‐in. Thus, there may be some doubt as to the reliability of the data in this
respect.
Table 3.1: Fire starts due to contact between vegetation and power lines
Total FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 5yr Total
Fire Starts caused by blow‐ins
NSP responsibility 47 33 18 46 53 197
Other responsibility 0 5 7 5 9 26
Fire starts caused by grow ins
NSP responsibility 1 2 0 1 1 5
Other responsibility 1 4 6 8 5 24
Total grow‐ins 2 6 6 9 6 29
Total blow‐ins 47 38 25 51 62 223
Total (all causes) 49 44 31 60 68 252
Source: Australian Energy Regulator. See RIN Responses
The Code and regulations essentially address the problem of contact due to “grow‐ins”, since they
are focussed on the establishment and maintenance of the required clearance distance between
vegetation and power lines. Table 3.1 shows that fires due to grow‐ins represented only 29 of 252
fires due to contact between vegetation and power lines over the past five years, or 11.5 per cent of
25 Final Version: 19 September 2014
the total. Thus, while fires due to contact between vegetation and power lines may have yielded
costs of up to $68 million in 2012‐13, only around $7.8 million of this total relates to fires caused by
probable non‐compliance with the regulations and Code. Moreover, the total of 29 fires due to
“grow‐ins” over five years implies that there is an average of only 5.8 fires per annum due to this
cause, with an average annual cost of $5.8 million over the five year period.
Cost of power outages
For the 2012‐13 year, a total of 2,002 power outages were reported as being due to contact
between vegetation and electricity infrastructure, yielding a total of $19.5 million in "S‐factor"
penalties. Again, however, these penalties represent an attempt by the regulator to provide
incentives for improved performance in this area by MECs, rather than an estimate of the total costs
to society of power outages and the consequent non‐supply of electricity. As discussed in Section
6.1, below, the total cost to society of energy not provided due to power outages is substantially
larger than this amount levied in S‐factor penalties.
As with the incidence of fires, noted above, it is important to note that only a proportion of these
outages due to contact between vegetation and power lines is relevant to the effectiveness of the
Code. Table 3.2, below, provides a similar breakdown to that given above. It is based on the RIN
reports submitted to the regulator by electricity distributors and shows the total number of
customer hours of unplanned supply interruptions over the four years to 31 December 2013, as well
as the number of hours of interruptions due to all vegetation‐related causes and the number of
hours of interruptions due to “grow‐ins”. The table also provides annual averages.
The number of customer hours of unplanned supply interruptions is determined by taking the
duration of each interruption and multiplying it by the number of customers affected.
Table 3.2: Unplanned supply interruptions 2010 – 2013
Interruption source 4‐year total Annual average
Total interruptions (hours) 22,113,971 5,528,493
Interruptions due to grow‐in 1,131,10816 282,77717
Notional interruptions due to grow‐in18 1,809,321 452,330
Grow‐in interruptions as % of all interruptions 8.2%19 8.2%
Source: Australian Energy Regulator. Based on published RIN Reports.
16 Excludes SP AusNet. RIN Response from SP AusNet, as published by the Australian Energy Regulator, has the column providing the detailed cause of power interruptions redacted, making it impossible to provide data on this point. 17 Excludes SP AusNet. RIN Response from SP AusNet, as published by the Australian Energy Regulator, has the column providing the detailed cause of power interruptions redacted, making it impossible to provide data on this point. 18 Given the unavailability of the grow‐in data from SP AusNet this estimate has been calculated by applying the average percentage of the total number of hours of interruptions that are due to grow‐ins calculated for the four other distributors to the total number of hours of interruptions for all five distributors. That is, it implicitly assumes that the grow‐in percentage for SP AusNet is equal to the average of the other four distributors. 19Based on the remaining distributors – i.e. excluding SP AusNet – given the unavailability of grow‐in data for the latter distributor.
26 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Table 3.2 shows that, over the past four years, an average of approximately 5.5 million customer
hours of energy supply were lost due to unplanned interruptions (i.e. interruptions not scheduled
deliberately by the electricity distributor in order to deal with maintenance requirements or other
issues). The Code is relevant to the prevention of only a subset of these interruptions – those due
to “grow‐ins”, where contact occurs between vegetation and power lines due to a failure to
maintain the required clearance space and an interruption to supply results.
Data on grow‐ins is available for only four distributors, with that relating to SP AusNet (now AusNet
Services) having been redacted from the RIN reports published by the AER. However, for these four
distributors, supply interruptions due to grow‐ins account 8.2 per cent of all hours of supply
interruption. If this percentage is applied to the total number of hours of supply interruption, it
implies that around 1.8 million customer hours of supply interruption was due to grow‐in over the
four year period, or an average of 452,330 hours per annum.
This necessarily represents the “residual risk”, in the sense that this is the level of supply
interruption that continues to occur in the presence of the ELC Code. In contrast to the position
with fires, discussed above, no data on the level of vegetation‐related supply interruptions (or, more
specifically, grow‐in related supply interruptions) occurring before the adoption of the Code are
available. However, the fact that around one in 12 hours of supply interruptions continues to be due
to grow‐ins even in the presence of the code clearly indicates the importance of managing this risk
effectively.
Current cost of grow‐in related interruptions20
Estimates of the costs of these interruptions can be derived using the concept of the Value of
Unserved Energy (VUE) and estimates of the average hourly energy demand per customer. The RIS
in respect of the 2010 Code estimated the VUE as being $52.24 in 2009 dollar terms, an estimate
which was based on three cited research reports on this issue21. This is equivalent to $59.55 in 2014
dollar terms22. The average hourly electricity demand per customer was estimated at 13.54 kW.
Given that overall electricity demand has not increased in recent years, this average demand figure
is used in the updated calculation, below.
Using these estimates, the average annual value of unplanned interruptions to electricity supply
caused by grow‐ins over the past four years is equal to:
452,330 hours x 13.54 kW per hour x $59.55 per kW/hour = $364.7 million.
As noted above this cost, while substantial, represents the “residual risk” – i.e. the cost of outages
due to failure to maintain the clearance space in the presence of the regulations and the Code. In
order to estimate the size of the problem as it would potentially exist in an unregulated
environment, it is necessary to consider the probable effectiveness of the Code and regulations in
20 The methodology behind these estimates is explained in more detail in subsequent sections. 21 See Appendix A2 of the 2010 RIS, available at www.vcec.vic.gov.au 22 CPI all groups Melbourne June 2014/June 2009 = 105.9/92.9 = 1.14.
27 Final Version: 19 September 2014
reducing the size of these harms. As noted, no data are available on the historical incidence of
outages due to grow‐ins prior to the adoption of the Code. In this context, the effectiveness of the
Code in reducing the incidence of fires due to grow‐ins may provide the best means of estimating
the potential size of the costs due to grow‐in related supply interruptions that have been averted
due to the presence of the Code.
Using the most recent available estimates of the cost of fires due to grow‐ins, presented above, and
the current dollar equivalent of the average annual cost of fires immediately before the adoption of
the Code, it was estimated above that there has been a reduction of around 95 per cent in the cost
of fires due to these causes since the adoption of the regulations and Code. Given that the
mechanism involved in yielding both fires and interruptions to supply – i.e. contact between
vegetation and power lines – is the same in both cases, it is a priori likely that the impact of the Code
on the incidence of supply interruptions would be proportionately similar to its impact on fire
incidence. Thus, if it is inferred that the current cost of supply interruptions due to grow‐in is 95 per
cent lower than would occur in an unregulated environment, this implies that the cost of supply
interruptions in an unregulated environment would be around:
$364.7 million x 20 = $7.29 billion per annum.
This is necessarily an imprecise estimate, particularly because it infers the effectiveness of the Code
in one dimension from observations of its apparent effectiveness in another (albeit similar)
dimension. However, the context is one in which the overall level of supply reliability performance
of the Victorian electricity sector has improved significantly over the medium to long‐term. For
example, the most recent published data on unplanned supply interruptions published by AER shows
that the average number of minutes of unplanned interruptions per customer fell from around 175
to 130 in the decade to 200823. This is a fall of around 26 per cent over a ten‐year period while, as
noted above, the Code and regulations have been in place for around 30 years. While there is
significant volatility evident in the data, these results indicate that it is at least plausible that
reductions in supply interruptions due to grow‐in of the magnitude suggested above have occurred
since the introduction of the Code.
Moreover, from an incremental cost perspective, the magnitude of these "residual risks"24 highlights
the importance of continuing to refine and improve the regulations and Code to ensure that they are
as effective as possible in achieving their objective. The substantial costs associated with tree
pruning, which are set out in the following sections, also highlight the need to ensure that the Code
supports the adoption of the most efficient measures possible to address the relevant risks.
23 Australian Energy Regulator (2009). Victorian Electricity Distribution Businesses Comparative Performance Report 2008. See p 4, figure 1.4. Data for “unplanned less excluded events”. Note that the equivalent report for 2009 was published by AER in 2012, but the AER concluded that the data for 2009 and 2010 were atypical in nature. Performance in the former year would appear likely to have been significantly affected by bushfire, inter alia. 24 Residual risks are the risks that remain after risk reduction measures ‐ in this case the regulatory requirements and the measures taken to comply with them, as well as any other voluntary efforts taken to reduce the identified risks.
28 Final Version: 19 September 2014
3.4. CurrentContext:Impactoftheadoptionofthe2010Code
a. Overview
Consultation comments received in response to a 2012 Discussion Paper published by ESV and
dealing with a range of bushfire mitigation issues related to electricity assets indicated a high level of
concern among affected parties about specific aspects of the current (2010) ELC Code. The fact that
this issue was not raised explicitly in the Discussion Paper, yet was raised unprompted by parties
including the MAV, the North‐Western Municipalities Association and several individual local
authorities indicated a high level of concern. Thus, a specific aspect of the problem to be addressed
relates to specific changes made between the 2005 Code and the current (2010) edition.
Submissions made a range of comments on the purported differences between the 2010 and 2005
editions of the Code, as contained in the respective Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance)
Regulations. The tenor of these submissions was that the 2010 edition of the Code removed a level
of flexibility that was available in the earlier edition and, in practice, imposed more demanding
requirements on responsible persons and was leading to substantial over‐pruning. The MAV argued
that there was a great deal of concern within local government in relation to this issue. Of particular
concern to many councils was the asserted effect of these changes on the amenity derived from
street trees.
To the extent that these views can be supported, an issue clearly arises as to whether the move to
adopt the 2010 Code represented a departure from an appropriate balance between risk reduction
and amenity considerations. Some submissions suggested a better balance in this regard had been
achieved under the previous edition of the Code.
b. Summary of stakeholder comments
The MAV submission argued that there is little evidence to support the extent of pruning required by
the 2010 code, stating:
There is much concern in the local government sector that the current regime lacks an
empirical and scientific base to warrant the level of pruning required by the Electricity Safety
(Electric Line Clearance) Regulations (2010).
Several local government submissions argued that a key aspect of this evidence issue is that the
incidence of fire starts due to contact between power lines and vegetation is significantly over‐
stated, with MECs allegedly attributing fire starts or outages to this cause as a default explanation
where no strong evidence of a specific cause could be found.
It was argued by MAV that, since the introduction of the current Code, "several councils and
communities have witnessed destructive and excessive pruning of vegetation by the distribution
businesses and their contractors." However, this part of their submission suggested that this may be
largely due to the adoption of longer pruning cycles by some distribution businesses, in search of
cost savings, rather than being a function of the 2010 Code per se.
29 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Nonetheless, the MAV also argued that the 2010 Code removed much of the "flexibility" contained
in the 2005 Code "in terms of adopting risk‐based management approaches to vegetation around
certain types of power lines". Numerous submissions argued that the 2005 Code had allowed for a
"risk‐based approach" to be taken, but that this was no longer the case under the 2010 Code. All
sought a return to the status quo ante in this respect, however, none provided specific detail as to
the failings of the current Code in this regard, or what aspects of the 2005 Code they sought to have
re‐instituted.
MAV stated that, since the adoption of the 2010 Code, it had been in consultation with ESV about
adopting "risk‐based approaches" to vegetation clearance, especially in relation to inner‐urban areas
that demonstrate zero or negligible bushfire risk. Numerous submissions from councils mentioned
this process and supported it as the appropriate way forward. The North‐Western Municipalities
Association argued that the costs of implementing the 2010 Code were not justified by the benefits
achieved.
Only one council provided quantified estimates of the increased costs that it claimed had been
incurred due to the adoption of the 2010 Code. This council stated that, in the last year, it had
incurred costs of $80,000 in undertaking tree clearance around high voltage lines, plus another
$500,000 in undertaking clearance around low voltage lines. However, the costs of clearance
activities were expected to increase to $200,000 in relation to high voltage lines in the coming year,
and to a total of $1 million for both high and low voltage line clearance. It stated that these
expected cost increases were due to the combination of two factors: new works identified during its
ESV audit and the 2010 Code.
Concerns as to the practicability of achieving compliance with the 2010 Code was expressed in this
and several other submissions from councils, which argued that "strict compliance" with the
provisions of the 2010 Code was either practically impossible to achieve or, at the least, would lead
to unconscionable degrees of over‐pruning. For example, one major regional city stated that full
compliance with the 2010 Code would have a severe impact on its street trees and would not be
acceptable, particularly as it is renowned for its large street trees, which provide the city with much
of its unique character. This submission argued that compliance with the 2005 Code was
"borderline" in terms of acceptability to the local community and the more stringent requirements
of the 2010 Code were not acceptable. A metropolitan council also argued that the 2010 Code had
increased the clearance distances they are required to maintain, despite their area being classified
as being a low bushfire risk area (LBRA). Similarly, a regional council argued that the adoption of the
2010 Code had led to substantial increases in clearance activity in both rural and town settings,
seriously compromising both amenity and the value of their street trees.
Another regional city raised the issue of alleged inconsistency between the requirements of the
2010 Code and those of the Australian Standard on the pruning of significant trees, arguing that
their arborists found it "difficult or impossible" to comply with the Code while also meeting the
Standard. It stated that they had moved to an annual pruning cycle in order to "minimise the
damage", but noted that the distribution businesses in their area typically adopted a three‐year
pruning cycle. Moreover, while the regulations do provide for exemptions from the clearance
distances to be available, it stated that they were unaware of these ever being used.
30 Final Version: 19 September 2014
A number of councils also argued (in 2012) that the recent audit of compliance with the Code failed
to distinguish between serious and trivial non‐compliance, suggesting that much non‐compliance
was of the latter type and reflected attempts to achieve a better safety/amenity balance.
While most comment on this issue came from councils, SP AusNet also made comments that
suggested a view that the 2010 Code had introduced substantive changes with significant resource
implications for parties responsible for tree clearance.
Specifically, it stated that:
"SP AusNet considers that municipalities, similar to major electricity companies, are in the
transition period toward compliance with the new regulatory framework for vegetation line
clearances. This has required forward planning and budgeting to engage increased levels of
vegetation management resources." (pp 6‐7).
In addition to the above issues, concerns have been raised with ESV in relation to the issue of the
adequacy of the notification, consultation and dispute resolution processes and procedures
contained within the current Code. These concerns have been raised both by local councils and
community organisations and by individual community members. A key issue identified has been
the perceived level of variability in practices across different responsible persons. Further
examination of the current regulations and Code by ESV and ELCCC also identified the lack of a
consistent understanding among different stakeholders of the term “affected persons”, who are the
group required to be notified of line clearance activities.
The current Code requires the responsible person to give notice to affected persons of tree pruning
or removal either in writing or by publication in a local newspaper. This obligation extends to the
pruning or removal of trees on public land, on private property not occupied or owned by the
responsible person and trees of cultural or environmental significance.
If a tree on private property is to be pruned or removed, the responsible person must consult the
affected person, however, there is no specification within the Code as to how consultation should be
undertaken.
Similarly, while responsible persons are required to establish procedures to be followed in relation
to the resolution of disputes, there is no obligation to make such information available to others,
including affected persons.
Thirdly, while the Code requires responsible persons to make a copy of the Electricity Line Clearance
Management Plan (ELCMP) to be available at their principal offices during normal business hours,
the management plan is not required to include notification, consultation and dispute resolution
procedures.
c. Current policy proposal
(i) Clearance dimensions
31 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Having reviewed these comments in the light of a detailed comparison of the provisions of the 2005
and 2010 editions of the Code, ESV has reached the view that some of the comment received in
relation to the impact of the 2010 edition of the Code may be based on misunderstandings as to the
nature and extent of these differences between the editions of the Code. A key change adopted in
the 2010 Code is that the “deemed to comply” clearance distances in low bushfire risk areas set out
in the various tables includes allowances for "sag and sway" of power lines. This was not the case in
the 2005 Code, which required further allowances for sag and sway to be added to the prescribed
minimum clearances. Given this fact, and the limited differences between the two Codes in terms of
the distances set out in the tables, it is arguable that the 2010 Code is, in effect, less stringent than
its predecessor. In the absence, however, of active enforcement by ESV of the 2005 requirements in
low bushfire risk areas, the addition of a further sag and sway allowance was often neglected in
practice. An understandable misperception developed that the total clearances required were those
set out in the tables in the 2005 Code.
The following tables illustrate the above point relating to the differences between required
clearance distances in the two editions of the Code.
Table 3.3: Minimum clearance distances in LBRA ‐ cables not bundled or insulated
Spans up to and including 45 metres25
Spans exceeding 45 metres, up to and including 70 metres
Spans exceeding 70 metres, up to and including 100 metres
Spans exceeding 100 metres
2005 2010 2005 2010 2005 2010 200526 2010
Up to 1 kV
1.0m 1.0m 1.0m 2.0m 1.5m 2.5m 1.5m 2.5m
Over 1 kV, less than 66 kV
1.5m 1.5m 2.0m 2.0m 2.0m 2.5m 2.0m 2.5m
66 kV 1.25m 2.5m 1.5m 3.0m 2.0m 3.5m 2.0m 3.5m
Source: Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2005, 2010. See Table 10.2 (2005 Regs), Table 2 (2010
Regs).
Table 3.3 shows that, in low bushfire risk areas, nominal clearance distances are identical in three of
twelve cases, while in the remaining nine cases they are larger under the 2010 regulations. Of these
nine cases, in two cases the difference is 0.5 metres, in three cases the difference is 1.0 metre, in
one case it is 1.25 metres and in three cases it is 1.5 metres. In all of the nine cases in which the
stated minimum clearance distance has increased, this is due to the incorporation of an additional
sag and sway allowance. That is, in all these cases the increase in clearance distances is less than, or
equal to, the size of the sag and sway allowances contained in the 2005 Code. In the other three
25 The 2005 Code requires a clearance distance of only 1.0 m where spans are less than 30 m. 26 The 2005 Code does not explicitly set out clearance distances for spans exceeding 100 m: the relevant table only refers to spans exceeding 70 m. Thus, the same distances apply in respect of longer spans.
32 Final Version: 19 September 2014
cases, in which there is no change in the stated clearance distance, it was judged that the original
2005 dimensions included sufficient provision for sag and sway. The cases in which the clearance
distances differ most significantly relate to high voltage (66 kV) lines. Moreover, all of the clearance
distances differ for spans greater than 70 metres. These longer spans are clearly where the required
allowances for sag and sway are greatest.
Table 3.4 compares minimum clearance distances as set out in the two editions of the regulations in
relation to hazardous bushfire risk areas (HBRA).
Table 3.4: Minimum clearance distances in HBRA27 ‐ cables not bundled or insulated
Spans up to and including 45 metres
Spans exceeding 45 up to and including 70
metres
Spans exceeding 70 up to and including 350
metres
Spans exceeding 350 metres
2005 2010 2005 2010 2005 2010 200528 2010
Bare and covered low voltage
1.5m 1.5m 2.0m 2.0m 2.0m 2.0m 2.25m 2.25m
66 kV, 11 kV and 22 kV
1.5m 1.5m 2.0m 2.0m 2.0m 2.0m 2.25m 2.25m
66 kV 2.25m 2.25m 3.0m 3.0m 3.0m 3.0m 3.0m 3.0m
Source: Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2005, 2010. See Table 11.1 (2005 Regs), Table 3 (2010
Regs).
Table 3.4 shows that no changes to the clearance distances required in HBRA were made as a result
of the adoption of the 2010 regulations.
In summary, in respect of cables other than insulated or bundled cables, there are no differences
between the 2005 and 2010 Codes in the line clearance distances required in HBRA, while the
differences that do exist in LBRA are broadly reflective of the required sag and sway distances. That
is, as suggested above, the fact that the 2010 Code's stated clearance distances include sag and sway
allowances, whereas the equivalent distances in the 2005 Code exclude these allowances means
that the distances established in the 2010 Code cannot reasonably be characterised as being larger
than in the previous edition. However, as discussed in Section 5.2, below, it is possible that
inadequate enforcement of the 2005 Code meant that sag and sway allowances were not, in all
cases, incorporated in clearance practice at that time. This would, in effect, mean that many
responsible persons have moved from a position of not being fully compliant with the 2005 Code to
one of being required to comply with the 2010 Code. The increase in monitoring and enforcement
27 HBRA = Hazardous Bushfire Risk Areas. 28 The 2005 Code does not explicitly set out clearance distances for spans exceeding 100 m: the relevant table only refers to spans exceeding 70 m. Thus, the same distances apply in respect of longer spans.
33 Final Version: 19 September 2014
activity since the Black Saturday fires and the VBRC would potentially magnify the perceived size of
this effect.
Notwithstanding this, ESV convened an ELCCC working group to review the specific clearance
distances for low bushfire risk areas set out in the tables contained in the 2010 Code. This work was
prompted by the receipt of submissions from stakeholders raising concerns in relation to the current
specified distances.
Specifically:
the distribution businesses’ submission argued that there is inadequate provision for wind
induced sway of power lines; while
local authorities' submission argued that there has been inadequate consideration given to
the amenity and environmental value of street trees.
A specific ELCCC working group, consisting of members from ESV, local authorities and the
distribution businesses, considered this issue. It proceeded on the basis that, in LBRA, there is much
less “bushfire” risk (although there is still a fire risk) and that the determination of the appropriate
clearance dimensions should be driven by, in order of priority: ensuring the electrical safety of
people, protecting the reliability of electricity supply, and avoidance of localised fires started by
vegetation contacting power lines. The working group reviewed the technical data on electrical
breakdown distances and calculated the sway of the most common urban power line types over a
range of spans, wire temperatures and wind speeds. The working group found very little published
information on wind‐induced tree movement and, having reviewed the research literature that was
found, concluded that tree movement allowances would remain a matter for engineering judgement
in the absence of empirical data in a form suitable for specifying clearance distances.
The ELCCC received the working group’s report on allowances for power line sway and branch
movement and concluded that the suggested changes to the horizontal clearance dimensions were
not material and did not warrant an amendment to the regulations at this stage. The committee
recommended that this work, along with previous 2005 Code provisions regarding structural
branches, should be used as an input to the remaking of the regulations in 2015. The committee,
however, noted that applying the required horizontal clearance dimension to the vertical clearance
below power lines may be contributing to excessive pruning of street trees, particularly below the
low voltage power lines. The committee therefore requested that work continue to review the
allowances for the vertical movement of lines.
(ii) Pruning cycles
ESV noted that a large number of the submissions argued that at least some distribution businesses
have increased the length of pruning cycles from previous levels and implied that this increase was a
significant contributor to the identified problems of excessive pruning. With longer pruning cycles,
more severe pruning is required to avoid regrowth into the clearance space over the longer time
interval. Moreover, longer pruning cycles may cause longer term problems, as well as loss of
amenity value. Trees that are aggressively pruned may lose structure and form and be difficult to
manage, as regrowth branches may be weakly attached. One major rural MEC’s approved Electric
34 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Line Clearance Management Plan (ELCMP) required consultation to occur to locate trees of historical
or aesthetic significance and for consideration to be given to the impact on the trees amenity and
utility value if it is subjected to pruning. Inclusion of such provisions in other ELCMP would also
constitute a potentially feasible approach to addressing this issue.
(iii) Flexibility issues
As noted above, a number of submissions argued that the 2010 regulations contain less flexibility as
to implementation than their predecessors. The 2005 regulations allowed for reduced clearances
for certain situations on the condition that appropriate risk mitigation activities were carried out to
ensure that an equivalent safety outcome was achieved despite the reduced clearance dimension.
ESV’s experience, however, indicated that, in practice, responsible persons were cutting to the
reduced dimension without undertaking the necessary risk mitigation. Consequently, these
flexibility provisions were removed from the 2010 regulations. The concerns raised as a result of
this change give rise to a need to consider what changes to the specification of clearance distances
may be feasible, in addition to the question of how alternative compliance arrangements might be
reinstituted that can include feasible and robust enforcement mechanisms, thus ensuring that
adequate clearance is maintained while minimising the aesthetic concerns highlighted above.
3.5 Factorsinfluencingthepolicyresponsetotheproblem
3.5.1. Valueofmaintainingcommunityconfidence
As discussed below, while electricity assets are responsible for the ignition of only a small proportion
of the overall number of bushfires, a much larger proportion of major bushfires on severe weather
days occasioning large scale damage and loss of life have been attributed to electricity assets. As
documented in the report of the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission, electricity assets have been
held responsible for the ignition of fires occurring on each of the last four major bushfire events in
Victoria; those of 1969, 1977, 1983 and 2009. Moreover, a majority of the fatalities recorded on
Black Saturday were attributed to fires ignited by electricity assets (though not as a result of contact
between vegetation and electricity assets).
ESV believes there is a high level of awareness of these facts in the general community, given the
wide publicity given to the work of the VBRC and a consequent perception that the consequences
associated with bushfire ignition due to electricity infrastructure are likely to be major and may even
be catastrophic. The establishment of the VBRC and the subsequent response of successive
governments in underlining their commitment to implement the great majority of its
recommendations indicates a widely held view that significant policy action is required to ensure
that community confidence in the safety of electricity infrastructure is maintained and improved.
Ensuring that regulatory provisions are in place to manage the risks associated with interactions
between vegetation and electricity assets, and that such regulation is refined and improved over
time, constitutes one important mechanism in this regard. In the post‐VBRC context, in particular,
any move away from a regulated approach to electric line clearance activities – even if allowed for in
35 Final Version: 19 September 2014
the Act – would be widely perceived as increasing risks to unacceptable levels and would be the
subject of strong community opposition.
3.5.2. Natureoftheproblem:differingperspectives
Another important element of the problem being addressed is that key stakeholders have
significantly different perspectives on the issues of the risk posed by contact between vegetation
and power lines and the appropriate treatments of that risk.
As noted above, major electricity companies (MECs) (i.e. electricity transmission and distribution
businesses) are primarily responsible for vegetation clearance activity. However, local authorities
have responsibility for vegetation clearance in the “declared areas”, while local authorities also
frequently make representations to the MECs on behalf of their constituents on the issue of how
clearance activity should be conducted.
Many local authorities, together with their representative groups, argued that MECs typically
adopted a sub‐optimal approach to line clearance activity. They argued that two issues are
significant. Firstly, as commercial entities, the MECs have little or no incentive to have regard to the
aesthetic value of street trees and typically prune excessively in order to minimise the risk of the
clearance space being breached and, potentially, to enable them to adopt as long a pruning cycle as
possible. Local authorities have also argued, in many cases, that MECs systematically overestimate
the negative consequences of contact between vegetation and power lines. It has been suggested
that, where the cause of a power outage or a fire is unclear, there is a tendency to ascribe the
problem to contact with vegetation, even when no significant evidence is available.
Conversely, a number of MECs have argued that local authorities exercising clearance
responsibilities in declared areas frequently undertake too little clearance activity, with the result
that non‐compliance with the provisions of the ELCC is widespread. Consequently, they suffer
unreasonable economic loss due to this failure to comply with regulatory obligations.
36 Final Version: 19 September 2014
4. Summaryoftheproposedchangestotheregulationsandcode
As has been the case throughout the three decades during which the regulations have specified an
ELCC, the proposed regulations and Code are based on their current equivalents. Hence, the
following discussion focuses on the specific, substantive changes that are proposed to be made to
the arrangements currently in place. Where issues are not discussed below, the relevant provisions
are expected to be carried over from the current regulations and/or Code to the new edition
without substantive policy change29. A copy of the proposed regulations and Code is attached to this
RIS as Appendix 2.
4.1. Amendedmethodofspecifyingandpresentingminimumclearancedistances
The ELCCC examined the methodology underlying the specification of minimum clearance space
between vegetation and electric lines specified in the Code and concluded it could be improved by
addressing the issue of significant "step changes" in required clearance distances. That is, the
current method yields outcomes in which small increases in span distances, within a certain range,
lead to large increases in the minimum clearance distances.
This outcome has been identified as being poorly aligned with the risk mitigation requirements that
underlie the regulations and code. This reflects the fact that the potential amount of sway to which
a span of cable is subject necessarily increases in a linear fashion with the distance between the
spans. Thus, the outcome of a “stepped” function specifying minimum clearance distances is that
the relationship between potential sway and required clearance distance differs significantly for
different span distances. Thus, for example, as shown in Table 4.1, below, the current Code requires
that, for insulated cable, the minimum clearance space that must be maintained around a 40 m span
is 300 mm, but that required around a 41 m span is 600 mm. The clearance space required doubles,
while the potential sway of the span is only very slightly increased. Thus, if a
300 mm clearance is just sufficient to maintain a safe outcome for a 40 m span, a 600 mm clearance
will necessarily incorporate a very significant “margin of safety” or, alternatively, unnecessary
additional extent of clearance where a 41 m span is concerned.
As a result, it is proposed to replace the clearance distance tables contained in the current Code with
a set of formulae reflected in graphs which will serve to indicate required minimum clearance
distances that are expressed in terms of a "sliding scale", rather than as a series of step changes.
The minimum clearance distance is expressed as a linear function of the span distance together with
the formula used to ascertain the clearance dimension depicted in the graph. In several cases, for
spans exceeding specific limits, there are additional sag and sway allowances to be added to the
distances set out in the Graphs and calculated via the formulae.
29 There has, however, been significant rewording of the requirements in many cases as a result of efforts to achieve greater legal precision and to reflect current drafting standards and practices.
37 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Graph 4.1, below, is reproduced from the proposed regulations and clarifies the nature of the
function being adopted. It sets out the minimum applicable distances proposed in respect of
insulated cable.
Graph 4.1: Minimum applicable distances ‐ Insulated electric lines in all areas (includes aerial
bundled cable)
The formulae applied to determine the minimum applicable distances – as set out in the graph – are
as follows:
For 0<SD≤40, AD=300mm
For 40<SD≤100, AD=300 + ((SD‐40) x 10)
For 100 + SD, AD=900mm
Where:
SD = span distance
AD= Applicable distance
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110
App
licab
le D
ista
nce
(mm
)
Span Distance (m)
Graph 1: Insulated Electric Lines in All Areas
38 Final Version: 19 September 2014
This means that all spans up to 40 m distance apart would be required to be surrounded by a
300 mm clear space and, for span distances between 40 m and 100 m in length, the minimum
clearance space would increase (from this 300 mm base) by 10 mm for every one metre increase in
the span distance. For span distances greater than 100 m, a fixed 900 mm minimum clearance space
would be required.
Table 4.1, below compares clearance distances in respect of insulated cable and aerial bundled cable
under the existing and proposed regulations.
Table 4.1: Comparative clearance distances ‐ Insulated cable and ABC
MINIMUM CLEARANCE SPACES IN ALL DIRECTIONS ‐ Insulated cable or ABC
Near pole Away from pole
1 2 3 4 5
Type of Power line
All spans near the pole
Spans up to and including 40 metres
Spans exceeding 40 metres up to and including 70 metres
Spans exceeding 70 metres
Aerial Bundled Cable ‐ Existing (Proposed)
300 mm 300 mm
(No change)
600 mm
(300 ‐ 600mm in linear relationship to
span length)
900 mm
(600mm at 70m, up to 900mm at 100m and above)
Insulated Cable ‐ Existing (Proposed)
600 mm
(300mm)
600 mm
(300mm)
1000 mm
(300 ‐ 600mm in linear relationship to
span length)
1000 mm
(600mm at 70m, up to 900mm at 100m and above)
Comparison of graph 4.1 and table 4.1 highlights another significant difference between the existing
and proposed Code, which is that the proposed Code would apply the same clearance distances to
both insulated cable and aerial bundled cable (ABC). This is the product of the use of a definition of
insulated cable in the new regulations which includes ABC. By contrast, the current regulations treat
these two types of cable separately and, as Table 4.1 shows, impose larger minimum clearance
distance requirements in respect of insulated cable.
39 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Comparison of the distances specified shows that the required clearance distances under the
proposed regulations will be either less than or equal to those currently required. However, the
extent of the change necessarily differs between insulated cable and ABC30.
Aerial bundled cable
Table 4.1 shows that, other than at the "inflection points" under the current regulations, where the
proposed minimum clearance space is identical to the present requirement, the minimum clearance
distance will be reduced across a wide range of span lengths.
The changes will not affect span distances less than 40 m or span distances over 100 m. However,
there will be significant changes for spans between these lengths. Thus, in relation to a 50 m span
distance, the current 600 mm clearance distance would be reduced to 400 mm, while for an 80 m
span distance, the current 900 mm clearance distance would be reduced to 700 mm.
Insulated cable
Clearance distances for insulated cable will, in all cases, be significantly reduced from current
requirements. The minimum clearance distance near poles will be reduced from 600 mm to
300 mm. This reduction will also apply to all span distances of up to 40 m in length. For span
distances of 40 – 70 m in length the minimum clearance distance will be between 300 mm and
600 mm, compared with 1000 mm at present. For span distances exceeding 70 m, the clearance
distance will be between 600 mm and 900 mm, compared with 1000 mm at present.
Uninsulated cable ‐ LBRA
Table 4.2: Comparative clearance distances ‐ uninsulated cable in LBRA
MINIMUM CLEARANCE SPACES IN ALL DIRECTIONS
Near pole Away from pole
1 2 3 4 5 6
Nominal voltage
Section of all spans near the pole
Spans up to and including 45 metres
Spans exceeding 45 metres, up to and including 70 metres
Spans exceeding 70 metres, up to and
including 100 metres
Spans exceeding 100 metres
Up to 1 kV ‐ Existing (Proposed)
1000 mm
(500mm)
1000 mm
(1000mm)
2000 mm
(1000mm ‐ 1700mm)
2500 mm
(1700mm ‐ 2500mm )
2500 mm (plus an additional sag and sway
allowance)
(2500mm plus an additional sag and sway
allowance)
30 In addition there is no longer differentiation in required clearance distances between wire near the pole and away from pole – there is one distance in relation to the ‘electric line’ as defined under the ESA
40 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Over 1 kV, less than 66 kV ‐ Existing (Proposed)
1500 mm
(500mm)
1500 mm
(1000mm)
2000 mm
(1000mm ‐ 1700mm)
2500 mm
(1700mm ‐ 2500mm)
2500 mm (plus an additional sag and sway
allowance)
(2500mm plus and additional sag and sway
allowance)
66 kV
(Proposed)
2250 mm
(2250mm)
2500 mm
(2250mm)
3000 mm
(2250mm ‐ 2800mm)
3500 mm
(2800mm ‐ 3500mm)
3500 mm (plus an additional sag and sway
allowance)
(3500mm plus an additional sag and sway
allowance)
Table 4.2 shows that, for uninsulated cable in LBRA, clearance distances would again be less than or
equal to those currently specified. The differences are relatively small in respect of 66 kV lines and
larger in respect of lower voltage lines. Notably, the proposed regulations would distinguish
between only two voltage ranges within the low voltage category (i.e. 66 kV or below), rather than
three, as at present.
Table 4.3, below, sets out the equivalent comparison for low voltage cable in HBRA. It shows that
clearance distances are again identical near poles and for spans of up to 45 m, as well as for spans
exceeding 350 m. In relation to spans of 45 – 350 m, the required clearance distances are smaller at
the lower end of the range, are identical at 250 m and are greater for span lengths between 250 m
and 350 m. However, the maximum difference ‐ at 350 m ‐ is only 250 mm. In respect of 66 kV
lines, however, the clearance distance is in all cases smaller than at present within the 45 – 350 m
range.
Table 4.3: Comparative clearance distances for uninsulated cable in HBRA
MINIMUM CLEARANCE SPACES IN ALL DIRECTIONS
Near pole Away from pole
1 2 3 4 5
Nominal voltage
Section of all spans near the pole
Spans up to and including 45 metres
Spans exceeding
45 metres, up to and
including 350 metres
Spans exceeding
350 metres
Up to 1 kV ‐ Existing (Proposed)
1500 mm
(1500 mm)
1500 mm (plus an additional sag and sway allowance)
(1500 mm ‐ plus an additional sag and sway allowance)
2000 mm(plus an additional sag and sway allowance)
(1500mm ‐ 2000mm plus an additional sag and sway allowance)
2250 mm (plus an additional sag and sway
allowance)
(2000 ‐ 2250mm plus an additional sag and sway
allowance)
41 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Over 1 kV, less than 66 kV ‐ Existing (Proposed)
1500 mm
(1500 mm)
1500 mm (plus an additional sag and sway allowance)
(1500 mm ‐ plus an additional sag and sway allowance)
2000 mm (plus an additional sag and sway allowance)
(1500mm ‐ 2000mm plus an additional sag and sway allowance)
2250 mm (plus an additional sag and sway
allowance)
(2000 ‐ 2250mm plus an additional sag and sway
allowance)
66 kV ‐ Existing (Proposed)
2250 mm
(2250mm)
2250 mm (plus an additional sag and sway allowance)
(2250mm plus an additional sag and sway allowance)
3000 mm (plus an additional sag and sway allowance)
(2250mm ‐ 3000mm plus an additional sag and sway allowance)
3000 mm (plus an additional sag and sway
allowance)
(3000mm plus an additional sag and sway
allowance)
4.2. Provisionofexceptionstoclearancedistancesandalternativecompliancemechanismsinrespectofclearanceactivity
Two mechanisms would be inserted into the proposed Code which would provide responsible
persons with flexibility in relation to the minimum clearance distances in certain circumstances.
These are as follows:
Exceptions
The 2005 edition of the Electric Line Clearance Regulations allowed for reduced clearance distances
to be adopted on the condition that appropriate risk mitigation activities were carried out to ensure
that an equivalent safety outcome was achieved despite the reduced clearance dimension. Those
provisions were removed from the 2010 edition of the Code due to ESV concerns about the level of
compliance with these risk mitigation requirements in practice. However, it is now proposed to
reinstate flexibility provisions in the next edition of the Code. These provisions are included in the
proposed clauses 4 and 5 of the Code.
Two specific exceptions to the requirement to ensure the specified clearance distances are
maintained at all times would be created in relation to low bushfire risk areas. The first relates to
insulated low voltage electric lines and the second to uninsulated low voltage electric lines.
These exceptions would allow for certain structural branches to enter the minimum clearance space,
but would place a number of additional obligations on the responsible person where they are
adopted. The inclusion of these exceptions would effectively reinstate the similar provisions
contained in the 2005 Code.
42 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Alternative compliance mechanisms
Provisions enabling alternative compliance mechanisms (ACMs) to be adopted are to be
incorporated in the regulations and Code. This will occur via the incorporation of a process by which
certain Responsible Persons can apply to have these ACMs approved for use in the context of some
of the electricity infrastructure or for trees for which they have clearance responsibilities.
Where ACMs are used, clearance distances to be adopted must be specified in the application and
approved by ESV. The application must also specify what published technical standards will be relied
upon in implementing the ACM, and include a formal safety assessment.
These provisions are intended to recognise advances in technological and engineering solutions and
their potential to better protect the amenity value of trees by enabling reduced clearance
dimensions to be applied, provided that an equivalent safety outcome can be achieved and the
safety and security of electrical supply maintained.
It is proposed that these provisions are complemented by a requirement for responsible persons to
communicate with stakeholders and advise of the use of alternative compliance mechanisms and
consequent revised clearance dimensions. This will be achieved by including a description of the
ACM on the management plan, which is accessible to the public.
4.3. Expandeddefinitionof‘insulated’electriclines
The current regulations specify clearance dimensions for ‘aerial bundled cables’ and ‘insulated
cables’ which are smaller than the clearance dimensions for ‘uninsulated cables’. It has been
recognised that further clarification of the types of cables that can be classified as insulated cables is
required.
Accordingly, it is proposed to provide additional detail on the types of cable that are regarded as
"insulated cables" for the purposes of the Code. In making this change, it is intended that an
expanded definition of ‘insulated cable’ be provided, which recognises other types and forms of
insulated cable that can achieve the equivalent safety and performance standards of insulated
cables currently being used.
Thus, by recognising the range of different engineering solutions available, this change will enhance
the flexibility available to Responsible Persons and provide opportunities to both limit the aesthetic
impact of pruning and reduce clearance costs.
The expanded definition of ‘insulated cables’ will need to be supported by recognised published
technical standards, which will be referenced in the Code.
This change can, in part, be regarded as a subset of the proposals relating to alternative compliance
mechanisms discussed above. It recognises industry‐driven demands and significant initiatives in
this area of evolving effective and lower‐cost engineering solutions to the underlying safety issues.
43 Final Version: 19 September 2014
4.4. AdoptionofAS4373(2007)PruningofAmenityTrees
It is proposed that the Code incorporate a requirement for responsible persons to prune trees in
accordance with the Australian Standard AS4373‐2007, Pruning of Amenity Trees as far as is
practicable. That is, while the Code itself specifies the clearance distances that must be maintained
at all times, and thus forms the basis for determining how much pruning must be undertaken, the
Standard provides detailed guidance as to the means of carrying out this pruning while maintaining
the health and natural appearance of the tree as far as possible. Thus, the adoption of the Code is
intended to enable better amenity outcomes to be achieved over time while safety performance is
maintained through the continued specification of appropriate clearance distances in the body of
the Code. The adoption of the Code thus addresses current community concerns in relation to
losses of amenity value due to pruning which are potentially avoidable in some cases. Box 4.1,
below, provides a brief summary of the content of AS4373.
Box 4.1: Brief summary of AS4373
Section 1 states that the scope of the Standard covers the pruning of amenity trees.
Section 2 indicates that the standard is intended to be used by arborists, tree workers, government
departments, building contractors and others involved with contractual arrangements for tree pruning.
Section 3 defines a range of key terms.
Section 4 sets out matters to be considered before pruning is undertaken, including the need to inspect the
tree to inform consideration of relevant issues, including its structure, health, growth habits and growing
environment, as well as the need for pruning and the potential impacts of pruning on any of the factors
considered.
Section 5 sets out pruning procedures, including disinfection requirements and means of undertaking cutting
and removing branches, as well as providing guidance on where cuts should be made.
Section 6 deals with foliage distribution and generally requires that amount of foliage removal to be minimised
and the overall “habit” (shape) of the tree to be maintained as far as possible. Matters of weight and crown
distribution are also addressed and illustrative diagrams are incorporated. Again, the focus is on maintaining a
natural looking tree that is physically healthy.
Section 7 identifies nine different types of pruning (grouped into the two classes of “crown maintenance” and
“crown modification” and requires that the type of pruning being undertaken be determined in advance of
starting work. Guidance is provided on carrying out each type of pruning.
Section 8 identifies a range of unacceptable practices, while Section 9 deals with appropriate means of pruning
roots.
44 Final Version: 19 September 2014
4.5. Enhancednotification,consultationanddisputeresolutionprovisions
It is proposed that enhanced notification and consultation provisions will be included in the
regulations and the Code. These will specify in greater detail the notification and consultation
requirements applying to responsible persons and are intended to encourage more open and
transparent communication between the responsible persons, the community in general and, in
particular, those occupying or managing the land on which the trees are located.
Specifically, responsible persons will need to write to affected persons notifying them of intended
pruning or tree removal, as well as publishing notices to this effect in a generally circulating
newspaper. By contrast, the current Code allows either one of these notification mechanisms to be
used. The Code also identifies the information that must be included for notification and
consultation. The persons to be notified in writing are more clearly identified in the proposed code,
and include:
an occupier of private property on which a tree is to be cut
an owner of private property on which a tree is to be removed
the council that manages the land on which tree cutting or removal is to occur
an occupier or owner of land contiguous to the land on which the tree is located and whose
use of the land will be affected during cutting or removal of that tree.
Specifications as to the content of the notice to be provided are also included. The Code requires
additional details to be included in the notice, for example the details of the person who will be
carrying out the intended cutting or removal (on behalf of the responsible person) and the dates or
time period of the intended cutting or removal.
It is proposed that these provisions are underscored by a requirement for fuller disclosure by
responsible persons of the notification and consultation provisions established by them to address
issues in this area. Responsible persons who must prepare a management plan are required to
include in the management plan details of the notification and consultation procedures (including
the form of notification) and the dispute resolution procedures they have established. A copy of the
management plan is to be available at the principal office during normal business hours and must
also be published on the responsible person’s website. These changes are intended to ensure that
affected parties are able to be informed of their rights in these areas.
4.6. Administrativeandhousekeepingchanges
The following administrative and housekeeping provisions are proposed:
an update of provisions relating to responsible persons to align with amendments to the Act
effected by the Electricity Safety Amendment (Bushfire Mitigation) Act 2014, including
consequential and corresponding amendments to retain and ensure the integrity of the
scheme of the Regulations, this includes:
45 Final Version: 19 September 2014
updating current ‘fixed’ references to section 84 in the current regulation 9(1); and
clauses 6(1) and 7 or equivalent provision; and
revising the current provisions relating to persons responsible for maintaining line
clearance in the Electricity Safety Act (sections 84, 84A, 84B, 84C and 84D); and
Inclusion of transitional arrangements to allow responsible persons to implement plans for
the financial year starting 1 July 2015, which must be prepared by 31 March 2015, in
accordance with the current regulations and Code (2010). The transitional arrangements
will also allow for responsible persons to opt out and prepare and implement a new plan to
the proposed regulations and code during the course of the year.
updates to various provisions to recognise machinery of government changes.
Review, update and consolidation of ‘Additional duties of responsible persons’ in relation to
the obligations of distribution companies and owners or operators of railway or tramway
supply networks to provide assistance to councils, and for distribution companies to give
advice to occupiers about private electric lines. In particular, clause 19(2) of the Code
requires distribution companies and other asset owners (essentially rail and tram network
owners) to assist councils in relation to safety issues with respect to pruning vegetation in
the vicinity of power lines, including setting safe limits of approach to power lines when
undertaking such pruning and establishing safe methods for undertaking pruning (e.g.
ensuring pruning around live lines is only undertaken by appropriately qualified crews).
While these specific provisions are new, ESV believes that their impact will, in essence, be to
provide greater clarity and certainty in relation to existing duties already undertaken under
several other provisions of the electricity safety legislation, rather than creating new
obligations and giving rise to substantive new costs. In particular:
Section 98 of the Electricity Safety Act 1998 requires major electricity companies to
operate their supply networks in a way that minimises hazards and risks to the
safety of any person arising from the supply network. This places an obligation on
them to assist persons who need to carry out work or activity in the vicinity of a
power line (e.g. to prune adjacent trees) to do so safely.
Regulation 318 of the Electricity Safety (Installations) Regulations 2009 prohibits a
person from approaching electricity conductors (including conductors forming part
of DB and railway supply networks) closer than the relevant distance set out in Table
318. This requirement does not apply to various persons, including for a person
engaged in tree clearing work who has been trained in that work and complies with
the “Blue Book” (which is a code of practice relating to work on or near high voltage
electricity assets).
Clause 20 of the Code requires distribution companies and other asset owners to assist
councils in assessing sag and sway allowances. This requirement in respect of assessing sag
and sway allowances is anticipated to be used only rarely in practice, since the need to
calculate these allowances only arises in respect of uninsulated cable with span lengths of
over 100 metres in low bushfire risk areas. Such long spans are very rarely encountered in
the urban (i.e. LBRA) areas in which Councils are the Responsible Person. Hence, no
significant cost impact is expected to result from this provision. Moreover, as with clause
46 Final Version: 19 September 2014
19(2), above, the effect of adopting this provision is largely one of making explicit existing
obligations and practices31.
31 Distribution companies and asset owners have the necessary technical data and engineering sophistication to make complex sag and sway calculations.
47 Final Version: 19 September 2014
5. Expectedcostsoftheproposedregulations
5.1. Overview
Precise estimation of the costs of either the existing or the proposed regulations and Code is
rendered impossible by the broader legislative environment within which these instruments
operate. Specifically, a number of the requirements imposed on responsible persons in order to
minimise bushfire risk will have an impact on the decisions made as to how and when tree
clearance, and associated activities, will be undertaken. This reflects the fact that, in common with
many legislative structures which address an operating environment characterised by complex and
inter‐dependent risks, the Electricity Safety Act and its subordinate legislation combines elements of
performance based, process based and prescriptive legislation.
Box 5.1: Defining types of regulation
Performance‐based regulation is that which identifies the outcomes to be achieved, but does not
specify the means by which they are to be attained.
Prescriptive regulation, by contrast, specifies the specific actions that must be taken (i.e. the inputs)
in order to achieve the regulatory objective.
Process‐based regulation specifies the processes that must be carried out by responsible parties in
order to meet regulatory obligations. This generally involves undertaking risk identification, hazard
assessment and determination of appropriate risk controls.
As noted above, the Electricity Safety Act creates a general duty for MECs and "specified operators"
to minimise bushfire risk danger associated with electricity assets (Sections 98 and 83B,
respectively). This is supplemented by a requirement for bushfire mitigation plans to be developed
and submitted for acceptance by MECs and specified operators (Sections 113A and 83BA,
respectively). In addition, there is a specific requirement that distribution companies keep trees
clear of electricity lines. Hence, even in the absence of the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance)
Regulations and the Code which they specify, the distribution companies and specified operators
would have substantial legislative obligations in respect of electric line clearance. Specifically, there
is a general requirement to keep trees clear of electricity lines, while the Bushfire Mitigation Plans
(BMP) that they are required to submit would necessarily be required to address the specific means
to be adopted to ensure compliance with this general obligation. This reflects the fact that the BMP
mechanism is an example of "process‐based" regulation, as defined above.
In this context, the full cost of tree clearance activities can clearly not be attributed solely to the
proposed regulations and Code. This is because substantial clearance activity would necessarily
48 Final Version: 19 September 2014
occur in the absence of the regulations, since MECs would be required to comply with their
legislative obligations as described above32.
In practice, therefore, the impact of the regulations and the Code on the tree clearance activities of
electricity distribution companies arises in the following areas:
The regulations require management plans to be submitted annually, which set out how the
Code will be complied with;
The regulations require that the specific clearance spaces set out in the Code must be
complied with, with different distances being specified in a range of circumstances;
The regulations require that the cutting or removal of native trees, those of cultural or
environmental significance should be minimised;
Trees that are habitat for threatened or endangered species are to be cut outside the
breeding season, or the animals relocated, where this is not practicable;
Conversely, "Hazard trees", being those likely to fall onto power lines are able to be
removed, subject to certain processes;
The regulations establish requirements for notification and consultation to be undertaken in
relation to the cutting of certain types of trees;
The Code requires that occupiers of land with private overhead electricity lines to be
notified of their obligations to maintain the line clear of vegetation; and
The regulations require the responsible person to establish procedures for resolving
disputes in relation to vegetation clearance.
5.2. Historicalestimatesofcompliancecosts
The 1996 RIS estimated that the annual cost of compliance with the Code was equal to $41 million.
This figure was derived via two methods. The first took the compliance costs reported in the
previous RIS and escalated these at a rate of 5 per cent per annum, reflecting advice from MECs on
the rate of increase in their contract values at the time33. The second involved seeking data from the
former SECV's insurance brokers on total bushfire mitigation expenditure and on vegetation
clearance expenditure and determination of the latter as a percentage of the former. This
percentage was then applied to current bushfire mitigation expenditures to obtain an estimate of
current clearance costs. The resulting estimates were found to be highly consistent, both being
approximately $41 million.
The RIS in respect of the 1999 regulations also estimated the cost of clearance activities at $41
million and reported that the same methodologies as outlined above were adopted. The RIS in
respect of the 2005 regulations stated that no more up to date data were available and, as a result,
simply inflated the 1999 estimate by the CPI to arrive at an estimated annual cost of $49.2 million.
32 By implication, this means that not all of the benefits associated with tree clearance can be attributed to the Code. 33 The RIS does not comment on why data on actual clearance costs were not able to be obtained directly from the MECs in this context.
49 Final Version: 19 September 2014
The RIS in respect of the 2010 regulations cites clearance costs of $84.5 million in 2004 dollar terms
or $96.6 million in 2010 dollar terms, stating that these were the costs claimed by distribution
companies in the 2006 Essential Services Commission (ESC) pricing review. This was regarded as
constituting the "base case" ‐ i.e. the costs that would be incurred in the absence of the regulations.
In addition, it was argued that:
remaking the 2005 regulations and Code without amendment would add a further
$7.9 million per annum in costs; and
moving to the 2010 regulations and Code would add $12.9 million per annum to the base
case costs.
Thus, the 1996, 1999 and 2005 RIS all estimated the annual costs of the regulations being adopted
on those occasions as being equal to the equivalent of $41 million in 1996 dollars, or $64.6 million in
current dollar terms. Moreover, the 1996 RIS noted that this was a gross cost and that an average
annual cost equivalent to $27 million in 1996 dollar terms ($42.6 million in current dollar terms) was
being incurred prior to the introduction of the Code. The incremental cost of the regulations and
Code was therefore estimated as $14 million, equivalent to $22.1 million in current dollar terms.
The 2010 RIS appears to have been the first to rely on cost estimates provided directly by the MECs.
This would appear likely to be the main reason for the observed difference between the 2005 RIS
estimate of the cost of compliance with those regulations, of $49.2 million, and the 2010 RIS
estimate of $84.5 million as the annual cost of implementing regulations that would simply reinstate
those provisions34. The latter estimate can be considered as an ex post estimate of the cost of
implementing the 2005 Code, and is $35.3 million, or 71.7 per cent higher than the ex ante estimate
contained in the 2005 RIS.
5.3. Costsoftheexistingregulationsandcode‐expostestimates
5.3.1. Currentclearancecosts
A similar comparison of ex ante and ex post costs can be made in respect of the current regulations
and Code. As noted above, the 2010 RIS estimated the annual costs to transmission and distribution
companies of complying with the 2010 Code as being ($96.6m + $12.9 m) = $109.5 million in 2010
dollars, or $121.7 million in current dollar terms.
Consultation with electricity transmission and distribution companies has provided information on
the costs actually incurred at present in complying with these requirements of the current
regulations and code. These are summarised below:
Preparation of Electricity Line Clearance Management Plans (ELCMPs)
34 Both estimates are expressed in terms of 2004 dollars. The latter estimate was sourced from the ESC Electricity Price Review 2006‐10. See 2010 RIS, p 30.
50 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Based on the questionnaire responses received from MECs, the total cost of preparing new ELMCPs
is estimated at $163,287, or an average of $27,214 per affected business. Revisions to these plans
are required to be undertaken at least annually, with the cost of these revisions averaging
approximately half of the cost of initially preparing the plan, or $13,607. It is unclear how frequently
each affected party would need to embark on the preparation of a totally new plan. It is assumed
that a new plan is adopted following the adoption of a new set of regulations and accompanying
code and then revised in each subsequent year..
In addition, estimates provided by the 39 local authorities that responded to the ESV questionnaire
indicated an average cost of preparation of an ELCMP for this group of approximately $1,500. 67 of
Victoria’s 78 local authorities have declared areas in which they have responsibility for pruning
vegetation, and it is assumed here that the average of the estimates provided by the 39 local
authorities that responded is representative of the other local authorities with responsibility for
pruning. The lower cost of preparation of an ELCMP for councils (as opposed to MECs) apparently
largely reflects the much smaller areas for which local councils are responsible and the consequently
much lesser complexity involved in designing a compliance plan. It is assumed that, as for MECs, a
new plan is drafted in the first year that a new Code comes into effect, with a revision being
undertaken annually thereafter at 50 per cent of the initial plan development cost.
In the event that no change is made to the Code (Option 1) the total annual cost of preparing
ELCMPs for the 6 MECs and 67 local councils responsible for Declared Areas is therefore estimated
to be:
($13,607 x 6) + ($750 x 67) = $81,642 + $50,250 = $131,892 per annum.
This is equivalent to a net present value of $595,499.30 over the five year life of the
regulations.
In the event that the Code is changed (Option 2 or 3) the annual total cost of preparing ELCMPs for
both MECs and local councils responsible for Declared Areas is therefore:
($27,214 x 6) + ($1,500 x 67) = $163,284 + $100,500 = $263,784 in the first year, and then;
($13,607 x 6) + ($750 x 67) = $81,642 + $50,250 = $131,892 per annum for the remaining four
years of the life of the regulations.
This is equivalent to a net present value of $722,931 over the five year life of the
regulations. This is the equivalent of the net present value of five cash flows of
approximately $0.16m per annum over five years..
Tree pruning
As discussed above, only a proportion of the costs of tree pruning can be attributed to the
regulations and code, since significant pruning activity would necessarily be undertaken in the
absence of these instruments, both for commercial reasons and in order to comply with Section 98,
51 Final Version: 19 September 2014
in the case of the MECs, and section 84 of the Electricity Safety Act more broadly. However,
consultation indicates that the specific requirements of the regulations and Code do have a
significant impact on the overall costs incurred.
In responses to a questionnaire distributed to Responsible Persons in the course of the preparation
of this RIS, the total cost of vegetation clearance activity incurred by the five electricity distribution
companies and the one electricity transmission company during the 2012‐13 financial year was
reported at $122.9 million. In addition, data was received from a total of 39 local councils, with
reported annual pruning expenditure for this group being $22.6 million, with an average of $580,541
per council. Given that 67 of Victoria’s 78 local authorities have declared areas in which they have
responsibility for pruning vegetation, and assuming that the average of the 39 councils is
representative of the other councils, this suggests that total tree clearance expenditures for all 67
councils is $580,841 x 67 = $38.9 million per annum.
The total combined clearance expenditures for MECs and councils is therefore estimated to be:
$122.9 million + $38.9 million = $161.8 million per annum.
This is equivalent to $730.5 million in present value terms over the five year life of the regulations.
As discussed above, the full amount of this cost cannot be solely attributed to the ELC regulations
and the Code that they contain, given the range of other legislative obligations, as well as
commercial imperatives that would give rise to significant pruning activity even in the absence of
specific regulations covering this issue. Estimates of the incremental costs of the adoption of the
regulations/Code mechanism are set out below. In addition, the specific impact of the adoption of
the 2010 Code is discussed.
5.3.2. ESVadministrationandenforcementcosts
Current ESV costs
ESV currently allocates three full time staff to tasks associated with the implementation and
enforcement of the regulations and Code. This comprises two staff who focus on audit and
inspection functions and one staff member who focuses on technical management issues. A further
1.25 EFT staff are devoted to other functions relating to Code implementation, including
co‐ordination, administration and management.
Total direct salary costs for the three EFT staff involved full‐time in implementation and enforcement
are approximately $321,500 per annum, while costs for the remaining staff are estimated at a
further $135,000. Thus, direct salary costs total around $456,500.
To obtain an estimate of the total cost to the organisation of this function, including both
management inputs, non‐wage labour costs and general corporate overheads, an uplift of 75 per
cent has been applied to this direct salary cost, as per VCEC guidance on this issue. This implies that
52 Final Version: 19 September 2014
the total administration and enforcement costs incurred by ESV in connection with the regulations
and Code are equal to approximately:
$456,500 x 1.75 = $798,875 per annum.
Using a real discount rate of 3.5 per cent, this is equal to around $3.6 million in present value terms
over the expected five year life of the regulations.
Incremental Costs
The main source of potential changes to ESV’s current administrative costs following from the
adoption of the proposed Code is expected to be the result of the adoption of ACMs. Current
indications are that applications for the approval of ACMs will involve some form of engineering
solution applied to the power line. Examples of alternative compliance mechanisms could be the
use of technologies not already included in the regulations and Code such as use of a particular type
of insulating cover for a nominated portion of electric line, which could change the characteristics of
that portion of line allowing for changed clearance obligations under certain conditions, or a new
type of cable system becomes available, such as the Hendrix cable system.
A responsible person, either the owner or operator of an electric line (but not a private electric line
or service line), or a council may apply to ESV for approval to use an ACM. The application must
include the following information:
details about the proposed mechanism including the relevant technical standard with which
it complies;
how the responsible person intends to commission, install, operate and decommission the
mechanism;
the location of the associated electric line;
proposed minimum clearance space around the electric line;
formal risk assessment including risk identification, assessment and mitigation measures;
and
the written agreement of the owner or operator of the electric line if the applicant does not
own or operate the line.
The Code sets out how ESV must assess and respond to applications: ESV will review an application
and will approve it if satisfied that adequate information has been included, and that the risks
associated with the proposed changes are properly mitigated. ESV will formally respond in writing to
approve or refuse an application, and will provide relevant reasoning. The Code also establishes
criteria for ESV amendment, suspension or revocation of an ACM and the processes that must be
followed in such cases.
The ACM concept is a new inclusion in to the Code. Based on feedback to date, most stakeholders
support the principles behind this approach. However, it is necessarily difficult to estimate the likely
costs to ESV of administering these provisions. From a practical perspective, such an approach is
likely to be initiated carefully and on a small scale, reflecting the intrinsic hazards and risks
53 Final Version: 19 September 2014
associated with electricity infrastructure and the requirements for robust analysis and physical
integrity of any mechanism being considered.
However, the availability of this option could also yield offsetting savings where current options such
as moving an electric line or making other, more significant, changes to existing electricity
infrastructure would otherwise potentially be adopted, with significant potential cost implications
for responsible persons.
In sum, the requirement to assess and approve ACM proposals is expected to have a relatively small
impact on ESV administration costs over the life of the proposed regulations, potentially in the range
of a 10 – 25 per cent increase. This would be equal to an increase of around $0.08 million ‐ $0.20
million per annum.
This would raise total ESV administrative and enforcement costs to around $0.88 million ‐ $1.0
million per annum, or around $4.0 ‐ $4.5 million in present value terms over 5 years.
5.3.3. Costchangesduetotheadoptionofthe2010Code
As part of the consultation process undertaken in the course of developing the proposed regulations
and Code, key stakeholders were asked to estimate size of the changes in tree‐pruning and related
costs they had incurred following the replacement of the former, 2005 edition, of the Code with the
current edition. This information request was adopted in part as a result of feedback received
during an earlier consultation process, in which a number of electricity companies argued that their
compliance costs had increased significantly as a result of specific changes made in the 2010 edition
of the Code.
The responses received in response to the consultation process undertaken showed a range of views
as to the size of the impact of the changes included in the 2010 Code. However, it was generally
agreed that electric line clearance costs had increased.
The one electricity transmitter indicated that there had been no change to pruning frequencies as a
result of the adoption of the current Code, suggesting overall cost changes that it faced are likely to
have been modest35. Among the five distribution companies, two stated that their pruning costs had
been affected by "the need to transition to full compliance". These comments are understood to
refer in part to the removal of the option of certain flexible compliance provisions that were
contained in the 2005 Code from the 2010 version and, in part, to an enhanced level of monitoring
and enforcement activity undertaken by ESV following the Black Saturday bushfires of 2009. A third
distribution company stated that their costs had increased overall by
80 per cent, with around 83 per cent of this increase being attributed to "the need to maintain the
clearance space at all times".
To the extent that the removal of flexible compliance provisions contributed to the identified cost
increases, these can be attributed to the changes to regulations and Code adopted in 2010.
35 No specific response was provided to the question asking for cost changes to be quantified.
54 Final Version: 19 September 2014
However, these responses suggest that changes in enforcement practices were perceived as the
major drivers of increases in activity and costs within the sector over this period.
A fourth distribution company stated its belief that adopting a two‐yearly pruning cycle would be the
only feasible way to ensure compliance with the 2010 Code, while a fifth stated that it had moved
from a three year cycle to a two year cycle in LBRA, albeit with no change to pruning frequency in
HBRA. This latter respondent stated that they expected their "steady state" clearance costs under
the 2010 Code would be three times those incurred under the 2005 Code. However, these indicated
changes in pruning frequency do not appear consistent with such an estimate, and no information
was provided to explain this extremely high estimated cost increase.
Among councils that responded to this question, a significant proportion also stated that the
vegetation clearance costs they incurred had risen significantly following the introduction of the
2010 Code. Little detail as to the specific drivers of these cost increases was provided in most cases,
with a substantial number simply referring to the need for clearance distances "to be maintained at
all times". Since there was no change in the general requirement for minimum clearance distances
to be maintained at all times between the 2005 and 2010 editions of the regulations and Code, these
comments can potentially also be seen as suggesting that perceived changes in enforcement
practices were the major driver of cost increases over the period, rather than changes to the
regulations and/or Code per se.
Summary
In sum, the majority of MECs and councils argued that they had incurred significant increases in
vegetation clearance costs since the adoption of the current regulations and Code in 2010.
However, only two distribution companies provided quantitative estimates of these changes, while
one of these estimates is apparently implausibly large, particularly in light of the lack of information
provided as to the drivers of this cost. The remaining quantitative estimate was that costs increased
by 80 per cent. However, 83 per cent of this increase was said to be the result of being required to
"maintain clearance spaces at all times". The requirement to maintain clearance spaces at all times
has always been part of the regulations in this area. Thus, the key driver of the large cost increases
claimed in this case appears to be an increase in the extent of enforcement activity undertaken and
an associated increase in compliance levels. As such, the increase cannot be attributed to the
substantive changes made between the 2005 and the 2010 editions of the regulations and code.
As an indicative estimate only, if the 80 per cent cost increase reported above were applied
generally in the context of the above estimate of current clearance costs, it suggests that total
clearance costs increased by $74.2 million per annum following the adoption of the current
regulations and code, from around $93.4 million previously to the current estimated level of
$168.1 million per annum.
Such an estimate is necessarily speculative, but accords with the widespread view of significant cost
increases. Importantly, however, to the extent that specific information on the drivers of these costs
was provided, it suggests that the majority of the overall impact was the result of changes in
enforcement practices by ESV, rather than the substantive changes made to the regulations and
55 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Code, as noted above. It can be noted in general terms that changes in ESV practices in several areas
occurred in response to findings and recommendations made by the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal
Commission in relation to the need for improved monitoring of maintenance practices and
regulatory compliance more generally by MECs.
To the extent that substantive changes to the regulations and Code were significant as drivers of the
observed cost increases, the key element appears to have been the removal of the previous
provisions in relation to flexible compliance provisions in response to concerns as to non‐compliance
by the sector with the obligations imposed under these pre‐existing arrangements.
However, a comparison of the cost estimates reported above with the ex post estimates of the cost
of complying with the 2005 regulations that were reported in the 2010 RIS suggests that the actual
increase in clearance costs incurred as a result of the adoption of the 2010 regulations is significantly
less than the above discussion – based on recent questionnaire responses – would indicate. As
noted above, the 2010 RIS appears to be the first to have reported cost estimates based directly on
information obtained from MECs. As a result, the estimates of the cost of compliance with the 2005
regulations that it reports are significantly higher than the ex ante estimates included in the 2005
RIS.
The 2010 RIS cites the actual cost of compliance with the 2005 regulations/Code for distribution
companies as being equal to $84.5 million in 2004 dollar terms. The source of this figure is the
Essential Services Commission’s 2006 Pricing Review36 and it is based on data supplied by the
distribution companies to ESC. This is equal to approximately $110.1 million in current (2014) dollar
terms37. This figure can be compared with the total estimated costs of compliance with the current
regulations and code reported by distribution companies of $118.9 million. Comparison of the two
figures suggests that the actual incremental cost of adopting the 2010 regulations/Code to replace
the 2005 editions, at least when measured on a steady state basis, could be of the order of $8.8
million, or around an 8 per cent increase: a figure that is clearly much lower than the estimates
reported above from two individual distribution companies.
5.4. Expectedincrementalcostimpacts:proposedregulationsandCode
This section provides an analysis of the incremental costs expected to arise from the replacement of
the current regulations and Code with the proposed regulations and Code. It focuses on the key
substantive changes proposed and uses data obtained from responsible persons obtained via
questionnaire responses.
5.4.1. Amendedmethodofspecifyingandpresentingminimumclearancedistancesandexpandedclassificationofinsulatedelectriclines
36 Essential Services Commission (2006) Electricity Distribution Price Review 2006‐10. 37 (CPI All Groups Index: Melbourne June 2014/June 2004 = 105.9/81.3).
56 Final Version: 19 September 2014
These two provisions can be regarded as linked, since they are both predicated on the achievement
of more appropriate clearance distances by better relating them to risk levels. It is expected that
these two provisions will both be cost reducing, however, the size of the impact is subject to
considerable uncertainty.
Given that the regulations and Code require that the minimum clearance distance is maintained at
all times, the implication is that responsible persons will prune to a point where actual clearance is
considerably greater than the minimum acceptable level, so that at least this minimum clearance is
maintained, despite subsequent regrowth, throughout the "pruning cycle" ‐ i.e. until the tree is next
pruned. On one view, a move to smaller clearance distances would somewhat reduce the amount of
pruning required in the current cycle, but have no subsequent impact, since the amount to be
pruned subsequently would, as before the change, be equal to the expected quantum of tree growth
over the course of the pruning cycle. Therefore, on this view, the proposed changes, which tend to
reduce minimum clearance distances, will have little impact in reducing costs.
However, some comments received in response to ESV's 2012 June 2012 Discussion Paper (Review
of Statutory Provisions Governing Bushfire Risk Mitigation in Relation to Electricity Assets in Victoria)
suggested the potential for larger cost reductions to result from reduced clearance distances. Some
local governments argued that one response to the adoption of the 2010 code that they had
implemented was a reduction in the pruning cycle ‐ i.e. an increase in the frequency of tree pruning.
This reflected a view that the effective increase in clearance distances that the adoption of this code
was perceived to have yielded38 meant that more frequent pruning was seen as necessary in order
to minimise negative amenity impacts on street trees, as well as potential negative impacts on tree
health. To the extent that reduced clearance distances have the effect of enabling responsible
persons to return to a longer pruning cycle, significant cost savings would clearly be likely to result.
This issue is discussed further below.
Some transitional costs are likely to be incurred as a result of the changes in the specification of
clearance distances being adopted. These arise from the fact that those responsible for clearance
activity will need to assess span distances in their areas of responsibility against the new clearance
requirements and determine the specific clearance distances to be applied in individual cases.
However, this cost is considered likely to be small in size, since consistent span distances are
generally used across wide areas. Thus, the number of specific calculations of required clearance
distance required to be undertaken will, in practice, be limited. It can also be noted that these
transitional costs are necessarily incurred whenever a new Code specifies modified clearance
distances.
Provision of exceptions to minimum clearance space and alternative compliance mechanisms in
respect of clearance activity
38 This issue is discussed in the ESV's November 2012 White Paper Review of Statutory Provisions relating to the
Mitigation of Bushfire Risks Arising from Electricity Assets. As noted elsewhere, while the actual clearance distances
specified in the 2010 Code are essentially identical to those specified in the 2005 Code, the removal of alternative
compliance mechanisms from the 2010 Code meant that many responsible persons see the 2010 Code as effectively
enforcing larger clearance distances, vis‐a‐vis actual practice under the 2005 Code.
57 Final Version: 19 September 2014
The 2005 edition of the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations allowed for reduced
clearance distances to be adopted on the condition that appropriate risk mitigation activities were
carried out to ensure that an equivalent safety outcome was achieved despite the reduced clearance
dimension in relation to allowing certain structural branches within the minimum clearance space.
Those provisions were removed from the 2010 edition of the Code due to ESV concerns about the
level of compliance with these risk mitigation requirements in practice. Thus, the proposed change
to the 2010 Code will represent a reinstatement such arrangements, albeit in a different form as
exceptions.
As noted above, provisions enabling alternative compliance mechanisms to be adopted are to be
incorporated in the regulations and Code. This will occur via the incorporation of a process by which
responsible persons can apply to have these for ACMs approved for use typically in the context of
some of the electricity infrastructure.
Additional scrutiny in relation to the use of these mechanisms is to be provided via the proposed
adoption of a requirement for responsible persons to specify the proposed clearance distances and
include information about the ACMs in the management plan.
The advances in technological and engineering solutions made in recent years should provide
greater scope for ACMs to be adopted successfully and economically, while maintaining safety
standards. This change is therefore expected to enable a reduction in overall clearance‐related costs,
without compromising safety performance.
Questionnaire responses from the electricity distribution and transmission sector indicated a range
of views regarding the likely impact on clearance costs of the reinstatement of the flexible
compliance provisions. One distributor stated that it believed that there would be potential for cost
reductions due to the elimination of "unnecessary pruning" and cited as an example potential
savings of $0.25 million per annum if flexibility were provided in relation to vegetation overhanging
bare wire conductors. Conversely, other distributors saw potential for flexibility to yield cost
increases vis‐a‐vis existing arrangements. One of this group commented that they saw the ACM
provisions primarily in terms of having the potential to achieve better amenity outcomes, but at
higher cost. Similarly, another distributor argued that there would be demand for "better service" in
terms of special pruning arrangements to deal with amenity issues. It was suggested that cost
increases of up to 10 per cent could result from this dynamic. Another distributor also highlighted
the likelihood of a higher amenity/higher cost outcome, but stated that it would not be possible to
determine the cost impact of these provisions until full implementation had occurred ‐ i.e. a "steady
state" had been reached in terms of the implementation of compliance arrangements under the
new Code. The two remaining respondents stated that they were unable to comment on the cost
implications of these proposed provisions until they had seen how they would operate in practice.
These comments suggesting that cost increases could arise due to the adoption of the exceptions
and ACMs must be assessed critically in light of both the intention underlying the establishment of
ACM and the comments separately made by a number of MECs that the removal of the flexible
compliance provisions provided in the 2005 Code had led to significant cost increases. As discussed
above, numerous comments received from responsible persons, both in the context of the recent
58 Final Version: 19 September 2014
questionnaire and in previous consultations, have indicated a strong view that the removal of the
flexible compliance provision as part of the adoption of the 2010 regulations and Code was an
important contributor to the perceived resulting significant cost increases. In this context, it is
surprising that the proposed introduction of equivalent flexibility mechanisms should be perceived
by a number of MECs as being potentially cost increasing in nature.
To the extent that this apparent asymmetry can be explained via the responses received, the
observation of two MECs that the cost impact of this proposed change will depend on how it is
implemented seems significant.
ESV notes that the objective underlying the re‐establishment of the exceptions and introduction of
alternative compliance mechanisms is to restore an element of flexibility in compliance with the
regulations and Code in ways that will allow lower‐cost outcomes to be achieved while maintaining
the effectiveness of the Code and, in particular, the level of safety achieved. The implementation of
these provisions will therefore be consistent with this objective. Hence, these provisions are
expected to be cost‐reducing in practice.
As indicated by the responses from responsible persons, it is not possible to quantify these expected
cost reductions ex ante. However, in light of the suggestions made by responsible persons as to the
cost increasing effect of removing the equivalent arrangements from the 2005 Code, it is anticipated
that these cost reductions will be potentially significant.
Assessment of ACM applications
The proposed Code requires that any ACM applications include, at a minimum, the following
elements:
Details about the ACM, including procedures for commissioning, installing, operating,
maintaining and decommissioning of the ACM;
Any relevant published technical standards in relation to the ACM and its commissioning,
installation, operation, maintenance and decommissioning;
A formal safety assessment of the ACM – including details of the methodology and
investigations undertaken for the formal assessment, identification of hazards associated
with use of ACM and systematic assessment of the risks in relation to the commissioning,
installation, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of the ACM; and
Description of technical and other measures taken to reduce the risks as far as practicable.
ESV may approve an application providing it complies with the requirements highlighted above,
provides an adequate assessment of the risks involved and a commitment to adopt a specified and
appropriate set of measures to mitigate these risks (as determined in the formal safety assessment).
ESV may require the responsible person to perform specific actions or monitor the use of the ACM in
a specific manner as part of the approval. ESV may require the responsible person to undertake
specified monitoring in connection with the implementation and operation of its ACM arrangements
and report the results of this monitoring to ESV periodically. This mechanism is consistent with
current ESV performance and compliance monitoring requirements in other areas. Finally, the
59 Final Version: 19 September 2014
responsible person will be required to include a description of the ACM and details of its approval by
ESV and implementation in its management plan, thus providing an important transparency
mechanism for key stakeholders.
5.4.2. AdoptionofAS4373(2007)PruningofAmenityTrees
The views received from stakeholders on the probable costs of moving to carry out clearance
activities in accordance with AS4373 were somewhat variable. Five of the six MECs stated that they
already required their contractors to cut to AS4373 standards where practicable. However, the
additional information provided suggest that different interpretations of this concept of
practicability have been adopted. Thus, two distribution companies and the transmission company
stated that their clearance activities were already conducted largely in accordance with this
standard, suggesting that any cost impacts would be small. One of these two distribution
companies stated explicitly their belief that the incremental cost of this provision would be zero,
provided that the requirement included a statement that the standard was to be adopted "as far as
practicable". Another distributor stated that, while generally adopting AS4373, they believe that
mechanical cutting is appropriate in respect of larger trees of lower amenity value and that they
adopt this practice at present. Thus, if strict compliance were required, they estimated the cost
impact on their clearance activities as being an increase of around $0.5 million per annum. This was
equivalent to an increase of approximately 2.6 per cent on their reported annual pruning costs.
In contrast to these comments, two distributors argued that that significant cost increases could
result from the adoption of this requirement. They indicated that the size of these increases could
vary significantly, depending on specific implementation decisions, but offered a speculative range of
cost increases of 30 ‐ 50 per cent. This would be equal to an annual cost increase of $16.9 ‐ $28.2
million per annum, based on their reported current pruning costs.
Unsurprisingly, respondents who felt that they were already largely compliant with the code were
generally supportive of its introduction, while those who saw it as leading to significant cost
increases were not.
The local government sector was strongly supportive of the adoption of AS4373, particularly because
it was seen as enabling amenity values associated with trees to be preserved. Most responses
indicated that they already conduct clearance activity to this standard and many argued that they
would consequently not expect to incur any additional costs. Others suggested that full compliance
with the Code could give rise to a need for more frequent pruning in order to simultaneously comply
with the regulations and code and could therefore be cost‐increasing. However, such costs were
widely regarded as worthwhile in relation to the amenity benefits to be achieved.
In assessing the likely cost impact of the proposed adoption of a requirement for pruning to be in
accordance with AS4373, the specific wording of the proposed requirement must be taken into
account. The proposed regulations would require that management plans indicate how compliance
with this requirement would be achieved, but also state that plans should include:
60 Final Version: 19 September 2014
"the procedures to be adopted if it is not practicable to comply with the requirements of
AS4373 while cutting a tree in accordance with the Code”(proposed regulation 8(3)(j))”
That is, the adoption of this requirement will be subject to an explicit "as far as practicable"
limitation. As noted above, one MEC commented that, in the presence of such a limitation, they
would expect that there would not be any substantive cost of compliance, while two other
distributors indicated that they were already largely compliant with AS4373 and would not expect to
incur additional substantive costs.
While two distributors indicated the potential for significant cost increases to result from the
adoption of this requirement in their circumstances, the estimated range of a 30 ‐ 50 per cent
increase, totalling $16.9 ‐ $28.2 million per annum, must be seen as an upper bound estimate, given
their emphasis on the importance of the specific form in which the requirement was implemented in
determining cost outcomes. ESV believes that the adoption of an "as far as practicable" limitation
and its appropriate interpretation as part of the process of improving management plans will mean
that any cost impacts on these distributors will be substantially smaller than this.
In addition, based on the feedback received from the local government sector, ESV believes that the
cost impact on this group of responsible persons of the AS4373 requirement will be minimal. This is
consistent with the strong focus within the local government sector on ensuring that excessive
pruning is avoided and that amenity values are preserved in the context of clearance activity.
In sum, the adoption of a requirement to conduct clearance activity in accordance with AS4373 as far
as practicable is expected to have a limited impact on clearance costs. As an indicative estimate, this
may be in the range of a 2.5 per cent to 5 per cent increase. Based on the estimates of current
clearance costs presented above, this would be equal to an increase in costs of around $4.2 ‐ $8.4
million per annum.
5.4.3. Enhancednotificationandconsultationprovisions
All the MECs argued that adverse consequences would result from the adoption of the proposed
changes in this area and five stated that they did not support the proposed change, while the sixth
supported the change only insofar as it relates to HBRA. Concerns were raised in relation to the
practicability of compliance in some contexts, the likelihood of duplication of notices and the
increased cost of advertising. In addition, it was noted that the proposal allowed little use to be
made of SMS or other new technologies in this context. MECs also argued that there is no apparent
evidence to suggest the current process is inadequate, given that they have received no complaints
from affected persons.
Two MECs stated that they expect that costs would approximately double from their present level
under this proposal, with additional costs of $100,000 per annum for the distribution network and
$1,450,000 for the transmission network. A further two MECs estimated broadly similar cost
increases, but saw them being incurred predominantly in the distribution network, with increases of
61 Final Version: 19 September 2014
$1.74 million there and $310,000 in the transmission network. A fifth MEC estimated cost increases
of $250,000 per annum and the final MEC estimated these additional costs at $280,000.
Summing these estimates suggests that the incremental costs of the improved notification
requirements could be of the order of $4.13 million per annum.
Notably, while there was widespread opposition among MECs to these proposals, support was
expressed support for the proposed changes in respect of dispute resolution processes.
5.4.4. Summaryofexpectedincrementalcostimpactsofproposedregulations
Responsible persons
In sum, the above discussion indicates that there are two expected sources of incremental cost
reductions due to the adoption of the proposed regulations and code. These are:
the provision of an amended set of clearance distances, which will result in reduced
clearance space requirements in many circumstances and will not require an increase in
clearance distances in any case. The cost reductions attributable to this change are not
quantifiable, but are expected to be moderate in size, potentially deriving from the ability to
reduce pruning frequencies in some cases;
The provision of exceptions and alternative compliance mechanisms, including
arrangements which will effectively expand the definition of “insulated cables”, thus
reducing clearance distances in some areas, are also expected to reduce costs by potentially
enabling reductions in pruning frequency in some case. Again, these cost reductions are not
quantifiable, but are considered likely to be moderate in size.
By contrast, two cost‐increasing provisions have been identified. These are:
The adoption of a requirement to prune to AS4373 as far as practicable. The cost impact of
this change is considered to be uncertain, but an indicative estimate of $4.2 – 8.4 million in
increased annual costs has been derived; and
The adoption of enhanced notification and consultation requirements is estimated to add
approximately $3.85 million to the annual costs of complying with the regulations.
Thus, the quantified increases in cost associated with the proposed regulations are of the order of
$8.05 – 12.25 million per annum.
Energy Safe Victoria
As noted in Section 5.3, ESV incurs costs in connection with the regulations in that it must monitor
compliance and undertake follow‐up action where non‐compliance is detected. These costs will
continue to be incurred under the proposed regulations/Code and will be largely unchanged.
62 Final Version: 19 September 2014
However, one area in which some potential increase in these administrative costs is likely to occur
relates to the assessment and approval of any Alternative Compliance Mechanisms (ACMs) proposed
by responsible persons. This is a technical task and involves reviewing specific engineering solutions
put forward by responsible person, for example, an engineering solution to be applied to existing
uninsulated cable and adopted as part of a proposal to adopt the smaller clearance distances
applicable to insulated cable in a particular context.
The likely costs associated with this new task are inherently difficult to assess, given that ESV has
little basis on which to predict the extent to which responsible persons will seek to use the flexibility
proposed to be created in this regard under the proposed regulations. However, as a general
comment, the cost impact is expected to be relatively small. This reflects the fact that only a limited
number of engineering solutions is likely to be proposed and that, once the suitability of these has
been assessed in general terms, the process of determining whether they can be adopted in specific
contexts pursuant to subsequent applications is likely to be a limited one. Thus, there may be some
initial cost increase associated with the introduction of this aspect of the new regulations, but the
ongoing impact is expected to be limited. It is estimated that the current ESV costs of approximately
$0.8 million per annum may increase by around $0.1 million per annum as a result of the adoption of
the proposed Code and, in particular, the provision for approval of ACM as part of its provisions.
6. Expectedbenefitsoftheproposedregulations
6.1 BenefitsoftheexistingregulationsandCode
As noted above, the regulations and Code exist within the context of a broader range of safety
obligations relating, inter alia, to the control of the risks of bushfire ignition posed by electricity
assets that are established in the Electricity Safety Act and in other regulations made under its
authority. This broader legislative and regulatory context necessarily renders estimation of both the
benefits and costs of the regulations and Code per se somewhat difficult. That is, the existence of a
number of legislative obligations that are framed largely in process and performance based terms
(e.g. requiring the development and implementation of bushfire mitigation plans) means that the
clear specification of a "base case" ‐ i.e. the determination of what actions would be taken by
affected parties in the absence of regulations and a Code establishing specific vegetation clearance
requirements ‐ is rendered near impossible.
In general terms, the benefits of supplementing the general requirements of the Act with specific
provisions in relation to line clearance activities arise due to their effect in defining and clarifying the
specific standards that must be met in order to be compliant with the Act's general requirement for
persons to keep vegetation clear of electric lines. As a general rule, providing more detail and
prescription in relation to regulatory obligations improves certainty of compliance and is likely, as a
result, to result in better overall performance.
63 Final Version: 19 September 2014
the setting of clear performance measures (as established in approved management plans);
• certainty derived from clearly defining the responsible persons’ obligations;
The adoption of an appropriate audit and enforcement regime; and
the establishment of clear notification and consultation requirements.
As discussed above, the specific content for the adoption of prescriptive regulation was one in which
there was a significant incidence over a significant period of major bushfires being ignited due to
contact between vegetation and power lines and a clear need to act to improve performance in this
area. Electric line clearance regulations have been in place for approximately 30 years and have
evolved to some extent over this time, as has the primary legislation addressing electricity safety.
However, comparison between the observed incidence of bushfires caused by contact between
vegetation and power lines before and after the introduction of these requirements still provides the
best available means of estimating the benefits associated with adopting specific regulation of this
type.
6.1.1. Benefitsduetoreducedfireincidence
As discussed in Section 3, the estimates published in the 1996 RIS in respect of these regulations
indicated a clear and substantial decline in the cost of fire ignited due to contact between vegetation
and electricity assets immediately following the adoption of the first edition of the regulations and
code. Specifically, these costs fell from an average of $104.5 million per annum (at 2014 prices) in
the eight years prior to the adoption of the initial regulations, to around $0.13 million per annum39
subsequently: a reduction of over 99.5 per cent based on the information provided.
Moreover, these cost estimates were based on the value of insurance claims paid in each period as a
result of property losses due to fires caused by contact between vegetation and power lines. While
insurance claims data is likely the only comprehensive source of information on costs available, it is
important to note that it will tend systematically to under‐estimate the costs involved. That is, the
value of actual losses will necessarily exceed the value of insurance claims paid, due both to:
The incidence of losses by uninsured persons; and
The incidence of losses by under‐insured persons.
The incidence of non‐insurance varies substantially according to property type. Thus, for example,
research presented to the Department of Treasury and Finance in the context of the recent review
of fire services funding found a non‐insurance rate of only 4 per cent for private houses, but around
26 per cent for personal contents40. The 2009 Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission found a
significantly higher rate of non‐insurance among residential properties destroyed by the Black
Saturday bushfires, estimating this at 13 per cent of the total41.
39 In current dollar terms. 40 Tooth & Barker (2007) The Uninsured: Who, Why and Trends. Insurance Council of Australia. 41 Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission (2011) Final Report. Volume 1, p 343.
64 Final Version: 19 September 2014
The problem of under‐insurance is also believed to be significant, albeit that estimates of its extent
vary widely. A 2005 paper from ASIC42, which was also adopted as a key source in the context of the
Fire Services Funding Review, cited the following:
A 2000 survey of 1000 randomly selected homeowners found that 87 per cent of homes
were underinsured, with the average level of under‐insurance being 34 per cent. 81 per
cent of homes were under‐insured by 10 per cent or more and 59 per cent were under‐
insured by 30 per cent or more.
A 2002 survey by the ICA, covering seven companies making up 80 per cent of the home
building insurance market found that 27.5 per cent of homes were underinsured by 10 per
cent or more and 7.5 per cent were underinsured by 30 per cent or more.
ASIC’s own survey of ACT homeowners who had rebuilt their houses after the Canberra
bushfires found that they were underinsured by 27 per cent on average.
While there is significant uncertainty as to the extent of non‐insurance and under‐insurance, the
above estimates suggest that the true cost of fires caused by contact between powerlines and
vegetation is likely to be of the order of 50 per cent higher than the above, insurance payout‐based
figures would suggest. Applying this indicative 50 per cent uplift to the above figures suggests that
the average annual cost of such fires in the period before the adoption of the electric line clearance
regulations and Code was equivalent to around ($104.5m x 1.5) = $156.75 million per annum. By
contrast, the average annual cost in the years immediately following implementation was ($0.13m x
1.5) = $0.195 million.
On this basis, the adjusted estimate of the average annual benefit achieved following the initial
introduction of the Code is around $156.75m – $0.195m = $156.6 million in 2014 dollar terms.
The above observations suggest strongly that the specification of the regulations and Code proved
almost immediately to be a highly effective intervention. That said, the specific size of the impact is
necessarily subject to significant uncertainty, given the episodic nature of the problems being
addressed ‐ that is, the significant variation that exists from year to year in terms of the number of
fires ignited due to different sources and the size of these fires and extent of the damage caused.
Recent data
A priori, it can be expected that the benefits associated with the continued implementation of the
regulations and Code would have increased over time, reflecting the growth in the electricity
network and, at least potentially, in the number of trees potentially in contact with electricity lines.
That said, these factors would clearly also tend to increase the cost of vegetation clearance
activities.
The most recent data on fire ignition due to contact between power lines and vegetation, reported
in Section 3, was derived from RIN reports published by the AER. This being the case, it is not
directly comparable with the above figures. That said, it suggests that the ELC regulations continue
42 ASIC (2005) Getting Home Insurance Right: A Report on Home Building Underinsurance.
65 Final Version: 19 September 2014
to be effective in minimising the number of fires due to this cause. The data for the most recent
year indicate that:
There were a total of 68 fires due to this cause;
This led to F‐factor penalties of $1.7 million being applied to MECs; and
If an average long term "cost per fire" estimate adopted by the regulator in the context of
the 2011‐15 Electricity Pricing Review of $1 million is adopted, the total costs of these fires
over the course of the year would be equivalent to around $68 million
However, RIN data published by the Australian Energy Regulator suggests that, over a five
year period, only 29 of 252 fires, or 11.5 per cent of total vegetation‐related fires could be
attributed to causes related to non‐compliance with the Code, suggesting that the average
number of fires due to this cause is 5.8 per year and the value of the “residual risks”
associated with fire starts due to failure to maintain adequate clearance distances between
vegetation and power lines is around $5.8 million per annum on average.
As noted above, information on the derivation of the $1 million per fire figure is not available and
this estimate must therefore be seen as indicative in nature. However, based on this figure, a
comparison between the previous annual cost of fires due to this cause and the current costs
indicates a reduction of around:
($156.7 ‐ $5.8) = $150.9 million per annum.
This is equivalent to a reduction in these costs of 96 per cent from previous levels.
Moreover, in the absence of the introduction of the regulations, the previous annual cost of fires of
$156.7 million would have been expected to increase as the network expanded and the number of
trees potentially in contact with vegetation increased. The ageing of the electricity network could
also, potentially, tend to increase this cost. When these factors are taken into account, it is clear
that more recent data on the residual risk due to fires caused by inadequate clearance spaces
between vegetation and power lines shows a high level of consistency with the estimated 99.5 per
cent reduction in ex ante costs cited in the 1996 RIS.
It is not clear from the 1996 RIS whether the average annual cost of fires cited (i.e. $0.13m in current
dollar terms) included all costs due to fires caused by contact between vegetation and power lines or
only that which relates to “grow‐in” – i.e. the matters addressed by the Code. Given this, a
conservative, or “lower bound” estimate of the effectiveness of the Code can be obtained by
comparing the above “pre‐Code” cost of these fires of $156.7million (in present dollars) with the
estimated $68 million current annual cost of all vegetation‐related fires. This implies a lower bound
estimate of the benefits of the Code in terms of reduced fire incidence of:
$156.7m ‐ $68.0m = $88.7m per annum.
66 Final Version: 19 September 2014
6.1.2. Benefitsduetoreducedlossoflifeandinjury
As noted in the 2005 RIS for these regulations, these benefits must also be understood in terms of
lives saved and injuries averted, as well as property damage avoided. While the numbers involved
are highly variable and determining the extent of the impact of the regulations is therefore difficult,
the 2005 RIS noted that:
"... while significant numbers of fatalities had been associated with some fires caused by
contact between vegetation and electric lines in the period prior to the initial adoption of the
Code, there has been only one fatality since that time. Given the unpredictable and highly
variable nature of the consequences of such fires, it is not possible to estimate quantitatively
the effectiveness of the Code in reducing death and injury. However, it is apparent that it has
had a very substantial impact in this regard.
The one fatality from this cause recorded in the decade since the adoption of the regulations was
contrasted with the seven fatalities due to this cause recorded on Ash Wednesday (1983) alone,
however, no more detailed data on the historical incidence of fatalities due to this cause was
provided. More recent experience indicates that, in contrast to previous major bushfire outbreaks, ,
none of these fires was the result of interaction between vegetation and electricity assets. (While
several of the Black Saturday bushfires of 2009 were found by the 2009 Victorian Bushfire Royal
Commission to have been caused by electricity assets, these were not due to contact with
vegetation). Thus, there have been no known fatalities due to fires caused by contact between
vegetation and electricity lines since 1983.
Given the small absolute number of fatalities due to this cause, both prior to and after the adoption
of the regulations and Code, and their highly variable incidence, it is not possible to provide even an
indicative estimate of the benefits in terms of lives saved or injuries prevented due to the adoption
of the Code and regulations. However, reduction in the risk of fatalities and injuries due to fires
caused by contact between vegetation and power lines necessarily constitutes an important part of
the benefits obtained via adoption of the Code and regulations.
6.1.3. Benefitsduetoreducedpoweroutages
Finally, benefits accrue to the regulations and Code through the minimisation of the number of
power outages caused by contact between vegetation and power lines. As noted in Section 3, the
residual level of outages due to this cause remains significant: For the 2012‐13 year, a total of 2,002
power outages were reported as being due to contact between vegetation and electricity
infrastructure. This led to the regulator imposing a total of $19.5 million in "S‐factor" penalties.
Moreover, the S‐Factor penalties levied by the economic regulator, while intended to provide some
additional incentive for MECs to improve supply reliability, are not intended to reflect the true cost
to customers of the non‐supply of electricity due to unplanned outages. Rather, the S‐Factor is a
symmetrical system of rewards and penalties, applied in relation to the MEC's relative supply
reliability performance. That is, S‐factor penalties are applied where reliability of supply falls short
67 Final Version: 19 September 2014
of a defined target level, while S‐factor rewards are also available in circumstances where reliability
exceeds the target level43.
As noted in the 2010 RIS in respect of the ELC regulations, the cost of interruptions or outages to
electricity supply is commonly discussed using the term the “Value of Unserved Energy (VUE)”,
which contains two components – the Value of Customer Reliability (VCR) and the Value of Social
Disruption (VSD). These terms can be defined as follows:
VCR is the weighted average measure of the economic cost to consumers for a given amount
of unserved load (i.e. the cost of being without an electricity supply). A wide range of
customers is considered in developing an overall VCR measure, including residential,
agricultural, commercial and industrial users. In addition, a wide range of interruption
durations (up to 24 hours) is modelled, given that interruption costs do not change in a
linear fashion with interruption duration.
VSD is defined as the economic cost to social services across the state of Victoria in the
event of outages.
The total cost of interruptions to electricity supply (i.e. the Value of Unserved Energy, or VUE) is
equal to the sum of these two measures.
As noted in Section 3.3, the average annual VUE due to interruptions caused by vegetation grow‐in
in the period 2010‐2013 is estimated at $364.7 million. This is based on a total number of customer
hours of interrupted supply due to vegetation grow‐in of 452,330 and a current per kwH value of
$59.55. The total number of customer hours of supply lost due to interference between vegetation
and power lines (i.e. all vegetation‐related causes) is estimated at 1,473,533 hours per annum,
implying a total VUE from vegetation‐related causes of $1,188 million per annum. This means that
“grow‐in”, which is addressed by the Code, currently accounts for only slightly more than one
quarter (26.7 per cent) of the VUE due to vegetation‐related causes of supply interruption.
This represents the “residual risk” associated with the regulations and Code – i.e. the costs incurred
after application of the regulatory risk‐reduction treatment. As discussed in Section 3.5, no data on
the cost of supply interruptions due to vegetation related causes in the period prior to the adoption
of the Code is available. Hence, the best available means of estimating the effectiveness of the
regulations and Code in addressing these harms is to consider the available data on the effectiveness
of the Code in reducing the incidence of fire‐related costs due to vegetation‐related causes.
As noted above in Section 3.5, initial estimates of the benefits of the Code in this regards suggested
that it was more than 99 per cent effective in reducing fire‐related costs. Comparing historical fire‐
related costs with estimates of the current cost of grow‐in related fires produced a similar
effectiveness estimate of 95 per cent.
Conversely, it is not clear that the reported costs of vegetation‐related fires occurring in the years
prior to the initial adoption of the Code distinguish grow‐in related fires from other, vegetation‐
related causes. Thus, it may be most appropriate to estimate the effectiveness of the Code in
43 See Australian Energy Regulator (2009). Final Decision: Electricity Distribution Network Service Providers Service Target Performance Incentive Scheme, p 5.
68 Final Version: 19 September 2014
reducing fire‐related costs by comparing the estimated $156.7 million ex ante annual cost of fire
damage (current dollar terms) with the estimated cost of $68 million for all fires caused by contact
between vegetation and power lines during 2012‐13, which was derived from data received form
electricity distribution businesses. This comparison suggests the Code may be approximately 57 per
cent effective in reducing fire‐related costs.
As the mechanism by which both fires and outages arise are the same – i.e. contact between
vegetation and power lines, it is a priori reasonable to assume that the effectiveness of the Code in
reducing power outages due to this cause would be similar to that achieved in relation to fire‐related
costs. The above notes that a “lower bound” estimate of this level of effectiveness is around 58 per
cent. Consequently, a conservative estimate of 50 per cent effectiveness has been adopted in
relation to outages. That is, it is assumed that the current average annual cost of outages due to
contact between vegetation and power lines is 50 per cent lower than would be the case in the
absence of the regulations and Code. On this basis, the average annual benefit of the regulations
and Code in this respect would be equal to $364.7 million.
6.2. Incrementalbenefitsofadoptingtheproposedregulationsandcode
6.2.1. Benefitsduetoimprovedamenityoutcomes
Box 6.1: Purpose of AS 4373: Pruning of Amenity Trees
According to the foreword to this Australian Standard:
The intention of this Standard is to encourage pruning practices and procedures that reduce the risk
of hazard development, branch failure, pathogen infection and premature tree death.
Trees often require pruning to maintain clearance for utility services and buildings or to improve the
safety, structure, and health of the tree. They are also often pruned to improve the amenity of sites in
order to enable successful cohabitation between trees and people. The procedures in this Standard
are guided by theories of branch attachment and compartmentalization of decay in trees. Lopping,
topping and flush cutting are unacceptable practices.
Assessment of trees and specification of their pruning should be carried out by a suitably qualified
arborist. Pruning should be carried out by arborists or tree workers who are familiar with the
principles, techniques and hazards of this work.
69 Final Version: 19 September 2014
The proposed adoption of a requirement for vegetation clearance to be conducted in accordance
with AS4373 is intended to yield amenity benefits (or, strictly speaking, to reduce the amenity costs
imposed by tree clearance activity) by ensuring that tree pruning is undertaken in a competent
manner which preserves the health of the tree as well as minimising any harm to its aesthetic values.
The proposal has been adopted in part due to widespread concerns expressed during previous
consultations on this issue, with local government authorities in particular arguing that excessive
and unsightly pruning practices are occurring and that these are not necessary corollaries of the
achievement of the safety outcomes which underlie the Code.
In addition, the effect of changing the means of specifying clearance distances will have the practical
effect of reducing the required clearance distance in many cases. This is the result of the
replacement of the previous “step function” in which there was a set clearance distance for all spans
within a given range of lengths with a function that varies clearance distance requirements on a
continuous basis. Reducing the required clearance distances will also contribute to reductions in the
aesthetic costs imposed by tree clearance activity.
Indicative estimates of the potential benefits of this change can be developed by assessing the
current amenity value of trees and inferring a likely proportionate gain in this value.
Value of a street tree
As documented in a literature review completed for ESV44 as part of the current project, several
relatively widely accepted methods for valuing amenity trees have been developed over time. The
literature review highlights the fact that the models have been adopted for a range of different
purposes, although all produce monetised estimates of the value of amenity trees.
Of four widely used methods, one (the Revised Burnley Method) was adopted in Australia (at the
Burnley Horticultural College in Melbourne), with two others (CAVA T, Helliwell) being developed in
the United Kingdom and one (i‐Tree) being adopted in the United States. The purpose of the
Burnley Method is described as follows:
The Burnley method was developed in response to a perceived need by those involved in
Australian arboriculture and those responsible for managing trees in public open space for
matters relating to compensation and litigation, insurance, and policy and decision‐making.
A comparative table included in the literature review, and reproduced below, shows that the
different valuation models arrive at somewhat different estimates of the values of given trees, with
valuations varying fivefold in some cases, but that there does not appear to be a systematic
difference in valuation levels between the models. Thus, for example, the Revised Burnley Method
produces a midrange value estimate for one tree type, the highest value for another and the lowest
value for a third.
Table 6.1: Comparison results of different tree valuation methods for common trees
44 Andrews, C. (2014). Literature Review: Amenity Tree Evaluation Systems. Paper prepared for Energy Safe Victoria, 27 March 2014. (Unpublished).
70 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Method Acer Platanoides
20 years old
Celtis Occidentalis
40 years old
Fraxinus Exelsior
20 years old
Revised Burnley
Method
558,795 5,747,607 347,695
CAVAT quick
method
716,380 4,815,080 1,203,940
CLTA 274,873 2,681,042 1,932,700
Helliwell 380,800 1,713,600 380,000
Within Australia, a widely adopted indicative valuation of a street tree in the urban context is that
published by Killicoat et al. (2002) and further elaborated in Stringer (2005) 45. This valuation is
based on the application of the Modified Burnley Method and has been adopted below to provide
indicative estimates of the value of trees that are affected by the ELCC.
Table 6.2, below, is adopted from Killicoat (2002). It differs only in updating the author's 2002
valuations to current dollar terms. The values given are annual equivalents.
Table 6.2: Annual value of an urban street tree (adapted from Killicoat et al.(2002))46
Benefit Value
Energy savings (reduction of heat island effect) $87.68
Air quality
CO2 (reduced power output) $1.37
Air pollution $47.27
Storm water (reduced run‐off) $8.91
Aesthetics/others $89.10
Repaving (savings) ?
Total $234.27
The estimated annual value can be seen as conservative to the extent that it does not include a
quantified estimate of the value of cost savings due to reduced repaving activity. By contrast, Moore
(2009) estimates the value of extending the lifespan of bitumen pavement, due to shading by street
45Killicoat, P., E. Puzo and R. Stringer (2002). The Economic Value of Urban Trees: Estimating the Benefits and Costs of Street Trees in Adelaide, TREENET Street Tree Symposium 2002. Stringer, R. (2005). The Benefits of Adelaide's Street Trees Revisited. Available at: https://www.treenet.org/wp‐content/uploads/07TS_THE‐BENEFITS‐OF‐ADELAIDES‐STREET_ProfRandyStringer.pdf 46 Killicoat concluded that the total quantifiable value of a tree was $171.00. A multiplier of 1.37 has been applied to the authors benefit estimates, representing the ratio of the CPI all groups (Melbourne) index numbers for March 2002 and March 2014, respectively.
71 Final Version: 19 September 2014
trees, as being equivalent to $225 per m2 over a 10 year period, thus suggesting that this would be a
not insignificant additional source of benefits.
Aggregate valuation of street trees
Responses received from MECs indicate that they are responsible for clearance activities in respect
of approximately 862,000 trees in LBRA. Given the definition of LBRA contained in the legislation,
this number can be taken as broadly representing the number of trees located near power lines in
the urban context across Victoria that are managed by MECs. In addition, among the 31 Councils
with vegetation management responsibilities that were able to identify or estimate the total number
of trees near power lines that they managed, the average was 21,349 trees. If this average is
multiplied by 67 (i.e. the number of Councils who undertake this role, this implies that around
(21,349 x 67) = 1,430,383 urban trees are being managed by Councils to prevent their contact with
power lines. This implies that the total number of street trees in this category is equal to (862,000 +
1,430,383) = 2,292,383.
Because this estimated number solely comprises urban trees, the above valuation of a street tree
can be regarded as broadly applicable47 and used for the purposes of calculating the amenity value
of these trees and, by implication, the reductions in amenity value that occur due to the need to
prune these trees. Thus, if the Stringer/Killicoat annual value set out above is applied to this total, it
suggests that the annual benefit to Victoria of urban street trees subject to the clearance
requirements of the regulations and code is of the order of (2,293,383 x $234.27) = $537.0 million.
Incremental impacts of the proposed regulations and code
The proposed Code is expected to yield incremental increases in this source of benefits, vis‐a‐vis the
current regulations and Code via:
Reduced clearance distances in many cases, as set out in Section 4, above yielding better
aesthetic outcomes;
Better pruning techniques, due to the adoption of AS4373, also contributing to better
aesthetic outcomes;
Lesser canopy reduction48, due to the above factors, leading to gains in terms of energy
savings and air pollution.
The size of these benefits is necessarily difficult to estimate. It appears likely that a substantial
proportion of the benefits accruing due to the above factors would relate to the aesthetic benefits of
trees, since the relative change in canopy reduction due to these factors is likely to be small,
suggesting that the resulting gains in terms of energy savings and air pollution will also be limited.
The aesthetic benefits identified above account for ($89.10/$234.27) = 38.0 per cent of the total
benefit of street trees. This implies that the annual aesthetic benefit of those street trees subject to
47 By contrast, the Killicoat/Stringer methodology would suggest that the average value of extra‐urban trees would be significantly lower.
48 Canopy reduction refers to the proportion of the canopy – i.e. the leaves and boughs – of the tree that is removed as part of the pruning process. In general, if a lesser amount of canopy reduction occurs, a better amenity outcome can be expected, since the tree is more likely to retain most of its size, as well as a natural shape.
72 Final Version: 19 September 2014
the regulations and Code would be of the order of $537.0 million x 38 per cent = $204.1 million per
annum. This, in turn, means that every one per cent improvement in the aesthetic value of these
trees, due to reduced clearance, better pruning, and so on, will yield annual benefits of around
$2.04 million.
6.2.2. Benefitsduetoimprovednotificationandconsultation
The proposed Code includes greater specification of notification and consultation requirements
required to be met by responsible persons before pruning activity is undertaken. These
enhancements to the existing provisions are intended to encourage more open, visible and
transparent communications between those responsible for pruning vegetation and the occupiers of
land on which the relevant trees are located, as well as the general community. For MECs, there will
be a requirement to specify in their Electric Line Clearance Management Plan the form of the notice
to be given to affected parties before pruning takes place. The intended impact is to increase the
level of information available to affected persons in relation to the nature and extent of the
intended pruning and encourage more responsive notification, consultation and dispute resolution
procedures.
In addition, it is proposed that these changes be supported by requirements for fuller disclosure of
the dispute resolution processes that have been adopted by responsible persons pursuant to the
regulatory requirements.
73 Final Version: 19 September 2014
7. Identificationandassessmentoffeasiblealternatives
As discussed above, the Electricity Safety Act requires that regulations specifying an electric line
clearance code be in force at all times. The range of feasible alternatives to be considered in the
current policy context is necessarily constrained by this legislative requirement. Moreover, as the
history of the successive editions of the regulations and codes adopted since these legislative
requirements were put in place in the early 1980s demonstrates, the feasible options to be assessed
within this framework of the need to specify a code within a regulatory context are, to a substantial
extent, independent of one another.
Reflecting this reality, the following adopts a two‐part approach to the discussion of feasible
alternatives. First, three high‐level options are discussed and analysed against an unregulated “base
case”, as is required in respect of sun‐setting regulations. These are:
The remaking of the current regulations and Code without substantive amendment;
The making of the proposed regulations and Code, incorporating the key changes to the
current regulations and code identified above in Section 4; and
The making of a variant of the proposed regulations and Code which differs only insofar as it
would also adopt a minimum pruning frequency in LBRA.
Second, Section 7.2, below, discusses a number of discrete options as potential additions to the
proposed regulations/code. These options are discussed separately because they address specific
issues in relation to the content of the Code and can be considered to be largely independent of
one‐another. Moreover, they are of relatively limited overall impact, whereas the above three
options differ substantially in terms of overall benefits and costs. These discrete potential additions
are as follows:
1. Including provision for exemptions from clearance distances in LBRA;
2. Including restrictions on tree climbability;
3. Including restrictions on planting of “unsuitable species”;
4. Including provision for private landowners to notify “an interest in a tree” as a mechanism;
whereby responsibility for clearance activity can be voluntarily transferred to another party;
and;
5. Adopting expanded community consultation provisions in the regulations.
The options identified above reflect the research and policy development work done by ESV in a
number of contexts. This includes its work in the provision of Secretariat services to the Electric Line
Clearance Consultative Committee, which is established under the Electricity Safety Act, and
additional research it has undertaken into the approaches taken to addressing this issue in
regulation in a range of comparable jurisdictions ‐ i.e. those with similarly high levels of bushfire risk
to those experienced in Victoria49.
49 The latter are summarised in an internal paper: Andrews, C. (2014). Comparison of Electric Line Clearance Regimes ‐ Jurisdictional Analysis.
74 Final Version: 19 September 2014
7.1. Optionsconsideredasdiscretealternativestothebasecase
7.1.1. Adoptionofaminimumpruningfrequency
Victoria’s regulations are currently silent on the issue of the frequency with which pruning of
vegetation in the vicinity of electricity lines must be carried out. This was found also to be the case
in New Zealand and in California. By contrast, some Australian States specify minimum pruning
frequencies, with some incorporating flexibility mechanisms around these standard minima.
Specifically:
South Australia’s regime requires inspection and pruning at intervals of no longer than three
years. An agreement between occupier and electricity entity may specify that an area of
land is to be cleared more frequently;
New South Wales’ guidelines set out that urban areas should be trimmed annually and rural
areas should be trimmed every three years.
Tasmania’s regulations do not specify a minimum pruning cycle, but do identify the factors
that should be taken into account when determining the appropriate time span. These are
cost, local growing conditions and the anticipated vigour of the regrowth of species involved,
the use of the land, community values and the utility and amenity the vegetation provides to
the area.
The inclusion of a minimum pruning frequency in the code could potentially be done either directly,
by specifying the maximum length of the pruning cycle, or indirectly, by specifying a maximum
clearance distance, as well as a minimum distance. The practical impact of these two approaches
would seem likely to be very similar.
The Tasmanian approach of explicitly specifying factors that should be taken into account in
determining the pruning frequency adopted represents and alternative approach which, at least
theoretically, allows for a more tailored approach which responds to differing circumstances.
Expected benefits of specifying a minimum pruning frequency
As the above listing of factors to be taken into account in determining an appropriate pruning cycle
in Tasmania suggests, the choice of pruning cycle is one which inevitably seeks to balance a range of
cost and benefit factors.
The key benefit of specifying a minimum pruning cycle is that it can be expected to assist in
preserving the amenity value of street trees as far as possible. That is, it tends to prevent
responsible persons from pruning amenity trees excessively in order to be able to adopt a longer
pruning cycle, thus reaping cost reductions. As noted in ESV's 2012 White Paper on the mitigation of
bushfire risks arising from electricity assets, the alleged tendency to "over‐prune" in order to
maintain clearance distances over a long pruning cycle has been a significant area of public concern
in recent years. Hence, the adoption of a minimum pruning frequency, particularly in urban areas
75 Final Version: 19 September 2014
which are characterised by large numbers of amenity trees, would have potentially significant
amenity benefits.
The option of specifying the pruning cycle indirectly, by specifying a maximum pruning distance,
would arguably achieve superior outcomes in this regard. This is because it directly addresses the
amenity issue, which is a product of the amount of clear space created around electricity lines by
pruning and, by extension, the extent of the canopy removal undertaken. This approach would also
have the benefit of being readily enforceable, given that compliance would be immediately
measurable.
Expected costs of specifying a minimum pruning frequency
To the extent that a regulated minimum pruning frequency increases the frequency with which
pruning is undertaken, it necessarily significantly increases the cost of pruning activity. As the above
discussion of the changes in costs experienced by responsible persons following the adoption of the
2010 indicates, the frequency of pruning is the major driver of total pruning costs.
Perhaps reflecting this recognition, it can be noted that, of the two states that currently regulate the
minimum pruning frequency, the required frequency for all areas in South Australia and for rural
areas in New South Wales is three years. This is longer than the longest pruning frequency currently
reported by responsible persons in Victoria: all but two MECs reported that they are adopting either
a two yearly or annual frequencies, with one stating that their current frequency in HBRA was
around 2.6 years and one stating that their pruning frequency in HBRA was as short as six months.
Conversely, New South Wales requires an annual frequency to be adopted in urban areas. This
contrasts with the two‐yearly frequency reported in Victoria by most distribution companies. At
present, only one distribution company reports an annual pruning frequency in urban areas.
Based on currently reported pruning costs in urban areas and current pruning frequencies, and
assuming that pruning costs are directly proportional to pruning frequencies, the adoption of a one
year minimum pruning frequency requirement in urban areas, as in New South Wales, can be
estimated as follows:
The weighted average50 pruning frequency for MECs, as per the responses received to ESV’s
questionnaire, is 1.64 years, while the average pruning frequency for councils responsible
for pruning in declared areas is 1.42 years;
Weighting these frequencies by the estimated number of trees for which the two groups are
responsible in urban areas (LBRA) gives a state‐wide average pruning frequency of 1.56
years. Thus, 64 per cent of the relevant trees are pruned, on average, each year;
50 i.e. The reported pruning frequencies for each MEC were weighted by the number of trees that they reported being responsible for pruning. This figure of 1.64 years therefore represents the average time between prunings for each of the trees that are the responsibility of the MECs.
76 Final Version: 19 September 2014
To comply with a one year pruning cycle, the other 36 per cent of trees would also need to
be pruned each year. Thus, the total amount of pruning would increase by
(36/64) = 56 per cent;
Thus, if clearance costs are assumed to be directly proportional to clearance frequency, an
increase to a one year pruning cycle will lead to a 56 per cent increase in annual pruning
costs.
Given that these clearance costs are estimated at between $129.3 million and $133.5 million for the
proposed regulations and Code, this implies annual clearance costs of between $201.7 million and
$208.3 million were an annual pruning requirement to be adopted in addition to the other elements
of the proposed Code. This represents an increase of between $71.4 million and $74.8 million on
existing clearance costs.
Setting criteria for determining pruning frequency
As noted above, an alternative approach adopted in Tasmania is to specify the criteria to be adopted
by responsible persons in determining the pruning frequency which they will adopt. Such an
approach has the theoretical benefit of being consistent with a variation of pruning frequencies to
take account of different circumstances and, as a result, could potentially yield a better outcome in
benefit/cost terms.
However, there are clear practical limits to responsible persons' abilities to adopt differential
clearance frequencies, given the apparent economies of scale involved in pruning all trees in an area
at the same time and the administrative issues involved in managing a program with highly
differentiated pruning frequencies. These factors would militate against the potential of this
variation of the alternative to yield improved outcomes in practice.
Perhaps more importantly, such an approach could easily be seen as unduly prescriptive in the
regulatory context, as well as lacking enforceability and, to this extent, practicability. Moreover, the
adoption of a requirement to conduct clearance in accordance with the requirements of AS4373 can
be seen as being, at least to some extent, a substitute for such an approach.
Comparing the benefits and costs of the option
It was estimated above that the adoption of a requirement for a minimum pruning frequency of one
year in LBRA would increase pruning costs by around $71.4 million and $74.8 million per annum,
compared with the continuation of current practice. By contrast, the analysis presented in section 6
suggests that the annual amenity value conferred by street trees that are subject to electric line
clearance requirements is around $537.0 million. This would suggest that the adoption of an annual
clearance requirement in LBRA would only yield net benefits if it led to an increase of
($71.4m/$537.0m) = 13.3 per cent in the amenity value of these trees51. This is a substantial impact
51 That is, provided that minimum clearance distances are maintained at all times, the clearance frequency should have no impact on either fire outbreak probability or power outage numbers. In practice, it is probable that some element of reduction in outages would result from the adoption of a requirement for more frequent pruning. That is, the incidence of tree growth rates being incorrectly estimated and inadequate allowance for this being made at the time of pruning is likely
77 Final Version: 19 September 2014
and, notwithstanding the significant concerns regarding the aesthetic impacts of current clearance
practices that have been raised in some areas, there would appear to be significant doubt as to
whether this "break‐even" point would be reached.
The ELCCC has considered a range of concerns raised in relation to the impacts on the aesthetic
values of street trees of current pruning practices in the course of developing the proposed Code,
with a number of the changes proposed to be made being responses to these concerns. This
includes, in particular, the proposal to adopt AS4373 on an “as far as practicable” basis. However,
the ELCCC did not recommend the adoption of specified minimum pruning frequencies, presumably
as a result of being unconvinced that this approach would be likely to yield net benefits in practice.
It can be noted, in this context, that the adoption of AS4373 responds directly to concerns regarding
aesthetic values while providing a more flexible means of response than the adoption of a more
frequent pruning regime across the board.
7.2. OptionsconsideredwithinthecontextoftheproposedregulationsandCode
7.2.1. Preservationoftreesprovisions–bufferzones
Victorian’s current and proposed electric line clearance regulations require that the responsible
person must, as far as practicable, restrict cutting or removal of native trees, those with cultural or
environmental significance to the minimum extent necessary to ensure compliance with the relevant
clearance distances. The regulations state that the required clearance space for an electric line is the
smallest space such that if a tree were cut or removed from that space, the tree would not grow into
the minimum clearance space around that line between cutting times. The regulations also require
that a management plan is be prepared annually which maps out the area of responsibility and
includes trees of ecological, historical, cultural, environmental or aesthetic significance, native trees
and trees listed in the planning scheme. However, the regime does not specify a maximum
percentage of a tree which may be removed, nor does it take into consideration the future health of
the tree.
An alternative approach is found in South Australia, where provisions relating to buffer zones place a
limit on the extent of removal of vegetation in these contexts. When addressed in the context of the
required clearance spaces, the practical impact of the establishment of these buffer zones is to
require more frequent pruning to be undertaken.
Another option in this regard is found in the Tasmanian Electricity Code (Section 8A.2.4 ‐ Important
Vegetation), which effectively requires explicit consideration to be given to the adoption of
to be slightly lower due to the need for such predictions of tree growth to cover a smaller period. However, the size of this impact is likely to be limited. Thus, the aesthetic benefit is clearly the major potential benefit to set against these estimated costs of more frequent pruning.
78 Final Version: 19 September 2014
engineering solutions to prevent or minimise pruning of declared "important vegetation". Thus, the
Code states:
Alternative distribution power line routes or construction methods may help to preserve ‘important vegetation’. The manner in which this may be done needs to be decided in consultation between the Distribution Network Service Provider and the person or body responsible for the vegetation. This should result in an agreement on the most practical management arrangements and conditions that may apply.
Adoption of buffer zone arrangements such as these would have the potential to enhance the
protection of significant trees and, consequently, reduce the loss of aesthetic values occasioned by
tree clearance activities. However, it would give rise to additional costs in respect of:
The more frequent pruning activity required in situations where the operation of buffer
zones prevents sufficient clearance activity being undertaken to ensure the clearance space
is maintained throughout the normal pruning cycle; and
The assessment process required as part of the practical implementation of the buffer zones
process.
The current context is one in which the proposed Code will, for the first time, provide that clearance
activity must be conducted in accordance with AS4373. This change is expected to provide a
significantly improved degree of protection to the aesthetic values provided by street trees, while
the changes being made to required clearance distances will also lead to improvements in this
regard in some areas. Consequently, additional provisions in relation to buffer zones are not being
pursued at present. Should significant concerns in relation to excessive pruning persist following the
full implementation of the proposed regulations and Code, this option could be considered for
inclusion in a future edition.
7.2.2. Restrictionsontreeclimbability
Some concern has been expressed from time to time regarding the increased risk of electrocution
that arises, particularly for children, where climbable trees are located in the vicinity of power lines.
Thus, ESV has considered the issue of tree climbability by children – generally from ages 10‐11 years
upwards – as a potential area for inclusion in the Code.
Taking into consideration the heights of children – a tree can be very difficult to climb if the lowest
branch is out of reach – it was considered that a tree would be largely un‐climbable if the upper side
of its lower branches were more than 2.1 – 2.5m from the ground. Consideration was also given to
the question of whether, having climbed the tree, there was a likelihood of a person being able to
touch the lines.
Undertaking this type of risk assessment is multi‐factorial and tree climbability does not stand alone
in this context. There did not appear to be a simple way to include climbability as a single element in
the Code. ESV also recognises that all trees may ultimately be climbable and the assessment of
79 Final Version: 19 September 2014
climbability should not be restricted to particular persons, or groups. Moreover, it is arguably
preferable for the associated risks to be managed through management of the clearance space,
rather than the lower branches of the tree. Where an appropriate clearance space cannot be
achieved and there are grounds to maintain features such as structural limbs (see proposed
exceptions in the Code) – a risk assessment is required and there may requirement for consideration
of an engineering/alternative compliance solution.
Thus, it was ultimately determined that no new provision was required to be included in the Code to
address this issue.
7.2.3. Unsuitablespecies
The ESV and ELCCC recognised that the issue of the planting of unsuitable species of vegetation is a
significant one and gave consideration to the question of whether explicit controls ought to be
incorporated within the proposed Code.
The key issue in this regard is that if certain species are planted near electric lines, it is entirely
predictable that they will, in time, come into contact with those lines as a result of their natural
growth characteristics. This means that additional clearance activity will be required in the future as
a result of new plantings.
Several potential options to address these issues have been considered both in the context of the
making of the current regulations/code and in the development of the proposed regulations. In
particular, these have included the following:
Educating the community on the risks associated with trees contacting power lines and the
importance of maintaining clearance space;
Providing information on suitable tree species appropriate for planting near power lines;
Creating a statement for councils to include in their municipal strategic statement that
commits to the objective of not planting unsuitable species near power lines;
Establishing a regulatory deterrent to prevent landowners/occupiers planting trees near
power lines; and
Mandating a buffer of 20 metres in the regulations between a new or re‐established
commercial plantation and electric lines.
Several initiatives were agreed to address these issues in the context of the adoption of the 2010
regulations and Code. In particular:
ESV and distribution businesses agreed to develop and jointly communicate a campaign
similar to ‘look up and live’ to inform councils and the community of the risks and hazards of
vegetation near power lines, the importance of keeping appropriate clearances between
80 Final Version: 19 September 2014
vegetation and power lines and the need to consider appropriate species when planting new
vegetation near power lines;
ESV agreed to work with councils and the community (catchment management authorities,
landcare, nurseries, garden centres etc) to provide advice about suitable vegetation for
planting near power lines;
Other initiatives have been researched in detail. Some have ultimately been rejected as
impracticable or inappropriate, while others remain under consideration but are not yet ready for
adoption. In particular:
Consideration was given to amending the regulations to prevent a person or organisation
from knowingly planting unsuitable vegetation near electric lines without the permission of
the responsible person. Such an inclusion would, however, require resolution of the
following issues, at a minimum:
o Definition of “unsuitable” species;
o Definition of near or in the vicinity of the electric lines;
o Addressing the community impact of ‘criminalising’ gardeners – where individuals
plant trees;
o Addressing enforceability issues; and
o Determining who should be able to permit the planting of unsuitable species.
The SA regulations include a list of suitable species in relation to plantings. ESV considered
the range of possible options but determined not to make any changes to the proposed
regulations or code at this time.
The ELC regulations could be amended to allow the responsible person to remove unsuitable
vegetation within the vicinity of power lines as a ‘last resort’ where vegetation that will
encroach on the clearance space has been planted and cannot be managed within the
nominated pruning cycle for that area, or
o the vegetation is regrowth of less than 10 years old on land that has been legally
cleared, including native species and
o The owner of the land has been given 12 months notification of the intention to
remove the vegetation.
In principle giving the tree/land/owner/occupier the opportunity to relocate a small tree is a
good way of reducing community impacts. However, practical issues remain in relation to
the definition of “unsuitable” species as well as the distinction between young/small trees
and old/large established trees that are not intended to be removed pursuant to such a
provision. [It can also be noted that if land has been legally cleared for a transmission
easement, the legal right to re‐clear probably remains].
The ELC regulations could be amended to prevent the establishment or re‐establishment of
Commercial Plantations within 20 metres of an overhead power line or to the minimum
clearance spaces as required by the Code. Alternatively, the Code of Practice for Timber
Production and ESV could establish an appropriate distance for a transmission line. If a
distance of at least 20 metres from a transmission line or no closer than the mature height of
81 Final Version: 19 September 2014
a tree species is set, if a tree fell it would not enter the minimum design clearance for the
relevant voltage of that transmission line.
However, the ELC regulations are not likely to be the most effective means to obtain
compliance in this regard, particularly as the maximum penalty provided under the ELC
regulations is only 20 penalty units, which is which is substantially less than the potential
benefits of non‐compliance. A more effective mechanism for obtaining compliance could be
the Plantation Code of Practice.
This latter issue was revisited in the development of the currently proposed
regulations/code. It was noted that under section 86A of the Act, ESV may give directions
for restriction or prevention of tree growth, and can require tree removal or whatever else is
necessary to minimise or prevent growth. Thus, there is at least arguably an existing power
in the Act to address safety issues with respect to trees in clearance spaces if necessary,
albeit that the power accrues to ESV, rather than the MECs.
It has been determined that no further changes will be made in this area in the current context.
7.2.4. Notificationofinterestinatreeortrees
The New Zealand regulations52 create a mechanism whereby persons can express an interest in an
amenity tree and, by so doing, taken on responsibility for maintaining clearance distances. This, in
effect, enables them to carry out clearance activities on a more frequent basis, thus reducing the
amenity impact on the trees in question.
The "declared areas" provisions of the Victorian Electricity Safety Act arguably have the same broad
function, but operate at a more aggregated level, whereby councils have taken on responsibility for
clearance activities in whole geographical urbanised areas. The adoption of provisions along the
lines of the New Zealand regulations could potentially enable affected parties to voluntarily bear the
costs of undertaking more frequent clearance activities in order to enhance amenity outcomes.
As this would be a voluntary arrangement, it would necessarily be one which has a positive net
benefit in the direct sense. That is, affected persons would only take on this role if they valued the
improved equity outcome that they expected to arise more highly than the costs that they would
incur in taking on the clearance responsibility.
However, two issues arise in relation to such provisions which imply that the overall impact of their
adoption may not be beneficial. First, only persons who are capable of undertaking the clearance
responsibility could be approved under such arrangement. This implies potentially significant
administrative costs being incurred by ESV or by MECs in assessing applications to take on this
responsibility.
52 See Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003 (New Zealand). Regulation 18.
82 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Second, the allocation of responsibility for trees in particular, limited circumstances gives rise to
potentially significant problems in monitoring compliance and managing tree clearance activity.
Thus, for example, from the point of view of an MEC, they must ensure during the course of
clearance activities that all staff are aware of which trees have responsibility allocated to other
parties for clearance. Given the volume of the clearance task, in which some MECs have
responsibility for several hundred thousand trees, this appears likely to be a particularly challenging
problem, which would be likely to give rise to monitoring and enforcement costs, potential safety
concerns, and compliance problems which are disproportionate to the potential gains. Hence, this
option has not been adopted.
“No interest” tree notices
These notices are provided for in the relevant New Zealand legislation. An owner or occupier of any
land on which a tree is growing adjacent to a line (and in respect of which they would otherwise be
responsible for clearance activities) may give a “no interest” tree notice to a line owner. A “no
interest” tree notice may be given whether or not the owner or occupier has received a hazard
warning notice or a cut or trim notice.
The purpose of a “no interest” tree notice is to notify a line owner that the owner or occupier of the
land on which the tree is growing has no interest in the tree. The line owner is then entitled to have
the tree removed or trimmed, if it first obtains permission to enter the land on which the tree is
growing. If a line owner receives a “no interest” tree notice and fails to remove the tree within 20
working days of receiving the notice, and the tree subsequently causes damage to any line, the
owner who gave the notice is not liable for the costs of the damage.
This mechanism can be seen as a mirror image of the "notification of interest" provisions discussed
above, since both mechanisms involve the transfer of responsibility for tree clearance activities ‐ and
the associated costs ‐ between parties. Both also relate closely to the innately subjective issue of
the aesthetic value of trees. The essence of the no interest mechanism is to declare that the tree
owner does not regard the tree as having significant aesthetic value, whereas the "notification of
interest" is predicated on the concept of a person taking responsibility for a tree in which they have
such an aesthetic interest.
A difference between the two mechanisms is that the no interest mechanism is likely to be a cost
reducing one, since it enables an electricity supplier to remove or heavily prune the tree. By
contrast, the notice of interest mechanism is necessarily cost increasing, albeit that at least the
direct element of the cost increase is necessarily borne voluntarily.
However, both of these mechanisms operate at a micro‐level, with notices relating either to single
trees or small stands of trees. Hence, their operation is necessarily likely to result in significant
administrative costs. At the same time, it is not clear that they have major potential to deal with the
concerns that they purport to address, at least in circumstances where such concerns are relatively
widespread.
Thus, ESV does not believe that the adoption of such provisions are likely to be proportionate or
cost‐effective.
83 Final Version: 19 September 2014
8. Summaryofapproachestolineclearanceinotherjurisdictions
As Victoria is the jurisdiction with the highest risk of bushfires in Australia, and indeed one of the
most bushfire prone areas in the world, comparisons with other national and international
jurisdictions does not necessarily involve comparing like with like. The bushfire risk is not as high in
Northern and Western Australia as it is in the Southern and Eastern states. This is why this
comparison focuses on the jurisdictions which experience similar bush fire risks to Victoria, except
for New Zealand which provides a comparison point of a regime which focuses on network
reliability, security of supply and public awareness.
Tasmania, South Australian and New South Wales all impose a requirement on electricity
distributors to keep vegetation clear of electric lines, and where clearance spaces are prescribed,
they are not significantly different to those that apply in Victoria. The State of California (United
States of America) experiences a similar bush fire risk to Victoria, and for this reason Californian
utilities must maintain specific minimum clearances of tree branches and vegetation around
overhead wires in all areas (Minimum clearances range from 18 inches to 15 feet (450 mm – 4500
mm) in most situations, depending on the voltage of the power line, exposure to weather, and fire
risk in the surrounding area).
Table 8.1: Summary of key provisions of clearance regulations in relevant jurisdictions
Description of requirement or
obligation
No provision(s) Enabling provision Prescriptive
provision
Australian pruning standard AS4373 or
equivalent
V S Z C N T
Dispute resolution N C Z V S T Z
Alternative compliance mechanisms V Z S T C N
Notifications T Z C V N S Z
Community consultation S N T C V Z
Pruning cycles V Z C N T S
Inspection cycles N T Z C V S
Exemptions Z C V N S T
Preservation of trees C N T V S Z
Regrowth allowances Z N T C V S
84 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Legend:
V = Victoria, Australia
N = New South Wales, Australia
S = South Australia, Australia
T = Tasmania, Australia
Z = New Zealand
C = California, United States of America
85 Final Version: 19 September 2014
9. Conclusion
9.1. Overview
The Electricity Safety Act requires that regulations specifying an electric line clearance code be in
place at all times. This, together with the five‐yearly sunset requirement also included in the Act,
means that it is essential that the current regulations and Code be remade. Thus, the range of
feasible options for consideration in the current context is essentially limited to variations in the
content of the regulations and Code that are to be adopted.
The requirement that regulations always be in effect was adopted as a result of historical experience
that indicated that, notwithstanding that there are significant private incentives for MECs and others
to maintain clearance between vegetation and electricity infrastructure, actual performance proved
to be sub‐optimal over time, with substantial external costs being incurred. Moreover, early
experience with the implementation of regulations in this space indicated that substantial benefits
were achieved in practice, at a proportionate cost in terms of increased expenditure on clearance‐
related activities, and that these net benefits have been maintained over time, in broad terms.
The legislation requires the regulations and Code to be replaced every five years. History shows that
limited changes normally occur between editions of the Code. However, this mechanism of frequent
review and revision of the Code, under the auspices of a dedicated Committee (the Electric Line
Clearance Consultative Committee, or ELCCC) enables the Code to be kept up‐to‐date, with
improvements being made in response to new technology or other advances in management and
any issues being identified and addressed.
Given the legislative requirement that regulations specifying a Code must always be in force, three
broad options have been assessed. These are the remaking of the current regulations and Code
without amendment, the making of new regulations and a new Code incorporating a range of
substantive changes, as set out in Section 4, and the making of a new Code and regulations which, in
addition to these amendments, also specifies a minimum pruning frequency of one year within low
bushfire risk areas. The following section compares the benefits and costs of the three options and
sets out the basis for preferring the proposed regulations and Code over the other options
identified.
9.2. Summaryofbenefitsandcostsofmajoralternatives
Table 9.1 sets out a broad comparison between the benefits and costs of each of the three discrete
alternatives discussed earlier in Section 7.1. These are the remaking of the existing regulations and
Code without amendment, the making of the proposed regulations and Code and the making of the
regulations and Code as proposed, but incorporating a minimum pruning frequency of one year in
LBRA.
86 Final Version: 19 September 2014
The benefits and costs of each option are assessed against an unregulated base case, as required by
the Victorian Guide to Regulation where proposed regulations would replace sunsetting regulations.
As noted above, the “unregulated” base case in this context implies the absence of the electric line
clearance regulations and code. However, other legislative provisions relating to the clearance of
vegetation around electricity lines would remain in force, including the requirement for MECs to
prepare Bushfire Mitigation Plans. Hence, the base case does not imply an absence of any
regulatory controls in this area, merely the absence of the regulations and Code dealing specifically
and exclusively with electric line clearance.
As discussed in the above sections (notably sections 5 – 7), there is necessarily considerable
uncertainty as to some aspects of the benefits and costs associated with the regulations and Code.
Hence, table 9.1 provides indicative data only in many areas.
87 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Table 9.1: Estimated benefits and costs of the alternative regulatory options (indicative estimates
shaded grey, notes provided after table).
Option 1: Remake existing regs/code
Option 2: Make proposed regs/code
Option 3: Include min pruning frequencies in LBRA in proposed regs.
Costs
Clearance costs $119.2m p.a.1
Gross cost of $123.4 – $127.6m p.a.2, comprising:
$119.2m as for Option 1; plus
indicative estimate of $4.2 – 8.4m for compliance with AS4373.
Gross cost of $194.8 ‐ $202.4 m p.a.3 , comprising:
Costs of $123.4 ‐ $127.6m as per Option 2; plus
$71.4m ‐ $74.8m additional clearance costs due to specified pruning frequency.
Electric Line Clearance Management Plans
$0.13m p.a.4
$0.16m p.a.
$0.16m p.a.
Enhanced notification and consultation
$0m p.a.5 $4.13m p.a.6 $4.13m p.a.
Aesthetic costs (Note 2)
$107.4m p.a.7 $85.9 ‐ $96.7m p.a.8
$55.1 ‐ $62.0m p.a.9
Administration & enforcement costs (ESV)
$0.8m p.a.10 $0.88m ‐ $1.0m p.a.11 $0.88m ‐ $1.0m p.a.
Benefits
Reduced fire incidence
$88.7 ‐ $156.6m p.a.12 $88.7 ‐ $156.6m p.a. $88.7 ‐ $156.6m p.a.
Reduced supply interruption
$364.7m p.a.13 $364.7m p.a.
$373.8m p.a. (notional)
Total Costs $227.5m p.a. $214.5 ‐ $218.8m p.a. $255.0 ‐ $262.8m p.a.
Total benefits $453.4m ‐ $521.3m $453.4m ‐ $521.3m $462.5m ‐ $530.4m p.a.
Net Annual Benefits
$225.9 ‐ $293.8m $238.9 – $302.5m $207.5 ‐ $267.7m
Net present value14 $1.02 ‐ $1.33 billion $1.07 ‐ $1.37billion $0.94 ‐ $1.21 billion
Benefit/cost ratio 2.0 – 2.3: 1 2.1 – 2.4: 1 1.8 – 2.0: 1
Notes:
1. This is equal to the current estimated cost of pruning activity, of $161.8m (based on questionnaire responses
from all six MECs and from 39 out of 67 local governments responsible for pruning vegetation) less the estimated
pruning costs of $42.6m incurred prior the Code being made (based on the estimate reported in a 1996 RIS for
88 Final Version: 19 September 2014
the Code).Note that this is a conservative estimate, as the “unregulated” expenditure on pruning would likely be
higher in real terms than previously. See pages 46‐47 for details.
2. ESV expects that Option 2 will increase the costs of pruning compared to Option 1. This is due to the requirement
to prune in accordance with the Australian pruning standard AS4373. Though the likely costs are unknown,
based on direct consultation with MECs (see page 57 for details), an indicative estimate of these costs is an
additional $4.2m p.a. to $8.2m p.a. This gives an indicative estimate of the total pruning costs for Option 2 of
$123.9m p.a. – $128.1m p.a. ESV expects there will be offsetting cost reductions from reduced clearance
distances in some areas, though these cannot be quantified. ESV expects that the availability of ACMs may
further reduce costs, though some MECs suggested that the reverse may be true (see page 54). Any reduction in
costs due to an ACM may be partly offset by any additional compliance or monitoring that ESV may require in
order for an ACM to be approved. These costs are also not able to be quantified.
3. ESV expects that Option 3 will increase the costs of pruning compared to Option 2. This is due to the inclusion of
minimum pruning frequencies. Though the likely costs of this change are subject to some uncertainty, this
estimate is based on the difference between the current average pruning frequency, as reported by councils and
MECs and the required pruning frequency under Option 3. The estimate effectively assumes that pruning cost
per tree is invariant with pruning frequency, at least within the relevant frequency range. The increase in
pruning costs is thus estimated at $71.4m p.a. – $74.8m p.a. (see page 72 for details).
4. The estimates of the costs of preparing a pruning plan are based on questionnaire responses from all six MECs
and from 39 out of 67 local governments responsible for pruning vegetation (see pages 46‐47 for details).
5. Remaking the existing Code would impose no new notification requirements.
6. The cost of the new notification requirements was estimated based on direct consultation with MECs. This
consultation suggested the costs would be $4.13m p.a. (see page 57 for details).
7. The aesthetic value of urban street trees subject to the Code is estimated to be $537m (see pages 65‐68 for
details). The decline in aesthetic value due to pruning under the existing Code is unknown. As an indicative
estimate, it is assumed that under the current Code the aesthetic value of trees is reduced by 20%, a reduction or
aesthetic cost of $107.4m p.a.
8. ESV expects that Option 2 will result in lower aesthetic costs due to the adoption of the Australian pruning
standard AS4373 and some reduction in clearance distances. The likely effect of these changes on aesthetic costs
is unknown. As an indicative estimate, it is assumed that it will reduce the aesthetic costs of $107.4m p.a. by 10%
to 20%, resulting in aesthetic costs of $85.9m p.a. – $96.7m p.a.
9. ESV expects that Option 3 will further reduce aesthetic costs due to the inclusion of minimum pruning
frequencies. Though the likely effect of this change on aesthetic costs is unknown, based on consultation with
MECs and councils about the frequency of their existing pruning and the number of trees they are responsible for
pruning, it is estimated that aesthetic costs under Option 2 would be further reduced by 35.9%. This is equal to
the percentage reduction in material removed, on average, as a result of the increased pruning frequency. On
this basis, aesthetic costs of $55.1m p.a. – $62.0m p.a. would be incurred under Option 3.
10. See page 48 for estimate of costs for ESV under the current Code.
11. Costs for ESV under Options 2 or 3 are assumed to increase by 10% to 20% compared to costs under the current
Code (see page 49 for details).
12. Estimated benefit of $156.6m p.a. is based on the difference between the estimated cost of fires prior to the
introduction of the first Electric Line Clearance Code and the reported cost of fires immediately after the
introduction of that Code (reported in the 1996 RIS for the Code), adjusted to account for estimated rates of
underinsurance of property. The indicative estimate of $88.7m p.a. is based on the difference between the
estimated cost of fires prior to the introduction of the Code and the current estimated annual cost of fires due to
contact between vegetation and power lines. See pages 60‐62 for details. It is noted that the current and
proposed Code are expected to be of equal effectiveness in fire prevention. Specifying minimum pruning
frequency in LBRA is not expected to affect overall fire incidence, given the lower risk of fires in LBRA.
13. ESV expects that an increased clearance frequency in LBRA would slightly reduce outages due to reduced
incidence of greater than anticipated regrowth causing contact between power lines and vegetation and leading
to outages. However, this effect is likely to be marginal in size. An indicative 2.5% further reduction in outages
would yield an incremental benefit of $9.1m p.a. (see pages 63‐65 for details).
14. NPV calculated over the expected 5 year life of the regulations, using the VCEC benchmark real interest rate of
3.5%.
89 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Table 9.1 shows that the two major costs associated with the regulations and Code are the cost of
additional clearance activity, beyond that which would be undertaken in the absence of the
regulations, and the cost incurred by the community due to the reduction in the aesthetic value of
street trees as a result of the additional vegetation clearance undertaken. In the first instance, the
cost of clearance activity is borne by MECs and other responsible persons, while the operation of the
price regulatory regime for the electricity industry (through the provisions relating to the “pass
through” of major costs) implies that most or all of these costs will ultimately be borne by electricity
consumers.
As discussed above, a number of the benefit and cost estimates included in the table must be
considered to be only indicative in nature. However, two broad conclusions can be drawn from the
summary of benefits and cost provided. The first is that all three options are likely to result in
significant net benefits being achieved, with the present values of the options being in the range of
$0.94 ‐ $1.37 billion over five years. Moreover, the benefit/cost ratios of the various options are in
the range 1.8 – 2.4: 1, indicating a strong cost‐effectiveness performance. Thus, all three options
can be considered to be effective regulatory interventions, in that they would enhance overall
economic welfare.
The second conclusion that can be drawn from the table is that the three options differ relatively
little in terms of aggregate benefits and costs. This reflects the fact that the three options that have
been compared represent relatively minor variations on the same general approach to addressing
the risks of contact between vegetation and power lines. This aspect of the options is, to a large
extent, an outcome of two factors: that the Electricity Safety Act requires that regulations specifying
a Code be in place at all times and the fact that the combination of the historical effectiveness of the
Code and the institutional arrangements for advising ESV and the Minister on revised Codes tend to
favour incremental approaches that provide a level of predictability and respond to specific,
identified problems.
Within this framework, review of the specific cost and benefit estimates contained in Table 9.1
highlights the key points of difference between the options considered. Both Options 2 and 3 would
entail increased clearance costs due to the adoption of a requirement to clear in accordance with
AS4373 as far as practicable. However, these costs are expected to be quite modest and ESV
anticipates that they will be more than offset by cost savings due to the combination of smaller
required clearance distances in many areas (due to the change in the manner of determining
clearance distances proposed, which is entailed in the adoption of the new “linear” approach to
determining clearance spaces) and to the provision for exceptions and alternative compliance
mechanisms to be adopted, thus again reducing the required level of clearance activity in certain
circumstances. Option 3 entails a significant further cost increase, which is the result of requiring a
minimum annual pruning frequency in LBRA.
The cost increases resulting from the adoption of AS4373 are expected to be offset by reductions in
the aesthetic costs arising from clearance activity. This reflects the fact that the adoption of the
standard should minimise damage to trees and promote better outcomes having regard to matters
such as symmetry, as well as avoiding “over‐pruning” – i.e pruning to an extent that goes beyond
that required to ensure the maintenance of clearance distances over the regrowth period. In
addition, changes in the means of specifying clearance distances will have the effect of reducing the
90 Final Version: 19 September 2014
required clearance distance in many cases. The fact that local authorities with responsibility for
vegetation clearance in declared areas widely adopt AS4373 on a voluntary basis at present can be
taken as strong supporting evidence for the contention that the aesthetic gains involved in so doing
outweigh the additional costs in a wide range of circumstances: that is, local authorities have
voluntarily incurred the additional costs involved, knowing that they need to account for these to
their ratepayers.
There is necessarily significant uncertainty as to the relative size of this benefit of the proposed Code
– i.e. the percentage reduction in the costs of clearance activity currently incurred due to pruning in
accordance with the existing Code. Table 9.1 has therefore included two scenarios, based on a 10
per cent and a 20 per cent reduction in aesthetic costs in order to illustrate the size of the associated
impact on the net benefits of the Code. However, it can also be noted that, given the estimated
aesthetic costs associated with the current Code53, the NPV of the proposed Code would be equal to
that of the current Code if a reduction in aesthetic costs of 7.8% per cent (low cost scenario) or
11.8% (high cost scenario) were achieved54. If the improvement in aesthetic outcomes is greater
than this “break‐even” figure, the proposed Code would have a higher NPV than the current Code.
Conversely, if the benefit is smaller than this amount, the proposed Code would yield a smaller NPV.
The estimated aesthetic costs associated with vegetation clearance are further reduced under
Option 3 because it is clear that the adoption of an annual pruning cycle in LBRA will significantly
reduce the amount of pruning undertaken (i.e. the amount of vegetation removed from the tree)
compared with current practices in many areas due to a smaller regrowth allowance being required.
As noted in Table 9.1, given the current estimated average pruning cycle of 1.56 years derived
above, a move to an annual pruning cycle would imply an increase in the amount of pruning
undertaken of 56 per cent and an associated reduction in the average amount pruned of 35.9 per
cent55. This is assumed to yield a proportionate reduction of 35.9 per cent in the aesthetic costs
incurred due to pruning.
The estimated cost of adopting an annual pruning cycle in LBRA is 56 per cent higher than under
Option 2, as the only difference between these two options is that the amount of pruning
undertaken annually is increased by this percentage. The incremental benefits of adoption Option 3,
by comparison with Option 2, also flow from this increase in pruning frequency. Given that the
average amount of vegetation pruned will be around 35.9per cent less under Option 3, the aesthetic
costs of pruning are assumed to be reduced by this amount. Option 3 has a lower NPV than Option
2 essentially because this reduction in aesthetic costs falls well short of being sufficient to offset the
increase in pruning costs incurred.
In sum, the estimates contained in Table 9.1 indicate clearly that remaking the regulations and Code,
as required by the Act, will yield net benefits to society. Option 2 is clearly preferred to Option 3 in
NPV terms. Moreover, Option 2 has been found to have a higher NPV than Option 1 provided the
reduction in aesthetic costs produced via the combination of changes in the specification of
clearance distances and the adoption of AS4373 exceed 7.8% per cent/11.8 per cent. This outcome
is considered by ESV to be highly probable. However, given the combination of the relatively similar 53 i.e. an estimated 20% average reduction in the aesthetic value of street trees that are subject to pruning for line clearance purposes. 54 That is, if the average aesthetic cost of pruning declined from 20% to (20% x 92.5%) = 18.5%. 55 Since the time elapsing between pruning is reduced by 35.9%.
91 Final Version: 19 September 2014
level of benefits and costs between Options 1 and 2 and the dependence of this outcome on the
assumption made as to the aesthetic costs of the current Code56, it is not possible to make a clear
case for one option over the others on purely quantitative grounds. That is, while the comparison of
total benefits and total costs suggests that Option 2 will entail slightly greater net benefits than the
two alternatives, it cannot be concluded with a high degree of certainty that this will be the case.
Consequently, the key factors determining the choice of Option 2 are, to some extent, qualitative in
nature, as discussed below.
Choosing among the options
Work on development of revised regulations and code has been commenced in advance of the
normal timing in part in response to concerns raised by affected parties – including both responsible
persons and community groups ‐ about the impacts of the current regulations. While, as discussed
above, a significant part of the claimed additional cost impact of the current regulations may have
resulted from greater compliance and enforcement activity initiated by ESV, rather than to changes
in the standards per se, a key issue identified by a wide range of parties during recent consultations
has been the need to reinstate the potential for flexibility in meeting compliance obligations which
existed in the 2005 edition of the Code. Both Options 2 and 3 respond to this identified need to
achieve greater regulatory flexibility, while ensuring that adequate mechanisms are in place to
prevent safety performance being compromised. This is done by reintroducing some exceptions
from the need to ensure the required clearance space is maintained at all times, as was the case in
the 2005 code, and by introducing provision for Alternative Compliance Mechanisms to be
approved, enabling a reduction in the amount of vegetation clearance required to be undertaken in
circumstances where it can be shown that technological solutions can be implemented to reduce
risk to acceptable levels. The provision of the ACM arrangements will, while providing an avenue to
achieve adequate safety outcomes at lower costs for responsible persons, entail some additional
costs for those parties in researching and/or designing the ACM. However, given that this is a
voluntary process, responsible persons will clearly only undertake this task where they have a
reasonable expectation of achieving overall cost savings. It can also be noted that some additional
costs will accrue to ESV in terms of compliance and enforcement. However, as discussed in Section
5, above, these are expected to be relatively small in scale (with an indicative estimate of
$0.1 million per annum adopted). Therefore, ESV is confident that the provision of an ACM
mechanism will lead to net reductions in the cost of compliance with the Code, albeit that the size of
these savings will be largely determined by the extent of the take‐up of these opportunities by
responsible persons.
A second key issue identified in consultation is that the aesthetic costs of the additional clearance
activity being undertaken since the adoption of the current regulations and Code are widely
considered to be substantial and, in many cases, excessive and unnecessary in relation to the safety
objectives of the regulations. While some MECs state that they currently adopt clearance practices
consistent with AS4373 as far as practicable, many other parties have argued that this is not always
56 ESV believes that the estimated 20% reduction in the aesthetic value of trees pruned due to the Code is a plausible estimate given the extent of the canopy reduction that is required in the case of mature trees located adjacent to power lines. Stakeholder inputs, particularly from local councils, have highlighted a strong view that these aesthetic costs are very substantial, while photographic evidence of “worst case” outcomes provided provides clear examples of situations in which aesthetic costs will be far greater than this assumed average percentage.
92 Final Version: 19 September 2014
the case in practice and have provided evidence of poor practice in the context of ESV consultations.
In this context, the adoption of a formal requirement for the Code to be adopted by all responsible
persons as far as practicable will establish clear expectations as to how pruning is to be conducted
and provide the basis for enhanced monitoring and enforcement activity. In this area too, Options 2
and 3 respond to significant identified problems with the current regulations and Code, thus yielding
potential for a significantly improved outcome in aesthetic terms, at an incremental costs which
distribution companies have generally indicated is likely to be modest. The estimated benefits of
this change are relatively modest in dollar terms, but significantly exceed these identified costs.
Moreover, while these dollar estimates of benefits are relatively modest, ESV’s consultations with
stakeholders indicate clearly that this is a major area of concern for some in the community. In this
context, it should be noted that methods for valuation of the aesthetic benefits of street trees are
still evolving, while the estimates used of the extent of the aesthetic improvements likely to result
from this change are necessarily imprecise. Thus, it is arguable that these dollar cost estimates
underestimate the true benefits of adopting AS4373.
Options 2 and 3 differ only in that the latter would establish a minimum pruning cycle of one year in
LBRA. This would have the effect of doubling the current frequency of pruning in LBRA for three
distribution companies, but would have little or no impact on pruning conducted by local councils as
responsible persons. The purpose of setting a minimum pruning cycle is largely consistent with that
of specifying AS4373 as the required pruning standard, in that it seeks to minimise the aesthetic
costs of ensuring that vegetation is kept clear of electrical infrastructure. As indicated by the cost
estimates set out in Table 9.1, it would be expected that adopting a minimum annual pruning cycle
requirement would yield improved aesthetic outcomes. However, ESV believes that the adoption of
AS4373 in the current context will have a significant impact in this regard and thus constitutes a
proportionate response to the concerns raised regarding aesthetic issues. By contrast, the adoption
of a fixed minimum pruning cycle reduces the level of flexibility that MECs have available in
managing their clearance activities and, to this extent, is inconsistent with the direction of change in
other areas of the proposed regulations.
In sum, it is anticipated that the adoption of AS4373, in conjunction with the changes being made to
clearance distances, including the reinstatement of flexible compliance provisions, will respond
adequately to the concerns expressed by stakeholders on aesthetic issues and that, in this context,
the imposition of the additional cost of a fixed minimum pruning cycle is not warranted at present.
However, this issue will necessarily be kept under review, with the possibility of this decision being
revisited in the context of the development of a future edition of the regulations and Code.
Given both the fact that Option 2 entails the highest net benefits of the three options considered
and the importance of the factors discussed qualitatively above, it is intended to proceed with
Option 2. Adopting this option is expected to improve amenity outcomes while also providing for
some reductions in net compliance costs to occur where these can be achieved without
compromising safety and supply reliability.
93 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Box: Uncertainty in estimation of Code effectiveness
The 2010 RIS reported (p 101) an estimated VUE, were the 2005 Code to remain in place, of $513.7
million per annum (in 2009 dollars, equal to $585.6 million in current dollar terms). This was based
on an estimated 726,217 customer hours of interrupted supply due to all vegetation‐related sources,
sourced form 2007 data, published by the ESC. The adoption of the current code was expected to
reduce the VUE to $490.0 million ($558.6 million in current dollar terms), with hours lost due to
vegetation‐related outages reduced to 692,672.
However, as noted in Section 3.5, the average annual VUE due to interruptions caused by vegetation
grow‐in in the period 2010‐2013 is estimated at $388.8 million, while the total number of customer
hours of supply lost due to interference between vegetation and power lines (i.e. all vegetation‐
related causes) is estimated at 1,473,533 hours per annum, implying a total VUE from vegetation‐
related causes of $1,188 million per annum.
This comparison indicates that the actual level of vegetation‐related outages over the past four
years has been significantly higher than estimated in 2010 as being likely. Indeed, it is nearly twice
as great. This outcome highlights the level of volatility in the data on vegetation‐related outages.
This volatility is due in significant part to weather patterns, although other factors can also be
significant. Acknowledgement of this volatility can be found in the most recent AER published
comparison of the reliability performance of Victorian electricity distributors, which characterised
the years 2009 and 2010 as “atypical” and not reflective of longer‐term trends toward improved
reliability performance.
As an example, while there were an average of 1.47 million customer hours lost due to vegetation‐
related causes per annum over the four years to 2013, the annual totals varied from a low of 1.29
million hours to a high of 1.84 million – an amount 42.6 per cent higher than the minimum annual
number observed.
As these data show, while the adoption of the 2010 Code and the additional enforcement effort that
was undertaken to accompany it were expected to lead to a reduced incidence of vegetation‐related
outages, this was not observed in practice. Weather and other confounding factors clearly had a
significant part in this, since hours lost due to all vegetation‐related causes (i.e. including blow‐ins,
which are largely weather dependent but outside the scope of the Code) were substantially higher in
2012 and 2013 than in 2010 and 2011.
In light of the fact that the changes made between the 2005 and 2010 editions of the Code, and
supported by greater enforcement effort, were in the direction of increasing effective stringency,
this highlights the fact that these “external” factors, such as weather, have a very large influence on
outcomes in this area; one that is sufficiently large as to obscure the impact of changes in the
effectiveness of different editions of the Code and regulations in many cases. This is unsurprising
given that, as noted above, the differences between successive editions of the Code tend to be
relatively limited in relative terms. However, a consequence is that direct estimation of the
incremental impact of incremental changes to the Code and regulations is rendered difficult.
94 Final Version: 19 September 2014
10. Consultation
The proposed regulations and code have been developed in the context of a detailed and extensive
consultation process. The fundamental consultative mechanism is that set out in Part 8 (Division 3)
of the Electricity Safety Act, which establishes the Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee.
Section 87 of the Act requires that the Membership of the Committee, which is appointed by the
Minister, must include, inter alia, representatives of both the electricity distribution and
transmission sectors, as well as representatives of the roads corporation, the CFA and the Minister
administering the Forests Act 1958, and representatives of local government and private
landowners. The committee is required by Section 88 to provide advice to ESV in relation to the
preparation and maintenance of the Code. Section 89 requires ESV to refer all matters relating to
the regulations and the Code to the committee. This occurs via an extensive and iterative process.
In practice, the decisions of the ELCCC determine the shape of the Code.
In addition to this legislatively based consultation, ESV has conducted considerable further
consultation on its own initiative. During 2012, it released a Discussion Paper and a subsequent
White Paper as part of its Review of Statutory Provisions relating to the Mitigation of Bushfire Risks
Arising from Electricity Assets. These papers and the comments received in response to them
necessarily addressed a number of issues related to electric line clearance and the future shape of
the regulations and the code.
In the context of the preparation of this RIS, a questionnaire was developed and sent to all MECs and
local councils, seeking a range of data and other information on key issues relating to the regulations
and code. As noted above, responses were received from all MECs, together with half of all local
councils.
95 Final Version: 19 September 2014
11. Evaluation
As discussed above (notably in Sections 5, 6 and 9), there are substantial difficulties entailed in
evaluating the effectiveness of different editions of the Code. These relate, in particular, to the fact
that weather and other factors external to the Code and the legislative environment of which it
forms a part have a substantial impact on the actual incidence of fires and electricity supply outages
due to contact between electricity lines and vegetation. The impact of these factors is likely to be
greater than the impact of any specific changes introduced via different editions of the Code.
This means that changes to the Code are rarely driven by clear effectiveness data derived from
research on the current edition of the Code. Conversely, as discussed in Section 5, research into the
costs imposed by the Code and the extent of cost changes due to the previous Code has been
significant in the development of the current proposed Code.
The fundamental evaluative and consultative mechanism employed in developing successive
editions of the Code is the Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee, which is established
under the Electricity Safety Act. The committee is composed of key nominated stakeholders and
receives detailed briefings on specific issues associated with the content of the Code and the results
of research on these issues. It makes recommendations for changes to the Code on the basis of its
discussion of this material. This advisory group model is a widely used means of policy evaluation
and development and will necessarily continue to be of fundamental importance in evaluating future
editions of the Code, particularly given its legislated status.
In addition, it is anticipated that AER will have commenced publication of a wider range of relevant
summary data and analysis by the time the next edition of the Code is proposed. As discussed
above, the recent move in regulatory responsibility from the Essential Services Commission to the
AER has had the effect of disrupting the publication of a range of relevant data as the latter
organisation designs a new reporting model that is consistent with national electricity market rules.
ESV will, in conducting a future evaluation of the proposed Code, ensure that this data is analysed
and provided to the ELCCC to assist in its deliberations and will also continue to consult with
electricity distributors and other responsible persons on key questions of cost and effectiveness.
This is particularly important in respect of key elements of the proposed Code that differ from the
existing (2010) edition of the Code.
96 Final Version: 19 September 2014
12. StatementofcompliancewithNationalCompetitionPolicy
The National Competition Policy Agreements set out specific requirements with regard to all new
legislation adopted by jurisdictions that are party to the agreements. Clause 5(1) of the Competition
Principles Agreement sets out the basic principle that must be applied to both existing legislation,
under the legislative review process, and to proposed legislation:
The guiding principle is that legislation (including Acts, enactments, Ordinances or Regulations)
should not restrict competition unless it can be demonstrated that:
(a) The benefits of the restriction to the community as a whole outweigh the costs; and
(b) The objectives of the regulation can only be achieved by restricting competition.
Clause 5(5) provides a specific obligation on parties to the agreement with regard to newly proposed
legislation:
Each party will require proposals for new legislation that restricts competition to be accompanied
by evidence that the restriction is consistent with the principle set out in sub‐clause (1).57
Accordingly, every regulatory impact statement must include a section providing evidence that the
proposed regulatory instrument is consistent with these NCP obligations. The OECD Competition
Assessment Toolkit58 provides a checklist for identifying potentially significant negative impact on
competition in the RIA context. This is based on the following four questions:
Does the proposed regulation limit the number or range of suppliers?
Does the proposed regulation limit the ability of suppliers to compete?
Does the proposed regulation limit the incentives for suppliers to compete vigorously?
Does the proposal limit the choices and information available to customers?
According to the OECD, if all four of these questions can be answered in the negative, it is unlikely
that the proposed regulations will have any significant negative impact on competition.
The proposed regulations and Code do not give rise to any limits on competition of the kind
indicated by the above four questions. At the margin, the requirement to conduct clearance
activities in accordance with AS4373 could be considered likely to reduce the available number of
suppliers of clearance services. However, given the relatively limited training requirement needed
to equip tree clearers to work in accordance with this requirement, any such impact would be likely
to be, at most, transient. Moreover, questionnaire responses from MECs and local authorities have
indicated that all argue that they take the requirements of AS4373 into account at present, with
most stating that they are currently largely or partly compliant with the standard. This context also
suggests that any impact on the number of suppliers of these services would be very limited.
57 Clause 5, Competition Principles Agreement, 11 April 1995 accessed at www.ncc.gov.au/pdf/PIAg‐001.pdf 58 OECD (2011). Competition Assessment Toolkit: Volume 1 ‐ Principles. See Chapter 3 ‐ "Integrating Competition Assessment into Regulatory Impact Analysis". Available at: http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/assessment‐toolkit.htm.
97 Final Version: 19 September 2014
In sum, the proposed regulations and Code are considered to be compliant with the national
competition policy.
98 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Appendix1:SummaryofproposedchangestothecurrentregulationsandCode
The following summarises the policy positions and proposed changes included in the proposed
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
Proposed modifications and intended impact of
changes
Provisions of the proposed 2015 Regulations
and Code
1. Adoption of AS 4373
New procedures and practices to be observed and
adopted for tree cutting in the vicinity of electric
lines – adoption of ‘AS 4373 – Pruning of Amenity
Trees’
It is proposed that the Code incorporate a
requirement for responsible persons to cut
trees in accordance with the Australian
Standard AS 4373 Pruning of Amenity Trees.
This will require changes to the current
Regulations, including modifications and
additions to provisions relating to the content
of Electric Line Clearance Management Plans
(ELCMP); the management procedures to be
adopted to achieve compliance with the Code;
and corresponding and consequential changes
to the procedures relating to the cutting and
removal of trees and the clearance space
requirements specified in the Code.
The intended impact is to specify the
standards and practices for tree cutting and
mechanisms to manage the pruning of
established trees.
It is intended that this will address community
expectations in relation to the amenity value
of trees and assist in preserving the health of
the trees being pruned.
Regulations
Reg 5 Definitions
Definition of ‘AS 4373’ added
Reg 9 Management plans (ELCMP)
r 9(3)(i) – ELCMP to specify management
procedures that the responsible person
(RP) will adopt to ensure compliance with
the Code including the method for
determining additional distances for cable
sag and sway
r 9(3)(j) – ELCMP to specify procedures if
it is not practicable to comply with
AS 4373 while cutting a tree in accordance
with the Code
r 9(3)(o) – add reference to
‘inspection’(refer to clause 4 of AS 4373).
2. Flexible Compliance Arrangements and
Alternative Compliance Mechanisms
Provisions enabling flexible compliance referred to
as exceptions and the incorporation of a process
for the application and approval of alternative
Exceptions to minimum clearance spaceCode
– Clauses
Clause 4 –exception provision for
insulated low voltage electric lines in low
99 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Proposed modifications and intended impact of
changes
Provisions of the proposed 2015 Regulations
and Code
compliance mechanisms
The Electric Line Clearance Consultative
Committee (ELCCC) supported the
introduction of flexible complianceprovisions
and expressed the view that simple methods
should be specified within the Code. The
ELCCC also expressed the view that more
complex methods of compliance be available
to responsible persons by applying to ESV.
The 2005 Electric Line Clearance Regulations
allowed for reduced clearances on the
condition that appropriate risk mitigation
activities were carried out to ensure that an
equivalent safety outcome was achieved
despite the reduced clearance dimension.
Those provisions were removed from the 2010
edition of the Code and it is now proposed to
reinstate flexibility provisions in the next
edition of the Code. These provisions are
included in clauses 4 and5 of the Code.
It is proposed that the Regulations and the
Code include provisions specifying a process
for applying for, and ESV approval of,
alternative compliance mechanisms to enable
the use of industry‐driven initiatives and
technological and engineering solutions in
place of prescribed requirements, providing
that the same or similar safety outcomes can
be achieved.
These provisions are intended to recognise
advances in technological and engineering
solutions that will protect the amenity value of
trees by enabling reduced clearance
dimensions to be applied, provided that an
equivalent safety outcome can be achieved
and the safety and security of electrical supply
maintained.
It is proposed that these provisions are
complemented by a requirement for
bushfire risk areas (LBRA).
Clause 5 –exception provision for
uninsulated low voltage electric lines in
LBRA, also note new definition of ‘cable
spreader’ in clause 1 – c.f. references in
new clause 5(2)(a)(iv).
Alternative Compliance Mechanisms
Regulations
Reg 9 Management plans
r 9(3)(k) – ELCMP must provide a
description of any alternative compliance
mechanism the RP proposes to submit to
ESV for approval under clause 30 of the
Code.
Code – Clauses
Clause 1 – Definitions
‘published technical standards’ – added
for the purposes of the alternative
compliance mechanism in Division 2 of
Part 3 of the Code.
Clauses 30 and 32 – Alternative
compliance mechanism process and
approval
Clause 30 ‐ Sets out the requirements for
a RP to apply to ESV for approval to use
an alternative compliance mechanism and
specifying the details that a RP must
provide, including a formal safety
assessment
Clause 32 – Provides that ESV may
approve an application to use an
alternative compliance mechanism
submitted under clause 30.
100 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Proposed modifications and intended impact of
changes
Provisions of the proposed 2015 Regulations
and Code
responsible persons to include the use of
alternative compliance mechanisms in the
ELCMP.
3. Expanded classification of ‘insulated’ electric
lines
Expanded classification of ‘insulated’ electric lines
and a consequential extension of the applicable
clearance dimensions
The current Regulations specify clearance
dimensions for ‘aerial bundled cables’ and
‘insulated cables’ which are smaller than the
clearance dimensions for ‘uninsulated cables’.
It has been recognised that further
clarification of the types of cables that can be
classified as insulated cables is required and
that this would have as an immediate benefit
reduced clearance dimensions.
Accordingly, it is proposed that an expanded
classification of ‘insulated cable’ is provided
for in the Code to recognise other types and
forms of insulated cable that will achieve the
equivalent safety and performance standards
of insulated cables currently being used.
In doing so, it is accepted that the expanded
classification of ‘insulated cables’ needs to be
supported by recognised published technical
standards, and that as such reference to an
additional set of technical standards is
required.
This proposal is, in part, a subset of the
proposals relating to alternative compliance
mechanisms and also intends to recognise
industry‐driven demand and initiatives and
certain technological and engineering
solutions that will protect the amenity value of
trees by allowing reduced clearance
dimensions, provided that equivalent safety
outcomes are achieved and the safety and
security of electrical supply are maintained.
Code – Clauses
Clause 1 – Definitions
‘insulated cable’ – changed to
accommodate expanded class of
‘insulated cables, with consequential
changes or additions:
- ‘aerial bundled cable’ – minor change
- ‘covered conductor’ – new
- ‘electric cable’ – new
- ‘insulating cover’ – new
‘uninsulated cable’ – added to
complement expanded classification of
‘insulated cable’
‘sag’ and ‘sway’ – minor changes to
recognise expanded classification of
‘insulated cable’
Also note consequent removal of
definition of ‘powerline’
Also note the following new or changed
definitions:
- ‘low voltage’ – minor change to
exclude ‘extra low voltage’
- ‘extra low voltage’ – new, added for
clarification, c.f. modified definition of
‘low voltage’.
101 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Proposed modifications and intended impact of
changes
Provisions of the proposed 2015 Regulations
and Code
4. Enhanced notification and consultation
provisions
It is proposed that enhanced notification and
consultation provisions are included in the
Regulations and the Code to encourage more
open, visible and transparent communication
between the persons responsible for cutting
trees and the community in general and in
particular those occupying or managing the
land on which the trees are located. It is
proposed that these provisions are
underscored by fuller disclosure of the
required dispute resolution provisions.
It is proposed that the Regulations and the
Code include provisions further specifying the
notification and consultation procedures and
requiring certain responsible persons to
specify in their ELCMP the form of notice to be
given before cutting trees; and requiring
certain responsible persons (specifically, those
that do not own or manage the land on which
the trees are located) to notify the intended
cutting or removal by an appropriate form of
written notice.
The intended impact is to increase the level of
information available to the relevant affected
persons in relation to the nature and extent of
the intended pruning and encourage more
responsive notification, consultation and
dispute resolution procedures.
Regulations
Reg 9 Management plans
r 9(3)(p) – ELCMP to specify notification
and consultation procedures, including
the form of notice to be given to affected
persons.
Code – Clauses
Clause 14 – Notification of persons before
cutting or removing trees
- Extends the notice requirement for
specified classes of trees
- Adds a requirement for the notice to
specify one or more days on which, or
a period during which, the intended
cutting or removal is to commence,
which must be between 14 and 60
days from the date of the notice
- Removes reference to ‘affected
persons’, replaced by more specific
provisions in relation to the persons
who are to receive written notice and
the range of information required to
be included in the notice.
Clause 15 – Publication of notice in a
newspaper before cutting or removing trees
- Applies to RPs who are required to cut
or remove trees on public land that is
not privately owned
- The notice must be published in a
newspaper circulating generally in the
locality of the land where the tree is
to be cut or removed.
The published notice must specify
102 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Proposed modifications and intended impact of
changes
Provisions of the proposed 2015 Regulations
and Code
one or more days on which, or a
period during which, the intended
cutting or removal will commence,
which must be between 14 and 60
days from the date of the notice.
Clause 16 – Consultation with property
owners and occupiers before cutting or
removing trees
- Applies to RPs who are required to cut
or remove trees on private property
which the RP neither owns or
occupies.
- Clause 14(5) provides for the requisite
notice to include details of the
consultation procedure that the RP
will follow.
Related provisions – Dispute resolution
Reg 9 – Management plans
r 9(3)(q) – ELCMP to specify dispute
resolution procedures
Clause 18 – Dispute resolution
Adds a requirement to ensure that the
dispute resolution procedure is made
available to the public
5. Improved approach, methodology and
presentation of minimum clearance spaces
specified in the Code
The ELCCC examined the approach and
methods by which the minimum clearance
space between vegetation and electric lines is
specified in the Code. The ELCCC concluded
that the current approach and methodology
could be improved by removing the step
change anomaly for minimum clearance
distances and the resulting unintended
increase in the clearance distances for short
Code – Clauses
Clause 3 – Minimum clearance space for
electric lines
Moves from the paradigm of ‘required
clearance space’ to keeping trees outside
the ‘minimum clearance space’
Clause 6 – Minimum clearance space for
transmission lines
Move from the paradigm of ‘required
clearance space’ to ‘minimum clearance
space’, also note changes in clause 29
103 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Proposed modifications and intended impact of
changes
Provisions of the proposed 2015 Regulations
and Code
increases in span length.
ESV proposes to adopt the advice of the ELCCC
regarding the method by which the minimum
clearances space between vegetation and
electric lines is specified in the Code.
It is therefore proposed that the minimum
clearance space dimensions hitherto
presented as step changes in a table are
replaced by formulae, also shown by graphs,
indicating a sliding scale of dimensions with
the minimum clearance distance expressed as
a linear function of the span distance together
with the formula used to ascertain the
clearance dimension depicted in the graph.
The intended impact is to avoid the current
“step” changes inherent in the specification of
nominal ‘step change’ values within a table
and the resulting anomalous increases in the
clearance distances for short increases in span
length.
Part 3 – Clauses 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28
– Electric Line Clearance
Substitute provisions in a manner
consistent with changes to clause 3, i.e.
move from the paradigm of ‘required
clearance space’ to ‘minimum clearance
space’ and:
- Clause 4(2) – flexible compliance
provision (exception) for insulated
low voltage electric lines in LBRA
- Clause 5(2) – flexible compliance
provision (exception) for uninsulated
low voltage electric lines in LBRA and
an allowance for sag and sway for
spans exceeding 100 metres
- Clause 26 – ‘ clear to sky’ provision for
uninsulated 66kV electric lines in
LBRA and an allowance for sag and
sway for spans exceeding 100 metres
- Clauses 27 and 28 – ‘clear to sky’
provision for all uninsulated electric
lines in HBRA and an allowance for
sag and sway for spans exceeding 350
metres (for uninsulated 66,000 volt
lines in HBRA) and 500 metres (for
other uninsulated electric lines in
HBRA).
Code ‐ Schedule 2 – Graphs and Figures
Graph 1 – Graph 6
Replace current Tables 1 ‐ 3 with
Graphs 1 – 6, including graphic
representations of the graph formulae.
Figures
Replace figure headings to reflect changes
to classifications.
104 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Proposed modifications and intended impact of
changes
Provisions of the proposed 2015 Regulations
and Code
6. Administrative and housekeeping changes
The following administrative and housekeeping
provisions are proposed:
Update of provisions relating to responsible
persons to align with amendments to the
Electricity Safety Act 1998 (ES Act) effected by
certain provisions of the Electricity Safety
Amendment (Bushfire Mitigation) Act 2014
including consequential and corresponding
amendments to retain and ensure the integrity
of the scheme of the Regulations, including:
updating references to section 84 (as it
was prior to Part 8 of the ES Act being
amended) in the following current
provisions: regulation 9(1); clauses
6(1) and 7 or equivalent provision; and
refreshing current provisions relating
to the re‐classified set of responsible
persons;
update provisions to recognise machinery of
government changes; and
changes reflecting a general review and
refresh of other provisions.
Changes consequential to the amendments in
the Electricity Safety Amendment (Bushfire
Mitigation) Act 2014
Proposed reg 9(1) – substitutes s 84A and
84B for s 84(2)
Proposed clause 17 – applies to sec 84,
84C and 84D responsible persons.
Proposed clause 19 – remove reference to
the Roads Corporation (VicRoads) as a
class of responsible person
Machinery of government changes
Replace references to the Department of
Sustainability and Environment with the
Department of Environment and Primary
Industries
General review and refresh
Reg 9(6) – clarify requirement to supply
further information to ESV when
requested
Reg 9(9) – ELCMP must be made available
on the RP’s website
Part 3 of the Regulations – provision for
transitional arrangements as the 2010
Regulations will expire or be revoked after
ELCMP for the 2015/16 year are required
to be prepared or submitted for approval
Clauses 9(3) and 14(1)(d) – Align
‘specified’ trees with classes of trees in
proposed reg 9(3)(g), i.e. add reference to
‘listed in a planning scheme to be of
ecological, historical or aesthetic
significance’
Clauses 19 and 20 – Complete scheme of
obligations to require certain Responsible
Persons (DBs or other owners of an
105 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Proposed modifications and intended impact of
changes
Provisions of the proposed 2015 Regulations
and Code
electric line) to assist, if requested, a
Council that has concerns about the
safety of cutting or removal of a tree for
which the Council has clearance
responsibilities, or concerns about
determining the allowance for cable sag
and sway, to:
- ensure the cutting or removal of the
tree can be undertaken safely;
- set safe limits of approach to electric
lines for cutting/removing the tree;
- establish safe methods for
cutting/removing the tree;
- to determine the additional distance
by which the minimum clearance
space must be extended to allow for
sag and sway of cable spans
exceeding 100 metres.
106 Final Version: 19 September 2014
Appendix2:ExposureDraftoftheproposedElectricitySafety(ElectricLineClearance)Regulations2015
i
EXPOSURE DRAFT
ELECTRICITY SAFETY (ELECTRIC LINE CLEARANCE) REGULATIONS 2015
ii
iii
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
TABLE OF PROVISIONS
Regulation Page
PART 1—PRELIMINARY 1
1 Objectives 1 2 Authorising provisions 2 3 Commencement 2 4 Revocation 2 5 Definitions 2 6 Meaning of tree for which a person has clearance
responsibilities 4
PART 2—PRESCRIBED CODE OF PRACTICE AND RELATED PROVISIONS 5
7 Prescribed Code of Practice 5 8 Prescribed penalty provisions 5 9 Management plans 5 10 Exemptions 9 11 Offences for which infringement notices may be served 9
PART 3—TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND EXPIRY 11
12 Definitions 11 13 Transitional arrangements for applicable responsible persons 11 14 Opting out of transitional arrangements 13 15 Expiry 13
PART 4—CONSEQUENTIAL AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO OTHER REGULATIONS 14
16 Consequential amendments to the Electricity Safety (Bushfire Mitigation) Regulations 2013 14
17 Related amendment to the Electricity Safety (Installations) Regulations 2009 14
__________________ 14
Regulation Page
iv
SCHEDULE 1—CODE OF PRACTICE FOR ELECTRIC LINE CLEARANCE 15
PART 1—PRELIMINARY 15
1 Definitions 15 2 Meaning of minimum clearance space 19
PART 2—CLEARANCE RESPONSIBILITIES 20
Division 1—Roles of responsible persons 20 3 Responsible person must keep minimum clearance space clear of
trees 20 4 Exception to minimum clearance space—insulated low voltage
electric lines in low bushfire risk areas 20 5 Exception to minimum clearance space—uninsulated low voltage
electric lines in low bushfire risk areas 21 6 Owner or operator of transmission line must manage trees around
minimum clearance space 23 7 Responsible person may cut or remove hazard tree 23 Division 2—Manner of cutting and removing trees 24 8 Cutting of tree to comply with Standard 24 9 Cutting or removal of specified trees must be minimised 24 10 Cutting or removing habitat for threatened fauna 25 11 Restriction on timing of cutting or removal if notification is
required 25 12 Restriction on urgent cutting of trees 26 13 Restriction on urgent removal of trees 26 Division 3—Notification, consultation and dispute resolution 28 14 Responsible person must provide notification before cutting or
removing certain trees 28 15 Responsible person must publish notice before cutting or
removing certain trees 31 16 Responsible person must consult with occupier or owner of
private property before cutting or removing certain trees 32 17 Notification and record keeping requirements for urgent cutting
or removal 33 18 Dispute resolution 34 Division 4—Additional duties of responsible persons 36 19 Duty relating to the safety of cutting or removal of trees near an
electric line 36 20 Duty relating to assisting to determine the allowance for cable
sag and sway 36 21 Duties relating to management procedures to minimise danger 37
PART 3—MINIMUM CLEARANCE SPACES 39
Division 1—Standard minimum clearance spaces 39
Regulation Page
v
22 Additional distance that allows for cable sag and sway 39 23 Insulated electric lines in all areas 39 24 Uninsulated low voltage electric line in a low bushfire risk area 40 25 Uninsulated high voltage electric line (other than a 66 000 volt
electrical line) in a low bushfire risk area 41 26 Uninsulated 66 000 volt electrical line in a low bushfire risk area 42 27 Uninsulated low voltage and high voltage electric lines (other
than a 66 000 volt electrical line) in a hazardous bushfire risk area 43
28 Uninsulated 66 000 volt electric lines in a hazardous bushfire risk area 44
29 Transmission lines 45 Division 2—Alternative compliance mechanisms 47 30 Application for approval of alternative compliance mechanism 47 31 Formal safety assessment of alternative compliance mechanism 48 32 Approval of alternative compliance mechanism 49 33 Amendment of approval 50 34 Suspension or revocation of approval 51
SCHEDULE 2—MINIMUM CLEARANCE SPACES 53
Graph 1—Insulated Electric Lines in All Areas 53
Graph 2—Uninsulated Low Voltage Electric Lines in Low Bushfire Risk Areas 55
Graph 3—Uninsulated High Voltage Electric Line (other than a 66 000 Volt Electric Line) in a Low Bushfire Risk Area 57
Graph 4—Uninsulated 66 000 Volt Electric Line in a Low Bushfire Risk Area 59
Graph 5—Uninsulated Low Voltage and High Voltage Electric Lines (other than a 66 000 volt Electric Line) in a Hazardous Bushfire Risk Area 61
Graph 6—Uninsulated 66 000 Volt Electric Line in a Hazardous Bushfire Risk Area 63
Figure 1: Insulated Electric Lines in All Areas 65
Figure 2: Insulated Electric Lines in All Areas 66
Figure 3: Uninsulated Low Voltage Electric Line in a Low Bushfire Risk Area 67
Figure 4: Uninsulated High Voltage Electric Line (other than a 66 000 Volt Electric Line) in a Low Bushfire Risk Area 68
Figure 5: Uninsulated High Voltage Electric Lines (including a 66 000 volt Electric Line) in a Low Bushfire Risk Area and Uninsulated Electric Line in a Hazardous Bushfire Risk Area 69
Regulation Page
vi
Figure 6: End View of the Transmission Line 70
Figure 7: Side View of the Transmission Line 70
Figure 8: Trees Adjacent to the Transmission Line 71
═══════════════ 72
ENDNOTES 73
1. General Information 73
2. Table of Amendments 74
3. Explanatory Details 75
TABLE OF APPLIED, ADOPTED OR INCORPORATED MATTER 75
1
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
PART 1—PRELIMINARY
1 Objectives
The objectives of these Regulations are—
(a) to prescribe the Code of Practice for Electric Line Clearance; and
(b) to prescribe—
(i) standards and practices to be adopted and observed in tree cutting or removal in the vicinity of electric lines and the keeping of the whole or any part of a tree clear of electric lines; and
(ii) a requirement that certain responsible persons prepare management procedures to minimise danger of electric lines causing fire or electrocution; and
(iii) other matters for or with respect to the maintenance of electric lines; and
(c) to provide for management plans relating to compliance with the Code; and
(d) to provide for other matters authorised under the Electricity Safety Act 1998 relating to electric line clearance; and
(e) to make consequential amendments to the Electricity Safety (Bushfire Mitigation) Regulations 2013; and
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
2
(f) to make a related amendment to the Electricity Safety (Installations) Regulations 2009.
2 Authorising provisions
These Regulations are made under sections 151, 151A and 157 of the Electricity Safety Act 1998.
3 Commencement
These Regulations come into operation on 21 May 2015.
4 Revocation
The Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 20101 are revoked.
5 Definitions
In these Regulations—
approval for an alternative compliance mechanism means an approval granted by Energy Safe Victoria under clause 32 of the Code;
AS 4373 means Australian Standard AS 4373, 'Pruning of amenity trees', as published or amended from time to time;
cut, in relation to a tree, includes cutting a part of the tree;
remove, in relation to a tree, means to remove the whole of a tree above ground level;
the Act means the Electricity Safety Act 1998;
threatened fauna means fauna that is—
(a) listed as threatened in accordance with section 10 of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988; or
(b) listed in the Threatened Invertebrate Fauna List with a conservation status in
r. 3
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
3
Victoria of "vulnerable", "endangered" or "critically endangered"; or
(c) listed in the Threatened Vertebrate Fauna List with a conservation status in Victoria of "vulnerable", "endangered" or "critically endangered";
Threatened Flora List means the Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria published by the Department of Environment and Primary Industries as published or amended from time to time;
Threatened Invertebrate Fauna List means the Advisory List of Threatened Invertebrate Fauna in Victoria published by the Department of Environment and Primary Industries as published or amended from time to time;
Threatened Vertebrate Fauna List means the Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria published by the Department of Environment and Primary Industries as published or amended from time to time;
tree for which a person has clearance responsibilities has the meaning given in regulation 6;
tree of cultural or environmental significance means a tree that is—
(a) included in the Heritage Register within the meaning of the Heritage Act 1995; or
(b) included in the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register established under section 144 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006; or
r. 6
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
4
(c) flora that is—
(i) listed as threatened in accordance with section 10 of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988; or
(ii) listed in the Threatened Flora List with a conservation status in Victoria of "endangered" or "vulnerable"; or
(d) a habitat of threatened fauna.
6 Meaning of tree for which a person has clearance responsibilities
If, under Subdivision 1 of Division 2 of Part 8 of the Act, a person is responsible for keeping the whole or any part of a tree clear of an electric line, that tree is a tree for which the person has clearance responsibilities.
__________________
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
5
PART 2—PRESCRIBED CODE OF PRACTICE AND RELATED PROVISIONS
7 Prescribed Code of Practice
(1) For the purposes of Part 8 of the Act, Schedules 1 and 2 are together prescribed as the Code of Practice for Electric Line Clearance.
(2) In these Regulations, a reference to a numbered clause of the Code is taken to be a reference to the clause of Schedule 1 with that number.
8 Prescribed penalty provisions
For the purposes of section 90 of the Act, clauses 3(1), 6, 12(2), 13(2), 14(2), 15(2), 16(2), 17(2), 18(2), 19(2), 20(2), 21(1) and 21(3) of the Code are each a prescribed provision of the Code.
9 Management plans
(1) This regulation does not apply to a responsible person referred to in section 84A or 84B of the Act.
(2) Before 31 March in each year, a responsible person must ensure that a management plan relating to compliance with the Code for the next financial year is prepared.
Penalty: 20 penalty units.
(3) A responsible person must ensure that a management plan prepared under subregulation (2) specifies the following—
(a) the name, address and telephone number of the responsible person;
(b) the name, position, address and telephone number of the individual who was
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
6
responsible for the preparation of the management plan;
(c) the name, position, address and telephone number of the persons who are responsible for carrying out the management plan;
(d) the telephone number of a person who can be contacted in an emergency that requires clearance of a tree from an electric line that the responsible person is required to keep clear of trees;
(e) the objectives of the management plan;
(f) the land to which the management plan applies (as indicated on a map);
(g) each area that the responsible person knows contains a tree that the responsible person may need to cut or remove to ensure compliance with the Code and that is—
(i) native; or
(ii) listed in a planning scheme to be of ecological, historical or aesthetic significance; or
(iii) a tree of cultural or environmental significance;
(h) the means which the responsible person is required to use to identify a tree of a kind specified in paragraph (g)(i), (ii) or (iii);
(i) the management procedures that the responsible person is required to adopt to ensure compliance with the Code, which must—
(i) include details of the methods to be adopted for managing trees and maintaining a minimum clearance space as required by the Code; and
r. 8
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
7
(ii) specify the method for determining, for the purposes of determining a minimum clearance space in accordance with Division 1 of Part 3 of the Code, an additional distance that allows for cable sag and sway;
Note
Clause 20(2) requires a distribution company or an owner or operator of a railway or tramway supply network that is consulted by a Council to assist the Council, if requested, to determine the additional distance.
(j) the procedures to be adopted if it is not practicable to comply with the requirements of AS 4373 while cutting a tree in accordance with the Code;
Note
Clause 8 requires a responsible person to cut trees, as far as practicable, in accordance with AS 4373.
(k) a description of each alternative compliance mechanism in respect of which the responsible person has applied, or proposes to apply, for approval under clause 30 of the Code;
(l) the details of each approval for an alternative compliance mechanism that—
(i) the responsible person holds; and
(ii) is in effect.
(m) a description of the measures that must be used to assess the performance of the responsible person under the management plan;
(n) details of the audit processes that must be used to determine the responsible person's compliance with the Code;
r. 8
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
8
(o) the qualifications and experience that the responsible person must require of the persons who are to carry out the inspection, cutting or removal of trees in accordance with the Code;
(p) notification and consultation procedures, including the form of the notice to be given in accordance with Division 3 of Part 2 of the Code;
(q) dispute resolution procedures.
Penalty: 20 penalty units.
(4) A responsible person that is a major electricity company must before 31 March in each year submit the management plan to Energy Safe Victoria for approval.
Penalty: 20 penalty units.
(5) A responsible person must provide a copy of the management plan to Energy Safe Victoria on request within 14 days or such longer period as specified by Energy Safe Victoria.
Penalty: 20 penalty units.
(6) A responsible person must if requested to do so by Energy Safe Victoria provide further information or material in respect of the management plan within 14 days or such longer period as specified by Energy Safe Victoria.
Penalty: 20 penalty units.
(7) A responsible person must amend the management plan if instructed to do so by Energy Safe Victoria within 14 days or such longer period as specified by Energy Safe Victoria.
Penalty: 20 penalty units.
r. 8
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
9
(8) A responsible person must not contravene a requirement of a management plan approved by Energy Safe Victoria.
Penalty: 20 penalty units.
(9) A responsible person must ensure that a copy of the management plan is—
(a) published on the responsible person’s Internet site; and
(b) available for inspection at the responsible person's principal office in the State during normal business hours.
Penalty: 20 penalty units.
10 Exemptions
(1) Energy Safe Victoria may exempt a responsible person from any of the requirements of these Regulations subject to any conditions specified by Energy Safe Victoria.
(2) A responsible person who receives an exemption under subregulation (1) must ensure that a copy of the exemption is—
(a) published on the responsible person’s Internet site; and
(b) available for inspection at the responsible person's principal office in the State during normal business hours.
Penalty: 20 penalty units.
11 Offences for which infringement notices may be served
For the purposes of paragraph (b) of the definition of prescribed offence in section 140A of the Act, regulations 9(2), 9(3), 9(4), 9(5), 9(6), 9(7), 9(8), 9(9) and 10(2) are prescribed provisions.
__________________
r. 10
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
10
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
11
PART 3—TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND EXPIRY
12 Definitions
In this Part—
applicable responsible person means a responsible person who prepared an old management plan;
former Code means the Schedule to the former Regulations;
former Regulations means the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2010 as in force immediately before their revocation;
old management plan means a management plan relating to the financial year commencing 1 July 2015 that was—
(a) prepared in accordance with regulation 9(2) of the former Regulations; and
(b) in the case of a plan prepared by a major electricity company, approved by Energy Safe Victoria in accordance with regulation 9(4) of the former Regulations.
13 Transitional arrangements for applicable responsible persons
(1) Subject to regulation 14(3), the following provisions apply to an applicable responsible person during the financial year commencing 1 July 2015—
(a) the person—
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
12
(i) must comply with the former Code (as modified by subregulation (2)) despite its revocation; and
(ii) is not required to comply with Schedules 1 and 2; and
(b) regulations 7 and 8 do not apply in relation to the person; and
(c) the former Code (as modified by subregulation (2)) is prescribed as the Code of Practice for Electric Line Clearance for the person; and
(d) clauses 2(1), 2(2), 5(2), 5(5), 6(3), 6(6), 7 and 9 of the former Code are each, for the purposes of section 90 of the Act, a prescribed provision for the person; and
(e) regulation 9(5), (6), (7), (8) and (9) applies to the person as if a reference to a management plan were a reference to the old management plan prepared by the person.
(2) For the purposes of subregulation (1)(a)(i) and (c), the reference to the former Code is modified by replacing clause 8(1)(a) of that Code with—
"(a) the duties of the responsible person under Schedules 1 and 2 to the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015; and".
(3) Despite regulation 9(2), an applicable responsible person is not required to prepare a management plan for the financial year commencing on 1 July 2015.
(4) Regulation 9(3) does not apply to an old management plan.
(5) Despite regulation 9(4), an applicable responsible person is not required to submit a management plan for the financial year commencing on 1 July 2015.
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
13
14 Opting out of transitional arrangements
(1) During the financial year commencing 1 July 2015, an applicable responsible person may notify Energy Safe Victoria that they intend to prepare a management plan in accordance with regulation 9(3).
(2) On receiving a notification under subregulation (1), Energy Safe Victoria may give the applicable responsible person a notice specifying a day by which the person is to submit the management plan.
(3) If the applicable responsible person submits the management plan to Energy Safe Victoria on or before the specified day, regulation 13(1) ceases to apply to the applicable responsible person on the specified day.
15 Expiry
These Regulations expire on 21 May 2020.
__________________
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
14
PART 4—CONSEQUENTIAL AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO OTHER REGULATIONS
16 Consequential amendments to the Electricity Safety (Bushfire Mitigation) Regulations 2013
(1) In regulation 10(1)(k) of the Electricity Safety (Bushfire Mitigation) Regulations 20132, for "clause 2(1)" substitute "clause 3".
(2) For the note at the foot of regulation 10(1)(k) of the Electricity Safety (Bushfire Mitigation) Regulations 2013 substitute—
'Note
The Code is prescribed as the Code of Practice for Electric Line Clearance in the Schedules to the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015.'.
(3) For the note at the foot of regulation 10(1)(l) of the Electricity Safety (Bushfire Mitigation) Regulations 2013 substitute—
'Note
If a hazard tree is identified, the responsible person may cut or remove the tree under clause 7 of the Code.'.
(4) In regulation 10(2) of the Electricity Safety (Bushfire Mitigation) Regulations 2013, for "clause 3" substitute "clause 7".
17 Related amendment to the Electricity Safety (Installations) Regulations 2009
After regulation 220 of the Electricity Safety (Installations) Regulations 20093 insert—
"220A Prescribed voltage
For the purposes of the definition of low voltage electric line in section 3 of the Act, the prescribed voltage is low voltage.".
__________________
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
15
SCHEDULE 1—CODE OF PRACTICE FOR ELECTRIC LINE CLEARANCE
Regulation 6
PART 1—PRELIMINARY
1 Definitions
In this Code—
aerial bundled cable means an insulated conductor manufactured in accordance with the specifications set out in any of the following—
(a) AS/NZS 3560.1 as amended or published from time to time;
(b) AS/NZS 3560.2 as amended or published from time to time;
(c) AS/NZS 3599.1 as amended or published from time to time;
(d) AS/NZS 3599.2 as amended or published from time to time;
cable spreader means an insulated rod used to maintain distance between the cables of a low voltage electric line;
covered conductor means an insulated conductor manufactured in accordance with the specifications set out in AS/NZS 3675 as amended or published from time to time;
electric cable means an insulated conductor manufactured in accordance with the specifications set out in AS/NZS 1429.1 as
Sch.
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
16
amended or published from time to time or AS/NZS 1429.2 as amended or published from time to time;
extra low voltage means a voltage not exceeding—
(a) 50 volts alternating current; or
(b) 120 volts ripple-free direct current;
hazardous bushfire risk area means—
(a) an area that a fire control authority has assigned a fire hazard rating of "high" under section 80 of the Act; or
(b) an area that—
(i) is not an urban area; and
(ii) has not been assigned a fire hazard rating of "low" under section 80 of the Act;
insulated cable means a cable insulated by a medium other than air and includes any of the following—
(a) aerial bundled cable; or
(b) covered conductor; or
(c) electric cable; or
(d) insulating cover;
insulating cover means an insulating pipe or tube that is—
(a) applied to an electric line to provide a protective barrier; and
(b) manufactured in accordance with the specifications set out in any of the following—
(i) AS 1931.1 as amended or published from time to time;
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
17
(ii) AS 1931.2 as amended or published from time to time;
(iii) AS 4202 as amended or published from time to time;
(iv) AS/NZS 3100 as amended or published from time to time;
(v) AS/NZS 3121 as amended or published from time to time;
low bushfire risk area means—
(a) an area that a fire control authority has assigned a fire hazard rating of "low" under section 80 of the Act;
(b) an urban area;
low voltage means a voltage exceeding extra low voltage but not exceeding—
(a) 1000 volts alternating current; or
(b) 1500 volts direct current;
minimum clearance space has the meaning set out in clause 2;
nominal voltage means the voltage at which the electric line is designed to operate;
published technical standard means a document giving technical information, guidance or advice published by—
(a) Standards Australia; or
(b) Standards New Zealand; or
(c) the British Standards Institute; or
(d) the International Organisation for Standardisation; or
(e) the International Electrotechnical Commission; or
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
18
(f) any similar standards organisation within or outside Australia approved by Energy Safe Victoria; or
(g) Energy Safe Victoria;
railway supply network means the supply network of a railway that is a heavy railway;
sag, in relation to a cable, means the vertical displacement of the cable below the point at which the cable is attached to the supporting structure and includes any additional displacement caused by hot weather or high load current;
span of an electric line means the section of the electric line between two adjacent supporting structures;
span distance means the distance between the points at which a span of an electric line is attached to the two adjacent supporting structures;
suitably qualified arborist means an arborist who has—
(a) the qualification of National Certificate Level IV in Horticulture and Arboriculture, including the "Assess Trees" module, or an equivalent qualification; and
(b) at least 3 years of field experience in assessing trees;
sway, in relation to a cable, means the horizontal displacement of the cable caused by wind;
tramway supply network means the supply network of a railway that is a light railway or tramway;
transmission line means an electric line—
Sch.
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
19
(a) with a nominal voltage of more than 66 000 volts; or
(b) operating at 66 000 volts that is supported on tower structures; or
(c) operating at 66 000 volts that is adjacent to an electric line that has a nominal voltage greater than 66 000 volts.
uninsulated cable means a conductor that is not an insulated cable.
2 Meaning of minimum clearance space
(1) Except as otherwise provided by this clause, the minimum clearance space for a span of an electric line is the minimum clearance space for the span as determined under Part 3.
(2) For the purposes of the application of this Code to a responsible person who holds an approval for an alternative compliance mechanism that is in effect—
(a) if the approval applies to a particular span of an electric line—the minimum clearance space for that span is the minimum clearance space specified in the approval under clause 32(3)(d)(i); or
(b) if the approval applies to a class of span of electric line—the minimum clearance space for each span that belongs to that class is the minimum clearance space specified in the approval under clause 32(3)(d)(i).
__________________
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
20
PART 2—CLEARANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
Division 1—Roles of responsible persons
3 Responsible person must keep minimum clearance space clear of trees
(1) A responsible person must ensure that, at all times, no part of a tree for which the person has clearance responsibilities is within the minimum clearance space for a span of an electric line.
(2) Subclause (1) is subject to clauses 4 and 5.
Note
Clauses 4 and 5 provide that certain responsible persons are not required to ensure that certain branches are clear of the minimum clearance space for spans of certain electric lines.
4 Exception to minimum clearance space—insulated low voltage electric lines in low bushfire risk areas
(1) This clause applies to a responsible person referred to in section 84, 84C or 84D of the Act.
(2) The responsible person is not required to ensure that a particular branch of a tree for which the person has clearance responsibilities is clear of the minimum clearance space for a span of an electric line if—
(a) the electric line is—
(i) an insulated cable; and
(ii) a low voltage electric line; and
(iii) located in a low bushfire risk area; and
(b) at the point at which the branch enters the minimum clearance space, the branch is wider than 130 millimetres; and
(c) the branch is more than 300 millimetres from the line; and
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
21
(d) within the last twelve months—
(i) a suitably qualified arborist has inspected the tree of which the branch is a part; and
(ii) the arborist has advised the responsible person that the tree of which the branch is a part does not have any visible structural defect that could cause the branch to fail and make contact with the electric line; and
(iii) the responsible person has completed an assessment of the risks posed by the branch; and
(iv) the responsible person has implemented measures to effectively mitigate the identified risks; and
(e) every time the responsible person cuts or removes trees to keep trees clear of the minimum clearance space, the responsible person—
(i) removes from the clearance space each part of the tree that protrudes from that branch and that is more than 10 millimetres wide at its widest point within the clearance space; and
(ii) inspects the electric line for evidence of abrasion; and
(iii) removes the branch if evidence of abrasion is found.
5 Exception to minimum clearance space—uninsulated low voltage electric lines in low bushfire risk areas
(1) This clause applies to a responsible person referred to in section 84, 84C or 84D of the Act.
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
22
(2) The responsible person is not required to ensure that a particular branch of a tree for which the person has clearance responsibilities is clear of the minimum clearance space for a span of an electric line if—
(a) the electric line is—
(i) an uninsulated cable; and
(ii) a low voltage electric line; and
(iii) located in a low bushfire risk area; and
(iv) fitted with—
(A) if the length of the span does not exceed 45 metres—one cable spreader; or
(B) in any other case—2 cable spreaders; and
(b) the width of the branch, at the point at which the branch enters the minimum clearance space, is less than 10 millimetres or greater than 400 millimetres; and
(c) the branch is no more than 200 millimetres inside the minimum clearance space; and
(d) within the last twelve months—
(i) a suitably qualified arborist has inspected the tree of which the branch is a part; and
(ii) the arborist has advised the responsible person that the tree of which the branch is a part does not have any visible structural defect that could cause the branch to fail and make contact with the electric line; and
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
23
(iii) the responsible person has completed an assessment of the risks posed by the branch; and
(iv) the responsible person has implemented measures to effectively mitigate the identified risks.
6 Owner or operator of transmission line must manage trees around minimum clearance space
A responsible person who owns or operates a transmission line must—
(a) manage trees below the transmission line to mitigate, as far as practicable, the fire risks associated with the fuel load below the transmission line; and
(b) manage trees adjacent to the transmission line to avoid, as far as practicable, a tree entering the minimum clearance space around that line if the tree falls.
7 Responsible person may cut or remove hazard tree
(1) This clause applies to a responsible person referred to in section 84, 84C or 84D of the Act.
(2) The responsible person may cut or remove a tree for which the person has clearance responsibilities if a suitably qualified arborist has—
(a) assessed the tree having regard to foreseeable local conditions; and
(b) advised the responsible person that the tree, or any part of the tree, is likely to fall onto or otherwise come into contact with an electric line.
Note
Under section 86B of the Act a Council must, in a municipal fire prevention plan, specify procedures and criteria for the identification of trees that are likely to fall onto, or come into contact with, an electric line and procedures for the
Sch.
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
24
notification of responsible persons of trees that are hazard trees in relation to electric lines for which they are responsible.
(3) For the purposes of this clause it is irrelevant that the tree is not within, and is not likely to grow into, the minimum clearance space for a span of an electric line.
Division 2—Manner of cutting and removing trees
8 Cutting of tree to comply with Standard
A responsible person cutting a tree under Division 1 must, as far as practicable, cut the tree in accordance with AS 4373 as published or amended from time to time.
9 Cutting or removal of specified trees must be minimised
(1) A responsible person cutting, under Division 1, a tree of a kind specified in subclause (3) must, as far as is practicable, not cut the tree more than is necessary to either—
(a) ensure compliance with Division 1; or
(b) make an unsafe situation safe.
(2) A responsible person must not remove, under Division 1, a tree of a kind specified in subclause (3) unless—
(a) it is necessary to remove the tree to either—
(i) ensure compliance with Division 1; or
(ii) make an unsafe situation safe; or
(b) a suitably qualified arborist has—
(i) inspected the tree; and
(ii) advised the responsible person that cutting the tree in accordance with subclause (1) would make the tree unhealthy or unviable.
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
25
(3) The following kinds of tree are specified for the purposes of subclauses (1) and (2)—
(a) native trees;
(b) trees listed in a planning scheme to be of ecological, historical or aesthetic significance;
(c) trees of cultural or environmental significance.
10 Cutting or removing habitat for threatened fauna
(1) A responsible person must not cut or remove a tree that is the habitat for threatened fauna during the breeding season for the threatened fauna unless—
(a) it is necessary to cut or remove the tree to make an unsafe situation safe; or
(b) it is not practicable to undertake cutting or removal of that tree outside the breeding season.
(2) If it is not practicable to undertake cutting or removal of that tree outside the breeding season, the responsible person must translocate the fauna before undertaking the cutting or removal if it is practicable to do so.
11 Restriction on timing of cutting or removal if notification is required
(1) This clause applies to a responsible person who—
(a) gives notice under clause 14(2) about the intended cutting or removal of a tree; or
(b) publishes a notice under clause 15(2) about the intended cutting or removal of a tree.
(2) The responsible person must not commence cutting or removal of the tree on a day that is
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
26
earlier than the first day that is specified, or before the first day of the period that is specified, in the notice under clause 14(6) or 15(4)(b) (as the case requires).
12 Restriction on urgent cutting of trees
(1) This clause applies to a responsible person referred to in sections 84, 84C or 84D of the Act who is required to comply with clause 17(2) in relation to cutting that is required—
(a) as a result of encroachment or growth of trees that was not anticipated in the management plan; or
(b) during the fire danger period declared under the Country Fire Authority Act 1958.
Note
A responsible person is required to comply with clause 17(2) in relation to the cutting of a tree if the responsible person is referred to in section 84, 84C or 84D of the Act and the cutting is urgently required for a reason set out in clause 17(1). In these circumstances, clauses 14(2), 15(2) and 16(2) do not require the giving or publication of a written notice, or the undertaking of consultation, before the cutting.
(2) The responsible person must not cut a tree further than 1 metre from the minimum clearance space for a span of an electric line.
13 Restriction on urgent removal of trees
(1) This clause applies to a responsible person referred to in sections 84, 84C or 84D of the Act who is required to comply with clause 17(2) in relation to a tree.
Note
A responsible person is required to comply with clause 17(2) in relation to a tree if the responsible person is referred to in section 84, 84C or 84D of the Act and the cutting or
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
27
removal of the tree is urgently required for a reason set out in clause 17(1). In these circumstances, clauses 14(2), 15(2) and 16(2) do not require the giving or publication of a written notice, or the undertaking of consultation, before the cutting or removal..
(2) The responsible person must not remove the tree unless—
(a) the tree has fallen or become damaged and is to be removed to keep the minimum clearance space for a span of an electric line free of trees; or
(b) a suitably qualified arborist has—
(i) assessed the tree having regard to foreseeable local conditions; and
(ii) advised the responsible person that the tree is likely to imminently fall onto or otherwise come into contact with an electric line.
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
28
Division 3—Notification, consultation and dispute resolution
14 Responsible person must provide notification before cutting or removing certain trees
(1) This clause applies to a responsible person who is required by clause 3 or 6, or who intends under clause 7, to cut or remove a tree that is—
(a) on private property that the responsible person neither owns nor occupies; or
(b) on public land; or
(c ) a tree of cultural or environmental significance; or
(d) listed in a planning scheme to be of ecological, historical or aesthetic significance.
(2) The responsible person must give a written notice in accordance with this clause before cutting or removing the tree unless—
(a) the responsible person is a responsible person referred to in section 84, 84C or 84D of the Act; and
(b) the cutting or removal is urgently required for a reason set out in clause 17(1).
(3) A written notice given under subclause (2) must be given to—
(a) if the tree is within the boundary of a private property—an owner or occupier of the property; or
(b) if the tree is on land that is managed by a Council (other than the responsible person)—that Council; or
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
29
(c) if the tree is on land that is contiguous to private property and the use of that property may be affected during the cutting or removal—an owner or occupier of that property.
(4) A written notice given under subclause (2) must include the following information—
(a) the contact details of the responsible person, including the contact details for all enquiries regarding vegetation and the intended cutting or removal;
(b) the contact details of the person carrying out the intended cutting or removal on behalf of the responsible person, including the contact details for all enquiries regarding vegetation and the intended cutting or removal;
(c) subject to subclause (8), details of the intended cutting or removal, including details of the impact of the cutting or removal of the tree and the actions to be taken to minimise that impact;
(d) details of the dispute procedure to be followed for the independent resolution of disputes relating to electric line clearance, including the process, escalation process and contact details of all parties involved in the escalation procedure.
(5) A written notice given under subclause (2) must include the following additional information—
(a) if the notice is given to an owner or occupier of private property in accordance with subclause (3)(a)—
(i) details of the consultation procedure that the responsible person will follow;
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
30
(ii) details of whether the tree to be cut or removed is—
(A) on public land; or
(B) a tree of cultural or environmental significance; or
(C) listed in a planning scheme to be of ecological, historical or aesthetic significance;
(b) if the notice is given to a Council in accordance with subclause (3)(b)—details of whether the tree to be cut or removed is—
(i) on public land; or
(ii) a tree of cultural or environmental significance; or
(iii) listed in a planning scheme to be of ecological, historical or aesthetic significance;
(c) if the notice is given to an owner or occupier of private property in accordance with subclause (3)(c)—details of the impact that the intended cutting or removal may have on the affected person's use of their land.
(6) A written notice given under subclause (2) must specify one or more days on which, or a period during which, the responsible person intends that the intended cutting or removal will commence.
Note
Clause 11 provides that if a responsible person gives written notice under this clause, the person must not cut or remove the tree other than on a day specified under subclause (6).
(7) The responsible person must not specify, under subclause (6), a day that is, or a period the first day of which is—
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
31
(a) earlier than 14 days from the date of the notice; and
(b) later than 60 days from the date of the notice.
(8) A notice given to an owner or occupier of private property in accordance with subclause (3)(a) must, if the tree is intended to be cut, include details of the impact of the intended cutting on the tree in a pictorial form that—
(a) shows how the tree will be cut; and
(b) includes an image of the tree; and
(c) includes a representation of the electric line.
15 Responsible person must publish notice before cutting or removing certain trees
(1) This clause applies to a responsible person who is required by clause 3 or 6 to cut or remove a tree that is on public land that is not privately owned.
(2) The responsible person must publish a written notice in accordance with this clause before cutting or removing the tree unless—
(a) the responsible person is a responsible person referred to in section 84, 84C or 84D of the Act; and
(b) the cutting or removal is urgently required for a reason set out in clause 17(1).
(3) A written notice published under subclause (2) must be published in a newspaper circulating generally in the locality of the land in which the tree is to be cut or removed.
(4) A written notice published under subclause (2) must—
(a) describe the cutting or removal that the responsible person intends to undertake; and
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
32
(b) specify one or more days on which, or a period during which, the responsible person intends that the intended cutting or removal will commence.
Note
Clause 11 provides that if a responsible person publishes a notice under this clause, the person must not cut or remove the tree other than on a day specified under subclause (4)(b).
(5) The responsible person must not specify, under subclause (4)(b), a day that is, or a period the first day of which is—
(a) earlier than 14 days from the date of the notice; and
(b) later than 60 days from the date of the notice.
16 Responsible person must consult with occupier or owner of private property before cutting or removing certain trees
(1) This clause applies to a responsible person who is required by clause 3 or 6 or who intends under clause 7 to cut or remove a tree that is within the boundary of a private property which the responsible person neither occupies nor owns.
(2) The responsible person must consult as required by subclause (3) before cutting or removing the tree unless—
(a) the responsible person is a responsible person referred to in section 84, 84C or 84D of the Act; and
(b) the cutting or removal is urgently required for a reason set out in clause 17(1).
(3) For the purposes of subclause (2), the responsible person must consult—
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
33
(a) if the tree is to be cut within the boundary of the private property—an occupier of the property; or
(b) if the tree is to be removed—an owner of the property.
17 Notification and record keeping requirements for urgent cutting or removal
(1) This clause applies if a responsible person referred to in section 84, 84C or 84D of the Act undertakes any cutting or removal that is urgently required—
(a) as a result of encroachment or growth of trees that was not anticipated in the management plan; or
(b) as a result of a tree falling or becoming damaged so that it is required to be cut or removed to maintain the minimum clearance space; or
(c) because a suitably qualified arborist has—
(i) assessed the tree having regard to foreseeable local conditions; and
(ii) advised the responsible person that the tree, or any part of the tree, is likely to imminently fall onto or otherwise come into contact with an electric line; or
(d) during the fire danger period declared under the Country Fire Authority Act 1958.
Notes
1. Clause 12 restricts the urgent cutting referred to in subclause (1)(a) and (d).
2. Clause 13 restricts the urgent removal referred to in subclause (1).
(2) The responsible person must, as soon as practicable after completing the cutting or
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
34
removal, give written notice of that cutting or removal to—
(a) if the tree that was cut or removed was within the boundary of a private property—an owner or occupier of the property; or
(b) if the tree that was cut or removed was on land that is managed by a Council and not by the responsible person—the Council.
(3) A written notice given under subclause (2) must specify—
(a) where and when the cutting or removal was undertaken;
(b) why the cutting or removal was required;
(c) the date of the last inspection of the span of the electric line in relation to which the cutting or removal was required before it was identified that the urgent cutting or removal was required.
(4) The responsible person must keep a record of a written notice given under subclause (2) for at least 5 years.
18 Dispute resolution
(1) This clause does not apply to a responsible person referred to in section 84A or 84B of the Act.
(2) The responsible person must establish a procedure to be followed for the independent resolution of disputes relating to electric line clearance.
(3) The responsible person must—
(a) ensure that a copy of the procedure is available for inspection at the responsible person's principal office in the State during normal business hours; and
Sch. Sch.
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
35
(b) publish that procedure on the responsible person’s Internet site.
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
36
Division 4—Additional duties of responsible persons
19 Duty relating to the safety of cutting or removal of trees near an electric line
(1) If a Council has concerns about the safety of cutting or removal of a tree for which the Council has clearance responsibilities, the Council may consult—
(a) if the Council’s concerns relate to a span of an electric line that is part of a railway supply network or tramway supply network—the owner or operator of that supply network; or
(b) in any other case— the distribution company in whose distribution area the electric line is located.
(2) An owner, operator or distribution company that is consulted by a Council under subclause (1) must assist the Council to—
(a) ensure the cutting or removal of the tree can be undertaken safely;
(b) set safe limits of approach to electric lines for cutting or removing the tree;
(c) establish safe methods for cutting or removing the tree.
20 Duty relating to assisting to determine the allowance for cable sag and sway
(1) If a Council considers that, for the purpose of determining a minimum clearance space in accordance with Division 1 of Part 3, the Council requires assistance to determine an additional distance that allows for cable sag and sway, the Council may consult—
Sch. Sch.
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
37
(a) if the Council requires assistance in relation to a span of an electric line that is part of a railway supply network or tramway supply network—the owner or operator of that supply network; or
(b) in any other case—the distribution company in whose distribution area the electric line is located.
(2) An owner, operator or distribution company that is consulted by a Council under subclause (1) must assist the Council to determine the additional distance.
(3) An owner, operator or distribution company that assists a Council to determine an additional distance under subclause (2) must keep a record of the additional distance for at least 5 years.
21 Duties relating to management procedures to minimise danger
(1) A distribution company must give advice about the following matters to each occupier of land above which there is a private electric line that is within the distribution company’s distribution area—
(a) the duties of the responsible person under this Code;
(b) the dangers of cutting and removing trees;
(c) the precautions that should be taken to safely maintain the line.
(2) A distribution company must give advice under subclause (1) at least once every calendar year.
(3) A distribution company must, on the request of a person who has clearance responsibilities for a tree within the distribution company's distribution area, advise that person—
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
38
(a) how to identify places within that area where the cutting or removal of trees will be required; and
(b) where to obtain advice and information on methods for maintaining clearance between electric lines and trees.
__________________
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
39
PART 3—MINIMUM CLEARANCE SPACES
Division 1—Standard minimum clearance spaces
22 Additional distance that allows for cable sag and sway
In this Division, a reference to an additional distance that allows for cable sag and sway that is to be used in determining a minimum clearance space is a reference to—
(a) if the minimum clearance space is to be determined in relation to a Council that sought assistance in determining the additional distance under clause 20—the additional distance of which a record is kept under clause 20(3); or
(b) otherwise—the distance determined in accordance with the method specified, under regulation 9(3)(i)(ii), in the management plan of the responsible person in relation to whom the minimum clearance space is to be determined.
23 Insulated electric lines in all areas
(1) This clause applies to an electric line that is an insulated cable.
(2) The minimum clearance space for a span of the electric line is the space extending away from the line in all directions for the applicable distance.
(3) The applicable distance for a span is—
(a) if the span distance is less than or equal to 40 metres—300 millimetres; or
(b) if the span distance is greater than 40 metres and less than or equal to 100 metres—the distance calculated in accordance with the following equation—
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
40
300 + ((SD - 40) × 10)
where—
SD is the span distance; or
(c) if the span distance is greater than 100 metres—900 millimetres.
Note
The applicable distance is represented as a graph in Graph 1 of Schedule 2.
24 Uninsulated low voltage electric line in a low bushfire risk area
(1) This clause applies to an electric line that—
(a) is an uninsulated cable; and
(b) is a low voltage electric line; and
(c) is located in a low bushfire risk area.
(2) The minimum clearance space for a span of the electric line is the space extending away from the line in all directions for—
(a) the applicable distance; and
(b) if the span distance is greater than 100 metres, an additional distance that allows for cable sag and sway.
(3) The applicable distance for a span is—
(a) if the span distance is less than or equal to 45 metres—1000 millimetres; or
(b) if the span distance is greater than 45 metres and less than or equal to 100 metres—the distance calculated in accordance with the following equation—
1000 + ((SD - 45) × (1500 ÷ 55))
where—
SD is the span distance; or
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
41
(c) if the span distance is greater than 100 metres—2500 millimetres.
Note
The applicable distance is represented as a graph in Graph 2 of Schedule 2.
25 Uninsulated high voltage electric line (other than a 66 000 volt electrical line) in a low bushfire risk area
(1) This clause applies to an electric line that—
(a) is an uninsulated cable; and
(b) is a high voltage electric line; and
(c) does not have a nominal voltage of 66 000 volts; and
(d) is located in a low bushfire risk area.
(2) The minimum clearance space for a span of the electric line is the space extending away from the line in all directions for—
(a) the applicable distance; and
(b) if the span distance is greater than 100 metres, an additional distance that allows for cable sag and sway.
(3) The applicable distance for a span is—
(a) if the span distance is less than or equal to 45 metres—1500 millimetres; or
(b) if the span distance is greater than 45 metres and less than or equal to 100 metres—the distance calculated in accordance with the following equation—
1500 + ((SD - 45) × (1000 ÷ 55))
where—
SD is the span distance; or
(c) if the span distance is greater than 100 metres—2500 millimetres.
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
42
Note
The applicable distance is represented as a graph in Graph 3 of Schedule 2.
26 Uninsulated 66 000 volt electrical line in a low bushfire risk area
(1) This clause applies to an electric line that—
(a) is an uninsulated cable; and
(b) is a high voltage electric line; and
(c) has a nominal voltage of 66 000 volts; and
(d) is located in a low bushfire risk area.
(2) The minimum clearance space for a span of the electric line is—
(a) the space extending away from the line in all directions for—
(i) the applicable distance; and
(ii) if the span distance is greater than 100 metres, an additional distance that allows for cable sag and sway; and
(b) the space above the space described in paragraph (a).
(3) The applicable distance for a span is—
(a) if the span distance is less than or equal to 45 metres—2250 millimetres; or
(b) if the span distance is greater than 45 metres and less than or equal to 100 metres—the distance calculated in accordance with the following equation—
2250 + ((SD - 45) × (1250 ÷ 55))
where—
SD is the span distance; or
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
43
(c) if the span distance is greater than 100 metres—3500 millimetres.
Note
The applicable distance is represented as a graph in Graph 4 of Schedule 2.
27 Uninsulated low voltage and high voltage electric lines (other than a 66 000 volt electrical line) in a hazardous bushfire risk area
(1) This clause applies to an electric line that—
(a) is an uninsulated cable; and
(b) does not have a nominal voltage of 66 000 volts; and
(c) is located in a hazardous bushfire risk area.
(2) The minimum clearance space for a span of the electric line is—
(a) the space extending away from the line in all directions for the applicable distance and an additional distance that allows for cable sag and sway; and
(b) the space above the space described in paragraph (a).
(3) The applicable distance for a span is—
(a) if the span distance is less than or equal to 45 metres—1500 millimetres; or
(b) if the span distance is greater than 45 metres and less than or equal to 500 metres—the distance calculated in accordance with the following equation—
1500 + ((SD - 45) × (500 ÷ 303))
where—
SD is the span distance; or
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
44
(c) if the span distance is greater than 500 metres—2250 millimetres.
Note
The applicable distance is represented as a graph in Graph 5 of Schedule 2.
28 Uninsulated 66 000 volt electric lines in a hazardous bushfire risk area
(1) This clause applies to an electric line that—
(a) is an uninsulated cable; and
(b) has a nominal voltage of 66 000 volts; and
(c) is located in a hazardous bushfire risk area.
(2) The minimum clearance space for a span of the electric line is—
(a) the space extending away from the line in all directions for the applicable distance and an additional distance that allows for cable sag and sway; and
(b) the space above the space described in paragraph (a).
(3) The applicable distance for a span is—
(a) if the span distance is less than or equal to 45 metres—2250 millimetres; or
(b) if the span distance is greater than 45 metres and less than or equal to 350 metres—the distance calculated in accordance with the following equation—
2250 + ((SD - 45) × (750 ÷ 305))
where—
SD is the span distance; or
(c) if the span distance is greater than 350 metres—3000 millimetres .
Note
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
45
The applicable distance is represented as a graph in Graph 6 of Schedule 2.
29 Transmission lines
(1) The minimum clearance space for a span of a transmission line is—
(a) the space that is bound by the horizontal limits determined in accordance with subclause (2) and that, between those limits, extends downward from the level of the line for the applicable vertical distance; and
(b) the space above that space.
(2) The horizontal limits of the minimum clearance space are reached by extending horizontally away from the transmission line to the left and right of the line for the applicable horizontal distance.
(3) For a transmission line of a nominal voltage that is specified in an item in Column 1 of the following table—
(a) the applicable horizontal distance is the sum of—
(i) the distance specified in Column 2 for that item; and
(ii) an additional distance that allows for cable sag and sway; and
(b) the applicable vertical distance is the sum of—
(i) the distance specified in Column 3 for that item; and
(ii) an additional distance that allows for cable sag and sway.
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
46
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
Nominal voltage Applicable horizontal distance (without
allowance for sag and sway)
Applicable vertical distance (without
allowance for sag and sway)
66 kV 3000 mm 3000 mm
More than 66 kV, but less than 220 kV
4600 mm 3700 mm
220 kV 4600 mm 3700 mm
275 kV 5000 mm 4200 mm
330 kV 5500 mm 4700 mm
500 kV 6400 mm 6400 mm
Note
This minimum clearance space is partially illustrated in Figures 6, 7 and 8 of Schedule 2.
Sch.
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
47
Division 2—Alternative compliance mechanisms
30 Application for approval of alternative compliance mechanism
(1) This clause applies to a responsible person referred to in sections 84, 84C or 84D of the Act.
(2) A responsible person may apply to Energy Safe Victoria for approval to use an alternative compliance mechanism in respect of a span of an electric line or a class of spans.
(3) The application must—
(a) include details of—
(i) the alternative compliance mechanism; and
(ii) the procedures to be adopted for the commissioning, installing, operating, maintaining and decommissioning the alternative compliance mechanism; and
(b) identify the published technical standards that will be complied with when commissioning, installing, operating, maintaining and decommissioning the alternative compliance mechanism; and
(c) if the application is made in respect of a span of an electric line—specify the location of the span; or
(d) if the application is made in respect of a class of span of electric line—describe the class; and
(e) specify the minimum clearance space that the applicant proposes is to be applied in relation to the span, or class of spans, in respect of which the application is made; and
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
48
(f) include a copy of formal safety assessment prepared under clause 31.
(4) The application must include a copy of the written agreement of—
(a) if the application is made in respect of a span of an electric line and the responsible person does not own the span—the owner or the operator of the span; or
(b) if the application is made in respect of a class of spans—the owner or the operator of each span that—
(i) belongs to that class; and
(ii) is not owned by the applicant.
(5) The responsible person must, if requested to do so by Energy Safe Victoria, provide further information or material about the application.
31 Formal safety assessment of alternative compliance mechanism
A formal safety assessment must include—
(a) a description of the methodology used and investigations undertaken for the formal safety assessment; and
(b) an identification of hazards associated with the use of the alternative compliance mechanism having the potential to cause a serious electrical incident; and
(c) a systematic assessment of the risks (including the likelihood and consequences of a serious electrical incident) associated with—
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
49
(i) the commissioning, installing, operating, maintaining and decommissioning the alternative compliance mechanism; and
(ii) the safety of the span or class of spans to which the alternative compliance mechanism will apply; and
(d) a description of technical and other measures undertaken or to be undertaken to reduce those risks as far as practicable.
32 Approval of alternative compliance mechanism
(1) Energy Safe Victoria may approve an application under clause 30 if satisfied that—
(a) the application complies with clause 30; and
(b) the details included in the application under clause 30(3)(a) are adequate; and
(c) the application provides an adequate assessment of the risks referred to in clause 31(c); and
(d) the application provides an appropriate set of the measures to mitigate those risks.
(2) The approval may be subject to any conditions that Energy Safe Victoria thinks fit, including conditions that—
(a) the responsible person's communications with Energy Safe Victoria regarding the approval must be made in a specified manner; or
(b) the responsible person must perform specified actions in relation to the alternative compliance mechanism; or
(c) the responsible person must monitor the use of the alternative compliance mechanism in a specified manner; or
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
50
(d) the responsible person must report to Energy Safe Victoria on the use of the alternative compliance mechanism in a specified manner.
(3) The approval must—
(a) be in writing; and
(b) include any conditions to which the approval is subject; and
(c) identify the span of an electric line, or describe the class of span of electric line, to which the approval applies; and
(d) specify—
(i) the minimum clearance space that is to apply under the approval; and
(ii) the period of time for which the approval has effect; and
(iii) any acts or omissions that will constitute major noncompliance and result in the revocation of the approval.
(4) Energy Safe Victoria must give a copy of the approval to the responsible person who made the application.
(5) If Energy Safe Victoria refuses an application for approval of an alternative compliance mechanism, Energy Safe Victoria must—
(a) give written notice of the decision to the responsible person who made the application; and
(b) set out reasons for the decision.
33 Amendment of approval
(1) Energy Safe Victoria may amend an approval for an alternative compliance mechanism.
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
51
(2) Without limiting subclause (1), an amendment under that subclause may—
(a) amend or revoke a condition attached to the approval; or
(b) impose a further condition on the approval.
(3) On making an amendment under subclause (1), Energy Safe Victoria must give the responsible person a written notice specifying—
(a) the amendment; and
(b) the date from which the amendment has effect.
34 Suspension or revocation of approval
(1) Energy Safe Victoria may suspend or revoke an approval for an alternative compliance mechanism if Energy Safe Victoria considers that—
(a) there has been a failure to comply with a condition of the approval and the failure is so serious that it cannot be dealt with by increased monitoring requirements under the arrangement; or
(b) the responsible person has committed an act or omission that constitutes a major noncompliance with the approval that was specified in the approval under clause 32(3)(d)(iii).
(2) If Energy Safe Victoria suspends or revokes an approval under subclause (1), Energy Safe Victoria must give the responsible person a written notice setting out—
(a) that the approval has been suspended or revoked (as the case requires); and
(b) the reasons for the suspension or revocation; and
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
52
(c) if the approval is suspended, the period of suspension; and
(d) if the approval is revoked, the day from which the revocation has effect.
(3) Energy Safe Victoria may at any time revoke the suspension of an approval by giving written notice of the revocation to the responsible person.
__________________
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
53
SCHEDULE 2—MINIMUM CLEARANCE SPACES
GRAPH 1—INSULATED ELECTRIC LINES IN ALL AREAS
Clauses 3 and 23
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
100
0
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
758
08
590
95
100
105
110
Applicable Distance (mm)
Spa
n D
ista
nce
(m
)
Gra
ph 1
: In
sula
ted
Ele
ctri
c Li
nes
in A
ll A
reas
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
54
Graph 1 Formula
The formula by which the applicable distance for the minimum clearance space may be calculated is as follows:
For 0 < SD ≤ 40, AD = 300mm
For 40 < SD ≤ 100, AD = 300 + ((SD - 40) × 10)
For 100 < SD, AD = 900mm
Where:
SD = Span Distance
AD = Applicable Distance
Notes
(1) The applicable distance includes allowances for cable sag and sway.
(2) Graph 1 is partially illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.
Sch. 1
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
55
GRAPH 2—UNINSULATED LOW VOLTAGE ELECTRIC LINES IN LOW BUSHFIRE RISK AREAS
Clauses 3 and 24
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
05
1015
2025
3035
4045
5055
6065
7075
8085
9095
100
105
110
Applicable Distance (mm)
Spa
n D
ista
nce
(m)
Gra
ph 2
: Uni
nsul
ated
Low
Vol
tage
Ele
ctric
Lin
e in
a L
ow B
ushf
ire R
isk
Are
a
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
56
Graph 2 Formula
The formula by which the applicable distance for the minimum clearance space may be calculated is as follows:
For 0 < SD ≤ 45, AD = 1000mm
For 45 < SD ≤ 100, AD = 1000 + ((SD - 45) × (1500 ÷ 55))
For 100 < SD, AD = 2500mm
Where:
SD = Span Distance
AD = Applicable Distance
Notes
(1) The applicable distance includes allowances for cable sag and sway for spans up to and including 100 metres.
(2) For spans exceeding 100 metres, the applicable distance must be extended by an additional distance to allow for sag and sway of the cable. This is done by adding that distance to the applicable distance (see clause 24(2)(b)).
(3) A distribution company, or an owner or operator of a railway supply network or a tramway supply network, must assist a Council, if requested, to determine the additional distance (see clause 20(2)).
(4) Graph 2 is partially illustrated in Figure 3.
Sch. 1
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
57
GRAPH 3—UNINSULATED HIGH VOLTAGE ELECTRIC LINE (OTHER THAN A 66 000 VOLT ELECTRIC LINE) IN A
LOW BUSHFIRE RISK AREA
Clauses 3 and 25
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
05
10
15
2025
3035
40
45
5055
6065
70
75
8085
9095
100
105
110
Applicable Distance (mm)
Sp
an D
ista
nce
(m
)
Gra
ph
3: U
nins
ulat
ed H
igh
Vo
ltag
e E
lect
ric
Lin
e (
oth
er th
an 6
6 0
00 V
olt
Ele
ctric
Lin
e) in
a
Low
Bus
hfire
Ris
k A
rea
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
58
Graph 3 Formula
The formula by which the applicable distance for the minimum clearance space may be calculated is as follows:
For 0 < SD ≤ 45, AD = 1500mm
For 45 < SD ≤ 100, AD = 1500 + ((SD - 45) × (1000 ÷ 55))
For 100 < SD, AD = 2500mm
Where:
SD = Span Distance
AD = Applicable Distance
Notes
(1) The applicable distance includes allowances for sag and sway for spans up to and including 100 metres.
(2) For spans exceeding 100 metres, the applicable distance must be extended by an additional distance to allow for sag and sway of the cable. This is done by adding that distance to the applicable distance (see clause 25(2)(b)).
(3) A distribution company, or an owner or operator of a railway supply network or a tramway supply network, must assist a Council, if requested, to determine the additional distance (see clause 20(2)).
(4) Graph 3 is partially illustrated in Figure 4.
ch. 1
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
59
GRAPH 4—UNINSULATED 66 000 VOLT ELECTRIC LINE IN A LOW BUSHFIRE RISK AREA
Clauses 3 and 26
0
500
100
0
150
0
200
0
250
0
300
0
350
0
400
0
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
505
56
06
57
07
580
85
90
95
100
105
110
Applicable Distance (mm)
Sp
an
Dis
tan
ce (
m)
Gra
ph 4
: Un
insu
late
d 6
6 0
00 V
olt E
lect
ric L
ine
in a
Low
Bus
hfire
Ris
k A
rea
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
60
Graph 4 Formula
The formula by which the applicable distance for the minimum clearance space may be calculated is as follows:
For 0 < SD ≤ 45, AD = 2250mm
For 45 < SD ≤ 100, AD = 2250 + ((SD - 45) × (1250 ÷ 55))
For 100 < SD, AD = 3500mm
Where:
SD = Span Distance
AD = Applicable Distance
Notes
(1) The applicable distance includes allowances for sag and sway for spans up to and including 100 metres.
(2) For spans exceeding 100 metres, the applicable distance must be extended by an additional distance to allow for sag and sway of the cable. This is done by adding that distance to the applicable distance (see clause 26(2)(a)(ii)).
(3) A distribution company, or an owner or operator of a railway supply network or a tramway supply network, must assist a Council, if requested, to determine the additional distance (see clause 20(2)).
(4) Graph 4 is partially illustrated in Figure 5.
Sch. 1
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
61
GRAPH 5—UNINSULATED LOW VOLTAGE AND HIGH VOLTAGE ELECTRIC LINES (OTHER THAN A 66 000 VOLT
ELECTRIC LINE) IN A HAZARDOUS BUSHFIRE RISK AREA
Clauses 3 and 27
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
02
55
07
51
0012
51
501
752
002
252
502
753
003
2535
03
7540
04
2545
04
7550
05
2555
0
Applicable Distance (mm)
Sp
an D
ista
nce
(m
)
Gra
ph
5: U
nins
ulat
ed L
ow V
olta
ge a
nd H
igh
Vol
tage
Ele
ctric
Lin
es (
othe
r th
an 6
6 00
0 V
olt
Ele
ctric
Lin
e) in
a H
aza
rdou
s B
ushf
ire
Ris
k A
rea
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
62
Graph 5 Formula
The formula by which the applicable distance for the minimum clearance space may be calculated is as follows:
For 0 < SD ≤ 45, AD = 1500mm
For 45 < SD ≤ 500, AD = 1500 +((SD - 45) × (500 ÷ 303))
For 500 < SD, AD = 2250mm
Where:
SD = Span Distance
AD = Applicable Distance
Notes
(1) The applicable distance must be extended by an additional distance to allow for sag and sway of the cable. This is done by adding that distance to the applicable distance (see clause 27(2)(a)).
(2) A distribution company, or an owner or operator of a railway supply network or a tramway supply network, must assist a Council, if requested, to determine the additional distance (see clause 20(2)).
(3) Graph 5 is partially illustrated in Figure 5.
Sch. 1
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
63
GRAPH 6—UNINSULATED 66 000 VOLT ELECTRIC LINE IN A HAZARDOUS BUSHFIRE RISK AREA
Clauses 3 and 28
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
Applicable Distance (mm)
Sp
an
Dis
tan
ce (
m)
Gra
ph 6
: Uni
nsul
ated
66
000
Vol
t Ele
ctric
Lin
es
in a
Ha
zard
ou
s B
ush
fire
Ris
k A
rea
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
64
Graph 6 Formula
The formula by which the applicable distance for the minimum clearance space may be calculated is as follows:
For 0 < SD ≤ 45, AD = 2250mm
For 45 < SD ≤ 350, AD = 2250 + ((SD - 45) × (750 ÷ 305))
For 350 < SD, AD = 3000mm
Where:
SD = Span Distance
AD = Applicable Distance
Notes
(1) The applicable distance must be extended by an additional distance to allow for sag and sway of the cable. This is done by adding that distance to the applicable distance (see clause 28(2)(a)).
(2) A distribution company, or an owner or operator of a railway supply network or a tramway supply network, must assist a Council, if requested, to determine the additional distance (see clause 20(2)).
(3) Graph 6 is partially illustrated in Figure 5.
Sch. 1
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
65
FIGURE 1: INSULATED ELECTRIC LINES IN ALL AREAS
Graph 1
NOT TO SCALE
Sch. 1
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
66
FIGURE 2: INSULATED ELECTRIC LINES IN ALL AREAS
Graph 1
NOT TO SCALE
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
67
FIGURE 3: UNINSULATED LOW VOLTAGE ELECTRIC LINE IN A LOW BUSHFIRE RISK AREA
Graph 2
NOT TO SCALE
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
68
FIGURE 4: UNINSULATED HIGH VOLTAGE ELECTRIC LINE (OTHER THAN A 66 000 VOLT ELECTRIC LINE) IN A
LOW BUSHFIRE RISK AREA
Graph 3
NOT TO SCALE
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
69
FIGURE 5: UNINSULATED HIGH VOLTAGE ELECTRIC LINES (INCLUDING A 66 000 VOLT ELECTRIC LINE) IN A
LOW BUSHFIRE RISK AREA AND UNINSULATED ELECTRIC LINE IN A HAZARDOUS BUSHFIRE RISK AREA
Graphs 4, 5 and 6
NOT TO SCALE
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
70
FIGURE 6: END VIEW OF THE TRANSMISSION LINE
Clause 29
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 7: SIDE VIEW OF THE TRANSMISSION LINE
Clause 29
NOT TO SCALE
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
71
FIGURE 8: TREES ADJACENT TO THE TRANSMISSION LINE
Clause 29
NOT TO SCALE
__________________
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
72
═══════════════
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
73
ENDNOTES
1. General Information
The Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015, S.R. No. XX/2015 were made on 19 May 2015 by the Governor in Council under sections 151, 151A and 157 of the Electricity Safety Act 1998, No. 25/1998 and came into operation on 21 May 2015: regulation 3.
The Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015 will expire on 21 May 2020: see regulation 15.
Endnotes
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
74
2. Table of Amendments
There are no amendments made to the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015 by statutory rules, subordinate instruments and Acts.
Endnotes
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
75
3. Explanatory Details 1 Reg. 4: S.R. No. 47/2010. 2 Reg. 16(1): S.R. No. 62/2013. 3 Reg. 17: S.R. No. 164/2009.
——
Penalty Units
These Regulations provide for penalties by reference to penalty units within the meaning of section 110 of the Sentencing Act 1991. The amount of the penalty is to be calculated, in accordance with section 7 of the Monetary Units Act 2004, by multiplying the number of penalty units applicable by the value of a penalty unit.
In accordance with section 11 of the Monetary Units Act 2004, the value of a penalty unit for the financial year commencing 1 July 2014 is $147.61.
The amount of the calculated penalty may be rounded to the nearest dollar.
The value of a penalty unit for future financial years is to be fixed by the Treasurer under section 5 of the Monetary Units Act 2004. The value of a penalty unit for a financial year must be published in the Government Gazette and a Victorian newspaper before 1 June in the preceding financial year.
——
Table of Applied, Adopted or Incorporated Matter
Note that the following Table of applied, adopted or incorporated matter is included in accordance with the requirements of regulation 5 of the Subordinate Legislation Regulations 2004.
Statutory Rule Provision
Title of applied, adopted or incorporated document
Matter in applied, adopted or incorporated document
Regulation 5
Definition of AS 4373
AS 4373, "Pruning of amenity trees" published 14 March 2007 by Standards Australia
The whole
Regulation 5
Definition of Threatened Flora
Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria, published in 2005 by the Department of Environment
The whole
Endnotes
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
76
Statutory Rule Provision
Title of applied, adopted or incorporated document
Matter in applied, adopted or incorporated document
List and Primary Industries
Regulation 5
Definition of Threatened Invertebrate Fauna List
Advisory List of Threatened Invertebrate Fauna in Victoria, published in 2009 by the Department of Environment and Primary Industries
The whole
Regulation 5
Definition of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna List
Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria, published in 2013 by the Department of Environment and Primary Industries
The whole
Schedule 1, clause 1
Definition of aerial bundled cable
AS/NZS 3560.1, "Electric cables—Cross-linked polyethylene insulated—Aerial bundled—For working voltages up to and including 0.6/1 (1.2) kV—Part 1: Aluminium conductors" published 7 April 2000 by Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand
The whole
Schedule 1, clause 1
Definition of aerial bundled cable
AS/NZS 3560.2, "Electric cables—Cross-linked polyethylene insulated—Aerial bundled—For working voltages up to and including 0.6/1 (1.2) kV— Part 2: Copper conductors" published 17 July 2013 by Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand
The whole
Schedule 1, clause 1
Definition of aerial bundled cable
AS/NZS 3599.1, "Electric cables—Aerial bundled—Polymeric insulated—Voltages 6.35/11 (12) kV and 12.7/22 (24) kV— Part 1:
The whole
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
77
Statutory Rule Provision
Title of applied, adopted or incorporated document
Matter in applied, adopted or incorporated document
Metallic screened" published 11 September 2003 by Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand
Schedule 1, clause 1
Definition of aerial bundled cable
AS/NZS 3599.2, "Electric cables—Aerial bundled—Polymeric insulated—Voltages 6.35/11 (12) kV and 12.7/22 (24) kV— Part 2: Non-metallic screened" published 5 June 1999 by Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand
The whole
Schedule 1, clause 1
Definition of covered conductor
AS/NZS 3675, "Conductors—Covered overhead—For working voltages 6.35/11 (12) kV up to and including 19/33 (36) kV" published 30 May 2002 by Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand
The whole
Schedule 1, clause 1
Definition of electric cable
AS/NZS 1429.1, "Electric cables—Polymeric insulated—Part 1: For working voltages 1.9/3.3 (3.6) kV up to and including 19/33 (36) kV" published 21 April 2006 by Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand
The whole
Schedule 1, clause 1
Definition of electric cable
AS/NZS 1429.2, "Electric cables—Polymeric insulated—Part 2: For working voltages above 19/33 (36) kV up to and including 87/150 (170) kV" published 17 September 2009 by Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand
The whole
Exposure Draft
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015
78
Statutory Rule Provision
Title of applied, adopted or incorporated document
Matter in applied, adopted or incorporated document
Schedule 1, clause 1
Definition of insulating cover
AS 1931.1, "High-voltage test techniques—Part 1: General definitions and test requirements" published 5 March 1996 by Standards Australia
The whole
Schedule 1, clause 1
Definition of insulating cover
AS 1931.2, "High-voltage test techniques—Part 2: Measuring systems" published 5 March 1996 by Standards Australia
The whole
Schedule 1, clause 1
Definition of insulating cover
AS 4202, "Insulating covers for electrical purposes" published 11 July 1994 by Standards Australia
The whole
Schedule 1, clause 1
Definition of insulating cover
AS/NZS 3100, "Approval and test specification—General requirements for electrical equipment" published 30 October 2009 by Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand
The whole
Schedule 1, clause 1
Definition of insulating cover
AS/NZS 3121, "Approval and test specification—Insulating mouldings" published 22 November 2002 by Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand
The whole