Chapter 12: Other regulatory matters
A total of 18 submitters commented on decision-making functions within the regime.
On this page
Decision-making within the regime
The discussion document sought feedback on the following regulatory design choices impacting how permit decisions are made:
- whether the regulator should be the decision maker with an option for some decisions to be referred to the Minister
- whether there should be an opportunity for public to input into commercial permit decisions and whether any involvement at this stage would be duplicative of public consultation requirements in the environmental consent processes
- which decisions, if any, should be subject to a right of appeal and the scope of such appeal rights - including which judicial body should have the jurisdiction to determine the appeal.
- Most submitters agreed that permit decisions should be made by the regulator and referred to the Minister in a specific set of circumstances. Several submitters noted that the circumstances for ministerial involvement should be clear and narrowly defined to not cause undue delays and limit unwarranted political interference. However, some submitters preferred there to be no ministerial involvement at all, arguing that it could politicise decisions.
- 22 submissions addressed consultation during the commercial permitting process. Submitters were divided on the need for consultation at this stage. Most preferred a notification-only process as it would avoid duplication with the consultation carried out during the environmental consent process. All submitters agreed that public consultation on the developments would be better suited to the environmental consent process. However, several submitters said some consultation with affected groups (like the fishing industry and local government) would be appropriate given their involvement in the environmental consents process may not adequately provide for opportunities to comment on the range of issues considered in this regime.
- Most of the 15 submitters that commented on the appeals process agreed that a limited right of appeal would be fair and reasonable, as similar mechanisms are standard practice in other regulatory regimes. However, some submitters said that either the judicial review process was adequate, or a more comprehensive appeal process should be provided for.
Health and safety considerations
14 submitters commented on health and safety considerations within the regime. The discussion document sought feedback on regulatory mechanisms needed to manage risks to workers and infrastructure and how any requirements might inform investment decisions. It outlined 4 different approaches to implementing safety zones and sought feedback on the trade-offs between the options presented.
Most industry submitters said health and safety requirements would not influence their decision to enter the New Zealand market and indicated their familiarity with health and safety risks and obligations. Submitters suggested that the legislation could signal health and safety requirements and that this should be aligned with relevant international certification standards to the extent possible. Some submitters noted that anything prescribed in legislation would need to be reviewed to ensure it is appropriate for offshore renewable energy and updated where necessary.
Of the 17 submitters that commented on the case for safety zones, many agreed that there was a need for safety zones and that these zones should be variable over the life of the project (i.e., larger during construction and smaller during operation where the risks are low to reduce the impact on other marine users). While many submitters acknowledged it might be appropriate to tailor safety zones to suit a particular development’s characteristics, some submitters also considered there should be a degree of certainty about the size to ensure a clear understanding of the expected impacts from a safety zone during the environmental consent process.
Submitters who favoured the option of the regulator providing guidance on suitable sizes for the safety zone, with the power to consider other sizes, suggested the regime could provide the ability for the regulator to allow persons to undertake certain activities within the zone. Iwi who submitted on this issue suggested that decision-making on safety zones should involve iwi/hapū representation, as safety zones may have impacts on Māori rights and interests in the marine area. Similarly, fishing industry submitters suggested that the regulator could outline the indicative size of safety zones after engagement with affected parties. The actual size should be confirmed at the commercial permit stage or once environmental consents are granted.
Applicability of regime to technologies beyond wind farms
The discussion document acknowledged that the regime would be agnostic to technologies and sought feedback on any views or concerns with the application of these proposals to other offshore renewable energy technologies or energy sources.
Submitters were generally comfortable with the permitting process applying to all renewable energy technologies. Some submitters noted that statutory limits to permit duration could create some challenges for technologies that have longer lifespans.
A few submitters preferred offshore transmission infrastructure to be managed by a separate permit. Submitters noted that this approach would more closely align with the Australian regime and has the benefit of:
- allowing transmission assets to be transferred without impacting the commercial permit for the generation infrastructure;
- accommodating a longer permit duration as transmission infrastructure may have an operational life beyond 40 years;
- delineating the generation area from the transmission area as the constraints and competition for these areas will differ; and
- enabling joint connection (where multiple projects share transmission infrastructure).