The lobby group said the application lacked analysis of the consumer benefit from Powerco lifting investment against what is currently being spent. It claimed the lines company hadn't "sufficiently demonstrated that the additional levels of investment will result in the security levels required" or "sufficiently demonstrated that the benefit to consumers justifies the additional costs (both in terms of increased charges and disruption during the implementation phase)."
Similarly, the Major Electricity Users' Group was also unconvinced customers will be better off under the customised model, or that the lines company's owners had "made sacrifices in order to meet necessary expenditure". A New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report commissioned by MEUG estimates "the value to consumers of the increased network reliability under the CPP is considerably lower than our estimate of the increased cost to customers".
In contrast, lines companies backed Powerco's application with Orion saying the application struck "the right balance between understanding customers' desired levels of quality (thorough, extensive consultation not seen in our industry to date), willingness to pay and affordability, in conjunction with prudent expenditure to execute on deliverability and maintain a safe, responsive, reliable and resilient network into the future". Dunedin distribution firm Aurora Energy said the commission should avoid setting too high a bar and undermine a customised path.
"The risk, if the Commission gets the CPP determination process wrong, is that regulated suppliers consign CPPs to the 'too hard' basket," Aurora said.
The regulator will release a draft decision in November with a final report due in late March next year.