Landowners bristling at power lines scheme

By ROSALEEN MacBRAYNE and NAOMI LARKIN

Robert Brosnahan has always hated the ugly power poles and cables running across his Bay of Plenty farm.

Now he has even more reason to loathe them. Mr Brosnahan is one of thousands of landowners around the country angry at proposed changes to electricity laws.

Under the Electricity Industry Bill, the Government is considering retrospectively making power poles and lines across private land the responsibility of landowners.

The bill, to be discussed before a commerce select committee next week, applies to pylons and poles put on private land before January 1993 - and which have not been the subject of a legal challenge within six years of instalment. Landowners would not have the right to seek compensation or have the lines removed.

And the law would make them responsible for keeping the line corridors and maintenance tracks clear. This included trimming trees to prevent outages.

"We are going to be obliged to take responsibility for the power line corridors and to accept liability if things go wrong," an angry Mr Brosnahan told the Herald.

"Should a tree on my property cause outages for the residents of Ohope or my neighbours, I could be personally liable."

The presence of lines and pylons - unsightly and placed without the family's agreement - could restrict farming. An even bigger worry was whether the landowner would be held accountable if a helicopter or light aircraft flew into cables.

In the past, power companies maintained the poles and trimmed trees near lines, but since corporatisation of the industry the onus had fallen more on landowners as the companies focused on profits.

"Ohope people happily use the power pumped through here - that is their right. But we have rights too," Mr Brosnahan said.

A spokesman for Energy Minister Pete Hodgson said it was policy for ministers not to comment on a bill at the select committee stage.

The proposed legislation would likely affect only rural landowners, he said.

Federated Farmers vice-president Tom Lambie said the bill removed landowners' right to dispute the lawfulness of electricity infrastructure on their property. It also foisted costs on to landowners that should be carried by line companies.

"It was a great disappointment to us that we suddenly saw legislation being put in a bill that was ostensibly debated - and had wide public consultation - on consumer issues and not on lines company issues."

Mr Lambie said Federated Farmers knew of at least five farmers who had electricity fixtures placed on their property without the landowner's knowledge.

Rob McLagan, chief executive of the Forest Owners Association, said line owners had to accept responsibility for maintenance and outages.

"It's totally iniquitous that a private company, namely a line company, should impose its costs on a landowner for what should be seen as normal business operations.

"It virtually amounts to a subsidy from the landowner to the line owner and then through to the electricity user."

Forest owners would also lose income because trees could not be planted where lines were. Where a large line was concerned, this would amount to more than $100,000 per km of lost revenue during the average 28-year rotation of a tree.