Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015 Regulatory Impact Statement

Transcription

1 Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015 Regulatory Impact Statement Council Arboriculture Victoria (CAV) Inc. Submission January 2015

2 Table of contents 1 Introduction Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) Development of the Regulatory Impact Statement The Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) Impact of the Adoption of the 2010 Code The draft 2015 regulations Amended method of specifying minimum clearance distances Provision of alternative compliance mechanisms and exceptions to minimum clearance spaces Expanded definition of `insulated cable Adoption of the Australian Standard for the pruning of amenity trees Enhanced notification and consultation requirements Duty of distribution businesses to assist councils Reintroduction of flexibility provisions for insulated powerlines Introduction of an exception to maintain minimum clearance distances around uninsulated low voltage powerlines in low bushfire risk areas near the pole provisions Trees listed in a planning scheme to be of ecological, historical or aesthetic significance Unsuitable species The Distribution Businesses Timeliness and accuracy of response Quotations and estimates for works Protecting their own assets Dispute Resolution Appendix 1:... 16

3 1 Introduction Council Arboriculture Victoria is a not for profit networking group for local government tree managers with members who work in 55 councils throughout Victoria. This submission is prepared by Council Arboriculture Victoria on behalf of its members and has not been formally endorsed by individual councils. Since the introduction of the 2010 Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations, Council Arboriculture Victoria and its members have been advocating for a line clearance regime that better balances safety, amenity and environmental considerations. Victoria has long been renowned for its green leafy suburbs and towns which play host to a significant number of avenues of street trees, many of which are decades old, of historical significance and of immeasurable value to the local community. These trees contribute significantly to Victoria s reputation as the garden state. Trees on public land provide environmental, health, amenity and financial benefits, particularly in the densely developed urban landscapes of Victoria where there is little or no room to establish canopy trees on private land as lot sizes decrease. Communities highly value street trees and are strongly committed to their ongoing protection and preservation. In attempting to reconcile a regulatory framework that requires the substantial pruning, or removal, of well established, high value street trees to meet minimum clearance distances and communities that simply will not tolerate the scale of pruning needed to be compliant to the code, Council Arboriculture Victoria s members have encountered varying levels of cooperation and collaboration within the distribution businesses in protecting both council and the distribution businesses assets. This can vary from a lack of acknowledgement and acceptance in the line clearance regime of the very real value and benefits of street trees to a willingness to work alongside councils to preserve amenity as best they can. This discrepancy in the interpretation of the current line clearance regulations presents a significant challenge to our members and has resulted in varying levels of compliance and impact on amenity across Victoria. These challenges are amplified as the past practice of all authorities involved has been to allow structural branches of 130mm diameter or more to grow within close proximity of low voltage cable in recognition of the low risk this presents. There is no data available regarding safety or power supply being impacted by street trees which would substantiate the need for such drastic and extreme pruning requirements and, in addition to this, affordable and approved engineering and technical solutions have not been available to councils as an alternative method to achieve compliance. To achieve an outcome that will protect both street tree and electrical assets for the community the process and ongoing dialogue around line clearance needs to be reframed - moving away from the immovable mentality of keeping trees away from powerlines, to working out how to protect and enhance our tree-lined streets while also achieving a safe and secure supply of electricity. Council Arboriculture Victoria has worked closely with the Municipal Association of Victoria, the Inner South Metropolitan Mayors Forum and Council Arboriculture Victoria members to develop this submission.

4 2 Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) 2.1 Development of the Regulatory Impact Statement It is understood that Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee (ELCCC) advises Energy Safe Victoria (ESV) on the preparation and maintenance of the Code of Practice for Electric line Clearance in relation to vegetation. As defined under Section 87 of the Electricity Safety Act 1998 (the Act) the committee is comprised of thirteen persons appointed by the Minister under. Victoria has two groups of Responsible Persons under the Act that have the largest population of vegetation to be responsible for, the distribution and transmission businesses and local government. Yet the distribution and transmission businesses, with four representatives on the committee, comprise 30% of the committee, while Local Government, with one representative, comprises 7% of the committee. Given the substantial environmental and aesthetic benefits this vegetation provides to Victoria s communities and the proportionate responsibility that Local Government has for line clearance the Council Arboriculture Victoria seeks to have this imbalance in representation rectified with the addition of three Local Government representatives on the ELCCC. 2.2 The Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) Council Arboriculture Victoria is concerned that the RIS provides very little explicit acknowledgement of the substantial value and benefits of street trees and contains line clearance requirements for urban environments that appear not to be based on any empirical evidence, particularly in relation to low voltage cables in low bushfire risk areas. The RIS that accompanies the exposure draft of the 2015 regulations relies heavily on data provided by the distribution businesses without any proper discussion about the veracity of that data, and the regulatory drivers that possibly influence the distribution businesses responses to certain information requests. Council Arboriculture Victoria is acutely aware that literal application of the current and proposed Code of Practice for Electric Line Clearance would result in the decimation of the structure, health and amenity of thousands of street trees across the state and destroy the heritage and character of many localities across Victoria. It is also concerning that the RIS focuses very much on costs to distribution businesses. Councils also incur extensive costs as part of its role as responsible persons under the Act in ensuring the safe distribution of electricity across the state. These costs include the proactive and reactive pruning and removal of trees in proximity to overhead assets and the installation of Alternative Compliance Mechanisms (ACM s) to avoid unnecessary pruning and removal. Similarly, the costs to the community of tree pruning and removal are ignored. The RIS makes only limited reference to the environmental benefits of street trees, and fails to acknowledge the social benefits at all. Climate change is not mentioned.

5 There is a striking lack of data available to properly assess the performance of a responsible person and the impacts of vegetation within the clearance space. In order to improve safety, amenity and environmental outcomes, there is a pressing need for systematic collection and review of available data that is specific and verifiable. 2.3 Impact of the Adoption of the 2010 Code Page 31 of the RIS addresses the differences between the clearance space requirements and asserts that both distribution businesses and councils have misunderstood the nature and extent of these differences between editions of the Code. This assertion is repeated on pages 54 and 91 in the review of material used to assist with choosing from among the options. Council Arboriculture Victoria disputes the allegation on page 31 of the RIS suggesting that both the distribution businesses and councils have misperceived the clearance space requirements of the 2010 Code. The RIS claims that the clearance space requirements were not increased between the 2005 and 2010 iterations of the Code. This is not correct, the clearance space requirements were increased in the 2010 iteration of the Code as the clearance space needed to remain clear of vegetation between cutting cycles, this was not a requirement of the 2005 Code. Council Arboriculture Victoria is of the opinion that the 2005 code had in-built clearance space flexibility, in that each Responsible Person had to factor in both the potential sag and sway of conductors and vegetation regrowth for each span assessed. This is demonstrated in the note attached to all the 2005 Code Clearance tables which reads An additional distance must be added to the clearance space to allow for sag and sway of the conductors and for vegetation regrowth during the period between pruning times. In its representation of this assumption, the RIS presents a comparison of the differences between the clearance space requirements of the 2005 and 2010 Codes in Table 3.3 on page 31. Council Arboriculture Victoria believes the information in this table has been represented inaccurately and demonstrates this point in the red cells highlighted in the attached table (Appendix 1). In the application of the 2005 Code, the elements of flexibility (that were removed in 2010) allowed for required clearance space to be modified based on the experience of the assessor. This flexibility was eliminated in the 2010 Code when the allowance for sag & sway was integrated into the minimum clearance space requirements and the requirement that the clearance space remain clear of vegetation between cutting cycles was introduced. Nowhere in the 2005 Code does it specify that the clearance space needed to remain clear of vegetation between cutting cycles. The data in the attached table also suggests that the increase in clearance space requirements was arbitrarily introduced into the 2010 Code. This is demonstrated in the lack of change in the clearance space requirements for Spans up to and including 45 metres for any voltage less than 66kV, regardless of the 2010 Code distances integrating space for sag & sway. The analysis suggests that sag and sway allowances were already integrated into the clearance space requirements within the 2005 Code. However, by including the requirement to allow for sag and sway in the notes on the clearance tables, the Code was written in such a way that it gave Responsible Persons the impression that they were not.

6 Council Arboriculture Victoria welcomes the removal of the requirement for the clearance space to remain clear of vegetation between cutting cycles and the subsequent flexibility this has reintroduced. It is interesting that the RIS for the 2015 regulations credits the existing regulations with achieving significant improvements in relation to fire start and outage frequencies even though ESV knows that a substantial number of trees in declared areas are not compliant with the regulations. In the absence of any specific and verifiable data from the distribution businesses proving otherwise, it would appear that councils vegetation management practices have not led to an increase in fire starts and outages, and in contrast has effectively contributed to a decrease in these events occurring as a result of vegetation under its control. On this basis, it would seem that it may be efficient and effective to draft regulations that reflect the current vegetation management practices employed in urban areas.

7 3 The draft 2015 regulations 3.1 Amended method of specifying minimum clearance distances The proposed 2015 regulations introduce a linear relationship between powerline span length and the required minimum clearance space. It is believed the overall impact for councils will be a reduction in the minimum clearance distances required for a number of span lengths for which councils have line clearance responsibilities. Council Arboriculture Victoria supports this use of linear graphs because they eliminate the existing step changes between different span lengths, whereby a marginal increase in span length arbitrarily leads to a significant increase in the minimum required clearance space. 3.2 Provision of alternative compliance mechanisms and exceptions to minimum clearance spaces Council Arboriculture Victoria supports the proposed introduction of the alternative compliance mechanism (ACM) provisions in that they have the potential to facilitate the use of innovative technical and engineering solutions for managing trees. However, it is unlikely that this provision will be utilised by councils due to: the requirement to provide detailed, published technical information in order to have an alternative compliance mechanism approved. The majority of councils do not currently employ anyone with the technical expertise to obtain and interpret this information the requirement to obtain written agreement from the distribution business. Past experience indicates this is a solution that will not be readily forthcoming the lack of clarity around what requirements and conditions ESV will place on authorities in relation to the installation, monitoring and maintenance of the ACM and whether these will make the use of the ACM prohibitively expensive 3.3 Expanded definition of `insulated cable Council Arboriculture Victoria supports the proposed definition of `insulated cable, which captures cables fitted with insulating cover. If successfully implemented, this change presents a significant opportunity to reduce clearance distances and limit the extent of pruning required. Insulating covers have been used by the distribution businesses for years to insulate sections of conductor where vegetation is within the clearance space or where the power lines existing covering is showing signs of abrasion. It is a far more cost-effective and simple engineering solution to install than aerial bundled cabling and undergrounding. In practice the successful application of insulating cover on uninsulated overhead conductors will depend on consideration, cooperation and agreement from the distribution businesses. Based on members reports of past experience with distribution businesses, Council Arboriculture Victoria considers it unlikely that the potential benefit of this proposed change will be fully realised by all

8 municipalities due to the unwillingness of some distribution businesses to agree to install these extremely effective and low cost cable covers, which meet the revised definition of insulated cable under this provision. 3.4 Adoption of the Australian Standard for the pruning of amenity trees Council Arboriculture Victoria supports mandatory adoption of the Australian Standard for Pruning of Amenity Trees (AS ). This will ensure the pruning does not result in structural damage, inappropriate growth habits or unsightly trees, enabling the retention of the tree and its amenity in a safe and sustainable manner. It is noted that the 1996 Code of Practice stated that it was essential that pruning be done in accordance with recognised industry standards. This requirement should never have been removed from the regulations. Members have reported that whilst their contractors are already required to prune to the Australian Standard for Pruning of Amenity Trees, this practice is not applied by the distribution businesses when pruning privately owned trees or those in high bushfire risk areas. Council Arboriculture Victoria believes a penalty that could be applied would assist in achieving a better outcome for the entire community. Council Arboriculture Victoria seeks to have: A penalty for failing to prune in accordance with the Pruning of Amenity Trees Australian Standard where it is practicable included in the regulations. 3.5 Enhanced notification and consultation requirements Council Arboriculture Victoria supports the enhanced notification and consultation requirements included in the draft 2015 regulations. Councils already adopt high levels of notification and consultation with residents and affected parties in relation to line clearance works undertaken. Unfortunately this level of communication is not adopted by the distribution businesses and Council Arboriculture Victoria s members report regularly, fielding complaints from residents about the standard of pruning, the failure of the distribution business to properly inform affected persons of the intended scale and extent of their pruning and the tardiness in removing tree debris from public open spaces, often left for up to a week and sometimes longer, creating a safety hazard. Council Arboriculture Victoria commends the requirement to provide specific details of the impact of pruning trees on private property as outlined Schedule 1- Part 2, Division 3, Clause 14 (8). This should assist Local Government tree managers in improving inter-organisational relationships and achieving mutually agreed outcomes on a tree-by-tree basis. With regard to Clause 15 (3) that requires written notice to be included in a newspaper circulated locally, Council Arboriculture Victoria requests the clause be amended to include other paper-format circulars distributed to the majority of residents in the area. This minor amendment would be beneficial as it would allow councils to utilise their quarterly circular newsletter for this purpose.

9 With regard to Clause 17 (1) (d) members have reported that in the past there have been instances of the distribution businesses undertaking urgent cutting or removal without consultation within the fire danger period regardless of the location on the vegetation targeted. Therefore Council Arboriculture Victoria also requests that both Clauses 12 (1)(b) and Clause 17 (1)(d) be restricted to application in the High Bushfire Risk Area only. It is also noted that Clause 16 (3) only defines who the responsible person must consult with and not how. Council Arboriculture Victoria seeks to have the regulations include: an amendment to Clause 15 (3) to include other paper-format circulars distributed to the majority of residents in the area a restriction to both Clauses 12 (1)(b) and Clause 17 (1)(d) that limits application to High Bushfire Risk Areas a definition of the word consultation or prescribe what it considers would be an acceptable consultation process; or a requirement that Responsible Persons include a defined consultation process in their Electric line Clearance Management Plan 3.6 Duty of distribution businesses to assist councils Council Arboriculture Victoria supports the proposed introduction of clauses in the draft Code requiring distribution businesses to assist councils when consulted. However, the scope of the requirement in the draft Code relates only to assisting councils in response to concerns about the safety of cutting or removal of a tree for which it has clearance responsibilities. Improving the capacity and willingness of distribution businesses to work fairly and cooperatively with councils in a timely manner is critical to improving any outcomes in relation to electric line clearance in Victoria. Council Arboriculture Victoria requests that clause 19 of the draft Code should be expanded to create a broader obligation on distribution businesses to work cooperatively with councils in regard to: Identifying alternative treatment solutions for high amenity value trees with branches located in the minimum clearance zone; Providing realistic and market tested cost estimates for alternative treatment solutions; Providing timely responses to requests for shutdowns to enable work near power lines; and Providing data and information relating to power outages resulting from vegetation incursions by council owned trees into power lines. 3.7 Reintroduction of flexibility provisions for insulated powerlines Council Arboriculture Victoria understands that clause 4 of the draft Code is intended to effectively reinstate the flexibility provisions contained in clause 9 of the 2005 version of the Code. Clause 9 of the 2005 Code enabled leaves as well as branches with a diameter of less than 10mm or greater than 130mm to be within the clearance space as long as the conditions listed in clause 12 were met. In this context CAV members dispute the assertion on page 34 the RIS that responsible persons were cutting to the reduced dimensions without undertaking the necessary risk measures. In the main,

10 metropolitan councils report that they complied with clauses 9 and 12 of the 2005 Code and can produce records of the annual risk assessments if required. Further, ESV has publicly committed to reinstating these provisions, including in its Review of Statutory Provisions relating to the Mitigation of Bushfire Risks Arising from Electricity Assets White Paper. Council Arboriculture Victoria does not believe the proposed regulations deliver the promised flexibility for leaves and small tree branches with a diameter of less than 10mm. The omission of leaves and smaller branches less than 10mm in diameter will create a regulatory requirement for significant vegetation removal and increase pruning costs exponentially. Council Arboriculture Victoria seeks to have the regulations: extend the flexibility provisions to include leaves and small tree branches with a diameter of less than 10mm in clause Introduction of an exception to maintain minimum clearance distances around uninsulated low voltage powerlines in low bushfire risk areas Council Arboriculture Victoria welcomes the move to formally offer some flexibility for vegetation management around uninsulated powerlines, however the threshold for structural branches, at 400mm diameter, is unrealistic in urban areas. Whilst many urban trees will have a trunk diameter greater than 400mm it is rare to find one with branches that approach this size. It s also unclear how Jaguar Consulting (after investigating the findings of the ELCCC working group referred to on page 33 of the RIS) concluded that a structural branch could be defined as having a minimum diameter of 400mm. Council Arboriculture Victoria believes the conditions attached to the 200mm reduction in the clearance space, including the fitting of cable spreaders and annual risk assessments, mean the provisions can safely be applied to branches with a diameter of at least 130mm beside the conductor. As drafted, Council Arboriculture Victoria does not believe that clause 5 of the 2015 Code will provide the intended improvements in flexibility for uninsulated low voltage electric lines in low bushfire risk areas. Council Arboriculture Victoria seeks to have the regulations Define structural branches under clause 5 of the 2015 Code as being branches with a minimum 130mm diameter. This would provide consistent definitions between insulated and uninsulated low voltage electric lines in low bushfire risk areas. 3.9 near the pole provisions The near the pole provisions that were included in the 2005 and 2010 Code have been omitted from the draft 2015 Code. These provisions apply to the 1/6 th of the span closest to the pole. The omission

11 of these provisions from the draft 2015 Code means an increase in the minimum clearance distance required around aerial bundled cable greater than 40 metres in length and uninsulated powerlines greater than 45 metres in length. In the absence of any data to support these increased clearances, the Council Arboriculture Victoria requests that the near the pole provisions be reinstated so as to prevent any unnecessary pruning or vegetation loss Trees listed in a planning scheme to be of ecological, historical or aesthetic significance Many Local Governments, in recognition of the value and importance of trees to the community, have created Local laws to protect significant trees within their municipality. In recognition of the above Council Arboriculture Victoria seeks to have the proposed regulations: recognise and incorporate the Local Laws of each council in clause 9 (3) (b) and clause 14 (1) (d) of the draft Code Unsuitable species Council Arboriculture Victoria supports the decision not to introduce provisions relating to unsuitable species. The changes in soil types and local environmental factors across Victoria impact significantly on what species will establish in an area and the morphology of the mature tree. This, along with the increasing need for canopy trees in our streets to aid in cooling our environment makes restricting the types of species that can be planted impractical and inappropriate.

12 4 The Distribution Businesses Council Arboriculture Victoria is of the strong view that the regulations do not require sufficient contribution and cooperation from the distribution businesses to enable councils to comply with their obligations. Without this requirement the regulations and distribution businesses responsibilities are open to interpretation, which has resulted in some obstructive behaviour by particular distribution businesses when working with councils. Where cooperation is not forthcoming, it is essential that the regulations provide a framework that will ensure transparency, accountability and a fair and robust dispute resolution process. 4.1 Timeliness and accuracy of response Council Arboriculture Victoria s members have had, and in some instances continue to have, unacceptable difficulties with receiving responses to requests for shutdowns of powerlines, alternative engineering solutions or data on outages allegedly caused by council trees. It is a highly frustrating situation and one that leaves councils in the difficult situation of being prevented by the distribution businesses from doing what the regulations require it to do. Councils have reported experiencing significant delays in response to requests for works, including shutdowns and requests for assistance with other engineering solutions and associated quotes. Delays in accessing shutdowns and quotes for engineering solutions significantly inhibit council s ability to meet their obligations for compliance with the regulations. Councils have also reported a lack of notification of an outage where it is alleged that a council tree was involved. Council Arboriculture Victoria is aware of one distribution business that has been providing councils with detailed monthly reports on vegetation related outages recorded across their network. This is commendable, unfortunately not the norm. Councils are rarely proactively notified, and when they are the data provided does not differentiate between private and council owned trees, whether the tree was compliant with the regulated clearances or not and can even include outages caused by wildlife, such as possums, as they do not have a specific category for wildlife. In some reported instances the trees have not even been located within the municipality. Council Arboriculture Victoria seeks to have: a reasonable timeframe for response to requests for shutdowns or engineering solutions be defined in the regulations, or alternately, be required in their Electric Line Clearance Management Plan a requirement be included in regulations that the distribution business report any outages that it considers are caused by a council tree to the relevant council within two business days of the outage occurring. This report shall include the date and time of the incident and the location of the tree in the street.

13 4.2 Quotations and estimates for works Members have reported that when requesting quotes for engineering solutions as an alternative to pruning and removing trees, there has often been significant difficulty getting timely and accurate information from the distribution businesses and costs have varied markedly from one distribution business to another. There is a notable lack of transparency about how the distribution businesses identify and determine their costs. Council Arboriculture Victoria is aware that many council s feel it is also not possible to obtain a firm quote from these businesses. What they will provide is a budget estimate, which might vary by up to 40% or contains a disclaimer that it does not cover all costs, and requires a nonrefundable contribution if the council wants a firm offer of works. The budget estimates and nonrefundable fee to provide a firm quote are often excessive and do not reflect the scope of the works. Furthermore, significant portions of the prices quoted are not contestable, thereby preventing councils from seeking cost effective alternatives. Councils have also reported difficulties in utilising live line workers. Some of the distribution businesses will not approve suppression for any contractor that is working for a council, instead requiring councils to use the distribution business own approved live line workers. Apart from the questions this raises around inappropriate market power, this has also led to councils being presented with exorbitant and inconsistent quotes and lengthy time delays to secure these workers services. Given that ratepayers fund council expenditure, it is also not unreasonable to expect that any quotes for engineering solution, live line and shut down works are detailed, transparent and accurately reflect the scope of works. Section 12 of the RIS discusses compliance with the National Competition Policy and finds that the proposed regulations do not limit competition and are therefore compliant. This may be true of the regulations themselves; however as the examples above show, it is not true in practice. The OECD Competition Assessment Toolkit asks the following 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? The regulations themselves do not, however Councils do not have a range of suppliers available to seek quotes for engineering solutions or live line works from, they are restricted to utlising those that the distribution business who own the asset within their municipality approve. Where alternative options exist distribution businesses often refuse to allow these operators access to their networks despite their being suitably qualified.

14 Suppliers are often unwilling to provide alternative quotes to assist in evaluating the distribution businesses quotes as they are aware that they cannot be awarded the works. The lack of transparency, accountability and competition means that councils do not have any certainty regarding the true cost of works. Council Arboriculture Victoria seeks to have the regulations require that the distribution businesses Be transparent and accountable in providing information and quotes on engineering solutions, shutdowns, live line works and other associated works required to achieve compliance and protect their asset. Should not be permitted to seek to profiteer from council efforts to meet their obligations under the line clearance regulations. 4.3 Protecting their own assets. In light of the environmental, health, financial and aesthetic benefits that trees provide Vic toria s communities it is concerning that the regulations do not recognise the value and importance of street trees. This lack of acknowledgement is then reflected in the business methods adopted by the distribution businesses. There should be an obligation on the distribution businesses to invest in powerline construction that minimises impact on environment and amenity. Council Arboriculture Victoria s members have experienced incidences where the distribution businesses have refused to even discuss the possibility of using an alternative to the traditional utility supply in an urban area that minimises the need for pruning. This is a short-sighted approach that ignores the long-term economic, social and environmental costs. In the case of declared areas, it is also effectively a total cost shift to councils and represents unwillingness on the part of DB s to negotiate on these issues. Council Arboriculture Victoria seeks to have the regulations: require the distribution business to install insulated lines when replacing or upgrading uninsulated lines, require that no engineering solution should require greater vegetation clearance than the existing one unless extensive consultation has been undertaken with the owner of the tree. include the objective `to ensure that management procedures minimise the effect of power lines on vegetation and establish strategies to progressively achieve a sustainable environment unaffected by the presence of power lines. that was previously included in the 1996 Code of Practice for Powerline Clearance 4.4 Dispute Resolution With regard to clause 18 (2) of the draft Code which requires a responsible person to establish a procedure to be followed for the independent resolution of disputes relating to electric line clearance. Council Arboriculture Victoria believes that this clause should be clarified to include the resolution of disputes with councils in relation to the transparent, reasonable and timely:

15 Installation of technical solutions; Provision of realistic and market tested cost estimates for technical solutions; and Responses to requests for shutdowns to enable work near power lines. Further to the dispute resolution process the Council Arboriculture Victoria believes that the 2015 Regulations needs to clarify the circumstances and parameters within which Energy Safe Victoria will intervene in ongoing disputes between distribution businesses and councils.

16 Appendix 1: Comparison of 2005 and 2010 regulated Code clearance requirements Spans up to and including 45 metres Spans exceeding 45 metres, up to and including 70 metres clearance space (c/s) sag & sway (s/s) regrowth c/s + c/s + (rg) s/s rg c/s s/s rg s/s rg INCREASE INCREASE Bare and covered low voltage (Up to 1kV) 1.0m?? 1.0m? 0 1.5m?? 2.0m? 0.5m Over 1kV less than 66kV 1.5m?? 1.5m? 0 2.0m?? 2.0m? 0 66 kv 2.25m?? 2.5m? 0.25m 3.0m?? 3.0m? 0 Source: Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2005, See Table 10.2 & 10.3 KEY In-built flexibilities