Submission on Developing a Regulatory Framework for Offshore Renewable Energy

Chapter 8: Interaction with the environmental consenting processes

Q: For each individual development, should a single consent authority be responsible for
environmental consents under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the and Exclusive
Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012? Why or why not?

A: It is reasonable for one consent authority to be responsible for environmental consents under
the RMA and the EEZ Act provided that:

• Māori and local communities are enabled to have input into the objectives, policies
  and methods that apply to the assessment of offshore energy activities (e.g. through
  regional policy statements and regional coastal plans) and those provisions are applied
  to consent decisions.
• The purpose and decision-making criteria specific to each statute are applied
• Consideration is given to aligning the purpose and decision-making criteria under each
  statute (currently the purpose in the EEZ Act of protecting the environment from
  pollution from discharges does not apply under the RMA, and it should).

Q: Do environmental consenting processes adequately consider environmental effects such that it is not necessary to duplicate an assessment of environmental effects in the offshore renewables permitting regime? 

A. Environmental consenting processes do not adequately consider environmental effects,
because there is no national policy statement specifically addressing biodiversity in the marine
environment (only Policy 11 of the NZCPS, which is not sufficiently detailed to address marine
biodiversity). However, duplicating the environmental consenting assessment under the
permitting regime is not the answer to this – what is needed is a programme of comprehensive
investigation of New Zealand’s marine biodiversity, coupled with the development of suitable
marine biodiversity policy to guide decisions.

The Authority notes that the recent National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity
(which in most respects does not apply to the marine environment) effectively exempts
renewable energy from the application of its policies. The Authority would strongly oppose a
similar approach to biodiversity policy and offshore renewable energy.

Q. Should the offshore permitting regime assess the capability of a developer to obtain the
necessary environmental consents? If not, why not?

A. Yes. Obtaining environmental consents for offshore energy projects will generally be complex
and expensive, in particular because of the level of information about the proposed location
and effects of the proposal on the environmental features in and around that location that will
be required. It is unreasonable to expect Māori and local communities to engage in processes
where the applicant does not have the capability to prepare this information.

Chapter 10: Decommissioning

Q. Should developers be required to submit a decommissioning plan, cost estimate and provide a financial security for the cost estimate? If not, why not?

A. Yes – in the view of NZCA this is essential.

Q. Should the permit decommissioning plan, cost estimate and financial security be based on the assumption of full removal? If not, why not?

A. Yes – otherwise the burden falls on local and central government. 

Q. Should offshore renewable energy projects applying for a consent to decommission be
required to provide a detailed decommissioning plan related to environmental effects for
approval by consent authorities? If not, why not? 

A. Yes – the decommissioning steps should not place additional environmental costs on the
region, community, local and central government. 

General comments 

NZCA is concerned that a number of fundamental questions have not yet been traversed. There
appears to be the assumption that offshore energy is an appropriate activity in New Zealand
waters. While there is a surge in interest from both local and international firms, and there are
statements about the wind environment in the NZ region being very suitable for wind farms, there
is no information about the relative wind availability on land when compared to offshore.

It is our understanding, that unlike countries in northern Europe, the topography and situation of
New Zealand means that wind speeds on land exceed those over the sea, in contrast to the
situation in other some other parts of the world. There has been little or no discussion about the NZ wave climate, the frequency and strength of coastal storm events, and the specific issues that the conditions in New Zealand present.

New Zealand differs considerably from countries in northern Europe (for example, in terms of
population density, infrastructure for electricity transmission, the number and siting of ports
equipped for large vessels and all weather conditions, etc). These characteristics, coupled with the
challenges of working offshore in the New Zealand context wind and wave climates, are likely to
have a significant impact on the costs and efficiencies of establishing and maintaining offshore
facilities.

We consider that there needs to be a life cycle analysis of the carbon and energy footprint of
offshore wind developments. The life span of equipment in marine environments, and the
Submission on Developing a Regulatory Framework for Offshore Renewable Energy Page 8 of 8
frequency of maintenance required, as well as all-weather access, present particular challenges
when compared to equivalent operations on land. While there are scientific papers on this topic in
the international literature, we are not aware of such studies, even at a theoretical level, for the NZ
region.

There is a need to consider not only the impacts in the immediate area of the proposed
development but more broadly how the environment will respond to having offshore renewables
added to the mix of pressures on species and ecosystems. Multi-stressor evaluations and
consideration of cumulative impacts are essential – when considering single species, habitats as
well as ecosystem functions. Many marine species travel large distances and therefore ‘point’ data
based on limited study will not adequately identify the significance of sites.

NZCA is concerned that environmental and biodiversity data gathered in the exploratory and
developmental phases are made available for communities and decision makers. In order to enable transparent and sound decision making, the best possible information needs to be available for analysis. NZCA considers there are significant risks associated with taking an industry led approach, particularly if data gathered by industry are not publicly available to be scrutinised.

In terms of reporting on impacts, international studies support making the use of standard
parameters mandatory in renewable energy monitoring programmes, as well requiring data to be
shared and stored in standardised templates to enable exchange of knowledge and development of deeper understanding and generalisations of effects.