4/9/2014 Parallel Worlds of the Code; What it means for Chorus as a Utility Operator. Graeme McCarrison – Engagement and Planning Manager 27 March 2014 ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT FORUM / PAGE 1 / PAGE 1 / PAGE 1 / PAGE 1 / PAGE 1 / PAGE 2 1
4/9/2014 • People want to be connected anywhere, anytime – technology is irrelevant to them whether it be fixed, mobile or wifi – they just want it to work. • 90% of worlds data been created in the last 2 year • Mobile data growth doubling year on year / PAGE 3 / PAGE 3 > Standalone , publicly-listed company > Supporting service providers to roll out fibre services > Guardians of New Zealand’s fixed line network > Forefront of building a new fibre network / PAGE 4 / PAGE 4 2
4/9/2014 C 2 ? > Code user/partner Code – regulator > 1 National Company - 3 Service Plus others controls COPs etc companies Road asset owner – conflicted party? > Contractors work anywhere & Each authority is unique know the obligations Local variation of practice and > National approach/consistency interpretation > No build $ variation Value roads above other assets > No local deals / understanding Culture of do it my way – often? except for local or special Restricted transparency circumstances Political pressure? > Respect all assets equally Struggle with collaboration? > Want collaboration / PAGE 5 Shared interest Council as asset > Public organisation > owner in roads Accountable to ratepayers > Regulated – various Chorus utility > Roading & public assets > operator Assets for benefit of citizens > Restriction on charging assets in > Contractors – build Council roads > Protection of asset – full asset life > Facilitator of economic growth as > Sustainable management Corridor > Duel role regulator & builder Manager > Public listed company > Accountable to shareholders > Regulated – Commence Commission > Telecommunications assets > Assets for benefit of NZers You & I pay > Restricted cost recovery > Contractors – build > Protection of asset – full asset life > Enable economic growth > Sustainable management / PAGE 6 / PAGE 6 3
4/9/2014 Common Stakeholders Councils – all levels Corridor, Asset and Infrastructure Managers Community and Local Boards Utility Operators The Government Our Customers – Retail Service Providers Business Associations Commerce Commission Iwi Historic Places Trust General Public / PAGE 7 / PAGE 7 Competing demands & options for roads. how to decide? DOCUMENT TITLE / V 1.0 / XX DAY 2012 / PAGE 8 4
4/9/2014 Our deployment principles Health and Safety is always at the forefront of our work We build on existing infrastructure to reduce disruption We co-ordinate local works with Councils and other Utility Operators (UO’s) wherever possible We keep the community informed / PAGE 9 Our Work As you may know we are undertaking the largest infrastructure project in the country and in the Roading Corridor Our crews go from area to area, council to council as the pressure to maintain a steady work stream is a necessity for us to meet our obligations We are working hard to improve our processes and methodologies and practices to get consistency across all our work streams and improve performance in the Corridor We are looking to you to help us achieve this / PAGE 10 5
4/9/2014 DOCUMENT TITLE / V 1.0 / XX DAY 2011 / PAGE 11 Chorus key messages on Code > Code is welcome – National consistency > Taken time to understand and adopt still a way to go. In effect since 1 January 2012 > Partnership or Alliance regime – its principles are right The Parties should cooperate, collaborate and engage with each other constructively through open communication and maintain formal and informal communications with all other Parties. > Education and implementation have hampered benefits being achieved > Benefits all - minimise disruption, ensure co-ordination, optimise asset and protection > NZUAG not funded for or authorised to be enforcement agent or arbitrator > Inherent tensions between CMs and UOs – benefit from independence and new governance *=Corridor Managers **= Utility Operators DOCUMENT TITLE / V 1.0 6 MARCH 2014 / PAGE 12 6
4/9/2014 CAR and WAP issues (s. 4) > Definitions of Works – Minor and Major need tweaking: cover customer connections in Minor? > Define new truncated CAR process for Minor works? > Placement of utilities – first in, best position? > CAR Fees – process, level, transparency > Works completion notice and warranty period – no incentive and no consequence if CM doesn’t comply with timing obligations > Conflict of interest with Councils – CM and UO functions – perception different conditions apply? / PAGE 13 Reinstatement standards (s.5.6) > Reinstatement standards in Code regularly overwritten > Inconsistency between words and figures e.g. 1.0m rule > 1.0m rule frequently overridden variation in interpretation – wide footpaths, driveways > Relationship between Code and Council (CM) development standards – eg COP or similar docs? > Special paving areas and amenity areas – not planned for utility works > What this about 5yr no work or full replacement? > New technology e.g. micro trenching – how should reinstatement standards be applied? What is a reasonable process to introduce something new / PAGE 14 7
4/9/2014 The Side Cut Micro Trenching Machine Side cut RT100 Specifications Size and weight of the unit > Length in working position: 4300mm > Width: 1050mm > Height: 1850mm > Weight: 2500kg Cutting specifications > Cutting width – 45-70mm > Cutting depth – 200 – 350mm > Side offset – 390mm on the right and 160mm on the left, from machine axle Features > Light and manoeuvrable > Specifically designed for building FTTX networks in an urban environment CHORUS TRENCHING METHODOLOGIES / PAGE 15 / PAGE 15 Micro Trenching – RT100 Preparing the worksite – Always radar investigation of existing utilities Pothole to confirm utility location Utility mark out Trenching and spoil removal Reinstatement - Carriageway Upper Hutt Trial - Asphalt / PAGE 16 / PAGE 16 8
4/9/2014 Comments ▪ The Code does is not clear on the process and acceptance of new deployment methodologies. ▪ How can the Code ensure a fair balance is struck between the needs of all parties in relation to such matters? ▪ Seeing Individual Councils - long, expensive and uncertainty ▪ Need for an Evaluation Group for technical reviews? ▪ Should the NZUAG be empowered to issue national directives on Code issues including the one outlined? / PAGE 17 / PAGE 17 Reasonable conditions (s. 4.5) > Lack of consultation over the Local/Special conditions being implemented > Consultation & decision process – unclear? > Template Conditions in Schedule B: what is the problem? Why so many local & special conditions? > Local conditions: geographical area + unique condition/event > Need to be agreed (Utilities Access Act), Code inconsistent > Lack of process and lack of reasoning given for local conditions, some just unnecessary > UFB works given different “local conditions” to BAU > Special conditions: unique conditions to WAP > Regularly don’t meet the above criteria / PAGE 18 9
4/9/2014 Reasonable conditions (s. 4.5) Majority of WAPs contain special conditions, no reasoning Repetition in the Work Access Permit Conditions - e.g. Reasonable conditions from NCOP being rewritten slightly and added in Too many pages of Local conditions attached to a WAP – and therefore not easily identifying what is different from the NCOP The NCOP being rewritten with insertions of new or amended clauses / PAGE 19 Disputes and enforcement > Code based on collaboration but interests between CMs and UOs not always aligned > Dispute processes long and expensive, not practical for programme milestones > Chorus has disagreed often with CMs - Chorus never issued formal dispute notice > Balance of power in favour of CMs for disputes, especially local or special conditions > Solution – non-binding guidance issued by NZUAG (white papers etc on issues raised)? Short, sharp adjudication type process (similar to construction)? > Lack of enforcement of obligations – Court only? Unworkable? / PAGE 20 10
4/9/2014 C 2 ? - No Support code – needs a few tweaks National consistency is taking time Common interest – recognise & build on Collaboration – optimal benefit Build Trust – long term relationship Education – do it together / PAGE 21 DOCUMENT TITLE / V 1.0 / XX DAY 2012 / PAGE 22 / PAGE 22 / PAGE 22 / PAGE 22 / PAGE 22 11
4/9/2014 UFB Regions Auckland % of Areas: UFB: 1 2% 24 69% 6 14% Wellington 2 15% Christchurch Total: 33 100% / PAGE 23 / PAGE 23 20,000km FIBRE AIR BLOWN FIBRE FIBRE TO THE PREMISES / PAGE 24 / PAGE 24 12
4/9/2014 DOCUMENT TITLE / V 1.0 / XX DAY 2011 / PAGE 25 / PAGE 25 WEB PAGES: http://www.chorus.co.nz/nzs-fibre-future http://www.chorus.co.nz/MAPS http://www.chorus.co.nz/rural-broadband (for Schools list) / PAGE 26 / PAGE 26 13
Recommend
More recommend
