NZIER report on compensation for transmission infrastructure

clear. Compensation was not awarded for externalities in a smaller number of cases,
such as in Québec (Hydro-Québec 2000).
Some authors argue that compensation should be awarded to people who have had
their views upset by transmission lines, regardless of whether or not they own the
land that the lines run over (Beesley 2008). In Finland compensation for disturbance
to view extended to people who suffered due to transmission infrastructure running
across neighbouring property (Nuuja and Viitanen 2007). With the exception of
Finland, however, we found no evidence of anyone being compensated, other than
the landowner who had towers and lines across their land. In New Zealand such
effects on third parties are dealt with through the Resource Management Act and are
not part of easement agreements between utilities and landowners.
A number of researchers have considered how power lines impact on land sales
values (see, for example, Colwell 1990). Some studies conclude that power lines do
reduce neighbouring land sale prices while others suggest there is little relationship.
When there is an effect on property value it tends to decrease rapidly with distance
from the transmission infrastructure. Properties immediately adjacent to land with
wires bear the brunt of any price effect.
Although robust evidence linking adverse health effects with EMFs is lacking, it has
been argued (and stated by the Finnish Supreme Court – see Nuuja and Viitanen
2007) that the perceived health risk is enough to lower land values and hence should
be compensated for (see also, Bolton and Sick 1999). In theory, by allowing for how
easements change the value of land, compensation in New Zealand allows for
externalities for directly affected landowners.
3.5 Damages
The damages element of compensation is relatively straightforward. In all of the
countries we looked into compensation was provided to cover all of the damage done
during construction of the infrastructure (see, for example, Hydro-Québec 2000). It
was the responsibility of the utility to either replace or provide financial compensation
for the likes of damaged crops and broken fences or other equipment.
The payment of damages in New Zealand appears to be of little concern to affected
landowners or Transpower. The landowners we spoke with were largely satisfied with
Transpower‟s efforts to replace damaged property or provide financial compensation.
3.6 Payment methods
Easement compensation was provided as a one-off lump-sum capital payment, in
annual payments or as a combination of lump-sum and annual payments. In Canada
(Alberta and Québec) and the United Kingdom landowners had the option of
choosing lump-sum or annual or a combination of the two types of payment (Atlanta
SRB 2009; Hydro-Québec 2000; NFU 2009). Wisconsin law requires that for 100kV
or larger lines, one or more miles long, compensation for agriculture land is both
<strong>NZIER</strong> – Compensation for transmission infrastructure 23