Parallel Worlds of the Code; What it means for Chorus as a Utility - - PDF document

▶
parallel worlds of the code what it means for chorus as a
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Parallel Worlds of the Code; What it means for Chorus as a Utility - - PDF document

Aug 14, 2022 418 likes •555 views

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 /

slide-1
SLIDE 1

4/9/2014 1

/ PAGE 1 / PAGE 1 / PAGE 1 / PAGE 1 / PAGE 1

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 2
slide-2
SLIDE 2

4/9/2014 2

/ PAGE 3 / PAGE 3
  • 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 4 / PAGE 4

>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

slide-3
SLIDE 3

4/9/2014 3

/ PAGE 5

C2?

>

Code user/partner

>

1 National Company - 3 Service companies

>

Contractors work anywhere & know the obligations

>

National approach/consistency

>

No build $ variation

>

No local deals / understanding except for local or special circumstances

>

Respect all assets equally

>

Want collaboration

Code – regulator

Plus others controls COPs etc

Road asset owner – conflicted party?

Each authority is unique

Local variation of practice and interpretation

Value roads above other assets

Culture of do it my way – often?

Restricted transparency

Political pressure?

Struggle with collaboration?

/ PAGE 6 / PAGE 6

Shared interest

>

Public listed company

>

Accountable to shareholders

>

Regulated – Commence Commission

>

Telecommunications assets

>

Assets for benefit of NZers

>

Restricted cost recovery

>

Contractors – build

>

Protection of asset – full asset life

>

Enable economic growth

>

Sustainable management

>

Public organisation

>

Accountable to ratepayers

>

Regulated – various

>

Roading & public assets

>

Assets for benefit of citizens

>

Restriction on charging

>

Contractors – build

>

Protection of asset – full asset life

>

Facilitator of economic growth

>

Sustainable management

>

Duel role regulator & builder

Council as asset

  • wner in roads

Council as Corridor Manager Chorus utility

  • perator

assets in roads

You & I pay

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4/9/2014 4

/ PAGE 7 / PAGE 7

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 8 DOCUMENT TITLE / V 1.0 / XX DAY 2012

Competing demands &

  • ptions for roads.

how to decide?

slide-5
SLIDE 5

4/9/2014 5

/ PAGE 9

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 10

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

  • ur work streams and improve performance in the

Corridor

  • We are looking to you to help us achieve this
slide-6
SLIDE 6

4/9/2014 6

/ PAGE 11 DOCUMENT TITLE / V 1.0 / XX DAY 2011 / PAGE 12

Chorus key messages on Code

DOCUMENT TITLE / V 1.0 6 MARCH 2014

> 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

slide-7
SLIDE 7

4/9/2014 7

/ PAGE 13

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 14

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

slide-8
SLIDE 8

4/9/2014 8

/ PAGE 15 / PAGE 15

The Side Cut Micro Trenching Machine

CHORUS TRENCHING METHODOLOGIES

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

/ PAGE 16 / PAGE 16

Micro Trenching – RT100

Preparing the worksite – Utility mark out Always radar investigation of existing utilities Pothole to confirm utility location Trenching and spoil removal Upper Hutt Trial - Asphalt Reinstatement - Carriageway

slide-9
SLIDE 9

4/9/2014 9

/ PAGE 17 / PAGE 17

Comments

▪ The Code does is not clear on the process and acceptance

  • f 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 18

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

slide-10
SLIDE 10

4/9/2014 10

/ PAGE 19

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 20

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

  • r 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?

slide-11
SLIDE 11

4/9/2014 11

/ PAGE 21

C2? - 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 22 / PAGE 22 / PAGE 22 / PAGE 22 / PAGE 22 DOCUMENT TITLE / V 1.0 / XX DAY 2012
slide-12
SLIDE 12

4/9/2014 12

/ PAGE 23 / PAGE 23

UFB Regions

Wellington Christchurch Auckland

1 2% 24 69% 6 14% 2 15% 33 100% Total: Areas: % of UFB:

/ PAGE 24 / PAGE 24

20,000km FIBRE AIR BLOWN FIBRE FIBRE TO THE PREMISES

slide-13
SLIDE 13

4/9/2014 13

/ PAGE 25 / PAGE 25 DOCUMENT TITLE / V 1.0 / XX DAY 2011 / PAGE 26 / PAGE 26

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)