ENA submission on proposed changes to the default distribution agreement template - Submission to the Electricity Authority

Sep 16, 2026

Upload by Elsa

Submission by Electricity Networks Aotearoa (ENA) to the Electricity Authority on proposed amendments to the default distribution agreement (DDA). The executive summary supports embedding the ENA/ERANZ data template in the Electricity Industry Participation Code and welcomes its codification, while challenging aspects of the proposal that ENA views as exceeding the Authority’s jurisdiction. ENA argues that removing recorded terms and mandating refunds and risk apportionment changes overlook price-quality trade-offs, outage service continuity, and cost-benefit and consumer pass-through considerations.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages12

Reading Time4 min

AccessFree to download

1 Introduction

2 Executive Summary

3 Codification of the ENA/ERANZ data template is welcomed

4 Two clauses exceed the Authority's jurisdiction

5 Drafting amendments and new Core terms

6 Proposed changes to Part 12A of the Code

7 The cost of re-issuing current DDAs is not captured in the CBA

Appendix A-ENA Membership

Appendix B-Consultation Paper Questions

ENA submission on proposed changes to the default distribution agreement template Submission to the Electricity Authority DATE 14 November 2023 NAME OF SUBMITTER Electricity Networks Aotearoa INDUSTRY/AREA OF INTEREST Utilities/infrastructure CONTACT Keith Hutchison ADDRESS Level 5, Legal House 101 Lambton Quay Wellington 6011 TELEPHONE +64 4 471 1335 EMAIL [Keith@electricity.org.nz](Keith@electricity.org.nz) Contents 1 Introduction 3 | 2 | Executive Summary | 3 | | --- | --- | --- | | 3 | Codification of the ENA/ERANZ data template is welcomed | 4 | | 4 | Two clauses exceed the Authority's jurisdiction | 4 | | 5 | Drafting amendments and new Core terms | 5 | | 6 | Proposed changes to Part 12A of the Code | 8 | 7 The cost of re-issuing current DDAs is not captured in the CBA 8 Appendix A-ENA Membership 10 Appendix B-Consultation Paper Questions 11 1 Introduction Electricity Networks Aotearoa (ENA) appreciates the opportunity to make a submission to the Electricity Authority (Authority) on its proposed changes to the default distribution agreement (DDA) . ENA represents the 27 electricity distribution businesses (EDBs) in New Zealand (see Appendix A) which provide local and regional electricity networks. EDBs employ 10,000 people and deliver energy to more than two million homes and businesses. 2 Executive Summary ENA welcomes the Authority’s recognition of the benefits of the ENA/ERANZ data template being embedded in the Electricity Industry Participation Code (the Code) . ENA continues to support the codification and use of the ENA/ERANZ data template. ENA appreciates that the Authority's proposal to remove recorded terms from the DDA is a direct response to the findings of the 2022 investigator’s examination of several EDBs recorded terms1 and subsequent changes to the Electricity Industry Act 2010 (EIA) . ENA believes the Authority has erred in its reaction to these events and views the arbitrary use of Core terms to replace the recorded terms as an overreaction. While the amended EIA provides the Authority with the ability to regulate quality, the Authority's proposed amendments to the DDA do not consider the price-quality trade-offs that are implicit in the regulation of service quality. ENA’s view is that two of the proposed Core terms are not within the Authority’s jurisdiction and directly interfere with the Commerce Commission's (Commission’s) powers in relation to setting maximum prices/revenues. The EIA explicitly prohibits the Authority using the Code to “purport to do or regulate anything that the Commerce Commission is authorised or required to do or regulate under Part 3 or 4 of the Commerce Act 1986” which includes determining maximum prices2 or revenues. The Authority's proposed use of Core terms to mandate the refund of charges not only goes beyond its jurisdiction but fails to recognise that the provision of line services does not stop during an outage, nor do transmission services and the associated transmission charges. Restoration of supply is a core service, which lines charges funds; accordingly, proposing a mechanism to reduce funding to a core service mechanistically is illogical. Further, this change fails the cost-benefit test and the absence of a similar obligation on Traders means any refund would not necessarily be passed to consumers. The Authority’s proposed clause 24.5 fails to strike an appropriate balance for the apportionment of risk. Under the proposed changes to this clause EDBs may no longer be able to expressly exclude liability for: • originating in embedded networks and embedded generators; • origination in Transpower’s network; • due to extreme weather events (only ‘natural disasters’ are referenced and would be interpreted very narrowly); • due to vegetation and animals; or • Trader’s negligence or breach of Good Electricity Industry Practice. 1 Electricity Authority, 2022, Notice of the Authority’s decision u

FAQs

What is ENA’s position on codifying the ENA/ERANZ data template?

ENA welcomes the Authority’s proposal to codify the ENA/ERANZ data template and embed it in the Code, as it reduces the need for case-by-case negotiation between EDBs and Traders for routine data access.

Why does ENA believe two proposed Core terms exceed the Authority’s jurisdiction?

ENA argues the proposed Core terms fall outside the Electricity Authority’s jurisdiction and interfere with the Commerce Commission’s powers related to setting maximum prices and revenues, which the Electricity Industry Act and the Commerce Act framework reserve to the Commission.

What concerns does ENA raise about the proposed refund of charges and the risk apportionment changes?

ENA states the refund mechanism goes beyond jurisdiction and fails to account for ongoing line and transmission services during outages, and it also does not pass the cost-benefit and consumer pass-through considerations. ENA further contends proposed changes to clause 24.5 would prevent EDBs from clearly excluding certain liability categories, disturbing the balance of risk apportionment.

Sep 16, 2026

Upload by Elsa