The Path to Reform: Understanding the Code Development
The trimming and removal of trees around powerlines in Victoria is governed by State Legislation, which has led to the development of a Code of Practice managed by Electricity Safe Victoria (ESV). You can learn more about the legislation and how the Code operates through this link.
The Code of Practice is reviewed every five years, and a new review is currently underway, with publication expected next year. As required by legislation, a committee called the Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee (ELCCC) is responsible for advising on changes to the Code. This committee can consist of up to 14 members, as outlined in the relevant legislative excerpt (see attached).
In preparation for this review, a Working Group was formed within the ELCCC. It includes members from the five electrical distribution companies—PowerCor, Ausnet, Jemena, CitiPower, and United Energy—the transmission company Ausnet, as well as representatives from Boroondara andGeelong Council, the Municipal Association of Victoria, two community representatives, and a representative from Melbourne University.
This Working Group brings together experts and scientists with deep knowledge of how trees interact with powerlines, bushfire safety, worker and public safety, and the environmental value of trees. Their collaboration, along with their examination of best practices from other states and countries, resulted in a proposed revision of the Code that would significantly improve how we manage trees. After months of work and justification, the Working Group presented its final recommendations to ESV in May 2024 (see attached).
However, despite attending all Working Group meetings and being fully informed throughout the process, the ESV refused to consider the majority of the recommendations when responding in June. This was particularly disappointing, given the critical nature of three key issues: reducing minimum tree clearances in urban areas, adjusting clearances for powerline sway in rural areas, and reducing the removal of trees near transmission lines (see attached).
With limited time, the Working Group provided further evidence supporting the validity and benefits of its proposals (see attached Part 1 and Part 2). Unfortunately, in the final meeting between ESV and DECA (which now oversees the Code), all of the Working Group’s justifications were rejected, with only minor changes to the Code planned for reasons that remain unclear. We have submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to uncover the scientific or climate-related rationale behind ESV’s decision to dismiss the report.
