PARLIAMENT | PARTY | GRASSROOTS

Red Alert

Archive for the ‘Energy’ Category

The energy efficiency challenge

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 8th, 2010

Do you really pay that much attention to how much electricity you are using at any point in time? I suspect most Kiwis think about their electricity use once a month – when the bill arrives! These days our electricity meters are tucked away discretely somewhere outside our homes. We don’t pay all that much attention to how much electricity we’re using, or when we are using it.

In the next few years technology is likely to change all of that. Smart meters and web-based technology is likely to give us much greater information, and through it much greater control, over our electricity use. We’ll be able to monitor the impact each additional appliance has on our power bill. We’ll also be able to spread our electricity demand, allowing us to save money by using cheaper electricity in times of lower demand. The retail pricing model will have to change for this to happen because at the moment we’re charged the same unit price for our electricity regardless of when we use it. That may be simple, but it doesn’t incentivise more even usage throughout the day.

Smart meters and smart appliances will also allow us to use less or cheaper electricity without even having to think about it. Our hot water cylinder and our deep freeze will be able to switch themselves on and off depending on other demands within the household and external factors such as price. I particularly liked the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Jan Wright’s recent comment that we’ll soon be able to drive our electric cars home, plug them in, drain the remaining electricity they have in order to cook our dinner and heat our homes during ‘peak’ times, and then charge them up again off-peak when power could be cheaper.

Maximising the use of this kind of technology is going to require industry standards for two-way communication between consumers and the big power companies, something the current government are reluctant to impose. They argue it’s too early to regulate because we don’t know what the dominant technology will be. On the other hand, it’s a bit of a chicken and egg situation; appliance manufacturers won’t produce smart appliances until they know what the smart grid is going to look like.

To be fair to the government, they aren’t doing nothing to promote more efficient electricity use. While I have some concerns about the way it has been rushed, I do give the current government credit for the huge increase in the number of homes that are being properly insulated. Warmer, drier homes are more able to minimise unnecessary electricity use. Similarly, if they’re used effectively on timers, heat pumps can also lower power bills, so the government subsidies in this area are also welcome.

We need to change our mindset from thinking about how we can build more power stations to thinking about how we can use our existing electricity supply more efficiently and how we can encourage more localised electricity production. More on the latter shortly…

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: Cost of Living, Energy, climate change, environment, infrastructure
20 Comments

Are you a nimby, a yimfy or a banana?

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 7th, 2010

The latest Listener has a timely article about electricity generation. In it they quote Massey’s Ralph Sims who argues there are three types of response to the electricity generation challenge, the nimbys (not in my backyard), the yimfys (yes in my front yard) and the bananas (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone). Which are you?

Over the next few weeks the electricity generation challenge is going to get quite a bit of air time in Parliament. Next Wednesday my private members’ bill will be read for a first time. It would prevent electricity generators building new generation plants that use non-renewable energy sources like gas and coal, unless they were essential for security of supply. And soon Gerry Brownlee’s Electricity Industry Bill will be reported back from select committee.

There is no doubt working out how to deliver enough electricity to meet future demand is a major challenge. The Listener quotes Institute of Professional Engineers projections that show our electricity demand will grow from 42,000 GWh in 2009 (itself a 7% growth on 2002 figures) to 55,000 GWh in 2025. That’s a lot of new power plants. Or is it?

Over the next few days I’m going to do a series of posts canvassing alternatives to building a bunch of extra gas-fired power plants. First, we can do a lot more to increase energy efficiency, including a heap of stuff that will give consumers more control over how much power they produce. Second, we can spread new generation more evenly through a lot more localised production. Third, we can promote renewable generation much more than we have in recent decades.

I firmly believe New Zealand can be a world leader in this area. We used to produce a much greater proportion of our electricity from renewable sources. In the last 25 years or so we’ve allowed the non-renewables sector to absorb most of the growth. That has to change. We can show the world what a truly sustainable approach to electricity generation (and consumption) can look like.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: Energy, climate change, environment, infrastructure
44 Comments

Why can’t we back Kiwis

Posted by Trevor Mallard on June 3rd, 2010

I’ve posted a bit about Kiwirail and the government’s hands off attitude to using Kiwi skills to build rolling stock.

But even more obvious is the need to take advantage of our place in the world – our time zone advantages – and build our financial markets. High value jobs. Relatively low capital investment. I thought the government were heading that way.

Gerry Brownlee took some decisions late last year that required the development of an electricity options and futures market. He saw it as a way of reducing the game playing that sometimes keeps prices higher than necessary in the short run. Not sure if it was the best approach but thats not the point.

The platform would work well for other products including dairy if we are ever going to get a system where the small companies pay a fair price for their milk and Fonterra isn’t left with all the supply risk. And for other products.

This was a big opportunity for New Zealand companies to play a part in adding real value here. NZX were into it. I don’t always agree with Mark Weldon but along with Rob Cameron and a few others he has a sense of the possible for NZ in the financial market space.

But instead the SOEs and bit players (including Infratil who should have known better)  have decided to go with the slow clunky ASX. There is no way that the Aussies will care about the importance of microgeneration to NZ. The ability to sell on a fair basis back into the grid is vital if we are going to encourage the multitude of options that we need to diversify our supply.

Major users have welcomed the decision – it might well help them push costs onto households over time. NZX are grumpy that the deal has gone off shore:-

An Australian-based market will present significant barriers to entry for the type of small, innovative entrant who could bring about genuine price competition in the New Zealand electricity market.

 

This will in turn limit the benefits for New Zealand electricity users: households and industry. The decision is also a blow for the development of New Zealand’s capital markets and this country’s relevance as a financial centre, which is built one product and one institution at a time.

 

But the telling comment comes  from the Wall Street blog:-

Goldman Sachs JBWere broker Peter Sigley says a further problem for NZX is that other potential derivative opportunities may opt for the deeper ASX market. “The issue is what other derivative products that would logically be traded over here will end in a much larger, much more liquid market in Australia.” He says derivatives have proved extremely difficult to get running in New Zealand for various reasons. Other markets such as dairy futures may go same way. “To see them slip away to the other side of the Tasman (Sea) is quite disappointing.”

Link: http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/06/02/power-shifts-down-under/

It does irk me that the massive SOE generators do so much planning to maximise their own positions but don’t seem to get the fact that if they played their part in growing our economy then they, and we, would do better.

 

Filed under: Energy, economy, finance, jobs
24 Comments

How equitable access to technology can transform our future

Posted by Clare Curran on May 18th, 2010

New Zealand is at a turning point in its history. We are poised to create a new network. A network that will deliver critical infrastructure for our nation.

What that network can deliver is transformation, social and economic. On many levels.

I don’t think the bigger picture has been properly articulated and therefore isn’t there to be strived for. I gave a speech in Auckland today which attempted to spell out a Labour view on how important access to technology is for our social and economic future.

Ultrafast broadband is not an end in itself. It does not constitute by itself the big picture for New Zealand. It is however, a critical component. Because it’s the means to connectivity. But there’s much more to it.

Imagine how our country could be in a decade. Even less than a decade.

Where pretty much all people are connected. With a fast connection, whether you live in the city or the country. Where poorer communities, both rural and urban have more options to develop and to keep families together.

Where data caps are much less relevant and people can afford to be connected.

Where children bring home laptops from school and teach their parents how to use them. Where at risk adolescents who may have in the past ended up leaving school and hanging out on the streets gather together in groups and make music, games and movies. And end up in jobs.

Where schools teach creative content, ICT is an integral part of teaching and learning across the curriculum, where there are clear pathways from school in further training and a myriad of careers. Well paid jobs that are transforming the New Zealand economy.

Where the ICT industry is seen, and placed at the forefront of NZ’s economic growth. And is delivering.

Equitable access to technology isn’t going to solve all our social problems. It’s not going to stop domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse. It wont stop kids ending up at school without breakfast and shoes. It wont stop gangs and the drug trade. And it wont stop people get diabetes, obesity and cancer.

But it could help make us more equal and if it boosts the economy, there’s more jobs and less poverty.

Read the rest of my speech here:

Tags: , ,
Filed under: Energy, Red Alert, broadband, comms & IT, digital, economy, education, health, inequality, infrastructure, internet, jobs, regulation
11 Comments

Renewable energy the way to go

Posted by Chris Hipkins on May 6th, 2010

This morning my Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill was drawn from the ballot. The Bill would prevent the construction of further non-renewable electricity generation, except where essential for security of electricity supply. New Zealand is fortunate that a large proportion of our electricity generation comes from renewable sources such as wind and hydro. There really is no excuse to keep relying on fossil fuels that aren’t renewable and are bad for the environment.

Over the past two decades the majority of our growth in demand for electricity has been met by the development of non-renewable electricity generation. That’s just not sustainable. The First Reading of my Bill will provide all parties in Parliament with the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to tackling the challenge of climate change in a meaningful way.

Renewable energy is the way of the future. In the medium to longer term, as the price of fossil fuels continues to rise, it will be cheaper and it will also be more secure. I hope that the reinstatement of a restriction on new thermal generation will be the first of a series of steps New Zealand takes to promote greater use of renewable energy and enhanced energy efficiency.

The National government removed the restriction on new thermal generation put in place by the last Labour administration. That was the wrong thing to do. They did it under Urgency and nobody got to make submissions and present evidence, either for or against the change. My Bill gives them an opportunity to remedy that injustice. By supporting it to Select Committee the National govt would be saying that they do respect the democratic process and that they are willing to listen to alternative arguments.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: Energy, climate change
37 Comments

Transpower’s $2.2m travel bill

Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 21st, 2010

This morning’s Sunday Star Times reveals that Transpower spent $2.2 million on overseas travel in the middle of the recession. Between July 2008 and November 2009 they spent $1.3 million on overseas airfares and another $900,000 on “travel expenses”.

To put that into context, all government ministers (including those outside Cabinet) collectively spent about $2.6 million on overseas travel during 2009. I understand the need for Transpower to tap into expertise from overseas, but this just seems excessive.

When coupled to the fact that 309 of their 567 staff earn over $100k a year, they spent $5.1 million on staff bonuses in the past year, and more than $1 million on public relations, it does start to paint a picture of an organisational culture that can’t be justified.

Hard working kiwis who have been seeing their power bills steadily increasing in recent years will be rightly annoyed with this.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: Energy, public services
11 Comments

Electricity Industry Bill

Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 17th, 2010

This morning the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee heard submissions on the Electricity Industry Bill, the National Party’s latest attempt to create more competition in the electricity market (because their earlier attempts were so successful…). Gerry Brownlee seems to be picking up where Max Bradford left off, breaking up the Electricity Commission, re-organising the assets of the electricity generators and allowing lines companies to retail electricity as well as supply it. Quite a few submitters thought the reforms would lead to higher, not lower power prices.

A very good submission from the Institute of Professional Engineers highlighted the folly of taking the Tekapo A and B generators away from Meridian and giving them to Genesis. They argued compellingly that the Waitaki hydro system functions as a coherent system and that removing the two generators at the top end could lead to less efficient use of water. Others also argued that splitting it up could lead to Genesis spilling water in order to maximise prices. So far there doesn’t seem to have been any compelling argument put forward to justify why the potential (minimal) gains in terms of competition offset these considerable risks.

The bulk of submitters argued that the timeframe for the asset reorganisation was too rushed (including privatised Contact Energy). Federated Farmers argued that if the Commerce Commission is to be tasked with approving Transpower grid upgrades they should also have to consider the alternatives of more localised generation. The Electricity Commission currently does that, but under the Bill they’d lose that function to the Commerce Commission. Fed Farmers were also concerned about the “downstream impact” of having competing operators on the Waitaki system.

A very good individual submission by industry expert David Close highlighted how the introduction of retail competition in the mid-1990s has been followed by a fall in commercial electricity prices, a significant increase in residential electricity prices, while prices for industrial users have remained reasonably stable.

Overall my impression so far is that the Bill lacks coherence. The ‘problem definition’ is weak and the proposed solutions seem a real mish-mash lacking any kind of consistency. It’s early days, but as yet I haven’t heard anything to convince me we were wrong in voting against it at the First Reading.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: Energy
7 Comments

Gerry’s dumb decision on smart meters

Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 14th, 2010

Gerry Brownlee has decided not to specify a standard for smart meters, denying householders the opportunity to get a little more control over the cost of their electricity. The technology on offer is quite exciting, and it’s a real shame the new meters electricity companies are fitting won’t make use of it. The meters being installed don’t have a HAN (home area network) chip, so they won’t be able to communicate with other in-home appliances to allow consumers to take advantage of using power when electricity is cheaper.

Brownlee’s decision is good news for the electricity companies, who now have ministerial backing in their quest to deny households the opportunity to save money on their power bills. It’s a shame he didn’t listen to the advice of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who recommended last year that he specify a standard, as many overseas jurisdictions have done. Brownlee is defending his decision by saying that the ripple control system for hot water heaters is an adequate substitute. As my colleague Charles Chauvel has stated “In technology terms, that’s a bit like saying you don’t want an iPod because you still have a perfectly good collection of 78s”.

However, he has got one thing right in that he has agreed to regulate some of the basic data exchange protocols. That will ensure that consumers will be able to make use of new meter technology even if they switch retailers. As an example, I’m currently with Meridian but my meter was installed by Genesis. Meridian read my meter every 2nd month, but if I was with Genesis they would do an electronic reading monthly so I’d never need to worry about ‘estimate’ readings. Hopefully the new rules will ensure that Meridian will be able to use the meters electronic capability, even though they didn’t install it themselves.

It’s a real shame Gerry Brownlee hasn’t used his 3 and a half months deliberating on the issue (the Electricity Commission presented their recommendations to him in early December) to make a more gutsy call. As usual he’s sticking with his head in the sand, stacking up more problems that will have to be dealt with in the future rather than showing leadership today. In the meantime consumers miss out on an opportunity to save money on their power bills. So much for National being the party of choice…

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: Consumer Affairs, Energy
11 Comments

Help with home insulation

Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 10th, 2010

I’ve been a pretty vocal critic of aspects of the National government’s home insulation programme, but I’m willing to give credit where it is due. The Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) have announced a new scheme that lets people spread their share of home insulation costs over 9 years as part of their rates. If the home owner sells up, the next owner picks up the extra rates bill. This is a good idea.

Under the government’s current deal, someone can get up to a third of the cost of home insulation paid for through a subsidy but they have to stump up the other two thirds (those on lower incomes can get up to 60% subsidy). If the GWRC scheme helps people to cover their part of the cost then that’s good.

I think there are huge benefits in having kiwi homes properly insulated. My critiscism of the Nats scheme isn’t because I think the goal is a bad one. I’m concerned they’ve cut too many corners and are jeopardising quality and fairness. There is more capacity in the market to insulate more homes, but because of the way the government have set up the existing scheme people are missing out unnecessarily, are getting a sub-standard job, or they’re missing out on the full value of the subsidy. If they fix those problems up, then the scheme would be well worth backing.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: Energy, housing
7 Comments

Brownlee gets details wrong – again!

Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 3rd, 2010

The government’s great details man Gerry Brownlee was reported in the DomPost this morning (article not online) making more claims about the government’s home insulation scheme that just don’t stack up. An Otago University report has argued that the standard of insulation provided isn’t sufficient for homes in colder areas (eg. lower South Island), so Brownlee side-steps the issue by saying there isn’t the capacity to insulate more homes. Actually Gerry, that wasn’t the question! Even then, his claim isn’t true either.

249 businesses applied for approval to deliver home insulation and heating under the government’s scheme but only 60 were approved. I know of a number of businesses that meet the quality standards but were turned away because they weren’t big enough. Gerry ‘bigger is always better’ Brownlee argues there isn’t capacity to insulate more homes but that just isn’t true. If he wasn’t distorting the market by creating monopoly providers there would be plenty of capacity to insulate more homes.

Gerry Brownlee should take the concerns being raised about the scheme seriously. Last month an initial audit by EECA into the scheme said that 63 per cent of the insulation retrofits audited have “problems”, half of which are described in the audit report as “serious”. There have been a string of reports from providers who have had to lay off staff because they were excluded at the last minute. There are suggestions providers who are approved aren’t passing on the full benefit of the subsidy to consumers.

The government needs to look at all of these issues carefully. Brownlee can’t keep bluffing the details. We all want to see more homes properly insulated, but it needs to be done properly. Enough of the cutting corners and PR spin.

Tags: ,
Filed under: Energy
15 Comments

Brownlee’s shambles cuts jobs

Posted by Chris Hipkins on February 24th, 2010

One of the first things the new National government did when coming into office was scrap the $1b home insulation fund that the previous Labour government had planned. Later in the year they finally woke up to the huge value better home insulation can bring and announced their own scheme, albeit smaller. Personally I was pleased they’d seen the value in warming up kiwi homes, but as the weeks and months have rolled on, more and more of the rushed schemes weaknesses have been revealled.

One of the most concerning is the impact it has had on small specialist businesses. It would be natural to assume that a small specialist home insulation business delivering a quality product would stand to benefit from a significant expansion of the market and increase in the number of government subsidies available. Not so, in fact the opposite has happened. The government has arbitarily capped the number of providers, favouring big players like The Warehouse or Hire a Hubby, rather than small specialists. Of the 249 businesses that sought approval, only 60 got it.

I think this is totally unfair. Many of these businesses were previously able to access government subsidies and some had, in good faith, scaled up their operations, taking on new staff (many off the dole) in anticipation of the increased demand. I’ve had many firms tell me about how they’ve had to lay off staff because they can’t compete with the big providers who are getting government subsidies.

I’m very keen to see more homes insulated, and I’m pleased the government is putting some money into it. It’s a real shame that they aren’t doing it fairly and properly. It’s kind of ironic that the ‘pro-competition’ National Party seems to be going out of their way to distort the market and choke off any competition when it comes to home heating and insulation.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: Energy, jobs
18 Comments

Brownlee’s Bungled Bill

Posted by Chris Hipkins on February 4th, 2010

Opposition to the National government’s plans to carve up the electricity ‘market’ even further continues to grow. Gerry Brownlee, meanwhile, continues to think he can just bluster his way through without dealing with the many substantive and valid concerns being raised.

The Press reports that Meridian Energy have written to SOE Minister Simon Power and Finance ministers Bill English and Steven Joyce informing them that the cost to the taxpayer of Brownlee’s proposed transfer of assets from Meridian to Genesis could be $80 million plus. Brownlee’s pitiful response was to say that the issue had been ‘extensively canvassed’. He then resorted to attacking the messenger, in much the same way he attacked PowerShop when they also raised concerns.

The Press also quotes Institute of Professional Engineers chief executive Andrew Cleland who argues forcing Meridian to hand over the Tekapo A and B power stations to Genesis would compromise the Waitaki system, making it less efficient resulting in a “lose-lose” for the consumer. Labour raised this very point during the First Reading of Brownlee’s Bill.

Gerry Brownlee seems to be playing with the energy SOEs as if they are toys. He has no real plan to deal with the flaws in the existing electricity market, he doesn’t seem to have grasped the detail of the portfolio and seems totally unwilling to engage with any reasoned argument. Unfortunately, it’s the consumer/taxpayer that will suffer the consequences.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: Energy, public services
16 Comments

Business opportunities from climate change

Posted by Trevor Mallard on January 21st, 2010

There are massive opportunites for NZ in developing and commercialising our expertise in green technologies. There was a workstream on it in MED when I was Minister in 2006/7. Brian Fallow has a good piece in the Herald today. I’m pleased that Stephen Tindall has continued to lead the private sector input.

As a mainly unrecognised example, Mighty River Power are probably the worlds leading company at developing renewable geothermal energy. There are lots of countries especially on the Pacific rim that will utilise that resource and we can both make money and a contribution to saving the planet at the same time by working with them. I like the idea of MRP doing international joint ventures in a similar way to their approach with Maori on trust lands in the central north island.

Tags: ,
Filed under: Energy, business, climate change, economy, environment, international, trade
No Comments

Brownlee muzzles power co boss

Posted by Chris Hipkins on January 13th, 2010

Late last year in the pre-Christmas rush Gerry Brownlee unveiled some pretty dramatic changes to the electricity market. They were contained in the Electricity Industry Bill which received its first reading in Parliament.

At the time, the CEO of Powershop, a subsidiary of Meridian Energy, was very critical of the reforms proposed in the Bill. Brownlee complained to Meridian and it now looks like the CEO has been gagged.

It’s a shame that the National Party only seems to be in favour of freedom of speech when it likes the message being delivered.

Update: Hat tip to The Standard who first posted on this yesterday.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: Energy
22 Comments

Peter Dunne plays grinch

Posted by Chris Hipkins on December 20th, 2009

Last week I missed this little announcement from Peter Dunne that the threshold at which student loan borrowers have to start paying back their loan would not be increased. To my knowledge this has never happened before, the threshold is usually adjusted each year so that it stays the same in real terms. National promised at the last election to keep the student loan scheme as it is (keep interest free etc). This amounts to a broken promise, even if it is a very small one.

The amounts we are talking about are not huge, it will probably cost every student loan borrower about $20-$40 a year. But it does set a worrying precedent. Given National’s promise not to touch the loan scheme a statement from Dunne that talks about the “very significant cost of this $9.6 billion asset to the Crown” and noting this change is intended to “lower the overall costs of the scheme to the Crown” is particularly worrying.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: Cost of Living, Energy
16 Comments

Question 11 – Parker

Posted by David Parker on December 16th, 2009

I invited Gerry Brownlee to accompany me on a tramp in the Mt Aspiring National Park, and followed it up with a question in the house.  He declined my gesture of Christmas goodwill, but with good humour. The clip of the question is attached. I’m off anyway and am taking a sattelite phone and my laptop. Technology permitting I hope to highlight why even considering opening National Parks to mining is a stupid idea.

Click here to read my letter of invitation to Gerry Brownlee.

Filed under: Energy, climate change, conservation, environment, humour
8 Comments

No relief from rising power prices

Posted by Chris Hipkins on December 9th, 2009

Gerry Brownlee has announced changes to the electricity sector. National are returning to their ‘market knows best’ ideological roots. They’re gutting the Electricity Commission, forcing asset swaps on the SOE generators that will do little to promote effective competition in the electricity market, and doing a bit of window dressing about customer switching beween retailers.

Before the election Brownlee and Key were blustering about electricity prices being too high. Now they seem content to talk about limiting price increases. After their year long review they have done nothing that will help to cut power bills for hard working Kiwi families. In fact their demand that the SOEs return even bigger dividends to the government could send power prices up even further.

I’m still working my way through the reports and will blog more on the detail in due course. Suffice to say I’m disappointed the government have once again ducked taking the tough decisions.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: Energy, privatisation
31 Comments

Beyond Crisis – Progressive Economic Conference

Posted by Trevor Mallard on November 18th, 2009

Spent most of the day at an  interesting discussion led in morning by the Archbishop of Canterbury who emphasised the importance of  the state and taxation as a form of insurance and the essenece of the democratic process.

There is considerable bitterness in the UK around the amount put into the banks and the feeling that they are now reverting to their old ways and that the massive stimulus was just flowing into share and property markets rather than saving or creating jobs.

And that a crisis caused by a reckless financial community has been turned into a crisis of public expenditure resulting in increasing bids to cut expenditure becoming part of the election campaign.

The current recovery was described as being like candy floss ie mainly air and fluff and likely to fall melt down in a similar manner because it lacks substance.

While there was no overall consensus there was a general agreement that green jobs were likely to be a very good way to go because they almost certainly had to involve people who live in the UK. There was also quite a lot of agreement around the view that the policies of both the major political parties were likely to exacerbate rather than shorten the recession.

There was a really interesting discussion around the multiplier effect of government expenditure. While the government saves about 28k pounds per job cut there is lost revenue of about 26k when income tax and VAT on the direct and indirect expenditure is taken into account.

Michael Cullen and I had lots of discussions on this issue when we were in government. The Treasury didn’t take second and third round effects into the budget and Michael was happy with that because it provided him with a bit more headroom than was obvious when reading the budget documentation.

My view is that it meant the decisions whether they involved increases or cuts were not transparent in their effects and that some things that were clearly worth doing didn’t progress as a result of this approach,

Overall a good seminar. The MPs there probably made the least impressive contributions.

Tags: ,
Filed under: Energy, economic, international, jobs
4 Comments

Green Nat agreement in tatters

Posted by Trevor Mallard on November 10th, 2009

It has been clear for some time that all has not been well with the very limited agreement between the Nacts and Greens.

Claire Browning from Pundit (worth a daily look) has the exclusive on the breakdown in the relationship.

The Greens have walked away from part of their working arrangement with the government. Jeanette Fitzsimons revealed exclusively to Pundit a relationship breakdown in the energy efficiency and conservation portfolio.

Last month, here on Pundit, I speculated that all was not well between the Greens and the government. Former co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons did not wish to comment then, but now she’s speaking out.

Pundit has that post as well. It concludes:

With such a retrograde vision of energy efficiency for New Zealand, it is little wonder the National Government didn’t want to collaborate further with the Greens. I can only wonder why they sought to do so in the first place.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: Energy, blogs, environment, parliament
13 Comments

Renewable energy the way to go

Posted by Chris Hipkins on November 9th, 2009

Last night’s Sunday programme on TV1 had a couple of really interesting items on Denmark’s drive towards renewable energy. According to the report they now generate 20 percent of their electricity from wind farms and aim to increase that to 50 percent in coming years. In the interim, there is protest internally about the fact that the majority of their electricity comes from fossil fuels, coal in particular but also imported nuclear energy.

It was a timely reminder of how lucky we are to have such an abundance of renewable energy here in New Zealand. The majority of our electricity already comes from renewable sources, mostly hydro but also increasingly wind. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t be striving to generate all of our electricity from renewable sources. It will take time, but we can get there.

Sadly, one of the first things that National/ACT/Maori Party government did was repeal the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Act, which placed a restriction on further thermal electricity generation unless it was necessary for security of supply (ie. To make sure the lights don’t go out). It was another giant leap backwards from the new government.

I’ve put a new Private Members Bill in the ballot that would re-impose a similar restriction on new fossil-fuelled electricity. I hope enough parties in parliament will vote to send it to a Select Committee so that the issue can get an airing. There are costs involved, without doubt, but renewable energy is the way of the future.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: Energy, climate change
6 Comments

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »