Energy

The debate about energy generation is a very important one in the New Zealand political scene. With the climate change debate an increasingly important subject and the South Island hydro-lakes almost constantly at a dangerously low level and causing three energy crises in the last decade, you can see why.

The biggest issue in regards to energy generation in New Zealand is, perhaps, deciding what kind of energy is the best choice for future investment. Energy generation can come from a very wide set of sources and, while some type of renewable energy is obviously the target, renewable energy comes many forms. I'm not going to go into all those with you because it's not the point of this blog, but Contact Energy have a very handy resource which goes into the positives and negatives of hydro, gas, coal, wind, geothermal, solar, biomass and tidal/wave energy generation. Certainly if climate change and energy generation is an important issue for you I'd highly recommend you take a look at the guide to get an overview about the various options.

The next issue to consider is the much more controversial one of the Resource Management Act. The RMA is something that many admire. It's something for New Zealand to be proud of simply because it took the concept of sustainability and put it into law for the first time. It really is a piece of legislation that was well ahead of it's time, however, issues surrounding the extensive consultations required under the RMA mean that new energy plants can be severely delayed which only exacerbate the current energy crises we face on a now-regular basis.

So, looking at the issues of sustainability, emissions and the RMA, what does each of the main political parties have to say about energy production and distribution?

Once again, Labour's policy is dated from 2005. Edulection frustration at Labour notwithstanding, this is how Labour stood on Energy in 2005.

In 2005 Labour pledged to introduce a Carbon Tax. They have tried to introduce it, however, have faced major opposition. Right now New Zealand has no Carbon Tax and the emissions Trading Scheme currently proposed is highly controversial because, until 2013, it puts 90% of the cost onto small-time producers such as households, road users and small to medium businesses, rather than those who actually make the bulk of emissions - big industry and farming. This carbon tax is important to Energy because it has been so delayed (the target date in 2005 was April 2007) so have many decisions about new energy generation. The ETS is due to go before parliament very soon but as I said earlier, it's highly controversial. Very few groups are actually happy with it.

In 2005, Labour also pledged to "use the Electricity Commission to monitor supply and demand of electricity and ensure that there is enough backup generation even in dry years". While we haven't actually had power outages, we are encouraged to save electricity every year due to the lack of water in our hydro-lakes. Labour also pledged to keep electricity costs down - particularly for low-users, explore new renewable energy options, and ensure new buildings meet energy efficiency requirements.

National have made a big song and dance about their policies lately. The core of their principles is that they are worried about the stability of the economy when we are being asked on a regular basis to conserve power. National believe that the biggest slower in the process is the RMA and they have pledged to 'streamline' the RMA in the first 30 days of being in office, making it easier to gain consents for new power generation operations. When it comes down to how the energy will be generated, National has left it quite open. Their Energy Policy states National will:

• Accept that gas will be part of the mix needed for secure supply. Overturn the Government’s ban on new base-load thermal power stations.
• Introduce an emissions trading scheme within nine months of taking office. We expect our ETS will result in no new coal stations unless carbon capture technology is proven.
• Support the 90% renewables target but not let it get in the way of security of supply.

One awesome thing about National's policy that is really worth noting is the promise of a $1000 grant to households installing solar-water heating and a simplification of the resource consents involved. They also plan to remove a lot of the bureaucracy around the power supply market to make it more affordable and plan to start looking for more gas fields in order to continue using gas as a baseline power generation method.

NZ First want to guarantee security of supply by achieving greater investment in the industry in order to produce more electricity by "providing incentives for ongoing investment" - what those incentives are is not explained.

NZ First are also "consider[ing] a range of incentives for reducing demand in times of reduced supply". Again, who these incentives are for and what they are is not mentioned. They also want to facilitate energy efficiencies by looking at new technologies as they become available (although there are no specific energy types identified) and to ensure that energy is supplied at a fair and reasonable price.

While NZ First wants more investment they don't want the prices pushed up with it and so they have no plans to sell off government-owned assets in the electricity market. They also want to examine the "fixed line charge" - anyone who pays a power bill probably knows how it's done - you get a daily charge of around $0.85 and a 'per unit' charge on top of that. Well NZ First want to ensure that $0.85 is fairly distributed. NZ First also support an amended RMA to speed up the consents process.

the Green Party are yet to release an energy policy for 2008. The short story of their 2005 policy is that they wanted to redesign the Electricity Commission into the Sustainable Energy Commission who would be responsible for all regulations on all fuels. This opens the door for investigating the role of renewable energy for public transport, other essential transport services, air and marine transport, and our main industries and introducing a carbon charge on fossil fuels. The Greens' planned to use the revenue from this carbon charge to reduce income tax on the bottom band, for everyone. Price wise the Greens support investigating 'progressive pricing', whereby the more energy you use, the more you pay, above a certain base level. Like National, the Greens support a programme to install solar water heating panels on government and private buildings although are not specific on this point. They also would like to investigate the potential of woody biomass, biofuels, and energy from waves, tides and currents.

The Maori Party's 3 policy statements do not include reference to energy or electricity generation. However, I have sent party co-leader Pita Sharples a message via Facebook. If I get a reply I'll post it here.

United Future like our energy the way it is. They just want to make it a little more reliable and a little cheaper. They believe in strong investment in the development of new sustainable energy options and upgrading the national grid. The energy policy is particularly weak, however, in actually making a commitment to any energy options or pushing sustainable energy options. One particular sentence that really worries me about the document is this:

"The best generation is that which is the most reliable and can be consistently delivered at the lowest cost within full compliance with New Zealand's high environmental standards."

When I read that I see loopholes. New technology should be renewable in order to avoid further hidden costs that will eventually come in because of the Emission Trading Scheme. I'm not entirely convinced that this is what United Future's policy is looking at.

Act has a 20-point plan. In this plan I found 4 of these points that relate directly to this issue:

6) Resource Management Reform the Resource Management Act (has worked in the US (Houston)). Benefit: Good projects start and finish sooner.

13) Privatisation Sell state businesses where private firms can serve customers better (has worked practically everywhere except Cuba, North Korea, Myanmar). Benefit: Happier customers. Lower prices. More product variety and choice.
14) Infrastructure Build better networks (e.g. roads, water, electricity). Replace users charges with tolls which reward off-peak use (has worked well in countries such as Australia, Norway (Oslo), US, Singapore, France. Benefit: Smoothing demand reduces bottleneck. No need to pay for more capacity. Better service for less money
18) Climate Change Adopt saner policies. Low carbon tax better than carbon trading (has worked in countries such as the US, Canada (British Columbia), Australia). Benefit: Don't hurt Kiwi families needlessly. (nations that cause 75% of emissions must lead)

That's actually as in depth as they go.

I'll leave it to you to make your choice as to who has the most sane policy here. As parties update their policy I'll update this page.