Meridian Energy to replace five transformers at Manapōuri Power Station
Manapōuri Power Station.
Photo:
123rf
Meridian Energy will have to replace five transformers at Manapōuri Power Station due to concerns about elevated gassing.
In a stock exchange announcement, Meridian said the Southland power station's transformer fleet is currently made up of six transformers from Australia's Wilson Transformer Company (WTC).
It initially received seven from WTC in 2015 and 2018, but two were removed in 2023 due to gassing issues. Another WTC transformer was supplied at the end of last year.
Meridian said it received independent advice that the five older WTC transformers would likely have similar problems to the two removed from service.
Meridian planned to replace the older WTC transformers over the next two-and-a-half years.
"We are moving quickly to replace the five transformers supplied by WTC in 2015 and 2018 and are confident this will result in limited to no impact on generation capacity," its general manager for generation, Tania Palmer said.
Manapōuri is the largest hydropower station in the country, located at Lake Manapōuri in Fiordland National Park, and primarily supplies electricity to the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter.
Meridian said it was "important the company takes swift action".
Palmer said the company was "working hard" to ensure there would be no generation impact.
The company expects to receive two Indonesian-made transformers early next year.
Meridian did not outline any financial impact, but said it was in "discussions with WTC on a resolution".
"At the current time a resolution has not been reached," it said.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
Aquaculture animal welfare code 'anti-Kiwi', Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones says
Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones is ruling out an animal welfare code for aquaculture, saying it is "anti-Kiwi" and an "indulgence". The SPCA has called for a code to protect farmed fish, following a government plan to grow the industry's revenue to $3 billion annually by 2035. Scientific officer Marie McAninch said a code would also help give the aquaculture sector access to the sorts of international markets that land-based farmers benefit from, thanks to their animal welfare codes. "New Zealanders care about how farmed animals are treated - and so do people overseas who buy our products. They'll expect that farmed fish in aquaculture are treated well and that their welfare meets our animal welfare laws. "A code of welfare for aquaculture would help make that happen. But right now, New Zealand's Aquaculture Strategy - and the Aquaculture Development Strategy that Shane Jones announced in March - are both completely silent on the welfare of the animals being farmed." Jones said he would not be considering an animal welfare code. "Most certainly not. I think these impositions are anti-Kiwi. We are in the midst of a set of economic challenges where we must expand and grow the footprint of aquaculture. It's all going to end up [as food for] human consumption or pet consumption." Jones said existing fish farmers already did "a very good job" of looking after their stock. "All of these animal husbandry businesses, there's always scope for improvement. But regulatory codes ... only represent red tape and at a deeper level where does all this end? We're a small economy and a lot of these impositions are, in my view, indulgences. They're vanity projects and these debates need a clear set of contrasting views." But McAninch said New Zealanders cared about how farmed animals were treated - and so did people overseas who bought products from New Zealand fish farms. Fish were legally recognised as sentient beings, which meant they were capable of feeling pain, stress and positive emotional states, she said. The SPCA was not against aquaculture, McAninch said. "But we do believe it's crucial to make sure all farmed animals - and any wild animals affected by these systems - are properly protected. Our land-based farming sectors take pride in their animal welfare codes, and it's helped them with access to international markets. If the aquaculture sector doesn't plan for this now, they risk falling behind in a global environment where factory farming is increasingly under scrutiny." Jones said he was "the first to admit some of my views might be a bit difficult to stomach". But animal advocates were "on a trajectory of mission creep, and I kind of feel it's anti-Kiwi," he said. "I can understand that little kittens and dogs that bite children and other welfare considerations [are] an established part of rural life and our ethos, but suggesting that people growing salmon, new fish species and indeed shellfish ... we already have a system through the Resource Management Act that deals with the effects of such activity." Jones described a recent outcry by animal lovers about farming octopuses , which are sentient beings, as "the height of this folly". "We need to grow industry, we don't want to impose these urban based vanity beliefs of basic industrial growth prospects." Octopus farming was banned in the United States in Washington and California due to animal welfare concerns, and consideration of a ban is also underway in three more states. But Jones said New Zealand could not afford such "luxury indulgences". "It's not something that I'm going to encourage, it's certainly not something I'm going to push forward, or agree with, at a time we have large competing objectives and other goals that I think society should set its mind upon." The SPCA would welcome talks with the minister about how a welfare code could help ensure the aquaculture sector was sustainable and resilient, McAninch said. There is currently no code of welfare for farmed fish species, although the New Zealand Salmon Farmers Association has developed a voluntary welfare standard for farmed salmon in New Zealand. The Animal Welfare Act 1999 (the AWA) and the Code of Welfare for Commercial Slaughter applies to farmed fish and for any fish that are intended to be held or transported live. The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) has identified development of a code of welfare for farmed fish for consideration as a future priority. The Minister in charge of Animal Welfare, Associate Minister of Agriculture Andrew Hoggard said NAWAC set its own work programme and schedule for code reviews, but he had asked it to prioritise production livestock codes, and the rodeo code. "Several of these codes have been under review for some time and the industries concerned need certainty. I expect NAWAC to deliver on those codes before turning their attention to other animal species." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Otago Daily Times
11 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Defence Minister Judith Collins endorses Trump's Golden Dome
By Phil Pennington of RNZ US President Donald Trump's Golden Dome missile defence project has won endorsement from New Zealand. The vision is of a vast shield of sensors, missiles and even laser beams designed to take out conventional and nuclear missiles. Critics of the proposed system say it may fuel an arms race in space, and China and Russia have condemned it. But Defence Minister Judith Collins told a security summit in Singapore it was justified. "It's a defence mechanism," she said during a panel on cyber, space and undersea challenges. "I don't see it as an attack mechanism. It's a defence mechanism. "And if people did not feel they needed to defend themselves, they wouldn't waste the money on it." The chorus of major defence contractors signalling their readiness to work on the Golden Dome has been growing, joined recently by New Zealand-founded and California-based company Rocket Lab. Rocket Lab used a $460 million acquisition of the parent company of Arizona firm Geost, to state how the deal secured "core capabilities" for achieving Pentagon goals in space, "like the proposed Golden Dome". Prime (major) contractor Lockheed Martin said on its website: "This next generation defence shield will identify incoming projectiles, calculate trajectory and deploy interceptor missiles to destroy them mid-flight, safeguarding the homeland and projecting American Strength [sic]." SpaceX, controversial software innovator Palantir and drone-maker Anduril also feature in media reports and speculation about the Dome. Trump has said it would be operational by the end of his term and over the next decade cost $300 billion, but many analysts doubt the timing, while the Congressional Budget Office has estimated it could cost as much as $1.4 trillion over two decades. Lockheed called it "a Manhattan Project-scale mission". Minister Collins told the Shangri-La Dialogue that taxpayers' money was hard-fought for. "Let me tell you, we are defence ministers, we know how that feels, we have to go in every day and try to get more money. "And we're not going to do it unless there's some reason to do it. So you know, don't be aggressive in space, we won't need Golden Dome or any other sort of dome." Collins told the summit New Zealand's proportion of defence spending on emerging technology would grow, noting that tech made in New Zealand was being used in the Ukraine war. "We are going to be using some of that," she said. Tauranga company Syos makes drones that have been used in Ukraine. 'Everyone wants a piece' China, Russia and North Korea have all condemned Trump's revival of a high-tech form of the Ronald-Reagan era Star Wars missile defence plan, 400 times larger than Israel's Iron Dome. Despite this and critics' fears, defence and high-tech military-linked contractors have begun jockeying for action. "Everyone Wants a Piece of Trump's 'Golden Dome' Defense Plan," a Wall Street Journal headline said. Reuters has reported that Elon Musk's SpaceX - the most prolific satellite launcher ever - was in partnership with two tech firms that had been muscling into the defence industry to become Golden Dome frontrunners. The Times of India asked if the Dome was a shield for the US "or just to make Elon Musk richer?" One of Musk's reported partners is Anduril, a supercharged start-up that has plans for a billion-dollar military drone factory, and the other is New Zealand citizen Peter Thiel's software firm Palantir. The US Army recently tested a Palantir system called Maven for rapid targeting, saying it allowed a 20-person unit to do more than a 2000-strong unit was able to target during the 2003 Iraq war. The track record with the US Army had boosted Palantir, market analysts said. Smart targeting is envisaged as part of Golden Dome, with the Pentagon saying that by 2029 it would deploy smart sensors in space that can distinguish missile threats from clutter. Canada's Globe and Mail reported a range of stocks were benefiting from Trump's talk of the Golden Dome, noting that Palantir was now worth more than Lockheed Martin. The SpaceX link-up with tech firms reported by Reuters, is a challenge to the entrenched defence industry players like Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and RTX (Raytheon), though these "primes" do figure in an Act introduced in February to enable Golden Dome, alongside a Trump executive order. Rocket Lab said in its media release citing the Golden Dome it was "positioning itself as disruptive prime to US national security". The Street financial news site said the Geost deal put the company that launches out of both Mahia and Virginia, "firmly in the national security conversation". America's Defence Intelligence Agency in mid-May profiled the forecast missile threat across six categories, including two hypersonics and two types of nuclear ballistic missiles. The Chatham House thinktank said the Golden Dome might suck resources from regional missile defence and cyber resilience, to go into unproven shield technology. "The plan also has potentially dangerous strategic consequences," it said. "A system that aspires to make the US invulnerable to missile attack would almost certainly be seen by its adversaries as an attempt to undermine the logic of nuclear deterrence. If Washington is perceived to be developing a shield that could one day neutralise a retaliatory nuclear strike, it risks triggering a dangerous global arms race."
RNZ News
11 hours ago
- RNZ News
Categories and strategy: The path of Parliament's members' bills
The biscuit tin that members' bills are drawn randomly from at Parliament. Photo: Supplied / Office of the Clerk Some of the most socially significant law in Parliament's history originated as a member's bill. Without luck in the members' bill ballot, it is possible that gay law reform, marriage equality, end-of-life choice, or anti-smacking law reform would have waited years, deemed too controversial. But not all members' bills are social blockbusters. Many have less lofty ambitions. Members' bills often correct gaps in legislation or close loopholes - you might call them tidy-ups. They can also be political statements; to tautoko (support and affirm) party policy, or offer a counter-response to it. Bills that could be seen as examples of this are Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke's Members of Parliament (Duty to Uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi) Legislation Bill / Te Pire mō Te Here ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi, or Hamish Campbell's Gang Free Ports Bill. Members' bills from governing-party back-benchers often have very narrow policy aims, but their very presence has a purpose, to reduce the odds of opposition bills being picked. The House chatted to National's Andrew Bayly and Labour's Phil Twyford (who have a total of 26 years of Parliamentary experience between them), about the political strategy behind what bills go into the ballot. Parliament's agenda is dominated by government bills - legislation agreed by Cabinet and put forward by government ministers to enact government policy. Non-ministers can also propose laws. Any backbench MP (non-minister) can develop an idea for a law change, write a draft bill, and submit it to Parliament's Table Office. Usually that takes the form of a member's bill. (Local bills and private bills are two other types of non-government bills.) The difficult part? Being lucky enough to have your bill drawn from the ballot. Only eight bills are available to debate at a time, from about 90 sitting in the old biscuit tin used to draw the ballot. From Bayly's perspective, members' bills generally fall into one of three types. "The first one," he says, "is backbenchers who see the opportunity to test some thinking, which they might want to put into legislation." Andrew Bayly (file photo) Photo: RNZ / Anneke Smith "Secondly, there are sort of additions to existing legislation that people want to seek clarification on, so they might be technical in nature or have some benefit when it comes to interpretation. For instance, [the current law is] not working well, it needs to be improved. "The third [type] are slightly off [from] traditional government thinking, but they are nonetheless maybe the cause of the day, and those are the ones that can extend where we are in terms of debate into new areas, and they are the more adventurous ones." Bayly's counterpart across the aisle, Phil Twyford, reckons members' bills are one of the few opportunities MPs get to break out of the confines of the partisan default they generally follow at Parliament. Phil Twyford (file photo) Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone "Our parliamentary system," Twyford suggests, "is so dominated by political parties that exercise discipline and whip their MPs to vote on a party line. Members' bills have a really important function in our system because they provide a little bit of an outlet. They allow individual MPs to have a go, and to try to get some new law made outside of the party discipline." Twyford suggests that with the introduction of MMP came the hope that lawmaking would be a bit more bipartisan. The reality, he says, is that MPs are still very much locked in to their parties. "I think that members' bills offer a little glimpse of how the world could be a little bit different and a bit more spontaneous, a bit more interesting." Members' bills, while a valuable tool for any MP, perhaps mean that little bit more to opposition MPs, who have less influence in a legislature dominated by the governing parties. This also means, Bayly suggests, that they can "be a bit more adventurous". Of course, being adventurous doesn't always equate to being successful. Members' bills still need to receive a majority of MP votes in the House, which for opposition MPs is rare but certainly not unachievable. Twyford's Labour colleague, Camilla Belich, recently won support for a member's bill that made employer theft of employee wages a crime . Twyford believes it is a bill "the government wouldn't have usually supported". He says that as an opposition MP, "that's kind of a special thing". Belich's bill even split the governing coalition partners (New Zealand First voted with the Opposition in support; National and ACT voted against). Members' bills can be divisive, even within parties, especially if they relate to social or conscience issues. Bayly says those bills have the potential to "cut that social strata right across the whole party, and in many cases, there are certain issues that people have a personal vote on, even within caucuses". Traditionally these personal votes have been for bills relating to alcohol, drugs, religion, sex, abortion and so on, and they can originate from an MP anywhere on the political spectrum. Members' bills are free to deal with all the trickiest issues. They can't do everything though. Bills with ideas that would rely on a big investment of money can be vetoed by the government, even if they are passed in the House. Governments can adopt a member's bill as their own, though it might be changed as part of the process. "[In government] you are sort of tied down into a different type of bill", Bayly says. "For instance, we've just got a new bill around phone (social media) usage and things like that for under-16-year-olds, which has come through, and is actually going to be adopted as a government piece of legislation . It can be quite useful in terms of driving the social agenda, but also government agenda over time." If the government might adopt your bill anyway, why not go straight to the boss with your idea? The answer, Bayly suggests, comes down to the fact that Parliament's legislative agenda is jam-packed. "Traditionally, we pass between about 80 and 100 bills a year, and all ministers are trying to get bills up. A lot of these [members' bills] are outside this normal cycle of going through the update of the regulatory system, and therefore, [members' bills are] a way to interject and make a change much more quickly outside of that cycle." So you've got your bright idea that you want to turn into a member's bill, what next? "This place is very collective and very tribal," Twyford says. "Group discipline is everything and I'm sure it's the same for all the parties. If an individual's got a bright idea, you have to take it to caucus, usually to a caucus committee, and get your colleagues' agreement before you are given the license to go and put it in the biscuit tin." Once your idea is sound, and your colleagues are okay with it, then you put pen to paper, and draft an actual piece of proposed legislation. This is the "nub of the work" in creating a member's bill, Bayly says. "[It's important to] draft it in a way that is appropriate and actually gets to the issue, and as the Parliamentary Counsel Office (which does all the legal drafting here in New Zealand) will tell you, it's pretty hard to do that appropriately." (The Parliamentary Counsel Office only drafts government bills, but MPs can get assistance from the Office of the Clerk for non-government bills.) Once you're satisfied the bill has been drafted "appropriately", (as Bayly put it), you knock on wood, wear your lucky tie, keep a rabbit's foot, and play the waiting game to see if it is drawn from the tin and added to the Order Paper for debate. Some MPs are lucky and get multiple bills picked from the ballot, other MPs pass long careers in Parliament without a single member's bill chosen. If your bill gets drawn and survives a first reading, then Bayly says, "you've got to go into the select committee, and often the [departmental] officials look at your bill and think it's a bit of a nuisance for them and [they] may actually be [against it progressing, as well as there being possible opposition from], government ministers or members. So, you know, it's not an easy road, but it's great when it happens." To listen to the full interview with Phil Twyford and Andrew Bayly, click the link near the top of the page. * RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
