
What Went Wrong For Flick?
When it launched in 2014, Flick Energy was something innovative in the New Zealand electricity market.
It claimed to be a tech-based company on a mission to "disrupt Aotearoa's outdated, self-serving industry".
It offered customers something different - a way to purchase power directly from the wholesale electricity market.
But this week, it was revealed that Flick's now-owner Ampol-owned Z Energy, would transfer all Flick and Z Energy customer contracts, and the related hedge book, to Meridian, one of the country's big gentailers.
So what went wrong?
Things first started to wobble in 2017, when a period of high spot prices hit Flick's customers exposed to wholesale electricity spot prices.
While it previously said customers had saved an average of upwards of $500 a year on the spot price plan, customers were complaining on social media that they were paying $100 or more for power per week through the price spike.
In October 2018, spot prices hit another even higher peak. Since the start of 2021, wholesale prices have been still more volatile.
Flick stopped taking new customers in 2021, saying it would not begin again until wholesale prices became more affordable. It did so, but did not offer its wholesale pricing offer, and then stopped again earlier this year.
Octopus Energy chief operating officer Margaret Cooney said since Z bought Flick in 2018, the market had been plagued with problems.
"This includes refusals to supply and a margin squeeze whereby wholesale prices have been elevated above the cost of retail, this means mass market retail has been running at a loss - even for the big four gentailers. It looks like Flick has been sold for the long term value of their hedge book.
"Flick's initial model was spot based, it worked for a limited niche, so they evolved to offer a standard fix price offer as well. The initial offer was probably ahead of its time because Tibber and Amber are similar offers internationally and have been very successful. But at the end of the day you can be the most efficient and technically advanced retailer but the wholesale market problems make growth impossible.
"I think the unfortunate thing is that the market is becoming increasingly concentrated on both the generation and retail side at just the time consumers really need the investment from independent generators and retailers to improve the dynamism and affordability of the market."
Cooney said prices would remain high unless there was action on the problems in the market.
Huia Burt, co-founder of Electric Kiwi, agreed market conditions had been challenging in the past few years.
"We made the complaint to the Commerce Commission at the end of 2023 that we felt there were two key areas where competition was really being stifled in the market and one was around the refusal or constructive refusal to supply hedge contracts which is being looked at by the energy competition task force.
"There's this retail margin squeeze where effectively the gentailers are cross subsidising profits in general by really keeping a lid on on their retail profits and you could see through the last few years that their retail arms were either making no money or actually making large losses. And that was being subsidised through these huge profits and and generation. So yeah, it's very, very difficult to operate as a retailer."
She said Flick's initial spot price offer was innovative when it was brought to the market.
"That's what we're arguing for about why independent retail is so important because we are focused on thinking really innovatively about what problem does the customer have and how might we be able to solve it?
"So while spot prices might not be for all customers, certainly there may be a segment that that really works for, you know, people who have their own solar panels and batteries for example. That innovation that was brought to the sector by independent retailers like Flick and like Electric Kiwi … That is really, really important for driving our the future of the market in New Zealand."
She said as independent retailers dropped out, it took the price pressure off the bigger players. Electric Kiwi has closed to new customers. Another provider, Raw Energy, is understood to have left the market. Energyclubnz also closed and handed its customers to Contact.
"One thing we do know is that we saw last winter when a lot of the independents closed their doors for some time saying, it's just too risky, that the gentailers at exactly the same time withdrew their most competitive offers from the market, so the top of the market contracted and so that meant if you were moving house, if you were looking around for a new supplier, suddenly you were paying a lot more. Even if a gentailer was offering a good deal, it wasn't as good as it was before."
Paul Fuge, general manager at Powerswitch, said Flick had historically rated well in energy retailer surveys.
"It's disappointing to see it absorbed by a larger player, particularly given Flick customers are typically among the most satisfied. Unfortunately, it's consumers who will bear the brunt of reduced competition yet again."
Meridian chief customer officer Lisa Hannifin said there was still "really great choice" of retailers in New Zealand.
"There's more retailers per capita in New Zealand than in both the Australian and UK markets."
Any customers still on the wholesale pricing plans will have four months before they move on to a Meridian plan.
"We know that some customers want to control when they use their energy. Meridian has been developing time of use products that can help reduce monthly bills, like the product Flick did have, and these will be available for Flick customers should they select them," Hannifin said.
"We have two great retail brands that offer a range of products that customers value, but we're still working through options on which brand customers will transition to. We think Flick customers will enjoy the products, service and value that Meridian offers. We've grown our customer base by over 27,000 customers this financial year, which shows that customers are choosing us to be their retailer."

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NZ Autocar
8 hours ago
- NZ Autocar
Z Energy to increase EV charger rates this month
Z Energy has announced it will raise prices on its nationwide EV charging network from the 24th of June. Per-kWh rates will rise from 79 cents to 88 cents. It also raised them this time last year. The increase will take effect from 24 June 2025, and will apply for both fast and ultra-fast chargers across the Z network. The company says the price hike reflects higher wholesale electricity costs, along with rising transmission and distribution charges. Meantime, the New Zealand Herald reports today that lake levels in the North Island are high after all the rain. Those in the South Island are at 91 per cent. That indicates that repeats of last year's winter power price spikes are unlikely. That's especially with more geothermal energy production on line, and substantial reserves of coal available. Gas reserves, however, are down by 27 per cent compared with last year. Z isn't the only EV charging operator raising prices. Many have announced price increases in 2025, including ChargeNet and Meridian's Zero network. They cite similar cost pressures tied to energy market volatility and infrastructure upgrades. According to Z, the typical EV driver who takes on around 22kWh per charging session can expect to pay $2 more per visit. Home charging remains the most cost-effective option for many EV owners. But fast/ultra-fast public charging continues to play a vital role in supporting longer journeys. It is also essential for urban users who don't have a home charging alternative.


Scoop
12 hours ago
- Scoop
BSA Upholds Complaint Against Central FM Re. Incorrect Labelling Of DoC Conservation Land As 'Stewardship Land'
The Broadcasting Standards Authority has upheld a complaint against Central FM regarding an interview with Mike Petersen, spokesperson for Ruataniwha v.2, where 22 ha. of DoC conservation land was inaccurately labelled as 'stewardship land'. The damning Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) decision, released today, found that Mike Petersen, lead proponent for Ruataniwha dam v.2, inaccurately labelled the 22 ha. DoC-owned land needed to build Ruataniwha v.2 as 'stewardship land', when in fact it comprises 93% conservation land. Wise Water Use Hawkes Bay spokesperson, Dr Trevor Le Lievre, says the finding raises a credibility issue for Mr Petersen, and is questioning his capacity to manage the build of the estimated-$500 million Ruataniwha dam v.2. The BSA found that Petersen '…made two definitive statements that it was not conservation land' on Central FM Radio, Waipukurau, in an interview held on 8 October last year with station part-owner and fellow dam-proponent, Steve Wyn Harris: [1] The BSA found: 'The Authority agreed the description of the 22 hectares of Department of Conservation land needed for the dam project as 'only stewardship land', when approximately 93% of it has 'conservation park status', was a material inaccuracy which the broadcaster had not made reasonable efforts to avoid.'[summary]; and 'The broadcast created a misleading impression about the 22 hectares of DOC land needed for the project as being 'stewardship' land and having inferior conservation values'. [para. 25] 'Mr Petersen is asking the community to trust him to build a $500 million dam, yet can't even correctly identify the status of the DoC land needed to build the dam. This begs the serious question as to what else Mr Petersen has got wrong?' said Le Lievre, adding: 'alarm bills should be ringing loudly for potential investors. 'Mike Petersen is selling the public a story about Ruataniwha v.2: a story about economic prosperity to be shared by all, about a solution to our depleted aquifer and rivers, and about restoring our water quality, and dealing with the vagaries of climate change: has anyone fact checked the story?' Wise Water Use is now questioning other statements made by Petersen: 'A number of statements have been made by Mr Petersen as part of the Ruataniwha v.2 story. We believe that in light of this recent ruling Mr Petersen now needs to provide evidence to back those statements,' said Le Lievre, who cited several unsubstantiated claims: 'This is a commercial project …we are not seeking public investment into this project at all' [2] Mike Petersen recently petitioned local lines company, Centralines, for money to develop another feasibility case for the dam, and received a commitment of $100,000. Wise Water Use argues this money is coming out of the pockets of CHB power consumers; The dam promoters are also wanting the public to pick up the cost of so-called 'environmental flows' which would allocate 20 Mm3 water annually for release down the main Tukituki River stem.[3] Wise Water Use calculates that should this cost fall to Regional Council ratepayers it would entail an average 10% rates increase and is running a petition asking the Regional Council to state publicly they won't assume the cost. 'There is a hydro generation component in the project as well, which appeals to those seeking green investment.' [4] Wise Water Use points out that there have never been any detailed plan for hydro generation presented in any public reports on the dam, nor other public forum, and that such a proposal doesn't stack up financially, and argues this is an attempt to greenwash the project by Mr Petersen. 'The proposal is completely different in focus and intent from the original Ruataniwha project, despite sharing the original project's site on the Makaroro river.' [5] Wise Water Use says that the renamed 'Tukituki Water Security Project' is no different to the Ruataniwha dam v.1: it would use exactly the same engineering design, rely on the same consents to take water, be located on the same part of the Makaroro River, still need the 22 ha. of DoC conservation land, and would remain an industrial-scale irrigation dam. 'Mike Petersen is fronting a $500 million dam project, which with associated on-farm infrastructure costs would cost more than $1 billion dollars. His inability to get the status of the DoC conservation land correct brings into question every other unsupported statement he has made in support of Ruataniwha v.2, and undermines the very viability of the project,' finished Le Lievre. [1] Petersen: 'This is not conservation land, this is DoC stewardship land'; and 'This is not part of the DoC conservation estate, it's owned by DoC but is classified as stewardship land'. Source: Central FM interview (8/10/2024) [2] Source: Central FM interview (8/10/2024) [3] Petersen was recently quoted as stating: 'I would argue that it's unreasonable to expect private investors to supply that (environmental flows) free of charge'. Source: Newsroom (15/5/2025). [4] Source: Farmers Weekly (8/10/2024)


Scoop
17 hours ago
- Scoop
Environment Court Decision Following ORC Application For Enforcement Order
Following an application for an Enforcement Order over the Shotover Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Environment Court released its decision yesterday. The application for the Enforcement Order has been approved by the Environment Court. ORC's Chief Executive Richard Saunders welcomed delivery of the decision and Enforcement Orders, ultimately to 'avoid, remedy and/or mitigate adverse environmental effects' caused by operation of the QLDC-owned Shotover Wastewater Treatment Plant. 'The decision paves the way to begin a plan of action so QLDC is able meet its consent obligations and achieve compliance against the Court's Orders,' he says. On 23 January ORC sought an Enforcement Order from the Environment Court to address current compliance issues at QLDC's Shotover treatment plant, which followed the issuing of two abatement notices and 10 infringement notices. (*note below). Environment Court mediation was the next step in deliberations and the Court released its decision yesterday. Mr Saunders highlighted ORC had taken several steps since problems arose with the plant's operations, dating back to 2021. 'The decision and enforcement orders give a clear indication of what's required to operate, remedy and upgrade the wastewater plant, while maintaining transparency with ongoing monitoring of these processes,' Mr Saunders says. The decision outlines 7 pages of seperate enforcement orders, in an Annexure, including upgrades, contingency measures, timeframes and milestones to be met. The Enforment Orders cover off Operations and Management Manual, staff Training, Sampling and Monitoring, Repairs and Improvements to the wastewater plant, Upgrades to the plant and a new Disposal Field solution; the latter requiring a consent application be made for a new disposal system by May 2026, which must be implemented by December 2030. The Environement Court decision also noted parties can apply for further Enforcement Orders, if required. The Decision is now on ORC's website. Mr Saunders noted that the ORC continues to closely monitor the Shotover treatment plant site and continues to undertake its regulatory role. Information on the Shotover treatment plant is available on Council's website: Consent application for discharge Mr Saunders highlighted yesterday's Environment Court's decision is separate to QLDC making an emergency/retrospective consent application for earlier works at the Shotover site. In early-May QLDC made an emergency works application to the ORC, including QLDC having requested public notification; an option available to all applicants under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The QLDC application is for retrospective consent for its emergency works at Shotover River wastewater treatment plant. The emergency works enacted by QLDC were to bypass the problematic (soak) disposal field and to discharge treated wastewater directly into the Shotover river. ORC is still assessing the application and further updates including a date for notification will be provided on the ORC website *Background Two abatement notices are in place and 10 infringements have been issued since the start of 2024. Five of these infringement notices have been issued this year (2025) relating to issues that happened on site towards the end of 2024. All the (5) new notices that have been issued, relate to the alleged discharge of contaminants (namely treated wastewater) to land on the Shotover Delta in circumstances which may result in contaminant (or any other contaminant entering water; namely groundwater), the Shotover River and/or Kawarau River.