Industrial users demand electricity market reform amid rising prices
As a major energy user and economic contributor, we would argue the opposite – New Zealand cannot afford the status quo to continue. Taking a 'we'll be right' attitude to nine years of price increases for wholesale users has had negative impacts for all consumers.
Citing a 'decade of flat electricity prices' for household consumers, Abernethy notes a short-term period of marginal increases is inevitable. What is missing from this statement is that electricity costs have been anything but flat for wholesale users, with spot prices increasing 3.5 times in nine years. (Index graph– Averaged Spot Market Real Time Pricing with forecast to April 2026).
How can this disparity between retail and wholesale pricing occur in a properly functioning market? Could it be because residential consumers would demand earlier political intervention if their bills skyrocketed to the same degree as that of wholesale consumers?
We accept that inter-year volatility will increase with the rise in intermittent renewables. However, it is not the main factor hurting large industrial users – it is this rising average price that cannot be insulated by hedging forward. Hedging contracts are now unaffordable for most large users because futures hedge prices are linked to the rising spot prices.
The wealth transfer from large industrial users to generators over the past decade in the form of inflated prices has not resulted in investment into more net supply. The market has not created sufficient incentives to build new generation ahead of when it is needed. Pan Pac general manager Tony Clifford at the Whirinaki plant. Photo / Warren Buckland
Instead, generators have sat on approved RMA (Resource Management Act) consents and continued to profit at the expense of business. We have seen the impact on manufacturers in regional areas no longer able to operate profitably. Residential consumers are then affected through loss of employment and services, while the economy and our communities suffer.
Blaming the shortage of gas as a driver of rising prices is overstating its impact. Electricity generation from gas makes up less than 10% of all electricity generated. While prices would have increased because of gas shortages, we dispute the premium over the relationship to the gas costs. Independent analysis of generator margins shows at least $38/MWh of increases cannot be explained by gas or ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) charge increases.
In summary, the gas shortage should not be impacting the electricity pricing to the extent claimed. However, the shortage of gas has been used to justify many years of high profits for generators and large dividend payouts to shareholders (which include successive Governments). These profits have not been reinvested into new generation until the recent threat of market intervention.
We are not blaming generators for maximising profit; they are working within the existing market rules that incentivise them to keep the market on the edge, but we do have an issue with them telling only a part of the story to regulators, politicians and the public, that they can do nothing about rising costs and that consumers just have to ride it out.
Market regulators and successive Governments have seen this train wreck approaching from a long way off but have chosen to do little. Simply not making a bold decision is a decision in itself.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Landlord Confidence On A Knife Edge: 80% Says Election Will Decide
AUCKLAND, 14 August 2025 — New data from the Auckland Property Investors Association (APIA) shows New Zealand's rental sector is in a state of cautious watchfulness. Four in five landlords say their investment confidence hinges on the next general election, reflecting both the scale of current reforms and the uncertainty of what comes after them. Major Findings Election-dependency risk: 80% of landlords say their confidence depends on the outcome of the next election, with 56% saying 'significantly.' Policy climate challenge: 56.9% believe the current policy environment is unsupportive of investment while 41.5% view it as stable or supportive. Many see today's uncertainty as short-term disruption caused by the scale of reform, particularly the overhaul of the Resource Management Act, which aims to fix long-standing problems in planning and housing supply. Transparency unlock: 82% say they would be more willing to support reforms, even those they initially disagree with, if the government provided clearer data and policy rationales. Compliance squeeze: Nearly half (48.2%) report compliance has become harder since October 2023, pointing to an opportunity to streamline administration alongside policy change. 'Confidence is the foundation every investment rests on,' says Sarina Gibbon, GM of APIA. 'Overhauls like the RMA reforms are major resets. We have to accept that some disruption is the cost of fixing deep problems. What worries investors is the risk that the next government will tear up the plans before the work is done. Housing needs policies that outlast election cycles so investors can commit with certainty.' She adds, 'Some parties are naturally more inclined toward private investment, but this survey shows investors care more about stability than partisanship. Certainty of policy settings matters more than who wins, because it's the only thing that keeps capital in the market long enough to build the homes we need.' APIA Recommendations For policymakers: Bipartisan commitment to core housing settings will reduce the risk that new reforms are unravelled by the next administration. For the housing market: Predictability attracts capital. Short-term disruption is acceptable if the long-term rules are clear and durable. For voters: Housing stability and political stability go hand in hand. A cycle of reversing policies every three years undermines both supply and affordability. About Auckland Property Investors Association (APIA) The Auckland Property Investors Association (APIA) is a leading advocacy group representing the interests of property investors throughout Auckland. Committed to promoting education, advocacy, and networking opportunities, APIA actively shapes policies impacting the property investment landscape. APIA strives to cultivate a supportive environment for property investors while advocating for policies that uphold the rights and responsibilities of both landlords and tenants.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Three of New Zealand's biggest emitters no longer have to reveal their climate impact
, Climate Change Correspondent Three of the country's biggest greenhouse gas emitters no longer have to reveal how much planet-heating gas they produce. For the first time, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)'s company-level emissions data doesn't include agriculture, after the government ended compulsory reporting for the farming sector. The change means companies responsible for around half the countries' greenhouse gases no longer have to supply information to the EPA every year giving a rough total of their methane emissions, unless they happen to be captured by other disclosure rules (for example climate disclosure rules covering stockmarket-listed companies). Meat processors Affco and Alliance no longer have to supply emissions data. Nor does Open Country Dairy, the country's second biggest milk exporter after Fonterra. All three were previously among the country's top ten emitters. RNZ asked Affco, Alliance and Open Country Dairy for their totals, but none had responded by deadline. The two biggest greenhouse gas producers in the farming sector - Fonterra and Silver Fern Farms - still disclose their emissions tallies in their own annual reports, as well as listing measures to reduce their impact. "It's critical that everyday people are able to find out who is responsible for New Zealand's climate pollution," said climate advocate Alex Johnston, of the Don't Subsidize Pollution campaign. "To not have big corporate from agriculture, the sector responsible for more than half of the country's emissions, required to report their emissions footprint is not responsible governing. "It's like closing the door on your kid's bedroom when they've left the heater on and then wondering why the power bill is so high." The change came about because the government removed farmers from the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Agriculture was previously included in the scheme as a backstop in case voluntary discussions between farmers and government didn't result in an agreement to price methane. The backstop provision was removed and voluntary pricing talks were scrapped and re-started after the last election. Farming companies never had to pay for their methane emissions under the ETS the way petrol importers, coal miners and gas producers pay for their carbon dioxide emissions. However, until this year, they had to submit annual totals giving a rough estimate of their climate impact. ETS emissions reports were the only public information available for comparing individual companies, because some companies choose not to voluntarily disclose emissions. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts told Newsroom last year that officials had prepared an option to keep compulsory reporting while otherwise removing farming form the ETS. The government decided not to take it. He said the government was pursuing farm-level reporting instead. The change means reported emissions in the report have halved compared with last year, down from 65.7 million tonnes to 32.5 million tonnes. The difference is almost entirely because of the removal of the 33 million tonnes previously reported by the agriculture sector. When Fonterra is included, top 10 emitters collectively produce more than half the country's emissions, with Fonterra in the top spot followed by big petrol companies Z Energy, BP and Mobil. Farming companies - or their fossil fuel suppliers - still have to report and pay for any coal, gas or other fossil fuel they use in New Zealand under the ETS, for example coal used to dry milk or process meat. Affco reports its energy related emissions on its website, but not the larger total that comes from methane produced by farming the meat it processes. Alliance's website also discusses progress at reducing coal at its processing plants and said it completed a full lifecycle assessment of all its emissions last year, however doesn't appear to list the total. Open Country's website also discusses successful conversion of coal boilers to clean heat and said it is committed to reducing emissions from agriculture through the He Waka Eke Noa programme. He Waka Eke Noa was the programme scrapped by the coalition government after the election and replaced by direct engagement with farming groups through the government's Pastoral Sector Group. The new group is yet to announce a pricing plan or targets.
NZ Herald
3 days ago
- NZ Herald
Industrial users demand electricity market reform amid rising prices
Bridget Abernethy, the chief executive of the Electricity Retailers and Generators Association, argues that major disruption to the electricity market structure is the 'last thing we [New Zealand] can afford' As a major energy user and economic contributor, we would argue the opposite – New Zealand cannot afford the status quo to continue. Taking a 'we'll be right' attitude to nine years of price increases for wholesale users has had negative impacts for all consumers. Citing a 'decade of flat electricity prices' for household consumers, Abernethy notes a short-term period of marginal increases is inevitable. What is missing from this statement is that electricity costs have been anything but flat for wholesale users, with spot prices increasing 3.5 times in nine years. (Index graph– Averaged Spot Market Real Time Pricing with forecast to April 2026). How can this disparity between retail and wholesale pricing occur in a properly functioning market? Could it be because residential consumers would demand earlier political intervention if their bills skyrocketed to the same degree as that of wholesale consumers? We accept that inter-year volatility will increase with the rise in intermittent renewables. However, it is not the main factor hurting large industrial users – it is this rising average price that cannot be insulated by hedging forward. Hedging contracts are now unaffordable for most large users because futures hedge prices are linked to the rising spot prices. The wealth transfer from large industrial users to generators over the past decade in the form of inflated prices has not resulted in investment into more net supply. The market has not created sufficient incentives to build new generation ahead of when it is needed. Pan Pac general manager Tony Clifford at the Whirinaki plant. Photo / Warren Buckland Instead, generators have sat on approved RMA (Resource Management Act) consents and continued to profit at the expense of business. We have seen the impact on manufacturers in regional areas no longer able to operate profitably. Residential consumers are then affected through loss of employment and services, while the economy and our communities suffer. Blaming the shortage of gas as a driver of rising prices is overstating its impact. Electricity generation from gas makes up less than 10% of all electricity generated. While prices would have increased because of gas shortages, we dispute the premium over the relationship to the gas costs. Independent analysis of generator margins shows at least $38/MWh of increases cannot be explained by gas or ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) charge increases. In summary, the gas shortage should not be impacting the electricity pricing to the extent claimed. However, the shortage of gas has been used to justify many years of high profits for generators and large dividend payouts to shareholders (which include successive Governments). These profits have not been reinvested into new generation until the recent threat of market intervention. We are not blaming generators for maximising profit; they are working within the existing market rules that incentivise them to keep the market on the edge, but we do have an issue with them telling only a part of the story to regulators, politicians and the public, that they can do nothing about rising costs and that consumers just have to ride it out. Market regulators and successive Governments have seen this train wreck approaching from a long way off but have chosen to do little. Simply not making a bold decision is a decision in itself.
