logo
Businesses Struggling To Keep Doors Open As Energy Costs Surge

Businesses Struggling To Keep Doors Open As Energy Costs Surge

Scoop28-05-2025
Press Release – Auckland Business Chamber
New Zealand businesses are suffering under the yoke of rising energy costs, with many reluctant to speak out for fear of commercial retaliation from major energy suppliers.
That's the main take-out from a new survey carried out by the Auckland Business Chamber, together with policy and advocacy organisation the Northern Infrastructure Forum (NIF). Survey responses were garnered mainly from SMEs in the Upper North Island, with manufacturing the most heavily represented sector.
Chamber CEO Simon Bridges says the survey findings show that energy costs are right at the top of the list of concerns for businesses, in what is a very challenging operating environment.
'Nearly 90% of respondents say that energy costs have increased in the past year, and just under 50% describe those costs as highly concerning. When energy costs combine with the pressure from weak market demand, inflation and increased compliance costs, the result is that many businesses are struggling to keep their doors open.'
Mr Bridges says one unexpected, and troubling, insight from the survey was the reluctance on the part of businesses to be identified when sharing their struggles with energy costs, for fear of commercial repercussions.
'Many of the businesses we spoke to – especially those dependent on gas supply – were really uneasy about speaking publicly, for fear that it could jeorpardise their ability to secure future energy contracts with the gentailers, who control close to 85% of the retail market. Whether this fear reflects an actual or perceived risk, it points to serious issues with the way market power is being exercised, and is really worrying.
'It's high time the Government had a good, hard look at the vertically integrated gentailer model, and the impact it's having on the performance of the sector.'
NIF Executive Director Barney Irvine says the survey results also underline the drag that energy costs are placing on New Zealand's growth and productivity, and on people's livelihoods.
'As a response to rising energy costs, 52% of business surveyed say they have increased the prices they charge to customers; a quarter say they cut back production; the same proportion say they have laid off staff; and just under 20% have cancelled or deferred investment. Unnecessarily high energy costs impact on everyone.'
Businesses are looking to the Government for leadership, he adds.
'Over three-quarters of survey respondents believe that the Government should treat addressing energy costs as a high or very high priority, and they're absolutely right.
'The Government has a good sense of what needs to be done to turn the performance of the sector around for the long-term; what's needed now is swift, decisive action.'
In particular, the Chamber and NIF want to see the ten-point Energy Action Plan they launched in February this year – which focused on strengthening sector stewardship, improving resilience, and increasing generation and competition – incorporated into government policy.
Key findings from the survey include:
Nearly 90% of respondents say that energy costs have increased over the past year, with over 40% reporting that the increase has been large or very large
Just under 50% of respondents describe energy costs as highly concerning (i.e., a rating of 8-10 out of 10), similar to the level in concern in relation to market demand, inflationary pressure and compliance costs
Over 60%% report an impact on their business as a result of rising costs, with 34% describing the impact has as large or very large
As a response to rising costs, 52% of respondents say they have increased their own prices, while 25% report having cut back production, and the same proportion report having laid off staff. Just under 20% have cancelled or deferred investment
Over 80% expect prices to increase again in the year ahead
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

When The Privatising Rubber Hits The Climate Change Denial Roads
When The Privatising Rubber Hits The Climate Change Denial Roads

Scoop

time2 hours ago

  • Scoop

When The Privatising Rubber Hits The Climate Change Denial Roads

First a disclosure. I'm the co-owner of a plug-in hybrid car. It cost in the vicinity of $20,000 more than if it had been completely petrol fuelled. A key factor in the purchase decision was to make a small contribution to reducing carbon emissions. Then along came the National-ACT-NZ First coalition government's decision to introduce road user charges (RUCs) for fully electric and hybrid vehicles. It felt like a kick in the teeth to those trying to do their bit for reducing climate change driven carbon emissions. Not just because of this decision, it has become obvious that this is a government that resides within a spectrum between climate change indifference and climate denial. Roads is one of the big areas where this indifference is being played out in real time. But now, following the Government's announcement by Minister of Transport Chris Bishop to replace the petrol tax with road user changes for all vehicles, privatisation is being used to strengthen the Government's 'journey of travel'. On 6 August two helpful explanatory articles spelt out the details of the announcement. One was by James Ensor in the NZ Herald (6 August): Road user changes for all. The other was Bridie Witton in The Post (6 August): Petrol tax replaced by RUCs. In his announcement Minister Bishop called it 'the biggest change to how we fund our roading network in 50 years'. He argued that the 'surge' in fuel-efficient, hybrid and full electric vehicles had eroded the longstanding connection between petrol consumption and kilometres driven. He received 'cheer leader' support from Stuff Political Editor, and a former leading player in the rightwing NZ Initiative thinktank, Luke Malpass in his paywalled article arguing that the decision would bring the country into the 21st century; The Post (7 August): Cheerleader support. There was also strong support from the NZ Initiative's chief economist Eric Crampton who drills down further in a considered Newsroom column (12 August): Better transport funding. Although I disagree with his approach to the issue, I readily acknowledge that it is thoughtful and considered. The announcement Chris Bishop expects the legislation to pass in 2026, with the system becoming operational by 2027. In summary the announced decision involves Scrapping fuel excise duty and move all vehicles to a RUCs system. Charges would be based on distance travelled, vehicle type, time and location. In the name of 'modernisation' the current RUCs paper 'labels on windscreen' system would be replaced by a fully digital e-RUC system. The New Zealand Transport Authority's (Waka Kotahi) dual role as both regulator and RUC retailer will be split with NZTA losing the latter role. Private firms taking over the collection and administration of RUCs charges (the above former role). Distinguishing facts from political fiction Following the initial coverage of the Transport Minister's announcement, Bridie Witton wrote a second cautionary piece casting doubt on the claimed benefits. Published on 8 August in The Post she suggested that most vehicle owners might not benefit: Most vehicle owners unlikely to come out ahead. Witton's piece included Professor Simon Kingham, former chief science adviser to the Ministry of Transport, observing said the new system would to be more expensive to operate. Consequently, the increased costs had to come from somewhere. Kingham, as reported by Witton, explained that: This was because every car would need a transponder or some kind of digital device to track road use and report the data back, potentially to an app, for the easy digital payment Bishop envisioned. He noted the Government's roading ambitions cost more than it was raising in revenue, adding that it wasn't certain whether the Government planned to pass the new costs on to consumers or offset it through taxes. Bishop has confirmed it will bring in more revenue, which suggests people will pay more. Kingham also warned that a distance- and weight-based system could disincentivise people from moving to fuel-efficient vehicles. 'It will be relatively more expensive in fuel-efficient cars, and relatively more cheaper in gas-guzzling cars. If it's entirely based on distance, then everybody pays the same.' He said there was potential for more sophisticated pricing, such as charging more around schools or at peak times, but that could mean every driver has a tracking device in their car, which he said was 'moving into 'Big Brother' territory'. Dropping the fuel tax also made it less attractive for people to transition to electric vehicles, he added. Ideologically driven privatisation Just as Christopher Luxon's government has become increasingly known for its indifference to (and among some, especially NZ First, denial of) climate change, it also has become increasingly known for its ideological preference for privatising functions of public utilities. I have discussed the latter in the context of outsourcing planned surgery which would normally be undertaken by public hospitals. See my Newsroom columns (12 March and 16 June respectively): Increased risk and Follow the money. Also see my health systems blog Otaihanga Second Opinion (14 July): Who benefits. Under the PR guise of 'modernisation' private firms are to take over from NZTA the collection and administration of road user charges. This is based on the simplistic ideological assertion that this will drive innovation and reduce compliance costs by allowing the market to offer high-tech solutions, such as integrations with in-car computers. In Chris Bishop's words: Instead of expanding a clunky government system, we will reform the rules to allow the market to deliver innovative, user-friendly services for drivers. Embellished nonsense! As a reluctant user of NZTA's current system of managing RUCs payments I find it straightforward and efficient. Eric Crampton expresses a similar view in his above-mentioned article. No reason is given as to why NZTA itself could not be allowed to implement the proposed new system efficiently and effectively as private firms might be able to. There is every reason to believe that it could. There is a strong addiction within the government to privatising public utilities. Arguably the most addicted is ACT leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour. This addiction extends to privatising tax collection of RUCs. The biggest beneficiaries will be the private corporates who take their cut to gather the tax. Why should this not surprise anyone! Ian Powell Otaihanga Second Opinion is a regular health systems blog in New Zealand. Ian Powell is the editor of the health systems blog 'Otaihanga Second Opinion.' He is also a columnist for New Zealand Doctor, occasional columnist for the Sunday Star Times, and contributor to the Victoria University hosted Democracy Project. For over 30 years , until December 2019, he was the Executive Director of Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand.

Electricity Authority not 'chocolate teapot', Shane Jones says
Electricity Authority not 'chocolate teapot', Shane Jones says

RNZ News

time3 hours ago

  • RNZ News

Electricity Authority not 'chocolate teapot', Shane Jones says

Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The Electricity Authority has proven itself not to be a "chocolate teapot", the associate energy minister says. In a bid to make energy more affordable, the authority will require generators to offer the same price to all retailers - and ban the bigger power companies from giving themselves discounts . The government said the change would increase competition, giving consumers more choices . Associate energy minister Shane Jones - who has previously been heavily critical of the authority and has threatened to end it unless it flexed its authority - was pleased. "The EA (Electricity Authority) have proved that they're not totally a chocolate teapot. Anything that shrinks the cost of energy and secures greater security, I think Kiwis should be happy." Jones accused big electricity companies of currently operating as if they had more power than Cabinet. He said the change was a surgical instrument - and in future he would like to see a sharper instrument taken to the gentailers' (companies that are both generators and retailers) corporate makeup. Labour leader Chris Hipkins. Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi Meanwhile, Labour was also backing the move to level the playing field between big power companies and smaller outlets. Leader Chris Hipkins said he wanted to see what kind of enforcement there would be behind the new rule. "I think there probably needs to be more teeth behind it, and I think that they actually need to go further than that - but it is a good start." The change came out of the Energy Competition task force, which was set up last August in response to the winter power crisis . Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Electricity Authority not a 'chocolate teapot', Shane Jones says
Electricity Authority not a 'chocolate teapot', Shane Jones says

RNZ News

time3 hours ago

  • RNZ News

Electricity Authority not a 'chocolate teapot', Shane Jones says

Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The Electricity Authority has proven itself not to be a "chocolate teapot", the associate energy minister says. In a bid to make energy more affordable, the authority will require generators to offer the same price to all retailers - and ban the bigger power companies from giving themselves discounts . The government said the change would increase competition, giving consumers more choices . Associate energy minister Shane Jones - who has previously been heavily critical of the authority and has threatened to end it unless it flexed its authority - was pleased. "The EA (Electricity Authority) have proved that they're not totally a chocolate teapot. Anything that shrinks the cost of energy and secures greater security, I think Kiwis should be happy." Jones accused big electricity companies of currently operating as if they had more power than Cabinet. He said the change was a surgical instrument - and in future he would like to see a sharper instrument taken to the gentailers' (companies that are both generators and retailers) corporate makeup. Labour leader Chris Hipkins. Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi Meanwhile, Labour was also backing the move to level the playing field between big power companies and smaller outlets. Leader Chris Hipkins said he wanted to see what kind of enforcement there would be behind the new rule. "I think there probably needs to be more teeth behind it, and I think that they actually need to go further than that - but it is a good start." The change came out of the Energy Competition task force, which was set up last August in response to the winter power crisis . Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store