Transpower Proposes Investment To Future-Proof Upper South Island Network
The option put forward by Transpower is to build two new switching stations near Orari and Rangitata, upgrade two transmission lines through the Waitaki Valley, and to install voltage management equipment.
Transpower Executive General Manager Grid Development Matt Webb said the proposed grid upgrades will strengthen the transmission network and ensure areas north of Twizel will continue to have a reliable electricity supply into the future.
'Demand in these areas has been growing steadily, particularly during the summer months when power is used for irrigation,' he said.
'With more homes and businesses switching to electricity use, and forecast electrification of South Canterbury's farming and primary processing sectors, demand for electricity is expected to increase even further.'
There is limited electricity generation north of Twizel, so power travels from the Waitaki Valley via high voltage transmission lines to Christchurch and further north to reach the top of the South Island.
Mr Webb said that electricity transmitted over long distances needs voltage support to keep the supply stable and avoid surges or other disruptions.
'The more electricity we move, the more voltage support we need. Our proposed upgrades will create connections between existing electricity circuits, increase transmission line capacity, and help keep voltage stable,' he said
Transpower is also considering what other solutions could support or defer this investment.
'Our proposal includes $7 million for initiatives that could defer or avoid some investment in transmission infrastructure,' Mr Webb said.
'Known as 'non-transmission solutions', these include large batteries and demand response, where industrial customers or electricity retailers work with their customers to shift demand away from peak demand periods.
'By investing in our national network now, we are future- proofing a reliable electricity supply that serves a huge part of the South Island, enabling its people and businesses to thrive. This investment will ensure this part of our upper South Island's network has the strength and resilience it needs to meet increased demand into the 2030s.
'We've engaged extensively on what the options are to continue to provide a reliable power supply and, overall, our key stakeholders support our investment proposal and acknowledge that grid reinforcement in the region is required.'
The proposed investment amount includes an allowance for inflation and interest during construction.
The Commerce Commission will consider Transpower's investment proposal, including consulting on it, as part of its process to ensure New Zealanders receive good value for money from Transpower's investments.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Villages are a home, not a trap
Retirement villages are not a Ponzi scheme, Michelle Palmer writes. Brian Peat's recent column (Opinion, ODT 18.8.25) makes for fiery reading. He accuses the government of dragging its feet, calls contracts "unfair," and even compares retirement villages to a Ponzi scheme. It is a passionate critique, but passion should not come at the expense of accuracy and the facts. Retirement villages are not financial scams. They are home to more than 53,000 older New Zealanders who, week after week, choose this lifestyle because it works for them. Let us be clear: a Ponzi scheme is a fraud that collapses when no new money comes in. Retirement villages are the opposite. They are heavily regulated, legally transparent, and backed by bricks, mortar, and decades of investment. Residents receive independent legal advice before they sign anything. The licence-to-occupy model and deferred management fee (DMF) are disclosed upfront, and they fund the services, security and communities that villages provide. Throwing around words like "Ponzi" may grab headlines, but it insults both operators who act within the law and village residents who made an informed, deliberate choice. Peat's strongest criticism is over exit payments. He claims residents' money is "routinely held for years" and points to a figure of $2.8billion in "interest-free funds" as evidence. This is misleading. That number reflects the combined value of all resident units across multiple operators, not idle cash sitting in a bank account. Those funds are tied up in bricks and mortar, village infrastructure, maintenance and services, and they cannot simply be withdrawn on demand. The average time for repayment is about five and a-half months, longer than a year ago, but entirely in line with normal property settlement times and the realities of relicensing homes to new residents after refurbishment, marketing and settlement. Operators do not benefit from delay, they only receive their own return when a new resident enters. More than 60% now voluntarily pay interest if repayments take longer than six months, weekly fees stop when a resident exits, and the DMF is capped at that point. These are safeguards that ensure costs are not piling up after someone has left. The idea of forcing operators to hold all exit payments in trust sounds simple, but it is complete nonsense — who would pay the bank back for the cost of units and facilities if the money is held in trust? Retirement villages are long-term, capital-intensive projects that recent independent research by Grant Thornton shows takes more than 20 years to break even. Imposing rigid trust requirements would push up fees, increase entry costs, and ensure the demise of smaller community and charitable villages, precisely the people and places most at risk if reforms are done without care. Retirement village operators are investing in modern care facilities that directly support the wellbeing of older New Zealanders. They are the only parties building new care beds. Weakening the model would harm both the infrastructure and the people it cares for. We can see the consequences elsewhere. In parts of Australia, mandatory buy-back rules forced operators to pay out regardless of resale. The result was higher fees for residents, the closure of smaller villages, and less choice for older people. That is not the "fairness" outcome anyone intends. Mr Peat also suggests residents should share in "profits" if the model is resident-funded. That misunderstands what a retirement village is. Villages are not investment products — they are homes. The DMF is the mechanism that recovers the cost of running the community over a resident's time living in a village — staff, maintenance, facilities, and services — not a dividend pool. Without it, upfront and ongoing charges would rise dramatically, putting these communities out of reach for many older New Zealanders. None of this dismisses residents' concerns. We welcome the review of the Retirement Villages Act and support improvements like clearer contracts, fees stopping on vacation of units and stronger dispute resolution. But reform must be grounded in evidence and designed to preserve choice, not destroy it. Resident satisfaction cannot be ignored. Even Brian Peat acknowledges that all surveys consistently show over 90% of residents are happy with their decision, enjoying safety, companionship, independence, and certainty of cost and a pathway to care. To suggest they are "trapped" or "exploited" misrepresents reality and undermines the very people the column claims to defend. Older New Zealanders deserve fairness and they deserve choice. Quick fixes, sensational claims, and simplistic analogies will achieve neither. Of course, moving to a village is entirely your choice — no-one is forcing you. But about 130 older Kiwis are making that choice every week. Complaining about a choice made, especially after compulsory legal advice was required to ensure all terms were understood, is not the Kiwi way. Retirement villages are communities that thousands of New Zealanders call home and that deserves to be respected. ■ Michelle Palmer is executive director of the Retirement Villages Association of New Zealand.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
ComCom Recommends Deregulation Of Rural Copper Network
The Commerce Commission has made its final recommendation to the Minister for Media and Communications that the rural copper network be deregulated. Telecommunications Commissioner Tristan Gilbertson says that technology has transformed rural connectivity over the past two decades and copper regulation is no longer necessary to promote competition. 'Rural consumers continue to move off copper and onto cheaper and better performing alternatives in large numbers. We consider there's now enough competition in the market to warrant removing copper access regulation,' Mr Gilbertson says. Under the Telecommunications Act the Commerce Commission must consider whether copper regulation is still needed to promote competition. The decision to remove copper regulation sits with the Minister for Media and Communications. "Copper was first regulated 20 years ago when it was a natural monopoly and the only way of providing widespread phone and internet services. Today, less than a third of rural consumers use copper, and that number continues to decline as consumers move to better performing alternatives,' Mr Gilbertson says. 'Most rural consumers can now access three alternative technologies that are often more affordable, better performing, and more reliable than copper,' Mr Gilbertson says. If agreed by the Minister, deregulation would enable Chorus to start the process of withdrawing copper infrastructure in rural areas. 'We believe it's important to have a managed withdrawal process to protect rural consumers during any change – similar to the Copper Withdrawal Code that has worked well in urban areas,' Mr Gilbertson says. 'We encourage Chorus to make clear commitments to support consumers through the switch to more reliable, effective, and affordable internet and phone options,' Mr Gilbertson says. Background
1News
11 hours ago
- 1News
Jetstar apologises for misleading NZ customers as hefty fine looms
Budget airline Jetstar has apologised to New Zealand customers as it anticipates a hefty fine after pleading guilty to misleading passengers about their rights. The Commerce Commission took Jetstar to court over charges that it discouraged consumers from seeking compensation they were legally entitled to for delayed or cancelled flights. Representatives from both parties appeared in the Auckland District Court on Thursday for sentencing, however Judge Brooke Gibson reserved his decision for a later date. The Commerce Commission argued that Jetstar's offending was not just careless but reckless, and continued despite multiple warnings and similar charges from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in 2018. Jetstar's lawyer Joe Edwards argued that his client had shown remorse and done everything it could to refund customers. ADVERTISEMENT As of March of 2025, Jetstar had refunded $843,000. Judge Gibson commended the airline and noted this number had risen to more than $1 million in the following months. Both parties agreed to a starting point of $2.5 million and a 25 percent uplift in recognition of Jetstar's financial position, Judge Gibson reserving his decision as to the discounts he will apply to the fine. 'Deeply sorry' - Airline misled fliers on compensation, denied others, watch on TVNZ+ Jetstar apologised in a written statement. "We are deeply sorry for letting our New Zealand customers down during our Covid restart by incorrectly assessing some compensation claims for cancelled flights in 2022 and 2023," the airline said. "We know this caused frustration, stress and financial impact, and we take full responsibility for these mistakes." It said that, in the previous two years, staff had reviewed thousands of past claims and been in contact with customers impacted by the "errors". ADVERTISEMENT "For anyone who still feels they may not have received the correct compensation for a past flight disruption in Aotearoa, please get in touch with us here so we can review your case," it said. "We've made significant changes to prevent this from happening again, including updating our website and communications so New Zealand customer rights are clear, improving training and strengthening our claims review process."
