Government unveils terms of reference for NZ energy strategy

Public Policy / news

Energy and Resources Minister Megan Woods unveils terms of reference for energy strategy to support a net-zero 2050

21st Oct 22, 1:13pm by Gareth Vaughan

Minister of Energy and Resources Megan Woods has issued the terms of reference for a New Zealand energy strategy being developed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE).

Woods says the strategy will focus on affordability and equity for consumers, security and reliability of supply, economic development and productivity growth, plus the pace and scale required to support a net-zero 2050.

“In 2020, emissions from energy made up 40% of our total gross emissions. We will need to do things differently if we are to create a sustainable energy system for generations to come,” says Woods.

“The New Zealand Energy Strategy will tie together the comprehensive programme of work already underway. Today is about building on this multi-step plan with the Terms of Reference outlining further detail to explain the strategic direction of our move away from polluting and expensive fossil fuels, and preparing us for a renewable future."

The energy strategy follows a recommendation from the Climate Change Commission. It will be developed over the next two years, with the final strategy due in December 2024.

MBIE says the public will be "invited to have a say once research has been undertaken and a discussion document prepared."

The terms of reference can be found here.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

22 Comments

by The Person | 21st Oct 22, 1:35pm 1666312558

A little less conversation, a little more action

please

by Gummy Bear Hero | 22nd Oct 22, 6:22pm 1666416162

... one of the first things they did in 2017 was to ban further offshore oil & gas exploration permits ...

I'd say , less action , and more consultation with industry insiders & with independent energy experts ...

... less ideologically driven policy : more pragmatic commonsense , please ...

by powerdownkiwi | 24th Oct 22, 9:12am 1666555957

Yes GBH - how about you stare the ball rolling?

Dropping the nonsense about tapping into finite stocks of fossilised solar energy, would be a good start.

Because you fail to explain what future generations are supposed to do.

And taking something from them WITHOUT giving them a proven alternative - is theft.

Done knowingly, fraud.

by ChrisM | 21st Oct 22, 2:13pm 1666314785

A bit unusual for consultation.. still I’m sure they will ignore the useful ideas and do what they want anyway.

by Northern Lights | 21st Oct 22, 2:18pm 1666315139

If we were Japan this would be a necessary consensus building exercise that ended up with a plan agreeable to all parties involved that would then be put into action in a couple of years.

We are not Japan. We will never achieve consensus on anything so someone will attempt to ram the most stupid idea available through into law to benefit only themselves bringing on a fight that leaves everyone worse off. A decade further on we will still be fluffing around with nothing to show for the money spent.

Far better would be to take the most practical idea to ensure energy independence, (say pumped hydro in the South Island and a natural gas to fertiliser conversion plant in Taranaki) and implement those ideas so that you have a couple of the building blocks for energy independence in place.

by Uninterested | 21st Oct 22, 2:38pm 1666316318

Not sure what Japan has to do with this. They brought back into operation all sorts of old clunker gas/oil/coal plants when they went away from Nuclear.

To jump to a conclusion that the Onslow pumped hydro is the way to go is a real leap!!! You would do that if money was no object.

Just like the Auckland train electrification, multiple CPO upgrades, train tunnel, rail replacement then a bombshell ballast replacement. Reduced patronage during construction plus the ongoing operating costs once its finished. (Including security at most of the stations). If you added all that up when the cost benefit study was done, the result would be deeply in the red. Laughably so.

by The Person | 21st Oct 22, 3:47pm 1666320470

yes, "the most practical idea", like the when they connected SH20 to the southern at manuakau and suddenly needed an extra half a bill to widen SH1 to deal with the resulting congestion. No one saw that one coming when they did the cost-benefit analysis, yeah right.

No doubt they will do the same with the additional harbour crossing, just look at the cost of the crossing and ignore the fact that at each end of the crossing you need somewhere to go. Leave the cost of double tracking the northern and southern motorways till later cause another harbour crossing would never fly if you included those costs.

by xingmowang | 21st Oct 22, 3:48pm 1666320527

how much has been delivered from the last strategy?

Why are there a lot more chances of power shortage now?

by Caughtinthemiddle | 21st Oct 22, 4:20pm 1666322416

Two observations.

1) We are not world leaders in renewable energy types. Look overseas for possible solutions for here and leap frog some sticky due diligence.

2) If we take the average time that we have done to complete large infrastructure projects (15 years) then the tech will be redundant before the project is finished. How these facilities are built and integrated needs to be worked out on a much smaller time scale than we are used to.

by Wrong John | 21st Oct 22, 4:45pm 1666323930

Sadly, we do not possess the capability to do anything major to our national infrastructure as a nation any more. Neither the people, nor the processes are up to it. The only way forward is to set yourself up to do it yourself. Neighbourhood power schemes, water from the roof into storage tanks, even your own waste water systems are all possible today. They cost a bit to set up but the alternative is to rely on the government to do it for you. I rest my case.

by marcars | 21st Oct 22, 5:00pm 1666324833

Well bugger me! The terms of reference do not contain the words Treaty or Maori. Not even once! It obviously hasn't been run past Mahuta or Jackson yet.

by nzforall | 21st Oct 22, 8:13pm 1666336401

How much does Rio Tinto pay for manapouri power?

by xingmowang | 21st Oct 22, 8:15pm 1666336503

About $15 per MWh.

by nigelh | 22nd Oct 22, 8:26am 1666380361

To put that in perspective. Its 1.5c/kWh. Residential is around 25-28c/kWh excl GST and any discounts

by stefanblaise | 22nd Oct 22, 6:26am 1666373189

This is Utopia.

by Stuart Mason | 22nd Oct 22, 8:24am 1666380267

Maybe I'm being thick but:-

If just under 50% of our emissions come from agriculture, and just over 40% come from transport, how can 40% come from energy. Even allowing for the difference between gross and net, this doesn't make sense to me.

If we are going to get on top of Climate Change the first thing to understand is what the targets are.

by finite | 23rd Oct 22, 2:02pm 1666486943

In this instance I think Woods was using the word "energy" when in fact she meant fossil fuels (excluding those used for electricity generation)

by solardb | 24th Oct 22, 9:03am 1666555424

The sectors overlap, i.e electrcity used in transport and agriculture.

by False economies | 22nd Oct 22, 9:06am 1666382809

MBIE should read and understand this first..

https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/

by solardb | 24th Oct 22, 9:24am 1666556660

They disprove their own theory in the energy output paragraph. the economy quadrupled while energy use only doubled.

but some good points in there , GDP is not a great measure, .

Lets take it down to one journey. Say Auckland to Hamilton. at a stretch one could cycle , low energy but not practiable. most likely method of travel would be by private car. If we look at the product as getting there by private car, the type of car is irrelevant , possibly some difference in comfort level , definetly big differences in Phallic replacement. But a huge difference in energy use between a Ev, a small car , a midsize car , and a large SUV or Ute.

now which type of car would increase the GDP the most for the same journey . (ignoring capital cost to keep it simple. ) ?

by False economies | 24th Oct 22, 6:22pm 1666588938

They disprove their own theory in the energy output paragraph. the economy quadrupled while energy use only doubled

Sorry, but no, that's his whole point. The "financial economy" sits on the the "real (energy) economy" and what's been happening is that the financial economy has been pumped up with debt and has lost touch with what's possible energy wise. At some point the two are gonna have to meet again.

by nzforall | 24th Oct 22, 8:35am 1666553757

Bring back oil