sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Jacinda Ardern helped to bring BlackRock's renewable electricity fund to New Zealand but the Crown's investors haven't signed up yet

Public Policy / news
Jacinda Ardern helped to bring BlackRock's renewable electricity fund to New Zealand but the Crown's investors haven't signed up yet
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern meets with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in 2019 (Photo credit: NATO)

BlackRock’s $2 billion renewable electricity fund, announced on Tuesday, was first discussed in a meeting between Jacinda Ardern and Larry Fink in New York last year. 

The then-Prime Minister met with the chairman and chief executive of BlackRock as part of a trade mission she led to the United States in September 2022. 

A news report from the meeting said the business delegation was left “almost speechless” when Fink showed up at the table — they had been expecting “some middle manager”. 

Ardern’s high international profile may have rubbed some voters up the wrong way, but it comes with significant power and influence on the world stage. 

A spokesperson for the Labour Government said there had been an ongoing conversation with BlackRock since that meeting in New York. 

Energy Minister Megan Woods and now-Prime Minister Chris Hipkins had held follow up meetings, where the pair agreed to facilitate the fund and make the announcement. 

Blackrock said it was the one who first raised the idea with the government, since the transition to renewable energy was top of mind for many of its clients. 

A spokesperson said the NZ government provided feedback about its policy settings and the type of investments that would be necessary to reach a 100% renewable electricity grid. 

However, that’s where the government’s formal involvement with the new fund ends. It will not directly contribute any money into the fund, which BlackRock will have to raise itself. 

The Crown investment entities, which are hoped to contribute, are independent and make their own decisions about where and when to invest money. 

Neither the Super Fund nor ACC have agreed to invest in the BlackRock fund, but Peter Scobie, a manager at ACC Investments, said he was open to the idea. 

“We assess all investment opportunities on their merits and are happy to hear from Blackrock on their proposals,” he said in an emailed statement. 

ASB Investments said it was likely to contribute to the fund, as it had already outsourced much of its fund management to BlackRock in 2021. 

In a statement, the bank’s investment arm said it was positive that BlackRock was bringing its global expertise to NZ and giving investors opportunities in the transition to net zero. 

“Given our unique partnership with BlackRock in New Zealand, we are already speaking with them about our involvement and are keen to be supportive, subject to satisfactory due diligence,” it said. 

BlackRock said it was hoping to raise $2 billion for the fund before the end of the year, but there was scope to increase the target if there was enough demand from investors. 

The fund will mostly invest in larger electricity infrastructure and it will target returns in the high single digits. 

Some terms and conditions

While this fund and its investors will be independent from the Government, some level of agreement has been struck between the two parties. 

Woods said BlackRock had committed to selling any assets it acquires through the fund back to New Zealand investors wherever possible.  .

Interest.co.nz confirmed this with the investment firm. A spokesperson said NZ-based owners would be the natural long-term owners and most likely buyers of these assets anyway. 

As always, any sale to overseas interests would require approval from the Overseas Investment Office and meet the national interest test. 

Brett Christophers, a political economist and author, said it was likely that more informal agreements had been struck behind the scenes. 

His book Our Lives in Their Portfolios: Why Asset Managers Own the World, examines how large investors such as BlackRock and Vanguard are having an impact on everyday life. 

Christophers said almost all private investment in renewable energy around the world happened with some sort of public subsidy as an incentive. 

“In some way or another the Government will have committed to significantly derisking any investments this fund undertakes,” he said. 

“Funding will only flow into renewable energy if a lot of the risks involved in that have been absorbed by someone other than BlackRock”. 

Christophers is currently working on a new book which maps how the history of investment in renewable energy has tracked against government support. 

“It's a risky business absent government underwriting,” he said.  

While it was good to have investment being made in renewable electricity, the Government should be much clearer about the terms of the agreement. 

“I'd be surprised if there aren’t some pretty significant carrots that have been negotiated in the background”.  

Both BlackRock and the NZ Government said no other commitments had been made, beyond those disclosed above.

Generating money  

New Zealand currently gets roughly 82% of its electricity from renewable sources, but it will need more capacity as the economy moves away from fossil fuels. 

For example, swapping fossil fuels vehicles for electric ones will increase demand. 

Transpower has estimated that a 68% increase in electricity generation will be needed to meet demand by 2050.

This was made up of a 14% increase in base electricity demand, a 38% increase due to vehicle electrification, and 16% boost from electrification of process heat and industry.

Any wide scale hydrogen production could double this forecast increase in demand, although the technology is still being developed. 

Boston Consulting Group wrote a report detailing the $42 billion of investment that would be required over the next decade. 

Over $10 billion would be needed to increase electricity generation capacity by 50% and another $22 billion on distribution infrastructure.

On top of that, $1.9 billion would need to be spent on creating flexibility in electricity supply and demand to manage peak demand and dry years. 

Plus $8.2 billion for transmission infrastructure, such as a second high-voltage line to carry electricity from the South Island under the Cook Strait.

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.

74 Comments

10% ?

Up
3

Pretty sad that as soon as I see the words "Jacinda Ardern" I think "terrible idea"

Up
29

Yes, I could feel tension rising when I saw the picture.

Yay, I'm showing as a "key supporter".

Up
5

I think I could be a luxon supporter after hearing him on zboomer yesterday. JK didn't have many new ideas, the cycle trails only came about after a high profile multi-day summit. Whereas Luxon reels off solutions. Two blue tix??

Up
3

I'm a super super supporter✅️✅️✅️Can you make more "radical" statements"  being green ticked?✅️✅️✅️✅️

 

 

Up
1

No, but you will anyhow

Up
0

Wait, how do I get a tick?

Up
0

I assume it's for donations over some threshold? I give $20 a month which doesn't seem extravagant for the quality of reporting. 

Surprised how few green ticks there are. 

Up
5

I have fomo

Up
1

I’m an annual. Guess will get a tick on my anniversary?

Up
0

No, it should work if you are a current annual. But if you don't sign in using the PressPatron option (Option #1), it won't work. Nor will it work if you sign in with a different login. It has to be the PP log in to work

Up
0

Thanks, don quite know the system, but I don’t get the adverts so thought had done it up to the mark but  we should be able to pick our own, eg in my case 🎻

ps, well I had a go at logging in with Press Patron, even went thru & changed my password too, but in the user name box it comes up pre-entered as outsider and try as I might,  Foxglove can’t replace that??

 

 

 

 

 

Up
0

aaah that's it as I have made some annual payments, but I dont log in as PP.

Up
0

A green tick is a comment you can trust

Up
3

by  Te Kooti  |  11th Aug 23, 10:26am 1691706371

Wait, how do I get a tick?

Simple, by contributing $10/month.  Do it now Te Kooti, it's supporting good journalism.

Up
0

I have made annual payments and dont log in under PP. I need to do the monthly thing as well.

Up
0

With a little luck it will at least make your radical statements more coherent. 

Up
0

Photogenic Zach, certainly. But not always, and that really was all the substance on offer.

Up
0

John Key supporter? 

Up
1

Not in the end. Far from it in fact!

Up
0

Pretty sad that as soon as I see the words "Jacinda Ardern" I think "terrible idea"

it should probably be the word "Blackrock" that gets your heckles up. They're guiding governance globally, towards the large amount of financial interests they have.

Up
6

Ahhh there they are, the two innocuous words that together explain it all including Blackrocks involvement - "public subsidy".

If National unwind this it will be another tick in their box.

 

Up
6

the public never understand 100% renewable electricity generation is not equal to 100% renewable energy consumption.

electricity only makes up to 26% of all energy consumption in NZ and declining.

the rest is pretty much all fossil fuels and increasing.

Up
19

That is the crux of it - the personality stuff is diversion.

And much of the electricity can be traced to fossil energy too; linesman's utes, trucks, diggers...

And we took 120 years to empirically build up the existing grid - to assert that we will BUILD 50% MORE in the near future, is horsepoo. The days of Twizels, and the optimal (dam) sites are all taken.

Up
11

Xingmowang...got a source for that, interesting.

Up
2

There's some data tables here:

https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resourc…

Electricity looks pretty stable to me. 27% in 1990, 26% in 2000, 28% in 2010, 26% 2021 (assuming I'm reading it right - electricity observed demand over total energy demand)

Up
8

Ticket clippers versus naive politicians, who wins, the clippers, 

Up
12

The start of something terrible for NZ... some of these conspiracies theories aren't looking too crazy any more

Up
12

Which ones exactly do you mean?

All I heard were some people believed Blackrock was this barely understood evil dark force and Jacinda "secretly" met with them as part of some wider evil plan.

I don't see her publicly meeting with a fund manager to promote NZ as a green energy investment opportunity as fitting with that conspiracy story. The truth is much more boring.

Up
4

The difference between conspiracies theories and reality is - 6 months. 

Up
1

What is the angle here, why the need for govt involvement?  I don't get it. 

 

Up
5

I agree - we need to get to the bottom of this. 

There are a few sentences in the article that need more digging. Firstly, it seems that "Blackrock said it was the one who first raised the idea with the government". Presumably that was what led to the Ardern meeting?

Secondly, "Energy Minister Megan Woods and now-Prime Minister Chris Hipkins had held follow up meetings, where the pair agreed to facilitate the fund". What does "facilitate the fund" mean exactly?

Thirdly, "A spokesperson said the NZ government provided feedback about its policy settings". This is surely the reason for the government's involvement - i.e. the government will agree on certain laws to be put in place?

Up
3

What's the bet that "facilitating the fund" involves flogging off the electrical generation and grid assets the Govt currently owns?  To which, Blackrock will invest some more money, then IPO it in a few years for 10 times what they paid for it; or if its loss making, sell it back to the Govt or something like ACC/NZ Super Fund for a handsome price underwritten by the Govt. 

The devil is always in the detail.

Up
5

Unfortunately, this is very likely to be accurate. NZ needs a "partner" such as Blackrock like it needs a hole in its head.

Up
0

We will land on the moon one day but at least the earth is still flat. 

Up
0

What could possibly go wrong?

This millstone should fit snugly around the necks of successive generations

But in true fashion

The perpetraitors of the botch up having long moved on from and vacated the Political landscape

And the Treaty Ardern signed with Commiefornia?

 

Up
5

There seems little discussion in the article as to who Blackrock is and the real purpose of their involvement. It is a major redflag that Ardern was broker.

 

Up
7

.

Up
0

This is what's not been explained. Since when did you need Govt to 'broker' an investment fund?  What did they broker, what has the govt offered, what did Black Rock get?

Few qns her for int.co I would have thought. 

Up
11

Alternative headline: Blackrock sign agreement with Nz government to fleece taxpayers and consumers.

Up
12

"Woods said BlackRock had committed to selling any assets it acquires through the fund back to New Zealand investors wherever possible"

Definition : together we will build this critical piece of infrastructure and then ( when it needs ĥuge maintenance) sell it back to you at huge profit

What does " acquires" mean.

Arderns hypocracy on this deal is outrageous

Up
11

Labour should not be making major economic decisions so close to an election

A.k.a cheque book damage control

Quite surprised nobody else has noticed this

 

 

Up
2

National will sell the family silver equally arrogantly.

Less naively, perhaps; but just as arrogantly.

Up
8

It doesn't look like we're selling the family silver. We're allowing them to come in and make us some new silver. 

Up
2

Maybe if we didn't spend all our money on buying houses off each other we'd have the money to be doing the investment ourselves. 

Up
4

I agree. If our investors had a bit more imagination maybe we wouldn't be in this situation. 

Up
4

Better to sell it than run it into the ground, at great expense to the peeps, and ruin it i guess.

 

Up
0

I really don't understand the negativity around this. We know we need to invest a lot of money in power infrastructure and we already have multiple private companies, including some new comers, building new generation. Why is Blackrock so hideously different to the other companies looking to profit from our electricity market? 

If it turns out there are excessive incentives then I'd be opposed too, but there don't seem to be any. 

I thought we wanted investors from other countries to come here and build things? We don't have the capital to do it ourselves because most of us would rather buy an investment property. 

Up
6

Sad but true re your last sentence. Capital availability is virtually zero in this country unless there's a plot of land and house involved. 

Up
4

If the can print billions for crap, then why not print some more for this and not sell your sole to the american devil... Aye Jacinda!

Up
2

Did you prefer JK selling it off to Chinna then? Remember Luxon has firm orders to open up NZ real estate to the world..Gods orders!

Up
1

If we made KiwiSaver universal (yes:  everybody and compulsory) and lifted contributions by 1% a year until it's 16%, we would build a capital supply that built until it roared.

Oh.  Take more than six months.  So impossible.  sarc)

Up
1

Is Cindy really as influential as the NZ public thinks? To be honest, I think it's all a bit overblown as to how 'globally famous' she is. In terms of celebrity, perhaps on the C-grade circuit. 

Up
2

Some men really have lost their shit over how "globally famous " they think our ex PM should be - grow up.

Up
3

I personally took some pride in her profile abroad, she represented us very well. Yes, the lefty liberals lapted her up but really that's life. The issue is the day job back here which frankly was poor and time is doing her legacy no favours.

Up
8

Any specifics there? The UN speech? It was little more than flowery emotional triggers. Not even a hint of innovative thinking. 

Up
3

Mate, Luxon ain't getting an invite onto any prime-time US talk shows. Do I really need to give a blow by blow account?

Up
5

Mate, Luxon ain't getting an invite onto any prime-time US talk shows.

Once, twice? The Kardashians could book TV slots on a daily basis if they wished.  

Up
0

Maccy, i don't 'lose my shit' over Cindy. I found her mundane and performative at best. For me to 'lose my shit' I would need to have a huge reliance on the govt that impacts my wellbeing hence my emotional state. I encourage everyone to be as antifragile as possible in relation to the govt. 

Up
6

Nah mate, you are an obsessive . listen to yourself.

 

 

Up
0

#40 of Forbes 100 most powerful women.

https://www.forbes.com/lists/power-women/?sh=2fcfe16a5a95

Up
0

BlackRock is still the largest shareholder in gun stocks (qz.com)

I'm not sure if this is still the case, but if Black Rock have benefited from investing in gun manufacturers, it must take a little cognitive dissonance on Ardern's part to see this as a good partnership.

Recently they have put some pressure on gun makers but have still benefited from their sales.

Up
1

It's tough being a huge fund like Blackrock. If you invest in guns, oil and tobacco you're bastards. If you don't, you're woke. 

As a large, mostly passive, fund manager I don't expect them to have a conscience - if they provide suitable fund options for customers they can vote with their money. Some all-of-market funds, some ESG funds etc. 

Up
2

My point is more that given Arderns focus on the Christchurch call and legislation limiting gun ownership (Both of which I agreed with) it is a little inconsistent to then take money from an organisation with major shareholdings in most of the main US gun manufacturers. It is the whiff of hypocrisy that I have a problem with more than Black Rocks investment choices.

Up
4

Blackrock aren't passive MFD. I think you will find they are front and central in pushing ESG and Diveristy equity and inclusion BS. It's why so many large firms push the LBGT and Trans story.

Up
1

At the start of 2022, 75% of their funds under management were invested passively (as in, buy a slice of every company in some index which may or may not have ESG criteria).

You can see their problem here - you think they should dispassionately buy a slice of every company in their index funds, the original post doesn't want them invested in gun manufacturers. Others will push them to divest from fossil fuels. Others want them to down-weight companies with stale male boards. 

I see them as more of a fund supermarket. There'll be some products on the shelves that I find distasteful, and I can easily avoid them and make sure that my kiwisaver  and any other funds I have money in are invested in line with my morals. Maybe it would be easier for everyone if they split into different companies with different offerings, but then we lose scale and have to pay more for our investment funds. 

For the record, I have no money invested with Blackrock. 

Up
1

They are passive in their investment style but far from passive as often majority shareholders. There is a big difference.

Up
2

I'm not sure if this is still the case, but if Black Rock have benefited from investing in gun manufacturers, it must take a little cognitive dissonance on Ardern's part to see this as a good partnership.

She's a ditz. Would have no idea how BlackRock works or what it owns. 

Up
3

Yet you do...can we vote for you in the coming election JC? The normies and ditzzs would back you in a second.

Up
1

I hope that shuts up the commenters that keep going on about how National will sell off all NZ assets to foreign investors, now that Labour has sold them all to Blackrock.  That promise to "sell them back to NZ investors" - that will only be true if they lose money on it, in which case they will expect the naive and gullible NZ investment community to take it off their hands, probably subsidised by the Govt to make up any losses.  If they make money, you can bet your bottom dollar NZ will see none of it. 

And to think - the idea of Jacinda sellling off NZ to Blackrock was pitched by MSM as a "conspiracy theory".  Well, chalk that one up as another conspiracy that's come true. 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/the-spinoff-conspiracy-theorists-are-losi…

Up
4

Again - we aren't selling any assets here. We maintain ownership of all the infrastructure we currently own.

It allows them to come in and build additional infrastructure. Which we are struggling to fund ourselves because the average kiwi just wants to invest in houses and pay low tax, so we don't have the required private or public funding.

That's my reading anyway - the details are fairly vague at this point and I'll reconsider if more evidence comes up. 

Up
3

Yes that's right. We can't put our own money into productive new assets so we must offer the ability for foreigners to invest instead. We'd rather use our money to keep bidding up house prices so that our young people feel they need to leave.

Up
2

Are you prepared to bet that the 51% of the power generation that the Government currently owns won't be sold into this new fund?  To "facilitate it".  I'm not.

Up
1

So all this Hullabaloo is a bit of misdirection and, or a signal to investors to rejig your portfolios because BR is coming to town but first, you need to put up or...

Up
0