Higher power bills to pay for electricity grid investment

Technology / news

Commerce Commission tentatively approves Transpower and local lines company revenue increases to cater for growth and replacing ageing assets

29th May 24, 11:33am by Juha Saarinen

Photo by Matthew Henry on Unsplash.

Electricity prices for residential customers will rise for the next five years, after the Commerce Commission's draft decision to allow the national grid owner Transpower to increase its maximum allowable revenues by 43%.

The increase is smoothed by the Commission over five years. It is going up by 15% per annum for the first two years, and then by 5% for the remaining three years of the five-year timeframe, for a total of $5.8 billion.

For residential customers this will result in roughly an additional $15 a month on their bill, or $180 a year. That's for the first year, starting April 1, 2025. Over the four years after that, the Commission says monthly bills will increase on average by $5 annually.

The Commission adds the increases to household electricity bills will differ depending on location. Some areas will see increases of $10 a month on average, whereas in others bills will go up by an average of $20 a month.

While rising power bills is unwelcome news for consumers, the Commission says without the slower revenue recovery, price increases would be around $25 a month or $300 a year.

It's not just Transpower that'll be allowed to increase its allowable revenues: the Commission is proposing local lines companies can increase their earnings by 50% compared to the preceding five years, for a total of $12 billion.

Again, the Commission wants the increase to be smoothed, with a 24% hike in the first year, and then gradually increasing over time. How much exactly will be allowed depends on how regional growth unfolds.

“Some companies have forecast that they require an increase in investment that is as much as three times higher than their historical spend. The regulatory regime has a bespoke process to consider these large step changes in investment. This customised process is designed to give greater confidence through more detailed information, greater scrutiny, and an independent expert review," Commissioner Vhari McWha says.

Several factors are driving the revenue and ultimately, price increases. Transpower and local lines companies face higher costs and more expensive borrowing and materials, as well as inflationary pressures since the last revenue review that took place in 2019.

Older electricity distribution assets built in the 60s and 70s need to be maintained and replaced, and there is population growth and the electrification of transport and industrial process heat to factor in.

The Electricity Authority noted in 2023 that despite some 2600 giga-Watt hours annually of renewable energy generation is forecast to be online over the next few years, it comes from intermittent sources. For that reason, electricity spot prices over the winter period in particular are projected to remain high due to tight supply and the need to start up fossil-fuel generation to meet peak demand.

Source: Electricity Authority

Energy Minister Simeon Brown said in December demand is forecast to increase by two-thirds by 2050, and added that the Government will make it easier to consent wind, solar and geothermal renewable energy projects to drive investment in new generation.

Commissioner McWha says maintenance and improvements to the electricity network now "will help keep the lights on in the future".

“As an essential service for all Kiwis, the affordability of electricity is important. We’re conscious that for consumers to get the electricity network they need, more investment is required. That’s why we’re proposing to increase the amount of revenue Transpower and local lines companies can earn," McWha says.

“However, we haven’t allowed for all of the expenditure that they forecast. We’ve taken the additional step of spreading the recovery of revenue by Transpower and local lines companies over a longer period to soften the impact of initial price increases on consumers,” she adds.

The Commission's draft decisions for Transpower and the local lines companies will now go into consultation over June and July, before a final decision is made in November.

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.

76 Comments

by kiwikidsnz | 29th May 24, 11:47am 1716940020

IIRC correctly (happy to be corrected), one of the first acts of the privatised electricity companies was to change their depreciation basis from historical cost to replacement value. Thereby massively reducing their "profit" & tax.

What have they done with all the extra $ generated since to maintain their assets ?

by FCM | 29th May 24, 1:35pm 1716946546

Welcome to the corporate world. Executives and management would of been paid massive Salaries and bonuses, yet don't put enough aside to reinvest. Someone else's problem for another day, that's the mentality.

by interesting1234 | 29th May 24, 3:05pm 1716951917

CEO: "Oops, looks like we really do need to put some money into the assets after all these years hmmm......ABANDON SHIP!"

by DD62 | 29th May 24, 5:13pm 1716959614

Agreed! But you forgot to mention the massive dividends paid out to shareholders, the largest being guess who? Yep, the government! So effectively price rises are another form of tax as the government who still owns the majority of generation and ALL of Transpower is not spending any of that dividend back into the industry. Nor is their any desire from government for power price reductions as that would decrease their dividends. Privatisation of electricity has been an absolute disaster for the consumer!!!! Shipley and co should hang their heads in shame!!

by M0ralHazard | 29th May 24, 12:06pm 1716941218

Why has Transpower been paying 10s of millions of dollars each year in dividends, rather than investing in their aging network?

by NoRegrets | 29th May 24, 12:14pm 1716941665

Why not just increase fees to Tiwai and data centres?

by SilverSnake | 29th May 24, 12:24pm 1716942240

Would be perfectly in line with NZ's terrible infrastructure planning to tie the funding of critical infrastructure upgrades to a business constantly on the verge of being closed down by its owner...

by M0ralHazard | 29th May 24, 12:31pm 1716942662

So Transpower could pay even more dividends?

by rav | 29th May 24, 3:25pm 1716953152

Transpower is owned by you and me. Yes they need to reduce expenses and improve.

by SilverSnake | 29th May 24, 12:26pm 1716942417

Don't worry, I'm sure the dividends the government received were used wisely to frugally invest in the future of the country and not frittered away meaninglessly!

by IT GUY | 29th May 24, 12:54pm 1716944061

.... The rest they just Squandered

by kiwimm | 29th May 24, 2:23pm 1716949414

Governments (national and local) are asking for their dividend providers to maximise short term dividends to halp pad out national and local finances. Just look at the recent CCHL example where the whole board quit because CCC wanted to bleed them dry so they could cover up the levels of rates increases needed.

by JimboJones | 29th May 24, 1:33pm 1716946398

Would you want to own a company that didn’t return you anything?

by M0ralHazard | 29th May 24, 1:38pm 1716946734

Because it is critically important infrastructure and probably shouldn't be "run like a company" in the first place!

by JimboJones | 29th May 24, 1:44pm 1716947059

Why not? Any other approach would lead to all sorts of wastage - hey government give us another $20 mil for xyz regardless of business case.

by M0ralHazard | 29th May 24, 1:52pm 1716947532

Maybe we should do the same for roads then

by JimboJones | 29th May 24, 3:53pm 1716954786

I agree

by Pa1nter | 29th May 24, 2:43pm 1716950607

Yeah it's a weird concept, if you never paid a dividend, and only ever kept investing, you're never going to generate a return.

That a business (or government) has to spend money, and that cost gets passed on, is a very hard concept for some.

by morepork | 29th May 24, 3:31pm 1716953505

Why have this run as a company and need to return a dividend to the government, but not other government services like:

Police
Fire service
Schools
Healthcare
Roads
NZDF
DOC

etc.

All of these have some form of revenue stream already, obviously not enough to fund all their operations, but we've decided that they're a public good and that's fine. Why is electricity, which by the way all of these rely on to some extent, treated differently?

by JimboJones | 29th May 24, 3:52pm 1716954764

I don't think electricity is a public good, its pay per use unlike those listed above. The government do the transmission part because no other company could.

by M0ralHazard | 29th May 24, 4:34pm 1716957241

If it is pay per use, then why is it returning a profit? Either they are charging too much or not investing enough

by mfd | 29th May 24, 1:49pm 1716947342

If I was the government I might.

by Middleaged | 29th May 24, 2:03pm 1716948217

So that we don't have to borrow any money to give high income voters their much-needed tax cut?

by NZGecko | 29th May 24, 12:15pm 1716941715

INFLATION UP AND UP..........Just Higher Mortgage Rates are here to stay!!

JHMR.

by Pa1nter | 29th May 24, 2:45pm 1716950743

I spose watching your disposable income get smashed by inflation feels better if you're not also paying a mortgage.

by NZGecko | 29th May 24, 6:28pm 1716964094

I'm hit by the continuing inflation surge and higher mortgage rates, but can fortunately pay these without stress. I know many cannot, in our bifurcated economy.

I'm fortunate, from a previously reasonable housing market and did not get spruiked into dangerously overpaying: more a 5DTI.

by pacifica | 29th May 24, 12:21pm 1716942094

An outcome the climate change commission could not predict, (they thought the power bills would drop a lot with massive more infrastructure maintenance, demand on power and huge development costs), yet every other sane man, women, child or dog could.

by solardb | 29th May 24, 2:35pm 1716950152

Got a link to them saying that?

by interesting1234 | 29th May 24, 12:28pm 1716942512

Household costs to rise coming into winter 2024: Called this one last year due to turbines being down in a Taranaki plant, needing full turbine replacement, and Huntley needing some parts for one turbine which was due to arrive this month after being ordered last year. I knew prices would rise, but this adds to the stack. But electricity is our future they tell us.

by M0ralHazard | 29th May 24, 12:32pm 1716942731

"But electricity is our future they tell us"

Well it certainly isn't fossil fuels shipped from the middle east

by interesting1234 | 29th May 24, 3:08pm 1716952136

I guess the slant I intended was that they are pushing electricity for everything, now telling us the price will be hiked as well. While fossil resources will increase in price as scarcity kicks in over the coming decades, for now it is just another essential cost that will eat away at middle income earners already stretched budgets, and impact the poor more so. This also has a compounding effect when you look at peoples ability to save for things like a rainy day fund, to help their kids, purchase a house, or even a second hand fridge if the old one packs in.

by drjafir | 29th May 24, 2:07pm 1716948459

But this is about costs for upgrades to distribution and transmission network... what's that got to do with the private costs of plant replacement for Contact (Taranaki) and Genesis (Huntly)? I think your understanding of how the power system works is broken.... Also, these changes take effect in April 25, not winter 24.

by kiwi_overseas | 29th May 24, 1:12pm 1716945147

ABSURD.

1) We already have 110,00 households that cant afford power and are in power poverty.

https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2024/05/15/power-should-be-subsidise….

These massive increases will only make the situation worse.

2) There is no indication that ComCom has done a cost benefit assessment and looked at the distributional impacts on the poor and made any recommendations on how to address the issue.

3) It is absurd that Transpower pay a dividend and tax to the government. Power is fundamental to people's lives and the GDP of the economy & thus provides a very high socioeconomic return (think North Korea otherwise). It is impossible that the dividend and tax paid to the government will be spent by the government in a manner that returns a higher benefit / cost than retaining that funding within Transpower. There is also the deadweight cost loss of the dividend and tax circulating from Transpower to Govt to expenditure.

4) "the Commission is proposing local lines companies can increase their earnings by 50% compared to the preceding five years, for a total of $12 billion." The lines companies are monopolies and effectively extracting monopoly funding from ComCom for asset replacement. If it was possible to have perfect competition in power distribution then there is no way that that these price rises would occur.

The same argument exists for the lines companies as Transpower. It is impossible that the Councils and government will spend the dividends and tax in a way that produces a higher benefit/cost to NZ than for the lines companies to retain the funding.

NZ is being completely screwed over by a neoliberal approach to power pricing and the poor are even further screwed over.

NZ would (have been) be far far better off with non-profit SOEs for transpower and line companies with statements of intent to provide the lowest possible prices to NZ Inc whilst also maintaining and upgrading their systems in line with optimal asset management.

by OldSkoolEconomics | 29th May 24, 1:13pm 1716945209

Who would have though that when something gets privatised that the focus is on return for the shareholder.

..... unless of course the privatised entity had specific targets around investment, growth and maintenance of its assets - or was that too obvious.

PS - i suspect we will provide the various companies with a ton of money and be having the same conversation in 5 and 10 years time.. ditto councils and water assets.

by mfd | 29th May 24, 1:46pm 1716947205

There's a lot of talk about privatization in here, but the article is about lines companies. Transpower are owned by the government, my local lines company (Orion) is owned by the Council. Have other lines companies been privatized or are we all conflating lines companies and gentailers?

by kiwi_overseas | 29th May 24, 1:56pm 1716947776

There are some privatised lines companies.

But the point is still valid for the others.

Transpower and lines companies are being run as businesses and returning dividends and tax to local and central government.

by drjafir | 29th May 24, 2:19pm 1716949142

As opposed to being run as what? Central government departments that..... return the dividends (internally) to government. Except with a whole lot less transparency and no requirement to prove that its investments meet a CBA like they have to do now with the Commission approving revenue.

by kiwi_overseas | 29th May 24, 2:44pm 1716950651

Read what I wrote:

by mfd | 29th May 24, 3:56pm 1716955009

Interesting, I hadn't realised some were private.

by Middleaged | 29th May 24, 2:00pm 1716948037

While I concur that energy poverty is a thing, and a symptom of a wider societal problem, all of these power lines etc. were going to wear out over time. I get frustrated that people are up in arms about paying for the upkeep / expansion of the network. It is exactly the kind of short-sighted thinking that has seen our infrastructure, health system, schools etc. all slowly degrade over time as people voted for lower taxes and rates rather than ongoing investment. Therefore, the options are:

1: pay an extra dollar a day to expand the network. or,

2: Keep your dollar but expect problems in the future.

I struggle to see why this is even a debate.

by M0ralHazard | 29th May 24, 2:04pm 1716948256

I am more frustrated that the maintenance and replacement costs were under funded for years and we are now having to pay more to catch up. Just one more thing shafting the younger generations

by Hemi Waipiro | 29th May 24, 2:24pm 1716949497

Nope, people getting frustrated is not a sign of short sighted thinking at all. Frustrations are felt by the public towards councils and government entities who have clearly decided that high dividend payout ratios are 'better' than ploughing returns back in to their respective businesses. Maintaining and renewing the infrastructure that the public rely on should hold a far greater weighting than 'astroturf sportsgrounds', 'cycleways', 'swimming pools'. We're now paying for their largesse.

by drjafir | 29th May 24, 2:14pm 1716948866

"There is no indication that ComCom has done a cost benefit assessment"... really? What do you think these proposals are then? The entire thing is a CBA, and that's the point of the Commissions' evaluation of them. And by opting to spread the increases over time, the Commission has tried to have regard for those who can't afford rapid increases.

But actually, the underlying logic of your reply doesn't make sense. You're against a neoliberal approach that has privatised power companies. OK, so instead would you prefer government departments? If so, then why are you complaining about a dividend being paid back to government then? Instead you want companies to retain the funding... which is a "neoliberal" approach!

And by the way, the current model – at least for Transpower anyway – is exactly to provide a statement of intent to provide the lowest possible prices in line with optimal asset management. And the way that is ensured is through he CBAs required by the Commission to approve increases in spending. All of this is exactly how it happens (but you still complain about it anyway).

by kiwi_overseas | 29th May 24, 2:52pm 1716951120

Read what I wrote:

Giving dividends and tax to the government and councils is sub-optimal as power is fundamental to GDP, produces a high B/C, and the government and councils are incapable of spending the dividends and tax to produce a higher B/C.

If ComCom has seen business cases they would have been for the investments, and it is very unlikely they have canvassed the distribution of the socioeconomic impacts and mitigations.

by Uninterested | 29th May 24, 12:46pm 1716943588

Accountants and incompetent politicians have been ruling the roost in the power industry for many years now.

This is what happens.

by JimboJones | 29th May 24, 1:46pm 1716947172

It feels like it’s working pretty well to me, almost the perfect level of investment to keep the lights on but not waste money. I can see why they need more money now, building and maintaining anything has shot up recently, worldwide by the looks.

by Whatwillhappen | 29th May 24, 3:11pm 1716952300

It sounds like this is 3 waters all over again - this time it's the transmission company that's been spending its depreciation to keep rates low instead of the councils doing the same.

by JimboJones | 29th May 24, 3:56pm 1716954993

Seems like the opposite to me. How often do we get Transpower issues? Our power very rarely goes down, I wouldn't want to pay significantly more just to decrease it from almost never to slightly less than almost never.

by Escander | 29th May 24, 2:13pm 1716948836

Only 43% FFS

in 2012, 4 investor owned, 2 investor/consumer owned according to https://ir.wgtn.ac.nz/handle/123456789/19227?sequence=1

Edit: I AssYouMe-d.

by Palmtree08 | 29th May 24, 2:11pm 1716948712

I vote infrastructure upgrades paid for with a levy on banks, economists, immigration consultants, developers, "educational institutions", real estate agents etc. basically anyone that lobbies for exponential population and economic growth and directly cashes in on it.

by StuckAtHome | 29th May 24, 2:43pm 1716950612

There is an alternative - generate power at your home, and cut out the middle-man. I recent installed a solarZero system (solar + battery) - No money down, monthly subscription fee, cash-flow positive from year 1. No brainer when you look at the forecast increases to transmission & distribution charges.

by profile | 30th May 24, 7:43am 1717011788

The forecast increases to transmission & distribution charges are directly linked to our intermittent energy 'investment". [Edit RCP figure was way too low.]

"A recent Boston Consulting Report stated that [$32.2] billion of investment in [transmission and distribution] infrastructure was required to enable new renewable generation. This equates to a significant rate of expenditure of circa $1.4 billion a year till 2030!

A 2022 sector funded research report, Re-Energise – Ngā Mahi A Māui, estimated that the sector will require an additional 700 engineers and construction workers per year, to not only grow the workforce, but to replace the natural attrition created by a retiring workforce."

https://rcp.co.nz/insights/does-new-zealands-high-voltage-transmission-…

by Advisor | 29th May 24, 3:21pm 1716952911

not only grow the workforce, but to replace the natural attrition created by a retiring workforce

You forgot to add an extra hundred skilled workers to replace those hopping across the Tasman where work pipeline and remuneration looks more solid?

If the Aussie government begins tightening the screws on migration, expect even more skilled Kiwis to be poached by Aussie companies.

by profile | 29th May 24, 7:10pm 1716966612

The $8 billion renewable/intermittent energy virtue signal luxury spend may not be affordable for a number of reasons.

by solardb | 30th May 24, 8:43am 1717015385

Luxury spend???. you do know it would cost us way more in the long run if we didn't invest in renewables? but the truth that doesn't suit your narrative.

by profile | 30th May 24, 10:40am 1717022420

Where are you going to get your $32 billion from for your luxury beliefs chap? I love how you chastise for my "narrative" after you make some baseless predictions about the future.

"luxury beliefs - which are ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class at very little cost, while often inflicting costs on the lower classes."

e.g. taking carbon taxes of factory workers who can't afford EV's and giving it to Swedish furniture behemoths to plant pine trees and conglomerates to build windmills and backup power stations.

by Zwifter | 29th May 24, 3:00pm 1716951649

Perfect timing for all those new EV's on the road and then throw in RUC in on top of that from next month. Like I said a year ago, in the end driving an EV will be no cheaper than driving an ICE vehicle, they did the same with diesel, it used to be way cheaper then more cars went diesel then boom up goes the cost of diesel. Add to it the massive extra cost of the EV to start with, the fact that everyone is complaining they eat tires and then that $20K solar system you need to put in to charge it to try and "Save Money"....cheaper to go ICE which will still be running in 15 to 20 years time when your EV is long dead and sitting at the scrap yard after it COST you money to get it taken away because we cannot deal with the battery recycling in NZ. My prediction, watch it go the full circle we will be back to much smaller and lighter turbo petrol cars.

by AN Other | 29th May 24, 4:38pm 1716957536

Bollocks.

by Chris Morris | 29th May 24, 3:18pm 1716952736

The article is about transmission & distribution companies, not generation ones.

If you knew anything about the electricity generation industry, which obviously don't, you would know the companies have had to spend a fortune on capital costs, not only building new stations, but doing massive asset replacement and uprating for new compliance replacement. For example, Mercury have basically rebuilt all their Waikato stations with runner generator and transformer replacements, as well as a lot of uprated headworks. Contact just spent $1B on a new geothermal station. Genesis spent a fortune on canal civil works. Look at their annual reports.

by Chris Morris | 29th May 24, 3:20pm 1716952815

This was supposed to have been a reply to kiwikids.

by kiwikidsnz | 29th May 24, 6:36pm 1716964595

I did not distinguish between generation & lines. Your generator capex examples are also meaningless without the last 25 years income context: including eg depreciation, tax, profit & dividends (remembering that the Govt is majority shareholder)

by Chris Morris | 29th May 24, 7:16pm 1716967013

"privatised electricity companies was to change their depreciation basis from historical cost to replacement value. Thereby massively reducing their "profit" & tax." The change to replacement value was the generation arm of ECNZ during the time when Dr Death was CEO. The privatised companies were Contact and Trustpower. You can look up the income of generation companies on-line. They are steady earners but not that profitable. None are spectacular. And you didn't talk about Opex, stay in business capital or new capital investment because it would spoil your rant.

The Government has no ownership in distribution companies. The lines companies, being monopolies, are prices and charges regulated

by Yvil | 29th May 24, 3:22pm 1716952937

Insurance up by 20% pa announced yesterday, power up by 15% pa announced today, but hey, let's try to kill inflation by hiking the OCR… so that people don't have enough money left to feed themselves properly, heat their houses properly and clothes themselves properly.

by JimboJones | 29th May 24, 3:58pm 1716955137

Should we have low interest rates so they can borrow / create money to pay for it? Surely that would create spiralling inflation.

by Yvil | 29th May 24, 7:12pm 1716966735

Smith & Coughey, a 144 year old icon closing its doors, over 250 people losing their jobs. Still, most Interest commenters can only talk about housing.

by profile | 29th May 24, 8:06pm 1716969969

Following H&J Smith.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/133306763/hj-smith--123-ye…

by nigelh | 29th May 24, 4:54pm 1716958491

I very much doubt that there'll be an independent body to monitor how it's spent. Don't see the ComCom doing that.

by KH | 29th May 24, 5:01pm 1716958902

After I caught out Genesis charging me Line Charges that were "incorrect" and thus getting a refund of about 50% for several years worth what did they do?

They changed the name of the charge to "Daily charge" this allowing to put in any figure they like. Cunning. Many are fooled this is the line charge.

Your power bill should separate the components correctly with the correct name.

eg:

Transpower charge

Local line Charge.

Electricity Authority Charge.

Energy.

That will stop the cunning p*#x

by kiwikidsnz | 29th May 24, 6:16pm 1716963405

Last year Labour & MBIE permitted the electricity companies including Genesis to stop the low user rate & increase fixed daily charges by ~500% over 5 years

- fixed business incomes are much better for dividends than variable ones. God forbid that the increased daily charges be allocated to infrastructure maintenance

by KH | 29th May 24, 5:11pm 1716959497

My solar and battery reduce the peak demand and are a soother rather than exaggerator of demand peaks.

When two weeks ago there was a minor load crisis my battery still showed 18% in the morning.

Not what is usually said.

by interesting1234 | 30th May 24, 8:54am 1717016076

What size system did you get and what was the cost approx if you don't mind me asking? I'm currently researching this for long term ROI and savings.

by fat pat | 30th May 24, 8:43am 1717015428

The Previous Labour government has already undermined investment in solar by removing the low daily charge. If these price increases come in the form of an increased daily charge, rather than increases to $/kWh then it'll be a further slap in the face to people who forked out $30,000 for solar panels and a tesla powerwall.

by Chris Morris | 30th May 24, 10:08am 1717020507

The experience of both Australia and the US is that encouraging domestic solar by charging less than the value of the supplied costs are just a subsidy for the rich paid for by the poor. It hasn't led to cheaper power, just a lot more transmission grid problems needing ever-higher equipment installation requirements.

Being grid connected provides massive benefits to hoses with solar, even if they have batteries. They get frequency, voltage and surge control. Even if they are not a net importer of power, they need it. Otherwise, why don't they go off-grid? The lines companies have to put in the same sized equipment, whether or not it is used 365 or 50 days a year just over gloomy winters. And they need to size it for peak loading. That is why high line charges makes sense.

by Simmo | 30th May 24, 11:14am 1717024464

We the taxpayers already paid for the construction and ownership of all of the Electricity providers, jeepers how that has kicked our backsides!! BIG TIME!! so the 52% owner on our behalf will continue to cream off the dividends, and we the consumers will still continue to fund any further infrastructure via massive price increases, how much are the other 48% shareholders contributing, please advise!! THIS IS SO WRONG!! dividends or if you like profits should be funding all of these costs of asset replacement, this needs investigating right now!! my power bills are $340 per month now for just the 2 of us, I guess there goes the garage drinks fridge and deep freezer and Electric blankets, I can't see where else we can economise, light up candles I guess!!!!! we are in our late 70's!

by Chris Morris | 30th May 24, 2:37pm 1717036631

":taxpayers already paid for the construction and ownership of all of the Electricity providers" Never let the facts stand in the way of a rant.

Taxpayers paid very little of the distribution network. About 3000MW (a third of the generation ) has been built since Clyde. There have been major transmission projects built in last 25 years Whakamaru to Penrose line and converting DC to thyristors and roundpower just two that spring to mind for the grid.

by redheadonist | 30th May 24, 1:20pm 1717032033

Still relevant https://natlib.govt.nz/records/22707007