LB: Greens’ Solar Sense and National’s Nonsense

28 comments on “LB: Greens’ Solar Sense and National’s Nonsense ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bill 1

   18 February 2014 at 4:37 pm

   One thing I wonder about is folk like me who rent. Let’s say a landlord actually agrees to install. There goes the rent again, which, if unemployed, probably puts people even further beyond the max housing costs allowed by WINZ. So – correct me if I’m wrong – but as renters, we gain or save nothing…and possibly eat less.

   In conjunction with the ‘healthy homes’ policy, I can see rents spiral even more out of control unless a cap is put on the amount of rent landlords are allowed to charge. (A formula built around a %age of GV might work)
   • shorts 1.1

     18 February 2014 at 5:05 pm

     your rent might increase to cover the rate increase/costs (incurred by your landlord)… but you would also enjoy the full benefits of the install by having vastly lower power prices

     I’d guess wildly that in most cases tenants might well be slightly better off
     • Disraeli Gladstone 1.1.1

       18 February 2014 at 5:38 pm

       It’s not vastly lower energy prices, really. The cost incurred vs savings made isn’t a big gap. And it’s really sad that’s what we have to lead with (it’s not the Greens’ fault, they know the $ sign catches people’s attention).

       Because even if the effect was completely cost-neutral, we should all do it anyway for the sake of a cleaner, green planet.

       It’d be nice for Norman or Turei to go “yes, it might only save you a few dollars a week, it will also be you doing your bit to go some small measure for fighting climate change. Every journey has to start somewhere.”
     • lprent 1.1.2

       18 February 2014 at 10:07 pm

       The difficulty is (as Bill was alluding to) that the landlord sees no direct benefit for any investment except in property values or increased rentals above the cost of investment.

       Fortunately for Bill’s budget I suspect that it will have a takeup like that of insulation in rental properties. It doesn’t happen.

       Unfortunately that means that tenants wind up with massive power bills and statistically an early death. One damn good reason to buy a property.
   • Naki Man 1.2

     18 February 2014 at 5:30 pm

     Rents in NZ are low and usually don’t cover costs. Most landlords are hoping there will be a capital gain, that is the only way they can make anything out of a rental. If government try to interfere with rents you wont have anywhere to live. If you think you might get cheaper power as well as cheap rent I don’t think that is going to happen. The problem is that houses in Auckland and Christchurch are over priced due to supply and demand.
     • Descendant Of Sssmith 1.2.1

       18 February 2014 at 10:32 pm

       Actually rents are high.

       It’s just that houses are over valued and you have to borrow way too much to buy one.

       Dropping the value of housing to more appropriate levels is the answer. Take capital gain speculators out of the market.
       • cricklewood 1.2.1.1

         19 February 2014 at 7:00 am

         Thinking about that I’m starting to think the best and fastest way to achieve that is to dramatically increase the rights of the tenant. If its difficult to rent for a year or two then flick it on to realise the gain I’d expect you would remove a large chunk of speculators from the market. Be far more effective then cgt etc.
         • Matthew Whitehead 1.2.1.1.1

           19 February 2014 at 6:11 pm

           I don’t know that that’s necessarily the answer, either.

           I think landlords should have fair rights to expect their property to not be damaged, to be notified of damage or issues that tenants have noted, to be able to change tenants at the end of a lease, etc…

           The issue is that there are minimal standards to being a landlord. It would be amazing to see, for instance, a requirement implemented after a grace period where you would need to insulate a home in order to rent it out. (a grace period, and even some sort of subsidy, would help address the possible consequences of tenants getting kicked out so places could be insulated)

           That said, the only way to solve high rental prices is to solve the overvaluing of properties, which is best addressed with a comprehensive capital gains tax.
       • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.2

         19 February 2014 at 2:39 pm

         Dropping the value of housing to more appropriate levels is the answer. Take capital gain speculators out of the market.

         And that means banning offshore ownership and stopping the banks from creating money.
2. Ron 2

   18 February 2014 at 4:37 pm

   had a look at Greens policy and I agree it is certainly an area to look at. However I wonder about a couple of things.
   1. The scheme is a direct feed system with no way of storage which relies on power being generated in the daylight being feed back into the grid. When you want to use power you are required to pull it from grid.
   2. As far as I can see there are very few suppliers willing to participate in buy back of home generated electricity and in the last year the buyback price is decreasing. Users are absolutely at the mercy of power companies and if they refuse to allow buyback what then

   I think that any such scheme should provide a single point of contact/supply similar to the scheme Auckland City set up to encourage solar water.
   Also the law should be changed to ensure that all providers must enter into a buyback scheme and the price of buyback must be set maybe as a percentage of supply price.
   Its also pointless if one enters into such a scheme and then finds out that supplier starts fiddling with the supply price by upping the line charge to make the electricity supply more expensive.
   • lprent 2.1

     18 February 2014 at 5:40 pm

     Also the law should be changed to ensure that all providers must enter into a buyback scheme and the price of buyback must be set maybe as a percentage of supply price.

     From memory there is a bill for that in the works and widespread support across parties.
   • lprent 2.2

     18 February 2014 at 5:40 pm

     Also the law should be changed to ensure that all providers must enter into a buyback scheme and the price of buyback must be set maybe as a percentage of supply price.

     From memory there is a bill for that in the works and widespread support across parties.
     • Ron 2.2.1

       18 February 2014 at 6:13 pm

       had a quick look for any bill and the only thing I could find is David Clark’s Energy Efficiency Amendment Bill which aims to improve efficiency of supply. It does have a paragraph under section 15 that states
       (i) to contract for market operations services (but see subsection 2) and system operator services

       not sure if that means compulsory buy back but it would need more specific statements if the proposed draft bill is ever to have the effect we want.
       • lprent 2.2.1.1

         18 February 2014 at 9:32 pm

         I will have a dig around when I finish working.

         That sounds correct though.
   • Draco T Bastard 2.3

     19 February 2014 at 2:49 pm

     I suspect that the NZPower legislation would come with the necessary rules around solar power buy back and pricing. Technically, NZPower should actually remove the retailers in the electricity industry anyway.
   • weka 2.4

     19 February 2014 at 6:28 pm

     “1. The scheme is a direct feed system with no way of storage which relies on power being generated in the daylight being feed back into the grid. When you want to use power you are required to pull it from grid.”

     Er, not it’s not. The loans will be available for either grid tied and battery systems. Did you read the actual policy?
3. remo 3

   18 February 2014 at 5:24 pm

   Its a great idea. no matter what way round I look at it. There will always be issues to be identified and resolved , but the direction is sound and progressive.
4. Philj 4

   18 February 2014 at 6:30 pm

   Xox
   COULD be a good policy. But it is too little and too late. Humankind is finally waking up. USA, Vice President, Kerry is seeking action from Indonesia?
5. tricledrown 5

   18 February 2014 at 11:20 pm

   12 volt systems are way cheaper to install although a 12 volt system will not replace everything you use it can reduce you electricity use.
   • Lanthanide 5.1

     19 February 2014 at 9:24 am

     ???

     You need batteries, or the power is being thrown away. Batteries are expensive and need to be replaced.

     The alternative, of wiring everything in your house to 12V, is also expensive.
6. Lulu 6

   19 February 2014 at 8:59 am

   “National would rather see people dependent on the current flawed system that has seen a 22% increase in power bills over their time in office.”
   Fact: bundled retail electricity charges have risen 19.4% under Key lead government and rose 65.0% under previous Labour government. (May be more, can’t access Nov 99 data).
   MED as at: c/kWh (Nominal)
   15-Nov-00 13.99
   15-Nov-01 14.05
   15-Nov-02 15.07
   15-Nov-03 16.37
   15-Nov-04 17.95
   15-Nov-05 18.84
   15-Nov-06 20.26
   15-Nov-07 21.50
   15-Nov-08 23.09 +65% from Nov 00
   15-Nov-09 23.62
   15-Nov-10 25.28
   15-Nov-11 25.36
   15-Nov-12 26.78
   15-Nov-13 27.57+19.4% from Nov 08
   Which begs the question why didn’t price rises slow under Labour? They installed the Electricity Commission which was directly accountable to the Minster of Energy in 2004. They had a chance to deal with this then.
   Now price rises have slowed since national government replaced the Commission with an independent Electricity Authority operating under clear statutory objective in 2010.
   • Lanthanide 6.1

     19 February 2014 at 9:26 am

     “Now price rises have slowed since national government replaced the Commission with an independent Electricity Authority operating under clear statutory objective in 2010.”

     I think it probably has much more to do with the GFC and subsequent economic slump destroying demand than it does with any regulatory tweaking on National’s part.

     Just like the low interest rates Key likes to take credit for are actually a sign that the country was doing poorly and aren’t actually something to be proud of.
     • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1

       19 February 2014 at 2:51 pm

       +1
   • Dave Kennedy 6.2

     19 February 2014 at 10:49 am

     I won’t argue with the percentage of power increases, Lulu, because whatever it is (for some it will be much more depending on their company), it is still well above the rate of inflation and the cost of production. The real problem is still the commercial model set up by Max Bradford that saw an economic advantage of cheap power turn into another form taxation. For those living in poorly insulated rentals power bills are an unnecessary burden and for our manufacturers it limits their ability to compete with those overseas.

     With the cost of solar becoming ever cheaper and increased innovation in other forms of production, many will choose to produce their own power over connecting to the grid. It is also highly inefficient to transmit electricity over long distances as we currently do. I can see it possible in the future that the country will have to decommission some of our hydro schemes as demand drops and many power companies will go under before common sense cuts in.
     • Andrew 6.2.1

       20 February 2014 at 2:36 pm

       I take issue with your comments regarding the Bradford reforms leading to increased prices. The inverse is actually true.

       The real explosion of price increases happened after Labour started to re-regulate the competitive parts of the electricity sector, and impose conditions which required generators to invest in more expensive forms of electricity generation.

       http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/187418/electricity-reform-facts-and-fiction
   • Matthew Whitehead 6.3

     19 February 2014 at 6:15 pm

     I’ll grant you that Helen Clark’s government had other priorities than electricity prices, but John Key’s has done absolutely nothing to arrest the growth of power prices- if anything we should expect the trend to accelerate now more of them are privately owned.
7. Richard Christie 7

   19 February 2014 at 12:07 pm

   It’s one the most exciting policy initiatives I’ve heard in my lifetime.

   We haven’t had visionary infrastructural policies such as this mooted since the 1970s, and make no mistake, this is just the start to a significant alteration of electricity delivery.

   It reminds me of the early 20th century when the hydro schemes, and telephone were initiated.

   Nothing but good will result from its implementation.
8. Draco T Bastard 8

   19 February 2014 at 2:35 pm

   A $10,000 solar panel installation will save a home owner $28,000 over the 25 year life of the system.

   And if they’re well installed and cared for then you can expect them to last 40 years. The Greens are probably basing their calculations on the warranties that the panels come with which are more usually 20 to 25 years.

   It also made good economic sense for for me if I can find a way to put it up on the top of my apartment block.

   I’ve been thinking about putting solar panels upon apartment buildings and the only solution I can think of is a major installation (As big as practical) that belongs to the apartment building. You’d have a single power feed into the building which also connects the solar array to the grid. Feed to each apartment would then be taken from that single feed with the administration of the billing then being done by the building’s association.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS