web analytics
The Standard

Power to the people

Written By: - Date published: 5:35 am, May 22nd, 2009 - 52 comments
Categories: economy - Tags:

This just in – the electricity market isn’t working.

Well, plenty of people were saying that would happen back in the 1990s when National insisted on giving it a go. They split up the ECNZ into four bite size pieces to compete against each other. They planned to sell them all and create a totally private electricity market but only had time to flog off Contact before they lost power.

Since then we’ve had to deal with this dumb monopolistic system that’s mostly public-owned but doesn’t act in the public interest. Labour’s best effort to fix it was the Electricity Commission – a half-hearted effort to stop the generator/retailers from taking super-profits by regulating the market.

It didn’t work. We didn’t get enough generation and transmission as we needed put in. The government couldn’t get its own SOEs to follow its climate change policies; they act like profit-maximising corporates instead. Trying to use price to destroy demand during dry years just led to politically untenable profits flowing to Contact’s shareholders and the government.

National is now acting all angry at the electricity companies and warning them not to increase prices any further. This just months after they demanded bigger profits from those same SOEs.

National’s solution is to get rid of the Electricity Commission and break up the SOEs into smaller SOEs ready for selling. That wouldn’t create a better market. You don’t get good markets in natural monopolies. It wouldn’t lead to cheaper power having more companies trying to sell you an identical product just leads to them spending more on advertising. It would leave one huge company, Contact, to play NZ’s version of Enron in California. You might think that we would have learned that unregulated capitalists don’t always act in the public interest over the last couple of years but it seems National hasn’t.

The real solution is to get rid of this whole sham. Buy back Contact (work out a fair share price and do it through legislation). Put the whole thing back into one and set it some simple goals: reliable supply at a steady, low price and phasing out fossil fuels. Don’t worry about profits. Even now, profits are basically just an electricity tax.

Forget the neoliberal daydream of a real electricity market. Get back to having an electricity system that’s just about giving us cheap, green power when we want it.

52 comments on “Power to the people”

  1. Pascal's bookie 1

    Forget the neoliberal daydream of a real electricity market. Get back to having an electricity system that’s just about giving us cheap, green power when we want it.

    Gasp.

    Just because it makes sense, might work, and would be heaps better doesn’t mean it isn’t sacrilege Eddie.

  2. cocamc 2

    Now lets blame the Electricity Sector – and of course it’s all Nationals fault. Yesterday this blog blamed the the CEO’s and businesses.
    Whose next to blame? You’re running out of targets.

    Buying back Contact Energy is not the answer, firstly we’ve got no money to do that at the moment. Adjust the system maybe the answer – allow the lines companies to retail and generate and create more competition in the network for consumers

    • Pascal's bookie 2.1

      Yeah because the generation/retailers wouldn’t just buy the lines co’s. But good to see you are keeping with the sacrilege theme and running the faith based solution.

    • lprent 2.2

      did you read the post. He said that the electricity generators were acting like semi monopolistic corporates. Same thought. But I guess you just wanted to spin a line.

      • bilbo 2.2.1

        How much do the SO power companies return to the government ?

        If it’s small enough figure why not direct them to run at cost leading and move customers from Contact to the SOEs thereby driving down their revenue and share price and pick them up cheap ?

        Often makes me wonder why the govt hasn’t done something similar with the banking sector ……. why does all the IRD business still go through Westpac rather than Kiwibank ?

        • Clarke 2.2.1.1

          Often makes me wonder why the govt hasn’t done something similar with the banking sector . why does all the IRD business still go through Westpac rather than Kiwibank ?

          Because Treasury is still worshipping the neo-liberal demi-god of “Efficiency”. If you discount all of the externalities to zero, then it’s more “efficient” for IRD to save 0.1 cents per transaction by going with Westpac’s lower contract price.

          In Treasury’s world, keeping jobs in New Zealand, not exporting the bank profits, building New Zealand’s capital base and all the other benefits that would come from keeping government business on-shore aren’t actually counted. Hence the Westpac decision.

          If you go and have a look around the Chief Executive positions in the public sector, you’ll discover that a non-trivial percentage of the incumbents are ex-Treasury, which is why this anti-logic seems so pervasive.

          • insider 2.2.1.1.1

            Primarily they go with Westpac because it has the computing and transactional power to process the massive volume of payments government makes. Kiwibank doesn’t or didn;t have that when last tendered.

        • cocamc 2.2.1.2

          Ok Bilbo
          The dividends that are received from the SOE’s go back into the Govt coffers for other programs (Police, roading, social spending). You take that away and the shortfall has to come from somewhere else. Oh that’s right, just tax the “Rich” to make up the difference.

          • Clarke 2.2.1.2.1

            cocamc –

            Are you serious? If the electricity companies hadn’t been systematically raping their customers, there would be another $4 billion in income sloshing around inside NZ. And remember, one of the biggest players is Contact, which is predominantly owned by offshore investors – pray tell how the investors who have been banking the dividend cheques into overseas bank accounts help pay for the Police, roading and social spending.

          • cocamc 2.2.1.2.2

            Clarke
            Read my response, I said SOE’s send money to the Govt.

            Contact is a public company so different situation. But they invest money building generation facilities, that contibutes to the economy with jobs, etc.

          • Clarke 2.2.1.2.3

            Contact is a public company so different situation. But they invest money building generation facilities, that contibutes to the economy with jobs, etc.

            That’s a truly lame response.

            Contact have 24% of the generating market, according to MED. If the gaming of the market has been happening on a pro-rata basis, this means that Contact are guilty of pulling an additional $960 million out of New Zealand, which has benefited predominantly overseas shareholders.

            We could have used a public project to build the same generation facilities and created the same number of jobs as Contact did, and the only effect would be that New Zealanders would be $960 million richer!

        • Swampy 2.2.1.3

          Lots. probably most of the amount alleged to be overcharged found its way into the Labour Government’s coffers. It’s certainly on record they got more than a billion out of Meridian for the last two election year budgets.

          It’s rather unlikely that National is going to engage in such a draconian anti business course of action, they have no political constituency like Labour does with the leftist unionists.

    • Clarke 2.3

      The very definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome each time.

      So your solution to market failure is … more markets?

    • Draco T Bastard 2.4

      You can’t have competition in electricity supply. You can only have one network because it’s far too expensive to have more than one. Having multiple suppliers increases costs because of the increased bureaucracy and laws. The cost of setting up the competition prevents the competition even trying.

      Do what you say and we will end up with a privately owned monopoly gouging society and not enough power generation. Exactly why Milton Friedman said in Capitalism & Freedom that if you have to have a monopoly then it should be state owned.

      Power is an infrastructural component of society like roads and as such it needs to be state owned. Without it society would be worse off. If the generation and reticulation of power loses money then it can easily be, and should be, regarded as an investment in our society.

      • Swampy 2.4.1

        We have more or less the same in the past because of the state monopoly. A monopoly is a monopoly regardless. That’s why we have laws against monopolies, except of course government ones, and that’s where you have made a huge mistake in your post. The electrical supply network is owned by an independent public entity and that’s the only monopoly that should be tolerated. There’s no case for generation monopoly because it happens at multiple sites. There’s no case at all that going back to an NZED scenario with the local distribution monopolised by MEDs is going to produce an improvement over the current situation. There’s plenty of case that limiting the monopoly power of major players is going to produce real improvement. The situation is that the government owns most of the generation capacity and thus has substantial market power, Further, the government can buy political power as a result. Going back to the past NZED-MED type model will simply cement in the most negative aspects of the current situation.

  3. Chris 3

    Good post.

  4. Chris 4

    Good post – and bang on the nail.

    Getting competition in a small monopolistic market is a false dream. Better to concentrate on real world issues.

  5. Yes very good post Eddie. I was listening to Gerry Brownlee being interviewed on National Radio yesterday evening and I could feel his pain in having to admit that the market solution – Max Bradford’s baby – had been a complete failure.

    It was a great moment hearing him squirm.

  6. Tom Semmens 6

    Surely though one of the lessons of this is that the constant right wing screeching for personal tax cuts will lead to politically driven and undesirable distortions of the tax system. Make no mistake – the government cannot dare raise personal taxation given the way the cheerleaders of the business elites react to such a thing, so instead it is forced to indulge in this sort of unfair and distorting taxation in order to maintain the revenue streams that pay for everything. Right wingers don’t understand there is no such as a free lunch. Or rather, they seem happy to accept that they may have to step over begging old ladies on wintry streets on their way to collect their tax cut.

    The sooner we up the top personal tax rates to the top tiers of earners – and corporates – and cut these sort of unfair and hidden tax burdens on the poorest New Zealanders the better.

    • jagilby 6.1

      “constant right wing screeching for personal tax cuts will lead to politically driven and undesirable distortions of the tax system.”

      I don’t think you could have got it any more wrong if you tried.

      Substitute “right-wing” for ‘left-wing’ and “personal tax cuts” for ‘state welfare’ and you’re starting to get closer to the truth.

      Having the highest personal tax bracket not consistent with that of companies, trusts and other corporate bodies has led to massive undesirable distortions in the tax system.

      Seriously, get a clue.

      • Clarke 6.1.1

        Having the highest personal tax bracket not consistent with that of companies, trusts and other corporate bodies has led to massive undesirable distortions in the tax system.

        Yes, you’re entirely correct – if you can game the tax system by running your income through a company or a trust, then you can pay significantly less tax than anyone stuck on PAYE.

        However this is not normally an option for families on the minimum wage in South Auckland, so effectively provides a mechanism for richer folk to pay less tax than is equitable.

        The solution to this problem is to normalise the tax system, by making all top rates the same. This can just as easily be done by raising trust and company taxes as lowering personal taxes. No prizes for guessing which one will result in a lower deficit.

        • jagilby 6.1.1.1

          Fantastic idea… increase taxes on companies right in the middle of a severe recession.

          Where was your invitation to the jobs summit… that idea would have eradicated unemployment for sure.

      • ak 6.1.2

        Seriously, get a life. And catch up with the new tory lines.

        Repeating the hackneyed pre-election drivel and screeches for “tax cuts” puts you way behind even your own sunny leader. So last year.

        The vote-buying “north of $50/wk” bribe won the election but is now old hat: the reality-forced chewing gum for the rich and zip for the majority (morphing into zip for all henceforth) has taken it off the Keyspeak register for good.

        Ditto your tired”state welfare” refrain. Smell the roses, petal: Sunny has expanded the dole, is pouring hard-earned taxpayers millions into a bike track, and is currently ramming “big government” onto our biggest city. Socialist bastard.

        Take the pills, Gills: you’ve still a sad case of pre-election dysfunction.

        • jagilby 6.1.2.1

          I’m not “screeching” for a cut in taxation revenue at all and never said anything close to that dickhead.

          If anything I would look to rebalance to tax take through capital gains on investment property (aside from the primary home of residence) and those who think they are so smart clipping the property ticket. That would include capital gains on all goods – including Art and collectables memorabilia. And one you’ll all love, I’m sure, I would remove subjective references to “traders” when it comes to taxing capital gains on shares – all trading of shares would be subject to capital gains.

          It’s my belief that a capital gains isn’t quite as tough a pill to swallow politically as it’s made out to be and it would align us with most other developed nations…. even those without “Tory” leaders.

          Yes, I would also increase GST also (so start preparing your vitriol now). Increasing the cost of consumption will encourage an increase savings (the great panacea to our current account deficit according to Labour).

          These two measures would help us lower personal taxes to a level consistent with that of companies and trusts and remove the distortion currently. I trust that the current tax think tank appointed will do justice to these suggestions… thank heavens they have a bit more knowledge and sense when it comes to taxation than you lot.

          ANOTHER POINT…
          “so effectively provides a mechanism for richer folk to pay less tax than is equitable”

          Who is you to decide what is “equitable”…. Is it “equitable” that those who provide the jobs and risk the capital be summarily punished for doing so?

          “However this is not normally an option for families on the minimum wage in South Auckland”… If they had the access to the knowledge why would a family on the minimum wage need to exercise that option anyway?… presumably their marginal tax rate is less than that of a company or trust in any case.

          • jagilby 6.1.2.1.1

            As an aside how can discussion about the structure of the tax system be “so last year” when the government has only just appointed a think tank, that includes New Zealand’s foremost experts on taxation (including members from each of the Big 4 accounting firms) to provide suggestions for reform?

            How can you be so sure this won’t radically change the current structure and that parties will change their stance given these recommendations?

            Pretty ballsy of you I would suggest… or is it just another example of the supreme arrogance of the left again thinking they know better than the experts?

        • jagilby 6.1.2.2

          Forgive me if I don’t see how socialist the Supercity is when all the other socialists in the land are united against it and the proposal will almost certainly result in staff “efficiency” gains.

  7. LawGeek 7

    Labour’s best effort to fix it was the Electricity Commission – a half-hearted effort to stop the generator/retailers from taking super-profits by regulating the market.

    It didn’t work. We didn’t get enough generation and transmission as we needed put in.

    These two statements are mutually contradictory. Transmission price rises are justified as the recovery of costs spent on transmission investment. The EC approval system for investment is designed to STOP unnecessary investment that will drive up cost. Similar logic applies to generation investment.

    Now you can agree or disagree with whether or not more investment than is current approved is needed (althought the NZ transmission system is actually fairly reliable by international standards, I might add), but more investment will = higher electricity prices. Either that, or direct subsidy of the electricity companies from the general tax base. Again, you might think that’s a good idea. But more investment = more costs. It’s very difficult to rationally demand BOTH more investment AND lower prices.

    • Draco T Bastard 7.1

      Actually, it’s not all that difficult at all but it doesn’t work for private investors as they are looking for the return of the original investment plus profit. Works fine for state ownership though as the cost of setting up new generation is taken out taxes as a sunk cost with no direct return needed or even looked for. The price of power would then be the cost of supply and maintenance. The returns that we would get would be the increased efficiencies and living standards of our society which are almost impossible to quantify but would be greater than zero.

      • LawGeek 7.1.1

        The cost isn’t zero either though. You either have to pay back the cost of the investment (paying for it is independent of the profit motive) through electricity charges or out of general taxes.

        Generation and transmission capacity costs money. You might pay less for it in the long run in public ownership (I think that is likely), but you still have to pay for it. I’m not arguing that private ownership is more efficient than public in the electricity sector, I’m arguing that you have to pay for investment somehow, and therefore Eddie’s point doesn’t really make sense. I wouldn’ve thought that’s relatively uncontroversial.

        • insider 7.1.1.1

          LawGeek is exactly right. More investment equals higher charges. Fundamentally becasue there is no game changing technology that lowers the cost base. Most of the green energy is more expensive not less, so you are contradicting yourself.

          What you are arguing for is short run marginal cost. Possibly fine if you have static supply and demand. Alternatively a highly competitive market with very low barriers to entry would get close.

          But how would you incentivise the building of supplementary new plant to meet rising demand unless you do that by ministerial direction or some other centralised planner where the taxpayer wears the risk if it is wrong (and we have plenty of excruciatingly bad examples of that in the recent and distant past – wanna buy a railway anyone? A synfuel plant?). Your proposal to hide it in general taxes is frankly scary and likely to lead to overbuilding due to lack of accountability for decisions. I’d suggest it would be the least efficient.

          Having a market shifts the risk from taxpayers to investors. It also means that we are not subject to the whim of central planners and politicians who decide what is best for us. They will use that power to steamroller over communities because it looks good in an engineering sense but probably only from that perspective, or politically good, which usually means expensive for you and me. What we need is more market not less, and more scrutiny of that market

          • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1.1

            But how would you incentivise the building of supplementary new plant to meet rising demand unless you do that by ministerial direction or some other centralised planner where the taxpayer wears the risk if it is wrong (and we have plenty of excruciatingly bad examples of that in the recent and distant past – wanna buy a railway anyone? A synfuel plant?).

            Having a market shifts the risk from taxpayers to investors.

            And we have even more proving that the market doesn’t move the risks from the public to the private. If the infrastructure isn’t built then the public pays in lost living standards, lost earnings and other ways.

            The market will never over build but doing so isn’t actually a failure – it just means you can put off further investment longer but the profits will either be low or non-existent. So, the market is incentivised to under invest to keep prices and profits high in the short term while the state is incentivised to over invest to keep costs down in the long term. Central planning for a single service that is so integral for the wellbeing of society is a massive improvement over market supply of the same service.

            Your proposal to hide it in general taxes…

            Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said to hide it in the taxes and there’s no way I would support any sort of black project that funded through taxes. Pay for it through taxes as an investment in society is what I said and what it actually is.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.2

          I didn’t say it would cost nothing. I said that the difference is that private investors want their money back and that government can regard the investment as a sunk cost and not expect it back at all. This will lower electricity prices because all that they are covering is maintenance.

          • insider 7.1.1.2.1

            Actually no, the Government requires a return on its assets and are pretty harsh in demanding it – and there are good reasons for this. It needs to know when investment is efficient or inefficient just as much as any private business or else the costs could spiral – they would only feel like they are small because they are hidden and you can’t blame some fat cat.

            Re the above (system won’t let me reply to it directly for some reason)

            “And we have even more proving that the market doesn’t move the risks from the public to the private. If the infrastructure isn’t built then the public pays in lost living standards, lost earnings and other ways.”

            Actually we don’t have that proof. Firstly we have over 4000MW of generation planned – that is 50% of total installed capacity and we are only growing demand at ~2%pa. There have been significant investments since the market was developed.

            Secondly, we have had fewer actual power cuts due to energy shortages than we did under centralised planning. Centralised planning leads to pork barreling IMO o

          • LawGeek 7.1.1.2.2

            Let me put it another way, Draco.

            Power plants cost millions to build. That’s millions of tax dollars that can’t go somewhere else. Either that, or the power company has to cover the costs of its investment through electricity charges. I agree that if the power company is state-owned, there is the possibility for including a lower profit component in those charges. But even if you’re going for break even, which we surely want our Government to do, new investment = new cost = higher charges.

            What are you disputing out of that statement?

  8. burt 8

    Eddie

    Are you are saying that the price gouging over the last 6 years is the fault of National from the 90’s rather than Labour who were in charge over the last 6 years?

    Following this logic Fyffe is indemnified for the Zear360 situation as the problems stem back to the govt when they set up Air NZ in the first place. Going right back to NAC would follow the same logic as blaming National for this.

    Come on Eddie, the directors, shareholders and management team are responsible for stuff that happens on their watch. You cannot continue to blame the National govt of the 90’s for ever Eddie

    • Clarke 8.1

      I agree – Labour should have had the courage to bin a failed market system.

      By the same token, however, Brownlee has just come out and said that the power companies won’t have to pay back the $4 billion they’ve looted from consumers – in effect, he’s endorsed their cynical overcharging.

      Now that’s definitely happening on National’s watch.

      • The Baron 8.1.1

        Did you read why he isn’t clawing it back, or did you not get past the headline?

        I really am worried about the level of reading comprehension on this site.

        • Clarke 8.1.1.1

          You mean Brownlee’s in-depth analysis:

          Speaking on Radio New Zealand Mr Brownlee said refunds were not an option. He pointed out the report looked at the wholesale not the retail market, but also it was too difficult.

          “Most of this happened in the past, it happened over the seven years up to 2007,” he said.

          “The 2008 year hasn’t been part of the assessment. . .you’ve got to remember to that the household sector is just on a third of all electricity use so it becomes very, very difficult to work out who actually has paid for what.”

          So let’s get this straight. The electricity companies have the billing systems that allow them to buy and sell through individual transactions in the wholesale and retail markets, and a regulatory obligations to keep those records for a decade. But it’s “too difficult” to go back through those same records and correct the over-charging, despite the fact that the Commerce Commission has forced exactly the same process on other large-scale corporates that have been guilty of over-charging on transaction fees, such as the recent example of the banks with credit card transactions.

          The only sense in which this is “difficult” is that it would cost pro-privatisation Brownlee some political capital.

          • insider 8.1.1.1.1

            The real reason IMO is the $4b is a bit of a fiction…

            What has happened is that a theoretical model has been built that says in an ideal market if all the conditions in the model were fully conformed with, prices should have been at level X most of teh time, but when he looked at the actual prices they were X+. That gap has been considered an “overcharge” but there is significant debate over whether the model can ever be “true” ie can that ideal ever be achieved in any market ever, meaning the theoretical base could be just that, a theory.

            There are also people questioning whether the model actually effectively replicates the NZ market.

          • Maynard J 8.1.1.1.2

            Insider, if I understand correctly, it would be very easy to figure out who creamed what from whom when.

            The key point is that the highest spot price determines the overall market wholesale price.

            The easiest example to use is that during a dry year, there is not enough hydro, so we burn diesel. This means we are paying for hydro power as if it were diesel. To find out the overcharging, merely determine when the spot prices are for each generation type and unit, and then if the price was ever above that.

  9. The Baron 9

    Far better than your usual partisan hacking, Eddie – good discussion and points.

    Lets consider your premise of repurchasing Contact Energy, so that ECNZ can be reconstituted. Right now, Contact Energy has a market capitalisation of $3.4 billion (source: http://www.nzx.com/markets/NZSX/CEN). This would have to be the starting price of any fair value for the business (a lot more than Cullen’s woefully overpaid train set – my god, I would hate to see him negotiate this deal!)

    Would the reorganisation of the market produce $3.4b in benefit? Arguably, it would have prevented the $4b in overcharging that has just occurred… but nevertheless, it is a hell of a cost.

    • Clarke 9.1

      … which by your own figures would produce a return of $600 million in net economic welfare for New Zealand. To do the numbers, that’s a 17% ROI, not allowing for the time value of the money invested. There’s clearly a very good prima facie business case for doing an immediate re-purchase; I’d suggest a full NPV assessment as a good beginning point, but it seems like a very workable deal.

  10. Natpicker 10

    Theres not much needs to be said after Pascals missive, its right on the money. The whole market concept for utilities is totally flawed, and an exercise in the gathering of safe returns for those that have the money to invest. Which in itself means that the rest of us will have to return a “rental” to these shareholders. They in turn will demand more and more. Time to nationalise.

    In terms of shareholders and investment capital I would encourage high returns if the risk is commensurate, but in the case of existant captive markets there is no real risk. And that is what is so bloody sick, no one with money is inclined to risk it, they only want safe returns from you and me. Its a form of parasitism and it aims at the capture of the common good for the private gain.

  11. Quoth the Raven 11

    I think this is an argument for much more decentralised electricity generation. That way you can get the power companies off your back.

  12. insider 12

    Maynard

    for some reason I can’t reply directly to your post.

    You are almost correct, it is the supply bid that clears the demand that sets teh price. So like an auction people will offer generation at various prices for a set demand. Those offers are stacked on top of each other from lowest to highest. When you get to the point that meets demand, the market is cleared and it is that marginal offer that sets the price that everyone receives even if their offer was lower. So the highest offer is not necessarily accepted. That would only happen when the generation offered exactly matches demand, which is almost never.

    The problem with your solution is that it disincentivses me to offer my generation at near marginal cost, because if I get paid more – which I have no control over – you might sting me down the track. That is absurd and unfair. The only person who should wear that is the marginal generator, but how are they to know they are going to be at the margin? No-one has perfect information and no-one could accurately guess when they were at the margin. It also requires anyone reviewing the market to be perfectly informed about what was bid and why, and what the marginal costs were. And that is really really hard I suspect.

    Like I said, a theoretical view has become reality and it may not actually be so.

  13. Rich 13

    What we need to have is a computer model that optimises which power stations run to minimise CO2 emissions over an annual cycle, while maintaining a reserve of water in case of dry or calm weather.

    The cost of (state-generated) electricity then becomes the cost of generators (fuel, capital, maintenance, overheads) plus a reasonable surplus. Contact and any other privately-held generators can either be paid on the same basis, or can sell power through their own distribution network to any private customers that want to contract with them.

    As well as this, it would make sense to turn the state generators from SOEs into worker/consumer owned cooperatives, so that any profits flow straight back to the customers and workers.

    • The Baron 13.1

      what on earth is a worker/consumer cooperative going to give that an SOE isnt? both return money to the public – just that the former introduces a whole pile of CRAZY along the way.

      I assure you, as a tax payer, i am not going to let one shred of my publicly owned power generation fall into the private hands of the “workers”. i thought you lot hated privatisation – what the hell is this?

      • Quoth the Raven 13.1.1

        The Baron – What is your particular problem with consumer or worker cooperatives? Merely saying something is crazy is not a substative argument. Are you capable of providing a good argument against these models? What is the crazy you talk of? Is it merely that it smells of leftism to you so ipso facto it must be bad – no argument needed.
        I don’t hate privatisation. It is how privatisation is carried out that is the problem. There are many different ways to privatise. Most people don’t have such a black and white picture of the world as you. Market – anti-market, privatisation – state ownership, black – white…

        I assure you, as a tax payer, i am not going to let one shred of my publicly owned power generation fall into the private hands of the “workers’.
        …so you have a problem with it being in the private hands of workers, but you have no problem with it being in the private hands of corporates, or not?

        • The Baron 13.1.1.1

          Fair enough on the first part, QoR – good challenge.

          And on the second, you caught a fair error of mine. I absolutely have no problem with worker ownership of anything – so long as they purchase the asset at fair market value. In fact, I think it would be a beautiful model if more workers did get the capital together and do just that, and actually demonstrate the model to the country.

          I suspect that Rich had something wholly different in mind however, in that he wanted the Government to give the power assets over to worker/consumer control as an alternative to SOE structures. It was that concept that i was railing against, as it privatises the asset without fair recourse to the owners – the collective taxpayers.

          as for your last sentence, i think you have wholly made that up. i don’t think i have ever made any statement for or against privatisation? i share however your own sentiments that you express earlier.

    • insider 13.2

      Rich

      Problem is that could mean more expensive power…

      What you describe is similar to what we have. The system runs on best price first. The ETS or carbon tax was supposed to penalise carbon so pushing carbon dioxide production down the bidding order. But we can’t meet demand with just renewables so need fossil fuels. So any increase to FF costs is a direct cost increase to power purchasers. Not only that, wind tends to be more expensive than gas at present so there is a double whammy.

      I’m not going near debating the wisdom of SOEs becoming co-ops :-)

  14. Swampy 14

    The period under review happens to be entirely a period when Labour was in government and therefore received the control of the billions of dollars into government coffers which they were then able to spend on scratching their usual itches.

    It was most noticeable that Labour ministers at the time when these electricity price rises were taking place, kept very quiet on the subject of where the money was going to. Labour of course did almost nothing to change the electricity marketplace during that time.

    Hardly surprising is it? In 2005, Labour makes certain spending promises in the election campaign. Michael Cullen contrives to extract about a billion dollars from Meridian to pay for some of those promises. That amount being in addition to the normal dividends that are paid out each year to the government as shareholders.

    Just tell us whether you still believe that the billions in overcharging was bad, that Labour should have given that money back in rebates.

  15. Swampy 15

    I don’t know why anyone thinks there is some sort of “good old days” when power was not being overcharged. Before Bradford came along and did his bit, things were pretty much the same, the main difference being that the NZED was run like a typical government department rather than the SOE model.

    There was no choice for the public who they could buy power from, the MEDs used to transfer large sums of money to local government coffers each year such that special legislation was put through by Muldoon to limit the amounts. These things happen when you have a government monopoly.

    What you have missed out here is that the government still owns most of the SOEs implicated in this cartel and therefore has substantial market power. All you need is an SOE minister to tell all three to behave the same way and there is that cartel at work with the resulting outcome.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Labour mourns Dame Dorothy Fraser
    Labour Leader Andrew Little said the party is today mourning the loss of the youngest person to join the Labour Party, Dame Dorothy Fraser, who went on to be a stalwart of the Dunedin community and tireless worker for others.… ...
    5 hours ago
  • The ultimate scapegoat: PM blames fruit fly for new tax
    The Prime Minister has found the ultimate scapegoat for breaking his promise not to introduce a new tax – the Queensland fruit fly, Labour’s Biosecurity spokesperson Damien O’Connor says. “John Key’s first policy upon taking office and assigning himself the… ...
    7 hours ago
  • How many victims missing out on protection?
    Hundreds of domestic abuse victims could be missing out on getting protection orders because they are unable to get legal aid, Labour’s Justice spokesperson Jacinda Ardern says.“In the last two years some 351 people who applied for legal aid for… ...
    2 days ago
  • Government kicks hardworking whanau
    A major incentive to help young Kiwis and people on low incomes to start saving has been kicked out from under them with the National-led Government ramming through short-sighted legislation under Urgency today, Labour’s Maori Development Spokesperson Nanaia Mahuta says.… ...
    2 days ago
  • Speculator tax political stunt gone wrong
    Bill English’s admission he doesn’t know whether National’s new speculator tax will have any effect shows last weekend’s announcement by the Prime Minister was a desperate political stunt, says Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. “This Government is so desperate to… ...
    2 days ago
  • The value of parenting
    This week, as part of the Budget, the government introduced a bill to address child poverty. This bill will require parents receiving income support to look for part-time work once their youngest child is three years of age rather than… ...
    GreensBy Jan Logie MP
    2 days ago
  • Another new tax, another broken promise
    National has unveiled yet another new tax in this budget – a rural broadband levy that will almost certainly result in an immediate price hike for internet and telephone connections across New Zealand, Labour’s ICT spokesperson Clare Curran said “The… ...
    3 days ago
  • Anniversary of Sri Lankan Tamil Massacre
    This is not going to be a happy story but if the Green Party of Aotearoa doesn’t want to know who else will? May 18th marks the anniversary of what is known as the ‘Mullivaikal massacre’ of Tamils in 2009 at… ...
    GreensBy Catherine Delahunty MP
    3 days ago
  • Labour MPs join youth to take part in 40 hour famine
    A team of Labour MPs took part in the 2015 World Vision 40 hour famine and we were told by World Vision and the young people, that it was the first time MPs had joined them and how appreciative they… ...
    3 days ago
  • Rodeo: ‘Family entertainment’ or animal abuse?
    Recently  TVNZ ran a story with confronting footage showing rodeo animals being punched, repeatedly shocked with electronic prods and having their tails violently twisted over their backs. It was clear that significant force was being used behind the scenes to make… ...
    GreensBy Mojo Mathers MP
    3 days ago
  • Budget puts the squeeze on police
    The Government has cut funding to the New Zealand police force in the latest Budget, says Labour’s Police spokesperson Kelvin Davis. “The reduction is a whopping $15.3 million that could put front line officers at risk. ...
    3 days ago
  • Crucial social services take another hit
    The Government looks set to slash half a million dollars of funding for critical social services, including Women’s Refuge and Barnados, says Labour’s Social Development spokesperson Carmel Sepuloni “Taking $500,000 from organisations aimed at improving the lives of vulnerable families… ...
    3 days ago
  • Saying it Loud on Climate in Christchurch
    The Government’s Christchurch consultation meeting on New Zealand’s emission targets was inspiring – not for what was in the Ministry for the Environment’s (MFE’s) defeatist video about the obstacles to changing to a low carbon future, but for what the… ...
    GreensBy Eugenie Sage MP
    3 days ago
  • Budget silent on small business
    The Government has completely ignored one of the most important sectors of the economy – small and medium-sized enterprises – in Budget 2015, Labour’s Small Business spokesperson Jacinda Ardern says. "A stunning 41 per cent of jobs were created by… ...
    3 days ago
  • Thank you John, it’s been bloody marvellous
    The departure of John Campbell is a blow to current affairs investigative journalism, Labour’s Broadcasting Spokesperson Clare Curran says. “Campbell Live stood out in its field. Its axing comes as local broadcasting in New Zealand remains in a state of… ...
    3 days ago
  • KiwiSaver cut shows no long-term plan
    National’s cutting of the KiwiSaver kickstart is incredibly short-term thinking, typical of a Budget that is woefully short on ideas to generate wealth and opportunity, Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson says. “New Zealand’s savings rate is far too low. KiwiSaver… ...
    3 days ago
  • National hits the panic button for its 7th Budget
    National has hit the panic button for its 7th Budget in a desperate attempt to look like they’re taking action to reduce our shameful child poverty rates, but they are giving with one hand and taking with the other, Opposition… ...
    4 days ago
  • Panic and back-flips can’t hide twin deficits
    National’s token measures to fight fires they have left burning for seven long years can’t hide a Budget that is long on broken promises, short on vision and fails to reach surplus, says Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson. “After being… ...
    4 days ago
  • Auckland land measure seven years too late
    National are so desperate to look like they are doing something about the Auckland housing crisis they have dusted off Labour’s 2008 inventory of government land available for housing and re-announced it, says Labour’s housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. “Despite National… ...
    4 days ago
  • Access to gender reassignment surgery essential
    I was frankly disgusted to hear the Minister for Health say that funding gender reassignment surgeries is a “nutty idea”. A recent study found that in New Zealand 1% of young people identified themselves as transgender, and 3% were unsure… ...
    GreensBy Jan Logie MP
    5 days ago
  • Global milk prices now lowest in 6 years
    The latest fall in the global dairy price has brought it to the lowest level in six years and shows there must be meaningful action in tomorrow’s Budget to diversify the economy, says Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson. “Dairy prices… ...
    5 days ago
  • Big risks as CYF checks stopped
    Revelations that Child, Youth and Family is no longer assisting home-based early childhood educators by vetting potential employees should set alarm bells ringing, Labour Children’s spokesperson Jacinda Ardern says. “Doing away with an extra mechanism for checking potential new employees… ...
    6 days ago
  • Housing crisis about real people not numbers
    The Government’s continued failure to tackle the housing crisis is seeing thousands of vulnerable Kiwis being kept off social housing waiting lists, while others, who are on the list, are being forced to live in cars and garages, says Labour’s… ...
    6 days ago
  • Housing crisis about real people not numbers
    The Government’s continued failure to tackle the housing crisis is seeing thousands of vulnerable Kiwis being kept off social housing waiting lists, while others, who are on the list, are being forced to live in cars and garages, says Labour’s… ...
    6 days ago
  • State of origin
    Kiwis are increasingly concerned about the food they give their families. New Zealand consumers have the right to know where their food has come from, particularly when it involves animals, and should be able to expect our Government to label… ...
    GreensBy Steffan Browning MP
    6 days ago
  • Relationships Aotearoa
    It is disturbing that Relationships Aotearoa, a voluntary organisation set up in 1949 to help couples struggling with their relationships following the upheavals of World War II, may be forced to close, says Acting Spokesperson for the Voluntary and Community… ...
    6 days ago
  • An economy that is just working for some is an economy that is not working
    The National Party presents itself as a great manager of the economy, but if the economy is only working for some we really need to question that assertion. Alongside the perpetually elusive surplus, the levels of risk in our economy are… ...
    GreensBy Jan Logie MP
    6 days ago
  • An economy that is just working for some is an economy that is not working
    The National Party presents itself as a great manager of the economy, but if the economy is only working for some we really need to question that assertion. Alongside the perpetually elusive surplus, the levels of risk in our economy are… ...
    GreensBy Jan Logie MP
    6 days ago
  • House prices to a crack $1 million in 17 months
    The average Auckland home is on track to cost $1 million in 17 months’ time if nothing substantial is done to rein in soaring price rises, Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford says. “Auckland’s house prices have skyrocketed 63 per cent… ...
    7 days ago
  • Vital support services can’t be left in lurch
    The National Government has big questions to answer about how a provider of services to thousands of vulnerable New Zealanders is set to fold, Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson says. Relationships Aotearoa which provides support and counselling to families, individuals… ...
    1 week ago
  • Treasury and IRD on a capital gains tax
    Both the Treasury and IRD have been advising the National Government on the benefits of a capital gains tax. Documents released to the Green Party under an Official Information Act request show that John Key has been selective with the… ...
    GreensBy Russel Norman MP
    1 week ago
  • Charity legislation needs review
    It is unacceptable that the big corporate based charities claim  millions in annual income tax exemptions, while small community based and operated non-profit organisations  struggle to gain official charity status, Labour’s acting spokesperson for the Voluntary and Community Sector Louisa… ...
    1 week ago
  • John’s panic-Key response to housing crisis
    John Key needs to tell New Zealanders what caused his sudden change of heart that led to the Government’s scrambled and last-minute housing measures, Opposition Leader Andrew Little says. “The Prime Minister’s sudden rush of blood to his head followed… ...
    1 week ago
  • Keep our Assets Christchurch Campaign: An update
    I recently presented my submission to keep Christchurch Council assets at the Christchurch City Council’s public hearings on its 10 year plan on 13 May. The hearings are live-streamed and recorded so you can watch them on www.ccc.govt.nz. The Council’s… ...
    GreensBy Eugenie Sage MP
    1 week ago
  • John Key finally admits there’s a housing crisis
    John Key’s weak measures to rein in the astronomical profits property speculators are making are an admission – finally – that there is a housing crisis, Labour Leader Andrew Little says. “But yet again National is tinkering with the housing… ...
    1 week ago
  • Government stifles voices in CYFs review
    The Government’s exclusion of the Māori Women’s Welfare League in a panel on the future of CYFs is a cynical ploy to stifle views, says Labour’s Māori Development Spokesperson Nanaia Mahuta. “It's unbelievable that a significant review on the future… ...
    1 week ago
  • Speech to the Otago Chamber of Commerce
    Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. It’s a pleasure as always to be back in the town that raised me. Growing up in St Kilda meant that there was one thing that was a big… ...
    1 week ago
  • Key can’t just be Prime Minister for Parnell
    John Key must show New Zealanders in next week’s Budget that he is more than the Prime Minister for Parnell, and is also the Prime Minister for Pine Hill, Putararu and Palmerston North, Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson says. In… ...
    1 week ago
  • Stop the conversions
    This week, some Waikato locals took me and intrepid photographer Amanda Rogers on a tour of some  lakes and waterways in their region, and up to the massive dairy conversions in the upper catchment of the Waikato River. It… ...
    GreensBy Catherine Delahunty MP
    1 week ago
  • More regional jobs go in Corrections reshape
    News that 194 Corrections staff are to lose their jobs will have ramifications not only for them and their families but for the wider community, Labour’s Corrections spokesperson Kelvin Davis says. Prison units at Waikeria, Tongariro and Rimutaka face closure… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Government’s climate meetings off to a bumpy start
    On Wednesday, I attended a hui and an evening meeting that the Government had organised in Nelson as part of its climate change consultation tour, to support the Nelson community telling the Government to take meaningful action on climate change.… ...
    GreensBy Steffan Browning MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Taxpayers the only ones left feeling blue
    Ministry of Social Development bosses could have saved themselves thousands of dollars in consultants’ fees by providing staff with rose-tinted spectacles, Labour’s State Services spokesperson Kris Faafoi says. A report out today reveals the Ministry is spending over half a… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Why are the regions still facing restrictions?
    Labour's Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford is questioning why the regions should continue to be saddled with LVR lending restrictions announced by the Reserve Bank today. “Labour has been calling for the regions to be exempted from LVRs for the best… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • The high costs of weak environmental regulation
    Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere is described on the Department of Conservation website as “Canterbury’s largest and New Zealand’s fifth largest [lake], and an internationally important wildlife area.” But the lake is also polluted by nutrients leaching from farms in the catchment.… ...
    GreensBy Eugenie Sage MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Submissions to Wellington City Council on their Gambling Venues Policy
    Every three years Councils across the country are required to check that their gambling venue policies are still fit for purpose and they can choose to consult on their policy if they are thinking of making changes. Councils don’t have… ...
    GreensBy Denise Roche MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Reserve Bank action shows Govt out of touch and out of ideas
    The Reserve Bank’s unprecedented measures today show it understands the serious risks of the overheating housing market – in complete contrast to John Key’s refusal to acknowledge the crisis, Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson says. “The Bank is right to… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Send us your snaps: 25 Years of the Green Party
    This year we've hit a milestone. We're turning 25.To help celebrate a quarter of a century, please send us your photos from the last 25 years of the Green Party Aotearoa New Zealand! Note: Photos must be jpg, gif or… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • 25 Years of the Green Party
    This year the Green Party sends 25. To help us celebrate a quarter of a century please send us you photos of 25 years of the Green Party!Photos must be jpg,gif or png and smaller than 2MB. If you are… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Bay growth plan too little too late
    Today’s Bay of Plenty growth study from MBIE is another example of Government spin - lots of talk but little action, says Labour’s Regional Development spokesperson David Cunliffe.  “This is a region that desperately needs to develop the downstream processing… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Government bows to ACC pressure
     The Government has finally buckled to pressure from Labour and the New Zealand public in making a half billion dollar cut to ACC levies, but the full benefits are two years away,” says Opposition Leader Andrew Little.  “$500 million over… ...
    2 weeks ago

Public service advertisements by The Standard

Current CO2 level in the atmosphere