New Zealand’s electricity watchdog is not fit for purpose and is working with big energy companies to destroy the future of rooftop solar power in New Zealand, according to Greenpeace NZ.
Yesterday, the Electricity Authority (EA) ruled that a controversial move by Hawke’s Bay lines company, Unison, to charge its solar users an extra fee was not in breach of any regulations.
The ruling came on the heel of public uproar, which saw formal complaints being laid with the authority, and a petition asking it to protect solar collecting more than 30,000 signatures in just three weeks.
Greenpeace climate campaigner, Simon Boxer, says the ruling now gives lines companies throughout the country the green light to follow Unison and put a tax on solar.
“This is a blatant move by the EA to wash its hands of protecting and promoting renewable energy like solar so that it can continue to massage New Zealand’s electricity monopoly,” he says.
“It’s no secret that the EA isn’t big a fan of solar. In the past it has even publicly advised New Zealanders not to rush into installing it. By giving the nod for Unison to penalise solar, the EA is effectively attempting to kill the uptake of solar in our near future.
“We’ve heard that many other lines companies are champing at the bit to issue similar charges, and the EA’s ruling means we’ll see these begin to roll out soon.”
Boxer says these extra charges are effectively a “tax” on solar.
This is because the fee is a targeted and compulsory levy imposed on solar users in order to raise revenue for the lines company. As the deliverers of a public service, these companies are the functional equivalent of a governmental body, he says.
“The Government set up this monopolised business model of the electricity industry during the energy market reforms.
“It was a deliberate policy that resulted in the private profits of the electricity sector taking precedent over national environmental and social interests. It’s a policy that the EA has been basically set up to serve.”
But the point of a watchdog should be to serve the interests of New Zealanders, Boxer says, especially on the back of the Paris Climate Conference, where we pledged to curb our dirty emissions.
If it can’t do this, it should be disestablished, he says.
“We must bring this electricity watchdog to heel. All burning of dirty fuels like coal, oil and gas has to stop within a few decades if we want to avoid runaway climate change. Every renewable energy option that helps this must be rolled out, and solar is a crucial part of that,” he says.
Once again, Despicable Key, National, ACT, Maori Party and United Future working to line the pockets of big business. Roll on Election 2017, let’s see these shysters ousted from power.
HERE HERE. 100% WINNIE.
Ah… ? It was Labour party MP’s who maniacally shoved ‘ privatisation ‘ down our throats. National simply played their little tag team games with ‘ Labour’ until helen clark handed the baton over to jonky in ’08.
Our politics is rotten to the core and we must all take a hand in rebuilding the system.
Purge NZ/Aotearoa of the foreign banks.
Write off mortgage debt across the board and ban debt traders.
Reinstate our services and amenities.
Allow a greater number of refugees in but tighten up on/ban property-investor immigrants with multi million dollar portfolios.
We have the third highest rates of renewable energy utilisation in the world.
Solar is not suitable source for peak demand. It doesnt work very well in the dark. Subsidising solar means replacing geothermal or hydro.
We don’t have coal power electricity anymore just gas powered.
I am sick of rich people wanting subsidies. Who else can afford at least 10grand of disposable income.
Get some batteries for your own solar, don’t sell it back, if you have a problem.
What rubbish you speak DAVID,
You obviously know nothing about Solar systems at all.
If you have a back-up battery (deep cycle) system how much extra cost do you think that would be with all the control circuitry?
It would double that figure you idiot, and then you require back-up generator system also to recharge the batteries with an offsite system control so it s not as simple as that so grow up or don’t bother to contribute anything here.
You want to burn gas to make electricity? you will kill the planet also!
No brains here with you I’m afraid.
Solar power is to replace which energy source?
Not gas in Nz.
Please explain.
Battery backup is hughly expensive, that is right. So what, so is solar and it is an individual choice.
You want people to subsidise solar for what?
To import foreign carbon miles and replacing renewable hydro/geothermal energy.
You know nothing of nz’s energy mix.
Stop parrotting the lines from big solar based in europe or
Double the price, thank you for that. Even richer people with their hand out. Why don’t we concentrate on the energy poor and child poverty.
Out of touch.
The Unison charge is not “a tax” or “a levy imposed on solar users in order to raise revenue for the lines company”. It is a charge that recognises that at times the connection customer with the solar panels will still need to have distribution capacity available and yet they pay a lower contribution after installing solar under the current methodology. The alternative is for the 100,000 Unison customers who don’t have solar to pay a little more so their is enough infrastructure available at all times. As one of the 100,000 I do not want my bill to go up to pay for capacity required when the sun isn’t shining because the solar owners bills went down.
Lines companies charge about 30 cents/unit when it is produced for about 2 cents/unit so if the lines company is unable to make money on its part of the margin then reduce the overpaid managers/ shareholders payments. The whole system is a con as they keep revaluing their assets then increasing the price of electricity using that new valuation as the excuse. Using your logic motorbikes & vehicles with low fuel use should pay more at the pump as they use less fuel than bigger vehicles.
Hi Quick Thinking
Unison is a community owned lines company so the shareholders are the community. They own the local electricity distribution capacity. They do not trade energy. They build capacity to cater for peak demand but they are paid on the basis of the energy that flows through the wires. You show you clearly do not understand this with you analogy which conflates the cost of fuel and with the cost of providing infrastructure. Unison is charging for the cost of peak capacity not for fuel use.
I still don’t get your complaint? You say the lines company is paid on the basis of the energy that flows through the wires, it should be simple, those who use more should pay more. I understand that the network has to be built for the maximum energy use with a margin & you think those with solar panels are using power at peak time from the grid without paying enough for it. In that case will you have a different rate for summer & winter as solar panels will be producing something in summer for the morning & evening peak? Then you have any solar power generated which goes through the grid to other users that the line company will make some margin on. By the time you work out all the different situations & aim for a fair treatment for all parties you will find that it is easier to divide the total cost by the total demand & use a fixed rate.
Hi Quick Thinking
Re read this statement: They build capacity to cater for peak demand but they are paid on the basis of the energy that flows through the wires.
You see the solar owners still require their capacity because they expect it to be there when the sun isn’t shining so they have to pay for it. Because they use less energy they aren’t paying for capacity any more, everyone else is cross subsidizing them.
If you want want to understand you will but I get the sense that you have accepted the “tax” response. It is wrong. Go ahead and and keep repeating it. It will not suddenly become correct.
I get that bit, you did not answer the question about summer use or feedback tariff rates though. The whole point of peak rates is that the majority of power is used at those times so by definition any household with non producing solar panels will use more electricity at those times so by paying peak rates at those times the power it buys is likely to be contributing its fair share to line capacity. We should give homes with gas cooking, heating & HWC a discount also as their draw on the network at peak times is virtually nil.
Watchdog???
Ha!
Better described as a watchcat!
Spends most of its time asleep or licking its own butt!
Pure greed and bullocks to the pnats who promised competition would drive down power costs. This is why we shouldn’t have sold our power companies or any of our assets for that matter do we want to become another cot case like Spain
True that MICHELE, WE ARE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO ASSIST THEIR LOWERING THEIR CARBON FOOTFRINT, TO SAVE THE PLANET, BUT WE ARE FINDING THE GREEDIES WANT ANYONE TO PAY TO SAVE THE PLANET AND REWARD THOSE WHO DONT????
THAT MAKES NO SENSE!
POOR DAVID GOES OFF ON A RAMPANT WILD GOOSE CHASE AGAIN.
IT WAS HE AND HIS ALLIANCE WITH THIS GOVERNMENT HAVE ALL BUT CLOSED DOWN ALL MANUFACTURING IN THIS COUNTRY!!
HE USES THE EXCUSE NOT TO USE CLEAN ENERGY NOW BECAUSE WE HAVE TO IMPORT ALL THE STUFF!!!!!!
IT WAS HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO PROMOTE NEW INDUSTRIES HERE TO PRODUCE THESE NEW TECHNOLOGIES BUT HE SENT ALL OUR CHANCES PACKING OVERSEAS AND CREATED THE PROBLEM NOLW HE USES AS AN EXCUSE TO NOT USE SMATRT CLEAN ENERGY!!!!!!!
STUPID – IS -STUPID DOES. = ANDREW.
NEVER MIND – THE NEW GOVERNMENT NEXT YEAR WILL SEND YOU AND YOUR CARPETBAGGERS OVERSEAS AS WE WILL REBUILD ALL INDUSTRIES YOU SOLD OFF AND CLOSED DOWN!
YOU AND YOUR CARPETBAGGER MATES!!!!
My understanding is that EA has made the ruling, simply because one company is simply targeting solar users, solely to make a profit from them, as well as their existing customers. The existing greed obviously is not enough for the corporate society, so they lobby the EA for a new ruling made up out of nothing.
Now, these companys could make a reasonable profit from solar use, if they stopped and used a bit of iniative and logic, with the reality that our present fossil fuel energy is a serious problem that needs to be seriously addressed, and that clean energy is the solution. But they choose to ignore the call for necessary change, by continuing to use environmentally polluting resources, while penalizing a new source for profit.
A world meeting in Paris called for climate change, and Key agreed. But then Key did a u-turn on it, and has allowed these companies to continue with choosing to use existing polluting resources. So basically, it’s the same old same old. One set of rules for the public that we must abide and obey, and make up rules as they go for the corporates.
Un- F-ing- Believable!!
What a joke.
I just hope we get a change of government and chuck those dinosarur dumbo’s out of the electricity commission.
Lots of jumping on the “big company doing bad things” band wagon again I see.
Solar + Battery is not yet economically viable and requires a very substantial capital investment. Yes – CAPITAL INVESTMENT – lots of money – the stuff that rich people have.
The levy on solar is to try and make the system fairer – why should poorer people who can’t afford to install solar subsidise rich people who can. It is a reasonable argument and one which this forum should support.
Further down the track when battery costs do come down then a levy will make no difference to the economics and the rich will disconnect from the grid completely. Then those least able to afford it will have to pay for all the grid infrastructure without the support of the wealthy. Then we’ll have another much more intractable and unequal challenge to sort out.
Comments are closed.