“A society grows great when people plant trees whose shade they know they will never lie in.” – Greek Proverb
I spent the best part of Saturday planting trees, flaxes, and ferns along a stream bank with my son, Tom, and his best mate. The task was “wholesome” according to Tom, as the plantings should facilitate the recovery of a stream that was once badly polluted but now runs mostly clear following positive steps by my dairy farmer neighbor to abide by the Fonterra clean stream accords.
As I patted my own back for my newly enhanced green credentials, I turned my thoughts to the wider question of how governments wrestle with the challenge of leaving behind a better place for our grandchildren.
As part of its efforts to reduce emissions, the Government asked the Interim Climate Change Committee to provide advice on planning for the transition to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035. The Government has also set a target for New Zealand’s economy to produce net-zero emissions by 2050.
Admirable goals, for sure, but does this approach stack up? When I run the numbers it is questionable whether going after more renewable energy is even worth it beyond a certain point.
Hang on a minute
At current rates of clean energy build, New Zealand should reach around 93 percent renewables by 2035, well short of the target set by the current Government. Going faster towards renewables would come with an uninviting economic burden. It is unlikely we will see much public demand for more hydro dams, so we are likely to be building out solar, wind and geothermal sources of energy. This would prove very costly on a national scale.
The closer we get to a reliance of 100 percent renewable energy, the more expensive it becomes to generate each unit of additional power. It’s a law of diminishing returns. The net result is that the consumer will end up paying ever-increasing energy prices as we strive for ecological nirvana.
The Government could, in this scenario, tax fossil fuels at an ever-increasing rate to keep electricity competitive, while passing laws that force consumers to switch. In the end, this would be political suicide and a market-distorting approach that could yield all sorts of unintended consequences.
Light bulb moment
On the other hand, fossil fuels used in transport and process heat offer a sensible, more economic option for change. These activities account for six times the greenhouse gas emissions of electricity production. Under this scenario, electricity prices would remain affordable and the emissions savings would be substantially higher from day one.
It was with this in mind that the Commission recommended that the Government amended its 100 percent renewal electricity future vision for the more realistic and attainable transport and process heat transformation approach. It is telling to note that this approach also offers incremental benefits, with every new electric vehicle or process heat facility reducing emissions on day one and into the future.
There are three major initiatives recommended by the Commission that, as I see them, make economic sense and deliver positive results in the short-, medium- and long-term. Those sensible recommendations are:
Phase-out of fossil fuels for process heat by deterring the development of any new fossil fuel process heat, and setting a clearly defined timetable to phase out fossil fuels in existing process heat facilities.
Set a target and develop incentives to reduce emissions from transport by converting to electric vehicles.
Investigate the potential for pumped hydro storage to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in the electricity system.
Meanwhile, I am off to plant another tree or two. My great-grandchildren might enjoy it’s shade one day.
New Zealand has set a target under the Paris Agreement to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, and to adopt increasingly more ambitious targets in the future.
Per capita, New Zealand’s emissions are one of the highest in the world with an output of <1% of the total world’s emissions.
Business New Zealand recently released a report which concluded that “opportunities to improve our performance in productivity and renewable penetration lie in every part of the energy supply chain. While productivity and renewables are not necessarily mutually exclusive, we need to consider the best policy balance. Our country is richly endowed with resources so should our focus be primarily on economic growth with a reliance on carbon prices to guide renewable penetration, or do we need stronger policy support for low-carbon economic output? With an economy heavily driven by trade, the cost of our choices has direct consequences for our international competitiveness. And, since our future is uncertain, how do we remain responsive and resilient to changes in the world around us?”
There is no doubt that the current Government’s policy strategy is being geared to meet the targets under the Paris Climate Accord.
The Insights Behind Sustainable Business Growth
Centrica recently published the following survey of businesses in 10 countries (UK, Ireland, Germany, Italy, France, Hungary, Belgium, Netherlands, USA and Mexico) and across 7 verticals (manufacturing, retail/ wholesale trade, healthcare/ medical, education/schools/universities, construction/ trades/ property development, travel/tourism/hospitality and property/real estate).
The survey identified some interesting trends:
Customers are driving change
Perceived risks are growing
Energy is an increasingly vital part of an overall business strategy
Yet only 1 in 8 businesses are doing it successfully
They concluded that in today’s fast-changing world, businesses need to find an innovative way to balance their financial performance and environmental policies using the following key focus areas.
What does this mean for your business?
Becoming a supportable business isn’t something that can be achieved overnight, and the journey can be challenging. Many successful businesses are complementing their internal expertise by engaging a third party, like Total Utilities, to help them understand the energy market and associated technologies, build business cases and engage stakeholders.
I lit my first fire at home for the year on the unusual date of May 31, just one day before the official beginning of winter.
I live in the sunny north side of Auckland, but I would have expected to see my dog sleeping in front of the fire by around late April.
There are some of us who believe that to the detriment of future generations the planet is suffering from global warming and others who feel that the scientific consensus is still a long way from being agreed. Either way, I do believe there is a general accord that we can’t keep consuming the planet’s resources at the rate we are, without very dire consequences.
Whether it is to save the planet or to drive efficiency, businesses are now using technology to reduce their carbon footprint. Some of these are unexciting and some are just plain cool. Either way, I describe below a few to pay attention to.
Tech to reduce the footprint
Methane co-generation
Very few people realize that Auckland’s largest landfill is also an energy park. The rubbish that goes into Waste Management’s Redvale Landfill captures more than 95 percent of the methane gas that is generated from the waste, which is then used to generate up to 14MW of electricity. Last year this meant it generated enough electricity to power 12,000 homes, making it the largest producer of renewable electricity in the Auckland region.
Heat recovery
Energy-intensive businesses, supported in some cases by subsidies from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA), are now placing increased emphasis on the reuse and reinjection of heated water and steam in their industrial processes. We at Total Utilities have, as a result, seen excellent improvements in energy efficiency at factories and larger campuses.
Heat recovery is also used for go-generation where energy is converted to electricity and put back on the national grid.
Sensors, monitoring and the Internet of Things (IOT)
There is a difference between managing and monitoring business activities. A simple analogy is parents in the park: one couple hovers over their beloved children, constantly checking and rechecking their safety while exhausting everyone in the process; meanwhile, over at the park bench, another couple enjoys the sun, chats and drinks coffee while watching their young ones interact safely with the world and only interfering when they observe a real problem.
In the past, businesses used product-specific sensors to monitor equipment and processes. These sensors tended to be expensive, proprietary and clunky in their outputs (think: complex graphs on green screens).
Today an edgy new cousin has turned up, reducing the cost of monitoring, and providing rich insights via web-based applications that run on almost every device. This is called the Internet of Things (IOT). These simple, useful sensors provide streams of meaningful data about electricity consumption, temperature, process efficiency, humidity and more.
Artificial intelligence
While the Internet of Things sounds a bit like Nirvana, it does have one significant flaw: complexity. In theory, we could provide an IoT connector to every grain of sand on Earth without consuming all the available capacity.
Making sense of all the data it reports is the big problem. This is where Artificial Intelligence (AI) comes in. Capable of analyzing billions of bits of data from multiple data sources, AI is being used by many businesses to sift huge data pools and deliver the insights and activities that deliver competitive advantage and reduce wastage.
The Government has set a target for New Zealand’s economy to be net-zero emissions by 2050. Does our current approach stack up?
Methanex – adding 15% to national electricity demand?
In a recent submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), Methanex, New Zealand’s largest single gas user suggested that should the company transition from gas-based manufacturing of methanol to electricity, this would increase New Zealand’s national electricity demand by around 15% (5,800 gigawatt-hours). In other words, there would be a Rio Tinto Aluminum Smelter-sized electricity user in Taranaki.
Methanex currently consumes around 88 petajoules of gas and 84 gigawatt-hours of electricity and produces about 2.4 million tonnes of methanol per year.
Located away from New Zealand’s main generation sources, this would place increasing pressure on the North Island generation mix. With only limited new baseload generation planned for the North Island, electrification of methanol production would require more coal and or gas being used by thermal generators.
Methanex says that should conditions become nonviable to remain in New Zealand, they would relocate to China. Because of China’s current generation mix and energy sources, this could increase global emissions by four to six million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.
The hydrogen solution
Last year the New Zealand Government signed a memorandum of understanding with Japan to develop hydrogen production in the Taranaki region with the view to pave the way for a transition away from Natural Gas and LPG.
However electronic hydrogen production will further strain the New Zealand energy system as 41.4 kWh of electricity is required to produce 1 kg of hydrogen from water.
In a recent article, Centrica (owner of British Gas) warned a move to make the gas grid run on hydrogen is “unlikely to be practical”.
Centrica chief executive Iain Conn said natural gas would be “crucial” in the transition to reducing carbon emissions, and that Britain and other countries would need to start using more of it before it could wean off the fossil fuel.
“It is quite clear that we cannot get from A to B without using more natural gas,” he said at a speech at the Aurora Spring Forum in Oxford.
“I don’t believe in the mass use of pure hydrogen, I think it highly unlikely to be practical,”
Iain Conn
Conn said, but said he was open to injecting around nine per cent hydrogen into the grid.
“We have done a lot of decarbonising power generation, but heating and cooling will be key,” he added.
Heating and Cooling in Britain
The remarks come just a week after chancellor Philip Hammond announced a plan to ban fossil fuel boilers from new homes built after 2025.
“We will introduce a future homes’ standard mandating the end of fossil fuel heating systems in all new houses from 2025, delivering lower carbon and lower fuel bills too,” Hammond told parliament during last week’s Spring Statement.
Conn said that heat pumps would eventually start taking British homes off the gas grid. He also said the world would be able to add around one gigawatt of renewable power capacity each day for the next 30 years.
Heating and cooling in New Zealand
Heat pumps in New Zealand have only added to electricity demand in recent years as more are installed and being used for cooling in Summer as well as heating in Winter. While more efficient than electric fan heaters, gas heaters and oil column heaters, the added cooling load has counteracted the savings in many cases as large numbers of New Zealand homes are moved away from wood burners.
These concerns were echoed in New Zealand by Paul Goodeve, First Gas Chief Executive, saying that, “A key element is affordability. We need to find affordable ways to meet winter electricity peak demand and maintain the competitiveness of large industries that use gas for production. Would New Zealanders find it palatable to pay substantially more for their electricity to upgrade infrastructure which will be underutilised to cover large energy use sectors and peak winter use? These are considerations we believe policymakers need to take carefully into account when making decisions.”
When we look at New Zealand electricity prices, it is important to consider lines companies in the equation.
The lines company or electricity distribution business (EDB) operates and maintains the transformers, power poles and copper wires that keep our local electricity networks running and delivering reliable electricity to the door. Examples in the EMA membership region are Northpower, Vector, Counties Power, WEL Networks and Powerco.
Lines companies in your power bill
Take my last home bill. The energy component, which is the part provided by my retailer, was $184.76. This part is subject to market competition and as a privileged, old white guy with a good credit history I can move freely between retailers chasing the best price. I can also take advantage of a prompt payment discount of $56.65 – nearly 30 per cent of the entire cost of the energy I purchased that month.
In the detail of my bill, however, is another bit called the “Daily Line Charge” of $52.85, being 33 days at $1.60 per day charged by my local lines company.
Electricity Monopolies and Regulations
Unlike retailers, lines companies are monopolies, not subject to competition and they supply an essential service. As a result, they are highly regulated by the Electricity Authority and the Commerce Commission.
This regulation occurs in three ways:
• Limits to the percentage return on the assets deployed, • Legal requirements for the quality and price of service, and Company ownership structures.
There are 27 electricity distribution businesses in New Zealand. Some are privately owned such as the North Island giant, Powerco, which is owned by overseas investors and supplying electricity and gas to about 440,000 homes in the North Island.
There are public/private ownership companies such as Auckland’s Vector (supplying 331,000 households) which is 70 per cent owned by a consumer-owned trust and 30 per cent by shareholders on the stock exchange.
There are also 100 per cent consumer-owned trusts such as Counties Power and there are companies owned wholly or in part by local Councils, eg, Aurora, which is owned by Dunedin City Council.
Owners and investments
Ownership is critical when we look at pricing and quality of service and the impact of rules, regulations and the inconsistent behaviour of the regulators.
Privately-owned Powerco, for example, after years of underinvestment in lines infrastructure, last year went to the regulator asking for dispensation to increase its charges to consumers so it could remediate its increasingly dilapidated and unreliable infrastructure. Incredibly, the regulator agreed to this request without a whimper!
Meanwhile, further south, the Commerce Commission is indicating it will levy fines on council-owned Aurora for quality failures on its network. These failures have been attributed to Dunedin City Council’s active decision to use Aurora’s profits to help fund a new sports stadium and other civic works, while neglecting maintenance and renewal of its electricity infrastructure.
Back up north, after a one-in-100-year storm blew out the lights in Auckland last year, Vector was fined nearly $3.6 million by the Commerce Commission for failure to meet its reliability targets for the second year in a row. This, despite massive investment on Vector’s part in technology and improved services aimed specifically at improving quality.
Areas of economic growth such as Auckland, the Bay of Plenty and Franklin are faced with big increases in investment to meet demand, while many EDBs in the regions face regulatory demands for increased investment in infrastructure despite their consumer bases shrinking.
Ownership has a direct relationship to New Zealand’s electricity prices. Whether growing or shrinking, the reality is that EDBs are in a bind, because investment in maintaining and growing reliable infrastructure means price increases are a fact of life for the consumer.
In the meantime, the Electricity Authority’s price review seems to be wilfully ignoring the market-distorting behaviours being exhibited by the elephants in the room: the government-controlled generators/retailers (gentailers). We’ll take a look at them in an upcoming article…
This figure also applied to the tens of thousands of small businesses using small amounts of electricity. What followed was a studied silence from the industry.
There has subsequently been a great deal of debate and finger-pointing as to just who is responsible for an electricity market that delivers average monthly bills of around $300 to Kiwi households, while our Melbourne, Australia, cousins are charged roughly the same price per quarter!
All this while Aussie generators are burning expensive and polluting coal, gas and oil to meet demand, and we mainly use sustainable hydro generation that has paid for itself many times over.
Business Impacts
As business people, we are not immune from this unresponsive market. Our staff are consumers too and their budget pressures impact wage demands. We are also just the last cab off the rank when it comes to increased electricity price charges.
If you signed a new, fixed price, 24-month electricity contract last September you will now be paying around 20 per cent less for electricity than if you signed a similar contract today. Everything indicates that this trend in the commercial market will continue as the industry continues to “adjust” prices skywards.
The Power Players
There are several players that influence our electricity market. Let’s start with the retailers. Most of us are aware of so-called “prompt payment discounts” that offer between 10 and 20 per cent lower pricing if we pay on time. For individuals or businesses under financial pressure these discounts can often be unattainable as the need to pay staff, taxes or put food on the table trumps their ability to pay by a given date.
What many of us don’t realise is that these discounts are often not discounts at all. The retailer has just loaded the “discount” onto their usual rate, leaving the late payer under even more cost pressure.
To their credit Meridian announced an end to this practice last September. The price review panel chimed in last month and called for an end to this practice altogether.
To Switch or Not to Switch?
There are also the much advertised switching campaigns that try to persuade consumers and small businesses to switch suppliers in the hope of getting a better deal. This is a complete fallacy for small businesses and households under financial pressure. While retailers are only too happy to accept businesses or individuals with good credit records, they simply decline switch applications from distressed payers.
It could be said that’s the outcome of paying bills late but in many cases credit checks will, at a time when they need to watch every dollar, exclude people or businesses from beneficial pricing.
Many retailers have also, until recently, offered significant incentives to stop customers from switching. Fair enough, you might think, except that businesses that pay their bills on time and loyally stick with their preferred supplier are not offered these incentives, and so end up paying more despite being great customers.
This, along with many other structural impediments, is exactly why Ms Dean QC and her team are finally taking a long, hard look at how our electricity market functions. This year’s energy price review should prove interesting!
