by pushkar | Apr 5, 2016 | Energy
NABERSNZ is a scheme that measures and rates the energy performance of New Zealand office buildings. A Certified Rating ranges from 1-6 stars and represents an in-depth assessment of energy performance over 12 months. NABERSNZ Certified Ratings can be awarded to whole buildings, base buildings or tenanted areas.
The Total Utilities team comprises an accredited NABERSNZ (Trainee) Assessor who can assist any commercial building owner, developer or tenant in completing a building rating. Our services also extend to offering technical advice on how rating can be improved and working with the stakeholders in delivering an outcome that achieves measurable results.
Deja Vu! NABERS uptake in Australia and New Zealand
We work closely with the Projects and Advisory Services of Energy Action lead by Dr Paul Bannister who was involved in the development of NABERS in Australia and in the adaptation of the tool to NABERS NZ.
Paul has seen several parallels between uptake in both countries. The following article was originally published in the March 2016 edition of The Advocate, the magazine of the Property Council New Zealand and subsequently on the NABERSNZ LinkedIn Page which can be seen here.
Photo by Nick Cross
(more…)
by RichardGardiner | Mar 31, 2016 | Energy, ICT
In a new move from the EECA, funding applicants need a programme partner who has CMVP (Certified Measurement and Verification) certified individuals. Total Utilities’ CMVP certified staff can help you with EECA applications under the CMVP partner programme in New Zealand.
Certified Measurement and Verification provides transparency
A change in policy within the Energy Efficiency Conservation Authority (EECA) means that funded Energy Efficiency projects now require that programme partners follow the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) framework.
Any Measurement and Verification (M&V) is to be undertaken by a person or persons that have received appropriate training and have the necessary level of expertise demonstrated by the completion of the Efficiency Valuation Office (EVO) Certified Measurement and Verification Professional (CMVP) course and passing the CMVP exam.
Total Utilities Staff are CMVP Certified
Total Utilities is pleased to announce that both Chris Hargreaves and Pushkar Kulkarni have recently been approved as certified measurement and verification professionals. Awarded by the Association of Energy Engineers in conjunction with Efficiency Valuation Organisation (EVO), both Chris and Pushkar join a global community of around 4,000 professionals certified in the measurement and verification field.
What is the EVO?
The Efficiency Valuation Organization (EVO) is the exclusive global training body for the Certified Measurement & Verification Professional® (CMVP). EVO developed and owns the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol® (IPMVP) and training material used with the CMVP examination.
(more…)
by guest_hans | Mar 29, 2016 | Energy
A Brief History of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in New Zealand
In 2008, the New Zealand Government introduced an emissions trading scheme (ETS) for greenhouse gases. It required upstream energy suppliers, the users of imported fossil fuels, and industries with CO2 process emissions, to surrender a New Zealand Emissions Unit, for every tonne of greenhouse gas (GHG) that would be subsequently be emitted. Upstream suppliers pass on the costs of these emission units to downstream users.
The Government was aware that energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries would suffer competitively if they were fully exposed to this cost. It therefore provided a free allocation of up to 90% of the emission units required to these industries. It provided a price cap of $25 for an emissions unit.
Geothermal power Station, near Taupo New Zealand
In 2009, the incoming Government made some amendments to the ETS, in recognition of the effects of the global financial crisis. It reduced the requirement to surrender emission units to one unit for every two tonnes of GHG emitted. It delayed indefinitely the planned phase-out of the free allocation of units to energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries.
(more…)
by chris | Mar 10, 2016 | Energy
In the past two years we have seen an unprecedented number of customer switches between retailers taking place within the electricity market specifically the small commercial market.
As the market has become more fluid over the last 2-3 years with the introduction of ASX Energy Futures, it has opened the door to more retailer options or “second tier” retailers where generation is not required for companies to on sell energy to customers. Some of these companies have a very small amount of generation underpinning their retail business however they can grow market share through ASX purchases. The increase of retail participants such as Flick Energy, MegaTel, Prime Energy, Pulse Energy, Switch Utilities and Utilise but to name a few, overall market competitiveness has seen switching trends rising annually between 2009 and 2015. With an expanding retail market it is important for customers to know that all retailers must comply with the Electricity and Gas Complaints Authority (EGCC) and that consumers have a number of guaranteed rights when dealing with their utility suppliers.
The below graphic shows total monthly switches that have taken place from 2004 to 2015. We can see from 2009 switching trends rising to double the number of monthly switches seen in the previous 5 years from 2009.
As a result customers are reporting that they are increasingly confident in a competitive energy market place as outlined in the below graphic.
With the advent of new energy retailer companies and various product offerings it is important that customers understand their rights if a dispute arises.
Picking the winners
There have been clear winners amongst the various retailers in the switching war we have seen over the past two-three years, who have capitalised on customers desire to seek out the “best offer” available in the market, while other retailers have struggled to keep up the pace in the increasing competitiveness of the market.
While past trends have showed retailers using high credits to entice customer to switch to them, the new “trend” we can observe in the market place is to offer high prompt payment discounts, with highly competitive rates, provided the customer locks in for a two/three year term with fixed pricing on the retailer (contestable) portion of the rates.
Small commercial customers have typically preferred to go for uncontracted offers in the past however more and more customers are seeing the benefits of securing good deals in a competitive market by locking into fixed pricing for a 24 or 36 month term.
With this in mind once a retailer has been able to win a customer, they must be able to provide a high quality level of service, while still offering the best deal possible. Ultimately the greatest test of a retailer’s service is how they deal with difficult situations and complaints that can arise within the customer-retailer relationship.
Resolving Disputes: Your Rights with the EGCC
Aside from getting a better deal, the other main reason customers will switch from their incumbent supplier is due to dissatisfaction with the current service they are receiving. Service offered between retailers will differ given different billing systems, procedures and organisational culture unique to each retailer.
When it comes to the handling of complaints or disputes there is a set process that all retailers and lines companies must follow as they are all members of the Electricity and Gas Complaints Commission (EGCC). It is important to highlight that most retailer standard terms and conditions require that any line item charge that is not in dispute is required to be paid by the due date of any invoice.
One of the most frustrating parts of having a complaint for customers is the time it can take for this to be resolved, sometimes weeks or even months. It is important to be aware of the fact that retailers have set time standards in which disputes should be resolved, outlined below:
- Retailer is to acknowledge your complain in writing within 2 working days (excluding delivery time.
- Retailer will respond to you within 7 working days to inform you of the steps they will take to reach a resolution.
- Retailer will attempt to resolve your complaint within 20 working days. In cases where it may take up to 40 working days to resolve they must explain in writing why it will require more time to resolve.
Under the EGCC scheme a complaint is considered to have reached “deadlock” if:
- It has taken longer than 20 working days to resolve the complaint and the customer was not notified in writing that they have good reason to extend the time for resolving the complaint; or
- It has taken longer than 40 working days to resolve the complaint; or
The EGCC is satisfied that:
- The retailer has made it clear they intend to do nothing about the complaint
- You (as the complainant) would suffer unreasonable harm from waiting longer, or
- It would be otherwise unjust to wait any longer.
If you are dealing with a complaint and you believe it has reached “deadlock” stage it is important to raise this with the EGCC within 2 months from when you consider it to have reached “deadlock” stage.
What can the EGCC look into?
The EGCC can look into almost any complaint about an electricity or gas company, with common complaints being around bills, meters, disconnections, and damage to property. The EGCC can also be used for complaints about the actions of staff or contractors while on land, as well as access to and use of land on which there is electricity or gas equipment.
The EGCC can also check if a company has provided accurate information about its tariffs and applied them correctly, but cannot look at complaints about the level of pricing for electricity or gas.
Once the EGCC has been approached about a deadlocked complaint they will act as a conciliator between you and the company with the aim of reaching an agreement on a fair and reasonable outcome for the dispute. As part of this process it could include:
- Taking part in a teleconference with the retailer and an EGCC conciliator
- The EGCC seeking expert advice about technical or legal issues
- Investigating the facts of the complaint – the EGCC will seek information about what happened from you and the retailer
Once their investigation is complete the EGCC will provide a summary of facts and its recommended resolution to the complaint to both the customer and the retailer.
Resolution and Settlement in the EGCC Process
If you as the customer accept the recommended resolution as full and final settlement but the retailer does not, the Commissioner can make the decision binding on the retailer. If you do not accept the recommended resolution then the complaint is considered closed and you will need to take the complaint to another forum such as the District Court or, if the company is a state owned enterprise, the Office of the Ombudsman.
While it is hugely advantageous for customers having the EGCC as an available forum for resolving disputes it is important to be aware of the fact that this process can take several months to reach completion which can be costly in terms of time spent in discussion with all parties involved and can be very frustrating at times dealing with the constant back and forth between each party. Particularly for large corporate businesses the cost of time spent can be several thousands of dollars in lost time of staff dealing with the process.
Who can help?
With these facts in mind it is highly advantageous to have industry experts like Total Utilities advocating on your behalf to navigate through this process which will save you both time and money having to deal with the process for you.
Typically complaints start of as small issues which go unnoticed which grow into big problems. Businesses can circumvent these issues by being signed up as a managed service client with Total Utilities as we will monitor your monthly invoices, cost and usage and reporting this to you in highly useful report summaries each month. As part of this process we proactively identify potential issues and resolve these immediately with the retailer ensuring minimal disruption to your utility accounts.
If you would like more information on having your utility accounts managed by Total Utilities please call us on +64 9 576 2107 or email at [email protected] to speak to an industry expert.
1 Source: Electricity Authority
2 Source: Energynews, 2014 – http://www.energynews.co.nz/news-story/17105/consumers-show-increased-confidence-retailer-competitiveness
3 Source: EGCC Annual Report 2014-2015 – http://www.egcomplaints.co.nz/media/248011/egcc.ar.15.final.pdf
by Jonathan Gardiner | Feb 22, 2016 | Waste
Businesses need to get the best possible pricing and contract terms for utilities such as water, power and rubbish collection.
But once costs are minimised, improved utilisation becomes critical to extracting greater value. A formal, independent audit process is the best way of identifying quick wins.
Why perform an audit now?
In the past two years the waste services marketplace has experienced aggressive price-cutting by major suppliers. Now they are differentiating themselves with srvice offerings, and their customers need to understand how.
In recent months two vertically integrated suppliers have signalled their intention to emphasise value-added recycling and waste minimisation processes over price-cutting, going forward. Other suppliers of waste services that don’t possess their own landfills are using waste audit services as a point of difference, to avoid getting dragged into a price-cutting battle they will struggle to win.
The most efficient money-savers
Business customers will save more money by sending less waste to the rubbish dump (landfill) than they will from a reduction in the price of waste services.
From a supplier’s standpoint, waste audits are costly, requiring staff time and data analysis, with capital outlays often the consequence of the resulting recommendations. Waste audits are also self-defeating for those in the business of collecting and burying rubbish.
As we have been working with businesses to reduce their waste quantities and bin movements, as well as negotiate new commercial contracts on their behalf, we have observed the following potential pitfalls:
Staff training: New waste-handling process may require either specialised staff training or socialising of new ideas. This entails additional cost, and the purported benefits may be predicated on unrealistic assumptions.
Staff buy-in: Change needs to be adopted from the top down, however, if staff aren’t on board with a new process, you could be charged for specialist one-off disposal of spoiled recyclables should waste not be accurately sorted. It is thus important to ascertain the time pressures on your staff before a new initiative is accepted.
Hospitality customers are a happy hunting ground for waste diversion suggestions given that their raw materials often come in recyclable packaging, and food waste streams result. However, this industry is fundamentally deadline-focussed, and staff are less likely to worry about what goes in a particular bin when there are orders backing up. A suggestion to save money on waste may thus end up costing you more in staff time.
Spread the message and keep it current: Ensure you spread the waste diversion message beyond a small number of staff. This has cropped up in the education sector where a particular year/age group might push hard for an improved process, but the next year is more apathetic. A few years later a similar set of failed initiatives will be suggested by an enthusiastic set of newcomers, unaware of what was previously attempted.
Audit waste expenditure
Challenge current processes and the underpinning assumptions with an audit review process. The terms and conditions of certain supply agreements prohibit your engaging competing waste service suppliers for such reviews. This serves the interests of your incumbent supplier, whilst limiting the breadth of ideas and potential technologies available.
The Commerce Commission moved in 2015 to limit unfair contract terms, which cause an imbalance in parties’ rights in consumer contracts. Although the intention is to focus on the non-commercial sector, energy retailers have begun rolling out more end-user friendly terms to business customers.
It is our hope that the relevant waste industry participants will adopt a similar position to allow for a greater spread of waste minimisation ideas.
Waste diversion reduces cost
Other than the obvious desire to limit landfill refuse, to extend the life of these expensive assets and minimise resource wastage, there are currently obvious financial pay offs in diverting waste. These are likely to grow in future, either with a change of Government, or with a change in Government focus.
A waste levy of $10 per tonne is already in place to help reduce the amount of waste New Zealanders generate, but the levy is set at a level 10 times below that of some of New Zealand’s regular trading partners. In addition, the Emissions Trading Scheme covers methane emitted from landfills, but only for every second tonne at present.
Energy-savings initiatives by business are hampered by relatively low energy-pricing, and the same sort of thinking will undoubtedly apply with regard to waste services. However, given the current level of these charges vis-à-vis our international trading partners, we recommend business remediates as much as possible now rather than face higher costs in the future.
With the components of your waste services charges unlikely to fall any lower, diverting waste from landfill such as with increased recycling, is the best way to unlock additional savings and insulate your business from potential cost blowouts in future.
Jonathan Gardiner is a Director of Total Utilities.
by RichardGardiner | Sep 1, 2015 | Energy
Article extract from the September issue of Business Plus Magazine published by the EMA.
The Changing Face of Electricity Supply Worldwide: Can NZ Compete?
By Richard Gardiner and Hans Buwalda
New Zealand is advanced on a global scale in generating most of its electricity from renewable sources rather than the less clean, non-renewables such as coal and other fossil fuels.
But in committing to do better, there is an economic price to pay.
New Zealand is a small, advanced but geographically remote First World economy. Renewable electricity generation based on the use of hydro-electricity, geothermal energy and wind power, etc, typically accounts for about 85 per cent of New Zealand’s total electricity generation.
The proportion of renewable sources has been growing steadily in recent years, with the commissioning of new geothermal and wind power stations and the progressive retirement of aging coal and gas-based generation. This trend now includes the planned closure of Contact Energy’s gas-fuelled Otahuhu B Power Station.
With such a high existing renewables component, it is much harder for us to achieve significant reductions in our electricity-related CO2 emissions/kWh than it is for larger, less remote trading partners overseas.
World catching up
Governments are committed to creating a new international climate agreement at the United Nations in Paris this coming December. In preparation, governments have agreed to publicly outline what climate actions they intend to take post-2020. These are their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), which will largely determine whether the world achieves an ambitious 2015 agreement and is put on a path towards a low-carbon, climate-resilient future.
In its INDC, New Zealand has committed to reduce GHG emissions to 30 per cent below 2005 levels, in the next 15 years by 2030. The likely cost to the New Zealand economy of meeting the 2030 target in terms of GDP is greater than that implied by other governments’ targets. This is due to a number of factors, such as already achieving a high (+/- 85 per cent) level of renewable electricity generation, plus the fact that almost half of New Zealand’s emissions originate from agriculture.
The emission reduction pathways on which other countries’ targets are based differ from the pathways possible for New Zealand.
A significant part of both the US and the EU commitments is based on opportunities for reducing the carbon-intensity of electricity generation. The current proportion of electricity generated from renewable sources in the US is 13 per cent, and in the EU is 25 per cent. Clearly there is significant scope for CO2 emission reductions in both those major economies through further increases in renewable electricity generation, particularly as much of that will substitute for electricity currently generated from coal.
Already, the mix of renewables and non-renewables used in electricity generation is changing globally.
Back in May, BloombergBusiness in the US reported that, “The race for renewable generation has just passed a turning point. The world is now adding more capacity for renewable power each year than coal, natural gas and oil combined”.
It also advised that, “solar power makes up less than 1 per cent of the electricity market today but could be the world’s biggest energy source by 2050 according to the International Energy Agency. The question is not if the world will transition to cleaner energy, but how long it will take.”
The New Zealand emissions trading scheme (ETS) is due to be reviewed this year. Achievement of our INDC highlights the need to address our domestic policies. It is clear the current ETS will not, on its own, ensure New Zealand’s progression to a sustainable, low-carbon economy.
Supporting sector-specific policies and measures are also required. It may be that some sectors should be included in a different way in the ETS.
Tips for NZ businesses
New Zealand business customers of electricity and gas need to focus on:
• Price minimisation – by checking the market systematically via a professional procurement process and bulk purchasing power.
• Usage optimisation – by monitoring usage in detail, highlighting potential kWh reductions and then taking effective action utilising energy specialists.
• Wider environmental considerations (for large organisations at least).
Large organisations, whether public or privately-owned, need to consider their environmental impact on the wider community, and especially their contribution to lowering greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), particularly CO2.
Richard Gardiner is managing director of Total Utilities Management Group Ltd, email [email protected]
Hans Buwalda is managing director of Environment Health & Safety Consult, email [email protected]
(more…)
