PDA-friendly standards now at your fingertips

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

EU Electricity Market Reform advances two-way CfDs, PPAs, and fixed-price tariffs to cut volatility, support renewables and nuclear, stabilize investor revenues, and protect consumers from price spikes across wholesale power markets.

Key Points

An EU plan expanding two-way CfDs, PPAs, and fixed-price contracts to curb price swings and support low-carbon power.

✅ Two-way CfDs return excess revenues to consumers

✅ Boosts PPAs and fixed-price retail options

✅ Targets renewables, nuclear; limits fossil exposure

The European Union wants to expand the use of contracts that pay power plants a fixed price for electricity, a draft proposal showed, as part of an electricity market revamp to shield European consumers from big price swings.

The European Commission pledged last year to reform the EU's electricity market rules, after record-high gas prices, caused by cuts to Russian flows, sent power prices soaring, prompting debates over gas price cap strategies in response.

A draft of the EU executive's proposal, seen by Reuters on Tuesday and due to be published on Mar. 16, steered clear of the deep redesign of the electricity market that some member states have called for, even as nine EU countries opposed sweeping reforms as a fix earlier in the crisis, suggesting instead limited changes to nudge countries towards more predictable, fixed-price power contracts.

If EU countries want to support new investments in wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower and nuclear electricity, for example - a point over which France and Germany have wrestled - they should use a two-way contract for difference (CfD) or an equivalent contract, the draft said.

The aim is to provide a stable revenue stream to investors, and help make consumers' energy bills less volatile, even though rolling back electricity prices is tougher than it appears. Restricting this support to renewable and low-carbon electricity also aims to speed up Europe's shift away from fossil fuels.

Two-way CfDs offer generators a fixed "strike price" for their electricity, regardless of the price in short-term energy markets. If the market price is above the CfD strike price, then the extra revenue the generator receives should be handed out to final electricity consumers, the draft EU document said.

Countries should also make it easier for power buyers to sign power purchase agreements (PPA) - another type of long-term contract to directly buy electricity from a generator.

Governments should also make sure consumers have access to fixed-price electricity contracts - echoing France's new electricity pricing scheme to reassure Brussels - giving them the option to avoid a contract that would expose them to volatile prices swings in energy markets, the draft said.

If European energy prices were to spike to extreme levels again, the Commission suggested allowing national governments to temporarily intervene to fix prices while weighing emergency measures to limit prices where needed, and offer consumers and small businesses a share of their electricity at a lower price.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

NL Hydro electricity credit delivers a one-time on-bill rebate from the rate stabilization fund, linked to oil prices and the Holyrood plant, via the Public Utilities Board, with payment deferrals and interest relief for customers.

Key Points

A one-time on-bill credit from the rate stabilization fund to cut power costs as oil prices remain low.

✅ One-time on-bill credit via the Public Utilities Board

✅ Funded by surplus in the rate stabilization fund

✅ Deferrals and 15 months interest assistance available

Most people who pay electricity bills will get a one-time credit as early as July.

The provincial government on Thursday outlined a new directive to the Public Utilities Board to provide a one-time credit for customers whose electricity rates are affected by the price of oil, part of an effort to shield ratepayers from Muskrat Falls overruns through recent agreements.

Electricity customers who are not a part of the Labrador interconnected system, including those using diesel on the north coast of Labrador, will receive the credit.

The credit, announced at a press conference Thursday morning, will come from the rate stabilization fund and comes as many customers have begun paying for Muskrat Falls on their bills, which has an estimated surplus of about $50 million because low oil prices mean NL Hydro has spent less on fuel for the Holyrood thermal generating station.

Normally a surplus would be paid out over a year, but customers this year will get the credit in a lump sum, as early as July, with the amount varying based on electricity usage.

"Given the difficult times many are finding themselves in, we believe an upfront, one-time on-bill credit would be much more helpful for customers than a small monthly decrease over the next 12 months," said Natural Resources Minister Siobhan Coady at the provincial government's announcement Thursday morning.

Premier Dwight Ball said with many households and businesses experiencing financial hardship, the one-time credit is meant to make life a little easier, noting that Nova Scotia's premier has urged regulators to reject a major hike elsewhere.

"We have requested that the board of commissioners of the Public Utilities Board, even as Nova Scotia's regulator approved a 14% increase recently, adopt a policy so that a credit will be dispersed immediately," Ball said.

"This is to help people when they need it the most.… We're doing what we can to support you."

The provincial government estimates someone whose power costs an average of $200 a month would get a one-time credit of about $130. Details of the plan will be left to the PUB.

Deferred payments allowed
Ball said the credit will make a "significant impact" on customers' July bills.

Both businesses and residential customers will also be able to defer payments, similar to Alberta's deferral program that shifted costs for unpaid bills, with up to $2.5 million in interest being waived on overdue accounts. Customers will be required to make agreed-upon monthly payments to their account, and there will be interest assistance for 15 months, beginning June 1.

Coady said customers can renegotiate their bills and defer payments, with the province picking up the tab for the interest.

"You can speak to a customer service agent and they will make accommodations, but you have to continue to make some version of a monthly payment," Coady

"The interest that may be accrued is going to be paid for by the provincial government, so if you're a business, a person, and you're having difficulty and you can't make what I would say is your normal payment, call your utility, make some arrangements."

Labrador's interconnected grid isn't affected by the price of oil, but those customers can take advantage of the interest relief.

Relief policies already put in place during the pandemic, like not disconnecting customers and providing options for more flexible bill payments, will continue, as utilities such as Hydro One reconnecting customers demonstrate in Ontario.

Credit not enough to support customers: PCs
While Ball said his government is doing what they can to help ratepayers, the opposition doesn't believe the announcement does enough to support those who need it.

Tony Wakeham, the Progressive Conservative MHA for Stephenville-Port au Port, said in a statement Thursday the credit simply gives people's money back to them, after the NL Consumer Advocate called an 18% rate hike unacceptable, and Newfoundland Power stands to benefit. 

"The Liberal government would like ratepayers to believe that they are getting electricity rate relief, but in reality, customers would have been entitled to receive the value of this credit anyway over a 12-month period. Furthermore, in providing a one-time credit, Newfoundland Power will also be able to collect an administrative fee, adding to their revenues," Wakeham said in the statement.

"People and businesses in this province are struggling to pay their utility bills, and the Liberal government should help them by putting extra money into their pockets, not by recycling an already existing program to the benefit of a large corporation."

Wakeham called on government to direct the PUB to lower Newfoundland Power's guaranteed rate of return to give cash refunds to customers, and for Newfoundland Power to waive its fees.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Electricity Price Hikes spotlight grid reliability, renewable transition, coal phase-out, and energy poverty, as policy shifts and investor reports warn of rate increases, biomass trade-offs, and sustainability challenges impacting households and businesses.

Key Points

Projected power bill hikes from market reforms, renewables, coal phase-out, and reliability costs in Alberta.

✅ Investor report projects 3x-7x bills and $50B market transition costs

✅ Policy missteps cited in Ontario, Germany, Australia price spikes

✅ Debate: retain coal vs. speed renewables, storage, and grid upgrades

Since when did electricity become a scarce resource?

I thought all the talk about greening the grid was about having renewable, sustainable, less polluting options to fulfill our growing need for power. Yet, increasingly, we are faced with news stories that indicate using power is bad in and of itself, even as flat electricity demand worries utilities.

The implication, I guess, is that we should be using less of it. But, I don’t want to use less electricity. I want to be able to watch TV, turn my lights on when the sun sets at 4 p.m. in the winter, keep my food cold and power my devices.

We once had a consensus that a reliable supply of power was essential to a growing economy and a high quality of life, a point underscored by brownout risks in U.S. markets.

I’m beginning to wonder if we still have that consensus.

And more importantly, if our decision makers have determined electricity is a vice as opposed to an essential of life – as debates over Alberta electricity policy suggest – you know what is going to happen next. Prices are going to rise, forcing all of us to use less.

How much would it hurt your bottom line if your electricity bill went up three-fold? How about seven-fold? That is the grim picture that Todd Beasley painted for us on Tuesday’s show.

Last week, he launched a campaign on behalf of Albertans for Sustainable Electricity, called Stop the Shock. He shared the results of an internal investor report that concluded Alberta’s power market overhaul would cost an estimated $50 billion to implement and could result in a three to seven-fold increase in electricity bills.

Now, my typical power bill averages $70 a month. That would be like having it grow to $210 a month, or just over $2,500 a year. If it’s a seven-fold increase that would be more like $5,000 a year. That may be manageable for some families, but I can think of a lot of things I’d rather do with $5,000 than pay more to keep my fridge running so my food doesn’t spoil.

For low-income families that would be a real hardship.

Beasley said Ontario’s inept handling of its electricity market and the phase-out of coal power resulted in price spikes that left more than 70,000 individuals facing energy poverty.

Germany and Australia realized they made the same mistake and are returning some electricity to coal.

Beasley shared a long list of Canadian firms – including our own Canadian Pension Plan – that are investing in coal development around the world. Meanwhile, Canadian governments remain in a mad rush to phase it out here. That’s not the only hypocrisy.

Rupert Darwall, author of Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex, revealed in a recent column what he calls “the scandal at the heart of the EU’s renewable policies.”

Turns out most of their expansion in renewable energy has come from biomass in the form of wood. Not only does burning wood produce more CO2, it also eliminates carbon sinks.

To meet the EU’s 2030 target would require cutting down trees equivalent to the combined harvest in Canada and the United States. As he puts it, “Whichever way you look at it, burning the world’s carbon sinks to meet the EU’s arbitrary renewable energy targets is environmentally insane.”

Beasley’s group is trying to bring some sanity back to the discussion. The goal should be to move to a greener grid while maintaining abundant, reliable and cheap power, and examples like Texas grid improvements show practical steps. He thinks to achieve all these goals, coal should remain part of the mix. What do you think?

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Duck Curve highlights midday solar oversupply and steep evening peak demand, stressing grid stability. Solutions include battery storage, demand response, diverse renewables like wind, geothermal, nuclear, and regional integration to reduce curtailment.

Key Points

A mismatch between midday solar surplus and evening demand spikes, straining the grid without storage and flexibility.

✅ Midday solar oversupply forces curtailment and wasted clean energy.

✅ Evening ramps require fast, fossil peaker plants to stabilize load.

✅ Batteries, demand response, regional trading flatten the curve.

California's remarkable success in adopting solar power, including a near-100% renewable milestone, has created a unique challenge: managing the infamous "duck curve." This distinctive curve illustrates a growing mismatch between solar electricity generation and the state's energy demands, creating potential problems for grid stability and ultimately threatening to slow California's progress in the fight against climate change.

The Shape of the Problem

The duck curve arises from a combination of high solar energy production during midday hours and surging energy demand in the late afternoon and evening when solar power declines. During peak solar hours, the grid often has an overabundance of electricity, and curtailments are increasing as a result, while as the sun sets, demand surges when people return home and businesses ramp up operations. California's energy grid operators must scramble to make up this difference, often relying on fast-acting but less environmentally friendly power sources.

The Consequences of the Duck Curve

The increasing severity of the duck curve has several potential consequences for California:

• Grid Strain: The rapid ramp-up of power sources to meet evening demand puts significant strain on the electrical grid. This can lead to higher operational costs and potentially increase the risk of blackouts during peak demand times.
• Curtailed Energy: To avoid overloading the grid, operators may sometimes have to curtail excess solar energy during midday, as rising curtailment reports indicate, essentially wasting clean electricity that could have been used to displace fossil fuel generation.
• Obstacle to More Solar: The duck curve can make it harder to add new solar capacity, as seen in Alberta's solar expansion challenges, for fear of further destabilizing the grid and increasing the need for fossil fuel-based peaking plants.

Addressing the Challenge

California is actively seeking solutions to mitigate the duck curve, aligning with national decarbonization pathways that emphasize practicality. Potential strategies include:

• Energy Storage: Deploying large-scale battery storage can help soak up excess solar electricity during the day and release it later when demand peaks, smoothing out the duck curve.
• Demand Flexibility: Encouraging consumers to shift their energy use to off-peak hours through incentives and smart grid technologies can help reduce late-afternoon surges in demand.
• Diverse Power Sources: While solar is crucial, a balanced mix of energy sources, including geothermal, wind, and nuclear, can improve grid stability and reduce reliance on rapid-response fossil fuel plants.
• Regional Cooperation: Integrating California's grid with neighboring states can aid in balancing energy supply and demand across a wider geographical area.

The Ongoing Solar Debate

The duck curve has become a central point of debate about the future of California's energy landscape. While acknowledging the challenge, solar advocates argue for continued expansion, backed by measures like a bill to require solar on new buildings, emphasizing the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels. Grid operators and some utility companies call for a more cautious approach, emphasizing grid reliability and potential costs if the problem isn't effectively managed.

Balancing California's Needs and its Green Ambitions

Finding the right path forward is essential; it will determine whether California can continue to lead the way in solar energy adoption while ensuring a reliable and affordable electricity supply. Successfully navigating the duck curve will require innovation, collaboration, and a strong commitment to building a sustainable energy system, as wildfire smoke impacts on solar continue to challenge generation predictability.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

TEPCO Kashiwazaki-Kariwa restart plan clears NRA fitness review, anchored by a seven-point safety code, Niigata consent, Fukushima lessons, seismic risk analysis, and upgrades to No. 6 and No. 7 reactors, each rated 1.35 GW.

Key Points

TEPCO's plan to restart Kashiwazaki-Kariwa under NRA rules, pending Niigata consent and upgrades to Units 6 and 7.

✅ NRA deems TEPCO fit; legally binding seven-point safety code

✅ Local consent required: Niigata review of evacuation and health impacts

✅ Initial focus on Units 6 and 7; 1.35 GW each, seismic upgrades

Tokyo Electric Power Co. cleared a major regulatory hurdle toward restarting a nuclear power plant in Niigata Prefecture, but the utility’s bid to resume its operations still hangs in the balance of a series of political approvals.

The government’s nuclear watchdog concluded Sept. 23 that the utility is fit to operate the plant, based on new legally binding safety rules TEPCO drafted and pledged to follow, even as nuclear projects worldwide mark milestones across different regulatory environments today. If TEPCO is found to be in breach of those regulations, it could be ordered to halt the plant’s operations.

The Nuclear Regulation Authority’s green light now shifts the focus over to whether local governments will agree in the coming months to restart the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant.

TEPCO is keen to get the plant back up and running. It has been financially reeling from the closure of its nuclear plants in Fukushima Prefecture following the triple meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant in 2011 triggered by the earthquake and tsunami disaster.

In parallel, Japan is investing in clean energy innovations such as a large hydrogen system being developed by Toshiba, Tohoku Electric Power and Iwatani.

The company plans to bring the No. 6 and No. 7 reactors back online at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear complex, which is among the world’s largest nuclear plants, amid China’s nuclear energy continuing on a steady development track in the region.

The two reactors each boast 1.35 gigawatts in output capacity, while Kenya’s nuclear plant aims to power industry as part of that country’s expansion. They are the newest of the seven reactors there, first put into service between 1996 and 1997.

TEPCO has not revealed specific plans yet on what to do with the older five reactors.

In 2017, the NRA cleared the No. 6 and No. 7 reactors under the tougher new reactor regulations established in 2013 in response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster, while jurisdictions such as Ontario support continued operation at Pickering under strict oversight.

It also closely scrutinized the operator’s ability to run the Niigata Prefecture plant safely, given its history as the entity responsible for the nation’s most serious nuclear accident.

After several rounds of meetings with top TEPCO managers, the NRA managed to hold the utility’s feet to the fire enough to make it pledge, in writing, to abide by a new seven-point safety code for the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant.

The creation of the new code, which is legally binding, is meant to hold the company accountable for safety measures at the facility.

“As the top executive, the president of TEPCO will take responsibility for the safety of nuclear power,” one of the points reads. “TEPCO will not put the facility’s economic performance above its safety,” reads another.

The company promised to abide by the points set out in writing during the NRA’s examination of its safety regulations.

TEPCO also vowed to set up a system where the president is directly briefed on risks to the nuclear complex, including the likelihood of earthquakes more powerful than what the plant is designed to withstand. It must also draft safeguard measures to deal with those kinds of earthquakes and confirm whether precautionary steps are in place.

The utility additionally pledged to promptly release public records on the decision-making process concerning crucial matters related to nuclear safety, and to preserve the documents until the facility is decommissioned.

TEPCO plans to complete its work to reinforce the safety of the No. 7 reactor in December. It has not set a definite deadline for similar work for the No. 6 reactor.

To restart the Kashiwazki-Kariwa plant, TEPCO needs to obtain consent from local governments, including the Niigata prefectural government.

The prefectural government is studying the plant’s safety through a panel of experts, which is reviewing whether evacuation plans are adequate as off-limits areas reopen and the health impact on residents from the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Niigata Governor Hideyo Hanazumi said he will not decide on the restart until the panel completes its review.

The nuclear complex suffered damage, including from fire at an electric transformer, when an earthquake it deemed able to withstand hit in 2007.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News