Consumers will be feeling unsettled as the reliability of electricity supply is tested.

A cold snap and low wind generation meant the country faced a potential supply shortfall, and Transpower asked people to reduce electricity use between 7 and 9am.

Consumer Advocacy Council chair Deborah Hart says this kind of situation is not new, but the market model is obviously not working.

She said that we need to turn our attention from only building infrastructure to delivering energy efficiency and innovation.

LISTEN ABOVE

Consumers will be feeling unsettled as the reliability of electricity supply is tested. 
A cold snap and low wind generation meant the country faced a potential supply shortfall, and Transpower asked people to reduce electricity use between 7 and 9am. 
Consumer Advocacy Council chair Deborah Hart says this kind of situation is not new, but the market model is obviously not working. 
She said that we need to turn our attention from only building infrastructure to delivering energy efficiency and innovation. 
LISTEN ABOVE

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Deborah Hart: Consumer Advocacy Council Chair on the impact of the strain on the power supply

One renewable energy advocate believes New Zealand would be better off burning our coal reserve than building a liquefied natural gas terminal.  

The Government’s aiming to sign a procurement contract for a Taranaki LNG site by mid-year, and hoping to have it running by late next year or early 2028. 

An electricity levy of two to four dollars per megawatt-hour will fund the build, which is expected to save each household around $50 a year when up and running.  

Rewiring Aotearoa CEO Mike Casey told Kerre Woodham that while he likes to think of himself as a renewable energy advocate, he’s also a pragmatic person.  

He says that the dry year problem has to be solved, but we should use the fuel we already have and import, instead of importing a new, incredibly expensive fuel, at a capital cost that would lock us into using it for a very long time. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

One renewable energy advocate believes New Zealand would be better off burning our coal reserve than building a liquefied natural gas terminal. &nbsp;
The Government’s aiming to sign a procurement contract for a Taranaki LNG site by mid-year, and hoping to have it running by late next year or early 2028.&nbsp;
An electricity levy of two to four dollars per megawatt-hour will fund the build, which is expected to save each household around $50 a year when up and running. &nbsp;
Rewiring Aotearoa CEO Mike Casey told Kerre Woodham that while he likes to think of himself as a renewable energy advocate, he’s also a pragmatic person. &nbsp;
He says that the dry year problem has to be solved, but we should use the fuel we already have and import, instead of importing a new, incredibly expensive fuel, at a capital cost that would lock us into using it for a very long time.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Mike Casey: Rewiring Aotearoa CEO says we should burn our coal stockpile instead of importing LNG

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/9abdd587-881b-421e-b04c-b3ee00021d12/transcript

Ah, Winston. Winston, Winston, Winston. He is the embodiment, as his namesake Winston Churchill famously said of Russia, of a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. The canny campaigner knew exactly what he was doing when agreeing to job share the Deputy Prime Minister role with ACT leader David Seymour during the Coalition Government's startup. He, Winston, would take the first 18 months, positioning himself as a senior statesman and Foreign Minister par excellence. And indeed, he has done a very good job as Foreign Minister. Then after that 18 months, he would step aside, making way for David Seymour, more importantly, making time to campaign right up to the next election, which is just a matter of months away. It's exactly what he's doing, stirring up xenophobia in the wake of the Government, or rather National and ACT, securing a Free Trade Agreement with India. A Foreign Minister that doesn't like foreigners, all of a sudden, just in the last year.  

As Toby Manhire says in his piece in The Spinoff, that Winston Peters and New Zealand First are opposing the Free Trade Agreement with India is no surprise. They also opposed the Free Trade Agreement with China 18 years ago. Then as now, says Manhire, Peters was Foreign Minister. Then as now, he said it was a bad deal for New Zealand. Then as now, he invoked an agree to disagree provision in the governing arrangement. So without New Zealand First support, National will need Labour to get the Free Trade Agreement across the line. Surely that should not be a problem – although you can't blame Chris Hipkins for playing hard to get and maximizing the political capital out of the situation. As far back as 2004 Helen Clark was leading trade delegations to India, although formal negotiations only began in earnest in 2010. It has taken a long, long time and much work from our trade delegates to get to this point. And Trade Minister Todd McClay says although it's inevitable that there will be politicking around the agreement, New Zealanders should understand that this is a very important, very big deal. 

“Number one, there was always going to be a bit of politics around this because it is a very big deal. It's 1.4 billion people. You know, I've seen a lot of speculation about tens and tens of thousands of Indians just having the absolute right to come to New Zealand. Mike, this is a trade deal, it's not an immigration deal. They do not have that ability. The New Zealand Government has reserved the right to change visa settings as we need to. And the final point would be, we have now a trade deal, one of the best India's done with anybody. We're 5 million people, they're 1.4 billion. This is a very good deal for New Zealand, and each party in Parliament's going to have to decide how they're going to make the case of where their support lies.” 

And on the point of Winston's claims that New Zealand will be overrun with Indian families, Todd McClay had this to say: 

TM: The debate at the moment has moved to students, whether or not we can cap the number of students. And actually, there has never been a cap on the number of students. We've never said we want them from Australia, we don't want them from the UK. And I don't think any future government would ever do that. It makes no sense to. But what we have always done is we have changed the visa settings, the conditions that you have to meet to be able to get a visa to come and study in New Zealand. If we jump back to when we were in government previously, there were a very large number of students in New Zealand. As a result of COVID, it went down, but the previous government and we have changed those settings to make sure that actually the number of places and students coming in matches our requirement and what we do. And we can continue to do that.” 

MH: But this is general, Todd, this is just immigration policy the way it's always been. Yes? 

TM: That's exactly right. 

Of course, we need to be aware of making sure the settings are right, that immigrants to New Zealand are coming to fill jobs and maximize opportunities. We don't need more Uber drivers. We need people who are able to come here and who are able to make most of the opportunities that New Zealand has to offer. But as Todd McClay says, if we feel things are getting out of whack, we can adjust settings accordingly. I mean, that happened when, remember all the hue and cry over far too many people arriving on the parent's visa, the parent category. All these people were arriving, didn't understand a word of English, were isolated, dependent on their families, some of whom we heard buggered off to Australia and left them here, isolated, alone, you know, it was a nightmare. So back in 2016, 2017 the number of people approved for residence fell by 8%, the decrease driven by parent category approvals, which fell 63% because the settings were getting out of whack. People realized there was a loophole and so it was plugged.  

It's election year, and I suppose you have to expect it. And those who have followed politics for a very, very long time, as Toby Manhire points out, have seen this happen before. This is what New Zealand First does. This is what appeals to their voters. From the outside looking in, the Free Trade Agreement with India is a very good deal for New Zealand. We are fundamentally a trading nation. From the outside looking in, this is Winston doing what Winston does, doing what he does best, coming up to an election with a sail full of hot air, pounding the populist drum of anti-immigration. Where do you stand on this one? Is the Free Trade Agreement with India a good deal or not? 

Ah, Winston. Winston, Winston, Winston. He is the embodiment, as his namesake Winston Churchill famously said of Russia, of a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. The canny campaigner knew exactly what he was doing when agreeing to job share the Deputy Prime Minister role with ACT leader David Seymour during the Coalition Government's startup. He, Winston, would take the first 18 months, positioning himself as a senior statesman and Foreign Minister par excellence. And indeed, he has done a very good job as Foreign Minister. Then after that 18 months, he would step aside, making way for David Seymour, more importantly, making time to campaign right up to the next election, which is just a matter of months away. It's exactly what he's doing, stirring up xenophobia in the wake of the Government, or rather National and ACT, securing a Free Trade Agreement with India. A Foreign Minister that doesn't like foreigners, all of a sudden, just in the last year. &nbsp;
As Toby Manhire says in his piece in The Spinoff, that Winston Peters and New Zealand First are opposing the Free Trade Agreement with India is no surprise. They also opposed the Free Trade Agreement with China 18 years ago. Then as now, says Manhire, Peters was Foreign Minister. Then as now, he said it was a bad deal for New Zealand. Then as now, he invoked an agree to disagree provision in the governing arrangement. So without New Zealand First support, National will need Labour to get the Free Trade Agreement across the line. Surely that should not be a problem – although you can't blame Chris Hipkins for playing hard to get and maximizing the political capital out of the situation. As far back as 2004 Helen Clark was leading trade delegations to India, although formal negotiations only began in earnest in 2010. It has taken a long, long time and much work from our trade delegates to get to this point. And Trade Minister Todd McClay says although it's inevitable that there will be politicking around the agreement, New Zealanders should understand that this is a very important, very big deal.&nbsp;
“Number one, there was always going to be a bit of politics around this because it is a very big deal. It's 1.4 billion people. You know, I've seen a lot of speculation about tens and tens of thousands of Indians just having the absolute right to come to New Zealand. Mike, this is a trade deal, it's not an immigration deal. They do not have that ability. The New Zealand Government has reserved the right to change visa settings as we need to. And the final point would be, we have now a trade deal, one of the best India's done with anybody. We're 5 million people, they're 1.4 billion. This is a very good deal for New Zealand, and each party in Parliament's going to have to decide how they're going to make the case of where their support lies.”&nbsp;
And on the point of Winston's claims that New Zealand will be overrun with Indian families, Todd McClay had this to say:&nbsp;
TM: The debate at the moment has moved to students, whether or not we can cap the number of students. And actually, there has never been a cap on the number of students. We've never said we want them from Australia, we don't want them from the UK. And I don't think any future government would ever do that. It makes no sense to. But what we have always done is we have changed the visa settings, the conditions that you have to meet to be able to get a visa to come and study in New Zealand. If we jump back to when we were in government previously, there were a very large number of students in New Zealand. As a result of COVID, it went down, but the previous government and we have changed those settings to make sure that actually the number of places and students coming in matches our requirement and what we do. And we can continue to do that.”&nbsp;
MH: But this is general, Todd, this is just immigration policy the way it's always been. Yes?&nbsp;
TM: That's exactly right.&nbsp;
Of course, we need to be aware of making sure the settings are right, that immigrants to New Zealand are coming to fill jobs and maximize opportunities. We don't need more Uber drivers. We need people who are able to come here and who are able to make most of the opportunities that New Zealand has to offer. But as Todd McClay says, if we feel things are getting out of whack, we can adjust settings accordingly. I mean, that happened when, remember all the hue and cry over far too many people arriving on the parent's visa, the parent category. All these people were arriving, didn't understand a word of English, were isolated, dependent on their families, some of whom we heard buggered off to Australia and left them here, isolated, alone, you know, it was a nightmare. So back in 2016, 2017 the number of people approved for residence fell by 8%, the decrease driven by parent category approvals, which fell 63% because the settings were getting out of whack. People realized there was a loophole and so it was plugged. &nbsp;
It's election year, and I suppose you have to expect it. And those who have followed politics for a very, very long time, as Toby Manhire points out, have seen this happen before. This is what New Zealand First does. This is what appeals to their voters. From the outside looking in, the Free Trade Agreement with India is a very good deal for New Zealand. We are fundamentally a trading nation. From the outside looking in, this is Winston doing what Winston does, doing what he does best, coming up to an election with a sail full of hot air, pounding the populist drum of anti-immigration. Where do you stand on this one? Is the Free Trade Agreement with India a good deal or not?&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: This is Winston doing as Winston does

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/f65f8595-ed2a-4529-9cfd-b3ed0175e3ed/transcript

The headline on one of the stories this morning said, "vital or bonkers?". Is the new liquefied natural gas terminal announced by the Government yesterday a vital piece of infrastructure that will save New Zealand households hundreds, shore up gaps in our energy supply, give confidence to our manufacturers, or as the Greens are saying, absolutely bonkers for the planet and for our country's energy resilience?  

Energy Minister Simon Watts announced yesterday that the new terminal to be built in New Plymouth should be ready by next year, and will mean that Kiwis no longer need to suffer through an endless series of winter bill shocks. The idea is that liquid natural gas can be imported in large volumes, we'll store it, and then it will be re-gasified to be used when shortages occur during dry years. It's expensive. It's an expensive way of doing it. An expensive “just in case”, but Simon Watts says, well we can't afford not to, otherwise it means the end of businesses.  

Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick says the decision to build a terminal is cooked. Well, you wouldn't be able to cook it unless there was some form of energy supply, so it's not a terribly good analogy because something can only be cooked when there's energy, and what they're doing is providing energy. She said Christopher Luxon has once again chosen to throw New Zealanders' money at fossil fuels, which is bad for power bills, energy security, and the planet. But as Simon Watts told the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning, this will quite literally power New Zealand's economy and we can't afford not to do it. 

“The reality is renewables are nice, but the sun doesn't shine during the night and that's when we need firming capacity and thermal capacity. In a dry year when we don't have enough water in those lakes, we have to make that from either gas, diesel, or coal. Coal only covers 50% of us, we've still got a massive gap. That's why there's a price premium in people's bills. Having the certainty of supply of gas to come into that market when we need it means that that risk is mitigated and therefore that price premium that's in people's bills comes off. That's the rationale of what we're doing here.  

“This is a strategic investment also for national security because guess what, if you can't have energy then other aspects of your economy is at risk and we've got to protect those industries that can't run on coal and surprisingly can't run on electricity. There's a lot of industry, heavy industry that needs gas and if we haven't got it domestically in the short term, we need to be able to import it.” 

Yeah. Like absolutely phase out fossil fuels, totally, let's do it and we've been talking about it since probably the 70’s – possibly earlier than that. I mean that's when I first started reading newspapers when I was at primary school and that's when I can remember talking about the need not to rely on fossil fuels. All for it. But you have to have a reliable alternative – a sustainable, inexpensive alternative. You can't just stop producing energy without providing another sustainable source of power. Hoping and wishing for something better and nicer and cleaner and greener is not a strategy.  

You can't just legislate sustainable energy out of thin air. Look at the disastrous result of various governments around the world legislating to force car manufacturers into producing more EVs to save the planet. Major automakers and EV startups have collectively incurred more than $114 billion , and those are real dollars, $114 billion in losses on EVs in the US and Europe, in basically three and a half years between 2022 and early 2026, driven by aggressive government electrification targets that outpaced consumer demand. People weren't convinced. Show me the electrical network that can sustain me being able to power these vehicles. Show me that they're safe. Show me that they're suitable for all terrains and all weather. As of February 2026, the cumulative financial hit from vaporised EV bets, write downs, and production cuts for the big three Detroit automakers GM, Ford, and Stellantis is estimated at roughly $52.1 billion. You might have heard Mike talking about Stellantis shares going down the toilet this morning.  

You can't just make people do things. This is a top down decision from the governments – we will not use fossil fuels. The people at the bottom who are making stuff, generating exports, providing jobs, driving to get from point A to point B, either driving their exports to different ports or driving to work to produce the exports, have to be convinced and confident that there's another source of energy that is reliable, sustainable, and relatively inexpensive that doesn't put their exports beyond the reach of buyers. And until such time, they're not going to they're not going to fall into line because it would be financial suicide.  

It's a nice idea, it absolutely is, and we make the most of what we have, the resources around us, where they're renewable, yes let's use them. But the Greens won't let us put in any hydro dams. Can you imagine? I think my grandchildren's grandchildren probably wouldn't live to see that. There's not enough sun, as Simon Watts said, it's dark at night. The wind is not consistent. It's pie in the sky. Until such time as we have sustainable, inexpensive alternative fuel sources, we need to shore up the energy supply we have now. Sure, save the planet, but if there's nobody bloody on it, what's the point? 

The headline on one of the stories this morning said, "vital or bonkers?". Is the new liquefied natural gas terminal announced by the Government yesterday a vital piece of infrastructure that will save New Zealand households hundreds, shore up gaps in our energy supply, give confidence to our manufacturers, or as the Greens are saying, absolutely bonkers for the planet and for our country's energy resilience? &nbsp;
Energy Minister Simon Watts announced yesterday that the new terminal to be built in New Plymouth should be ready by next year, and will mean that Kiwis no longer need to suffer through an endless series of winter bill shocks. The idea is that liquid natural gas can be imported in large volumes, we'll store it, and then it will be re-gasified to be used when shortages occur during dry years. It's expensive. It's an expensive way of doing it. An expensive “just in case”, but Simon Watts says, well we can't afford not to, otherwise it means the end of businesses. &nbsp;
Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick says the decision to build a terminal is cooked. Well, you wouldn't be able to cook it unless there was some form of energy supply, so it's not a terribly good analogy because something can only be cooked when there's energy, and what they're doing is providing energy. She said Christopher Luxon has once again chosen to throw New Zealanders' money at fossil fuels, which is bad for power bills, energy security, and the planet. But as Simon Watts told the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning, this will quite literally power New Zealand's economy and we can't afford not to do it.&nbsp;
“The reality is renewables are nice, but the sun doesn't shine during the night and that's when we need firming capacity and thermal capacity. In a dry year when we don't have enough water in those lakes, we have to make that from either gas, diesel, or coal. Coal only covers 50% of us, we've still got a massive gap. That's why there's a price premium in people's bills. Having the certainty of supply of gas to come into that market when we need it means that that risk is mitigated and therefore that price premium that's in people's bills comes off. That's the rationale of what we're doing here. &nbsp;
“This is a strategic investment also for national security because guess what, if you can't have energy then other aspects of your economy is at risk and we've got to protect those industries that can't run on coal and surprisingly can't run on electricity. There's a lot of industry, heavy industry that needs gas and if we haven't got it domestically in the short term, we need to be able to import it.”&nbsp;
Yeah. Like absolutely phase out fossil fuels, totally, let's do it and we've been talking about it since probably the 70’s – possibly earlier than that. I mean that's when I first started reading newspapers when I was at primary school and that's when I can remember talking about the need not to rely on fossil fuels. All for it. But you have to have a reliable alternative – a sustainable, inexpensive alternative. You can't just stop producing energy without providing another sustainable source of power. Hoping and wishing for something better and nicer and cleaner and greener is not a strategy. &nbsp;
You can't just legislate sustainable energy out of thin air. Look at the disastrous result of various governments around the world legislating to force car manufacturers into producing more EVs to save the planet. Major automakers and EV startups have collectively incurred more than $114 billion , and those are real dollars, $114 billion in losses on EVs in the US and Europe, in basically three and a half years between 2022 and early 2026, driven by aggressive government electrification targets that outpaced consumer demand. People weren't convinced. Show me the electrical network that can sustain me being able to power these vehicles. Show me that they're safe. Show me that they're suitable for all terrains and all weather. As of February 2026, the cumulative financial hit from vaporised EV bets, write downs, and production cuts for the big three Detroit automakers GM, Ford, and Stellantis is estimated at roughly $52.1 billion. You might have heard Mike talking about Stellantis shares going down the toilet this morning. &nbsp;
You can't just make people do things. This is a top down decision from the governments – we will not use fossil fuels. The people at the bottom who are making stuff, generating exports, providing jobs, driving to get from point A to point B, either driving their exports to different ports or driving to work to produce the exports, have to be convinced and confident that there's another source of energy that is reliable, sustainable, and relatively inexpensive that doesn't put their exports beyond the reach of buyers. And until such time, they're not going to they're not going to fall into line because it would be financial suicide. &nbsp;
It's a nice idea, it absolutely is, and we make the most of what we have, the resources around us, where they're renewable, yes let's use them. But the Greens won't let us put in any hydro dams. Can you imagine? I think my grandchildren's grandchildren probably wouldn't live to see that. There's not enough sun, as Simon Watts said, it's dark at night. The wind is not consistent. It's pie in the sky. Until such time as we have sustainable, inexpensive alternative fuel sources, we need to shore up the energy supply we have now. Sure, save the planet, but if there's nobody bloody on it, what's the point?&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Until we have sustainable, reliable alternatives, we need to stock up on fuel

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/07dc30ae-c8ad-4648-848c-b3ec0174cb71/transcript

Deborah Hart: Consumer Advocacy Council Chair on the impact of the strain on the power supply

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips