3. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this
to the Minister of Energy
Does he agree with Meridian Energy’s Keith Turner who stated with regard to the consent process that “We have absent a critical design element of the RMA and that is I think what we would like to see if the Government wants renewable energy”; if not, why not?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) Link to this
I certainly agree with Keith Turner that renewables will play a critical role in New Zealand’s energy future. One of the solutions proposed in the New Zealand Energy Strategy is to use the call-in powers that we streamlined in 2005 to assess wind and geothermal applications. We are also considering whether a national policy statement or environmental standard is needed for renewables, and, of course, we are already advancing one for transmission. Finally, I was also pleased to hear from Dr Turner on radio today on the Mākara wind farm, who said: “We are quite confident it will go ahead.”
Why did he trumpet in the House last week that an additional 1,500 megawatts of generation is currently in the consent process when, as Keith Turner pointed out today: “If you’ve got a lot of uncertainty about consents then you’ve got to lodge a lot of consents to get a few out the other end.”, and will he be so smug in 1 or 2 years’ time when the effects of the Resource Management Act in slowing renewable energy projects now is seen in the insecurity of New Zealand’s energy supply?
I do not accept that New Zealand’s energy supplies are insecure; neither do I accept that the Resource Management Act is as big a bugbear as the member pretends that it is.
Maryan StreetHow does the Minister reconcile suggestions that the Resource Management Act is fundamentally flawed with currently consented renewable generation?
I cannot reconcile them because in my opinion those complaints by Opposition members are exaggerated, as evidenced by the 88 percent increase in wind capacity being built this year alone. Further evidence is found in the Mighty River Power geothermal projects being built. We have already amended the Resource Management Act, indeed, advancing the priority for renewables—National voted against that, of course—and we have signalled our intention to use the call-in powers, which we streamlined and which National also voted against. But we must remember that power projects do cause adverse environmental effects and the Resource Management Act provides a vital means for local concerns and national interests to be balanced.
Gordon CopelandWill the Minister explore all avenues and take whatever action he can to ensure that Project West Wind at Mākara proceeds on the best wind-energy site in the world and in the closest proximity to the demand for the electricity it will produce, namely right here in Wellington?
I am not going to interfere in the judicial process that is under way in respect of Mākara. I am confident that the Environment Court, applying what I think are appropriate laws under the Resource Management Act, will consent a viable wind farm at Mākara, which I agree would be an appropriate outcome. But the details of those issues are for the Environment Court and not for me.
Why can the Minister not see that far from being just around the corner, many of the projects that he trumpets about have yet to run the gauntlet of the Resource Management Act, and, even if they are successful there, may face up to 33 months in the Environment Court, and why does he think that such a slowing of a process will not cause security of supply issues for New Zealand in the very near future?
The normal process under the Resource Management Act is that an application is made to a local council, and if the decision of the council is opposed it goes on appeal to the Environment Court. We have said that there are instances where it is very obvious that these matters are going to go on appeal to the Environment Court and that in those cases it is appropriate for the Government to consider using the call-in processes that this Parliament enhanced but that the member’s party opposed a year and a half ago. But I would say that our proposal to use those call-in processes is not actually universally welcomed by some applicants, because some applicants say that the present process is cheaper and faster.
Peter BrownNoting that he does agree with Keith Turner’s statement, does he agree with the statement made by David Baldwin of Contact Energy, who appears basically to want Huntly power station taxed to the hilt in order to force it to close down or convert totally to gas; if so, when will that happen?
Mr Baldwin’s comments were that the cost of carbon affects most carbon-intensive generation. I did not read it as an attack on Genesis or Huntly; I saw it as stating a reality that in a carbon-constrained world the generation that is most affected by the cost of carbon is that which is most carbon intense, and, of course, that is coal-fired generation.
Has he chosen to ignore the recommendations of the reference group on electricity generation—a group set up by him—which has raised the concern that the Resource Management Act processes facilitate the building of fossil fuel generation stations far more readily than they do renewable energy generation stations; if so, why has he taken that position?
I take it that the member is referring to a draft report that I released in advance of the closing date for submissions on the New Zealand Energy Strategy—
There is a report from an industry working group that looked at the question of whether there should be national policy guidance or a national environment standard on generation. That report was not strongly in favour of an environment standard. I am addressing that issue through the New Zealand Energy Strategy, and it is likely that one of the outcomes from the strategy will be more guidance under the Resource Management Act.
How can the Prime Minister’s goal of carbon neutrality be taken seriously, when the only carbon-neutral power company in New Zealand, Meridian Energy, says that the Resource Management Act works against the Government’s objective; and why can he not see that?
I note the somewhat double standard whereby every time we actually introduce legislation to improve the plight of renewables this Government passes it despite opposition from the National Party—for example, the two pieces of legislation I quoted in response to another supplementary question. I also note that the industry players—the people developing new generation—are already changing course as a consequence of the draft New Zealand Energy Strategy, as indicated by, amongst others, Contact’s announcement that it will be spending $2 billion on geothermal and wind power and deferring its decision on Ōtāhuhu C.
Why does the Minister keep saying that his Government has done something about the Resource Management Act, when as late as just a couple of weeks ago the New Zealand Wind Energy Association has said it is a problem and is preventing growth in that sector, when Dr Keith Turner this morning on Radio New Zealand National says that the Resource Management Act is the problem, and when the Contact people have said they will go ahead with their geothermal project if they can get their consents within a particular time; and when will New Zealanders be able to stop having to swallow this carbon-neutral garbage while the Minister presides over a Resource Management Act that prefers fossil fuels ahead of renewable energy?