DOCSLIB.ORG

Proposed Waitaha Hydro Scheme: Assessment of Reasons, Financial Viability, and Alternative Locations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proposed Waitaha Hydro Scheme: Assessment of Reasons, Financial Viability, and Alternative Locations Proposed Waitaha Hydro Scheme: Assessment of Reasons, Financial Viability, and Alternative Locations This report has been prepared for the Minister of Conservation under section 17S(4) of the Conservation Act 1987 to address certain matters relevant to an application dated July 2014 by Westpower Limited under Part B of the Act for concessions relating to a proposed hydro electric generation scheme on and around the Waitaha River. By Tony Baldwin Law and Economics Consultant Wellington 1 May 2015 © Tony Baldwin Financial viability of Waitaha hydro proposal, April 2015 Baldwin Consulting About the author Tony Baldwin is a consultant specialising in law and economic issues, corporate strategy, and public policy. From 2011 to 2014, Tony was project manager and strategy adviser for Genesis Energy in relation to the Crown’s sale of 49% of its shares in the company. Tony has a long involvement in the electricity sector. Among other things, he led the Government's team of officials, advisers and consultants responsible for negotiating the restructuring of ECNZ to form Contact Energy, Meridian Energy, Mighty River Power and Genesis Energy between 1995 and 1998. Over the last 20 years, Tony has worked on a range of electricity industry issues, including transmission investment upgrade processes, security of supply issues, and hedge market development. Tony trained as a commercial and company lawyer at Chapman Tripp in Wellington. More details are at www.tonybaldwin.co.nz Disclaimer The author makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of this document. To the fullest extent permitted by law, no liability or responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising out of the use of or reliance on any information in this report. This document is subject to checking calculations and proofing Page 2 of 216 Draft Financial viability of Waitaha hydro proposal, April 2015 Baldwin Consulting Contents 1. Executive summary .................................................................. 13 1.1 Purpose of report .................................................................................................13 1.2 Key conclusions ...................................................................................................13 1.3 Structure of report ...............................................................................................15 1.4 Approach ............................................................................................................15 1.5 Statutory framework ............................................................................................15 1.5.1 Part 3B of Conservation Act ........................................................................15 1.5.2 “Appropriate” test .....................................................................................16 1.5.3 “Activity” to be authorised ..........................................................................16 1.5.4 Legal relevance of financial viability .............................................................17 1.5.5 Legal relevance of electricity need and other reasons .....................................17 1.5.6 Alternative locations for activity ..................................................................17 1.5.7 Application not complete ............................................................................18 1.5.8 Amethyst precedent ..................................................................................18 1.6 About Westpower ................................................................................................18 1.7 Waitaha scheme ..................................................................................................19 1.8 Test of financial viability .......................................................................................20 1.9 Supply and demand in Westpower’s region – 2001 to 2014 .......................................21 1.9 Supply and demand in New Zealand – 2001 to 2014 ................................................24 1.10 Supply and demand outlook for New Zealand .........................................................25 1.11 New generation options for New Zealand ...............................................................25 1.12 Supply and demand outlook for Westpower’s region ................................................26 1.13 Economics of Waitaha scheme ..............................................................................29 1.13.1 Test of financial viability ............................................................................29 1.13.2 Generation-weighted price .........................................................................29 1.13.3 Estimated unit cost of Waitaha scheme .......................................................31 1.13.4 Caveat ....................................................................................................33 1.13.5 Would the Waitaha scheme be financially viable? ..........................................34 1.14 Westpower’s reasons for Waitaha scheme ..............................................................36 1.15 Alternative locations for activity ............................................................................36 1.16 Conclusions ........................................................................................................37 Page 3 of 216 Draft Financial viability of Waitaha hydro proposal, April 2015 Baldwin Consulting 2. Statutory regime and purpose of report........................................ 38 2.1 Outline of this section ...........................................................................................38 2.2 Process to date ....................................................................................................38 2.3 Statutory regime ................................................................................................39 2.3.1 Relationship with the Resource Management Act 1991 ...................................39 2.3.2 Overview of statutory regime ......................................................................39 2.3.3 Effects of activity ......................................................................................41 2.3.4 Statutory purpose .....................................................................................41 2.3.5 “Appropriate” test .....................................................................................42 2.4 What is the “activity” in relation to the proposed Waitaha scheme? ............................42 2.5 Legal relevance of financial viability and electricity need ...........................................43 2.5.1 Financial viability .......................................................................................43 2.5.2 Electricity need .........................................................................................44 2.6 Alternative locations for activity .............................................................................45 2.7 Relevance of Amethyst precedent ..........................................................................45 2.8 Is Westpower’s application ‘complete’? ...................................................................46 2.9 Purpose of this report ...........................................................................................46 2.10 Approach in this report ........................................................................................47 2.11 Diagrams of statutory process ..............................................................................47 3. Westpower and its network ......................................................... 53 3.1 Outline of this section ...........................................................................................53 3.2 Key points ..........................................................................................................53 3.3 Historical ownership of generation and electricity retailing ........................................54 3.4 Westpower’s strategy ...........................................................................................55 3.5 Westpower’s key financials....................................................................................57 3.5.1 Sources of revenue.....................................................................................57 3.5.2 Profit and other revenue markers ................................................................58 3.5.3 Other key financials ...................................................................................59 3.6 Westpower’s current structure and activities ...........................................................62 3.6.1 West Coast Electric Power Trust ...................................................................62 3.6.2 Electronet ................................................................................................62 3.6.3 Mitton and ABB businesses ..........................................................................62 3.6.4 Amethyst hydro – Westpower does not retail .................................................62 3.7 Westpower’s relative size ......................................................................................63 3.8 Consumers on Westpower’s network ......................................................................63 3.7 Westpower’s network ...........................................................................................65 Page 4 of 216 Draft Financial viability of Waitaha
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Distributed Generation – Information Pack
    DISTRIBUTED GENERATION INFORMATION PACK Issue 1.5 December 2017 DDiissttrriibbuutteedd GGeenneerraattiioonn Guidelines & Application Form For small generators – total capacity less than 10 kW (Simplified Approval Process – Part 1A) Issue 1.5 / 20 December 2017 Installing distributed See the attached guide for generation with a This document is subject to details of each numbered step. capacity less than change without any prior notice. 10 kW Interpretation: Please ensure you have the (Simplified Process) Generator - is referred to the person or an latest version. organisation that owns or operates distribution START HERE generators. 1 Note: The Generator can apply for Typically smaller distributed generation systems approval under “Simplified Process” if of this size are rotating (turbine) based systems, the system meets all requirements System Selection solar photovoltaic panels, etc. presented in the “System selection” section. Application Process 2 Note: The Generator will submit the Within 2 business days of receiving the application accompanied with the application, Westpower will advise the Generator additional information and the Submission of that the application has been received. If no application fee. Application response is received within this period, the Generator should contact Westpower. 3 Notes: Within 10 business days of receiving the complete application, Westpower will inspect 1. Westpower will assess the application the distributed generation system and provide for completeness and deficiencies as the final approval. well as compliance with Congestion Westpower will provide the Generator with a Management Policy. Application Approval time and date for the inspection within 2 2. If there are any deficiencies identified Process business days. during the approval process, Westpower will notify the Generator The Generator has to remedy the deficiencies within 10 business days, with what is and pay the applicable fees within 10 business required to correct these deficiencies.
    [Show full text]
  • FNZ Basket 14102010
    14-Oct-10 smartFONZ Basket Composition Composition of a basket of securities and cash equivalent to 200,000 NZX 50 Portfolio Index Fund units effective from 14 October 2010 The new basket composition applies to applications and withdrawals. Cash Portion: $ 1,902.98 Code Security description Shares ABA Abano Healthcare Group Limited 88 AIA Auckland International Airport Limited Ordinary Shares 6,725 AIR Air New Zealand Limited (NS) Ordinary Shares 2,784 AMP AMP Limited Ordinary Shares 432 ANZ Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited Ord Shares 212 APN APN News & Media Limited Ordinary Shares 1,759 APT AMP NZ Office Trust Ordinary Units 8,453 ARG Argosy Property Trust Ordinary Units 4,344 CAV Cavalier Corporation Limited Ordinary Shares 482 CEN Contact Energy Limited Ordinary Shares 1,508 EBO Ebos Group Limited Ordinary Shares 537 FBU Fletcher Building Limited Ordinary Shares 1,671 FPA Fisher & Paykel Appliances Holdings Limited Ordinary Shares 6,128 FPH Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Corporation Limited Ord Shares 3,106 FRE Freightways Limited Ordinary Shares 1,625 GFF Goodman Fielder Limited Ordinary Shares 3,990 GMT Macquarie Goodman Property Trust Ordinary Units 8,004 GPG Guinness Peat Group Plc Ordinary Shares 15,588 HLG Hallenstein Glasson Holdings Limited Ordinary Shares 430 IFT Infratil Limited Ordinary Shares 6,363 KIP Kiwi Income Property Trust Ordinary Units 10,287 KMD Kathmandu Holdings Limited Ordinary Shares 690 MFT Mainfreight Limited Ordinary Shares 853 MHI Michael Hill International Limited Ordinary Shares 1,433 NPX
    [Show full text]
  • View Their Documen- Increases on Several Occasions
    In this Issue December 2013 The Pennies and the Pounds 1 The best and the worst of the NZX50 since The Pennies and the 2009 3 NZ Windfarms AGM 25 The 2013 Beacon Award 4 Skellerup Holdings AGM 25 Pounds Takeovers Panel provides easy to read guides 5 Kathmandu AGM 26 New Regulations for providers of custodial Pumpkin Patch AGM 26 espite changing to decimal currency in 1967, here is services 5 Barramundi Fund AGM 27 an old saying that still rings true. “If you watch the Company Meetings Marlin Global Fund AGM 27 pennies, the pounds will take care of themselves”. In Telecom AGM 6 Precinct Property AGM 28 D other words, do the small things well and the big outcomes Fletcher Building AGM 7 Contact Energy AGM 29 will eventually follow. Hellaby Holdings AGM 8 Chorus AGM 30 Mighty River Power AGM 9 Vital Healthcare Property Trust AGM 30 When it comes to their shareholders, it seems that some Michael Hill International AGM 10 AWF SGM 31 companies are forgetting this maxim. Over the past year we Ebos AGM 11 Bathurst AGM 31 have seen increasing evidence of inadequate or potentially Sky City Entertainment AGM 12 NZ Oil and Gas AGM 32 misleading information being provided in resolutions and TeamTalk AGM 13 Auckland International Airport AGM 33 notices of annual or special meetings. In most cases this is Heartland Bank AGM 14 Caught on the Net 34 unlikely to be a deliberate attempt to confuse shareholders. Cavalier Corporation AGM 15 Branch Reports But it does raise questions about, if the company can’t get Freightways AGM 16 Auckland 35 the small things right, what are they doing with the big stuff.
    [Show full text]
  • Key Points Value of Kupe to NZOG
    for the quarter ended 30 June 2010 Dear investor It was a busy three month period for NZOG, Production from the Tui area oil fields slightly In May, shareholders of Pike River Coal (PRC) against a backdrop of falling international exceeded the revised target for the financial year agreed to a funding package that included a new sharemarkets and dismay over the BP oil spill in ended 30 June, producing a total of 4.83 million equity issue and around $40m of debt from the Gulf of Mexico. That disaster demonstrated barrels – NZOG’s share 604,000 barrels. NZOG NZOG through convertible bonds. More details the need for health, safety and environmental received NZ$13.1m in revenue from Tui in the about Pike can be found on the back page of performance to always be the number one June quarter. this report. priority in the petroleum industry. In late June, it was identified that repairs were The Kupe gas and oil field was in full production required to the artificial lift system for one of the through the quarter, earning NZOG NZ$18.2m in Tui field’s four producing wells, Pateke 3-H. revenue. A reserves review was completed, The Operator is planning a work-over of the David Salisbury CEO which saw the 2P (proved and probable) well later in 2010. In the meantime the well has 21 July 2010 reserves increased substantially. At current been shut-in, which means some production prices, NZOG’s share of the additional will be deferred. recoverable light oil, LPG and gas has a value of As you know, NZOG is always on the lookout around NZ$100m.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Institutions and Practices June 2014
    Regulatory institutions and practices June 2014 The Productivity Commission aims to provide insightful, well-informed and accessible advice that leads to the best possible improvement in the wellbeing of New Zealanders. Regulatory institutions and practices June 2014 ii Regulatory institutions and practices The New Zealand Productivity Commission Date: 30 June 2014 The Commission – an independent Crown entity – completes in-depth inquiry reports on topics that the Government selects, carries out productivity-related research and promotes understanding of productivity issues. The Commission’s work is guided by the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act 2010. You can find information on the Commission at www.productivity.govt.nz, or by calling +64 4 903 5150. Disclaimer The contents of this report must not be construed as legal advice. The Commission does not accept any responsibility or liability for an action taken as a result of reading, or reliance placed because of having read any part, or all, of the information in this report. The Commission does not accept any responsibility or liability for any error, inadequacy, deficiency, flaw in or omission from this report. ISBN: 978-0-478-44002-7 (print) ISBN: 978-0-478-44003-4 (online) Inquiry contacts Administration Robyn Sadlier Website www.productivity.govt.nz T: (04) 903 5167 E: [email protected] Twitter @nzprocom LinkedIn NZ Productivity Commission Other matters Steven Bailey Inquiry Director T: (04) 903 5156 E: [email protected] Foreword iii Foreword Regulation is a pervasive feature of modern life. Its coverage stretches from the workplace to the sports field, the home to the shopping mall, and from the city to the great outdoors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Non-Technical Issues on Decision-Making by Coal Mining Incident Management Teams
    The impact of non-technical issues on decision-making by coal mining incident management teams. Ruth Grace Fuller BEng Hons Civil Engineering Grad Dip Psychology BSc Hons Psychology Grad Dip Secondary Education A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2014 Sustainable Minerals Institute Abstract A serious incident in an underground coal mine can claim many lives in an instant. The lives of those who survive the initial moments can be dependent on the decisions made by the incident management team (IMT). The IMT is a team of mine employees assembled immediately upon the discovery of an incident to manage the response. Evaluations of annual emergency exercises conducted at underground coal-mines in Queensland have indicated that IMT decision-making is generally sub-optimal. This finding was echoed by the Royal Commission into the New Zealand Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy that occurred in 2010. In many other high-reliability roles technical and non-technical issues have been found to impact decision-making. The goal of this research is to explore the role of non-technical issues in emergency decision-making following an underground coal mining incident. A review of the Queensland emergency exercise reports, direct observation of emergency simulations, and interviews with twenty-five mining personnel with real-life incident management experience at underground coal mine emergencies has led to the development of a non-technical skills taxonomy for decision-making in mining IMTs. The decision-making process in a mining IMT has been shown to be a broad socio-psycho-technical process within which technical and non-technical issues cannot be separated.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Complaints Scheme – Accepted Deadlocked Complaints Report for the Period 1 April 2020 - 31 March 2021
    Energy Complaints Scheme – accepted deadlocked complaints report for the period 1 April 2020 - 31 March 2021 Accepted deadlocked complaints The tables below show the number of deadlocked complaints that were accepted for consideration, and the relevant provider. Not all providers in the Energy Complaints Scheme had an accepted deadlocked complaint in this period. A full provider list is available on our website: www.utilitiesdisputes.co.nz The tables also show each providers’ market share, which is calculated by the number of installation control points (ICPs) or equivalent. Total ICPs (or equivalent) were calculated on 28 February 2021 from ICPs on the electricity and gas registries, and customer numbers obtained from providers. Distributors Distributor Accepted Share of Total ICPs Market share deadlocked accepted (or of ICPs (or complaints deadlocked equivalent) equivalent) complaints Alpine Energy 1 1.8% 33,113 1.3% Aurora Energy 7 12.7% 92,584 3.7% Counties Power 2 3.6% 44,978 1.8% Electra 1 1.8% 45,697 1.8% ElectroNet Services * 1 1.8% 0 0.0% Horizon Networks 1 1.8% 24,940 1.0% MainPower 1 1.8% 41,494 1.6% Northpower 3 5.5% 60,326 2.4% Orion 1 1.8% 208,259 8.2% Powerco 6 10.9% 447,295 17.7% The Lines Company (TLC) 3 5.5% 23,716 0.9% Top Energy 4 7.3% 33,049 1.3% Unison 4 7.3% 113,586 4.5% Vector 17 30.9% 699,786 27.7% WEL Networks 3 5.5% 95,851 3.8% Total 55 100% 1,964,674 77.8% Total ICPs (or equivalent) for all electricity and gas distributors: 2,524,362 Key: *Subsidiary of Westpower.
    [Show full text]
  • Leveraging Network Utility Asset Management Practices for Regulatory Purposes
    Leveraging Network Utility Asset Management Practices for Regulatory Purposes Appendices November 2009 Disclaimer: The views expressed in this report are those of KEMA, Inc., and do not necessarily represent he views of, and should not be attributed to, the Ontario Energy Board, any individual Board Member, or OEB staff. Table of Contents Table of Contents Synopsis of International Markets Studied ........................................................................................1 1. Appendix A: Australia.............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Characteristics of Utilities Affected.......................................................................... 1-2 1.1.1 Number of Companies .............................................................................. 1-2 1.1.2 Geographic Areas Served ......................................................................... 1-3 1.1.3 Key Technical and Financial Statistics per Utility.................................... 1-8 1.1.4 Ownership Structures.............................................................................. 1-11 1.2 Assessment of Utility Investment Plans.................................................................. 1-13 1.3 Regulatory Information Requirements.................................................................... 1-17 1.4 Explicit Asset Management Requirements ............................................................. 1-19 1.5 Relevant Regulatory Instruments ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Certus Industry Focus: Energy and Utilities Product Sheet
    CERTUS INDUSTRY FOCUS: ENERGY AND UTILITIES PRODUCT SHEET Our Industry Experience Certus Certus’s long track record means we Certus Solutions is the largest IBM systems understand the business drivers and integrator and reseller in the Australasian technology needs of companies in region, with a complete end-to-end IBM the energy and utilities sector. offering we call Certus PurePlay. We have been Our experience encompasses: helping energy and utilities companies achieve their business objectives for more than 20 • asset management, including networked, years. Utility industry certified by IBM, and an distributed, mobile and linear assets IBM Premier Business Partner, Certus brings • work management, including optimised its PurePlay advantage to downstream and scheduling upstream energy and resources operations, and • faults and outage management water supply operations. • health, safety and the environment • connectivity and real-time data, encompassing everything from smart metering to SCADA, and condition monitoring to network operations, and the Big Data implications of smart grids • spatial and geo-locational data • mobile work and workforce management • predictive analytics, ranging from predictive maintenance to demand forecasting • supply chain management • compliance, regulation, risk, and emerging industry standards e.g. PAS 55 • regulatory reporting, and other challenges inherent in a regulated CERTUS INDUSTRY FOCUS: ENERGY AND UTILITIES ENERGY FOCUS: INDUSTRY CERTUS asset industry. FRESH IDEAS. EXCEPTIONAL OUTCOMES. certussolutions.com
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Observations on Forecasts Disclosed by 29 Electricity Distributors in March 2013
    ISBN 978‐1‐869453‐40‐4 Project no. 14.02/13107 Public version Initial observations on forecasts disclosed by 29 electricity distributors in March 2013 Date: 29 November 2013 [BLANK PAGE] Table of contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ X1 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 2. MATERIALITY OF EXPENDITURE CATEGORIES ............................................................................ 6 3. DRIVERS OF EACH EXPENDITURE CATEGORY ........................................................................... 14 4. ‘TOP DOWN’ MODELS OF EXPENDITURE .................................................................................. 23 5. FORECAST CHANGES IN INPUT PRICES ..................................................................................... 32 6. HOW YOU CAN PROVIDE YOUR VIEWS .................................................................................... 35 ATTACHMENT A: PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ......................................... 38 ATTACHMENT B: TARGETS FOR SERVICE QUALITY ....................................................................... 50 ATTACHMENT C: ENERGY EFFICIENCY, DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT AND LINE LOSSES ............. 55 ATTACHMENT D: SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES ................................................................................ 60 X1 Executive summary Purpose of paper X1. Under
    [Show full text]
  • S&P/ASX Index Consultation
    S&P/ASX Index Consultation: New Zealand and PNG Secondary Listings on ASX and Index Eligibility October 2010 JOINT S&P / ASX Disclaimer: The information contained in this consultation paper (the “Paper”) is for the purposes of conducting a market survey only. It does not constitute investment and/or financial product advice. You should consider obtaining independent advice before making any investment and/or financial decisions. Neither ASX, ASX’s directors, officers, agents, employees, or contractors (“ASX Personnel”), nor Standard & Poor’s, Standard & Poor’s directors, officers, agents, employees or contractors (“S&P Personnel”) give any representation or warranty as to the reliability, accuracy or currency of the information contained in the Paper. To the extent permitted by law, neither ASX, ASX Personnel, Standard & Poor’s, S&P Personnel, shall be liable for, or responsible for, any losses, damages, costs, expenses or claims arising in any way (including by way of negligence) from anyone taking an action (or failing to act) based on, or in reliance on, the Paper or any information or material arising from or incidental to the Paper, whether in writing or otherwise. Any reference to “ASX” means “ASX Limited”, “ASX Operations Pty Limited” and all other related bodies corporate. Any reference to “S&P” or “Standard & Poor’s” means “Standard & Poor’s, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.” and all of its affiliates. All currency values are in Australian dollars unless otherwise stated. © copyright 2010 Standard & Poor’s, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, ASX Operations Pty Limited ABN 42 004 523 782 (ASXO).
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Ownership Review
    King Country Electric Power Trust Ownership Review November 2012 Ownership review of the King Country Electric Power Trust 15 April 2011 Mr Brian Gurney Chairman King Country Electric Power Trust PO Box 421 Taumarunui 3946 7 November 2012 Dear Brian, Ownership review We are pleased to provide our report on the following: the performance of King Country Electric Power Trust, including a review of the performance of King Country Energy Limited and The Lines Company Limited, since the last review the advantages and disadvantages of trust ownership a review of the share ownership options in respect of King Country Energy Limited and The Lines Company Limited. Our report will contribute to the five yearly ownership review, as required of the Trustees by Clause 4 of the Trust Deed of King Country Electric Power Trust. This report is provided in accordance with the terms of our Engagement Letter dated 30 August 2012. Our key findings are contained in the Executive Summary of the report. Yours sincerely Craig Rice Partner [email protected] T: 09 355 8641 PricewaterhouseCoopers, 188 Quay Street, Private Bag 92162, Auckland 1142, New Zealand T: +64 (9) 355 8000, F: +64 (9) 355 8001, www.pwc.com/nz Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 2. Executive summary .................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]