DOCSLIB.ORG

NSP000038-28.-EWL-Apprebuttal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NSP000038-28.-EWL-Apprebuttal BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY EAST WEST LINK PROJECT UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) AND IN THE MATTER OF Notices of requirement for designation and resource consent applications by the NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY for the East West Link Project STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF WILLIAM ALAN HEAPS ON BEHALF OF THE NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY Electricity Dated: 20 June 2017 Barristers and Solicitors Auckland Solicitor Acting: Pat Mulligan Email: [email protected] Tel 64 9 358 2555 Fax 64 9 358 2055 PO Box 1433 DX CP24024 Auckland 1140 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 1 2. INTRODUCTION 1 3. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 3 4. EVIDENCE OF SUBMITTERS 4 5. CONCLUSION 19 ATTACHMENT 1: WAIKATO AND UPPER NORTH ISLAND VOLTAGE MANAGEMENT – SUMMARY OF AND RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS 21 ATTACHMENT 2: MIGHTY RIVER POWER PRESS RELEASE 57 ATTACHMENT 3 WAIRAKEI POWER STATION AND THE TAUPO BYPASS 59 BF\57021228\1 1. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 1.1 I have read all of the statements of evidence provided by the submitters in relation to electricity production and associated risks at the Southdown site owned and operated by Mercury NZ Limited (Mercury). 1.2 The main conclusions that I have drawn from reading the statements of evidence are: (a) The Southdown site is not substantially more attractive than all other generation sites. (b) Locating solar at the Southdown site would not be expected to have a security of electricity supply benefit. (c) There are not a range of scenarios where re-establishing power generation at Southdown would significantly reduce the probability of a national electricity shortage. (d) It is difficult to envisage construction of the East West Link on the proposed alignment limiting Mercury’s ability to provide a voltage support service. (e) It is difficult to think of examples where the risk of blackouts is less if Southdown generation can be recommenced 4 months sooner. (f) It is incorrect to state that the lost option value for future generation at Southdown is a substantial economic cost. (g) Restoration of gas turbine operation at Southdown is likely to take much longer than 3 to 4 months and Mercury’s claimed options value loss, due to the time to relocate cooling towers, does not exist. (h) Risks from electricity generation activities and danger to the public are likely to be manageable. (i) Disturbance and disruption issues during highway construction will be manageable. 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 My full name is William Alan Heaps. 2.2 I am Managing Director of an independent consultancy business specialising in energy supply and energy management. I am a qualified electrical engineer and member of the Institution of Engineering and Technology (MIET). BF\57021228\1 Page 1 2.3 I have experience in many aspects of the electricity supply chain and have held several senior executive and governance positions in the energy sector. I was Commercial Manager for CentralPower, an electricity distributor, and General Manager of Energy Brokers, an electricity retail company. I managed the Wairakei and Ohaaki geothermal power stations for Electricity Corporation New Zealand and Contact Energy Limited and was General Manager Commercial Services with Transpower New Zealand Limited. I have been a Director of Orion Networks Limited and Chairman of the Retail, Wholesale Market, Transmission and Investment Advisory Groups for the Electricity Commission and Electricity Authority. I have also chaired several technical advisory groups for the electricity industry. 2.4 In my role as Geothermal Generation General Manager for ECNZ and Contact Energy, I was responsible for managing the power stations and steam field mining operations. A primary component of my work was the management of risks relating to the power generation activities, including the potential risks to the public from the power stations’ operation. 2.5 As a general manager at Transpower, I was involved in the management of the power supply issues relating to voltage support and the Auckland CBD outage in 1998. During the CBD outage, I advised the Prime Minister on demand management options for managing the ‘crisis’. I represented Transpower on ministerial reviews of the electricity industry and during power shortage periods. 2.6 I am currently Managing Director of Strata Energy Consulting Limited, and provide advice and consultancy services on energy issues to a range of clients in New Zealand, Australia, Singapore and Malaysia. Strata’s clients include the major electricity users, electricity generators, retailers, distributors and the governments and energy regulators. 2.7 I have undertaken lead technical consultant roles on several major regulatory reviews of SP Power Assets (Singapore distribution and transmission), Powerlink (Queensland transmission), ElectraNet (South Australia transmission) SPAusNet (Victoria transmission) and Transpower New Zealand Limited (New Zealand Transmission). For the Public Utilities Office in Western Australia, I reviewed the legislative and regulatory framework for energy safety. 2.8 I have provided expert evidence relating to resource consent applications for New Zealand electricity generation plant and, for the Australian Government Solicitor, relating to solar power generation. BF\57021228\1 Page 2 2.9 I advised the Electricity Authority on its investigation of a major substation fire and associated power outage that occurred on a major Transpower substation in Auckland. I have also been technical advisor to the Authority on reviews of major incidents on the power system. For example, I advised the Authority on an incident that occurred during the commissioning of a new component of the high voltage direct current (HVDC) link between the North and South Islands. 2.10 I am currently providing advice to the Security and Reliability Council (SRC), an industry committee required under section 20 of the Electricity Act 2010 to advise the Electricity Authority on electricity supply security and reliability issues. I have advised the SRC on issues relating to the management of risk and on the development of a risk management framework. 2.11 I have been engaged by the New Zealand Transport Agency (the Transport Agency) to provide evidence regarding the accuracy and reasonableness of evidence supporting specific aspects of Mercury’s submission on the proposed East West Link Project (the Project), for which the Notices of Requirement (NORs) and resource consent applications have been lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). Although I did not provide primary evidence for the Transport Agency as part of the initial evidence exchange, I am providing this evidence to respond to some of the matters that have been raised in evidence by submitters. 2.12 I have read the 'Code of Conduct' for expert witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and my evidence has been prepared in compliance with that Code. In forming my opinion, I have not omitted consideration of any material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the views expressed. I have specified where my opinion is based on limited or partial information and identified any assumptions I have made in forming my opinions. 3. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 3.1 In this statement of rebuttal evidence, I will respond to the evidence of: (a) Kieran O’Neill Murray; (b) James Kennedy Flexman; and (c) Damian James Phillis. BF\57021228\1 Page 3 3.2 The fact that this rebuttal statement does not respond to every matter raised in the evidence of submitter witnesses within my area of expertise should not be taken as acceptance of the matters raised. 4. EVIDENCE OF SUBMITTERS Evolution of the use of the Southdown site and its strategic value 4.1 In several respects, the primary points raised in the evidence of Mr Flexman, Mr Murray and Mr Phillis, reflect the impact of the changing electricity market environment, legislation and competition for land use. Mercury is continuing to evolve its use and management of the Southdown site in response to the changing environment. 4.2 The cessation of electricity generation at Southdown in December 2015 was a commercial decision made by Mercury based on its view of the future market value of the electricity generators at the Southdown site. As Mr Flexman points out,1 Mercury decided to retain an option to restart the Southdown generators based on changes in the electricity marketplace. New Zealand’s electricity market is designed and operated to deliver efficient, secure and reliable electricity supplies for the long-term benefit of consumers. Individual market participants make decisions to achieve commercial outcomes that are in the best interest of their shareholders. The market is designed and operated so that generally these interests align with the objective of the national electricity market. 4.3 In his evidence, Mr Flexman claims that the Southdown site has ‘unique, immense and long-term strategic value.2 This will ultimately be tested through the marketplace. At the current time, I understand that Mercury has not contracted with anyone to provide generation services from Southdown, which means that the claimed strategic value of the site is not proven. It is likely that other sites that can provide the services that Mercury is envisioning it could provide from Southdown. The strategic value of the future options for the Southdown site will depend on how competitively the services from Southdown can be provided. 4.4 The establishment of Mercury’s solar and battery storage development facility discussed by Mr Flexman3 is a commercial investment made by Mercury in response to potential opportunities it sees in the emerging markets for these technologies. The strategic value of the site for this activity is primarily to Mercury’s benefit. I disagree with Mr Flexman that the use of the site as a solar and battery storage research facility has significant 1 Statement of Evidence of James Kennedy Flexman for Mercury NZ Limited, 10 May 2017, para 23.
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]
  • 1 Kawatiri Energy Ltd 212 Crawford Street PO Box 851 Dunedin, 9016
    Kawatiri Energy Ltd 212 Crawford Street PO Box 851 Dunedin, 9016 New Zealand By email: [email protected] 9 October 2018 Submissions Electricity Authority P O Box 10041 Wellington By email: [email protected] Dear Electricity Authority Board members, RE: Consultation Paper – List of distributed generation eligible to receive ACOT, Upper South Island Kawatiri Energy owns and operates a 4.2MW hydro generating station at Lake Rochfort in the Buller region on the West Coast. This plant has storage and has been operating since 2013. Water comes into the storage lake from a number of tributaries along the Mt Rockfort range and the generation plant can operate at 100% capacity for 2.5 days from a position of full storage. The plant has a frequency governor and is able to support the entire Buller network outside of peak load periods as well as inject power into the transmission network. Kawatiri’s plant is significant in the Buller Electricity Limited (BEL) network. Distributed generation (DG) accounts for ~30% of maximum coincident MWs and GWh demand on that network1. Transpower2 explicitly includes Kawatiri generation in its planning for operating and maintaining the grid to the required standards. Kawatiri is a member of the Independent Electricity Generators Association Incorporated (IEGA) and support the IEGA’s submission. 1 Buller Electricity Limited 2018 Asset Management Plan. Maximum coincident demand on the network is 11MW made up of supply from DG of 3MW and supply from the grid at 8MW. For the year end 31 March 2019 BEL forecast DG to supply 16GWhs of total demand of 54GWhs.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Environment Court of New Zealand Wellington Registry I Te
    In the Environment Court of New Zealand Wellington Registry I Te Kooti Taiao O Aotearoa Te Whanganui-a-Tara Rohe ENV-2019-WLG- Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) In the matter of an appeal under clause 14(1) of the First Schedule to the Act Between Transpower New Zealand Limited Appellant And Wellington Regional Council Respondent Notice of appeal by Transpower New Zealand Limited Dated 17 September 2019 89 The Terrace P +64 4 472 7877 PO Box 10246 F +64 4 472 2291 Wellington 6143 DX SP26517 Solicitor: N McIndoe E [email protected] 7897549 To The Registrar Environment Court Wellington 1 Transpower New Zealand Limited (‘Transpower’) appeals against the decisions of the Wellington Regional Council (the ‘Respondent’) on the proposed Natural Resources Plan for the Wellington Region (the ‘Proposed Plan’). Transpower owns and operates the National Grid, and its assets across the Wellington Region include 12 substations, 25 transmission lines, three submarine cables, four high voltage direct current links, five overhead fibre cables, and seven communications sites. 2 Transpower made a submission and further submission on the Proposed Plan. 3 Transpower is not a trade competitor for the purposes of section 308D of the Resource Management Act 1991 (‘RMA’). 4 Transpower received notice of the decisions on 31 July 2019. 5 The decisions were made by the Respondent. Provisions being appealed 6 The part of the decision that Transpower is appealing is the Respondent’s decisions on the Proposed Plan that relate to regionally significant infrastructure, and in particular the operation, maintenance, upgrading and development of the National Grid.
    [Show full text]
  • Geothermal Project Reports List.Xlsx
    Geothermal Project Reports List.xlsx Geothermal Project Reports List Call Number Title Author 1979.01 Corrosion testing in geothermal systems ABDURRAHMAN, M. 1979.03 Evaluation of the North Davao geothermal prospect, Mindanao, Southern Philippines AREVALO, E. 1979.04 Geothermal pilot plant studies in Broadlands BASYARI, A. 1979.05 Two-phase geothermal fluid transmission application to El Tatio Geothermal Field, Chile BENABARRE, J. 1979.06 Geochemistry of hydrothermal alteration of the Ohaki Rhyolite, Broadlands Geothermal Field, New Zealand BOGIE, I. 1979.07 Gravity anomalies over the Ngawha Geothermal Field, Northland, New Zealand CORDON, U. 1979.08 Economic analysis of geothermal plant DANU, H. 1979.09 Preliminary study of the binary cycle with reference to its application to the geothermal resources in India RAO, D.H. 1979.10 Mapping and chemical survey of surface distance features, Ngawha Geothermal Field, Northland, New TESFAGIORGIS, P. Zealand 1979.12 Geothermal well design - prediction of flow and heat transfer KANGUA, J.F. 1979.15 Non-electrical uses of geothermal energy - downhole heat exchanger design LEE, K. 1979.16 Mapping of vents associated with Putahi Rhyolite, Northland, N.Z. LETELIER, M. 1979.17 Setting of the geothermal fields of Tibet and a discussion of associated heat source problems LIAO, Z. 1979.19 The potential of the Manito geothermal system, South-Eastern Luzon, Philippines OBUSAN, R. 1979.20 A literature survey of geopressured systems PENG, D-J. 1979.21 Build-up test analysis of Ngawha and Kamojang wells PRATOMO, H. 1979.22 Thermodynamics of geothermal plant - optimisation studies TARIGAN, G. 1979.23 More efficient use of geothermal heat at Broadlands Lucerne Company's drying plant VAN DE WYDEVEN, F.
    [Show full text]
  • Geothermal Power Development in New Zealand - Lessons for Japan
    Geothermal Power Development in New Zealand - Lessons for Japan - Research Report Emi Mizuno, Ph.D. Senior Researcher Japan Renewable Energy Foundation February 2013 Geothermal Power Development in New Zealand – Lessons for Japan 2-18-3 Higashi-shimbashi Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan, 105-0021 Phone: +81-3-6895-1020, FAX: +81-3-6895-1021 http://jref.or.jp An opinion shown in this report is an opinion of the person in charge and is not necessarily agreeing with the opinion of the Japan Renewable Energy Foundation. Copyright ©2013 Japan Renewable Energy Foundation．All rights reserved. The copyright of this report belongs to the Japan Renewable Energy Foundation. An unauthorized duplication, reproduction, and diversion are prohibited in any purpose regardless of electronic or mechanical method. 1 Copyright ©2013 Japan Renewable Energy Foundation．All rights reserved. Geothermal Power Development in New Zealand – Lessons for Japan Table of Contents Acknowledgements 4 Executive Summary 5 1. Introduction 8 2. Geothermal Resources and Geothermal Power Development in New Zealand 9 1) Geothermal Resources in New Zealand 9 2) Geothermal Power Generation in New Zealand 11 3) Section Summary 12 3. Policy and Institutional Framework for Geothermal Development in New Zealand 13 1) National Framework for Geothermal Power Development 13 2) Regional Framework and Process 15 3) New National Resource Consent Framework and Process for Proposals of National Significance 18 4) Section Summary 21 4. Environmental Problems and Policy Approaches 22 1) Historical Environmental Issues in the Taupo Volcanic Zone 22 2) Policy Changes, Current Environmental and Management Issues, and Policy Approaches 23 3) Section Summary 32 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Asset Management Plan 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2030 Contents
    Asset Management Plan 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2030 Contents SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 7 Quality of supply ................................................................................................................... 47 Consumer responsiveness ................................................................................................... 51 Highlights of this AMP ............................................................................................................. 8 Cost performance ................................................................................................................. 52 Conductor renewal ................................................................................................................. 8 Network continuance ........................................................................................................... 54 Duty of care ............................................................................................................................. 8 Utilisation and losses ............................................................................................................ 58 Consumer expectations .......................................................................................................... 8 Objective commitments ....................................................................................................... 59 Uneconomic reticulation issues ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • BEFORE the ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991
    Court File Reference: ENV-2018-CHC-38 BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA UNDER The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) IN THE MATTER Appeals under clause 14(1) of the First Schedule of the Act in relation to the Proposed Southland Water and Land Plan BETWEEN MERIDIAN ENERGY LIMITED Appellants AND SOUTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF GUY MEREDITH TE PUKA WAIPARA FOR MERIDIAN ENERGY LIMITED 15 February 2019 Judicial Officers: Judge Borthwick and Judge Hassan Solicitor acting: Counsel acting: Humphrey Tapper Stephen Christensen In-house counsel Project Barrister 287–293 Durham St North PO Box 1251, Dunedin Metro 9054 Christchurch Central P 027 448 2325 Christchurch 8013 [email protected] [email protected] STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE LTD (ENV-2018-CHC-27) HORTICULTURE NEW ZEALAND (ENV-2018-CHC-28) ARATIATIA LIVESTOCK LTD (ENV-2018-CHC-29) WILKINS FARMING CO (ENV-2018-CHC-30) GORE AND SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCILS, INVERCARGILL CITY COUNCIL (ENV-2018-CHC-31) DAIRYNZ LTD (ENV-2018-CHC-32) H W RICHARDSON GROUP LTD (ENV-2018-CHC-33) BEEF + LAMB NEW ZEALAND (ENV-2018-CHC-34 AND 35) DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CONSERVATION (ENV-2018-CHC-36) SOUTHLAND FISH & GAME COUNCIL (ENV-2018-CHC-37) MERIDIAN ENERGY LTD (ENV-2018-CHC-38) ALLIANCE GROUP LTD (ENV-2018-CHC-39) FEDERATED FARMERS OF NEW ZEALAND (ENV-2018-CHC-40) HERITAGE NEW ZEALAND POHERE TAONGA (ENV-2018-CHC-41) STONEY CREEK STATION LTD (ENV-2018-CHC-42) THE TERRACES LTD (ENV-2018-CHC-43) CAMPBELL’S BLOCK LTD
    [Show full text]
  • Attendee Conference Pack
    Wind Energy Conference 2021 Rising to the Challenge 12 May 2021, InterContinental Hotel, Wellington, New Zealand Programme Joseph, aged 9 We would like to thank our sponsors for their support 2021 Wind Energy Conference – 12th May 2021 Wind Energy Conference Programme 12 May 2021 InterContinental, Wellington Rising to the Challenge Welcome and Minister’s The energy sector and renewables Presentation ▪ Hon Dr Megan Woods, Minister of Energy and Resources 8.30 – 9.00 Session 1 Facilitator: Dr Christina Hood, Compass Climate Decarbonising the New Zealand’s journey to net zero carbon energy sector ▪ Hon James Shaw, Minister of Climate Change 9.00 to 10.45 Infrastructure implications of decarbonisation ▪ Ross Copland, New Zealand Infrastructure Commission The industrial heat opportunity ▪ Linda Mulvihill, Fonterra Panel and Audience Discussion – testing our key opportunities and level of ambition ▪ Ross Copland, New Zealand Infrastructure Commission ▪ Linda Mulvihill, Fonterra ▪ Briony Bennett (she/her), Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment ▪ Matt Burgess, The New Zealand Initiative ▪ Liz Yeaman, Retyna Ltd Morning Tea Sponsored by Ara Ake 10.45 to 11.15 Session 2 Waipipi, Delivering a wind farm during a global pandemic Jim Pearson, Tilt Renewables Building new wind Australian renewables and wind development update 11.15 -1.00 ▪ Kane Thornton, Clean Energy Council DNV’s Energy Transition Outlook what it means for wind energy ▪ Graham Slack, DNV A changing regulatory landscape and implications for wind and other renewables ▪ Amelia
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Submission to the Electricity Authority on the Transmission Pricing Methodology: Issues and Proposals
    Vector Limited 101 Carlton Gore Road PO Box 99882, Newmarket 28 March 2013 Auckland 1149, New Zealand www.vector.co.nz Corporate Telephone +64-9-978 7788 Submissions Corporate Facsimile Electricity Authority +64-9-978 7799 PO BOX 10041 WELLINGTON To whom it may concern, Cross-submission to the Electricity Authority on the Transmission Pricing Methodology: Issues and proposals Introduction 1. Vector welcomes the opportunity to make a cross-submission on the Electricity Authority‟s (Authority) consultation paper, “Transmission Pricing Methodology: issues and proposal” (TPM Proposal Paper), dated 19 October 2012. 2. No part of our cross-submission is confidential and we are happy for it to be made publicly available. 3. Vector‟s contact person for this submission is: Robert Allen Senior Regulatory Advisor [email protected] 09 978 8288 Common themes and near universal disagreement with the Authority’s TPM proposal 4. On the evidence that the Authority‟s consultation paper received a large number of submissions with only three parties offering support for the proposal (NZX (qualified support), Pacific Aluminium (qualified support) and Meridian Energy), we conclude that: a. the Authority has failed to demonstrate its proposal would be to the long- term benefit of consumers; and b. the proposed TPM should not be introduced. 5. The support from NZX and Pacific Aluminium is heavily qualified. NZX suggests the development of the SPD charge should be delayed for one to two years; the cost benefit analysis is not sufficiently developed and there should be further engagement with the industry on alternative options. Pacific Aluminium‟s support is limited by their view that South Island generators should continue to pay for the HVDC link, which means Pacific Aluminium and Meridian Energy are unlikely to agree on the same version of the proposed TPM.
    [Show full text]
  • Lines to Vines and Wines
    Lines to Vines and Wines Annual Report 2016 The investment that broke the The Beauty industry mould — see page 67 of Blue Sky Thinking About this report Report objectives This 2016 report summarises Marlborough Lines’ operations, activities This report meets the New Zealand compliance and legislative and financial position for the 15 month period to 30 June 2016 following requirements of the Companies Act, The Financial Reporting Act a change in our balance date from 31 March. Marlborough Lines Limited and the Energy Companies Act, whilst also providing easy to read is the Parent company of the Marlborough Lines Group of companies. information on Marlborough Lines’ aspirations and performance In this report we provide as appropriate, numbers and tables for the for 2016 – the factors which affect our performance, and our goals financial indicators of both the Parent and Group, and where necessary, for the 2016 year. The industry and regulatory environment in which descriptions of the activities of the individual entities comprising we operate is complex and for that reason we have provided for our investments within the Group. References in this report for the year stakeholders an outline of our position, activities and attributes in means the 15 month calendar period 1 April 2015 to 30 June 2016 the supply chain for electricity (see page 26). On pages 62 and except for Parent operational data which, for compliance purposes 63 we also outline the regulatory environment applicable to our and in accord with Commerce Commission criteria, is provided for electricity network business. the 12 month period to 31 March 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • THE GENESIS ENERGY SHARE OFFER PROSPECTUS DATED 13 MARCH 2014 Important Information
    THE GENESIS ENERGY THE SHARE OFFER GENESIS ENERGY PROSPECTUS DATED 13 MARCH 2014 DATED PROSPECTUS SHARE OFFER INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING OF ORDINARY SHARES IN GENESIS ENERGY LIMITED PROSPECTUS DATED 13 MARCH 2014 we’re in it for you IMPORTANT INFORMATION IMPORTANT NOTICE —the signed consent of the Auditor to the audit report Genesis Energy, their respective offi cers, the directors This document (“Prospectus”) relates to the Off er by appearing in this Prospectus; of Genesis Energy or any other person referred to in this the Crown of ordinary shares in Genesis Energy Limited. —the signed consent of Ernst & Young Transaction Prospectus with respect to the achievement of the results A description of the Off er and the Shares is set out in Advisory Services Limited to the investigating set out in any such statement, or that the underlying Section 7.1 Details of the Off er. accountant’s report appearing in this Prospectus; assumptions used will in fact be realised. —the signed consent of Beca Limited to the This document is a prospectus for the purposes of the independent engineer’s report appearing in SUPPLEMENTARY DISCLOSURE AND Securities Act and the Securities Regulations and is this Prospectus; WITHDRAWAL RIGHT prepared as at, and dated, 13 March 2014. —the signed consent of Gaff ney, Cline & Associates If any signifi cant adverse developments occur This Prospectus is an important document and should be (Consultants) Pte Limited to the independent expert’s prior to the Allotment Date, the Crown and Genesis read carefully before deciding whether or not to invest in report appearing in this Prospectus; Energy may advise investors of those developments Genesis Energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Breach Notice 2011-122 GENESIS POWER LIMITED Notifying Participant GENESIS POWER LIMITED Participant Allegedly in Breach CONTACT
    Breach notice 2011-122 GENESIS POWER LIMITED Notifying participant GENESIS POWER LIMITED Participant allegedly in breach CONTACT ENERGY LIMITED MERCURY ENERGY LIMITED ON GAS LIMITED Parties to breach notice Breach notice 2011-138 TETENBURG & ASSOCIATES LIMITED Notifying participant GENESIS POWER LIMITED Participant allegedly in breach CONTACT ENERGY LIMITED ON GAS LIMITED Parties to breach notice Record of settlement of alleged breach of rule 26.2.1 of the Gas (Downstream Reconciliation) Rules 2008 186180.1 2 Record of settlement of alleged breach of rule 26.2.1 of the Gas (Downstream Reconciliation) Rules 2008 Breach Notice: 2011-122 Between: Notifying participant: Genesis Power Limited Participant allegedly in breach: Genesis Power Limited Parties to alleged breach: Contact Energy Limited, Mercury Energy Limited, On Gas Limited Breach notice: 2011-138 Between: Notifying participant: Tetenburg & Associates Limited Participant allegedly in breach: Genesis Power Limited Parties to alleged breach: Contact Energy Limited, On Gas Limited Background 1. Pursuant to regulations 18(3) and 23 of the Gas Governance (Compliance) Regulations 2008, the Market Administrator referred alleged breaches of rule 26.2.1 of the Gas (Downstream Reconciliation) Rules 2008 (“the Rules”) to an investigator, Jason McHerron, for investigation. 2. Rule 26 is in Part 2 of the Rules, which contains the rules relating to the allocation process. Rule 26 is headed “General obligations of allocation participants”. Rule 26.2.1 provides that every allocation participant must provide the information required under the Rules in a manner that is accurate and complete. 3. These alleged breaches both relate to the Palmerston North Gas Gate, PLN24201.
    [Show full text]