My submission on the Fast-track Approvals Bill

There are some really hard-hitting submissions on the Fast-track Approvals Bill coming to light now that the select committee call for submissions has closed.

One of the best submission is from Environmental Defence Society and see their media release.

For what it's worth, here is my submission on the Fast-track Approvals Bill.

1. It is wrong immoral and unethical to cause adverse effects on the environment (damage pollution or destruction of habitats plants aninmals and ecosystems).
2. It is more unethical to damage the environment in order to make money.
3. It is even more unethical to damage the environment for money while claiming that the environment will be protected, mitigated or offset.
4. It is even a further step more unethical to damage the environment that has been legally recognised as deserving of conservation status for money while claiming that the environment will be protected, mitigated or offset.
5. It is worse again than this to also illegally downgrade and expunge the conservation status of a conservation park so a land swap could be arranged to provide for the footprint of an irrigation dam. That was the finding of the Supreme Court over the legality of the Ruataniwha project's conservation land swap proposal.
6. It is worse again to do this with no public hearing.
7. It is worse again to do this with no fact-based right of appeal.
8. It is worse again to do this when the resource exploitation is for coal - when the IEA and the IPCC say that coal reserves must be left in the ground to avoid 1.5 degrees of global warming.
9. It is worse again to destroy the habitat of endangered and threatened endemic species such as the Mt Augusta snail which was only found on the summit of Mt Augusta within the unique coal measures habitat of Buller that was destroyed by the Stockton Mine.
10. It is an order of magnitude more unethical to enact unconstitutional legislation that gives biased politicians with known funding from resource extraction industry a bundle of "Henry VIII powers" decision-making powers that allow them to bypass resource and conservation laws to approve failed resource exploitation projects that have adverse environmental effects in conservation areas.
11. This bill does not have a constitutionally valid justification. There is factually no valid "business case" for this bill.
12. It is a knee-jerk politicised reaction to the inevitable failure of highly speculative ill-advised resource exploitation that were all found to be invalid under a range of relevant statutes.
13. Going back to the John Key premiership, there were similar ridiculous projects. The tunnel to Milford under the Routeburn track, the monorail to Milford in the Snowden conservation area and the gondola to Milford via the Greenstone valley. We have a history of ridiculous resource exploitation projects.
14. Fortunately sanity and due process prevailed as the Hon Nick Smith declined approval of the first two projects.
15. The projects such as the Ruataniwha Dam, Te Kuha/Escarpment coal mine, Trans Tasman Resources marine consent, the Waitaha Morgan Gorge hydro project, all validly failed on their merits againts current statutes and policies after hearings and examination by independent decisions-makers or courts.
16. This was, as a matter of fact, not "obstruction" or "red green tape". It was not failure. It was actually proof that the suite of Aotearoa's resource laws were working as intended. To prevent adverse environmental effects on Aotearoa's special and unique environments.
17. Is it too much to ask the three Ministers that the rule of law is followed? That the relevant independent court and hearings decisions are respected?
18. Isn't the rule of law the most important attribute of a funcioning democracy?
19. Like the Trans Tasman Resources marine consent proposal for "suction mining" of the ocean floor, the bill will "suck up" the offending resource legislation blamed by the three Ministers.
20. The the relevant protective statutory considerations (which are set out in schedules to the bill) will be reduced to so much mud-like fine silt - that will then be just ignored by the three decision-making Ministers in their intemperate urgency to personally approve illegitimate and destructive projects.
21. It is just wrong and ill-liberal for the bill to give the three decision-making Ministers such direct decision-making powers in place of independent decision makers who have appropriate training and vocations.
22. The only connection the three Ministers have with resource conservation and environmental law are their links to extractive industries. That should disqualify them from being decision-makers.
23. The bill seems to have been written expressly to circumvent several resource and conservation statutes as well as the independent decision-makers.
24. It is not so much a bill, as a grab-bag of "Henry VIII powers" that allow the three Ministers to bulldoze over Aotearoa's natural resource and conservation statutes.
25. That is repugnant, abominable, egregious and morally reprehensible.
26. I request that the fast track approvals bill not be enacted.

If it's worth paying New Zealand Steel to reduce emissions shouldn't we first stop paying them emission units to increase emissions?

The $140 million emissions subsidy to New Zealand Steel is not just corporate welfare, it's greenwashing and it's climate bright siding and it's our insane emissions trading scheme. Can we have our 16 million free emissions units back?

I am still blown away by the Government's announcement a week ago that they will pay New Zealand Steel Ltd $140 million over three years to adopt an electric arc furnace that reduces the emissions intensity of steel smelting.

I am also blown away by the over-egging of the project by the Chris Hipkins, Megan Woods and James Shaw.

Hipkins states:

“The economics of this really stack up, especially compared to current carbon prices. The lifetime abatement cost is forecast at $16.20 per tonne. Current carbon prices are around $55 per tonne. In the long term this saves the Government and the country money.

And I am also aghast at the largely uncritical treatment of the announcement in the media. Much comment fails to look at the NZ Steel deal in the context of our dreadful emissions trading scheme (or ETS). Some comment has included basic errors of fact such as saying New Zealand Steel is exempt from the ETS.

Massive emissions cutting deal says Luke Malpass in Stuff.

James Shaw is quoted by RNZ

"The lifetime abatement cost is forecast at $16.20 per tonne. Current carbon prices are around $55 per tonne. In the long term this saves the government and the country money."

Duncan Greive at The Spinoff calls it the beginning of a new climate pragmatism.

Duncan Greive makes this factual error.

"NZ Steel was already exempt from the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), having baldly stated that it would have shut the factory were it to have to pay the cost of its emissions"

No, New Zealand Steel is not exempt from the emissions trading scheme (They would be more likely to face a carbon price if they were exempt). Yes, they have threatened to close the smelter. Several times

Michael Neilson in the Herald says the initiative is remarkable.

Bernard Hickey agrees with Hipkins and says it's $140m well spent at $16.20/tonne.

Even the Lawyers for Climate Change Action, who have just filed a judicial review of the December 2022 ETS price settings decision, said "This is a great initiative"

What's the relevance of Hickey and Hipkins and Shaw comparing the predicted cost per tonne of emissions reduced with the current market price of emission units?

It's emission pricing. Carbon prices are emblematic of having an emissions trading scheme. And in theory New Zealand is big on emissions pricing.

The Ministry for the Environment keeps saying "the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme is the Government’s main tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions". New Zealand has had an emissions trading scheme since 2010. It includes the steel industry.

This is the emissions pricing logic.

• NZ Steel's emissions are covered by the ETS and are priced via the mandatory surrender of emission units.
• NZ Steel has a project to reduce emissions that will cost less per tonne of emissions than the current market price.
• NZ Steel's overall emissions liability under the ETS will reduce.
• The project pays for itself as it is the lower cost option.

That's what emissions trading schemes are meant to do.

So why isn't NZ Steel paying 100% of the cost? Why is the Government paying almost half? Why are Hipkins, Wood and Shaw saying this subsidy isn't just necessary but it's good policy?

The answer is the bullshit that is the emissions trading scheme Industrial Allocation rules.

Tom Pullar-Strecker of Stuff, who seems the only skeptical voice, correctly notes New Zealand Steel would never fund the electric arc furnace as they receive so many free emission units under the ETS Industrial Allocation rules.

Pullar-Strecker has also noted that in New Zealand Steel's last annual report, it received free emission units worth $117 million. And that the chief executive stated they received so many free emission units that carbon costs were "neutralised" including indirect ETS costs from electricity prices.

Just to repeat the point again. New Zealand Steel are allocated far more free emission units than needed for their actual smelter emissions.

They have never needed to buy any additional units to comply with the ETS.

Here is the chart of actual final allocations of emission units from the EPA to NZ Steel compared to the estimated actual steel emissions from the Greenhouse Gas Inventory.

What's that mean? Buying emission units and surrendering them back to the Government annually is the essence of an emissions price.

Receiving free emission units and surrendering some of them back to the Government and keeping some each year (you are always a net seller) is the opposite of an emissions price.

Receiving free emission units is in fact payment of a subsidy for New Zealand Steel's emissions.

If New Zealand Steel increases it's emissions they receive more units

If New Zealand Steel reduces it's emissions they would receive fewer units

So if New Zealand Steel installed the electric arc furnace, and reduced emissions from its Glenbrook mill by 800,000 tonnes, they would be financially worse off as they would lose more than 800,000 emission units.

That is how insane the emissions trading scheme is.

This chart shows the $308 million value of the unit allocation subsidy to NZ Steel from 2010 to 2021 and highlighted is the Government's electric arc furnace grant of $140 million over three years 2022 to 2024.

Our emissions pricing scheme is so flawed it incentivises maintaining and increasing emissions. It is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. This is emissions trading insanity.

If it's worth paying New Zealand Steel to reduce emissions shouldn't we first stop paying them to increase emissions?

Double dip Fonterra also wants to be paid for increasing emissions and paid for reducing emissions

Data and R code.

Check this out from Radio New Zealand. No doubt following the New Zealand Steel double dip precedent, Fonterra has also got it's hand out to the Government to double dip government subsidies for both increasing and reducing emissions.

Fonterra says $100m in carbon credit costs could help pay for clean energy

Fonterra chief operating officer Fraser Whineray told Morning Report today that it was working to reduce emissions, but more government assistance would help.

At the moment, for each tonne of greenhouse gases the company must pay into the government's Emissions Trading Scheme, but Whineray said he would like to see more of that be given back to Fonterra to help it introduce more clean alternative energy sources.

"Our total off-farm emissions in New Zealand at the moment is about 1.5 - 1.6 million tonnes [per year], and so you times that by the carbon price, and that's roughly the cost of surrendering carbon for our emissions in New Zealand each year.

"The ETS is supposed to recycle funds back into decarbonisation. And if we're spending more than $100m a year on carbon credits, getting a little bit of that back to help pay for the actual projects - some of which we've got under way and some much larger ones in front of us, that sounds like a pretty reasonable starting point."

But Fonterra has been paid and continues to be paid to increase their coal thermal emissions under the 'Industrial Allocation' rules of the crazy emissions trading scheme.

Here is a bar chart of free emission units given to Fonterra under the 'Industrial Allocation' rules. The total number of units given to Fonterra over the 12 years since 2010 is 450,413 emission units.

Allocation of units is proportional to production. That method is called "output intensity" based allocation.

If Fonterra increases its production it gets more units. The allocation of units incentivises increasing emissions.

How come Fonterra doesn't mention its already being given a government hand out for maintaining and increasing its emissions?

Here is a chart of the year by year value of the free emission units given to Fonterra.

The U shaped dip reflects the collapse of carbon prices when the market was flooded by dodgy imported international 'hot air' emission units in 2012 and 2013.

The 2021 sharp upward increase in value of the allocations is caused by the 2020 changes to the emissions trading scheme. Out went paying for unit surrender liabilities with unlimited volumes of units at a fixed price of $25 per tonne. In came auctions of units four time a year.

If it's worth paying Fonterra to reduce it's emissions shouldn't we first stop paying them to increase their emissions?

Megan Woods announces grants to decarbonise industry coal and gas boilers that the ETS has subsidised for twelve years

Why does New Zealand's emissions trading scheme (ETS) involve twelve years of subsidies to businesses to keep fossil fuel heat sources before the Government can provide a subsidy to replace the same fossil fuel heat sources with carbon-free renewable heat sources?

The curious case of the third round of grants under the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund.

Have you seen the Minister for Energy the Hon Dr Megan Woods' media statement of today?

"Helping some of New Zealand’s highest energy users slash their emissions"

It's about the third round of grants under the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund. This is a subsidy to encourage energy users to move from fossil fuel thermal to renewable thermal energy sources. To help the recipient companies replace coal, oil or gas in their thermal boilers with renewable fuels. Fair enough! Great! What's not to like?

The "elephant in the room" level policy inconsistency is that three of the recipients Minister Woods mentions have also been receiving free allocations of emissions units since 2010 - which are an incentive to keep the same fossil fuel boilers that they are now getting grants to replace!

We can see which businesses from the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund grant scheme have also been receiving free emissions units by cross referencing the the Environmental Protection Authority spreadsheet of final industrial allocations.

The three are:

1. Southern Paprika Limited, GIDI grant; $4,979,520, ETS free emissions units 83,061 2010 to 2020 worth $1,374,001, 14233 units in 2020.
2. Blue Sky Meats (N.Z.) Limited, GIDI grant; $377,250 ETS free emissions units 6134 units 2010 to 2020, 1122 units in 2020.
3. Gourmet Paprika Limited, GIDI grant; $575,250, 43962 units 2010 to 2020, 6909 units in 2020.

We know from the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund third round of grants that:

Southern Paprika is NZ’s largest single site capsicum grower near Auckland , privately owned by the Alexander and Levarht families. Over the last 22 years, the site has grown to 26 hectares of glass houses, and employs around 160 people locally and from the Pacific Islands.

Southern Paprika's project is to install New Zealand’s first CO2 recovered biomass boiler.

Here is a barchart of the 83,061 emission units allocated to Southern Paprika Limited.

Each of the three companies has probably received a 'provisional' allocation in 2021 and may still be eligible for another provisional allocation for 2022. So each company has been receiving free emissions units for the last twelve years because they have fossil fueled thermal boilers as a part of their operations. Usually as a heat source.

Two of the three companies are exporters of 'hothouse' grown vegetables. They are deemed to be at a competitive disadvantage as in theory their energy costs have increased and as there is the very distant prospect that they have international competitors in a country with no emissions pricing.

They are not even participants in the Emissions Trading Scheme who have an obligation to report emissions and an obligation to surrender units to the Government.

The free allocation of emissions units is not balanced out by any return of emissions units back to the Government under the ETS. It is a straight-out transfer of economic value to the companies. It's a subsidy.

Here is a barchart of the market value of the emission units allocated to Southern Paprika Limited. I used a mid May spot price as that is the approximate date the EPA transfers the provisional allocation. The sum of the May priced allocations is $1,374,001.

It is possible that Southern Paprika Limited has not sold any of it's 83,061 emission units and that they are part of the 'stockpile' of 158 million surplus emissions units recorded on the Emissions Units Register.

In that case the market value of the units is 83,061 x $76.60 equals $6,362,473.

I will just clarify what I mean by saying the emissions trading scheme rewards the maintenance of fossil fueled heat sources. If any of the three companies replaced a fossil thermal boiler with a renewable thermal boiler they would no longer be eligible for the free emissions units. They would lose the allocation of units and be worse off financially.

The freeby emissions units are in fact an incentive to keep the fossil thermal boilers. Yes, the emissions trading scheme is subsidizing the use of a fossil fueled industrial heat source by the three companies.

A question I might email the Minister is to ask is "how is it good emissions reducing policy to provide an incentive for keeping thermal boilers for 11 years then immediately move to a subsidy for replacing the thermal boilers with renewable energy?"

Or "will any of the three companies receive in the same year a subsidy of free units (incentivising keeping the fossil thermal boilers) and a subsidy to replace the boilers with renewables from the GIDI fund?"

Why couldn't the Government have gone straight to a subsidy to install renewable energy boilers in 2010?

Sometimes I can't believe how badly coordinated some of our climate change policies are.

Turn off Meridian open letter to Mark Binns on why I am divesting from coal-pushing Meridian Energy

When is a renewable electricity generator not a renewable electricity generator? Or what do you do when the electricity generator who are claiming to supply your home with 100% renewable electricity enters into a commercial contract that keeps a coal-thermal power station emitting carbon dioxide for an additional four years?

Meridian Energy has recently signed a contract with Genesis Energy to keep the Huntly coal thermal power station open for four more years instead of closing in 2018.

New Zealand has made some predictions of future reductions in emissions that we have confidently sent off to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Unfortunately Meridian's action has had the effect of sending the emissions savings up in a puff of coal smoke.

So I decided to divest from Meridian Energy and move my account to electricity supplier to Ecotricity who own only 100% renewable generation capacity and who are certified as carbon neutral. I used the Consumer Power Switch website. There is also the Whats my number web site.

I thought I should let Meridian Energy know I was voting with my account so I sent this open letter to Meridian Energy two weeks ago on 16 June 2016. I have not yet received a reply.

Mark Binns
Chief Executive
Meridian Energy Limited
PO Box 2128
Christchurch 8140

16 June 2016

Re: Meridian Energy’s support for four more years of thermal coal electricity carbon dioxide emissions from Huntly Power Station

Dear Mr Binns,

I am a Meridian retail customer. My customer number is TrJ5I19vcteK2 My account number is 1.h@"]41Y6x#5-r.

I consider climate change to be a serious risk that we are all morally obliged to respond to. In 2012 I deliberately chose Meridian as my electricity retailer because of it's 100% renewable generation.

I am aware that to some extent the electricity I consume inevitably draws on some fossil-fueled capacity due to the networked nature of the grid. However, I was satisfied that choosing Meridian as my retailer was the best I could do in terms of reducing carbon dioxide emissions as I would not be contributing my money to any fossil-fueled thermal generation. In the past four years I have been very happy with that choice and with the service I have received from Meridian. Unfortunately, I did not know that Meridian had a contract with Genesis to keep the Huntly coal thermal power station operating to 2018.

On 28th April 2016, Meridian Energy announced that it had signed a new contract with Genesis Energy that would keep the Huntly coal thermal power station operating for an extra four years. This contract therefore postpones the expected closure from the planned 2018 date to 2022. I have read the statement on the Meridian website explaining the contract as a means of reducing the risk of low levels in the hydro lakes. The explanation fails to take climate change seriously.

The Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC sets out very simply the carbon budget consistent with limiting global warming to less than two degrees Celsius. The global warming we will experience will be linearly proportional to the cumulative volume of carbon dioxide emissions emitted by humanity. To prevent further dangerous levels of warming with a reasonable probability, cumulative emissions cannot exceed the carbon budget. At that point, emissions must not exceed net zero.

As a matter of physics, the additional emissions that will come from Huntly for the extra four years will result in higher and more dangerous eventual global warming. Meridian Energy's actions have facilitated these additional emissions.

I find Meridian’s actions to be completely contrary to the IPCC's finite carbon budget conception of mitigation and with Meridian’s previous statements on renewable electricity. Those statements now appear very shallow and insincerely held to say the least.

Therefore, it gives me some satisfaction to inform you I am moving my electricity account to a 100% renewable electricity generator who has carbon neutral certification and who is not a party of the Huntly contract. It is my sincere wish that as many customers as possible who are concerned about climate change also leave Meridian.

Yours sincerely

Helter smelter deja vu Tiwai Point smelter uncertainty stalls renewables for more Huntly coal

I look at how New Zealand Aluminium Smelter Limited is behind the Meridian/Genesis deal keeping the Huntly Thermal Power Station burning coal as the threat of closing the Tiwai Point smelter is stalling the construction of consented renewable energy projects. NB This post also features on Hot Topic.

My last post at Hot Topic was about energy companies Meridian and Genesis doing a deal to keep the Huntly Thermal Power Station open (and burning coal) for an extra four years.

My post really just noted how backwards the decision was in terms of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. And that the expected shut-down of Huntly represented the only predicted drop in energy emissions New Zealand had advised to the UNFCCC. And that reduction has just gone up in smoke.

However, New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited and the Tiwai Point smelter have a malignant background role in the Huntly deal.

Meridian Energy said the deal was necessary to provide security of energy supply if the hydro lakes are low. That is only the case if the next 'cab off the rank' of renewable energy capacity is not built to replace Huntly. The generators don't want to build any new renewable capacity if the smelter closes and Meridian then releases cheaper Lake Manapouri hydro electricity onto the grid.

Hence helter smelter deja vu all over again.

The last time I blogged about the smelter was in late 2012, when the Government was rolling out the partial privatisation and float of Meridian Energy. New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited chose that moment to threaten to close the 'unprofitable' smelter and to demand cheaper electricity from Meridian.

For a re-cap of the issue, see this summary by Bryce Edwards as of April 2013. The conclusion was in August 2013 with a new (secret) power deal with Meridian with the Government putting in a $30 million subsidy on the promise of no plant closure before the end of 2017.

In terms of climate change policy, Gareth Renowden pointed out that the closure of the smelter would be a good thing.

Electricity prices would fall as Meridian's cheaper Manapouri hydro power would enter the wholesale electricity market. The most expensive generation, from coal and gas thermal plants (such as Huntly) would be forced out of the market by price. Electricity security would be better, as Lake Manapouri's storage would be available as a buffer for droughts instead of being committed to the smelter.

Cheaper power, less emissions, more renewables, more security. That sounds like the right strategy on a planet with a finite carbon budget consistent with no more than two degrees celsius of warming. What's not to like?

Now fast forward to April 2015. Meridian has been partially floated. New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited is yet again stating that its electricity transmission costs are too high and linking that to the smelter's future.

Board Chair Brian Cooper said

"No decision had been made about the future of the smelter, and we are doing everything we can to secure a long-term commercially competitive electricity price for the smelter."

So back to square one. New Zealand Aluminium Smelters saying yet again "Nice smelter, you got there. Shame if something happens to it". So who do they expect to give them a handout this time? Transpower, actually. The opportunity being the Electricity Authority's review of transmission costs, in which a draft proposal was expected to give New Zealand Aluminium Smelters a windfall of fifty million dollars.

I suppose I should not be surprised by this sort of business behaviour. However, I am more interested in the electricity demand implications of a smelter closure.

Belinda Storey of Pure Advantage says that the threats to close the smelter have made future predictions of electricity demand uncertain. And therefore

"Electricity companies have delayed investments in wind, solar, and geothermal energy while the Tiwai negotiations hold to ransom the forecasting of future demand."

In November 2015, Meridian CEO Mark Binns confirmed that new electricity investments had been stalled by the possibility of the smelter closing

"because nobody wants to build a new plant if Tiwai Point can go on 12 months notice".

In December 2015, Binns confirmed to Fairfax's Tom Pullar-Strecker that a smelter shut-down would release about 1.15GW of electricity, which would drop wholesale electricity prices and that none of the generators wanted to build the power station that would stop first when electricity demand dropped below supply. Binns even said

"No-one wants to spend a lot of money and have a stranded asset".

So, in 2016, in New Zealand's electricity market, renewable electricity projects will be stranded assets. Pretty much because of New Zealand Aluminium Smelter Limited's preferred mode of corporate behaviour.

The only thing more bizarre are the completely contradictory media releases from Energy Minister Simon Bridges.

In August 2015, Bridges was celebrating the 2018 Huntly closure as 'creating renewable opportunities'. In April 2016, Bridges commended the reversal of the Huntly closure as a 'transition' 'down the path of greater renewable generation'.

Is there no use of fossil fuels that Bridges won't describe as 'transitional'? Is there any other explanation for Bridges' contradictory statements than the assumption that he is a complete political weather vane when it comes to policy?

Conclusion

From that last no doubt factual comment of Mark Binns, we enter a "Bizarro World" of contradiction and ridiculousness. In the rest of the world, Nicholas Stern and Mark Carney and Carbon Tracker have laid out the case that coal, oil and gas reserves are stranded assets. But in New Zealand, it is new renewable electricity generation that will be stranded assets.

All because of consistently unethical behaviour by one trans-national company. And the Minister of Energy views the situation as within his very elastic definition of 'transition' and is happy to leave direction of the market to the partially privatised generating industry. Never mind carbon budgets and the Paris Agreement.

The Huntly power station decision - projected energy emission reductions to 2020 up in coal smoke

The decision to keep the Huntly coal thermal power station open for another four years is not only contrary to all New Zealand's commitments and climate targets, it also sends the Ministry for the Environment's projections of stabilising energy emissions to 2020 up in a cloud of coal smoke. NB this post is also features on Hot Topic.

We seem to have had an extra dose of announcements and activities about climate change in an action-packed month of April.

We have had our Minister, Paula Bennett, signing the UN Paris Agreement. The Morgan Foundation's "Climate Cheats" report made a big splash. That lead to Jack Tame's grilling interview of Paula Bennett. Then the Royal Society of New Zealand released two major reports on climate change; one on impacts and another on policy responses. The business-backed Pure Advantage group released a report on enhancing forestry sequestration.

So what did the New Zealand energy industry do to elbow it's way into the climate change spotlight? How do you beat signing the Paris Agreement or compete with climate fraud?

Well, you just say you are going to burn more coal!

On 28th April 2016, Genesis Energy and Meridian Energy announced they had reached an 'arrangement' that would keep the coal-burning Huntly thermal power station open for an extra four years. This deal postpones the expected shut down from the planned 2018 date to 2022.

Patrick Smellie notes two interesting details of the story. First, the irony that the "100% renewable" generator Meridian Energy has led the process of negotiating with Genesis. And second, that the public announcement of the shut-down by Genesis was just 'code' for negotiating a higher price from other generators.

The Green Party's Gareth Hughes points out that on the basis of Huntly's generation of 1,277 GWh of energy in 2015, the closing of Huntly would have lifted New Zealand's proportion of renewable electricity generation from 79.9 percent to 84.5 percent. So unsurprisingly the Meridian-Genesis deal is just 180 degrees in the wrong direction in terms of the 90 percent renewable target and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Greenpeace has given us ten reasons to shut Huntly and have started an on-line petition to keep to the plan and shut Huntly.

But what effect will this have on the Ministry for the Environment's projections of energy emissions out to 2030? These are part of the December 2015 report "NZ’s Second Biennial Report under the UNFCCC". This chart shows projected "with measures" emissions and "without measures" (i.e. business as usual).

In the chart, the projected "with measure" emissions for each sector are the circles and lines. The projected 'business as usual'/'without measures' emissions are the lines between the data points marked by triangles on 2020 and 2030. That's because the without measures projections are for only two years! It is almost as if they are an after-thought.

The other thing to note is that for agriculture, transport and industry, there is no difference between "with measures" and "without" projections. This is of course because the Ministry is reflecting the Government's intention to exempt those three sectors of the economy from any climate change policy.

However, have a close look at the energy sector projections. There is some 'daylight' visible between the 'with' and 'without' projections. The "without" trends ever so slightly upward and the "with" trend is a plateauing. So something is expected to change the slight upward emissions trend to a plateau. The Biennial Report states on page 39;

"Energy emissions are expected to increase between 2013 and 2015, but then fall between 2015 and 2020. The remaining coal-fired power plant in New Zealand is expected to be decommissioned by 2018, reducing emissions from coal. Coal-fired electricity generation is expected to be replaced mainly by a combination of hydroelectricity, geothermal, wind, and gas-fired peaking plants in the modelled scenario".

In other words, the 'something' was the closing of Huntly. The Ministry for the Environment was relying on Genesis Energy to honour its public statement that it was closing Huntly. Which of course would then be attributed to the New Zealand emissions trading scheme. However it looks like the projections are now out-dated.

Conclusion

The 2030 emissions projections show that New Zealand's climate change policies are intentionally not affecting three out of five sectors of the economy. Now with two power generators reaching a private agreement to keep an non competitive asset, Huntly thermal power station, emitting for four extra years, the projected savings in energy emissions out to 2030 have gone up in a puff of coal smoke.

Pro-coal Minister of Everything Steven Joyce goes feral; attempts to influence the Environment Court and the Court of Appeal

Today I was absolutely gobsmacked by a statement by Steven Joyce, the Minister of Economic Development, in an official New Zealand Government press release.

Joyce explicitly took the side of and promoted the cause of Aussie coal miners, Bathhurst Resources, in two up-coming court cases.

Joyce said:

"The Escarpment Mine is an open cast mining project that is ready to go and would provide 225 jobs and incomes for workers and their families on the West Coast straight away. The developer is being held up from opening the Escarpment Mine by on-going litigation that has gone through the Environment Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal. These on-going objections are to resource consents which were granted more than a year ago. The whole consenting process for this development has now taken a staggering seven years. I call on those objectors to the mine to reconsider their appeals and consider the economic future of the West Coast and its people."

I know Joyce is very pro-development, Joyce even has his own archive of posts on Hot Topic, where Joyce's preference for fossil fuel developments is obvious.

But this time he has crossed a line. Joyce is using his position as a Minister of the Crown to explicitly influence decisions yet to be made by the Environment Court and the Court of Appeal on the resource consents sought by Bathurst.

Joyce is breaching the Sub judice rule.

Let me back up and start at the beginning. The resource consents for the Escarpment mine proposal were applied for in August 2010. Not seven years earlier as alleged by Joyce. Bathurst took over the project from L and M Coal Ltd.

As Hot Topic noted, in August 2011, the hearing commissioners acting for the regional and district council considered with some anguish that resource consents could be approved. This was in spite of the many adverse effects on native species habitat, water quality and the coal-measure limestone landforms within the Mt Rochfort Conservation Area. It was also after the commissioners refused to factor in climate change effects from the eventual release of carbon dioxide from the coal. In other words, it was a pretty marginal decision.

However, the resource consents are not legally granted, as Forest and Bird and the West Coast Environmental Network immediately lodged appeals with the Environment Court. This is Joyce's second factual error; in an appeal of a resource consent, the council's decision ceases to exist. The Environment Court starts from a blank piece of paper, examines the facts and makes it's own decision. It considers consent appeals on a 'de novo' basis.

Then Bathurst started the cycle of litigation - by applying to the Environment Court, separately from the consent appeal, to have the effects of climate change barred from the consent appeal Bathurst succeeded. So Forest and Bird and the West Coast Environmental Network appealed that decision to the High Court.Bathurst won that appeal. However, Forest and Bird and the West Coast Environmental Network appealed the High Court decision to the Court of Appeal.

So there are two court hearings yet to happen.

1. The Environment Court is yet to decide on the facts; if the resource consents 'promote sustainable managemnent' of resources and may be granted.

2. The Court of Appeal is yet to decide on the law; whether it permits or stops the Environment Court considering the greenhouse effects of the carbon dioxide emissions from the downstream combustion of the coal.

Now Steven Joyce, a Minister within the Executive branch of Government, is expressing an opinion on what the outcome of the Court's process should be.

This is contrary to the 'sub judice' rule; which is "Don't comment on undecided Court cases". Or as set out in Parliament's Standing Order 112.

"112 Matters subject to judicial decision
(1) Matters awaiting or under adjudication in, or suppressed by an order of, any New Zealand court may not be referred to in any motion, debate, or question, including a supplementary question, subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter or to consider delegated legislation. (2) To enable the exercise of the Speakers discretion under paragraph (1), a member who intends to refer to such a matter must give written notice to the Speaker of this intention."

Or as set out in the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives document "Sub judice rule". Chapter 16 in 'Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand'. New Zealand Parliament (14 October 2010).

"The Standing Orders prohibit reference in any debate to any matters awaiting or under adjudication in a court from the time the case has been set down for trial or otherwise brought before the court, if it appears to the Speaker that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case...This is the implicit acknowledgment by the legislature that the proper forum in which to resolve legal disputes is the courts and that the legislature, above all other institutions, should take extreme care not to undermine confidence in the judicial resolution of disputes by intruding its views in individual cases...The House's sub judice rule takes effect in criminal cases from the moment a charge is made and in other cases from the time proceedings are initiated by filing the appropriate document in the registry or office of the court. The restraint ceases when the verdict and sentence are announced or when judgment is given. If notice of appeal is given, the restraint reapplies from the time of the notice until the appeal has been decided."

Or as set out by the Speaker, Margaret Wilson, on 16 October 2007, in "Speaker's Rulings Sub Judice Rule Operation.

"It seems to me that it is important in any consideration of it to emphasise the high constitutional nature of the rule. It stands as an expression of the relationship between the different branches of government; the legislative branch and the judicial branch. This House determines what the law should be, but it is for the courts to determine in each particular case how the law is to be applied. In criminal matters, it is not for this House to decide guilt or innocence. That is a matter for a court of law. Standing Order 112 defines quite precisely when this constitutional principle is engaged."

Obviously, Joyce and the rest of National just don't give a stuff about anything of a high constitutional nature or the rule of law, or Joyce driving his Bagger 2000 coal excavator through the sub judice rule. Clearly such things are just the concerns of those pesky people who obstruct progress when government tries to remove roadblocks in the way of business development.

Even not-so-bright Minister of Energy Phil Heatley knew better than to comment on the Environment Court case when he was asked about it on a Q and A interview.

"Phil. Well, you appreciate, Shane, this is before the courts. I'm a bit limited about how much I can discuss this. But the reality is Denniston, like any other application, has to go through a process, and there is a balance between the economic benefits and the- what impact it'll have on the environment."

Kevin Hackwell of Forest and Bird has responded promptly to Joyce's call and raised the issue of how independent other decision making may be, such as the decision to grant access for mining on the Mt Rochfort conservation area, which is also yet to be made by the Minister of Conservation, Kate Wilkinson.

"There would be a serious question, given his public advocacy, about whether such a decision has been influenced by government policy."

That's an important point. Especially since the Government wants to make stop the Minister of Conservation deciding mine access to conservation areas on the basis of conservation purposes. The Government has just introduced amendments to the Crown Minerals Act which add the Minister of Energy as joint decision-maker and add economic matters to the mandatory conservation purposes the Minister of Conservation must consider.

We will have to see how this 'sub judice' breach plays out for Joyce, given his party and Prime Minister have no problem with John Banks and his unknowingly non-anonymous donations.

I could not think of a better reason to reject having a joint Energy/Conservation Ministers and joint economics/conservation goals decision over mines on conservation land than Steven Joyce's attempted interference in the Environment Court and the Court of Appeal cases concerning the Escarpment mine.

Solid Energy and the declining price of coal; neither unforeseen or dramatic or a crash

On Monday Don Elder the Chief Executive of New Zealand's Solid Energy confirmed that a major restructuring of the NZ coal miner would require closure of the Spring Creek underground mine and the loss of 460 jobs over the company.

This move had been signaled in advance, but it is still making most news broadcasts today. Elder attributes the need to downsize to trends in international coal prices. For example Elder told Radio New Zealand;

an unforeseen, and dramatic, global price crash had rocked the industry.
"In the second week of July the markets tanked, demand fell through the floor," he said. In up to six weeks the price plummeted 40 to 50 percent and did not show any sign of bouncing back anytime soon."

The new chair of the board of directors, Mark Ford, said in a press release;

“The price for Spring Creek’s semi-soft coking coal would need to be somewhere from NZ$180-200 a tonne for the operation to deliver a profit and pay off the investment made in it,” Mr Ford said. “International semi-soft contracts are now being made at around NZ$120 a tonne.”

New Zealand PM John Key seems to have accepted the Elder view that prices are to blame.

"The issue isn't that we're not on their side, the issue is that international coal prices aren't on their side."

"In the case of Solid Energy it's a victim of falling commodity prices."

The NZ media seem to have uncritically accepted the price explanation. In one story, Fairfax reported the reason for the mine closure and job losses as being due to a severe downturn in global coal prices

Not so, "Chalkie", of the Fairfax NZ business section. "Chalkie" took Solid Energy to task for blaming their troubles entirely on the international coal price. Chalkie also satirised Elder's cornucopian Think Big style lignite and coal-gas proposals.

Chalkie says he doesn't believe Elder has credibility when he says current coal prices in NZ$ are 20% lower than at the bottom of the 2008 global financial crisis. Chalkie points out that Elder's quoting of a coal price of $330 USD per tonne, as the top of the price mountain that the price has now fallen off, is just unrealistic.

In June 2011, a record price of $US330 a tonne for Australian hard coking coal, was reached because of supply shortages following the January 2011 Queensland floods which drowned most of Queensland's coal mines.

Chalkie also notes that a coking coal price of $USD126 a tonne is still well above the norm before the GFC. I have complied some prices for Australian hard coking coal. Data at Google Docs. Coking or metallurgical coal is used in steel making, and usually trades at a premium price above 'thermal' coal supplied to power stations. I prepared a chart of prices per tonne in $USD from 2006 to 2012. Spring Creek Mine coal is 'semi-soft' coking coal, which I think means its price is not quite the same as coking coal, but still more than thermal coal.

The post Queensland flood price of $USD330 a tonne sticks out as a spike or outlier as does the 2008 high of $USD250 tonne, which also followed a La Nina mine flooding event. Coal producers might not want to know about global warming, but global warming certainly knows about Queensland's coal mines.

And here is a chart of 2012 monthly hard coking prices in $USD. The data.

The price for Aussie had coking coal has fallen consistently in 2012. However,there is no cliff the price has fallen off in July 2012. The hard coking coal price did not plummet 40 to 50 percent in 6 weeks as Dr Elder says. The price trend is neither "unforeseen" nor "dramatic" and nor is it a "crash".

It's not hard to find reasons for the decline in the price. of coal. Reuters reports a number of reasons. Demand for coal is down in China. While the floods stopped the Aussie supply, steel makers looked to substitute other suppliers. Mongolia is increasingly eating into Australia's share of coal exports to China.

Chalkie also notes that the Huntly East underground mine has had some safety issues. Work to install a $NZ40 million ventilation tunnel, the sort of thing Dr Elder criticised Pike River Coal for not having, stopped in August 2012. Could it be that Solid Energy is using the international coal price as an excuse to avoid spending the money needed to make its underground mines as safe as the public now expect in a post-Pike River Coal disaster world?

Chalkie also notes a "field of dreams" approach to the Taupo wood pellet plant, (later written down in value by $NZ30 million) and delays in the Mataura lignite briquette plant. Given the execution of these smaller projects, Chalkie questions Solid Energy's ability to deliver on the grander lignite conversion plans.

I will leave the last word to Chalkie.

Every day at 8.30am sharp, management at Solid Energy would gather for morning prayers at the company shrine.
The small room was dominated by a huge gleaming slab of coking coal, etched with phrases from an early foreign exchange hedge contract. The dozens of executives stood facing it, arms by their sides, palms turned towards the slab in unison.
It was always a brief, uplifting affair. The CEO would begin with a chant: "Every day in every way, we expect coal prices to rise."
The executives would respond: "And rise they shall."
CEO: "With wood pellets and lignite we will rule."
Response: "Nothing bad will happen."
CEO: "Our big ideas are worth squillions."
Response: "Yes, probably more."
CEO: "Gentlemen, make it so."
And with that they would shuffle out shiny-cheeked into the morn.

Neil Armstrong coal mines carbon dioxide and global warming the High Court moon walks us to a very hot place

On the same day as the death of Neil Armstrong, the first astronaut to step onto the Moon, became public, the New Zealand High Court moon-walked its way to it's own off-the-world moment. It decided that greenhouse gas emissions and global warming are off-limits in the planning for an open cast coal mine. That's as just as 'out of this world' as denying that the Moon landings ever happened.

On Saturday, two bits of news struck home to me very strongly. The first was the death of moon-landing astronaut Neil Armstrong. The second was the decision of the New Zealand High Court that for new open-cast coal mines, their carbon dioxide emissions and global warming are legally and jurisdictionally unrelated in the Resource Management Act.

The moon landing. I remember very well as a seven year old listening attentively to the 'one small step' broadcast in 1969. The whole class was silent under the spell of our teacher's scratchy transistor radio.

It's one of my most strongly held memories of my childhood. I guess that reflects well on that class of seven-year olds. They stopped playing bullrush, sniffing with colds, and fighting over play-lunchs to listen attentively to the unfolding of one of humanity's most historic moments.

While I was still fondly remembering the Moon landing, the next news item struck.

It was the New Zealand High Court decision barring discussion of carbon dioxide emissions when coal mines seek Resource Management Act consents (see Radio NZ, NBR and TV3 and the Otago Daily Times).

Of course this is about the Perth coal company Bathurst Resources and their Escarpment Mine Project.

Bryan Walker of Hot Topic has posted that this project represents New Zealand doing a Pontius Pilate and washing its hands of the emissions.

I have previously posted that the decisions by councils and the Environment Court to date reflect the zombie ETS infecting the Resource Management Act with climate madness.

My Saturday morning reverie of the Moon landing was rudely stopped and I sort of grumbled to myself;

"Open-cast coal mines and global warming are unrelated!! Thats about as sensible as saying the Moon landings were faked by NASA. Neil Armstrong would just have smacked someone in the face!"

From small half-asleep reactions, blog posts do grow. With the wee footnote that it was actually Buzz Aldrin who punched the Moon landing denier.

I could do a review of the legal issues, but that would be just more legal-climate yadda yadda. I will just note that back in the early 1990s, the Bolger National Government not only considered that greenhouse gas emissions were an adverse effect under the Resource Management Act; they also considered the RMA to be one of the main tools to deal with global warming.

As for the science of it, I will just point to a couple James Hansen charts from his The Case for Young People paper.

The first is cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide. Approving new coal mines adds to cumulative global emissions of carbon dioxide. The second chart shows likely scenarios for temperature. The more carbon dioxide accumulates, the higher the likely temperature.

The facts are that each time a new coal mine is approved, we are just adding to the temperature overshoot above two degrees.

Why is it that the High Court can't apply this simple logic? Why are we even in a position where the High Court can sever the undeniable link between new coal mines, the volumes of carbon dioxide accumulating globally, and the inevitable temperature rise? What has has happened to our legal and planning systems to make this sort of decision possible?

To me this outcome - where the global effects of more GHG emissions are legally severed from approval of a new coal mine - is just as 'out of this world' as denying that the Moon landings even happened.

The zombie ETS infects the RMA with climate insanity

The Environment Court won't consider James Hansen evidence on coal and climate change in the appeal against the Escarpment opencast coal mine consents

The New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme ("NZETS") has become living-dead "zombie" legislation that infects other statutes with its own virulent climate change insanity. The example is a recent decision by the Environment Court that it can't consider climate change impacts of coal mining as described by James Hansen in the Forest and Bird appeal of the resource consents for the opencast 'Escarpment' coal mine.

The other week I saw the zombie genre film 28 Weeks Later on tv. The turning point in the film was when British actor Robert Carlyle kissed his wife and was instantly infected with the 'Rage Virus', which of course meant he had to turn into a homicidal-virus spreading-living-dead zombie who would then infect the rest of the surviving population of post-Rage Virus London. A great zombie movie movement!

For me, another much less amusing zombie moment, was last week's news from TVNZ, Radio NZ, the Otago Daily Times, and the Dominion Post, that the Environment Court had declared that climate change effects from coal mining will not be considered in Forest and Bird's appeal of the consents for the opencast coal mine the Escarpment_Mine_Project.

For background to the Escarpment Mine Project, including James Hansen's videotaped climate change evidence given to Jeanette Fitzsimons, and the conservation and biodiversity issues, see Claire Brownings Pundit post. And there is wildlife photographer Rod Morris' view that the mine proposal is simply ecological destruction on a massive scale. Botanist Alan Mark reminds us that the coal measure landscape of the Denniston Plateau is the only one left as Solid Energy have destroyed the other one - the Stockton Plateau.

According to the Dominion Post, Judge Newhook's decision was "that regulatory activity on the important topic of climate change is taken firmly away from regional government and made the subject of appropriate attention from time to time by central government by way of activity at a national level".

If we are at all unclear what that means, coal apologist and Stratera boss Chris Baker explains that this means the NZETS; "We have an emissions trading scheme, we are well ahead of our obligation internationally...".

The utter ill-logic of the "we have an ETS, more coal mining and exporting is okay" argument is that although the NZETS applies to all coal mined within New Zealand, all coal exported is exempted. Bathhurst Resources intends to export all the coal from the Escarpment Mine. So the application of the zombie NZETS to coal mining means that there will be no carbon price on the coal from the Escarpment Mine.

And this zombie effect of the NZETS in making coal "alive but dead" to a carbon price, then infects the application of our great sustainability-promoting externality-internalising Resource Management Act. The coal exports are "regulated" (in reality protected) by the NZETS. Therefore the RMA doesn't apply.

The consequence will be that the Environment Court will not be considering the effects of the Escarpment Mine on a level playing field. They will attempt to reach a broad overall judgement of what is sustainable. They will balance the economic effects of more export dollars and jobs on the West Coast against the many adverse environmental impacts on a unique coal measure ecosystem full of rare and endangered endemic species. But the scales of justice won't be fairly weighted, as the adverse impact and the externality of the greenhouse effect of the coal have already been taken off the adverse effects side of the ledger.

The NZETS is truly a ZOMBIE.

The Ministry has fallen

Is the Environment Court a bulwark against emissions-intensive projects such as open-cast coal mines that will provide the coal that will exacerbate climate change? You would think it would be wouldn't you?

You would think that our great history-making sustainability-promoting Resource Management Act would give a fair shake of the stick to the idea of considering climate change as some of the possible adverse effects of a proposal.

Especially if the proposal is an opencast export-oriented coal mine on protected conservation land, where adverse effects on biodiversity and on rare natural landforms would obviously be an issue.

Apparently not.

Bathhurst Resources Limited are a relatively new coal mining company in New Zealand. Bathhurst Resources would like to construct an open cast mine on an area of 200 hectares of conservation land on the southern Denniston Plateau, on the West Coast near Westport. Bathhurst would extract and export between one and four million tonnes of coal a year. Bathhurst call it the Buller Coal Project. Wikipedia calls it the Escarpment Mine Project. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society calls it the wipe out of the ecology of the Denniston Plateau. Bathhurst Resources and Solid Energy have successfully made a pre-emptive strike against the appeals of the council decisions to grant resource consents to Bathhurst Resources for their proposed open cast coal mine in the Mt Rochfort Conservation Area on the West Coast's Denniston Plateau - the Escarpment Mine Project.

Bathhurst Resources and Solid Energy have successfully obtained a declaration from the Environment Court that climate change effects from the combustion of the coal cannot be considered in the appeal of the resource consents.

Dominion Post - Miner eyes fast-track option for Denniston

TVNZ Climate change ruling irresponsible

Forest and Bird - Court decision ignores serious threats of climate change

Otago Daily Times - Court will not consider climate change.

I am left wondering if the judge concerned bothered to attend one of James Hansen's talks last year.

It seems that the Environment Court is a bit like the Ministry of Magic in the Harry Potter novels. It denied that Voldemort had returned. It then weakly opposed him and then "The Ministry has fallen" under control of the Deatheaters.