Brownlee Gerry: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18170] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 There is little doubt in my mind that this part of the bill was very much an afterthought and it is interesting to note that the line “10-year moratorium on new” thermal baseload is now altered to read “10-year restriction on new baseload fossil-fuelled thermal electricity generation capacity”. I have no doubt that the harsh reality of our current electricity difficulties have impacted on the Minister and have encouraged him to require this particular change. 
This year we have had an extraordinary sort of year as far as reliance on renewable sources is concerned with the low lake levels and it has meant that at times up to 50 percent of the electricity consumed by New Zealanders has been generated from thermal plant at various points around the North Island. The likelihood of there being a continuing problem with lake levels not meeting expectation or effectively storage running out too quickly and of that situation continuing for some years is I think very very high. 
The other question that we would have to ask is why we would ban thermal fossil-fuelled generation completely as was the Government’s first intention and then have so many out clauses for the possibility of that generation being granted approval by the Government. I think one of the reasons is that it just makes good sense to take the worst of our fossil-fuelled plants out of service and replace them with other plants that can not only fire up very quickly but also make greater use of the energy fed into them in the first place. 
If one were to look at the e3p plant at Huntly which is fed by electricity and is a three-stage electrical generation plant then it is an extremely good— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is fed by gas. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is right I say to Mr Mallard—well done! It is fed by gas that is right. And if the member took off the cloth ears he would know that I said it is much more efficient at using the energy fed into it. I tell Mr Mallard that gas when it is burnt is energy. That poor fellow indicates to us why the Labour caucus has been so compliant in allowing the Minister to get away with the sort of nonsense represented in this particular part of the bill. 
Let us look for a minute at what would happen if the electricity industry was encouraged to replace the capacity of the Huntly coal-fired plant with gas as a fuel source. Over a very short period of time New Zealand’s emissions from the electricity sector would substantially reduce. It would have the same amount of output yet it would have a much much reduced carbon dioxide emission. I see the Minister of Finance over there saying: “Ah the member has got it.” Because that would be new that is banned. Replacement is not banned. Oh no those members are shaking their heads again. 
What we are finding is that this is a policy on the hoof type of deal. Those members do not want to tell New Zealanders that or want to say that if our electricity demand continues to grow at its current rate if we ban the use of fossil fuels and new plants and if we rely entirely on the wind always blowing the rivers always flowing or the lakes always filling then we will have more years of the sort we have had just at the moment. Interestingly I tell Mr Parker that no one in the industry would disagree with that. Everyone says that if we want to have the opportunity to get anywhere near the 90 percent renewable target then it will have to be backed up by good thermal capacity for those days when the weather lets us down. 
So I would like a bit of clarification from the Minister in the chair the Hon David Parker as to how if he were the Minister of Energy he would exercise his opportunities under section 62F which is to be inserted in the Electricity Act by clause 67. This part of the bill states that the Minister of Energy can grant an exemption from what is effectively a ban—although in this bill it is now called a moratorium—with all sorts of outs in it. If the Minister is able to indicate to the Committee why he thinks this makes the whole ban or moratorium more palatable to the industry then we would be very interested to know.