Responding to the companies - deconstructing the rhetoric

In response to emails sent to the electricity companies by Clean Energy Guide users, the companies have responded in various ways. Below is some information you can use to interpret and respond to what they say.

1. Contact
2. Genesis
3. Trustpower

Responding to Contact Energy

Contact Energy have said they are surprised that Greenpeace has not offered any public support for their initiatives on climate change.

Greenpeace have publicly congratulated Contact Energy on a number of their initiatives including their commitment to renewable energy development over the next year, energy efficiency programme and policy on distributed generation. However, it is Greenpeace's role to continue to encourage Contact Energy to make changes in the areas in which they are failing such as their continued use of fossil fuels.

Contact have said that gas is critical to New Zealand's energy security.

Greenpeace do not expect Contact to drop their gas stations immediately, but we do expect them to make plans to decommission them in the future, and certainly not expand their gas generation. Contact Energy must commit to focusing on renewable energy beyond 2008.

Contact have said they are taking an industry leadership position in their response to climate change.

Greenpeace applaud Contact Energy for setting emissions reduction targets for the electricity sector, and have highlighted this aspect of Contact's policy on the Clean Energy Guide website. But Contact's plan requires action from their competitors in order to reach this target e.g. for Genesis's Huntly coal fired power station to be shut down. Further, Contact's plan to reduce sector wide emissions actually involves increasing its own fossil fuel generation portfolio by replacing Genesis' Huntly station with Contact's own Otahuhu gas station.

If Contact Energy is to take a true industry leadership position on climate change, it should set clear emissions reductions targets for itself, set plans to phase out existing fossil fuel generation, and rule out any fossil fuel generation in the future.

Contact have said that Greenpeace's analysis is flawed in that it 'focuses on historical assets rather than future-focused initiatives'.

It is incorrect to say that Greenpeace 'focuses on historical assets rather than future-focused initiatives'. A stronger weighting is placed on companies' future plans than on their current generation assets. Greenpeace recognises that companies can more easily make and change decisions on future plans. Once facilities are built, it is a harder choice to shut them down. However all companies have the same opportunity to make good choices now.

Greenpeace doesn't believe that the electricity companies should lay back and just accept as constant the generation assets that were assigned to them by the Government many years ago. All energy companies, including Contact, need to be phasing out their existing fossil fuel generation. Contact is not doing this. In fact it is doing the opposite and hoping to expand its gas generation portfolio through Otahuhu.

Contact have said that their gas generation plants produce 60% less carbon dioxide than coal-fired power stations.

This is exactly why Greenpeace have given a more negative penalty weighting to coal over gas. Genesis is more heavily penalised for Huntly coal station than Contact is for its gas projects (per MW). Contact admits that gas plants 'still do produce climate changing gases'.

Contact have said that it is impossible to differentiate the source of the electricity that makes it into your home.

Greenpeace is very clear about the fact that all electricity generated by companies goes into a central pool or electricity market from which customers purchase electricity. It says so on the website. It is clearly stated that this campaign is not about tagging individual electrons. It's a bigger picture campaign about where consumers' money goes and what kind of energy future consumers want. If people switch to a company that uses only renewable energy sources now and into the future, they know they are investing their money in clean energy. The Clean Energy Guide is designed to inform consumers so that they can take a stand on the energy that they invest in, and encourage electricity companies to invest in renewable energy and measures to encourage energy efficiency as well as distributed renewable energy generation.

Contact have said that we need a diverse range of generation sources so as to provide certainty in electricity flow.

Greenpeace agrees. However, New Zealand can achieve this diversity through different forms of renewable generation such as wind, geothermal, hydro, solar, biomass (organic matter) and in the future, ocean and tidal energy sources. Greenpeace also argues that we need a transition to a sustainable electricity system that uses localised generation close to where it's used. This is more efficient than transmitting electricity around the country. And we need increased energy efficiency and energy conservation so we don't need to generate so much electricity in the first place.

Responding to Genesis

Genesis have said that the rain doesn't always fall and the wind doesn't always blow, so we need a diverse generation portfolio including fossil fuel generation.

Greenpeace agrees that there needs to be a diverse range of electricity sources. However, New Zealand can achieve this diversity through different forms of renewable generation such as wind, geothermal, hydro, solar, biomass (organic matter) and in the future, ocean and tidal energy sources.

Greenpeace also argues that we need a transition to a sustainable electricity system that uses localised generation close to where it's used. This is more efficient than transmitting electricity around the country. We also need increased energy efficiency and energy conservation so we don't need to generate so much electricity in the first place.

Genesis have said that consumers can't choose where the electricity that they use in their home comes from.

Greenpeace is very clear about the fact that all electricity generated by companies goes into a central pool or electricity market from which customers purchase electricity. It is clearly stated that this campaign is not about tagging individual electrons. It's a bigger picture campaign about where consumers' money goes and what kind of energy future consumers want. If people switch to a company that uses only renewable energy sources now and into the future, they know they are investing their money in clean energy. The Clean Energy Guide is designed to inform consumers so that they can take a stand on the energy that they invest in, and encourage electricity companies to invest in renewable energy and measures to encourage energy efficiency as well as distributed renewable energy generation.

If you switch to a company that uses only renewable energy sources now and into the future, you know you are investing your money in clean energy. You can be part of the transition to a 100% renewable, clean energy future which protects the climate.

New Zealanders can band together to choose renewable electricity.

Responding to Trustpower

TrustPower have said that Greenpeace's Clean Energy Campaign is ineffective.

Despite what TrustPower suggests, Greenpeace's Clean Energy Campaign has been very successful. 130,000 copies of the first edition of the Clean Energy Guide were distributed, with thousands more consumers visiting our website.

There has been strong consumer demand for an updated Clean Energy Guide, as well as pressure from the electricity companies to update the information.

If, as TrustPower claim, Greenpeace 'has a very low level of influence' and Greenpeace's lobbying 'is almost completely ineffectual', why are the electricity companies so concerned about the detail of the Clean Energy Guide? Why would TrustPower send out a 1200 word response to consumers who contact them about the Clean Energy Guide, if they did not think that the Guide is an effective campaigning tool?

There has been a very clear shift in the electricity sector's reactions to climate change since the last guide, and we have seen positive changes from most companies. The most dramatic example of this is Mighty River Power's decision (their retail brand is Mercury Energy) to drop their plans to recommission Marsden B power station on coal. Consumer pressure was part of that campaign.

Contact Energy have also made significant improvements since the last guide - they have introduced a Climate Change Action Plan to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and committed to only investing in renewable sources until 2008. They have said that one of the reasons for the shift is that it is what consumers want.

Clearly, consumer pressure and Greenpeace's campaign has had a big effect.

The strong reactions we have had from the companies to the 2nd edition of our guide prove that the companies recognise how powerful a tool the guide is, and how strong the public response to this kind of information can be.

With concern about climate change at an all time high amongst New Zealanders, growing awareness of the climate polluting activities of the electricity sector, and an increasing recognition that as consumers, we have power to influence the actions of climate polluters, we hope that this Guide will be even more influential than the last.

TrustPower have said that Greenpeace should be focusing its efforts on supporting sustainable generation projects.

Greenpeace has in the past campaigned in support of specific sustainable generation projects through the resource consent process. We campaigned in favour of the Awhitu and West Wind wind farms, for instance. We did this because it was important for us to help set up positive precedents for wind farm projects, which we have achieved.

After the Awhitu Environment Court win, an important precedent was set for how climate change must be considered in renewable energy projects - the decision basically quotes our lawyer's submission word for word! This decision will lend enormous support to renewable energy projects in the future.

Having secured these important precedents, the most important thing that we've identified we can do now is working to get the policy settings right so that New Zealand moves rapidly to a sustainable energy future. With more renewable energy projects coming on stream now we need to get back to focusing on the bigger picture rather than still working project by project. With limited resources we can't do everything and we've already given the industry a big helping hand over the last few years.

Through our Yes2Wind website, we continue to encourage local people to get engaged in the resource consent process to get their views heard. We're also working on engaging more people on the climate issue so that they can take action in their own lives on climate change.

TrustPower have said that they are simply being honest by not committing to a policy of 100% renewable electricity and that Meridian could renege on their policy commitments.

Most companies take their policy commitments very seriously and they will be held accountable for them by the public - and Greenpeace - if they breach them.

Greenpeace has a great deal of experience in lobbying companies (including all the work in lobbying food companies on genetically engineered food) and our experience tells us that companies are loath to make a policy commitment that they don't intend to see through in the long term. It would be too damaging to their credibility to do otherwise.

The very fact that TrustPower is so cautious about making a commitment to 100% renewable energy in the future shows that they also see it as a serious and meaningful step. We hope that TrustPower takes this important step soon.
If we are going to meet our Kyoto commitments and avoid dangerous levels of climate change, we need New Zealand's electricity companies to commit to renewable energy.

A policy commitment to develop only renewable energy sends a very powerful message to the Government that Kiwis want clean energy and that industry wants to head in that direction too.

The Government listens a lot to industry. These types of policy commitments will help to push the Government to ensure that the New Zealand Energy Strategy will phase out fossil fuels and lead to a 100% clean renewable electricity system by 2025.

TrustPower have said that they have a 'responsibility to keep people's lights on' and thus cannot commit to only ever generating electricity using renewable sources.

Greenpeace agrees that there needs to be a diverse range of electricity sources. However, New Zealand can achieve this diversity through different forms of renewable generation such as wind, geothermal, hydro, solar, biomass (organic matter) and in the future, ocean and tidal energy sources. Greenpeace also argues that we need a transition to a sustainable electricity system that uses localised generation close to where it's used. This is more efficient than transmitting electricity around the country. And we need increased energy efficiency and energy conservation so we don't need to generate so much electricity in the first place.

TrustPower have said that some of the companies cannot generate enough electricity to serve their customers, and thus have to purchase electricity from other suppliers.

Greenpeace is very clear about the fact that all electricity generated by companies goes into a central pool or electricity market from which customers purchase electricity. This campaign is not about tagging individual electrons. It's a bigger picture campaign about where consumers' money goes and what kind of energy future consumers want. If people switch to a company that uses only renewable energy sources now and into the future, they know they are investing their money in clean energy. The Clean Energy Guide is designed to inform consumers so that they can take a stand on the energy that they invest in, and encourage electricity companies to invest in renewable energy and measures to encourage energy efficiency as well as distributed renewable energy generation.

TrustPower have said that it is unrealistic for Greenpeace to encourage electricity suppliers to pay the retail price for electricity that their customers generate and sell back into the local lines network.

One of TrustPower's competitors, Contact Energy, offers to buy excess electricity at the retail price. It seems that TrustPower is simply unwilling to do the same.

TrustPower also benefits financially from distributed generation through avoided costs - for instance they reduce transmission losses and do not have to pay the capital and running costs of the generation. Consumers deserve a price that reflects the costs that they face in setting up their renewable electricity system.

Renewable electricity is a key solution to climate change, and every individual and company has a responsibility to act. A company like TrustPower can demonstrate that they are serious too, by assisting customers to generate their own renewable electricity.

TrustPower have said that Greenpeace misleads consumers by listing electricity companies by region rather than by lines network.

Greenpeace is aware that it is easier to list electricity companies by lines network rather than by region. Electricity companies do not determine their supply by region, and in some cases, companies serve some households within a region but not others.

We feel that listing companies by region rather than lines network offers a simpler tool for consumers to use, especially as many consumers are not aware which lines network they are connected to. The Consumer PowerSwitch website also lists by region.

On our website, we note that some discrepancies may exist in the listings and that if switching, consumers should phone the electricity company to confirm that they supply to their home.

TrustPower have said that Greenpeace does not understand the difference between generation installed capacity and actual generation output.

Greenpeace understands the difference between installed capacity and actual generation. We chose to judge electricity companies on installed capacity because this is the only constant from year to year and therefore the only reasonable way to do accurately compare what different companies are doing.