But sometimes, if you are lucky, the issue that everyone believed had been swiftly snuffed out can unexpectedly roar back into view.
Taieri Green list MP Scott Willis, despite being his party’s energy spokesman, did not get to have a crack at the government during the last sitting block about its contentious decision to build a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility in Taranaki: others took the lead on that while he restricted himself to asking some pointed questions about power company profits.
Or at least, that was until Sunday, when the United States — seemingly on the basis of a Trumpian instinct — and Israel started to bomb Iran.
Suddenly, with the Strait of Hormuz being closed and the population of the world’s 15th largest exporter of natural gas ducking for cover in bombshelters, LNG — and more specifically New Zealand’s call to back that particular horse in the energy generation race — was back in the public spotlight.
Willis kicked off his Wednesday general debate speech with ‘‘If anyone needed an example of how sensationally idiotic this government’s actions are, liquefied natural gas is it,’’ and from thereon there was little holding back.
‘‘What we’re seeing this week is a government that cannot plan, cannot prepare, and cannot deliver energy solutions. It cannot condemn an illegal war; it cannot protect households from price gouging; it cannot listen to its own officials on solar; and it cannot see that the billion-dollar bet it has placed on LNG is unravelling before the ink is even dry on the paper.’’
Stirring stuff, and there was more to come; Willis roared that the government was holding Kiwis hostage to the global price of LNG (which, thanks to the events in the Gulf surged upwards this week) and also noted with dismay that the government had not seriously considered any alternatives, and had also rejected official advice on boosting household solar and battery generation.
‘‘We need to say RIP to LNG, and yes to energy security through our abundant renewables and greater energy efficiency. The government should have given equal weight to assessing other factors that contribute to the dry-year risk premium, such as the market power, the delayed build, and our untapped energy-efficiency potential.’’
And Willis was not finished there. The following day he tackled Energy Minister Simon Watts on whether or not he had modelled how New Zealand’s exposure to global liquefied natural gas markets would affect electricity prices for households when pitching his proposed LNG terminal?
Why yes, he had, Watts said: ‘‘Independent modelling shows that an LNG importation facility will reduce forward prices by at least $10 per megawatt hour, reducing the average Kiwi’s power bill by $50.’’
But, having ruled them out so quickly, how did Watts know that renewable energy sources would be a more expensive option, Willis asked.
‘‘None of those other options could be delivered within the time, nor would they create the amount of electricity and power required to cover the gap that we have in the electricity market,’’ Watts responded, adding that in the last 18 months New Zealand had had the most amount of renewable generation in the entirety of the last decade.
‘‘It’s an ‘and, and’ conversation, and LNG and renewables are part of the solution.’’
Willis, however, sees this issue as an either/or one — either you burn fossil fuels or you don’t. No prizes for guessing which camp he is in.
‘‘How is tying New Zealanders’ power bills to imported fuels — which are vulnerable to supply disruption and price shocks, as demonstrated by the Iran conflict this week — delivering energy independence?’’ he asked pointedly.
Watts replied, seeing Willis’ LNG and raising him some coal: ‘‘I acknowledge his party are not the biggest fans of coal, but the reality of having another option in addition to coal, which is also subject to international price fluctuation, means that we have more options, and having more options other than just coal to make electricity in a dry year is a good thing. Having more options is better than having no options, and the scenario which inherited and we inherited on coming into government was no options.’’
But why, Willis asked, would the government intervene in favour of gas and not solar?
‘‘This is a government that is making it easier and faster and cheaper to build all electricity generation in this country,’’ Watts replied.
‘‘We need electricity to power our economy. One of the challenges that we inherited is that options were shut down. Banning oil and gas takes options off the table. No oil and gas means no power that can be produced in a dry year.
‘‘Less options mean more expensive power bills for Kiwis. That’s a legacy that we inherited from your government of the Greens and Labour. That’s a legacy we’re turning around.’’
One thing that both men can agree on is that they like being able to light the room up when they hit the switch. The question of how to generate that electricity — particularly in a drought year when hydro generation falls short — is the key point of difference.
Coincidentally, this week Parliament held a special debate on the recently released National Infrastructure Plan — a document which was far from complimentary about how successive governments have planned spending on big ticket items.
Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop, in sombre tones, called the government-commissioned but independently-penned report ‘‘a wake-up call for many people in this House and, indeed, I would say, in New Zealand’’.
Given the government’s steadfast defence of the LNG terminal proposal, it is unlikely to be a loud enough call to prompt a rethink on the plan though.
