Power prices and pollution

Press, 26 November 1980, Page 24

Power prices and pollution

i PATRICK NEARY, president of the New Zealand Clean Air Society, responds to the article by Mr B. E. Brill, Parliamentary Under-Secre- ?'• tary to the Minister of Energy, which appeared ?• on this page on November 14.

The New Zealand Clean Air Society has considered the statement of Mr B. E. Brill, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Energy, published on November 14. Though he identified with our concern, we find his statement confusing and we would much j-ather have him say that t ie Government fully accepts its moral undertakings under the 1972 Clean Air Act and that this, is the criterion which will guide the Government in formulating its energy ■ policy in relation to Christchurch. Mr . Birch’s comparisons, based on' the number of mean degree days annually, are riot valid with respect to air pollution problems. Just because a small town like Taupo has. some cold nights in ..winter, it does not have the same air pollution problems, arising from open fires, as a large city like Christchurch. Degree days, indicating heating requirements, cannot be dixorced, .when air pollution R rob ' e '™’ are being compared, from density of P°P«> atlon ’..Wr pography. arid geographical considerations. . w . Mr Brill , also chose Wellington arid said that the average electricity consumer there spends only SoO less than his counterpart in

Christchurch. Yet in the Hutt Valley Electric Power Board area an average consumer using natural gas for (looking and heating has an average bill of $164 compared to 5330 if he uses electricity for the same purposes. Mr Brill mentioned that only 77,000 homes are connected to natural gas in the North Island but it would be more revealing if this figure were split into districts. For instance, now many consumers are connected in Whangarei, with its low heating requirements, compared to the Hutt Valley with its more demanding weather? The Hutt Valley Power and Gas Board pavs bulk 3.0 cents per kWh of electrical energy and 0.5 cents for the natural gas equivalent: i.e. gas is one sixth the price of electricity. The 19S0 Energy Plan'estimated that gas use would double in households over the planning period. The use of gas has an important bearing on peak power loadings, which in turn has an important bearing on the amount the supply authority must pay for its bulk power. Since natural gas has become available, the Hutt Valley has had a much improved load factor. Hutt Valley Power and Gas Board can, by the judicious use of gas, reduce its peak

loading for electricity and thus reduce the cost of the power to its customers. Mr Brill takes comfort in suggesting that electricity is marginally cheaper than coal in Christchurch and infers that so many people personally prefer coal that they continue to use it for domestic purposes. In fact, the increases in the price of electricity have driven many people to open up their fireplaces, recommission solid fuel appliances and generally to revert to coal for heating hot water. Even the approved solid fuel appliances smoke heavily when operated at low heating rates and the heavier cost of electricity has led more people into operating coal appliances over longer periods at slow’ rates of operation. We believe that over many years government agencies have created a public impression that there, has been a shortage of electricity and this subtle pressure has resulted in a tardiness to change to electricity. Unlike the North Island, there are no subsidies to change to clean fuels in Christchurch. Householders in the North are paid a $2OO grant to change to natural gas and are given an interest-free loan over four years. up to $5OO when cooking, space and water heating are all by natural gas. The grants cost the government $471,000 in 1979, while the cost in inter-est-free loans amounted to $57,000. In Christchurch domestic coal advertisements (even by

government agencies like State Coal) continue as a matter of routine throughout the year. The New Zealand Electricity Department, however, does not promote the sale of its product. There are many old homes in Christchurch with inadequate .wiring for whole house heating. Yet there are no $2OO grants or $5OO interest-free loans to change to clean electricity. Indeed, after twenty years of struggle the society reluctantly accepts that the standards of domestic coal being supplied are declining and that any actions by governments have, now and in the past, tended to reduce the supply of clean burning fuels. . For the Government to ignore the serious air pollution problem in Christchurch by committing itself mainly to energy .intensive' industries is an indication that the health problems being created in Christchurch are being ignored. To clean up the air here by giving Christchurch comparable concessions to those given to natural gas users in the North Island is considered bv Mr Brill to be the “soft option." This society believes that if New Zealand were really informed on the environmental situation in Christchurch, it would readily agree to the Government remedying the situation. We believe that development work into new electrical power stations to be used mainly for aluminium smelters should be funded by some other source that

Christchurch electricity consumers when it is known that our air pollution problem is so severe. We ask:— “Does the domestic gas user in the North Island pay his full contribution towards capital cost of the Mauibased investment?” We have noted from the 1980 Energy Plan that there are now doubts on the environmental case for lead reduction in petrol. The implication is that lead levels will not now be reduced. We hear that the electrical vehicle works at Christchurch is producing far below its rated capacity, yet there is no encouragement. Indeed, the Energy Plan hardly discussed electric vehicles and only the alternative and synthetic fuels based on natural gas were really considered. The Clean Air Society will continue its struggle, for cleaner air, but we judge from Mr Brill’s statement and the 1980 Energy Plan that reducing the air pollution problem in Christchurch is not a serious part of the central Government’s policy at present The power that controls the price of energy determines the quality of the air in Christchurch; the ordinary residents are only continuing what various Governments have encouraged them to do over the years, and yet the people are blamed. Even so because each Christchurch domestic consumeruses 25 per cent more electricity that his. Auckland counterpart, he is paying more for energy-intensive .development.