Aportaciones de la documentación a la calidad del Periodismo

In 1978, the first steps were taken to strategically plan for energy related issues with the development of a Ministry of Energy and the New Zealand Electricity Department (PCE, 2003). These authorities became the new responsible entities for the generation and transmission of electricity throughout New Zealand (PCE, 2003). In

103 1979, in an attempt at providing a comprehensive review of New Zealand’s energy situation, New Zealand’s first energy strategy was released acknowledging the growing ‘importance of energy in satisfying national social and economic objectives’ (Ministry of Energy, 1979, p. 3). The strategy identified that a long-term program of action was needed to meet New Zealand’s energy demands, while minimising the economic, social and environmental costs (Ministry of Energy, 1979). Around this time the ‘Think Big’ strategy was initiated and although through its development many significant projects commissioned, questions were being asked about if ‘big’ thinking is actually better (PCE, 2006a). ‘Although the centrally planned supply network met requirements of consumer demand, there was considerable debate over its economic efficiency and the absence of competitive elements’ (CAE, 2002, p. 5). The planning of generation and transmission capacity expansion, although integrated through the central government, was allowing the public sector to bulge and project expenses were beginning to run well over budget, for example the doubling of budget expenses for the Clyde Dam (Cocklin, 1993).

In the mid 1980’s, after a change in government, a new era of electricity sector structure was delivered. In light of international movements encouraging market- orientated approaches, a major review of the government’s role in the electricity sector commenced (PCE, 2003). During this time the entire structure of electricity industry began a transition towards a more market-based approach, decreasing the role of the state (Barton, 2005). This resulted in the disbanding of the Ministry of Energy in 1989 and the establishment of the commercial profit seeking state owned enterprise (SOE) Electricity Corporation of New Zealand (ECNZ), effectively creating a ‘commercial’ electricity monopoly in generation, transmission, and retailing. Government involvement in large scale public works by means of the MOW (such as hydroelectricity development) ceased, and responsibility for such work was passed onto the private sector (Cocklin, 1993; MED, 2005). Government had started working to distance itself from the responsibility for energy resource management and policy. This process was in many respects an experiment, as New Zealand was one of the first countries to take such an aggressive line against government market intervention, and the effects of such action were not clear. It was hoped that market forces would lead the development and management of energy in a more efficient and competitive price environment.

104 The Electricity Act 1992 provided for the deregulation of the industry, which targeted both the generation and retail sectors, by permitting the removal of the distributors’ statutory monopolies on their areas and releasing them from their obligation to supply electricity (Chapman et al., 2006; PCE, 2003). However, because of the nature of the reform, no effective national action was developed to encourage investment, and industry self-regulation within ECNZ or its successors was not focused on sustainability within the electrical sector (PCE, 2003). The CAE (2003) described a situation where ‘critical investment in further delineation of primary energy sources and expansion of energy reserve capacity has simply not occurred’ (p 5) and claimed that government reforms had resulted in ‘a fragmented and incomplete market (which) is not delivering supply-side solutions’ (p. 7).

By the late 1990’s it was clear that the targets in developing a market led electricity sector were not being achieved, the strict market based approach that was taken had not operated as fully as government had intended (MED, 2005). Government advocacy for further reform, especially increased competition, in the electrical sector was manifested in the Electricity Industry Reform Act 1998. The 1998 Act divided the electricity sector into four parts: generation, transmission, distribution, and retail of electricity and also led to the breakdown of ECNZ into the five major generation companies which to this day dominate the industry generation and retailing (MED, 2005). The goal of this further deregulation was to place some necessary controls on electricity companies, to encourage them and allow market demands and competition to determine and better shape the electrical system (Barton, 2005; Cocklin, 1993).

A change in government in 1999 and heightened concern for security of electrical supply led to a Ministerial inquiry in 2000 which concluded that industry-derived solutions should continue to be encouraged wherever possible, with regulatory intervention only where necessary (Barton, 2005). In the past 9 years the Labour Government has released a range of reports and pushed policy which has to an extent incrementally led to the hand of government coming back into guide the direction of the electricity sector. In 2003 the government established the independent Electricity Commission to ensure continuing reform and regulate the operation of the whole electricity industry and market. Its aim is to ensure that electricity is produced and delivered to consumers in a fair, reliable and environmentally sustainable manner (MED, 2004). Along with opening competition in

105 the electricity market the government also increased funding and authority of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority which is responsible to encourage, promote and support the uptake of energy efficient initiatives and renewable energy.

These changes to the industry are what the government calls ‘developing a long- term framework for electricity in New Zealand’ (p. 21) in which energy provision is reliable and resilient, environmentally responsible, and fairly and efficiently priced (MED, 2004).