BlackRock’s $2 billion renewable electricity fund, announced on Tuesday, was first discussed in a meeting between Jacinda Ardern and Larry Fink in New York last year.
The then-Prime Minister met with the chairman and chief executive of BlackRock as part of a trade mission she led to the United States in September 2022.
A news report from the meeting said the business delegation was left “almost speechless” when Fink showed up at the table — they had been expecting “some middle manager”.
Ardern’s high international profile may have rubbed some voters up the wrong way, but it comes with significant power and influence on the world stage.
A spokesperson for the Labour Government said there had been an ongoing conversation with BlackRock since that meeting in New York.
Energy Minister Megan Woods and now-Prime Minister Chris Hipkins had held follow up meetings, where the pair agreed to facilitate the fund and make the announcement.
Blackrock said it was the one who first raised the idea with the government, since the transition to renewable energy was top of mind for many of its clients.
A spokesperson said the NZ government provided feedback about its policy settings and the type of investments that would be necessary to reach a 100% renewable electricity grid.
However, that’s where the government’s formal involvement with the new fund ends. It will not directly contribute any money into the fund, which BlackRock will have to raise itself.
The Crown investment entities, which are hoped to contribute, are independent and make their own decisions about where and when to invest money.
Neither the Super Fund nor ACC have agreed to invest in the BlackRock fund, but Peter Scobie, a manager at ACC Investments, said he was open to the idea.
“We assess all investment opportunities on their merits and are happy to hear from Blackrock on their proposals,” he said in an emailed statement.
ASB Investments said it was likely to contribute to the fund, as it had already outsourced much of its fund management to BlackRock in 2021.
In a statement, the bank’s investment arm said it was positive that BlackRock was bringing its global expertise to NZ and giving investors opportunities in the transition to net zero.
“Given our unique partnership with BlackRock in New Zealand, we are already speaking with them about our involvement and are keen to be supportive, subject to satisfactory due diligence,” it said.
BlackRock said it was hoping to raise $2 billion for the fund before the end of the year, but there was scope to increase the target if there was enough demand from investors.
The fund will mostly invest in larger electricity infrastructure and it will target returns in the high single digits.
Some terms and conditions
While this fund and its investors will be independent from the Government, some level of agreement has been struck between the two parties.
Woods said BlackRock had committed to selling any assets it acquires through the fund back to New Zealand investors wherever possible. .
Interest.co.nz confirmed this with the investment firm. A spokesperson said NZ-based owners would be the natural long-term owners and most likely buyers of these assets anyway.
As always, any sale to overseas interests would require approval from the Overseas Investment Office and meet the national interest test.
Brett Christophers, a political economist and author, said it was likely that more informal agreements had been struck behind the scenes.
His book Our Lives in Their Portfolios: Why Asset Managers Own the World, examines how large investors such as BlackRock and Vanguard are having an impact on everyday life.
Christophers said almost all private investment in renewable energy around the world happened with some sort of public subsidy as an incentive.
“In some way or another the Government will have committed to significantly derisking any investments this fund undertakes,” he said.
“Funding will only flow into renewable energy if a lot of the risks involved in that have been absorbed by someone other than BlackRock”.
Christophers is currently working on a new book which maps how the history of investment in renewable energy has tracked against government support.
“It's a risky business absent government underwriting,” he said.
While it was good to have investment being made in renewable electricity, the Government should be much clearer about the terms of the agreement.
“I'd be surprised if there aren’t some pretty significant carrots that have been negotiated in the background”.
Both BlackRock and the NZ Government said no other commitments had been made, beyond those disclosed above.
Generating money
New Zealand currently gets roughly 82% of its electricity from renewable sources, but it will need more capacity as the economy moves away from fossil fuels.
For example, swapping fossil fuels vehicles for electric ones will increase demand.
Transpower has estimated that a 68% increase in electricity generation will be needed to meet demand by 2050.
This was made up of a 14% increase in base electricity demand, a 38% increase due to vehicle electrification, and 16% boost from electrification of process heat and industry.
Any wide scale hydrogen production could double this forecast increase in demand, although the technology is still being developed.
Boston Consulting Group wrote a report detailing the $42 billion of investment that would be required over the next decade.
Over $10 billion would be needed to increase electricity generation capacity by 50% and another $22 billion on distribution infrastructure.
On top of that, $1.9 billion would need to be spent on creating flexibility in electricity supply and demand to manage peak demand and dry years.
Plus $8.2 billion for transmission infrastructure, such as a second high-voltage line to carry electricity from the South Island under the Cook Strait.
74 Comments
Thanks, don quite know the system, but I don’t get the adverts so thought had done it up to the mark but we should be able to pick our own, eg in my case 🎻
ps, well I had a go at logging in with Press Patron, even went thru & changed my password too, but in the user name box it comes up pre-entered as outsider and try as I might, Foxglove can’t replace that??
That is the crux of it - the personality stuff is diversion.
And much of the electricity can be traced to fossil energy too; linesman's utes, trucks, diggers...
And we took 120 years to empirically build up the existing grid - to assert that we will BUILD 50% MORE in the near future, is horsepoo. The days of Twizels, and the optimal (dam) sites are all taken.
There's some data tables here:
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resourc…
Electricity looks pretty stable to me. 27% in 1990, 26% in 2000, 28% in 2010, 26% 2021 (assuming I'm reading it right - electricity observed demand over total energy demand)
Which ones exactly do you mean?
All I heard were some people believed Blackrock was this barely understood evil dark force and Jacinda "secretly" met with them as part of some wider evil plan.
I don't see her publicly meeting with a fund manager to promote NZ as a green energy investment opportunity as fitting with that conspiracy story. The truth is much more boring.
I agree - we need to get to the bottom of this.
There are a few sentences in the article that need more digging. Firstly, it seems that "Blackrock said it was the one who first raised the idea with the government". Presumably that was what led to the Ardern meeting?
Secondly, "Energy Minister Megan Woods and now-Prime Minister Chris Hipkins had held follow up meetings, where the pair agreed to facilitate the fund". What does "facilitate the fund" mean exactly?
Thirdly, "A spokesperson said the NZ government provided feedback about its policy settings". This is surely the reason for the government's involvement - i.e. the government will agree on certain laws to be put in place?
What's the bet that "facilitating the fund" involves flogging off the electrical generation and grid assets the Govt currently owns? To which, Blackrock will invest some more money, then IPO it in a few years for 10 times what they paid for it; or if its loss making, sell it back to the Govt or something like ACC/NZ Super Fund for a handsome price underwritten by the Govt.
The devil is always in the detail.
What could possibly go wrong?
This millstone should fit snugly around the necks of successive generations
But in true fashion
The perpetraitors of the botch up having long moved on from and vacated the Political landscape
And the Treaty Ardern signed with Commiefornia?
"Woods said BlackRock had committed to selling any assets it acquires through the fund back to New Zealand investors wherever possible"
Definition : together we will build this critical piece of infrastructure and then ( when it needs ĥuge maintenance) sell it back to you at huge profit
What does " acquires" mean.
Arderns hypocracy on this deal is outrageous
I really don't understand the negativity around this. We know we need to invest a lot of money in power infrastructure and we already have multiple private companies, including some new comers, building new generation. Why is Blackrock so hideously different to the other companies looking to profit from our electricity market?
If it turns out there are excessive incentives then I'd be opposed too, but there don't seem to be any.
I thought we wanted investors from other countries to come here and build things? We don't have the capital to do it ourselves because most of us would rather buy an investment property.
Maccy, i don't 'lose my shit' over Cindy. I found her mundane and performative at best. For me to 'lose my shit' I would need to have a huge reliance on the govt that impacts my wellbeing hence my emotional state. I encourage everyone to be as antifragile as possible in relation to the govt.
#40 of Forbes 100 most powerful women.
BlackRock is still the largest shareholder in gun stocks (qz.com)
I'm not sure if this is still the case, but if Black Rock have benefited from investing in gun manufacturers, it must take a little cognitive dissonance on Ardern's part to see this as a good partnership.
Recently they have put some pressure on gun makers but have still benefited from their sales.
It's tough being a huge fund like Blackrock. If you invest in guns, oil and tobacco you're bastards. If you don't, you're woke.
As a large, mostly passive, fund manager I don't expect them to have a conscience - if they provide suitable fund options for customers they can vote with their money. Some all-of-market funds, some ESG funds etc.
My point is more that given Arderns focus on the Christchurch call and legislation limiting gun ownership (Both of which I agreed with) it is a little inconsistent to then take money from an organisation with major shareholdings in most of the main US gun manufacturers. It is the whiff of hypocrisy that I have a problem with more than Black Rocks investment choices.
At the start of 2022, 75% of their funds under management were invested passively (as in, buy a slice of every company in some index which may or may not have ESG criteria).
You can see their problem here - you think they should dispassionately buy a slice of every company in their index funds, the original post doesn't want them invested in gun manufacturers. Others will push them to divest from fossil fuels. Others want them to down-weight companies with stale male boards.
I see them as more of a fund supermarket. There'll be some products on the shelves that I find distasteful, and I can easily avoid them and make sure that my kiwisaver and any other funds I have money in are invested in line with my morals. Maybe it would be easier for everyone if they split into different companies with different offerings, but then we lose scale and have to pay more for our investment funds.
For the record, I have no money invested with Blackrock.
I'm not sure if this is still the case, but if Black Rock have benefited from investing in gun manufacturers, it must take a little cognitive dissonance on Ardern's part to see this as a good partnership.
She's a ditz. Would have no idea how BlackRock works or what it owns.
I hope that shuts up the commenters that keep going on about how National will sell off all NZ assets to foreign investors, now that Labour has sold them all to Blackrock. That promise to "sell them back to NZ investors" - that will only be true if they lose money on it, in which case they will expect the naive and gullible NZ investment community to take it off their hands, probably subsidised by the Govt to make up any losses. If they make money, you can bet your bottom dollar NZ will see none of it.
And to think - the idea of Jacinda sellling off NZ to Blackrock was pitched by MSM as a "conspiracy theory". Well, chalk that one up as another conspiracy that's come true.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/the-spinoff-conspiracy-theorists-are-losi…
Again - we aren't selling any assets here. We maintain ownership of all the infrastructure we currently own.
It allows them to come in and build additional infrastructure. Which we are struggling to fund ourselves because the average kiwi just wants to invest in houses and pay low tax, so we don't have the required private or public funding.
That's my reading anyway - the details are fairly vague at this point and I'll reconsider if more evidence comes up.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.