sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Commerce Commission says higher electricity bills needed to help fund maintenance and upgrade of electricity network

Public Policy / news
Commerce Commission says higher electricity bills needed to help fund maintenance and upgrade of electricity network
[updated]

The Commerce Commission says the average household faces an electricity bill increase of about $120 in year one of an investment programme to maintain and upgrade New Zealand’s electricity network, and an increase of about $60 annually over each of the subsequent four years.

The consumer watchdog's comments come as it releases final decisions increasing revenue limits for Transpower and local lines companies to help meet investment costs for the electricity network.

Here's the Commission's statement.

Consumer benefit key as ComCom allows increased investment in electricity network

The Commerce Commission today released its final decisions to increase revenue limits for national grid owner Transpower and local lines companies – recognising the significant investment required to maintain and upgrade New Zealand’s electricity network over coming years.
 
Commissioner Vhari McWha says promoting long-term consumer interests and helping ensure Kiwis receive value for money is at the heart of the Commission’s decisions.

“While the decisions mean there will be an increase in the prices most consumers see in their electricity bills, we also understand the importance of incentivising businesses to invest, improve, and meet consumer demands.

“Deferring investment would mean even higher future prices and a network that does not meet consumers’ needs. Consumers rightly expect a safe and reliable network and greater investment is required to deliver the capacity and resilience Kiwis demand. To help reduce the initial price rise, we have delayed the recovery of some revenue.”

The average household’s monthly electricity bill will rise by approximately $10 ($120 annually) for the first year of the five-year regulatory period, which starts on 1 April 2025 (see detailed breakdown of costs here). Without the Commission’s decision to spread or ‘smooth’ revenue recovery over a five-year period, consumers could be looking at price increases of around $20 per month. After the first year, consumers can expect monthly bills to increase by an average of about $5 ($60 annually), in each of the remaining four years.
 
Ms McWha says factors such as a growing population, an increase in extreme weather events, and greater reliance on electricity as a fuel, for uses like transport and industrial process heat, continue to test the capacity and resilience of the country’s electricity network.
 
“With much of New Zealand’s electricity grid built decades ago, renewal work is essential to meet the future needs of consumers. The revenue increases reflect the higher costs companies are facing, including the cost of borrowing, cost of materials and inflationary pressures since the last revenue review in 2019. Higher inflation and interest rates relate to about 55% of the increase in revenues.”

Transpower final decisions

The Commission has set Transpower’s maximum allowable revenue at a total of $5.9 billion for the next five years. This represents an increase of 44% compared to the previous five years. The Commission’s decision to smooth revenue increases means annual increases are capped at 16% in each of the first two years and 5% for the remaining three years.
 
Transpower submitted a detailed proposal to the Commission for its individual price-quality path, and had the proposal assessed by an independent expert. In its proposal, Transpower said its work programme was largely driven by the need to replace and renew assets that form the backbone of New Zealand’s electricity grid.
 
“Upon reviewing Transpower’s proposal, in combination with the advice of the independent expert and the submissions we received on our draft decision, the Commission is satisfied Transpower’s proposed expenditure is supported by robust asset management practices and in most cases a demonstrable need,” says Ms McWha.
 
She says the Commission remains concerned Transpower may not be able to recruit the workforce needed to deliver its work programme due to workforce shortages and a high demand for specialist talent.
 
“We have adjusted Transpower's expenditure allowance to account for this workforce risk. Should Transpower provide evidence that it has recruited the necessary workforce, Transpower will be able to access those funds.”

Local lines companies final decisions

For local lines companies subject to revenue limits, the Commission has set maximum allowable revenues for the five-year period at a total of $11.5 billion. This represents an increase of 47% in real terms compared to the previous five years. However, revenue smoothing means increases are approximately 24% on average for the first year, with smaller increases in the remaining four years.
 
Although revenue limits are increasing, Ms McWha says the Commission has not allowed for all expenditure forecast by local lines companies, primarily due to uncertainty surrounding the need, timing, and scale of that spend.
 
“Predicting how growth will unfold across the regions remains a challenge. That’s why businesses have the option to come back to us to ask for additional revenue when there is more certainty about the investment, or if an unexpected new demand were to occur – for example if significant new infrastructure was needed to accommodate ferries, buses, or trains converting to electricity.”  
 
The Commission has expanded its existing innovation scheme to encourage local lines companies to try new solutions, which have the potential to deliver lower consumer bills in the future.  
 
“Innovation and efficiency will play a significant role in the transition to increased electrification, helping to reduce costs and deliver value for money to consumers. The ability of local lines companies to apply for this allowance will enable them to think innovatively to help solve network challenges and to make better use of existing infrastructure,” says Ms McWha.
 
The Commission has also approved costs to enable local lines companies to purchase low-voltage network data from metering companies. This will provide better information about the quality of service consumers receive, and facilitate efficient decisions about investment in and use of the network. 


Background

A 90 second animated explainer of the Commission’s regulatory role and decision on revenue limits can be found on the Commission’s website in English and Te Reo.
 
The final decisions on revenue allowances incorporate further analysis by the Commission and reflect feedback received on its draft decision, released in May this year.
 
Bill impacts
 
The Commission sets revenue limits that affect the transmission and distribution components of electricity bills. The transmission and distribution components of the average consumer bill are around 10.5% and 27% respectively.
 
From 1 April 2025, the distribution and transmission component of a monthly electricity bill is estimated to increase by $10 ($120 annually) on average per household for the first year of the five-year regulatory period, exclusive of GST, at a national level. This is equivalent to an increase of about 5% in the average household’s electricity bill. After the first year, consumers can expect monthly bills to increase by an average of $5 ($60 annually), in each of the four remaining years.
 
The increase to a household’s electricity bill will be different depending on where you live. In the first year, some regions will see average increases of $10 per month, while others will see average increases of about $25 per month.
 
This represents a smaller rise for most households than presented in the draft decision. This reflects a reduction in interest rates and slightly higher revenue forecasts for 2024/25 from local lines companies, partially offset by small increases in capital and operating expenditure allowances. 
 
Transmission and distribution prices are determined by suppliers, consistent with the limits we have determined and in accordance with Electricity Authority methods and principles. Businesses may sometimes choose to recover a lower amount of revenue than the maximum allowed under the regulatory regime. Decisions to under-recover revenue should only be made where the local lines company is satisfied that they can still sufficiently invest in their network to maintain service quality.
 
Electricity retailers factor prices that lines companies choose to set into the prices consumers ultimately pay. This means actual price changes may differ from our estimates.
 
More information about the electricity network and how pricing works can be found on our website.
 
Electricity lines regulation
 
Under Part 4 of the Commerce Act 1986, the Commerce Commission regulates electricity lines companies for the long-term benefit of consumers. We do this using two key tools:

  • Price-quality paths – we set limits on the total revenue electricity lines companies can recover from their consumers while requiring minimum standards for the quality of service. These regulations apply to Transpower and 16 local lines companies that are not deemed to be consumer owned under the Act.
     
  • Information disclosure requirements – we require lines companies to publish key financial and network information on their revenue and quality performance. We also summarise and analyse this information in reports and interactive graphics to help people understand performance. This regulation applies to Transpower and all 29 local lines companies.

Under Part 4 of the Commerce Act 1986, the Commerce Commission is responsible for setting the maximum revenue Transpower can recover from consumers to run the transmission network efficiently, along with setting quality standards, performance incentives, and the term of the regulatory period. Collectively, these comprise Transpower’s individual “price-quality path”.
 
The companion paper for Transpower’s fourth individual price-quality path (RCP4), due to take effect from 1 April 2025, can be found on the Commission’s website.
 
For the 16 price-quality regulated local lines companies, we use a relatively low-cost approach to produce a ‘default price-quality path’. If this does not meet the particular needs of an individual lines company, they have the option to apply for a ‘customised price-quality path’ using more-detailed information specific to their business. Currently, Aurora Energy is on a customised price-quality path and will transition back to the default price-quality path in 2026.
 
The Commission limits overall revenues, but we do not set the prices consumers are charged. In addition, our regulations are designed to promote efficient investment but do not determine the individual investments or choices made by local lines companies.
 
The reasons paper for the fourth default price-quality path (DPP4) for local lines companies, also due to take effect from 1 April 2025, can be found on the Commission’s website.
 
Electricity Authority

The Commission’s regulatory remit covers transmission and distribution lines revenue and quality – not generation or retail costs. We work closely with the Electricity Authority Te Mana Hiko, which oversees regulation of the wholesale and retail electricity markets, and pricing arrangements for electricity distribution and transmission. More information can be found on the Electricity Authority website.

*Story updated following an error in the Commerce Commission's initial press release to reflect an estimated $360, rather than $340, bill increase for average households over five years.

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.

49 Comments

Hmmmmm, and people wonder why the public has a perception that inflation is higher than the official figures.  

Up
8

So after 5 years that's $340 per year higher than today.

Over a ten year period, $3400 would cover the cost of a 15kWh home battery, which would also eliminate the existing connection charges. hmmmm

Up
2

As I read it - it depends on where you live - depends on the population size as the denominator in the equation - higher population lower increase. 

Up
0

I didn't quite read it like that.  Depends where you live yes, but lower population should mean less upgrades needed.   Auckland and Invercargill appear to be set for the same increase.  Also depends on how much power you use.

I couldn't find much detail on what fees will go up, how is the increase spread across fixed daily connection charge, vs energy consumption charges.  Perhaps they don't have that much detail yet, as the CC is just setting some upper limits. 

Up
1

RNZ is saying

" Consumers will soon begin paying a lot more for electricity lines charges with average monthly increases of between $10 in the main centres to as much as $25 in some regions.

But that is just the beginning.

Rates will continue to rise in each of the following four years so that consumers will see their lines charges cost $30 a month more in five years time to as much as a $85 a month in some regions."

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/534291/average-household-to-pay-10-…

(unclear much)

 

 

Up
1

$85 a month, and you havent even used any power yet.  I expect more old people dying of cold in their homes because they cant afford to turn the heater on.  Lucky we're getting rid of gas fires and wood burners, eh?  

Up
0

> Lucky we're getting rid of gas fires 

If you think the line charges for electricity are exorbitant, i'm guessing you haven't seen the line charges for gas these days

> and wood burners, eh?

are we getting rid of wood burners?  I thought we were just requiring less polluting ones.  Depends where you live and how bad the smog gets.

Up
2

But gas bottle rental is about $120 a year.  Free if you just use the 9kg swap a bottle from the servo.

Up
0

If you use bottles, the cost per kW is huge.

And if you are gonna heat your house with 9kg bottles, you gonna be taking a trip down to the servo pretty often

Up
1

The closest we get is

Electricity retailers factor prices that lines companies choose to set into the prices consumers ultimately pay. This means actual price changes may differ from our estimates

If only we could get a fixed price contract for 5 years.

Up
0

> If only we could get a fixed price contract for 5 years.

Meridian have been doing 5 year fixed contracts for a while now.

  • You lock in both the energy and network components of your total electricity rate for five years, meaning that any changes to these charges during the term of your plan won’t affect you.

This excludes any applicable regulatory or Government levies (including Electricity Authority Levy charge) which are not fixed and may vary.

Up
0

As stated above one of the factors is a growing population.

Growth costs folks. Get ready to pony up when the next wave of mass immigration begins in order to juice up the economy.

Up
7

Yes, many choose to ignore the fact our 'way of life' is supported by many hundreds of thousands of existing infrastructure per head and expanding it isn't cheap. 

We'd be better to let our population decline naturally and manage retreat from places that flood e.g. South Dunedin and those being bought out in Auckland instead of trying to cram in more refuges and immigrants.  I would have more time for immigration if those wanting it paid up front instead of expecting everyone to contribute.

Up
4

Considering only 2% of immigrants have skills, then we could reduce it by 98% and be no worse off.

Up
5

"Considering only 2% of immigrants have skills"

I call BS

Up
1

You are correct.  Its only 1.38% of immigrants have skills.  My comment should have read "less than 2%"

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/audio/lucy-m…

 

Up
6

The reasoning for a higher population was that the cost can be spread across a wider number of people. But that doesn't seem to be true, and it appears to be false economy.. So NZ would have been better not to import it's population and grow it significiantly

Up
2

One out one in.

Up
0

Considering how easy it was for a 'trained technician' to bring down a power pylon, I'd happily cough up more dollars for some improved training and better redundancy in the system.

Plus there's going to be added demands with EVs and the switch from fossil fuels in industries, so lets get the hardware in place before the brown-outs occur.

Up
5

A listed company with no competition what could go wrong.

Up
2

Ms McWha left out the costs of upgrading, balancing and stabilising the grid for windmill and solar panel hobbyists.

“New Zealand’s electricity system is becoming increasingly complex with new connections and market entrants, more variable renewable generation and more bi-directional power flows. Our contracted third parties who operate the electricity markets are facing significant increases in the volume and complexity of their activities."

https://www.ea.govt.nz/news/press-release/authority-seeks-increase-to-c…

Up
3

Who are attempting to replace fossil energy. 

Possibly for a subservient reason - to mitigate climate change - but given that fossil energy is leaving us, a valid pathway. 

You are a dinosaur. Or is that, you are paid by dinosaurs?

Up
3

The grid will become unstable(and more expensive) the closer it gets to 100% renewables. When the customers get the bill they might not agree with the friendly ideology so much.

Up
1

Development of alternative sources of energy is an absolute must, unless we limit our focus only on the short term. Yes, this will have some cost impact, at least initially, but it is a cost impact that society must bear, one way or another. 

Up
3

If we insist on being Chicken Little's let's be France, not Germany.

"A study by the OECD found that the cost of household electricity in Germany increased by 50 percent from 2006–2017. And the report came to a surprising conclusion:

  • Electricity prices will continue to increase as long as Germany keeps building solar and wind.

Meanwhile, France’s electricity costs are 40 percent lower than Germany’s ...France is making $3 billion a year from selling nuclear electricity to other countries.

...By 2025, Germany will have spent $580 billion on renewables and related infrastructure.

Yet CO2 emissions in Germany have dropped by less than two percent a year since 2010."

https://carboncredits.com/nuclear-education-how-germany-lost-another-wo…

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642#abst…

Up
5

If you want cheap electricity, you need cheap generation. Building infrastructure has a price but the good news is your not beholden to fossil fuel prices if your electricity is from a renewable source. How can you not understand that? its simple arithmetic. As for NZ prices Transpower makes a tidy profit and pays a good dividend. When its time to build and invest why not go to the market or industry to cover new costs why households?

Up
0

Nobody forced Germany to shut all of its nuclear plants and make themselves utterly dependent on Russian gas at the same time. 

France will also face increased costs as its 1970s era nuclear plants all reach the end of their lives at the same time. 
 

A joined up grid across Europe and North Africa is the best way forward - North Sea wind, French nuclear, Norwegian hydro, Mediterranean solar.

Up
1

One of the first acts of the privatised electricity companies a few decades ago was to change  their basis of depreciation from historical cost (funded by previous generations of NZdrs) to replacement cost (funded by current generations of NZdrs).

Thereby at a keystroke reducing their income tax & increasing profitability massively, in theory providing for future plant replacement. 

They've had the money over the years & paid it out as dividends, the Govt being majority shareholder. Now the Govt is making law so they can have their cake as well as eat it.

 

Up
8

You are writing about generation companies. This article is about lines companies. Your hobbyhorse needs glasses.

Up
2

I said electricity companies which includes the line companies who implemented the same tax policies 

Up
1

Most weren't privatised. Transpower definitely was not. 

Up
0

"They've had the money over the years & paid it out as dividends, the Govt being majority shareholder. Now the Govt is making law so they can have their cake as well as eat it."

And which lines company had the government as majority shareholder?

 

 

Up
1

Technically it reduced their profitability massively, hence the lower tax. Big increase in cashflow though, and potential for dividends.

Up
0

Privatization ladies and gentlemen 

Up
3

Yep this is how the public/private partnership works.

Up
0

So do tell us where have all of the massive retained profits gone over the years?? isn't that the objective of retained profits, there is only the 2 of us living in our home, our power bills are $350 per month in the winter and we use a log burner for heating, we might have to look into a wind turbine as Solar is far too expensive to consider!!! once again the taxpayers are being screwed over big time!!! I'm 76 years old, and I saw us as taxpayers, paying for all of the electricity/power infrastructure within NZ, and now that very infrastructure has been turned into a knife into our backs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Up
1

No, Simmo - you, like most people, mistake what money is, and how it relates to energy.

Money is keystroked into existence, as debt (how many times have I written that, here?). That debt expects to be repaid, in the future. That requires future work to be done. Work requires energy.

Thus money is an expectation that there will be future energy, and more money is an expectation of more energy. 

We are therefore 'valuing' in the wrong thing. Your generation took all the fossil energy it could get its hands on (and spent a goodly time denying that there were C02 repercussions, too). The best has been burnt - it's gone. And we're working down the list of next-best options - so of course energy will get 'more expensive'. Attempts to parry that piece of fundamental physics, have included the Bradford ideologically-driven alterations. None have worked, or can. Entropy is inexorable, and no financial finagling can alter that. 

BTW I think your comments re solar are dated. Due to near-slave-labour and slack environmental standards and rapidly increasing debt, panels seem 'cheap'. In truth, they stack up against anything else, quite well. Small turbines are noisy, not good in urban settings. 

Up
1

Once you look into a windturbine, you will change your mind about solar being expensive.

Up
1

Why the hell have Transpower been paying out $40mil+ in dividends over the last few years instead of investing and upgrading our network then? 

Up
2

Because governments needed the short-term bookkeeping to look good. 

Up
4

Power companies paid out $10.8 billion in dividends over the last decade but invested $4.5b in new power projects.

The latest Generating Scarcity report said there was next to no growth in national generating capacity.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/504764/big-power-companies-paying-l…

Up
2

The union article is rubbish. Round here there is about 250MW being commissioned - costing well over a billion. I can't believe that cost is a third of the development done in last decade. That is before looking at all the costs of refurbishment of existing plant. Look at cost of new transformers at Manapouri and Clyde.

Up
1

Read that last para slowly, Chris. 

Seems to me that if she had real rebuttal to hand, she'd have fired a broadside. Instead, she did the classic spin/avoidance thing; spun it out to 2030, shortened it again, shifted the goalposts and finished by virue-signalling. 

That's alarm-bell territory, pr-wise - but if she'd had real ammo, she'd have used it, surely? 

 

Up
1

None of the ones around here are Genesis

Up
0

Or claiming depreciation, which should have gone back into replacing old assets. It is like we are paying twice. 

Up
2

ABSURD.

The power sector is killing NZ.

It is an absolute absurdity that a commercial return is required, and then give them a rate of return with no risk whatsoever. Transpower and the Lines companies should have to bear risk on the rate of return not be handed it on a platter.

Energy use and GDP are directly proportional. Providing cheap power would provide a high benefit/cost return to NZ Inc.

Instead we gift the govt and Councils as major shareholders billions in tax and dividends which they then spend at a much lower benefit/cost ratio. It’s economic suicide.

Also, we already have 100,000 households or about 275,000 in energy poverty. These increases are massive cost of living changes.

Transpower undertook no socioeconomic cost benefit assessment of the power prices increases on consumers or the distributional impacts and nor did the lines companies.

ComCom, the power regulator and treasury should be sacked.

NZ Inc would be far better off with a single non-profit SOE that covers generation, distribution and retail, not the absurd mess we currently have.

Successive governments have failed to address the dry year issue and the current govt certainly isn’t going to.

Up
6

Nice rant. 

Not far off as regards the current system, either. 

I'm not convinced we can even maintain the existing grid, beyond what is coming our way, but that's a second-tier discussion. 

Up
1

It's just like local rates. Years of underinvestment, or alternatively, a level of revenue charged which was allowed by the regulators, on the basis of it being for renewal. The money is gone, the assets are wearing down and they need more money.

Up
1

Do we care? No.

Big suprise? Not..

For what ever reason energy prices have been going up since.. for ever, and will continue to do so.

.Which is why we put enough solar panels on the roof to supply 50 to 60% or our total KW per year. Could not afford batteries but under consideration for last 4yrs.

Sure panels etc have a limited life, again do we care , No. We will be long dead before then, and even if not the case, chances are most ppl change home near 3 times in that period.

We invested in maintaining low energy bills in our retirement budgets, and with energy increases.. its working very well.

 

Up
0