• Full Story

Greens link wind farm failure to asset sales

Print

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 8:21a.m.

Meridian Energy said on Thursday it was giving up the six-year battle to seek a resource consent for Project Hayes

Meridian Energy said on Thursday it was giving up the six-year battle to seek a resource consent for Project Hayes

The Green Party says the Government's proposed partial sale of Meridian Energy may be behind its abandonment of a controversial $2 billion Central Otago wind farm plan.

Meridian Energy said on Thursday it was giving up the six-year battle to seek a resource consent for Project Hayes, a 176-turbine, 633 megawatt farm it wanted to build on the Lammermoor Range in Central Otago, saying other projects were now more important.

Green Party energy spokesman Gareth Hughes, whose party hadn't taken a position on the project, says Meridian was one of the state-owned assets National campaigned to sell up to 49 percent of in its 2011 election campaign and this may be linked to Meridian's decision.

"Given Meridian is the largest electricity state-owned asset up for sale, this would have brought in quite a high degree of potential investor uncertainty, because we've got a $2 billion project that's dragged on for years," he told Radio New Zealand.

Mr Hughes said the decision showed the value of a considered Resource Management Act processes.

"The risk of fast-tracking, which is what we're seeing under the current government, is that these projects might go ahead without people actually getting a say."

One of the high-profile opponents of the project, poet Brian Turner, is delighted the farm would not be built.

"We've shown that if you hold the line and don't buckle in the face of the kind of financial and corporate bullying, sometimes the wider population can prevail."

The project was planned to be big enough to power every South Island home but residents wanted the tussock-clad ranges protected from 160m-tall turbines and 12m-wide access roads.

The Environment Court in 2009 overturned a 2007 decision granting resource consent, but the High Court allowed a Meridian appeal against in 2010 and referred it back to the Environment Court.

NZN

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

21 Jan 2012 06:03p.m.

Ganesh wrote:

we manufacturers of wind turbines 250kw in india,and we are exporting to other countries.

20 Jan 2012 11:42p.m.

Dodger wrote:

Don't know whether wind energy is costly or cheaper for consumer. But it is sure as hell more environmentally friendly and renewable than fossil fuels. Bet these environmentalists are enjoying the power from coal or oil. HYPOCRITES!
Can't see asset sales have anything to do with this either.

20 Jan 2012 03:50p.m.

Chris wrote:

Great ! - no more hydro dams, solar is too expensive, tidal schemes won't get resource consent, fossil fuels are 'dirty', no nukes obviously and now clean and green wind power get's turned down - great ! let's just all live in caves.
It's amazing really we all want to turn a switch on for instant electricy and everything that it gives us - yet it has to come form some where. How short sighted and moronic we are all.

20 Jan 2012 03:07p.m.

Kate wrote:

Gareth Hughes is completely off cue here. Even under the new RMA fast tracking process, it wouldn't have made a difference as the weight of evidence was clearly in favour of protecting the environment. This also brings into question his blaming asset sales. After the first Environment Courrt hearing it was by clear Meridian would not be able to proceed. The High Court action was and interpretation of one lament of the case which was not central to the overall decision. The new CEO ought to be applauded for seeing the common sense and not being led down the track of delusion set by their legal and engineering teams. Mr Hughes needs to read more about the case before he exercises superficial positions of ignorance.

20 Jan 2012 02:17p.m.

Neil wrote:

OK so the first question I have to ask - comparisons with cost to electricity generation in Europe. Does the wind speed and regularity compare with our proposed (now dropped) location? Secondly the cost of having my own wind generator is prohibitively high due only to private companies adding on high profit margins because its green, not because it's expensive for them to construct the equipment. I've priced here versus importing.

20 Jan 2012 01:01p.m.

LBV wrote:

I don't know why Power companies are encouraging residential development like solar, and small scale wind as part of a comprehensive plan. By hooking residential houses up to the grid, which could be bypassed during power cuts, it would make cities far more protected. - especially places like auckland where power problems hit a large amount of people. If smaller houses could generate their own power, during major outage, people could still do things like cook dinner, have a cuppa etc.

20 Jan 2012 12:43p.m.

Mel wrote:

When I heard it had been canned last night in favour of "more pressing projects", my first thoughts were, "Yeah, the asset sales are more pressing and this problem is not marketable."
I understand why wind power is environmentally sound... but I also understand preserving a pristine and culturally significant view. I'm sure there are alternative sites.

20 Jan 2012 12:32p.m.

Martin wrote:

You can say a quarter of a million people or just 250,000 homes. When its windy enough and they draw a small amount of power when not turning. A huge investment is needed for a very long term return. You can be positive and look at them, smile and say go Kiwis or have Montgomery Burns nuclear power plant next door. Can't get a resource consent for hydro either. Bugger.

20 Jan 2012 12:00p.m.

Chargone wrote:

ok, so... they going to shift to tidal generators instead? or is that doomed now too? i doubt asset sales Helped, but it seems that Bruce is right: local residents being ridiculous about it is probably a much larger factor. (i can understand people who would have to live near the things objecting about the noise and such... the correct response to That is to fund them moving to somewhere at least as good far enough away that that's not an issue. and if they don't like that it's a bit tough when it comes to this sort of thing.) so... here we're choosing preserving the scenery over... preserving the actual environment as a whole by using what is quite possibly the single least environmentally problematic generation method around? (tidal comes close, but has potential to be a large issue, at least locally, if not positioned and built right. that's true of wind too, of course, but there's less stuff to take into account for that and people are more aware of the factors involved.)

20 Jan 2012 11:35a.m.

Andrew wrote:

Now you will be happy you anti people. Just cost the Country another $7 million !!