| Submission |
Officials' Response |
MEUG, MRP, Genesis
GPS should focus on objectives and outcomes. It is too prescriptive and strays into operational detail, and this leads to concerns about Minister micro managing the EC. There is no place for task-orientated language in the GPS. |
Noted. Mostly the GPS focuses on objectives and outcomes. Where it does specify specific tasks it generally does so to identify NZES/NZEECS actions or specific government policy. In such instances these tasks are generally expressed as outcomes the government seeks. |
Genesis
Questions the legal standing of the GPS and states that it is only the objectives and outcomes that create an obligation. |
It is appropriate for the Minister to use the GPS to make the EC aware of government policy. The EC must then give effect to the objectives of that policy. The GPS is a high level, future looking policy statement, rather than a process focussed policy statement but this does not mean that process focussed policy statements can't be included in the GPS. |
MEUG
Government should consider what role GPS should have if any, in the context of the existing statutory objectives for EC. |
The Act requires the Minister to issue a GPS [s127ZK(2)]. |
MRP
Notes that regulation is only one of many tools available to the EC to give effect to GPS and is not the tool of first resort to be used without reference to assessment of alternatives and cost benefit analysis. |
Noted. The Act sets out a very clear process that must be followed if regulations are proposed, including considering all other options first. The GPS does not override the Act. |
MRP, Genesis
Should rely on Part 1 (paragraphs 2-4) to guide the EC's approach and delete the frequent references to regulation in the rest of GPS. Constant repetition of this threat is unnecessary. Various amendments to the document are proposed to support this view. |
Agreed. |
Genesis
Proposes that throughout the GPS the phrase "The Govt expects the Commission to…."be replaced with "The Commission should…". |
Agreed |
Vector
Recommends that MED initiate a review of the regulatory framework faced by energy infrastructure providers with a view to making it more transparent, efficient and effective. |
Noted, but outside scope of current exercise to update the GPS. |
Meridian, ENA, Unison, Orion
Several reviews and pieces of legislation before Parliament (Commerce Act, EIRA, renewable preference, 2013 review) may impact on GPS and finalisation of it should wait until completion of these projects. |
Noted. GPS should proceed now because it hasn't been comprehensively reviewed since the EC was established and should be updated now to incorporate NZES/NZEECS. Can be amended again if necessary to reflect any future policy changes. |
MEUG
GPS attempts to create new objectives which have not been tested through the legislative process. |
Disagree. GPS objectives and outcomes relate to functions, principal objectives and specific outcomes stated in the Act. |
MRP
GPS would be easier to interpret if it was reorganised so that topic heading was followed by context followed by government's objectives and outcomes. |
Noted. Generally the redraft of the GPS does follow this approach and some further amendments have been made to address comments in submissions. |
MEUG
Foreword confusing because it states it is not part of the GPS yet lists a range of other factors for which the EC does not have accountability but which the government wants the EC to take into account. |
Noted. This follows the procedure of the 2004 GPS and the EC has not expressed any confusion. These other factors are listed in the foreword rather than the GPS because the EC does not have accountability for delivery. GPS focuses on matters for which EC has accountability for delivery. |
MEUG
Proposes that the full text of s172N of the Act (principal objectives and specific outcomes) which has been moved from the beginning of the GPS to an appendix to the Foreword, at the back of the GPS, should be reinstated at the beginning of the GPS. |
Noted. The redraft of the GPS has attempted to remove sections that simply restate the requirements of the Act. The GPS is a statement of government policy and it is not considered necessary to include statutory requirements in it. Nevertheless because of the significance of s172N it was decided to append it to the foreword rather than remove it altogether. |
IPENZ
The GPS needs to be more specific about clarifying the role of the EC in relation to the Commerce Commission and EECA. |
This is the purpose of the two MOUs that the GPS requires: with EECA (para 39) and with the Commerce Commission (para 122). |
Para 2 – KCE
Concerned that imposed arrangements without consultation can be negative as they do not go through the public scrutiny of formal regulations. |
The Commission has a consultation protocol in place (required by para 5 of the GPS). The protocol does not differentiate between consultation for model arrangements and regulations. |
Para 2 – Odyssey
Voluntary arrangements, particularly in monopoly areas, will not work. Carefully targeted regulations are essential. |
Noted. |
Odyssey
Consultation process favours industry which has significant resources to make submissions. In contrast the consumer is poorly represented. |
Noted. GPS emphasises the need for consumer involvement. |
Odyssey
Electricity governance is founded on a "business as usual" commercial environment that prevents innovative solutions. |
Noted. GPS places emphasis on the importance of encouraging innovation. |
MRP
Suggests merging sections 2 and 4 because of duplication. |
Disagree. While there is some duplication, section 2 covers NZES issues that are wider than just energy efficiency. |
Genesis
Proposes a significant redraft - bringing various elements relating to the GPS, its accountability, effect and status under the Act into one section at the front. |
Noted. This is a matter of drafting style. While the proposed redraft is a reasonable alternative, it offers insufficient advantages over the current approach (which has been in place since the EC was established) to justify the change. |