NZ Engine

Source: Radio New Zealand

An international start-up has been pushing for regulation changes to allow it to carry out controversial marine carbon storage in New Zealand waters.

The company, Gigablue, says its technology could be game-changing for the climate, with the potential to store ‘gigatons’ of carbon in the deep ocean and create local jobs.

Its latest trial off the Otago coast is underway right now.

But experts in marine science and law are urging New Zealand to proceed with caution, saying that type of technology is hard to prove, hard to measure, and, at worst, unsafe for the environment.

The company says it needs to be able to carry out ocean research to build its evidence base – but wants to be able to generate carbon credits, in order to fund its work.

It says commercial viability is essential but for now it is prioritising the generation of scientific evidence.

Documents released to RNZ under the Official Information Act show that in meetings with the Ministry for the Environment last year, Gigablue proposed changes to marine regulations that would allow it to go ahead without consents.

The company was assisted in its lobbying by former climate change minister James Shaw, who told RNZ the climate crisis was bad “and we should explore all scientific options that might help us to stop it getting even worse”.

Privately, though, officials appeared frustrated as their questions about gaps in the research and evidence base, and how these would be filled, went unanswered for months.

That frustration was shared by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which turned down two applications from the company to carry out research within New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone in late 2025.

It had previously allowed two much smaller sea trials to go ahead.

In documents provided to RNZ, the EPA concluded that Gigablue’s plans to deploy 1000 tonnes of its proprietary particles into the ocean amounted to dumping, which is illegal under domestic and international law.

The agency was also concerned about the environmental effects, and not convinced that the company’s plans amounted to scientific research – for which an exemption can be granted.

However, earlier this year it agreed to “a significantly modified activity”, which began in March and will finish later this week.

Co-founded by four Israeli entrepreneurs, Gigablue says its ‘microalgae carbon fixation and sinking’ (MCFS) technology stimulates a natural cycle where tiny organisms in the water, called phytoplankton, absorb carbon dioxide from the surface ocean through photosynthesis.

When these microalgae die, some sink – taking the carbon into the deep ocean, where slow-moving currents mean it can stay stored for decades, centuries or longer.

In turn, this allows the surface ocean to suck more climate change-inducing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

It is one type of marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR), a growing field of research that proponents say could help to limit or even reverse global warming.

The company said its technology had undergone comprehensive scientific review, and was “measurable, scalable, and environmentally responsible”.

It intends to sell carbon credits for the extra carbon it manages to store, and has already signed an agreement with aviation services provider SkiesFifty to sequester 200,000 tonnes of CO2 by 2029.

However, marine and climate scientists and maritime law experts who spoke to RNZ expressed similar concerns to those voiced by officials.

They said that, based on publicly-available documents, the technology was indistinguishable from ocean fertilisation, a type of carbon removal that involves encouraging algal blooms and is currently commercially prohibited under international protocols.

Gigablue said its technology was neither ocean fertilisation nor marine dumping, and that it had the backing of local scientists.

It claims it can “responsibly scale its technology toward gigaton-level impact”.

But experts said that even if the company could legally go ahead, proving that any marine carbon removal technology actually worked was fraught with difficulty.

They also pressed the need for updated regulations, but said efforts should be focused on allowing genuine research, not commercialisation.

“In theory, it can sequester carbon,” University of Tasmania marine biologist Lennart Bach said. “We have lots of model studies that can show that.”

The difficulty was proving it.

“Whenever I hear gigaton, I’d be very careful.

“I think it needs to be shown [for] one tonne, 1000 tonnes, 10,000 tonnes. And if you show a million tonnes is reasonably feasible, then maybe you can start talking about a gigaton.”

Current regulations a ‘hindrance’

Gigablue first began operating in New Zealand in 2024, when the EPA gave it permission to conduct two small-scale ocean trials to test how its particles would drift and then sink.

It chartered a vessel from crown research institute NIWA (now part of Earth Sciences New Zealand) to carry out the second trial and also contracted the institute to review its methodology.

However, by 2025 it was looking for a more permissive way to conduct its activities, with an eye to selling carbon credits to businesses wanting to offset their emissions – known as the voluntary carbon market.

As well as the contract with SkiesFifty, it recently raised US$20 million (NZ$35m) in venture capital.

The company first met with senior MfE officials, including the ministry’s chief of staff, in early March 2025.

In a follow-up letter, Gigablue co-founder and chief technology officer Sapir Markus-Alford said the current regulations were “a hindrance” to marine carbon removal, because it was so new that it was not recognised in New Zealand’s system.

The company’s suggestion was to make it a new type of ‘permitted activity’ under EEZ regulations, meaning Gigablue’s activities would not need a consent. Further regulatory changes could follow in future.

But officials had identified a problem.

What Gigablue was proposing sounded extremely similar to ocean fertilisation, in which iron (and sometimes other nutrients) is added to areas where it’s scarce – including large parts of the Southern Ocean – to encourage more phytoplankton to grow.

Other than for “legitimate scientific research”, ocean fertilisation is prohibited under international law, via a 2013 amendment to the London Protocol, the main international agreement governing marine dumping.

In 2023, a protocol meeting agreed that ocean fertilisation “has the potential to cause deleterious effects that are widespread, long-lasting or severe”, such as harmful algal blooms and affecting marine food chains.

New Zealand has not ratified the amendment, but agreed to it, and is a member of the protocol. Under domestic EEZ laws, marine geoengineering and marine dumping are also not allowed.

“However, marine scientific research is considered a permitted activity,” one official noted. “The EPA has allowed Gigablue to undertake research in line with these requirements.”

Gigablue says there are crucial differences between its methodology, and ocean fertilisation, and gave RNZ a document prepared by Tonkin + Taylor outlining the distinctions.

Instead of adding iron directly to the ocean, it is ’embedded’ in small particles designed to accumulate the microalgae as it grows – therefore containing and controlling that growth.

The substrate is then meant to sink quickly to the ocean floor before the algae can decay or be eaten.

Gigablue says this method will store much more carbon than just encouraging free-floating phytoplankton blooms.

University of Canterbury law professor Karen Scott, who specialises in marine law, said the description was “clearly ocean fertilisation” under the protocol.

The ban remained non-binding, Scott said. “But it is arguably persuasive in terms of how states should respond to it.”

Efficacy evidence ‘top of the list’ – ministry request

In May 2025, MfE officials and Gigablue met for a two-day series of in-person meetings, with Gigablue executives flying in from overseas, joined online by James Shaw and Gigablue’s advisors for Māori engagement.

Personal notes taken by one adviser were punctuated with sceptical remarks about some of the science and environmental claims the company made: “questionable”, “skimmed over” – even “lol”.

Following the meeting, the company provided a summary of the scientific methodology review from ESNZ, along with some studies the company had commissioned from the Nelson-based Cawthron Institute.

After reviewing the documents, the same adviser emailed colleagues with a long list of gaps and assumptions she had identified, for both the environmental effects and for how much carbon would be stored, for how long.

ESNZ had found that the methodology was “scientifically sound and consistent with current scientific understanding of marine carbon dioxide removals”, but stated it had not considered the regulatory framework, environmental thresholds, or the operational scalability, she said.

The Cawthron studies on environmental safety noted “low statistical power” and that the trends should be “interpreted with caution”, she wrote.

There were other ocean-based mCDR start-ups operating overseas, using various different technologies, but they provided “much more public documentation of their methodology and research”, she said.

Not all her colleagues were so sceptical. In emails debriefing the meetings, one senior adviser said she found Gigablue “very inspiring”.

“It’s a cool idea and I found myself very persuaded.”

More emails and phone calls followed, with officials pressing the need each time for further information about existing and planned research.

In early July, a senior official emailed Markus-Alford a page-long list of what the ministry wanted, including high-priority items that officials felt were “unsighted to peer review”.

“The efficacy evidence is top of the list for us,” the official said.

In mid-September, the adviser who had reviewed the initial documents asked her manager if Gigablue had provided “any of the information we requested a few months ago”.

No, he replied. “At this stage until they share anything with us I don’t think we need to be doing anything.”

EPA turned down larger trial

At the same time that Gigablue was engaging with ministry officials, it was also seeking permission from the EPA to go ahead with a much larger trial offshore from Otago, starting in late 2025.

Marine scientific research can go ahead without a consent, but the agency still has to assess whether it meets the criteria for a “permitted activity”.

In Gigablue’s pre-activity notice filed in February 2025, it said the volumes of particles it had used in its two previous field trials – a few tonnes each – had been too small to track into the deep ocean.

This time, it wanted to release up to 1000 tonnes of particles, in five lots.

Modelling showed that by the time the particles made it to the seafloor, they would be “a scant, scattered presence” and were not expected to smother any sea life, the application said.

“Adverse effects on seabirds, fish, zooplankton and marine mammals are also unlikely.”

The authority asked for further information, including a more detailed environmental impact assessment.

The company finally provided a draft summary assessment in late September, but the authority was unmoved.

In a formal notification, the EPA’s compliance manager said the company’s plans – including a second trial it filed details of in August – could not proceed as permitted activities, because the disposal of particles fell within the definition of dumping.

The authority was also concerned the environmental effects were underestimated, and not satisfied that the proposal fell within the definition of marine scientific research.

“That was not the response we were hoping for,” a Gigablue executive wrote back. The planned research would have to stop, “with a significant cost”.

EPA told RNZ its discussions with Gigablue were “ongoing” and the company submitted a “significantly modified activity” in January this year.

That activity was given permission to go ahead, “strictly in accordance with the description provided and that all mitigation measures are fully implemented and adhered to”.

Instead of the 1000 tonnes it proposed releasing last year, the smaller trial involved just 55kg of substrate, contained within ‘pens’ that would drift up to 180km before being collected.

No change – for now

Although it has only so far applied to carry out research, the MfE documents make it clear that Gigablue wanted to start verifying carbon credits.

An early discussion between officials shows some uncertainty about how to define the company’s activities: “Are they still classified as research or have they shifted to commercial?”

In July, Markus-Alford shared its legal advice with officials “to help us understand the legal state of using the data from a scientific experiment activity for the registration of credits”.

In an interview with RNZ, she said all of Gigablue’s planned activities were still research, but it was “essential” to get carbon credits verified to fund voyages, equipment and expertise.

“These are all research activities that need to still be somehow paid [for].”

It was up to New Zealand to decide how to classify that.

“Our conversations with the New Zealand government is to figure out what the regulator in New Zealand will think is most appropriate, and we will follow it.”

James Kerry, a senior marine scientist at European NGO OceanCare and adjunct research fellow at Australia’s James Cook University, said there were plenty of much smaller-scale lab or tank-based studies the company should be doing to demonstrate the basics of its approach before it moved to any kind of open ocean trials.

“It’s certainly possible to begin to gain confidence in your claims or in your expectations without going to what was proposed in one of the requests for a permitted activity, which was to deposit a thousand tons of particles in the ocean.”

An MfE spokesperson told RNZ there was no current work happening to change EEZ legislation or to develop a regime for marine carbon dioxide removal.

There had been communication with Gigablue since October over a proposed visit, and the company had provided some further information, which the ministry was reviewing.

The ministry did not have a position on the efficacy or environmental safety of Gigablue’s technology, nor whether it met the definition of either marine geoengineering or ocean fertilisation, a spokesperson said.

Despite the delayed voyages, the benefit for Gigablue of operating in New Zealand – apart from access to the Southern Ocean – was one of perception.

“We actually came to New Zealand because of its strict environmental approach,” Markus-Alford told RNZ.

Gigablue’s website and public material still lean heavily on the involvement of New Zealand agencies.

The website features photos of the ESNZ vessel at sea during the 2024 voyages, and chief oceans scientist Mike Williams – who declined an interview with RNZ – appears in a promotional video.

A sub-heading says Gigablue’s activities are “Permitted by the EPA”.

Gigablue told officials there were added benefits to New Zealand, too, “including job creation, infrastructure investment, and enhanced global positioning”.

James Shaw told RNZ he saw a clear benefit from allowing Gigablue to continue its activities here.

“If the science proves out … then New Zealand will be well-positioned to take an early lead on removing CO2 from the atmosphere in the ocean as well as on land,” he said.

Why New Zealand?

New Zealand was not the only country that Gigablue was interested in operating in, Markus-Akford told RNZ.

“There are countries out there that promote and even have in place already regulatory frameworks to be able to host those activities and to act as leaders in this space.”

However, the company had found “amazing partners” in New Zealand.

“We found here really a treasure of people and communities that we are really enjoying working with.”

Among them is Cherie Tirikatene (Ngāi Tahu), the Rekohu/Chatham Islands general manager for Māori-led carbon farming organisation Tāmata Hauhā.

Now also Gigablue’s strategic and iwi engagement manager, she got involved when the company sought help consulting with iwi.

What the company wanted to do was “super exciting”, but it was their open and early engagement that won her over.

“I’ve attached my whakapapa to this because I do believe in it and I believe in their authenticity.”

There were huge opportunities from allowing the company to operate in New Zealand, including local jobs and research opportunities for young people, she said.

However, that could all be lost “if this gets too hard”.

“If we were to lose this off our shores and they go to another country to operate, I would be gutted.”

Tirikatene believed the technology was “a game-changer”.

“What we’re proving now is the scale.”

Robust research and monitoring essential – experts

Late last year, in collaboration with the carbon removals monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) company, Puro.Earth, Gigablue published a 170-page methodology for microalgae carbon fixation and sinking.

That would require field-based measurements at each stage of every deployment, Markus-Alford told RNZ.

“The measurement of this technology is based on ground-truth data, not on modelling.”

Helene Muri, a senior scientist at Norwegian climate and environmental research institute NILU, co-authored a European report late last year into MRV for marine carbon dioxide removal.

“We concluded that no mCDR method today has a sufficiently robust, comprehensive MRV system to support safe, large-scale deployment or crediting,” she said.

“We are still in the knowledge-building phase, not in a stage where large volumes of credits from marine interventions can be considered high-confidence climate solutions.”

Gigablue’s contract to deliver 200,000 carbon credits by 2029 was therefore “very ambitious and, from a scientific standpoint, most likely premature”, Muri said.

The ESNZ scientific review and the Puro.Earth methodology were both important steps, but not sufficient on their own, Muri said.

“They are not a substitute for public, peer-engageable evidence, independent third-party verification, and regulatory judgment on environmental acceptability and legal consistency.”

Gigablue has not yet published any research, though it provided RNZ with the same one-page summary of the ESNZ review that was supplied to MfE, together with the unpublished study from the Cawthron Institute.

It also supplied a full version of the environmental impact assessment it gave to the EPA in draft form, which said the adverse environmental effects were “expected to be low to negligible”.

Last month, it presented at the Ocean Sciences Meeting, the flagship conference for ocean sciences, and Markus-Alford said it had a research paper going through the review process.

She said the company agreed with the need for published research – which is why Gigablue wanted to scale up its activities in New Zealand.

“We are really eager to create those evidence-based results, to be in the ocean, and to prove to anyone … that our activity is safe.”

James Kerry said the collaboration with institutions like ESNZ was positive, but the underlying research and reports had not been made available.

“That makes it difficult for the wider scientific community to assess what was actually evaluated, under what conditions, and how far the conclusions can really be taken,” he said

From what he could see, the research so far had been limited to small-scale field trials and a small set of “relatively limited” lab studies, he said.

“Each of these can provide useful insights, but none of them individually or collectively are anywhere near sufficient to demonstrate that the approach works as intended or is environmentally safe.”

What next?

Markus-Alford said for now, the company was able to proceed with its immediate research plans under the current EEZ regulations.

It still wanted to verify carbon credits, but the timeline for that was “a matter of the developments with the regulations”.

Karen Scott said New Zealand should allow mCDR research to take place in its waters, but it should do it in line with the London Protocol.

That provided “quite a robust international framework” for assessing which research activities could go ahead, which New Zealand should follow.

“That’s not to say that you need to ban it altogether, because there is potential within this,” she said.

“But … we’re a very long way from the stage where you could convincingly deploy it.”

Helene Muri said New Zealand and other states should take a “staged and precautionary approach” to any mCDR projects, and resist rapid commercialisation.

Lennart Bach said governments should “constructively regulate” marine carbon dioxide removal.

He believed there was a place for start-ups to be involved, because they were more inclined to test boundaries.

“Working in the space myself academically … we don’t necessarily overthink it, but we also are hesitant to make the next steps,” he said.

The risk was that an “unhinged” start-up could move too fast. “The intent is good. [It’s] the regulation that is missing.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Christchurch City Council staff are backing away from a controversial plan to pump millions of litres of sewage out to sea as councillors prepare to vote on proposals it is hoped will take pressure off the city’s struggling treatment plant.

A plan put forward by the mayor to send partially treated sewage out to sea which prompted concern and condemnation has not been recommended by council staff.

Instead, staff backed a plan to increase aeration in the oxidation ponds, which would be more cost effective, less ecologically damaging, had mana whenua support and was easier to build and operate than the plan the mayor mooted.

Putrid stench plagues city

Residents in the city’s east have been plagued by the stench since a blaze destroyed parts of the Bromley wastewater treatment plant in 2021.

Complaints began to surge in October, with the regional council receiving more than 7600 reports from the east and city centre over summer.

The city council said heavy rain reducing oxygen and algae in the ponds worsened the smell.

In late February, the regional council issued an abatement notice to the city council requiring it to provide a comprehensive plan to comply with its resource consent or face prosecution.

Days later, mayor Phil Mauger proposed pumping around a third of the city’s sewage – between 45 to 55 million litres a day – into Pegasus Bay via the existing outfall pipe.

At the time, the regional council’s director of operations Brett Aldridge said the council was “surprised and concerned” by the comments.

On Tuesday, Aldridge said he was confident the council had now provided all the information required.

The regional council would do “a little bit of due diligence” and have its experts look at the council’s plans, Aldridge said.

“We will leave it to the city engineers to really get into the nitty gritty of what that design is and how it will be implemented.”

Aldridge confirmed the council’s two recommended options were not included in the response to the abatement notice.

The council had signalled longer term options were under development with a wastewater specialist, but did not set out specific options or proposed pathways, he said.

Two recommended options

In its report to councillors, council staff offered six options but said only two were viable and cost effective – increasing aeration to the ponds, or increasing aeration and diverting some partially treated wastewater around the ponds and out to sea.

Staff warned neither option addressed odours caused by excessive sewage loads or chemicals, equipment failures, those caused by extreme rain events or by things other than biological oxygen demand (BOD) – a measure of how much oxygen was needed to break down sewage into CO2 and sludge.

High BOD levels in the plant’s ponds were just one reason for the stench, but were the most significant cause, according to the report.

Increasing electrical supply to power the additional aerators could take four months, and staff proposed using diesel generators in the interim.

Staff costed the recommendations between $7.7 million and $11.2m to add differing levels of aeration, or between $12.2m and $16.6m to add aeration and then divert 400 litres a second of partially treated sewage to sea, either as needed (18 to 60 days a year) or year-round.

The most expensive option, to divert almost 2000 litres a second of partially treated sewage to sea for 243 days a year would cost $18.3m, had a very high risk of failure, and would take five months to implement.

Staff noted the partially treated wastewater would include BOD, enterococci, TSS (total suspended solids) and chlorine which could have effects on the ocean and public health, but that there had not been time to assess the ecological and health impacts.

If councillors backed aeration, the only resource consent needed would be for the temporary diesel generators.

If they chose one of the diversion options, they would need a new consent, which would be processed with priority and under the new wastewater regulations that came into effect in December, Aldridge said.

Two abatement notices in less than a month

In March, the regional council issued another notice over a series of illegal sewage discharges into Whakaraupō Lyttelton and Akaroa harbours.

The breaches prompted Banks Peninsula hapū Ngati Wheke to consider legal action over the failures and lack of communication from the council.

Ecologist Dr Mike Joy said discharging sewage to the ocean, rivers and estuaries was “Victorian”.

“We should be way past this kind of attitude that it’s all right just to dump the waste.”

Terms such as “treated wastewater” needed clearer definitions, he said.

“.. the word treatment can mean anything from just taking the lumps out to completely taking it back to drinking water.”

Assurances about the safety of chlorine did not relate to environmental impact.

“They mean safe in that the chlorine will kill bacteria that are harmful to humans – that doesn’t mean it’s safe for the environment or safe for the ecology of the near shore environments.”

Sewage discharge caused an influx of nutrients which drove algal blooms and potentially cyanobacteria blooms, resulting in “dead zones where the water becomes deoxygenated, and no life in any form can survive without oxygen”.

The idea the sheer quantity of water would disperse sewage was outdated, Joy said.

“This is this old saying when there were a hell of a lot less people on the planet that the solution to pollution is dilution, but it’s not that at all – the solution to pollution is assimilation.”

Nor did he think the council’s altered proposal was much of an improvement.

“It’s just another ambulance at the bottom of the cliff thing. To treat this discharge properly we need to create an industrial-type wetland where you grow flax and raupō and you harvest and compost it.”

Concern over new national wastewater rules

The proposal underscored the increased nutrients and pathogens that could be discharged under the new wastewater standards, Joy said.

“It was a completely backward step, and I think the city council’s trying to take advantage of the weakening of national regulations to allow more stuff to be dumped into the ocean.”

Joy disputed claims the standards would improve performance.

“The only performance that will improve might be the economic bottom line for these councils because they’ll be able to get away with dumping more of the stuff without treating it. It’s quite clear analysis … that much more of these contaminants will be allowed under this new legislation.”

Some bypass events could go on for weeks or months and could go completely unnoticed.

“The actual wastewater treatment plants in many cases are OK, but the infrastructure that feeds into it is old and worn out and has illegal connections so when you get a heavy rainfall event you get a massive increase and they don’t have anywhere to store it.”

Sewerage infrastructure would come under more strain as climate change caused more extreme weather events, he said.

“It’s a massive and growing problem in New Zealand and it’s just another one of these [issues] of lack of spending on infrastructure that’s now coming back to bite us.”

Upgrades urgently needed

Taumata Arowai criticised what it called “[https://www.taumataarowai.govt.nz/home/articles/wastewater-standards-separating-myth-from-fact

misconceptions]” about the rules.

Spokesperson Sara McFall said more than 20 percent of the country’s wastewater plants were operating on expired consents and around half of underground wastewater networks were rated as in poor or very poor condition, so it was important to make the urgently needed upgrades affordable.

The council’s wastewater treatment plant operations manager Adam Twose presented to the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood community board in mid-March, and was clear the council was only able to consider the diversion plan because the regulations were “significantly more relaxed” than current consent conditions.

“Under the new wastewater standards, there’s the option to go a lot looser, so you’re allowed to discharge more contaminants to the environment,” he told the meeting.

He told the board there was a “high level” risk of the stench increasing if the council did not act, as well as risks to the plant itself, which had been operating “at maximum capacity and minimum redundancy” since the fire.

More oversight, more support

City councillor Yani Johanson said it was obvious the plan to put partially treated wastewater into the outfall pipe was not realistic.

“There are too many risks around it, too much concern around environmental impact, too many unknowns.”

He was frustrated aeration had not been suggested earlier.

“Many of us around the council table have asked for options to address what was going on and what was causing it for years. I welcome the idea that we can do more, but it’s frustrating it’s taken this long to get to that point.”

Johanson wanted better council oversight of the activated sludge plant project, due to be completed in 2028.

“While there’s some things being done, there’s no clear plan that the community can look at to hold us accountable for mitigating the impact on their health and well-being.”

He also wanted staff to prepare a plan to reduce the impact on the community.

This could include free GP visits, a register of vulnerable residents or distributing air purifiers, he said.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

The same government that scrapped the Lake Onslow pumped hydro project has put it on the fast-track list. But whether this country can pull off a project of its size is another question.

It was hyped as the answer to the country’s energy anxiety – a giant “battery” in the deep south that could keep the lights on when the lakes run dry.

But when the coalition government was voted in, the project was voted out, deemed too big and too expensive.

Now, the Lake Onslow pumped hydro scheme is back – or at least, back in the conversation – thanks to a private consortium group, and somewhat ironically, the government has agreed to refer the scheme for possible fast-tracking.

“There’s a view that the fast-track system makes it a lot easier to consent to a lot of different things, but this is a really big project,” says Newsroom senior political reporter Marc Daalder, who has been covering the story.

“It’s hard to overstate how significant this would be, both in terms of its broader energy system and national economic impact, but also just in terms of the actual size of the thing they are proposing to build.

“And that’s the real question, right? People often say it’s hard to build things in New Zealand. Well, this is a really big thing. Can we build it?

“Recent history would suggest no, not without significant cost overruns and significant regulatory difficulty. The government likes to think that they have tackled those issues. I guess we will find out.”

Today, The Detail looks into the pumped hydro scheme concept, which is deceptively simple: pump water uphill when electricity is plentiful, then release it when it’s scarce, with energy stored at a scale never seen before in New Zealand.

Supporters say it’s exactly what’s needed to tackle the country’s biggest vulnerability – the dreaded “dry year”, when hydro lakes drop, gas runs tight, and coal-fired generation has to ramp up.

The Labour government liked the idea, but when they looked into it, the bill was around $16 billion, with years, likely more than a decade, before anything tangible would be delivered.

So in 2023, not long after being elected, the coalition government pulled the pin.

“The theory was, at the time, that the opposition to Onslow was that it was creating too much uncertainty in the market because it would have a really significant effect on the electricity market,” Daalder says.

“It would basically be buying a lot of power when power prices are low, in order to charge up the battery as it were, in order to pump that water up the hill, and then when power prices were high, it could be used to depress those because you could flick it on, like with the flick of a switch, and generate power.

“So it would bring up the low prices, but cap off the high prices; it would have quite a significant effect on the markets. There were concerns that people weren’t investing in new generation, as a result of that.”

But it turns out the project wasn’t dead in the water, with industry players circling and forming a private planning group. The Clutha Pumped Hydro Consortium includes former Meridian Energy chief executive and Transpower chairperson Keith Turner, former environment minister David Parker, Christchurch lawyer John Hardie, and Reserve Bank board chair Rodger Finlay.

Turner told RNZ’s Morning Report that they estimated their build would cost around $8-10b, and if successful, it could be up and running by 2035. International investors had already shown interest in the project, he said.

And now their plan is being considered for fast-track consenting that could, in theory, bulldoze through years of red tape – thanks to the same government that axed the scheme.

“I asked the Energy Minister, Simon Watts, who has spoken before about the chilling impact that the Lake Onslow project had on the electricity market, whether he was worried about it having a chilling effect,” Daalder says.

“He said ‘no’ but he said it is different because this is the private market, rather than the government making its decisions.

“I don’t know if that logic fully holds. We know that private players in the energy market can have significant impacts on investment decisions, so, for example, we often hear how the uncertainty over whether Tiwai Point would stay or go for five years – between 2019 and 2024 – meant that people weren’t investing in new generation because they thought if the smelter was going to close there would be all this power available.

“It’s hard to see why you would get a different result or a significantly different result, depending on who is actually funding it.”

In limbo

So, where does this leave Lake Onslow? Right now, it’s in limbo. Not quite dead, not quite alive, but very much in the realm of unfinished business with fast-track in its sights.

It was hyped as the answer to the country’s energy anxiety – a giant “battery” in the deep south that could keep the lights on when the lakes run dry.

But when the coalition government was voted in, the project was voted out, deemed too big and too expensive.

Now, the Lake Onslow pumped hydro scheme is back – or at least, back in the conversation – thanks to a private consortium group, and somewhat ironically, the government has agreed to refer the scheme for possible fast-tracking.

“There’s a view that the fast-track system makes it a lot easier to consent to a lot of different things, but this is a really big project,” says Newsroom senior political reporter Marc Daalder, who has been covering the story.

“It’s hard to overstate how significant this would be, both in terms of its broader energy system and national economic impact, but also just in terms of the actual size of the thing they are proposing to build.

“And that’s the real question, right? People often say it’s hard to build things in New Zealand. Well, this is a really big thing. Can we build it?

“Recent history would suggest no, not without significant cost overruns and significant regulatory difficulty. The government likes to think that they have tackled those issues. I guess we will find out.”

‘Too much uncertainty’

Today, The Detail looks into the pumped hydro scheme concept, which is deceptively simple: pump water uphill when electricity is plentiful, then release it when it’s scarce, with energy stored at a scale never seen before in New Zealand.

Supporters say it’s exactly what’s needed to tackle the country’s biggest vulnerability – the dreaded “dry year”, when hydro lakes drop, gas runs tight, and coal-fired generation has to ramp up.

The Labour government liked the idea, but when they looked into it, the bill was around $16 billion, with years, likely more than a decade, before anything tangible would be delivered.

So in 2023, not long after being elected, the coalition government pulled the pin.

“The theory was, at the time, that the opposition to Onslow was that it was creating too much uncertainty in the market because it would have a really significant effect on the electricity market,” Daalder says.

“It would basically be buying a lot of power when power prices are low, in order to charge up the battery as it were, in order to pump that water up the hill, and then when power prices were high, it could be used to depress those because you could flick it on, like with the flick of a switch, and generate power.

“So it would bring up the low prices, but cap off the high prices; it would have quite a significant effect on the markets. There were concerns that people weren’t investing in new generation, as a result of that.”

But it turns out the project wasn’t dead in the water, with industry players circling and forming a private planning group. The Clutha Pumped Hydro Consortium includes former Meridian Energy chief executive and Transpower chairperson Keith Turner, former environment minister David Parker, Christchurch lawyer John Hardie, and Reserve Bank board chair Rodger Finlay.

Turner told RNZ’s Morning Report that they estimated their build would cost around $8-10b, and if successful, it could be up and running by 2035. International investors had already shown interest in the project, he said.

And now their plan is being considered for fast-track consenting that could, in theory, bulldoze through years of red tape – thanks to the same government that axed the scheme.

“I asked the energy minister, Simon Watts, who has spoken before about the chilling impact that the Lake Onslow project had on the electricity market, whether he was worried about it having a chilling effect,” Daalder says.

“He said ‘no’ but he said it is different because this is the private market, rather than the government making its decisions.

“I don’t know if that logic fully holds. We know that private players in the energy market can have significant impacts on investment decisions, so, for example, we often hear how the uncertainty over whether Tiwai Point would stay or go for five years – between 2019 and 2024 – meant that people weren’t investing in new generation because they thought if the smelter was going to close there would be all this power available.

“It’s hard to see why you would get a different result or a significantly different result, depending on who is actually funding it.”

So, where does this leave Lake Onslow? Right now, it’s in limbo. Not quite dead, not quite alive, but very much in the realm of unfinished business with fast-track in its sights.

Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.

You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

David Tamihere’s convictions have been quashed, 36 years after he was found guilty of murdering two Swedish backpackers, but what happens next and could he get compensation from the government?

In a decision released on Tuesday, the Supreme Court directed a retrial but said it was up to the Crown to decide whether one should be held.

The court found there was a fundamental error in Tamihere’s 1990 trial which made it unfair – and the Crown case had changed so “radically” since then that it had not actually been tested by a jury.

Tamihere was convicted of the murder of Urban Höglin, 23, and Heidi Paakkonen, 21, in 1990. The couple was last seen in Thames in April 1989 and Höglin’s body was found in 1991. Paakkonen’s body has never been found.

If the Crown decided not to pursue a retrial for Tamihere, who was now in his 70s, he would be eligible to apply for compensation for wrongful imprisonment.

The decision on whether to hold a retrial rested with Auckland Crown solicitor Alysha McClintock.

She said told RNZ on Tuesday that there was now a process to follow.

“It will consider many factors, focussed on what available and admissible evidence remains to meet the Solicitor-General’s prosecution guidelines test and – if there is sufficient evidence – where the public interest now lies,” she said.

According to the Ministry of Justice, a person would be eligible for compensation if their convictions had been quashed and criminal proceedings had finished and they had been imprisoned for all or part of a sentence for that conviction.

Payment of compensation was at the discretion of the government and Cabinet had to be satisfied a person was innocent on the balance of probabilities along with suffering losses that could be compensated and compensation being in the interests of justice.

Tamihere spent 20 years in prison, so if he was eligible for compensation, he could receive an annual amount of $150,000 for each year in prison, an annual amount of up to $100,000 for loss of income for each year, an additional $75,000 a year for time on restrictive bail or parole, up to $50,000 to re-adjust to living in the community, an amount for costs incurred when challenging conviction and an amount for large financial losses between $50,000 and $250,000.

This could mean upwards of $3 million in Tamihere’s case.

The government could also decide to make a public apology or statement of innocence, the Ministry of Justice website said.

If an application for compensation was made, Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith would decide whether the application would be further assessed.

That assessment would focus on whether the person was innocent on the balance of probabilities, whether it was in the interests of justice to pay compensation and how much should be paid.

The minister could also seek independent legal advice on any aspect the application.

Tamihere’s case would be called in the High Court at Auckland on 13 May.

The Crown Law Office said it was likely a decision would have been reached by then but the court date would be pushed back if it had not.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand