From the
editor’s desk…
Welcome
to Pipes & Wires #145. This month we start with some analysis of a new Bill
to further regulate connection of distributed generation in NZ, and then look
at an analysis of the UK’s regulatory successes and failures. We then move on
to examine the beginning of a big merger in the US and the rejection of another
big US merger at the last regulatory hurdle. We then move into the energy
policy and markets space to examine the UK’s new nuclear station, the closure
of thermal plant in NZ and the curtailing of wind subsidies in the UK. This
issue then concludes with an analysis of the electricity distribution revenue
determinations in three Australian states. So … happy reading.
Matters for attention in NZ
Readers’
attention is drawn to the following matters…
· The Health
and Safety Reform Bill has now passed into law as the Health
and Safety at Work Act and will come into effect on 4th April 2016.
· Changes to the requirements for connecting embedded generation to distribution.
· Increasing interest in ISO 55000:2014 in regard to asset management practices and systems, and
the associated withdrawal of BSI PAS 55:2008.
· Revised standard NZS 7901:2014 for Safety Management
Systems.
Interesting fact…
The world’s 7
largest power stations could each supply New Zealand’s entire maximum demand
all by themselves.
Regulatory policy
NZ – regulating connection of small renewable generation
Introduction
Regulating
the connection of renewable distributed generation (RDG) to overcome perceived
entry barriers is certainly not a new issue. This article examines the key
features of the Electricity Industry (Small-Scale Renewable Distributed Generation)
Amendment Bill which was introduced to Parliament in August 2015.
Key features of the Bill
The
Bill proposes to amend various clauses of the Electricity Industry Act 2010 as follows…
· Extend the Electricity Authority’s objectives to include encouraging
greater use of renewable energy including from distributed generation sources (by
amending s15).
· Extend the Electricity Authority’s functions to include preparing
and monitoring the use of the small-scale renewable distributed generation
electricity purchase agreement (by amending s16(1)(h)).
· Requires the Electricity Authority to amend the Electricity
Industry Participation Code within 1 year of the Bill becoming law so a wide
range of matters relating to contractual terms and conditions for connecting
small-scale renewables are embodied in a pro-forma electricity purchase
agreement (by inserting a new s43A).
· Extends the Minister’s powers to overrule the Electricity
Authority if the Minister considers that the Code provisions are unsatisfactory
(by inserting a new s43B).
· Attaching the electricity purchase agreement obligations to
the land (by inserting a new s44A).
The
electricity purchase agreement that is central to the Bill’s goal will regulate
the price paid by a retailer to the RDG to a level greater than the wholesale
electricity price, and require a nationally consistent connection process.
Progress of the Bill
The
Bill has only been recently introduced as a Members’ Bill, which are debated
every second Wednesday. Pipes & Wires will comment further as the Bill
progresses through the various Readings and Select Committees.
The wider issue of subsidizing renewables
Subsidies
(whether direct or indirect) for renewable energy are indeed a thorny topical
issue. We might well ask why RDG needs further regulatory support given that Part 6 of the Code already places considerable obligations on distributors. A
quick reading of the Bill suggests that distributors will end up absorbing
connection costs as the technical variations between individual RDG’s emerge.
UK – taking stock of regulatory successes to date
Introduction
Former
UK electricity regulator Professor Stephen Littlechild was the recent guest of the Electricity
Authority, and he presented a lecture entitled “Top Of The Pops – 12 Big Issues In UK Infrastructure Regulation” which is well worth watching if you’ve got a spare 50
minutes.
How successful has regulation been ?
In a
humorously presented lecture, Stephen examines how successfully the UK’s infrastructure
has been regulated over the last 25 years or so on the following 2 dimensions…
· Whether regulatory outcomes have been better or worse
(overall yes).
· Whether there has been less regulatory burden (overall no).
The outstanding points
Stephen
did make a couple of very outstanding points in his lecture (and these are largely
my words, not his)…
· In the face of advancing technologies (particularly
communications, but also electricity distribution), there is a diminishing case
for price regulation of legacy technologies. The suggested approach is to
regulate the 2nd most recent technology, not the most recent (so it
can find its feet) or the legacy (which is probably subject to competition by
now anyway).
· Regulators powers should be set by a separate agency, including
proving the need for regulation against 3 economic criteria.
· Regulators should consider less burdensome regulatory
instruments such as negotiation or monitoring for smaller players within a
market segment (quoted in the context of the 3 London airports).
· Regulation tends to drive industries around a cycle of
vertical disaggregation and re-aggregation (citing the example of how Britain’s
railways seem to be turning back into something similar to the big 19th
century railway companies).
All in
all, a thoroughly excellent lecture.
Mergers & acquisitions
US – Southern Co makes a bid for AGL Resources
Introduction
Southern Co recently announced a $12b deal to acquire AGL Resources, a gas distribution and retail business. This article examines the key
features of the deal to set some context for future analysis.
An overview of Southern Co.
Southern Co is an
electric utility holding company based in Atlanta, Georgia with 42,000MW of
generation capacity and 4,200,000 electric customers supplied through its
regulated subsidiaries Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Mississippi Power and Gulf Power. Annual revenues are about $18b and the asset base is about $65b.
An overview of AGL Resources
AGL Resources is a
gas distribution company also based in Atlanta, Georgia that supplies about
4,500,000 natural gas customers through regulated networks in Illinois,
Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey. AGL also
supplies gas to 1,100,000 retail customers in states that have deregulated
their gas markets. Annual revenues are about $5.4b and the asset base is about
$15b.
Key features of the deal
The deal is valued
at about $12b, and comprises an offer of $66 for each AGL share plus the
assumption of $4b in debt. The deal is expected to be concluded in the 2nd
half of 2016.
The strategy behind the deal
Key elements of
the traditional electric utility business are in decline …
· Total kWh’s are declining as economies remain soft.
· Rooftop solar penetration is further eroding conveyed kWh.
· Efficiency programs gain traction, further eroding conveyed kWh.
· Nuclear is proving very expensive and politically difficult.
· Coal faces new climate change pressures.
In contrast, gas utilities
are finding new life as …
· Gas-fired generation substitutes for coal.
· Gas-fired generation is increasingly required to buffer wind and solar
generation.
· Gas is increasingly used as an end-use fuel.
So buying a gas
business to capture growth, capture synergies from dual-fuel customer offerings
and securing gas supplies to generation plant would make pretty good sense.
Regulatory approval required
In addition to
shareholder approval, the following regulatory approvals are required…
· Utility regulators in Illinois, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Virginia,
Maryland and New Jersey.
· Clearance under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvement Act 1976 by the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice.
Pipes & Wires
will provide further analysis as various approvals emerge over the next 9
months or so.
US – Washington DC regulator rejects the Exelon – Pepco merger
Introduction
Previous issues of
Pipes & Wires have examined Exelon’s proposed acquisition of Pepco and last month noted that only 1 regulatory approval was
still required (from the Washington DC Public Service Commission). This article examines the DC PSC’s rejection of the merger.
Key features of Exelon’s offer
Exelon
made a $6.8b all-cash offer of $27.25 per Pepco share, which represented a
24.7% premium to Pepco’s closing price on the announcement day. The enlarged
Exelon would’ve been America’s largest electric and gas company with about
10,000,000 customers spread across Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey
and Washington DC.
Key aspects of the PSC’s rejection
Key aspects of the
PSC’s rejection include…
· Impact on Washington DC’s financial health (presumably due to the loss
of executive jobs).
· Impact on the management of Pepco’s operations, especially the
contentious issue that Pepco’s regional president may not be part of Exelon’s
executive team.
· Public safety and reliability risks.
· Risks from the enlarged company’s activities outside of Washington DC,
including Exelon’s nuclear generation.
· The ability of the DC PSC to effectively regulate the enlarged company.
· Competition in retail markets that could affect Pepco customers.
· Environmental and conservation goals, and in particular that the PSC
sees Exelon’s nuclear generation as inconsistent with Washington’s renewable
energy targets.
So … all in all a
very disappointing outcome for Exelon.
Energy policy & markets
UK – the new Hinkley Point C hits a few difficulties
Introduction
Way
back in mid-November 2009 the UK government announced possible sites for what former Prime Minister Tony Blair figured would be
10 new nuclear stations. One by one each of those options fell over until only
Electricité de France’s (EDF) proposed Hinkley Point C remained. This article examines some of the recent issues
that have beset Hinkley Point C.
The increase in cost
Most
of us are familiar with the cost of major construction projects escalating (the
unworthy cynics might say as the project progresses from the political phase to
the engineering phase and then to the construction phase). The publically stated
costs of Hinkley Point C have increased from an initial Ł10b through a series
of significant increases to a most recent gob-stopping Ł24.5b.
Difficulties with the reactor type
It is
proposed to use two 1,600MW European Pressurised Reactors (EPR) at Hinkley Point C, of which 4 are under construction
(1 in Finland, 1 in France and 2 in China). In addition to construction delays
and cost increases, the #3 reactor under construction at Flamanville in north-western France has experienced some technical
difficulties…
· Reduced mechanical strength of the pressure vessel head due
to high carbon concentrations.
· Discovery of multiple malfunctioning relief valves on the
reactor vessel.
Legal challenges to the funding model
Readers
might remember that prohibition of state aid is one of the European Union’s
founding principles, so not surprisingly the funding mechanism for Hinkley
Point C (based on a 35 year Contract For Difference model that would top up the
revenue over and above the wholesale price) took some working out. After an 11
month investigation the EU approved an amended funding model that didn’t breach
the prohibition on state aid.
Austria
and Luxembourg recently announced that they will challenge the EU’s decision in
the European Court Of Justice, ostensibly on the basis of their strongly
anti-nuclear views and that state aid must be targeted towards new (ie.
renewable) technologies. This challenge could be a lengthy process, and
although recent media commentary suggests that it will be unsuccessful, there
remains a finite possibility of the challenge succeeding in which case EDF
would need to refund the UK government.
NZ – closing thermal generation and the impact on the supply
curve
Introduction
Last
month (August 2015) two of New Zealand’s generation companies announced the
closure of some large thermal generation plant…
· Genesis Energy announced that the two remaining 250MW coal and gas fired
units at Huntly would be closed by the end of 2018 (in addition to the previous
decisions closing the other two 250MW units).
· Contact Energy announced that it would close the 400MW combined cycle
plant at Otahuhu B at the end of September 2015.
This
is in addition to Mighty River Power announcing back in March 2015 that it would close its 140MW
gas-fired plant at Southdown. This article examines the possible implications of those
plant closures during a dry year.
The loss of generation capacity
In
practice these prima facie closures could
mean the following…
|
Effective
date |
Closure |
MW withdrawn |
Cumulative
MW withdrawn |
|
October
2014 |
Huntly
#3. |
250 |
250 |
|
June
2015 |
Huntly
#4. |
250 |
500 |
|
September
2015 |
Otahuhu
B. |
400 |
900 |
|
Late
2015 |
Southdown. |
140 |
1,040 |
|
Late
2018 |
Huntly
#1 and #2. |
500 |
1,540 |
Possible re-thinks on plant closures
Closing
a thermal plant is like any other cost-benefit decision … the value of the likely
generation during a dry year needs to exceed the standing costs of keeping the
plant in various states of readiness, and of course the value of that
generation will be determined by the interaction of supply and demand going
forward, which in turn will depend on other companies plant closures (the
supply curve).
Within
days of the Contact announcement there was speculation that Genesis might
re-think closing Huntly #1 and #2 because those 2 units could be significantly
more profitable once Otahuhu B is withdrawn. However the thrust of this article
is not so much the detail of market behavior and fluctuations during average
years, but the security of supply implications during dry years.
What about a dry year ?
For
those readers unfamiliar with NZ’s electricity system, a dry year is when we
get low inflows to our relatively small hydro lakes, due either to low rainfall
in key catchments or low snow fall on the eastern side of the Southern Alps
during the previous winter. Given that about 65% to 70% of NZ’s annual
generation is from hydro, a dry year has obvious implications … the need for “hydro
firming” was spotted over 60 years ago and was one of the reasons for building
the 180MW coal-fired station at Meremere in the mid-1950’s.
Extending
this concept of “dry year” to a system that now includes a lot of wind and will
almost certainly include an increasing penetration of solar, the need to cover
off an “unfavorable climate” year should be obvious … a year in which
significant chunks of hydro, wind and solar have to be withdrawn from the
supply curve for weeks and possibly months with no thermal to step in. We might
well ask if there is sufficient geographical diversity and sufficient
independence between rainfall, snowfall, wind and cloud cover for the national
renewable portfolio to be considered secure enough to keep the supply curve far
enough to the right.
UK – ending the on-shore wind power subsidies
Introduction
Subsidies
for wind power have become increasingly politically sensitive. This article
examines the recent announcement that subsidies for new on-shore wind farms in
the UK will be curtailed as of 1st April 2016.
How the UK subsidies work
Under
the current Renewable Obligation (RO), electricity suppliers have to source an increasing
percentage of the electricity they on-sell from renewable generators.
The
basis of the RO process is the Renewable Obligation Certificate (ROC). A renewable electricity generator that has been
accredited by Ofgem can issue an ROC to an electricity supplier that
corresponds to the amount of renewable electricity purchased by that supplier.
At the 31st of March each year, the number of ROC’s held by an
electricity supplier is compared to the amount of electricity it has sold, and
if the required percentage of renewables is not covered off by ROC’s then that
supplier pays into a fund. That fund is then allocated to those suppliers who
have covered off their RO’s.
The
starting point for valuing an ROC is that 1 ROC is issued for each 1 MWh of
eligible renewable generation. From that starting point, a multiplier is
applied for specific technologies eg. an off-shore wind farm receives 2 ROC’s
per MWh, whilst an on-shore wind farm receives only 0.9 ROC per MWh (and a
landfill gas plant only receives 0.5 ROC per MWh).
Ending the subsidies
The UK
government recently announced that the subsidy for new on-shore wind farms will
be curtailed from 1st April 2016, rather than the originally planned
2017. The most immediate response is that about 2,500 new on-shore wind
turbines will not be built.
The various responses
The responses from the various stakeholders
are…
· The English government said that it has sufficient on-shore
wind power to meet its renewable energy commitments, and that new technologies must
stand on their own feet.
· The Scottish government said it will be disproportionally
effected, and the removal of the subsidy could add about Ł3m per year to
customer bills.
· The wind energy trade association said customer bills will
increase, whilst jobs and investment are at risk.
So …
an interesting range of responses from parties with strong vested interests.
Regulatory decisions
Queensland – the 2015-2020 revenue determinations
Introduction
Last
year both Energex and Ergon Energy submitted their Regulatory Proposals (rate cases) to the Australian Energy
Regulator for the 5 year regulatory period beginning on 1st
July 2015. Energex and Ergon submitted their Revised Regulatory Proposals in July 2015,
which are summarised in this article.
The regulatory framework
The
regulatory framework has its basis in s7 of the National Electricity Law, which states the National Electricity Objective which is inter alia to promote efficient
investment in electricity services for the long-term benefit of consumers. Chapter 6 of the National Electricity Rules sets out the details for economic regulation of
distribution services.
Key features of the process to date (Energex)
Key
features of the process to date include…
|
Parameter |
Initial
Proposal ($
nominal) |
Preliminary
Determination |
Revised
Proposal |
Final
Determination |
|
Total
OpEx |
$1,738m |
$1,877m |
$1,874m |
|
|
Total
CapEx |
$3,240m |
$2,362m |
$2,890m |
|
|
Opening
RAB |
$11,313m |
$11,334m |
$11,334m |
|
|
Regulatory
depreciation |
$502m |
$455m |
$480m |
|
|
Smoothed
DUOS revenue |
$9,832m |
$8,132m |
$9,535m |
|
|
P0 |
0% |
40% |
40% |
|
|
X |
2% |
From -17% to 5% |
From -2% to -27% |
|
Key features of the process to date (Ergon)
Key
features of the process to date include…
|
Parameter |
Initial
Proposal |
Preliminary
Determination |
Revised
Proposal |
Final
Determination |
|
Total
OpEx (nominal) |
$2,035m |
$1,788m |
$1,779m |
|
|
Total
CapEx (real) |
$3,555m |
$2,182m |
$3,441m |
|
|
Opening
RAB |
$10,041m |
$10,102m |
$10,055m |
|
|
Regulatory
depreciation |
$904m |
$654m |
$829m |
|
|
Unsmoothed
revenue |
$8,229m |
$6,012m |
$7,728m |
|
|
P0 |
15.85% |
37% |
37% |
|
|
X |
Varies |
From -14% to 6% |
From -31% to 2% |
|
Pipes
& Wires will comment further when the AER releases its Final
Determinations.
South Australia – the 2015-2020 revenue determination
Introduction
Last
year SA Power Networks submitted its Regulatory Proposal (rate case) to the Australian Energy
Regulator for the 5 year regulatory period beginning on 1st
July 2015. SA Power Networks submitted its Revised Regulatory Proposal in July 2015, which is summarised in this article.
The regulatory framework
The
regulatory framework has its basis in s7 of the National Electricity Law, which states the National Electricity Objective which is inter alia to promote efficient
investment in electricity services for the long-term benefit of consumers. Chapter 6 of the National Electricity Rules sets out the details for economic regulation of
distribution services.
Key features of the process to date
Key
features of the process to date include…
|
Parameter |
Initial
Proposal ($
nominal) |
Preliminary
Determination |
Revised
Proposal |
Final
Determination |
|
Total
OpEx |
$1,554m |
$1,334m |
$1,422m |
|
|
Total
CapEx |
$2,485m |
$1,684m |
$2,083m |
|
|
Opening
RAB |
$3,829m |
$3,829m |
$3,829m |
|
|
Regulatory
depreciation |
$936m |
$554m |
$642m |
|
|
Unsmoothed
revenue |
$4,782m |
$3,236m |
$4,534m |
|
|
P0 |
4.3% |
28% |
27% |
|
|
X |
0% |
9.9% to 1.1% |
-23% to 0% |
|
Pipes
& Wires will comment further when the AER releases its Final Determination.
Victoria – the 2016-2020 revenue determinations
Introduction
The
five electricity distribution businesses in the Australian state of Victoria
recently submitted their Regulatory Proposals to the Australian Energy
Regulator (AER) for the 5 year regulatory period starting on 1st
January 2016. This article examines those Proposals and sets a framework for
future analysis.
The regulatory framework
The
regulatory framework has its basis in s7 of the National Electricity Law, which states the National Electricity Objective which is inter alia to promote efficient
investment in electricity services for the long-term benefit of consumers. Chapter 6 of the National Electricity Rules sets out the details for economic regulation of
distribution services.
Key features of the process to date (AusNet Services)
Key
features of the process to date include…
|
Parameter |
Initial
Proposal ($
nominal) |
Preliminary
Determination |
Revised
Proposal |
Final
Determination |
|
Total
OpEx |
$1,356m |
|
|
|
|
Total
CapEx |
$1,964m |
|
|
|
|
Opening
RAB |
$3,547m |
|
|
|
|
Regulatory
depreciation |
$478m |
|
|
|
|
Unsmoothed
revenue |
$3,567m |
|
|
|
|
P0 |
-6.3% |
|
|
|
|
X |
0% |
|
|
|
Key features of the process to date (CitiPower)
Key
features of the process to date include…
|
Parameter |
Initial
Proposal ($
nominal) |
Preliminary
Determination |
Revised
Proposal |
Final
Determination |
|
Total
OpEx |
$502m |
|
|
|
|
Total
CapEx |
$995m |
|
|
|
|
Opening
RAB |
$1,804m |
|
|
|
|
Regulatory
depreciation |
$297m |
|
|
|
|
Unsmoothed
revenue |
$1,718m |
|
|
|
|
P0 |
0.12% |
|
|
|
|
X |
-3.5% |
|
|
|
Key features of the process to date (Jemena)
Key
features of the process to date include…
|
Parameter |
Initial
Proposal ($
nominal) |
Preliminary
Determination |
Revised
Proposal |
Final
Determination |
|
Total
OpEx |
$556m |
|
|
|
|
Total
CapEx |
$856m |
|
|
|
|
Opening
RAB |
$1,311m |
|
|
|
|
Regulatory
depreciation |
$287m |
|
|
|
|
Unsmoothed
revenue |
$1,465m |
|
|
|
|
P0 |
-13% |
|
|
|
|
X |
About -1% |
|
|
|
Key features of the process to date (Powercor)
Key
features of the process to date include…
|
Parameter |
Initial
Proposal ($
nominal) |
Preliminary
Determination |
Revised
Proposal |
Final
Determination |
|
Total
OpEx |
$1,334m |
|
|
|
|
Total
CapEx |
$2,331m |
|
|
|
|
Opening
RAB |
$3,363m |
|
|
|
|
Regulatory
depreciation |
$124m |
|
|
|
|
Unsmoothed
revenue |
$3,662m |
|
|
|
|
P0 |
3.6% |
|
|
|
|
X |
-3% |
|
|
|
Key features of the process to date (United Energy)
Key
features of the process to date include…
|
Parameter |
Initial
Proposal ($
nominal) |
Preliminary
Determination |
Revised
Proposal |
Final
Determination |
|
Total
OpEx |
$800m |
|
|
|
|
Total
CapEx |
$1,195m |
|
|
|
|
Opening
RAB |
$2,189m |
|
|
|
|
Regulatory
depreciation |
$640m |
|
|
|
|
Unsmoothed
revenue |
$2,150m |
|
|
|
|
P0 |
-7.19% |
|
|
|
|
X |
0% |
|
|
|
Recent client projects
Here’s
a sample of work done for clients over the last few years that demonstrate the
breadth of skills, insight and experience that is available from Utility
Consultants....
· Facilitating a board workshop on the likely impact of solar
on distribution.
· Advising a major global investment bank on the revenue and
capital cost characteristics of the New Zealand generation industry.
· Assessing the investment characteristics of proposed CapEx
increases to an investor-owned electric network.
· Assessing three EDB’s asset management practices against ISO
55000:2014.
· Assessing an EDB’s compliance with the lines – generation
separation requirements of the Electricity Industry Act 2010.
· Assessing an EDB’s compliance with the Electricity Industry
Participation Code.
· Compiling safe operating procedures for a wide range of
distribution switches.
· Advising an investor on the investment characteristics and
regulatory constraints of small hydro development and grid connection.
· Reviewing the engineering aspects of an EDB’s lines pricing
methodology.
· Advising a major global consultancy on specific features of
emerging electricity transmission and distribution regulatory regimes,
including period length, potential for re-opening determinations, caps &
collars, total expenditure levels and incentive mechanisms.
· Examining the economic efficiencies of an EDB’s pricing
methodologies.
· Advised on the wider philosophical and potential tax issues
of the way consumer discounts are paid by EDB’s.
· Prepared an independent engineer’s report to justify
proposed alternative asset lives.
· Advised an electricity business on the regulatory
implications of bringing externally contracted field services back in-house.
· Identified economic and regulatory arguments to support
inclusion of transmission interconnection charge risk into network tariffs.
· Advised lines businesses on a regulator’s proposed treatment
of CapEx and OpEx.
· Advised an international investor on gas distribution policy
and regulatory trends.
· Identified national energy policy implications for lines
businesses.
· Assisted a lines business to identify the burden of proof
implied by regulatory determinations.
· Suggested amendments to a gas transmission AMP to strengthen
the economic arguments.
· Identified electricity network investment characteristics as
part of an acquisition study.
· Developed an AM framework for a gas distribution business to
link AM to regulatory requirements.
· Identified OpEx – CapEx tradeoffs for an electricity lines business.
· Performed various substation growth and reinforcement
assessments.
· Performed network physical and business risk studies.
· Compiled disaster recovery and business continuity plans.
Pick here to download a profile of recent projects, or here to contact Phil.
General stuff
Guide to NZ electricity laws
I’ve
compiled a “wall chart” setting out the relationship between various past and
present electricity Acts, Regulations, Codes etc in sort of a chronological
progression. To request your free copy, pick here. It looks really cool printed in color as an A2 or A1 size.
A bit of light-hearted humor
What
if price control had been around in the 1920’s and 1930’s ? A collection of
photo’s with humorous captions looks at some of the salient features of price
control. Pick here to download.
Conferences & training courses
The
following conferences and training courses are planned...
· Fundamentals of the NZ electricity industry, 19th – 20th October 2015,
Auckland.
Utility
Consultants takes no responsibility for the content of individual courses or
conferences, nor for any administrative or travel arrangements.
Wanted – old electricity history books
If
anyone has an old copy of the following books (or any similar books) they no
longer want I’d be happy to give them a good home…
· Economic Operation Of Power Systems (Kirchmayer).
· Distribution Of Electricity (WT Henley, the cable
manufacturer)
· Northwards March The Pylons.
· Two Per Mile.
· Live Lines (the old ESAA journal).
· The Engineering History Of Electric Supply In New Zealand.
Cool stuff
Newly published book – “Keeping The Lights On”
Well-known
electricity historian and author Helen Reilly has recently published her latest
book “Keeping The Lights On – The History Of System Operations In New Zealand
1939 – 2013”. Pick here to order your copy for only $46.50 from Grid Heritage. It’s
a thoroughly good read, and complements Helen’s previous book “Connecting The
Country”.
Opt out from Pipes & Wires
Pick
this link to opt out from Pipes & Wires. Please ensure that you
send from the email address we send Pipes & Wires to.
Disclaimer
These articles are
of a general nature and are not intended as specific legal, consulting or
investment advice, and are correct at the time of writing. In particular Pipes
& Wires may make forward looking or speculative statements, projections or
estimates of such matters as industry structural changes, merger outcomes or
regulatory determinations. These articles also summarise lengthy documents, and it is important that readers refer to those
documents in forming opinions or taking action.
Utility
Consultants Ltd accepts no liability for action or inaction based on the
contents of Pipes & Wires including any loss, damage or exposure to
offensive material from linking to any websites contained herein, or from any
republishing by a third-party whether authorised or not, nor from any comments posted on Linked In, Face Book or similar
by other parties.