From the director…
Welcome
to Pipes & Wires #93. After an extended break due to a very heavy workload
(and thanks to those who contributed to that workload), Pipes & Wires pokes
its head up for a look around. For New Zealand electricity lines and gas pipes
businesses, the first thing to note is the requirement to implement a Public
Safety Management System (refer article). We then examine a few mergers and
acquisitions, and then examine some energy and regulatory policy issues. In
amongst all that we look at some emerging “smart grid” issues and continue with
2 historical interest articles.
Pipes & Wires on the web
Pipes & Wires on Linked In
Pipes
& Wires now has an on-line
group for readers to keep in touch on a more regular basis, bounce ideas
around or raise issues and concerns. Pick here
to visit my Linked In profile and add me
to your connections.
Pipes & Wires on Facebook
Pipes
& Wires now also has its own Facebook page. Just go to Facebook’s home page and search for Pipes
& Wires.
Pipes & Wires on YouTube
To
see a short video clip explaining more about Pipes & Wires, pick here.
Pipes & Wires on the web
To
read more about Pipes & Wires, pick here.
About Utility Consultants
Utility
Consultants Ltd is a management consultancy specialising in pretty much all aspects
of energy and infrastructure networks – pick here to see more, or
to be sent a detailed profile of recent projects, pick
here.
Matters for attention
NZ – safety management systems
Introduction
The
overhaul of safety around electricity generation and distribution assets
reached a milestone with the commencement of the Electricity
(Safety) Regulations 2010 on 1st April 2010 pursuant to Sections
169, 169A and 169B of the Electricity Act 1992. This article follows on
from previous articles in Pipes
& Wires #62 and #87.
Background
The
overhaul of electricity and gas safety saw the eventual introduction of the
Energy Safety Review Bill, which had a two-fold purpose…
· Improve the electricity and gas safety regimes to
effectively protect the public and property.
·
To improve the occupational regulation
of electrical workers, gas fitters, plumbers and drain-layers.
The
Bill was enacted in late 2006 as the respective Electricity Amendment Act 2006
and the Gas Amendment Act 2006. Both of these Acts explicitly require
electricity and gas distributors to implement and maintain a safety management
system with regard to public safety in accordance with any regulations made
under the respective Acts.
Ensuring compliance
Part
4 of the Regulations address “safety of works” ie. generation and distribution
plant, in particular paragraphs 47 to 56. The first step is for a lines
business (or a generator) to establish a safety management system (SMS) and have
that SMS audited by 31st March 2012.
For
help with establishing an SMS, pick here
or call Phil on (07) 854-6541.
Mergers & acquisitions
UK – progress on the EDF Energy sale
Introduction
Pipes
& Wires has closely followed Electricite de
France’s planned sale of its’ UK distribution business since the
announcement last year. This article catches up on recent events.
Background to the sale
In
mid 2009 EDF announced its intention to sell its’ UK distribution business, EDF Energy. On the face of it, EDF
appeared to be struggling with high debt levels, but underneath it was also
noted that this could be part of strategy to migrate its capital toward the
unregulated sector. A wide range of bidders indicated their interest, but in
the interim a few issues and themes emerged...
·
OFGEM
announced it would restrict post-tax returns on capital, and would also review
its merger policy in mid-2010. It was understood at the time that this had
prompted Scottish
& Southern Energy to withdraw, but that appears to have been a mistake.
·
New EDF president Henri Proglio has
lured former Veolia CFO and Lazard banker Thomas Piquemal to
EDF as the new CFO. This suggests that EDF’s strategy will include an emphasis
on acquisitions.
Recent events
Although
the sale process seems to have progressed well with 3 consortia bidding, the
deadline for bids was extended to allow bidders to more fully evaluate the
implications of EDF Energy’s pension funds. The 3 bidding consortia are...
·
Cheung Kong
Infrastructure in association with Hong
Kong Electric.
·
Abu Dhabi Investment Authority in
association with Macquarie
Capital and the Canadian Pension Plan.
·
Scottish & Southern Energy in
association with infrastructure fund Borealis.
The
successful bidder should be announced sometime over the next month or so, so
Pipes & Wires will be able to provide more analysis.
Switzerland – E.On sells stake in BKW
FMB Energie
Introduction
The
acquisition activities and the wider growth strategy of German giant E.On are very familiar to the pages of Pipes
& Wires, so the sale of a stake in a utility seems a bit counter-intuitive.
This article examines E.On’s sale of its 21% stake in Swiss utility BKW FMB Energie AG.
A bit about BKW
BKW
had it’s roots in Berne, Switzerland in 1898, and in 1909 changed its original
name to Bernische Kraftwerke AG. In 1995 the name was further amended to BKW
FMB Energie AG to better reflect its international growth ambitions. Today BKW
supplies electricity to about 1,000,000 customers in the north-west of
Switzerland, as well as operating subsidiaries in France, Italy and Germany.
BKW owns and operates its own 132kV grid and also owns 220kV and 380kV lines
that are operated by Swissgrid
AG.
BKW’s
principle owners include the Canton of Berne (52%)
and E.On (21%).
The deal
E.On
plans to sell its 21% stake as follows...
·
Sale of a 9% stake to BKW FMB Energie’s
parent company, BKW.
·
Sale of a 5% stake to Swiss energy
company Groupe E SA, which
will increase their stake to about 10%.
·
Giving BKW an option to acquire the
remaining 7% stake any time before the end of September 2011.
A
completed sale could nett E.On about €526m, valuing BKW FMB Energie at about €2.5b.
The wider strategy
A
couple of themes are worth examining here...
·
The publicly stated “reassessment of
its strategy”. Long-time readers will recall various discussions and analyses
of E.On’s “On Top” strategy which planned to use E.On Energie as the expansion
platform for its European electricity and gas business.
·
E.On’s limited ability to influence BKW
FMB Energie’s strategy with only a minority holding, as the Canton of Berne had
indicated that it wished to retain its majority stake. E.On noted that although
BKW FMB Energie had indeed been profitable, corporate freedom of action was
also an important goal.
·
E.On’s need to reduce debt (which was
about €44b at the end of last year).
The
clue that E.On needs to reduce debt (along with Electricité
de France) could well unleash a flurry of acquisition opportunities.
However the recent trend is that such assets could be snapped up by pension
funds and sovereign wealth funds rather than by existing utilities.
US – update on PPL’s acquisition of
E.On US
Introduction
Pipes
& Wires #92 examined Pennsylvania
Power & Light’s acquisition of E.On’s US business, E.On US LLC, which owns LG&E
and Kentucky Utilities Co.
This article examines progress on PPL’s bid and notes their equity offering to
fund the deal.
Background
PPL
will pay $6.7b in cash and assume $925m in debt (and will also receive a tax
benefit with an NPV of $450m) to acquire 941,000 electricity customers, 321,000
gas customers and 8,000MW of generation mainly in Kentucky but also in Virginia
and Tennessee.
PPL’s equity offering
PPL
planned to offer the following new equity to the market....
·
90,000,000 new ordinary shares pitched
at $24 each, to raise $2.16b.
·
20,000,000 equity unit securities
pitched at $50 each, to raise a further $1b.
In
the final event 103,500,000 ordinary shares (including a deal with brokers to
cover over-allotment) and 23,000,000 equity unit securities were sold raising a
total of $3.6b. PPL shares rose 2.2% in the afternoon’s trading following the
release to the market.
UK – bringing the London Underground
back under public control
Introduction
It’s
been a while (just over 7 years in fact) since Pipes & Wires has discussed
rail, but a news article on the return of the Tube to public ownership caught
my attention. This brief article examines the London Underground’s tortuous and
ideologically charged journey down the PPP path and back again.
The Tube’s journey to PPP
The Underground
began operating as a PPP in January 2003 as 2 private companies Metronet
and Tube Lines took responsibility for
the track infrastructure and rolling stock under 30 year contracts. The selling
point of the PPP’s was that the private sector would absorb the risks, however
when Metronet was placed in receivership in July 2007 it was subsequently
revealed that the debacle had cost the UK Government £2b (maybe that was the
public bit ?).
The return to public ownership
The
spiraling upgrade costs that sunk Metronet caught up with Tube Lines about 2
years later in 2009, when Transport for London
(TfL) refused to stump up £1.75b. A year later in May 2010 it was announced
that TfL would buy out Tube Lines for £310m. Combined with the takeover of
Metronet, this effectively spelled the end of the PPP.
So what ... it’s back in public
ownership
It’s
worth noting the comment from the transport workers’ union RMT that the buyout was a
"recognition on a massive scale that transport privatization does not
work".
Presumably from their point of view it
means that manning levels and wages will be subject to less downward pressure,
but is there more to it than that ? I mean, really, is the management of large
capital projects going to be that different between the public and private
sectors ? Putting aside that the private sector will probably have tighter
controls and reporting frameworks that make it harder to hide embarrassing
losses, cost overruns and delays, the bulk of the work is about buying
materials and plant and paying blokes to install it. I can’t see how a simple
transfer of ownership will make that much difference to those tasks.
Energy markets
US – smart meters in the gun ?
Introduction
Few could deny that smart meters are very
fashionable at the moment, so it was interesting to note the Maryland Public Service Commission’s
recent plan to reject Baltimore Gas &
Electric’s smart meter program that was estimated to save consumers $2.6b
over 15 years. This article tries to examine both sides of the issue from an
unbiased and objective perspective, and then comments on it all.
BG&E’s
proposal
BG&E proposed to replace all 2,100,000
meters in its’ service territory with AMI (advanced metering infrastructure)
modules. The expected cost of $835m for the entire program was expected to be
funded as follows...
·
BG&E’s
shareholders would provide $280m.
·
The
Department Of Energy would provide $200m.
·
Up-front
surcharges on consumers would contribute to the balance (not clear if that
would be the full amount).
The
PSC’s decision
The PSC rejected BG&E’s proposal,
stating that “the proposal asks BG&E's
ratepayers to take significant financial and technological risks and adapt to
categorical changes in rate design, all in exchange for savings that are
largely indirect, highly contingent and a long way off."
The
editor comments
The noteworthy aspects of the PSC’s decision
and the wider issue include...
·
Given
that at least some (quite possibly most) of the benefits of the AMI would be
shared with customers, it would seem reasonable that customers should
contribute to the cost of the AMI. Instead it appears that customers are to be
shielded from this risk.
·
Advocates
of smart meters have been claiming the benefits for several years now, but all
of a sudden those benefits are now “largely
indirect, highly contingent and a long way off”. What’s changed ?
·
That
reducing demand (particularly air conditioning on hot days) is one of the
fundamental benefits that the whole smart metering concept is based on. Using
higher prices to signal periods of peak demand is fine if customers can
respond, but the choice is not that simple for those on low incomes who may
also need to avoid intense summer heat for health reasons.
So it would seem that amongst all the
clamoring by policy makers to promote smart meters, the existing regulatory
framework has done a rather poor job of correctly addressing the commercial
requirements of cost recovery, benefit creation and investment certainty.
The
next step forward
The PSC invited BG&E to re-submit its’
proposal, which it did in mid-July. The amended proposal appears to strongly
reflect the 2 issues examined above...
·
Start-up
and upgrade costs will be recovered from customers through future tariff
requests to the PSC rather than as up-front payments.
·
Responding
to price signals will be voluntary rather than mandatory.
It
would appear that both of these features would weaken BG&E’s incentives to
get involved as it requires them to be the bank, and also dilutes the benefits
of demand reduction.
Germany – not so smart metering (in
fact none at all)
Introduction
As
regulators and policy makers continue to emphasis how smart metering can reduce
your electricity bill, an enterprisingly stupid bloke tried an alternative to
reducing his electricity bill (not that this is anything new). It’s hard to fit
this article into any scholarly heading other than Energy Markets !!!
The story
Back
in April 2010 an un-named 36 year old man in Sibbesse, Germany, made an
unmetered connection from a meat hook and a cable to supply his home about 150m
away. Much of the popular news reporting described the overhead power line as a
“transmission” line so it’s a bit hard to determine whether it was just LV or a
higher voltage.
If
was just LV (400V) it’s hard to believe there would be much voltage left at his
house, and if it was something higher like 11kV or 22kV it’s surprising he is
still alive.
US – securing energy supplies
Introduction
Pipes
& Wires #90 examined Oklahoma Gas &
Electric’s announcement that it would cease to sell wholesale electricity
to the city of Paris,
Arkansas and to the Arkansas Valley
Electric Cooperative in February and November 2011 respectively. This
article notes a happy ending as SWEPCo
signs a 30 year electricity supply deal.
OG&E’s reason for ceasing supply
OG&E’s
public announcement was that it “getting out of” wholesale contracts in an
effort to avoid new fossil-fired generation. Pipes & Wires commented that
the regulatory and policy issues around recovering the full economic cost of
fossil-fired generation seem more complex and uncertain than ever, and would be
a big disincentive to building and new fossil stations (although that issue
didn’t seem to attract any debate).
SWEPCO steps up to the plate
Three
competing bids were received (phew !!) from Grand
River Dam Authority, the Oklahoma Municipal
Power Authority, and from the Southwestern Electric Power. SWEPCo’s offer
was recommended to the Paris City Council by a consultant, as it was for a 30
year term and offered a price of 7.4c/kWh or about 4% higher than current
prices. Readers might also remember (from Pipes
& Wires #91) that SWEPCo planned to acquire Louisiana-based Valley Electric Membership
Corporation in a deal touted to reduce Valley consumers’ bills by about 20%
based on SWEPCo’s access to low priced wholesale electricity.
Famous power struggles
The
electrical history of many cities and countries includes bitter struggles either
between public and private interests seeking exclusive rights to distribute and
sell electricity, or between competing private interests. This historical
interest series examines some of those struggles.
Private and public interests clash in
Los Angeles (1920’s and 1930’s)
Introduction
The
historical perspective of Ezra Scattergood in Pipes
& Wires #61 included a subtle note about the less-than-agreeable
purchase of the Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corporation’s (LAG&E) electricity
network by the Los Angeles
Department of Water & Power in 1937. This article examines the
“de-privatisation” of several electric utilities in the Los Angeles basin
throughout the 1920’s and 1930’s in as much detail as the limited historical
resources allow.
The background
A
good place to start this tale would be the December 1902 amendment of the original
City Charter of 1889 to create a Water Department. Following the purchase of
water rights in the Owens Valley, a further amendment to the City Charter in
February 1909 provided inter alia for
the City to become involved in electricity generation (which it did through
construction of the Owens
River aqueduct) and distribution.
The
really significant step occurred on 6th March 1911 when the Los
Angeles public voted for municipal distribution of electricity rather than
selling the city’s electricity to private power companies. This was
subsequently incorporated into the City Charter, and appears to have then been
included in the substantially revised 1925 City Charter which gave the City a
priority right to distribute electricity.
Meanwhile the competition gets
unhealthy
Unlike
the City’s water activities which were not subject to competition, competing
electricity interests in the form of the LAG&E and Southern California Edison repeatedly
successfully lobbied against the City’s electricity bonds, effectively starving
the City’s electricity business of capital funding.
Then,
to make matters really complicated, a City ordinance of 6th March
1917 allowed the City to remove and relocate other utilities poles so it could
erect its own public lighting system !! LAG&E took the City to court in
1919 and won, as the court
ruled that LAG&E had rightfully applied for and obtained permission to
erect its poles and wires in city streets prior to 1911 and that the City’s
powers did not extend to giving preference to its own poles and wires.
The deals
In
1921 John
R. Haynes was appointed to the Los Angeles Public Service Commission.
Haynes was a vigorous advocate of publicly owned utilities, and through both
his official role with the City and through various lobbying activities saw the
sale of both SoCalEd’s and LAG&E’s distribution networks to the City.
Subsequently in 1937, the City purchased Pacific Lighting’s distribution
network, although it is not clear whether Haynes influenced that decision.
Energy policy
NZ – draft energy strategy
Introduction
In
late July 2010 the New Zealand Government released its draft
energy strategy entitled “Developing Our Energy Potential”. This article
examines the emphasis of the strategy and notes some significant policy shifts
from the previous strategy in 2007.
Emphasis of the 2010 draft strategy
For
a start, the 2010 draft strategy is a very slim document (the really crunchy
bits are only about 16 pages). Even more importantly the 2nd
paragraph signals a very strong rebalancing amongst the priorities set out in
the 2007 strategy in that it “replaces the 2007 strategy” and it fits energy
within the Government’s overarching goal of economic growth. It also aims to
provide strategic direction rather than exhaustively set out detailed
strategies. The key emphases signaled in the draft strategy include...
·
A need to augment the current emphasis
on renewables with petroleum resources.
·
A willingness to allow overseas
investment in the energy sector.
·
An emphasis that economic benefits must
flow on to society.
·
A view to capturing expected high
future oil prices through selling New Zealand oil and gas.
·
While the environment is important,
other features such as secure energy supply and economic growth will be given
priority.
·
Recognition that renewable electricity
supplies are generally not secure.
Comparison with the 2007 strategy
As
noted in the Introduction, the 2010 draft strategy signals some significant
rebalancing amongst the goal areas viz-a-viz the 2007 strategy. Just to recap
the 2007 strategy, there were 2 priority areas...
·
Reducing CO2 emissions.
·
Delivering secure, clean energy at
affordable prices whilst being environmentally responsible.
Having
read and extensively analysed the 2007 strategy and its companion papers, it
wouldn’t be unfair to say to that the balance of that strategy had shifted
almost totally to reducing emissions and that security and affordability were
largely glossed over (a view held with by others I’ve discussed this matter
with).
In
contrast, while the 2010 strategy also notes the importance of the environment
it also notes the importance of secure energy (ie. burning stuff dug out of the
ground) underpinning economic growth.
Next steps
The
Ministry of Economic Development will be accepting submissions
on the draft 2010 strategy until 5pm, Thursday 2nd September 2010.
Brazil – examining the nuclear policy
Introduction
This
general interest article takes a bit of a poke around Brazil’s nuclear policy
(after moving to South America from Europe).
Brazil’s wider energy scene
Just
to set the scene, Brazil is about the 10th largest electricity
consumer in the world (and the largest in South America), generating about 400,000
GWh per year from about 90,000 MW of installed capacity. However, only about 4%
of the annual generation is from nuclear (which is surprising given its
extensive Uranium deposits).
The beginnings
Brazil’s
nuclear program started in 1970 when the Government sought bids for a station
at Angra,
on the coast between Rio and São Paulo. A contract was awarded to Westinghouse and construction
began in 1971.
In
1975 the Government adopted a self-sufficiency policy and signed an agreement
with the West German Government to supply 8 nuclear units over the next 15
years. KWU supplied the first
2 units (which became Angra #2 and #3), whilst the remaining 6 units were to
have 90% Brazilian content under a technology transfer agreement. Due to
Brazil’s economic woes, construction of Angra #2 and #3 slowed down and finally
ground to a halt sometime around 1986. Construction of Angra #2 resumed in 1995
and the unit was commissioned in 2000.
Current nuclear stations
Angra
is Brazil’s only nuclear station, which has the following units...
·
Angra #1 is a 657 MW Westinghouse PWR
commissioned in 1985.
·
Angra #2 is a 1,350 MW Kraftwerk Union
PWR commissioned in 2000.
Work
on the third 1,350 MW KWU reactor (Angra #3) began in 1984, but work was
suspended in 1986. A license to resume construction was granted in May 2010,
with expected completion in 2015.
Plans for the future
In
addition to completion of Angra #3, Brazil also plans to build a further 7
reactors by 2025 (or maybe it’s a moving target, as there were also plans to
build 4 new stations by 2030 including completing the first station by 2019).
Pipes
& Wires has noticed a resurgence in popularity of nuclear power in response
to CO2 emission reduction targets, so my guess is the queue at the
reactor factory’s gates could be longer than some people anticipate.
Regulatory policy
NZ – progress on the Electricity
Amendment Bill
Introduction
In
December 2009 the Minister
of Energy, Hon Gerry Brownlee introduced a raft of regulatory changes as
the Electricity
Industry Bill. Pipes
& Wires #90 examined the key features of the Bill and noted that the
Finance & Expenditure Committee’s report was due in mid-June. This article
examines the 2nd
reading of the Bill in mid-July 2010.
The Bill’s stated purpose
The Bill’s stated purpose is to “improve
competition in the electricity market and improve security of supply by making
changes to the Electricity
Act 1992 and the Electricity
Industry Reform Act 1998”. The Minister subsequently commented that the aim is to
introduce more stability into pricing, rather than promise a fall in prices.
The Bill’s 2nd reading
The
Minister’s opening speech of the Bill’s 2nd reading noted the
following 3 improvements that were made by the Committee...
·
That the transfer of Tekapo A and B from Meridian Energy to Genesis Energy would include the
protection of existing uses and rights, and would not impact on the Waitaki
Catchment Water Allocation Regional Plan.
·
Amendments to ensure that lines
businesses cannot engage in anti-competitive behavior if they re-enter the
retailing business.
·
Improving the incentives for lines
businesses to offer remote customers alternatives to grid-connected supply.
After
the usual exchange of views (which included a lot of debate around retail
electricity price increases), the Bill was passed 69 to 53.
Next steps
The
Bill will now progress to its 3rd Reading, and if the votes go the
right way, will pass into law.
US – recharging electric cars takes a
sensible turn
Introduction
Electric
cars are one of several initiatives to reduce CO2 emissions however
it seemed to take a long time for many advocates to understand that unless they
are recharged at off-peak times the CO2 is just getting moved from
the vehicle fleet to peaking power stations. This article examines the
introduction of a low off-peak recharging tariff by the Hawaiian Electric Company (HECo).
The CO2 emissions argument
The
core of the argument (at least from what I’m seeing) is that electric cars
don’t emit CO2. This, of course, completely ignores the issue of CO2
emissions to recharge the batteries, so to be truly green an electric car must
be recharged using completely renewable electricity. As a first step this will require
the use of off-peak electricity, but unlike us very fortune people in New
Zealand (where most of our off-peak electricity is either geothermal or hydro),
many other countries are still dependent on low-cost black or brown coal for
off-peak electricity.
HECo’s off-peak charging tariff
Pending
regulatory approval, from 1st October 2010, HECo will offer a
discount of between 6c/kWh and 10c/kWh between 9pm and 7am, and a penalty of
3c/kWh between 5pm and 9pm. This would presumably require a hard-wired
controllable circuit and meter firstly to supply the likely heavy current and
secondly to meter when recharging occurs.
In
light of a few other “smart grid” projects that have been tripped up by
regulatory issues at the 11th hour, it will be interesting to see whether
regulatory approval is obtained.
People in power
A
couple of years ago Pipes & Wires featured the life stories of some blokes
born in the late 1800’s who shaped the electric power industry as we now know
it. Researching and writing those articles was a lot of fun, so I’m going to
write a few more (and if anyone wants an electrical pioneer to be researched
and included, pick here
to contact me).
Bill Latta connects the islands
Early years
Matthew
Garnet Latta was born in Invercargill, New Zealand in 1903, and soon became
known as Bill. Little is known of his early life and schooling other than his
study at Canterbury University College and his joining the Hamilton office of
the Public Works Department hydro-electric branch in 1923.
Career developments
During
the 1920’s Bill gained overseas experience in the US, the UK and Sweden. In
1929 Bill returned to Head Office in Wellington and his career developed
rapidly. After coordinating all the transmission line design work from 1941, Bill
was appointed chief engineer of then re-named State Hydro Electric Department in
1948.
Developing the HVDC concept
While
preparing a paper in 1950 that extrapolated the North Island’s average annual
growth rate of 9.7% over the period 1925 to 1949, Bill concluded that the North
Island’s hydro resources would be exhausted by about 1959 but that the South
Island would have sufficient resources to supply both islands for many years.
Bill went on to suggest that this surplus South Island power could be shifted
to the North Island by an undersea cable, and was a superior option to coal, oil,
gas and geothermal generation in the North Island.
Bill
proposed that a high-voltage direct current (HVDC) link would be the most
appropriate, citing the proposed Gotland link in Sweden.
Given Bill’s overseas work in the 1920’s, it is also possible that he was
exposed to Uno Lamm’s
seminal work with high voltage mercury arc rectifiers at ASEA.
Confirming the feasibility
Connecting
the islands had been discussed as early as the 1920’s and again in the 1940’s
but fell on largely unreceptive ears, apparently due to widely-held technical
constraints. By the early 1950’s, however, the General Manager, Arthur
Davenport, was more receptive to the idea of interconnection. A sea-bed survey
of Cook Strait in 1950 revealed that the sea-bed was not as steep or rocky as
had been previously thought. A report from cable maker British
Insulated Callendar’s Cables (BICC) concluded that such a scheme was
possible but difficult and recommended that a trial length of cable be
manufactured and laid.
The politics of it all
The
proposal, however, met with political opposition as parochial South Islander’s
objected to cheap power being exported to “greedy neighbors in the North”.
Attention to the interconnection faded in preference to thermal stations at
Meremere and Wairakei but Bill persisted and used a trip to Europe in 1955 to
investigate progress on the Gotland link.
In 1956 BICC concluded that the project was thoroughly feasible but the
Combined Committee on the NZ Electric Power Supply would go no further than
giving “approval in principle” and preferring development at Wairakei. However
in 1957 the Committee then approved construction of Benmore and endorsed the
HVDC “in principle” so it seemed to be go. However a change of government in
1958 led to the HVDC being deferred for a year (which became 3 years). Final
approval was given in 1961 after another change of government.
The later years
Bill
retired from the then re-named New Zealand Electricity Department in 1963, as
work on his brainchild was underway. Two years later the HVDC link was
completed. Bill was awarded the CBE in 1966 and died in 1971 at the age of 68.
A bit of light reading…
Book review – “Connecting The Country”
Helen
Reilly’s latest book “Connecting The Country” is a history of NZ’s national
grid from 1886 to 2007 that interestingly enough splits into the development of
the AC and DC systems. Filled with photos, anecdotes and witty stories this is
a really worthwhile read.
Order
your copy from Transpower’s
web site … cost is $60 incl. GST.
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…
·
White Diamonds North.
·
Northwards March The Pylons.
·
Marlborough Will Shine Through.
Conferences & events
The following
training course will be run by Conferenz, and is targeted at newcomers to the
industry...
·
Fundamentals
of the NZ electricity industry – Wellington, 1st – 2nd
November.
·
Fundamentals
of the NZ electricity industry – Auckland, 24th – 25th
November.
The
following conference will be run by Conferenz...
·
Energy
Roundtable Agenda 10 – Wellington, 8th September 2010.
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.
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.