Discussion:
Interesting
(too old to reply)
Tony
2020-02-17 19:26:59 UTC
Permalink
https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/119573501/who-gets-the-blame-when-the-lights-go-out
Yes this is by a National MP. But one that lives in the place most directly
affected by the government's decision.
However if true then we should be very concerned about a government that passes
anything like the suggested legislation. Very concerned indeed but not a
surprise with this government.
Rich80105
2020-02-17 20:25:14 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:26:59 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/119573501/who-gets-the-blame-when-the-lights-go-out
Yes this is by a National MP. But one that lives in the place most directly
affected by the government's decision.
However if true then we should be very concerned about a government that passes
anything like the suggested legislation. Very concerned indeed but not a
surprise with this government.
What decision is that, Tony? The report is of a cabinet paper, not
legislation. The public service will have rightly looked for potential
problems relating to disruption of supply, and covered the theoretical
situation of a market failure - the nature of that market failure is
not discussed, nor is the way in which goverment could legislate for
powers to intervene. Government intervention is not always bad of
course - think about the Global Financial Crisis, when the new Key
government intervened to keep the Australian owned major banks in New
Zealand going; Bill English was able to use the prudent reserves
developed by the previous government to persuade countries to lend to
us to keep the banks afloat; he said that this was the sort of adverse
event that the previous government had been saving for.

It is not clear what sort of intervention was being discussed, or what
sport of market failure. If however a government was not able to
guarantee electricity supply - due for example to a distribution issue
following a major earthquake or adverse weather event, it would be
rightly blamed for not ensuring that we had a robust system with
adequate safeguards.

Doubtless National will make submissions in relation to any proposed
legislation, but there does not appear to be any intention of
confisaction over property rights - the words were : "Also of interest
as a low-impact option is whether policy levers for the Minister of
Energy and Resources are warranted on the grounds of market failure. A
possible option is the provision of emergency powers to reallocate
electricity or gas in situations of acute electricity or gas
shortage."

What would you expect a National government to do to ensure contunuity
of supply in the event of a market failure, Tony? Car-less days again
as under a prevous National Government?
Tony
2020-02-18 01:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:26:59 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/119573501/who-gets-the-blame-when-the-lights-go-out
Yes this is by a National MP. But one that lives in the place most directly
affected by the government's decision.
However if true then we should be very concerned about a government that passes
anything like the suggested legislation. Very concerned indeed but not a
surprise with this government.
What decision is that, Tony?
Why do you have to be so obtuse "the Government's decision to ban new
exploration" obviously.
That simple missed bit of a read relegates the rest of your post to meaningless
rhetoric.
Post by Rich80105
The report is of a cabinet paper, not
legislation. The public service will have rightly looked for potential
problems relating to disruption of supply, and covered the theoretical
situation of a market failure - the nature of that market failure is
not discussed, nor is the way in which goverment could legislate for
powers to intervene. Government intervention is not always bad of
course - think about the Global Financial Crisis, when the new Key
government intervened to keep the Australian owned major banks in New
Zealand going; Bill English was able to use the prudent reserves
developed by the previous government to persuade countries to lend to
us to keep the banks afloat; he said that this was the sort of adverse
event that the previous government had been saving for.
It is not clear what sort of intervention was being discussed, or what
sport of market failure. If however a government was not able to
guarantee electricity supply - due for example to a distribution issue
following a major earthquake or adverse weather event, it would be
rightly blamed for not ensuring that we had a robust system with
adequate safeguards.
Doubtless National will make submissions in relation to any proposed
legislation, but there does not appear to be any intention of
confisaction over property rights - the words were : "Also of interest
as a low-impact option is whether policy levers for the Minister of
Energy and Resources are warranted on the grounds of market failure. A
possible option is the provision of emergency powers to reallocate
electricity or gas in situations of acute electricity or gas
shortage."
What would you expect a National government to do to ensure contunuity
of supply in the event of a market failure, Tony? Car-less days again
as under a prevous National Government?
Rich80105
2020-02-18 02:30:00 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:58:19 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:26:59 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/119573501/who-gets-the-blame-when-the-lights-go-out
Yes this is by a National MP. But one that lives in the place most directly
affected by the government's decision.
However if true then we should be very concerned about a government that passes
anything like the suggested legislation. Very concerned indeed but not a
surprise with this government.
What decision is that, Tony?
Why do you have to be so obtuse "the Government's decision to ban new
exploration" obviously.
That simple missed bit of a read relegates the rest of your post to meaningless
rhetoric.
No it doesn't, but you appear to be admitting that you were wrong to
take a small comment regarding the theoretical situation of a market
failure as not being suggested legislation at all. Is that right,
Tony?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The report is of a cabinet paper, not
legislation. The public service will have rightly looked for potential
problems relating to disruption of supply, and covered the theoretical
situation of a market failure - the nature of that market failure is
not discussed, nor is the way in which goverment could legislate for
powers to intervene. Government intervention is not always bad of
course - think about the Global Financial Crisis, when the new Key
government intervened to keep the Australian owned major banks in New
Zealand going; Bill English was able to use the prudent reserves
developed by the previous government to persuade countries to lend to
us to keep the banks afloat; he said that this was the sort of adverse
event that the previous government had been saving for.
It is not clear what sort of intervention was being discussed, or what
sport of market failure. If however a government was not able to
guarantee electricity supply - due for example to a distribution issue
following a major earthquake or adverse weather event, it would be
rightly blamed for not ensuring that we had a robust system with
adequate safeguards.
Doubtless National will make submissions in relation to any proposed
legislation, but there does not appear to be any intention of
confisaction over property rights - the words were : "Also of interest
as a low-impact option is whether policy levers for the Minister of
Energy and Resources are warranted on the grounds of market failure. A
possible option is the provision of emergency powers to reallocate
electricity or gas in situations of acute electricity or gas
shortage."
What would you expect a National government to do to ensure contunuity
of supply in the event of a market failure, Tony? Car-less days again
as under a prevous National Government?
Tony
2020-02-18 02:44:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:58:19 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:26:59 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/119573501/who-gets-the-blame-when-the-lights-go-out
Yes this is by a National MP. But one that lives in the place most directly
affected by the government's decision.
However if true then we should be very concerned about a government that passes
anything like the suggested legislation. Very concerned indeed but not a
surprise with this government.
What decision is that, Tony?
Why do you have to be so obtuse "the Government's decision to ban new
exploration" obviously.
That simple missed bit of a read relegates the rest of your post to meaningless
rhetoric.
No it doesn't, but you appear to be admitting that you were wrong to
take a small comment regarding the theoretical situation of a market
failure as not being suggested legislation at all. Is that right,
Tony?
No of course it is not - just calm down.
The article is an opinion piece by an MP, it matters not what party they belong
to.
The government has made a decision, that is part of the evidence the MP
provided, that is the only decision reported in the opinion piece.
All else is moot.
Debate the opinion or go away.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The report is of a cabinet paper, not
legislation. The public service will have rightly looked for potential
problems relating to disruption of supply, and covered the theoretical
situation of a market failure - the nature of that market failure is
not discussed, nor is the way in which goverment could legislate for
powers to intervene. Government intervention is not always bad of
course - think about the Global Financial Crisis, when the new Key
government intervened to keep the Australian owned major banks in New
Zealand going; Bill English was able to use the prudent reserves
developed by the previous government to persuade countries to lend to
us to keep the banks afloat; he said that this was the sort of adverse
event that the previous government had been saving for.
It is not clear what sort of intervention was being discussed, or what
sport of market failure. If however a government was not able to
guarantee electricity supply - due for example to a distribution issue
following a major earthquake or adverse weather event, it would be
rightly blamed for not ensuring that we had a robust system with
adequate safeguards.
Doubtless National will make submissions in relation to any proposed
legislation, but there does not appear to be any intention of
confisaction over property rights - the words were : "Also of interest
as a low-impact option is whether policy levers for the Minister of
Energy and Resources are warranted on the grounds of market failure. A
possible option is the provision of emergency powers to reallocate
electricity or gas in situations of acute electricity or gas
shortage."
What would you expect a National government to do to ensure contunuity
of supply in the event of a market failure, Tony? Car-less days again
as under a prevous National Government?
Rich80105
2020-02-18 03:20:32 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 20:44:09 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:58:19 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:26:59 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/119573501/who-gets-the-blame-when-the-lights-go-out
Yes this is by a National MP. But one that lives in the place most directly
affected by the government's decision.
However if true then we should be very concerned about a government that passes
anything like the suggested legislation. Very concerned indeed but not a
surprise with this government.
What decision is that, Tony?
Why do you have to be so obtuse "the Government's decision to ban new
exploration" obviously.
That simple missed bit of a read relegates the rest of your post to meaningless
rhetoric.
No it doesn't, but you appear to be admitting that you were wrong to
take a small comment regarding the theoretical situation of a market
failure as not being suggested legislation at all. Is that right,
Tony?
No of course it is not - just calm down.
So just what legislation was being suggested, Tony?
Post by Tony
The article is an opinion piece by an MP, it matters not what party they belong
to.
Indeed, so you may be happy woth this:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/117702995/theres-a-bright-future-for-taranakis-economy--megan-woods?rm=a
Post by Tony
The government has made a decision, that is part of the evidence the MP
provided, that is the only decision reported in the opinion piece.
All else is moot.
Debate the opinion or go away.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The report is of a cabinet paper, not
legislation. The public service will have rightly looked for potential
problems relating to disruption of supply, and covered the theoretical
situation of a market failure - the nature of that market failure is
not discussed, nor is the way in which goverment could legislate for
powers to intervene. Government intervention is not always bad of
course - think about the Global Financial Crisis, when the new Key
government intervened to keep the Australian owned major banks in New
Zealand going; Bill English was able to use the prudent reserves
developed by the previous government to persuade countries to lend to
us to keep the banks afloat; he said that this was the sort of adverse
event that the previous government had been saving for.
It is not clear what sort of intervention was being discussed, or what
sport of market failure. If however a government was not able to
guarantee electricity supply - due for example to a distribution issue
following a major earthquake or adverse weather event, it would be
rightly blamed for not ensuring that we had a robust system with
adequate safeguards.
Doubtless National will make submissions in relation to any proposed
legislation, but there does not appear to be any intention of
confisaction over property rights - the words were : "Also of interest
as a low-impact option is whether policy levers for the Minister of
Energy and Resources are warranted on the grounds of market failure. A
possible option is the provision of emergency powers to reallocate
electricity or gas in situations of acute electricity or gas
shortage."
What would you expect a National government to do to ensure contunuity
of supply in the event of a market failure, Tony? Car-less days again
as under a prevous National Government?
No answer from you on this one, Tony?
Tony
2020-02-18 04:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 20:44:09 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:58:19 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:26:59 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/119573501/who-gets-the-blame-when-the-lights-go-out
Yes this is by a National MP. But one that lives in the place most directly
affected by the government's decision.
However if true then we should be very concerned about a government that passes
anything like the suggested legislation. Very concerned indeed but not a
surprise with this government.
What decision is that, Tony?
Why do you have to be so obtuse "the Government's decision to ban new
exploration" obviously.
That simple missed bit of a read relegates the rest of your post to meaningless
rhetoric.
No it doesn't, but you appear to be admitting that you were wrong to
take a small comment regarding the theoretical situation of a market
failure as not being suggested legislation at all. Is that right,
Tony?
No of course it is not - just calm down.
So just what legislation was being suggested, Tony?
Read the article, it is all there. All of it is in English.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The article is an opinion piece by an MP, it matters not what party they belong
to.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/117702995/theres-a-bright-future-for-taranakis-economy--megan-woods?rm=a
Entirely off topic.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The government has made a decision, that is part of the evidence the MP
provided, that is the only decision reported in the opinion piece.
All else is moot.
Debate the opinion or go away.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The report is of a cabinet paper, not
legislation. The public service will have rightly looked for potential
problems relating to disruption of supply, and covered the theoretical
situation of a market failure - the nature of that market failure is
not discussed, nor is the way in which goverment could legislate for
powers to intervene. Government intervention is not always bad of
course - think about the Global Financial Crisis, when the new Key
government intervened to keep the Australian owned major banks in New
Zealand going; Bill English was able to use the prudent reserves
developed by the previous government to persuade countries to lend to
us to keep the banks afloat; he said that this was the sort of adverse
event that the previous government had been saving for.
It is not clear what sort of intervention was being discussed, or what
sport of market failure. If however a government was not able to
guarantee electricity supply - due for example to a distribution issue
following a major earthquake or adverse weather event, it would be
rightly blamed for not ensuring that we had a robust system with
adequate safeguards.
Doubtless National will make submissions in relation to any proposed
legislation, but there does not appear to be any intention of
confisaction over property rights - the words were : "Also of interest
as a low-impact option is whether policy levers for the Minister of
Energy and Resources are warranted on the grounds of market failure. A
possible option is the provision of emergency powers to reallocate
electricity or gas in situations of acute electricity or gas
shortage."
What would you expect a National government to do to ensure contunuity
of supply in the event of a market failure, Tony? Car-less days again
as under a prevous National Government?
No answer from you on this one, Tony?
I don't care, nothing to do with the subject. Feel free to start your own
thread.
John Bowes
2020-02-18 10:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 20:44:09 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:58:19 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:26:59 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/119573501/who-gets-the-blame-when-the-lights-go-out
Yes this is by a National MP. But one that lives in the place most directly
affected by the government's decision.
However if true then we should be very concerned about a government that passes
anything like the suggested legislation. Very concerned indeed but not a
surprise with this government.
What decision is that, Tony?
Why do you have to be so obtuse "the Government's decision to ban new
exploration" obviously.
That simple missed bit of a read relegates the rest of your post to meaningless
rhetoric.
No it doesn't, but you appear to be admitting that you were wrong to
take a small comment regarding the theoretical situation of a market
failure as not being suggested legislation at all. Is that right,
Tony?
No of course it is not - just calm down.
So just what legislation was being suggested, Tony?
Post by Tony
The article is an opinion piece by an MP, it matters not what party they belong
to.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/117702995/theres-a-bright-future-for-taranakis-economy--megan-woods?rm=a
Post by Tony
The government has made a decision, that is part of the evidence the MP
provided, that is the only decision reported in the opinion piece.
All else is moot.
Debate the opinion or go away.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The report is of a cabinet paper, not
legislation. The public service will have rightly looked for potential
problems relating to disruption of supply, and covered the theoretical
situation of a market failure - the nature of that market failure is
not discussed, nor is the way in which goverment could legislate for
powers to intervene. Government intervention is not always bad of
course - think about the Global Financial Crisis, when the new Key
government intervened to keep the Australian owned major banks in New
Zealand going; Bill English was able to use the prudent reserves
developed by the previous government to persuade countries to lend to
us to keep the banks afloat; he said that this was the sort of adverse
event that the previous government had been saving for.
It is not clear what sort of intervention was being discussed, or what
sport of market failure. If however a government was not able to
guarantee electricity supply - due for example to a distribution issue
following a major earthquake or adverse weather event, it would be
rightly blamed for not ensuring that we had a robust system with
adequate safeguards.
Doubtless National will make submissions in relation to any proposed
legislation, but there does not appear to be any intention of
confisaction over property rights - the words were : "Also of interest
as a low-impact option is whether policy levers for the Minister of
Energy and Resources are warranted on the grounds of market failure. A
possible option is the provision of emergency powers to reallocate
electricity or gas in situations of acute electricity or gas
shortage."
What would you expect a National government to do to ensure contunuity
of supply in the event of a market failure, Tony? Car-less days again
as under a prevous National Government?
No answer from you on this one, Tony?
Megan Woods? Hasn't she been getting pointers on lying from you Rich? Or is it that she's as stupid as you Rich?

as to a market failure the easy way to prevent it is to search for oil and gas to ensure a continued supply till we find a suitable replacement!
Gordon
2020-02-18 06:28:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/119573501/who-gets-the-blame-when-the-lights-go-out
Yes this is by a National MP. But one that lives in the place most directly
affected by the government's decision.
However if true then we should be very concerned about a government that passes
anything like the suggested legislation. Very concerned indeed but not a
surprise with this government.
Psst! How about getting some renewable generation on line. Oh sorry in the
too hard basket.
Loading...