On-Track, But Off-Target: New Zealand’s 90% Renewable Electricity Target and District Council Planning

Abstract

Policies and strategies promoting renewable electricity development have become popular tools in the global fight against climate change. Yet their aim, achievability, and effectiveness vary considerably across the globe. In 2007, New Zealand set one of the highest renewable electricity targets in the world: making electricity 90 % renewable by 2025. While the country’s high current renewable electricity generation and abundant renewable electricity resources put the target within reach, limited government support has long been indicated as one of the main barriers to the achievement of the target. This paper seeks to contribute to this discussion on limited government support by focusing on the implementation phase of one of the few policy tools currently available to promote renewables in the country. Firstly, it proposes a brief critical assessment of the current policy framework in the light of the 2025 target. It concludes that the central government has shown ambivalent and limited support to it while providing little guidelines for its implementation. Secondly, this paper investigates local authorities’ implementation of the National Policy Strategy for Renewable Electricity Generation 2011. By reviewing all current and proposed district plans, the paper highlights how local administrations’ planning procedure provides a significant bottleneck for a timely, effective, and cohesive execution of the policy statement requirements. It concludes that this delayed and partial implementation lessens the policy main incentive, as it reduces its ability to provide clear guidelines for investors and stakeholders. While the National Policy Strategy for Renewable Electricity Generation overall impact on renewable electricity generation development is limited, the factors compromising its implementation can be used as an example for the development of further policy tools. These measures should be more directive and include more stringent national guidelines. They should also rely on a streamlined plan-making process which includes no or limited local negotiation and is separated from the comprehensive plan-review process.