All issues
Climate, energy and environment / Power prices and supply

How should the electricity market change?

Four big firms make and sell power. Parties differ on splitting them and importing gas.Four companies, Contact, Genesis, Mercury and Meridian, known as gentailers, both generate and sell electricity; the Crown owns 51% of three. In the wholesale market, the highest-priced offer needed sets the price for all. Lines companies and Transpower charge for carrying power, and the Electricity Authority sets the market rules. In August 2026 MBIE put a typical household's price at 42.1 cents a kWh, 16.8 cents of it lines charges; average prices rose 6.8% between November 2025 and June 2026. Since October 2025 the Government has responded to a market review, the Authority has required gentailers to treat other retailers as they treat their own, and the Government has picked a preferred provider for an imported gas (LNG) terminal, with no contract before the election. Parties differ on the gentailers, the terminal, who builds new supply, and regulators and lines companies. Household solar is on the home solar page.

Uneven evidence. Some parties' plans have more published costings or analysis than others. Read what was found

As at 17 October 2026, no independent costing of any party's plan on this page was found. Splitting the gentailers has the most published analysis, from the OECD, academics, The New Zealand Initiative and a PwC review paid for by the gentailers, though none of it costs a particular party's bill or policy. Frontier Economics' 2025 review and the Government's response bear on merging regulators and lines companies and on dry-year backup, but assess Frontier's own options, not any party's plan. The published estimates of LNG savings come from the Government and MBIE; energy economist Basil Sharp has asked to "see the numbers" (University of Auckland), and no independent cost-benefit analysis of the terminal was found. The Greens commissioned Infometrics to review the costings of their whole energy package; 1News reports it did not model the individual proposals or their market effects (1News). No outside analysis was found of ACT's, Labour's, National's, NZ First's, Opportunity's or Te Pāti Māori's specific proposals. Evidence sections reflect what has been published, not a judgement on the plans.

ViewDepth
Party order is random for each visitor. Tap a party's answer for its full breakdown and sources.Order

Bottom lines on this question

What a party has publicly said it must get, or won't accept, to form or support a government after the election. Only the party's own statements count, quoted with their source. Parties marked Bottom line below have one on that answer.

  • No bottom line on this question found: ACT, Green, Labour, National, NZ First, Opportunity, Te Pāti Māori (checked 17 Oct 2026)

Every party's bottom lines, on all issues

This question is split into smaller ones. Under each, parties giving the same answer are grouped together.

Companies that both generate and sell power

5 of 7 parties give an answer

Separate power generation from retail2 parties

  • Green

    Large generator-retailers would run generation and retail as separate companies.From Green MP Scott Willis's member's bill, not the Greens' manifesto: separate companies dealing at arm's length, with common ownership still allowed.

  • NZ First

    Split the four big power companies into separate generators and retailers.Peters says the companies should become separate legal entities, without "wholesale nationalisation"; NZ First has not said how shareholders would be compensated.

Keep generators and retailers together3 parties

  • ACT

    Oppose forced break-ups of the companies that generate and sell power.ACT says a break-up would "shatter the confidence of anyone seeking to invest in growing capacity".

  • National

    Keep the gentailers; Luxon says splitting them "would drive a lot of uncertainty".National has not proposed a split; Luxon and Willis oppose one, and the Electricity Authority's level playing field rules apply from 1 July 2026.

  • Opportunity

    Keep the gentailers; Opportunity calls separation "a lengthy and costly solution".Opportunity says the gentailers are reasonably competitive and that the core problem is incentives that lead to underinvestment in generation.

  • Not part of its policy: Labour, Te Pāti Māori

Imported gas terminal

5 of 7 parties give an answer

Build an imported gas (LNG) terminal1 party

  • National

    From its record, National ministers started LNG procurement; no contract before the election.Luxon and then-Energy Minister Simon Watts confirmed the facility in February 2026, and Simeon Brown's office says the Government remains committed to it.

Don't build the LNG terminal4 parties

  • Green

    Cancel the LNG terminal.The 2026 manifesto would cancel the terminal; the Greens say Kiwipower would meet dry-year needs without it.

  • Labour

    Won't go ahead with the LNG terminal if no contract is signed first.Chris Hipkins says Labour would not proceed if in government before a deal is done; it has not said what it would do with a signed contract.

  • Opportunity

    Opposes the LNG terminal and has called on the Government to reverse it.Opportunity says the terminal would lock New Zealand into long-term reliance on imported gas and expose it to volatile world prices.

  • Te Pāti Māori

    Opposes the LNG terminal; wants the contract process halted.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer says the answer is not "a gas terminal on our coastline", and the party asked for the contract process to be halted.

  • Not part of its policy: ACT, NZ First

Building new power supply

6 of 7 parties give an answer

Government builds or backs new supply5 parties

  • Green

    Kiwipower, a $980 million Crown entity buying and building renewable backup power.Kiwipower would invest in new firming such as geothermal and batteries, and contract existing firming to sell to independent retailers and users.

  • National

    From its record, the Crown would join equity raises for major investments that stack up.In the 2025 response to the market review, Nicola Willis said the Crown would take part in equity raises by Genesis, Mercury and Meridian for major new investments, if the proposals stack up.

  • NZ First

    Guarantee long-term, fixed-price contracts for new power stations.NZ First says it would guarantee such contracts for new-build projects and that their power would be used first; it has not said who would offer them.

  • Opportunity

    Government contracts guaranteeing minimum revenue for new renewables and storage.A Capacity Investment Scheme would tender contracts covering a plant's second decade, sharing revenue above a ceiling price with the government.

  • Te Pāti Māori

    A $1 billion fund for Māori and community-owned energy assets.The fund would offer grants, concessional finance, guarantees, equity and co-investment so hapū, iwi, marae and communities own generation and storage.

Make it easier for others to build3 parties

  • ACT

    Let private investors build, own and operate new transmission lines.Investors would recover costs through voluntary agreements with users, and customers could tender connection work to accredited contractors.

  • National

    Let developers and big users build their own transmission; faster consents for renewables.Private transmission lines with costs recovered from users, accredited connection contractors, and the RMA replacement for faster renewable consents.

  • Opportunity

    A national policy statement to make consents for new generation easier.The policy statement would cover electricity generation and distribution, alongside a 25-year energy strategy agreed across parties.

  • Not part of its policy: Labour

Regulators, wholesale prices and lines companies

7 of 7 parties give an answer

Change the regulators or their powers6 parties

  • ACT

    Strengthen enforcement where companies misuse market power.ACT would "strengthen enforcement where electricity companies misuse market power to block a better deal for consumers"; its policy document does not name the regulator.

  • Green

    One energy regulator, a Ministry for Energy, and public wellbeing goals in law.The manifesto would create a single energy regulator and a Ministry for Energy, and put public wellbeing outcomes into energy legislation.

  • Labour

    Commerce Commission could take large energy companies to court over prices well above competitive levels.Labour's pricing law, covering energy among other essentials, would let the Commerce Commission investigate and seek penalties and refunds.

  • National

    Make affordability a core objective of the Electricity Authority in law.Affordability would carry equal weight with competition, reliability and efficiency in the Electricity Industry Act.

  • Opportunity

    Merge five energy agencies into one regulator and a Ministry of Energy.The Electricity Authority, the Commerce Commission's energy functions, MBIE energy policy, EECA and the Gas Industry Company would be combined.

  • Te Pāti Māori

    Stronger powers for regulators against excessive pricing and profits.RNZ reports the Commerce Commission and Electricity Authority would get stronger powers to investigate excessive pricing and profits.

Change wholesale pricing or lines companies4 parties

  • ACT

    Lines companies must test upgrades against batteries and other options before charging.Material network upgrades would have to show credible alternatives were tested before their costs could be passed to consumers.

  • National

    Backup power auctions for dry years and a review of lines charges law.Large generators would join regular auctions of a standard backup contract, and Part 4 of the Commerce Act would get a targeted review.

  • NZ First

    Replace the system where the highest-priced offer needed sets the price for all.NZ First says companies would no longer be able to "hold back supply just to drive prices higher"; it has not said how prices would be set instead.

  • Opportunity

    Group the 29 lines companies into six to eight and change their revenue rules.Local ownership would stay, and new revenue rules for lines companies and Transpower would allow grid investment ahead of need.

Each party's whole answer, under the same headings for every party.

ACT

Keep the gentailers; let private investors build lines; make lines companies justify upgrades.ACT's electricity policy, released on 18 September 2026, would keep whole the companies that both generate and sell power; energy spokesperson Simon Court says breaking them apart would "shatter the confidence of anyone seeking to invest in growing capacity". It would strengthen enforcement where companies misuse market power. Private investors could build, own and operate new transmission lines connected to the National Grid, paid for through voluntary agreements with the generators and customers who use them. Customers could hire competing accredited contractors for connection work, and lines companies would have to test major upgrades against options such as batteries before charging consumers. ACT has not said whether it supports building the LNG terminal, or published a cost or start date. The biggest tradeoff: the plan keeps the gentailers' combined structure and opens lines work to competing providers, but how its market power enforcement would work is not yet detailed.

Companies that both generate and sell power
Keep generators and retailers together. Oppose forced break-ups of the companies that generate and sell power.ACT says a break-up would "shatter the confidence of anyone seeking to invest in growing capacity".
Imported gas terminal
Not part of its policy
Building new power supply
Make it easier for others to build. Let private investors build, own and operate new transmission lines.Investors would recover costs through voluntary agreements with users, and customers could tender connection work to accredited contractors.
Regulators, wholesale prices and lines companies
Change the regulators or their powers. Strengthen enforcement where companies misuse market power.ACT would "strengthen enforcement where electricity companies misuse market power to block a better deal for consumers"; its policy document does not name the regulator.
Change wholesale pricing or lines companies. Lines companies must test upgrades against batteries and other options before charging.Material network upgrades would have to show credible alternatives were tested before their costs could be passed to consumers.

Green

A public backup power company, separate generation and retail, and no LNG terminal.The Greens would set up Kiwipower, a publicly owned Crown entity that would invest in new renewable backup ("firming") power such as geothermal, batteries and pumped hydro. It would also contract firming, including a required share from the big power companies, for independent generators, retailers and energy users. The Greens cost Kiwipower at $980 million over four years, to be paid for, they say, by their proposed Super Rich Tax. They would cancel the LNG terminal, create a single energy regulator and a Ministry for Energy, and put public wellbeing outcomes into energy law. A Green MP's member's bill, not the manifesto, would require large generator-retailers to run generation and retail as separate companies. No start date is given. The biggest tradeoff: independent retailers could buy backup power from Kiwipower, but how much firming it would buy, at what price, and on what timetable are not published.

Companies that both generate and sell power
Separate power generation from retail. Large generator-retailers would run generation and retail as separate companies.From Green MP Scott Willis's member's bill, not the Greens' manifesto: separate companies dealing at arm's length, with common ownership still allowed.
Imported gas terminal
Don't build the LNG terminal. Cancel the LNG terminal.The 2026 manifesto would cancel the terminal; the Greens say Kiwipower would meet dry-year needs without it.
Building new power supply
Government builds or backs new supply. Kiwipower, a $980 million Crown entity buying and building renewable backup power.Kiwipower would invest in new firming such as geothermal and batteries, and contract existing firming to sell to independent retailers and users.
Regulators, wholesale prices and lines companies
Change the regulators or their powers. One energy regulator, a Ministry for Energy, and public wellbeing goals in law.The manifesto would create a single energy regulator and a Ministry for Energy, and put public wellbeing outcomes into energy legislation.

Labour

Stop the LNG terminal if no contract is signed; ban prices well above competitive levels.Labour would not go ahead with the Government's LNG import terminal if it takes office before a contract is signed; it has not said what it would do if one is signed. Chris Hipkins says Labour would invest in New Zealand renewable power instead. Labour's "Banning Price Gouging" law would cover large companies with market power, including in energy: prices well above the cost of supply, or well above what a competitive market would charge, could bring penalties and orders to repay customers, with the Commerce Commission investigating. Hipkins has said he is "leaving the door open" to fundamental changes to the electricity market, but Labour has not proposed splitting the gentailers. No costs or dates are published. The biggest tradeoff: no long-term commitment to imported gas, but Labour has not said which renewable projects it would back, at what cost, or what would cover dry years.

Companies that both generate and sell power
Not part of its policy
Imported gas terminal
Don't build the LNG terminal. Won't go ahead with the LNG terminal if no contract is signed first.Chris Hipkins says Labour would not proceed if in government before a deal is done; it has not said what it would do with a signed contract.
Building new power supply
Not part of its policy
Regulators, wholesale prices and lines companies
Change the regulators or their powers. Commerce Commission could take large energy companies to court over prices well above competitive levels.Labour's pricing law, covering energy among other essentials, would let the Commerce Commission investigate and seek penalties and refunds.

National

Keep the gentailers, build the LNG terminal, let others build transmission, hold backup power auctions.National's nine-point plan, Electrify NZ 2.0, would let developers and large users build and own transmission lines, let customers choose accredited contractors for connections, and require large generators to take part in regular auctions of a standard backup power contract for dry years. It would review the law that regulates lines charges and make affordability a core objective of the Electricity Authority. Christopher Luxon says splitting the gentailers "would drive a lot of uncertainty". From its record in government, National's ministers started LNG procurement and backed new generation by the Crown-majority power companies. National has not published a cost or dates for these points. The biggest tradeoff: the plan keeps the gentailers whole and adds backup power auctions and private transmission, which National says would increase competition, but it gives no estimate of bill savings, and who pays for the LNG terminal is not settled.

Companies that both generate and sell power
Keep generators and retailers together. Keep the gentailers; Luxon says splitting them "would drive a lot of uncertainty".National has not proposed a split; Luxon and Willis oppose one, and the Electricity Authority's level playing field rules apply from 1 July 2026.
Imported gas terminal
Build an imported gas (LNG) terminal. From its record, National ministers started LNG procurement; no contract before the election.Luxon and then-Energy Minister Simon Watts confirmed the facility in February 2026, and Simeon Brown's office says the Government remains committed to it.
Building new power supply
Government builds or backs new supply. From its record, the Crown would join equity raises for major investments that stack up.In the 2025 response to the market review, Nicola Willis said the Crown would take part in equity raises by Genesis, Mercury and Meridian for major new investments, if the proposals stack up.
Make it easier for others to build. Let developers and big users build their own transmission; faster consents for renewables.Private transmission lines with costs recovered from users, accredited connection contractors, and the RMA replacement for faster renewable consents.
Regulators, wholesale prices and lines companies
Change the regulators or their powers. Make affordability a core objective of the Electricity Authority in law.Affordability would carry equal weight with competition, reliability and efficiency in the Electricity Industry Act.
Change wholesale pricing or lines companies. Backup power auctions for dry years and a review of lines charges law.Large generators would join regular auctions of a standard backup contract, and Part 4 of the Commerce Act would get a targeted review.

NZ First

Split the big four into separate generators and retailers; replace the current pricing system.NZ First would split the four large power companies into separate generators and retailers. Winston Peters said they should become separate legal entities, and "We're not into wholesale nationalisation". It would replace the current wholesale system, in which the highest-priced offer needed sets the price for all, so that companies "cannot hold back supply just to drive prices higher"; it would also guarantee long-term, fixed-price contracts for new power stations, whose power would be used first. Shane Jones says the split would be the first item in any coalition negotiations. NZ First has not published a cost, a timetable or how shareholders would be compensated, and has not stated a position on the LNG terminal. The biggest tradeoff: the split separates making power from selling it, but who would guarantee the fixed-price contracts and what the split would cost are not set out.

Companies that both generate and sell power
Separate power generation from retail. Split the four big power companies into separate generators and retailers.Peters says the companies should become separate legal entities, without "wholesale nationalisation"; NZ First has not said how shareholders would be compensated.
Imported gas terminal
Not part of its policy
Building new power supply
Government builds or backs new supply. Guarantee long-term, fixed-price contracts for new power stations.NZ First says it would guarantee such contracts for new-build projects and that their power would be used first; it has not said who would offer them.
Regulators, wholesale prices and lines companies
Change wholesale pricing or lines companies. Replace the system where the highest-priced offer needed sets the price for all.NZ First says companies would no longer be able to "hold back supply just to drive prices higher"; it has not said how prices would be set instead.

Opportunity

Keep the gentailers, no LNG terminal, contracts backing new renewables, fewer regulators and lines companies.Opportunity would seek cross-party agreement to a 25-year energy strategy and 30 gigawatts of generation capacity by 2050. A Capacity Investment Scheme, modelled on Australia's, would tender long-term government contracts guaranteeing minimum revenue for new renewables and storage in their second decade, with revenue above a ceiling price shared with the government. It would merge five energy agencies into one regulator and a Ministry of Energy, group the 29 lines companies into six to eight, change their revenue rules, and ease consents for new generation. It opposes splitting the gentailers and the LNG terminal. Running costs would come from about $500 million a year of Crown power company dividends, which the party says would need replacing, such as by a land value tax. No start dates are given. The biggest tradeoff: guaranteed revenue for new generators, but the Crown carries the cost if power prices fall sharply.

Companies that both generate and sell power
Keep generators and retailers together. Keep the gentailers; Opportunity calls separation "a lengthy and costly solution".Opportunity says the gentailers are reasonably competitive and that the core problem is incentives that lead to underinvestment in generation.
Imported gas terminal
Don't build the LNG terminal. Opposes the LNG terminal and has called on the Government to reverse it.Opportunity says the terminal would lock New Zealand into long-term reliance on imported gas and expose it to volatile world prices.
Building new power supply
Government builds or backs new supply. Government contracts guaranteeing minimum revenue for new renewables and storage.A Capacity Investment Scheme would tender contracts covering a plant's second decade, sharing revenue above a ceiling price with the government.
Make it easier for others to build. A national policy statement to make consents for new generation easier.The policy statement would cover electricity generation and distribution, alongside a 25-year energy strategy agreed across parties.
Regulators, wholesale prices and lines companies
Change the regulators or their powers. Merge five energy agencies into one regulator and a Ministry of Energy.The Electricity Authority, the Commerce Commission's energy functions, MBIE energy policy, EECA and the Gas Industry Company would be combined.
Change wholesale pricing or lines companies. Group the 29 lines companies into six to eight and change their revenue rules.Local ownership would stay, and new revenue rules for lines companies and Transpower would allow grid investment ahead of need.

Te Pāti Māori

A $1 billion fund for Māori and community-owned energy; no LNG terminal.Te Pāti Māori would set up a $1 billion Energy Sovereignty Fund to build Māori and community-owned energy assets, offering grants, concessional finance, guarantees, equity and co-investment to hapū, iwi, marae, Māori landowners and communities. It would develop a long-term National Energy Plan and give regulators stronger powers to act against excessive pricing and profits. It opposes the LNG terminal, saying "the answer is not to plant a gas terminal on our coastline", and would direct the state-owned power companies to treat dry-year risk as a public obligation. It sets "a pathway to Energy Sovereignty by 2035" but has not said how the fund would be paid for, and its releases do not define "excessive". It has not stated a position on splitting the gentailers. The biggest tradeoff: hapū, iwi and communities would own new generation, but the fund's source of money and timetable are not published.

Companies that both generate and sell power
Not part of its policy
Imported gas terminal
Don't build the LNG terminal. Opposes the LNG terminal; wants the contract process halted.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer says the answer is not "a gas terminal on our coastline", and the party asked for the contract process to be halted.
Building new power supply
Government builds or backs new supply. A $1 billion fund for Māori and community-owned energy assets.The fund would offer grants, concessional finance, guarantees, equity and co-investment so hapū, iwi, marae and communities own generation and storage.
Regulators, wholesale prices and lines companies
Change the regulators or their powers. Stronger powers for regulators against excessive pricing and profits.RNZ reports the Commerce Commission and Electricity Authority would get stronger powers to investigate excessive pricing and profits.
Background and sources

How the market works. Contact, Genesis, Mercury and Meridian each own power stations and a retail business that sells to households; the Crown owns 51% of Genesis, Mercury and Meridian, and Contact is privately owned (Beehive; The Spinoff). Frontier Economics, reviewing the market for the Government, describes the four as "vertically integrated entities of a similar size". In the wholesale market "the market clearing price is set by the most expensive bid required to meet demand" (Frontier Economics). Geoff Bertram of Victoria University of Wellington argues this design keeps prices high, because "That highest price is paid to all generators" (Victoria University). Transpower runs the national grid and 29 local lines companies run distribution networks; the Commerce Commission regulates their revenue and the Electricity Authority sets and enforces the market rules (MBIE).

Prices. MBIE's quarterly survey, which models a typical household using about 22 kWh a day on the cheapest low-user plan, put the price at 42.1 cents a kWh including GST on 15 August 2026: 16.8 cents for lines and 25.3 cents for energy and other costs, up 0.3% on the quarter before (MBIE). The Electricity Authority found prices for households and small businesses rose 6.8% on average between 1 November 2025 and 30 June 2026, after 8.0% the year before, and that higher lines charges made up 54% of the increase (Electricity Authority). MBIE says "Average wholesale prices have more than doubled since before the gas supply shocks in 2018", and that domestic gas production is forecast to fall almost 50% below projections made three years earlier (MBIE).

The 2025 market review. Frontier Economics' review, published on 1 October 2025, found "the market is working to deliver new investment in generation" but not enough dry-year backup, and pointed to policy uncertainty and falling gas exploration. It recommended that the Crown take primary responsibility for securing dry-year capacity, that the Government sell its gentailer shares, that the 29 lines companies be rationalised, preferably into five, that the Electricity Authority and Gas Industry Company merge, and that electricity be removed from the Emissions Trading Scheme. It did not recommend splitting the gentailers, and advised against "virtual disaggregation" and non-discrimination rules (Frontier Economics; MBIE). On 1 October 2025 Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Energy Minister Simon Watts responded to Frontier Economics' market review by starting LNG procurement, backing new generation by the Crown-majority power companies and strengthening the Electricity Authority; the Government declined Frontier's recommendations to sell the Crown's shares, merge the Electricity Authority with the Gas Industry Company, or merge the 29 lines companies into five (Beehive; MBIE). It also declined a Crown entity for dry-year fuel and removing electricity from the Emissions Trading Scheme, and raised the limit on lines companies owning generation in their own areas from 50 MW to 250 MW (MBIE).

Level playing field rules. From 1 July 2026, Electricity Authority rules require the four gentailers to offer hedge contracts to independent retailers on the same terms as their own retail arms unless a difference is objectively justifiable; the Authority considered and rejected forced corporate separation. The rules, decided on 26 May 2026, also require the gentailers to show every six months that their retail prices reflect expected costs, with policies reviewed each year by their boards and external audits; the Authority said corporate separation would likely need primary legislation and was the most expensive option, and plans to review its hedge market measures in 2027 (Electricity Authority). Energy Minister Simeon Brown said maximum penalties for serious breaches would rise from $2 million to up to $10 million, subject to legislation (Beehive).

The LNG terminal. On 9 February 2026 Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and then-Energy Minister Simon Watts confirmed the Government would set up an LNG import facility as backup fuel for dry years; in June the Government dropped a planned levy on power bills to pay for it, and in October MBIE said a preferred provider had been chosen but no contract would be signed before the election. The February announcement said the facility would likely be in Taranaki, could operate as early as 2027, and was expected to save "upwards of $265 million per year" (MBIE). interest.co.nz reported Watts saying the cost was subject to commercial negotiation but would be more than a billion dollars (interest.co.nz). On 9 June 2026 MBIE said the facility could operate by 2028 and that the Government was developing a new funding model (MBIE). In mid-October 2026 MBIE said it had a preferred provider for a floating storage and regasification vessel at Port Taranaki and that "a final contract won't be signed before the election"; the facility cannot proceed unless WorkSafe accepts its safety case (ODT/RNZ; interest.co.nz).

Splitting the gentailers: what analysts say. In December 2024 the OECD said reviews should look at "splitting the generation and retail operations of large companies" to improve competition and hedging (interest.co.nz). Geoff Bertram lists "breaking up the gentailers" among solutions "straightforward in principle" (Victoria University). An August 2026 paper from the Auckland Business Chamber and Northern Infrastructure Forum proposes legally distinct generation and retail subsidiaries with "no forced asset sales", and a review of full ownership separation if the contracts market does not deepen within three years (Auckland Business Chamber). On the other side, Frontier did not recommend separation. Richard Meade of Griffith University argues that owning generation protects retailers against price spikes and that "forced separation is more likely to harm than help consumers" (The Conversation; reprint). Oliver Hartwich of The New Zealand Initiative, whose members include several gentailers, says splitting "would separate two competitive activities that sit together inside the same companies for a reason" (NZ Initiative). A September 2026 PwC review commissioned by the four gentailers estimated separation would cost $460 million to $940 million once and $112 million to $160 million a year, and take three to five years (PwC).

Household solar. Parties' plans for rooftop solar, solar loans and what households are paid for exported power are compared on the home solar page.

ACT

ACT's electricity policy, released on 18 September 2026, would keep whole the companies that both generate and sell power; energy spokesperson Simon Court says breaking them apart would "shatter the confidence of anyone seeking to invest in growing capacity". It would strengthen enforcement where companies misuse market power. Private investors could build, own and operate new transmission lines connected to the National Grid, paid for through voluntary agreements with the generators and customers who use them. Customers could hire competing accredited contractors for connection work, and lines companies would have to test major upgrades against options such as batteries before charging consumers. ACT has not said whether it supports building the LNG terminal, or published a cost or start date. The biggest tradeoff: the plan keeps the gentailers' combined structure and opens lines work to competing providers, but how its market power enforcement would work is not yet detailed.

  • ACT says a break-up would "shatter the confidence of anyone seeking to invest in growing capacity".
  • Investors would recover costs through voluntary agreements with users, and customers could tender connection work to accredited contractors.
  • ACT would "strengthen enforcement where electricity companies misuse market power to block a better deal for consumers"; its policy document does not name the regulator.
  • Material network upgrades would have to show credible alternatives were tested before their costs could be passed to consumers.

Who gains

  • Party claimACT says consumers would avoid being "charged for gold-plating when a cheaper solution will do", and that investors, developers and regions with spare generation, such as Northland, could fund their own grid connections. [4][3]

Who pays

  • Party claimACT says generators and customers using new private transmission lines would pay for them through voluntary agreements, rather than every consumer being charged automatically. [2]
  • Established evidenceACT has not said who would pay for stronger enforcement or for testing alternatives to network upgrades. [2]

Cost and costing disputes

  • Established evidenceACT has not published a cost for its electricity policy. [1][2]

Evidence from elsewhere

  • ContestedFrontier Economics' 2025 review said "having four vertically integrated entities of a similar size is also a positive indicator of effective competition" and did not recommend splitting them; Richard Meade of Griffith University argues that owning generation protects retailers against price spikes. In December 2024 the OECD said reviews should look at splitting large companies' generation and retail operations; Geoff Bertram of Victoria University of Wellington lists "breaking up the gentailers" among solutions "straightforward in principle"; and an August 2026 Auckland Business Chamber paper proposes legally distinct generation and retail subsidiaries with "no forced asset sales". [9][19][15][20][21]
  • ContestedA PwC review commissioned by the four gentailers, and not a review of any party's plan, estimated full separation would cost $460 million to $940 million once and $112 million to $160 million a year, and take three to five years. [22]
  • Established evidenceThe Electricity Authority found lines charges made up 54% of the 6.8% average rise in household and small business power prices between 1 November 2025 and 30 June 2026. [16]
  • Established evidenceFrom 1 July 2026, Electricity Authority rules require the four gentailers to offer hedge contracts to independent retailers on the same terms as their own retail arms unless a difference is objectively justifiable; the Authority considered and rejected forced corporate separation. [14]

Risks and side effects

  • Established evidenceACT's policy document does not name the regulator for its market power enforcement or say what new powers it would have; RNZ reported ACT would empower the Commerce Commission to oversee transmission. [2][3]

Implementation

  • Established evidenceRNZ reported that the changes to the Electricity Act would need further policy work. ACT has not given a start date. [3][2]
  • Party claimACT says lines companies would keep safety and technical standards, and contractors would need safety plans approved by the network operator. [1][3]

Strongest case for

  • Party claimACT says independent analysis commissioned by the Government found "no material competition problem requiring the break-up of the major generator-retailers", and that integrated companies have a natural hedge against wholesale prices that a break-up would remove. [2]

Strongest case against

  • ContestedNo named critic of ACT's plan was found. More generally, Winston Peters, arguing for NZ First's split, says the big four "control almost 90% of the electricity generation"; NZ First gives no source for the figure. [17]
  1. Abundant and Affordable Electricity · ACT New Zealand · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  2. Stability, investment, affordability: the keys to abundant electricity (18 September 2026) · ACT New Zealand · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  3. ACT says it won't split up power companies (RNZ, 18 September 2026) · Otago Daily Times (RNZ) · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  4. Energy and resources spokesperson Simon Court says ACT's energy policy aims to make it easier for people to invest, generate more electricity, build networks and compete for customers · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  5. Quarterly Survey of Domestic Electricity Prices to 15 August 2026 · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  6. Decision on LNG terminal delayed (RNZ, 23 September 2026) · Scoop (RNZ) · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  7. David Seymour says Government shouldn't sign LNG contract before election, Shane Jones implies the same (23 September 2026) · Stuff · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  8. Securing New Zealand's energy future · New Zealand Government · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  9. Review of electricity market performance (report for MBIE) · Frontier Economics · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  10. Government says yes to liquefied natural gas · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  11. MBIE to consider proposal for moored vessel as Government shortlists preferred provider for LNG import terminal in Taranaki · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  12. Govt quietly selects liquefied natural gas provider (RNZ) · Otago Daily Times · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  13. ACT backs energy package for affordable power (1 October 2025) · ACT New Zealand · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  14. Non-discrimination obligations: Code amendment decision paper · Electricity Authority · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  15. Government should consider breaking up big energy companies to drive down prices, OECD says · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  16. Data shows 6.8% increase to power bills across households and small businesses · Electricity Authority · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  17. Winston Peters says NZ First wants to break up power gentailers 'so they can no longer control both the power and the price' · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  18. Factsheet: Frontier recommendations Government is not pursuing · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  19. Breaking up NZ's power gentailers sounds appealing. The consequences may not be (The Conversation reprint) · NZCity · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  20. Power struggle: why fixing NZ's 'broken' electricity market is such a formidable challenge · Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  21. Unleashing NZ Power · Auckland Business Chamber · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  22. Gentailer separation: an independent review of the evidence and key considerations (commissioned by Contact, Genesis, Mercury and Meridian) · PwC New Zealand · accessed 17 Oct 2026
Change history

Every recorded change to this entry, newest first, including our own corrections after checks.

  1. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after third agent review; noted that NZ First gives no source for the 90% figure, added the PwC estimate, and typed the analysts' views as contested. [17][22]
  2. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after second agent review; added the Auckland Business Chamber's proposal to the analysts' views on splitting. [21]
  3. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after agent review; gave the same analysts' views on splitting and the hedge rules as every other entry, used ACT's own arguments for its case, and stated what the policy says about enforcement. [2][3]
  4. 17 Oct 2026 First researched from party and independent sources. [2][3][6]
As at 17 Oct 2026About ACTReport a problem with this entry

Green

The Greens would set up Kiwipower, a publicly owned Crown entity that would invest in new renewable backup ("firming") power such as geothermal, batteries and pumped hydro. It would also contract firming, including a required share from the big power companies, for independent generators, retailers and energy users. The Greens cost Kiwipower at $980 million over four years, to be paid for, they say, by their proposed Super Rich Tax. They would cancel the LNG terminal, create a single energy regulator and a Ministry for Energy, and put public wellbeing outcomes into energy law. A Green MP's member's bill, not the manifesto, would require large generator-retailers to run generation and retail as separate companies. No start date is given. The biggest tradeoff: independent retailers could buy backup power from Kiwipower, but how much firming it would buy, at what price, and on what timetable are not published.

  • From Green MP Scott Willis's member's bill, not the Greens' manifesto: separate companies dealing at arm's length, with common ownership still allowed.
  • The 2026 manifesto would cancel the terminal; the Greens say Kiwipower would meet dry-year needs without it.
  • Kiwipower would invest in new firming such as geothermal and batteries, and contract existing firming to sell to independent retailers and users.
  • The manifesto would create a single energy regulator and a Ministry for Energy, and put public wellbeing outcomes into energy legislation.

Who gains

  • Party claimThe Greens say independent generators, retailers and energy users would get firming capacity at "fair, affordable, and transparent prices", and that Kiwipower would bring "affordable, secure renewable power that the market has failed to build". [2][4]

Who pays

  • Party claimThe Greens say Kiwipower would be paid for by their proposed Super Rich Tax, and that the big power companies would be required to provide a portion of their firming capacity to it. [2]

Cost and costing disputes

  • Party claim$980 million over four years for Kiwipower, initially $100 million a year for operating and $142 million a year for new investment. The whole energy package is costed at $2,096.0 million operating and $1,035.5 million capital over 2027 to 2031. [2][4]
  • Party claimA review the Greens commissioned from Infometrics said the package's costings "appear to be reasonable assessments, conditional on the underpinning assumptions of each policy and commitment"; it did not model the proposals or their wider market effects, and is not an independent costing. [3]
  • Established evidenceThe Greens have not published a cost for the single energy regulator, the Ministry for Energy or separation under the member's bill. [1][2][6]
  • ContestedA PwC review commissioned by the four gentailers, and not a review of any party's plan, estimated full separation would cost $460 million to $940 million once and $112 million to $160 million a year, and take three to five years. It costed full separation; the Greens' bill would allow common ownership. [27]

Evidence from elsewhere

  • ContestedFrontier Economics' 2025 review said "having four vertically integrated entities of a similar size is also a positive indicator of effective competition" and did not recommend splitting them; Richard Meade of Griffith University argues that owning generation protects retailers against price spikes. In December 2024 the OECD said reviews should look at splitting large companies' generation and retail operations; Geoff Bertram of Victoria University of Wellington lists "breaking up the gentailers" among solutions "straightforward in principle"; and an August 2026 Auckland Business Chamber paper proposes legally distinct generation and retail subsidiaries with "no forced asset sales". [19][24][25][26][28]
  • Established evidenceFrontier Economics' 2025 market review recommended a new Crown entity responsible for securing thermal fuel and firming capacity, and a merger of the Electricity Authority and Gas Industry Company; the Government declined both. [19][20][21]
  • Established evidenceFrom 1 July 2026, Electricity Authority rules require the four gentailers to offer hedge contracts to independent retailers on the same terms as their own retail arms unless a difference is objectively justifiable; the Authority considered and rejected forced corporate separation. [22]
  • ContestedMBIE says the LNG facility is expected to save "upwards of $265 million per year" by reducing price spikes. Energy economist Basil Sharp has asked to see the calculations behind that figure and says buyers would likely be "locked into an agreement to supply a minimum quantity of gas". [14][18]
  • ContestedMeridian chief executive Mike Roan has said LNG "is not necessary from an electricity perspective", while the Major Electricity Users' Group says the terminal would put a "soft cap" on wholesale prices. [17]

Risks and side effects

  • Established evidenceThe Greens have not published how much firming Kiwipower would contract, at what price, or how it would work with Transpower and the Electricity Authority. [2][5]
  • ContestedMBIE's factsheet says peer reviewers warned that a new centralised Crown entity for firming "could invite political interference and reduce efficiency". [21]
  • ContestedFinance Minister Nicola Willis says "Threatening a major structural separation of the existing gentailers risks massive instability". [12]

Implementation

  • Established evidenceThe separation bill is a member's bill in the ballot. It would require separate companies dealing at arm's length and would allow common ownership. If passed, the Electricity Authority would have one year to amend its Code or report why not, and the Minister could then amend it until three years after the law took effect. [6]
  • Established evidenceIn October 2026 MBIE said a preferred LNG provider had been chosen but no contract would be signed before the election. The Greens have not given a start date for Kiwipower, the regulator or the ministry. [15][16][2][1]

Strongest case for

  • Party claimChlöe Swarbrick says "four big power companies control over 85% of the market", that Kiwipower would solve dry-year shortfalls "without a billion-dollar LNG facility", and that separation means "levelling the playing field". [3][8]

Strongest case against

  • ContestedACT's Simon Court says New Zealand "has tried relying on state-owned electricity before" and it "didn't deliver the investment needed to keep up with demand", and that sharing out firming builds no generation. [11]
  1. Manifesto 2026: Energy · Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  2. The Greens' Full Power Policy: Energy Policy 2026 · Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  3. Greens pledge 'Kiwipower' to boost renewables and cut power bills (20 July 2026) · 1News · accessed 15 Oct 2026 · archived copy (17 Oct 2026)
  4. Greens propose zero-interest clean energy loans and $200 million investment (20 July 2026) · interest.co.nz · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  5. The Greens propose a state-owned energy company (21 July 2026) · The Spinoff · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  6. Electricity Industry (Separation of Generation and Retail Businesses) Amendment Bill (proposed member's bill, Scott Willis) · New Zealand Parliament · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  7. NZ First, the Greens and Labour all eyeing change to the gentailer model · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  8. NZ's energy future debated on stage in Queenstown (RNZ, 20 May 2026) · Lakes Weekly Bulletin (RNZ) · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  9. Greens propose capping power bill increases (RNZ, 11 May 2026) · Otago Daily Times (RNZ) · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  10. Labour pledges AI office, data centre rules, automated decision curbs (9 September 2026) · 1News · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  11. Greens' energy policy would leave New Zealand running out of power (20 July 2026) · ACT New Zealand · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  12. National's Nicola Willis says breaking up New Zealand's major power gentailers would send a signal the country's energy is 'up for grabs' (22 September 2026) · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  13. Splitting power generators from their retail arms would not cut electricity bills · The New Zealand Initiative · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  14. Government says yes to liquefied natural gas · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  15. MBIE to consider proposal for moored vessel as Government shortlists preferred provider for LNG import terminal in Taranaki · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  16. Govt quietly selects liquefied natural gas provider (RNZ) · Otago Daily Times · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  17. The LNG levy is dead – but who will pay remains a mystery (10 June 2026) · The Spinoff · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  18. LNG plan needs a closer look: the details don't bode well (Basil Sharp, 17 February 2026) · University of Auckland · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  19. Review of electricity market performance (report for MBIE) · Frontier Economics · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  20. Key Frontier recommendations and the Government's response · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  21. Factsheet: Frontier recommendations Government is not pursuing · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  22. Non-discrimination obligations: Code amendment decision paper · Electricity Authority · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  23. Securing New Zealand's energy future · New Zealand Government · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  24. Breaking up NZ's power gentailers sounds appealing. The consequences may not be (The Conversation reprint) · NZCity · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  25. Government should consider breaking up big energy companies to drive down prices, OECD says · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  26. Power struggle: why fixing NZ's 'broken' electricity market is such a formidable challenge · Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  27. Gentailer separation: an independent review of the evidence and key considerations (commissioned by Contact, Genesis, Mercury and Meridian) · PwC New Zealand · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  28. Unleashing NZ Power · Auckland Business Chamber · accessed 17 Oct 2026
Change history

Every recorded change to this entry, newest first, including our own corrections after checks.

  1. 17 Oct 2026 Noted in the summary and the comparison that the Greens' position on splitting the gentailers comes from an MP's member's bill, not their manifesto. [6][1]
  2. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after third agent review; used the same separation critic as NZ First's entry, removed a criticism written about another party's plan and an extra funding note, and typed the analysts' views as contested. [12]
  3. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after second agent review; removed comments that answered critics, moved the bill's common-ownership detail to implementation, noted that PwC costed full separation and that the Super Rich Tax is a proposal, and added the Auckland Business Chamber's proposal. [6][28]
  4. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after agent review; added the analysts' views on splitting and the PwC estimate given to every entry on the split, typed the commissioned Infometrics review as a party claim, noted Oliver Hartwich's members, and named the tax as the party does. [27][3][6]
  5. 17 Oct 2026 First researched from party and independent sources. [1][2][6]
As at 17 Oct 2026About GreenReport a problem with this entry

Labour

Labour would not go ahead with the Government's LNG import terminal if it takes office before a contract is signed; it has not said what it would do if one is signed. Chris Hipkins says Labour would invest in New Zealand renewable power instead. Labour's "Banning Price Gouging" law would cover large companies with market power, including in energy: prices well above the cost of supply, or well above what a competitive market would charge, could bring penalties and orders to repay customers, with the Commerce Commission investigating. Hipkins has said he is "leaving the door open" to fundamental changes to the electricity market, but Labour has not proposed splitting the gentailers. No costs or dates are published. The biggest tradeoff: no long-term commitment to imported gas, but Labour has not said which renewable projects it would back, at what cost, or what would cover dry years.

  • Chris Hipkins says Labour would not proceed if in government before a deal is done; it has not said what it would do with a signed contract.
  • Labour's pricing law, covering energy among other essentials, would let the Commerce Commission investigate and seek penalties and refunds.

Who gains

  • Party claimHipkins said in February that Labour would not raise household power bills to pay for a gas terminal. Labour says customers of large companies found charging excessive prices would get back what they were overcharged. [1][10]
  • Established evidenceThe Government dropped its planned levy on power bills for the terminal in June 2026 and says a funding model is being worked out with the gentailers. [22][16]

Who pays

  • Party claimLabour says the pricing law is aimed at large companies with significant market power, not small businesses; companies found to overcharge would face penalties and repay customers. [10][8]

Cost and costing disputes

  • Established evidenceLabour has not published a cost for stopping the terminal, for any replacement backup supply, or for the Commerce Commission's new role. [4][10]

Evidence from elsewhere

  • ContestedMBIE says the LNG facility is expected to save "upwards of $265 million per year" by reducing price spikes. Energy economist Basil Sharp has asked to see the calculations behind that figure and says buyers would likely be "locked into an agreement to supply a minimum quantity of gas". [15][17]
  • ContestedMeridian chief executive Mike Roan has said LNG "is not necessary from an electricity perspective", while the Major Electricity Users' Group says the terminal would put a "soft cap" on wholesale prices. [16]
  • Established evidenceFrom 1 July 2026, Electricity Authority rules require the four gentailers to offer hedge contracts to independent retailers on the same terms as their own retail arms unless a difference is objectively justifiable; the Authority considered and rejected forced corporate separation. [18]

Risks and side effects

  • Established evidenceLabour has not said whether it would cancel a contract signed before it took office. It says it would invest in renewable power at home, but has not said which projects, at what cost, or what would provide dry-year backup instead of the terminal. [5][4][1]
  • ContestedWhether a price is "well above" competitive levels would be decided through Commerce Commission investigations and court cases; Labour has not published the legal test's wording. Jon Duffy of Consumer NZ says "At a general level, we're supportive of price gouging being illegal", but "The devil will be in the details of this" and "It's notoriously difficult to pin down price-gouging". [10][8][23]

Implementation

  • Established evidenceIn October 2026 MBIE said a preferred LNG provider had been chosen but no contract would be signed before the election. [6][7]
  • Established evidenceThe pricing law needs legislation; Labour has not given a date for it. [10]

Strongest case for

  • Party claimChris Hipkins says the "answer isn't to lock New Zealand into volatile global energy markets", and that "a company big enough to dodge competition can charge excessive prices for the basics". [1][9]

Strongest case against

  • ContestedIn Parliament, Christopher Luxon told Hipkins the LNG plan is "still the right answer" for dry years. Energy Minister Simon Watts said "The risk is the counter factual, which is, we don't have any gas, right?" [14]
  1. Labour's Chris Hipkins rejects LNG plan, rules out tolling current Auckland Harbour Bridge (23 February 2026) · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  2. 'We remain on track': Government isn't considering putting a pause on its plans to build an LNG terminal (26 March 2026) · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  3. NZ's energy future debated on stage in Queenstown (RNZ, 20 May 2026) · Lakes Weekly Bulletin (RNZ) · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  4. Release: LNG facility won't solve anything (4 June 2026) · New Zealand Labour Party · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  5. Labour on overturning LNG: 'We'd need to see the contract' (June 2026) · Carbon News · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  6. MBIE to consider proposal for moored vessel as Government shortlists preferred provider for LNG import terminal in Taranaki · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  7. Govt quietly selects liquefied natural gas provider (RNZ) · Otago Daily Times · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  8. Labour promises to make excessive prices illegal and set a clear legal test (16 September 2026) · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  9. Labour says it will 'crack down' on price gouging for essentials if elected (16 September 2026) · 1News · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  10. Banning Price Gouging · New Zealand Labour Party · accessed 14 Oct 2026
  11. NZ First, the Greens and Labour all eyeing change to the gentailer model · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  12. AI in New Zealand's Interests · New Zealand Labour Party · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  13. Labour pledges AI office, data centre rules, automated decision curbs (9 September 2026) · 1News · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  14. Heated exchange in Parliament over the Government's liquefied natural gas (LNG) plan (4 March 2026) · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  15. Government says yes to liquefied natural gas · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  16. The LNG levy is dead – but who will pay remains a mystery (10 June 2026) · The Spinoff · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  17. LNG plan needs a closer look: the details don't bode well (Basil Sharp, 17 February 2026) · University of Auckland · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  18. Non-discrimination obligations: Code amendment decision paper · Electricity Authority · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  19. Securing New Zealand's energy future · New Zealand Government · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  20. Factsheet: Frontier recommendations Government is not pursuing · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  21. Review of electricity market performance (report for MBIE) · Frontier Economics · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  22. Govt dumps 'gas tax' levy to pay for LNG terminal (RNZ, June 2026) · Otago Daily Times (RNZ) · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  23. Price gouging and a supermarket shake up (17 September 2026) · rova · accessed 17 Oct 2026
Change history

Every recorded change to this entry, newest first, including our own corrections after checks.

  1. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after third agent review; added Consumer NZ's support for the principle of the price gouging law. [23]
  2. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after second agent review; attributed the price test to Labour's law, quoted the May LNG statement with its condition, and noted Labour has not named the renewable projects it would back. [10][3]
  3. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after agent review; noted the Government dropped its planned levy, and added Consumer NZ's view of the pricing law. [22][23]
  4. 17 Oct 2026 First researched from party and independent sources. [1][10]
As at 17 Oct 2026About LabourReport a problem with this entry

National

National's nine-point plan, Electrify NZ 2.0, would let developers and large users build and own transmission lines, let customers choose accredited contractors for connections, and require large generators to take part in regular auctions of a standard backup power contract for dry years. It would review the law that regulates lines charges and make affordability a core objective of the Electricity Authority. Christopher Luxon says splitting the gentailers "would drive a lot of uncertainty". From its record in government, National's ministers started LNG procurement and backed new generation by the Crown-majority power companies. National has not published a cost or dates for these points. The biggest tradeoff: the plan keeps the gentailers whole and adds backup power auctions and private transmission, which National says would increase competition, but it gives no estimate of bill savings, and who pays for the LNG terminal is not settled.

  • National has not proposed a split; Luxon and Willis oppose one, and the Electricity Authority's level playing field rules apply from 1 July 2026.
  • Luxon and then-Energy Minister Simon Watts confirmed the facility in February 2026, and Simeon Brown's office says the Government remains committed to it.
  • In the 2025 response to the market review, Nicola Willis said the Crown would take part in equity raises by Genesis, Mercury and Meridian for major new investments, if the proposals stack up.
  • Private transmission lines with costs recovered from users, accredited connection contractors, and the RMA replacement for faster renewable consents.
  • Affordability would carry equal weight with competition, reliability and efficiency in the Electricity Industry Act.
  • Large generators would join regular auctions of a standard backup contract, and Part 4 of the Commerce Act would get a targeted review.

Who gains

  • Party claimNational says households and businesses would get "more supply, more competition, and more choice", including independent retailers and businesses able to buy dry-year backup cover from any supplier, and developers able to build their own transmission. [2][3]

Who pays

  • Party claimUsers of private transmission lines would pay for them, and large generators would have to offer backup contracts at auction. National's Energy Minister says the LNG terminal will not be paid for by a levy on power bills, that responsibility sits with the electricity sector, and that a funding model is being worked out with the gentailers. [2][16][17]
  • Established evidenceThe Crown owns 51% of Genesis, Mercury and Meridian, so costs those companies carry also affect the dividends paid to the Crown. [8][17]

Cost and costing disputes

  • Established evidenceNational has not published a cost for the nine-point plan's market measures. [2]
  • Party claimThe Government's own Cabinet paper estimated the LNG infrastructure charter at $90 million to $180 million a year over 15 to 20 years; no independent costing was found. [15]
  • Party claimSimon Watts said having a reliable backup would save about $265 million a year and protect about 2000 jobs. [14]

Evidence from elsewhere

  • ContestedFrontier Economics' 2025 review said "having four vertically integrated entities of a similar size is also a positive indicator of effective competition" and did not recommend splitting them; Richard Meade of Griffith University argues that owning generation protects retailers against price spikes. In December 2024 the OECD said reviews should look at splitting large companies' generation and retail operations; Geoff Bertram of Victoria University of Wellington lists "breaking up the gentailers" among solutions "straightforward in principle"; and an August 2026 Auckland Business Chamber paper proposes legally distinct generation and retail subsidiaries with "no forced asset sales". [10][21][19][22][24]
  • ContestedA PwC review commissioned by the four gentailers, and not a review of any party's plan, estimated full separation would cost $460 million to $940 million once and $112 million to $160 million a year, and take three to five years. [25]
  • ContestedMeridian chief executive Mike Roan has said LNG "is not necessary from an electricity perspective", while the Major Electricity Users' Group says the terminal would put a "soft cap" on wholesale prices. [17]
  • Established evidenceFrom 1 July 2026, Electricity Authority rules require the four gentailers to offer hedge contracts to independent retailers on the same terms as their own retail arms unless a difference is objectively justifiable; the Authority considered and rejected forced corporate separation. [20]
  • ContestedMBIE says the LNG facility is expected to save "upwards of $265 million per year" by reducing price spikes. Energy economist Basil Sharp has asked to see the calculations behind that figure and says buyers would likely be "locked into an agreement to supply a minimum quantity of gas". [11][23]
  • Established evidenceMBIE says New Zealand "no longer has enough domestic gas to fully operate existing thermal generation" in a dry year. The Government gives this as the reason for the LNG terminal. [26][11]

Risks and side effects

  • Established evidenceNational has not said when its measures would start or how much they would lower bills. Its document says the current lines revenue cap locks in a higher allowed return until March 2030, and it has not said whether a Part 4 review would change it. [2]
  • Established evidenceThe LNG facility cannot go ahead unless its safety case is accepted, and Labour says it would scrap the terminal if no contract has been signed. [12]

Implementation

  • Party claimNational's plan document says the affordability objective and private transmission would need changes to the Electricity Industry Act and the Electricity Industry Participation Code. [2]
  • Established evidenceMBIE says final LNG decisions will be made after the election, when the next Government is formed. [12]
  • Established evidenceNational has not given dates for these changes. [2]

Strongest case for

  • Party claimSimeon Brown says "Secure, affordable power is key to keeping homes warm, keeping businesses competitive." Nicola Willis says consenting rules have been "far too cumbersome" and a structural separation "risks massive instability". [3][6]

Strongest case against

  • ContestedLabour's Megan Woods says "National has had three years to deliver, and power bills are still hurting households," and that Electrify NZ 2.0 "is not a plan to bring power bills down." [3]
  1. Affordable power Kiwis can rely on · New Zealand National Party · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  2. Electrify NZ 2.0 (full policy document) · New Zealand National Party · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  3. National reveal election energy policy: 'Secure, affordable power is key' (2 October 2026) · 1News · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  4. Data shows 6.8% increase to power bills across households and small businesses · Electricity Authority · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  5. NZ First, the Greens and Labour all eyeing change to the gentailer model · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  6. National's Nicola Willis says breaking up New Zealand's major power gentailers would send a signal the country's energy is 'up for grabs' (22 September 2026) · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  7. Delivering a fairer electricity market for Kiwi consumers · New Zealand Government · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  8. Securing New Zealand's energy future · New Zealand Government · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  9. Factsheet: Frontier recommendations Government is not pursuing · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  10. Review of electricity market performance (report for MBIE) · Frontier Economics · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  11. Government says yes to liquefied natural gas · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  12. MBIE to consider proposal for moored vessel as Government shortlists preferred provider for LNG import terminal in Taranaki · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  13. Govt quietly selects liquefied natural gas provider (RNZ) · Otago Daily Times · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  14. Delivering LNG to support energy security (9 February 2026) · New Zealand National Party · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  15. Government investment in dry year risk cover: consideration of an LNG import facility (Cabinet paper) · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  16. Govt dumps 'gas tax' levy to pay for LNG terminal (RNZ, June 2026) · Otago Daily Times (RNZ) · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  17. The LNG levy is dead – but who will pay remains a mystery (10 June 2026) · The Spinoff · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  18. Decision on LNG terminal delayed (RNZ, 23 September 2026) · Scoop (RNZ) · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  19. Government should consider breaking up big energy companies to drive down prices, OECD says · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  20. Non-discrimination obligations: Code amendment decision paper · Electricity Authority · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  21. Breaking up NZ's power gentailers sounds appealing. The consequences may not be (The Conversation reprint) · NZCity · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  22. Power struggle: why fixing NZ's 'broken' electricity market is such a formidable challenge · Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  23. LNG plan needs a closer look: the details don't bode well (Basil Sharp, 17 February 2026) · University of Auckland · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  24. Unleashing NZ Power · Auckland Business Chamber · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  25. Gentailer separation: an independent review of the evidence and key considerations (commissioned by Contact, Genesis, Mercury and Meridian) · PwC New Zealand · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  26. Factsheet: Challenges facing the electricity system · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
Change history

Every recorded change to this entry, newest first, including our own corrections after checks.

  1. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after third agent review; typed the Cabinet paper estimate as the Government's own, added MBIE's dry-year gas point and the PwC estimate, and typed the analysts' views as contested. [15][26][25]
  2. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after second agent review; said ministers started LNG procurement rather than the terminal, noted the lines-charge figures may cover different periods, and added the Auckland Business Chamber's proposal. [11][24]
  3. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after agent review; described the plan's measures rather than their aim, typed the Cabinet paper as a government document, gave the same LNG evidence as every other entry, and named Simeon Brown in full. [15][23]
  4. 17 Oct 2026 First researched from party and independent sources. [2][6][8][11]
As at 17 Oct 2026About NationalReport a problem with this entry

NZ First

NZ First would split the four large power companies into separate generators and retailers. Winston Peters said they should become separate legal entities, and "We're not into wholesale nationalisation". It would replace the current wholesale system, in which the highest-priced offer needed sets the price for all, so that companies "cannot hold back supply just to drive prices higher"; it would also guarantee long-term, fixed-price contracts for new power stations, whose power would be used first. Shane Jones says the split would be the first item in any coalition negotiations. NZ First has not published a cost, a timetable or how shareholders would be compensated, and has not stated a position on the LNG terminal. The biggest tradeoff: the split separates making power from selling it, but who would guarantee the fixed-price contracts and what the split would cost are not set out.

  • Peters says the companies should become separate legal entities, without "wholesale nationalisation"; NZ First has not said how shareholders would be compensated.
  • NZ First says it would guarantee such contracts for new-build projects and that their power would be used first; it has not said who would offer them.
  • NZ First says companies would no longer be able to "hold back supply just to drive prices higher"; it has not said how prices would be set instead.

Who gains

  • Party claimNZ First says households and businesses would benefit from "more competition", that new low-cost retailers could enter the market, and that investors in new power stations would get "certainty". [1][3]

Who pays

  • Established evidenceNZ First has not said who would pay for the fixed-price contracts or the cost of separation, or how shareholders, including the Crown with 51% of three of the companies, would be compensated. [1][4]

Cost and costing disputes

  • Party claiminterest.co.nz reported Peters saying there would be a costed policy; none had been published as at 17 October 2026. [4][1]
  • ContestedA PwC review commissioned by the four gentailers, and not a review of any party's plan, estimated full separation would cost $460 million to $940 million once and $112 million to $160 million a year, and take three to five years. It costed full separation; NZ First has not said whether the separated companies could still share owners. [17]

Evidence from elsewhere

  • ContestedFrontier Economics' 2025 review said "having four vertically integrated entities of a similar size is also a positive indicator of effective competition" and did not recommend splitting them; Richard Meade of Griffith University argues that owning generation protects retailers against price spikes. In December 2024 the OECD said reviews should look at splitting large companies' generation and retail operations; Geoff Bertram of Victoria University of Wellington lists "breaking up the gentailers" among solutions "straightforward in principle"; and an August 2026 Auckland Business Chamber paper proposes legally distinct generation and retail subsidiaries with "no forced asset sales". [12][19][18][22][23]
  • ContestedOn pricing, Geoff Bertram of Victoria University of Wellington argues the current design keeps prices high because "That highest price is paid to all generators"; Frontier recommended keeping the current wholesale market design, saying "we see no need for fundamental market design changes". [22][12]
  • Established evidenceFrom 1 July 2026, Electricity Authority rules require the four gentailers to offer hedge contracts to independent retailers on the same terms as their own retail arms unless a difference is objectively justifiable; the Authority considered and rejected forced corporate separation. [16]

Risks and side effects

  • Established evidenceNZ First has not published how the split would be carried out, how the wholesale price would be set instead, or who would offer the fixed-price contracts. [1][4]
  • ContestedFinance Minister Nicola Willis says "Threatening a major structural separation of the existing gentailers risks massive instability". [24]

Implementation

  • Party claiminterest.co.nz reported Peters saying NZ First would act as fast as it could; no timetable has been published. [4]

Strongest case for

  • Party claimWinston Peters says "We will be breaking up the power companies so they can no longer control both the power and the price," because the big four "control almost 90% of the electricity generation". [2]

Strongest case against

  • ContestedMike Fuge, chief executive of Contact Energy, which would be split, said "we do disagree, with New Zealand First's position" and that the Electricity Price Review found "the gentailers were in the right structure". [20]
  1. Breaking up the Gentailers · New Zealand First · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  2. Winston Peters says NZ First wants to break up power gentailers 'so they can no longer control both the power and the price' · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  3. Peters announces proposal to overhaul energy sector (RNZ, 22 March 2026) · Otago Daily Times (RNZ) · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  4. NZ First, the Greens and Labour all eyeing change to the gentailer model · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  5. Big costs, big profits: the state of the electricity sector in 2026 · The Spinoff · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  6. Gentailer split would be NZ First's big coalition ask, Jones says Japanese interested in offshore gas · BusinessDesk · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  7. Democracy Briefing: The Establishment joins the electricity insurgency (29 March 2026) · The Democracy Project · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  8. Future Proofing our Fuel Security · New Zealand First · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  9. Decision on LNG terminal delayed (RNZ, 23 September 2026) · Scoop (RNZ) · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  10. LNG terminal decision stalled until after election (24 September 2026) · B2B News · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  11. Securing New Zealand's energy future · New Zealand Government · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  12. Review of electricity market performance (report for MBIE) · Frontier Economics · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  13. Government says yes to liquefied natural gas · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  14. MBIE to consider proposal for moored vessel as Government shortlists preferred provider for LNG import terminal in Taranaki · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  15. Govt quietly selects liquefied natural gas provider (RNZ) · Otago Daily Times · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  16. Non-discrimination obligations: Code amendment decision paper · Electricity Authority · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  17. Gentailer separation: an independent review of the evidence and key considerations (commissioned by Contact, Genesis, Mercury and Meridian) · PwC New Zealand · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  18. Government should consider breaking up big energy companies to drive down prices, OECD says · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  19. Breaking up NZ's power gentailers sounds appealing. The consequences may not be (The Conversation reprint) · NZCity · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  20. Contact Energy CEO dismisses NZ First plan to split electricity suppliers (RNZ, 24 March 2026) · Live News (RNZ) · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  21. Factsheet: Frontier recommendations Government is not pursuing · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  22. Power struggle: why fixing NZ's 'broken' electricity market is such a formidable challenge · Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  23. Unleashing NZ Power · Auckland Business Chamber · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  24. National's Nicola Willis says breaking up New Zealand's major power gentailers would send a signal the country's energy is 'up for grabs' (22 September 2026) · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
Change history

Every recorded change to this entry, newest first, including our own corrections after checks.

  1. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after third agent review; described the wholesale pricing system as the issue page does, added the same separation critic as the Greens' entry, shortened a quote, and typed the analysts' views as contested. [24][6]
  2. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after second agent review; reported Peters's comments on timing and costing as paraphrase, noted that PwC costed full separation, and added the Auckland Business Chamber's proposal. [4][23]
  3. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after agent review; attributed the pricing description to NZ First, gave the same analysts' views on splitting and pricing as every other entry, noted the 90% figure has no source, and noted Contact would be affected. [1][22]
  4. 17 Oct 2026 First researched from party and independent sources. [1][4][9]
As at 17 Oct 2026About NZ FirstReport a problem with this entry

Opportunity

Opportunity would seek cross-party agreement to a 25-year energy strategy and 30 gigawatts of generation capacity by 2050. A Capacity Investment Scheme, modelled on Australia's, would tender long-term government contracts guaranteeing minimum revenue for new renewables and storage in their second decade, with revenue above a ceiling price shared with the government. It would merge five energy agencies into one regulator and a Ministry of Energy, group the 29 lines companies into six to eight, change their revenue rules, and ease consents for new generation. It opposes splitting the gentailers and the LNG terminal. Running costs would come from about $500 million a year of Crown power company dividends, which the party says would need replacing, such as by a land value tax. No start dates are given. The biggest tradeoff: guaranteed revenue for new generators, but the Crown carries the cost if power prices fall sharply.

  • Opportunity says the gentailers are reasonably competitive and that the core problem is incentives that lead to underinvestment in generation.
  • Opportunity says the terminal would lock New Zealand into long-term reliance on imported gas and expose it to volatile world prices.
  • A Capacity Investment Scheme would tender contracts covering a plant's second decade, sharing revenue above a ceiling price with the government.
  • The policy statement would cover electricity generation and distribution, alongside a 25-year energy strategy agreed across parties.
  • The Electricity Authority, the Commerce Commission's energy functions, MBIE energy policy, EECA and the Gas Industry Company would be combined.
  • Local ownership would stay, and new revenue rules for lines companies and Transpower would allow grid investment ahead of need.

Who gains

  • Party claimOpportunity says its plan would bring down electricity prices and give investors certainty. Developers of new renewables and storage would get a guaranteed minimum revenue, and small community generation in isolated areas would get co-funding. [1][2]

Who pays

  • Party claimOpportunity says running costs would come from Crown dividends from the gentailers, about $500 million a year, and that this money would need replacing in the Crown's accounts from sources such as a land value tax. [1][2]
  • Party claimUnder the capacity scheme the Crown would carry a contingent liability, which the party says could become a cost if power prices fell sharply; revenue above the ceiling price would go to the government. [1]

Cost and costing disputes

  • Party claimAbout $5 million a year to run the capacity scheme, about $10 million a year for distributed generation support and up to $25 million a year to co-fund community generation. The party puts the scheme's contingent liability at an expected value of $0. [1]
  • Established evidenceOpportunity has not published a cost for merging the regulators or grouping the lines companies, or how much generation it would contract each year. [1]
  • Independent estimateinterest.co.nz calculated the Crown's dividend entitlement from Genesis, Mercury and Meridian for the year to June 2026 at about $599.5 million; these are entitlements, not cash received, and Treasury said it could not confirm the figure. [5]

Evidence from elsewhere

  • ContestedFrontier Economics' 2025 review said "having four vertically integrated entities of a similar size is also a positive indicator of effective competition" and did not recommend splitting them; Richard Meade of Griffith University argues that owning generation protects retailers against price spikes. In December 2024 the OECD said reviews should look at splitting large companies' generation and retail operations; Geoff Bertram of Victoria University of Wellington lists "breaking up the gentailers" among solutions "straightforward in principle"; and an August 2026 Auckland Business Chamber paper proposes legally distinct generation and retail subsidiaries with "no forced asset sales". [7][16][17][18][21]
  • ContestedA PwC review commissioned by the four gentailers, and not a review of any party's plan, estimated full separation would cost $460 million to $940 million once and $112 million to $160 million a year, and take three to five years. [22]
  • Established evidenceFrontier Economics' 2025 market review found "the market is working to deliver new investment in generation" but not dry-year backup, and recommended merging the Electricity Authority with the Gas Industry Company and reducing the 29 lines companies, preferably to five. [7]
  • Established evidenceThe International Energy Agency describes Australia's Capacity Investment Scheme as competitive tenders for renewable and storage capacity, aiming for 32 GW of extra capacity by 2030. [6]
  • Established evidenceFrom 1 July 2026, Electricity Authority rules require the four gentailers to offer hedge contracts to independent retailers on the same terms as their own retail arms unless a difference is objectively justifiable; the Authority considered and rejected forced corporate separation. [14]
  • ContestedMBIE says the LNG facility is expected to save "upwards of $265 million per year" by reducing price spikes. Energy economist Basil Sharp has asked to see the calculations behind that figure and says buyers would likely be "locked into an agreement to supply a minimum quantity of gas". [10][19]
  • ContestedMeridian chief executive Mike Roan has said LNG "is not necessary from an electricity perspective", while the Major Electricity Users' Group says the terminal would put a "soft cap" on wholesale prices. [20]

Risks and side effects

  • ContestedThe Government, declining Frontier's proposal to merge lines companies into five, said "Forced amalgamation would be expensive, complex, and undermine local decision-making." Opportunity would keep local ownership. [8][1]
  • Established evidenceMBIE says New Zealand "no longer has enough domestic gas to fully operate existing thermal generation" in a dry year. Without the LNG terminal, Opportunity relies on building more renewables so hydro lakes hold a reserve. [9][1]

Implementation

  • Established evidenceOpportunity has not published start dates for the regulator merger, the lines company groupings or the capacity scheme. [1]
  • Established evidenceMBIE says a preferred LNG provider has been chosen but "a final contract won't be signed before the election", so whether a new government could stop the terminal depends on when a contract is signed. [13][12]

Strongest case for

  • Party claimOpportunity says the core problem is "the perverse structural incentives that give rise to underinvestment", not the gentailers. Leader Qiulae Wong says uncertainty over energy direction "is really dangerous and it's challenging for our economy". [1][4]

Strongest case against

  • ContestedNo named critic of Opportunity's plan was found. More generally, rejecting Frontier's proposal, the Government said merging regulators "could disrupt investment", and says imported LNG is "the fastest, cheapest and most flexible source of backup energy". [8][11]
  1. Opportunity Policy: Abundant Energy (September 2026) · The Opportunity Party · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  2. Abundant Energy · The Opportunity Party · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  3. Call for Government reversal on LNG terminal · The Opportunity Party · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  4. What is the Opportunity Party and what are its policies? (RNZ) · Farmers Weekly · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  5. Majority government-owned gentailers generated nearly $600 million in dividends for the Crown · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  6. Capacity Investment Scheme (Australia) · International Energy Agency · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  7. Review of electricity market performance (report for MBIE) · Frontier Economics · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  8. Factsheet: Frontier recommendations Government is not pursuing · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  9. Factsheet: Challenges facing the electricity system · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  10. Government says yes to liquefied natural gas · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  11. LNG imports to help secure affordable energy · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  12. MBIE to consider proposal for moored vessel as Government shortlists preferred provider for LNG import terminal in Taranaki · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  13. Govt quietly selects liquefied natural gas provider (RNZ) · Otago Daily Times · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  14. Non-discrimination obligations: Code amendment decision paper · Electricity Authority · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  15. Securing New Zealand's energy future · New Zealand Government · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  16. Breaking up NZ's power gentailers sounds appealing. The consequences may not be (The Conversation reprint) · NZCity · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  17. Government should consider breaking up big energy companies to drive down prices, OECD says · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  18. Power struggle: why fixing NZ's 'broken' electricity market is such a formidable challenge · Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  19. LNG plan needs a closer look: the details don't bode well (Basil Sharp, 17 February 2026) · University of Auckland · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  20. The LNG levy is dead – but who will pay remains a mystery (10 June 2026) · The Spinoff · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  21. Unleashing NZ Power · Auckland Business Chamber · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  22. Gentailer separation: an independent review of the evidence and key considerations (commissioned by Contact, Genesis, Mercury and Meridian) · PwC New Zealand · accessed 17 Oct 2026
Change history

Every recorded change to this entry, newest first, including our own corrections after checks.

  1. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after third agent review; typed the dividend figure as an outside estimate of entitlements, added the PwC estimate, and typed the analysts' views as contested. [5][22]
  2. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after second agent review; added the Auckland Business Chamber's proposal to the analysts' views on splitting. [21]
  3. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after agent review; gave the same analysts' views on splitting, hedge rules and LNG evidence as every other entry, and left the untraced figures to the background text. [7][19]
  4. 17 Oct 2026 First researched from party and independent sources. [1][2][3]
As at 17 Oct 2026About OpportunityReport a problem with this entry

Te Pāti Māori

Te Pāti Māori would set up a $1 billion Energy Sovereignty Fund to build Māori and community-owned energy assets, offering grants, concessional finance, guarantees, equity and co-investment to hapū, iwi, marae, Māori landowners and communities. It would develop a long-term National Energy Plan and give regulators stronger powers to act against excessive pricing and profits. It opposes the LNG terminal, saying "the answer is not to plant a gas terminal on our coastline", and would direct the state-owned power companies to treat dry-year risk as a public obligation. It sets "a pathway to Energy Sovereignty by 2035" but has not said how the fund would be paid for, and its releases do not define "excessive". It has not stated a position on splitting the gentailers. The biggest tradeoff: hapū, iwi and communities would own new generation, but the fund's source of money and timetable are not published.

  • Debbie Ngarewa-Packer says the answer is not "a gas terminal on our coastline", and the party asked for the contract process to be halted.
  • The fund would offer grants, concessional finance, guarantees, equity and co-investment so hapū, iwi, marae and communities own generation and storage.
  • RNZ reports the Commerce Commission and Electricity Authority would get stronger powers to investigate excessive pricing and profits.

Who gains

  • Party claimTe Pāti Māori says hapū, iwi, marae, Māori landowners and communities would take permanent stakes in energy assets, and that its plan would bring "measurable reductions" in household energy costs. [3][2]

Who pays

  • Established evidenceThe party has not said how the $1 billion would be paid for. [1][2][3]

Cost and costing disputes

  • Party claim$1 billion for the Energy Sovereignty Fund. [1][2]
  • Established evidenceNo timeframe or split of the fund between projects has been published. [2][3]

Evidence from elsewhere

  • ContestedMBIE says the LNG facility is expected to save "upwards of $265 million per year" by reducing price spikes. Energy economist Basil Sharp has asked to see the calculations behind that figure and says buyers would likely be "locked into an agreement to supply a minimum quantity of gas". [8][12]
  • ContestedMeridian chief executive Mike Roan has said LNG "is not necessary from an electricity perspective", while the Major Electricity Users' Group says the terminal would put a "soft cap" on wholesale prices. [9]
  • Established evidenceFrom 1 July 2026, Electricity Authority rules require the four gentailers to offer hedge contracts to independent retailers on the same terms as their own retail arms unless a difference is objectively justifiable; the Authority considered and rejected forced corporate separation. [13]

Risks and side effects

  • Established evidenceThe party's releases do not say what new powers regulators would get or how excessive prices and profits would be defined; RNZ reported the Commerce Commission and Electricity Authority would get stronger powers to investigate. [2][3]
  • Established evidenceDirecting the power companies on dry-year risk would apply to Genesis, Mercury and Meridian, in which the Crown holds 51%, and not to privately owned Contact; the party has not said how the direction would be given. [4][6][16]
  • ContestedMBIE says New Zealand "no longer has enough domestic gas to fully operate existing thermal generation" in a dry year. Te Pāti Māori proposes storage, demand flexibility, more geothermal and community microgrids instead, but has not said how much backup these would provide or by when. [17][4]

Implementation

  • Established evidenceIn October 2026 MBIE said a preferred LNG provider had been chosen but no contract would be signed before the election. [10][11]
  • Established evidenceThe party sets a pathway to energy sovereignty by 2035 but has not given start dates for the fund or the National Energy Plan. [2]

Strongest case for

  • Party claimRawiri Waititi says "Every party is talking about generating more electricity. We're asking the question they keep avoiding: who will own it?" Debbie Ngarewa-Packer says "the renewable transition cannot become the next extractive economy." [2]

Strongest case against

  • ContestedNo named critic of Te Pāti Māori's energy plan was found. More generally, Christopher Luxon, answering Labour's Chris Hipkins in Parliament, said the LNG plan is "still the right answer" for dry years. [7]
  1. Energy Sovereignty · Te Pāti Māori · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  2. We Want Cheaper Power And We Want Our People To Own It (16 September 2026) · Te Pāti Māori · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  3. Te Pāti Māori keen to secure energy sovereignty (RNZ, 16 September 2026) · Otago Daily Times (RNZ) · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  4. If The Government Really Wants To Lower Power Bills, This Is The Way (9 June 2026) · Te Pāti Māori · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  5. Government Hid Its Own Evidence on LNG (11 June 2026) · Te Pāti Māori · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  6. Securing New Zealand's energy future · New Zealand Government · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  7. Heated exchange in Parliament over the Government's liquefied natural gas (LNG) plan (4 March 2026) · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  8. Government says yes to liquefied natural gas · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  9. The LNG levy is dead – but who will pay remains a mystery (10 June 2026) · The Spinoff · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  10. MBIE to consider proposal for moored vessel as Government shortlists preferred provider for LNG import terminal in Taranaki · interest.co.nz · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  11. Govt quietly selects liquefied natural gas provider (RNZ) · Otago Daily Times · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  12. LNG plan needs a closer look: the details don't bode well (Basil Sharp, 17 February 2026) · University of Auckland · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  13. Non-discrimination obligations: Code amendment decision paper · Electricity Authority · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  14. Factsheet: Frontier recommendations Government is not pursuing · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  15. Review of electricity market performance (report for MBIE) · Frontier Economics · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  16. Big costs, big profits: the state of the electricity sector in 2026 · The Spinoff · accessed 17 Oct 2026
  17. Factsheet: Challenges facing the electricity system · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 17 Oct 2026
Change history

Every recorded change to this entry, newest first, including our own corrections after checks.

  1. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after third agent review; added MBIE's dry-year gas point and the party's proposed alternatives. [17][4]
  2. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after second agent review; noted RNZ's report of which regulators would get the stronger powers. [3]
  3. 17 Oct 2026 Revised after fact-check; cited the source for Contact's ownership. [16]
  4. 17 Oct 2026 First researched from party and independent sources. [2][4]
As at 17 Oct 2026About Te Pāti MāoriReport a problem with this entry