Key Takeaways
- About 100 community members gathered in New Plymouth to hear criticism of a proposed LNG import facility at Port Taranaki.
- Speakers argued that LNG is unnecessary, expensive, and risky, emphasizing that renewable sources and existing storage solutions can meet New Zealand’s electricity needs.
- Energy Minister Simeon Brown defended LNG as a reliable “insurance policy” for dry‑year periods, noting that 88 % of the country’s electricity already comes from renewables.
- Safety concerns were highlighted, with opponents warning that locating a large LNG terminal near homes, schools, and beaches could endanger thousands in a worst‑case scenario.
- The government is moving forward with a procurement process, aiming to select a site and provider by mid‑year and have the facility operational by 2027, while continuing to fast‑track renewable projects.
Event Overview and Attendance
Approximately one hundred people filled St Mary’s Peace Hall in New Plymouth for the “Why importing LNG is a bad idea” forum, organized by Climate Justice Taranaki, Taranaki Energy Watch, and Community Energy Taranaki. The turnout was so high that extra seats had to be rolled out to accommodate the crowd, reflecting strong local interest in the debate over a proposed liquified natural gas (LNG) import terminal at Port Taranaki.
Steve Goldthorpe’s Technical Critique
Retired energy systems analyst Steve Goldthorpe opened the discussion by asserting that New Zealand does not require LNG for power generation. He described LNG imports as “difficult and expensive,” noting that managing the associated hazards poses a major challenge. Goldthorpe argued that the technology is simply the wrong fit for the country, warning that it would lock New Zealand into importing costly gas when it is not needed for electricity production. He pointed out that alternatives already exist, including large‑scale grid batteries for daily fluctuations and the ability to modulate flow through hydro turbines. For longer‑term dry‑year storage, he suggested that power companies could maintain a stockpile of coal outside Huntly power station, which could eventually be supplanted by emissions‑free wood‑chip technologies that also help clear forestry slash from hillsides.
Steve Francis on Renewable Economics
Community Energy Taranaki’s Steve Francis echoed the sentiment that renewables make LNG unnecessary. He highlighted that solar has become the cheapest form of energy, stating that the “tipping point for solar has been reached.” With increasing electrification, Francis contended there is no justification for an LNG terminal. He advocated for cheap loans to boost residential solar adoption, noting that only about three percent of New Zealand homes currently have solar panels compared to roughly forty percent in Australia. Francis argued that expanding solar would lower living costs, cut greenhouse‑gas emissions, and stimulate local employment.
Ministerial Rationale for LNG
Energy Minister Simeon Brown responded to the critics in a written statement, emphasizing that New Zealand already derives 88 percent of its electricity from renewable sources—primarily hydro, wind, geothermal, and solar. However, he acknowledged that the country periodically experiences “dry years” when low lake levels, calm winds, and limited sunshine reduce generation, often lasting weeks and peaking in winter evenings. Brown explained that, as domestic gas supplies dwindle, LNG could serve as a backup or “firming” resource to keep the lights on, prevent manufacturing shutdowns, and protect jobs and incomes. He framed LNG as an insurance policy guaranteeing reliable electricity for all users.
Government’s Commitment to Renewables
While defending LNG, Brown reiterated that the government fully supports renewable energy and has fast‑tracked several renewable electricity generation projects now in the pipeline. He drew a contrast with the previous administration’s ban on oil and gas exploration, asserting that the current government refuses to let the lights go out simply to avoid fossil fuels. Instead, it seeks to ensure backup generation is available when needed, positioning LNG as a proven and safe option that will not compromise health and safety standards.
Safety Concerns Raised by Energy Watch Taranaki
Energy Watch Taranaki’s Sarah Roberts voiced strong safety objections to siting an LNG terminal at Port Taranaki. She argued that the location is inappropriate because it would place a major industrial facility adjacent to thousands of residents, schools, and beachgoers who live, work, and play nearby. Roberts warned that, in a worst‑case scenario, an explosion at the terminal could cause fatalities over a wide area. She urged decision‑makers to reconsider the proximity of such hazardous infrastructure to densely populated communities.
Public Sentiment and Personal Stories
Most attendees expressed opposition to the LNG proposal. Alex described the idea of tying New Zealand to a carbon‑intensive future as “a no‑brainer” given the overwhelming evidence of climate change. Steve, an oil and gas worker, said he did not believe the project was right for Taranaki or the port, citing the large financial investment required and a preference for greater renewable development. Chrissie Ryeburn shared a personal concern, noting that her home and several local schools lie within the estimated blast zone—approximately seven kilometres from the proposed site—making the risk feel immediate and tangible.
Government Procurement Timeline
The article concluded by noting that the government aims to finalize a location for the LNG import terminal and select a preferred provider by the middle of the current year. If the procurement process proceeds successfully, the facility could become operational as early as 2027. Readers were invited to subscribe to Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by RNZ editors, for ongoing coverage of the issue.
In summary, the forum highlighted a clear divide: critics argue that LNG is an unnecessary, costly, and risky step that would entrench New Zealand in fossil‑fuel dependence, while the government maintains that LNG is a prudent backup to safeguard electricity security during dry years, complementing an aggressive renewable‑energy agenda. The debate remains unresolved, with safety, economics, and climate goals at the forefront of community concerns.