Written By:
- Date published:
6:15 am, March 17th, 2026 - 30 comments
Categories: public transport, sustainability, transport -
Tags: Fuel Security Plan, Fuel Supply Resilience Plan, Greenpeace Aotearoa
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Draft Fuel Supply Resilience Plan.
Overall, Greenpeace submits that the draft plan will not achieve energy resilience or reduce New Zealand’s exposure to fossil fuel supply shocks. It requires substantial changes to its vision, objectives, focus areas, and proposed actions.
The Government’s own Fuel Security Study identified accelerating the energy transition as one of the most cost-effective ways to improve fuel security. Yet this plan proposes very few concrete actions to accelerate the energy transition away from fossil fuels, and almost none to achieve energy independence through decarbonisation. Instead, it places disproportionate weight on managing disruptions to fossil fuel supplies, such as through increased stockpiling.
The plan also acknowledges that, apart from electricity, most domestic alternative fuels remain unproven at commercial scale. This underscores the urgency of prioritising electricity as the most viable, scalable, and resilient alternative. Electrification, unlike fossil fuel stockpiling, makes us permanently less exposed to global fuel volatility. Yet the plan contains only one action to support electrification, the “Supercharging EV” programme. This is insufficient.
True resilience will not come from stockpiling more finite, fossil fuels, but from reducing our reliance on fossil fuels altogether.
The most strategic and cost-effective way to increase resilience against petrol, diesel, and jet fuel supply disruptions is to decrease demand for these fuels. Therefore, Greenpeace urges MBIE to reframe the Fuel Supply Resilience Plan so that its centrepiece is decarbonisation. We recommend that the plan’s key focus areas be amended so that the central focus is on decreasing demand for fossil fuels, with the following actions included:
By centering our efforts on reducing our reliance on imported fossil fuels altogether, New Zealand can build true resilience to global shocks, ensure communities have energy security, and set a course toward a fairer, cleaner, more independent future.
You are seeking feedback on the vision, objectives, proposed focus areas, actions, and any additional measures you believe should be considered. The following submission details Greenpeace’s feedback in these areas.
The draft vision in the plan is: “to have a fuel system that is resilient to disruptions, so that people have access to fuel where and when they need it.” This is lacking specificity and should be reframed in order to outline the issue at hand, which is the nation’s risky reliance on fossil fuels. We recommend revising the vision to:
“New Zealand will become energy independent and resilient to global fuel shocks by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and transitioning our transport network and economy to clean, renewable alternatives.
The current objectives in the draft plan are:
This misses what should be the central objective of a fuel security plan for New Zealand which is: to reduce demand for fossil fuels. We therefore recommend adding:
The current four focus areas of the draft plan are:
These overlook the most effective pathway to resilience: cutting fossil fuel demand by decarbonising transport and investing in renewables. We recommend adding two new focus areas:
The proposed actions under the current focus areas are inadequate. Stockpiling more fuel, relying on the International Energy Agency, or running information campaigns about “switching fuels” will not reduce fossil fuel dependence.
Instead, the plan must include ambitious, system-shifting actions, including:
ENDS
Yeah bit late and let's pull back on the 'told you so's '
I was hoping you would weigh in on their ideas on what should be one in more practical terms re planning, infrastructure, timing.
It's not too late and why not I told you so. And have been telling us for decades. Dinosaur thinking has lead us into this position we are in now.
Some real Dinosaur Thinking in the COC.
No Right Turn provided a link to another vision of a fossil-free future, with immediate steps a proactive government should be taking!
But not this shower!
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2026/03/16/what-should-we-do/
A long read, but satisfying/frustrating.
Thanks for the link Tony.
The clip about Deepway Star's E Truck is compelling.
Carrying 49 tonne, range of 400 km and a charge time of 70 minutes. $255,000 + Grab Snatch Take. Battery warranty of 8 years or 1,500,000 kms.
No gear changing (heavy clutch), quiet, active cruise control and chock full of tech and cameras. Platoon mode means in low speed areas like ports, the front truck and trailer has a driver and then 4 trucks and trailers following driverless.
The future is now.
Also hydrogen trucks.
Some (spare) coastal shipping capacity is a future necessity with GW taking out regional roads.
While it’s unlikely New Zealand will have the scale or infrastructure to achieve energy independence in the short to medium term, reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels would still materially improve resilience.
Every kilometre driven on locally generated electricity is one less dependent on imported petrol or diesel.
But electrification only improves resilience if the electricity system can support it. In practice the constraint isn’t ideology, it’s infrastructure. Distribution networks, new generation connections, and grid upgrades take years to plan, consent, and build, at a time when the sector is already facing significant capital and workforce constraints after decades of underinvestment.
That means the challenge needs to be tackled systemically. Encouraging EV uptake and electrification while expecting EDBs to support it on networks built for a very different era simply shifts pressure onto infrastructure that already requires major investment and renewal.
More importantly, global instability and repeated energy price shocks open up a second front in the climate debate that connects much more directly with people’s day-to-day concerns. Fossil fuels aren’t just bad for the environment; they also leave countries exposed to volatile global markets and geopolitical disruptions. Framing electrification and renewable energy as resilience measures, not just climate measures, may be a more persuasive way to build public support.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to point out here. A major issue for EV users is the crappy ‘network’ of chargers, which is pretty much a recent-new thing in NZ. Yet, apparently, NZ has over 80 data centres already, so one would assume that current infrastructure is coping.
Quite. Would love to see some analysis on the new Southland data centre proposal and the impact on the grid. But I think RP means we can't do all the things.
We should prioritise electrifying PT and critical infrastructure. I think the days are gone for transitioning the whole NZ fleet to EVs, and in addition to the complexities of what RP speaks to, I would add adverse weather events in a country like NZ prone to flooding and slips. In a sane world we're be rethinking our whole transport network holistically and prioritising from that.
Not possible until facts come out.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/thedetail/589770/a-new-southland-datacentre-would-be-the-country-s-second-largest-drain-on-power
Reading the article by David Williams, I’d say it’s still TBD.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/03/16/from-dairy-to-data-the-3-5-billion-bet-on-southland/
Not sure how you come to this conclusion.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/589903/batteries-on-wheels-ev-expert-says-power-grid-well-equipped-for-rise-in-use
… I would add adverse weather events in a country like NZ prone to flooding and slips.
True, but that affects all infrastructure (incl. to and for households) and is not specific to EVs. I know a few people who went for an EV because of experience power cuts due to natural events and using it as a battery.
true, and EVs are going to be increasingly more of an emergency asset going forward.
But consider not a single weather event, but as the climate crisis deepens and we get to the point of not being able to afford road repairs or can't get the parts to repair the digger because of global shortages. We already see delays, magnify that by ten. People that live in a city will be better off in terms of getting around and getting goods and services access, people in the provinces not so much.
By the time the climate crisis gets that bad, we will have lost the buffer we currently have of excess power and goods from FFs. Unless we go for nuclear (a very bad idea), we're not going to be able to replace all of society with the same as what we have now only electric. Physics constrains us, and then economics.
If in 50 years it's going to be much harder to maintain our current roading network (because of the large increase in slips and floods, as well as less access to repairs), we should redesign now, while we can. Relocalise economies, figure out which transport systems (not just roading) are the most resilient and strengthen those. Has anyone arguing for more rail done an audit on how vulnerable our rail network is to slips? How resilient are our ports to sea rise and surges? Is shipping a resilient option? Can we stop expecting goods to get to us overnight? and so on.
Isn't 20% a lot? Esp alongside all the other increasing demands. Where is that power expected to come from? How many FFs will be burned to produce those cars and renewable power stations?
I'm not arguing against EVs. I'm saying we need to be real about the constraints we now live within.
That's where I was coming from.
I work for an Electricity Distributor, and one of the big problems we're grappling with is that our network has designed and build several decades (in some cases 7 or 8) ago in an era that didn't anticipate wholesale electrification of the vehicle fleet.
Updating the wires, transformers, and substations to handle that load, especially in the evening peak when everyone gets home from work, will be non-trivial.
My response is to move to steady state because it allows us to work within real world limits at the same time as decarbonising and dropping GHGs faster. That of course is politically untenable at the parliamentary political level, but it's a conversation we need to have.
It does beg the question of what and how to communicate esp as it's election year. Greenpeace and Clint Smith are going hard on twitter atm pushing electrification, which is good and I share those tweets. No-one is talking about the real world limitations. Maybe that will help win the election and this make good change, but it also sets us up.
Yeah, it’s one of those strategic dilemmas where the left is somewhat damned either way.
On one hand, electrification opens up a second front in the climate debate by tying it to a kitchen-table issue voters are already feeling now (fuel prices), rather than an abstract future crisis.
On the other hand, the left often struggles to be seen as capable of actually delivering large-scale policy programmes.
If we talk about electrification without acknowledging the scale of investment required in generation and distribution, we’ll get hammered for magical thinking. But if we foreground the constraints too much, we’ll get criticised from our own side for being overly technocratic or defeatist.
So politically the balance is selling the direction of travel while still being honest about the infrastructure build-out required. All while giving the electorate confidence we can follow through.
infrastructure build-out as long term plan for the good of all NZers, while addressing the immediate concerns about cost of living and weather vulnerability?
NZ has a very high car density (with relatively old cars, on average), so 20% seems surprisingly low to me. Anyway, such a transition is impossible overnight, so yes, I think power generation from renewables & grid would cope well because that’s not static [pun] either.
The vulnerability of road & transport infrastructure to natural events is a different question from NZ’s Fuel Resiliency Plan.
my point about 20% being a lot wasn't about the car fleet, it was about increasing power generation by that much (on top of all the other demand increases). Where is the power going to come from?
Hopefully, from renewables, like most of our electricity comes from at present.
Renewables are increasing, e.g., solar was up over 70% annually (but still very tiny fraction of total).
The 20% increase in demand if all FF cars are replaced by cars with alternative fuel types is of course a theoretical maximum and even Norway hasn’t quite yet achieved that over many years of concerted effort, incl. government policies.
There will be guaranteed increases in our population on top of other increased demands (e.g., data centres).
that doesn't really answer the question though. We are a finite land base, there are only so many places to put wind and solar farms. Is anyone doing an audit on that?
I’d imagine that power generators have scoped possible sites for renewables. There are new players coming into the market as well. I don’t know if there’s a centralised database or audit.
One the biggest obstacles though is resistance (not of the electrical kind) aka NIMBYism, for example.
Here is a list of know Fast-track renewable projects: https://www.fasttrack.govt.nz/projects?query=%21showall&f.Project+Sector%7CprojectSector=Renewable+energy
This should give an indication of the activity in this area.
Yes, and when we exceed that demand, what then? I’m not sure how else I can explain that NZ is a finite land mass. We fill all available space with wind and solar farms? Start damming rivers in National Parks?
I’m a NIMBY in that sense. I’ve lived rurally and semi-rurally most of my adult life. I don’t want to live in an industrial landscape. And I can make a compelling case for why such a future wouldn’t work anyway, because of the ecological crisis.
consider South Island hydro. We dammed the big obvious rivers. Now we’re left with smaller rivers or additional dams on big rivers. Smaller rivers bring less benefits, esp relative to cost. That’s the physical constraint that was predictable. There is less public support for dams now (NIMBYism), so we move onto wind, and then solar farms. But exactly the same constraints exist: we live on a finite landmass while drying to grow perpetually. It doesn’t work.
Growth and transition are related but they are fundamentally different. We cannot exceed physical limits, obviously, but we’re (already) running into political constraints (umbrella term for all types of people-related resistance & rejection). The Coalition is hell-bent on growth and on the Left there’s more ambiguity around growth-transition.
There are dual fuel options.
I see two potential options that need to be done at the same time.
1. reduce demand (haven't read Tony's link yet, but relieved to see someone mainstream making this argument at last). We should be doing this with fuel immediately, but electricity also medium and long term.
2. increase localised power production. Mandatory solar on all new builds, subsidies for retrofitting. Make it as easy for people and businesses as possible. I'd like to see the numbers, but solar going direct to households and businesses should take some pressure off the grid and free up power for EVs etc. There's an issue of supply chains for solar and how much is dependent on fossil fuels. We are well behind where we should be, but better late than never.
I still can't tell just how deeply we are in the shit if the war continues.
oh yeah, and nationalise electricity and stop the insane rorting by power companies when people try to sell excess solar back to the grid. Wtaf.