The Standard

Greens’ State Of The Planet Calls For National Electrification Plan

Written By: - Date published: 6:10 am, April 21st, 2026 - 28 comments
Categories: Chlöe Swarbrick, climate change, election 2026, energy, greens, marama davidson - Tags: , ,

Press release from the Greens on Scoop. Sunday, 19 April 2026, 5:38 pm. Speech transcripts embedded in links.

——————————————————–

The Green Party has used its 2026 State of the Planet address to set out a vision for a resilient, independent Aotearoa and to call on the Government to create a National Electrification Plan.

Co-leader Marama Davidson spoke about the middle-east crisis, the case for an independent, principled foreign policy, and the Green Party’s consistent stance on getting off fossil fuels.

“What is happening in the Middle East is first and foremost a human catastrophe. Civilians are being killed and injured. Livelihoods are being destroyed. International law is being broken,” says Green Party Co-leader, Marama Davidson.

“The warnings about fossil fuel dependence, about food sovereignty, about what happens when a small country ties its fate to extractive, corporate and ultimately unstable global systems, those were not abstract concerns. They are what families across this country are living through right now.”

Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick set out the Green Party’s call for a National Electrification Plan as the practical response to the fossil fuel crisis on top of the Party’s previous calls for free public transport and measures to ease the cost of living.

The plan would electrify homes, transport and industry, ending New Zealand’s dependence on unpredictable global fossil fuel markets, cutting household power bills, and building real energy security at home.

“There is no trade-off between fixing the cost of living, addressing the fossil-fuel crisis and climate crisis. They are the same problem, all driven by the same rules that prioritise profit over people and planet,” says Green Party Co-leader, Chlöe Swarbrick.

“If we want a resilient economy, we’ve got to power it with homegrown sun, wind, water and geothermal energy. That doesn’t need to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.”

“We can lower the cost of living by rolling out rooftop solar and batteries for all, homeowners, renters, marae, schools, farms.”

Swarbrick called for the Government to immediately support the Ratepayers’ Assistance Scheme, an initiative backed by groups such as Rewiring Aotearoa.

“It’s simple, fast, and it cuts the upfront cost barrier for thousands of New Zealanders. We know this will save the average household a $1000 on their power bill,” says Swarbrick.

The speech also called for boosting funding for public transport networks across the country that were previously rejected by the Government.

“It would have cost $150 million to expand the networks, just three quarters of just one of the subsidies the Luxon Government is instead dishing out to support fossil fuel dependence.”

The Party called for the Government to work towards a National Electrification Plan.

“The same arguments that have made sense forever – cleaner air, cheaper living, less congestion, easier ways of getting people around – make even more sense when we also need to conserve the fuel for those who don’t yet have another option,” says Swarbrick.

“We need an industrial strategy electrifying freight and production, which requires Government to put its hands back on the wheel of the economy, not leave the fate of our country to bets in boardrooms.”

Marama Davidson said, “our government should work for the people and the planet, not for the greed of corporations, their faceless boards and shareholders. Together we can reverse the damage that has been done and make decisions for the good of everyone.”

28 comments on “Greens’ State Of The Planet Calls For National Electrification Plan ”

  1. Bearded Git 1

    This is brilliant. It combines reducing the cost of living with sustainability and self-sufficiency in NZ.

    Solar is the cheapest energy on the planet and is getting cheaper.

    https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2026/Mar/IRENA_DAT_RE_capacity_highlights_2026.pdf

  2. powerman 2

    Greens have brought up the obvious: oil will still have a place, but a diminishing one. NZ can exert greater control over its energy, become more resilient, and be less exposed to the vagaries of overseas business and politics. Not a pipe dream, just sense.

  3. PsyclingLeft.Always 3

    The NZ Greens (thankyou, Marama and Chloe et al, : ) have, IMO, the most forward looking, Future thinking Plan.

    Under NACT, NZ will just continue with dinosaur thinking, driven and led by Climate Denier dinosaurs, proven as incapable of any aforesaid Future Thinking.

    The following Link has been on The Standard before but for those who havent seen..(includes History : )

    Driving in the wrong direction: why NZ’s oil consumption is at a 5‑year high

    The previous government had committed to a comprehensive strategy to transition to a renewable energy system in New Zealand’s first emissions reduction plan in 2022.

    But the current government’s focus has shifted on energy security and it aims to boost energy supply by importing liquefied natural gas.

    https://theconversation.com/driving-in-the-wrong-direction-why-nzs-oil-consumption-is-at-a-5-year-high-278524

  4. Ad 4

    This is the actual policy from the Greens that's on record:

    Policy-Greens_Energy_Policy_2022-2025.pdf

  5. Rakuraku 5

    Not a silly idea. Agree +100%

  6. Granada29 6

    All good. Until it's time to jet off to the next COP meeting. I would have more respect for their views if they lived by them.

    • Incognito 6.1

      Pathetic comment that masquerades as straw man about Green MPs allegedly ‘jetting off’ to COP meetings. Instead, you may want to direct your efforts to addressing the OP, you know, the message rather than alleged behaviour by the messengers.

      • Granada29 6.1.1

        So you're saying that they didn't jet off to the last COP in Brazil? Really? Allegedly? I hardly think that's a straw man. At least Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimmons followed their principles. When all I hear are empty words and rhetoric from these latter-day Greens I despair.

        How on earth do they expect to make wind turbines and solar panels, lithium batteries and all the other necessary components for their electrification schemes. Make it somebody elses problem? Outsource to China? Why not switch off all of NZs thermal plant now?

        It's nice to have a goal (i.e. all electric) but I don't think its a realistic goal. Oh – and how many new hydro dams will they approve?

        • Mercurio 6.1.1.1

          Have I got you right, Granada29?

          Nothing can change.

          The present situation is all that can be.

          New ideas are all pie in the sky.

          We must not buy from overseas.

          Green Party MPs must never use aircraft.

          THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE!

          This is your message, *right?

          *(far Right).

        • Incognito 6.1.1.2

          You made the claim, you provide the evidence for your bold claim.

          You continue attacking the messenger.

          So far, you haven’t made a single robust argument why nationwide electrification is unrealistic and couldn’t work in NZ. The irony is that the empty words and rhetoric are all yours.

          These are straw man arguments of yours: “Why not switch off all of NZs thermal plant now?” and “Oh – and how many new hydro dams will they approve?”.

          You sound like a dinosaur soaked in fossil fuel spewing hot air and greenhouse gases, so if you’d follow your own principles, you’d stop wasting electrons here.

  7. Granada29 7

    A bold claim indeed.

    See: https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/22-11-2025/a-day-in-the-life-of-a-new-zealand-mp-attending-cop30-in-brazil

    Nationwide electrictification is NOT unrealistic given a long enough time frame and access to all the fossil fuel derived components – from mining of raw materials through to final manufacture. Right now there is no way to achieve it without substantial input from hydrocarbon based fuels.

    And why the personal attacks? You don't know me. When in doubt shoot the messenger. Thanks for that though. I can see there is no interest in discussion here so I'll refrain from further comment.

    • weka 7.1

      Right now there is no way to achieve it without substantial input from hydrocarbon based fuels.

      This applies to not electrifying too. For instance the National's LNG plan.

      What's not clear from your comments is if you are arguing for Powerdown, or arguing TINA. Please make that clear, as commenters get tetchy with political attacks with no substance (and this author does too). You're just being asked to up your game.

    • Incognito 7.2

      Well done! You’ve found one Green MP attending one COP meeting. How disrespectful of him!

      You continue with your straw man arguments; who on earth argued that it [nationwide electrification] shouldn’t be accomplished using existent technologies & materials???

      I’ve been shooting at your comments but no surprise that you’re now whining that I’ve been shooting at you personally because that seems to be your MO.

      Your comments here have been less than helpful, so I’m glad to hear that you’ll refrain from further comment – long may it last.

  8. bwaghorn 8

    As far as I'm concerned any politician that hasn't decided in the last two weeks that nz should be going hell for leather towards complete energy self sufficiency, needs to be drummed out of politics immediately, there either stupid or corrupt

  9. Res Publica 9

    Electrification absolutely makes sense strategically.

    But at scale, it’s not just about incentives for households and businesses. It requires a coordinated overhaul of the underlying system: transmission, distribution, market settings, and connection rules.

    A meaningful National Electrification Plan would need to include sustained, large-scale capital investment in both the grid and local networks.

    That investment doesn’t magically appear. It will need to either be recovered through lines charges over time or partially funded by central government.

    At the moment, the distribution sector is operating under a price-quality model designed for incremental, steady growth. It incentivises efficiency and reliability, but not rapid, anticipatory investment at the scale electrification would require.

    On top of that, most EDBs are structurally set up to be distributors, not active system operators. High levels of distributed generation, storage, and flexible demand fundamentally change how networks need to be planned and run. That’s a different capability set, and in many cases, a different operating model.

    I work in the EDB sector, and we are absolutely planning for increased electrification. This isn’t something the industry is unaware of or unprepared for.

    But that planning has to sit alongside the core responsibility of keeping the existing network safe, reliable, and affordable. That means balancing new demand, new technologies, and new connection patterns against maintaining and renewing the infrastructure already in place.

    So while the direction is right, the challenge isn’t whether the sector is willing or aware. It’s whether the regulatory, funding, and market structures are set up to support the pace and scale of change being proposed.

    • Ad 9.1

      Yes that was why I out out that link to the actual Green Party policy as it stands: Sections 1.4 and 1.5 have a set of bullet points on your questions.

      Policy-Greens_Energy_Policy_2022-2025.pdf

      • Res Publica 9.1.1

        Having looked at sections 1.4 and 1.5, my read is that the policy is primarily focused on market reform, retail and wholesale settings, generation, and questions of ownership.

        There’s some support for distributed generation and microgrids, but not much detail on how the distribution sector itself would need to evolve to support electrification at scale.

        That matters, because electrification isn’t just about building more generation or incentivising uptake at the edge of the system. It also requires significant investment in the underlying networks: substations, feeders, transformers, protection, connection processes, and the operational capability to manage a much more dynamic, decentralised system. At the moment, EDBs are operating within a price-quality framework designed for steady, incremental growth. That’s not the same thing as enabling rapid, anticipatory investment at the scale electrification would require.

        To be fair, the EDB sector is probably the least visible and least understood part of the electricity system. But it’s also where a large part of the practical delivery challenge for electrification sits

        • Ad 9.1.1.1

          Yes that's why I cited it: a really big gap between the political headline and the policy they have so far.

          Shaw was assiduous in working the NZ large business and finance sectors to ensure no horses were spooked, and they were rewarded in 2023 with the biggest number of MPs ever.

          So electorally it's likely best for them to just stick with the headline for now.

  10. PsyclingLeft.Always 10

    Gee this sounds like a noob error? Riiight. Reality : IMO the dinosaurs didnt want to know.

    Government's plans for LNG terminal didn't model international price spike

    Lawyers for Climate Action executive director Jessica Palairet

    said the modelling reinforced "real questions about whether the LNG import facility is going to deliver".

    "The analysis did not consider the risk of international LNG price … which is quite remarkable."

    The model also assumed that supply of LNG would be unlimited and uninterrupted, an assumption that was being tested by the current situation, she said.

    The dinosaur thinkers…short term volatility?! FFS

    An MBIE spokesperson said the current conflict had created only "short-term volatility" in LNG markets,

    "LNG futures prices for 2028/2029 remain consistent with the price assumptions that fed into earlier Cabinet analysis on LNG," they said.

    "Importantly, events in the Middle East do not impact the cost of the LNG import facility itself, nor the benefits of having reliable dry year cover in New Zealand."

    Jessica Palairet goes on…

    Significant parts of the documents were redacted, including the introductory pages of the final presentation outlining the results.

    Jessica Palairet said what appeared to have been redacted was the full executive summary, including any conclusions the Concept Consulting consultants – who she said were "rell-regarded" – had drawn from the modelling.

    "We don't have the interpretation of the consultants of their own modelling, In some ways, they're … the most important information in the entire analysis."

    MBIE replies. Huh?

    MBIE said those sections of the document, along with multiple smaller redactions, were held back to prevent the "free and frank exchange of opinions".

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/environment_climate/593016/government-s-plans-for-lng-terminal-didn-t-model-international-price-spike

  11. Chess Player 11

    Greens could have sorted this when last in government, but chose to focus on other things.