mattwnz:

 

One of those being to the government. So they don't want to make major changes that could effect their revenue. Normally with income generation assets like the cook strait cable, a business will  depreciate the assets over time and money then put aside for their replacement. But I understand with this new cable, they are wanting to offset the cost as an additional cost on power prices for the next 40 years. But how did they fund it last time in the 90's when it got replaced.  I think it is a bit sus that they never mentioned this in the news article I saw. 1.4 billion though over 40 years isn't a bad price though considering any piece of infrastructure now seems to be over a billion. But I recall a new harbour bridge would be about that amount and could be paid for over 40 years with tolls or regional fuel tax, or rates if it isn't part of the state highway network.

 

This is basically what is happening, and if Transpower was allowed to be a regular business it would have simply got on with the investment, 

BUT- Transpower is a regulated monopoly, and as such the Commerce commission is charged with getting its grubby fingers all over their accounts to make sure that the "network operator" is not spending too much money on operating the network... 

You have got to wonder what would happen if the Commission came out and said.. oh no you're spending too much on this project you cant do it".... but that won't happen.... its basically a government enforced box ticking exercise that keeps bureaucrats in Wellington employed. ..

Why the Commerce Commission simply don't embed one of their staffers in Transpower to tick this off internally constantly baffles me... ( They are all "government" organisations)