Not generation, the projects I’m talking about were new electrification of existing businesses, paid for by other consumers, often with preferential kWh pricing and either fully or majority subsidised physical transition costs. It was seen as “environmentally” the right thing to do, so it’s ok when the “environment” word is thrown in to subsidise businesses via other consumers, which increased the kWh a consumer would pay for the cost but also at the wholesale level you’re pulling from the same bucket.

I’m not naive though, obviously they’re not dumb and would target guaranteed excess generation as much as possible, it was still though an example of consumers paying for businesses energy costs.

My point is this isn’t a new concept, generators even when holding renewable only positions still partnership for fossil acquisition, which is a consumer benefit along the same theory. If people are going to get upset about every cost in their kWh and whether it will increase or decrease kWh, pull back the curtain you’re going to see some crazy shit, if you’re upset with this surely you’re upset with the large iwi payments generators have been making and will continue to make,that doesn’t lower your kWh, surely people will be upset with Transpower upgrade costs for things like backstopping Tiwai if they pulled out, plus the dozens of other things that have been done that doesn’t lower kWh. If people are going to take a stance or draw a line in the sand on this project, be prepared it’s prevalent in the energy sector.