There's nothing stopping the Government from doing exactly that.
As winter draws near in New Zealand, the Green Party has placed a quiet but pointed question before the government: what is public ownership actually for? With nearly 200,000 households unable to afford heating last year — a figure that has grown by half in a single year — co-leaders Chlöe Swarbrick and James Shaw have written to the Finance and Energy Ministers urging them to use the state's controlling stake in three major power companies to cap price increases at inflation and shield vulnerable households from disconnection. The moment asks whether ownership is a lever for public good or merely a line in an asset register.
- Energy hardship in New Zealand is accelerating sharply — nearly 200,000 households couldn't heat their homes last year, a 50% rise that signals a crisis deepening faster than policy is responding.
- With winter approaching, the risk is not abstract: cold homes translate directly into health emergencies, and the most vulnerable households face the prospect of disconnection when they can least afford it.
- The Green Party is pressing the government to act through channels it already controls — the state holds a 51% stake in Meridian, Genesis, and Mercury, giving ministers direct authority to instruct boards without new legislation.
- Beyond price caps, the Greens are calling for low-interest loans for solar and efficiency upgrades, restored conservation agency funding, and a firm prohibition on cutting off households who cannot pay.
- A recent OECD report has added external weight to the push, finding that shareholder dividends from New Zealand power companies are significantly out of step with international norms and that gas dependency is structurally inflating prices.
The Green Party has written to Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Energy Minister Simon Watts with a direct demand: require the country's major power companies to stop raising bills faster than inflation. The letter, signed by co-leaders Chlöe Swarbrick and James Shaw, arrives as winter approaches and energy hardship across New Zealand reaches troubling new levels.
The numbers are difficult to set aside. Nearly 200,000 households couldn't afford to heat their homes last year — roughly 50 percent more than the year before. Swarbrick framed the ask plainly: use every available tool to stop power companies from raising prices above inflation, and prevent households from being cut off this winter.
The strategic core of the Greens' argument is that the government doesn't need new powers to act. It already owns 51 percent of three of the country's largest generators — Meridian, Genesis, and Mercury. Energy spokesperson Scott Willis was blunt: the ministers could write to those boards this week and require them to scale up hardship programmes. Nothing is stopping them.
The party is also pushing a broader package: a roughly $7 million low-interest loan scheme for solar panels and efficiency upgrades, restored funding to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, and a firm rule against disconnecting households that cannot pay.
A recent OECD report lent outside credibility to the campaign, identifying New Zealand's reliance on expensive natural gas as a structural price driver and noting that dividends paid to power company shareholders are well out of step with comparable companies overseas. Swarbrick argued the government should develop a formal ownership strategy that puts affordable, sustainable power ahead of shareholder returns.
The letter ultimately poses a question the ministers must now answer: is the government's stake in these companies a tool for public good, or simply another asset on the balance sheet?
The Green Party has written directly to Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Energy Minister Simon Watts with a specific demand: force the country's major power companies to stop raising bills faster than inflation climbs. The letter, signed by co-leaders Chlöe Swarbrick and James Shaw, arrives as winter approaches and energy hardship deepens across New Zealand households.
The numbers behind the push are stark. Nearly 200,000 households couldn't afford to heat their homes last year—a jump of roughly 50 percent from the 134,000 recorded the year before. That trajectory matters. It suggests the problem is accelerating, not stabilizing. Swarbrick framed the issue in direct terms: "We are calling on the ministers to use their influence, and their power, and every tool that is at their disposal so power companies do not raise their prices above inflation, and to stop households from being cut off this winter."
What makes the Greens' position strategically interesting is that the Government already holds a controlling stake—51 percent—in three of the country's largest power generators: Meridian, Genesis, and Mercury. That ownership gives the ministers a lever they could pull immediately. Scott Willis, the party's energy spokesperson, argued the tools exist and the path is clear. "The ministers can write to the boards of Meridian, Genesis, and Mercury this week and require them to scale up their energy hardship programmes," he said. "As the controlling shareholder, there's nothing stopping the Government from doing exactly that."
Beyond the price cap itself, the Greens are pushing a broader energy agenda. They want the Government to establish a low-interest loan scheme for households to invest in solar panels and other efficiency upgrades—a proposal they've costed at roughly $7 million. They're also calling for restored funding to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, the agency responsible for conservation programs, and a hard rule: no one should have their power cut off simply because they cannot pay.
The timing of the push aligns with a recent OECD report that examined New Zealand's electricity sector and found structural problems. The organization flagged the country's heavy reliance on expensive natural gas as a driver of high prices. It also noted something more pointed: the dividends flowing to shareholders of power companies are, in the OECD's assessment, "well out of whack" compared to what similar companies pay overseas. Swarbrick seized on that finding, arguing the Government should develop a formal ownership strategy for companies that both generate and sell electricity—one that explicitly prioritizes secure, sustainable, and affordable power over shareholder returns.
What the Greens are describing is not a radical intervention but a reorientation of priorities. The Government already owns these companies. The question, as they frame it, is whether those companies will be run primarily to generate profits for shareholders or primarily to keep New Zealand households warm through winter. The letter puts the choice squarely in front of the ministers responsible for energy and finance. How they respond will signal whether the ownership stake is a tool for public good or simply another asset on the balance sheet.
Citas Notables
We are calling on the ministers to use their influence, and their power, and every tool that is at their disposal so power companies do not raise their prices above inflation, and to stop households from being cut off this winter.— Chlöe Swarbrick, Green Party co-leader
As the controlling shareholder, there's nothing stopping the Government from doing exactly that.— Scott Willis, Green Party energy spokesperson, on the Government's ability to require power companies to expand hardship programs
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does the Green Party think a price cap tied to inflation is the right lever here?
Because inflation is the baseline measure of what the economy can actually bear. If wages rise with inflation and costs rise with inflation, then power bills should too—but not faster. Right now they're outpacing it, which means households are losing ground.
But won't power companies just argue they need higher margins to invest in infrastructure?
Maybe. But the Government owns 51 percent of the three biggest ones. If the Government wanted to fund infrastructure through other means—bonds, retained earnings, public investment—it could. The question is whether it will.
The jump from 134,000 to 200,000 households in one year—is that typical for New Zealand?
No. That's a 50 percent increase. It suggests something structural shifted, not just seasonal variation. Either bills rose sharply, or incomes fell, or both. Either way, it's a warning signal.
What does the OECD report actually change here?
It gives the Government political cover. The Greens can't force anything, but the OECD—an international body—is saying the same thing: the sector is broken and shareholder dividends are the problem. That's harder for ministers to ignore.
If the Government implements this, what happens to power company profits?
They'd likely fall, at least in the short term. Whether that's sustainable depends on whether the Government is willing to accept lower returns on its ownership stake. That's the real test of whether this is serious or just a letter.