Crash Course on the Emissions Trading Scheme

Environment & Planning
Renewable Energy & Climate Change
May 19 2023

The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is an extensive and complicated system with an increasing media presence in climate change related topics. The most recent example being a judicial review filed 9 May 2023 by Lawyers for Climate Action against the cabinet decision made by Minister for Climate Change James Shaw on the ETS. But what is the ETS? Below we provide a breakdown of what the ETS is.

The ETS framework

The ETS was implemented under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 as a key tool for ensuring that New Zealand meets its domestic and international climate change targets set by the United Nations Convention on Climate Change via the Paris Agreement. The ETS is used as a tool in New Zealand’s emissions reduction plan and its related emissions budget to help NZ meet its net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (other than for biogenic methane ie. livestock emissions).

The ETS regulates the following greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, any hydrofluorocarbon, any perfluorocarbon, and sulphur hexafluoride. The sectors involved in the ETS include forestry, waste, agriculture, synthetic gases, industrial processes, liquid fossil fuel (this includes transport), and stationary energy.

It is mandatory or voluntary to join the ETS depending on whether or not an owner or operator satisfies the criteria set out in the Climate Change Response Act 2002. Those who join the ETS are called a “participant”.

The functions of the ETS are controlled by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). This includes maintaining the ETS Registry, which is publicly available and can be found here.

Changes to the ETS can be made by the Ministry for the Environment or the Minister of Climate Change. This depends on what amendments are to be made eg. the Minister of Climate Change updates the price controls of the ETS based on advice provided by the Climate Change Commission.

New Zealand Units

New Zealand Units (NZUs) are an NZ currency created by the ETS to charge participants for emitting carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases. One NZU is equivalent to one metric tonne of carbon dioxide (or equivalent greenhouse gas) emitted. NZUs can be auctioned, purchased directly from the Government, allocated by the Government (this helps participants meet their obligations) or gifted by the Government for performing activities that remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

The NZU market is like a stock market in the sense that the price of an NZU varies depending on how many units are available in the market and current events such as weather events. However, there is an upper and lower limit on the price of an NZU. If one of these limits is reached then either more NZUs are released into the market, or NZUs are removed from the market to stabilise the price. As of publication, the price of one NZU is $52.00.

ETS Registry

The ETS Registry is like a bank account for holding NZUs. Participants must register with the Registry in order to report and surrender NZUs as part of their ETS obligations. Participants can also trade NZUs between participants through the Registry. However the Registry does not provide a mechanism to cash out NZUs.

As part of a participants surrendering obligations, a participant will need to earn or buy NZUs throughout their industries reporting period. Then when it is time for a participant to meet their surrendering obligations, the participant will surrender NZU’s to the EPA that is equivalent to the emissions that the participant released in that reporting period. For example, if a participant released 20 tonnes of greenhouse gas in a reporting period, they will be required to pay 20 NZUs. All sectors have surrendering obligations except for the agriculture industry but, a pricing mechanism is under development for the agriculture industry through He Waka Eke Noa.

The Registry used to hold international units from offshore initiatives called ‘Kyoto units’ but as of 2015 these units are no longer permitted in the NZ ETS.

Please get in touch if you would like to discuss more about the ETS and how it could affect your business.

You may also like ...

Stuck in the Highly Productive Mud
The Environment Court recently released its decision in Blue Grass Limited v Dunedin City Council [2024] NZEnvC 83 which deals with the definition of Highly Productive Land (HPL) in the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL). The Court has found that it is not open to applicants in consent processes to challenge the Land Use Capability (LUC) of their land as mapped by the New Zealand Land Resource Inventory (NZLRI), even if more detailed site investigations conclude that land is not LUC 1, 2 or 3. Put another way, land zoned rural that the NZLRI has mapped as LUC 1, 2 or 3 is ‘stuck’ as HPL for the time being, until regional councils introduce changes to their regional policy statements. The Environment Court was tasked with answering the question of whether more detailed mapping undertaken by consent applicants since the commencement of the NPS-HPL (17 October 2022) using the LUC classification system could prevail over the identification of land as LUC 1, 2 or 3 as mapped by the NZLRI. This would in turn determine whether land is classified as HPL. The Court’s answer was no. The NPS-HPL provides that regional councils must undertake mapping of HPL within its region and as soon as is practicable (but not later than 3 years from the commencement date of the NPS-HPL) notify a proposed regional policy statement that identifies all HPL by way of maps. Regional councils are still undertaking this mapping and until this is completed cl 3.5(7) of the NPS-HPL sets up the interim definition of HPL as being land which “at the commencement date” of the NPS-HPL is (with some exclusions): (i) zoned general rural or rural production; and (ii) is identified as LUC 1, 2 or 3. Dunedin City Council’s position was that the qualifier of “at the commencement date” in cl 3.5(7) means that the LUC mapping must have been in place at the commencement date. Its submission was that this creates a holding position for protection of HPL until the Otago Regional Council completes its long term mapping and undertakes a change to the RPS as required by clauses 3.4 and 3.5 of the NPS-HPL. That argument was accepted by the Court – the interim definition was intended to create a holding position protecting all land that may be classified as HPL by regional council mapping, until that mapping does occur. Ultimately, what this means is that landowners and consent applicants are unable to undertake their own mapping of specific sites to seek to lessen the LUC of their land and therefore remove it from an HPL classification, in turn easing the consenting pathway. They must instead wait for the relevant regional council to notify a change to its regional policy statement relating to HPL, and then participate in that process if they seek to argue that their land is not HPL. Alternatively, land owners and consent applicants will need to rely solely on the exceptions for use and development of HPL contained in cl 3.6, 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10. We expect applicants will seek to test the boundaries of these exceptions in light of this decision. Knowing the LUC classification of rural land as per the NZLRI mapping will have increased importance for purchasers considering potential development opportunities, given the restrictions the NPS-HPL contains and its lack of ‘wiggle room’. If you require any assistance with or wish to discuss this decision or the NPS-HPL generally, please feel free to get in touch with a member of our specialist environment and resource management team.
Read more
Restructuring in the workplace – What employers need to know
With the economy continuing on its downward slide, you will not be alone in giving thought to potential cost cutting measures, including reducing your labour costs. Restructuring is usually a last resort for employers and is only a step that tends to be taken when there seem to be no other viable options for reducing costs quickly.  While the impact on employees is immense, it is clear that a restructuring process can be just as stressful and fraught for an employer.  That is why, sometimes, employers can get things wrong and may find themselves at the centre of a personal grievance, which can result in greater stress, cost and uncertainty. A restructuring needs to be substantively justified, and procedurally correct.  If you do not meet both of these requirements, there is a risk that if an employee were to make a claim against you, it could be upheld. What is Substantive Justification? It is likely that during recessionary times, such as we are in now, the substantive reasons for a restructure will be fairly obvious to your employees.  However, you will still need to justify this by providing evidence in support.  This may include pointing to reduced sales figures or forecasts, showing increased costs (i.e. materials, rent, insurance), or any other information that you are willing to share that goes toward justifying the proposal to restructure. What is the Correct Procedure? The procedure for restructuring is usually where an employer can get tripped up.  To start, you need to remember that you should not pre-determine that a restructure is inevitable.  You have a good faith obligation to your employees to consult with them before any decisions that may affect their employment are made.  It may be that during consultation, you are able to see a way forward that means a restructure is not required, or at least not to the extent that you had originally envisaged. Once you have substantive justification, you need to advise your employees that you are proposing a restructure and give them adequate information including what the restructure would entail, how it would impact them, and how you wish to consult with them about it. You will then move to the consultation stage and be ready to provide further information or answer any questions the employees may have.  Once you have finished consultation, you will need to advise the employees of your proposed decision.  Your employees should then be given an opportunity to comment on or ask further questions about the proposed decision.  It is not until they have been given this opportunity that you should procced to confirm your decision. The exact process you follow will depend on factors such as the size of your workforce, the number of roles that may be impacted, the typical method of communication with employees, the specific terms of your employment agreements, and the location of your employees. Having guided employers through numerous restructures, the one point we want you to keep in mind is that getting your restructure right is by far more preferable than having to deal with the consequences (and potential costs) of getting it wrong.  We can provide specific advice and guidance on restructuring and all other employment related issues, so please contact us at any time for further information.
Read more
Holland Beckett promotes two partners
Leading New Zealand law firm, Holland Beckett has announced the promotion to partnership of two of its senior lawyers, Will Dymock and Natasha van der Wal, effective from April 1st 2024.   The Bay of Plenty based firm has offices in Tauranga, Rotorua, Whakatāne and Taupō, and advises local, national and international clients. With over 140 staff including over 70 lawyers, the full-service firm\'s specialist teams work collaboratively and cater to a vast range of legal matters, including property, trusts and estates, commercial, corporate, finance, employment, family, civil litigation, resource management and local government. Holland Beckett also has a specialised Māori Legal Unit.  “It is a pleasure to announce the promotion of Natasha and Will, both experts in their respective fields”, says Ken Hawkes, Partner at Holland Beckett. “These talented lawyers represent the diverse capabilities we have as a firm, and the growth and strength of our team. We look forward to expanding the partnership with their specialist expertise”.  The promotion of Will and Natasha expands the partnership to 16, which is testament to Holland Beckett’s reputation as a top tier legal employer, firmly focused on recruiting the best talent and developing the next generation of legal leaders. The firm has the most female partners of any law firm in the Bay of Plenty, growing from two to five women in the past seven years.    Will Dymock, Partner Will advises clients on a wide range of finance, corporate, restructuring and commercial transactions.     Will has extensive international and domestic experience advising financial institutions and businesses (small and large) across a broad range of areas including asset finance, general corporate lending, property finance and corporate finance.  Will specialises in aviation and asset finance and leasing where he advises international clients, including financial institutions, aircraft lessors, lessees / airlines and other aviation market participants, on a wide range of aviation financing, acquisitions and sales, leasing and lease restructuring.  Prior to joining Holland Beckett in 2021, he spent six years in Singapore where he worked for two leading international finance practices, most recently as a Senior Associate in the global asset finance team at Clifford Chance.  Prior to Singapore, Will worked in a leading banking and finance practice in Auckland.  Natasha van der Wal, Partner Natasha joined Holland Beckett as a Senior Solicitor in 2016. Natasha’s expertise is focused on property law, commercial law and Māori legal issues.   Natasha provides strategic and trusted advice on a broad range of property and commercial matters for individuals, corporate entities and local government. She has experience with complex property issues including subdivisions and development, the acquisition and disposal of residential, rural and commercial properties; and commercial leasing and licencing matters generally.   As part of the specialised Māori Legal Unit at Holland Beckett, Natasha provides advice on Māori legal issues for local government, individuals, Māori trusts, Māori incorporations and post settlement governance entities. She is experienced with Māori property matters such as partitions, large commercial developments, iwi social housing and Papakainga. She has appeared before the Māori Land Court on property related matters.   Outside of work, you’ll find Natasha supporting her children on the sidelines of their various sporting interests. She also promotes scientific literacy for children in New Zealand as a trustee of the House of Science NZ Charitable Trust. 
Read more

Start typing and press enter to search

Scroll to Top