From the New Zealand Herald January 26, 2010:

At the peak of the power cut, more than 50,000 homes in the city were without power and traffic ground to a halt, rail services were delayed and some businesses were forced to close.

And

Aucklanders had no disruption to hot water this morning after lines company Vector warned of possible hot water cuts.

Oh, the irony. This Friday will see the deadline for company’s wanting a slice of the action in New Zealand proposed government subsidised ultrafast broadband network project. Taxpayers will be stumping up NZ$1.5 to build a fibre network.

It’s ironic, because Vector is one of the companies expected to bid for this 21st century infrastructure project. And yet yesterday, Auckland, the nation’s largest city and commercial powerhouse was dark after the third major power outage in the last five years.

The lights and power were off from around 4pm to 8pm. Thankfully it’s summer, so the consequences aren’t quite as drastic as in earlier outages. There’s daylight until 8:30 pm, heating isn’t necessary, schools are closed and many workers are still on holiday.

But nevertheless, there was traffic chaos and companies had to send staff home – yet another unproductive day thanks to a third world infrastructure. Many believe the problems stem from earlier industry ‘reforms’ and deregulation.

And here’s the biggest irony of them all. New Zealand’s government wants lines companies and others to help build a world-class internet that should already be in place. The only reason it isn’t is because of historic regulatory failure in the telecommunications industry. But the likely winners of contracts to build the next generation internet are companies that wax fat and lazy as a result of regulatory failure in the electricity industry.

You may be interested to read my earlier post about the urgent need to fix Auckland’s power problems.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Is Auckland a super city? (billbennettnz.wordpress.com)

There’s a lot of talk and writing online about the New Zealand government’s super city plan for Auckland.

The correct style for super city is two lower case words. The term is not a name, at least not yet. It is a description. Capitals are only used for proper names, so there shouldn’t be any confusion or question over the term.

Nor is it one word. Over the past twenty years or so there’s been something of a fashion to run words together and separate the component words with a capital letter. If a company or organisation wishes to do that with its name, or the name of a product, it has every right to do so.

But there’s no grammatical or logical reason to make a single word out of super city. Would you write Auckland is a BigCity? Of course not.

Fairfax’s Stuff.co.nz web site is confused about this. At the time of writing the newspaper company’s site has an Auckland Super City page which offers every permutation: one word, two words, upper case lower case. The New Zealand Herald is just as confused as this search shows: “supercity” Search Results. In fact it adds a hitherto unseen variation: Supercity, all one word with a single capital.

For clarification and background you may like to read my previous article about capital letters.

Is Auckland a jobs oasis for IT specialists?

Well that’s what specialist recruitment firm Potentia says in an upbeat report on jobs with Auckland’s technology companies.

The company surveyed 453 organisations and found the jobs market is still expanding. Highlights include:

• A third of companies plan to expand. Only 10 percent are focused on survival.
• Half of the companies expect to hire more staff, with contractors accounting for nearly half of those new positions.
• Salaries are not likely to rise.

So, not much dosh, precious little security, but plenty of work for those who want it. In global terms that makes Auckland a beacon of employment hope. (And it’s a good place to live too).

The report is essential reading for all New Zealand technology professionals and describes a possible escape route for worried Australians knowledge workers.

As an aside, Potentia could do with some professional communications help. The report is poorly written. It is too long and has far too many complex, jargon-packed sentences. This makes for dreary reading. The company’s sales pitch inserted near the start comes across as crass. This is a shame as, with better presentation, this could be a first class piece of marketing communications that speaks for itself.

Last night a large number of my neighbours switched off their power for Earth Hour. It didn’t appear to be a particularly unusual event.

That’s because there have been at least four major power cuts in my North Shore suburb since I moved there at the end of 2004.

In the last five years, the power would have been off for roughly one day in every year. I’ve also seen two disruptive power cuts while working in Auckland’s central business district. In at least one of those cases, the city, and my newspaper, lost an entire day’s production.

Earlier this year the upmarket suburbs of Newmarket and Parnell suffered two more power cuts. The New Zealand Herald covered the story on February 19 in Power restored to Auckland suburbs saying shop keepers’ confidence in Vector (the local power company) was at an all time low.

As we shall see, that is saying something.

Not good enough

To be frank, it just isn’t good enough. Admittedly things in Auckland aren’t as bad as, say, Manila or Jakarta, but for a first world country like New Zealand, frequent power cuts are not a good look.

Ten years ago when US President Bill Clinton visited Auckland for the APEC meeting he brought a portable electricity generator. It was parked outside his chic city centre hotel on the back of a large, dark, unmarked truck that some locals dubbed the ‘stealth generator’.

In any other major western city, Clinton’s precaution might have seemed over the top. His hosts probably would have been insulted.

But Auckland is different. A year and a half before the leader of the free world flew into New Zealand’s largest city, the locals were checking their shopping change by candlelight when the Auckland’s lights went out and stayed out for almost six weeks.

Wikipedia entry on 1998 Auckland power crisis.

Even now, more than ten years after that blackout, many Auckland residents fear their city’s power supply is still not secure. With good reason because at 8:30 on 12th June 2006 the power went off again. Half of Auckland including the entire CBD was without power for over four hours. Some parts of the city suffered a longer outage.

Wikipedia entry on 2006 Auckland power cut

The problems are partly a result of over zealous free market reforms. The greed and arrogance of power company managers are also a factor.

There’s an obvious parallel here with the global financial crisis.

And then there are New Zealand’s ridiculous planning laws. These have ensured no new power stations have been built to meet booming demand. Thankfully this looks set to change with the new Kaipara gas-fired power station finally getting the green light. But that’s only the start. More, much more, is needed.

The robust networks needed to transmit power from where ever it is generated into the city are still frequently held up by endless bureaucracy and over the top planning processes.

At the time of earlier crises, Auckland’s power supply depended on four cables: two gas-filled cables and two oil-filled cables. On 22 January 1998, one of the gas-filled cables failed. Power wasn’t disrupted as the remaining three cables took up the load.

On 9 February, the second gas-filled cable was cut. The power went off and Mercury Energy Limited, which operated the cables, asked its customer to voluntarily reduce power consumption by 10 percent.

On 19 February, the emergency started in earnest when a fault in one of the oil-filled cables caused both remaining cables to shut down, cutting off all power to the city.

Mercury repaired one of the cables quickly, but it could only supply a reduced load. Power rationing was introduced to the city centre, which saw rolling two-hour power cuts.

At 5.30pm on Friday 20 February, the final cable failed. Mercury issued a statement that it “could no longer supply the Central Business District with electricity”. A limited standby cable managed to provide power to the district’s two hospitals and other emergency services.

For more than five weeks the nation’s largest city was plunged into chaos. Many businesses had little choice but to close down temporarily. Others relocated staff to other New Zealand cities or even flew them to Australia.

50,000 workers affected

At least 50,000 workers and 8,500 businesses were affected. The costs were estimated at around $NZ400 million, though that figure does not include tourism, international trade and financial services. In a small nation like New Zealand, the shut-down was serious enough to tip an already fragile economy into recession.

Who knows how much investment hasn’t happened because of the flakey infrstructure?

At the time of the blackout, Jim Macaulay, chairman of Mercury Energy, the company that supplied Auckland’s electricity, told the media, “It’s the most incredible, freakish bad luck you could ever imagine.” However, the government inquiry into the blackout found that there were many warnings that such an event could occur.

Well, it could happen again. Earth Hour should have acted as a reminder to people living in a city where power and light can’t entirely be taken for granted.

What are these people on? Auckland certainly has it’s charms. There are great beaches in the metropolitan area and hundreds of even better ones within two hours. The surrounding countryside is often stunning and access is generally easy. In some ways the climate is pretty good; not too hot in summer, not too cold in winter. Most of the city is mercifully free of serious traffic jams during the short morning and afternoon rush hours. There is good food and great restaurants, what’s more food and restaurant prices compare reasonably with elsewhere. Best of all, Auckland has relatively little pollution. The people are generally friendly and there’s an easy going atnosphere.

But…

Auckland houses are massively overpriced and poorly built by international standards. Despite the balmy climate, Auckland houses are usually way too cold and draughty in winter. Town planning seems non-existent, Most of the city looks like it was designed by someone playing Sim City while they were drunk (my daughter pointed that out when she was 12 years old). Many houses are tucked away in what used to be back gardens. The city’s architecture is shocking. Industrial areas are worse.The most noticeable building in town (Sky Tower) is a monument to gambling. Taxes are ridiculously high even for people on modest incomes. Public transport is a joke. There aren’t that many great jobs. Auckland is an artistic and cultural wasteland; at least compared to other New Zealand cities.

And…

If Auckland is such a great place, why are so many people in a hurry to leave? Every week a plane takes off from Auckland airport full of people leaving to live in Sydney (statistically speaking). If anything, migration to the rest of New Zealand is higher.

The truth is that Auckland is a great place to live by any standard. But I can name at least four places elsewhere in New Zealand that people living in this country regard as better. (Judging by the numbers leaving Auckland each year, many Aucklanders think so too). Pretty much all the good things applying to Auckland apply just as well to most other New Zealand cities. But more importantly, they have fewer of the bad things.

Wellington is rated number 12 in the world by BusinessWeek (the list is produced by Mercer, a human resource consulting firm). New Zealand’s capital may be wet and windy, but it has a vibrancy that Auckland lacks and is packed with great theatres, museums and art galleries. Even the library is special. It comes alive at night while Auckland tends to shut down shortly after dark. Wellington is far more beautiful than Auckland and, when the weather is good, it is possibly the world’s most attractive capital city. To use a cliche Wellington is small but well formed. It also has lots of great buildings and, unlike Auckland, a clearly defined centre. Most important of all, people earn higher salaries in Wellington but house prices are considerably lower than Auckland which means people can have better lives. Everyone in Wellington seems to know everyone else. That includes the members of Parliament. Wellington has easy access to some wonderful countryside and is the home of Peter Jackson’s film studio and related creative industries. There’s also a much higher density of knowledge workers in Wellington.

Christchurch, which doesn’t rank, (it may be too small to qualify for the list), is also a more livable city than Auckland. I’ve not been to Dunedin, Nelson, Queenstown or Wanaka, but these towns and cities are equally highly rated by New Zealanders. There are others.

I’ve lived in London (ranked 38), Wellington, Sydney (ranked 10) and Auckland. Of these I’d personally rank Wellington as a more livable city than Auckland. Mind you, there’s far more work for me in Auckland than Wellington which has to be an important consideration. London would be at the bottom of my list. Like BusinessWeek/Mercer I’d rank Auckland ahead of Sydney, but it’s much closer than the gap implied by Auckland’s fifth position and Sydney’s 10th sport. The two cities are similar in many respects. But that’s me. What do you think? Is Auckland really the world’s fifth best place to live. Are there other cities in Australasia that should rank higher?

The World’s Best Places to Live 2008 – BusinessWeek

World’s Most Livable Cities