Tasman

Hawke's Bay

West Coast

Northland

Canterbury

Taranaki

Marlborough

Otago

Chatham Islands Territory

Greater Wellington

Manawatū-Whanganui

Auckland

Southland

Gisborne

Waikato

Nelson

Bay of Plenty

New Zealand

aiming to lower the average number of people affected, per 100,000 between 2020-2030 compared with 2005-2015.

aim to lower disaster mortality by average per 100,000 mortality between 2020-2030 compared with 2005-2015.

10% reduction of biogetnic methane by 2030, 24%-47% reduction by 2050

Net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 (except biogenic methane)

Emissions of biogenic methane in a calendar year—(i)are 10% less than 2017 emissions by the calendar year beginning on 1 January 2030; and(ii)are 24% to 47% less than 2017 emissions by the calendar year beginning on 1 January 2050 and for each subsequent calendar year.

Electric vehicles make up 2% of the vehicle fleet by the end of 2021.

Decrease in industrial emissions intensity of at least 1% per annum on average between 2017 and 2022.

In February 2025, the Coastal Ratepayers Union (CRU) filed for a judicial review at the Wellington High Court regarding the Kāpiti Coast District Council’s (KCDC) public-facing information on coastal properties. The CRU alleged that the KCDC’s information on coastal properties, specifically hazard maps and Land Information Memorandums (LIMS), exaggerates climate risks such as sea level rise, floods, and erosion. 

Subsequently, the CRU requested that the council incorporate information from a report it had commissioned independently by retired Waikato University lecturer Willem de Lange into its report.
The CRU contended that Lange’s report provided an alternative assessment of the risks of coastal hazards, which should also be made available to property owners. The KCDC has since agreed to include the CRU’s commissioned report, marking a shift in climate risk warning material.


On June 10, 2025, Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc. and the Environmental Law Initiative filed judicial review proceedings in the High Court of New Zealand against the Minister of Climate Change, challenging the lawfulness of New Zealand’s first and second emissions reduction plans (ERP1 and ERP2) under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (CCRA). The case marks the first legal challenge to emissions reduction plans under the CCRA and, according to the applicants, the first case globally to challenge a government’s heavy reliance on forestry offsets to meet national climate targets.

The applicants claim the Minister acted unlawfully both in failing to maintain the integrity of ERP1 and in adopting ERP2. With respect to ERP1 (2021–2025), they argue that after the 2023 change in government, key policies were cancelled or postponed without timely amendment of the plan or adequate consultation, violating the statutory requirement that the plan remain current and consistent. The applicants also argue that the December 2024 amendments to ERP1 were procedurally improper, lacking meaningful consultation and resulting in an incoherent plan split across multiple documents, contrary to the CCRA’s objectives of policy clarity and predictability.

The second limb of the challenge concerns ERP2, covering the 2026–2030 budget period and published in December 2024. The applicants contend that ERP2 fails to meet the legal requirements of section 5ZG of the CCRA because it does not set out a coherent and credible plan of policies and strategies likely to meet the emissions budget. They highlight that 95% of the projected emissions reductions are attributed not to ERP2-specific policies but to pre-existing trends assumed in baseline modelling. ERP2 also relies heavily on forestry offsets, based on the “offset equivalence assumption” that removals via exotic afforestation are fungible with reductions in gross emissions at source. The applicants argue this assumption constitutes a fundamental error of fact and is inconsistent with the best available climate science and New Zealand’s obligations under the Paris Agreement.

They further allege that ERP2’s reliance on an “adaptive management approach” is an inadequate risk management strategy, lacking specific measures to be implemented if the plan veers off track. The applicants cite advice from the Climate Change Commission and government officials warning that reliance on offsets and the ETS alone is insufficient and risky, particularly given the climate vulnerability of forests and the time lag associated with implementing new policies.

The claimants seek a series of declarations, including that ERP1 and ERP2 are unlawful, that the Minister failed to comply with legal consultation and procedural requirements, and that ERP2 should be quashed and remade in accordance with the Act. They also seek clarification from the Court on the proper interpretation of the Minister’s legal duties when developing and amending emissions reduction plans.

As of August 2025, the High Court has not yet set a hearing date.

This case concerns the regulation of competition law regarding gas pipeline services in New Zealand. The plaintiff, representing the largest gas consumers in the country, sued New Zealand’s competition regulator, the Commerce Commission. They challenged decisions in which the Commission effectively allowed the country’s largest gas pipeline operators to raise prices to recover higher short-term costs in light of New Zealand’s announced phase-out of fossil fuels. The Commission essentially adjusted the useful lives of gas pipeline assets to account for this phase-out and accelerated the depreciation of those assets. 

The first of the two decisions hinged on a challenge to the Commission's selected "input methodologies" in making its decision. Section 52Z of the Commerce Act states that challenges to the Commission’s input methodologies can only succeed if the plaintiff identifies an alternative methodology that is “materially better in meeting the purpose” of the Commerce Act’s competition regulation provisions. In this instance, the Court determined that the plaintiff failed to identify a materially better methodology, concluding that the Commission’s decision fulfilled the purposes of the Act—such as promoting the long-term benefit of consumers by reflecting long-run supply costs and acknowledging the risk of stranded assets. The Court rejected arguments claiming that the decision was premature, contrary to the specific purposes of input methodologies, or that it overcompensated suppliers at the expense of consumers.

In the second decision, the Court concluded that the Commission’s ruling did not satisfy the threshold of an error of law (namely that the Commission had not failed to apply the correct legal test, had not misconstrued or misunderstood the law, and had not made a clearly untenable decision).

New Zealand

Recent cases