Colin Espiner and PC on power problems
First of all, here is Colin Espiner on David Parker’s handing of the issue:
Okay then, so the Government says there’s nothing to worry about and the head of the company that transports electricity around the country says that there is. Hmmmmm. Who to believe? Hang on, isn’t there an election at the end of the year?
The best part was near the end of the press conference when Parker rounded on the media for supposedly beating up the story of a crisis, adding that no one could really expect to have a hydro-based power system AND keep the lights burning and industry making things.
Hmmn, this has some implications, such as:
The thing that disturbs me about this comment is that we’re less reliant on hydro power than we used to be. Fast forward ten years. I can almost hear whoever is Energy Minister saying: “You can’t have a wind-based electricity system and still have enough electricity to run everything flat tack in a really calm year.”
Yup. That’s why the rest of the developed world still burns coal and oil, or has nuclear power. You can’t rely on a network dependent on rain and wind – even in Wellington. Was it really only a few months ago that the Government was promising to make New Zealand 95 per cent dependent on renewable energy? Now Huntly’s running full tilt and we’re cheering on Mighty River Power to get its new gas-fired plant up and running as soon as possible.
But why don’t we have enough power? Usage patterns are well known and for years people have been saying we need more. Well Not PC looks at the problem – the RMA. Go read his whole post because it has a huge amount of data, but here’s just one aspect:
Projects Abandoned/Delayed/Restricted due to Resource Management Act :
· Project Aqua, hydro (520 MW) – abandoned 2000-2004
· Marsden B, coal (320 MW) – abandoned 2007
· Wairau Valley, Marlborough, hydro (75 MW) – abandoned 2007
· Whanganui/Tongariro, hydro – Environment Court effectively reduced the Tongariro capacity by one-third due to the “mauri” of the Whanganui river …
· North Bank Tunnel, hydro (260MW) – delayed until at least 2016
· Makara, wind – reduced from 210 to 140MW in 2007
· Project Hayes, wind (150MW) – still in delay
· Te Uku Wind (72MW) – awaiting consents
· Te Waka Wind (111MW) – consent overturned by Environment Court in April, 2007
There isn’t a market failure with energy generation. There is a regulatory failure.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
No market failure at all?
Do you really expect private companies to lose money installing capacity that may only be needed once every 10 years?
[DPF: I suggest you look at how much demand grows each year and you will see there is no possibility of building a generator only needed once every ten years. Hell one needs a new plant almost every year]
June 10th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
More a NIMBY success I would say David
There are screams forrenewable energy, and then when a proposal for a wind-farm out of the way is put forward (e.g. Makara) the same people protest that it can’t go there!
Even basic, old fashioned, planning permission would have a problem with the NIMBYs.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
We really are tackling this thing from the wrong direction.
Implementing systems that reduce our demand on electricity would be *much* cheaper and faster than just trying to make more of the stuff.
What’s more, we’d save double by reducing our obligations under the Kyoto agreement because it’s the last few KWH that have the maximum carbon emissions.
It’s just a shame that government revenues are so closely tied to electricity sales that they refuse to take the most sensible path to energy sustainability.
When it comes down to it, it’s still all about keeping the government’s trough filled from the public’s pockets.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Oh Goody My Contact shares will keep on increasing and increasing.
Hope you some in your portfolio sonic.
Nothing like seeing those nice divvie cheques arriving in the post every 6 months.
Not too cold for you is it.
I actually make a profit out of power each year the divvies are more than the power bills.
Sad really sonic that I should profit at you and the other Socialists expense. NOT
June 10th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
We should just bite the bullet & go nuclear. If hydrogen power is the future, then nuclear is the most efficient way to separate hydrogen from water (electrolysis). Likewise electric cars would place a much greater demand for electricity.
I don’t agree with damming rivers to power our cars & machinery.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
DPF, thank you for posting this, now we can get straight into the “meat” of the issue.
Dave Strings, it wouldn’t BE a “NIMBY” success if the Socialists hadn’t passed NIMBY-empowering, economy-strangling legislation in 1999.
There is hardly anything more STUPID than NOT building more hydro dams. They generate a LOT of electricity AND are emission-free. Surely we would even qualify for massive amounts of Carbon Credits were we to do more hydro and decommission all the fossil-fuel generation?
The sheeple of NZ have an irrational thing about nuclear that is BAD ENOUGH, but the phobia that seems to prevail thus far about turning a valley into a lake, in spite of the changes that are occurring in the physical and political world, is just WAAAAAY beyond the pale of sanity. I mean, how many valleys can we USE for whatever it is that we use them for; fishing, getting a buzz from the scenery? Can’t we get just as much of a buzz from a lake? Haven’t we got a heck of a lot less lakes than valleys anyway?
Could someone please EXPLAIN if there is some other RATIONAL basis for this crowning absurdity, that I’ve missed?
June 10th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
For those like aardvark who want us to all reduce our energy use – turn off your computer and the lights and f**k off back to the dark ages.
Energy powers the economy and improvements in standard of living – it has throughout history. The Not PC link also points out that the growth in demand is coming not from households but from the productive sector – i.e. that which we need to improve our living standards. And the RMA roadblocks have just stopped a lot of renewable energy and improvements in efficiency.
This useless gummint could even smooth the way under the existing RMA if they had any cojones at all. A National Policy Statement under the RMA that said something like “Energy is good – don’t let petty Regional Councils and NIMBY interests stand in the way”. But meanwhile Sullen buys train sets instead of smoothing the path of investment to actually needed damn-real infrastructure.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Do you really expect private companies to lose money installing capacity that may only be needed once every 10 years?
No, but private companies that have brownouts lose customers pretty quickly. So they would either ensure they had reserve generation capacity, or pay a lot of money to someone who did. Hell, if they hadn’t dismantled Meremere, it would be a good investment for someone by now.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Sonic said:
“No market failure at all?
Do you really expect private companies to lose money installing capacity that may only be needed once every 10 years?”
Sonic, you were given a large list of projects to increase power generation. Obviously the power companies are prepared to increase generation capacity. Now note they were all shut down by the RMA. Hence the reason we lack better power generation = RMA, not reluctance of companies to invest. What’s more excess capacity is capacity not wasted, but sold on the spot market to industry – if extra capacity is temporarily available, the price on the spot market drops and industry can take advantage of it by scaling up production.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Sonic you complete twat. The companies wanted to invest as they determined there would be demand and profit. The market was working perfectly until Auntie Helen and her Ponsonby Chardonnay Socialists starting handbreaking the rest of the country.
The same goes for native logging on the West Coast. Rimu trees are rotting in the forest because Labour won’t let anyone harvest them.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Let’s not forget the role of busybodies in all of this. To me, the problem is as much with self-absorbed people who think their rights to enjoy trivial passtimes like paddling a kayak through some rapids takes precedence over matters of national importance like electricity supply. Or farmers who don’t mind waking up to a vista that includes their lovely new corrugated iron shed, but heaven forbid there might be a couple of power pylons across the way there – oh, the humanity!
I can’t understand these people; I confess I often feel a naive sense of nationalistic pride when I see great engineering works like dams and wind farms that our nation and our forbears have built!
It’s a pity the electricity companies can’t target the black-outs to only affect, for example:
(1) the addresses of people who opposed Project Aqua, that would have generated some more power from the Lower Waitaki River;
(2) the addresses of people who delayed the West Wind project out at Makara and wasted millions in environment court hearings (hearings which ultimately allowed the project to continue.)
June 10th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Philbest: “Could someone please EXPLAIN if there is some other RATIONAL basis for this crowning absurdity, that I’ve missed?”
Phil; on top of RMA issues there were two big revelations that only came to light during the construction of our newest big hydroelectric scheme, and which caused said (Clyde) dam project to blow out by hundreds of millions of dollars. Because of these, a big hydroelectric project is a MUCH more ambitious proposition than it used to be:
(1): The discovery that river valleys often have active fault lines running along the bottom of them, and dams need to be designed to withstand movement of the fault line i.e. earthquakes. many earlier designs cheerfully ignore the presence of any fault line.
(2) When you flood a valley the groundwater table in the whole surrounding area rises. Overseas this has triggered landslides that fall into the lake, generating tsunami-like waves with catastrophic results. To prevent this from occurring you have to find ways of stabilising the hillsides around the entire perimeter of the lake. This can end up a bigger contract than building the dam itself…
June 10th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Some of us prefer to earn our living with honest work GD. Still I must advise you that if you have our saving tied up in stocks the world economic outlook makes that a risky proposition (of course this is not a “market failure” as we all know the market can never fail)
June 10th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Add to this the Kaipara thermal powerstation west of Auckland. This was scheduled for (from memory) ~500MW but was put on hold when the government announced the proposed 10 year thermal generation ban.
Your last statement is absolutely correct: It is a regulatory failure. Generators have been clamouring to build generating capacity (in most cases, renewable) but have been rebuffed by Nimbyism and excessive regulations.
Natural gas is the answer. The gas keeps flowing, whether there is wind, rain or sun.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
The leader of the Greens proudly claimed the credit for scuttling project Aqua. If you want somebody to blame for power shortages, blame the Greens and their luddite agenda.
A vote for the Greens is a vote for lentil soup, home birth and composting toilets.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
And the gas that is being vented off the Taranaki Coast because the Govt endorsed them not piping it back to the mainland.
Enough gas is flamed every day to provide gas to a small city. They could be using it for generation instead it is going up in hot air.
Also we have only used 3% of our coal reserves. With NZ engineering wizz you can build a very efficient and green coal powered generator and it can be located close to the load points.
A vote for Green is a vote for a return to the dark ages.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
SR – re all that gas (and not just the stuff that spews from Norman’s mouth…) – did you hear that prat on TV3 news lambasting the Govt for lack of foresight in terms of piping the gas to the mainland. If the pipeline was built he would have been foaming on about the disruption to the seabed, fish stocks etc. Ridiculous! There’s furry stuff growing on the pond next door that would make for more intelligent life in parliament.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Issue is he now gets more opportunities to wank on at our expense thanks to Mike Ward stepping down.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Firstly
1300MW of generation has been built since 2000. That’s a cold hard fact. It’s easy for anyone to find – it is in the MED energy data file of 2007. Why is this being ignored by all those who cry “nothing get’s built!” It’s demonstrably untrue so must be a demonstration of willful ignorance.
Secondly
As for PC’s list, there are a couple of major issues. It implies that because a project has to go through an RMA process that that is somehow unusual or unreasonable. But, putting aside arguments about the rights and wrongs of teh RMA, it’s the legal environment we live in. You may as well say that contract law is similarly delaying projects because of all those pesky performance clauses and requirements to actually pay. It would be so much quicker otherwise. But wonder of wonders, generators are smart enough to incorporate the RMA into their plans and timelines and manage it. And still somehow they appear to have been able to build 1300MW since 2000. Fancy that!
PCs list is also inaccurate and misleading in places.
· Wairau Valley, Marlborough, hydro (75 MW) – abandoned 2007
Well I don’t know what paper these guys read, but Trustpower have an approved scheme and currently the council is considering arguments around conditions. Doesn’t sound abandoned to me. In fact it is scheduled for completion in 2010
· North Bank Tunnel, hydro (260MW) – delayed until at least 2016 – this would be the concept that has not even been properly designed yet according to Meridian, the company proposing it. How can an early concept be ‘delayed’?
· Makara, wind – reduced from 210 to 140MW in 2007 – sorry the court reduced it by a maximum of 12MW ie 4 turbines. Meridian also removed another 4 because the proposed sites were unsuitable. So that’s 24MW total. So what happened to the other 46MW? Oh those would be the changes Meridian made of its own accord, because the 210MW was only a possibility if every turbine was the max 3MW, but Meridian actually are planning a farm of mixed turbines ranging from 1.5MW up to 3MW.
· Project Hayes, wind (150MW) – still in delay – No it is in the consent process. Is that unreasonable? Do you expect power companies to be exempt from the law the rest of us are expected to follow?
· Te Uku Wind (72MW) – awaiting consents. Yep that pesky old rule of law again.
· Te Waka Wind (111MW) – consent overturned by Environment Court in April, 2007 – what you fail to mention is that a new version of the farm is currently getting a fast track consent process courtesy of the govt. I’m surprised that small detail wasn’t noticed.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Spider pig
Rodney is still on the go. Genesis have redesigned it as a ‘peaking’ plant to fit within the moratorium. My bet is, if it goes ahead, it will miracuously morph into a baseload station.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Excellent insider. Very happy to hear that there are no power cuts in the offing, because there is plenty of new capacity. Did, somewhere in your comment, you mention that our net new capacity matched the 150MW of new demand every year? I didn’t see it, but by the tone I’m sure it is the case.
I’m also sure that you agree with every law in NZ, given how clear you are that the RMA is the law so nothing to complain about. You’re also happy with the EFA, and the limits on the EPMU campaigning?
My personal view – not enough new capacity, and the RMA needs some fine tuning to make it possible to get the good projects through, without removing all ability to submit on the projects that have real impacts or problems. The RMA makes it too expensive and complex, I’m certain it is possible to streamline the process without losing much.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Paul
I never said that, but presenting falsities as fact doesn’t actually help argue a case, no matter how affirmatively you state it
June 11th, 2008 at 12:28 am
I realise that insider. Responding to your tone. The fact remains that our long run trend increase in generation has dropped off. And that something must be causing that. You seem to think that the RMA is just a factor that generators need to deal with – implying that you don’t think it relevant. You also point out that the RMA isn’t the sole cause. So what is?
June 11th, 2008 at 3:38 am
Well it dropped off in about 1990, but supply margin is actually higher now than it was for much of the 90s but lower than the 80s when big hydro was coming on plus Huntly, and may go higher quite quickly. So your premise is actually false, so your other worries don;t follow.
June 11th, 2008 at 4:08 am
The Te Uku wind farm is an example of how a small minority, in this case..one individual can put the brakes on a project that will provide enough energy for the Raglan region and a large part of the Western Waikato.
Although there was more than one objection received in the submission process, one stands out. A so called wind expert objected to the project going ahead. His submission attempted to argue this small windfarm would have detrimental effects on the weather patterns of the whole North Island essentially making a permanent change. Now I am no weather expert but this submission is absurd as everyone realises. 22 wind turbines will apparently change the weather patterns pemantley over half the country. What the….?
However due to the RMA the commisioner has to consider this idiots argument. The Energy company then has to pay for experts to rebut the argument at further expense and delay to the project.
Six months after he has raised his argument the consent process rumbles on. He has partially achieved his goal of at the least delaying this project, while the rest of us turn the heaters off to avoid black outs.
The RMA must be a priority for the next government.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Razor
I know nothing about Te Uku but surely this project was always going to have to go through a consent hearing process because of what and where it was as well as its novelty? It’s hard to imagine it would be non notified.
A counterpoint to your example was a judge at the Lake Hayes windfarm hearing who told the applicants not to cross examine an opposing expert landscape architect witness because it was a waste of time as his evidence was tainted. He openly said the witnesses testimony was valuless because it wasn;t independent. So don’t assume everyone is stupid and that rebuffing such a witness would be time consuming and expensive.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Honest work??? WTF???
You sit there all day with your recuiting company employer paying you to obsessivly troll DPF’s and by your own admission other peoples sites.
Jock to English translation for you Frank, we call that DIShonest work.
Here’s a little word puzzle since your employer is so cool with you taking his money without actually doing 3/8 of fuck all – rearrange to suit.
grip a get
June 11th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Good 10:25 post insider.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:07 am
…re: what’s actually happening, I mean. How does a project get “a fast track consent process courtesy of the govt” though?
June 11th, 2008 at 10:26 am
A point for RRM; WHO BUILT the clyde Dam, or had it built? And isn’t there ALWAYS just a little bit more than insignificant difference between a project ordered by politicians, and one done by business because it is a logical free market venture? Hydro is actually an extremely cheap means of generating electricity, even when the initial dam construction and lake stabilisation are a bit more complex. Hydro projects are not happening in NZ BECAUSE of the RMA and the empowerment of NIMBY-ists and extreme environmentalist activists, NOT because of lack of viability of Hydro itself.
Someone above touched on another valid point, that there are some very minor self-interested parties such as kayakers, who fight such things. Thomas Sowell has pointed out in his excellent columns again and again, that “Green” laws and restrictions over the environment, is actually one of the most extreme forms of elitism, maintaining landscapes and leisure for the sake of the pleasure level in the lives of a small minority of well-off people, while hurting the great majority of less-well-off people who are struggling to get a life at all in the first place.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I’ve done a lot of work with the electricity generators and I can completely agree that this is not an electricity market failure, but a regulatory one. Except the regulatory breakdown goes beyond just the RMA.
The electricity market is doing exactly what any market does … it’s generating clear pricing signals. Markets are efficient ways to signal the relative balance of supply & demand. But that’s about all, they’re not some magic bullet for resolving the worlds problems.
The regulatory breakdown is largely due to the RMA, but it’s also heavily due to the ongoing uncertainty about carbon taxes and the ETS and Parker-the-halfwit’s “ban” on new thermal generation. How can a generator currently determine the relative economics of a windfarm, a hydro plant or a thermal plant? And if they can’t do that how can they sensibly justify billion dollar-ish capital investments that have a 25-50 year life? Not surprisingly they’re shying away from the large investment decisions.
What’s saving us as a country is the over-building of generation capacity in the 1960s & 1970s. The old Electricity Department built far more generating capacity than we actually needed (mainly in order to keep a cadre of engineers busy rather than because all of the plants were needed) and over the last 10 years or so we’ve slowly been eating up that over-capacity.
The real crunch is going to come in 3-4 years from now. Even if a slate of new generating plants were approved today it’d take 3-4 years before they come on line. In the meantime we have to somehow deal with the ongoing increases in demand with today’s portfolio of plants. So for the next few years it’s only going to worse, not better.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:39 am
The thing that really got my goat was our Energy Minister going on record as saying industry might have to reduce production during the fluctuating periods of generation…… wtf.
We are about to slide balls and all in to a recession, and he say’s THAT!
No bloody idea how an economy works, none of them!
June 11th, 2008 at 10:40 am
I should also add that another hurdle for the generators at the moment is forecasting the likely price path of natural gas. The old Maui gas contracts were quite attractive to generators like Contact, particularly because they had a lot of flexibility around when the generator would take the gas. The contract specified a certain amount of gas per annum, but the generator could take more in winter say, and less in summer.
With Maui winding down two things are happening. First, the new replacement fields have a shorter operating life than the operating life of a generation plant … so you could build a new gas-fired power station that would run for 25 years but potentially run out of gas after 15 years. Kind of f&$ks the economics. Second, the new contracts are aggressive monthly take-or-pays, so you have to be confident that you can run the new plant full-bore all year, which doesn’t necessarily fit the generator’s portfolios. You’ll see Contact has recently bought some old rundown gas fields for just this reason, any surplus gas they have to take will be stored in the old fields until Contact need it. But that extra cost doesn’t help the economics either.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:48 am
One other comment on the economics of electricity generation … the costs of over- and under-capacity are way asymmetric but also asymmetrically distributed.
In other words, the cost of 10% over-capacity is way less than the cost of 10% under-capacity.
But the cost of 10% over-capacity is borne by the generator while the cost of 10% under-capacity is borne by NZ Inc.
So rationally enough the generators will always prefer to carry less surplus capacity than the country might prefer. Not sure how we can best go about fixing that. The Electricity Commission maintains the peak reserve at Whirinaki for roughly these reasons. But they enter it into the market on pricing grounds rather than system security.
And in a classical piece of bureaucratic decision-making they put the reserve generation in the Hawkes Bay rather than in the South Island. Our electricity system is vulnerable to shortages of rain. When that happens the true electricity shortage is in the South Island, not in the Hawkes Bay. It’s bloody inefficient to pipe gas from Taranaki to Hawkes Bay, and to transmit electricity from the North Island down to the South Island. The right approach would have been to have the reserve generation in the South Island. The Electricity Commission had submissions to do just that but ignored them. Twerps.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:48 am
sonic With the greatest modesty I can report that my stock portfolio is in good shape as is my cash position and whilst the bulk of my income is from honest work as you call it the surplus earnt after satisfying the scandalous tax appetite of Gumints particulary those of the Socialists has been diverted to protect my family from the states continued confiscation.
I regard it as every free citizens duty to take every step to ward off the greedy rapacious waste of oxygen that passes for Socialist politicans and their lackeys
June 11th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
stephen
re fast tracking, the govt has chosen to ‘call in’ certain complex projects of national significance that are likely to go to appeal anyway – Te Mihi geothermal and Te Uku or waka are two. Transpower’s 170km line into Auckland is another.
This means a whole level of process is removed. Normally you go to the local council then people appeal to the Envir Court. Calling in makes it a one step process. The small HB windfarm was supposedly such a project, whcih, if true, tells me we are really in the crapper. Weirdly it denied a similar request for a similar sized farm. Go figure…
Virtual
Re WHirinaki location, I think that was an MED decision because Pete Hodgson promised a quick solution. It was an already consented site. I don’t think the EC had anything to do with it. They just fund it. MED is the asset owner.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Insider … ta, MED are the asset owner. The South Island site they were offered already had nearly all the consents required and I believe the remaining consents could have been done on a non-notifiable basis. But Whirinaki already had some infrastructure in place, so it could be in operation 3-4 months quicker. I think I’d have taken the extra 3-4 months delay in order to have a better long-term solution.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I didn’t know about the SI site option, though I have been told a SI peaker at Chch would ease a lot of pressure and may encourage more rational decisionmaking by SI hydro generators.
June 11th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Insider … the SI option was at Bluff. Ordinarily you’d have problems consenting a power station. But if you put alongside an aluminium smelter no one really complains
It would have piggy-backed on some of Comalco’s consents, and obviously the Transpower network is right there so it’s easy to connect up. You’ve also got a good port to bring in the fuel.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Insider, you deride my post as “misleading and inaccurate,” yet your own response is that twice over. Not only do you inflate your figures for new capacity, you expect readers to ignore the capacity that’s been removed when plants are decommissioned.
For example, you’ve previously insisted (without providing a shred of evidence to back it up) that there has been 160MW per year of new capacity built since 1990. My post to which DPF links clearly shows you to have been lying about that new capacity (there was on average only 125MW per year) , and dissembling about the number of plants decommissioned (of a capacity of 949.5 MW) — which when taken into account gives a derisory per-year new capacity figure of just 21 MW.
That’s as pathetic as your claim, which seems to rest on the assumption that readers won’t check your numbers.
And now you make another inflated claim, here at Kiwiblog. You say that “1300MW of generation has been built since 2000. That’s a cold hard fact.”
If it’s a cold, hard fact, then you can tell me quite easily what is missing in the following list:
POWER STATIONS COMISSIONED 2000-2008:
Otahuhu B, gas, 2000, (380 MW)
Huntly, gas, 2004, (50 MW)
Huntly co-generation, 2007, (250 MW)
Whirinaki ‘b’, deisel, 2004, (155 MW)
Tararua, wind, 2004, (50 MW)
Te Rere Heu, wind, 2006, (2.5 W)
Tuaropaki, geothermal, 2000, (56 MW)
Mokai, geothermal, 2000, (52 MW)
TOTAL COMMISSIONED 2000-2008: (995.5 MW)
And if it’s “cold, hard facts” that you’re peddling, why don’t you mention the generators that have been taken out of production in that period:
POWER STATIONS DECOMISSIONED 2000-2008:
New Plymouth, 2007 (580 MW)
Otahuhu A, 2002 (90 MW)
Whirinaki ‘a’, 2002 (216 MW)
TOTAL DECOMISSIONED 2000-2008: (886 MW)
Did you just forget to mention these, just as you had in your earlier claim referenced above?
If you’d forgotten once, it might conceivably just be carelessness. To have “forgotten” twice, however, looks rather like something else, doesn’t it.