Nau Mai Rā
Assessed 16 July 2026 under NZ · High confidence
Evidence last captured 27 August 2026 · oldest 16 July 2026 · next re-check due 16 July 2027
We contacted this company 1 time between 6 August 2026 and 6 August 2026, by email. No reply received.
A grade rules on whether a public claim is substantiated. It is not a finding about environmental performance, truthfulness, or the merit of the business. HowLegit is not a licensed adviser and nothing here is legal or investment advice.
Where this sits
All 21 energy companies, assessed against the same checklist in the same window.
Nau Mai Rā ranks 15 of 21 in this sector by overall score, between 47.6% and 96.0%.
Findings
Nau Mai Rā presents itself as “New Zealand's first Kaupapa Māori Power Company”. No register or third party confirms it, and no competing retailer was found that would contradict it. It also says it has “kept the lights on for hundreds of vulnerable whānau” without giving a number, a period or a definition of vulnerable. The cultural framing runs consistently through the site and is not in question; the scale claims are the part a reader cannot check.
Why this matters. A first-of-its-kind claim carries weight and is worth verifying independently. “Hundreds” could mean two hundred or nine hundred, which makes the scale of the impact hard to judge.
What closing this looks like
- Publish the number of households served and the period that number covers, beside the claim of keeping the lights on for hundreds of vulnerable whānau, so a reader can check the scale rather than take it on trust. The Kaupapa Māori positioning itself is not in question.
“Welcome to Nau Mai Rā, New Zealand’s first Kaupapa Māori Power Company.”
The company presents itself as the first of its kind. No register or third-party verification confirms it, and no contradicting retailer was identified. The wording assessed is the version published on the customer portal's about page; the homepage carries a similar sentence in its page source that does not display to a reader, and the page description used by search engines carries a third variation.
Captured 27 August 2026 · source page ↗
“we can eliminate energy hardship”
An aspirational goal published with no pathway behind it. No strategy document, interim target or measurable milestone has been published to show how the company intends to get there, and it publishes no financial or impact reporting against which progress could be read. The company serves a small customer base, which is the scale the aspiration has to be read against.
Captured 27 August 2026 · source page ↗
“We've kept the lights on for hundreds of vulnerable whānau”
'Hundreds of vulnerable whānau' is imprecise. No specific number, timeframe, or definition of 'vulnerable' is provided. While the no-credit-check policy does enable access for customers turned away by other providers, the actual scale of impact is unclear.
“power is a right not a privilege”
'Power is a right not a privilege' is a values statement rather than a factual claim. It is consistent with the company's social mission and kaupapa Māori positioning, and does not require factual substantiation.
“We don't do credit checks at all”
The claim 'We don't do credit checks at all' is verified. The terms and conditions contain no credit check clause, and multiple independent sources (customer testimonials, review sites) confirm that Nau Mai Rā accepts customers without credit checks. This is a genuinely differentiating and verifiable claim.
Nau Mai Rā publishes a substantial Consumer Care Policy covering medically dependent customers, payment plans and disconnection, and its live join form carries the medical dependency check the policy promises. What it does not publish is any account of the 2023 period RNZ reported on, any complaint statistics, or any financial statements. It describes itself as a social enterprise and defines that term only inside the kaupapa terms on a separate subdomain.
Why this matters. A company that positions itself around caring for vulnerable households invites scrutiny of how it behaved when things went wrong. The 2023 reporting is directly relevant to anyone weighing this provider up.
What closing this looks like
- Publish complaints received and resolved for the last full year, an account of the 2023 billing period RNZ reported on, and the definition of social enterprise the company uses, on the main site rather than a separate subdomain, so the Consumer Care Policy is matched by a record of how it has worked in practice.
“As part of our join process, we will check whether you are a medically dependent customer.”
The Consumer Care Policy commits to screening for medical dependency at sign-up. The live join form carries a medical dependency declaration, so the commitment is carried through into the flow a customer actually meets.
Captured 27 August 2026 · source page ↗
“We will not disconnect your electricity if you are on a payment plan and making the agreed payments.”
An unconditional commitment in the Consumer Care Policy, consistent with the Electricity Authority's consumer care expectations on disconnection.
Captured 27 August 2026 · source page ↗
“We view the disconnection of electricity for non-payment of bills as a last resort.”
Stated in the Consumer Care Policy alongside payment plans and referrals to financial mentoring services.
Captured 27 August 2026 · source page ↗
“‘Social-enterprise’ means using commercial methods of selling products or services in order to be financially stable, but has a core mission of providing a public or community benefit.”
The company describes itself as a social enterprise and defines the term only inside the Kaupapa Terms on a separate subdomain. Neither the definition nor the entity's company structure appears on the pages where the social positioning is made.
Captured 27 August 2026 · source page ↗
Contact is email only. The terms state “We do not have a call centre”, and the help pages say “We aim to respond to you within 2 business days and to resolve any complaints within 10 business days”. The company states membership of the Energy Complaints Scheme. RNZ reported on 27 June 2023 that customers with sharply higher bills could not get through to the company, which is the reason this checkpoint is flagged rather than met.
Why this matters. A complaints process only protects people if they can reach it when something goes wrong. Email-only contact narrows that channel most for the households least likely to have reliable email.
What closing this looks like
- Add at least one contact route that does not depend on email, such as a published phone line with stated hours, so a customer facing disconnection or a disputed bill can reach the company in the way the 2023 billing period showed they could not.
“We do not have a call centre. In joining us, you acknowledge this and take responsibility for ensuring you’re able to contact us via email as the primary means of contact.”
Contact is email only, and the company says so plainly. The exposure is not the disclosure, it is the reach: this checkpoint asks whether remedy is reachable, and email only narrows the channel most for the households the brand says it exists to serve. The terms also place the responsibility for being contactable on the customer. The company commits to answering within two business days, which is recorded on the second surface captured for this claim.
Captured 27 August 2026 · source page ↗
“we commit to answering emails from you within two business days, and to resolve any complaints within 10 business days”
The company publishes this commitment in its terms and repeats it on the help pages. RNZ reported on 27 June 2023, under the headline “First kaupapa Māori power company under fire”, that customer bills had risen sharply and that customers could not get through to the company. Nothing the company publishes discloses that period, and no complaint statistics are published against which the commitment could be tested. The finding is attributed to RNZ rather than asserted by this audit.
Captured 27 August 2026 · source page ↗
Nau Mai Rā says “people are more important than profits”, which reads as a not-for-profit. It is a private limited company with two corporate shareholders, ForOurGood Limited and The EBH Group Limited, and it is not a registered charity. The koha mechanism behind “$118,567.89 koha donated” is real and published at 0.5c per kWh. What is missing is any published account showing how money is split between community benefit and shareholder return.
Why this matters. Where the money goes is the question this positioning raises, and it is the one the published record does not answer. The giving is real; its share of the whole is not shown.
What closing this looks like
- Report the outcomes behind the koha and savings claims, being the amount distributed, the period and the number of households it reached, so a social impact claim carries a result rather than an intention.
“people are more important than profits”
The claim 'people are more important than profits' creates a strong impression that the company operates like a not-for-profit. However, Nau Mai Rā Limited is a private limited company with two private shareholders (ForOurGood Limited and The EBH Group Limited). It is not a registered charity. The kaupapa terms describe it as a 'social-enterprise,' but no published financials show how profits are allocated between community benefit and shareholder returns.
“$118,567.89 koha donated”
The $118,567.89 koha donated figure is displayed with a precision that implies real-time accounting. The donation mechanism is substantive (0.5c per kWh under the kaupapa terms), but the accumulated total has not been independently audited. No financial statements, annual reports, or impact reports have been published to allow verification.
“we sell power but for a purpose far beyond profit”
The Facebook bio statement 'we sell power but for a purpose far beyond profit' is consistent with the same messaging on the website. This cross-channel consistency is noted, though the underlying claim about operating beyond profit faces the same structural questions as NMR-02 (the company is a private limited company, not a charity).
Assessed 27 August 2026 · source page ↗
Nau Mai Rā publishes two different amounts for the same direct debit fee, and a customer cannot work out from its own documents what they will pay. The terms and the Consumer Care Policy both say “We offer direct debit (with a weekly invoice fee of $0.40)”, and the price checker shows “Fee per invoice: $0.40”. The payments help page says instead that customers will see a fee “which will equal 1% of your bill”. Those figures agree only where a weekly bill is $40, and the documents do not say whether this is one fee described two ways or two separate charges.
Why this matters. A fee you cannot calculate before signing up is a cost you cannot compare. The difference matters most to the households this company sets out to serve, because 1% of a large bill is more than $0.40 and 1% of a small one is less.
What closing this looks like
- State the direct debit fee once, as a single amount, and correct whichever of the $0.40 weekly invoice fee or the 1% of the bill figure is wrong, so a customer can work out what they will pay from the company's own documents.
“No you will not be locked into a fixed term contract”
The help pages answer the question directly and the terms bear it out: no fixed term, no early termination fee and no credit clawback. This wording is accurate and is what a reader actually encounters.
Assessed 27 August 2026 · source page ↗
“We currently offer a weekly payment option via direct debit”
Weekly billing is stated on the payments help page and confirmed in the terms, which provide for weekly invoicing. The wording assessed is the contiguous sentence a reader meets on that page rather than a question and answer split across two blocks.
Assessed 27 August 2026 · source page ↗
“We offer direct debit (with a weekly invoice fee of $0.40)”
Three surfaces put this fee at a flat $0.40 a week: the terms, the Consumer Care Policy and the price checker's own result screen, which shows “Fee per invoice: $0.40”. The payments help page instead says the fee “will equal 1% of your bill”. All four surfaces were live on 29 August 2026 and all describe the same and only payment method the company offers, weekly direct debit. The published record does not say whether this is one fee described two ways or two separate charges, so a customer cannot calculate either.
Captured 27 August 2026 · source page ↗
Two dollar figures on the homepage carry a lot of weight and neither can be checked. “$100,000+ saved” does not say saved against which provider, on what plan, over what period, or for how many customers. “$118,567.89 koha donated” is given to the cent, which implies live accounting. The donation mechanism behind it is real and published, at 0.5c per kWh in the kaupapa terms, but no accounts or impact report exist to confirm the total.
Why this matters. A savings figure with no baseline cannot be tested, and power bills rose across the market by around 7 to 12 per cent over the same period. A donation total given to the cent invites a precision the published record does not support.
What closing this looks like
- Publish an annual impact report setting out the koha figures and the savings methodology behind the $118,000 and $100,000 claims, so the two numbers the company leads with can be traced to a calculation.
“$100,000+ saved”
The website claims '$100,000+ saved' for customers but does not explain saved compared to what -- which competitor, which plan, over what timeframe, or for how many customers. Without a methodology, this figure cannot be verified or meaningfully interpreted by customers. Under the Fair Trading Act, specific savings claims require substantiation.
Nau Mai Rā tells customers they will “pay the same or even less” for their power than they do now, and publishes nothing a reader could use to test it. No rates for a comparison, no method, and no named comparator appear on any page reviewed. The company is listed on neither of the two independent comparison services a consumer would normally use to check such a claim. The exposure is a comparative pricing claim made with no published basis.
Why this matters. A price comparison is the reason many people switch provider, and this one cannot be checked by the person it is aimed at. Anyone relying on it is taking the comparison on trust.
What closing this looks like
- Qualify the Same or Less claim with the methodology behind it, the retailers it compares against and the conditions under which it holds, so a comparative claim a customer cannot currently test is either supported or narrowed to what can be shown.
“pay the same or even less”
An unsubstantiated comparative pricing claim. The company publishes no rates for comparison, no method and no named comparator, and it appears on neither of the two independent comparison services a consumer would use to check it. Nothing in the company's own published material contradicts the claim, so the exposure is the absence of any basis rather than a demonstrated overstatement.
Nau Mai Rā's supply rates exist but a consumer can only reach them one address at a time. Its terms say pricing is “set out on our website”; what the website has is a checker that returns a plan for an address the company can service, and a waitlist invitation for one it cannot. Run on 29 August 2026, a serviceable Ruakākā address returned 35.06c per kWh uncontrolled, 27.27c controlled, a $0.90 daily fixed charge and a $0.40 fee per invoice, while a Wellington address returned “our pricing isn't set for your area”. There is no published rate table, and the company is on neither independent comparison service, so no one can compare it without handing over an address.
Why this matters. Comparing power prices means putting two numbers side by side, and here you can only get one of them, only for some addresses, and only by identifying your property. That is a real limit on comparison even though a price does exist.
What closing this looks like
- Publish per-kWh rates and daily charges on the website rather than only through an address-by-address checker, so a customer can compare Nau Mai Rā with another retailer before committing to a switch.
“If you’re knowledgeable about power rates, you can also enter your address into our price checker to see your KWH price and plan.”
Tested on 29 August 2026 against six New Zealand addresses. For a serviceable address in Ruakākā the checker returned exactly what this sentence promises: a plan, at 35.06c per kWh uncontrolled and 27.27c controlled, with a $0.90 daily fixed charge, reproduced identically on a second run. For the other five it returned a waitlist invitation, an instruction to supply an ICP number from a power bill, or “our pricing isn't set for your area”. The sentence holds where the company operates and not elsewhere, and the page does not say so.
Captured 27 August 2026 · source page ↗
“Our pricing for electricity supply and other services are set out on our website”
Pricing is published, and only one address at a time. The terms, the Consumer Care Policy and the kaupapa terms carry the direct debit fee, the solar buy-back rates of $0.09 per kWh exported and $0.30 per day, and the 0.5c per kWh koha rate. Supply rates are returned by the price checker for a serviceable address, as confirmed on 29 August 2026. There is no rate table on any page, and the company appears on neither independent comparison service, so a reader cannot see or compare a price without supplying an address the company can service.
Captured 27 August 2026 · source page ↗
The homepage quotes “There are over 130,000 families just like mine and yours who live in power poverty” in featured media coverage, while a Spinoff interview with the same founder gives 100,000. Neither figure carries a source or a date, and the two are not reconciled. The tone across the site is otherwise consistent with the company's stated kaupapa and is pitched at a New Zealand audience throughout.
Why this matters. Two different figures for the same problem, both unsourced, make it harder to take either at face value. A number used to explain why a company exists is one a reader is entitled to trace.
What closing this looks like
- Use one energy hardship figure across the website, press and social channels, reconciling the 130,000 and 100,000 numbers currently in circulation, so the same claim does not appear in two sizes depending on where it is read.
“Our waka is full for now" (paused sign-ups)”
Assessed as at 16 July 2026, when the homepage carried this notice. Re-checked on 29 August 2026: the wording remains in the homepage source and is not displayed to a reader, and the homepage invites sign-ups. The finding is retained as at the assessment date and the change is recorded here.
Assessed 27 August 2026 · source page ↗
“There are over 130,000 families just like mine and yours who live in power poverty.”
The homepage carries this figure in a media quotation the company has chosen to feature. A Spinoff interview with the same founder gives 100,000. The two figures are presented without a source or a date.
Captured 27 August 2026 · source page ↗
Te reo Māori and cultural imagery run through the site in the company's own voice rather than as decoration, and the usage is consistent across the main site, the customer portal and the legal documents. The whakataukī “Nā to rourou nā taku rourou ka ora ai te iwi” appears in the footer of every page collected, including the sign-up flow. Photography shows named people rather than stock imagery.
Why this matters. Cultural identity used consistently, including in the places nobody markets from such as the terms and the sign-up flow, reads as part of how the company works rather than as a layer applied to it.
“Tēnā koe and welcome to our whānau.”
Te reo Māori is used throughout the site in the company's own voice rather than as decoration, and the usage is consistent across the main site, the customer portal and the legal documents.
Captured 27 August 2026 · source page ↗
“Nā to rourou nā taku rourou ka ora ai te iwi”
The whakataukī appears in the footer of every page collected, including the legal documents and the sign-up flow, which is consistent with the kaupapa the company states.
Captured 27 August 2026 · source page ↗
The positioning on the customer portal's about page matches the homepage and the Facebook biography, which reads “we sell power but for a purpose far beyond profit”. No contradiction was found between channels across the surfaces collected. Media coverage of the 2022 Young New Zealander of the Year award is consistent with the same positioning.
Why this matters. A company saying the same thing everywhere is easier to hold to its word than one that tailors the message to the audience.
“Welcome to Nau Mai Rā, New Zealand’s first Kaupapa Māori Power Company.”
The positioning on the customer portal's about page matches the homepage and the Facebook biography. No contradiction was found between channels across the 21 surfaces collected on 29 August 2026.
Captured 27 August 2026 · source page ↗
This checkpoint measures whether a company is open about where it can and cannot be found, not whether it appears on comparison sites. Nau Mai Rā publishes a dedicated page saying “We are not currently registered on Billy, so you won't find our rates or information there”, and pointing readers to use Billy for other providers. A company equally absent that said nothing would not pass here. What the page does not give is any reason for the absence, and it does not mention Powerswitch at all.
Why this matters. Being told plainly that a company is not on the comparison site you were about to use, and being pointed somewhere useful instead, saves you a wasted search. That is worth more to a customer than silence.
“We are not currently registered on Billy, so you won’t find our rates or information there. However, you can use it to compare prices from other power providers.”
The company publishes a dedicated page describing the Electricity Authority's comparison service, states plainly that it is not listed there, and directs readers to use it for other providers.
Captured 27 August 2026 · source page ↗
Nau Mai Rā says nothing about where its electricity comes from, whether it is renewable, or what its environmental impact is. A search of 27 environmental terms across the 21 surfaces reachable from its own navigation, on 29 August 2026, found no environmental claim in the company's own voice. There is no environmental message here to assess.
Why this matters. New Zealand's grid was around 90 per cent renewable through 2025 and 2026, so most retailers here have an environmental story available to them. This one does not tell any, which leaves customers nothing to weigh on that front.
No environmental report, certification or commitment has been published by Nau Mai Rā on any surface reviewed. There is no environmental evidence to integrate, because there is no environmental claim it would support.
Why this matters. With no environmental reporting and no certification, there is nothing to verify now and nothing to hold a future claim against.
Nau Mai Rā makes no environmental comparison against any other electricity retailer. Its public messaging is about social mission, cultural identity and customer access. With no comparison made, there is no baseline it would need to disclose.
Why this matters. A comparison is only fair if the baseline is shown. None is made here, so none is owed.
The site's visual identity is cultural rather than environmental: warm browns and earth tones, tāniko patterns and hongi photography. There is no green colour saturation and no nature imagery of the kind used to imply environmental credentials. The name Nau Mai Rā is never explained on any page reviewed and is not attached to any solar or renewable claim.
Why this matters. Some companies use green imagery to suggest an environmental record they have not earned. This one does not, and its visual choices match what it actually says about itself.
No environmental message appears at any point in the customer journey, from the homepage through the price checker and the join flow to the legal documents. There is nothing to be consistent or inconsistent about.
Why this matters. A customer moving through this site will not meet an environmental claim at any stage, so none can shift on them along the way.
Nau Mai Rā publishes no future environmental commitment, target or transition plan. Its forward-looking language is about community outcomes such as koha donations and serving more whānau. There is no environmental promise to hold it to later.
Why this matters. Future commitments are how a company can be held to account years from now. None is made here on the environment.
Nau Mai Rā makes no guarantees, refund promises or trial offers, and runs no promotional credit schemes. Across the 21 surfaces reviewed there is no outcome promise that would need substantiating. Nothing here could set an expectation the company then fails to meet.
Why this matters. There is no promise here that could disappoint a customer later, which is the whole point of this check.
What has changed since first assessment
This audit was assessed once and corrected once on our own initiative. What moved, and why.
- 16 July 2026First assessmentFirst assessmentC+
Assessed from the public record. Nau Mai Rā did not commission it.
- 4 September 2026Grade-integrity correctionOur correctionC+
We corrected this ourselves. Nau Mai Rā did not ask us to.
DL-070, a checkpoint whose assessment records an absence is not applicable
Cite this
One company, with every graded claim, its own published wording and the dated capture each grade rests on.
You are here
The full analysis behind these grades: what the sector claims, how much of it holds up, and the seven findings that run across it.
Read it, free and without registration →
HowLegit, Nau Mai Rā — messaging integrity assessment. Energy sector register, assessed 16 July 2026. Overall C+ (55.0%). https://howlegit.com/register/Energy/nau-mai-ra A grade rules on whether a public claim is substantiated, not on its truth or on the merit of the business. Not legal or investment advice. Produced by HowLegit, which also sells audits commercially. The data on this page is public.
This entry is part of a complete sector scan. Companies not listed on the Energy register were not assessed — which is not the same as being cleared.