Submission
Which option do you prefer?
Option Two – The alternative option – Keep Aurora Energy
Further comment
Reason 1: Given the focus on electrification of the economy and population growth, the sale is very shortsighted. The network does require investment, however is a strategic asset that will only increase in value and will no doubt see significant dividends paid in the future.
Reason 2: The statement that Aurora has not paid a dividend since 2017 is misleading. The reason for this has not been clearly stated. This is because DCHL and Aurora Energy have jointly agreed this money should and must be invested back into the network due to historic under investment.
Another contributing factor is prior to the CPP, consumers had some of the lowest lines charges in the country which meant less funds available for network maintenance/dividends.
Reason 3: yes the Commission provides some safeguard to the public, however this scrutiny and oversight is not at the level that it was able to identify that Aurora was not appropriately investing in and upgrading its network, while DCHL was being paid dividends. Do you understand the role the Commission has in operational matters and asset management? Its unlikely to meet the Dunedin public's expectations.
The country is suffering from the failure of critical infrastructure and this is not something the Dunedin public want to see a repeat of on our electricity network. DCHL now see the importance in not taking a dividend to help fund a much needed programme of network investment.
What would stop the new owner taking a dividend and running the network to fail or delaying important upgrades (as has happened in the recent past despite oversight from the Commerce Commision). Why would they purchase Aurora Energy if not to make a money?
I can't see many Councillors being voted back in if they sell such a strategic asset.
Supporting information
No associated documents with this submission.
Submitter
Submission id number: 1039231
Submitter name:
Organisation