Submission
Which option do you prefer?
Option Two – The alternative option – Keep Aurora Energy
Further comment
DO NOT SELL. This proposal is one-sided, not neutral, positioning readers towards a sale. It purports to "create an intergenerational asset" What is it now if it is not one already? DCC credit rating is only constrained by LGFA which has only 30 member councils of 78 in NZ. LGFA Membership is the ONLY reason the DCC credit rating would "need help protecting". Auroras value will only increase over time. This is WHY commercial investors want to purchase. World trends indicate sales like this are on the rise. Aurora as a regulated asset can continue to be DCC owned AND return dividends. Why cut off the tap that can run forever for a "one-off" windfall payment? The Waipori fund took a hiding in 2022 (DCC reports) & there is no evidence this would not be the case for some future "Aurora Fund". Short term, Mayor and councillors might look good for wiping debt but do they want to be seen as those who sold the golden goose? DCC councillors would do well to consider the impacts the document states including "minimising rates increases in the future" Being city-owned the DCC will have some say in Auroras direction, but under the sale they would not, meaning future Dunedin city energy distribution needs would be subject to 3rd party decision making. NOT a good idea. Aurora is the largest asset DCHL controls with revenues of $142 million and a profit of $11.1 million in 2023 - against a forecast of $9.9 million. It is PERFORMING WELL. Aurora re-investing its dividends is smart business sense. DCHL advise selling Aurora "far outweighs" keeping it but have given NO indication of how they come to this conclusion. DCHL directors are clearly not looking beyond the end of their well-paid noses in recommending this sale.
Supporting information
No associated documents with this submission.
Submitter
Submission id number: 1045589
Submitter name:
Scott Muir
Organisation