Submission
Which option do you prefer?
Option Two – The alternative option – Keep Aurora Energy
Further comment
We should keep Aurora Energy.
> it's an asset not a liability
> it should be viewed as a Community Service, a Public Utility run at cost.
> We all consume electricity at home and work, unlike using the Stadium for example
> Paying a dividend is a strange instrument. The Council and Aurora Energy are in the same stable.
> If sold, the consumers will still pay for future Capital Investment plus the profits needed by the new owner
> Local Bodies can borrow at lower rates than a new owner, so as residents and consumers, we would carry that higher interest rate
> If sold, the new owner could avoid capital investment and asset strip. It's been done before
> by selling we (the ratepayers/Council) lose control of an essential service and its future adaptations with new circumstances eg technology
> The Council DCHL books would look better, but the Ratepayers will have lost an asset
> If sold, money leaves the City and region
> The safeguards of the Commerce Commission and Electricity Authority are shallow in that they are controlled by Central Government and easily altered by legislation. Not selling keeps the control of this essential service in our hands.
> We should have confidence in our own people to run Aurora Energy as an essential Public Utility and keep control in our own region.
> Returns from investing the asset sale money is not guaranteed and subject to the whims of the global economy as recent impacts on kiwisaver suggest.
The Council should be strategic and courageous. Think long term. Keep this valuable asset as it grows.
Supporting information
No associated documents with this submission.
Submitter
Submission id number: 1045595
Submitter name:
Tony Culling
Organisation
N/A