Submission
Which option do you prefer?
Option Two – The alternative option – Keep Aurora Energy
Further comment
I do not believe it is in the interests of the Dunedin residents to sell Aurora Energy.
Essential infrastructure
Energy is essential infrastructure which I believe should stay in public ownership. We are incredibly lucky in Dunedin to have this asset in public ownership. Selling this is a shortsighted move. That DCHL believe this is a valuable asset and would fetch a significant price on the open market also speaks to the value of this asset. This is a circumstance that is unlikely to change in the near future so the option always to sale is always possible to revisit. However, once sold it will never be back in public ownership.
Dividends and Cost of Electricity
I understand that Aurora currently pays little in dividends to the DCC and I strongly believe that this is appropriate. I am comfortable, would even advocate for, a business model where Aurora was able to pay for its own running, maintenance, and general capital depreciation but did not pay the DCC a dividend.
Notwithstanding central government regulations selling Aurora Energy will almost certainly result in an increase in the cost of electricity to residents. Private companies must consider shareholder dividends primarily. The DCC must consider the long-term welfare of the residents of Dunedin primarily.
Selling Aurora Energy will remove the ability of DCC to influence the performance and direction of the company. Effectively this removes a potential lever in the fight to reduce carbon emissions and slow climate change.
Supporting information
No associated documents with this submission.
Submitter
Submission id number: 1045722
Submitter name:
Barbara Anderson
Organisation