What exactly was Aurora expecting at meeting?

AURORA complains that it has had to endure rage and insults (ODT, 11.1.21). Given that it has made a complete hash of providing a service under the privileged position of a monopoly, this is not surprising — particularly when neighbouring lines companies have managed their businesses so much better.

All Aurora customers are going to face higher charges under the proposals put to the Commerce Commission, and Central Otago customers are going to be facing the steepest price increases of all.

The delivery of electricity has to be regarded as an essential service; and it is incumbent on the supplier to make this both safe and reliable. Aurora has demonstrated failures on both counts — spectacularly, on a number of occasions.

Messrs Healey, Tilleyshort and Douglas are mentioned in the article. These three do indeed warrant special attention, insofar as they have brought out into the open the level of failure that is Aurora. They have done a tremendous service to the community and are deserving of our thanks and admiration.

When I attended the meetings arranged by the Commerce Commission, I was surprised to see staff from Aurora there. Not only did Aurora fail badly in allowing a service to perform so abysmally; in many people’s view, the Commerce Commission was also seen as asleep at the wheel.

To have both the perpetrator and the regulator — which should have prevented the debacle — attempting to defend the indefensible was inevitably going to raise the temperature of the meeting.

The only remaining bad guy was the Dunedin City Council. As owner of Aurora, it diverted money that should have been used for maintenance for its own use.

Had the council been in attendance as well, the roof would probably have been lifted clean off.

Robin Dicey Bannockburn

AS a former investment banker with experience reviewing/approving billions of dollars of infrastructure financing (including energy) in the AsiaPacific region, I’m flummoxed by Aurora Energy’s proposed price increases.

On the face of it, Dunedin City Holdings Limited/Aurora appear to be making a rookie error by treating the planned investments as operating expenditure rather than capital expenditure.

In doing so, they’re seeking to cover shortterm expenditures through matching eyewatering revenue increases, rather than financing them predominantly through a mix of equity and (lowcost) debt. A proper financial analysis — including scenario and sensitivity analyses — is clearly needed.

If DCHL/Aurora lack the financial strength to support the capital financing programme (at a reasonable cost), they should seek equity partners and/or consider selling the entity.

It’s probable that price increases would still be required, but they could be kept reasonable through price caps enshrined in debt covenants or through shareholding arrangements, among other things.

B. Reid Tunnel Beach

US politics

In the coverage of the invasion of the Capitol building in Washington, you write, ‘‘objections . . . to Mr Biden’s victory in battleground states would be rejected overwhelmingly, including by most Republicans’’ (ODT, 8.1.21).

But that is not true: in the case of Pennsylvania, for instance, 138 of the 211 Republican members of the House of Representatives objected. That is over 65%.

Even if you add the Senate and House numbers together, you get 145 out of 262, over 55%.

These votes took place after the riot, in the full knowledge of what had happened.

In my view you should accurately report how the Republicans have and continue to enable Donald Trump’s destructive presidency.

Hamish Spencer

Opoho