From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Date: Tuesday, 22 October 2019 at 8:29 PM
To: Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>, Dave Tombs <Dave.Tombs@dcc.govt.nz>, Aaron Hawkins <Aaron.Hawkins@dcc.govt.nz>
Cc: Dave Tombs <Dave.Tombs@dcc.govt.nz>, Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>, “Keith Cooper (keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com)” <keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com>, Jemma Adamson <Jemma.adams@dcc.govt.nz>, “Council 2016-2019 (Elected Members)” <council.2016-2019@dcc.govt.nz>, Jules Radich <julesradich@xtra.co.nz>, Sophie Barker <Sophie@albatross.org.nz>
Subject: Re: 2019 Expenditure on Assets Forecast and Pole replacement information. Information requests
Dear Sue and Dave,
As the email trail below records, I have for seven months been trying to get the original Report and associated Memos from our Council owned lines company Aurora written by the ex-Aurora Manager of the Accelerated Pole Replacement Program Godfrey Brosnan, which ex-Aurora’s Richard Healey assures me provides data, evaluation and comment on exceptionally poor productivity in the $60 million Accelerated Pole Replacement Program entirely at odds with the series of Pole Replacement information updates supplied at various intervals to Councillors over recent years.
In addition to not getting this information, even after repeated attempts and application to the Ombudsman, I have also not been able to get information on how Aurora intends to fund its on-going extraordinary deferred-maintenance-driven increasing renewals spending, given Aurora projections of declining interest costs as below, line 23 cost of financing.
The costs of pole replacement has gone from around $7,000 [already very high given largest pole material cost of well under $1,000] over several years to anything from $10,000 to $14,000 per pole, largely it seems as a result of having to import line-gangs from outside Dunedin and because of on-going preferred relationships with DELTA who used to get inflated contracts from Aurora prior to my push to get the companies separated/possibly sold, but years later still have preferred contractor status with now separate entity Aurora.
My disappointment at being denied Aurora Accelerated Pole Replacement information and evidence has been compounded by DCC lack of action despite my own evidence collection of the replacement of perfectly sound concrete and tanalised wooden power poles [see attached as stored at my farm] as alleged by Richard Healey, and detailed to Dave Tombs and many others at the DCC this year.
I have subsequently publicised evidence of this particular Aurora waste on my blog and on FaceBook and still nothing has been acknowledged by you, our CEO, or by staff.
I have failed to get the ODT interested in investigating the Accelerated Pole Replacement issues, with Sir Julian Smith being less than helpful.
DCC decades-long failure to control our Companies Aurora and DELTA continues despite the structural separation and management changes.
I have recently been told by a DELTA staff member that DELTA staff no longer have access the Aurora staff room, with its extraordinarily expensive near $11,000 coffee machine, indicating general management culture problems, in addition to the specific alleged waste of half of the costs of the $60 million Accelerated Pole Replacement Program.
What I believe is needed with urgency in addition to release of the Brosnan Accelerated Pole Replacement Reports and Memos, is a comprehensive truly independent investigation of Aurora and DELTA management and operations: contracting costs and productivity, with full disclosure to our Dunedin shareholders of past, current and future planned expenditure, costs, productivity, deferred maintenance, debt and any dividends.
Looking forward to hearing by return what you intend to do regarding our biggest asset/liability/threat to DCC economic sustainability.
Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis
From: Jemma Adamson <Jemma.Adams@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 4:47 PM
To: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Cc: Dave Cull <Dave.Cull@dcc.govt.nz>, Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>, Dave Tombs <Dave.Tombs@dcc.govt.nz>, Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>, “Keith Cooper (keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com)” <keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: 2019 Expenditure on Assets Forecast and Pole replacement information. Information requests
Dear Cr Vandervis
DCHL is responding on behalf of Aurora Energy Limited to the information request contained in your email of 6 July 2019.
Pole replacement report information
You have re-requested information related to Aurora Energy’s Accelerated Pole Programme which you say was prepared by a named contractor who worked for the company in 2018. Our previous response to you dated 28 June 2019 refers.
Aurora Energy has previously set out its reasons, why it considers it to be inappropriate to release the requested material or any material that is provided in confidence and / or is likely prejudice the commercial position of Aurora Energy in conducting its business. This decision is consistent with the company’s published Information Disclosure Policy.
The company has previously advised that, last year Dave Frow, an experienced engineer and Director of Aurora Energy, was engaged by the Aurora Energy Board to conduct a review and investigation into various claims made around the company’s Accelerated Pole Programme. This review concluded that the various claims and assertions made were unfounded and not supported by evidence. The investigation report did acknowledge that there was some scope to make more general process improvements and these recommendations were made available to the Aurora Energy Management team.
Aurora Energy would like to extend again its previously signalled offer to meet with you to share further details of this investigation report, on a strictly confidential basis, if it would assist you to better understand the overall situation. If you want to take up an opportunity to see a fuller copy of the report on that basis, please confirm to me.
Aurora Energy has also again expressed to us its concern around potential privacy breaches and confidential information being released and asks that you please advise if you have in fact sighted any of the material to which you refer.
Coffee machine
The Company has previously provided you with a summary of the purchase and running costs of its staff coffee machine. You have requested copies of the original invoices and these are attached. We trust that the information provided closes this matter.
Kind regards
Jemma Adams
Jemma Adams
General Manager, Dunedin City Holdings Ltd
03 474 3866 | 021 055 3086 | jemma.adams@dcc.govt.nz
50 The Octagon, Dunedin | PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9054
From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Saturday, 6 July 2019 2:43 p.m.
To: Jemma Adams <Jemma.Adams@dcc.govt.nz>; Steve Thompson <steve@stevethompson.co.nz>; Richard Fletcher <Richard.Fletcher@auroraenergy.co.nz>
Cc: Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>; Dave Tombs <Dave.Tombs@dcc.govt.nz>; Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>; Keith Cooper (keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com) <keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com>; Council 2016-2019 (Elected Members) <council.2016-2019@oa.dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: Re: 2019 Expenditure on Assets Forecast and Pole replacement information. Information requests
Dear Steve, Richard, and Jemma,
Your Information Disclosure Policy specifies that “Aurora Energy recognises that there is a positive correlation between effective and responsive stakeholder engagement and the high performance of its business.” Both are now in question.
You have for the second time as below, this time just within timeframe limits, refused to forward to me the requested information of assessments of your Accelerated Pole Replacement Programme by your ex- Accelerated Pole Replacement Programme Manager Godfrey Brosnan. You have instead sent me unrequested information from former Director David Frow.
Your claim that you can not send me the required information from Mr Brosnan because it might impact Mr Brosnan’s right to privacy does not convince.
Has David Frow no similar immunity to disclosure due to privacy? #1`
The privacy issue you claim appears to be an excuse to never forward any information from anyone in your organisation that you do not want to get out.
Have you asked your ex- Accelerated Pole Replacement Programme Manager Godfrey Brosnan for his permission to forward his requested Pole-Replacements Assessments Reports and Memos? #2
If he agrees to his Accelerated Pole Replacement Reports and Memos being forwarded, will you then forward them to me? #3
Effective stakeholder engagement is not possible when, as you have, failed to respond to information requests with any acknowledgment as per your publicly advertised Information Disclosure Policy, failed to respond within the 21 working days, and then on subsequent information re-request hid all requested information behind a catch-all privacy claim which makes a mockery of your Information Disclosure Policy.
Re your most expensive coffee machine, why have you not forwarded a copy of the original coffee machine invoice that I specifically requested? #4
Can you please forward this copy of original invoice by return, with urgency in the public interest? #5
Looking forward to receiving answers to #1#2#3#4 and to #5 by return as this invoice copy must be very easily forwarded.
Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis
From: Jemma Adamson <Jemma.Adams@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Friday, 28 June 2019 at 4:33 PM
To: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Cc: Dave Cull <Dave.Cull@dcc.govt.nz>, Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>, Dave Tombs <Dave.Tombs@dcc.govt.nz>, Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>, “Keith Cooper (keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com)” <keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: 2019 Expenditure on Assets Forecast and Pole replacement information. Information requests
Dear Cr Vandervis
DCHL is responding on behalf of Aurora Energy Limited to the information request contained in your email of 31 May 2019.
As you know, Aurora Energy is not subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA). It has, however adopted an Information Disclosure Policy (see here), which rests on a similar principle of transparency and adopts similar processes for the handling of information requests. Your request has been considered under this policy and we (DCHL) are providing this response on behalf of Aurora Energy.
Pole replacement report information
Your information request refers specifically to material which you understand was written, and provided to the company, by an individual whom you name. Aurora Energy has expressed to us its concern around potential privacy breaches and confidential information being released. The company has asked you to please advise if you have in fact sighted the material you refer to.
Aurora Energy has sought advice on privacy considerations of responding to your request. The company has been advised that confirming (or otherwise) that the person you name did or did not submit the material described would be a breach of privacy. Therefore, while this response confirms that Aurora did receive material of a relevant nature, this response does not confirm that it was provided by the person you name (see Information Disclosure Policy Appendix 1 (x)).
Last year, an individual approached Aurora’s Chair seeking to provide material under the protections of the Protected Disclosures Act. The Chair considered that some of the pre-conditions under that Act did not apply and raised that with the informant. In the interests of transparency the informant was notified that the Board would proceed to investigate the matter as if a protected disclosure had been made.
Aurora Energy has decided to withhold the material that individual provided, for several reasons:
- Under Clause 3.2 of the company’s Protected Disclosures Policy an informant is entitled to have their identity protected and Aurora Energy is satisfied that it is not possible to release the material to you without compromising that expectation.
- Appendix 1(g)(i) of the Information Disclosure Policy also applies, as releasing material provided in confidence would be likely to prejudice the future supply of such information.
- Separately, the nature of the material is such that the privacy interests of other individuals on Aurora’s staff would also be compromised by its release.
However, consistent with Aurora Energy’s commitment to transparency, the company wishes to provide you general information about the concerns which were raised and about how those concerns were addressed.
Please find attached an extract from the conclusion summary of the investigation report of those concerns (“Preliminary Report on Investigation into 2018 Pole Programme”), prepared on behalf of the Board by its former director Dave Frow.
The Report was considered by the Aurora Energy Board at its meeting of 29 August 2018. The Board was satisfied that the report provided a good basis on which to determine matters and although the terms of Reference had allowed for the possibility of further work on the issues it was concluded that none was required. Accordingly although marked draft, and described as preliminary, this report was accepted by the Board as sufficient to conclude its investigations into the matters raised.
Aurora Energy trusts that the information set out above and in the attached extract from the relevant investigation conducted in 2018 appropriately addresses your inquiry.
Aurora Energy would also be willing to meet with you to share further details of the investigation report with you, on a strictly confidential basis, if it would assist you to better understand the overall situation. This would necessarily be a redacted version of the report in order to protect the privacy of individuals including Aurora Energy staff. If you want to take up an opportunity to see a fuller copy of the report on that basis please confirm to me.
Coffee machine
Your email also requested information about Aurora Energy’s purchase of a staff coffee machine.
Aurora Energy’s Halsey Street office coffee machine was purchased in February 2018. The investment cost was $9,348 (excluding GST). Its monthly depreciation cost is $130 and the book value as at the end of April 2019 was $7,400. The ongoing monthly costs to operate are approximately $1,622 per month, which is made up of milk, coffee beans and chocolate powder. This equates to approximately 72c per staff member per day.
Aurora Energy are according priority to the day to day wellbeing of its 121 Halsey St staff, especially given the company’s current workload, and to making the company an attractive place to work. The company is actively seeking to recruit and retain top quality staff. Their office is in an industrial area, and includes the Control Room, which operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Aurora Energy disagree with the description of their management culture as “self-serving”.
I trust this information addresses your request.
Kind regards
Jemma Adams
Jemma Adams
General Manager, Dunedin City Holdings Ltd
03 474 3866 | 021 055 3086 | jemma.adams@dcc.govt.nz
50 The Octagon, Dunedin | PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9054
From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Friday, 31 May 2019 5:26 p.m.
To: Richard Fletcher <Richard.Fletcher@auroraenergy.co.nz>; Steve Thompson <steve@stevethompson.co.nz>
Cc: Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>; Keith Cooper (keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com) <keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com>; Dave Tombs <Dave.Tombs@dcc.govt.nz>; Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>; Jemma Adams <Jemma.Adams@dcc.govt.nz>; Richard Healey <rjh@netcasterz.com>; Richard Saunders <Richard.Saunders@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: 2019 Expenditure on Assets Forecast and Pole replacement information. Information requests
Hi Richard and Steve,
I note I have yet to get an explanantion of why you did not comply with your own information response policy of acknowledging my request for information within 48 Hours, and not replying within 21 working days.
A belated response from Jemma Adams at DCHL has asked for more detail regarding the specific pole-replacement reports that I wish to see.
An ex-Aurora employee Richard Healey has confirmed that there was a report and memos detailing a fraught pole-replacement program written by your pole-replacement director Godfrey Brosnan, and that in it and in associated letters and memos he highlighted unacceptably low-productivity, replacement of many poles that still had useful life, poor planning, and unacceptably low production rates. I would like to see copies of these memos and reports, on a public information basis, or on a confidential to me basis if necessary.
Mr Healey also confirms that a self-serving culture in Aurora management is illustrated by the alleged purchase of an extraordinarily expensive coffee machine [$17,000+?], with extraordinary monthly running costs rumoured to be near 4 figures.
Can you please forward copies of the original purchase documentation showing how much was paid for Aurora’s most expensive coffee machine, along with copies of invoices detailing several months’ running costs for the machine.
Looking forward to rapid responses this time, in the public interest.
Cr. Lee Vandervis
From: Jemma Adamson <Jemma.Adams@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Wednesday, 8 May 2019 at 3:08 PM
To: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Cc: Dave Cull <Dave.Cull@dcc.govt.nz>, Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>, “Keith Cooper (keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com)” <keithcooper.littlebrook@gmail.com>, Dave Tombs <Dave.Tombs@dcc.govt.nz>, Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: 2019 Expenditure on Assets Forecast
Dear Cr Vandervis
Aurora Energy passed your email below to Dunedin City Holdings Ltd, as per the agreed protocol of channelling shareholder correspondence with DCHL group companies through the holdings company. We apologise for the delay in responding to you.
Please find below information from Aurora Energy in response to your questions.
We have also received your email this morning in relation to the cable ducts under the bus hub. We will co-ordinate with Aurora Energy and hope to respond to you by close of business tomorrow.
Kind regards
Jemma
- Financial forecasts
What is your projected debt level projected to be over each of the coming 5 years?
Term debt forecasts for the three years ending 30 June 2022 were provided in the company’s draft 2020 Statement of Intent, and are re-stated below for ease of reference. As noted at the time, these forecasts were an emerging view and are subject to change again in the final document to be released by 30 June 2019.
| Year ending 30/06/2020 $000 |
Year ending 30/06/2021 $000 |
Year ending 30/06/2022 $000 |
|
| Term borrowings | 375,738 | 434,860 | 468,398 |
To make these forecasts work, what increases in line charges have been assumed in each of the coming 5 years?
A wide range of revenue and expenditure inputs go into Aurora’s debt forecasts. Line charge increases are an area of particular uncertainty, as they derive from the price path determined for Aurora Energy by the Commerce Commission. Later this year, the Commerce Commission will be resetting the default price path (DPP) for all regulated electricity distribution businesses, including Aurora Energy, and that will determine our maximum allowable line charge revenue from 1 April 2020.
Aurora Energy also plans to apply to the Commerce Commission for a customised price path (CPP) for the five years from 1 April 2021. As part of this CPP application we will set out our proposed expenditure plans for the CPP period and the expected impact on the line charges consumers pay. The Commerce Commission, following consultation with consumers and independent verification, will then set Aurora Energy’s expenditure allowances and maximum allowable line charge revenue under the CPP.
Those two Commerce Commission determinations will allow Aurora Energy to forecast five year line charge increases with more certainty. Those forecasts will be made publicly available through the 2021 and 2022 Statement of Intents, and in the case of the CPP, as noted, will involve consultation with consumers as part of the process.
Please note that the cost of finance line (line 23) of our Schedule 11a Report on Forecast Capital Expenditure only reflects the finance costs we forecast to be capitalised (under Financial Reporting Standards) into the cost of network assets we construct.
- Pole programme
Aurora Energy regularly receives a range of advice and reports in relation to its fleet of power poles. Aurora has provided information in response to your questions below; they would require more detail in order to be able to identify a specific report. Aurora believes the most relevant, and comprehensive, one in relation to your questions is WSP’s independent engineering review of the network published last November 2018. (WSP’s report is available in full on Aurora’s website here http://www.auroraenergy.co.nz/about/independent-review/.)
WSP carried out an engineering and risk assessment across all major network asset fleets, including power poles. In its report, WSP estimated there were 1,397 poles that presented a high risk and required remediation out of a total of 54,049 poles on the Aurora Energy network (see page 73 of the report). Their expert assessment was based on data analysis and in-field inspections including sample testing and drone inspections.
In the context of your broader question, on the drivers and cost of pole replacement, you refer to your previous questions on the Butler St concrete poles, which Aurora replaced early last year. By way of background to this work, the initial driver for the work on Butler Street was a severely compromised red tagged wooden pole. On pre-inspection at site the contractor noted issues with an adjacent concrete structure which was also red tagged (ie: we are not permitted to change load on a red tagged pole if it is adjacent to a pole that is being replaced so this concrete pole also needed to be replaced at the same time). The pole testing information Aurora had available at the time also indicated that there were a number of other red tagged concrete poles on Butler Street and a decision was made to replace them as part of the same job. This was considered to be the prudent response both from a risk perspective and in order to minimise the frequency and duration of supply interruptions to customers.
Aurora Energy’s ongoing pole renewal programme continues to focus on reducing the backlog of poles in need of priority replacement or reinforcement. The forward pole programme is set out in the annual Asset Management Plan and is publicly available on our website here http://www.auroraenergy.co.nz/disclosures/.
Aurora Energy’s urgent priorities are to address the backlog of red-tagged poles and test poles in high criticality areas and they are making steady progress. By the end of March 2019, Aurora had reduced the backlog of ~1000 red tagged poles (as reported in the 2018 Asset Management Plan as at 4 October 2018) to ~200. Given the age and asset health of the pole fleet, Aurora will continue to identify poles requiring replacement at an elevated rate over the next three years. The current total of red-tagged poles is ~500 including the ~200 poles already identified plus ~300 new discoveries from testing.
In relation to the costs of pole replacement, economies of scale are more easily achieved when building new sections of overhead lines. There are fewer opportunities for savings when replacing individual poles where the primary cost drivers are the complexity of the pole structure, network configuration and location.
Pole replacement costs can vary according to a range of factors, for example the complexity of the structure that is being replaced (e.g. in-line or tee-off pole, single or multiple circuits, low or high voltage), what network equipment it supports (e.g. fuses, switchgear), its location (e.g. ease of access, ground conditions), type of pole (e.g. steel, concrete or wooden) and size of pole (e.g. height, single or two-pole structure).
Jemma Adams
General Manager, Dunedin City Holdings Ltd
03 474 3866 | 021 055 3086 | jemma.adams@dcc.govt.nz
50 The Octagon, Dunedin | PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9054
Begin forwarded message:
From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Date: 1 April 2019 at 9:21:05 PM NZDT
To: Richard Fletcher <Richard.Fletcher@auroraenergy.co.nz>, Steve Thompson <steve@stevethompson.co.nz>, Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>, Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>
Cc: “Council 2016-2019 (Elected Members)” <council.2016-2019@dcc.govt.nz>, Simon Drew <Simon.Drew@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: 2019 Expenditure on Assets Forecast
| SCHEDULE 11a: REPORT ON FORECAST CAPITAL EXPENDITURE | |||||||||||||||||
| This schedule requires a breakdown of forecast expenditure on assets for the current disclosure year and a 10 year planning period. The forecasts should be consistent with the supporting information set out in the AMP. The forecast is to be expressed in both constant price and nominal dollar terms. Also required is a forecast of the value of commissioned assets (i.e., the value of RAB additions) EDBs must provide explanatory comment on the difference between constant price and nominal dollar forecasts of expenditure on assets in Schedule 14a (Mandatory Explanatory Notes). This information is not part of audited disclosure information. |
|||||||||||||||||
| sch ref | |||||||||||||||||
| 7 | Current Year CY | CY+1 | CY+2 | CY+3 | CY+4 | CY+5 | CY+6 | CY+7 | CY+8 | CY+9 | CY+10 | ||||||
| 8 | for year ended | 31 Mar 19 | 31 Mar 20 | 31 Mar 21 | 31 Mar 22 | 31 Mar 23 | 31 Mar 24 | 31 Mar 25 | 31 Mar 26 | 31 Mar 27 | 31 Mar 28 | 31 Mar 29 | |||||
| 9 | 11a(i): Expenditure on Assets Forecast | $000 (in nominal dollars) | |||||||||||||||
| 10 | Consumer connection | 14,169 | 10,008 | 9,313 | 9,075 | 8,175 | 8,050 | 7,922 | 7,790 | 7,886 | 7,984 | 8,084 | |||||
| 11 | System growth | 8,722 | 10,198 | 7,118 | 10,658 | 11,087 | 4,645 | 9,015 | 4,305 | 2,078 | 9,048 | 1,207 | |||||
| 12 | Asset replacement and renewal | 42,255 | 51,885 | 55,616 | 54,830 | 51,376 | 46,921 | 45,702 | 39,266 | 44,230 | 36,923 | 32,686 | |||||
| 13 | Asset relocations | 1,176 | 4,086 | 2,333 | 1,466 | 1,458 | 1,435 | 1,674 | 15,119 | 1,406 | 1,423 | 1,441 | |||||
| 14 | Reliability, safety and environment: | ||||||||||||||||
| 15 | Quality of supply | 528 | 521 | 213 | 653 | 218 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 120 | 121 | 123 | |||||
| 16 | Legislative and regulatory | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |||||
| 17 | Other reliability, safety and environment | – | – | 251 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |||||
| 18 | Total reliability, safety and environment | 528 | 521 | 464 | 653 | 218 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 120 | 121 | 123 | |||||
| 19 | Expenditure on network assets | 66,849 | 76,697 | 74,843 | 76,682 | 72,313 | 61,166 | 64,429 | 66,599 | 55,720 | 55,499 | 43,542 | |||||
| 20 | Expenditure on non-network assets | 5,233 | 4,971 | 4,904 | 5,928 | 5,422 | 6,059 | 5,982 | 4,970 | 4,713 | 4,763 | 4,615 | |||||
| 21 | Expenditure on assets | 72,082 | 81,668 | 79,748 | 82,610 | 77,735 | 67,225 | 70,411 | 71,569 | 60,433 | 60,262 | 48,156 | |||||
| 22 | |||||||||||||||||
| 23 | plus | Cost of financing | 1,420 | 1,520 | 1,374 | 795 | 146 | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||||
| 24 | less | Value of capital contributions | 3,507 | 6,992 | 5,029 | 4,397 | 4,090 | 4,139 | 4,452 | 11,718 | 4,291 | 4,343 | 4,397 | ||||
| 25 | plus | Value of vested assets | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||||
| 26 | |||||||||||||||||
| 27 | Capital expenditure forecast | 69,994 | 76,195 | 76,092 | 79,008 | 73,791 | 63,086 | 65,959 | 59,851 | 56,143 | 55,919 | 43,759 | |||||
| 28 | |||||||||||||||||
| 29 | Assets commissioned | 71,511 | 81,175 | 97,857 | 87,136 | 78,238 | 69,179 | 70,273 | 80,796 | 55,270 | 66,071 | 49,064 | |||||
Hi Steve and Richard,
Looking at your projected cost of financing [line 23] which diminishes to nothing in March 2024, and given your continued substantial Capex spend [line 27] which does not decrease over this 5 year period, what is your projected debt level projected to be over each of the coming 5 years?
To make these forecasts work, what increases in line charges have been assumed in each of the coming 5 years?
I understand that you have had an internal report from a senior staff member that addresses the issues of replaced poles and how many actually needed replacing [remember my questions over the Butler st concrete poles which were all replaced] and what the costs of pole replacement have risen to despite hoped for economies of scale with so many being done.
Can you please forward a copy of this pole-replacement report?
Looking forward to prompt replies,
Cr. Lee Vandervis
Lee Vandervis 