AMP Public Consultation

Aurora invites public contribution to its choices in regard to service quality; principally in regard to its asset management processes, but also in regard to any other aspect of it business of concern to consumers and other interested parties.

Aurora has had a formal Asset Management Plan (AMP) since 1995, when Aurora achieved ISO9000 certification of its asset management systems. In 2000 the Electricity Information Disclosure Regulations were amended to require all electricity distributors to prepare and publicly disclose asset management plans in a prescribed format.

Aurora has invited comment on its AMP from electricity retailers (on behalf of their customers) since 1993, and since 2002 has attempted to elicit more interest in the AMP than had previously been achieved, by providing a permanent public opportunity through its website, as follows:

  • Comments or suggestions for improvement may be sent be email to the Network Services Manager
  • All comments received will be publicly posted on this webpage, along with identification of the author. However, we reserve the right to edit comments and, while we may post anonymous comments, we will not commit to doing so.
  • All comments posted will be publicly responded to on this webpage.

To view the latest AMP, click here (PDF)
We look forward to receiving suggestions for improving our planning.

Comments Received on the Draft 2010 - 2020 Asset Management Plan

Published 1 April 2010

Submissions were invited by newspaper advertisement and by direct contact with major customers. No comments were received.

Comments Received on the Draft 2009 - 2019 Asset Management Plan

Published 1 April 2009

One submission was received, being the report on Aurora's AMP undertaken for the Commerce Commission by Strata Energy Consulting Limited. It found that Aurora's was ranked above the industry average and made some suggestions for improvement.

Comments Received on the Draft 2008 - 2018 Asset Management Plan

Published 1 April 2008 

Submissions were invited by newspaper advertisement and by direct contact with major customers. No comments were received.

Comments Received on the Draft 2007 - 2017 Asset Management Plan

Published 29 June 2007

Submissions were invited by newspaper advertisement and by direct contact with major customers. No comments were received.

Comments Received on the Draft 2006 - 2016 Asset Management Plan

Published 21 June 2006

Submissions were invited by newspaper advertisement and by direct contact with major customers. No comments were received.

Comments Received on the 2005 - 2015 Asset Management Plan

Published 30 June 2005

One submission was received, being the report on Aurora's AMP undertaken for the Commerce Commission by Farrier Swier Consulting. It found that Aurora's report generally complied with the 2004 Requirements and made some suggestions for improvement so that the plan would comply with the recently published 2006 Requirements.

Comments Received on the Draft 2005 - 2015 Asset Management Plan

Published 30 April 2005 - 30 June 2005

Submissions were invited by newspaper advertisement and by direct contact with major customers. No comments were received.

Comments Received on the 2004 - 2014 Asset Management Plan

Published 30 June 2004

One submission was received, being the report on Aurora's AMP undertaken for the Commerce Commission by PB Associates, as part of the Commission's review of the AMPs of all electricity distributors. The report found that Aurora's AMP generally complied with the Commerce Commission's requirements, but made a wide range of suggestions for improvement.

Aurora does not agree with all of the suggestions and has responded to the Commission at length.

Comments Received on the Draft 2004 - 2014 Asset Management Plan

Published 30 April 2004 - 30 June 2004

No comments were received.

Comments Received on the 2003 - 2013 Asset Management Plan

Published 30 June 2003

No comments were received.

Comments Received on the Draft 2003 - 2013 Asset Management Plan

Published 30 April 2003 - 30 June 2003

No comments were received.

Comments Received on the 2002 - 2012 Asset Management Plan

Published 30 June 2002

-----Original Message-----
From: Lindsay McLennan
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2002 4:26 p.m.
To: 'David Wilkinson'
Subject: FW:AMP 2002 Review

David,
Our responses to your comments of 2 August are as follows and a revised AMP now appears on the website.

Section 1.2: The date completed is now included.
1. Section 1.6: The table reference has been corrected.
2. Section 3: The graph axes have been improved.
3. Section 3.1: The 2% figure has been corrected, to 14%.
4. Section 5.1: The incorrect reference has been removed.
5. Sections 5.2 to 5.4: We will include more planning information in future plans.
6. Section 5.5.2: The tables of expenditure are now annotated as $000's.
7. Section 5.6: We will include more planning information in future plans.
8. The repeated paragraphs (section 5.5.1) and double full-stops (section 7.3) have been eliminated.

Thank you for bringing these to our attention.
Regards
Lindsay McLennan

-----Original Message-----
From: David Wilkinson
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2002 12:32 p.m.
To: 'Lindsay McLennan'
Subject: AMP 2002 Review

Hi Lindsay,
Thanks for sending through the copy of the asset management plans for Dunedin Electricity for 2002. I found the AMP to be reasonably well written, but have the following comments:

1. Section 1.2: Even though this section heading has "Date Completed" in it, the date completed is not stated. However, I can determine this from the plan issued date on the title page.
2. Section 1.6: Refers to table 1 instead of table 1.1
3. Section 3: Some of the graph axes need improvement. The abscissa should either have a range (e.g. 0-9, 10-19) or a single number at regular intervals (e.g. 0, 10, 20). The ordinate at times was between 0 and 1 even though it was a percentage.
4. Section 3.1: 11kV and 6.6kV Lines has a comment saying that only 2% of lines are aged more than 50 year as justification for no significant change in maintenance, whereas the graph indicates this is greater than 10%. There may have been some confusion with the following graph on 11kV and 6.6kV cables.
5. Section 5.1: Economic Analysis subsection refers to a section 4.3.3 that does not exist.
6. Sections 5.2 to 5.4: Not very comprehensive. Obviously much of the material is in the "6 year development plan" but should probably be included here in some form.
7. Section 5.5.2: The tables of expenditure should be annotated as $000's
8. Section 5.6: No specific projects are described. In particular, table 3.3 lists zone substations and identifies a number of sites where demand is greater than firm capacity with a note and some comments but more detail should be given in section 5.6.
9. On the whole this document was well laid out although there were a few minor editing problems such as successive repeated paragraphs (section 5.5.1) and double full-stops (section 7.3).