COST OF POWER.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 53, Issue 285, 13 September 1933, Page 6

COST OF POWER.

S. CANTERBURY COMPARISON. ASHBTJRTON AND WAITAKI. In his report to the South Canterbury Power Board at Timaru yesterday, the chairman (Mr J. Kennedy), said that during the month, the chairman and secretary of the Waitaki Power Board paid a visit to both the Ashburton and South Canter burPower Board districts, and front the following extracts from their report to the Waitaki Power Board, this Board's administration expenses showed in a very favourable light—"Ashburton, number 36, amount in wages and salaries £7972, sales of current .(units) 4,780,878; South Canterbury, 24, £5171, 6,269,977; Waitaki, 30, £7426.

4,717,888." would thus be seen that Waitaki, with its small mileage ot lines, half that of South Canterbury, and generally with more favourable conditions, paid £2255 more in wages and salaries and employed six more persons than this Board, and paid an amount only £546 less than Ashburton, which had six more on its staff and had double the mileage of feeder lines. Yet the conditions were different in each, and more patricularly dn the two Northern Boards compared with South Canterbury. Generally speaking, these conditions were more favourable in the case of Waitaki. than in that of the others, which should reflect itself in lower working costs of this Board. In the case of Ashburton, in particular, the lines in

that district were subject to severe north-west gales during the season. 1 which often caused serious damage, involving the re-erection or replacement of poles and feeder lines. One storm involved a re-erection of 160 poles, while in the South Canterbury district, in addition to the north-west winds, sections of the lines were subject to snow conditions in winter.

COMPARISON IS MISLEADING VARIATIONS IN CONDITIONS When the message above was referred to Mr E. F. Nicoll (chairman of the Ashburton Electric Power Board) this morning, he stated that such comparisons as'that made in the statement were. misleading and unfair, unless accompanied by details and a setting out of the different conditions surrounding the activities of the boards, referred to. In the first place, the South Canterbury Board had no power-house or peak-load reducing plant, while Waitaki and Ashburton had* such plants. The South Canterbury Board operated no wiring department, while both the Waitaki and Ashburton Boards do operate such departments. These two boards did the bulk of their own transportation repairs, while the South Canterbury Board made other arrangements. In all .these three matters, alone, while the items of expense were apparent, the corresponding savings were real, without being apparent. It seemed, added Mr Nicoll. that the chairman of the South Canterbury Board, desiring to show his board in a favourable light, omitted to mention certain factors operating in Waitaki and Ashburton, and to a greater extent in Ashburton than in Waitaki, which completely accounted for the apparent disparity,