COST OF POWER.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 262, 5 November 1929, Page 10

COST OF POWER.

TRANSPORT BOARD SUPPLY. OVERCHARGING DENIED. AGREEMENT STRICTLY OBSERVED, SAYS MR. HOLDSWORTH. "It is not the cost of power which is causing the, trouble; the Transport Board will have to look to some other source," said the chairman of the Auckland Power Board (Mr. W. J. Holdsworth) at yesterday's meeting, when refuting an insinuation that the Transport Board's difficult position was due to the high price of electricity. "It is only right'that the position should be put before the general public," added the chairman. "It is unfair to compare Auckland with other centres."

Mr. Holdsworth explained that the Auckland Power Board was an independent body, and not like those of other centres, where one body controlled both tho electricity undertaking and the tramways. . There was a clear and definite agreement between the Powei Board and the Tramways Department made when the board was formed, by which the department was to pay 1.35 d for power for the first year, and, after that, to receive it at cost price. Owing to the expansion of the board's business the price had fallen steadily since 1923, and the price paid last year by the Tramway Department was 1.07(5d, oi a reduction of 20 per cent. By closing down the Hobson Street station the Tramway Department had made a saving of £13,000 a year, and in addition to°this there had been a saving of £20,943 through the reduction since tie first year.

It must be clear to any unbiassed person that the present unsatisfactory position of the transport undertaking could-.not bo attributed to the cost of power. The Power Board had kept strictly to' the original agreement. as between the City Council and itself, and was still prepared to carry out the terms of the new agreement, signed by the Transport Board last February. An examination of tho Power Board's books had been made by experts from the Tramway Department and there had been no suggestion of over-charging.

The only true comparison of power costs that could be made was the capital cost of developing power. It was the capital cost which handicapped Auckland in comparison with other centres. They had to maintain five 6iib-stations, with a staff of over 30 men, whereas Wellington had only two sub-stations, and one was automatic. It was unfortunate that Auckland should be penalised, but they were one of the last centres to receive the benefits of hydroelectric supply. . „