ELECTRIC POWER DISTRIBUTION

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21972, 22 December 1936, Page 17

ELECTRIC POWER DISTRIBUTION

CRITICISM OF "THE PRESS" COMMENT BY ASHBURTON POWER BOARD Saying that the power boards' side of the question had never been represented, the chairman and members of the Ashburton Power Board criticised a leading article on electric power reticulation published in "The Press," at the monthly meeting of the board yesterday. After reading.the article to members of the board, Mr NTcbll said it had been suggested that the power board system should be swept away so that current might be supplied to people in the backblocks. "The general public is not aware that power boards are bound by very strict financial regulations, having to provide sinking fund and depreciation, whereas the Government is not bound by any of these restrictions, said Mr Nicoll. The absence of the restrictions would enable the Government to supply power cheaper than the boards, but someone would have to pay in the end, he said. Taking the whole administrative cost of, the Ashburton Power Board, including office costs, insurances, bad debts, and so on. the average cost for each unit sold was only l-100d. If the board members and the staff gave their services free, the cost of a unit could not be reduced. The Ashburton board had reduced the average cost to rural consumers from 3.1 d in 1927 to 1.7 d in 1936. Nationalisation could not do better than that, he declared. It had to be remembered that the public works electric supply account had a deficit of about £750,000, representing accumulated losses and unpaid sinking fund. "Leading articles o* this sort do no good," said Mr Nicoll. "It seems that sufficient consideration has not been given to the matter. General statements go out to the public and are liable to create a wrong impression." If it could be shown that nationalisation would improve the service and reduce costs, he was sure that every member of the Ashburton Power Board would be prepared to give«up his seat. Mr W. G. Gallagher said that the leading article had left out entirely the difference between nationalisation and boards which had to make provision for sinking fund and other charges. In the early years of the Ashburton board money was raised at 5J per cent, to s:{ per cent., with a sinking fund of 1 per cent. Now, although money could be raised at 3J per cent., the Local Government Loans Board imposed a sinking fund payment of 3| per cent., thus adding to the board's capital charges. Mr Nicoll: The power boards' side of this argument has never been published, unfortunately, Mr J. W. M. Dart said articles like I hat which had appeared in "The Press" were written without sufficient knowledge of the facts and were only an expression of opinion. The opposite side of the argument should be shown in the paper. Figures should be brought forward showing the actual costs of electricity under Government control and under the control of power boards. "The idea of high overhead costs among power boards is an absolute myth." said the chairman. He added that a committee set up by the Power Boards' Association was bringing down a report on oower board administration and costs.