The Malvern Power Board

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22108, 2 June 1937, Page 8

The Malvern Power Board

The financial position of the Malvern Power Board, as revealed by the report printed in " The Press " yesterday, is substantially better than it has been for several years. The working deficit is £ll7O, compared with £2690 in 1932; the cost of current to consumers is lower than it has been since 1930; and the amount of outstanding rates is £513, compared with the disturbing total of £1582 in 1934. But it is fair to say that the improvement, which is due partly to prudent administration and partly to the general economic recovery, serves merely to emphasise that the board has become involved in a vicious circle of high retail power charges and low demand. The population of the Malvern power district is at present 5050 persons, of whom only 680 were consumers of power in 1935-36; and since 1930-31 the increase in the number of consumers has been fewer than 50. The ratio of consumers to population for all power districts is 21.69 per cent., compared with 13.46 per cent, for Malvern. Moreover, as the chairman of the board points out, the growth of consumption a consumer is equally disappointing. It seems clear that the Malvern board cannot hope to expand greatly the sale of electricity until it is able to reduce retail charges, which average 2.63 d a unit compared with 1.25 d a unit for the whole country, and to eliminate or reduce its rate levy. Yet it is equally clear that a reduction of bulk supply charges, which the board has asked for in the past, cannot greatly assist it, since the cost of power is only about a quarter of its total expenditure. The Malvern board can be put in a satisfactory position only by the writing off of part of its capital expenditure or by a merger with some larger supply authority. Malvern consumers would, of course, be rescued from their plight by the nationalisation of all supply undertakings; but as the Minister for Public Works has become less enthusiastic about nationalisation in recent months, it is reasonable to suggest that he should give special consideration to those boards—there are four in all—which have to levy rates. It is hardly relevant to point out that overexpenditure on reticulation by the boards concerned is the original cause of their difficulties. Consumers in such districts ought not to be penalised indefinitely for the mistakes of the past.