THE PRESS SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1979. Hurunui scheme for power

Press, 24 February 1979, Page 14

THE PRESS SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1979. Hurunui scheme for power

Since incentives were offered in the 1977 Budget to local power authorities to plan and build small hydro-electric power stations, several projects have been thoroughly examined. The cost of each unit of electricity from such stations is normally higher than the cost of power from very large stations. This difference has been offset to some extent by other advantages of having smaller stations: they are usually closer to where the power is needed: they stimulate local activity and do not entail the damage to the landscape that large schemes may cause. Small hydro stations also share with their large counterparts the genera) advantage of hydro-electricity by meeting the country’s power requirements from a renewable, indigenous source of energy. The special committee on local authority hydro-electric power development has resolved not to grant more money to the North Canterbury Electric Power Board to continue planning a mediumsized station on the Hurunui River. This decision does not mean that the genera] advantages which small power schemes were seen to possess in 1977 no longer exist. Such stations must remain, in some circumstances, sound propositions. The circumstances are not, however, propitious in New Zealand, and especially in the South Island, when major stations are scheduled to come into service in advance of the demand for electricity. The rate of increase in the demand for electricity has been lower than was accepted in 1977 and the forthcoming increase in price will probably restrain demand further.

To some extent, then, the argument of the committee that cost killed the Hurunui scheme is not quite to the point With the recent price rises the cost per unit of bulk power from the national grid will have come closer to the cost of power from the Hurunui scheme Today’s cost per unit has never

been the primary consideration when small power schemes have been considered. There are other considerations: proximity to the consumers, encouragement of local activity, environmental effects, and the eventual benefits of building the fixed capital cost of a local power scheme into the total bulk charge, which inevitably increases. The Hurunui scheme may seem attractive again when the planners must look for ways to satisfy a demand for electricity which is greater than the supply from stations already existing or under construction.

Abandoning the scheme in the meantime is not, therefore, an instance of money wasted on planning. So far this amounts to almost a quarter of a million dollars worth of planning. Even if the Hurunui scheme is never revived, the money has not been entirely wasted. Investigations, even detailed investigations of particular proposals, must be expected in the field of energy supply if the country is to be prepared for all contingencies. The money spent on the so-far-abortive search for oil is the outstanding example. The local power board and other interested individuals and groups can make a more leisurely and thorough investigation of the possible effects on the environment if the Hurunui is ever tapped for power. Local conservationists and the Nature Conservation Council had serious reservations about the project. They now have a better opportunity either to substantiate those reservations or to satisfy themselves that they were unnecessary. If the project is eventually given the go-ahead, the necessary information to assess properly its environmental impact should be immediately available. This will be of no small importance, for when a decision to proceed is made it will probably be made with a sense of urgency. All preliminary matters should be cleared away so that the engineering can begin in earnest