Power reform move deferred

Press, 18 February 1986, Page 5

Power reform move deferred

The Christchurch City Council last evening deferred deciding its preference for electricity reform because it did not know what territorial reforms would be announced tomorrow. The council considered a separate energy authority to handle Canterbury’s electricity supply, but rejected making a decision until more research had been done.

Sir Hamish Hay said that deferring the decision would make for more informed councillors. The deferment was suggested by Crs Matthew Glubb and Rex Lester. The chairman of the Local Government Commission, Mr Brian Elwood, will announce territorial reforms to councils tomorrow evening. Cr Glubb said the proposed single regional authority made up of appointed representatives of

the territorial authorities — as recommended — had to be investigated in terms of financial implications for the council.

It was timely to defer it until that investigation had been made.

The suggestion was made by the council’s local government working party which had sought approval from the chairman of the Local Government Commission to make a six-month study on electricity distribution in Canterbury.

Mr Elwood said that that was too long. Other Christchurch councils had indicated their preference for electricity supply as asked.

The Minister of Energy, Mr Tizard, had said he wanted the new amalgamated authorities in place next year. The working party then considered three options. The first—a single

directly elected Canterbury Power Board—was dismissed because territorial government would not be involved.

The second—adding electricity supply to the functions of the Canterbury United Council — was dropped because that council did not want to be involved in practical terms and was illequipped for the function. The third — a separate regional power authority appointed by territorial government — was recommended to the council last evening. The party also recommended that such a new authority should have a realistic number of members, with smaller councils grouped to share a representative. It also called for tariffs that would vary in the introductory period to protect the rights of existing consumers.

Employees should be given a guarantee of keeping their jobs for five years after amalgamation. The statutory period is two years. The reduction of bulk supply points to the new authority should be offset by bulk tariff concessions and provision should be made for compensation for the previous capital investment. Sir Hamish noted that the Hamilton council would receive an annual payment for 10 years from the new authority in Waikato as compensation and a financial return. He said Christchurch City ratepayers had benefited from the returns of the efficient work of the M.E.D. It would be of concern to them what happened to tariffs under reform.

Ratepayers should still receive a return from the M.E.D.’s activities.

He accepted that restructuring was inevitable, but said that the council’s one-city proposal did itself infer a substantial reduction in the number of power authorities and could also include Lyttelton.

“But I would rather have dealt with electricity after we know what will happen to territorial government Both Mr Tizard and Mr Elwood have indicated that they want the amalgamation in place in the next two years.” Cr Lester said figures had to be put before councillors before they could nake a decision. Cr David Close said he believed the M.E.D., in existence for 82 years, should not be disbanded.

All councillors agreed the matter should be deferred for further consideration by the policy and finance committee.