WEALTH FROM WATER

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 134, 3 December 1910, Page 5

WEALTH FROM WATER

ATTRACTiyE FIGURES FOR WELLINGTON. WATER-POWER, IF .... An unusual privilege was bestowed upon Mr. Wilford in the House yesterday afternoon. He was speaking so interentingly on water-power that he was allowed to go ten minutes over his halfhour. Mr. WDford said he had instructed Mr. Richardson, the City Electrical Engineer, to go carefully into the whole matter., and ascertain whether it would be advantageous for Wellington to take power from the State if energy was developed from the Hutt River. Mr. Wilford was assuming that Mr. Hoimes's figures (in the Public Works Statement) were correct for installation, working expenses, depreciation, and interest. It was realised that * large station would be necessary at the Upper Hutt and a sub-station at, say, Ngahauranga, for breaking-down the voltage. The report which he would submit was based on the reports of Mr. Birks and Mr. Holmes, but the figures which he would give were on the assumption that the supply of power to the city would be regular, and the eosfc no higher than the rate estimated by Mr. Holmes. He drew attention to the defects and omissions of Mr. Birks regarding Waipori (already explained in The Post). Briefly, continued Mr. Wilford, the Wellington City Council could pay th« Government £34,558 a year for current, at the rate of .66d per unit. At the same time, by dealing with the State on that basis the corporation would be able to make a profit of £4000 a year and apply £4700 to writing off the two power stations. The extinction of that liability would be effected in twentytwo years (when the debentures' fell due), and afterwards there would be the additional profit. Also by the use of static transformers at the sub-station the figures could be made £1400 a year better for the city, as the total working expenses of the Hutt scheme were £38,000 a year, of which over £34,000 was to come from the city alone, there should be a profit for the Government. Mr. Richardson estimated that in five years time the city would require 12,483,000 units per year, thus :—: — Tramways 6,000,000 Pumping ... 396,000 Motor-power 2,016,000 Lighting, private ... 2,527,000 Lighting, street 694,200 Track, lighting 303,800 Heating and cooking ... 546,u00 Total > 12,483,000 Mr Birks estimated 27,635,000 units, to be sold at an average rate of .81d per unit in the city.' The buying and selling prices of cut rent in Mr. Richardson's report were given (in pence per unit) thus : — Buying. Selling. Tramwaya . - 0.41 1.214 Pumping . . . 0.50 2.000 Motor-power ... 0.87 2.000 Heating and Cooking 0".87 L'soo Private lighting ... 1.00 6.000 Street lighting . . 0.83 4.000 Track lighting ... 1.00 3.500 This would yield the Government an income from the city of £34,558, or an average of .66d per unit supplied. The selling prices quoted by Mr. Richardson show a reduction of .29d per unit on private lighting (now 6.29 d) and .sdon motor-power. Mr. Wilford submitted elaborate tables setting out full details. He said that Mr. Richardson had gone into every feature of the subject, and had set down the cost of every factor. The profit mentioned was to accrue after all allowances had been made. ■ All that the city required was a guaranteed regular supply of current at .66d per unit, and an assurance that it would not be necessary to keep a steam plant in reserve. There was now a 30 per cent loss, by leakage, of the- units generated, Mr. Wilford added. The cost of generation, at present, varied according to the purpose for which it was used. For lighting it was 2id (lid for generation) and 1 per cent capital charge, and for tramway purposes ljd (.79d and 74d). It had to be remembered that though the power stations were to be written off in twenty-two years, they would still be an asset. Mr. Richardson, concluded Mr. Wilford, had started out with a prejudice against the scheme, but after consultation with the Government Engineer, Mr. Holmes, he saw that there was something in it. Mr. Holmes estimated £422,000 as. the cost of the Hutt scheme, and the total annual charges at £33,000.