Evening Post. THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1920. A DECISION THAT NEEDS REVIEW

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 78, 1 April 1920, Page 6

Evening Post. THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1920. A DECISION THAT NEEDS REVIEW

Without laying olaim to expert knowledge, and without attempting to give an expert decision in a complicated question, we will endeavour to sum up the arguments pro and con. the City 'Council's intention to increase the plant at the Harris-street power-house (now used solely, for electric 'lighting) in preference to establishing a new electric light and power station on the sea'front at Kaiwarra. As the former plan means the expenditure of nearly £200,000, and the latter probably twice as much, it is clearly in the public interest to provide as much information on the subject as possible, , because the citizens naturally ■wish to make the best use of their investment, and users of light and power, in-, eluding tramcar riders, generally are' anxious to receive the utmost value out of the service they pay for. It should be explained at the outset that the tramway power house site in Wakefieldetreet is too small to admit of any sub-. ,stantial, increase of plant, and.the city's demand for power is such that the only alternative to securing a new site is to" add to the Harris-street plant. With Wakefield-street out of the running, the competition is between Harris-street and. the proposed Kaiwarra undertaking ; and we believe we are correct in saying that if no hydro-electrical power supply were on the horizon, and if the Gity Council were irrevocably committed to y the coal-and'-steam generation of electric power for the next score of years, or even for the next decade, then the Kaiwarra ■scheme v would win. Its economic advantages, if realised over a period of years, would be decisive. But as State hydroelectric power should .be available in four or five years—and, even with the i utmostvmtiddlenient, cannot be held back for more than eight years—it becomes a question whether a patchwork plan that is cheaper, in first cost, operable in less time, and operable with less disturbance to a running concern, is preferable to a ■finished plan economically superior. In fact, nothing justifies the Harris-street additions save the prospect that, in five years' time, any coal-and-steam plant will (become a:stand-by to the hydro-electric installation.

According to the estimate of'the municipal engineers, the Harris-street, expedient can be in running order in eighteen months, and the Kaiwarra scheme ■would «ake nearly three years. To an inadequate and sadly overworked plant, that ■saving in time .is important; it is Harrisstreet's chief, though riot only, recommendation. . If hydro-electric power sufficient for all the City Council's need-s is available in five years' time—-which is uncertain —it follows that Kaiwarra would not be in complete operation for more than two years, during which period a full return-for, the extra capital expenditure (overhand above the cost of the Harris-street expedient) would be reaped, but after that period the capital ■would be locked up in a stand-by asset. Whether this locking up of extra capital would represent a loss depends on what "stand-by" in practice means. No. one seems to know what quantity of hydroeleotrio horse power the Government will undertake to supply to the City Council. If the Government fails to provide the Council's full requirement, then, presumably, the coal-and-steam plant will be not a stand-by, but an auxiliary plant in regular working, and such a basic change in the contract would, as we have shown, undermine the argument for Harris-street, for. in. a full working plant every: economy counts. Again, supposing that the Government does supply the council's complete requirement of .power, can anyone esti r mate—from Christchurch experience or from any other experience—liow much work in- a year a stand-by plant will do, what its expenses will be, and how long it will take to reap substantial advantage, in a stand-by plant, from superior economy? This question is worthy of consideration before, deciding whether the exti-* lockeU-wi) capital in. to Kai'

warra scheme , would represent a loss. Another item, offsetting such a loss, is the difference in the Harm-street and Kaiwarra site values' and city-values. The Harris-street land is worth much more; therefore, as regards the lockingup of land values in stand-by, the argument seems to be all against Harrisstreet. By ' "city-values" we mean the value of the Harris-street land as an integral and central part of a city useful and a city beautiful. Probably the Council's decision to add to tho Harrisstreet machinery means more smoke and emoke-stacks there. Certain it is that a Harris-street stand-by means permanent smoke-stacks in the heart of the city Is this an aesthetic gain? And does not the town-planner's viewpoint count ?

Presuming that the stand-by period for coal-and-steam begins in five years —which the Government does not guarantee —the Harris-street expedient means that, from that time onward, the standby plant would be far removed from the transformer station. We are quite open to 'correction on an expert question like this, but we are credibly informed that the Government, hydro-electricity will have to be transformed to* lower pressure before it enters the congested city, and; that the transformer station will probably be at Kaiwarra. If thia is b6, would it not be a gain and a saving to ■have the transformer station and the stand-by plant in association? An "instantly ready" stand-by- plant ■must evidently have a full working shift, or at least the nucleus thereof, in regular ,»* employment.

Would it not be better to ' .have both' plants and both staffs in association? That advantage, if it is an advantage, would be lost under the arrangement endorsed by the council, iln conclusion, let us say that we have ■not attempted to exhaust the subject, but we have endeavoured to encourage a consideration of it from all sides instead 'of merely from the single standpoint - that the ■ Harris-street expedient ■may take eighteen months, and-the Ka-i----■wa-rra scheme may take three years. Probably the Council would have been dn a much better position to make; a sound decision if the Public Works Department had supplied it with data concerning the quantity,' price, and conditions of the hydro-electric power to be ■supplied, and the-approximate date of supply. But the alleged inefficiency of tho Public Works Department is the -subject of another article.