NOT UNIFORM

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 9, 12 January 1932, Page 11

NOT UNIFORM

PRICE OF ELECTRICITY '-\ , \■ . .::■ , ; .......

FLAT RATE ADVOCATED

(By Telegraph.) ;. (Special to "Tfto Evening Post.")- ',;? .',,■.■ PAEMEESTGN^nV-This Day. -'■'■ ' y Apparently the Government does not .charge the same price for. all the electricity, it-supplies from its hydro-elec-tric schemes. According to a letter received at the' Manawatu'^Oroua, Power Board meeting .yesterday, from the Hawkosßßary r Power Board, the charge ■varies.from less than £5 10s.to £8 10s per k.v.a. ■. This ;•; differentiation the Haiykesßay Board thought unfair, and recently it was decided to protest to the Government..' A.:flat, rate for all. supply authorities, whether city or country,.is/being advocated. . - ■ In a memorandum tho Hawkes Bay Board stated: "It is submitted that tho present discriminating method of charging is inoquitable,, as -the city supply authorities utilise the fact that they have an economical,generating, plant of their own- «s.a lever to secure, favourable contracts- with the Deparement, whilst i-tho-vast- majority of power boards; are' 'practically' compelled . to .submiti.to .tha 'Department's demands ••frith;regai-d- to price: and conditions- of .'supply-.: f: Also ycity -.supply" authorities are, enabled, to make-^excessive profits or to-Bell::af.-lowcr prices than -power ;boards.v:/.''This:is'against .the" interests .of *ho Department -a-nd .the many -thou-. -santfs of cdilsuniers-intheDomiiiion. It is apparent, the Department" intends to recoup, th«. early losses in each scheme before making any reduction in charges, and with the decreased price charged to the' centres it will ■ '-b'6 a long time before-SKe rural-boards: will have their average price per k.v.a. reduced to that of the cities." \ ' MONOPOLY URGED. '■'''. The Hawkes Bay Board was of opinion that a uniform price per k.v.a. should' apply throughout Now Zealand, as applied with the P. and T. Department and Eailway Department. To offect this it might be necessary to pass legislation to compel the city supply* authorities "not to run their I'lants in opposition, ,tho same as legislation applied giving monopoly to the .P. and T.. Department for the delivery of letters. That would be equitable, as it would mean diverting the large profits of the cities to set'off the losses of the Department. •-'.■• Mr. 3i A. Nash (chairman) stated that the question as raised by Hawkes Bay did. not affect Palmerston North, as. thp. city, did not deal with the Government. However, there was something in the contention of the Hawkes Bay Power Board. Mr. F. Roberts: ''Palmerston North buys in bulk and retails in competition with the board. If they were not allowed to retail at a profit there would be no inccntivo to thorn to have their own distributing centre." . Mr. Hodgcns pointed out that Palmerston North paid ahighcr price. Tho engineer, Mr. A. W. Waters, stated that Palmerston North did not come into tho question. It was cities like Christchureh that were reaping the ■benefit. . Mr. P. G. Guy moved that support be accorded the Hawkes Bay protest, and Mr. Linklatcr, M.P., seconded. Mr. M. A. Eliott asked why the Government charged rural authorities more than the cities.. The secretary (Mr. K. W. Eglinton) replied that that question had been .asked of Mr. Kissel at the last conference of secretaries of supply authorities, and hi 3 answer had been that it was purely a matter of competition. Mr. J. H. Perrett said he thought the hydro-electric schemes had been established to serve the people without any idea of profit, and yet hero was the chief officer of the Department saying it was a matter of competition. Mr. P. G. Guy stated that when the power boards were being formed the Hon. J. G. Coates had stated that the aim of tho schemes was to bring the prices of • electricity the same, in the country as in tho cities. The motion was carried. ]