ARNOLD SCHEME

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 September 1928, Page 10

ARNOLD SCHEME

POWER BOARD LOAN PROPOSALS.

At the meeting of the Grey Electric Power Board last evening, the mattei of adding another unit to the present steam plant at Dobson, or alternatively, of developing the hydro-sources ot the Arnold River, were fully discussed, and it was decided to go to the Government Loans Board for sanction to raise a loan of £llB,OOO to develop the Arnold scheme. This step is necessary before a poll of the ratepayeis is taken. Before the poll is taken the ratepayers will have the proposals placed before them by the Power Board, and will be made acquainted with every detail. Mr Greenslade referred to the proposals before the Board lor extending its generating capacity. Exhaustive reports had been secured from Messrs Vickermain and Lancaster regarding the hydro possibilities of the district. Tests "had been made by the Boards Engineer, and after the fullest enquiry, and very careful consideration by the Board members so that no mistakes would be made, the decision had been arrived at to take steps to develop the Arnold scheme. The final considerations had narrowed down to two schemes, those of the Crooked and Arnold Rivers. A series of tests proved the Arnold the best scheme ol all investigated, and, even during .the, long spell of dry weather,, there had been very little variation in the river, which offered 7500 kilowatts. The present position was that a peak load of 800 k.w.’s had been reached. The New River dredge would be in commission shortly, and the Board would not be in a position to supply it with power and still provide for the present connected load. Consumers were still linking up, and even -were the Arnold scheme gone on with, it would be nearly two years before power would be available there. With the peak load rising steadily, the position had to be facecL and either another unit added to the present steam plant or hydrodevelopment tackled in earnest. He favoured harnessing the Arnold, because, on the investigations by Messrs Vickerman and Lancaster, checked by the Board’s Engineer and secretary, it had been shown that on taking last year’s figures as a basis for comparison, had the hydro scheme been in use last year, the cost of maintaining it would have been only £9BB in excess of what the steam plant actually cost, the hydro scheme producing 2500 kilowats against 1000 produced by the steam plant, while were the steam plant increased by the addition of another unit, the cost for coal alone would have been, considerably more than that figure. That was to say, with the further loan of £llB.OOO, the cost would be less than £lOOO moie than last year’s steam costs were. Under the circumstances the Board and he could come to only one conclusion, and that was that the only .scheme open to them was the hydro scheme at Arnold. The Board and ratepayers were safeguarded in this, too, in the fact that Messrs Vickerman and Lancaster had stated they were prepared to carry out the work of development themselves, at their estimate, if called on by the Board. It was the duty of the Board to make provision. for consumi ers coming on, and not to turn them away. He moved the following lesoI lution: —“That this Board approves of the policy of providing further generating capacity, and since the time is now ready for such extension, that Vickerman and Lancaster be asked to proceed with the necessary work, pieparatory to taking a poll, and that a poll of ratepayers be taken on the proposal to borrow £llB,OOO for the purpose of development of the Arnold River scheme as soon as practicable. Further, that the draft agreement as submitted be approved of and be signed up forthwith.” Mr Uddstrom seconded the motion, stating that he had always stood up for the Arnold, and was sure that it was the best scheme for the district. Mr O’Brien said the Board had to be guided by their consulting engineers, Messrs Vickerman and Lancaster. To add to the present steam plant meant incurring an expenditure of £25,000, and the extra cost of maintaining the plant would be £3OOO a year, including interest and sinking fund. To adopt the hydro scheme was only one more move, but it assured a supply for years to come. He estimated that with the greater supply available, the scheme would soon show a working profit. The Board, in the meantime, would be put to its wits end to keep rhe present consumers going, but this would be done by shifting the loads round. He regretted that the same amount of investigation as had been made recently of hydro schemes had not been made in the first instance as it would have resulted in a big saving to the first Board. Mr Mulcare said he did not profess to know much about electricity, and 1 was prepared to allow himself to be «.'uidcd by experts. In the first int’ta'nce the hydro scheme had been approved and then dropped. The Board’s previous engineer had approved of hydro, so had Mr Trotter. The engineer who first suppoi ted the Ai nold scheme, and then recommended a turn-over to steam, was still interested in hydro, and was exploiting a hydro scheme only a few miles from Greymouth. More than that, he was assuring his shareholders that there was 20 per cent, coming on their investment. He must be satisfied with hydro to do that! In his opinion, hydro was the better proposition for the Board. Ho knew there was talk about unemployment, and using the steam plant, gave employment to coal hewers. It. would pay the Board to go in for hydro, even if it had to pay the wages of the men who would be put out of work coal hewing. The country ratepayers felt they had a grievance as they were included in the rating' area, when the local body which should have seen they were excluded, placed no 1 objection' to the country being included in the rating area constituted by the Power Board. He was going out to convince the farmer that, the hydro scheme was the right scheme, and it would have his hearty support. Mr Kent agreed with the proposals, and traced the steps which had been taken to bring the hydro scheme within striking distance of becoming a fact. Mr Clayton said he had always favoured the hydro scheme. Enquiries showed him ho was right in supporting it. In his opinion there should bo no rate, but a slight increase in the charges to consumers, if ends did not meet.

Mr Smeaton favoured hydro, but was not going to advocate it. Mr Robinson said he was not in favour of hydro as it was not going to assist his district. The Chairman said the Board had been able to avoid the rate so far. A strong reason for supporting the hydro scheme was that it would yield greater revenue than the steam scheme, and the rate would, he hoped, be avoided. He could not say the

same thing, if it was decidei] to add to the steam plant, at. Dobson, in preference to developing the Arnold. The motion was put and carried unanimously.