Electrical Energy

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVI, Issue 89, 31 March 1926, Page 5

Electrical Energy

National British Scheme BILL BEFORE PARLIAMENT CO-ORDINATION OF CONTROL. (By Cable—Press Association— Copyright.] » London, March SO. In the House of Commons, Colonel Ashley (Conservative, New 1 orest) moving the second reading of the Electricity Bill, elaborated a scheme as outlined by Mr Baldwin at Birmingham on January 15. He added that part of the scheme provided for the standardisation of frequency. He pointed out that only one-third of Britain was reasonably supplied with electricity. Appealing to the Conservatives, he said the Government had endeavoured to carry out the principle that it was not the Government’s business to manage and operate, but only to coordinate control. The Rt. Hon. William Graham (Labour, Edinburgh .Central), moved a Labour amendment for the rejection of the bill, urging that a cheap supply would be best secured by a State system. Mr. Dennis Herbert (Conservative, Watford), leader of the Conservative group, opposed the measure. A volume of Conservative criticism was poured out, including the belief that credits requiring a Government guarantee would far exceed the estimated £3,500,000. An allegation was made that a monopoly worse than nationalisation would be created. There is no danger of a Government defeat.—(Reuter). MR. BALDWIN’S ADDRESS. Speaking at Birmingham on January 15th., as the guest of the Midland Union of Conservatibe and Unionist Associations Mr. Baldwin outlined the Governent proposals embodied in the new Electricity Bill, the object of which was to proviae more electrical power at a cheaper rate and to eliminate needless inefficiency in production and control. The time had obviously arrived when England if she were not to lag behind in industrial competition, must resort more extensively to the use of electrical energy. The country was using only 200 units a year per head oi population, wnereas the United States used 500, Tasmania 550, Canada 90C and certain special areas such as Chicago over 1,000 units. In 15 years the British consumption should reach 500 units per head which did not seem an extravagant quality when compared with other countries. STANDARDIZATION ESSENTIAL. The necessity for standardization oi frequency was not universally accepted but the Government accepted the view of the Weir Committee that standardization must be a necessary feature oj the scheme. So long as a nonstajidardised area could remain isolated the advantages of a change-over were diminished by the necessary expense and inconvenience. The new scheme, however, anticipating a rapid growth in the use of electricity insisted on one standard in order that all areas might be inter-connected. The proposed ‘ scheme would take over existing plants, erect new ones and co-ordinate them into one standardized system. The mistake of the 1919 Electricity Bill lav in its not providing commissioners with compulsory powers, That mistake, Mr. Baldwin said, should not be repeated,” all systems would be brought into line. BOARD OF CONTROL. The control of the scheme was to be pint in the hands of a Board of practical experts not a Government department but a Board which would raise it* own capital, work on ordinary commercial lines for the production and distribution of electricity. It would be armed with necessary powers to bring everybodv into line. It would be impossible to co-ordinate large areas unless differences in frequency were removed. The change from non-stan-dard to standard frequency would be part of the Board’s work. Co-ordina-tion would secure greater efficiency The cost of production would be sc cheapened that in fifteen years he anticipated the country would be saving millions annually. Mr. Baldwin anticipated that the scheme would be remunerative and provide work in the electrical industry and in the allied metal trades. The scheme would be initiated by a Government guarantee similar to that give-'* * under the Trades Facilities Act to many fruitful enterprises.