HYDRO-ELECTRICITY

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIX, Issue 304, 10 December 1929, Page 3

HYDRO-ELECTRICITY

BULK SUPPLY QUESTION NAPIER COUNCIL AND BOARD. EFFORTS AT SETTLEMENT. The following report was submitted to the Napier Borough Council iast night by its representatives al the conference with the Hawke's Bay Electric Power Board concerning bulk supply of electricity:— “The representatives of the council are very pleased at the board’s con ciliatory attitude in seeking the conference, We congratulate the hoard upon its changed views on '.he subject and trust that the conference will result in an amicable settlement of the long standing dispute. For the information of members of tlie council and perhaps also of the board, who were not members of she respective local authorities when the board’s claim was made on the council prior to the commencement of the arbitration proceedings, we wish to state that until October 16 last the board's attitude to the council has been far from conciliatory as evidenced by its letter of March 18 last, in which the board’s secretary stated; “That in the opinion of my board no good purpose could be served by a further conference,” and further by the board’s per sistency in adhering to the appointment of Mr J. G. Lancaster, the board’s adviser at the time the agreement between the board and the council was drafted, as its arbitrator, thus compelling the council to take a Supreme Court action to obtain an order to remove Mr Lancaster from that position. “An agreement was entered into between the board and the council in March, 1927, for the council to take the whole of its electrical current from the board at Government rates plus a service charge of £750 per annum.

“in that agreement the council undertook not to operate its generating units on supply at any time after tne commencement of the agreement, ex cept:—(a) At the request of the Minister of Public Works, (b) In the event of and during interruptions in the board's power supply to the corporation arising from any cause or reason whatsoever. (c) That during the progress of the change over of the toi'poiation's supply system from direct to alternating current the corporation may generate direct current during any period that its conversion plant when opelating at its full rated capacity is insufficient to accommodate the direct current supply and traction loads; provided that the sub-section shall not remain in force after the end of twelve months f""" date of taking current. (d) The corporation may at any time operate its storage battery on traction load in conjunction with converting plant but not so as to reduce its maximum demand on the board

“Except in so far as sub-clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of this clause shall permit the corporation shall not operate its plant <is as to reduce its maximum demand on the board. Hydro power was taken from July 1, 1927.

“Sub-clause (c) was inserted in the agreement at council’s request to provide for the conditions existing during the change over of the council’s reticulation system. The sub-clause was intended to prevent the misunderstanding that has arisen and provided that the council would not peak reduce, but had the right to generate D.C. when our converting plant was insufficient to deal with the D.C. load.

“The board suggested the time limit for protection against unnecessary capital outlay as it was providing sub-station capacity to supply the whole borough load, and had no further guarantee. NO PENALTY PROVIDED. “When this clause was discussed no penalty was suggested or provided and it wa s understood at the iound table discussion to be an approximate time limit that would not be enforced if the council was making reasonable progress towards taking A.C. supply, as with limited motor generator plant the Council must necessarily generate D.C. until the D.C. demand was icduced to the motor generator capa city. “The board provided a 1200 k.v.a. sub-station and the council’s maximum demand rose from 561 (July-Sep-tember 1927 quarter) to 1008 k.v.a (i.e., 84 per cent, of sub-station capacity) during the defined time limit cf 12 months and the sub-stanon is now working on its overload capacity, being 1308 k.v.a for the July-Septem ber 1929 quarter. The date provided in the agreement as the data lor the board to supply the council with hydro power was also approximate and uncertain, and similarly no penalty was provided. “The series of station load curves handed to board’s representatives at a conference held on Decembei 20, 1928, show that the Council has not been evading the agreement by peak reducing and that the council has faithfully carried out its obligations. At the time the agreement was entered into it was not anticipated that the board’s supply would be so unreliable, and this unreliability is the main factor that caused the time limit to he exceeded.

“The council’s policy at that time was to dismantle two generating sets (equal to 60 per cent, of our generating plant) when hydro power became available, the electrical units co be used to provide an additional 300 k.w. motor generator. Arrangements were in progress to carry out the foregoing policy and the council actually incurred considerable expense in providing concrete foundations, couplings and other provisions for dismantling the plant, but owing to the unreliability of hydro it was found necessary to keep the borough plant intact in order to safeguard our supply. “Increased power cost has also been incurred by the necessity for keeping our generating plant in operation to generate the amount of power that could not he converted by the reduced M.G. capacity and to be in readiness for unexpected stoppages. During the first six months there were 39 stoppages and five arranged shut-downs. It was necessary to bring the borough plant into operation on 10 occasions.

“Had hydro supply been reliable and so permitting the council to dismantle the two generating sets as proposed, we would have b '.en in a position to take the whole of o-r supply at the expiration of the 12 months provided in the agrieuieiit. The council’s action in not dismantling its generating units, as originally proposed, eventually proved ot

advantage to the board, especially during the power shortage from January, 1928. THE STAND-BY F-ANT. “It provided stand-by plant [o; the board during the period hydro-powei was very precarious, and on three occasions during February and Maich, 1928, the council’s plant, at the re quest of the board’s engineer, supplied power to the board’s system during the periods hydro power was sr.ut off. From January, 1928, the council’s plant was in operation during 129 days supplying power to the Public Works Department, and there is no doubt that restrictions were easier in the. board’s area, on account oi Hawke’s Bay plants being available. “Had our generating plant been dismantled it would have been recommissioned in January, 1928, at the request of the Public Works Department. During the acute shortage ot hydro power the Public Works Department arranged for all generating plant available to be brought into operation, and a short time later the council, at the urgent request of the department, entered into an agreement to hold the whole of our gene rating plant in readiness to come into operation when called upon, such agreement to hold for a period of two years. These exceptional and unforeseen circumstances definitely determined that the council’s dismantling scheme could not be effected.

“It should be noted that during the first quarter of the board’s claim for D.C generated, i.e., July-September, 1928. the borough plant was in operation during 20 days supplying power to the Public Works Department and during the remaining 72 days there were 15 stoppages and three arranged shut-downs, totalling 9 hours 13 minutes. During the first month of the second quarter there was a stoppage 01 H hours. The chief electrical engineer (Mr Kissell) at a conference between representatives of the board and the council, held on August 12, 1926, stated he was authorised by the board to make an offer that the board would sell power to the Napier and Hastings boroughs at Government standard rates, plus a service charge of £l2OO per annum to each borough, if peak reduction is allowed, or plus £750 per annum if no peak reduction permitted, thus placing a value of £450 per annum on the right to peak reduce.

“The board’s claim is for an assumed maximum demand for D.C. power generated by the council (under clause 20 of the agreement) after the expiration of the 12 months also referred to in sub-section (c) of clause 20 amounting to approximately £ll3l for five quarters. There is no provision in the agreement for this course nor for charging for any power not recorded by the board’s meters. “It is noted that the board’s claim is based on instantaneous observed log readings which ate unreliable from a metering point of view, also that the claim includes an amount of power necessary for driving generation auxiliary plant. It is recognised that the board was not directly responsible for failure of supply and power shortage, but the council should not be penalised because it became necessary to adopt a policy (which proved of mutual advantage) to meet the exceptional conditions, and the board should reeog ise that all the disability was not 011 the board’s side.

“The council was unable to comply with the time limit owing to the board being unable to fulfil its obligations and the board should accept the responsibility, especially as no financial disability has been incurred.”