ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume VL, Issue 3131, 7 February 1934, Page 8

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.

THAMES VALLEY AREA. MEETING OF BOARD. The Thames Valley Electric Power Board held its monthly meeting at Te Aroha on Tuesday, Mr J. Price presiding over* Messrs C. A. Arthur, W. R. Lowry, J. W. Anderson, F. J. Mayn, J. McCormick, J. M. Allen, C. Mason, F. E. Flatt and H. M. Corbett. The secretary-manager, Mr R. Sprague, and the chief engineer, Mr N. G. McLeod, were in attendance. Letter Not Received. When the inward correspondence was being dealt with the chairman moved that the first letter on the list be not received. —This was carried. A Thames Mishap. The Thames Borough Council’s electrical engineer wrote advising that about December 6 trouble was experienced with the synchronous .set, which increased the peak load by about 20 K.V.A. If this did not increase the Board’s peak it was asked to assist the council by remitting the charge. The engineer’ said that he would look into the matter and report to next meeting. In previous cases no remission had been granted. London Loans. The Minister of Finance, the Hon. J. G. Coates, wrote in reply to the Board’s enquiry advising that he could not hold out any hope of making any arrangement for the reduc--1 tion of interest in respect of loans domiciled in London unless there was the option of repaying such loans before the dates of maturity. In such a case it was for the local body to negotiate for conversion. Frequent Stoppages. The Morrinsville Co-op. Dairy Coy. wrote complaining of frequent stoppages due’to the failure of low tension fuses near the factory. The engineer reported that the trouble had since been overcome. Power for Dairy Factories.'

“The long continued depression of dairy produce prices demands constant endeavour being made to reduce costs of production,” wrote the. Morrinsville Co-operative Dairy Co. Ltd. “Power charges constitute a fairly heavy item in these costs, and in our case they are estimated at £l2OO or £l3OO for the year ending in May. Our position in respect of power charges compares very unfavourably with a number of neighbouring dairy factories. It was true that some of the latter operate under three-party agreements, but it was understood that at least one factory obtains its pow r er at one halfpenny per unit. In this case it was understood that the factory had a small auxiliary generator which is brought into use during peak periods. Compared with the factory stated the Morrinsville charge was 100 per cent, more, so that a revision and a substantial reduction appeared to be Warranted.” The manager reported having replied that the question was due for consideration prior to March 31. In a later letter in reply to the secretary’s enquiry the Morrinsville dairy company advised that it was the Waikato Valley Dairy Co. Ltd 1 ., of Frankton Junction which received power at id .per unit. The factory was not in the Thames Valley Board’s area, but the factory drew large supplies from this area, so that the factory was in keen competition with the Board’s consumers. As it was a proprietary company it was questionable whether any Thames Valley suppliers gained any benefit from these lower charges, whereas equal concessions to co-operative companies in the Board’s area would directly benefit the Board’s own people. The manager reported that the company mentioned was within Hamilton borough, and thus not in any power board district. On the motion of the chairman the letter was referred to the Finance Committee. Appreciation Expressed. Messrs Turnbull and Jones, Ltd., Auckland, wrote in connection with the installation of an electric baker’s oven at Waihi beach, expressing appreciation of the excellent service afforded its employees by the Board’s official's. “We wish to place on record our keen appreciation of your prompt assistance given us on this occasion, and we can assure you that our men are deeply 'sensible of your action.” The engineer mentioned that the baker was very satisfied with the oven, which was costing only about 60 per cent, of the cost of ordinary fuel. / Private Generating Scheme. : The chairman reported that together with the chief engineer he had

visited .Mr Mcßeth’s property at Puriri and now had no hesitation in recommending that the Board offer no objection to Mr Mcßeth being granted a license by the Government to generate electricity provided it was stipulated that he was to take power from the Board in the event of its lines being carried to the district. Maintenance of Service. Lines. The Tauranga Power Board notified that it had circularised neighbouring power boards on the questions: (1) Do you maintain service lines free of cost; if not, what charges do you impose ? and (2) In the event of a service line (which has been paid for in full by a consumer) being utilised in part for the erection of a new service line, do you reimburse any portion of the original service line? The Bay of Plenty Board had advised that all service lines were maintained, free of cost. Where existing service lines had been used the owner had been reimbursed by amounts not exceeding half the purchase price.

The Te Awamutu Power Board maintained service lines free, but charged for all materials used for repairs. No private service lines were used for other consumers, the Board having steered clear of such partnerships .

The Auckland Power Board maintained service lines free but charged for materials. Owners of service lines were compensated proportionately in accordance with the altered conditions.

The Central Hawke’s Bay Power Board advised that it charged maintenance beyond one chain in boroughs and two chains in counties. Only one case of a privately owned service line being required had occurred, and in this case the Board had purchased it from the settler.

The Franklin Power Board required its consumers to pay the maintenance of service lines beyond 60 feet of the boundary. In the event of a service line which had been paid for by a consumer being- utilised in part for a new service line,, the cost of the new line would be reduced by the value of the material so used less the cost of removal.

The Waitemata Power Board advised that it maintained all service lines free, but it doubted if this was right and proper as the regulations provided that the consumer was responsible for maintaining all lines belonging to him in a safe condition. Owners of private lines utilised by the Board were reimbursed a portion of the original cost. In most cases the Board entered into an arrangement to maintain all service lines, and considered them its own property so could use them as it desired.

The Central Power Board charged its consumers for maintenance, the charge being the cost of-labour and materials plus ten per cent, for overhead. Credit was given for service lines dismantled or taken over.

The Thames Valley Power Board advised: (1) “My Board, on the erection of the line, gives three years’ service free; after three years the consumer pays for all servicing done. Our charges for servicing are 3s 6d per chain, which includes restraining and supplying cross-arms. Any other requirements are charged on time and material basis, plus 10 per cent. The price of 3s 6d is a fixed price for restraining and replacing arms. (2) In the event of having to erect a new service line or alter same for the consumer, we credit him with any material we take over and charge him at the rate of £2 per chain (less credit.) ” In reply to Mr Flatt, the engineer said that the legal position was that the owner, whether the Board or the consumer, whoever paid for the construction, was liable for the maintenance. In many cases the Board contracted to erect the lines, and in such cases it maintained them for three years free of charge.