SUPPLY OF POWER

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 60, Issue 4369, 15 December 1950, Page 9

SUPPLY OF POWER

WOODLANDS RD. AREA

REQUEST TO BOARD

SETTLERS NOT SATISFIED

A deputation from the settlers 'of Woodland’s road consisting of Messrs H. Smeeton and C. Cox awaited upon the November meeting of the Thames Valley Electric-Power Board asking for favourable consideration of the request for the supply of power to the area.

Mr Cox said that he was not satisfied with the reply which had been given by the boaj-d to previous requests. The settlers were handicapped in the development of their properties by the lack of electricity and the board’s reply was most disappointing. The settlers were prepared to pay for the electrical supply.

Mr .Edwin Edward said he thought that the deputation might have given details to the meeting as to the number of settlers and the amount of power likely to be used. The policy of the board was. to give priority to farmers, said the chairman, Mr H. L. Boughton. All the board’s capital expenditure was derived from loan money and legislation governed the situation in that the revenue from the supply to the area would be below the legal minimum. As soon as the position was such the board could carry out the work then provision would be made to make the supply available.

He had been applying to the board for a long period, said Mr Smeeton, and he always got the same reply. He asked how it was that other power boards gave a supply to isolated areas.

Mr Cox expressed the opinion that the settlers in the Woodland’s road area were not being treated fairly at all. He asked why the board did not apply for a subsidy from the Rural Reticulation Board.

Mr R. Sprague, manager of thb board, explained the position with regard to subsidies from that board.

There was a common pool controlled by the. Rural Reticulation Board to which each power board contributed annually one and a quarter per cent of its. revenue. It was out of that fund that subsidies were provided for the reticulation of isolated rural areas. The reticulation board’s contribution was limited to a maximum of 7i per cent of the cost of the line in respect of which a subsidy was applied for. It was explained that the Rural. Reticulation Board woulcj, not consider applications for a subsidy when the revenue from the proposed line was/less than 12£ per cent of the cost of construction.