P.B. CONFERENCE

King Country Chronicle, Volume XXVII, Issue 4458, 17 October 1933, Page 5

P.B. CONFERENCE

WAITOMO BOARD DISAPPOINTED. NO UNIFORMITY IN CHARGES. "At the outset I regret to state that our efforts to obtain recognition of the position of the smaller country Boards as regard bulk supply charges met with luke-warm support," states the report of the chairman of the Waitomo Power Board concerning the recent Power Board Conference. "The conference to my mind was dominated by the interests of the larger supply authorities who, having far more favourable contracts than those asking for relief, and generallly being in a far sounder financial position, were afraid that any concessions granted to the smaller Boards would eventually come out of their pockets. Added to this unfavourable atmosphere was Mr. Kissel's emphatic statement that he would not consent to any variation in the present scale of charges which would result in decreased revenue to the Public Works Department. Actually, six remits dealing with bulk supply charges were tabled and all were passed without dissent, but in view of the foregoing remarks, it is quite safe to assume that these remits will suffer the same fate as similar remits passed on previous occasions." The report we'nt on to refer to the support of a proposal that a committee be set up to consider ways and means of co-ordinating the activities of future development of electricity. As a preliminary step Mr. Holdsworth. of the Auckland Board, stressed the necessity of taking the hydro-electric schemes from the Public Works Department and placing them beyond political influence. In the course of his remarks on the situation, the chairman stated that the Te Awamutu Board received a 5 per cent, reduction as compared with this Board, and he could not see that the district had any advantages that this Board lacked. There was great disparity between the charges made by the Public Works Department. If a comparison, starting at the south of the South Island and ending at the north of this island, were made, he thought that it would be found that scarcely any prices were on the same basis. Thus Cambridge, Te Awamutu, Thames Valley and Central Power Boards received a 5 per cent, reduction, made on the basis, he understood, that they were pioneer Boards and that others would profit by their mistakes. It was true that Cambridge had paid the capital expenditure on the sub-station, but as the engineer pointed out, this Board paid a rent for the one used by it. Mr. Simms said that the electrical engineer had not a convincing argument to bring forward, especially in regard to the 5 per cent, discount allowed to Te Awamutu, but not to this Board. This would mean a saving of £3OO a year, a large sum to the Board. Something should be done about it and the matter taken up by Parliament. Mr. O'Connell agreed that this matter was one for the House. Mr. Cato said that in Taranaki electricity was bought from the New Plymouth Borough Council, he understood, at £5 per kilowatt, in competition with the Public Works Department, which he could not understand. New Plymouth had the power to sell to small towns near it, but they had extended supply as far south as Eltham. "That's the trouble, there is no uniformity. The Government just went along in the first place to make the best agreement it could," commented the chairman. "We have no reduction here at all simply because we came in too late, and we had ho plant at the time which could hope to sell below the standard rate, whatever that may be, of the Public Works Department." The secretary pointed out that the proposal to place the hydro-electric schemes under a commission was by no means dead, and that a committee of five would report on the matter at the next Power Board Conference. Further discussion on the position followed, and the outcome was that Mr. W. J. Broadfoot, M.P., be invited to a meeting of the Board with a view to having representations made before the House in regard to this question. ______________