WAIRERE POWER.

King Country Chronicle, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4812, 19 July 1939, Page 7

WAIRERE POWER.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —The little ray of light which my letter focussed on the Wairere Power board has certainly lit things up. First, a special interview with the consulting engineer, then a lengthy letter from the chairman, and finally a leading article from your own pap,er. At first sight the forces thus arrayed against me almost made me quail, but on second thoughts I began to feel that the voluminous protestations which my criticism has provoked constitute somewhat of a compliment and I am tempted to reply in the .words of Shakespeare—- “ Methinks thou dost protest too much.”

Mr. Boddy’s letter and your leading article both champion the same ideas, so for purposes of reply I will not differentiate between them. At the outset Mr. Boddy accuses me of a complete lack of understanding of the board’s policy. To this I plead guilty, and my opening letter in the discussion proves that it was enlightenment in this direction that I sought. Now lam supposed to have it.

Reading the next paragraph of Mr. Boddy’s I find that the closing down of the plant last week was the culminating point in a “comprehensive plan to increase the output capacity and assure better continuity of supply.” Whether the objective aimed at has now been attained, time only will prove, but this very statement indicates, I think, that inefficiency as regards the power supply did exist, and therefore any contention in this respect (based on past experience) was correct.

Then we have the assertion that the spare generating plant is of sufficient capacity to meet the essential requirements of the district when the main plant is out of action for overhaul. I wonder! We had an example of the capacity of this plant last week, and I can state on firsthand knowledge that it did not supply sufficient power to drive a small machine in a local workshop. I claim no special knowledge as to the generation or distribution of electricity, and, further, I do not think Mr. Boddy can class himself as an expert in such connection. It is possible, however, for the ordinary layman to decide, by personal observation, whether efficiency in the realm of technology is being attained or not. When the sawmilling plant was in operation last week my ruminations at the breakfast table proved a guide to my judgment. The length of time it took to boil the kettle and toast the bread was quite a fair indication to my mind that the supply fell far short of the efficiency expected by modern electrical standards. However, leaving the auxiliary supply for the meantime, I submit that it is generally understood that for some years past one of the Board’s main problems has been to find remedies to counteract abnormal valuations of voltage in the supply. What is the cause of these variations? My claim is that inadequacy of the supply to meet requirements is the answer to this question, and nothing in Mr. Boddy’s letter directly refutes this contention. All he states is practically this:—There has been some lack of efficiency in the supply during past days, and everybody has been very considerate to the Board in this connection, but we have now completed a wonderful scheme of repairs and reconstruction and everything will now be as it should. Future performance is the only factor that will decide the issue in dispute.

After defending- the capacity of the generating plant, Mr. Boddy goes on to extol the cheapness of the power supplied. For the large consumer, I will admit his claim in this connection; but for ordinary domestic consumers I doubt whether the price is any more favourable than in other districts. For water heaters the charge here is about 9s per month; in Cambridge it is 7s 6d. An Auckland consumer informed me only to-day that he had three lighting points and two power points (one for ironing and one for heating) which he used to average capacity, and his monthly account amounted to approximately 4s 6d. How many local consumers get off as lightly as this? However, this matter of price is beside the point. Nothing is cheap that is not efficient and my complaint is non-efficiency and not price. Now a word about my nom de plume, about which Mr. Boddy becomes somewhat personal. Might I point out that the important factor in any discussion is the subject matter and not the persons engaged. Many great truths have been disclosed by persons whose identity has never been revealed. My object in opening this discussion was not public notoriety, and so meantime I will continue to hide my light under a bushel.

Mr. Boddy suggests in one portion of his letter that I have advisers, but I assure him that everything I write is entirely my own. One thing I never do, and that is to express opinions tabulated for me by others.—l am, etc.,

“CANDLE LIGHT.”