Some Queries Answered

Manawatu Times, Volume 60, Issue 133, 8 June 1935, Page 4

Some Queries Answered

(To tho Editor.) Sir, —As a student of electricity and one who has followed with great in terest the City Power Board controversy in your columns, I ask if I might reply to "Nosey Parker’s” queries in vour issue of this morning.

Personally, I endeavour not to bo parochial in my outlook. Although a resident of Palmerston North, I appreciate the fact that the prosperity of this city is entirely dependent upon that of our country people, who spend their money here, and without whom this city could not exist. I will endeavour to enlighten “Nosey Parker” to the best of my ability.

1. Ilow much does the City Council pay the Power Board annually over that amount charged it by tho State for the electricity supplied to Palmerston North? —The board’s last offer was to charge the city a service charge of £2750 per annum. This was explained in the paper this morning. 2. Docs the Power Board render any service at all to Palmerston North other than the maintenance and attendance to switch-gear and lino from Bunnytliorpc?—Yes; it stands the line losses from Bunnythorpe to Palmerston North.

3. What is the value of the city load to the Power Board in reducing its power bill through the diversity ot peak loads?—This may have some value, but no one could say without examining the station rccoids over a considerable period. 4. Is tho statement which is frenuontlv heard in the country districts, and to be inferred from your article in this morning’s “Times," that the Power Board is .selling to the city for a lessor amount than it lias to pay for current, attendance, _ maintenance, interest and depreciation in Palmerston North demand, a fact or a falsehood? —ln units, it is a fact. The city sells to me, as to other consumers, units of electricity.

5. An analysis of the figures published during the last few weeks shows that the city already pays the board

about £3OOO per annum for its services in transmitting power from Bunnythorpe to town, and under the new proposals is asked to pay aoout £IO,OOO. Is there any suggestion of service rendered to justify this charge?—The city was paying, if I remember correctly, a servico charge of £B2B per annum only, not £3OOO per annum. The board has never suggested .£IO,OOO, and I cannot understand where “Nosey Parker" coul'd have raised such a “nightmare.” 6. Is it a fact that the Power Board’s ramifications include a lot of lines which do not, and never will, pay their way, and that the city is asked to subsidise these unprofitable lines by the extra charge?—No. 7. You mention to-day that tho unit cost to the council was less than the unit cost to the Power Board. Is not this because the city has a bettermanaged load, giving more units for the k.v.a. it purchases? —Not necessarily a better-managed load. Rather more correct would it be to say that a more fortunate loading is enjoyed by the town than by a country power board.

8. If the city load is of no commercial value to the Power Board, what is the objection to the council purchasing power directly from the State and purchasing the Bunnythorpe line from the Power Board?—Personally I would sooner see the city and Power Board amalgamate. Possibly the amalgamation could then link up with the Horowlienua Board to the south and the Wangamii-ltangitikei Board to the west. Then we would have a big, strong,,well-spread organisation co'cling the West- Coast district. For Palmerston North "to exist as a separa.e authority in these modern times is too old-fashioned for words. —I am, etc.., ELECTRICAL STUDEN’I ■ Palmerston North, June 7.