ELECTRIC POWER CHARGES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18551, 8 November 1923, Page 8

ELECTRIC POWER CHARGES.

An effort to remove certain Canterbury misapprehensions was made by Mr. Birks when addressing members of the provincial Chamber ol Commerce. The idea has been widely circulated that Canterbury would be charged unnecessarily high rates for Coleridge power to make good losses sustained by the North Island schemes. Mr. Birks was unanswerable. With the assurance that each scheme must stand on its own feet and produce its own balance-sheet, with the further assurance that there would be no North Island losses to consider, he left critics with no ground on which to base such contentions. The fact that there was to be no pooling of returns from the various plants has been made quite clear from time to time, and there should really have been no occasion for the fears to which Mr. Birks referred. A study of the departmental accounts leaves a feeling of wonder how anyone could advance the idea of Lake Coleridge making good any scheme's deficits. The last Public Works Statement shows that after eight years of working, the Coleridge plant Bold 37,561,627 unite,

in "the year, and made a profit of £5300. This was utilised to reduce tho accumulated deficiency on the profit and* loss account from £29,176 to £23,876. The accumulated sinking fund deficiency of £37,765 was not lowered, making a total deficiency of £61,641. This must be met before Lake Coleridge can be classed as paying its own way, much less meeting losses incurred anywhere else. Mr. Birks said there would be no losses in the North Island. The record of Horahora as a State scheme supports his case. Last year, the third under Government administration, it sold 30,030,369 units, at a profit of £6269. This enabled the accumulated deficiency of £5882 to bo paid off, leaving £386 available toward meeting the sinking fund de ficiency of £8459. With a capital outlay of £843,033 Lake Coleridge produced a revenue of £69,153 ; for Horahora the figures were, capital outlay £395,022, revenue _ £41,818. The Canterbury apprehensions were therefore founded on ignorance of the facts. Mr. Birks might have answered them more emphatically than he did.