THAMES VALLEY POWER

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22259, 6 November 1935, Page 17

THAMES VALLEY POWER

SUBSIDY SCHEME REJECTED BOARD'S DISSATISFACTION [bt telegraph—own correspondent] TE AROHA, Tuesday Considerable discussion was caused at to-day's meeting of the Thames Valley Power Board, when a reply was received from the Commissioner of Unemployment, Mr. J. S. Hunter, to whom had been forwarded the board's scheme for the reticulation of sparsely-settled areas. This scheme provided for the reticulation costs of such areas to be partly met by a subsidy from the unemployment funds, such subsidy being repayable over a period of 13 years. In his reply the commissioner stated that he had conferred with the chief electrical engineer upon the board's scheme, and it was contended by the engineer that as the regulations now allowed power boards to reticulate districts upon receipt of a guarantee of 14 2-3 per cent as against the 16 2-3 per cent previously required sparsely-settled areas could now be reticulated without the suggested subsidies. "That is not an answer at all," said Mr. F. J. Mavn. The chairman, Mr. J. Price, pointed out that the reduction of 2 .per cent mentioned did not assist tho position at all. "To construct a power line," said Mr. Price, "costs a given sum and to accept from potential consumers a guarantee to take 2 per cent less than we previously asked for can hardly bo regarded as helping with the construction c.osts." Several members expressed dissatisfaction at the commissioner's contention. "These people," said Mr. F. E. Flatt, "are apparently overlooking the fact that we propose to repay them all subsidies. It is most regrettable that while unemployment funds can apparently be URed to subsidise all sorts of public works and a number of private industries, a scheme to assist the man in the backbloeks does not meet with their approval." Mr. W. C. Kennedy said that if the Unemployment Board would not help the Power Board, instead of reticulating areas piecemeal according to the demand in sight, it should cover its whole area and let the burden of reticulation costs be spread evenly over the ratepayers and consumers irrespective of the sparseness or otherwise of the population. After further discussion it was decided to take the matter up again with the authorities and provide them with further illustrations of the areas concerned and details of the benefits that would accrue to such areas if the board's scheme were adopted.