SUPPLY OF POWER

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 244, 13 September 1929, Page 2

SUPPLY OF POWER

POWER BOARD AND FACTORY. The recent dispute between the Cheltenham Dairy Company and the Mana-watu-Oroua Power Board was again veil, tdated, yestiarday when the Manawatu and West Coast Dairy Factories’ Association, who took up the matter on behalf of the Cheltenham Company, were advised by the board that the company had ceased to take a supply of power from the board and that no good could be done by discussing the matter any further. Mr C. G. C. Dermer, chairman of directors of the Cheltenham Company, who was present at the meeting, considered that the Manawatu-Oroua Power Board’s attitude had been unfair, and he asked what public body was justified in taking up such a position, which meant practically victimisation. The power question was a big one with most factories, in addition to others who used big quantities of power. Apparently, the Power Board was able to penalise anyone who failed to please it. The Cheltenham. Company liad given the board every opportunity of meeting it, but that was not done. When the company had put on its own power it had been asked to pay a victimising charge. The board had not met the company in any way or showed any desire to come to an arrangement. Had the board been reasonable the power cost on the amount supplied to the factory would have been very little, as the factory could have £ut out the peak load at any time desired. Air Dernier then read portions of an audited statement, which showed that the power had been produced at ,7d per unit, and stated that the results had justified the scheme being taken up by his company. The matter of the board’s charges was now in the hands of the Public Yorks Department. Mr P. J. Small (a member of the Power Board) said that lie was not speaking with any authority, but if every dairy company generated part of its power, the Power Board would be put to a big inconvenience and the board would have to maintain adequate equipment to proyido full power for the factories when their plant broke down. It was only reasonable that, if companies put in an electrical equipment for part of their supply, they could not expect to receive the 'balance of tlieir power at the same rate as a company which obtained the whole of its power from the board. The Cheltenham company had not been assisting with the peak load, but had been damaging it. It was supposed that, when the Cheltenham company’s plant began to wear, it would again take its supply from the board. , , , Mr S. A. Broadbelt remarked that, if other companies could generate power as cheaply as the Cheltenham company, it would give room for thought. . i i ■ Mr Dermer remarked that his company hid been taking power from tho board on the same terms as any other factory and that the company had not increased the peak load any more than another factory. , x , , , . Mr G. H. Stiles stated that the Shannon dairy factory was going into the question of generating its own power when the new factory was built As much information as possible was being collected and, r a very big annual expense could be partly saved, it was a considerable item. Mr Small said that power boards honed to make reduction in the into of charges as time went on. it a whole supply from a board were taken and used, no doubt a rate reduction would be Y hen a dairy companv ceased to take a supply, that did not tend towards making a reduction possible. He was firmly convinced that, in a year or two, power boards would be able to bring down the rate of charges. Tho discussion then lapsed.