HOROWHENUA ELECTRIC POWER BOARD.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3030, 1 May 1926, Page 4

HOROWHENUA ELECTRIC POWER BOARD.

(Concluded from Page 1)

lion fell away in June. Payment was made on the April peak, but the consumers took practically nothing in May and June. The position was the same in the other quarter, when the peak came towards the end. It had been felt by some 'consumers that the power boards were getting something for nothing. That was not so, because the board paid on exactly the samo basis for its current. It paid on the peak month of the quarter. Difficult, as the position was ho hoped they would be able to bring down something that would give satisfaction to the dairy factories. Those boards, who, perhaps, had large lighting loads could afford to give a low milking rate. The Hutt or Wanganui-Rangitikei Boards could give a low rate for milking, but that did not apply here because the I-lorowhenua Board’s lighting load was not. heavy. If any concession was given to those particular users, and it had been proposed to give to those dairy factories 'and milking users some consideration, it would have to lie taken into account in dealing with their surplus for this particular year. Two other factors that the chairman called attention to were that in the first quarter of the year under review they did not have anything like the load that they had last quarter. The other point was that they could not expect a great increase of load in this district during the coming year. PLEA FOR METER RENTS.

Mr. W. H. Gunning said be would like to have seen the question of meter rents taken into consideration, as a great deal of opposition was put forward in regard to the. meter rent question, and peole were pointing out that the meter was a very expensive article, as they would be paying for it over and over again. He thought that as soon as the Board was in a position to review the charges and make reductions, the meter rents should lie the first to come off. He would be sorry if the Board could not devise some method of reducing this charge. He did not say the Boaid should cut it out altogether, hut there was a good deal of comment on the fact that some of the other Boards did not charge a meter rent. Again there was a good deal of opposition to the charging of a reduced rate for a large quantity. It was said that it was an unfair thing to a man who was milking ten or twenty cows to pay 4d a unit, whilst a man who, possibly, used current in excess of that quantity would, perhaps, only pay 2d. It was a question whether the flat rate was not the fairest thing, after all was said and done, for the man with the small herd. It was just as important to the man who had 20 'cows as the man who milked a hundred. ...

Mr. Monk said that the position was, unfortunately, this: That a man might use only a hundred units a month compared with one who used 300 units a month, and yet the former would cause just as high a rise in the peak load as the latter man. It was the peak that the Board paid on. Regarding the question of meter rents, the Boaid were entirely in sympathy, but he would warn them that if any ieduction were made they would need to exercise great care. Last year about £9OOO was paid out of loans, for interest, but this year the money would have to be paid out of revenue, and in order to make ends meet the Board would need a revenue of something like £30,000. The dairy rate trouble lay less in the matter of a reduction, but more in the nature of putting the thing on a level basis. The treasurer had compiled a list of 70 average dairymen in the Board's district, and had taken the Horowhenua flat rate and unit: rales and compared them with neighbouring Boards’ unit rates. The membeis would be surprised to learn that there was very little difference. Mr. C. Iviisby he thought the milking rate might be slightly altered to ease the small man with 20 to 30 cows. They should reduce the 4d a unit suggested and add something to the 2d proposed for the big inan, who it was to lie remembered, milked his herd much cheaper than the small man. Tho Chairman: You must: not forget that the small man bumps up our peak load just as much as the big man. Mr. Kilsby remarked that, possibly, there would be a deputation waiting on the Board at its next meeting to urge that the big man should pay as much as the small man.

Mr. Barber: All the complaints that come to me are from the small man.

The Chairman: The endeavour would be to adjust that. Mr. A. Ross considered it was such a big question that he felt indisposed to make any comment until the report had been brought down. These reductions depended on the nature of the report.

Mr. Seifert agreed that it was a matter requiring very careful consideration as the Board must lie careful not to give service at a loss. The lighting man did not want to pay the industrial rate, and the industrial man did not want to pay the industrial rate, and the industrial man did not. want to pay the lighting. The Board did not want to make money out of the small man, but at the same time it could not choose to deal with the subject from a sentimental stand point and say, “We will give this to these men.” Thu speaker said he did not like the idea of meter rents,

and his belief was that if lighting users paid 8d a unit the Board should wipe out the meter rents in the future. As soon as they were able to see the estimates for next year, theyjwould have a better idea of what tq do. The Board had done remarkably well, and both it and the staff were to be congratulated. Mr. Mackay said there had been good judgment shown all through, but the Board was now getting to a point where it could see the results and the Board would be very foolish if it did anything without being sure of the position. The treasurer (Mr. Goldsmith) said those in the office could feel the pulse of the consumers better than perhaps the members of the Board or the engineer, and they found that there was a prejudice amongst farmers, who regarded the horse-power rate as a tax. When they came in to pay their accounts they said: “When is this tax going to be taken off —why should we pay that?” Undoubtedly, the unit rate was satisfactory to the farmers of this district, of that the speaker said he was quite but whether the unit rate was quite the fairest way was a matter for debate. If some such rate were fixed after the manner he had suggested, it would mean a concession on the present rate. Mr. Matheson said that the figures showed that the Board’s flat rate was little different from the unit charge. He thought it was a very dangerous thing for the Board to get away from the flat, rate they had laid down. They had no evidence that the charge would satisfy consumers. Mr. Goldsmith in reading some of the accounts included in the 70 under review, said that the first four were those of small men who used their separators only. The first, under the Board’s plan of a horsepower charge and unit rate on top of that paid £1 8s 2d, the second £1 5s lOd, the third £1 10s 3d, the fourth £1 13s 2d, as against £1 13s 4d that they would pay if charged on a unit rate alone, as under a neighbouring Board!. The horse-power charge was more of a bogey, but if they could get rid of it so much the better. No Power Board had gone from a unit rate to a horse-power rate, but some had gone the other way. The proposed charge was in a measure to fight the farmers’ prejudice. This being all the discussion the treasurer’s report was adopted, and the following motion was passed: — “That a committee consisting of the Finance Committee, and the secretary and engineer-, be set up to ■consider and report at next meetingre milking plant rate, also dairy factory rates, with a view to a revision.”

“That the engineers be requested to bring down a report with reference to the reduction of the outside staff.”