COST OF ELECTRIC POWER.

Putaruru Press, Volume VIII, Issue 339, 22 May 1930, Page 1

COST OF ELECTRIC POWER.

FARMERS’ OPINIONS. Mr. J. M. Allen Defends Board. The question of the reasonableness of the charges made by the Thames Valley Power Board for power supplied to farmers was discussed l at the May meeting of the Morrinsville branch of the Farmers’ Union. Several members spoke against the charge of £4 per horsepower made on owners of milking plant motors, and Mr. J. M. Allen, the Morrinsville representative of the board, who is also a member of the branch, defended the policy of the board.

Mr. J. E. Leeson said the charge of £4 per h.p, pressed heavily on the small farmer with 25 to 50 cows. He thought the Central Power Board’s flat rate of £2 a cow plant was fairer to the little man, as the big man with a large herd and a number of bails in his shed paid more. Everyone paid in-proportion to the size of his herd.

Mr. S. S. Fagan, of Motumaoho, formerly of Newstead, said the Central Board had been charging £4 a h.p., but recently changed over to £2 a bail. He was in favour of the metering system, as he found his costs had been lower than under the flat rate system. He had found a li h.p. motor quite large enough. It was mentioned by several members that some farmers were working 2-cow plants with l-h.p. motors. Mr. M. E. Barrowclough complained that farmers were now being told to scrap plant which had been recommended to them by the board. There were other anomalies, such as the charge for water heaters, which worked out at Ad per unit, while the charge for lighting was 16 times as great. Yet both were off the peak load.. The question before consumers was how long it would be before the present apparatus would have to be scrapped in the interests of efficiency. Apparently the board needed funds to pay for putting up power lines, but if a charge was to be made for reticulating the district it should be spread over the whole district and not only on farmers. Mr. Allen said the reasons for the horse power charge had all been set out in a circular sent to farmers. The board was in a position where it had to have a certain revenue coming in. The board was out to do its best for farmers and would review its charges from time to time. The Central Power Board had been on meters from the start, and if the Thames Valley Board had also been on meters it might have been in a better position to-day. The board had decided that the horse-power charge was the only one that would do, and it had decided to try out the present scheme for a year and see how it worked out.

Mr. G. H. Pirrit thought the charge per unit of power should be increased from 3d to 3id- and the horse-power charge abolished. Mr. Fagan said the bail charge, as in the Central board’s district, was not advisable and should be opposed. The Thames Valley board had advised some farmers to increase the number of bails to get fhe work done rapidly and reduce power consumption.

Mr. F. R. Mari (Ngarua) said at least a dozen men in his district had

put in extra bails recently in the interests of greater efficiency. Mr. Barrowclough asked why a tax was not imposed on users of stoves, where there were concessions after the first 20 units had been used. Mr. Allen contended that most water heaters were used off the peak load. He disagreed with the statement that light was used off the peak load.

Mr. Barrowclough said light was turned on early in the evenings in winter, when very little power was used for milking. Mr. Leeson said the board’s engineer had explained that the Agricultural Department had put pressure on the power boards to . keep the charge for water heaters in milking sheds as low as possible, owing to the improvement in the quality of butter due to the use of water heaters for cleansing utensils. The discussion was then brought to a close as there was other business to deal with.