STEAM V. ELECTRICITY.

Shannon News, 20 September 1929, Page 3

STEAM V. ELECTRICITY.

POWER BOARD RECEIVES AN UN USUAL REQUEST.

CONFERENCE TO BE HELD WITH SHANNON DAIRY CO. .

An inquiry was received by the Power Board on Tuesday from the Shannon Co-operative Dairy Co., Ltd., as to whether there was any likelihood- of a reduction in the charge to the company in the near future. They required tills information to help them in coming to a decision on the question of steam versus electricity, in regard to cost. , -

Mr W. E. Barber, who is a director of the company, said they■ thought that the rates charged them for current were perhaps relatively high. He suggested that the matter nvight be settled by a conference vrith the Board’s Engineer. The Chairman (Mr G. A. Monk) siid that the Board did not want a dispute with the company. There was no chance of a reduction this . side of March 31st; the Board had made out their estimates, and they would not be doing themselves justice in making an alteration at present. What might be possible next year he was not prepared to say. He would like to accompany the Engineer when meeting the directors. There was aspects apart from the technical side of it that had to be discussed. The Board might reply in the meantime that there was no likelihood of a reduction in the present financial year. t Mr A. E. Hyde moved and Mr R. Bryant seconded, that the Chairman, Mr A. Seifert and the Engineer (Mr J. A. Smith) have authority to confer with' the company. The Secretary (Mr P. W. Goldsmith) stated, in answer to questions, that dairy companies were charged £4 per lt.v.a. and Id per unit. The Shannon company last years used 49,990 units and were charged £366 Is 2d, and the average was lfd per unit. The Levin company used 65,780 units and paid the Board £445 11s 10d, the average' being 1.62 d per unit. ■ (Mr A. Seifert stated that the flaxnrills in Wairarapa, on a continuous load, were paying far more than that. In this Board’s district the mills paid l-£d with a continuous load Mr E. S. Morse: I think that' steam versus electricity is quite safe on those figures. s The Chairman: I take it that the members, are not at all ruffled about it. Mr Barber stated that the Shannon factory was a user of steam in any case.. The output of butter was 900 tons last year, as compared, with 1300 tons from the Levin factory, but it had cost the latter only £79 more for electricity. . The motion was carried.

CHELTENHAM DAIRY CO.’S ACTION, DISPUTE WITH POWER .BOARD. At a recent meeting of the Manawatu and West' Coast Dairy, Companies’ Association reference was made to a long-standing dispute between the Cheltenham Dairy Company and the Manawatu-Oroua Power Board, of which .Mr J. A. Nash; M.P., is chairman. The Dairy Companies’ executive wrote to the Power Board asking for information regarding the dispute and in reply the Power Board secretary wrote stating that 1 as the Cheltenham Company had now ceased to take supply from the board from July 1, L was considered that no good could be done by taking the discussion further. Mr C. G. C. Dermer, of the Cheltenham Company, said the question was whether a pulslic, body could take up the position of victimising aAy one ol its consumers. The question was a big one ! for all factories although it was not uoav affecting Cheltenham aS they were manufacturing all their own power. The company approached the Power Board and gave them every opportunity of arranging a conference but they did' not do it. When the ‘Cheltenham Company started to run its own plant to supply part of its power needs, the Board put up the price on that portion which was purchased from the Board. Had the Board been reasonable and prepared to help the Company, the Company in turn could have cut their peak load for nothing. Tliqre had been so much discussion about the matter that the company had . been placed in a position of establishing that it could produce its own power cheaper and Mr Dermer quoted figures in support of this contention. If there had ‘been a man at the head of the Board with a knowledge of the business, arrangements could have been come to at the start. Mr P. J. Small, who is also a member of the Power Board, stated that while he could not speak with authority for the Board, it had to be remembered that if every company started to make its own! power, the Power Board would be in a very serious position and further the Power Board was in the position of being called upon to carry the whole load in the event of a breakdown. If a company manufactured three-quarters of its power it . - . , , i ’ j.l. - j

could not expect to get the remainder at the same price. The Board had an engineer in "whom members had a lot of confidence. As regards the peak load the company had not helped at all but had rather hurt the Board. How-, ever, Mr Small said he expected to see the Cheltenham Company back with the Board again one day. Mr S. A. Broadbelt (Levin) remarked that if companies found they could make their ow r n power for one-quartet-of what the Power Board was charging, it wus a temptation for them to put in their own plant. 1 Mr Dermer: Our power w.as taken on the same basis \as other companies and we were using it for ten hours daily, not for two hours only as had been stated. Mr G-. H. Stiles (Shannon) said the

question was one of wide interest for dairy companies; so much so that his directors were considering erecting their own plant in the new factory that was to be erected shortly. Mr Small: The Power Boards hope to be able to reduce the price as time goes on, but if,, the companies pull out then the burden v r ill fall on the factory suppliers who use the juice in. getting their cream for the factory. The only way to get a reduction was for all to pull in together. Discussion then dropped.