Power Board Explains Charges

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 402, 10 July 1928, Page 12

Power Board Explains Charges

RATES FORJTRAMWAYS REMOVING MISUNDER STANDINGS “The Press lately has seerred *- misunderstand the whole position of power cost in the tra-nw.,.-announced Mr. W. J. Holdswcrtti Auckland Electric-Power b q ' chairman, at yesterday afternoonmeeting. * "There have been articles from time to time which are misleadino to the general public.” ” Mr. Holdsworth was speaking „n report from Mr. R. H. Bartlev, .22* i manager, stating that as a'resuh , 'statements about the alleged high co« of tram power, the board should s out a few facts. Mr. Bartley's report covered the ancial position comprehensively j, was decided by the City Council 2 ; combine the generation of power S 1921, and a loan was raised for pl ln . Approximately £300.000 was 2/ marked for the tramways. The loan had to be State guaranteed, and the j high rate of 61 per cent interest demanded. ’ When formed, the board took OTer the loan and the first factor toward high cost was an additional interent burden of £4.500 a year. With the increased price of plant and machinery in 1921. the item accounted for l-10th of a penny a unit of the tram cost to-day. To meet added tramvwr requirements, the sum now involved was approximately £475.000. FIVE SUPPLY POINTS Supply in Auckland had to be give* from five points, with the necessary stations, laud, buildiugs, plant, eon. necting cables, and staffs. The” open ating cost, accounted for almost on. tirely by the additional annual charges payable on the capital, com. pared favourably with that else, where. “I strongly urge that further com. ment on the cost be withheld until tha report of the City Council represent*, tives is made known." said Mr. Bark ley. “It is for the board to say whether the statement should go to the Press.' said Mr. Holdsworth. Mr. R. G. Clark: 1 think it should. There is a lot of misunderstanding.” Mr. Holdsworth: It is not right that there are negotiations going on abont the price of power for the tramways, but this board's officers have suggested that it may be possible to get at the actual cost by another method. This has been submitted to he council. But there are no negotiations regarding lower charges. “HOODWINKING THE PUBLIC” “The public is being led to believa we are charging high prices,” Mr. S. I. Crookes: At the beginning of 1926 the board estimated the cost a unit to the tramways at 1.25 pence. The actual cost was 1.20 pence. For 1927, 1.20 pence was estimated but the actual charge was 1.169 pence. Mr. Holdsworth: In view of the reductions, the board has no need to fear comparison with any concern in New Zealand. If we kept the prices up, there would be legitimate excuse for criticism. We are tied hand and foot in connection with tramwiy charges and cannot charge anything we like.

It was agreed to issue the statement to the Press. “It should be noted,” said Mr. Bartley’s report, “that the council has right of access to the board’s hooks and accounts in order to satisfy itself that power for the tramways is being charged at actual net cost.”