The Sun TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1928 ELECTRIC-POWER AND PROFITS

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 414, 24 July 1928, Page 8

The Sun TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1928 ELECTRIC-POWER AND PROFITS

IT is to be hoped, that the Auckland Power Board will not accept * the Government’s latest regulations as another good excuse for deferring a substantial reduction in the high cost of electricity to about fifty thousand consumers. Following on a Gazette notice almost a year ago, the Government, through its Public Works Department, now insists on a systematic inspection of each installation throughout the board’s area (the new regulations apply to all power boards) at least once every five years. The scheme of investigation will involve time and money, and doubtless a great deal of extra expenditure by consumers on repairs and. remedial attention to all sorts of installation defects. The Auckland board has not been impulsive on starting the work, though it may be noted as a feature of excellent business that the administration, with that far-sighted financial prudence which already has made it a wealthy monopoly, made shrewd provision at the beginning of this year for the collection of a modest levy every month for the purpose. This special charge is merely sixpence a month, and only a part of the imposition appears to have been earmarked for the new service of inspection, but in dealing with an aggregate of 50,000 customers, every mickle soon malts a muckle ; say, in this case, a sum of £15,000 a year. It looks as though the board will take a big profit on the work of compulsory inspection. Laymen need not even try to argue whether or no the departmental regulations are essential. The Government has decreed that inspection of electrical installations must be carried out thoroughly not less than once in each lustrum, and that, of course, puts an end to all argument. Some people will say, however, that if the Government could govern as well and as copiously as it can regulate everything under the sun, it would be the greatest and. most successful political administration in the world. Taking it for granted that inspection is imperatively necessary, the Auckland board has finalised its arrangements for carrying out the practical work. A special staff has been appointed, on the basis of a unique permanence. Like the painting of the Forth Bridge, this work of investigation will go on for ever; that is to say, when the inspectors have completed their fifty or sixty thousandth inspection at the end of five years, they will start again with number one, and go round and round the whole wide circle. If the board decides soon to modify its desire for exceptionally generous profits from its efficient business, nobody will cavil at the new system of inspection. Indeed, consumers, after a little thought, will be more disposed to welcome the innovation rather than complain about it. The scheme has one outstanding feature of special excellence. This is the protection it will give to consumers against excessive expenditure on repairs. There need be no risk of exploitation. They will receive an authoritative statement as to the condition of electrical installation on their property, and should know exactly how much alteration or reconstruction is required. This should keep the cost of repairs within reasonable bounds. The prospective inspection should also help to minimise the risk of fires because of alleged defective electrical installations—a cause that has been severely overworked in recent years. In view of the fact that the purpose of the regulations is primarily to reduce the fire risks, ought not the insurance companies be prepared to give a reduction in premiums charged to householders who have received a “clean bill” from the Power Board? That, of course, is the anticipation of rosy dreams. In time, no doubt, the board will see that its accumulation of profits has become too massive to be maintained, but it is to be regretted that its eyesight is more defective than most installations. The current rate of profit is much too high for a public utility.