ARAPUNI POWER COSTS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 848, 17 December 1929, Page 6

ARAPUNI POWER COSTS

FULL SCALE OPPOSED BY BOARD AGREEMENT NOT MET Although only two of the three Arapuni units have been operated, the Public Works Department has sought full payment from the Auckland Electric Power Board on the maximum demand system. Approval of the objection of the board's general manager, Mr. K. H. Bartley, to the request of the department, was made by the board at its meeting yesterday afternoon. Tha chairman, Mr. W. J. Holdsworth, commented that it was scarcely a fair proposition to seek payment on the maximum demand when the third Arapuni unit was not operating. The board had every preparation made, and had spent scores of thousands of pounds. Because of the delay In running the third unit, the board was entitled to consideration from the Government. In a report on the charges for Arapuni power, Mr. Bartley said: — "This subject has reached a stage when I think it advisable that the board should be acquainted with correspondence which has passed between the department and myself. In briefly summarising the position to •late, the department, since the operation of No. 2 unit at Arapuni, has wanted us to pay for the whole of our demand on the maximum demand system. I opposed this on the ground that the department could not meet the whole of our demands from Arapuni, and in consequence we were forced to keep a portion of King’s Wharf plant running, which cost the board approximately £559 a week. The department replied that it was not necessary to run this plant, from its point of view, as the two units at Arapuni could meet the whole of our demand "f further replied that, in the event of one machine failing at Arapuni, the Government could not meet our demand, and therefore it would not comply with the terms of the agreement. In consequence, the board refused to agree to payment on the maximum demand until at least the third unit was installed and running.” Mr. Bartley added that the department had endeavoured to prove that the board was substantially better off by paying on the maximum demand and running a portion of King’s Wharf than the board would be by running King's Wharf to its full capacity. Mr. Bartley then pointed out*to the department that the sole object of changing over to hydro-electric power was to obtain the benefits. Owing to the delays, the board had lost many thousands of pounds.