A “BLACK-OUT” PLANNED

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22111, 5 June 1937, Page 16

A “BLACK-OUT” PLANNED

CITY RETAIL SHOPS PROTEST AT CHARGES FOR ELECTRICITY CITY COUNCIL ACCUSED OF PROFITEERING A “black-out” boycott of the Municipal Electricity Department is planned for to-night among a section of the city retailers. Dark shopfronts and unlighted windows will present a silent protest against the City Council’s charges for commercial lighting, charges which are described as exorbitant and entirely out of proportion to the council’s own costs for the power and the charges it makes to other consumers. The organiser of the “black-out” is Mr R. B. Owen, who explained yesterday that the idea was to make a “gentlemen’s protest against ungentlemanly profiteering” on the part of the council. A considerable section of the retailers has agreed to join Mr Owen in the “black-out,” but another section, headed by the electricity department, of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce, prefers to approach the City Council with a more constitutional protest.

Two of the largest city drapery establishments, acting independently of protests and simply considering their-own costs, have decided to turn off their lights at night for the rest of the winter. The whole situation is a part of a dispute which has been carried on for several years, collectively and individually, sometimes mildly find sometimes vigorously, between the commercial consumers and the City Council. “The council is profiteering at our expense,” Mr Owen said yesterday. “There* is nearly £250,000 lying in the bank to the credit of the Municipal Electricity Department, yet the council continues to charge an exorbitant rate to commercial users. We have protested time and again and by means of the ‘black-out’ we hope to bring the situation forcibly before the council and the public." To this complaint Mr M, E. Lyons, chairman of the City Council’s electricity committee, replied last night. He said; “If any section of the community wishes to turn out its lights it may do so. I have nothing to say to Mr R. B. Owen, except that if any aggrieved section of our customers wishes to make representations to us we are prepared to receive them. Complaints of this kind should be made to the electricity committee.” Charges Quoted Charges made to commercial consumers are. apparently not uniform, concessions having been made to individual consumers using large amounts. Mr Owen quoted the flat rate to commercial users as 3Jd a unit. There was also, he said, a maximum demand rate of 4d for a certain number of units, and Id thereafter. The domestic flat rate was only id a unit. The comparison between the charge to commercial users and domestic consumers showed how unfairly the shops were being treated. From the last report of the Municipal Electricity Department Mr Owen took figures of the department’s profits. The average revenue from domestic supply was a little less than a unit, from the industrial supply less than fd a unit, yet from the commercial supply slightly more than 13d a unit. It could be seen, Mr Owen said, that a grave injustice was being inflicted on commercial consumers. It was significant that the Municipal Electricity Department’s gross profit last year was £39,500. By a policy of profiteering it had accumulated approximately £250,000. By taking excess profits the council had been making a rod for its own back, which the Government could make good use of when it came to the renewal of its contract. Apparently this had been upue, for the council had now to pay £20,000 more a year for its electric power. It had been suggested, he said, that commercial users should ask the Hon R. Semple, Minister for Public Works, to have a clause inserted in his contract with the council vetoing the policy of profiteering. He considered that a rate of |d a unit would be fair. Chamber’s Attitude Chamber of Commerce has an electricity committee which is workjug in conjunction with the Canterbury Manufacturers’ Association and other bodies. Mr V. E. Hamilton, presxdent of the chamber, said last evening that several deputations had waited on the council’s electricity committee and certain concessions had been made, but it was thought that thesff were not as great as they should be. It had •i Cn t. , no , wn , however, that the council had _ been faced for the last 12 5, £,• a £ ew contract with the Public Works Department and was therefore in a difficult position, not knowing what its costs would be in the future. “It is understood now, however,” said Hamilton, “that the council has negotiated a new contract, and with a higher consumption and better times it i, h ? pe ?- here Y i]l stm be the usual substantial surplus in the Electricity Department funds. This should help t( ?. r . educc the commercial fnmL * 1 Jt I s in the near future for the chamber’s committee to ■confer again with the council’s committee and I hope that satisfactory results can be obtained.” Mr Hamilton opposed the "black-out” boycott. He said he hoped it would not take place. It would not strengthen the retailers’ case, and it had also to be remembered that shops lit at night brought business and there would be a certain loss if a “black-out” policy was followed. He agreed that the city streets in many places were not as well lighted as those of other cities, and that a “black-out” would perhaps bring this home to the City Council but the lack of street lighting was not necessarily the fault of the council’s electricity committee.