GAS AND ELECTRICITY; REPLY TO “THE PRESS”

Press, Volume XCVI, Issue 28451, 4 December 1957, Page 20

GAS AND ELECTRICITY; REPLY TO “THE PRESS”

. The suggestion that gas could be co-ordinated with electricity, thus reducing the maximum demand on the electrical system, would apparently presuppose that the majority of houses and residential areas were reticulated fully, both for gas and for electricity. said the engineer-manager of the Christchurch Municipal Electricity Department (Mr G. H. Battersbyi yesterday when commenting on a leading article in “The Press’’ on gas and electricity. Mr Battersby said that such a system would in\'olve very substantial increased distribution costs, because of the complete duplication. To supply a house with electricity for its normal demands at other than peak times and expect the consumer io change over to gas at peak times would, it was considered, be an undesirable unacceptable complication from the consumer's point of view.

“Alternatively, if. say, a percentage of the domestic supply area were reticulated fully for electricity, and the balance fully for gas, with electricity to be used only for lighting, it is true that the maximum demand on the electricity system as a whole would be less, but in relation to the number of all-electric houses supplied it would not be affected,” he said. ‘ “The electricity authority would have a smaller demand than if all houses were all-elec-tric, but the load factor would not be appreciably altered, and consequently the peak load in relation to total sales would be little affected.”

Of the two-way metering proposed in the article. Mr Battersby said it would be possible, but he did not think it would be acceptable to domestic users of electricity. It would also substantially increase the cost of installation.

On peak load control of ranges and space heaters. Mr Battersby said it could be said positively that on ranges it would not be : acceptable to the domestic user i Controlled space-heating might be acceptable, but the user would be required to supply substantial heat storage equipment to have the heat available when required. Thus the consumer would be providing extra capital cost, which it was thought would be greater ■ than the additional contribution |I he made to capital cost in using electricity as and when required. ! The alternative, of reticulating domestic areas with electricity j for lighting, water-heating and cooking, and gas for space healing, had been investigated by the I Government for State housing projects, Mr Battersby said, but it was believed that the proposal had not found favour. Bulk Charges The part of the leading article dealing with the deputation from the City. Council to the Minister in charge of the State Hydroelectric Department (Mr W. S. Goosman) was criticised by Cr. 1.. G. Amos, chairman of th?

council*e electricity as “both incorrect and unjust.” No speaker on behalf of the council adv*fa6ed the' -■ ihheien 1 load factor of city supply as a virtue, but described it as an unfortunate disability of an electricity supply where commercial, industrial and domestic supply were all drawn from the same source, be said. “The points advanced to the Minister in support of a lower kilowatt demand charge fqr the larger areas, were the quantity discount, which is usual in commercial practice for large customers (with which the Minister agreed), and the fact that it :s only the concentrated loads in the cities which make.it possible to supply country districts on an economic basis,” Cr. Amos said. “While the council agrees that there is a place in the power and fuel industry for gas. it has never accepted the National Government’s view that the rehabilitation and future capitalisation of the gas industry in Christchurch was a fair charge on electricity consumers. “We understand that the amalgamation of gas and electricity on the proposed terms has J>ot found favour with the Gas Company, as it is thought they prefer at present .to manage their own business to the best advantage of c their shareholders,” Cr Amos added. ' . -. ( s IMr Battersby puts words into the mouth of “The Press” when he says we proposed “two-way” metering. W® did nothing of the kind, because of the practical and financial difficulties involved in altering thousands of meters. Nor did we say, as Mr Battersby suggests, that peak load control should be introduced for ranges and space heaters. Even if technically possible this would be unfair to electricity users (as differential charges would not be). All we did say was that greater use of gas could lighten the peak load problems of the hydro-electric system, an opinion held by authorities quite as eminent as Mr Battersby. As for the complaint by Cr. Amos, he has also apparently misread our leading article which did not deny that the larger supply authorities might have a case for some concession. What we did say was that a high peak load was not a good argument for a lower rate. This argument was surely implicit in the deputation's plea that they should not have to pay higher unit, rates than authorities with lower peak loads. If Cr. Amos did not advance “undue peak loads” as a “virtue” he did mention them as a reason entitling large authorities to special consideration. Cr. G. Manning went. perhaps, further in declaring that that •t was a principle throughout the world that the larger purchase was sold at a lower cost a *Fhis is not so, even with thermal systems /which differ in economics greatly from hydro-electric systems). Chambers’s Encyclopaedia states the general principle succinctly: "The /cost of giving a supply is a function of ♦ u load, because it is 'he peak load which determines the capacity of the which must be installed.—Ed., “The Press.”]