Kaiapoi’s electricity charge to rise

Press, 20 February 1980, Page 16

Kaiapoi’s electricity charge to rise

Electricitv charges in the Kaiaooi Borough will increase 4.6 per cent and an availability charge of $2 a meter reading will be introduced from April 1. The new charges were approved at a meeting of the Kaiapoi Borough Council this week.

The Mayor of Kaiapoi (Mr B. O. Williams) said the council was passing the 4.6 per cent increase in bulk tariff charges on to consumers.

The $2 availability charge was needed to pay off a deficit in the electricity department’s bank account.

The deficit had built up since 1970 when power charges were • frozen by the Government, said Mr Williams. The council was unable to increase power charges enough to cover costs, so the department, had run at a loss.

Electricity consumption had also fallen an average of about 1000 units, while the department’s expenses, such as wages and overheads, had increased. The availability charge was the fairest way to pay for the deficit, said Mr Williams. .'“lt is obvious that all supply authorities are. going to their' unit charges at least 4.6 per cent, and we will find that on average the increase will be higher than this,” he said.- .< The : council's electrical engineer, Mr M. Ruddenklau, presented a report in which he examined four alternative ways to raise the extra $74,000 needed to cover costs. He recommended the

new availability charge plus the 4.6 per cent increase as achieving a balance between consumers.

“If we applie J a 7.5 per cent unit in-’-ease we are going to hit some industrial consumers harder •than they would be in other areas,” he said.

“With the $2 availabil-. ity charge and a 4.6 per ■cent unit increase, the smaller consumer will get a larger percentage increase, but it will not be such a significant figure in .dollar terms,” he said.

The availability charge was justified because most of. the money spent on reticulation for electricity was spent, in residential areas. Commercial and industrial consumers get more of the costs involved when they required services, he said. Gr M-.. O. Cleland supported’’the proposal be-

cause it meant that th® . least number of people would get their electricity ■’ below cost. Some consumers, who . used less than the average number of units, -paid less than cost for their power, said Mr Williams. The new power arrange-!’ .ment would mean that only 363’ consumers were' ■j being supplied below cost, '■ said Cr Cleland. ■ Cr . Cleland said that ' under the new charges, a .>• : $75 power bill would be ■: increased to $B5. Under, some of the other suggested arrangements it could be as high as $9l. Cr H. G. McAllister opposed the introduction of: the $2 availability charge. He moved 'that a $1 charge combined with a 7.5 per cent unit increase, be adopted as a compromise but the motion failed.