GAS V. ELECTRICITY

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1039, 31 January 1911, Page 3

GAS V. ELECTRICITY

THE HOSPITAL LIGHTING CONTROVERSY. (To The Editor.] • Sir,—l desiro to allude to tho report of a discussion by tho City Council relative to the proposal to supply electrical I energy to the Hospital and Charitable Aid Board at 3d. per unit for lighting and lid. per unit for other purposes. In the report of the Hospital Lighting Committee, published on December 12 last, it was stated that tho proposal is to supply current for light and other purposes at the spccial rate to all the institutions in the city under the board's control. The report laid befora the council by the Mayor deals only with tho estimate of energy to be suppliedjo the main hospital, and ignores, as does tho resolution passed by the council, the current to be supplied to the Benevolent Home, j new Fever Hospital, offices, and other , buildings that are under the control of the board, and for which buildings full rates have presumably hitherto been | paid. Presuming the price to bo charged is to be decreased from, say, 7d. or even Gd. per unit to 3d. per unit on the supply to tho buildings which aro already electrically lit, other than the main hospital, there will be a very considerable loss. Has this serious reduction in revenue been disclosed to the council and considered in its calculations?

It can scarcely be argued that there is anything special in tho hours during which lighting will be wanted at the Ohiro Home, and it would therefore seem that if the Hospital. Board is ccrrcct in its vieyr that it is to'obtain all current it requires at spccial rates, tho reduction in income by the. council consequent thereon should have been' taken into consideration and announced. The Mayor is reported in "Hansard" to have stated in Parliament that thero is a loss in Wellington of thirty per cent, in distribution . He said: "\Ye had that in producing one hundred .units wo get paid for seventy." In the statement made to tho council no allowance is apparently made for this loss in transmission. Ought not the 22,000 units to be sold to the hospital. to be therefore increased to some 31,400 units in order to cover this loss? At tho figure stated (0.94 d.) per unit the cost of generation at the station would bo increased from «£BG (the figure quoted by the Mayor) to ,-£123, thus turning the alleged ci'edit of «G33 16s. Sd. into a deficit.'

in a Teport presented to the Citr Council on liny 5 last for. the year, ended the previous March, it was stated that , the expenses of generation . amounted 'to .-CIT.iOS, whilst the .'distribution'., expenses amounted to <£1112,' or 23.6 per cent, thereof, "and tho genera! expenses -amounted to or 25.3 . per cent, of the generation cost—together, -nearly 1 .49 per cent, of the then costs of-generation of current. If tho costs' of generation ,hare fallen since that dato, it is clear that these ratios have risen, but, so far ns can bo gathered from the published'statement of the Mayor, no allowance has been *i»r.de, so that tho hospital supply shall bear any share of the general expenses of the station and cost of management, and tho cost of distribution is dismissed by a statement ..that the mains are already dowii, and that .£2O would probably cover tho outlay. This is an admission that no charge is to be made for the use of the capital required to convey the current from the works at Harris Street to the points of consumption at Adelaide Road, at Coromnndel Street, at the Ohiro Road, and elsewhere, or for tho. depreciation of services. The statement laid bei'oro the council is based on a sale of 22,000 units at 3d. per unit, amounting to ; but the heating is only to be paid for at lid. Either that estimate must be reduced, or, if it be correct, that 22,000 units are to be used for lighting, then some account should be taken of the units to be usnd for heating (if any). Tho Mayor is reported to have stated at .tho council meeting that there is in tho estimate a credit balance of <£33 16s. Bd. a return of .£ll 3s. 2d. per cent. •on tho outlay on tho station plant, which he gave as £1550. Ought not this amount to have been £2 3s. Sd. per cent.? I trust that I have pointed out enough to throw serious doubts on the accuracy of the argument used, and which ' was adopted by tho council as the basis on which the council is tendering. If I am right in my contentions, then thero must arise a doubt in the minds of the ratepayers whether tho estimate of 22,000 units consumption, with a maximum demand of 25 kilowatts, is a reliable one, and ,if not absolutely accurate, the special mGthod of determining the cost per unit of supply to the board completely fails.— X am, Sir, Yours Truly, WILLIAM FERGUSON,. , . Managing Director, Wellington.Gas Co., Ltd. ■ Wellington, January 30.