HOSPITAL LIGHTING. BY GAS OR ELECTRICITY?

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 22, 27 January 1911, Page 3

HOSPITAL LIGHTING. BY GAS OR ELECTRICITY?

CITY COUNCIL REVIEWS POSITION. CAN CUEEENT BE SUPPLIED AT PEOFIT? "Gas v. Electricity," a question which has occupied the attention of the public in regard to the lighting of the Wellington Hospital, was hotly debated at the meeting of the City Council last evening over the following recommendation which appeared in the report of the Tramway and Power Stations Committee :—: — That the council approves the action taken by the Electrical Engineer and Lighting Superintendent ' in clearly demonstrating to the public that electricity for lighting purposes is cheaper 'than gas. A DOUBTING COUNCILLOE ANSWEEED. Councillor Carmichael asked if t*bs report was true. Personally he did not believe it was true. The Mayor said the committee had carried a resolution believing it was true. The generating cost was l^d per unit and the capital cost was 2jd. Last year, the working expenses came to 3.082 d per' unit, but this year, owing to the Parsons turbin-3, t^ioi amount was less, a huge saving having been effected. The council could m.jke terms this year and in future years that could never have been made before. Light was supplied to the Town Hall at 3d and.it was supplied for heating at lid. It was supplied for motive purposes at present at 3d during the day ; perhaps it could be supplied for even less under this latter head because - the current was' going to waste at that time and a market for it was wanted. The 'council contributed £8782 annually to the upkeep of the hospital. He held that there should be some reciprocity between the council and the hospital because the former gave the latter more than half it had to live on. Light and heat should be supplied to a partner as cheaply as possible, so long as it was honestly and fairly done. The increase in the capital cost in lighting the hospital would be practically nominal and would not run to Id per unit, he was advised. The mains were already down and probably £20 would cover the outlay. He did not want" to see any feeling shown in the matter. The council would have to abide by the decision of the Hospital Board, whatever it was, but he could not sit there having the positive statements carefully calculated by the Electrical Engineer that it could be done at the price and that it was a proper proposition for the council to make without saying so. He would ask Mr. Richardson to say whether or not it -was correct that current could be supplied to the hospital at the price he stated without loss to the city, which meant .vith a profit, and if the capital cost •would' be more than nominal. Mr. Richardson endorsed what the Mayor had said. WHAT COST OF GENERATION? Councillor 3. E. Fitzgerald asked if it was true that the Mayor made a statement in Parliament that the cost of generation was something like 5d per unit. In reply, Mr. Wilford stated that he had turned up his speech in Hansard and it showed that he stated that the cost of generation was l£d and the capital cost about Id per unit, making 2id. It might have been 5d a unit before the introduction of tne Parsons tuibine. Councillor Cohen said that the private consumer paid 7d a unit, and he questioned if it would pay the council to supply the hospital at 3d. Why not, he asked, cheapen the price to the ordinary consumers and thus have a greater number of them? Councillor Fletcher maintained that the comparison made by Councillor Cohen did not fit the case at all. The Mayor explained the matter very clear--lj'. The council had entered into the enterprise, and the sister body should reciprocate, receiving as it did a portion of the council's, revenue. The ordinary consumers did exceedingly well at 7d per unit, as they had to pay Is a little time ago. Of course, he saw no reason why the Gas Company should not cater for as much business as it could get. A very strong case had been made for reciprocation. THE PAESONS TUPtBINE. In answer to Councillor Cohen, the Mayor said he believed that in three years' time, by the installation of another Parsons turbine, the cheapening of the cost to the people would be absolutely phenomenal. The man who took a smalt supply of anything always had to pay more than the man taking a large supply; such was the case with* current. The same transformer /was used for a small man as for one iising four times the quantity. The council could not charge less than 7d. MOTION TOO GENERAL. Councillor Barber took exception to the wording of the recommendations. He thought it should be put in a different way. They were making a broad statement, which would not commend itsslf to the public paying 7d a unit for its electricity. He thought the recommendation should be something like this : — That the council approves of the action of the committee in offering to supply electricity to the hospital at the rate mentioned. If electricity supplied to the public was not cheaper than gas, then_ the council was not justified in making a statement which would be spread all over the Dominion, that the Wellington City Council could supply ebctricity at a rate cheaper than gas. The public would expect to be supplied at a lower cost than at present. It ■would be a mistake, therefore, to let such a statement go out. Councillor Smith pointed out that the hospital would give consumption of electricity when , consumption was not general. This was the general endeavour of the department, it was. a fact that electric lighting at 3d a unit would save the Hospital Board several hun-drc-d pounds a year. The question should be very thoroughly investigated. LET THE PUBLIC BENEFIT. Councillor Carmichael said if the council could prove that electricity was cheaper than gas it would cheapen the cost to the council of purchasing the gasworks at some future date. If the council could beat the Gas Company in prices, it would certainly tend to facilitate any negotiations to purchase. But the council had been informed that electricity was being supplied to the public already as cheaply as possible. H© believed the Mayor had said in Parliament that there was only £d psofit in electricity supplied at 5d per unit. How did that argument fit in with electricity to the hospital at 3d per unit at a profit and generating electricity at l^d a unit? The councillor then referred to the generation of electricity by gas engines at l^d a unit. Ho concluded by a declaration that the pubiic should get the first benefit of reduction in price. So long as he was on the council he would continue to agitate for a reduction. ARGUMENT REBUTTED. Councillor Fitzgerald, in a speech full of technical detail, rebutted the argument of Councillor Carmichael that

electricity could be generated by gas engines at a rate cheaper than when supplied by the city. Councillor Carmichael evidently referred to a certain [ hotel in the city. The Electric Light- | ing Superintendent had proved in a most convincing manner that in estimating the cost of generating electricity in the hotel, plant, items of wages, and depreciation had been omitted. The inclusion of these raised the cost per unit to 4£d. Tho Electric Light Department was the most profitable department of the City Council. It had showed a handsome profit of £6000 last year. In the near future there was a. prospect of a reduction of the wrice tier unit. (Hear, hear.) It should certainly be done. (Hear, hear.) There was a bigger profit in supplying the Hospital at 3d j a unit than a large warehouse at 5d a unit. Ho hoped the discussion would place the City Council in a favourable light with the public and Jie Hoapital Board over the question. UNDIGNIFIED PUBLICITY. Councillor A. H. Hindmarsh deplored the ■ undignified character of the publicity gained through newspaper correspondence. It had made the position of the Hospital Board very much more difficult. Strife had arisen, and the public had taken sides. (Hear, hear.) The Hospital Board should do the best for the citizens of Wellington — without considering the City Council at all. AMENDMENT CAERIED. Councillor Trevor moved an amendment of the motion as follows :—: — "That the council approve the action taken by the Electrical Engineer " and Lighting Superintendent in the offer to supply electricity to the Wellington Hospital at 3d a. unit for lighting and l^d a unit for heating." Councillor Frost held that the council was justified in tho offer. Councillor Shirteliffe asked for a definite statement from the Maj r or to clear up -the position for the benefit of the public. The Mayor said the installation of another Parsons uurbine would effect a saying of £1500 a year in one item alone. Councillor M'Laren supported the amendment. He did not think the motion, if carried as it stood, would strengthen the hands of the council in the slightest degree. The amendment was carried on the ■•voices. THE MAYOR'S STATEMENT. The Mayor, in reply to Councillor Shirteliffe, then made the following statement" : — "If any critic of this council dissects the tender of the City Council on the figures of the present and last year's balance-sheets the tender must be subject to adverse criticism and must be condemned. But if the tender is regarded from the point of view 'of the continual decrease of working expenses, both in cost of generation and in capita' charges, tffen the position is very different. The cost of generating last year was 3.082 d and the total cost 5.06 d. That is what it has cost the council in the past. But the cost of producing a unit on account of the turbine is so small in comparison with what it was before, that Mr. Richardson says we can make this particular concession to the Hospital Board and not less on it at all. In th« daytime- the current practically runs to waste. The' hospital will take it then and right through the night. You will I notice how the electric lighting account goes up when Parliament is sitting. We make no profit out of the small consumer. We make a loss sometimes." COMPARISON OF COSTS. It was shown with regard to the hospital supply, that the, estimated revenue from' a , consumption of 22,000 units, the maximum demand being 25 kilowatts, would be £275, at 3d per unit. The cost of generating current (at .94d per unit), was set down at £86 3s 4d, and 10 por cent, interest sinking fundv and depreciation on the capital cost of the station plant (£1550), required to ! generate the supply worked out at £155, brought the cost to £241 3s 4d, leaving a credit balance of £33 16s Bd. a return of £11 3s 2d per cent, on the outlay on the station plant. Contrasting this estimate with the revenue and cost of production in connection with the supply of current to certain large establishments in the city at 5.82 d per unit, it was shown, on the figures for last year, that with respect to one of these estab1 lishments, on a consumption 1 of 8250 units, with a maximum demand of 32 kilowatts, the actual Tevenue was £200 7s Id. The cost of production was the same, .94d per unit, but the 10 per cent, interest, depreciation, and sinking fund allowances on the capital cost of 32 kilowatt station plant (£l9B4)— the plant' for the hospital being 25 kilowaats— was £198 Bs, and this, added to the cost of generating 8250 units, £32 6s 3d, brought the gross cost up to* £230 14s 3d, leaving a debit balance of £30 7s 2d.