CORRESPONDENCE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 52, 29 August 1914, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE

THE CITY'S ELECTRICAL POLICY

TO TIB EDITOR. Sir, 1 *""! thank you for publishing my letter in your paper of the 24th inst., and for the trouble you have taken in endeavouring to obtain further information regarding the corporation, electrical policyi The information given to you by the authorities is most satisfactory, as it commences by stating that there is absolutely no connection between the tramway department and the electric lighting department, and then goes on to contradict this by saying that it is estimated the tramway power station will give to the consumers of D.C. a concession of £1792. Which of the two statements is correct ? The Mayor evidently^ favours the latter, as you will see from his comments on. "Ra-tepayer's" letter of the 3rd inst. There he stated that "the departments are identical, and that the readjustment is a matter of book-keeping. '" As the matter is becoming rather too involved for one to follow easily — unless special attention, has been paid to the letters that have appeared — I will tiy j to get down to bedrock and set things j out in a fresh form. The corporation states that "the re-" duction was made with a. view of encouraging the use' of current by consumers during the day time, when electricity is in the nature almost of a by-product. '* I admit that the principle is correct if "from the lighting station" be added; the only difference between us, then, would be in the charge to be made pe-r unit. If you refer to your old files, under the date of 10th June, 1913, you will see that the Mayor, in reply to a. deputation of the local theatre managers, said : "The deputation had asked for a, flat rate of 4d per unit, but the totals charges came to 4.08 d per unit, made up_ as follows : — Station cost 1,34 d, distribution cost .55d, general expenses .59d, and capital charges 1.59 d." It is difficult, with these figures before one, to see how a profit can ba made by selling current, even, as a byproduct, at l^d per unit, when the capital charges alone come to more than that amount. It reminds me of the tale of the old woman who had a loss oa eVery egg she sold, but who said it was on the quantity she made her profit. I maintain that on the above figures it ie impossible for the lighting station to sell current at l^d per unit without serious loss ;_ to spread this loss the tratnway ie\enue is to be drawn upon. If this is not the case, why should the tramway power station be brought into the matter? Surely it is impossible for power from thi* station during the- day to be waste, or, as the corporation calls it, "a by-product?" There are many other point* in the authorities' explanation that I would like to deal with, but one other must suffice. It is stated : "Last year the department had a net surplus of £15,809, and this year," etc. I have gone carefully over the annual receipts laid before the City Council at the meeting hold on the 14th inst. to strike the rates for this year, and am . unable to lind a contribution of even £1 towards the rates. It looks very 'much as if this is not a surplus at all, but is the sum to be devoted to the payment of interest on loans. — I am, etc., ARTHUR L. WARBURTON* 25th August, 1914. , iO THJ EDITOR. Sir, — I must congratulate Mr. A. L. AVarburton upon his letter that appeared in The Post of the;"24fch "dealing with the. Corporation trams and electric light -policy, and regret that I am unable to extend my congratulations to the authorities for their feeble explanatory reply thereto. When my first letter appeared you printed a few remarks on it by the Mayor, who stated that the tramways and electric light were one and the same department. Now the authorities state this is not correct, though they immediately go on to show ,by their manipulation of the figures that it is the case. Now, Sir, this is what I condemn in municipal' trading. It is impossible for the ordinary citizen to gain any idea from the, information published as to how any department stands, as, directly there is the slightest chance of a loss being made, the department concerned is subsidised at the expense of some other department. Your informant says the Tramways Department made a profit of £993 out of its power supply business, and, on the face of this, a loss of £800 would be the result of concessions amounting to £1792 ; but it is anticipated that the concessions will promote the demand for current from both stations, and that the loss in the Tramway Department will, in all probability be turned into a profit. This, in other words, means that the Corporation authorities, in order to sell cheap current for power purposes, are speculating with the tramway revenue on the principle that if a loss is made by this policy, they can always, as they have done before, reduce the length of the sectiors ; in fact, the profit they are now squandering, without any sanction from the ratepayers, was so obtained. The paragraph relating to the reduction of £500 a year to the district fund for street lighting (being explained by a new system of charging per lamp according to the candle power) is very amusing, and may_ be taken as a fair example of municipal finance. Either an excessive charge was made last year, or a considerable loss is going to accrue this year. If the authorities consult even the smallest shopkeeper, they will find that it is necessary to obtain the same revenue whether goods are sold by weight or measure. After this sample of amateur business methods I suppose it is hopeless to ask whether or not the authorities have taken into consideration the effect of the war upon the tramway profits, and of the new onehalf watt lamp on the electric light revenue. The question may be asked 1 . What are the City Councillors doing in the matter, especially those who represent suburban ratepayers? — I am, etc, RATEPAYER. 26th August, 1914.