HUTT VALLEY POWER

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 104, 4 May 1936, Page 10

HUTT VALLEY POWER

MUCH DISSATISFACTION

LETTERS OF PROTEST

During the past few days householders and other consumers of electric power in the Hutt Valley Power Board area have received by mail notification of the new scale of charges to be brought into force on June 1. Several letters of protest have been written to the Editor. "Possible Gas Stove" writes:— Residents in the area served by the Hutt Valley Electric Power Board were pleased, no doubt, to receive intimation from the board and appearing in the Press recently, of a reduction in the charges made for domestic power and lighting. I, in common with others, have received recently a small booklet setting down the board's "official charges" and schedules of rates, and on first observation it appeared that the consumers of the Valley had at last been granted some small measure of relief, and I, for one, was correspondingly grateful for the concession. It had been my intention, when the new charges were in force, to install an electric hot water system, the monthly cost of which would be offset somewhat by the saving effected under the new domestic schedule.

A more detailed survey of the new rates, however, does not reveal that I, or others in a position similar' to mine, will be any better off in June than we are now. To the contrary, I will be mulcted of an additional halfcrown per month under the new schedule.

For the information of any interested readers, and also for the engineer and general manager of the board, I give herewith particulars of how the "reduced charges" will affect my ■ own case.

The average number of lighting units used during the last six months amounts to six at 6d per unit, making a total of 3s. A small electric cooker, an electric jug, toaster, iron, etc., account for another 110 units at ljd, making a grand total of 16s 9d. This was subject to a discount of 174 per cent., making a net charge of 13s lOd. For the same 116 units I shall now pay— . ■• • First 16 units at 4Jd 6s Od Next 84 units at ljd 10s 6d j Next -16 units at Id Is 4d I Total : 17s lOd The discount in this case is 8 1-3 per cent., so my net charge will be 16s 3d, a difference of 2s 5d per month in favour of the board's revenue for exactly the same amount of power consumed. If I had the good fortune to be a consumer served by the Wellington City Council, my monthly power bill would be less than half the amount I will pay in June next. My arguments with the board at this stage concern only my own case and those in a position similar to mine. I do not doubt that the board's commercial, community lighting, and other rates have been reduced, and I am quite aware of the fact that big households will reap the benefit of the reduced charges. But the point I wish to make is that the smaller consumer is being penalised to pay for concessions to those who have larger households.

Residents of Wellington are subject to a sliding scale and the number of units charged at the higher rate is directly proportional to the number of rooms in the house. Not so, however, the I/itt Valley residents. Here we find that whether it be a two-roomed b;.^h or a 20-roomed residence, the occupant still pays for 16 units at the high rate, and it would be rather interesting to see exactly how the Hutt Valley Power Board can excuse this state of affairs. I think it is only reasonable to expect some statement from the Engineer or the board showing its consumers how it justifies this apparent penalty on small consumers.