Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

LOWER RATE, HIGHER BILL

"Equity" states his opinion as follows:— Unless I have'misread the communication from the Hutt "Valley .Power Board it seems that I am going to j be penalised.

Under the schedule of charges at present in force, consumers pay a flat rate of 6d per unit for lighting, and lid per unit for current consumed for other purposes.

Under the new schedule there is a flat rate of.4Jd per unit for the first 16 units, irrespective of whether the current is used for lighting or any other domestic purpose. Thereafter the charge is IJd for the next 84, units.

Considering my account presented on June 17 last year, and allowing for the discount on the 11 units for lighting and 58 units for domestic power, my consumption of electricity costs me 10s 8d net.

Applying the- new rate to this account, it will cost me 11s 7d net. Why is this? Does any condition of the Power Board's affairs exist which warrants this increase, or am I and many other users in similar circumstances to myself going to be compelled to make up for the reduction to the user who has no electrical appliances except a lighting installation consuming, say, 20 units or more, who will benefit beyond question?

I have examined the account of such a user and calculate that he will benefit to the extent of 50 per cent. One user gains: another does not. Why make this distinction,' or has the board seriously considered this aspect of the matter? If any relief "is to be afforded to the consumers, it ought to.be made general. Surely this is common sense.

In the interests of consumers in. general, some explanation seems to be indicated as to why this scale of charges should be adopted, and why a consumer in my circumstances should be called upon to pay more for the power consumed.

I trust that a statement may be made by an official of the Hutt Valley Power Board which will allow us to judge what condition exists which provides a benefit for one user and none for another.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19360504.2.98.4

Bibliographic details

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

Word Count
353

LOWER RATE, HIGHER BILL Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 104, 4 May 1936, Page 10

LOWER RATE, HIGHER BILL Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 104, 4 May 1936, Page 10

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert