ELECTRIC LIGHTING.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13724, 14 April 1908, Page 6

ELECTRIC LIGHTING.

OTHER HATES COMPARED. AUCKLAND CHARGES FAVOURABLE On being again interviewed by a representative of the Herald yesterday, the Mayor (.Mr. Arthur M. Myers) said that on looking into the matter of the charges for electric light he found that the outcry on the subject was due to three principal causes. First, the customers had misunderstood the method of charging, and had forgotten that ill the second quarter of the present half-year they would obtain a rebate, which, in many cases, would bring the average price per unit down very low for them. Secondly, the majority of customers had been very extravagant with their new light; by no means as careful as they formerly were with gas. Thirdly, many customers had added considerably more lights than they previously had, especially in their windows. This applied, for instance, to such a consumer as Mr. Pascoe, and likewise to Mr. Wiles. It had been commonly remarked by the public that in these two cases the window illumination exceeded by far anything they had before. Electric lights were unsurpassed for window lighting; it was not practicable to put gas lights inside a closed window.

The Mayor said that one of the larger consumers whose case had been mentioned was Mr. Walsh, On the number of lights stated to have been installed he would be charged for about 462 units at 7d during the half-year. Up to the end of March he used 625 units. It was estimated that during the June quarter his consumption would not exceed, at the outside, 1350 units, the estimated consumption for the half-year being 1975 units. Of these, 462 would be charged at 7d, making £13 9s 6d, and 1513 would be charged at 2d, making £12 12s 2d, the total for the half-year being £26 Is 8d ; paid March quarter, £18 4s 7d ; due June quarter, £7 17s' Id. If Mr. Walsh were to discontinue the use of electricity and revert to gas for the , present quart would be charged more for lighting than if he continued with electricity. Another of the large consumers mentioned was the firm of Messenger Bros., of Queen-street,. In this case also the consumer would get almost the whole of the units during the present quarter at 2d. The actual rate per unit would not, of course, be the same for every customer, the Mayor added. Those who used light the longest would get it at the lowest rates, but very moderate users of light would obtain some rebate in June. It was, therefore, manifestly quite unfair to compare the accounts with the gas accounts until consumers had had experience of the charging for a whole half-year, and he was quite convinced that many of those who now complained most loudly would be satisfied when they understood the position. The Mayor continued that it was certainly a great fault of the maximum demand system of charging, which was adopted here on the recommendation of Mr. Goodman, that it was very complicated and difficult to make understood. The Electricity Committee were taking into consideration the question of adopting some simpler system, but naturally it was felt that until they had had more experience in the matter th<-y should be very cautious about making any changes. The Mayor added that if any consumer cared to call on Mr. Wyllie, the electrical engineer, he could be pleased to explain the position to him, and also to give him an estimate as to his probable bill for the first half-year. - With reference to the charges made for electricity in Wellington and Christchurch, the Mayor had ascertained that in Wellington a consumer who used 200 units or less a quarter was charged 7d a unit ; 300, 6£d a unit; 750, 6d a unit 1000, sid a unit; more than 1000 units was charged 5d a unit. In Christchurch the charge was :— First 500 units a quarter, 6d a unit second, 3£d a unit. The Auckland charge was, he said, more favourable than either of these.