RADIATORS IN OFFICES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18567, 27 November 1923, Page 8

RADIATORS IN OFFICES.

BOARD'S POLICY CRITICISED. : REPORT BY MR. L. BIRKS. t;' "THROWING REVENUE AWAY." "RATE OF 6D NOT sanctioned. ! The charges and conditions for the supply of current for office radiators m Auckland are the subject of a report by Mr L Birks, chief electrical engineer of the Public Works Department, forwarded by the Minister to the Auckland Power Board The Minister's letter, the report, and a further report by the board's manager and engineer, Mr. Alex. WyllKS were referred to the hoard in committee >* fortnight ago. Yesterday's meeting adopted a recommendation .by the committee that the Minister's letter and Mr. Birks' report be "received." The Minister's letter, in reply to letter from the board, was as follows: " As the Act fixes 4'; d as the maximum charge for heating purpose*, this cannot be exceeded under the present legislation. I nolo that you suggest amending legislation; this is impossible at present. As you will remember the chief electrical engineer was strongly averse, to the increase of 6d per unit, and I enclose a full report bv him on the question in which he demonstrates that it is in the interest of the board, a s well as of the consumers, that the ' rate should not bo increased above 4f,d. In fact, lie contends that the ' board would make a greater gross profit, owing to tho increased output without a corresponding increase in the maximum load, if a lower rate, were fixed, viz., 3d to s*id. Under the circumstances I arn not prepared to move in the direction ( Of amending the present statutory limit.

Charges in Other Cities. " I recommend tint as the Act fixes a limit of for radiator supply, tins limit should be adhered to and the board should supplv office heating generally at this rate." says Mr. Birks, in his report to the Minister. "It is a very high rate for this class of supply. The corresponding rates in the other three cities, under even more serious conditions of overload than in Auckland are as follow:— lington. 2d per unit; Chvistchurch, 3d: Dunedin. 3d. The office radiator load admittedly must be restricted within reasonable limits owing to its low inherent load factor, and this justifies a high charge. The average cost of supply in Auckland last year was 2.74 d. per unit. Owing to the large output of the extended plant, "it will be reduced in future years and 4id is thus a high charge compared with the cost or with the rate in other towns. Large Surplus of Power

" Moreover, the mid-winter load curve of the Auckland station indicates that a large margin of power below the actual peak load is still available over the greater part of the day—looo to 2000 k.w. in addition to the output for radiator load last June. With the additional plant capacity of 10.000 k.w. which will be in service "next winter, there will be a large surplus of plant capacity. To artificially restrict the sale of power for office 'radiators, provided an ample price is obtained, anything over 3d per unit, is simply throwing away revenue. " It is recognised that the mains are already overloaded and additional feeders are required but, with the growing demand, these • are necessary in any case, quite apart from the office radiator load, and must be installed, and the difficulty in supplying the office radiator load must not be made an excuse for failure to maintain a sufficient reticulation for general purposes. -„■>.?.' ;. * No Extra Capital Cost.'

: Reviewing .statements made by the chairman ol the board, Mr. Birks reported . Pr videi the radiator load is kept on the peak hours, 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., os is done elsewhere, no extra, cost in capital outlay is required to meef , it than that necessary to supply the "ordinary lighting and. industrial load. (2) The chairman states that in the pasC the return per unit from office radiators has been £2 15s per k.w. at 1.75 d per unit; that is to say, the office radiators have been used on the average 380 hours per year, or an average of over 60 days per year; not 30 as stated in the committee's report. If the charge bo increased fo 4*d the return per k.w. for the same hours of use will be increased from £2 15s to over £7 per k.w. But this same power is available every evening throughout- the year for lighting for which a return of 6d per unit is : obtained, and also throughout the day for the remaining 300 days per year and the actual return throughout the year will be three or four times the return from the office radiator business alone, and will be thus quite remunera- . tive. - k "■. V % '"'•" ■ "',"+:, . , : The figures given in the. chairman s - report are clearly ■'■ misleading as they compare the return on the radiator business alone of £6 15s, with the return of £12 on the general industrial power load and neglect diversity entirely. Tip to a reasonable limit office radiator business will be very remunerative to the board, and can be taken on with no increase in capital outlay beyond what must be made in any case to meet the general demand. i Mr. 3irks then set out tike results of calculations of the probable demand for jradiators in threa. je ri at various I charges,. and shows that the maximum return would be obtained if the charge were 2d per unit, but at 4id, the return would still be very substantial. He observes that it would of course require four or five yearn of energetic canvasing to reach these results nut they are obtainable. "'-•.>

, Set Profit of £5350. At 4Jd per unit- it is estimated that about 2500 office radiators will be connected, with a' maximum load of about 2100 k.w. This maximum load will occur between 10 a.m. and 12 a.m. and the maximum on the station otherwise on the same day will occur between 4 p.m. raid 6. p.m. It is estimated that the peak load of the. whole station, provided the radiators are kept off the 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. peak, will only be increased By about 400 k.w. as the result of this 2ll)0 k.w. of radiator loading that the gross return will be £13,500 per year; of which £5350 will be -■ net profit to the board. This business is obviously remunerative to the board and will enable the average cost cf energy to he reduced, and not increased 'as inferred by the chairman's statement. " I consider : therefore that the board is making a mistake in seeking to restrict office radiators, otherwise than by increasing the price to 4£d per, unit, ' Mr. Birks concludes. " From the point of view of public convenience the correct policy v ould be to fix the price that will give the largest return compatible with a satisfactory return of the outlay. This satisfactory retur/i of the outlay. This would bo 3d or 3£d per unit." Position Not Understood.

Mr. Wylhe, in his report, said :— " The letter of the Minister for Public Works simply states that the charge of 6d cannot be sanctioned as our Act only sanctions a charge up to 4Ad. This really ends the matter. The letter is accompanied by a long report from Mr. Burks. Mr. Birks does not clearlv under- • ■'• stand the position in Auckland" and I ■'"'•. am unable to agree with him." Conditions recommended bv the works . committee for the granting of new radf':'Sf were adopted by the: board. ": >§£«&! J 0 the committee on three ap«aid W^ for -* uch P«"nits, Mr. WvJlle Sr&'W that the old ens. hoard Wero ail that the *»«d neit winter. If the radiators it must 7 PC^ lit . s for further «ibi!ity Z con^- their , own res Pontomera 'should enter 1 - l °. n that th * cus " to have their radiator - an . a ßanient • 4 necied at any tinxs *h*L cu - lt » d^on- ,:- , wry, without nVticJ fr rd four,(i "eceereoommonded •„•:,•&» k- ims condition was „ adopted. « etaovM a "VET t Ue * and fc>. -, pneer'* report that ■ £*&*£ in lh « *n. i, . all .eld c tt^m^ a {^.ce; A b e - given to u ~their radiators *}wy must have (i- y\ lt***r> end thai VI?! A,^rat