POWER BOARD CHARGES.

Southland Times, Issue 19478, 30 March 1922, Page 2

POWER BOARD CHARGES.

To the Editor. Sir, —I must confess I was a little disappointed in reading my letter in the Times to see that it had been handed to Mr Rodger for reply. I would have preferred to have had some neutral person take the matter up and I would have been more prepared to accept such person’s finding as correct. Mr Rodger replies in just the way I expected him to do, that is, he has swept aside most of my statements as incorrect and has then made statements of his own and on these statements which he expects you to accept he builds his arguments in reply to mine. I must thank Mr Rodger, however, for his courteous and lengthly reply and, although I have no desire to enter in to a newspaper controversy, yet I cannot let Mr Rodger’s letter pass unchallenged. First of all Mr Rodger’s explanation about the amount of current consumed by dining room and bed room light is unfortunate and he should be careful about the “law of average”. To me the “law of average” works out more like this:— (Taking an ordinary house as an example, t and using the same suggested figured as I bafclW. Oao (tiufu: «>P» lisbi.wj

watt consumes, according to Mr Rodger 87 units per year:— Say four bedroom lights consume about 3 units or a total of 90 units for 5 lights as against 168 units, Power Board rating. Although he is quite candid about it, I do not think Mr Rodger is nuite fair in quoting the various items at tne 13d rate. When he speaks of lighting he assumes that power is paying the high rate, and when speaking of power he assumes that lighting is paying the higher rate, etc. Especially is this noticeable when he quotes 21 fights for £2 15/10. It would be just as fair for me to quote cooking (including kitchen radiator) at top rate £33, or milking motor at top rate £lB 5/-, and £22 for 2 and 3-h.p. motor. I think the fairest way is to quote, as Mr Rodger does further down his letter, for fighting first, then cooking and then power, as that will probably be the order in which they are installed. Let us therefore take lighting first and leaving out the cost of keroaene go direct to the comparison of Power Board rates with Invercargill rates. Mr Rodger, I fear, has only told us half the story about Invercargill lights. Example No. 1: 9-roomed house cost £7 18/1, but this was at the rate of 8d per unit, so if we figure this out we eee that No. 1 has only used 237 units, or, if discount has been saved, then he has used 260 units, more or less, according to the rate of discount. Against this 260 unite the Power Board has fixed the rate of 426 unite. Why? If we only paid for 260 units at 7d and 4d we would pay about £6 14/- as against £9 4/- Power Board charge. The same applies to No. 2 and No. 3—it is needless to work them out, they tell the same tale and comment is unnecessary. I must say candidly that I cannot accept Mr Rodger’s argument that country people use more light than those in town. Ln town people start work at 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. They do not need to get up early, and so usually sit up till 10 or 11 at night, whereas farmers, especially dairy farmers, have to get up early and go to bed at 9 or shortly after. Having used only 250 or 260 units for lighting and (I hoj>e the Board will sec the necessity of reducing the estimated consumption per light) tne cooking rate conies next and, with 250 units at 4d and 500 units at 23d it works out at £2B instead of £23 16/4 to run a kitchen. Rc cost of coal: 1 admit 1 did not go into details, but 1 knew 1 was within reasonable distance of being correct. No. 1 uses Wmraki ana Coaldale coal, cost £ls. No. 2 uses Mossbank and lignite coal, cofct £l2. No. 3 uses Wairio coet £ls. No. 4 uses lignite and blackpine firewood and the cost, including carting lignite £1 5/- for 5 hours’ trip to the pit and valuing the firewood at £2 per cord, supplied 2 houses and did the chutfcuttdng and threshing lor £ls total No. 5 uses Nightcaps nuts, £l2. No. 6 uses Mossbank, £l2. All these figures include carting, and as we live about 15 miles beyond Invercargill, the railage on most of the coal is no small item. I think Mr Rodger should accept these figures. I could refer him to each individual for confirmation. So you sea that electricity at £2B it just double the cost of coal. In none of these cases u there any stinting and the coal was reckoned at last year's rates. The cost of coal is coming down so we hope to fire cheaper in the future. Power—Having used all the dear current for lighting and cooking power comes under tne l*d rate and even then it takes it all its time to hold its own with petrol. The figures 1 quoted were correct and based on last year’s prices for petrol and voco, 1 might add another case of one who milked 37 cows last year with 13 tins of petrol and 2 gallons ot oil. Unfortunately 1 have no means of checking the “actual number of units used” in cooking for an ordinary family nor in milking an average herd of cows, but if the Power Board’s eetimatee are as far out in these as they arc in lighting then they 100 should be amended. Cost of Installation: I would like to ask Mr Rodger a question: What is the total cost oi the following installation. 1 have chosen this case because it is typical of many farmers' requirements?— The house is 5 chains from the road and the milking shed is 4 chains from the house: 2 6U-watt lights 1 40-watt, 5 30-watt and 3 16-watt; oven 4 hot plates, 1 radiator, and 2-h.p. milking motor. Also quote for same installation for buildings 20 chains from road. As near as 1 can guess this u going to cost somewhere in the region of £l5O and will cost £45 6/5 per year to run instead of at present £2B. Un top of the £45 6/5 we must add the interest aud other charges which will bring up the cost of electricity to more than doubh what we are paying at present. 1 think you must admit that tne word “cheap” should not be used when talking of Power Board current. 1 have read Mr Jacky Glint’s various letters with some amusement. Mr Glint is like many more who wax enthusiastic about something they do not understand. Mr Glint quoted a case of a farmer whose account lor lighting was £3 per year, and who installed a motor and ran it for £1 4/- per year. These were certainly not run with “ Ltower Board ” current, had they been so, the account would have been more than double. I did not intend to debar mention- oi the 4 convenience ’ of electricity, I only wished to discuss one point at a time. I am quite prepared to admit much of what has been said about convenience, but 1 think it quite possible to make too much of it in the discussion. I feel sure, and most farmers will agree with me, that there are many many, conveniences required on the farm as urgently as electricity, or more so. How many farmers and their wives are walking over their boot-tops in mud and slush, because L hey cannot afford concrete cow yards and concrete paths. How many are working at a loss and disadvantage for lack of convenient water supply, both at the house and milking shed. The same remarks apply to muddy gateways—barbwire entanglements, instead of well-hung gates—insufficient farm implements, etc., etc. So I would make bold to say that 50 per cent, of the Southland farmers would be better to spend their money in other directions. 1 would like if some neutral person, or, better still, if toms of the members of the Board would look into these figures and arguments. I may be wrong, but I think 1 have proved my statement “ That the Power Board’s estimates of the amount of current consumed are too high, makirg the cost of Power Board current clean.r than petrol, kerosene and coal, and also dearer than Invercargill current.” In conclusion, I fail to see why the current cannot be supplied through a meter, providing the consumer guarantees to use a stated amount, sufficient to make the scheme sound. Ou the other hand, the Board could guarantee that the charge will not exceed the charges at present fixed by the Board, unless there is evidence of careleaa waste of current by the consumer. I have quite a lot more 1 could add, but already this letter is too long, and I am afraid you would use the guillotine. 1 am, etc., B.C

We referred our correspondent’s letter to Mr A. W. Rodger because he is in charge of the Power Board’s canvass and he in our opinion is in the best position to deal with this subject, of which as a thorough grasp. As to the jyment of a “neutral” critic, we cai. -y say that our columns are open to anyuuuy who cares to criticise these charges either for or against the Board’s scale. Our preference is for Mr Rodger’s opinion od this matter because of his special knowledge and bis position in relation to the scheme, but that preference does not prevent any person from writing to us on this subject. Within the limits necessarily imposed by newspapers in their own interests on all correspondence, our columns are open.—Ed. B.T.