OPAWA LIGHTING.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume II, Issue 532, 23 October 1915, Page 10

OPAWA LIGHTING.

THE ELECTRICITY QUESTION. CITY COUNCIL'S SCHEME. At the invitation of the Opawa Burgesses' Association, Mr E. E. Stark, electrical engineer to the Ghristchurch City Council, addressed ratepayers of the Opawa Riding of the Heathcote County, in St. Mark's Schoolroom last evening. The address was on two subjects, the first being on methods for the proper utilisation of electric energy for household work and street lighting, and the second being the electric light and power proposals which the City Council has made to all the districts surrounding the city. About 50 people attended. On the previous evening, in the same room, the ratepayers of Opawa had been addressed by Mr George Scott, who, besides being chairman of the Heathcote County Council, is also a member of the Christchurch City Council, and a member of the latter council's Electric Light and Power Committee. Mr Scott had placed before the ratepayers the County Council's lighting scheme. In the early portion of his address, Mr Stark remarked that when the City Council's Electricity Committee sanctioned this visit to Opawa it was not absolutely unanimous. There was one dissentient vote (laughter.) He (Mr Stark) did not know why there should be any objection. He was employed by the City Council to get for it business at a remunerative rate in both the city and the surrounding districts. It had been said on the previous evening that the Lake Coleridge scheme was on trial. Well, that particular scheme might be on trial, but surely the hydraulic generation and transmission of electricity over long distances was beyond the stage of trial. All over the world it was a financial success. After discussing the excellent position of the Christchurch City Council's scheme, Mr Stark pointed out that the city could provide lighting power for the outside districts cheaply because its peak load will be higher in the daytime than in the evening. COOKING BY ELECTRICITY.

He went on to discuss methods of utilising electric energy in households. In the course of this he described an oven which has been tested in Christchurch lately, and which is guaranteed to cook 101b of food oh one unit of electricity. That oven cooked a breakfast properly at an expenditure of about half a kilowatt energy demand upon the service. A two-kilowatt rate for cooking had been quoted by the Heathcote County Council. What was the use of four half-kilowatt cookers if one would do the work? In the County Council's scheme it was stated that a two-kilo-watt stove, used at any time, would cost £3 10/- or £3 15/- a year—Mr Scott had given both figures, but it was also stated that the County Council had to pay only £lO per kilowatt a year. Explain the profit if they could I It was too rich for him. It had been said on the previous evening that the City Council's proposal of £8 13/4 per kilowatt year was a maximum demand rate. Assuredly it was. But the Government proposal to the Heathcote County Council of £lO was also a maximum demand rate, or else he (Mr Stark) did not know what he was talking about. That was for bulk supply. Which was the cheaper? The speaker showed in detail that the City Council could supply the Opawa ratepayers with power at £8 13/4 by their not being on the council's peak load. A statement had been made that the Government would put on the street lamps at 4.30 p.m. if they were required. Most assuredly it would, but they would have to pay £lO per kilowatt for them, But if

they had the power load which the City Council had they could ease up the lights and hold them back until 5.15 p.m. They were held back on purpose, so that they did not have to pay for that because £5 was better i)i the City Council's coffers than in the Government's. The load factor of the proposed Heathcote County plant was not likely to reach more than 20 or 22 per cent, by itself. The City Council's, day load factor was at 46 and 47 per cent. He had told Messrs Parry and Birks that he would get it over 50 per cent., and they were quite certain that that statement was going to be correct. That meant using the whole energy over half the day. THE FLAT RATE SYSTEM.

Referring to the Heathcote County Council's proposal to enter into a contract with the Public Works Department for three years, Mr Stark said he did not think that would be advantageous. What was going to happen in three years? Nothing. The Government plant was not going to be full in eight .years. The City Council contract woidd not have expired. Who was going to cut down the prices to the Heathcote County Council when the City Gouncil was coming along later? After discussing other phases of the question, Mr Stark drew attention to the fact that the Heathcote County Council's proposals multiplied the Public Works Department's flat rate quotations to the present Government consumers by three—and for heating by two. Why did the ratepayers want to pay three times as much as other consumers outside the city were paying to the Public Works Department under the same conditions? If they were going to take a fixed rate system, why not take it right, and I not multiply it by three. Under the City Council's scheme, the maximum demand for a house with 16 lights was never over six lights. If they were going to pay 15/- for every 100 candle-power lamp under the County Council's scheme, surely 1 their consumption was not going to be as much in summer as in winter? Under the city maximum demand system they would pay for what tbey used, and would not be taught to be wasteful. For heating, they would be expected to pay a minimum which was just about half the amount named on the previous evening per kilowatt, and for any units in addition, if arrangements were made to keep off the peak load. If they went on the peak load they would have to pay 5d per unit, but only while they were on the peak load. All the rest of the time they would have to pay only id per unit. When had that low price been given to the Heathcote County by anyone but the Christ church City Council? Dealing with street-lighting, Mr Stark said that what was said on the previous evening about the City Council's rate was partly true, but was only half the story. If they made a ten years' contract they would, after the expiration of the contract, pay only £2 21per lamp, instead of £4 odd. Suppose they made a 21 years' contract. The price throughout that time would be £3 per lamp, if the capital cost was £2O. After the capital cost was paid off they would have to pay just what the lighting rate was. It was merely a question of finance —of paying off the capital cost. It had been stated on the previous evening that all the quotations for street lamps were based on all-night lighting. The speaker produced Mr Black's original report, and pointed out that Mr Black's estimate was on a basis of 2300 hours per year, whereas allnight lighting was 4000 hours per year. Why misquote, then? A Voice: Hear! Hear! Deliberate, loo!

Mr Stark added that Mr Crombie Scott's report did not give any price for candle-power lamps at all.

After Mr Stark sat down again, one of his assistants handed him a return which he had prepared of his own accord, showing that in a

total of 397 consumers in the, St. Albans Ward, 117 paid for lighting in September 3/- and less, 101 paid from 4/- down to, 3/-, 78 paid 5/- to 4/-, and the remainder 10/- down to 5/-, except one or two. How, he asked, was the Heathcote County Council going to show a profit of £75 from 30 houses in the face of such figures. as those, and still be less than the City's price? Replying to a question, Mr Stark pointed out that the present system of meter-reading did not necessarily involve office preparation and postage of accounts, unless the consumer wished to pay at the office. A Questioner: Mr Stark, can you tell me how, if the Heathcote County Council is going to sell two kilowatts for heating and cooking at £3 15/-, it can afford to pay the Government £lO per kilowatt for that? A Voice: That's a poser! Mr Stark: Go and ask the other fellow that. A member of the audience drew Mr Stark's attention to the fact that on the previous evening Mr Scott had stated that the interest charges under the City Council scheme on each street lamp, at 18/- per £lO, and taking the capital cost of each lamp at £24, would be £2 14/-, instead of £2 3/-, so that instead of quoting £4 16/- as the City Council's price per lamp, Mr Scott should have quoted £4 5/-.

Mr Stark agreed that Mr Scott had not given the figures correctly, and pointed, out again that the annual cost of each lamp would vary until after the capital cost was paid off, according to the length of the contract for payment of that capital cost.

A hearty vote of thanks was accorded to Mr Stark, after a speaker had stated that the proper way to get electric light for the district was to turn down the Heathcote County Council's scheme at the poll next Tuesday, and so give the Christchurch City Council the right to go into the district.