LIGHTING CHARGE CUT

Taranaki Daily News, 22 June 1935, Page 9

LIGHTING CHARGE CUT

|(I PER UNIT REDUCTION

TARANAKI BOARD’S DECISION.

OPPOSITION BY MR. N. H. MOSS. GRADUATED SCALE SUGGESTED. The Taranaki Power Board made a reduction of id per unit in the rate for lighting yesterday after amendments, moved by Mr. N. H. Moss, to -defer the matter for a month and to reduce the charge for milking motors by id had been lost. Mr. Moss advocated the introduction of a graduated scale. Moving the adoption of the finance committee’/ estimates, which included the reduced charge, the chairman, Mr. H. G. Carman, said several alternative tables had been considered but the graduated scale had to be abandoned because the small consumer would be penalised and would have to pay more than at present. Had the board originally adopted the graduated tariff it would have been easy to have made a general reduction. Under one of the tables proposed a consumer at present paying 7s for I?, units would have to 'pay 10s 7Jd for the same number of unite because, of the 12 units used, eight would be for lighting and four recorded and charged as light were really eight used for heating. A straight-out reduction of would benefit all in proportion to their consumption. The reductions involved £866 on the year but, as the heaviest lighting months would be over, the. full effect of the reductions would not be felt until next year. Reviewing the prospects of revenue, Mr. Carman said the year would commence with a credit of £293 and would finish with a balance of £lB9, but the true position would be a net profit of £559, as payments belonging to the previous year were included in the estimates. The amount of the surplus would be nearly sufficient to pay the depreciation of £623 for next year. There Was the prospect of an increased industrial load from factories, and he thought the year would come out with a little more than they had allowed for. “RETROGRADE” STEP? • Mr. Moss asked that the tariff alteration be a separate resolution. He said he was disappointed at the recommendation from the finance committee which he felt was a retrograde step; He moved that the tariff amendment be deferred until next meeting. Mr. M. J. Gernhoefer seconded.. The chairman said the financial committee Had given the matter 2} hours’ consideration and reductions had been before the board for two months. . Mr. Moss said Mr. Marchant particularly desired to be present at the discussion and he asked that he be given an opportunity of speaking as he' was opposed to the reduction.

The amendment was lost and Mr. Moss moved a further amendment that the report be adopted with the deletion of the clause relating to the reduction in light, charges and the substitution of a clause reducing the charge for milking motors by 4d per unit. It was not prudent to make the proposed reduction for lighting, said Mr. Moss. Last year there was only £254 profit on a capital" of nearly £500,000, and he felt the board*- should walk before it could run. The proposed reduction in lighting meant so little to each consumer that it would be better to wait until the board was in a position where it could give a reduction worth while. It had to be remembered that there was a prospective expenditure on plant to be met. , ' . .

The second objection was that it was side-stepping the graduated scale, which should be the object of the board. He did not accept the view that it was impossible to adopt the graduated scale, but if lighting charges were left alone until they could carry out a graduated scale it was going to be of the greatest benefit to consumers. The difficulty was, that with the charge at 7d the first units were wanted at a remunerative rate and the door was being closed to the graduated scale for all time. ‘ INCREASING CONSUMPTION.

The graduated scale was the avenue whereby consumption would be increased, declared Mr. Moss. What about A large family or large business having to pay 6ld? he asked. It .was better to delay than make this false step, which was not going to encourage people to extend the use of electricity. . In cities the use of light and power was ’encouraged by the graduated scale. Consumers must use a minimum amount of electricity as a necessity and the return on capital was assured by the first portion of consumption. The profit came from the encouragement of people to use in excess of that quantity. As a last resort he would urge that light charges remain as at present-and that a reduction in milking motors be made from 3Jd to 3d. It was the people using milking motors who were behind the board, and in the event of difficulties they would have to pay the rate. If the board/could afford to give away nearly £9OO it could afford to reduce the milking costa and give the benefit to people who deserved it. The' reduced lighting charge would benefit many people who had never assisted the board by way of rate. Mr. Gemhoefer .seconded the amendment. ' ' ‘ The reduction in lighting was not being given to irresponsible consumers, said the chairman. ? Every user of a milking motor was also a light consumer. To give id off milking motors would cost . £1360, and this reduction would all come in this year. This could not be afforded. The amendment was lost and the ■motion was carried.