CORRESPONDENCE.

Western Star, 20 April 1920, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

(To the Editor.)

■Sir, —In reply to “ Consumer,’’ I would ■ like to say that the proposal of the’ Borough Finance Committee to raise the price of gas to 8/- per 1000 feet was not done without very considerable consideration. In the first place the iwriter deterred for years from going into the price of gas by taking notice of “The Man in the Street” who, generally said it was a dear light, but the bad financial position of the borough gas department was becoming such a burden to us that some remedy had to be found. Consequently, I very carefully went into figures, and found that instead of a dear light Riverton was in possession of a fairly cheap light, and, unfortunately, at the expense of the general funds, which are in a bad way. It would be well to state that the actual loss on the gas during 5 years is no less than £9lB, the receipts and expenditure being as follows, leaving out shillings and pence : Receipts.—To 31st March, 1914, when first installed, £l9; 1914-13, £459; 1915-16, £568; 1916-17, £431 (gas reduced in price); 1917-18, £471; 191819, £429. Expenditure.—To 31st March, 1914, nil; £1914-15, £482; 1915-16, £659; 1916-17, £662;' 191718, £643; 1918-19, £B3l (including payment of disputed balance). This year’s figures are not yet complete, but we are sure of heavy loss- Under these circumstances, I am sure “ Consumer ’’ would not like his Gas Committee, to allow this state oif affairs to continue. Now, in regard to the price, on careful measurement I found that 100 ft will burn for 11hours, and( costs, at 5/- per 1000ft,;6d, or practically 1-d per hour. Now, “ Consumer ” suggests going back to kerosene lamps or tallow dips, but I am afraid “ Consumer ”, would be “ out of the frying pan into the fire,” for, at 20/- per case, kerosene costs Id per hour (and kerosene to-day is 23/6 per case). The light given by the Rochester lamp No. 2, as generally used, is not nearly equal toi the light given by an ordinary dreadnought inverted burner, which, at the new rate, will still be 20 per cent, cheaper. Now, in regard to leakage, the' Gas Committee'" have made ©very endeavour to ascertain the extent of these, and, while they have been able to check them to some extent, expert advice is to the effect that to go further in testing, for them is a very expensive item requiring each joint of the mains to be inspected. It is unfortunate that we cannot ascertain the exact amount of leakage, as no meter was provided with the plan at the gas works, and we are unable to tell how much gas goes into the mains, and I may say here that no plans of the plant are in our possession, nor procurable, particularly of the carburettor, which we found some time ago to be foul with the residue of hundreds of tins of petrol. In conclusion, “ Consumer ” may rest assured that the increase was not recommended in any haphazard way, nor do the Gas Committee think they would be doing their duty to' allow the loss to go on indefinitely, especially when the price of the light will be much less than kerosene, and certainly 'more convenient. Like “ Consumer,” ' I am eagerly awaiting the electric light and power.—Yours, .etc., E. B. GEE, Member of Gas and Finance Committees, Riverton Borough Council.