GAS V. ELECTRICITY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1043, 4 February 1911, Page 3

GAS V. ELECTRICITY.

THE HOSPITAL LIGHTING CONTEOVEIfSY. [To The Editor.] Sir,—ln the Tuesday issuo of youf evening contemporary appears a statement by his Worship the-. Mayor in reply to my letter that appeared in your paper of the 31st ultimo. Mr. . Wilford admits that I was-right in my information that, although it was not reported as having been disclosed at the council meeting, it is intended to suppi;r all energy required by the Hospital ana Charitable Aid Baard at the special rates of 3d. and lid. per unit. I am not aware what is tho annual sum paid by that board at present for electrical energy, but, assuming, for example, that it amounts, at Td. per unit, to, sav, .■ilia per annum, then, if electrical energy is to be sold at 3d. per unit, the amount-to be received for the present supplies would be reduced to, say, £75—a reduction in such a case Surely a reduction of this character is a serious-loss of I'Dvenuc to the City*. Council, and I was justified in drawing attention thereto. I now ask, is' it true that the Hospital' Lighting Committee anticipates making a saving closely approximating to <'.'IOO 'per annum on tils present consumption of electrical energy, at the Ohiro Home, Fever Hospital, and elsewhere' where electric light is now employed, and that therefore' the Gas Company, in_ competing with electricity for the hospital requirements only, is placed under a handicap, to that estent? Ought not the board to permit the company to tender for all its lighting .Sothat the company might in so doing be oil an equality of conditions with tho council. We now have the assurance' o£ tho Mayor that the cost of generating current includes not only the station charges but the loss of current in distribution. The Mayor, however, ignores entirely lily point that, according to the council's own statement, some 50 per cent lias to be added to generation cost to cover management and charges on capital iuvolved in the distribution. Is it, therefore, fe> be concluded that, in the proposed charges of 3d. and lid. per unit to the Hospital Board these items have not been fully provided for? ' , The llayor states that on further analysis it is found that the. city, .mil obtain a return on the capital outlay of ,£l2 2s. 7d. per cent. It is suggested that the council .will receive for 22,000 units for hospital lighting the sum of =£275, which will , be allocated as follows-.— . £ s. d. Cost of generation (including losses of transmission and transforming) at 0.91 d. amounts to SS 3 4' Interest, sinking fund, and depreciation at 10 p?r cent, on .£1550 estimated capital value of 25-kilowatt station , plant (as given by, the Mayor) 155 0 I) Balance to credit 33 1G S .£'275 0 0 Arithmetically, J3ISS 16s. Sd. works out, as nearly as possible, to ,£l2 3s.''Sd. per cent., and ,£33 IGs. Sd. works out to £2 3s. 8(1. per cent; Was it not confusing and misleading to persons who arc not experts in dealing with corporation calculations to state that there was "a credit balance of .£'33 16s. Bd.—a return of .£ll 3s. 2d. per cent, on the outlay on the station plant," when it is now made clear.that •10 per cent, thereof had already b&on dealt with for interest, sinking fund, and depreciation What is the public to think of calculations which' change from J6ll 3s. 2d. on further analysis to ,£l2 2s. 7d. per cent., and which- arithmetically appear to be nearer ,£l2 Ss. Bd. per cent.? Is there not a-reason-able possibility that the estimate of a 25-kilowatt plant and a consumption. :of 22,000 units may also lie subject, to; variation on a further analysis? If the corporation figures show that it will cost 3d. per' Wit to delivdl- current at the hospital, how is it possible, except at a less, 'to deliver current for heating purposes for only lJd.' per-unitf —I am, sir, yours truly, . ' WILLIAM FERGUSON,' Managing Director, Wellington Gas Co.,' Ltd,