Cheaper Gas.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 5 May 1914, Page 3

Cheaper Gas.

FOR LEVIN CONSUMERS

A report possessing great interest for all users of gas in Levin Borough was submitted at last night's meeting of Levin Borough Council. It was from the Council's gas committee and read as follows:- " The lighting committee met on the Ist mst and went carefully into the question of whether any reduction could be made in the prices charged for gas at the present time. After careful perusal of the returns prepared showing what difference in income would result from loAver rates, it was eventually decided to recommend (1) a reduction in lighting rates to consumers of 1000 ft and over and (2) a reduction for lighting combined with the use of a gas cooker to consum. ers of 1500 ft and over. The committee is satisfied that for this year at least the returns will not warrant an all-round reduction, and the concession which is now proposed benefits the larger consumer who doubtless has the first claim. (3) The proposed reduction will be in the form of an increased discount to the users in question and the net rates to be paid after the first instant (if tins recommendsition is adopted) will'be'as under: Lighting up to 900 ft, 9s 2d per 1000 ft, 1000 ft and over 8s 4d : lighting combined with use of gas cookers up to 500 ft 9s 2d, 600 ft to 1400 ft 7s fid, 1500 ft and over 0s Sd. Power, heat etc., up to 9000 ft fis Bd, 10.000 ft and. over .Gs 3d. 15,000 ft and over 5s LOd.

Councillor Blenkhorn said that the committee considered that the reductions were fully warranted by the profits shown. About £77 would go back to the consumers and the consumption of gas would thereby be increased. The opinion was expressed at the committee's meeting that no discrimination should be "shown between the large and small consumers but this opinion was over-ruled. Next year they could perhaps have an alround reduction.

Councillor Parker said that he wanted the reductions to touch as many of the consumers as possible. The position at presentwas that £578 had heen written off profit and loss last year. The town had well provided for the future, and he did not see why the present consumers should he continually made to pay so that future inhabitants should have a rosy time. The present consumers should live some of Hie benefits. Bui for the large amount of clerical work that it would entail he would like to see concessions extended to 'the smaller consumers. He moved aft an amendment "That the price of gas be reduced to all consumers of 1000 ft and over, through lighting- and cooking meters, from 9s 2d to 8s 4d in the one case, and 7s'fid to fis Sd per 1000 ft in the other case." Councillor Lancaster seconded this. He thought the time had arrived when the ratepayers should have a little relief. Councillor Mackenzie did not think he could altogether support Councillor Parker. Though-they might have a profit, of £500, they did not have £500 to come and go on. He thought the committee's recommendation sufficient for this year. He wanted to know how long consumers were to pay for the extension of mains. The cost of* these should be paul for out of general rates. The council was not without competition in the matter of gas cooking; there were too many oil cookers in this town. Councillor Prance contended that the gas- as a business concern—should be confined to the consumers. A good many parts of the borough-could not be reached by the gas, and therefore he thought it would be wrong to ask the general ratepayers to pay for extensions. Coimcillor -Prouse contended that where a man burned gas at home and at his shop the two burnings should be lumped in allowing the rebate on 1500 ft. Councillor Ha swell pointed out that there was double expense in such cases; double-meters, double pipes, etc. Councillor Dempsey congratulated Councillor Parker on his clear statement of the case, and said he had great pleasure in supporting Councillor Parker. The gasworks wore a benefit to the whole borough, and Councillor Parker thought the borough should bear its fair share of the venture; it was not right to throw upon consumers .the whole cost of extensions, which were to benefit the borough by increasing the value of its assets.

The mayor advocated giving the £77 reduction outlined in the committee's report. He thought that for this year caution was necessary and therefore he was averse from going beyond the committee's re-

commendation. retorts would he needed within a year or two, and there would be, probably, some increases of wages to be given. Next year the question of, granting further reductions could be gone into.

Councillor Plcnkhorn, replying, said that the amendment moved by Councillor Parker would inercasc the loss through reductions from -£77 to .£B6. The view Councillor Plenkhorn took of the gas venture as a whole was that if must bo looked upon as a cooperative undertaking. The borough as a whole went security for flie loan, and this, added to the fact that the gas loan did not automatieiillv extinguish itself in tho course of years, supplied excellent ieasons whv Hie cost of extensions of the service should be met out of ihe yields from the gas venture. The 'borough, when if pledged itself as security for the gas loan, jiad done enough, he thought. On the amendment (Councillor Parker's) being put to the vote it was lost by six ynF-es to four, the minority Comprising Councillors TJempscy, Lancaster, Prousfl and Parker.

Tho committee's recommendation was then earned on the

voices