COMMUNITY LIGHTING.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5188, 7 October 1927, Page 2

COMMUNITY LIGHTING.

DISCUSSION BY POWER BOARD.

AMENDED CHARGES ADOPTED. Consideration of the report brought down by the engineer (Mr N. G. McLcpd) and a long discussion on a proposal to promote community lighting for business areas, took up a lot of time at. Tuesday’s meeting of the Thames Valley Electric Power Board. After breifly referring to the engineer’s report the chairman (Mr F. M. Strange) said that to sum up the position, the board was desirous of selling as much power as possible off peak hours, and after careful consideration he moved that the engineer’s recommendations be adopted. The resolution was seconded by Mr G. Howie. '

Mr F. E. Flatt stated that he had gone into the matter with the Paeroa business people and Chamber of Commerce, and after obtaining information from the, Te Awamjitu Power Board he had come to the conclusion that the Te Awamutu system was better than the one brought forward by Mr McLeod. One of the principal features of community lighting was to make; the whole system attractive- to consumers and well within their means. There "era a large number of small shops which would adopt the scheme provided IM charge® were not too high. At Paeroa, if the charge for installing the lights was made there would be 14 shops, only that would take the lighting. On the other hand, if the board paid for the cost of installation rhe numbe-r would be increased to '5O. At Te Awamutu community lighting had been- in vogue for just over 12 months and had proved a great success, noth in regard to the consumer and the board. The lights, and, in fact, the whole system, were installed by the board at no capital cost to the consumer. The only charge made to tne consumer was 5s a month for a lamp of 100 watts capacity, which lamp was lighted every night in- the; year from one hour after sunset until midnight. The board also paid thecost of renewals and maintenance. The consumer was not required to take the light for any fixed period. There were; over 70 consumers at Te Awamutu, and if a shopkeeper sold out his successor took over the light. The business people would not be without the community lighting system now, and it was understood that the board made about, .£2OO profit out of the scheme. If the Thames Valley Board demanded £3 in advances it certainly detracted from the attractiveness of the proposition.

An objection was taken by Mr JPrice to clause 5 in the engineer’s report, which read, “lamps and fittings in any particular group must b© uniform in appeartrnce, alignment, and power.” In his opinion it was not desirable to restrict th© candlepower of lamps. If one shopkeeper wished to use and pay for a 200 c.p. globe he should be given- the opportunity to do so. Again, in clause; 6, he did not agree that the board should stipulate the consumers entering into an agreement. He then moved to the. effect that the charges should be at the rate of £3 a year for each 100-watt lamp, and that the consumer bear th© cost of instalment, which, he understood, would amount to about £3 a point. In support of the amendment Mr Price; pointed out that if the board bore the- cost of installation a tenant might have a light for a month and the-n leave the premises and the board’s money would be wasted until the shop was again occupied; and even then thenew tenant might not desire to have th© light. On the engineer’s figures it would be two years before the board would earn sufficient revenue to pay for the cost of the installations. The board needed to look v©ry carefully after it© expenditure, and he did not consider that such expense could be reasonably afforded at the Present time. It should not be a hardship on shopkeepers to pay for theinstallation. He- would like to add to his amendment “that the board agrees to refund the £3 after the consumer has used the light for three years.

Mr C. A. Arthur said that h© was quite prepared to second the amendment provided the clause relative to the refund was deleted. This was agreed to after the luncheon adjournment, and in seconding Mr Arthur said that he was strongly opposed to giving consumers free installations. The principl© was entirely wrong in his opinion. Community 'lighting had originated in Cuba Street, Wellington, as an advertising means. A glowing account of the Te Awamutu scheme had been given by Mr Flatt, but he had omitted to state that the Te Awamutu Board had been forced to strike a rate. It should also' be remembered that consumers in the Thames Valley board we,re now- paying 8d a unit for lighting their shops inside, whereas it was proposed to give them community lighting outside at a rate of 3d a unit. It was not correct to attempt to ©stablish a precedent and make- one class of consumer pay for installations and give them free to another. The purpose undejrlying community lighting was, so that shopkeepers could the better illuminate their windows and draw attention to their goods. Such being the case the system be.eame a luxury, and should be paid for. If free installations were to be provided for shops, why should not the board tak© the proposal a step further and provide free installation for a farmer’s water-heater and save him £3 a year on the peak load.. The same, principle applied to cooking ranges.

Mr J. B. Thomas said it was, not business-like, and he fully concurred with all Mr Arthur had said. As the mover of th© resolution the chairman said he wished to reiterate that it had been the ©ffort and policy of the board to give consumers power off the peak load, and he was anxious to see the power consumption doubledHe failed to see the parallel between the- farmer and the. shopkeeper as drawn by Mr Arthur, and he thought he was only trying to draw a red 'herring across- the trail. Mr H. M. Corbett said he would rather see the charge for lighting

reduced and the consumer pay for the installation. On the showing of hands the amendme.nt was carried, the voting being: For, Messrs Arthur, Thomas, Anderson, Price McCormack, Willy, and Corbett; against, the chairman and Messrs Flatt and Howie. The amendment becoming the motion, it was then carried.