COMMUNITY LIGHTING.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5296, 6 July 1928, Page 3

COMMUNITY LIGHTING.

DISCUSSION BY POWER BOARD.

CHARGES FIXED FOR SERVICE.

At Tuesday’s meeting of the Thames Valley Electric Power Board a discussion on the institution of community lighting in various parts; of the Wtoard’s territory was introduced by a. report brought down by the finance committee.

The report contained a resolution fixing the charge for the service at £3 per annum for. .100 watts, with an increase of £1 15s for every 100 watts; consumers to bear the cost of installation provided it did not exceed £3.

In opening the d'ispusSlon Mr. F. E. Flatt contended that the bqaj't}: was not giving the public a helpful lead in the matter in any way. Other .boards had tried out community lighting with considerable success. On the late shopping nights, retailers would illuminate their Shops and windows by means of their own lights. Jf the system was brought about fifty shopkeepers in Paeroa would avail themselves of the service. At the present time there were two shops in that borough which had lighted windows from 7 to 8 p.m. and from 10 1 to .11 p.m. almost nightly. If the board was going to make the cost prohibitive there would be only a few consumers, and they would .take the service out of a sense of rivalry and patriotism. In his opinion the board would get about a dozen only, whereas if the cost was reasonable probably fifty would sign up. In the past ordinary street lighting had proved to be profitable. to the board, and in his 'opinion, if community lighting was taken off the peak-load hours it would al'so prove profitable. He moved as an. addition to the resolution that consu.mers agree to take the community lighting service for three years, current to be taken off the peak hours, and that the cost of installation be refunded, a,t the' end of that term. Seconded by Mr G. Howie (Morrinsville). In reply to .a member the engineer, Mr N. G. McLeod, said that he failed to see how community-lighting c'ould take the place of ordinary shop lighting. The main point was that if lighting was taken from the peak load all the year round there would be an additional cost, of £l, plus £1 for capital charges. For the suggested charge of £3 the cost to the board would amount to approximately £2 10s. He considered that the charge was a fair one, in view of the advertising value of the service to the shopkeepers.

Mr J. Price (Matamata) said 1 that he was strongly opposed to giving something for, nothing. It would take the board 18 months to get its money back even, if the service was taken, for three years. in ‘his opinion the charges as t suggested were bad business, and he was strongly against the cost of installation, being refunded at the expiry of three years. C. A. Arthur (Te Aroha) Sa'd it was evident that the peak load would average from 4 to 6 p.m. The purpose of community lighting was purely and simply an advertising stunt for shopkeepers, as such they shoul'd be prepared to pay for it. He considered that the foundation of the matter was wrong in principle. , <Mr W. E. G. Willy (plains), said he was opposed' to the board giving something for nqfhing, and thereby establishing a precedent. The chairman (Mr F. M. Strange) pointed out that boards in other parts of the Dominion supplied the installation free for, community lighting. He thought the proposed charges were fair enough. After further discussion the\addi- - tion to the resolution was carried, Messrs Price, Arthur, and H. R. Bush (Thames) recording their . votes against it. -