ELECTRICAL CONCESSION.

Shannon News, 21 October 1927, Page 4

ELECTRICAL CONCESSION.

ONE MINIMUM CHARGE WITH DUAL SERVICE.

ONLY BENEFITS EXCEPTIONAL CASES.

As the result of a recommendation by the "secretary (Mr. P. W. Goldsmith), the Horowhenua Power Board on Tuesday decided that in. certain cases only one minimum charge instead of two should be enforced where two services are installed.

The secretary (Mr. Goldsmith), in his financial report, pointed out that there were a few instances where the double minimum charges (for lighting and heating) seemed to press unjustly on the consumer. He presented the following table of charges for the last bi-monthly reading in the case of a consumer with three meters —heating, lighting, and power:— Milking motor, 184 units at 4?d, ■H3 9s.

Heating (griller), 112 units, 14s; minimum, £l. Lighting, 3 units at Bd, 2s; minimum 10s.

"There are, of course, very few cases of this kind," the report added, '' but to remedy whatever injustice may exist, I would recommend to the Board that, as from the commencement of the current half-year, where in the same house a lighting service and also a heating service at the cooking l£d rate is installed, only one minimum of 10s per month shall be enforced."

■ Addressing the Board, the secretary stated that a minimum charge of 5s a month for lighting and another of 10s a month for cooking sometimes pressed rather hardly on consumers, and he thought it would be fairer if the Board agreed that only one minimum-should be enforced.

Mr Seifert said that, eonsidei'injg the expense of installation, there w r as justification for one minimum charge, but three such charges would lead to great dissatisfaction among consumers, without any gain to the Board. He >vould move that there be only one minimum charge. The Chairman: You can adopt the report. I hope there will not be any misapprehension; consumers must understand that this is" to apply where two minimums are concerned. ,

Mr Vincent said he was rather apprehensive that people might receive £1 16s worth of lighting for 16s; or that, with a £1 minimum charge, they might use 14s worth of power, and go on and" use 48 units of lighting for 6s. The Secretary: No. They pay for whatever units they use, but we shall not make" them spend 5s whether they want to or not. They will have to spend 10s with us where they now have to spend 15s.

Mr Morse said he felt the same, as Mr Vincent, and he thought that it "was co the large consumers that the Board should give a little concession. Mr Gunning said he was in favour of the one minimum. Small consumers could not pay two ojv three minimum charges.

Mr Seifert remarked that there was a little justification for a higher minimum with two installations than with one, because of the cost of puting in the meters. The Board had a considerable amount of capital involved. The chairman said he thought the Board must maintain the 10s minimum; that was the idea where there was a rate of 4d per unit. What he feared was that the suggested concession might be misinterpreted by those, consumers who were not in quite-the same position as the one whose case was quoted by the secretary. The concession might be. made without very much loss to the Board, as a dissatisfied consumer placed in the position in question might revert to some other system of lighting, It might be best to defer the suggestion for a month and allow members to think it over.

Mr Blenkhorn said that the amount involved in the concession would be a very small one for the Board; and he thought it\vas hardly worth while to hold the matter over. The justice of the case was plainly before them. Where the Board could benefit the consumer who was in a small way, it was its duty to do so. He did not hold that the large consumer should be considered more than the small one, because the former was in a better position to look after his interests. The small consumer, they hoped, would in the future better his condition and use more than the minimum. He moved that the necessary alteration in the charges be made, as suggested by the secretary.

Mr Petherick seconded the motion. Mr Vincent said there was a certain amount of dissatisfaction among small shopkeepers over the os minimum. There were people who used practically no light at all, and yet the Board Avas still charging this amount. This recommendation opened up the large question of commercial lighting. He was in favour of reductions.

The Chairman: When you can afford them.

Mr Vincent: But there are others to be considered. I don't see why a man with a lock-up shop should pay 5s a month for something that he does not use at all.

The Secretary: He pays the money for the privilege of using the light at any time.

Mr Petheriek: I think it is worth 5s for a small shopkeeper to have the convenience of electric light there. He has to go back at times during the month to do extra work, and the convenience is worth 5s a month. As for charging two minimams where three meters are installed, I think the onecharge of 10s is quite sufficient. The Chairman: Provided that vou maintain the minimum for cookery, that is all right, because the lighting, generally speaking, comes off the peak load. It was pointed out by the chairman that if the motion was carried it would have the same effect as adopting the report.

Vincent .moved as an amendment, that the treasurer's report, to which the above recommendation was appended,

be adopted, with the exception of the reconr.nejidation.

Mr Morse seconded, and in doing so suggested that the secretary be asked to prepare a report as to the number of consumers who would be affected by the suggested change, excluding shopkeepers.

The Chairman: The thing is not quite understood. Apparently Mr Mors? is under the impression that this applies to lighting only. It only refers to cases where the dual plant—heating and lighting—is installed. Mr Morse: Why I mentioned shopkeepers is because they come under commercial lighting, and their minimum is quite fair as it is.

The amendment was lost on the voices, and the report with the recommendation was adopted.