WAITEMATA POWER

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 600, 28 February 1929, Page 12

WAITEMATA POWER

REPLY TO CRITICISM

BOARD SUPPLIES FIGURES

At a recent meeting of the Waitenuita Chamber of Commerce criticism was made of the Waitemata Power Board's proposals to reduce its charges to the outer districts without making similar rebates to the inner distrio s. In reply the following letter has L f i sent to the Chamber of Commerce . y the Power Board: For the year ending March 31. 1929. the estimated revenue from Devunport is 1.525,000 units at 3.02 d net, £19,314. The official figures furnished by the Devonport Borough Council for its last complete year—March 31. 1926—were 614,499 units at 4.9 d net, £12.752. For street lighting, the estimates to March 31. 1929. are: Waitemata Electric-Power Board, 150.000 units at 3.64 d net, £2,275; Devonport Borough Council, 70,345 units at 4.3 d net, £1,260; showing a difference of 0.7 d net.

Comparisons to be fair must be based on the average revenue a unit and not on any individual class of supply. Deleting the water heating units and assuming Devouport this year still purchased 615,000 units at Devonport Borough Council and Power Board rates respectively, the figures are as follow: Devonport Borough Council charges, 615,000 units at 4.9 d a unit, £12,556; Waitemata Electric-Power Board charges, 615,0u0 units at 3.02 d a unit, £7,735; saving, £4,SIS.

An alternative view is given in the following figures: This year’s domestic and industrial consumption with Waitemata Power Board and Devonport Borough Council’s average revenue a unit (no water heating units): Devonport Borough Council, 1,525,000 units at 4.9 d a unit, £31,135; Waitemata Power Board, 1.525,000 units at 3.02 d a unit. £19,314; saving, £11,821, together with 515.000 water heating units at a unit.

The latter could not have been supplied at that price as the cost of generating in Devonport was 2.7 d a productive unit. Neither could the consumers have enjoyed the amenities of electrical cooking, lighting and heating at a popular tariff of £8 per annum, plus Id a unit, which costs the consumer under 2d a unit.

The chairman’s promise some time ago that the board would reduce its lighting charges to the old Devonport rate has been fulfilled. The price paid by the Devonport consumer for lighting only is 61d net, while the incidence of the alternative rate of £8 per annum, plus Id. which many consumers have availed and can avail themselves of, further reduces the average unit cost for lighting. The Devonport rate in 1926 was Sd. less 25 per cent., and actually returned 6.08 d a unit. Your chamber has overlooked the very material fact that the board has reduced domestic power charges by 38 per cent., industrial power charges by 50 per cent., and reduced the average unit, charge 40 per cent. Also supplied over half a million water heating units at £d a unit, and reduced the street lighting charge to the ratepayers by 0.7 d a unit.

In reply to the published statement, that the outer areas are being carried by the inner area and that the ‘'square mile of Devonport” constitutes the mainstay of the board’s revenue, it is pointed out that Devonport furnishes approximately one-third of the board’s revenue.

As Devonport has over one-third of the industrial load and 90 per cent, of its consumers are receiving domestic power, the adopted domestic and industrial power reductions of £I,BOO are more beneficial to Devonport than to any other part of the board’s area. The deleting of the fixed charge for three months for milking motors is only a reduction of £ 200 per annum to the farmers, and not £ 2,000, as stated.