Apr. 12.
Tue letter that we publish to-day signed Ratepayer on the difference between the Electricity Department's sales of units for lighting and units for power calls for some further comment. Reduced to its simplest terms, Ratepayer's argument is this: that the additional units for power purposes sold during 1922 have been sold so cheaply, so much below producing costs, that they have swallowed up the profits on the additional sales of lighting units and the total result is a loss on the year's increased sales instead' of a gain, And there appears to be a suspicion in our correspondent's mind that the receipts for lighting and power have been lumped together in the report in order te cover up this fact., Our correspondent, if we may say so, is not likely to slip up in the working out of figures, but, without holding any brief for the Electricity Department, we think he has fallen into a not uncommon misunderstanding.
The calculation of electricity costs and selling prices is an exceedingly intricate affair, depending on the load factor, which might, very roughly, be defined as the average revenue-earning output. compared with the maximum possible output. The ideal load-factor would be all the machines running and_ selling all their output through all the twenty-four hours, but of course this is seldom, if ever, realized. Now it is plain that the load-factor for lighting must be much lower than for power (provided there are mills to consume the power) because people light their houses for much fewer hours in the twenty-four than the mills are run: and yet as much machinery may be needed
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.