13D DISCUSSION ON "FUNDAMENTAL LEGISLATION FOR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY TO CONSUMERS"

With reference to Section 7,1 think that all meters should bethe property of the supply undertaking. In my view, the onlyway to deal with a reported inaccurate meter is to put in a checkmeter; the existing meter should not be removed until thischeck has been taken.

I have always believed in meter rents, but in the two-part tariffthe meter rent should be included in the fixed charge.

Mr. G. B. Devey: Does the author think that there should be alegal obligation on a landlord to compensate a departing tenantwho has installed a supply or improved an existing installation?

I believe that there are many tenant farmers in Devon andother parts of the country who would install an electrical supplyif they could be assured of compensation in the event of theirhaving to relinquish tenancy. Also, tenants in towns would beencouraged to re-wire and install efficient electrical equipment ifthey had a similar assurance. I assume that for the next two orthree years increase of load will not be encouraged, but evenunder these conditions such items as immersion heaters seem tobe more economical in ultimate fuel consumption than theordinary domestic coal-heated boiler.

Mr. H. F. Lidster: When the author recommends that servicecapacity should be increased without charge to the consumer tonot exceeding 0-04 in2 conductors he overlooks a kind of in-creased capacity which is very frequent at the present time. Itarises when, for example, the consumer already has a single-phase supply while a 3-phase 4-wire system is available, and hereplaces an existing single-phase machine by a 3-phase one, orinstalls new 3-phase apparatus. In these cases, and there arevery many of them, it is surely unreasonable to expect the under-taking to convert the service from a single-phase service to a3-phase one without recovering the cost, as in 90% of these casesno increased revenue is obtained, and, in fact, if some improvedmachinery is being installed it might even reduce the revenue.How would the author legislate for such a condition?

Mr. F. E. Pitt: The author has pointed out that the paper,together with discussions on it, will help in framing suitableclauses for any new provision Acts, if and when the supplyindustry becomes nationalized. He suggested that the ElectricityActs are out of date, and those of us who have to make use ofthem from time to time certainly agree. It is strange thatundertakings have put up with trie Acts as they stand for solong, and I am surprised that they have not dealt with this

matter before. It seems that the earlier Acts were framed mainlywith regard to underground mains, supplies, and that only thelater Acts, Le. those from 1926 onwards, covered overhead lines.

Special and Provisional Orders cover compulsory works whichshould be carried out within two years of the granting of theOrder, and if these works have not been put down in this timethen the Order can be revoked. I know of many places wherethese works have not been carried out, but I have no knowledgeof any Order being revoked in consequence. Had this Sectionof the Act been enforced, I imagine the remedy would havebeen the installation of a small plant in the various villages con-cerned. Section 21 of the 1919 Act says that approval of thelocal authorities, although they have the right to be heard, canbe dispensed with. Whilst this is admitted, it is worthy of notethat the County Council has, 'in some cases, asked the localauthority to withhold its approval until such time as the CountyCouncil itself has considered the matter and, in fact, had theadvice of the Local Planning Committee, even if the CountyCouncil is not concerned within the meaning of the Act. Theresult of this is that long delays are experienced in getting areply from County Councils.

Service lines and mains are defined in the Schedule to theElectric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899, and in these days, when the-supply is being given both by mains and distribution mains, arevision of the definitions is necessary.

Section 18 of the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899 refers to-"other than Service Line." Here again, it is considered thatrevision of the wording of this Section is necessary, because acompany might be called upon to make a reasonably lengthyextension to one consumer, which makes it a service line, and,therefore, no Statutory Notice need be sent to local authorities,but if at some future date this particular line should supply oneor more further consumers, then this service line becomes amains supply within the meaning of the Clauses Act.

Mr. W. J. Guscott: I should like to see in future legislation adefinite code of practice to which all wiring installations, especiallythose of a domestic nature, would have to conform before beingconnected to the supply, and I should like to hear the author'sviews on this point. Under the present supply regulations, doesnon-compliance of installations with the Wiring Regulations ofThe Institution give sufficient grounds to an undertaking for arefusal to connect them to the supply?

REPLY TO THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONSMr. R. A. S. Thwaites (in reply}:* In reply to Mr. Forster,

before the adoption of two-part tariffs for domestic premises theaverage price received for such supplies was of the order of 4d.per kWh. Working expenses (excluding capital charges) wereslightly below 2d. per kWh, leaving a little more than 2d. perkWh, i.e. approximately 50%, for capital charges. In recentyears, however, many domestic consumers have been obtainingtheir supplies under two-part tariffs at an average price of about0«75d. per kWh, but working expenses (exclusive of capitalcharges) from 1938 to 1944 averaged approximately 0-7d. perkWh, leaving an exceptionally small margin for capital charges.

With regard to Section 18 of the 1882 Act, the purpose appearsto have been to prevent undertakings from stipulating that aconsumer should use, for example, only filament lamps to theexclusion of, say, arc lamps. There is, however, a proviso tothis Section precluding a consumer from interfering unduly orimproperly with the supply to any other consumer.

• Mr. Fennell having died on the 20th March, 1947, Mr. Thwaites kindly suppliedthis reply to the discussion.

With reference to Mr. Evans's question, a consumer whosepremises are within 50 yards of any live distributing main canrequire the undertaking to supply in accordance with the pro-visions of Section 27 of the 1899 Act. If alternative systems orvoltages are available the undertaking can determine which shallbe supplied.

Referring to Mr. Guscott's remarks, non-compliance ofinstallations with the Wiring Regulations of The Institution doesnot entitle undertakings to refuse supply, unless the undertakingshave in force approved bye-laws to this effect. Accordingto Section 27(5) of the 1899 Act, undertakings can, how-ever, refuse to connect an installation if they are not reason-ably satisfied that it is in good order and condition. Inaddition, under the Electricity Supply Regulations of theElectricity Commissioners, 1937 (Regulation 26), the under-takings shall not connect unless they are reasonably satisfiedthat the connection would not cause a leakage exceeding1/10 000th part of the maximum supply current to thepremises.