The morning times., 1895-11-12

L
| but two small public plants in this country
tPeabody. Mass, and Atlantic, Iowa.
| and exceeded by but One tAtlantic), while
| thirty.;ix plants for like service charge
consumers from 40 toe66' per cent. of our
Washington figure. And yet the company
| under consid Grafton does not charge n
high rate to private consumers when con-
pared with other companies. But three
private companies, So far as the committee
Is advised, charge less than our local
company, and but three others charge the
same price.
MODERATE IN PRICE.
We have seen, therefore, that the United
States Electric Lighting Company is more
moderate in Its charges than the majority
of its confreres, and yet charges double and
treble the rate asked by many plants owned
by municipalities Is IL because 1t is
compelled TO use steam instead of water
power? No; the three towns cited as fur
nishing their OWN arc lighting all own
exclusively steam plants. The explanation
offered is that in the city of Washington
electric wires are laid underground. But
! is this sufficient 10 account for difference
in cost?
According To the companys figures
S11 800 is the cost OF nile OF under
ground wiring, OF S5O7 900 as total
for its system. Its overhead wiring OF 10
miles, ut its estimate of $500 per mile, cost
$4,000, making a total fuT the wiring
system of $5l6,e0O. The company claims
q pavi-up capital OF 81 ESQ 600. II fol-
lows that. S733. 100 should have been de-
voted To running expenses, steam engines
and boilers, dynamus, land. and buildings.
Judging from the experience of other plants
laid before the committee, the allowance
made by the company for the expenses last
referred to is vastly excessive.
Additional cost OF installation OF the
underground system above the overhead
system. accepting the compa ny's figures,
is S467.54O. But we are forced to ques-
ton the validity OF the company statis-
tics when we find that in Chicago III
miles of underground circuit and i-2
miles of conduit IA total of Two ana one
half times the extent OF Washington un-
dcrground work. is laid for Il little over
S3OO.oOO. making the claimed expense In
Washington four times greater In rate
than in Chicago.
IL the Chicago figures are nearer accu-
racy, and they are taken from the official
municipal reports, then our Washington
Company should, because of Ia wing under
ground wires. add not more than S12o.o0O
10 the cost OF its system. The figures OBJ
tanned from Chicago are apparently sus-
tained by Nr. Renshaw, late general man
ager of The United States Electric Light
ing Company, who. on March j, 1881,
wrote the electrical commission that -
good underground system will probably
cost from three TO ten times more than an
overhead system" Accepting Mr.. Rem
shaw's highest estimate, aud taking the
cost of an overhead system to be as given
by the company, we find that the under
ground system costs So, 200 per mile. OF
total OF SS4, 900. The interest upon this
sum should not cut any important figure
IN determining the amount al which elec-
tric lights can be sold
COMMITTEES DEDUCTIONS.
But the company says that "thc over
head system can be maintained per mile
per year for SI4, while the maintenance OF
the conduit costs the company SSS6.22."
This statement differs widely from that OF
other electrical experts who maintain that,
once established, cheapless lies with the