The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-12-18

The letter regarding electric lighting in
private residences. which appeared in the
observation-disclosures yesterday morning,
signed by "A Resident" caused consid-
cradle comment. The writer asked why a
reduction TO the private consumer should
not be made TO correspond with the heavy
reduction allowed the city.
DR.. Z. c. kilbourne. OF the Union Elec-
tric Company, when asked yesterday for
statementln reply to the letter said:
Il have I'd objections. Our company IS
a public coTfpany, doing lighting both for
the city an private consumers. The
writer is Yer i gentlemanly in his remarks,
and, acccrdtg 10 ~Nngures on which
asd 9is ma ms very Your ree edltorai
residents fG2. an aiso' he may y not
be aware of No VOLUNTARY reductions 10
during during the iiasNbu years soilsp'''S nos S''e
He states that The city three years ago
paid S4i. GO for It's street lights. while for
the next year the bid 10 slS.501.
In the first place, the city never paid
TO exceed $4,000 for its street lights, and
at that time, three years ago, there were
50 per cent. more arcs than at present.
and the lncandescent lamps were nearly
all 5o-candle power bow they are ell To-
candle power, and the number OF lights
has been decreased 200.
"A fairer comparison would be the cost
per lamp. In 1893 the city paid sl1 for ares,
$3.50 for 50-candle power and 81 for l5-can-
die power. This year the contract Is 50
for arcs and s1.S5 for l5-candle power In
candescents. or a reduction on arc lights
OF ~ per cent. and on l5-candle power In
eandescent lights. the only kind now used.
OF 32ie per cent.
Now for a comparison between the rates
charged private consumers three years
ago and those at present At that time
the price for commercial arcs was Sl4 for
all night arcs, and si2 for half night They
re- M lima OF No
same reduction that the city has bad.
You may ask why private consumers
should not get light as cheap as the city.
I will answer that II thew will give us a )
large a contract we Will give as low rates.
THE point. however that a Resident
wants to arrive at Is in regard TO resi-
dence lighting. Three years ago we cnarg-
ed . cents per 1000 watts on meter. We
made a voluntary reduction OF 10 per
cent to all who would pay their bills at
the office before the 10th or the month.
and gave discounts on bills over s.. rang
ing from per cent. TO 81 per cent, ac-
cording TO the amount OF current con-
sumed Later we reduced the base rate
of 3 cents to % cents. with the 10 per cent.
discount for prompt payment. Therefore,
the rate has been changed from 2 cents
TO Is cents. or a reduction of y per cent.
which IS about the same as the average
reduction 20 the city.
Your correspondent quotes rates given
in Tacoma as 25 cents per month for 1s-
candle power lamps. do not know who a
Resident may be- but / am willing 10
make him a present OF a months lighting
If his residence electric light bills for the
year average as much per lamp per month
as the Tacoma price OF IS cents. All our
lights IN residences are on meters, and
cur customers pay for Just what they
burn. Our average bills amount 10 S36 per
annum, and the average number of lamps
In the residences Of this city IS about
twenty This makes the average price
paid by our customers for each lb-candle
power Is cents per month. as against Is
cents paid In Tacoma. lie saws the city
of Tacoma makes a small profit and pays
interest on s250V0 worth ~ bonds I
think IL your correspondent VIII investi
gate a little closer he will find that the
interest on the bonds which went 10 pay
for the Tacoma electric light plant Is rails
cd by direct TAXATION. and Is not CHARGED
against the operating expenses or the
plant. The city OF Tacoma charges Itself
so per month for arc light on its streets.
Notwithstanding this 7 have reliable IN
formation that the lighting plant or Ia
coma has not paid expenses of operation
and maintenance but has required and
received appropriations amounting 10
many thousands 81 dollars since purchas-
ed. ] have no hesitation in asserting that
If the proper charges for interest depre-
citation and other items that go 10 ma ke
up expense. We're properly made. The light
ing or the streets Of the city or Tacoma
since Il purchased it's own plant. has cost
that city az least 20 FER cent. more than
the city OF Seattle has paid 10 HSht
much larger district
I'm an interview ike this. given on the
spur Of the moment one cannot MINK 81
all ne would desire TO saw. but IL a kesi-
dent viii cali az our office ! VIII he very
glad 20 20 into the subject more fNliy Win
him. fea!ing sure that I can show MN mat
our private custC mers are receiving near
Is. If not quite. the same reduction that
has been given the city. and are paying
a lower rate per lamp than Tacoma
much-quoted = cents per lamp.
your editorial remark. that n l0sfN1a-
ble roar could be raised against me COM
panics II they are offering a low rate
FOR the city lights. with the idea OF ma--
ing up the difference IN receipts out OF
the unfortunate private individuals. leads
me 70 say that n the street lighting system
was charged with its proper proportion OF
Interest. taxes. Insurance. Dlash-elahce,
station and Office expeuse. the amount the
city viii pay TIE ensuing year TOT itS
lights VIII fan far snort Of meeting tneS9
expenses In other words. bgEht WITH
oaiY the city lighting TO do. ~ these
prices. could not pay expenses. Ai4o, the
very fact - our giving such low rate
for me city lighting prevents our giving
additional reductions 70 cur private con-
gumeTs as We should like. though We new
er had such q Thought, as raising private
rates 10 make up This deficit.
"HoweEer. che private consumer ~ a.
most Invariably n taxpayer and ne rsavs
the benefit % the reduction TO the city
when he pays his taxes"