The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1907-10-03
ITEMS NOT CHARGED
Strange Omissions In the Chicago
Lighting Plant Report.

u FiAceS tne Annual U otat Cost fer
Lamp at $52.3s-No Account Taken,
However, of Lost Taxes, Water, De-
probation, Rent or of Half a Dozen
Other Important Elements of Ex-
Penss-5issest M. o. Plant In the
country-Its Service as Poor az Its
Report Is Misleading.
The largest municipal electric light
plant in the United States is that op-
Grated by the city of Chicago. Natu-
rally students of municipal ownership
turn to its reports as one Of the prin-
cipal sources Of information ON the
subject Unfortunately, however, these
reports have been so worded as to
give the false impression that the
municipal lights cost the city much less
than IL they were supplied by contract
with private company.
Newspapers all over the country have
announced that Chicago's street lights
during 1906 cost only $52.39 per lamp,
and they are not to be blamed for max
ing this assertion, for twice on page
IL of the report for that year $52.39
is given as the total cost per lamp"
1t is true that elsewhere in the report
this statement is modified by the ad-
mission that this "cost" doesn't in
clude interest, lost taxes, water, de-
probation, rent of offices and poles,
judgments against the city on account
Of accidents, proportion of the cost
of the offices Of the comptroller, audi
tor, business agent and other branches
Of the city government, etc, but the
edge Is taken off this admission by
the further statement that "the cost of
$52.39 includes all expenses actually
borne by the city," a statement, by
the way, which is not even technically
true.
The report admits that "there Is some
justice In the contention" that these
items should be charged against the
lighting cost but it makes this admis
sion only after years of refusal to do
so, and does SO now because Of an in
vestigation into the workings of the
plant that has recently been made, and
the findings Of which will soon be pub
lished.
Six years ago the Reform club Of
New York employed well known
firm of accountants to find out what
Chicagos lights were really costing. At
that time the city claimed a cost Of
$62.09, but the accountants reported
the real cost as $99.88 and made no
allowance for damages, street repairs,
rent of offices and poles or the lighting
departments share of the expense for
auditing, purchasing and legal ex-
penses and very low allowance for
depreciation. But the city authorities
totally ignored the findings Of this dis
interested and expert investigation.
The unfairness of the report Is fur
ther shown by its comparison of the
per capita cost Of lighting Chicago and
FIVE other cities that do not operate
municipal lighting plants. In the first
place, the street lighting Of Chicago is
notoriously inadequate, and in the Sec
Ond place, while the rates in the other
cities cover the entire cost Of lighting,
In Chicago they include only fraction
of the cost. ....
Perhaps the most misleading feature
of the report Is it's comparison of the
alleged 'cost" Of the municipal lights
with the rates charged by the private
company with which the city contracts
for TAG of its lamps. These are in the
outskirts of the city, where the cost Of
maintaining them is very high on ac-
count of their long distance from the
generating station and their remote
ness from each other. That is why the
city contracts for them. Yet the report
assumes that the company would
charge just as high rate If it had the
contract for all the lights. This as
sumption is not only manifestly absurd,
but is directly contrary to the facts, as
one of the companies offered reduc-
ton Of more than one-quarter of its
contract price If it were given the en-
tire lighting contract.
In making comparisons the quality
Of the service is an important consid-
Grafton, and the service Of the Chicago
city plant Is bad. 1t cheats the public
both by the frequency of outages
camps going out and staying out the
rest Of the night and by stealing its
own current e., reducing the amper-
age below the point at which the cur
rent keeps the lamps up to their rated
candlepower. In many cases observers
have noted that, especially after mid
night, the lamps give only dull glow
at the carbon points and are of practi-
cally no value as lights This Is done
to reduce coal consumption and Of
course makes great difference in the
cost of operation. 1t would not be tol-
Grated from private company, which
would also be penalized for outages.
These things are quite naturally not
mentioned in the report.
To sum up, the report gives the i'm
preston to the casual reader that the
municipal plant is giving good service
at low cost, while the facts are that
its service is poor and that the cost Is
much higheE than If the lights were
supplied by company.