Los Angeles herald., 1910-06-22

sOmaha, Neb. ........'........ looVVU IL cents
s*seattle, Wash. 100000 cents
Spokane, Wash. 10000 ID cents
saI+ lake IJtah..,,......, 100 900 10 cents
San Antonio, Tex........... 125OOO l45 cents
Houston, Tex".............. lU1Oo 10 CENTS
Cheyenne, Wyo.............. 10000 Il cents
albuquerque, N. M......... 10000 135 cents
.portIand ore..,..,.... 275 900 Is cents
San Francisco. Cal......... 100000 cents
Sacramento Cal............. $1,000 cents
Oakland, Cal...........'''.. loVVVV Ne"t'
In cities marked cash discount OF per
cent is allowed.
In cities marked - a penalty Of 10 per cent
60 added where bills are not paid prompaly.
The average rate in the cities above listed Is
II cents The present Los Angeles maximum
rate is only 9 cents. The proposed ordnance
on which YOU will be asked to vote cuts the
lighting rate without reason or justincauon
TO a point 30 per cent less than the demon
strated average.
The charges for electric servince throughout
tho states of New York, Massachusetts,, WIS
consin New Jersey and Maryland are regu-
ta+ed nv state commissions. In the majority
of other cities they are controlled by municipal
authority. -.
Most ~ the cities herein mentioned have at
tained their growth, while Los Angeles Is ohiy
beginning to grow and must have aonndaht
money for extensions. The new ordinance
sible TO obtain funds for construction "hi0"
is absolutely necessary.
Would YOU in view of the ABOVE vote lu'
nm ordinance which, though saving you re"
cents each month, would mean an enormous
loss TO the community In generaiT
The letter given out by meyer htsso ',so
ner Yesterday for the board Oh pupllo
utilities is as follows:
IIssNER's STATEMENT
The board of public utilities, having mace
| ,ts recommendation in regard TO rates anu
| the same having been acted upon oy 'he
council has no desire 20 inoulse !" '
| nublic controversy in regard TO the Ha''ei,
hut does not wish to be msrepresented' ana
| therefore feels it incumbent to make 'hese
| further comments: 49,
In the circular matter being mailed by the
lighting companies and in the statement OF
| ,ba .1citizens, committee" consisting of bank
ore and business men, the endeavor is to make
| a. annear that because the board of pubic
| utilities stated in its report that 1t mad not
had time to make a complete appraisal OF the
properties of the various companies ahec'eu'
and had not given a formal hearing the re-
mort of the board was therefore unreliable as
a basis for rate fixing.
We do not at all concede this point, nor do
we consider it fairly made.
VALUATION NOT NECESSARY
If is not absolutely necessary to make
conpIete appraisal and physical valuation OF
the property of a utility concern in order to
determine a fair rate. A physical valuation
would of course, be of considerable assistance
but is not necessarily sine qua non In
fact however, on account Of the involved con-
ditions surrounding the operation of electric
companies in the city of Los Angeles SUCH an
appraisal would be of very much less Value
here than elsewhere, for the following reasons:
The two companies producing and distrioupt-
ing most of the electric current in this city
generate the same from water power and
transmit the current over long lines covering
hundreds of miles outside of Los Angeles city
and county Furthermore, only small por-
ton of the current produced is sold for light.
the great bulk being used for power pur-
poses The lighting rates only are subject
to municipal supervision, and the COM
panies are at liberty to charge any price that
can be agreed upon between themselves ana
the consumer for power. If, therefore, com
plete physical valuation of the properties
of the various companies had been made, the
matter would still have been complicated by
having to determine what proportion of the
total value of the properties should be con-
sidered as appertainng to the city of Los
Angeles-a rather knotty question-and then
having to take into consideration the adjust
ment of rates as between light and power
users.
THE METHOD
In view of the-s facts, the method adopted
by the board of public utilities was probably
as practical as could be devised. 1t had in
dependent studies and Investigations made by
e. r. Scattergood, chief electrical engineer of
Los Angeles aqueduct power; G. w. Koiner,
manager of the Pasadena municipal lighting
plant, and Theodore B. Comstock, engineer Of
this board
Mr. Koiner's investigation and study
based practically entirely upon his own
knowledge and experience in the electric light
ing business, and not upon reports and in
formation submitted by the companies to the
board of public utilities. In the cases of Mr..
Scattergood and Mr.. Comstock. the considera-
ton and study was given to information
furnished by the companies. filed with the
city council or given to the board of public
utilities at our request
SAME CONCLUSION
All three experts working independently
came to the same conclusion, that the seven
cent base maximum rate per kllowatt hour
for electric light fair to the companies,
and that electric current could be sold IN
Los Angeles at an adequate pronL on Sucn
basis, with power rates properly adjusted. It
was also thought that this might be done
with 75-cent minimum charge. but in order
to be fair to the companies it was determined
to recommend that the 81 minimum be per-
mitted to stand for another year. until the
experience of that years business at the new
base rate would demonstrate whether
duction in the minimum could be positively
advised.
1t is generally admitted by the utility
corporations that the rates suggested by the
board Of public utilities for telephone charges
were fair under the circumstances, and yet
no formal hearing to the telephone companies
was granted by the board. Our policy, as has
been stated before was to request such in
formation as we required from the companies
which was generally given-and then in the
light of such information to form our own
conclusions, knowing that an opportunity for