Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1916-10-27

FRIDAY, OCTOBER ., 1916
Jas We SEE THE PROPOSED
FOR ELECTRIC LIGHTING IN h1T-
TIE FALLs--soME FACTS
| WORTH NOTING
The Transcript of Monday punished I:
list of electric light consumers stated to
be those in the business and refadence
Fighting classes who are included among
those now paying above the minimum
and those who would pay above; the
minimum under the proposed schedule of
rates. The patrons are noted by num-
ber andsnot by name and the number OF
drops used by each patron isAn1f stated.
tt iss presumed that the list was fur
nished the Transcript by the local cleo
trio company. The article also states
that the residence lighting under the
proposed rate would show decrease of
IS per cent and the commercial lighting
a decrease of 9h per cent, these rates
figured from the tc,al received by the
company in the two classes of light pa
irons, using above minimum of q. Fig
ures are taken from September as being
an average month, and we are taking
the Transcript figures as q basis.
The article says that in the residence
lighting the number who will use above
the minimum is 369 OF these they say
there are 267 who are lowered under the
proposed rate, 81 raised and five! VIII re-
main the same. However there are 6l2
! residence users on the meter rates, and
taking their figures, it is evident that the
Vinimum rate users number 945 There
are also 80 light users, on a tWo-Nghts6at
rate, and 30 two-hght fat-rate users also
paying so cents for a fiat iron Is there
| any reason why the whole sum, received
by the company, should not be the basis
| on which to figure percentage Of increase
| or decrease to the company on the aggre-
gate amount of money to be received
under the old system and the proposed
rate?
Our figures are like this: s !.
Residence Lighting-Present Rate -.
1863 patrons paying ..:.................. .$662. 80
! 243 patrons (minlmum lgnt usersl $500
80 patrons (2-light fiat. Goc}. Is. 90
80 patrons (2-light flat, 60c and SOC
! for fiat iron) ......................... 3 90
Present aggregate revenue ......es76.S 80
Proposed Rate ..:.s5-
1863 patrons paying ....:..........--. .$5S7 .lS
245 patrons minimum light uSerS1 z4S .O0
80 patrons (2-light fiat, 6oc). 1890
30 patrons (2-light fiat, 6oc, and Soc $
! for fiat irOn) ........................ $500
| Aggregate revenue under pro-
posed rate ............... .$eeA 10
The difference between the two tables
! is in amount the same as the Transcript
figures, but it will be found that instead
of Is per cent decrease on the aggre-
gate of light consumed by ALI residence
light patrons it is a!S per cent.
| Furthermore by the writer's own fig
1 ures practically all the increases will
come from patrons using under six
lights. On this basis these with the
minimum users outnumber those receiv-
! ing decreases by IS. This without taking
into consideration the fiat rate custom
ers, which it has been stated will remain
the same. a. '-%
In the commercial lighting class the.
Transcript gives as patrons using above
the minimum 122. OF these 69 are low
! cred, So are raised and one remains the
same In all there are 1@S users on the
fmeter basis therefore e On the fesnainiEsanas
basis According to this those raised
and those remaining On the minimum
basis number IS, as against 81 that are
lowered. It might also be mentioned
that while there is a decrease of se&53
! to- the company from all the commercial
patrons under the new rate, that but tive
of the decreases aggregate $49.34. Enght
more of the patrons receiving decrease
added to the five will more than wipe
out the $685. She Eld the % pay for
these decreases, and the others or have
these patrons heretofore paid too-h1eh
rate? -.;' 'tf-a@
Our figures are like this:
! Commercial-Present Rate
122 patrons paying ................:..<f56l3 l3
26 patrons (minimum light users).. $500
Present aggregate revenue $See 1S
i Proposed Rate
122 patrons paying ........:...........$70'6 0'6
26 patrons (minimum light users1.. &.oO
Aggregate revenue under pro- ~.
posed rate ...:,;......:.. ~
The difference in decrease between
these two tables and the Transcript ng-
ures is also the same, but instead or a
decrease of 91s per cent, we get 6A per
cent.
AS noted above only five consumers,
No. 116 with a decrease of $16.72; No. S2S
with a decrease of $11.52 No. go with
decrease of $S.4o; No. 6ss with a decrease
of s4S6 and No. s56b with a decrease OF
ss.se, amounting to $49s4, dispose of over
two thirds of the total decrease of s6S5S
in commercial lighting.
Under the old rate the five above men
toned paid 2.36, and under the new
rate would pay $103.02. Below Is table
showing amount and rate Of percentage
of decrease with the five left out OIL
BOTH ~.
Total of $so21 less. $152. 52.36...........&64s 64s.T
Total of 1886 less 5000 2........... sso.5s
Difference eliminating the 5....... a>.9
! With the elimination of the i've sharp
decreases from the table, 1t Will oe seen
that the rate of decrease on the aeEfe-
gate would be less than three per cent,
and with eight more Of those receiving a
decrease under the proposed rate 1t
would more than wipe out the total ae-
crease.
| After going over the above figures does
it seem to you Mr.. Light User and 0r
Citizen who might want to use lights
that the proposed rate is substantial
reduction to light pltrons generally or
that it is an equitable adjustment?
The Herald editor, who is Also the
! .;~rov of tho Y,oinoritv ronArt. still tht&lkS