Missouri Valley times. [volume] (Missouri Valley, Iowa) 1874-1931, 1916-01-20
ARE CHEAPER
LIGHTS POSSlRLE7

I'll
the light company lowering its
rates and couple of petitions
have been presented to the coun-
Gil asking that the rates be low
cred or that an investigation be
made loking toward the lowering
of the rate. There is nothing
harmful in the proceedings so far
as it does seem the rates here are
high, but we have assurances
from the light company that the
rates will be lowered just as soon
as they possibly can do it and
they offer to submit their books
to show their exact earnings and
expenses. We also hope to pub
.lish a letter in few days from
the company explaining its posi-
ton. The company's explanation
OF its attitude is correct one
from its point of view. 1t claims
that it is giving twenty-four
hour service, but that its day load
is not sufficient to pay the run
ming expenses during the day and
that profits from the lighting load
must be sacrificed to the day
load. If there was considerable
more day load to carry part of
the expense, the rate could be cut,
but until then the light company
thinks it impossible to do very
much. This is its side of the
story and it looks plausible.
Those advocating the reduced
rates are talking municipal plant
in case the rates are not cut. To
our minds this would be a serious
mastake, as there are probably as
many municipal light plants not
making money as those that are
making money. Besides we have
been shown figures which con-
WINGED us that if the city would
abandon its pumping station and
let the light people do the pump
ing the city would save consider
able money. 1t seems a shame to
have two large power plants run
ming within a block of each other
when one plant could do the work
of both without any increased
cost. All of these things must
be worked ou equitably and fairly
before anything definite can be
done. This is a case where it
will pay to make haste slowly.
In this connection we reprint
the following letter from today's
Omaha World-Herald:
Omaha, Neb., Jan. 15.-To the
Editor of the World-Herald: My
January light bill came to hand
Saturday. The amount Of current
used was thirty-three killowatts
and the charge for same is $2.48.
If the old scale of rates were
still in effect, as prior to August
10, this current would have cost
me $2.45.
In other words the company S
beneflcient reduction of rates,
made me pay 8 cents more for
current this month than i would
have paid before the sreduc-
ton" and in addition l must pay
for renewals of what carbon
lamps / have in the house in
stead of receiving free renewals
as before.
The company would call this
statement for a single month I'M
fair. 1t is. In October | paid
88 cents for current that would
have cost me Si.i5 under the old
schedule; in November, $3.50 for
what would have cost Sill; in
December, $t.76 for what would
have cost St.83. In other words,
the reduction saved me, gross,
81 cents i'm October, II cents in
November, Z cents in December
and cost me 3 cents in January,
an average of So per cent. Out
of this saving ! must pay for
lamps and also whatever l may be
"stuck" by the 50-cent minimum
in the summer months, which
will probably be nothing.
This is the saving Of which the
light company, in its paid news
paper advertisements, said: 1.-THE
maximum lighting rate is cut
from 1910 cents to cents net,
a decrease of 23.4 per cent"
Incidentally, the more current
IL use the more the reduction
costs me. V. B. SMITH.