The Washington times., 1924-05-27
GIVES ia 4
IN HEARST
PAPERS
Quotes Figures Disclosing
Amazing Difference With
Niagara Costs

Actual comparison Of the cost
Of electric current when produced
by steam and water power was
made today by Congressman Viii
liam G. Hammer of North Caro-
lima at hearing before a special
subcommittee of the House Dis
trict Committee on the proposed
hydroelectric plant at Great Falls,
Congressman Hammer inserted
in the Record a statement from,
The Washington Herald of May
70 and a reproduction published
by the Hearst morning paper Of
bills presented to consumers Of
electricity in Washington and at
Niagara Falls.
Costs Vastly Different.
'These families were Of the Same
size and lived in houses having the
same number Of. rooms" Congress
man Hammer said. 1.-THE amount of
electricity consumed in each case
was identical. The only difference
was that the family at Niagara
fails received its current from q
hydro-electric plant, while the
washington family received steam
generated current.
THE months bill in Washington
was $23.18, while that at Niaxara
Falls was only $685."
Congressman Frederick N. Zihl-
man of Maryland, chairman of the
committee, later questioned William
F. Ham, president of the Pepco
and the Wreco, regarding the rea.
son for this difference in cost.
II can't say offhand Just how
that saving was brought about, :"
Ham replied.
Unusual Problem Here.
Mr.. Ham declared that Washing.
ton presents an unusual problem
to the producers Of electric current.
The compulsory underground dis.
tribution system increases the cost,
he told the committee and in addi.
ton Washington has no industrial
load and therefore the demand for
current fluctuated widely during
each day.
The steam plant, he explained.
cannot produce current efficiently
unless 1t is operated under an even
load.
He told the committee that he
Knew OF one city in the country
with an electric plant as large as
Washington's where current was
sold economically for five cents per
k1lowat hour, half the cost OF that
here. The difference was caused
by the fact that the other city had
an industrial load he said.
Criticizes TyIer's Figures.
The witness took issue with fig.
ures compiled by Major M. g.
Tyler, Army engineer, who. nre.
pared the plan now being con.
sidered by Congress for the de.
velopment of Great Falls. Ham
contended that Major Tyler's fig.
ures regarding the cost of steam
generation were in error and nre.
scented tables which he claimed
were correct figures. The differ.
; ence between the two estimates. he
declared, would lessen the expected
margin of saving under the hydro
electric plan.
He declared that the hydro.
electric plant would result in an
average monthly saving to the
District home owners Of only 4
cents on a bill of $3.50. He also
claimed that the average saving to
the street car riders would be an.
proximately 4 cents for every fifty
rides.
Based On Steam Plant.
He admitted, however, that these
figures were based on q cost of
production at the steam plant.
which excluded the fixed charges
and on the proposed development
at Chain Bridge alone.
Inclusion of the fixed charges In
the steam production cost would
raise the total considerably, it was
stated. At the same time the
hydro'electric cost would be reduced
approximately SO per cent upon the
completion of the power dam at
Great Falls in addition to the unit
At Chain BRIDGE --~S