The Bluffton news. [volume] (Bluffton, Ohio) 1875-current, 1948-01-08
Central Ohio Light and Power
Co. Charges Its Service
Would Cost Less
General Manager Cites Proposal
Made To Public Affairs
Board In 1916

Assertion was made this week that
Central Ohio Light and Power Co.
proposal made to the Bluffton board
of public affairs in the summer of
1916 would have made it possible for
the village ito purchase electric
energy at a lower cost per kilowatt
hour" than it could be generated at
the municipal plant.
The statement came from Emory
d. Edwin, vice president and general
manager of the Central Ohio utility,
which maintains an electrical general
ing plant here and is large Blufton
taxpayer. Erwin's headquarters are
in Findlay.
Bringing into the open an under
cover controversy which has been
seething here since the municipal
plants expansion program was
launched over a year ago, .Erwin's
assertion was attributed to his belief
there should be a presentation of
"the whole story and all of the
economic considerations involved"
In broad perspective, Erwin's
statements seem to point to contro-
versial views of the Central Ohio
and the Blufton board of public af-
fairs regarding the respective merits
of buying additional equipment for
the municipal plant, or to handle ad-
ditional local demand for electric
service by purchasing the extra pow
er from Central Ohio Light and
Power Co.
Points TO Cost
Erwin's assertion that current
could have been provided for Bluff
ton at a lower cost than it could be
generated was not further amplifed,
altho there was implication the ex-
tensive expansion program launched
more than a year ago was I'M
necessary.
His request for the "whole story"
followed an alleged unfair statement
made at a joint meeting of the board
of public affairs and the town coun-
ell last week, which Erwin said he
felt indicated the village was forced
to build an extension to their power
plant because of an unreasonable
proposition submitted to them by our
company" -s.<.
The proposition, according to
copy provided by Erwin, was as fol-
lows, on a fve-year contract basis:
Net Rate Per Month:
First 200 XVIII per KVA of Bill
ing Demand @.013 per XVIII
Next 100 XVIII per KVA of Bill
ing Demand -~~@.0115 per XVIII
XVIII in excess of $50 XVIII per
KVA of Billing Demand a .008
per XVIII.
KVA Billing Demand:
The KVA billing demand for any
month shall be the highest 30
minute integrated KVA demand
as obtained by suitable metering
equipment during the month
under consideration.
Minimum Charge:
The minimum charge for any
month shall be the energy charge
equivalent to 220 XVIII per KVA
of billing demand but not less
than $1,000 per month.
Coal Cost Adjustment:
The above rate shall be increased
one-tenth mill ($.O001) per XVIII
for each full ten cent ($.10) in
crease in the average cost per
ton of $4,000 BTU (dry basis)
coal, or its equivalent, about six
dollars ($6.O0) per ton $4,000
pounds) F. o. B. on hand at the
Company's generating stations
at the end of the month inn
mediately preceding current bill
ing month.
1t was the five-year contract with
a minimum charge of $1,000 per
month, representing an aggregate
cost of 100000 plus the cost of
necessary transformers, switches, etc.
estimated by Central Ohio Light and
Power Co. at $6,500, to which r. H.
Marker, engineering advisor for the
board of public affairs, made refer
ence in last weeks meeting.
At the time, Marker said the only
alternative to erecting the building
would be removal of the two old
boilers, now used as standby, and
place the new one in that spot. To
follow such a course would entail
contracting for standby current, and
under the proposal of Central Ohio
Light and Power Co. the aggregate
cost would be better than 100000
as compared with an estimated cost
of $4,000 for the building addition.
| Central Ohio spokesman said Tues
day, however, that after submitting
their proposal they heard nothing
further from the board of public af-
fairs, and that if they had been ap-
Continued on page 81