Jasper County Democrat, Volume 14, Number 59, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 October 1911 — METER RATES TOO HIGH. [ARTICLE]

METER RATES TOO HIGH.

Private Light Consumers Also Paying for Street Lighting In Rensselaer. At the last meeting of the city council, on Monday night, a meter rate for electric power was adopted which in our opinion is too high to make it much

of an inducement for people to use that kind of power for light manufacturing or other power purposes. The rate adopted was 8 cents per kilowat for the first 200 kilowats used per month ($16.00) and 5c for the next 200, making $26 per month for 400 kilowats. The commercial rate is 8c and the residence rate 10c, and every user of lights knows that their light bill runs up to a pretty stiff figure unless they grope about in darkness most of the time. The old flat rate was much more satisfactory to the users of a medium number of lights, for under it one could light up a couple or three rooms for a few hours of evenings without its costing him so outrageously for the illumination. Now The Democrat has .favored a meter system, and still favors it, but as our light and water system is owned by the city—the people—and is not destined to pay big dividends on watered stock, simply to pay expenses, the light rate should be so arranged as to distribute the cost of operation of the plant fairly and equitably on all persons alike? - The old light rate not on’y brougM in sufficient revenue to pay all the expenses of operation, make repairs, add new machinery as needed, etc., but accumulated several thousand dollars in excess of all this. And that, too, with the light patrons paying about five-sixths of the cost of lighting the streets of the city. Tlie present levy of 10 cents for street lighting brings in only Sl,2'X> per year, and the levy has remained the same since 1908.

The light levy from 1900 to ’9OS varied considerably. In <9OO, 1901 and 190? it was 10c; 1903, 1904, 1905 and 1906, 15c; 1907, 20c; 1908 and on to 1911, 10c. (The higher rate given was when some new machinery was added.) There are now 32 arc lights, 2,000 candle power, and 62 large incandescents of 80 candle power, used in street lighting. The light fund pays for all coal used and all expenses of operating the light and water plant except one man for the latter. At a very low estimate our street lights are run on an average of six hours each night throughout the year, consuming practically 200 kilowats of “juice” each night. If this was metered out to the city, as it should be, and the same rate charged the city that has been fixed for power purposes, it would cost the city approximately $6,000 per year for its street lighting where it now gets out for $1,200, and materially reduce the rate to private cansumers. In other words, the difference between $6,000 and $1,200 is being paid by the private consumer.

This is not right, and the only equitable way to manage this plant is to meter all juice used by the city and levy a general tax to cover the cost. As it now is and has been all the years the city has owned this plant, the non-light consuming tax-payer has been' getting the benefit of street lights at the expense of the private consumer. And many of the wealthiest people in the city either use no electric lights at all or use very few. Prior to 1897, or when the city purchased the light plant there Were 9 arc lights and 50 20-candle power incandescents used for street lighting, and the city was paying SI,BOO per year for its lights. Now, with four times as many lights—and much better ones, too —the city is paying a measly $1,200 and saddling the rest of the actual cost onto the private consumer instead of putting it onto the general taxpayer, where it belongs. If this matter was properly adjusted we i Should have a maximum power rate of from 4 to 5 cents per kilowat, and a comrrercial and residence light rate but a trifle bigger and it is a matter that should be rerpedied in justice to all parties.