Public v. Private

Last week the old controversy over public v. private ownership and operation of electric power plants produced important news in three widely separated parts of the U. S. Public utilitarians throughout the land watched with anxious interest these manifestations of a fundamental politico-economic struggle.

Georgia. Crisp County,* outraged at the rates charged by Georgia Power Co., had bonded itself for $1,250,000, built its own hydroelectric plant on the Flint River. It claimed to be the first county in the U. S. owning and operating its own power plant, to sell electricity more cheaply than anywhere else in the U. S. Threatened by public competition, Georgia Power Co. circulated notices in Cordele, county seat, that it was cutting its "energy charge" 50% (no cut in "service charge") in that town for all customers, that electricity bills would drop 35% which "will make our customers' rates approximately 25% less than those of persons buying power from any other agency [i. e. the public plant] in Crisp County."

The Crisp County Board of Trade exultantly spread full-page advertisements through the Atlanta newspapers, recording its success in forcing Georgia Power to cut rates, inviting citizens and manufacturers to move to Crisp County, "the home of Low Price Electric Current," declaring that other Georgia counties would "save millions of dollars" if the private company would accord them similar rate reductions.

Promptly the Georgia Public Service Commission cited the utility law against discrimination in favor of one community against another, ordered Georgia Power Co. to appear and show cause why its rates all over the State should not be reduced to a parity with those in Crisp County.

California. San Francisco's citizens in last week's primary (see p. 14) were asked to pass on a $68,115,000 bond issue to put the city into the power business. Of this total $63,545,000 would have been used to condemn and acquire Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Great Western Power Co. of California and the balance spent in constructing new transmission lines, distributing equipment and a hydroelectric plant at Red Mountain Bar. The city's voters favored private ownership and operation, defeated the bond issue. One reason cited for the result: the municipal operation of San Francisco's trolley system has not been successful, produces deficits.

New York. Last week a special commission appointed by Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt by authority of the Legislature began an inspection trip along the St. Lawrence River to determine the economic and technical feasibility of a huge State-owned and operated hydro-electric power system on that stream. Long have New York Democrats favored such a public power scheme on the St. Lawrence only to be thwarted by a Republican majority, pledged to private operation, in the Legislature. To keep the power issue out of this year's campaign Republicans consented to a non-partisan investigation of the Roosevelt proposal of State production and transmission of energy, private distribution under contracts that would reduce and regulate the retail price. Estimated cost of the State plan: $235,000,000 to $500,000,000.

Governor Roosevelt accompanied his commissioners on their inspection, made speeches in rural Republican upState counties in which he envisaged a "second Pittsburgh" arising in that area, predicted speed in executing his plan. Said he: "If you have the kind of government in business that is successful, you pat yourself on the back and say it's fine and no one thinks about its being radical. If you haven't, why, then, everyone thinks it's altogether different."

Meanwhile the prospect that New York might yet be the first State to go in for the wholesale production of power had moved the big power companies that serve New York City to volunteer lower rates. Last week acrimonious hearings were held before the Public Service Commission on the proposal of the New York Edison, Brooklyn Edison, United Electric Light & Power. Bronx Gas & Electric and New York & Queens Electric Light & Power to reduce the domestic rate from 7-c- to 5-c- per kilowatt hour but to add a 60-c- charge to every monthly bill for "meter service." Such a rate cut would lop $5,390,000 off the power company's annual income. The meter charge, however, would increase the price of electricity to 57% of the consumers. A consumer at the reduced rates would have to use more than 30 kilowatt hours of electricity per month to get his money's worth from the meter charge. Thus 20 kilowatt-hours at the present 7-c- rate would be $1.40. At the 5-c- rate plus the 60-c- meter charge the same amount of electricity would cost $1.60. The power companies defended their proposal on the ground that small users of electricity do not pay their full share of the distributing cost.

Governor Roosevelt was quick to see the political effect of upping power prices, under the guise of cutting rates, to a million New York City voters. Said he: "The first principle of utility use is that the small consumer . . . should receive the greatest protection and consideration." The New York Real Estate Board entered objections. Mayor James John Walker ordered his law officers to fight the change before the Public Service Commission, to demand a rate of 4-c- per kilowatt hour and no meter charge.

Monthly charges for 38 kilowatt hours of electric current, a small-home average, produced by private companies in the U. S. cities:

Schenectady $2.90

New York City 2.66

Philadelphia 2.52

Pittsburgh 2.22

Baltimore 2.63

San Francisco $2.03

Cleveland 1.90

Chicago 1.86

Detroit 1.85

Washington 1.79

Buffalo 1.72

St. Louis 1.67

Tacoma 1.14

Municipal plants selling the same amount of current:

Los Angeles $1.76

Dunkirk, N. Y. 1.60

Holyoke, Mass. 1.52

Tacoma 1.43

Canadian cities serviced by the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario:

Hamilton $.98

Toronto .88

Ottawa .88

* Named for the family of the late great Charles Frederick Crisp, Speaker of the House of Representatives, whose son Charles Robert now ably represents the district (3rd) in Congress.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.