18 FORMS OF METER RATES NOW IN USE 



scale. In the remaining 79 per cent of the systems a minimum 

 charge is used. 



With reference to the amount of slide, the following figures 

 are made up to show the ordinary and not necessarily the extreme 

 amounts of slide. The amount of slide may be defined as 

 the ratio between the rates per 1000 gallons for the smallest 

 and largest quantities sold to a customer. This result is reached 

 by excluding special rates made to extremely large takers, and 

 which do not apply to quantities of less than 100 million gallons 

 per annum. At the other end of the scale a few rates applying 

 only to quantities of less than 100 gallons per day are excluded. 



On this basis it is found that about 15 per cent of the systems 

 have a uniform meter rate, and 85 per cent use the sliding scale. 

 Of these 14 per cent use scales with a total amount of slide of less 

 than 1.5 to i ; 14 per cent have scales with slides greater than the 

 above, but not exceeding 2 to i; 19 per cent have slides greater 

 than the above, but less than 3 to i; 16 per cent with slides less 

 than 4 to i ; 20 per cent have slides less than 5 to i ; and 2 per 

 cent have scales that slide more than 5 to i. For all the sys- 

 tems, including the 1 5 per cent with uniform rates, the medium 

 slide is as i to 2.35, and the average slide is as i to 2.67. If 

 rates for extreme quantities were included, the average amount 

 of slide would appear to be greater. 



Simplicity of Meter Rates. A meter rate schedule to be 

 successful and practical must be simple. The people who pay 

 the bills made up under it must be able to understand the method 

 of computation. It is important that the scale shall be equi- 

 table as far as it is possible to make it equitable and at the same 

 time keep it simple. But there are so many considerations 

 that legitimately might be taken into account in fixing an equi- 

 table scale of rates that if they were all to be taken into account 

 it might result in a scale that would not be simple enough to 

 be practical. Within limits simplicity is more important than 

 equity. 



In other words, minor inequalities in the distribution of the 

 burden can be, and practically must be, permitted to exist in 

 the interests of simplicity. On the other hand, a careful study 



