Show I STATE A TE EXPERTS UNDER ATTACK IN PHONE CASE Q u a I i Are Challenged in Rebuttal Qualifications of the state public public pub pub- lic lie service commissions commission's experts were attacked as the Mountain States States' Telephone and Tel Telegraph graph company offered rebuttal testimony Friday in the commissions commission's investigation investigation investigation gation of ot the utility's rate ture A A. S. S Peters valuation engineer o of the company assailed exhibits anc and testimony of the states state's witnesses as unjustified Incorrect and unworthy unworthy unworthy un un- un- un worthy of serious consideration F F. L. L commission chief accountant accountant accountant ac ac- ac- ac countant and a chief witness for the state stale was arraigned by the engl- engl engineer neer fleer as applying his theories JD of depreciation to the telephone business business business busi busi- ness with he has has' had no practical experience Mr Peters said that estimates o of Mr 1 and G G. R R. Kenny Ken expert expert ex ex- pert specially retained by the commission commission com corn mission were based as their own statements show on their judgment judg judg- ment Not Sufficient That Is 15 not sufficient the company company com corn pany pan witness said There are three things necessary necessary Detailed knowledge knowledge knowledge knowl knowl- edge of each class of ot property to which depreciation rates apply familiarity fa fa- a- a ty with the particular plant plan to which rates apply and complete data on past experience and accurate accurate rate and intelligent analysis of ot such data Mr Peters criticised particularly the state experts' experts figuring of ot depreciation depreciation depre depre- and said their estimates contained material errors of principle pie pic and fact facts Many of their statements were wen made only to cast doubt on the correctness correctness correctness cor cor- of company figures h he testified Basis Basis- Challenged Mr based his figures on onan onan onan an equipment life of oC 31 years ears In order to have a life of ot 31 years some equipment would have to b bused be used 50 years to obtain such an average Due apparently to Mr unfamiliarity with classes of telephone telephone telephone tele tele- phone plants many of oC his comparisons compari compari- sons of depreciation t on rates are arc misleading misleading mis mis- leading bec because they are not comparable comparable comparable com com- parable in many instances as applicable applicable applicable ap ap- ap- ap to different groups o of equipment His testimony referring to to pas past depreciation rates indicates Mr either cither Is unfamiliar with principles of depreciation which h he states at length or is trying to befog the issues Earlier in Fridays Friday's session of th the hearing B. B F. F Fisher general traffic traffic traffie fic fie engineer for the company read into the paper on the proportionate proportionate proportionate pro pro- usage of local and to toll equipment D. D H. H Faber toll engineer engineer en en- gincer read another paper on percentage percentage per per- of state and interstate us use of toll service The hearing will continue Saturday Saturday Saturday Satur Satur- day and may conclude then |