Show r F DOARD 0 HEARS POWER I i I APPEAL ol of Company That Million Is Lost Yearly lillion Brings Hearing D Deals als alsS S Said id to Be Preferential ren ial N j N THE complaint of the J Power ower and Light corn com coming com com- l ing setting forth that through I ial 1 contracts the company 1181 t l lost in 1918 d in 1919 hearing of or the lg rs s of special contracts with the was begun before the public i iii i. i s commission today todar The coal 1 contract holders were cited to PJ l' l an and l show cause why their were not preferential dis- dis I Imf atory and Illegal al and should I fore Core be abrogated ON STAND m Initial session of the hearl hearing is t taken ken up in the testimony of I Halkett ett auditor of the public Mlles lUcs commission who based his nc visions exclusively on fi figures ures and I submitted by the Utah Copper the largest user of power by the power company compan Mr I i after atter the submission of the theta theto to ta declared d that in his opinion the I Il c al l contract ct with the copper com- com II n nj was in some instances I tory but he said he could not eke ike lK a gen general ral statement covering g of all the special ial contract Iders rs as conditions in each varied ER COMpANY t RES i t pat a t S copper company paid th the lie power it used while the stand- stand d 1 price would have been 1635 t 3 1394 4 a diff difference ence of ot 21 or rh other ar wo words dS t the he contract price was per c cent nt of the standard cg t In 1919 Mr II Halkett said the I company used under the conic conic con con- ic price worth of power I Standard s andard price of which would h have ve veen en The difference beD be- be I be-I Url D the contract and the standard I Imos was was' The contract I is was consequently only per I of the standard price BUSINESS I lARS EARS BUSINESS M Halkett also submitted the figes fig fig- fig I es of f the Utah Power and Light com- com n ny- ny riy derived from all of the special on which the hearing is now irig ing held They are as follows For ForIS FortS IS tS li Contract price price differ differ- ce cej p percentage Contract Contract price price rice difference I percentage At Ate the opening of the hearing the them II m and motions for dismissal the special contract holders were n rued led ed by bv the commission The der de- de I r ers ers' bad had been based on the ground Jack hack U. U ck of jurls jurisdiction of the commis- commis tt to to deal wit with will t the e cases It was gued that the th-e contracts were entered the commission was cre- cre ed by law SPECIFIED Ee he commission has classified the theal e ec l al l contract holders as follows fice e buildings irrigation companies cam earn m railroads steel mills and foun- foun I les smelters melters manufacturing plants eat t packing plants flour milling ants apts hotel and apartments cement a newspapers utility companies her h her f than steam and nd electric railroads eta etal t t manufacturing plants coal coat mi- mi g companies Int interurban and elec- elec f The contract holders it ilke a heard in the foregoing fore order |