OCR Text |
Show THE SEARCHLIGHT Conditional Approval Given Utility~ (Continued “As sion a from general is inclined preceding proposition, to look During page) the Commis- with disfavor upon ease the rate hearing and in the merger the Power Company has jumped at every opportunity to sneak in the inflation in the ex- or isting concerns and validate. it for future rate consolidation of such dissimilar utility services as are performed by an electric system making purposes. Writeups and water in the financial structures of both Traction and the Power Company, heretofore frowned upon, and slated for discard by State and Federal a plan and which a_ where contemplates transportation that the merger system, transportation especially system expects soon to complete the abandonment and retirement of street railway service and concentrate almost exclusively portation service. upon bus trans- “It also is of the opinion that, even in the event of merger or consolidation of all properties of Traction Company with Utah Company, steps should be taken surviving company to divest itself transportation business as soon as cable. Again, as a general by the of the practi- proposition, the Commissions, were included in the application for consolidation with arrogant impudence. In the merger case the Company showed no disposition to conform voluntarily to the utilitv policy adopted by PSCU, SEC, or FPC. The Company’s attitude was even worse in the rate case. It hung onto its sins with unholy zeal, and it resorted to every legal trick to sustain them and to win its points. Of course, not surprising. its attitude in current affairs Public officials and thousands is of Commission would look with favor upon a plan to acquire or merge just the electrical properties of the Traction Company with citizens still recall its implacable obduracy at Logan during the quarter century it tried to put the business. Thus, Utah Company.” the attitude of the Utah Commission appeared to be that if the Securities & Exchange Commission should find that the:merger of transportation and electrical properties would facilitate refinancing, then the Utah Commission would approve the merger. But if refinancing can be accomplished in an orderly manner without such a merger then apparently the Utah Commission would be pleased to coneur in any refusal of the Securities & Exchange Commission to approve a merger of unlike properties. Accordingly, the actual decision as to a merger of all properties appears to rest with SEC. In its findings and report the Commission made a number of pointed references to slick methods of Utah Power & Light. It was made clear that the Commission would risk no breach of faith by the Power Company. It refused to accede to Mr. Gadsby’s request that consideration of accounting methods be deferred until after the merger should have been completed. The Commission had reason to refuse. perience has taught regulatory authority Utah that it can take nothing for granted dealing with Utah Power & Light Exin in Company. the municipal The Power & Light. For instance, power worst system is in always that city out expected And it seldom through its new of of Utah disappoints. preferred stock- holder allies, the Power Company has sought to keep a toe hold for Bond & Share in the proposed consolidated company. That group has let it be known around Salt Lake City that it ap- proved a token holding of from 3 to 5% of the common stock of Utah Power & Light Company by Electric Power & Light Corporation, a move that, if countenanced by SEC would keep Bond & Share Light in effective control of Utah Power & Company. The findings and order in the merger case are welcome evidenee that Utah has ceased to be a province in the Bond & Share empire, and hereafter will regulate Utah Power & Light Company in the public interest. The findings of the Commission relating to the reasonableness of electric rates, referred to in the report, is interpreted to indicate that the Commission shortly will order a reduction in rates aggregating approximately $1,600,000. Under cross examination in the rate case, Mr. George M. Gadsby admitted that a reduction in earnings of $1,600,000, arising from reduced rates, would only cause a net reduction (Continwed on following page) |