OCR Text |
Show RAISE IN RATES liptn Committee Investigating Proposed Pro-posed Increase in Rates Submit Sub-mit Their Report. Beforo tho Public Utilities Commission Commis-sion of Utah: The Dixio Power Company, a corporation, cor-poration, petitioners, vs. Cedar City, ct al, defendant. Answer. Now. comes tho inhabitants of Cedar Ce-dar City, in l'ron County, State of Utah, by their represcntotives, J. M. Foster, Joshua Arthur, Parley Dalley, Lafayette McConncll and G. Hunter Lunt, and answering tho petition of tho Dixie Power Company, petition-era petition-era herein, allego a3 follows: i That tho said petition in its summary, "Exhibit F," shows that said power company is entitled to 0 per cent interest on $521,039.75 worth of property and 4 per cent depreciation deprecia-tion of property to tho value of ?49G,-039.75. ?49G,-039.75. 2, That their present incomo on I their property amounts to $510,319 I per year from their plants running I at GO per cent capacity. i 3 That their yearly expenso a- mounts to $50,603.56 us shown on pago 21 of said petition, or a loss of $5,531.04 per year. 4 That in order that said company com-pany may receive tho 6 per cent interest in-terest and 4 per cent depreciation as above set forth it will be necessary to raise customers' rates sufficiently to produce u gross yearly income of 68,010.72 for said company when running. theirijplanta at 60 per cent capacity, or ?113,401.20 when running run-ning at full capacity. 5 That to accomplish this there must be n raise in customers' rates, as follows: Residential light minimum charge $1.G7, as against tho present charge of $1.00. 15 cents por kilowatt hour for first 30 Kilowatt hours as against present rate of 11 cents, and other increases as Bet forth in the various schedules of said petition making a gross increase in-crease in rates to the amount of 33 1-3 per cent as can be readily calculated cal-culated from the summary of said petition. 6 Tho supplementary petition of petitioners sets forth a more or less complete statement of petitioners' I property holdings and expense accounts ac-counts which tho defendants herein aro not in a position to either deny or verify for tho reason that wo havo no means of determining the truthfulness truthful-ness of the same except from tho faco of petitioners' petition. 7 On examination of "Exhibit D" of said petition, we find that paid property holdings of $521,639.75 on which petitioners demand 6 per cent interest includes $16,808.83 in debts ' owing said company by customers, as I well as liberty bonds amounting to $2,512.50 owned by said company, tho former already bearing interest at tho rato of 12 per cent per annum, and tho latter a lesser rate. Tho samo exhibit also shows that tho said $190,039.75 on which petitioners demand de-mand 4 per cent depreciation per year includes $26,850.00 listed as "property prepaid interest", which means tlfc amount tho bonds sold by said company was discounted. Of courso this needs no argument to show that it should be eliminated in figuring depreciation. It would also seem evident that if tho said property depreciate 4 per per ce"nt per annum then the valuo of tho property which we are expected to pay 0 per cent interest on should decroaso yearly to this extent, but no provision is made for this in said pe-i pe-i tition. j 8 Said petition in "Exhibit F" I gives data from which it may be readily calculated that petitioners now rcceivo $46,816.50 per year from residential lighting and small motors customers, cooking and heating and commercial lighting, and page 21 of potition shows they rccoivo $18,575.90 per year from Municipal lighting light-ing and commercial power earnings, making in all $65,492.40 instead of $51,031.92 as net forth on pago 2 of petition. It will bo further noted that theso earnings are on a plant ,running,Bt GO per cent capacity,which jwould amount to $109,154.00 at full capacity, and if wo add to this a i ! gross increase of 33 1-3 por cent thoy would then receive $145,538.G6 por year. Said petition states in ordcrto run at full capacity it will entail an additional expense of $8,610.71 a year which added to tho present yearly expense ex-pense of $56,553.50 as set forth on pago 2 of tho petition would bo in all $65,164.21 per year . It will bo seen however, from pago 20 of petition that $7,674.91 of tho present half-yearly half-yearly expenso is for additions made this year to their system, and $13,-500.00 $13,-500.00 is interest on bonds. Both of these items should bo eliminated for tho reason that tho former represents permanent improvements and is not proper yearly charge, and If tho latter bo allowed as an ' expense then tho $225,000.00 bonds as set forth on pago 20 of the petition should bo 'deducted from the total property valuation on which wo aro expected to pay G per cent interest, since wo could hardly bo expected to pay sufficient suf-ficient money to cover this item of yearly expenso twice. Making tho above correction wo find that tho present yearly expenso of tho company amounts to $27,703.68 instead of $56,553.00 on 60 per cent capacity, and adding this to $8,010.71 tho yearly increased expense on account ac-count of running at full capacity, we hnvo a total "expense of $36,314.39 per year at full capacity. After making the above corrections as tor the value of the property on which 6 per cent interest should bo paid we find that tho interest a-mounts a-mounts to $30,286.26 per year and tho amount for depreciation per year a-mounta a-mounta to $18,791.59, or in all $49,-077.85, $49,-077.85, and this added to the corrected yearly expense of $30,814.85 gives us $85,392.24 which tho company should receive when runing at full capacity.1 Since the amount we now pay the' company yearly is $65,161.21, and tho plant running at 60 per cent capacity,' they will receive from is without an ' increase in rates $109,154.00 per year when running at full capacity, or over ov-er 27 per cent more than we should' bo paying. I We note further from the potion-' eis' supplementary petition that it states that the company now has 395 meters at Cedar, and also that three-fourths three-fourths of tho holes for poles to St. George, and one-half of those from! St. Georgo to Hurricane had to bo blasted on account of lava rock. These statements aro gross exaggerations' without a doubt since it is within our ' own knowledge that most of tho me-' ters used in Cedar City are owned by ' the residents, and thero is no such! amount of lava rock' along tho lines ' mentioned. Whether all tho other! statements as to costs and valuations j are founded on no more facts thanj these wo aro unnblo to say, but theso ' mako tho whole petition untrustworthy untrust-worthy in our estimation. Wo further state that it is our firm belief that thero is no such depreciation deprecia-tion as 4 por cent por annum in tho company's property. Tho people aro already taxed out of their homes and certainly can't stand for any increase from this source. John M. Fostor, Parley Dalley, Lafayotto McConncll, Joshua Arthur, ' Geo. Huntor Lunt. |