OCR Text |
Show Letters To The Editor Editor: The letter from Carl Palmer and David Muhlestein appearing in your February 4 issue again displayed an immature and biased attempt by them to discredit an industry which they obviously know little about. To further their vendetta (vengeance) against California-Pacific Utilities Company your readers were asked to study a chart intended to portray a comparison of utility operations in Cedar City with those of several other Utah cities. I feel compelled to comment further on that chart. I wish also to briefly comment on Carl Palmer's deceptive performance per-formance during his February 4 address before the public meeting organized by the Cedar City Jaycees. Following his address Carl Palmer was aksed why he didn't allow himself to be cross examined during his presentation to the Public Service Commission. He indicated in-dicated that he is afraid of being tripped up by "sharp Cal-Pac lawyers" because of some minor accounting technicalities. One need not be an attorney or an accountant to trip up the deliberate misrepresentation he quoted during his address concerning con-cerning the Company's generating plant investment. He represented that the information was provided to him by the Public Service Commission. Those figures are found on the Company's depreciation schedule filed with the Public Service Commission and were purposely pur-posely read off without consideration for depreciation. (A minor technicality?) Any businessman who prepares a depreciation schedule knows the difference between original or replacement cost and depreciated plant investment. Obviously, Carl Palmer does not. With reference to the chart printed with the letter, it should first be pointed out that the other cities reflected on the chart are ones who receive all or most of their power supply from the U.S. Government rates subsidized by all taxpayers. Additionally, the chart reflects California-Pacific gross revenue from its total Iron and Washington County operations yet it is disguised as applicable only to Cedar City with a "population of 12,000." The column entitled "Income to the City" is further a deliberate misrepresented attempt to show inequity between a community served by an investor owned utility versus ones with government subsidized systems in that it shows only franchise taxes received by Cedar City. We are warned in the letter not to rebut with tax figures. Let me alert all of the citizens of Iron, Washington and Kane Counties that California-Pacific Utilities is not apologetic about the taxes it returns to local government. During the fiscal year reflected on the Palmer-Muhlestein chart (1975) he fails to mention that the Company Com-pany paid $17,433.62 in franchise taxes directly to the communities it serves, $107,512, $31,634 and $4,061 to the Treasurers of Iron, Washington and Kane Counties, respectively, and additionally returned $19,432 to irrigation customers as "tax rebates." It should also be noted that $125,883.90 was collected for the State in sales taxes by the Company and it paid in excess of $82,000 in sales taxes to Utah on goods and materials it purchased for use in its operations in Utah. The chart's mill levy comparison between St. George and Cedar City is also one that commands some closer study. The St. George levy of 13 mills in 1975 was on the heels of Washington County County's reappraisal while Cedar City's 20 mills was immediately preceeding Iron County's reappraisal. It might be interesting to note that the very next year (1976) the mill levy in St. George increased in-creased 38 percent to 18 mills while Cedar City's dropped 35 percent to 13 mills. During that year, California-Pacific Utilities (who is reappraised annually by the State Tax Commission) paid $89,254, $33,517 and $3,712 to Iron, Washington and Kane Counties respectively respec-tively while rebating irrigation customers an additional $25,030. The Company further paid franchise taxes directly to local communities totalling $22,167. How much did St. George's utility system contribute to Washington County for operation of schools, roads, etc.? If they didn't contribute anything, doesn't this constitute yet another subsidy sub-sidy to the municipally, owned system by the private sector? What happens when all communities join the bandwagon and there is a diminished tax paying private sector? Whose burden will the increasing in-creasing subsidies be then? Another of many incorrect statements in Palmer and Muhlestein's letter is the reference that Utah Power and Light Company's 22.6 percent rate increase application now before the Utah Public Service Ser-vice Commission will be passed on to California Pacific customers if granted. It must be pointed out that Utah Power & Light Company's application affects only their retail customers and not California-Pacific California-Pacific Utilities. The wholesale rate under which California-Pacific purchases energy from Utah Power & Light is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission. As a result, California-Pacific's wholesale power costs were increased by approximately ap-proximately 40 percent on August 1, 1976 under tentative FPC approval. ap-proval. The offsetting increase to California-Pacific customers of 18 62 percent was authorized by the Utah Public Service Commission on that same date under Case No. 76-023-03 and is already in effect. We want to assure all Southern Utah citizens that this company has in the past and will continue in the future to do those things that are necessary to provide a reliable power source for this area. Undertaking the huge cost of the new transmission facilities to provide service for all of Southern Utah is but one example. Lest I be accused of lowering my comments to Carl Palmer's level, I would like to close by inviting all concerned citizens to attend the next public meeting organized by the Jaycees on February 17. At that time we will deliver factual information which has already withstood careful cross-examination. We will confine our remarks to the operations of California-Pacific Utilities Company as I'm confident that those individuals slandered by Carl Palmer will he making their own response. J. P. Paris Division Manager Southern Utah Division California-Pacific Utilities Company |