OCR Text |
Show I! CROSS EXAMINE ; ! POWER OFFICIAL ! "George B. Thomas, Treasurer of Otah Power & Light Co., on Stand ' SALT LAKE. May fi. George B. 'i Thomas, treasurer of the Utah Light and Power company was on the stand I, 'Yesterday before the public utilities commission where a hearing is being conducted on tho application of the company for an increase in power rates. Cross-examination of Mr. Thomas Thom-as was completed late in the afternoon after-noon by R. G. Lucas, attorney for the Utah Copper company, the largest consumer con-sumer using electric power from the I I company. I J W. W. Ray, representing several I mining companies, had the witness in j I hand the greater part of the day. Me; I iraid attention to the valuations set upl ns the actual costs of construction of i Ihe various plants of the Utah Power & Light company in Utah, and brought out, for example, that or the total or .$SS3,G03.25 given, as the cost of the; Olmsted plant. ?1-14.077.7I was the to-, tal of "bond discounts." T3y this was meant that bonds issued had sold atj that amount below par. j I Mr. Ray withdrew as argumentative! question in which he asked the wit-; ness if the company were not asking; the public to pay returns and deprc-j ciatcd. totaling VI per cent on this, amount in the one plant, which never i j reallv had gone, into the construction, I of the plant, although presumably the, I amount would be paid in meeting the, 1 obligations of the bonds. , i It was also brought out that the same accounts show general anriistrib-l ! utcd expense of 69.377.09 for the Olm-stead Olm-stead plant, and the witness professed he did not know to what specific uses i ihis money had been put. Loter in the dav he told John F. MacLane. counsel Vor the power company, that practically practi-cally all construction work carries a general expense account, to which are allocated expenses that do not appear to be proper charges against any one j of the several accounts into which con-, , struction work Is divided. j j) The witness said that at the Nunn plant, which has preceded the Olui-, stead, about one-half the cost of ?250.-000 ?250.-000 had gone to boarding houses for the men and .tomes and employees. 1 lawns and general beautirication of the i property. It is argued that the oom- j pany should not ask a return on lhis( j amount. ' Mr. Ray also directed the attention. I 1 oC the commission, through question-' 1 Jjtg Mrs. Thomas, to the fact that l seeral items are carried which are k , represent expenditures for purposes '! j not now of use to the company. Such , Included expenditures for water sites ' which are not being utilized to' develop de-velop power. Attention was also called to the fact that some of the water used is also utilized was asked if prcp-I prcp-I er account had been taken of this. j The witness promised to furnish, at, the request of Commissioner Warren1 i Stoutpour, statements of tho depre-' 1 elation reserves which the companies' ! taken over by the Utah Power &. Light had set up. It was asked what" had) become of these, and also what was fieing done with an account designated ; as "reconstruction reserve." This; i promised to develop an argument as I to, the differences between an account and a fund which had been a feature of tho Utah Light & Traction hearing 1 a couple of week ago. I There was a general smile when someone suggested that "we had better I get the blackboard." This referred to the graphic illustrations which had been used at the traction company hearing in an attempt to explain this problem. Mr. Thomas promised Commissioner Stoutnour to "advise himself nnd tell the commission where the fund is." , Jt is expected that Markham Chccv.-er, Chccv.-er, chief engineer for the power company, com-pany, will resume the stand this morning. morn-ing. ! on |