OCR Text |
Show pMTQRiAL 1 CONTRAST Ke publi nlililies commissiri Haho has placed a valuation L nte-niakmg purposes upon property oi tuc Idaho Light' power company which is just CqI one-half what the company Ked it had invested. The com-i Ey filed an inventory showing; 567,980 in physical assets, but commission, after hearings, Led the values to $11,638,495.: E&mably this cut in the basic! Ktion will be reflected in due J Kin lowered ratw to the power light users of Idaho. i Be records there contrast1 Eply with the performance of ppublic utilities commission of h in dealrng with the Utah Erer and Light company, a sis- corporation to the one in our tbonng state. Ke legislature of 1917 passed K&ct creating- the public utili-j commission in Utah and au- Sizing it to fix just and reason-1 K rates to be charged by the1 Bic service corporations, and in Ding to determine the value of utility property devoted to the lie service Thir. law was no-' to the Utah Power and Light fcpany that it must make and t complete physical valuation Wk properties. He Utah company, in Decern-1 of 1919, filed a petition for paket increases in its power El, but did not submit a phys- valuation of it: properties. It however, file an inventory of: ok value-, an J a: ked that the Iks be based upon them, pend- fin evaluation The commis-R commis-R permitted the power company, bcrease its substantially Brayed for, tentatively adopted book values submitted, and into effect a rate structure ' ed thereon which was calcu-H calcu-H to yield a generous rate of Hfct in addition to operating Hf and depreciation upon the Wk valuation of over $41,000,-H. $41,000,-H. This was the famous case 248, decided in March, 1921. Kb a part of its decision in that 1 e, the commission further or n the power company to make Submit to the commission, "at ply a date as practicable, " a lical valuation of all its prop-I prop-I segregating physiqal values u to reflect as neurly as may 1 the investment necessary to k the various classes of con- December, 1921. when the D power users were before the nnisaon seeking a modifica-lof modifica-lof the rates fixed by the or-in or-in No. 248, the attorneys for power company informed the iplainanta and the commission the physical valuation that tbean ordered was then prac- complete and definitely Hied that it would be filed Mary 0f 1922 lie inventory has not yet been and, . 0 far as we are in-' d, no c f f ot Ins been made, HN commission to compel t liance with it' order 01 1021 'lhc power octopus' Hpttplueu:ly ignores tuc edict Hpc itatc coruimjsiop and the Nsion is apparently im-H im-H to enforce its decree. For t six years the law has been Jfect in Utah requiring the mfo-ti commission to fix rates fewer and light service upon , iair value of the property of corporations rendering such W hut the power monopoly Wbh has not vet boon made to, to inventory. b this record of supmeness extreme tenderness in its-togs its-togs with the big corporations Phis caused the widespread Kd among the people that tho r& utilities commission in thi P.be abolished and that the act! Rr It be repealed wlt. tuation presents an op-oity op-oity to Governor Mabey and R.Qest legislature to get right the people of this state, if wil take hold of the problem W Sor and independent pur- The shackle of power doni-W doni-W m Utah must be broken. |