Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-11-20
JERSEY CITY GAS
RATE WILL STAND


latter might affect their own commu-
mites. Where 1t was thought a d.
vision would lead to a lower local rate
than now exists, such division was
favored; where 1t was feared that the
division would lead to higher local
rate, to equalize the advantage to the
community in which the rate might
be lowered, the division was opposed
The problem before the board in this
connection is unique, differing from
those which usually confront rate
making bodies, and tie board is with
out the guidance of presidents found
ed on well-established principles OF
equity.
Prima facie, IL would seem that the
municipality should be considered as
a unit and that an equitable rate
| should be based on the value of the
plant and the cost Of the service in
the municipality; but In cases where
thie rule IS readily applicable the
&C mpany's property end customers
are located In enc or at the most but
few municipalities. In this case we
are confronted by q condition in
which one company serves 1872 mu-
inequalities, the residents of which
collectively are regarded as the com
pany's customers. subject to uni
form rate ;or service. The company
contends that the uniform rate was
properly established in the first in
stance In that 1t led to an increased
use of gas and to economies of manu-
facture, distribution and collection
which have been beneficial both to
the public and the company.
If the uniform rate is now unfair
to the people of the municipalities
served by the company 1t should be
changed II necessary by the order of
this board, and varying local rates
should take Its place. On the other
hand II the maintenance of uniform
rate has not justified the expecta-
lions of economies and advantages on
which 1t originally was based; IL the
result Of Its application has proven to
be such that the company cannot re-
ceive q reasonable return on its In
vestnent, the board cannot reason
ably require Its continuance.
Would Increase Compsny's Revenue.
In the event of the company asking
to be relieved of the consequence of
it's own act the burden of proof OF
the unreasonableness of present con-
ditions would rest on It, The board
would not permit the change II it
would result In increased charges to
all or part OF the company's CUSTOM
ere, unless to deny II would be clear
ly In conflict with the principles of
law and equity on which the rates Of
public utilities are based. In the
present instance the company 10 not
a. petitioner for a division of it's uni
form rate into different local rates;
but this is far from signifying that
now, with the company established
in the large number of municipalities
hA nTat
period passed. change from a State
wide to a series Of local rates, based
on local costs. would not be event
ually more profitable to the company
than the public. 1t Is not inconceiv-
able that the company might hesitate
to ask this board to approve a policy
which would result In increasing Its
revenue derived from the public,
when the increase would cause great
dissatisfaction to the part of the pub
lie required to pay 1t. In it's direct
application to Jersey City the ques-
tion now Is, must the existing method
of charging a uniform rate of ninety
cents per 1000 be changed. and diff
ferent local rates be established In
the communities served by the gener-
ating plant In Jersey City in order that
the people of Jersey City may be
served with gas at a reasonable
charge therefor This apart from
the problem involved in considering
the economic effect of a division of
the rate presents a technical question
for consideration. The board there
fore sought to obtain further in
formation by employing Alfred e.
Forstall, of the firm of Forstall e.
Robinson, to investigate and report
on this matter. In our letter of In
structions of June 20. 1918, Mr.. For