La Junta tribune., 1915-06-19
LA JUNrA MAY BIZ IN SAME BOAT
Public Utilities COmmisslon Fixes
Rates 1t F1oreace-Higher Than
Those In Force In La Junta.

Our public utilities commission ha,
decided the case Of the City OF Flor.
ence VI. the Arkansas Valley Electric
Company and the Arkansas Valley
Railway, Light and Power Comply
The case was submitted to them on
May Is. 1915. and was decided on
June ~. 1918.
On March 25. 1915. the city OF
Florence filed It's duly verified peti-
tion with the Public Utilities Com.
mission alleging. among other things,
that the two defendants had entered
into an agreement under which the
Arkansas Valley Railway. Light and
Power Company, known as the gen
Grating company. had contracted to
furnish electric energy for period
OF five years to the Arkansas Valley
Electric Company. which company
was organized to distribute electric
energy to the city Of Florence and its
immediate vicinity. and that the Ar
kansas Valley Railway. Light and
Power Company had refused to offer
for sale electric energy to the city Of
Florence In the event that the city de-
cided to construct 4 municipal light
Ing plant.
II alleged that the distributing
company had In force aud effect ex-
cessive and unreasonable rates for
electric current for lighting and do
nestle use. as well n for power pur-
poses. and that the generating com
pany had in force and effect excessive
charges for electric current sold to
the distributing company. The rate
of the Arkansas Valley Railway.
Light and Power Company to the dis
tributins company was two and one
fourth cents per XVIII for light and
power purposes. and the public utiii-
ties commission decided that this waS
. reasonable charge. and ordered NO
change In the rate.
The corHmlsSl0n ruled that until
sneh time ~ tha city of Fl6reuce,
through vote Of the people. would
be In q position 10 contract for the
purchase Of electric energy for a
municipality owned electric light
plant II would not consider the ALE
cations set forth In the complaint re-
Earding the alleged discriminatory
contract between the defendant COM
panies."
The city Of Florence had entered
into n contract with the Distributing
company for the furnishing OF eiec-
trio energy for municipal lighting for
period Of five ycars. and the sched-
ule Of the distributing company was
a. follows: Up 10 80 XVIII. i3c;
Ice from 80 to 100: lie from i50 to
$50: Toe from $50 to $50: and Sc
for over $50: minimum rate. $3.50;
discount Of ten per cent for payment
Of bin BY 10th Of month succeeding
service. The power rate was Toe for
less than $50 XVIII. with q minimum
os 81 per HP.
The public utilities commission
made thorough Investigation Of the
valuation Of the property Of the dis.
trtbuuag company. aud also Of the
operating expenses. aud then order.
ed . reduction In their rates which
they thought would give . fair re-
turn u the distributing company
upon the prescnt value Of its proper.
". and after . careful examination
Of the reports Of the electrical ensin.
eers retained BY the city OF Fiorencs,
were Of the opinioa that the city
could not. In accordance with the fis.
ures presented BY these snginesrs,
construct . muaicipally owned sisc.
tric light piant sad give more eff.
cisnt service than IL now rendered b,
the distributing company. and could
not offer lower charges thsa have
bsea ordsrsd b. The commission. TN
der The asw schedule Of rates. q
made b. the coanissloa. The charge
70 The rssldsat consumer for electric
sasesy viii aot sscssl le.0 csats Dss
XVIII. Which fats tAs co0nissioa -
lisve1 - - faie aa1 equitable 70 ~
disesibusias ee0oaay asd also 70 thl
DsooSe q vleessss. TAls faes 10
elu1ss ~ lieeeust q - ~ esal
as1 = l1eatleally ~ saoe raes aov
y foeee q Il Juata.
~ Datlle ulilleses eeanissssa b
eue1 - oe1ee tAAe ~ llsts1bullAl
ee00oay sAAll e1e0e 80 ne Mn u
ee00leslea ~ eelleV1ng eeAo1ull
g saeaD eee 6onsOl1e go eooneesoo
uo1alAg:
Twelve ssass ~ XVII y y q
8W2.
n eooes - HWnQ frn~ a. n a