The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1916-09-16

All over 10000 Gu. IT,, gross rate per
NJ Gu. it., soc.
First 1000 Gu. it., discount per M.
Next 5000 Gu. it., discount per M.
Gu. It., 10c.
Next 5000 Gu. it., discount per NJ.
Gu. it,, 10c.
All over 10000 GU it., discount per
M. Gu. it., none.
First 1000 Gu. it., net rate per Gu. IT,,
zoe.
Next 5000 Gu IT,, net rate per NJ
GU. it., soc.
Next 5000 Gu. IT, net rate per M. Gu
it., 35c.
All over 10000 Gu. it., net rate per
M Gu. it., soc.
Minimum bill of SOC per month, less
10c for prompt payment.
On the filing of said petition the
Commission set said proceeding for
hearing and directed the petitioner to
give 20 days notice Of the time and
place of said hearing by publication in
newspaper of general circulation in
said city, and by serving copy of said
petition on said city for not less than
~ udsS ~ lO1 " IAC udy SCI III uCoi
ing. The notice was given as direct
ed. On the 18th day of February, 1916,
the City filed pleading which it term
ed OBJECTIONS and Protest by the City
Of Richmond"
1t is alleged, in this "Objections and
Protest that Richmond is a city of
$4,000 inhabitants, 5000 of whom are
users of natural gas, 80 per cent of
whom use said gas for cooking, heat
ing and lighting; that the Commission
has no authority to put in an "emerg-
ency" rate; that the proposed rate
will put the burden of the increase
on the small consumer; that petition
err unnecessarily expended $15,000.00.
charged as operating expense, in the
year 1915. The above and many 9th
err allegations of said reflections and
Protest" are set forth therein. In the
judgment of this Commission this
pleading is wholly unnecessary. The
burden is on the petitioner to establish
that the proposed increase is just and
reasonable. For this reason the City's
"Objections and Protest" will not be
given further consideration.
An audit of the books of this COM
pany was made by our accountants
from October 81, 1898, to the close of
business, December 81. 1914. A sup
plement audit carried this down to the
close of business December 81, 1915.
Our staff made a tentative apprais
al of this property, as of the date of
May "a, 1916. On the 18th day of
June, the City received copies of this
appraisal, and the company received
the appraisal on the 14th day of June,
1916.
On the goth day of June, 1916, the
Company filed exceptions to the tenta-
tive appraisal made by the staff in
which it alleged that the following
items of property were appraised too
low:
1) Land
(2) Transmission and distribution.
(3) Buildings and miscellaneous
structures.
(4) Plant and equipment.
(5) Paving over mains.
(6) Overhead expense.
(7) Condition percent of the forego-
ing items.
1t is further alleged that the staff
omitted going value and working CAPT
tai. The City's exceptions were filed
on the same day and were equally
broad in their scope The effect of
the exceptions filed by each of the
parties is to question each estimate of
the staff.
The final hearing Of said proceeding
began June 90 1916, and continued I'M
til all the evidence was heard. At
the hearing the company was repre-
scented from John w Beasley, Wilfred
Jessup and George H. Olney, and the
City was represented by W. A. Bond,
City Attorney.
There was submitted in evidence on
the hearing the audit made by the
Commissions accountants, the apprais-
al made by the staff, the appraisal
made by G.. B. Taylor for the City, and
the appraisal by Mr.. Wyer. and Mr..
Howard for the utility. Mr.. Steinmull
err submitted for the utility an apprais-
al of the plant equipment of the utility.
Much other evidence, both oral and
written, was introduced
The summary of the different ap-
praisals Is as follows:
Cost Of Reproductions: Staff's, $751;
240; Taylor's. $4s7,743; Towards,
$S49,011.
Cost Of Reproduction Less Deprecia-
ton: Staff's, $40S,165: Taylor's, $685.
SAT- Towards. s744,649.
The unit prices used in determin-
ing the value of the mains were as
follows: