The Washington times., 1917-01-31
PEPGO VALUATION
HEARING NEAR END
Final Argument Begun BY Conn.,
pany's General Counsel,
John S. Barbour.
MAY CONCLUDE TOMORROW
Washington Gas Light Will Be
Next Property to Come Be-
fore Utilities Board.
MAY CONCLUDE TOMORROW

Reviewing the testimony regarding
cost OF reproduction, historical cost
and the other elements entering into
the proceedings, John S. Barbour
general counsel for the Potomac Elee'
trio Power Company, began at I
o'clock today the final argument In
the hearings on the valuation OF the
compeny's properties.
Mr.. Barbour expects to conclude his
argument tomorrow.
Hearings on the valuation of the
properties of the Washington Gas
Light Company, which were scheduled
to begin tomorrow at 10 o'clock, prob
ably will be postponed.
Devoted to Cost.
Fifty-six pages of a 600-page brief
filed by the company is devoted to
the cost OF reproduction showing a
difference OF approximately $4,000
600 in the values found by Harold AL
inert, expert for the company, and
Charles L. Pillsbury, chief engineer
Of the valuation bureau. The company
in Its conclusions sets forth the claim
that "the reproduction cost is the
first, main and irreducible value to
be found"
Attention was directed by Mr.. Bar
bour 70 that portion Of the brief set
ting forth this difference, which
says: 1.-THE total cost of reproduc-
ito nanew of the properties Of the
Potomac Electric Power Company, as
originally estimated by Mr.. Pills
bury, including allowances incor-
porated by him in his estimates for
materials and working supplies and
working capital, aggregated the sum
OF S9,e65, 0sS.os.
"This, by subsequent adjustments,
has been raised to $10,235,563.74.
Makes Further Adjustments.
"In explanation thereof, he, at his
first examination, stated that upon
further consideration he desired to
make further adjustments in regard
thereto, and at the end OF his cross
examination he made various correc-
lions in and additions to his esti-
mates, increasing that of the cost of
the Benning power plant and substa-
ton No. II, including the contractors
percentage, by the sum of $S,52442,
to which 1t was necessary to add
general cost amountingf to $1,92s,
making total OF $10,452.92 to his
total for structures.
Produced New Total
These various other additions ag-
Eregated the sum of s27O, 476.66 which
added to original estimate OF $685.
0ss.Os have a new total of cost OF
e. struction as OF July, 1914 of $1o,-
235, 563.64.
of reproduction of apparently the
eha
mG-ies of his report, aggregate the
sum of $23,235, os7.63
Mr.. AL Iert's valuation was of
July 1, 1916 while PIIIsbury's was of
July 1, 1914.
Referring to the valuations the
brief says;
"A second and more important rea-
son for the discrepancy is also at
tributed to the difference in the date
OF the inventories by reason of the
fact that the levelNof prices of labor
and commodities in 1916, the date of
the Almert report, was and still is
in excess of the level of similar prices
in 1914, the date of the PilIsbury re-
port
Third Reason Given.
A third reason for the discrepancy
eAO"S oNOuObcu4S Jul VI the IdCI
that the quantities are not reconciabIe
even of the same date.
A fourth reason for this discrep-
ancy is the difference in prices, even
OF the same date"
s. R. Bowen, secretary of and coun-
sci for the company. concluded his
arguments on historical costs yester-
day afternoon. Tomorrow's hearings
will be the lats of a series which be-
gan June IS. The next step will be
the adoption of the valuations, which
will be followed by a hearing on the