Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1918-05-08
MIST CHANGE RATES.
pUBLlO UTILITIES COMMISSION
SO RULES.
EATER COMPANY MUST ISSUE NEW
SCHEDULE AND OFFER METER
RATES TO USERS.

The public utilities commission last
r-iday rendered decision in the case
n the complaint OF Embert c. Osgood
and others versus the Bar Harbor q Union
river Power Co., involving water rates
charged in Ellsworth. The commission
orders new schedule OF rates, to be
Elective July /, 1915, and the water
Company must give its customers 1.-THE
privilege Of meter rates. The order and
summary of report by the commission
is as follows
/. That the rates, regulations and prac-
tees of the Bar Hsrbor 4 Union River
Power Co., as water company, as set
forth in its schedule OF water rates effect
i've October 1, 1915, and now in effect in
the city OF Ellsworth, are unreasonable,
upiustly discriminatory and inadequate.
2. That new schedule of water rates.
effective July 1, 1918, be substituted for
the present schedule, which shall not ex-
coed any OF the present fat-rate charges;
which shall contain charge for additional
faucets for domestic uses not in excess OF
three dollars per faucet; and which shall
offer meter rates to all customers except
for fire protection purposes, the same with
rules and regulations for its government
TO be consistent with the principles here
inbetore laid down, and subject to the
approval OF this commission, which re-
serves the right to fix such gates, rules
and regulations prior to the aforesaid et-
tective date either by adopting those
which may be recommended by the re-
spondent, or substituting others for all or
any part of those so recommended, or by
initiating the same.
g. That the respondent file with this
commission, in duplicate, complete
tentative schedule including rules and
regulations, in accordance with this order
and decision on or before May 20, 1918,
for its approval, amendment, or rejection
and the substitution OF q final schedule
therefor.
4. That q public hearing be held at
which all parties in interest may be heard
on the rates, rules and regulations so to be
adopted, at the supreme judicial court
room, il Ellsworth, on the third day OF
June, 1915, at 7.30 O'Clock in the evening.
Mailing copies OF this decision to William
e. Whiting and to Ryder q Simpson, at
torneys OF record In this case, shall be
deemed sufficient notice OF said hearing.
This complaint alleged that the water
rates, rules and regulations contained In
the schedule effective Oct. 1, 1915, were
unreasonable and uniustiy discriminatory.
The company denied these allegations and
replied that its revenue was insufficient to
provide Tor operating expenses, contin-
gencies and fair return on its invested
capital. 1t also intimated at the hearing
and in its argument that the new sched
ule, which contained many charges not
found in the previous one, was framed to
meet the commissions objections to the
former one.
The decision recites that the schedule
first filed was defective because it did not
definitely show in all cases what charges
would be made for service and also re-
suited in charging some users without
proper regard to the amount used The
company was required to substitute one
showing fully what water users were en-
titled to. The company evidently ''sought
TO increase its revenue by adding new
charges in literal conformity with the law
requiring definiteness OF scheduled rates
instead Of securing such detiniteness by
readiustments that would have left the
aggregate charges substantially I'M
changed; and then, when objection was
made, undertook to create the impression
that the increase was thrust upon 1t by
the commission.
This commission has not compelled any
public utility to increase any class ofrates.
1t has required them in some instances to
eliminate discrimination produced by
charging some consumers less for given
service than the general public could
demand the same service for. 1t has
not prevented the accomplishment OF this
equalization by reduction OF the higher
charges to those exacted OF the more
favored customer, nor by moving both ex-
tremes to a common mean"
The company's engineer placed the re-
production cost of the plant at sl63,s65,
and the cost OF reproduction new less
depreciation at 36,214, both figures in
Guiding overheads and going value, and
claimed right to a return on s163.s6o.
The commission finds that it is entitled
to return On POI, 13s.
The revenue under the present rates at