The news scimitar. (Memphis, Tenn.) 1907-1926, 1919-11-28
THE GAS SITUATION

The newly inaugurjtcd campaign OF propaganda in behalf OF
the sorely oppressed gas company might appeal to the generosity
of the already oycrburdencd public when sent ont with a fore
boding headline such as Gas Company Faces Ruin unless some
of the facts established at the time 81 the hearing Of the first APP
plcation for increased rates were made known.
Naturally, we do not want the gas company to be ruined,
nor does anyone else. We desire to be fair TO the gas company
and to other utility interests. But they need no defense from us.
They are ably represented, After all, our obligation is TO the
people OF Memphis, and So lar as possible II Is our purpose to
protect their interests against the Entertainments OF public service
corporations that would ix their own prices for the commodities
they have for sale.
1t is not as il there was competition. The people OF this
municipality have given these different concerns a monopoly. They
enjoy certain rights under their franchises from which all others
are excluded. Therefore the people have a right to be heard on
any question involving an increase in rates over that fixed by
agreement
The application for an increase made some weeks ago was
rejected by a majority of the state utilities commission. The
second application will be heard Monday. The company contends
that it is confronted with an emergency that makes an increase
imperative.
This contention is not borne out by an examination of the
records OF the utilities commission. The majority opinion sets
out that ior the first six months OF 1919, during which period
the earnings OF the company were less than for any other period,
the net earnings after paying operating expenses were $2l7, 29282
Deductlng interest on bonds amounting to S209y1 200, left a net
balance OF S8,0o282,
The company claimed a deficit for this six months OF $28,
49885 by including all interest charges on both bonds and bill
payable.
The majority opinion held that the company had no right
to charge 70 operating expenses interest on the amount invested
in and advanced to coal companies interest on the amount in
vested in the new gas plant, nor the amount held in reserve for
the payment on turbines, amounting to about 81 100000, as these
new additions were not in use and were not serving the public.
The opinion OF the majority Of the commission is that inn
proper charges were made during the period mentioned for coke
and gas oil. 1t was pointed out that the building of the new
gas plant had interfered with the operation of the old plant to
such an extent that the cost of producing gas was increased. 1t
was pointed out also that the cost of operation was increased on
account of the failure of the company to weigh coal and coke,
and file claims for shortage in weights, The company charged
the shortage to operating expenses.
The contention that the wage increase will amount to $4,000
a year was not substantiated, but it was estimated by both sides
that when the new plant begins operation the cost of producing
gas will be from 4,5 to 40 cents per 1000 cubic feet, as COM
pared with 55S cents in 1918, and 6lS in 1919.
BY taking into consideration the yearly output and the largest
estimate of the future cost, 40 cents, and the 1918 cost of 53S
cents, there would be a saving of rs cents, resulting in a yearly
saving of $l65SO, which would absorb the increase in taxes,
interest on investment in the new plant, as well as the entire
amount claimed for increase in cost of labor, and leave a sub
stantial surplus.
Those whose duty it is to speak For the gas company may
attempt to becIoud the issue by making it appear that it is either
more money or no gas, but we submit that the record shows dit.
ierenty, and that unless the utilities commission reverses itself
and repudiates its former findings there is no legitimate reason or
expectation that the increase will be allowed