The Sun. [volume] (Price, Utah) 1915-1932, 1920-12-03
UNITED STATES FUEL IS
winner IN POWER
CASE
RECENT COURT ORDER FAvoRs
THE COAL COMPANY.


mission Of Utah Denying Hearing
on Contracts Is Resisted BY Largest
Patron Of Numerous Ones In the
Carbon County Fields.
The United States Smelling. Rein.
ing and Mining company and the
United States Fuel company on We'd
nesfay last at Salt Lake City obtain
ed from the supreme court Of Utah n
wut of ceriiorari directed 10 the pub.
nc utilities commission in what are
known as the Especial contract pow.
err cases, " 10 far ~ they effcc, the
two companies. The writ was made
reiernable on December 10th. next.
which means that under the rule of
the court The matter will bc mr..
que nc that time. However. II Is
beuovod that The Utah Copper Min.
ant one on two others, will take SINH.
lar nciiun against the commission. In
thai event the supreme court mny We,
lacr date for the hearing of ali the
canea NJ the same time. The order of
the utilities commission DENYING a re-.
hearing IN the power contract eases
wac issued about November 10th, and
the companies interested have thirty
day under the law in VIII ch to apply
for wriis Of review. Several have been
expected 10 take such action, and IL IL
believed that some intend, II neces.
sary, 70 fight the case through 10 the
suprrme court of the United States.
Il Y quite probable, also. that the
UtAh Power and Light company.
which, while technically n defendant
IA the proceedings before the com.
mis- on, found itself opposed 10 each
Of tic other defendants, would take
are sg 10 the United States supreme
= Herh tho Utah BODY decide
against the commission. The proceed
ing now in question was initiated by
the utilities commission when Il ord
cred the holders Of about fifty-seven
special contracts with the Utah Power
and Light TO appear before the com.
mission 10 Justify the terms Of those
contracts. The commission 5 order
was 10 the effect that the rates men
toned In the contracts appeared to be
preferential and discriminatory
Long and Delayed.
The hearing was a long one and was
delayed by a pcrvious appeal TO the
supreme court by two Ogden cement
companies, which contendod that the
commission had no right TO institute
such proceedings. The supreme court,
however, refused TO issue any writ of
prohibition, and the hearing was held
before the utilities commission. That
body decided that the rates IN prnc,i-
cally all the contracts were preferen-
tial, and ordered that the contract
holders be placed, as 10 the rates in
their contracts on the basis provided
by the oompany's regular schedules
for service SIMILAR 20 that received by
the respective customers holding spe-
cial contracts. The decision, if up
held, would raise the revenues of the
Utah Power and Light company APP
| proximately Sl,0O0,000 a year. The
/ United States Smelling company holds
q contract with the power company at
a rate considerably lower than the
schedule rate, and the contract is re-
yokable by either party on six months
notice, The United States Fuel COM
pany holds ten-year contract with
the power company, which still has
several years 10 run. The rate, how
ever does not differ so widely from
the schedule rate. In the petition for
a writ of eertiorari, counsel for the
two companies alleged that the COM
mission did not give full force and ef-
feet TO the proyiso in the law creating
the commission, which was 20 the ef-
feet that the existing contracts found
by the commission at the time il was
formed should not be altered if they
contain adequate consideration aud
were lawful when made. The petition
also alleged that the contracts were
entered into as a result of a special
consideration Of value 10 the power
company justifying the low rate at
which power was TO be delivered I'M
der the contract. In the case of the
smelling company this was, according
TO evidence presented TO the commits
sion at the hearing, the giving up Of
an option TO purchase an old Mill
Creek power plant and site. The fuel
company granted the power company
extension Of its powerlines over the
fuel company's property. This is held
to be valuable property right,
Beyond It's Power.
The third ground ON which the writ
of certorari was asked is one in which
it is thought several of the other con
tract holders will be interested. 1t is
that the commission, in ordering the