The news scimitar. (Memphis, Tenn.) 1907-1926, 1920-01-03
Wants Increase Of Thirty-five
Per Cent and to Add Fifty
Cents Extra to Every Bill.
City viii Resist GOuge.
RAISE WOULD De FROM
so TO 100 PERCENT
Present New Pet


Proceeding possibly on the theory that
the third time is the charm. the Meni-
phis Gas g. Electric company has filed
a third petition with the Tennessee
Public Utilities commission at Nash
vile. asking for an increase In gas
rates. Two previous petitions have
been refused
But not content with asking for what
pretends TO be a straight 35 per cent
increase In the flat rate, over the pres~
ent contract rates, the company wants
TO add service charge OF so cents "
every bill large or small
II is that joker which. IL granted
VIII enable the company to filch from
the pockets OF It's Patrons not 35 per
cent more. but from so to nearly 100
per cent more.
And that tremendous increase VII
come largely from the poorer people,
who use the smallest quantity OF gsAs,
There are about $4,000 customers pf
the company who use gas for cooking,
heating or light. II Is evident that the
corporation. In it's modest demands.
expects to hoodwink the members 0f
the utilities commission. II It has any
real expectation Of getting what II asks
for
TIE little table above shows the real
Increase asked for concealed partially
N.fNNA NifN itfAAhNRAH ssaNt tteN tssA--A = =
plan. 4
The hearing on the petition has been
| fixed for Jan. IL. Walter p. Arm
strong, city attorney. has copies Of all
the proof and arguments In Che former
| hearings and viii be prepared to ra@
slst the. increase Horace Johnson,
commissioner Of public utilities, has
~ lsu- ,eeta.4st ulaIn the coSms -
inner petitions and the evidence fsfo
dyeed He vii go 20 Nashville with
MT Armstrong 10 be present at tho
The company III Its petition insists
| that cost OF materials aud labor ara
| stu increasing and that its records
/ show that It II costing Approximately
| 81 per thousand cubic feet 10 produce
| gas In its new plant which is the-finM
| price now charged to consumers under
| the contract made with the city In 1917.
| which was the year In which this colifi
| try entered the war and the year hi
! which the maximum OF war prices hIt
| all manufacturers.
II is claimed that while II cost 7T
! cents to produce ] 1000 cubic feet OF rsts
! in 1915, the cost Increased to "a cents
| in 1918 and that during 1919 the cost
rose to sl0a.
| Yet the company's own expert. tcstiA
| Tying at Nashville in tho former hear
| ing, stated that the cost should be re-
| duced IN 1919 when the new plant was
/ IN full operation. to about 80 cents
| delivered In the containers.
| The gas department of the corpoFa.
| ton Is valued at $500 900. and Il ~
virtually admitted that the electric
| power and light department Is and las
been making money. The entire plant
! Is valued at around $40, goo O00---Afs
| though the assessment for taxaslon
purDcses Is. even this year. under sS.-
| O0O,0 600 That assessment Is made bv
| the same three gentlemen who COM
| pose the public utilities commission.
before whom the hearing will be had.
| The company claims In It's petition
| that II Is unable to nay bond obiIga-
| tons due Jan. l, OF s1aS.350, and thar
another interest payment win be due
| in M% II is asserted that the loss III
the gas department was about $4,000
| in 1919
| The present net rate for gas Is sf
| for the first 1000 feet. and so cents
| per thousand for each additional f.llfI0
| feet with a minimum monthly charge
OF 60 cents
| The new rate asked for would gfve
| the company si35 per thousand feet for
! the first 1000 feet or less and 81 ,f5 fnr
each additical 1,n91 feet, with the ad-
dition of the SO cents service charge on
| every bill, large or small