Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-09-14

1t COMPANIES lnNOlFeQ are LQe MeE~
chants Heat and Light Company Of In
dianapolis, the Elkhart Gas and Fuel
Company. the Indiana Railways and
Light Company Of Kokomo, the VAL
paraiso Lighting Company, the Wabash
Valley Electric Company, the Putnam
Electric Company and the Cayuga EIec-
trio Company. IN its original announce
ment the Indiana Electric Corporation
said the purpose of the consolidation
was to erect and operate a power plant
in the coal fields and to supply the State
with electricity through high tension
transmission lines In the hearing, how
ever, it was said this project would have
to wait for further capitalization and that
the immediate purpose was to combins
the properties.
THREE OTHERS CONCUR
WITH RARNARD.
The order of the commission was writ
ten by Commissioner George Barnard and
concurred IN by Commissioners John W.
McCardle, Edgar Blasting and Maurice
Douglass. Commissioner Glenn Van
Auken was absent
In his order Commissioned Barnard
says:
This petition presents the commis-
sion, as the commission views It, two
vital questions and just two:
First, is the value of the property
here involved sufficient TO warrant the
carrying of burden bearing obligations
IN the amount which petitioner insists
chase?
Second, will said properties earn
enough gross income to pay the fixed
charges upon such obligations?
ne hrst question relates, of course,
solely to the valuation to be put upon
the properties. Unless the relation be-
tween the value and the funded obliga-
tlons IS such that the purchase of ths'
securities viii have a sound investment.
the question must be answered in the
negative And, upon the other hand il
the value Is sufficient to give the pur-
chaser sound investment. it must be
answered in the affirmative
In arriving at a fair value it is the
Flght and the duty of the commission
10 take into consideration all of the
various estimates, however found, In so
far as such estimates are applica BILE.
ana from all such estimates arrive at the
falr present value of the property. Tha,
commission has had before it in this
hearing many able engineers, persons
eminently qualified upon questions of
valuation, no two of whom have been
able to arrive at the same valuation
for these properties because their ideas
OF making valuations do not agree. In
addition to the testimony of such ex-l
perts. the commission has had before
1t comprehensive data. which it has
called to It's aid in its efforts to arrive at
4 proper valuation Of these properties. |
The supreme Court Of the United
States has held that the value to be-
placed upon the property of a public
utility is the fair present value, and In
arriving at that value, it has also said
that the court should take into considers
alton the original cost plus the better
ments and additions, averages over
periods of years during which both peak
and valley prices have prevailed, spot
prices and reproduction costs. And this
commission in this cause has given very
earnest consideration to all these different
methods of valulng property, giving to
each that weight aud credit to which q
seemed by the commission to be en-
titled.
The second inquiry invol' es simply the
question as TO whether or not the gross
cient to take care Of the fixed charges
APPROVES PLAN FOR
CENTRAL STATION.
THE commission is of the opinion THAI
there is not enough fair value in thu
properties sought to be purchased by
the petitioner to warrant the assuming
and the issuing of that amount of se,l
cUrities bearing fixed charges which
petitioner says are necessary to cons
summate the purchase thereof, to say,
nothing of other capital obligations. M
is averred in the petition as a part OF
petitioner scheme or operation that tt
purposes TO build in the coal fields al
the base Of the fuel supply a great cen-l
tral power plant, by which 1t would sup>
ply the power for the operation of said
utilities. if it were allowed to purchased
The commission desires to give its ap[
prOval TO this idea. believing that such
a plant would enable the petitioner to
operate with less expense, which would
reflect itself in reduced rates to the con@
sumer, but it is of the opinion, as above
set out. that the project cannot be carr
ried out upon the basis contended for
by the petitioner
1T is therefore the opinion of the
commission that the prayer Of the petit
toner should be denied, and it will be so
ordered"
STATEMENT ALSO
MADE BY BARNARD.
Suppmentlng his order. Commissioners
Barnard made the following statement:
THE order speaks for itself The COM
Continued on Page Two.)