The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1924-02-07
STEPHENS
HITS NEW
FIGURES
Declares Company Is Going
Back rs Years, and Leading
Way Into Speculation.

The Potomac Electric Power
Company seeks to 60 back twenty
five years and include in it's valu-
alton the cost of organizing the
corporation, thus taking the Dis
trict Supreme Court into the field
of speculation.
This was the contention voiced
by Corporation Counsel Francis
II. Stephens before Justice Stat
ford today in presenting his side
Of the revaluation question of
the Potomac Electric Company.
Points Out Inconsistency.
Mr.. Stephens declared the COM
pany is not satisfied with a valua.
ton Of the physical property and
is making inconsistent assertions in
order to justify the higher valua-
ton.
The case had been remanded for
revelation by the Court Of Ap-
peals, argued Mr.. Stephens. because
the commission had not returned
o valuation as of the date of De
cember 81, 1915, and had not taken
into consideration the prices OF
material and labor at the time In
connection with reproduction cost
The only thing needed, according
to Mr.. Stephens, was to add to the
valuation of the commission the diff.
ference between the prices allowed
by the commission and the prices
then prevailing, the difference
amounting to about $2,500,00O.
Mr.. Stephens argued that the com
pany had no right to ask allowance
for organization with the expenses
incidental thereto, as the question
before the commission was only the
valuation of the physical property
Of the company.
s. r. Bowen, attorney for the
company, today continued his argu
ment before Justice Stafford In
the District Supreme Court in the
valuation controversy between the
company and the commission.
Attorney Cites Figures.
To support his claims Attorney
Bowen submitted statement pur
porting to show reproduction cost
Of the property as found by the
cOmpany's engineer (Almert) as OF
July 1916"
This statement puts the value OF
the plant at $22, 1853 ,209.39 as against
$13,O00.000 in round figures tbs
value arrived at by the Public
Utilities Commission.
The company's estimate gives the
reproduction cost of the property
at $12,348,871.9S; general Overheadi
during construction 1881, 1908
working capital, including supplies
$3.50, 481.60; organization 1882 4S
and preliminary $4,000.
To this were added additional
items in the engineers reproduction
cost amounting to $6,965, 1923; Great
Falls water power site 81, 00O, 900
property rights in easements $4,000,
900; development costs $2.1I5,S2S
compensation to conceivers $3.50, 00C
and brokerage and Commission
100000, making a grand total as
Of July 1, 1916, 1895, 209.39,, .-
Attacks General Average.
In the course Of his argument, At
torney Bowen said that the com
mission enormously assumed that
the actual amount Of the invest
ment represented by property ir
existence at the time Of the INQUIRY
marked the limit Of the fair value
: Of the. property for ratemakine
purposes.
I'm valuing the property" de-
clared Mr. Bowen, "the Commission
pursued the easy method, SO ire
quently resorted to by juries, of &C
ceptinq the general average. The
average taken in this case was an
proximately that Of the assumed
historical cost and reproduction
value as Of July 1, 1914, with tht
capital additions subsequently,
made, at cost"
Corporation Counsel Frank Steph
ems and Special Counsel Conrad
Syme will reply to Mr.. Bowen "a
soon as the company's case has
been presented.
Are you reading Helen ROwland's
wiffipigmC nm tho mo mn wsv,a v~.-oc