Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-10-09
GAS COMP ANY COST
OFFER IS REJECTED
Public Utilities Commission
Will Not Accept Reproduce
tion Figures.

An offer by the Washington Gas
Light Co. to accept the figures of the
engineer of the Public Utilities Com
mission on reproduction cost. which
differed by $350.28O from the company's
own estimate of reproduction cost. was
turned down by the commission at
todays session of the valuation hearings.
This means that unless some other
proposal is advanced the commission
will proceed to take lengthy testimony
regarding all details of the reports of
the engineers for both sides covering
all of the physical property Of the
company.
Unable to Agree.
The company proposal and its re-
lection came shortly after counsel for
the company had indicated they could
not agree to another plan advanced
yesterday afternoon by Commissioner
Brand to have the engineers of the
company and the commission thrash
out their differences before an ex-
aminer. Col. Brand said his suggestion
was intended to save time and expense
and to enable the commission to dis
charge its other duties while the engi-
neers were working on the variations in
their reports. He advanced the suggeS-
ton late yesterday after the commission
had devoted the day to hearing testi-
mony of r. O. Luqueer, engineer for
the company, dealing in minute detail
with the appraisal of the physical prop
erty of the company such as buildings,
gas holders and other mechanical ap-
paratuS.
The hearing adjourned yesterday aft
ernoon to give the various parties lime
to study over Col Brands proposal,
with view to reaching decision this
morning When the hearing opened
today, Attorney Swagar Sherley, for
the company, announced that after 60
ing over the reports OF the two engi-
neers he was authorized to accept the
figure of the commissions engineer,
which placed the reproduction cost of
the physical property of the gas COM
pany, including the item of working
capital, at $20,229,230, which Is ap-
proximately $350,000 less than repro
duction cost arrived at by the COM
pany engineer of $20579,510. Mr..
Sherley pointed out that with net
difference of only $350000 out of a
total layout of more than 100000, 900,
the company did not feel warranted in
declining to accept the Governments
figures.
Limitations Desired.
Peoples Counsel Ralph B. Fleharty
said he was agreeable to the company
offer subject to certain limitations, en-
phasizing that he did not admit that
reproduction cost is necessarily the fair
value.
Counsel for the company said they
did not have that in mind explaining |
that the extent to which reproduction |
costs should figure in arriving at final |
determination of valuation is one of |
the questions for argument during the |
proceedings.
Attorneys Sherley and George P.
Hoover, for the company, explained |
that their objection to Col Brands |
proposal of having the engineers work
out the reproduction cost difference be- |
fore an examiner was that 1t would |
put the company in position of agree
ing to accept as final partial agreements
between the engineers without knowing
what the final outcome would be. They
also said they expected to put on the
witness stand two independent ap-
praisers who might differ in some items
from both of the engineering reports.
Executive Session.
The commission then went into exc
cutive session, at the conclusion of
which Chairman Childress announced
that the company's offer to accept the
reproduction cost figure of the commits
sion engineer would not be agreed to,
whereupon Mr.. Luqueer. the company
engineer, resumed testifying regard
ing all of the detailed items of mater
ials and supplies included in the in
ventory of the companys property.
Failure of several attempts to arrive
at some understanding as to reproduc-
ton costs indicates that protracted
headings will be necessary to dispose of
this phase of the valuation case, in ad-
dition to which the commission also
must go into the value of land, the
amount of accrued depreciation, and
the allowance that should be made for
such intangible items as going con-
Germ values. On these latter questions
the commission and company experts
are expected to be much further apart
than on the reproduction cost.