The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1932-04-01
STATE BAN ON
| UTILITY RATE
CUTS LOOMS
Commissioners Frown on
Compromises Made by
CuthbertSon.
PATRONS GAIN LITTLE
Light Cost Reduction Will
Be of Slight Benefit
to Consumers.
BY DANIEL w. KIDNEY

y
sons compromise settlements of the
indianapolis electric and water
cases may strike a snag and fail
to get public service commission APP
prevail at the conference this after
noon.
1t is learned that several COM
missioners are scanning the setupS
with a critical eye and in all likeh-
hood, there will not be complete
agreement among the five members
regarding adoption of the orders
Several points will be available
for commissioners choosing to criti-
else, as today the So-called rate
victory was shown to be largely
for one-lamp electric users and one
faucet water consumers.
Cuthbertson, for the first time.
made public today the new rate
schedule for water, which shows
marked increase for consumers in
the step rates from 1000 to 10000
cubic feet.
Political Angle Crops Out
A saving to the city administra-
ton of the equivalent of 2 cents in
the tax rate has been made by the
compromise settlement, however.
This may result in the argument be-
ing used against the setup that it
has saved the city money at the ex-
penSe of the citizens, generally.
The city administration is Demo-
cratic and so Is Cuthbertson. Three
of the five commissioners are Re-
publicans.
A 1-cent saving in the tax rate
and a quarter-cent cut in electricity
to patrons, for the first fifty kilo-
watt hours, has resulted from the
compromise of the rate reduction
case against the Indianapolis Pow
er and Light Company.
Sudden settlement of the case.
scheduled for its first public hear
ing next Wednesday, was announced
Thursday night by Cuthbertson.
What it means to the average
consumer of electricity is just 49,
cents month, or a saving of $3.50
a year, after April Is.
Chief Gain in Suburbs
Greatest benefit will accrue to
suburban consumers, whose rates
are standardized on the city sched-
ule, with the exception Of $1.35
monthly minimum. The city mimi
mum is 80 cents,
In announcing the settlement.
Cuthbertson claimed indianapolis
and suburban consumers and the
city combined will save S164, 1885 SO.
Here is how he figured the saving:
City patrons save 53,172.70. sub
urban $4,000, and the city adj
ninistration S67,613.23.
Minimum bill for city users re-
mains at 80 cents, the rate cut
having been made by reducing cost
of the first so XVIII consumption
from the present 615 cents per
XVIII to 81.
Rates Unchanged Over 50 XVIII
The city's light bill was SAT-, 813 %
last year.
Compromise settlement of the In
dianapolis Water Company rate
case last week resulted in a S66, 600
saving to the city and establish
ment of new 500-cubic foot mini
mum at S108 monthly for all
patrons. Previous minimum was
$3.50 for $50 cubic feet.
To keep the company from shar-
ing more than a SIS, 5000 loss, Cuth-
bertson raised the rates on larger
consumers.
Step rates in the new water
schedule follow:
First 1000 cubic feet at 211s
cents per 100 cubic feet; next 5000
at II cents; next 1900 at 1872
cents; next 10000 at 10 cents: next
$4,000 at cents, and 100000 and
over, s cents.
Old rates were 2115 cents for the
first TOO cubic feet; IA cents for the
next 1890, and u cents for the
next $4,000. Over that, the former
rates were the same as the new
ones.
This will mean considerable in
crease to apartment houses and
other large consumers, provided the
schedule secured commission ap-
proval.
Rates over so XVIII remain the
same in the electric case.
Claims in Conflict
Problems remaining unsettled by
the decision include the one which
was to be heard next Thursday re-
garding 1881 company profits.
In a stock promotion pamphlet,
the company set out that revenues
for nine months Of 1881 were s122.-
686 greater than in twelve months
Of 1880, while Cuthbertson claimed
the company suffered a drop of
1924, 1883 in revenues for 1881. as
compared with 1880.
Another point is why the commits
sion permitted erection of the new
Harding street plant with a COM
pany-announced valuation of s12,-
100000 (but a tax board assessment
Of $500 900 and board of review
valuation of s5OOO,OO0) if the pro-
duction unit was not needed and
contracts for power for insult can
not be Cancelled.
Other Points Unsettled
Why the corporation is allowed to
buy coal from a company owned by
the same holding company at a
price alleged to be above the market
and get credit for this higher sum
in operating expense. still is unex-
planned.
The commission has not now, nor
has it ever had, an audit and ap-
praisal of the company properties
the used end useful portion OF
which i sunnosed to form the rate