Evening star., 1935-03-19
GAS VALUATION
SET AT S16,993,0DO
Utilities Commission Desig.
mates Figure for Rate
Fixing Purposes.
Icontinued From First Page.)

NCOIlJlnueQ fTOHl rIoG abCD
merchandise and jobbing business,
stating that appliances on hand and
for sale are merely articles OF mer-
chandise. The public has no interest
In them. They are not part OF the
plant, nor are they plant facilities" "
The commission cited court decisions
to support its rule.
The two companies claimed that
1861 900 should be allowed as the
cost OF financing the theoretical re-
production of the properties. The
commission rejected this claim, say
ing: ON theoretical reproduction the
question is-How many dollars would
be required to produce the property
used for the public convenience as of
valuation date? And not-How much
would be the cost of the dollars re-
quired to pay for such reproduction"
Cite Supreme Court.
Again the commission cited Supreme
Court decisions. The Washington
company included 81 ,524,738 and the
Georgetown company $230,2l1 as the
cost of reproduction new Of service
pipes extending from the mains to
the consumers meters. The commits
sion diSallowed these amounts, declar-
ing it would be inequitable to require
consumers to pay the utility concern
a return on the value of services paid
for by them.
The companies made similar claims
under original cost of $1,249,870 for
the Washington company, and $685.
1876 for the Georgetown company, and
these were thrown out by the commits
sion under the same reasoning.
In the Washington company's esti-
mate of general overhead accounts
the commission disalloWed Sl03, ,499
estimated by the company as taxes on
land, declaring that the courts con-
sistently have disapproved such items.
The commission also rejected a claim
Of $685., ,290 made by the company as
interest on land, stating I'VE are not
of the opinion that interest should be
computed on the present value of
land" and cited court decisions to
support the rule.
Cuts Deeply Into Claims.
The commission cut deeply into the
claim of the Washington company for
interest during construction. The
Washington company asked for an
allowance of $2,46l 900 and the COM
mission reduced this to $1,084, ,928. The
company claims per cent interest
for two years on sl of the money
entering into the cost of the theoreti-
cal reproduction new. The commits
sion found a rate of 6 per cent on the
construction period of two years, but
stated that all the money would not
have to be available for the full two
year period, but only for an average
of one year and three months.
The commission listed in its analy-
sis a condensed operating statement
for the year 1884. This set as the
gross revenue of the Washington
companay $6,170,918.07 and the
Georgetown company $1,36l ,91l 81.
These figures, less operating expenses
and other proper charges, would be
s4.3el. .3Ol So for the Washington COM
pany and 81, 1921 ,615.48 for the George
town company. Basing its summary
on figures reported by the companies,
the commission reported the net oper-
eting revenue for 1884 to be S1,779,-
6l6.71 for the Washington company
and $40 0,296.14 for the subsidiary these
figures representing sums available for
return in the past year.
The case was decided for the COM
mission by Commissioners Riley E.
Elgen and Engineer Commissioner
Dan I. Sultan. Richmond B. Keech,
the third member of the commission,
did not participate in the decision be-
cause while serving as peoples coun-
sci he had taken part in the early
phases of the hearings.