NEW HAMPSHIRE. Public Service Commission. In re APPLICATION OF EXETER AND HAMPTON ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY TO ISSUE BONDS. Decided December 8, 1915. Issue of Bonds in Payment for Additions and Betterments Authorized OPINION. A hearing upon the above petition was held at Concord, November 3, 1915. The petitioner is a public utility engaged at Exeter and elsewhere in supplying electricity for light, power, and other purposes. It asks for authority to issue $40,000 face value in bonds to be secured by a first mortgage on its corporate property, to raise funds with which to pay for total additions to its plant from June 30, 1913, to June 30, 1915, and additions and improvements to plant and equipment in progress and authorized June 30, 1915. We find that $33,785.88 has been expended in additions and improvements to the plant, and that a further sum of $7,831.01 for the same purpose has been authorized and is reasonably necessary to be expended in the immediate future. It appears, however, that the depreciation fund of $2,435.95 carried by the company has been applied in part payment for the additions and improvements made prior to June 30, 1915. The expenditure by a utility of its depreciation fund in extensions or additions to its property is recognized as proper, and has received the sanction of the legislature. Laws 1911, Chapter 164, Section 6 (c), as amended by Laws 1913, Chapter 98, Section 1. It is not to be understood that the depreciation fund is to be permanently so invested, but only until such time as it will be needed for the purpose for which it is designed, viz., in replacing worn-out and obsolete portions of the capital property. During this period it should share in the net profits of the business on the same terms with the stockholders, and the income so derived should go to augment the depreciation fund. When the utility wishes to get the depreciation fund out of the plant investment to use it in making replacements, it may ask to capitalize the amount so used not exceeding the amount of the depreciation fund so invested. The $33,785.88 which was expended for additions prior to June 30, 1915, will therefore be diminished by the amount of the depreciation fund, leaving $31,349.93 as the correct amount of the $33.785.88 to be capitalized. Public good requires that the petitioner be authorized to issue $40,000 face value of bonds to pay said $31,349.93 and for improvements and additions authorized and in progress. An order will issue accordingly.* [N. H. Copy of order omitted. NEW YORK. Public Service Commission First District. In re REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES OF THE INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY et al. WITH REGARD TO THE HOURS OF LABOR OF THEIR TELEGRAPH OR TELEPHONE OPERATORS, TELEGRAPH OF TELEPHONE LEVERMEN AND TRAIN DISPATCHERS. Case No. 2005. Decided December 10, 1915. Commission Held to be Without Jurisdiction over Hours of Service of Employees of Elevated Railways where Safety and Convenience of Public is Not Menaced. HAYWARD, Commissioner: OPINION. No evidence was introduced in this case which would indicate that the hours of labor of despatchers, towermen and similar employees of the elevated railroads in the city were so long that the safety and convenience of the service were in any way seriously menaced. In default of such evidence, I believe that this Commission is without power to act and that a discontinuance order* should be entered. The evidence showed, however, that the railroads were in some cases at least, violating Sections 6 to 8 of the Labor Law and I have accordingly forwarded a copy of the record to the Industrial Commission for such action as it may deem proper. December 10, 1915. * Copy of order of discontinuance adopted December 10, 1915, omitted. NEW YORK. Public Service Commission- Second District. PEOPLE ex rel. ULSTER AND DELAWARE RAILROAD COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION of State of New York, SECOND DISTRICT. Commission's Order Set Aside and Cause Remanded. On January 18, 1916, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department, held that the determination of the Commission (See Commission Leaflet No, 45, p. 1033) that it was without jurisdiction to authorize the railroad to increase its mileage rates above the maximum fixed by the "Mileage Book Law" should be annulled and the proceeding remitted to the Commission for further action (156 N. Y. Suppl. 1065). |