Report of Georgia public service commission. Ninty-third report, 1965

s*00^ /

toRo? ^ ss3oa^^`

^3 wh*^ Trrsft

^OOC^>
^njpyij

-jtJLL4 <S&J*Q

*r>>/<SS\/>
1 *2

y^ssnu',
A y /?3^ '*

> ^ og7
s5ooj^
^TTnS;

X^TTtS

V ^^aoOOoCc%fr^^x-> 5-VSa3 A.v/'v

JojlLL^
V O 'V

^'VsBtt?'^

^org7 sTvn00;^

Torg7

s*00^ / ^nm o;

corg7
s^O0^ ^ t t S;

I?
<s^Tss^>

*G} '- 1- W

^ojq^y

T r r s !^

[g^LL^w
'V'JOCf^-

r s i r^

sV ^ T cavH? 'A % a ^ -
*/T n

^ R S i5 >

/ ^ tO R G >
sO0^
WiTjS!

Ns^TTTwl^t

'V Js
o ao ^2^

'OOOCfi'

s Rsi r^
Kt&Ji

S T A T E OF G E O R G I A Carl E, Sanders, Governor
93rd REPORT OF
GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Washington St#, p. W, ,
Atlanta, Georgia 3033^ January 1 , 1965 to January 1 , 1966
Crawford L. Pilcher, Chairman Ben T. Wiggins, Vice Chairman Walter R. McDonald, Commissioner William H. Kimbrough, Commissioner Alpha A. Fowler, Jr., Commissioner
A. 0. Randall, Secretary

41

CRA\ BEN ALPf WILL WAL1
*V~l1
CQ

c o m m is sio n e r s
CRAWFORD L. P ILC H E R , c h a i r m a n BEN T. W IG G IN S , v i c e c h a i r m a n ALPHA A. FOWLER. JR. WILLIAM H. KIM B R O U G H WALTER R. MCDONALD

(!5rnrgit pnM tr Qu'ritire (mnntisjimt
2 4 4 WASHINGTON STREET, S.W.
At l a n t a , G e o r g ia 3 0 33 4
September 1, 1966

A. O. RANDALL, secretary

BOUND BY THE NATIONAL LIBRARY BINDERY CO. OF GA.

To His Excellency Carl E. Sanders Governor of Georgia
Dear Governor Sanders:
bl law* the ^ o r g l a Public Service ComsubmiLs ^erewith its 93rd Annual Report of the regulatory activities of the Commission for the year ending December 31, 1965.

Respectfully submitted,

W

CL ^ y

Crawfoj^l L* Pilcher, Chairman

Ben Wiggjpsy^ice Chairman
mr \ fIflti
miter S. McDonald, CommTssioner

93rd ANNUAL REPORT
Introduction
The Annual Report of the Georgia Public Service Commission covering the activities for the year ending December 31 , 1965, is submitted herewith in compliance with law*
On March 24, 1965, the Commission, in Executive Session, reelected Chairman Crawford L. Pilcher, as Chairman, and Vice Chairman Ben T* Wiggins, as Vice Chairman, for a term of two years, commencing April 3* 1965.
The members, officers and personnel of the Com mission as of December 31, 1965, were as follows;
Crawford L. Pilcher, Chairman Ben T* Wiggins, Vice Chairman Walter R. McDonald, Commissioner William H. Kimbrough, Commissioner Alpha A* Fowler, Jr#, Commissioner A. 0 . Randall, Executive Secretary and Legal Aide
Mrs. Mae A. Montgomery, Reporter Robert B* Alford, Chief Utilities Engineer Douglas N, Smith, Senior Utilities Engineer Robert W. Hayes, Utilities Engineer Frank G. Heald, Senior Utilities Auditor James D. Barnett, Utilities Auditor Vacancy, Utilities Auditor and Junior Utilities Auditor Vacancy, Junior Utilities Engineer Vacancy, Administrative Assistant David 0* Benson, Transportation Rates Expert J. Fred Parker, Senior Transportation Rates Specialist L. Thomas Doyal, Senior Transportation Rates Specialist Robert N. Fellows, Principal Accountant Donald J. Lawrence, Chief Law Enforcement Officer George E. Thurmond, Civil Defense Officer.
-k* Carpenter, Transportation Rates Assistant
All other Commission employees are listed in
-1-

alphabetical order as follows?
Miss Patricia A* Atha, Senior Stenographer Mrs# Geraldine Barrom, Senior Stenographer Mrs# Carolyn Baxley, Senior Stenographer Mrs# Prances R. Buchman, Receptionist Mrs. Mozelle Colquitt, Senior Stenographer Mrs# Carolyn R# Cox, Intermediate Clerk Herbert R* Daugherty, Law Enforcement Officer W. E. Doolittle, Law Enforcement Officer Mrs# Ann R. Donehoo, Senior Stenographer Miss Joan L. Holland, Senior Stenographer James H. Hooks, Law Enforcement Officer Mrs. Linda H. Ingle, Senior Stenographer Miss Carolyn B# Jenkins, Intermediate Stenographer Miss J# Diane Johnson, Senior Clerk Mrs. Virginia R. Mann, Senior Stenographer Mrs* Emily Martin, Senior Stenographer Mrs. Doris Mills, Confidential Secretary Miss Mary L. Montgomery, Senior Stenographer Mrs. Rubye D, Otwell, Senior Stenographer Judson L. McGinnis, Law Enforcement Officer John R. Price, Confidential Secretary Miss Lucia A. Ramey, Senior Stenographer Miss Claudia L* Samples, Senior Stenographer T. S. Tyson, Law Enforcement Officer Bobby Edmondson, Utility Clerk*
During the year 1965 the following employees were added to our list, to-wit: Miss Patricia A* Atha, Senior Stenographer; Mrs# Geraldine Barrom, Senior Stenographer; Mrs. Sandra A# Moore, Intermediate Clerk; Miss Claudia L* Samples, Senior Stenographer; Mrs# Carolyn R# Cox, Inter mediate Clerk; Judson L. McGinnis, Law Enforcement Of ficer; Miss Mary L. Montgomery, Senior Stenographer; Isaac 0. Pierson, Jr*, Emergency Assistant to Confidential
Secretary. The following regular employees resigned during the year: Robt. W. Gerson, Assistant Executive Secretary, (This position was reallocated to Administrative Assistant); Mrs. Patsy A# Porter, Senior Stenographer; Mrs. Paula A# Campbell, Senior Stenographer; James M. Palks, Junior Utilities Auditor; Mrs* Sandra A# Moore, Intermediate Clerk; A. J. Port, Law Enforcement Officer, (retired August i, 19 6 5)*
-2**

T.;. &oneZ h
TJ Q

? "

.

1

. ...


iti-
'i (' 8r

'iq & '

.

.

.. '

P lciff X'SIm

, :

{. tO

t

f

. -m1L Af A

. .!.to U

COMMISSION PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION
Tn the last report there was a brief synopsis of the history and jurisdiction of the Commission In this report we attempt to present a breif outline of the organization of the Commission Although each member of the Commission is elected by popular vote for a term of six years, the Chairman and Vice Chair man are elected by the Commission from its member ship for a term of two years
The Chairman is the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission; he presides at all meetings of the Commission; procures at all times the correct mean ing and intent of the actions of the Commission; and conducts the business of the Commission He is authorized to issue orders setting down causes or pending matters for a hearing; to issue in the name of the Commission process and notice to persons or corporations to be effected by proceedings before the Commission; to issue orders requiring the pro duction of books, writing and documents upon hearings and investigations, and report to the Commission so far as needful and reasonable what has been done during intervals between meetings, and also any new matter or questions with his recommondations for Commission action
The Vice Chairman is required to act as Chair man in the absence or inability of the Chairman.
A majority of the Commission constitutes a quorum for transaction of business* When any action of the Commission is to be promulgated, or published, it is recited as "By the Commission", and is authenti cated by the official signature of the Chairman and the Secretary.
Although all positions established by the State Merit System for the Commission, and the personnel presently employed in the positions, are listed on pages 1 and 2 herein, the assigned duties of the supervisory personnel are enumerated in brief as fol lows :
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY & LEGAL AIDE:
The Executive Secretary of the Commission has legal responsibility for recording all Commission

decisions in the official Book of Minutest minutes of hearings; minutes of formal actions of the Commission in executive session; and minutes of Commission actions suspending and reinstate motor carrier applications and certificates for failure to comply with the Rules of the Commission#
He renders on the s|yot legal advice and counsel to the Commission Commission and department heads; must be informed on new legislation and court decisions on both substantive and procedural law and Commission rules applicable to matters before the Commission in executive sessions and in public hearings, and super vises the preparation and publication of Rules and Regulations of the Commission, and the Annual Report of the Commission to the Governor, as required by law.
He receives all applications, petitions and com plaints, and acts as custodian of all books, files, and records of the Commission for ready reference through development of record systems, supervision of file clerks, and certification of copies of Commission records; prepares, reviews and signs Commission orders; interviews attorneys, applicants, claimants, protestants and the general public by telephone and in person con cerning pending matters before the Commission and sup plies prompt and accurate information relating thereto.
He receives all correspondence and routes it to proper division or official; answers correspondence or prepares memorandums supplying accurate information for reply by Commission officials.
He is responsible for administrative details inci dental to public hearing including assignments to cal endar, notice to interested parties, maintenance of docket, and notices of decisions.
He acts as office manager through supervision of the expenditure of all funds of the Commission under the general direction of the Chairman, such as sign ing payroll vouchers; acts as Personnel Officer through supervision of personnel actions such as ap pointments, separations, job descriptions, performance reports, salary adjustments and advancements, and leave authorization, etc*; calling staff meetings, advice and assistance to employees in office mainte nance, etc.
As substitute Joint Board member of the Motor Carrier Division of the Interstate Commerce Commis-

sion he either hears and decides applications for certificate of public convenience and necessity pend ing before the Interstate Commerce Commission, or suggests the assignment of another substitute Joint Board member to act in this capacity#
He assists and advises units responsible for the enforcement of the Motor Carrier Laws and Rules of the Commission and testifies concerning records of the Com mission in court proceedings; conducts correspondence with motor carriers and members of the public regard ing the interpretation and application of the Laws and Rules of the Commission in the services of motor car riers; prepares and certifies to copies of insurance policies issued to motor carriers when called for by the public; assists in preparation and execution of of motor carrier reciprocal agreements with other states, and as Secretary of the Multi state Reciprocal Committee acts as custodian of these agreements.
TRANSPORTATION RATE EXPERT:
He has supervision of all work performed by em ployees in the Transportation ates Division of the Commission, including assignment of work to be done; general methods to be employed in carrying out such as signments; procedures to be used in the development of rate statements, in determining effect of proposed rates on revenues of rail and motor carriers under jurisdic tion of the Commission, determination of rate bases, and acceptance, rejection or revision of common carrier tariffs and time schedules# Requisition of supplies and approval of leave requests, etc#
He presents expert testimony before Commission in cases Involving rates and services of carriers# Such testimony usually being presented in the interest of the public where there is no organized public representa tion or in cases where interest of different carriers under the jurisdiction of the Commission are divided, so as to give the Commission the benefit of impartial recommendations based on experience and study of the . . matters involved, as well as to refute confusing or in accurate testimony presented by common carriers,#
He conducts expert cross-exmaination of witnesses for carriers in cases before the Commission dealing with rates and services for the purpose of clarifying the record, refuting confusing or inaccurate state-

ments and developing facts which have been withheld*
He processes all formal (and most informal) proceedings before Commission involving rates and services of transportation agencies, including complicated ac counting procedures in rate cases and application of engineering functions in equipment, facilities and service matters*
He makes recommendations to the Commission as to whether applications of carriers should be granted, denied, or granted in part; and also recommendations as to whether or not complaints against such carriers should be acted upon affirmatively or negatively*
He prepares reports and orders setting forth the findings of the Commission in formal cases dealing with rates and services of common carriers* These orders must be worded in explicit language, free from ambiguity and must conform to legal standards. They must be carefully written so as to avoid expressions contrary to the policies of the Commission which might be used as precedents in future cases and must conform in every minute respect with the facts in the case
He makes technical tariff interpretations requir ing general knowledge of contents of hundreds of tariffs and working knowledge of decisions of this Commission, Interstate Commerce Commission and state and federal courts bearing on interpretation of such tariffs.
He participates in cases before the Interstate Commerce Commission. Such participation is generally for the purpose of protecting the interest of shippers and receivers of freight and also passengers located in the State of Georgia who utilize interstate trans portation facilities. This participation involves the preparation of exhibits, preparation and presentation of testimony, preparation of complaints, petitions, replies to petitions, motions, briefs, and replies to briefs, all of which must conform to the legal standards set forth in the Rules of Practice of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and must be supported by references to pertinent Commission and Court deci sions.
He confers with members of State Legislature and sometimes with members of the National Congress rela tive to pending legislation directly or indirectly af fecting transportation service and rates. It is also necessary that this employee confer with representatives

of other state commissions and with various shipper interests for the purpose of developing a united presentation in cases involving interstate transporta tion and to confer with representatives of common carriers under the jurisdiction of the Commission for the purpose of working out on an informal basis prob lems affecting transportation conditions*
He handles general correspondence concerning all matters above enumerated* and for purpose of furnish ing general information concerning transportation to the public*
He confers generally with the Commission for the purpose of recommending broad policies relative to the rates and services of transportation companies and general position to be taken by the Commission on mat ters pending before the Interstate Commerce Commission, or on Legislation pending before the General Assembly of Georgia or the Congress of the United States*
He has supervision of operation by lessee of state-owned Western and Atlantic Railroad. Such supervision ranges from regular inspection of physical railroad properties (Including lease requirements as to additions and betterments thereto) to analysis of services and operations and requires specialized knowledge of the location and extent of such property and the pro visions of the lease* This duty also requires appear ances before and conferences with State legislative com mittees and Federal regulatory bodies in matters involv ing this property
CHIEF UTILITIES ENGINEER?
He plans and directs the work of the staff in the Rates, Finance and Accounting Section so that maximum efficiency is obtained in compliance with Commission policies and directives. Review formal orders prepared in rate and security cases before final Commission ap proval and publication to be assured of accuracy in accordance with executive decisions.
He maintains direct supervision over work perform ed by the staff in the Engineering, Service and Certifi cate Sections so that all commitments are met within the prescribed time and that the public is given prompt service in requests submitted and appropriate action taken with regard to complaints made versus public utility rates and services*
-7-

He prepares or supervises the preparation of all formal orders issued in connection with Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity to Telephone and Gas public utilities pursuant to law*
He recommends issuance of Rules Nisi versus pub lic utilities as may be required to meet requirements of law and write such formal orders for publication. Present such expert testimony and cross examine witnesses at public hearings and write formal orders for review after Commission decision before publication.
He prepares and presents expert testimony befbre the Commission in rate cases and character of utili ties service investigations. Conducts for the Commis sion expert cross-examination of public utilities witnesses in formal rate cases and other proceedings before Commission which deal with electric, gas, tele phone, telegraph and urban transit utilities in matters of a technical or engineering nature.
He makes recommendations to the Commission with regard to disposition of pending utility cases support ed by facts and determinations thereto as to the adoption or revision of uniform system of accounts, general rules and regulations, standard of service rules and other special rules and regulations as to tariffs, rate forms, rate revisions and rate policies applicable to rates of public utilities under Jurisdiction of Commission and as to acceptance or rejection of such tariffs, rates, rules and regulations filed by public utilities.
He conducts correspondence on behalf of Commis sion dealing with inquiries from Georgia and other states or Commissions on all matters pertaining to rates, rules and regulations and applicable tariffs.
He maintains knowledge of current rules and re gulations of Federal Commissions and presents such expert testimony before such Commissions as may be required in the public interest. Conducts such special technical investigations as may be directed by the Commission in connection with public utility rates and services and submits formal reports thereon for appropriate action.
He develops methods and practices and procedures to be used in rate base determinations, accrued depre ciation, allocations on cost of service determinations of reasonable standards of utility service, valuation of utility property and other matters.
- 8-

He maintains liaison with Assistant AttorneyGeneral assigned to Commission in connection with Interventions before federal regulatory commissions of all matters of public interest to Georgia Public Service Commission,
He performs such technical work as appropriate as member of NARUC "Training and Communications Prob lems" Committees in keeping with directives of Com mission that will be of benefit to utility rate payers either directly or indirectly*
SENIOR UTILITIES AUDITOR:
He has supervision in the performance of audits, the development of rate base determinations, depre ciation rate determinations, rate of return studies, analysis of costs of capital, and cost of service al location studies.
He presents expert testimony before the Commis sion with regard to accounting and financing matters.
He directs and prepares statistical reports in connection with the audit of utility annual reports and in review of income taxes where applicable for utilities.
He audits the balance sheet accounts, revenue and expense accounts, plant investment accounts and other pertinent data of each utility seeking a rate increase or seeking new financing* Exhibits and testimony for presentation in major rate or financing cases is also prepared.
He investigates and prepares recommendations of an accounting and financing nature on such matters when assigned by the Commission.
He confers with utility executives for the pur pose of assisting them In complying with the laws and rules of the Commission.
He supervises work performed by Utilities Auditor, as well as theJunior Utilities Auditor, and Senior Stenographers.
He analyzes capitalization structures of utili ties and reports to the Commission the results thereof.
.9-

CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER:
He plans, organizes, directs and/or supervises periodic road checks on commercial motor vehicles with field Law Enforcement Officers, utilizing local and state law enforcement officers, to apprehend and bring before the proper courts of this state those inter state or intrastate carriers operating without proper certificates and/or permits from the Georgia Public Service Commission as required by Georgia law.
He supervises law enforcement officers in develop ing evidence and preparing affidavits for prosecution of the more difficult violations* Provides testimony in court when necessary; advises and counsels with local solicitors and law enforcement officers as to the nature and seriousness of violations when arrests are made by GPSC Law Enforcement Officers* Aids Assistant Attorney General assigned to Commission in preparing criminal and/or civil cases filed against violators of the Georgia Motor Carrier Acts* Appears and provides testimony before Grand Juries for purpose of indictment of violators of Motor Carrier Acts# Personally ar rests carriers in violation of Georgia Motor Carrier Acts when necessary*
He provides testimony and prosecutes motor car riers before the Commission when violations have been serious enough to cause the Commission to issue it*s Rule nisi to show cause why the respondent carrier1s certificate should not be suspended or revoked. He compiles information for issuance of rules nisi and suspensionsunder general order of the Commission, against carriers who violate the safety and rate regu lations of the Commission.
He keeps the Law Enforcement Officers under his supervision informed on motor carriers certificate authorities, amendments to certificates and Commis sion rules, and on reciprocal agreements with other states, assisting them when matters come up which they cannot handle*
He supervises Law Enforcement Officers in policing of the highways to insure compliance with the state traffic laws and the safety rules and regulations pro mulgated by the Georgia Public Service Commission# Supervises and trains Law Enforcement Officers to inspect commercial vehicles in the field to be sure they are in compliance with the safety regulations promulgated by the Commission; provides expert testi-

mony In courts where arrests have been made for vio lations of safety regulations or operation of unsafe commercial vehicles on the highways of Georgia.
He supervises Law Enforcement Officers in policing of the highways to Insure the collection and remission of license fees to the Georgia Public Service Commission and sees that GPSC Tags are dis played on all vehicles and that all vehicles are properly marked and Identified as required by the rules of the Commission.
Receives, processes and directs all complaints by general public or motor carriers to proper field Law Enforcement Officer for investigation, and follows up on such investigations with legal action if neces sary, or any other action proper in judgment of the Commission*
He designs necessary forms to be used by the Law Enforcement Officers in their duties of enforc ing motor carrier acts and trains officers in the use of such forms.
He trains Law Enforcement Officers to check rates and authority of carriers operating under certificates of public convenience and necessity from the Commis sion and report any violations on proper forms.
He investigates the books and records of motor carriers to ascertain if proper rates and tariffs are being applied; if proper reports are being made to the Commission; and if loss and damage claims and C. 0. D* accounts are being properly processed.
He Investigates, warns or counsels with shippers who have used unlawful motor carriers advising them of their legal liability under the Georgia Motor Carrier Acts,
At present he serves as Chairman, Enforcement Committee of National Association of Railroad & Utilities Commissioners' National Conference of State Transportation Specialists. Performs varied duties of such office and act as liaison between state and Interstate Commerce Commissions; helps coordinate activities of state and federal enforcement activi ties in state of Georgia and on occasions on a national basis.
- 11-

PUBLIC HEARINGS
During the year the Commission conducted three hundred and eighty-three public hearings. Public Hearings commence on the second and fourth Tuesdays in each month and continue on successive days there after until all current applications and petitions have been disposed of, All matters docketed for public hearing are heard by the entire Commission in open session, a majority of the Commission constituting a quorum*

MOTOR CARRIER CERTIFICATE AND LICENSE FEES

The Commission is charged with the responsibil ity of collecting and accounting for motor carrier certificate and license fees. The total certificate and license fees collected and remitted to the State Treasurer during the year 1965 are as follows:

Certificate fees at $35*00 each, and certifi cate transfer fees at $7*50 each - - - - - - - $ 3 ,1^7*00
Regular license fees at $2500 each - - - - - $ 305*725*00
Reciprocal registration fees at $1.00 each - - $ 28,621*00

TOTAL

337,^93*00

Lh addition to the foregoing Certificate and license fees of $3 3 7 ,^93*00 collected by the Commission, the Railrads and Utilities under the jurisdiction of the Commis sion were subject to a tax assessment which produced a sum of $280,000*00, which was collected by the Property and
License Unit of the Department of Revenue, making a total
of $617,^93*00 available for appropriation to the Commis
sion, although it should te noted that the appropriation
for the Commission was limited in the Appropriation Act of 1965 to $500,000,00.

MOTOR CARRIER CERTIFICATE ____________ DECISIONS_________

During the year 1965 the following motor car rier decisions were made by the Commission:

Certificate applications:
Approved - - - - - 75 Denied - - - - - - 14
. Withdrawn - - if - 17 Dismissed - - - - 2 Total - - - - - - - - - - - - 108

Certificate transfer applications:

Approved - - - - 82

Denied - - - - -

2

Total - - - - - - - - - - - . 8^

Certificate amendment applications:

Approved - - - - 100
Withdrawn - - - - 5 Denied - - - - - - 6
Total - - - - - - - - - - 111

Certificates cancelled - - - - - - - - - -

40

Certificates suspended - - - - - - - - - - 112

Certificates reinstated - - - - - - - - -

90

Rules nisi issued - - - - - - - - - - - -

33

Rules nisi dismissed - - - - - - - - - -

23

Miscellaneous:(Extensions, recon

siderations ,control,refunds,schedule s,

etc.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Il6

Total Decisions - .- 717

Although the Commission made decisions during the year on 108 new applications for certificate of public convenience and necessity, only two of these decisions, the granting of an application made by R. C. Motor Lines, Inc.,for a fixed route certificate to operate between Atlant and Augusta, Georgia, and the denial of two applications made by Overnite Transportation Company to operate between Atlanta and Savannah, Georgia*are reproduced herein below:

September 2, 1965
IN REj PILE MCA-3828, Docket No, 2783-M - Application of R. C. Motor Lines, Inc,, 2500 Laura Street, Jackson ville, Florida, 32203, for Class 3,A" Certificate for the transportation of property between Atlanta and Augusta, Georgia, via Lawrenceville, Winder, Athens, Crawford, Lexington, Washington and Thomson, Georgia, and other intermediate points, over State Highways Nos, 8 and 10 (US 29 & ?8 ), with the right to operate between Atlanta and Lawrenceville, Georgia, via Interstate 85 and State Highway 120 ; also with the right to serve Princeton, Whitehall and Watkinsville, as off^route points, via State Highway No, 15; also with the right to serve the Tucker-Stone Mountain Industrial Area and/or the Stone Mountain Industrial Park, over all available highways, as_an off-route point in connection with existing authority.
A P PE ARANCES
For Applicant
Robert C. Norman, Attorney, 1015 Southern Finance Building, Augusta, Georgia 30902.
For Protestants
Paul M. Daniell and Robert E. Born, 1600 First Federal Build ing, Atlanta,Georgia, 30303, Attorneys for Huckabee Transpoi Corpo, Dance Freight Lines, Inc, and White Truck Lines, Incc
Frank B. Hall, 1375 Peachtree Street, Suite 693, Atlanta,Geor gia, 30309, Attorney for Harper Motor Lines, Inc.
R. J. Reynolds, Jr., 403 Healey Bldg., Atlanta,Georgia, 30 30 3 , Attorney for Brown Transport Corp., Tamiami Freightways,Inc. and Barnett Trucking Company,
Lawson E. Thompson, Washington, Georgia, Attorney for Barnett Trucking Company.

BY THE COMMISSION; (Commissioner Kimbrough dissenting).
The foregoing described application filed by R. C. Motor Lines, Inc* on October 1, 1964, came on for hearing before the Com mission, and the applicant's evidence was heard on November 12 and 13, 1964. The hearing was not concluded until April 1, 1965, at which time protestants introduced evidence in opposition.
The applicant presently holds intrastate a utnority between Augusta and Savannah, Georgia, via Waynesboro, Sardis and Sylvania, Georgia. Its Class "A" Certificate No. H 7 8 , under which operations are performed, reads as follows: "Between Savannah and Augusta, Georgia, via Newington, Sylvania, Sardis, Waynesboro and Milien, State Highways Nos. 21, 24 and 21."
Mr. B. S. Reid, President of R. C. Motor Lines, Inc., testified that his company operates in ten states and the District of Columbia in interstate commerce, and has been operating its intrastate certi ficate between Augusta and Savannah, Georgia since 1946. He further testified that his Company has 19 terminals between Jacksonville, Florida and New York City, and has six terminals in the state of Georgia, and that the growth of his Company has been rapid, continu ous and sound; that its personnel in Georgia alone have increased from 97 employees in 1957 to 296 employees in 1963* and its oayroll in Georgia has increased from $368,000.00 to $1 ,158 ,000.00.
He further testified that the certificate applied for, if granted, will be tacked on to the present certificate authority of applicant between Augusta and Savannah, Georgia. The only carrier holding a certificate to operate over the entire route applied for between Augusta and Atlanta, Georgia by the applicant is Watson-Wilson Transportation System, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "WatsonWilson."
The evidence presented to the Commission generally supports the following conclusions:
First, Watson-Wilson discontinued its intrastate service under its certificate without notice to this Commission, in complete disregard and in violation of the rules and regulations of this Commission, and with little or no notice to its customers.
Second, although Watson-Wilson had notice of the application of R-C over its identical route, it did not have enough interest in its intrastate authority here involved to appear as a party in opposition to it.
Third, although after the initial hearings, the officials of Watson-Wilson asked for an informal hearing with the Commission, which was granted, and its elimination and curtailment of service were discussed with them by the Commission and service under its certificate was thereafter supposedly "resumed." The record of the adjourned hearings subsequent thereto in April shows-:
(a) That Watson-Wilson even then did not have sufficient interest to appear as a party in opposition to this application in order to present its evidence th this proceeding.
Page 1 5 .

(b) That the service now being performed by Watson-Wilson is perfunctory.
(c) That its so-called "resumed" operations at Augusta, one of its primary terminal points, are on an exceedingly limited basis. .Witness Thrift testified that when Watson-Wilson elimi nated service in September of 196^, it was employing seventeen or eighteen people, and under its "resumed" operations it has only one person in the office and four pick-up men on the out side; that the one person in the office is the terminal manager, who is merely staying in the office to answer the telephone, and that in September it operated fourteen or fifteen trucks, and now has only three in operation in Augusta.
(d) The numerous affidavits submitted by the applicant subse quent to the so-called "resumed" service show that Watson-Wilson is not aggressively soliciting business so as to provide the full measure of healthy competition with other carriers, nor has it made any substantial effort to recapture the intrastate business it previously enjoyed from its former customers.
(e) On the adjourned hearing no witness from Watson-Wilson ap peared to present evidence to the Commission as to its present operations nor to deny or explain the voluminous evidence of its present lack of service as submitted by witnesses. Indeed, the record shows that protesting carriers desired to obtain affidavits from officers and/or employees of Watson-Wilson to show the ex tent of its present interest and operations, and the Commission granted the request, but no affidavits were forthcoming from Watson-Wilson officials or employees.
(f) Throughout these proceedings, from the initial hearings through the adjourned hearings, although having full knowledge and notice of the pendency of these proceedings, Watson-Wilson has shown a complete lack of interest in either this proceeding or in the adequacy of its service to the public under the authority held by it.
Fourth, the record shows that affirmative statements were made by responsible officials of Watson-Wilson to customers and to competing carriers that it was interested in long-haul interstate service, not short-haul intrastate service to intermediate points under its author ity as here involved.
The record shows that in addition to Watson-Wilson Transporta tion System, Inc., Huckabee Transport Corp. operates over the identi cal route applied for by the applicant between Atlanta, Georgia, and
ashington, Georgia; and Barnett Trucking Company operates over the identical route between Athens, Georgia, and Washington, Georgia; Brown Transport Corp. operates between Augusta and Thomson, Georgia, and between Lexington and Athens, Georgia, over the route applied for; White Truck Line, Inc. operates between Atlanta and Lawrenceville, over the route applied for; Dance Freight Lines, Inc. operates between Atlanta and Athens, Georgia, over the route applied for; Harper Motor"Lines, Inc. operates over a small segment of the route applied for between the junction of State Highways 8 and 10 and Athens Georgia, serving Athens; Ha,rper Motor Lines, Inc. also serves Winder,

Georgia, over another route between Monroe and Braselton, Georgia, which certificate was granted to Harper by reason of discontinuance of operations over this route by Watson-Wilson, Harper Motor Lines, Inc. also serves Washington, Georgia, over another route from Elberton, Georgia. Other protestants are serving the Augusta area but not over the identical route applied for.
This Commission in considering the adequacy of service by existing carriers, must, therefore, give great weight to the inade quacy of the present service along this route by one of the carriers presently holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity, and to the fact that the service rendered by the existing carrier is not likely to improve.
In considering the adequacy of existing service, the record further shows that although the towns and cities here involved in this application are served, along some segment of the route, by the protesting carriers, either directly or by circuitous route or by closed door authority, there is no carrier among the objecting car riers which operates over the route here applied for from Atlanta to Augusta, with, direct through service via all the intermediate points being served along said route. The only carrier now holding such a certificate from this Commission is Watson-Wilson, and the evidence is conclusive that such service is inadequate and does not meet the public convenience and necessity.
The record further indicated that the witnesses supporting the application deem it important, as does this Commission, that the public should have vigorous, aggressive, prompt, and adequate service through competition, and this healthy competition is not now being provided.
Perhaps the most impressive and persuasive evidence developed in this record is that showing the remarkable growth experienced in recent years in the area sought to be served. Witnesses testify ing on behalf of Ten-States Distributing Company, U. S. Rubber Com pany, Wyeth Pharmaceutical Company, Minnesota Mining and Manufactur ing Company, General Tire Corporations plants, Oxford Chemical Com pany, Charles S, Martin & Company, Ross Builders Supply, Stevens Tire Company, Southern Nitrogen Company, and Barrett Supply Company, show beyond any doubt that without the operation of the authority now held by Watson-Wilson that the service over this route is inade quate to the present public needs, and that the granting of this application would not materially adversely affect the protestant carriers serving portions here involved.
Protestants presented evidence in an effort to establish present adequacy of service by existing carriers. There was a conflict, however, between testimony presented by protestants and the testimony presented by applicant, and the Commission has resolv ed this conflict in favor of the shipping public, the weight of whose evidence established the necessity for replacing the inade quate service now being offered by Watson-Wilson over the same route.

The record is conclusive that the intrastate operations of Watson-Wilson have been reduced to mere token service and that there is no intention on the part of that Company to re-establish a reasonable level of local service. The healthy competition which heretofore existed in this area has been one of the prime factors in assuring a high standard of motor carrier service be tween the important Georgia cities here involved, and the Commis sion is of the opinion that it is necessary in the public interest to retain that competitive condition by the granting of the author ity here sought,
W H E R E F O R E , I T IS,
ORDERED; That the application of R. C. Motor Lines, Inc,, Jacksonville, Florida, for Class "AM Certificate for the transporta tion of property between Atlanta and Augusta, Georgia, via Lawrenceville, Winder, Athens, Crawford, Lexington, Washington and Thomson, Georgia, and other intermediate points, over State Highways Nos. 8 and 10(US 29 & 78), with the right to operate between Atlanta and Lawrenceville, Georgia, via Interstate 85 and State Highway 120$ alsc with the right to serve Princeton, Whitehall and Watkinsville as offroute points via State Highway No. 15? also with the right to serve the Tucker-Stone Mountain Industrial Area and/or the Stone Mountain Industrial Park, over all available highways, as an off-route point in connection with existing authority, be, and the same is hereby, approved,
BY ORDER OF THE GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this the 2nd day of September, 1965*

A. 0. RANDALL, SECRETARY

CRAWFORD L. PILCHER, CHAIRMAN




firn

oli V

a '

SV i li
, . . <0 r t o
.

l
'
-
o^oo'
i l *3G
'

! *1

*

'

..



. .
!*r

.


xiS

September 2, 1965
IN RE: FILE MCA-6634, Docket No. 2775-M - Application of Overnite Transportation Company, 1100 Commerce Road, Richmond, Virginia, for Class "A" Certificate for the trans portation of general commodities between Atlanta and Savan nah, Georgia, via Augusta, Georgia, State Highways Nos. 12 (US 278) and 21(US 25), serving Augusta as an intermediate point only; also between Macon and Savannah, Georgia, via State Highways Nos. 19 and 26(US 80), serving no interme diate points,
IN RE: FILE MCA-6634, Docket No, 2776-M - Application of Overnite Transportation Company, 1100 Commerce Road, Richmond, Virginia, for Class "A" Certificate for the transportation of general commodities between Atlanta and Savannah, Georgia, via Decatur, Lithonia, Conyers, Coving ton, Rutledge, Madison, Greensboro, Union Point, Washington, Cedar Rock, Thomson, Harlem, Augusta, McBean, Girard, Sylvania, Newington, Springfield and Rincon, Georgia, State Highways Nos. 12(US 278), 44, 10, 80, 223, 10 and 12(US 78 and 2 7 8 ), 56, 23* 24, 73(US 301), and 21, serving all inter mediate points; also between Macon and Savannah, Georgia, via Milledgeville, Sandersville, Wrightsville, Kite, Swainsboro, Stillmore, Metter, Pulaski and Pooler, Georgia, via State Highways Nos. 4 9 , 1 5 , 5 7 , 46, 119 and 26(US 80), serv ing all intermediate points. __________ ____ ______________
APPEAR AN CE S
For Applicant:
Ariel V.Conlin,Atty.,626 Fulton Natl.Bank Bldg., Atlanta,Ga., 30303 Francis W. Mclnerny, Atty. ,1000 Sixteenth St.,N.W.,Washington,D.C. 20036
For Protestants:
R J. Reynolds, Jr.,403 Healey Bldg.,Atlanta, Ga*,30303 Attorney for Brown Transport Corp.,Tamiami Freightways,Inc., Meadors Freight Line,Inc., Dance Freight Lines, Inc. and Rogers Truck Line.
Robert C. Norman and James M, Hull, Jr., Southern Finance Bldg., Augusta, Georgia, 30902, Attorneys for R. C. Motor Lines, Inc.

Guy H. Postell and M. T. Schumacher, 1375 Peachtree Street, N. W.,Suite 69 3, Atlanta, Georgia, 30309? Attorneys for Harper Motor Lines, Inc*
Paul M* Daniell and Robt. E. Born, 1600 First Federal Building, Atlanta, Georgia, 30 30 3, Attorneys for Huckabee Transport Corp*
Bates Block, 600 First National Bank Bldg., Atlanta, Georgia, 30303? Attorney for Georgia Highway Express, Inc.,
A. R. Barksdale, Conyers, Georgia, Attorney for Owens Transfer Com pany.
J. C. Barnett, for Barnett Trucking Company.
BY THE COMMISSION:
The foregoing described applications for certificates of pub lic convenience and necessity were filed by Overnite Transportation Company, Richmond, Virginia, hereinafter referred to as "Overnite5', on September 15, 1964, and came on for hearing on October 21, 1964, at which time they were heard on a joint record. Overnite introduced evidence on October 21 and 22', in support of said applications, but the hearing was concluded on February 24, 1965, which time the protestants also introduced evidence in opposition to the applications.
Protestants to the applications were Brown Transport Corp*, Tamiami Freightways, Inc., Meadors Freight Line, Inc., Dance Freight Lines, Inc., Rogers Truck Line, R. C, Motor Lines, Inc., Harper Motor Lines, Inc., Huckabee Transport Corp., Georgia Highway Express, Inc., Owens Transfer Company, and J. C. Barnett, dba Barnett Trucking Com pany.
Mr, J. Howard Cochrane, President of Overnite, testified that his Company holds intrastate authority from the Georgia Public Ser vice Commission, principally from Atlanta to Macon, Georgia, which extends into Warner Robins, Georgia. He further testified that his Company operates in interstate commerce in the state of Georgia from Augusta to Atlanta, principally over State Highway No. 12(US 278) out of Clearwater, South Carolina. He testified that this authority was obtained from the Interstate Commerce Commission as a regular route operation and that the service in Georgia is performed through its Clearwater, South Carolina terminal, located some seven miles East of Augusta, Georgia. He testified that his Company has terminals in Atlanta, Macon, Savannah and Gainesville, Georgia.
He further testified that Overnite is performing service be tween Georgia points through the Clearwater Terminal principally from Savannah and Augusta, Georgia, and other Georgia points, under its irregular route authority from the Interstate Commerce Commission to serve points on its regular route to and from points in Georgia North of U. S. Highway No. 80.
Page 20.

Mr* Cochrane further testified that one of the purposes of filing these applications was to eliminate any question with regard to the lawfulness or legality of the Company's operations between points in Georgia through the Clearwater, South Carolina terminal* He also testified that the granting of certificates between Savannah and Atlanta would shorten his mileage approximately forty miles*
In addition to the testimony of Mr* Cochrane some thirty-five witnesses, principally from the Atlanta, Macon, Savannah and Augusta areas testified in support of the need of additional transportation facilities between these areas, and some of these witnesses testi fied as to a need for service to some of the intermediate points. However, the weight of the evidence was more in support of the appli cation in Docket No. 2775-M, which provides for closed doors at all intermediate points, except Augusta, Georgia, rather than in Docket 2776-M, which provides for service to the intermediate points. Ap plicant made it clear that the application it really desired to have approved was in Docket No. 2775-M, which provides for service at the intermediate point of Augusta only between Atlanta and Savannah, and no intermediate points between Macon and Savannah. To grant the ap plication in Docket No. 2775-M would result in another service simi lar to that of Watson-Wilson Transportation System, Inc.,which had discontinued less-truckload service about which some witnesses com plained.
Some of the witnesses also testified to the abandonment of all service by Watson-Wilson Transportation System, Inc., hereinafter referred to as"Watson-Wilsonn, and the discontinuance of its terminal facilities in Augusta, Georgia. The route over which Watson-Wilson operates between Atlanta and Augusta does not duplicate the route applied for in these applications, except between Augusta and Thomson and between Washington and Thomson , Georgia, where it operates over the same route. The route in the applications of Overnite be tween Atlanta and Augusta are now served, including intermediate points, by the following protestantss Brown Transport Corp., over all of State Highway No. 12; Dance Freight Lines, Inc. over State Highway No. 12 between Atlanta and Madison, Georgia; Harper Motor Lines, Inc., over State Highway No. 12 between Atlanta and Eatonton, Georgia; Owens Transfer Company between Atlanta and Conyers, Georgia over State Highway 12; Meadors Freight Lines, Inc., between Atlanta and Union Point, Georgia, over State Highway No, 12; Tamiami Freight ways, Inc, between Atlanta and Covington, Georgia, over State Highway No. 12;; and Huckabee Transport Corp. between Washington and Thomson, Georgia, over State Highway No, 10.
Segments of the route over which the applications seek certi ficates between Augusta a nd Savannah, Georgia, are served under certificates of public convenience and necessity issued to Brown Transport Corp. and R. C. Motor Lines, Inc., including the interme diate points of Sylvania and Sardis, Georgia.
Portions of the routes over which the applications seek certi ficates between Macon and Savannah, Georgia, are served under certi ficates issued to Brown Transport Corp., Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., Tamiami Freightways, Inc. and Harper Motor Lines,Inc.(closed door operations at intermediate points).

None of the witnesses for applicant testified that the ser vice provided by the carriers listed above and operating over the routes applied for in these applications is inadequate. The weight of the evidence presented was principally in support of additional future service because of a possible need which would develop by reason of the expanding economy in the larger areas of Augusta, Savannah, Macon and Atlanta.
During the course of the hearing question was raised as to the applicant's position with reference to the Georgia statute in Section 68-609 of the Code of Georgia, (commonly referred to as the Virginia Statute), reading as follows:
Section 68-609 ................ ....................
"No certificate or authority shall be granted to an applicant proposing to operate over the route of any holder of a certificate or authority when the public convenience and necessity with respect to such route is being adequately served by such certificate or authority holder; and no certificate or authority shall be granted to an applicant proposing to operate over the route of any holder of a certificate or authority unless and until it shall be proved to the satisfac tion of the Commission that the service rendered by such certificate or authority holder, over the said route, is inadequate to the public needs; and if the Commission shall be of opinion that the service ren dered by such certificate or authority holder over the said route is in any respect inadequate to the public needs, such certificate or authority holder shall be given reasonable time and opportunity to remedy such inadequacy before any certificate or authority shall be granted to an applicant proposing to operate over such route."
No persuasive evidence or testimony was supplied to demon strate the non-applicability of the statute in connection with the authority here sought - particularly on those routes between Augusta and Savannah and between Macon and Savannah.
Brief mention should be made of the effect which the grant ing of these applications would have on one carrier, Brown Transport Corp., which company operates over the greatest portion of the routes applied for. Mr. Claude P. Brown, President of Brown Trans port Corp., testified that, with the exception of a route between Atlanta, Georgia, and Knoxville, Tennessee, and a short route to Murphy, North Carolina, all of his operations are conducted within the State of Georgia, and that his principal operations in Georgia are involved in these applications. He further testified that he had interviewed all of the shipper witnesses who testified for the applicant and that he had received letters and affidavits from every single one of them, stating that Brown's service was adequate.
Page ,

The only evidence as to inadequacy of service in these Dockets related to the elimination of terminal facilities and the discontinuance of service by Watson-Wilson Transportation System, Inc. in Augusta, Georgia. But,as stated herein above, these appli cations do not seek to operate over the routes served by WatsonWilson except the short segment over Highway 12 between Augusta and Thomson, Georgia, and the Commission has, on this date, approved an application made by R. C. Motor Lines, Inc. in Docket No. 2783-N for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to operate over the identical route for which Watson-Wilson holds a certifi cate.
The Commission finds that it is unnecessary to discuss the evidence in this order in any further detail because of the showing of abundance of service now being provided between Atlanta and Savan nah through Augusta, and between Macon and Savannah, by the protestant carriers on the routes sought to be operated by the applicant, and since the evidence as presented has not shown any inadequacy of service by the present carriers, the Commission is of the opinion that the applications herein should be denied.
W H E R E F O R E , I T IS
ORDERED? That the application of Overnite Transportation Company, in Docket No. 2775-M, for Class "AM Certificate for the transportation of general commodities between Atlanta and Savannah, Georgia, via Augusta, Georgia, State Highways Nos. 12(US 278) and 21 (US 25), serving Augusta as an intermediate point only; also between Macon and Savannah, Georgia, via State Highways Nos. 19 and 26(US 80), serving no intermediate points; and application of Overnite Trans portation Company, in Docket No. 2776-M, for Class "A" Certificate for the transportation of general commodities between Atlanta and Sav annah, Georgia, via Decatur, Lithonia, Conyers, Covington, Rutledge, Madison, Greensboro, Union Point, Washington, Cedar Rock, Thomson, Harlem, Augusta, McBean, Girard, Sylvania, Newington, Springfield and Rincon, Georgia, State Highways Nos. 12(US 278), 4^, 10, 80, 223, 10 and 12(US 78 & 278), 56, 23, 24, 73(US 301), and 21, serving all intermediate points; also between Macon and Savannah, Georgia, via Milledgeville, Sandersville, Wrightsville, Kite, Swainsboro, Stillmore, Metter, Pulaski and Pooler, Georgia, via State Highways Nos# ^9, 15, 57, 46,119 and 2 6 (US 80), serving all intermediate points,
be, and the same are hereby, denied.

BY ORDER OF THE GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this the 2nd day of September, 1965*

A. 0. RANDALL, SECRETARY

CRAWFORD L. PILCHER, CHAIRMAN Page23

While the Commission cancelled forty motor car rier certificates during the year only one cancella tion order merited sufficient general interest for reproduction herein, which followss
December 1, 1965
IN HE: Docket No. 304o-M, File MCA-382 - Rule nisi against Cherry Transfer 85 Storage Co,, 450 Marietta St., N. W,,
Atlanta, Georgia 30313, to show cause why Class "B" Certifi cate No. 284 and Class "CM Certificate No. 3310, should not
be cancelled and revoked for the following reasons: 1-For
allowing said certificates to be suspended on September 2k,
1965, for cancellation of public liability and property
damage insurance, and failure to file renewal coverage in
violation of General Motor Carrier Rule No, 26 issued Jan uary 1, 1963j 2-For failure to file quarterly and annual
reports of revenues and expenses, and failure to file reports of assets and liabilities and the amount of unpaid claims for
the years 1964 and 1965, in violation of General Motor Carrier Rules Nos. 86 and 87 and No, 6, issued January 1, 1963, and
for financial irresponsibility; 3~For abandoning all service as authorized in said certificates without surrendering said certificates to the Commission for cancellation in violation
of General Motor Carrier Rule No. 4(f), issued January 1, 198-3.
Appearances; J. Fred Gober, Attorney for respondent
R. J. Reynolds, Jr., Attorney for Creditor, Mrs. R. E, Edmondson, Jr.
BY THE COMMISSION: (Vice Chairman Wiggins and Commissioner McDonald dissenting)
The foregoing Rule nisi issued against Cherry Transfer and Storage Co. to show cause why Class "B" and Class "C" Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity Nos. 284 and 3310 respectively should not be cancelled and revoked for the reasons alleged therein, which was issued
on November 2, 1965, came on for hearing and was heard by the Commission on November 23, 1985.
One allegation in the Rule nisi was for failure to file reports of assets and liabilities and the amount of unpaid claims for the years 1984
and 1985, This allegation is stricken from the Rule nisi as it was
included inadvertently. These reports are required under Rule 86(b) of the Commission*s General Motor Carrier Rules and Regulations to be filed only by holders of Class "A" (fixed route) Certificates.
Page 24

Respondent*s attorney, Mr* H. Fred Gober, stated that Cherry Transfer and Storage Co* was placed in involuntary receivership in the State Court in an ex parte proceeding but that this proceeding had been superseded by a voluntary petition in bankruptcy in the United States District Court for the Northern District or Georgia, Atlanta Division, under Chapter X of the Federal Bankruptcy Act for the purpose of reorganization of the business.
There has been filed with the Commission copy of an order issued by Referee in Bankruptcy, W. H* Drake, Jr,, dated November 23, 19&5* appointing Herbert M, Ponder, Trustee, Cherry Transfer and Storage Co.
Witness, T. R. Moorer, President of Cherry Transfer and Storage Co, admitted to the violations alleged in the Rule nisi but testified that the discontinuance of operations was involuntary and a direct result of the ex parte receivership proceeding brought by Molly Green berg. In response to the allegation for failure to file annual and
quarterly Revenue and Expense reports for the years 1964 and 1965 he
testified that these reports had been found in the company*s files and had been prepared by the company* s accountant and he could not explain the failure of filing the reports with the Commission* He further testified that it was his duty to see that they were filed. He testified that these reports have now been filed and that insurance cover age has also been filed in the name of Herbert M. Ponder, Trustee, Cherry Transfer and Storage Co, He further testified that the aband onment of all service was a result of the involuntary receivership proceeding although he did not notify the Commission of the abandon-^ ment of service which was a violation of Rule 4(f), He further testi fied that it was his purpose to seek some agreement from the creditors in the bankruptcy court and if permitted to do so the trustee will operate the certificates in an effort to satisfy the creditors in accordance with the agreement obtained under the provisions of Chapter X of the Federal Bankruptcy Act, He did not deny the financial respon sibility allegation in the Rule nisi although he did state that I think we are financially responsible".
Under the Motor Common Carriers Act of 1931* the Commission is charged with the regulation of motor common carriers in the public interest. Section 68-612 of the Code of Georgia of 1933 makes it mandatory on the Commission to require that the holder of a certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity file with the Commission a bond; indemnity in lieu of bond; or self-insurance. The Commission has permitted this carrier to file indemnity insurance in lieu of a bondj and under resolution adopted by the Commission on March 13, 1946 said certificates were suspended by order of the Commission issued September
24, 1965 for allowing public liability and property damage insurance
to be cancelled and failing to file renewal coverage.
The Commission*s files disclose complaints of failure to satisfy claims of indebtedness against this carrier. The Commission is of the opinion that the owner and operator of this carrier is financially irresponsible by reason of his act of seeking voluntary bankruptcy. All evidence in the Commission*s files indicates that this irrespons ibility has been the result of inefficient, and lack of businesslike, management; that the operation has been conducted without responsible consideration for the interest of the public and that as a result thereof the public has been damaged and that there is good cause for the cancellation of these certificates.
Page 25*

The respondents owner and witness, T. R, Moorer, admitted in his testimony that he was in violation of the rules cited in the Rule nisi, even though he stated he was in violation of Section (l) of the Rule nisi "unwillingly".
WHEREFORE, IT IS,
ORDERED: That Class "B" Certificate No. 284 and Class "C" Certifi cate No. 3310 issued to Cherry Transfer and Storage Co., Atlanta, Georgia, he, and the same are herby cancelled and revoked, effective the date of this order.
BY ORDER OF THE GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this the 1st day of December, 1965*

A. 0. Randall Secretary

Crawford L, Pilcher Chairman

Page 26

AMENDMENT OP MOTOR CARRIER RULES AND REGULATIONS_______
Oil April 7, 1965, the Commission amended Rule 87(h) to read as follows:
(b) Motor carriers operating under certifi cates Classes "A", "B", "C" and "E" (except motor carriers of household goods) and having an annual gross revenue, from all sources, of |200,000.00 or more, shall keep and maintain their accounts in conformity with the "Uniform System of Accounts for Class I and Class II Com mon and Contract Motor Carriers" as prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and shall also keep and maintain a record showing the total number of miles operated in intercity ser vice by all vehicles and showing separately the number of miles operated by such vehicles within the State of Georgia.
On July 9, 1965, the Commission amended Items Nos. 11, 20 and 29 of the Appendix to Rule 8 to read as follows:
11. STRUCTURAL OR RE-ENFORCEMENT STEEL (See NOTE, this item).
(a) Structural Steel (See NOTE, this item; viz: Fabricated or cast iron or steel (See NOTE, this item) structural shapes (including anchors, anchor plates, bands, beams, bases, braces, brackets, bridging, bumpers, capitals, clamps, clips, columns, girders, hangers, inserts, lintels, pedestals, plates, posts, rods, saddles, separators, shoes, struts, tees and trusses, also including necessary bolts, nuts and/or rivets when shipped with the fabricated or cast shapes). (b) Re-enforcement steel (See NOTE, this item, viz: Iron or Steel (See NOTE, this item) bars, columns, spirals, expanded metal, hoop columns, Joints (concrete road construction), mesh (bar and/or wire) and rods. NOTE: Structural and re-enforcement items list ed above made of metals other than iron or steel may be transported in mixed shipments with those made of iron or steel provided that the weight of the items made of metals other than iron or steel does not exceed 25% of the total weight of the shipment.
20. SOFT DRINKS, RETURN EMPTY CASES AND CON TAINERS.
Containerized beverages, flavored or phosphate, not including extracts, syrups or alcoholic
-27*

liquors or beverages and not including dairyproducts or vegetable or fruit juices or fruit juice concentrates; also returned empty cases and returned empty used beverage containers*
29. SCRAP IRON (See NOTE, this item) Iron or Steel (See NOTE, this item) scrap
having value only for reclamation of metal con tent.
NOTE: Scrap metals other than iron or steel may be included in mixed shipments with iron or steel scrap provided the weight of such other metals does not exceed 25% of the total weight of the shipment.

MOTOR CARRIER ENFORCEMENT

The Motor Carrier Law Enforcement Division is that arm of the Commission which enables its members to maintain surveillance over the activities of all "for hire" motor carriers conducting operations over the highways of Georgia.
During the calendar year of 1965 this department employed five law enforcement officers domiciled in strategic areas of the State, which enabled each officer in his assigned territory to give maximum coverage with minimum amount of time and mileage expense. These officers operated a total of 109,7^6 miles at a cost to the State of $8,779*68. This operating cost enabled these officers to collect $6,i-77*00 in motor carrier fees for licenses that otherwise would not have been collected by the Commission. In addition these officers were indirectly responsible for the collection of several thousand more dollars that was remitted by mail.

The officers' duties are categorized as follows:

(l) carriers:

Routine Inspections of Regulated Intrastate

(a) Safety Inspections of Vehicles: During the year 1965 inspections were made on 8^2 heavy duty trucks, truck tractors, trailer and buses for violation of the Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations promulgated by this Commission. If unsafe mechanical
conditions existed, the management of the motor carrier was so advised and required to make the necessary repairs. An affidavit to the Commission certifying these repairs were made was required of the motor carrier in violation.

(t) Inspections of Transportation Rates Applied:

Periodic calls were made on all carriers regulated by this Commission to determine if they were assessing the proper rates and charges approved by the Commission and that they were operating within the scope of their authority granted by the Commission. Where violations of the published tariff rates were detected, the violating carrier was required to re-bill the shipments in accordance with their proper published rates. Where these violations were prevalent and posed a threat to the shipping public or showed signs of discriminatory practices, the Commission issued a rule nisi against the carrier to show cause why their certificates should not be suspended and/or revoked for failing to comply with the Commission rules and regulations. Such rules nisi were issued in 20cases* Where violations were of a nature that the Commission felt they could be corrected with proper guidance from the staff, the carrier was asked to come to the Atlanta Offices for consultation. During the year conferences were held with four motor carriers, who were advised of the necessary steps to place them in compliance with the tariff rules and other regulations of the Commission.

This is a marked decrease from the number of conferences held with motor carriers during previous years. We believe that this is a healthy indication that the motor carriers are more conversant with the tariff regulations promulgated by this Commission and, consequently, are exercising more care in the rating and billing of their shipments.
(c) Service and Facility Complaints: This department has worked very closely with the Transportation Rates Division on complaints involving the service and facility condition of the passenger bus companies providing intrastate transportation for the citizens of Georgia. Inspection of the sanitary conditions of bus terminals in the State by this department has resulted in the upgrading of these facilities. In addition, officers have checked highways under construction to determine if such construction creates a hazard for passenger transportation and require a re-routing of bus traffic because of such hazard. Complaints involving the service of motor freight carriers have been investigated by this department and where service has been determined to be sub-standard the carriers were required to improve such service. All such complaints for the year 1965 have been handled to the satisfaction of the complaining shippers.
(2) Registration of Interstate Carriers.
Through the efforts of our law enforcement officers and information carried in trade journals, this department is continuing its program of registration of those carriers engaged solely in interstate commerce over the highways of Georgia, under permits from the Interstate Commerce Commission, or who are engaged in the "for hire" transportation of "exempt commodities" under the Federal Motor Carrier Act of 1935* During the year 1965 this Commission issued 701 operating permits and 28,656 reciprocal cab cards to such carriers. The Motor Carrier Acts of 1931 require such registrations so that citizens of Georgia may be certain that these carriers are properly insured and financially responsible if they should become involved in an accident within the State of Georgia resulting in property damage, injury or death to any of the citizens of this State. Further, such carriers are required to designate an agent for service.
While performing the foregoing duties our law enforcement officers made 1,7^6 personal contacts with carriers, shippers, receivers, city and county officials and other interested parties. The field staff also handled 222 special investigations of suspected unlawful transportation.
(3) Illegal Transportation Problem.
Because of the increasing concern over the illegal or "gray area" transportation problem, both on the state and national
-30-

--I

levels, special emphasis is "being placed by this Commission on the apprehension and conviction of these illicit operators who are undermining the regulated rail and motor carrier transportation services. While conducting special road checks in an effort to apprehend violators of our Motor Carrier Acts, the officers have "spot checked" well over 5*000 vehicles for vehicle registration, authority, and safety, in addition to 8^2 previously mentioned in this report. Also, numerous shippers using the services of unlawful carriers were given letters of warning with copies of the Georgia law, which provides that the shipper who aids and abets violators is also subject to prosecution as a misdemeanor.

The Commission^ Arrest Report Digest for the year 1965 lists a total of 109 court actions which resulted in fines of $12,^98.22 and 72 months of suspended sentences. These actions were filed in
twenty-four different counties of the State, and the bond forfeitures or fines remained in the county where the arrests were made. This total of 109 cases, handled by the courts, reflect the activities of the Commission in the apprehension and conviction of persons operating as motor carriers "for hire" either without appropriate intrastate authority from this Commission, or without an appropriate registration with this Commission of an interstate operating authority from the Interstate Commerce Commission. It should be
noted that Georgia Law requires the registration of all "for hire" motor common carriers even though they may be transporting
commodities exempt from the economic jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Mr. Donald J. Lawrence is Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the Commission^ Motor Carrier Division, and the names and addresses of the five officers presently employed by the Commission are:

Herbert R. Daugherty W . E . Doolittle James H. Hooks J. L. McGinnis
T. S. Tyson

Smyrna, Georgia
Sandersville, Georgia
Donalsonville, Georgia
Atlanta, Georgia - Appointed October 1, 1965. Swainsboro, Georgia

A . J . Fort

Morrow, Georgia -Retired July 31*1965*

31-

TRANSPORTATION

General
During 1965, the Commission and its Transportation staff officially disposed of, in addition to the formal proceedings listed below (most of which were made the subject of written opinions), hyi transportation rate and service matters, a considerable number of which required lengthy studies and investigations in the field.

FORMAL CASES FOR YEAR 1965

Docket No. Date

Subject

Disposition

5U9-R

1-15-65

Application of Georgia Railroad Assigned for

for rehearing and reconsider-

further hearing

ation of and oral argument on

the order of the Commission of

December 17> 196^ in said docket,

in which was denied application

for authority to discontinue

agency service at Crawford

587-R

1-15-65

Application of Georgia Railroad for authority to discontinue agency service at Harlem

Withdrawn

589-R

1-29-65

Application of Railway Express Agency, Inc.,for authority to adjust intrastate rates and charges in its Tariffs Nos. 18-F, 23-D, 33-D and 37-C

Approved

2530-M

I-29-65

Application of Georgia High way Express and Central of Georgia Railway Company for authority to publish joint rail-motor rates

Portion of appli
cation not dis
posed of on December 18,1963 dismissed with out prejudice

556-R

2-12-65

Application of Southern Railway
Company for further consider ation of the Commission's action of December 17, 196^ in denying authority to discontinue agency
service at Temple

Review denied
until expir
ation of ad ditional 12 month test
period

285U-M

2-12-65

Application of Smoky Mountain Stages to discontinue certain schedules between Alpharetta and Atlanta and to discontinue the handling of passengers between Sandy Springs and Atlanta

Withdrawn after agreement with competing carrier

FORMAL CASES FOR YEAR 1965 (Continued)

Docket No. Date

Supp.

i+79-R

3-31-65

2913-M 4-7-65

Non-Docket 4-7-65

594-R

4-14-65

593-H

ii-16-65

2841-M 4-16-65 2842-M 4-16-65

600-R

5-4-65

Sub.j ect

Disposition

Application of Central of Georgia Railway Company for authority to dismantle station building at Andersonville

Approved

Application of Petroleum Carrier Corporation for au thority to establish a return load rule in its Commodity Tariff 1-B, GPSC-MF No, 24

Withdrawn

Proposed amendment of Motor Carrier Rule 87 to change annual report requirements of
motor carriers

Rule amended

Application of Railway Express Agency, Inc., for authority to close the express office at Waverly Hall

Withdrawn

Application of South Georgia Railway Company for authority to discontinue agency service at Barney, to discontinue handling less-than-carload freight at that point and to dismantle the station building at Barney

Approved

Application of Schwerman Trucking Dismissed with Company for authority to increase out prejudice rates on cement between points within the State of Georgia

Application of Baggett Bulk Transport, Inc., for authority to increase rates on cement between points within the State of Georgia

Dismissed with out prejudice

Application of railroads for au Approved thority to publish reduced rates on clay

FORMAL CASES FOR YEAR 1965 (Continued)

Docket No Date 2906-M 5- H -65

597-K

5-13-65

598-R

5-13-65

599-R

5-13-65

1st Supp, 5-28-65 5U9-R
l6th Supp, 5-28-65
9509-A
7th Supp, 2197-M 22^-M
280^-M 5-28-65

596-R

5-31-65

Subject

Disposition

Application of Georgia Motor
Trucking Association seeking postponement to May 275 1965 of due date for filing briefs

Approved

Application of Central of Georgia Railway Company for authority to discontinue agency service at Buchanan

Denied

Application of Railway Express Agency, Inc,, for authority to close the express office at Buchanan, contingent upon the closing of the railroad agency at that point

Denied

Application of Central of Georgia Railway Company for authority to consolidate the agency stations of Bremen and Bowdon Junction

Withdrawn

Application of Georgia Railroad for authority to discontinue agency service at Crawford

Denied

Application of motor carriers of liquid petroleum products in bulk to make applicable on Cyclohexane the incentive rates previously prescribed in these dockets

Approved

Application of bus lines oper ating in the State of Georgia for authority to increase one way fares by ten (10$) per cent and to increase the minimum one-way fare from 25 to 30 cents

Increase in minimum fare
approved and lesser increase of approximately 6io approved for one-way fares

Application of Southern Railway Company and Georgia Southern and Florida Railway for au thority to discontinue oper ation of their Passenger Trains Numbers 1 and 2 (The "Ponce de Leon") between Atlanta and Council

Approved

--

FORMAL CASES FOR YEAR 1965 (Continued)

Docket No. Date

602-R

7-1-65

59O-R

7-9-65

592-R

7-9-65

2906-M 7-9-65

603-R

7-15-65

605-R

7-15-65

Supp. 590-R

7-30-65

Sub.ject

Disposition

Application of Georgia Rail road and Central of Georgia Railway to establish reduced rates on boots or shoes from Thomson to Forest Park

Approved with authorization for corresponding adjustment in competitive motor carrier rate

Application of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad for authority to discontinue agency service at Byromville

Denied

Application of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad for authority to discontinue agency service at Warm Springs

Denied

Application of Association of
Georgia Class "B" Carriers, Inc.,
for amendment to the appendix to
the Commission's Motor Carrier Rule 8 to broaden the commodity descriptions in Items Nos. 7> H> 20 and 29 of said appendix

Approved in part

Application of South Georgia Rail- Approved way Company for authority to dis continue agency service at Morven, to discontinue handling less-carload freight at that point and to dismantle the station building at Morven

Application of Southern Railway Company for permission and ap proval to institute condemnation proceedings for the purpose of acquiring certain property in Bibb County

Approved

Application of Atlantic Coast
Line Railroad Company for re consideration, rehearing and
oral argument on the decision
of the Commission in its order of July 9, 1965 denying au thority to discontinue agency service at Byromville

Denied

-35-

FORMAL CASES FOR YEAR 1965 (Continued)

Docket No. Date

592-R

7-30-65

606-R

8-5-65

2977-M 8-5-65

60^-R

8-23-65

606-R

8-23-65

58U-R

9-2-65

Subject

Disposition

Application of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company for re
consideration, rehearing and
oral argument on the decision of the Commission in its order of July 9, 1965 denying au thority to discontinue agency
service at Warm Springs

Denied

Application of Southern Rail way Company for permission and approval to institute condem nation proceedings for the purpose of acquiring certain property in Bibb County

Approved

Application of Service Coach
Line, Inc., to increase commuter fare from l.bo to 1.75 cents per mile

Approved

Application of Georgia Southern and Florida Railway Company for authority to discontinue agency service at Vienna, to discontinue handling less-carload freight at that point and to dismantle the station building at Vienna

Denied

Application of Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company for rehearing, reconsideration and oral argu ment on the decision of the Com mission in its order of August 5, 1965 approving application of Southern Railway Company for permission to institute condemnation proceedings for
the purpose of acquiring certain property in Bibb County

Denied

Application of Louisville &

Approved

Nashville Railroad Company and

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

Company for authority to

institute condemnation proceed

ings for the purpose of acquiring

certain property in Warren County

-36-

FORMAL CASES FOB YEAR 1965 (Continued)

Docket No, Date

Subject

Disposition

9508-A 609-R

9-16-65

Application of railroads for authority to establish re duced rates on fuel oil from Port Wentworth and Savannah to Nixon

Approved in part

1st Supp. 9-16-65 556-R

Application of Southern Rail way Company for authority to discontinue agency service at Temple, to discontinue handling less-than-carload freight at that point and to dismantle the station building at Temple

Approved

607-R

9-22-65

Application of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company for au thority to discontinue agency service at Rebecca

Denied

608-R

9-22-65

Application of Railway Express Agency, Inc., for authority to close the express office at Rebecca, contingent upon the closing of the railroad agency at that point

Denied

3rd Supp. IO-8-65 V77-R

Application of rail carriers for removal of transit charges ex ception to increases previously granted in this docket

Exception re moved follow ing agreement by shippers

557-R

IO-8-65

Application of Railway Express Agency, Inc., for authority to close the express office at Temple

Denied

610-R

IO-I8-65

Rule Nisi against Central of Georgia Railway Company to show cause why it should not be re quired to restore team track formerly located adjacent to its depot at Fort Gaines

Dismissed after withdrawal of complaint

611-R

IO-27-65

Application of Savannah & Atlanta Railway Company for au thority to institute condem nation proceedings for the purpose of acquiring certain property located in Jefferson County

Approved

FORMAL CASES FOR YEAH 1965 (Continued)

Docket No Date

Subject

602-R

H - 29-65

Application of Georgia Rail road and Central of Georgia Railway to extend for 12 months the expiration date prescribed by the Commission in its order of July 1, 19&5 in this docket approving rates on boots and shoes from Thomson to Forest Park

61U-R

I2-I-65

Application of Southern Rail
way Company for authority to
discontinue operation of the Pullman cars on its Passenger Trains Numbers 7 and 8 between Atlanta and Brunswick

Supp. 57^-R

12-7-65

Application of Central of Georgia Railway Company for review by the Commission of its denial of authority to discontinue agency service at Bowdon Junction in the light of additional 12-month statistics

601- R 12-7-65
i+th Supp. U77-R

Application of rail carriers for authority to increase intrastate switching charges by the same amount as au thorized by Interstate Com merce Commission on inter state traffic

602- R 12-7-65
1st Supp. 12-7-65 U27-H

Application of Georgia Motor Trucking Association for au thority to extend for 12 months the expiration date prescribed by the Commission in its order of July 1, 19&5 approving rates on boots or shoes from Thomson to Forest Park
Application of Augusta and Summerville Railroad Company for review of the Com mission's action of December 22, 1959 denying authority to abandon a spur track in Augusta

-38-

Disposition Approved
Approved
Denied with provision for further review after additional 12 months
Approved
Approved
Abandonment au thorized in light of changed conditions

; .'ismc

:a'fk
; j .

pitead

-

: * ' . 0 ` >

' ,. i. t .'A



' .-pKEj

^

jffiaoD

'

. ': Ivcnitm ' ' a : / s,t i;

i m$s>m
-?I Xno.

T>*yqcrA.

b is Jtxso 1 ,U * t o noi fgc-i urqA qoY~5

'j/Oji ; M i s . i f hdhB"$adSfli ' si:'!
'o l a a ijam O j
asti*
..Q. t t o

;Xd",`/ G X 9

FORMAL CASES FOR YEAR 1965 (Continued)

Docket No. Date

Subject

612-R

12-21-65

Application of Southern Rail way Company for authority to discontinue agency service at Martin, to discontinue handling less-carload freight at that point and to dismantle the station building at Martin

613-R

12-21-65

Application of Railway Express Agency, Inc., for authority to close the express office at Martin, contingent upon the closing of the railroad agency at that point

Disposition Approved
Approved

-39-

BUS FARES AMD SERVICES
At the end of 1965 there were 38 "bus lines operating under the jurisdiction of this Commission providing intercity service between points in Georgia - an increase of three from the number so operating at the end of 196^ - this increase in carriers in spite of rising costs of operations and the ever increasing use of automobiles for
private transportation.
In 1965 the Commission granted the first general increase in the State's basic bus fare structure since 1961 - the application re ferred to in last year's report as being filed in August of that year was heard and disposed of early in 1965 The applicants for this in crease included the 12 principal bus lines in the State, eleven of which sought an increase in their regular one-way and round trip fares of 10 per cent above the existing intrastate passenger fare level of 2.75 cents per mile and an increase in minimum fare from 25 to 30 cents. No increase was sought by these 11 carriers in commuter fares. The twelfth carrier seeking an increase in fares, Southeastern Motor Lines, Inc., sought in addition an adjustment in its rate-making mileage and in its commuter fares. The carriers based the justification for their proposed increase on substantial increases in costs - particularly in wages, with such wages shown to be subject to still further increases due to escalation provisions in the applicable wage contracts. The statistics submitted by the carriers at the hearing and the financial records on file with the Commission indicated that the majority of the^ carriers party to the application were already enjoying overall financial ly healthy operations - the Commission's records indicating that of the 12 carrier applicants one carrier's operating ratio for 196^ was less than 80 per cent, 5 less than 85 per cent, 2 were 90 Per cent and only 3 over 90 per cent, Two of the carriers with ratios exceeding 90 per cent were those generally recognized as commuter-type operators. While the bus lines contended that a 81-82 operating ratio before Federal in come tax was considered reasonable for their industry, the Commission concluded not to adopt such ratio as a standard for bus operations^in Georgia, but in recognition of the fact that the fares intrastate in Georgia were considerably lower than those on interstate traffic to and from Georgia and those applicable in all surrounding States except Florida (and would be lower than those in Florida when, as appeared likely, the Florida rates were adjusted upward) found that the Georgia fare structure was not properly constituted to bear its fair share of these carriers' expense of operations. The Commission particularly found the Georgia fares to be out of line with the scales of fares in other States where the progression of the fare diminishes with distance and thus more accurately reflects the portion of the costs of operation which each rider should bear. To effectuate such adjustment the Com mission approved for application in Georgia the minimum one-way fare proposed and a diminishing scale of one-way fares, resulting in an overall increase in revenue of approximately 6 per cent (with most of that increase concentrated in the shorter distances where revenue in creases appeared to be most needed). So far as concerned the individual proposal of Southeastern Motor Lines, Inc., the Commission held further hearing on those proposed increases, and following showing of serious

need for additional revenue to improve equipment and to provide tetter service, the Commission authorized the adjustment sought in the rate making distances of this carrier and in its commuter fare structure. In order to insure Southeastern Motor Lines, Inc. the benefit of such adjustments a corresponding adjustment was allowed in competing fares of Greyhound Lines and Continental Crescent Lines.
Later in the year Service Coach Line, Inc. filed an application to increase its commuter fare basis in Georgia from lJ+O cents to 1.75 cents per mile, the basis already authorized for carriers competing with Service Coach, Line Inc. Following public hearing, at which there was no protest, the Commission authorized this carrier to so increase its rates - such being the first commuter fare increase on this line since 1958.
While there were many bus schedule changes made during the year, few had any significant adverse effect on the public traveling intra state in Georgia, and with but one exception all such adjustments were modified after informal handling to substantially satisfy complainants.
In one instance Smoky Mountain Stages sought authority to dis continue certain schedules between Alpharetta and Atlanta, and upon receipt of a considerable volume of protest the Commission assigned the proposal for hearing. It was developed that Smoky Mountain Stages had discovered that it had been handling passengers between points on this route in violation of a restriction in its certificate prohibiting pick-up and discharge of passengers within a thousand feet of the lines served by Metropolitan Transit System. Following the hearing, at which strong indication was made that in some of the areas involved the public desired the services of this carrier rather than that of Metropolitan Transit System, the certificate restriction was modified with the agreement of both Smoky Mountain Stages and Metropolitan Transit System, and Smoky Mountain Stages agreed to with draw its application to discontinue the schedules still desired by the
public

TRUCK RATES

During the year there were no general adjustments in intra state motor carrier rates - this being the fifth year since the Commission found it necessary to increase the rates of the fixed route motor carriers of property to offset rising costs of oper ation*

During the year there was another application on the part of the motor carriers of liquid petroleum products, in bulk, to amend the volume incentive rates authorized for the transpor tation of those products to increase the commodity coverage and to thereby promote greater use of common carrier facilities. This year the additional proposal was to add the commodity "Cyclohexane", and in view of the concurrence in the application by all affected motor carriers, the lack of objection from the railroads, and the need of an involved shipper for such incentive rates, the Com mission permitted the broadening of the commodity description of such volume incentive rates to include this commodity.

As pointed out in the

Report, in June of that year the

motor carriers transporting cement in pneumatic-type tank trucks

filed with the Commission tariff seeking substantial increase in

rates for the transportation of cement in bulk. Due to opposition

from cement shippers, and to disagreement among the carriers in

volved, that application was withdrawn prior to hearing. Later in

the year three of the carriers filed another application for a

somewhat modified increase in rates on these products. This appli

cation was assigned for hearing in December of 19&+, but at the re

quest of applicants held in abeyance pending further negotiations

between the carriers and between the carriers and interested

shippers. Apparently agreement could not be reached for no effort

was made by the carriers to progress their application, and in April

of this year the Commission dismissed the application without preju

dice to the refiling thereof. Such refiling was made in November

when Schwerman Trucking Company filed an application for a substantial

increase and Baggett Bulk Transport, Inc. shortly thereafter filed for

similar increase. Following receipt of protest from affected shippers,

Schwerman Trucking Company modified its proposal to seek a lesser in

crease, while Baggett Bulk Transport, Inc. continued to press its

original application. There still remains outstanding complaints

against increases in rates on this commodity, and in consideration

thereof and of the disruption in cement rates threatened by the

diversity of the applications, the Commission concluded to assign

the matter for hearing in 1966.

Back in 1963 Georgia Highway Express and Central of Georgia Railway Company filed an application to establish joint rail-motor
rates. At the hearing held on the proposal the applicants restricted
their presentation to rates on certain burlap products and the Com mission late in 1963 authorized the publication of those joint railmotor rates, subject to a number of conditions. In its order the
Commission retained jurisdiction over the entire matter and kept the record open for further consideration in the light of further showings
to be made by the applicant. While the approved rates did result in

-te-

movement of these products via the joint rail-motor rates, no effort was made by the applicants to progress their application so far as concerned other commodities. In January of this year the Commission, in view of the fact that over a full year had elapsed since its 1963 decision with no further showing being made by the applicants in the proceeding, dismissed the remaining portion of the application and terminated the proceeding without prejudice to such further filing as the involved carriers might make.
Last year following public hearing the Commission authorized the Georgia Railroad and Central of Georgia Railway to establish a reduced rate on carload shipments of boots and shoes from Thomson to Forest Park and authorized competing motor carriers to establish the same rate. In authorizing such rates the Commission required the establishment of an expiration date of December 315 19^5 in connection therewith in order that it might review the use of the rates made by the involved shippers after a reasonable period of time had been allowed for proper use of the services of the competing carriers. Late this year both the railroads and the motor carriers advised that the adjustment had been successful in pro moting the movement of this traffic and both requested an extension of the expiration date for another year, which was permitted.
For a number of years the Class "B" carriers have been com plaining that the commodity descriptions in the appendix to the Commission's Motor Carrier Rule 8 - which specify the commodities included in many Class "B" certificates - needed revision to re flect changes in the material used for some of the items described in that appendix and in the changed transportation needs of shippers shipping such commodities. Late last year the Association of Georgia Class Carriers, Inc., representing a number of Class "B" carriers, sought amendment to the appendix to the Commission's Motor Carrier Rule 8 to revise the commodity descriptions in Items Nos. 7, 11, 20 and 29 of that appendix. The specific amendments sought were the broadening of the pipe description to include pipe made of metal, plastic, composition or impregnated paper or pulpboard; to broaden the structural or re-enforcement steel description to include such metal products made of other metals; the broadening of the soft drink description to include such drinks in containers other than bottles; and the broadening of the scrap iron description to include other scrap metal having value only for reclamation of metal content. Since the effect of the proposed amendment would be to broaden the operating authority of every Class "B" carrier whose certificate included the authority to transport the items listed in the existing descriptions in Items Nos. 7, 11, 20 and 29 of the appendix to the Commission's Motor Carrier Rule 8, and in order to permit the carriers in other classifications to make know their position in the proposed amendment, the application was assigned for public hearing. The applicants undertook to justify the proposal both from the standpoint of convenience to the shipping public and by the "follow the traffic" theory, it being strongly urged that technological advancements in the commodity fields here involved had so modified circumstances as to adversely affect both shippers of these commodities and the Class "B" carriers transporting those commodities. The Commission recog nized that the commodity descriptions in Rule 8 were severely re strictive in the areas here under consideration and that such

restrictions were not so much intended to be restrictions as to accurately classify the articles included in such descriptions as of the date of such inclusion - for example, the restriction of the transportation of soft drinks in bottles was added in 1935 when canned soft drinks were not on the market* It was further found that arbitrary restriction of structural building shapes to iron and steel materials was a burden on the shippers of such articles and unnecessarily required splitting of ship ments for one receiver into two or more shipments via two or more carriers with attendant higher costs in handling and transportation. Similarly, it was found that mixtures of waste metals other than iron and steel were becoming common and that it was obviously impracticable from an economic stand point for a dealer to separate such metals, where not otherwise required, merely to comply with a restriction in operating au thority. In consideration of such circumstances, the Commission authorized the amendment of the appendix to Motor Carrier Rule 8 to permit transportation of soft drinks in other containers and mixtures of structural and re-enforced shapes made of metals other than iron and steel with the iron and steel shapes, and the mixture of different types of waste metals, where such mixtures in both instances would not include more than 2jjo by weight of the shipment. There was no evidence in the record, however, showing public need for the change proposed in the pipe de scription and for that reason the change sought in that de
scription was not approved.
The Commission^ Motor Carrier Rule 87 requires the annual filing by motor carriers operating under Certificates Classes "A", "B", "C" and "E" of reports of operations for the preceding year showing assets and liabilities, revenues and expenses of operation, and certain other information needed for effective regulation of such carriers. For many years the Commission re quired the larger carriers to file such reports on Motor Carrier Form A furnished by the Interstate Commerce Commission with the smaller carriers filing less comprehensive reports on forms prepared by this Commission. Effective January 1> the Interstate Commerce Commission instituted another type of annual report form (identified as "Motor Carrier Annual Report Form B") to be used for carriers whose annual revenues are between $200,000 and $1,000,000 (Class II Carriers). Upon review of this report form the Commission authorized similar filing by Georgia carriers falling within that revenue classification, with those carriers whose annual revenues amount to less than $200,000 being required to continue filing the less comprehensive reports on forms prepared by this Commission, Paragraph (b) of Motor Carrier Rule 87 required that motor carriers operating under Certificates Classes "A", B' , "C" and "E" (except motor carriers of household goods) and having an annual gross revenue, from all sources, of $100,000 or more, to keep and maintain their accounts in conformity with the "Uniform System of Accounts for Class I Motor Carriers" prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission - the purpose of such requirement to insure that the affected carriers would maintain sufficient statistical information to permit the proper filing with this Commission of Motor Carrier Annual Report Form A, While main tenance of this sytem of accounts is necessary to properly compile

both Motor Carrier Annual Reports Form A and B, such is not required for the compilation of the Commission's less comprehensive report form for the smaller carriers, and in order to relieve those carri ers from the requirement of maintaining that system of accounts, the Commission modified its Rule 87 to so provide.
RAILWAY EXPRESS
In December of last year the Railway Express Agency filed appli cation seeking to increase the rates in its Class Tariff and in its Commodity Tariffs 23-Series, 33-Series and 37-Series - the increase sought generally representing 15 cents for each weight bracket under 100 pounds, and from 5 cents to 15 cents on shipments in excess of 100 pounds. The tariffs affected did not include the small ship ment or parcel rates under which the bulk of Railway Express traffic in Georgia now moves, with the result that the estimated increase in charges amounted to only approximately b cents per shipment. Following public hearing, at which there were no protests, and in view of the showing of the Express Agency at that hearing of substantial cost in creases incurred in the modernization of its facilities and services including in Georgia such facilities as the new key point terminal at Savannah (costing over $250,000) and comparable new facilities at Gainesville, Columbus and the Atlanta Airport, with plans already having been made for the construction of other new facilities at Macon, West Point and Brunswick - the Commission authorized the in crease sought. It should be pointed out that the exception to the increase as to small shipments restilted in such increase not applying to 76.97$ of the total Railway Express traffic moving intrastate within the State of Georgia.
The Express Agency continued during the year to close its local offices at the smaller towns. As in the past, most of such appli cations were filed because the railroads had filed applications to discontinue their agencies at the same points (the railroad agent also operating the express office) with the Express Agency applications being generally contingent upon approval being given to the railroad applications. Of the contingent applications filed during the year the Express Agency was permitted to close its office at Martin, but the need shown for railroad agency operations at Buchanan and Rebecca resulted in the contingent express applications involving those points being denied.
Separate application was made to close the express office at Waverly Hall, but prior to public hearing on that application it was withdrawn by the applicant.
In one contingent application - that involving the express office at Temple - the Commission permitted the discontinuance of railroad agency service but declined to permit the closing of the Temple express office.

R A IL PASSENGER SER VIC E
As pointed out in last year's report there were two train dis continuances effected in the State of Georgia under the provisions of the Transportation Act of 1958 which permitted the railroad in volved to discontinue such services without prior authority from this Commission. One of those discontinuances involved the Southern Railway's "Ponce de Leon" trains between Council, Georgia and Jackson ville, Florida. There was no intrastate service performed between those points and the Southern Railway discontinued operation of the trains without notice to this Commission or to the public, and while there was some protest, it was apparently insufficient to cause the Interstate Commerce Commission to invoke the hearing requirements of the Transportation Act of 1958 because no such action was taken. In March of this year the Southern Railway and the Georgia Southern and Florida Railway sought from this Commission authority to discontinue operation of the remaining portion of these "Ponce de Leon" trains between Atlanta and Council, Georgia. The applicants submitted the usual exhibits showing the use of these trains, the revenues earned therefrom and the costs of operation thereof - those statistics showing for the 12 months ended January, 1965? gross revenues of $261,8ll, of which $575385 consisted of passenger revenue ($38,798 of which came from Georgia intrastate passengers), $202,277 mail revenue and $2,169 express revenue. The out-of-pocket costs shown by the applicants for the same period amounted to $^+99>53^ - $262,9^-5 of which represented terminable costs - expenses that would be unquestionably saved if the trains were discontinued. Those terminable expenses included wage costs (including payroll tax, so-called "fringe benefits", etc.) of $232,215, train fuel costs of $16,885? Atlanta terminal costs of $10,296 and equipment rental costs of $3?5*+9 Other direct expenses of the trains allocated on a system cost basis as has been acknowledged by this and many other Commissions to be properly chargeable as out-ofpocket costs, amounted to $236,589. The total out-of-pocket or direct expenses were shown to have exceeded the total revenue earned by the trains from all sources during this 12 month period by $237,723. There arose at the hearing question as to what effect the termination of the "Ponce de Leon" trains at Council had on the intrastate use of the trains and at the direction of the Commission the applicant submitted after the hearing statistics showing that the intrastate passenger revenues earned by these trains between Atlanta and the Georgia-Florida State line for the 12 months ended January 31? 198^ was $37,850 - this indicating that the intrastate use of the trains during the last 12 months the trains operated all the way through to Jacksonville was substantially the same as that for the year following termination of the trains at Council. Additional statistics showed that southbound train from Atlanta to Council transported an average of 25.8 passengers per trip and northbound train transported an average of 27.0 passengers per trip with over half of the total riding between the principal terminals of Atlanta and Macon. The principal protest at the hearing was from the cities of Macon, Jackson, Juliette and Warner Robins with the file containing a number of letters and telegrams of protest from other areas, all such protests urging not only retention of the trains but the improvement of the schedules as needed by travelers in the area,

The Commission reviewed the previous application of these two railroads in 1959 to discontinue these trains - an application which was denied by the Commission - and while acknowledging that the termination of the trains at Council had resulted in loss of practi cally all Florida passengers, as well as loss of interstate mail and other non-passenger revenues, such termination had also appreciably reduced the costs of operations of the trains and that the intrastate riding had not been affected. The Commission concluded that the termination of the trains at Council had been an interruption in an interstate service then and now under the jurisdiction of the Inter state Commerce Commission and that since the Interstate Commerce Com mission had taken no action thereon it was necessary to conclude that the Commission did not consider the public convenience and necessity to require the continued operation of the Florida service* The Com mission further concluded that while it had required the operation of the trains in Georgia six years longer than the railroads apparently desired to run those trains, the record was now clear that the trains did not pay their way in Georgia and that there was no reasonable possibility of their ever doing so again. Under the circumstances, the Commission approved the discontinuance of these two trains, subject to the condition that other trains of the Southern Railway stop at McDonough, Jackson and Juliette for both passengers and express*
In October, the Southern Railway Company sought authority to dis continue operation of the Pullman cars on its Passenger Trains Numbers 7 and 8 between Atlanta and Brunswick* The operation of this Pullman service had been indirectly the subject of a train discontinuance proceeding before this Commission in late 1961 - that docket involving the proposed discontinuance of the segment of trains 7 and 8 then operating between Brunswick and Jesup where connection was made with the former "Kansas City-Florida Special" trains then operating between Kansas City, Missouri and Jacksonville, Florida via Jesup. The Com mission denied the 1961 application to discontinue the entire Jacksonvilie-Brunswick service and consequently the Pullman operation had continued. The instant application showed the expense charged by the Pullman Company to the Southern Railway to have amounted to $73>332 for the 12 month period ended September 30, 19^5. Of those expenses it was developed that the porter cost of $38,106 and the cost of linen, laundry and car supplies of $1,1+05 were direct costs, while the other costs were allocated costs developed on a Pullman system average basis. In contrast, it was shown that the passengers riding these Pullman cars paid only $12,231 during this period for space occupancy on the cars - this resulting in a net loss required to be paid to the Pullman Company by the Southern Railway of $61,101 during this period. Of course, in addition to the revenue from charges for occupancy of Pullman car space, the Southern Railway earned revenue from first class fares of passengers occupying such space amounting to $13>952 during the same 12 month period. Even crediting the total railroad revenue from first class fares to the operation of this Pullman service resulted in a net loss chargeable to that service of $47,1^9 Additional statistics showed that the riding on these Pullman cars had declined to an average of 1.97 passengers per trip. There was some opposition at the hearing to the proposed elimination of Pullman service but none which indicated any reversal of the trend of declining use of the service, or even that
-47-

the low level of use now being experienced would be maintained. The Commission found that it had already required the retention of this Pullman car service to Brunswick for four years longer than the rail road desired to operate such service and that the belief previously expressed that the public need would be demonstrated by increased use of the improved facilities had proved unsound with just the reverse being true and that the loss in providing the service had increased to a point no longer justifiable in providing such service for such a limited number of passengers. In view of that fact, and in view of the substantial improvement in the coach service available on these trains, and for the further purpose of reducing the losses incurred on Trains 7 and 8 to encourage the railroad to continue operation of the basic services of these trains, the Commission reluctantly permitted the discontinuance of this now little used Pullman service.
RAIL FREIGHT
In June of last year the railroads operating in Georgia sought authority to mafe effective on Georgia intrastate traffic the same increases in switching charges as were approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission in its order in Ex Parte 223 (Sub. No. 2) decided May k, 196^, In consideration of a number of protests against such proposed increases, the Commission declined to approve such increases without justification therefor at public hearing. Hearings were originally set for late in 196^ but were several times postponed and not actually held until July of this year. The increases sought amounted to $7.50 per car on reciprocal (non-absorbed) switching, $7,50 per car on inter-terminal and intra-terminal switching and $3.00 per car on intra-plant switching - such increases to be in lieu of the increases previously authorized in the same docket of 20$, maximum $3.75 per car on reciprocal (non-absorbed), inter-terminal and intra terminal switching and 20$, maximum $1.50 per car on intra-plant switching. The applicants submitted at the hearing special switchengine time studies at 10 yard locations in the State of Georgia from which were developed costs of performing the various types of switching. Those studies indicated an overall loss, even at the proposed rates, on ai 1 types of switching, even when adjustments in the studies were made as contended for by protestants. The increase was protested principally by representatives of pulpwood receivers, with other objections being voiced by a representative of a steel mill, a ferti lizer company, a cannery and the State's largest freight bureau. The Commission found that the proposed switching charges on a average Statewide basis would not exceed the cost of performing the services as determined through use of recognized cost formulae, and that under such circumstances found no justification for denying the increase in general or, on the instant record, for denying in full, or in part, the increases sought on the movements about which protests were made in this proceeding. The Commission did recognize, however, the com petitive disadvantage to the State's paper mills which are forced to

pay switching charges - at whatever level - where other mills even less favorably situated in neighboring States bear no such expense and the Commission emphasized in its order approving the switching increases that it would no longer continue to require the addition of switching charges to Georgia intrastate pulpwood rates if the carriers operating in Georgia absorb so-called "switching" charges on pulpwood in other States and thereby prejudice Georgia receivers of this commodity.
In approving for intrastate application in Georgia the Ex Parte 223 increases, the Commission in its original order in Docket ^77-R excepted from such increases "...increases sought in transit charges...". The increase proposed at that time in transit charges was protested by a representative of a number of textile shippers because of the antici pated adverse effect of such increase on the transit operations of the textile waste industry in Georgia - the contention being made at the hearing on these increases that the added charge would increase sub stantially the unit cost to the textile industry of needed storagein-transit arrangements, particularly where the transited materials had moved into storage in comparatively small carload lots. The Com mission's denial of the Ex Parte 223 increase on transit charges was stated to be without prejudice to the railroads seeking such adjust ment in later specific applications, and by such application dated July 1st of this year the railroads requested reconsideration of that denial, pointing out that recent studies had indicated that there were few, if any, shipments of textile waste and sweepings actually moving under transit arrangements in Georgia intrastate commerce. The protestants reevaluated their position in the light of these rail studies and the Commission was advised that such protestants did not object to ap proval by the Commission of the increase in these charges, provided such approval would be without prejudice to the industry's rights to have the matter reopened at some later time should conditions so re quire, and the Commission authorized the increases in these charges, subject to such understanding.
During the year there arose another controversy between the rail and motor carriers concerning rates on petroleum products - this time involving proposed reduced rates on fuel oil from Port Wentworth and Savannah to Nixon to serve a large receiver located at that point. Following public hearing there was agreement reached between the carriers and the shippers for mutually acceptable rates, and the Com mission authorized the railroads to meet the motor carrier petroleum incentive rates in this instance.
There is a large movement of boots or shoes from the U. S. Rubber Plant in Thomson, Georgia to the Army Depot in Forest Park, Georgia, which at one time moved by rail, but had been diverted to motor carrier because of the more favorable rates and better service available by that mode of transportation. The railroads in April filed application to establish substantially reduced rates on this traffic in order to re coup at least a portion of the movement. Upon protest from the affected motor carrier the Commission assigned the application for hearing and following full presentation by all parties found that the proposed rail rate was an acceptable exercise of managerial discretion of the rail roads in attempting to regain a portion of traffic lost to motor carri ers, that the railroads appeared to have properly considered their own

costs in handling the traffic, the positive expression of the shipper as to the level of rate required and the railroad needs for additional traffic. The Commission further found that while it did not condone, and to the extent possible would not permit, destructive competition between carriers, it could not deny the right of one mode of trans portation to adjust rates to participate in traffic where there was not undue damage to competing modes, and for that reason, and par ticularly in view of the fact that the evidence indicated that the proposed rates by the motor carriers involved would likewise make a profit on the movement, approved the reduced rate for account of both rail and motor carriers. In order to assure that the adjustment was not merely a rate cutting revision, the Commission required an expira tion date of December 31j 19^5 to be attached to the rate, and since both modes of transportation have applied for extension of that expira tion date, it is obvious that the approved rates are resulting in move ment via both types of carriers.
In 1959 the Commission approved the application of the Augusta and Summerville Railroad Company for authority to remove the switch at the intersection of Kollock and Fenwick Streets in Augusta (con necting a spur track of that railroad with the main line of the Georgia Railroad at that point) and permitted the temporary dis continuance of service on that spur track. The Commission declined to permit the railroad to totally abandon the track on the grounds that such total abandonment at that time would result in unwarranted deprecl ation in value of the railroad-served properties located adjacent thereto and would handicap the efforts of owners of those properties to locate railroad-using industries on those sites. By application in November of this year the Augusta and Summerville Railroad Company sought amendment of the Commission^ original order to now permit the retirement of this spur track, with that application being accompanied by evidence that the City of Augusta was planning to authorize the closing of the street along which is located the track here involved and that it was contemplated a motel would be constructed on these properties in lieu of railroad-using industry. In consideration of the changed conditions, the Commission authorized the retirement of this track.

RAIL AGENCY SERVICE

The railroads continued to seek authority to discontinue their

agency services at the smaller towns - either due to declining revenue

from such stations or to change in consist of traffic to and from such

stations to such as does not necessarily demand the services of an

agent. This year the Commission processed 11 such applications and,

as is its established custom, adhered to the policy of deciding those

applications on the need for and use of the services rather than

solely on the statistical showing of revenue versus cost. Of these applications processed during 1965 the Commission found that the public

convenience and necessity of the affected areas would not be adequately

served without agency service in instances and accordingly denied au

thority to discontinue agency service at Bowdon Junction, Buchanan,

Byromville, Crawford, Rebecca, Vienna and Warm Springs. Authority was

granted to discontinue agency service at Barney, Martin, Morven and

Temple.

-50-

WESTERN & A TLA N TIC RAILROAD

The annual report of the lessee of the Western & Atlantic Rail road for the calendar year 1965 shows for the net expenditures charged to the accounting classification "Additions and Betterments" by
classes of railroad property, the following amounts:

Improved Track Material ......... Replacement and Additional Ballast .. Bridges, Trestles and Culverts .... Yard Tracks and Sidings ...... . Station and Office Buildings ........ Roadway Buildings Communication Systems ..... . Signals and Interlockers... ..... Grade Crossings ..................

$ 899*99 2,532.60 3>095*70 12,856.1^ 8,058.^2 222. ^3 5>280.8l 16,721.10 8,035^

The above net additions reported are after deduction for value of property replaced during the year and total $57>702.53* The net capital expenditures made by the lessee for additions and improve ments to the Western & Atlantic Railroad from the beginning of the lease in 1919 through December 31> 1965> amount to $8,32^,891.

There was discussed briefly in the reports of the last two years the activities of the Legislative Committees and the State Properties Control Commission in relation to the forthcoming lease of the Western & Atlantic Railroad properties. During the year the transportation staff of the Commission participated actively in studies of the rail road and in gathering the information necessary to permit the con sulting engineers to arrive at the proper provisions for the forth coming lease.

CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS

During the year the Commission processed four applications from the railroads for authority to institute condemnation proceedings to acquire property needed for railroad purposes.
By two petitions received in June the Southern Railway Company sought authority to condemn several parcels of property needed in connection with its construction of new yard facilities in Macon for the use of both it and its subsidiary Central of Georgia Railway. Following public hearings and showing that the property was required, the Commission granted authority to institute the condemnation proceedings, subject to minor conditions concerning clearances of another railroad and access to certain private facilities.
Late last year the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company and Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, as operators of the Georgia Railroad, sought authority to institute condemnation proceedings against a number of individuals for the purpose of acquiring property

-51-

in Warren County needed to construct a bypass track around the Georgia Railroad classification yard at Camak - a track which was needed to enable the railroad to run trains between points on its main line and points on the Macon branch of the Georgia Railroad without bringing such trains through its Camak Yard, Following public hearing, at which it was developed that the track was needed to permit the trans portation of solid trainloads of coal to the new Georgia Power Company electric generating plant near Milledgeville and that the route proposed was the most practicable one, the Commission authorized the institution of condemnation proceedings.
In September the Savannah & Atlanta Railway Company sought au thority to institute condemnation proceedings for the purpose of acquiring certain property in Jefferson County to be used for the construction of an industry track to serve a new kaolin processing plant to be located near Stapleton. Following public hearing at which it was developed that the plant would be shipping materials not susceptible to truck transportation and required rail service to the extent of some 10 cars per week at the beginning to 30 cars per day after normal operations were obtained and that the route shown was the most feasible and direct route both to reach the industry and to avoid another clearance crossing of a highway, the Commission authorized the institution of condemnation proceed ings.
RAILROAD OPERATING RULES
By petition dated April 20 the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen and Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers requested that the Commission, on its own motion, issue an order requiring all railroads operating within the State of Georgia to affirmatively provide in their operating rules that a flagman be included in the crew of a train even when that train was operating within the automatic block signal or centralized control system limits. The Commission, after extensive review of the petition, recognized that it had no rules requiring any specific crew consist on any train and that it had not prescribed safety rules and regu lations concerning railroad operations since that field had long since been preempted by federal control. The Commission advised the petitioners that while it was always concerned with safety of railroad operations, the question of crew consist was a management function not normally invaded by regulatory bodies, but usually made the subject of State full crew laws and that it would appear proper for any crew consist requirement to be made the subject of legislative mandate rather than Commission requirement and concluded that it would not at this time on Its own motion invade this management-labor field and accordingly denied the petition.
-52-

PARTICIPATION IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION CASES
On August 27 the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Piled with the Interstate Commerce Commission application under Section 13a of the Interstate Commerce Act to discontinue its passenger trains numbers 180 and 189 operating between the terminals of Montgomery, Alabama and Waycross, Georgia and serving such intermediate points in Georgia as Homerville, Valdosta, Quitman, Thomasville, Cairo, Climax and Bainbridge. In consideration of a number of complaints from the affected area, the Commission voted unanimously to express to the Interstate Commerce Commission its opposition to this proposed dis continuance of service and to request that public hearing be held on the matter at a point in the State of Georgia on the route of the trains. In its statement of opposition, the Commission pointed out that it had a long history of concern with the problems of the railroads in the passenger field, had been in the forefront of nationwide efforts to lighten the burden of the railroads in that respect, had permitted the discontinuance of a number of trains operating between points within the State of Georgia, both prior to and subsequent to the passage of the Transportation Act of 1958, and that while all such applications had not been approved, the Commission felt that it was well aware of and sympathetic with the passenger problems of the Georgia railroads. The Commission went on to point out, however, that during the past few years it had actively cooperated with the applicant in authorizing service adjustments designed to reduce operating expenses and to permit continuation of the needed services of these trains and that while the statistics submitted with the application evidenced some loss in the operation of the trains, there should be considered the facts that overall the applicant was operating in a healthy financial condition, that these were the last daily trains operating East-Lest through this region of Georgia and that discontinuance of these trains would remove all railroad passenger service from a number of Georgia towns. The Interstate Commerce Commission on September l6 issued its order requiring the trains to continue to run pending hearings by that body and assigned such hearings for Montgomery and Dothan, Alabama and Thomasville and Waycross, Georgia. Representative of the Commission appeared at those hearings and actively assisted the interested Georgia protestants in presenting to the Interstate Com merce Commission their plea for continuance of the services of these trains. The applicant very constructively offered to continue operation of the trains if the involved labor unions would agree to such operation with a four man crew, and following negotiations throughout the entire course of the hearings the unions involved did agree in the public interest to permit operation with such a reduced crew. As result of that agreement the railroad withdrew its appli cation and the trains continue in operation.
On August 16 the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company filed application with the Interstate Commerce Commission seeking authority under Section 13a of the Interstate Commerce Act to dis continue operation of its passenger trains numbers 9k and 95 between Evansville, Indiana and Atlanta, Georgia. The Commission extensively reviewed the application and the accompanying exhibits and concluded that it would be of no avail to oppose the application since the
-53-

August k, 1965 discontinuance of the Evansville, Indiana-Chicago, Illinois portion of trains 9^ &nd 95 had already totally destroyed the through South-Midwest characteristics of the trains, that re gardless of any opposition to the pending application there would be no possibility of restoring the through Atlanta-Chicago services and that the other effects on the Georgia traveling and shipping public would be negligible in that there would remain on the Georgia portion of the route of these trains the "Georgian" (Trains Nos. 57 and 58) and the Atlanta-Nashville local (Trains Nos. 2 and 3 ). Accordingly, the Commission did not oppose the discontinuance of these trains.
As pointed out in last year*s report, for many years repre sentatives of this Commission, together with the Freight Hate Committee of the Southern Governors* Conference and the other Southern State Commissions, have been endeavoring through negoti ations with the railroads to obtain adjustments in the railroad rate structure on lumber which would remove the many inequities suffered by our Southern lumber producers in competing in the nation*s lumber markets. As previously pointed out, particular harm to the Southern lumber producers had been brought about by the competition of West Coast lumber which enjoys a railroad rate structure permitting low "incentive" rates which are subject to tariff loading provisions which were not adequately enforced. In October of this year the Interstate Commerce Commission finally awoke to the fact that the Western lumber industry was not complying with the minimum loading requirements of these incentive lumber rates, and by order dated October 28 instituted on its own motion an investi gation into the lawfulness of rules published by the Transcontinental railroads wherein are contained provisions reducing the minimum weight requirements on carload shipments of lumber if a car is loaded to "full visible capacity" (such rule commonly referred to as the "LFVC" Rule). By petition dated December 29, this Commission joined with the other Southern State Commissions and the Southern Governors* Conference in seeking leave to intervene in this investigation proceeding, pointing out therein the previous history of the unfair advantages accorded the West Coast shippers in these lumber rates and emphasizing that the adverse effect of the many accessorial privileges allowed Western lumber shippers in Transcontinental movements were bad enough when the rules governing those privileges were enforced and simply intolerable when they were not enforced either because of ambiguity of the rules themselves or because of deliberate or negligent evasion on the part of the carriers and/or shippers.
It is planned to participate as completely in this proceeding as the Interstate Commerce Commission will permit in order to attempt to remove this unfair handicap to our Southern lumber producers.
Since 1959 the Southern State Commissions and the Southern Governors* Conference have been opposing the efforts of the Northern railroads to obtain an increase in their share of the revenues from North-South traffic - the Northern railroads seeking an increase of $35>000,000 annually above the now equal-factor divisions. As pointed out in prior reports, our protests were partially effective
-5^-

in that the Interstate Commerce Commission did not grant to the Northern railroads the full measure of increase sought but that Commission did authorize an adjustment in those divisions which would take about $8,000,000 per year from the Southern carriers. Believing the order of the Commission to be based on unsound reasoning and to be totally unjust to the South this Commission joined with the other protestants in bringing suit in March in the United States District Court in New Orleans to set aside that part of the Commission's order granting the inflation in the Northern railroads* divisions. We anticipate a lengthy court fight in this case but the potential harmful effect on the railroads in the South and on the shippers served thereby amply justifies the expenditure of time and funds which will be required.
This Commission, together with the other Southern State Com missions and the Southern Governors* Conference, continued during 1965 participation in proceedings involving reduced railroad rates on grain shipped in multiple car lots of not less than ^-50 tons. As pointed out last year, during I96U these rates already in effect and moving traffic were subjected to court attack both by opposed carrier interests and by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the latter seeking to overturn before the Supreme Court a decision of a lower Federal Court that had held null and void that Commission*s orders prescribing increase in these rates. In January of this year the Supreme Court upheld our position and approved the decision of the lower Federal Court and ordered the Interstate Commerce Com mission to reconsider the case "in the light of the Ohio Court's decision". The case was promptly remanded to the Interstate Com merce Commission and it set a prehearing conference in March to consider suggestions by the parties as to further procedure. We joined with the other Southern State Commissions in urging that the only course now open to the Commission in the absence of further hearing was to uphold these reduced rates. We won our final victory in this fight when in September the Interstate Commerce Commission completely reversed itself and gave full approval to the sharply reduced, multiple car rates on grain moving in jumbo cars. Unless there is further court action, and we do not anticipate that, this latest decision of the Commission culminates in complete success the fight of the Southern State Commissions in support of these rates during the four years they have been at issue before the Commission and the courts - including two trips all the way to the Supreme Court.
-55-

UTILITIES DIVISION
The Utilities Division is presently staffed with a Director, two engineers, two accountants, and six persons working in a secretarial or clerical capacity. The work of this division, under the direction and supervision of the Commission and its Secretary, consists generally of processing the rate and tariff filings of all public utilities, and the evaluation of the same for presentation to the Commission. More specifically, activities include examining the books of accounts of public utilities; preparing and maintaining maps showing the certifi cated service areas and main transmission and distribution lines of utilities; investigating and processing complaints, including field investigations, and holding hearings when necessary; analyzing exhibits submitted at public hearings; studying and evaluating rate filings for the purpose of maintaining an equitable relation in the rate structures of comparable utilities; reviewing proposed issuances of securities and applications for loans; assisting the Commission in drafting and writing memorandum opinions, findings and orders; and reviewing Federal Power Commission and Federal Communications Commission materials and evaluating their effect on Georgia public utility operations.
In order to properly carry out the duties assigned to it by the Commission, this division must come in contact with every segment of the public, including individual citizens, industry representatives, national and other state regulatory bodies, legal, engineering, invest ment and brokerage firms, and numerous information and communications media. The files, library, and equipment of the division must be com plete, accurate, and available so that each application, complaint, court appeal, territorial question or dispute, rate consideration or problem may be handled quickly, equitably and in the public interest.

OPERATING UTILITIES

At the close of the calendar year 19^53 there were under juris diction of the Public Service Commission the following number of

Electric

2

Natural Gas

b

Telephone (including four cooperatives)

5b

Telegraph

1

Transit

3

The following changes have been made in the list of utilities operating in the State of Georgia for the year ending December 31* 19^5:

Gas

Savannah Gas Company purchased by Atlanta Gas Light Company.

For a complete list of utility companies operating in Georgia see Appendix "A"
-56-

" : '

tf-OT' '

rm bm

;o iOO ni: f - \. a o i a i v

tip I

'

a s i1:

tro ia i

oso.

i l *)&. n.t ebn. nd v-?::*. % .erf-:* -
j'ijbl : :-D

T e le p h o n e C a n to n T e le p h o n e Company an d G o ld L e a f T e le p h o n e Company m erg ed in t o G e n e ra l T e le p h o n e Company o f G e o rg ia . S ik e s T e le p h o n e Company a c q u ire d h y T e le p h o n e s , In c . S e m in o le T e le p h o n e Company a c q u ire d b y T e le p h o n e s , In c . D ix ie T e le p h o n e Company a c q u ire d b y T e le p h o n e s , In c . C h ero kee T e le p h o n e Company a c q u ire d b y T e le p h o n e s , In c . H o m e rv ille T e le p h o n e Company a c q u ire d b y T e le p h o n e s , In c , U n io n P o in t T e le p h o n e Company a c q u ire d b y Com er T e le p h o n e Com pany, Change o f name o f Comer T e le p h o n e Company to E m p ire T e le p h o n e Com pany.
-57-

ago;-

. %fltt & ::,v

C C

r 'i n iO T

'C..I , /.,': -loT a t r p a . . xiqelsOE asS

&mt

m>zJ <^BOv

tup

fdkit? '

..- T h f p xa ;, o; '

'

jK | | i | | M "'"' $j

xfljdJteT smoO lo is m io a^itdO

DECISIONS AND ORDERS Applications formally heard hy the Commission are generally taken under advisement and decisions thereon are issued at a later date. The Commission issued 91 decisions and orders during the year in proceedings involving utilities, A classification of the proceedings in which formal opinions and orders were issued follows:
A p p lic a tio n s f o r C e r tific a te s o r C a n c e lla tio n T h e re o f - - - - - - - - 3 0 A p p lic a tio n s f o r A u th o r ity to Is s u e S e c u r itie s o r B orrow Money
R u ra l E le c t r if ic a t io n A d m in is tra tio n F in a n c in g - - - - - - - - - 1 3
P r iv a te F in a n c in g - - - - - - - . - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 0
R a te A d ju s tm e n t P ro c e e d in g s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 0 A p p lic a tio n s fo r A u th o rity to P urchase and T ra n s fe r U t i l i t y
P ro p e rtie s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 A p p lic a t io n s f o r Am endm ents o f C e r t i f i c a t e s - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 7 Show Cause P ro c e e d in g s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
-58-

-J \; u: ::;C::-:nsqqA^

ta s &xt flrjjrr'.f :.< 3ilffeDOrxg. 'srfi ' t;civ.:^ I:?.?..
-, i . DfjaiidM ^sBvr

3ab . r

.'0i/asir ir. : l i /
-

iaerco

aow,l ia s i 3 -to. r.dv-oitiiteO *i:o' s n io tj'^ o tlq q A
; cc fA _o.. e-xoJfc soiti gq A
' - - ;>'!/: .,.I ' ?;..ar\ii ... , ., ** --

~ p - ,<

SUBJECT MATTER OF DOCKETS HEARD AND DETERMINED

The following is an abstract of the subject matters of UtilityDockets considered or heard by the Commission during the year, wherein formal opinions and orders were entered:

APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OR CANCELLATION THEREOF

Docket No, l88^-U January 15, 19^5

Application of Intercoastal Gas Corporation for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Gilmer County,

Docket No, 1836-U July i| 1965

Application of the City of Warner Robins for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Twiggs County,

Docket No. 1805-U October 8, 1965

Application of Atlanta Gas Light Company for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Chattooga County,

Docket No. I965-U December 21, 19^5

Application of Atlanta Gas Light Company for
authority to acquire by transfer, Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity No. t-8 - Chatham County - Distribution System Certificate for
natural gas.

Docket No. I966-U December 21, 1965

Application of Atlanta Gas Light Company for authority to acquire by transfer, Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity No. 77 - Effing ham County - Distribution System for natural gas.

Docket No. 1967-U December 21, 1965

Application of Atlanta Gas Light Company for authority to acquire by transfer, Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity No. 101 - Bryan County - Distribution System Certificate for natural gas.

Docket No. I968-U December 23, 19^5

Application of Atlanta Gas Light Company for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Pike County.

Docket No. 1969-U December 23, 19&5

Application of Atlanta Gas Light Company for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Wilkes County,

Docket No. 1971-U December 23, 19&5

Application of Atlanta Gas Light Company for Distribution System Certificate of Public Conven ience and Necessity in Jefferson County.

Docket No, 1972-U December 23, 19&5

Application of Atlanta Gas Light Company for authority to purchase, own and operate gas facilities of the City of Warrenton, Georgia, and for the issuance of Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity in Warren County.

-59-

Docket No. 1973-U December 23, 19&5
Docket No. I89O-U January 29, 19^5
Docket No. 1908-U February 25, 19^5 Docket No. I898-U March 3, 1965
Docket No. 1897-U March 3, 1965
Docket No. 1896-U March 3, 19&5
Docket No. 1911-U March 11, 1965 Docket No. 192^-U May 28, 1965
Docket No. 19^3-U July 15, 1965
Docket No. 19^2-U July 15, 1965
Docket No. 19^1-U July 15, 1965
Docket No. 19^7-U July 15, 1965
Docket No. 19^6-U July 15, 1965

Application of Atlanta Gas Light Company for authority to purchase, own and operate gas facilities of the City of Warrenton, Georgia, and for the issuance of Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity in Glascock County.
Application of Waverly Hall Telephone Company, Inc. for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity -- Toll Lines.
Application of Trenton Telephone Company for a Cer tificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.
Application of Empire Telephone Company for a Cer tificate of Public Convenience and Necessity -- White Plains Exchange.
Application of Empire Telephone Company for a Cer tificate of Public Convenience and Necessity -- Union Point Exchange.
Application of Empire Telephone Company for a Cer tificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to establish a new exchange at Maxeys, Georgia.
Application of Ringgold Telephone Company for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.
Application of Blue Ridge Telephone Company for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to establish a new exchange at Dial, Georgia.
Application of General Telephone Company of Georgia for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for authority to acquire and operate the Hahira, Georgia exchange of the Gold Leaf Telephone Company.
Application of General Telephone Company of Georgia for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for authority to acquire and operate the Coolidge, Georgia exchange of the Gold Leaf Telephone Company.
Application of General Telephone Company of Georgia for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for authority to acquire and operate the Boston, Georgia exchange of the Gold Leaf Telephone Company.
Application of General Telephone Company of Georgia for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for authority to acquire and operate the Pavo, Georgia exchange of the Gold Leaf Telephone Company.
Application of General Telephone Company of Georgia for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for authority to acquire and operate the Morven, Georgia Exchange of the Gold Leaf Telephone Company.

Docket No. 19^5-U July 15, 1965
Docket No* Igtj July 15, 1965
Docket No. 1951-U July 15, 1965
Docket No. 1950-U July 15, 1965
Docket No. MfeBjN July 15, 1965
Docket No. 1929-D July 15, 1965
Docket No. 1952-U August 23, 19^5

Application of General Telephone Company of Georgia for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for authority to acquire and operate the Meigs, Georgia Exchange of the Gold Leaf Telephone Company.
Application of General Telephone Company of Georgia for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for authority to acquire and operate the Lakeland, Georgia exchange of the Gold Leaf Telephone Company.
Application of General Telephone Company of Georgia for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for authority to acquire and operate the Jasper, Georgia Exchange of the Canton Telephone Company.
Application of General Telephone Company of Georgia for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for authority to acquire and operate the Canton, Georgia Exchange of the Canton Telephone Company.
Application of General Telephone Company of Georgia for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for authority to acquire and operate the Ray City, Georgia exchange of the Gold Leaf Telephone Company.
Application of Brantley Telephone Company, Inc. for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to establish a nev exchange.
Application of Brantley Telephone Company, Inc. for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.

.

- :



'

.

Ial

: .aal <.^3Q;:ioO i'/ioiqsXsT

.
%t) i:o$&2iX<$<iA &%0l

.. *ti`i .

XXv'l.
.

APPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SECURITIES OR BORROW MONEY

Docket No. 1883-U January 6, 1965
Docket No. 1916-U March 24, 1965

Application of Atlanta Gas Light Company for authority to issue and sell 180,150 additional shares of its $5 par value per share Common Stock as well as authority to issue and sell $22,000,000 principal amount of First Mortgage Bonds - First Supplemental Order.
Application of Savannah Gas Company for authority to issue and sell $1,910,000 principal amount of 4 3/4$ First Mortgage Bonds.

Docket No. 1883-U May 28, 1965

Application of Atlanta Gas Light Company for authority to issue and sell 180,150 additional shares of its $5 paa* value per share Common Stock as well as authority to issue and sell $22,000,000 principal amount of First Mortgage Bonds - First
Amendatory Order.

Docket No. 1888-U February 12, 1965

Application of Plant Telephone and Power Company, Inc. for authority to issue a total of 725 shares of its
$100 par value per share Common Stock.

Docket No. 1893-U February 12, 19&5

Application of Standard Telephone Company for authority to borrow $4,019,000 from the Rural Electrification Administration ("REA'J, Washington, D.C.

Docket No. 1909-U March 3, 19^5

Application of General Telephone Company of the
Southeast for authority to change the par value
of its Common Stock from $10 par value per share
to $25 par value per share Common Stock, as well as authority to issue and sell $9,500,000 prin cipal amount of First Mortgage Bonds.

Docket No. 1910-U March 11, 1965

Application of Ringgold Telephone Company for authority to borrow $945,000 from the Rural Electrification Administration ("REA"), Washington, D. C.

Docket No. 191T-U March 24, 1965

Application of General Telephone Company of Georgia for authority to change the par value of its Common Stock from $10 to $25 per share; to issue and sell 198,992 shares of its Common Stock, par value $25 per share; to apply the proceeds from the said sale to payment of temporary bank loans; and for other
purposes.

Docket No. 1920-U May 28, 1965

Application of Blue Ridge Telephone Company for authority to borrow an additional $800,000 from the Rural Electrification Administration ("REA"),
Washington, D. C.

Docket No. 1925-U June 10, 1965

Application of Camden Telephone And Telegraph Com pany, Inc. for authority to borrow an additional $1,051,000 from the Rural Electrification Adminis tration ("REA"), Washington, D. C.

-62-

Docket No. 1927-U July 15, 1965 Docket No. 1934-U July 15, 1965 Docket No. 1940-U July 15, 1965
Docket No. 1955-U September 16, 1965 Docket No. I936-U September l6, 1965 Docket No. 1956-U September 16, 1965 Docket No. 1953-W September 22, 1965
Non-Docket October 15, 19^5
Docket No. 1930-U October 27* 19&5

Application of* Brantley Telephone Company, Inc. for authority to borrow $368,000 from the Rural Electrification Administration (REA), Washington, D.C.
Application of Fairmount Telephone Company, Inc. for authority to borrow $467,000 from the Rural Electrification Administration ("REA."), Washington, D. C.
Application of General Telephone Company of Georgia, Canton Telephone Company of Canton, Georgia, and Gold Leaf Telephone Company of Moultrie, Georgia, for authority to effect an Agreement of Merger pursuant to which Canton Telephone Company and Gold Leaf Telephone Company will be merged into General Telephone Company of Georgia in such manner that General Telephone Company of Georgia will be the surviving corporation. Also, authority for General Telephone Company of Georgia, following such merger, to issue 1,000 shares of its $25 par value per share Common Stock to General Telephone and Electronics Corporation in exchange for the 1,000 shares of $25 par value per share Common Stock of Canton Telephone Company presently owned by General Telephone and Electronics Corporation.
Application of Wilkinson County Telephone Company, Inc., for authority to borrow an additional $540,000 principal amount from the Rural Electrification Administration ("REA."), Washington, D. C.
Application of Gray-Haddock Telephone Company, Inc. for authority to borrow $486,000 from the Rural Electrification Administration ("REA"), Washington, D* C.
Application of Public Service Telephone Company for authority to borrow an additional $1,521,000 principal amount from the Rural Electrification Administration ("REA"), Washington, D. C.
Application of Progressive Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for authority to borrow an additional $8l6,000 principal amount from the Rural Electrification Administration ("REA."), Washington, D. C.
Application of Bulloch County Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for authority to borrow an additional $155*000 principal amount from the Rural Electrification Administration ("REA."), Washington, D. C.
Application of Byron Telephone Company, Inc. for authority to borrow an additional $424,000 prin cipal amount from the Rural Electrification Administration ("REA."), Washington, D. C.

-63-

Docket No, 196I-U December 1, 1965 Docket No. I89I-U January 15, 1965 Docket No. I89I-U July 7, 1965
Docket No. 1889-U January 15, 1965

Application of Plant Telephone and Power Company, Inc. for authority to borrow $766,000 principal amount from the Rural Electrification Administra tion (''REA"), Washington, D. C.
Application of Georgia Poorer Company for authority to issue and sell $36,500,000 principal amount of First Mortgage Bonds, 60,000 shares of Preferred Stock and 95,000 shares of Common Stock.
Application of Georgia Power Company for authority to issue and sell $36,500,000 principal amount of First Mortgage Bonds, 60,000 shares of Preferred Stock and 95,000 shares of Common Stock - Supple mental Order.
Application of Atlanta Transit System, Inc. for authority to execute a long-term note evidencing an indebtedness of $800,000 bearing interest at the rate of 5 7/8$ per annum.

-64-

')Lti *

id i

^T'VrJx 0l$fXO> 'io

mfrsq -0001Or

1?o

*l Vr
'V-Sv-Al
% <tx
MJI tt

liJ : Q "<

. .
'

4''

RATE ADJUSTMENT PROCEEDINGS

Docket No, 189^-U February 12, 1965

Application of Standard Telephone Company for authority to adjust its local service rates and charges for telephone service rendered by that Company*

Docket No* 1922-U May 31, 1965

Application of Southern Bell Telephone and Tele graph Company for approval of revised Local Exchange Tariffs applicable to the Athens, Bogart-Statham, and Watkinsville exchanges of that Company.

Docket No* 1926-U June 10, 1965

Application of Camden Telephone and Telegraph Company, Inc, for authority to increase rates for telephone service rendered from the Kingsland, St. Marys and Woodbine exchanges of the Company,

Docket No. 1919-U June 10, 1965

Application of Blue Ridge Telephone Company for authority to increase rates for telephone service rendered by the Company,

Docket No, 1935-U July 15, 1965

Application of Fairmount Telephone Company, Inc. for authority to increase the exchange telephone rates of the Company.

Docket No. 1928-U July 15, 1965

Application of Brantley Telephone Company, Inc. for authority to increase the exchange telephone rates of the Company.

Docket No. 1957-U September l6, 1965

Application of Gray-Haddock Telephone Company, Inc. for authority to adjust its rates for tele phone service rendered from the Haddock exchange of the Company.

Docket No. 195^-U September 22, 1965

Application of Progressive Rural Telephone Cooper ative, Inc. for authority to adjust its local exchange telephone rates.

Docket No. 1931-U October 27, 19^5

Application of Byron Telephone Company, Inc. for authority to adjust its exchange telephone rates.

Docket No. 1887-U February 12, 1965

Application of Bibb Transit Company for authority to increase fares for transit service in Macon, Georgia.

-65-

APPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE AND TRANSFER UTILITY PROPERTIES

Docket No, 1972-U December 23, 1965

Application of Atlanta Gas Light Company for authority to purchase, own and operate gas facilities of the City of Warrenton, Georgia, and for the issuance of Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity in Warren County.

Docket No. 1973-U December 23, 19^5

Application of Atlanta Gas Light Company for authority to purchase, own and operate gas facilities of the City of Warrenton, Georgia, and for the issuance of Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity in Glascock County.

Docket No. 1895-U March 3, 19^5

Application of Comer Telephone Company for authority to merge the assets of Union Point Telephone Company into those of Comer Telephone Company.

Docket No. 19^0-U July 15, 1965

Application of General Telephone Company of Georgia, Canton Telephone Company of Canton, Georgia, and Gold Leaf Telephone Company of Moultrie, Georgia, for authority to effect an agreement of merger
pursuant to which Canton Telephone Company and Gold Leaf Telephone Company will be merged into General Telephone Company of Georgia in such manner that General Telephone Company of Georgia will be the surviving corporation. Also, authority
for General Telephone Company of Georgia, following such merger, to issue 1,000 shares of its $25 par value per share Common Stock to General Telephone
and Electronics Corporation in exchange for the 1,000 shares of $25 par value per share Common Stock of Canton Telephone Company presently owned by General Telephone and Electronics Corporation.

Docket No, 1964-U December 21, 1965

Application of Atlanta Gas Light Company for requisite authority to consummate a statutory merger with Savannah Gas Company; for approval of issuance and exchange of securities and assumption of bonds in connection with such merger.

Docket No. 1939-U August 23, I95

Application of Telephones, Inc. for authority to acquire all of the outstanding Capital Stock of Sikes Telephone Company and for authority to do all things to effectuate ownership, control and management of Sikes Telephone Company,

Docket No. 1937-U August 23, 1965

Application of Telephones, Inc, for authority to acquire all of the outstanding Capital Stock of Seminole Telephone Company, Inc., Donalsonville, Georgia, and for authority to do all things required to effectuate ownership, control and management of the Seminole Telephone Company, Inc.

- 66-

Docket No* I932-U August 23, 1965
Docket No. 1938-u August 23, 1965
Docket No. 1958-u November 21 1 9 S5

Application of Telephones, Inc. for authority to acquire all of the outstanding Capital Stock of Dixie Telephone Company, Claxton, Georgia, and for authority to do all things required to effectuate ownership, control and management of the Dixie Telephone Company.
Application of Telephones, Inc. for authority to acquire all of the outstanding Capital Stock of Cherokee Telephone Company, Inc., Rochelle, Georgia, and for authority to do all things required to effectuate ownership, control and management of the Cherokee Telephone Company, Inc,
Application of Telephones, Inc. for authority to acquire all of the outstanding Capital Stock of Homerville Telephone Company, Inc., Homerville, Georgia, and for authority to do all things required to effectuate ownership, control and management of the Homerville Telephone Company, Inc.

-67-

.,asaod&s

,

: SIA .';f.LfpDB 1

'

U-8EQ1 ,0;i '
.

ytHOtj le ood*8
'

3&JLa8tta&J0 orici lo XXb 0*3 XoT s>I.

:0 eno ;. -, el 'v`>:. * : . '

S^QX

Tod ro

APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS OF CERTIFICATES

Docket No. 1970-U December 23, 1965

Application of Atlanta Gas Light Company for an Amendment to its Certificate of Public Conven ience and Necessity for Haralson County.

Docket No. 179^-U February 12, 1965

Application of Gray-Haddock Telephone Company, Inc. for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necess ity to establish a new exchange at Lake Sinclair, Georgia.

Docket No. 1892-U January 29, 1965

Application of Southern Bell Telephone and Tele graph Company for an Amendment to its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Toll Lines.

Docket No. 1901-U March 3> 1965

Application of Empire Telephone Company for an Amendment to Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued in the name of Comer Tele phone Company - Colbert Exchange.

Docket No. 1900-U March 3> 1965

Application of Empire Telephone Company for an Amendment to Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued in the name of Comer Tele phone Company - Carlton Exchange.

Docket No. 1899-U March 3> 1965

Application of Empire Telephone Company for an Amendment to Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued in the name of Comer Tele phone Company - Comer Exchange.

Docket No. 1906-U March 3, 1965
Docket No. I905-U March 3, 1965

Application of Empire Telephone Company for an Amendment to Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued in the name of Comer Tele phone Company - Toll Lines.
Application of Empire Telephone Company for an Amendment to Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued in the name of Comer Tele phone Company.

Docket No. 1904-U March 3> 1965

Application of Empire Telephone Company for an Amendment to Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued in the name of Comer Tele phone Company - Ila Exchange.

Docket No. 1903-U March 39 1965

Application of Empire Telephone Company for an Amendment to Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued in the name of Comer Tele phone Company - Danielsville Exchange.

Docket No. 1902-U March 3> 1965

Application of Empire Telephone Company for an Amendment to Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued in the name of Comer Tele phone Company - Crawford-Lexington Exchange.

-Sfe'

T-r,

"Xo't 0^0 [cfA

jr,, .;
.li. Oi' '

O UJSU

u-.r.O Q i .o li

OICJ

U' o o q i

.

00 r LXvi o' ./r.
-'OS'-;o . IgsIsT

TVi **fVi.ro'P r 'J/J U-dO> l ** i

U - O I .0*1 a . - i rioxM

-,,

;; r

av-looC jf& s in

-;.A .)IUJ \

0 od
,

Docket Ho. 1912-U March 11, 1965
Docket No. 1921-U May 28, 1965
Docket No. 1923-U May 28, 1965
Docket No. 1777-U July 1, 1965
Docket No. 1933-U July 1, 1965
Docket No. 19^9-U July 15, 1965

Application of St. Joseph Telephone and Tele graph Company for an Amendment to its Certi ficate of Public Convenience and Necessity.
Application of Dixie Telephone Company for an Amendment to its Certificate of Public Conven ience and Necessity - Toll Lines.
Application of Blue Ridge Telephone Company for Amendment to its Certificate of Public Conven ience and Necessity - Toll Lines.
Application of Coastal Utilities, Inc. for an Amendment to its Certificate of Public Conven ience and Necessity for new and additional telephone facilities to be constructed.
Application of Camden Telephone and Telegraph Company, Inc; for an Amendment to its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Toll Lines,
Application of General Telephone Company of Georgia for an Amendment to its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for authority to acquire and operate toll facilities of the Gold Leaf Telephone Company.

Non-Docket April 2, 1965

SHOW CAUSE
Complaint of the Ellijay Telephone Company against the Blue Ridge Telephone Company for violation of the Telephone Certificate Act of 1950.

-69-

* 9:
*W Q

v.iOi-rvTVS i i & `

ioa 7:') :.kr:.c;j.'-/

ynaqi

3I t e s

; /' :...\ .J ': n ; '7 3f:.

. 7 "`

tci'.r

sIsT afoernO
V--.1 3k t'ai- .
' ,.r?17 .. 373,;'v :kk;
V/tioii't 7 .i.; la sJ'dJ:. ? ..
.. ^pxsqTC

;

'f t-'#l

.

.

tl 'i.ko

T.. ..7 \-r.

..TsdD ipotkri .,;.kII2 4gf$'

S>0

7 7-

' -tqA

NEW AREA. OF REGUIATION
CATV
CATV is a thriving, prosperous industry, currently comprised of 1,^50 different systems, serving a total of 1,600,000 subscribers in every state of the Union except Alaska and Rhode Island. The size of the average CATV system is less than 800 subscribers with the largest segment of the indus try ranging between 100 to 500 subscribers. Only eighteen of the nation*s CATV systems have over 5*000 subscribers and of these only two have more than 10,000. However, the industry expects to add another half-million customers in 1966 and it is now recognized by commercial broadcasters as a competition of enormous economic potential.
Basically, CATV systems utilize a master antenna at a selected point, usually one of great height, to capture the signals of regular TV stations in nearby communities. The system amplifies the signals and, by means of cable, relays them to the homes of paying subscribers who in many cases could not receive the originating stations* signals from the atmosphere because of such geographical problems as intervening mountains or distance. Because the signal enters the television set by wire, and not through the air, sets not wired for CATV cannot receive the programs the system carries. Conversely, the signal of any station accessible by air cannot be received by a set wired for CATV unless an outdoor antenna is maintained or a switching device for that purpose is installed. In passing, it should be noted that while the quality of the picture received by CATV cannot be improved upon, the system does relay the picture without loss of quality from terrain and interference.
Private CATV operators at this point in time are not accountable to any regulatory body, although this situation is not expected to continue. Regulation of this industry is still very much before Congress and during the next session of Congress legislation might well be enacted which would bring these relayers of TV programs under jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission.
In addition to possible federal regulation, a number of states appear to be getting ready to enact legislation that would bring CATV under the jurisdiction of their commissions. California and Connecticut have already taken some action along these lines. There are strong arguments to support the position that CATV companies, with their small number of subscribers and limited service area, are endowed with the monopolistic characteristics of public utilities (distribution facilities, use of public streets and highways and involvement with telephone and electric companies, etc.) and should thus be subject to regulation as public utilities.
-70-

SERVICE STANDARDS

B y i t s n a tu r e , fe w g e n e r a liz a tio n s a re p o s s ib le a b o u t p u b lic o p in io n I t c an b e a fo r c e f o r good -- one w h ic h p o in ts up p ro b le m s t h a t h a v e e x is te d b u t f o r one re a s o n o r a n o th e r h ave b een ig n o re d ; o r i t may be h a rm fu l -- te n d in g t o c lo u d is s u e s a n d o b s c u re m ore b a s ic p ro b le m s o r n e e d s . I t m ay b e b a s e d on sound k n o w led g e o f f a c t s , o r i t m ay b e b a s e d on p o o r in fo rm a t io n . B u t re g a rd le s s o f q u a lit y , p u b lic o p in io n re m a in s as an a ll- im p o r ta n t fa c to r to w h ie h _ re g u la to rs m ust b e s e n s itiv e .

During the calendar year 1965 public opinion pointed up one clear fact to this Commission -- - the problem of service availability. Record capital outlays and advance planning by utility company managements have been re quired to provide service for our expanded economy, but despite all efforts made, deficiencies still exist. Perhaps nowhere has the strain been more evident than in the telephone industry. Of the 2,100 formal and informal utility complaints registered with the Commission during 1965* more than fifty per cent were telephone complaints; and of this group, approximately three-fourths contacted the Commission because they could not secure service within a reasonable length of time by normal processes.
Electric complaints processed for the year 1965 were substantially less (20io) than the average (810) for the past five years. One reason for the reduction is that the Atlanta Division of the Georgia Power Com pany revamped its entire telephone contact activity. Although geographi cally small, this division serves over one-third of the company's customers and produces about thirty per cent of the company's revenue. In addition, more than one-half of the new customers locating on company lines in 1965 were in the Atlanta Division.

The comprehensive revamp of handling telephone contacts has included
the custom planning of a new telephone center, the latest signaling equip
ment to indicate the status of incoming calls, the careful selection and
training of personnel to man the new center, and continuing checks to
insure that the quality of service is maintained at a high level. Before the change, the division was trying to handle an average of 1,000 calls a day but was losing approximately ten per cent of the calls. With the new system, telephone activity is now at a rate of 1,200 to 1,500 calls a day and lost calls are a rarity.

Despite record growth by the gas utilities, total complaints were

below both the telephone and electric utilities. For Atlanta Gas Light

alone, the number of municipalities served increased from 106 to 137 and

the average number of customers increased by 2b3kk6 -- yet complaints did

not increase over the 1964 totals. I*

.4 ?< . * v ?--

M any re a s o n s c o u ld b e fo u n d f o r c o m p la in ts a g a in s t one u t i l i t y ~ S e rv ic e b e in g g r e a te r th a n f o r a n o th e r, b u t a l l fa c to rs ' ta k e n In t o co n s id e r a t io n , th e p u b lic n o rm a lly does n o t e x p re s s i t s e l f b y c o m p la in in g u n le s s th e r e a re le g itim a te grounds f o r c o m p la in t.

-71-

OTHER COMMISSION ACTIVITIES
Regulatory agencies, both State and Federal, have experienced consider able difficulty in maintaining an adequately trained technical staff. This has been due to the younger staff members leaving Government employment to accept positions in industry which offer higher salaries and extremely challenging assignments. This condition is especially true in the field of engineering and accounting and has now reached a somewhat critical stage.
To cope with the situation, the National Association of Railroad and Utilities Commissioners, of which this Commission is a member, sponsors a short course for the development of commission personnel. The Commission's Chief Utilities Engineer is Chairman of this important committee and prepares an annual report to the sponsoring agency giving an estimate of its success. This report shows that in 1965 the training program experienced the largest class ever to attend such a short course. Twenty-three state commissions, three federal agencies and interested industry sent sixty-two representatives to the University of Wisconsin where the last short course was held. There were five Commissioners and forty-six staff members from the state regulatory agencies in attendance; and according to evaluation reports, each participant felt that the course met the objective of providing up-to-date knowledge in the legal, technical, and administrative fields. This Commission cannot under the law expend funds to send staff members to such short courses; but in the past, two members have attended at their own expense which exemplifies the need and value of such a training program. In this connection, the Commission's staff is encouraged to further their education by attendance in legal, engineering, and accounting schools at night as well as attendance at conferences and workshops held in the State. The engineers and accountants are also encouraged to qualify themselves for registration in the State as professional engineers and certified public accountants.
The Commission has also participated in the work of the NAEUC Communi cations Problems Committee to bring about lower telephone rates throughout the State. This accomplishment has been brought about by the transfer of certain of the Bell Company's revenue requirements from intrastate to inter state. An offspring from this transfer has been that the independent com panies are able to retain a greater percentage of the toll revenue which they produce and are somewhat less dependent upon local exchange revenue for main taining a reasonable rate of return. Vice Chairman Ben T. Wiggins has served as Chairman of the NARUC Communications Problems Committee for several years and has done an outstanding job. The Commission's Chief Utilities Engineer serves on the Staff Committee of Experts and assists in the work insofar as the technical details are concerned. These committees met on three occasions in 1965 to transact important business relating principally to changes proposed for the NARUC Separations Manual. As reported in our 1964 annual report of the Commission, lower station-to-station intrastate toll message telephone rates were scheduled to be made effective on February 1, 1965 lower inter state toll message telephone rates were made effective on April 1, 1965, &s a result of the Federal Communications Commission order. The reduction was principally on calls made after 8:00 PM on weekdays and all day Sunday. This important committee is expected to meet periodically again in 1966 and further shifts of revenue requirements are anticipated when the Federal Communications Commission finally accepts the revised Separations changes which are in the planning stage at the present time. The Communications Problems Committee, from time to time, publishes a compilation of message toll telephone rates as well as local exchange rates that are effective throughout the United States.
-72-

ELECTRIC UTILITIES

GENERAL

Massive Power Interruption

The National Power Survey was completed and released to the electric
power industry and the public in mid-December of 1964 with this basic finding: Each of the Nation's 3600 power systems, large and small, can > achieve savings in the cost of generation and transmission of electricity by moving from "isolated or segmented operations, and from existing pools of limited scope, to participation in fully coordinated power networks covering broad areas of the country". The guidelines were simple -- construct extra-high-voltage transmission lines which would permit large amounts of power to be transmitted economically over long distances.

As a result of the Power interruption which occurred in the north east section of the United States and parts of Canada on November 9th and 10th, the wisdom of the above guidelines calling for giant power grids, pools, and interconnections had to be questioned. Does greater
interconnection of systems decrease the probability that a given service area would be totally without power? Would local or at least regional independent systems offer more security against power failures over vast sections of the Nation? Are computerized systems as reliable as supposed? These and a host of other questions will be debated for many months.

In order to be assured that the electric utilities under jurisdic tion of the Georgia Public Service Commission had taken the necessary safeguards to preclude similar service interruptions as experienced in the northeast, a conference was held with members of the Commission, the Georgia Power Company, and the Savannah Electric and Power Company parti cipating. During this conference it was brought out that the inherent design of the Georgia system provides an effective deterrent to massive power outages. For example, the generating plants throughout the service area are strategically located (with respect to concentrations of load), tie lines connect the Georgia system with neighboring utilities; and finally, there are also lines connecting the Georgia system to each of the five government-owned hydro plants. Power available to the Georgia system from the aforementioned sources is:

Company Generation SEGCO (Jointly owned by Ala. & Ga. )

2,965,400 Kw
517,600 3,483,000

Firm Contracts: Duke Power Company Florida Power Corporation Savannah Electric & Power Company SEPA (Goveiument-owned plants) South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. TVA

48,200 72,300 50,300 547,000
75,000 144,500
937,300

Total Generation and Firm Contracts (1965) 4,420,300

-73-

MHS]

This total capacity is further supported hy the capability of the Southern Company system pool.

Estimated Peak Load - 1966 (including Preference Customers)

4,110,000

Surplus Generation

310,300

In summary, it may be stated that each participating utility pre sented convincing facts and comments to support their position that effective deterrents to a massive power interruption do in fact exist.

Recent Developments in FPC Electric Utility Regulation
Reversing a trend that has existed since the end of World War II, the Federal Power Commission appears again to be concentrating its primary efforts on the regulation of electric utilities. Such renewed activity has been mainly on two broad fronts, wholesale electric rates and licenses for hydro-electric projects.
Federal Power Commission jurisdiction over electric rates did not achieve real significance until July 1, 1963. On that day the Commission published a list of 189 companies it now views as "public utilities" under the Federal Power Act. This list included substantially every class A and B electric utility in the country. At the time notification of this action was being given to the various companies affected, the Colton case was pending before the United States Supreme Court. On March 2, 1964, the Supreme Court reversed the ninth circuit, saying (376 US at 215):
.our decisions have squarely rejected the view of the court of appeals that the scope of FPC jurisdiction over interstate sales of gas or electricity at wholesale is to be determined by a case-by-case analysis of the impact of state regulation upon the national interest. Rather, Congress meant to draw a bright line easily ascertained, between state and federal jurisdiction, making unnecessary such case-by-case analysis. This was done in the Power Act by making FPC jurisdiction plenary and extending it to all wholesale sales in interstate commerce except those which Congress has made explicitly subject to regulation by the states. . .
In an effort to arrest this "power grab" by the FPC, the Georgia Public Service Commission went on record by letter dated May 11, 1965, to the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, in support of the enact ment into law of S.2l8 which proposes the Federal Power Act Amendment of 1965* The Bill would, in general, clarify the Federal Power Act by further defining the limits of the Federal Power Commission's jurisdiction with respect to operations of cooperatives and companies engaged in what are essentially local activities which are primarily of local concern. The Bill would exempt from FPC jurisdiction any company, including any nonprofit corporation engaged in rural electrification, having all of its

7 ri'; ojpgg

'XT -Siit-;

0 ana^xp gnUbaion!) '

, r?

MM*
kl , :

l ..nJ'1



iB& [tili!!

.
liiirc*tttfc

l&ty

:

r'

' 8 ?IC

' ' .: . : . x ; v . v , 3vi a T.oqooQ 1t nrf.tttev'o o;? .

generating and transmission facilities within a single state and having no direct connections with the facilities of any public utility deriving the major portion of its electric revenues from sales in another state. The FPC would continue to have jurisdiction over companies having genera ting or transmission facilities in more than one state as well as over the single-state companies which are directly connected with public utilities having their major operations in another state. The Bill would also provide an exemption for what are essentially local sales to governmental bodies, cooperatives and exempt single-state companies.
Starting with the Colton case, we now have an unnecessary concen tration of regulatory power at the Federal level which is presently the "law of the Land". Only by swift enactment of S.218 can Congress reaffirm the provisions of Section 201(a) of the Federal Power Act which spell out that matters of national concern should be regulated by the FPC and that matters of local concern should be regulated by State and local agencies.
-75-

OPERATING STATISTICS
Customer Total Continues Climb
The number of customers served by the Georgia Power Company and the Savannah Electric and Power Company continued to increase in 1965, with the total reaching 909*835 by the end of the year. The increase amounted to 29*733 customers, a percentage gain of 3*4 over the number served at the end of the previous year. The largest numerical gain was in the residential class in which 26,360 new customers were added.
Energy Sales Reach New High
Energy sales for 1965 increased over two billion kilowatt-hours, the greatest annual growth ever recorded by the states * two investorowned electric companies. Total sales climbed to 18,719,878,000 kilo watt hours from 16,689,390,000 the previous high, which was recorded in 1964. The 1965 total was an increase of 2,030,488,000 kilowatt-hours, or 12.2 per cent more than was sold in 196b, The percentage gain was more than three times the percentage rise in number of new customers, indicating greater use of electricity per customer. (A portion of the increase is attributed to population growth and to the growth in the number of businesses and industries; however, there has been a large rise in the average annual usage of electric power as evidenced by Chart l).
Residential Price Continues Drop
The unit price for electric service from the Georgia Power Company and the Savannah Electric and Power Company continued its downward trend in 1965, despite the fact that the cost of most goods and services con tinued to increase throughout the nation. Residential customers of Georgia Power paid an average price of 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity during 1965 which is 24 per cent below the national average price* Savannah Electric's residential customers paid an average of 2.12 cents per kilowatt-hour during 1965, a one per cent decrease from the average price paid in 1964. (A ten-year review for both companies shown in Chart 2).
Company Construction and Operation
Georgia Power: During 1965 the Company invested approximately 85 million for con
structing new electric facilities to keep ahead of the state's ever growing demands for power. Transmission and distribution facilities required approximately 69 million with the balance going for new generating plants (primarily Plant Harllee Branch). Three hundred and sixteen miles of transmission lines and 634 miles of distribution lines were built, bringing to 9*165 the miles of transmission lines and 24,402 the miles of distribution lines in service.
Savannah Electric: Requirements for construction totaled approximately 4-J million in 1965.
The large reduction (9 million) from 1964 resulted from the completion in the first half of the year of Port Wentworth #3 unit, associated major transmission projects, and the new general office building.

SALES ACTIVITIES
Georgia Power
For the second consecutive year, more than 7,000 total-electric homes and apartments were added, the two-year total being 4,000 greater than the number of total-electric residences added in all the previous years com bined* The 7,366 additions in 1965 brought the number of total-electric homes and apartments on the company*s lines to more than 24,800 at the end of the year. Impressive gains were also recorded in the conversion market in 1965 with some 1,200 residential customers converting the heating systems in their homes to electric.
During the year, 30,395 customers participated in the residential wiring plan, whereby the company bears a portion of the cost of installing heavy-duty residential service entrance wiring for qualifying customers. The activity resulted directly in the addition of 21,695 electric ranges, 11,215 electric water heaters, 5,550 electric dryers and 1,850 partialelectric space heating systems in customer residences.
Also In 1965 the wiring program was extended to mobile home owners and mobile home parks. 2 Some 8,000 mobile homes are sold in Georgia each year, according to the Georgia Mobile Home Association, and one out of every six new single-family dwellings in Georgia today is a mobile home.
Industrial power contracts, negotiated through the industrial sales department in 1965, increased the company*s load by 211,542 kilowatts, more than twice the amount added through new industrial contracts in 1964. From the new load, the Company will obtain an estimated annual revenue exceeding eight million dollars. Commercial sales were also high during 1965, and as a result, Georgia continues to lead the nation in the number of all-electric commercial buildings as well as in the number of commercial buildings heated electrically.
Savannah Electric
The company's sales program was most productive during 1965* Of the 693 new homes built in the service area, electric space heating was in stalled in twenty-six per cent, central air conditioning in twenty-nine per cent, electric water heating in fifty-two per cent, and electric cooking in sixty-two per cent. A total of 179 of these single-family units were Total Electric homes. At year end, the company had a connected load of 25,9>7 kilowatts in fixed space heating. This represents a thirty per cent increase in the electric heating load over 1964. (One of the promotional features that has enabled the company to gain new business is the Total Electric Rate for residential customers that became effective January 1, 1965)*
The average number of commercial and industrial customers increased from 7,489 in 1964 to 7,542 in 1965 Of significance was the fact that 94 all-electric building customers were added to the company lines during the year, which contributed in large measure to the annual revenue per cent increase over 1964.
*2Appropriate filing with the Commission made effective September 22, 1965.
-77-

RESI DENTI AL SALES DATA

KILOWAT

HOURS

AVG. USE PER RES. CUSTOMER ( O O O )

GA. POWER

'58 '59 '60 '61 '62 '63 '64 #65
CHART I

RESIDENTIAL SALES RATES

DATA

AVG. REVENUE PER RESIDENTIAL KWH ( CENTS)

a : j.'f

GAS U T I L I T I E S

GENERAL

The demand for more extensive distribution of natural gas for resi dential, commercial and industrial uses continues to strain the efforts of suppliers to keep pace. Coupled with this demand for expansion Into new areas, often on marginal economic feasibility, has been the increased competition for older market areas such as residential cooking and space heating created by the electric industry. We are witnessing today in Georgia, as well as in other sections of the country, what can best be^ described as a modification of the basic theory of the utility industries monopolistic concept. While we are still engulfed today in the theory of separately supplied electric and gas fuel energy sources, the battle for
the ''total energy" concept of supply has begun.

The Atlanta Gas Light Company, the state's largest distributor, extended facilities for initial service into thirty different municipalities
during the year. They were:

1 . Ailey 2. Alamo 3. Allentown 4. Baxley
M Cadwell 6. Chester 7. Camming 8. Danville 9. Darien 10. Dexter

11. Dudley 12. Flemington 13. Glennville 14. Glenwood
15. Hazlehurst 16. Helena 17. Hinesville 18. Ludowici 19. Lumber City 20. Lyons

21. McRae 22. Montrose 23- Mt. Vernon 24. Odum
25. Reidsvilie 26. Rentz 27. Screven 28. Soperton 29. Swainsboro 30. Vidalia

In addition, two existing systems were acquired by Atlanta Gas Light Company; (1) the City of Warrenton Natural Gas System by direct purchase and; (2) the facilities of the Savannah Gas Company through merger with Atlanta Gas Light Company as the surviving corporation. This merger will have the ultimate effect of reducing the natural gas rates in the Savannah area to the same as those presently charged in the Atlanta area. This reduction will apply to all customers, residential, commercial and industrial, being served on standard rate schedules of the Company,

Of singular interest is an ambitious project of the Atlanta Gas Light Company which could afford sizeable reductions in the Company's cost of gas. Under the two-element rate system which pipeline suppliers sell to distri bution companies, the Demand portion of the rate is most critical since Demand in excess of contract during any particular 24-hour period will establish a higher charge for the next twelve-month period. If, therefore, the Company can supply a portion of its own needs during the high Demand period, its average cost of gas purchased can similarly be reduced for future needs. In the past this has been accomplished through "peak shaving" the use of a propane-air mixture which is similar In characteristics to natural gas. While this has proven to be of some economic benefit, the investment in storage facilities as well as the higher per cubic foot cost of such gas makes the proposed underground storage system more desirable.

-78-

The proposed approach to "peak shaving" is to purchase natural gas during periods of light loads on the distribution system and place it in underground storage wells. This concept has proven quite successful in other states. The problem, however, is to locate suitable underground rock formations for development into storage facilities. One attempt has been made to locate a suitable site, but the one chosen proved to be undesirable.
Due to the precedent nature of this program, one of the preliminary steps taken before implementation was the introduction and passage through the State Legislature of a bill to establish the necessary governmental control regulations. This bill, H.B. No. 27b by Mr. Steis of Harris, charges the Public Service Commission with the responsibility of control of the utility aspects of such operations. The State Department of Mines and the State Water Quality Control Board are also charged in this bill with regulation of such projects as it affects their own particular area of concern.
Subsequent to implementation of H. B. 2jbi question arose as to its application to the underground storage of liquified petroleum (LP) gas by business concerns not regulated otherwise by the Public Service Commission. Inasmuch as the bill was not specifically clear on this point and the fact that such expansion of authority would immediately bring a large LP gas transport company which is engaged in similar storage, directly under Commission jurisdiction, it was determined by the Commission that no such application should be made until the true character of legislative intent can be realized.
-79

:1

ilq

K!

.-.i-, r .. \

^uXfdjH 1';`oit .



. .

:

; #B*j

ChJifJi? : (J. JiT . '



3

i.
. aO s s

.

r d:-;:: :

c&t;# V .

.j .*s&i




]
i

1
:
':iv; '..'r. ;;}:j ; \; toii.,:.,i^r -

ANALYSIS OF GAS REFUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1965

Savannah Gas Company

Balance January 1, 1965

Add: Cash Received from Pipeline Company

$49,353-

Reduction in Cost of Purchased Gas

45,850

Amount Available for Refund

Deduct: Refund made to large Industrial Customer

Balance Available for Refund December 31, 1965

$ 44}910
. 95,201 $140,111
4,111 $136,000

Atlanta Gas Light Company
Balance January 1, 1965 Add: Refunds received from suppliers net of increased cost of gas absorbed by company
Amount available for Refund Deduct: Refunds made to customers
Company^ portion of cost of associated gas distributors intervening in rate proceedings Balance Available for Refund December 31, 1905

$253,^77
569,9^9 $823,426
10
$823,^16
5^,837 $766,579

Gas Light Company of Columbus
Balance January 1, 1965 Add: Cash received from Pipeline Company
Balance Available for Refund December 31> 1965

$ 12,993 51,698
$ 61,691

rif% -,
Si
A ,{A
''' :

Hg m g g m at

S iili' .

.

/ - af

ilsM

' - *-< .

: ftsvJ&oa i a t o /' V.:. 8^ 0

ub&-



D

>v)

.' . O*

.

.

ifoh

TELEPHONE UTILITIES
GENERAL
Among the most basic economic indicators of the status of Georgia's economy should be listed the conditions found in the communications industry. It would be a most unusual business or industry that could function without the benefit of telephone service. The influx of new industry and the expansion of existing plants are direct contributors to not only the demand for basic telephone service for the purpose of person-to-person communica tions, but also places demands for services of a more sophisticated nature such as the WATS line and Data transmission service. When this direct impact is coupled with the demands for residential service, brought about by the employees of these new plants, the overall effect becomes one which tests the ability of communications industry management to provide the required services.
Since hindsight is always better than foresight, especially when eval uating the result of programs already completed, it is all too easy to be critical of inadequate construction planning. One of the areas affected by lack of telephone facilities is the Atlanta Metropolitan service area. Unfortunately, the growth in population in the Atlanta area has increased the demand for new service and for regrades to such an extent that there is often a lengthy delay associated with getting a telephone. There has never been a strict "rule-of-thumb" established as a guideline with which one could determine what a reasonable length of time might be after making application for service before actually having the phone installed. It is normally expected that if one makes application for electric or gas service it will be connected within a day or two at most. Telephone service, on the other hand, might be expected to range from ten days to two weeks and still be reasonable. During the period covered by this report, however, it has come to the attention of the Commission that the delay may extend for several weeks or even months in the most densely populated area. The extent to which this problem may ultimately range Is difficult to determine at the present time. Some portions of the problem are even attributable to the difficulties in obtaining sufficient materials and central office equipment from the telephone industry's suppliers. At one time the delay between placing orders for cable and its shipment was normally expected to be eighteen months. This, however, has improved somewhat in recent time. Another factor which has contributed to the difficulty is the rapid expansion of the Atlanta free calling area within the past few years. The inclusion of the outlying exchanges in the free calling area has "jumped" the customer-calling rate much greater than was originally anticipated. The Company has found it necessary to re-enforce the trunking capacity between many of the central offices in order to provide reasonable service for its existing customers. These facilities, of course, do not add to the plant needed to serve new customers
In other areas of interest in the communications industry, it becomes more obvious each year that there is an increasing tendency or trend among the smaller independent companies to consolidate with larger independents or to "sell out" altogether. As an example, the beginning of this reporting period found fifty-three independent telephone companies operating within the State, not including the cooperatives. At the present time this number
- 80-

has "been reduced to forty-seven. It is hoped that these consolidations will allow the spreading out of fixed cost to the customers and result in savings in the future on their telephone hills.
There has been very little activity by the Commission in the area of Radio Common Carrier regulation during the reporting period. The Commission still has pending several applications from companies desiring to establish themselves within the area of the Commission^ regulation. There are still many questions concerning the extent to which the authority of this Commis sion covers this phase of the communications industry. Because of this the Commission will continue to advance with caution in this area.
-81-

tttxteff :" o :

; ` | . . . ' .

. \ .

.

barrit

$ # tf & tiji jJu&Tlfi&B r r j i .

. : " ;1 er' -f:sf vs.o

5 &&XB sci a noi-aaifiaao tifi}; y#-

!v ;>Io : : ; 0 - /' . 3c r.- ,r

S rit
".

.nolcfrali^irx s ' noxa.

-r;:o0 strfd' ">.o y : r s - irf-j riDlV ctf

. r^su/fioi-

ol:l.i :v:t ;?v ::o9dsad .xpM rrsQ acemtdO a t H
,lr.yjk t &X&V9 II::io-r '
rnofo > de* 'gofccn

APPENDIX "A" UTILITY COMPANIES OPERATING IN GEORGIA

ELECTRIC

Georgia Power Company -- ------ ----------- ---

Atlanta, Georgia

Savannah Electric and Power Company -- ---- ----- -- -----Savannah, Georgia

GAS
Atlanta Gas Light Company --------------- ------------ Atlanta, Georgia Chattanooga Gas Company----------- -------------- --- - Chattanooga, Term. Gas Light Company of Columbus-- -- --- ----- --------- Columbus, Georgia Georgia Gas Company--- ---- -------- --------- --- -- -- Gainesville, Ga.

TELEPHONE,

Alma Telephone Company, Inc. ----------- ---------- -- Alma, Georgia

Atlas Utilities Company ------------ ---------------- Sapelo Island, Ga.

Blue Ridge Telephone Company ------------ -- ---------- Blue Ridge, Ga.

Brantley Telephone Company----------------- --------- Nahunta, Georgia

Bulloch County Rural Telephone Co-op., Inc. ------------ Statesboro, Ga.

Byron Telephone Company -- ---------------- --------- -- Byron, Georgia

Cairo Telephone Company---- ------------ j----------- Cairo, Georgia

Camden Telephone & Telegraph Company, Inc. ------------- St. Marys, Ga.

Cherokee Telephone Company, Inc. (Telephones, Inc.) ------ - Claxton, Georgia

Chickamauga Telephone Corporation ----------- ------ --- Fayette, Alabama

Citizens Telephone Company, Inc. ---- ---- -- ----------- Leslie, Georgia

Coastal Utilities, Inc.........-.....-............. - Hinesville, Ga. ^

Commerce Telephone Company---- ------- ---------- ---- Commerce, Georgia

Darien Telephone Company............................ Darien, Georgia

Dixie Telephone Company (Telephones, Inc.) ----- --- ----- -- Claxton, Georgia

Ellijay Telephone Company --- ------- --------------- Ellijay, Georgia

Empire Telephone Company------------------- -------- - Comer, Georgia

Fairmount Telephone Company, Inc. ------- -- ------ ------ Fairmount, Ga.

General Telephone Company of Georgia ------------------ Durham, N. C.

General Telephone Company of the Southeast

------- Durham, N. C.

Georgia Telephone Corporation ----- ----------- --- -- Blakely, Georgia

Glenwood Telephone Company, Inc. -- -- -------- ------- -- Glenwood, Georgia

Gray-Haddock Telephone Company, Inc. -- ---- -- -- --------- Gray, Georgia

Hart County Telephone Company -- -- ---- ------ ---- ----- Hartwell, Georgia

Hawkinsvilie Telephone Company-------- j-- --- --- -----Hawkinsvilie, Ga.

Homerville Telephone Company, Inc. (Telephones, Inc.) ---- Claxton, Georgia

Interstate Telephone Company -- ----------------- ------- --- West Point, Ga.

Jeffersonville Telephone Company, Inc.

---- - Jeffersonville, Ga.

Loco Telephone Company ------- --- -------------- -- -- Lincolnton, Ga.

Mutual Telephone Company, Inc. --- -- ---------------- Manchester, Ga.

Nelson-Ball Ground Telephone Company, Inc. ------------- Ball Ground, Ga.

Pembroke Telephone Company, Inc. ------ ---------- ---- - Pembroke, Georgia

Pineland Telephone Co-op., Inc. -- ----------- --- --- - Metter, Georgia

Plant Telephone & Power Company, Inc.----------- ------- Tifton, Georgia

-82-

Planters Rural Telephone Co-op., Inc. -------------- -- Newington, Ga. Progressive Rural Telephone Co-op., Inc. ------- ------ - Rentz, Georgia Public Service Telephone Company --------------------- Reynolds, Ga. Quincy Telephone Company--------- ------------------- Quincy, Florida Ringgold Telephone Company--- ---- ------------------ Ringgold, Ga. Seminole Telephone Company, Inc. (Telephones, Inc.) ----- Claxton, Georgia Sikes Telephone Company, Inc. (Telephones, Inc.) -------- Claxton, Georgia Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company------------ Atlanta, Georgia South Georgia Telephone Company, Inc. -- -- --- -------- --- Sylvania, Georgia Standard Telephone Company -------------------------- Cornelia, Georgia Statesboro Telephone Company------ ---- -------------- Statesboro, Ga. Thomaston Telephone Company, Inc. --------------- -----Thomaston, Ga. Trenton Telephone Company--------------------- ----- Trenton, Georgia The Utelwico, Inc. ---- --- -------- ----- -- ------ - Talbotton, Ga. Walker County Telephone Company---------------- -----1 IaFayette, Ga. Waverly Hall Telephone Company--------- -- ------- ---- Waverly Hall, Ga. Wayne Telephone Company, Inc. -------- ------- -------- Odum, Georgia Westco Telephone Company -- --- ----------------------- Weaverville, N. C. Wilkes Telephone & Electric Company--- ----------- --- - Washington, Ga. Wilkinson County Telephone Company, Inc.----- ----- --- - Irwinton, Ga.
TRANSIT COMPANIES Atlanta Transit System -- ----- -- ------ -- ---------- Atlanta, Georgia Bibb Transit Company --- --- --- -- --------- -- ------ Macon, Georgia Columbus Transportation Company----- --- --- -- ------- Columbus, Ga.
TELEGRAPH Western Union Telegraph Company -- --------- --------- - Atlanta, Georgia
December 31, 1965
-83-

U

DIRECTORY 0 F
GEORGIA TOWNS AND CITIES SERVED WITH N A T U R A L GAS
PREPARED BY GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DECEMBER 1965

CITY
Acworth AdairsviHe* Ailey Alamo Albany Aldor Allentown Alpharetta Americus Arcade Ashburn Athens Atlanta Augusta Austell* Avondale Estates
Bainbridge Barnesville Baxley Bishop Blackshear Bogart Bowdon Bowersville Bowman Bremen Brunswick Buford*
Cadwell Cairo Calhoun Camilla Canon Canton Carlton Carrollton Cart ersvi lie* Cave Spring Cedartown Centerville Chamblee Chester Chickamauga Clarkston Cochran Colbert College Bark Columbus Comer Commerce* Conyers Cordele

OWNERSHIP OP SYSTEM
Atlanta Gas light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company
Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Municipal (Toccoa) Municipal Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas light Company Municipal
Atlanta Gas light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Municipal (Toccoa) Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas light Company Municipal (Warner Robins) Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Gas light Co* of Columbus Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal

SOURCE OF NATURAL Gj
Southern Southern Southern Southern South Georgia Southern Southern Southern South Georgia Southern South Georgia Transcontinental Southern Southern Southern Southern
South Georgia Southern Southern Southern Southern Transcontinental Southern Trans continental Transcontinental Southern Southern Trans cont inental
Southern South Georgia Southern South Georgia Trans cont inental Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern Transcontinental Transcontinental Trans continental South Georgia

CITY
Covington Crawford Cuinming
Dacula Dallas* Dalton* Danielsville Danville Darien Dawson Dearing Decatur Dexter Doraville Douglas Douglasville Dublin* Dudley Duluth
Eastman East Point East Thomaston Eatonton* Elberton Emerson Empire* Euharlee
Fairbum Fayetteville Fitzgerald Flemington Forest Park Forsyth Fort Benning Fort Oglethorpe Fort Valley* Franklin
Gainesville Garden City Gibson Glenrrville Glenwood Gordon Grantville Gray Grayson Greensboro* Griffin Guyton

OWNERSHIP OF SYSTEM

SOURCE OF NATURAL GAS

Municipal

Transcontinental

Municipal (Greensboro-Union Point) Transcontinental

Atlanta Gas Light Company

Trans continental

Municipal (Buford) Municipal Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas light Company

Transcontinental Southern Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern South Georgia Southern Southern Southern Southern South Georgia Southern Southern Southern Southern

Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal (Cochran) Atlanta Gas Light Company

Southern Southern Southern Southern Trans continental Southern Southern Southern

Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas light Company Gas Light Co. of Columbus Chattanooga Gas Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company

Southern Southern South Georgia Southern Southern Southern Southern East Tennessee Southern Transcontinental

Georgia Gas Company Savannah Gas Company Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas light Company Municipal Municipal (Eatonton) Municipal (iawrenceville) Municipal Atlanta Gas light Company Savannah Gas Company

Trans cont inental Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Trans cont inental Transcontinental Southern Southern

CITY
Haddock Hampton Hapeville Harlem Harrison Hartford Hartley Hartwell Hawkins ville Hazlehurst Helena Hephzibah Hines ville Hogansville Holly Springs Hull
Ila
Jackson* Jefferson Jeffersonville Jesup Jonesboro
Kennesaw
LaFayette LaGrange Lake City Lavonia Lawrenceville* Lexington Lilburn Lithia Springs Lithonia Loganville Louisville* Lovejoy Ludowici Lumber City Lumpkin Iyons
Mableton Macon Madison Manchester* Marietta Martin Maxeys McDonough McIntyre McRae Milledgeville

OWNERSHIP OF SYSTEM

SOURCE OF NATURAL GAS

Municipal (Eatonton) Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal (Cochran) Municipal (Warner Robins) Municipal Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company

Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Transcontinental

Atlanta Gas Light Company

Transcontinental

Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas light Company

Southern Trans continental Southern Southern Southern

Atlanta Gas light Company

Southern

Municipal

Southern

Municipal

Southern

Atlanta Gas Light Company

Southern

Municipal (Toccoa)

Transcontinental

Municipal

Trans continental

Municipal (Greensboro-Union Point) Transcontinental

Atlanta Gas light Company

Trans cont inental

Municipal (Austell)

Southern

Atlanta Gas Light Company

Transcontinental

Municipal (Lawrenceville)

Transcontinental

Municipal

Southern

Atlanta Gas Light Company

Southern

Atlanta Gas Light Company

Southern

AfcMnta Gas light Company

Southern

Municipal

South Georgia

Atlanta Gas Light Company

Southern

Municipal (Austell)

Southern

Atlanta Gas Light Company

Southern

Municipal

Trans cont inental

Municipal

Southern

Atlanta Gas light Company

Southern

Municipal (Toccoa)

Transcont inental

Municipal (Greensboro-Union Point) Transcontinental

Atlanta Gas Light Company

Southern

Atlanta Gas light Company

Southern

Atlanta Gas light Company

Southern

Atlanta Gas Light Company

Southern

city
Millen Milner Monroe Montezuma Mbnticello* Montrose Morrow Moultrie Mountain View Mount Vernon Mount Zion
Nashville Newnan Norcross
Odila Oconee Odum
Palmetto Patterson Payne City Peachtree City Pelham Perry Pine lake Plains vi lie Porterdale Port Wentworth Powder Springs
Quitman
Remerton Reidsville Rentz Rest Haven Richland Richmond Hill Rincon Riverdale Roberta Rockmart Rome Roopvllle Rossville Roswell Royston*
Sandersville Savannah Screven Smyrna

OWNERSHIP OF SYSTEM
Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Municipal Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company
Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company
Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company
Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal (Dalton) Atlanta Gas Light Company Savannah Gas Company Municipal (Austell)
Municipal
Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal (Buford) Municipal Savannah Gas Company Savannah Gas Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal (Fort Valley) Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Chattanooga Gas Company Atlanta Gas light Company Municipal
Atlanta Gas Light Company Savannah Gas Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company

SOURCE OF NATURAL GP
Southern Southern Trans continental South Georgia Southern Southern Southern South Georgia Southern Southern Southern
South Georgia Southern Southern
South Georgia Southern Southern
Southern Southern Southern Transcontinental South Georgia Southern Southern Southern Trans continental Southern Southern
South Georgia
South Georgia Southern Southern Transcontinental South Georgia Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern East Tennessee Southern Transcontinental
Southern Southern Southern Southern

CITY
Snellville Social Circle Soperton Sparta* Springfield Statesboro* Statham Stilesboro Stockbridge Stone Mountain Sugar Hill Summerville* Sunnyside Suwanee Swainsboro Sylvania Sylvester
Talbotton Tallapoosa Taylorsville Temple Tennille Thomaston Thomasville Thomson* Thunderbolt Tifton Toccoa* Trion Tyrone
Union City Union Point*
Valdosta Vidalia Villa Rica
Waco Walnut Grove Warner Robins Warrenton WatkinsviH e Waycross Waynesboro West Point Whitehall Whitesburg Winder Winterville Woodland Woodstock

J

OWNERSHIP OF SYSTEM
Atlanta Gas light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas light Company Municipal Savannah Gas Company Municipal Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Municipal Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas light Company Municipal Municipal
Municipal Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas light Company Municipal Municipal Savannah Gas Company Municipal Municipal Municipal Atlanta Gas light Company
Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal
Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal
Atlanta Gas light Company Municipal (Lavrenceville) Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas light Company Municipal Municipal Atlanta Gas light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company

SOURCE OF NATURAL GAS
Southern Trans continental Southern Southern Southern Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern Southern Trans continental Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern South Georgia
Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern South Georgia Southern Southern South Georgia Trans cont inental Southern Southern
Southern Trans continental
South Georgia Southern Southern
Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern Southern

CITY
Wrens Wright sville

OWNERSHIP OF SYSTEM
Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company

SOURCE OF NATURAL GAS
Southern Southern

*Municipally owned systems thus marked serve in areas outside the county of which it is the county seat, in which case the Georgia Public Service Commission has jurisdiction over rates and other matters.

The Commission has no jurisdiction whatsoever over municipally owned systems where service is rendered wholly within the county of which it is the county seat,

NOTE: Towns added since 12-31-65

Cornelia Mb. Airy Alma Buchanan

5-5-66 5-30-66 6-10-66 7-l^-66

CODE: Southern - Southern Natural Gas Company South Georgia - South Georgia Natural Gas Company Transcontinental - Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company East Tennessee - East Tennessee Natural Gas Company

E10 D5fl31 4fl35
W `V ^looa&s
Mn\o]

['0ljjC'fiiV ^^o2/

V^OOC^i-
3 ^AV
*SZo|0^
^ioa&s

xrf^Srgn tw/^>*,*V

/^tORG^sV*C*V*<f<
tu;

o|4

[ft}*-1y?1
'VV'
'0*0*2/

iT5t>

'Vooci' ^oTotS^

STstS

'O0Cfv' *0***02^22//

sty/*TCAVii

'OOOCfJJ'

t'

^*XTioua|&s

^TsT^,

3 > ^ a v * < ^

V^Toocf^<if *-A3 '* ^ooiS

y^tRG>

>/ lfT3-LL^'v
/^/y^^KfA

> ^ o g >
^3300 V^.
^TTn;
[GiJ'Af

^^> 9 SIT*