Report of Georgia public service commission. Ninty-seventh report, 1969

COMMISSIONERS WILLIAM H. K IM B R O U G H , 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 .FO W LE R ,JR .
ilX E R R. MCDONALD W FORD L. P IL C H E R
H 2

`pttMic giriti Q o m m i e m o n
2 4 4 W A S H I N G T O N S T R E E T , S. W.
At l a n t a ,G e o r g ia 3 0 3 3 4
December 15, 1970

A .O . R A N D A LL,s e c r e t a r y

TO His Excellency Lester Maddox Governor of Georgia
Dear Governor Maddox:*
As provided by law, the Georgia Public Service Commission submits herewith the 99th Annual Report of the regulatory activities of the Commis sion for the year ending December 51, 1909*
Respectfully submitted

BOUND BY THE N A TIO N A L LIBRARY BINDERY CO. OF GA.

Walter R # McDonald, Commissioner Commissioner

COMMISSIONERS WILLIAM H. KIM BR O U G H , CHAIRMAN BEN T W IG G IN S ,v i c e c h a i r m a n ALPHA A.FOW LER, JR . WALTER R. MCDONALD CRAWFORD L. PILC H ER
(lixnrgis

Hublic

2 4 4 W A S H I N G T O N S T R E E T , S . W.
At l a n t a ,G e o r g ia 3 0 3 3 4

December lp, 1970

A. O- RANDALL, SECRETARY

TO Eis Excellency nester Maddox Governor of Georgia
Dear Governor Maddox:* As provided by law, the Georgia Public
Service Commission submits herewith the 97th Annual Report of the regulatory activities of the Commis sion for the yea,r ending December pi, 1969#
'espectfully submitted,
*
Wi11iam E . E imb
L Wiggins, Tice CJp&irman Bm m
A. Fowler, Commissioner
Walter R. McDonald, Commissioner wL y
Cfrawr^a L. Pilcher, Commissioner

S T A T E OP G E O R G I A LESTER MADDOX, GOVERNOR
97th Report of
GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 244 Washington St,, S. V/,, Atlanta, Georgia 30334-
January 1, 1969 to January 1, 1970
William H. Kimbrough, Chairman Ben T. Wiggins, Vice Chairman Alpha A. Fowler, Jr., Commissioner Walter R. McDonald, Commissioner Crawford L. Pilcher, Commissioner A. 0, Randall, Secretary

LIST OF CHAIRMEN OF THE COMMISSION

James M. Smith

Hoy* 10, 1879

Campbell Wallace

1882 to" 1884-

James M# Smith

1884- to 1885

Campbell Wallace L. H* Trammell

1885 to 1890 1890 to 19 OO

T C , Crenshaw

1900 to 19 OI

Spencer Atkinson

19 0 1 to 1903

J. P* Brown

1905 to 1905

H. W # Hill

1905 to 1907

S. Q. McLendon

1907 to 1909

H* W. Hill C# M* Candler Paul Trammell

1909 to 1 9 1 1 1911 to 19 2 2 19 2 2 to 1926

James A* Perry

1926 to 1933

Jud P # Wilhoit

1935 to 1937

W # R McDonald Matt L. McWhorter Crawford L. Pilcher

1937 to 194-9 194-9 to I960 I960 to 1969

William H* Kimbrough 1969 to

- 3 -

97th ANNUAL REPORT
Introduction
The Annual Report of the Georgia Public Ser vice Commission covering the activities for the year ending December 31, 1969, is submitted herewith in compliance with law.
Following the reorganization of the Commission as contained in the last Report, Commissioner William H. Kimbrough, assumed the office of Chairman on January 1 1969. Vice Chairman Ben 1# Wiggins continued a? Vice Chairman, having been elected to this office for a term of two years, commencing April 3, 1967. However, on February 4-, 1969, he was re-elected as Vice Chairman for a term to run concurrently with the term of the Chairman which expires January 1, 1971?
The present personnel and staff of the Commis sion is as follows:
William H. Kimbrough, Chairman, Ben T. Wiggins, Vice Chairman. Alpha A. Fowler, Commissioner, Walter R. McDonald, Commissioner. Crawford L, Pilcher, Commissioner.
A. 0. Randall, Executive Secretary and Legal Aide Mrs. Mae A. Montgomery, Reporter.
TFPTTiTTY ENGINEERING SECTION
Robert B, Alford, Chief Utilities Engineer IV, Douglas N. Smith, Senior Utilities Engineer III Charles W. Worthy, Utilities Engineer II.
AUDITING SECTION
Frank: G. Heald, Public Utilities Auditor j. Winford Poitevint, Accountant II Nolan E. Ragsdale, Accountant II Thomas G, Arnold, Accountant II (Fiscal and
Personnel; Mrs. Laraine Abercrombie, Accounting Clerk 11,
vjjiscai;
-4 -

-,7
.ov*

.
'kh

e. >}- `

:$J' 0'0:`ry
3r77i;,j'o.*)r>*-l e-c^'fEO''Xec;: en. ^:'*xhT

TRANSPORTATION SECTION
David O, Benson, Transportation Rates Expert J. Fred Parker, Transportation Rate Specialist II L. Thomas Doyal, Transportation Rate Specialist II,
and Chief Law Enforcement Officer Albert R. Bush, Transportation Rate Specialist I George E. Thurmond, Civil Defense Officer Larry L. Carpenter, Registration Supervisor

All other employees are listed in alphabetical order as follows:

Mrs. Gayle Arnold, Stenographer II -- (Employed 2--1--69)

Mrs. Carolyn Baxley, Stenographer III

Gilbert Bentley, Clerk II (Temporary)

Mrs. June Bryant, Clerk II (Resigned 8-18-69) Mrs. Helen Faye Bonham, Clerk II -(Employed 10-1-69

Mrs. Mozelle Colquitt, Stenographer III

William S. Craton, Law Enforcement Officer (Employed 3-6-69)

Herbert R. Daugherty, Law Enforcement Officer

Mrs. Ann R. Donehoo, Stenograph I W W^ E. Doolittle, Law Enforcement Officer

Bobby Edmondson, Utility Clerk

Miss Marlyn Harnage, Clerk II

Mrs. Mary 1. Heaton, Clerk II

_ ,

, nnic;

James H. Hooks, Law Enforcement Officer(Separated 10 Ip-- 9)

Miss Carrie B. Hughes, Stenographer II

Mrs. Linda H. Ingle, Stenographer II

Miss Carolyn B. Jenkins, Typist II Mrs. Pauline C, Lannoch, Stenographer III

Mrs. Virginia R. Mann, Stenographer III

.

Miss Janice A. McClung, Clerk II (Employed 12--1/--69)

Judson R. McGinnis, Law Enforcement Officer

David R. Meeks, Supervisor Law Enforcement

Mrs. Patricia A. Moon, Stenographer III

Mrs. Rubye D. Otwell, Clerk III Mrs. Patsy B. Porter, Stenographer IV

Miss Lucia Ramey, Stenographer III

Mrs. Lucile A. Tuggle, Stenographer IV

t q 'n

Mrs. Rosalind B. Walker, Clerk I, (Employed 2-18-69)

Mrs. Mary Lee Walraven, Clerk II, (Resigned 10-13-69)

S. A. Wheeler, Sr., Law Enforcement Officer

Floyd A. White, Law Enforcement Officer

Mrs. Joan H. Wilson, Stenographer II

- 5-

0J ,~ rhl9

PUBLIC HEARINGS
During the year the Commission conducted three hundred twenty-two public hearings. Public^hearings commence on the second and fourth Tuesdays in each month and continue on successive days thereafter until all current applications and petitions have been dis posed 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 CERTIPICATE AND LICENSE FEES ______________ __

The Commission is charged with the responsibil ity of collecting and accounting for motor carrier certificate and license fees. The total certifi cate, permit and license fees collected and remitted to the State Treasurer during the year 1969 are as
follows :

Certificate fees at $35*00 each, and certificate transfer fees at $7-,50 each - - - $ 2 ,907*30
Registration Permit fees at $25,00 each, and amendment fees at $5*00 each -- -- - -- $ 48,050*00
Regular License fees at $25,00 each - - $4-83}800,00

Regular identification stamp fees at $25,00 each; Regular identification stamp fees at $1,00 each; Replacement
stamp fees at $1,00 each, and Multiple registration stamp fees $1,00 each - - -

n0o nn $342,/k8*00

Reciprocal fees at $1,00 each - - - - - -

$

7^6,00

T O T A L -------$878,225,50

In addition to the foregoing certificate and license fees of $878,225*50 collected by the Commis sion, the Railroads and Utilities under the juris diction of the Commission were subject to a tax assessment which produced a sum of $280,000,00, which was collected by the Property and License Tax Unit of the Department of Revenue, making a total of ? , * $1,158,225.50 available for appropriation to the
Commission.

pi.

.

00,

: '
- cdhr t (

' '
q .3

AMENDAIENTS OE GENERAL MOTOR CARRIER RULES AND REGULATIONS,
During the year the Commission amended the fol lowing Motor Carrier Rules and Regulations:
On March 18, 1969, the Commission amended Rule 89(a) by adding thereto the following:
NOTE nCM: Motor Carriers of property as defined in the Classification of Carriers -- Class "C" , shall not include the authority to transport property in tank equipment or refrigerated equipment, unless specifical ly authorized by the Commission*

On April 1, 1969, the Commission amended Item 7 of the Appendix to Rule 8, so that it will
read as follows:

9

7-Iron, steel and plastic pipe, includ

ing pipe fittings when shipped with pipe

to which such fittings will be attached.

On June 30, 1969, the Commission amended Rule 25(b) by adding thereto the following:
Any motor vehicle which has been properly licensed by the Commission under the pro visions of this paragraph (b), or regis tered with the Commission under the pro visions of paragraph (g-1) of this rule, may be subsequently registered with the Commission by another motor carrier who is otherwise properly qualified with the Commission to .operate in Georgia, for use during the same licensing or registration period, under lease or otherwise, by pay.*-; ment of Si00 registration fee per motor vehicle and per motor carrier.

- 7 -

COMISSION DECISIONS

During "bile year 1969 "the following Executive Session decisions were made by the
Commission:

Motor Carrier Decisions:

Certificate applications:

Approved -

:- -- " ~

..Denied - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Withdrawn - - - - - - - - - - -

Dismissed - - - - - - - - - - Total -

Certificate transfer applications: Approved - - - - - - - - - - - Denied - - - - - - - - - - - - Dismissed - - - - - - - - - - Total -

98 10 11 11
130
139 3 1 143

Certificate amendment applications:

^

Withdrawn - - - - - - - - - - - - -

i

Denied - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

--

Total -------------

92

Certificate control through transfer

of capital stock - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

7

Certificates cancelled - --

- -- -- -- -- ^7

Certificates suspended - ---- - - - - - 113

Certificates reinstated -------------

.

T o t a l -------------- 243

Registration Permits^ cancelled (undetermined) -

Rules Nisi issued - - - - - - - - - - - -

31

Rules Nisi dismissed-- -------------------i Total -------------- : 47

Insurance and Permit rules nisi issued (under-- termined) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Miscellaneous: (Extensions, reconsiderations, refunds, etc,)- - - - - - - -

Transportation Rates & Service Department:

Railroads & Motor Carriers:

oc.

Docket Decisions - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ 5

Non-docket decisions - - - - - - - - - Total --------------

737

Utility Rates & Service Department
Docket Decisions - - - - - - - Non-docket decisions - - - - - -
Total

69 127 ZZZZ 196

TOTAL ALL DECISIONS - -

- ~ 1,805

vrli 4-Mi

MOTOR CARRIER ENFORCEM ENT
The enforcem ent sectio n , a part of the C om m ission 's T ra n s portation D ivision under d irection of David O. B enson is headed by L . T. D oyal, A ssista n t to D ir ec to r , w ith du ties of C hief Law E nforcem ent O fficer. C om m issioner Alpha A . F ow ler, J r ., continued in the capacity of C om m ission er in charge of e n fo r c e m en t. In addition, the en fo rcem en t s e c tio n c o n s is ts of a s u p e r v iso r of en fo rcem en t o fficers and seven law enforcem ent o f fic e r s who are a ssig n ed sp e c ific te r r ito r ie s in the State w ith the duty of enforcing the law s of G eorgia and the ru les and regulations of the C om m ission relating to "for-hire" m otor ca rrier transportation throughout the State.
The C om m ission com pleted operation of its fir st calendar year period under the Uniform R egistration Standards of Public Law 89-1 7 0 app licable to c a r r ie r s operating s o le ly in in tersta te com m erce over the highw ays of G eorgia under authority issu ed by the Interstate C om m erce C om m ission or operating in in ter state com m erce sp ecifica lly exem pt from the ju risd iction of the Interstate C om m erce C om m ission. These standards w ere determ ined by the N ational A ssociation of R egulatory Utility C om m ission ers and prom ulgated by the Interstate C om m erce C om m ission pursuant to the p rovision s of Section 202 (b)(2) of the In terstate C om m erce A ct (49 U .S .C . Section 302 (b)(2)). The tran sition by the c a r r ie r s to the new reg istra tio n proced ure, w hile resulting in an enorm ous am ount of p rep ara tory w ork on part of the C om m ission 's staff, w as accom plished w ith a m inim um of d ifficu lty and inconvenien ce to the c a r r ie r s .
During 1969, the C hief la w E nforcem en t O fficer and a ll enforcem ent personnel conducted three m ajor road checks two at V ien n a, G eorgia on In tersta te H ighway 75 and the other at Sylvan ia, G eorgia on U .S . H ighway 301 as w e ll a s se v e r a l other short tenure checks m ade in various location s through out the State. A ll three m ajor road checks la sted from M onday through F rid ay, and a ll w ere operated on tw entyfour hours per day sch ed u le. T hese checks resu lted in the apprehension and a r r e s t of m any v io la to rs operating without proper authority from the Interstate C om m erce C om m ission or the G eorgia Public S erv ice C om m ission and co llectio n of sev e r a l thousand d o lla rs in v eh icle r e g is tration f e e s . In addition, the en fo rcem en t se c tio n 's p e r sonnel perform ed num erous joint in vestigation s w ith the Interstate C om m erce C om m ission and the D epartm ent of T ransportation under cooperative agreem en ts betw een the
- 9 -

*
yil

, *r

Jwfio if! ,- wrf;

' e iffm o D DtsmmteO a*8Ta3tiI jf ^f - ' '

foaimrrjoD o f & juxtQ D?

|||i;|'',

^4;r\ i'y

4&fa

3if$<- i

mns-

**'r -orid1

<rfN''it.'

io iff". -

O: Jf

. >3"*fS|
I" -Jf ''^W

s **$*
>
y4iTCKTarum

C om m ission and th ese resp ectiv e F ed eral a g e n c ie s . Som e of the C om m ission 's enforcem ent o fficers also participated in sev e r a l safety road checks conducted by the Safety C ouncil of the G eorgia Motor Trucking A ssociation .

P ro cessin g of a ll interstate registration of authority ap p lication s and am endm ents th ereto, together w ith issu a n ce of a ll intrastate and in tersta te G .P .S .C . m otor v eh icle reg istra tio n s w ere handled through the enforcem ent section and r esu lted in c o lle c tio n of fe e s as su m m a rized on page 6 of this report.
The C om m ission's seven enforcem ent o fficers perform ed 645 sp ecific safety in sp ection s, 1 , 114 inspections for operating authority and proper v e h ic le r eg istr a tio n , w hich resu lted in d ir e c t co llectio n of $14, 800 in v e h ic le r eg istr a tio n fe e s . 299 a r r e sts w ere m ade throughout the State stem m ing m ainly from in trastate and in terstate "for-hire" operations without proper authority either from this C om m ission or the Interstate C om m erce C om m ission . T hese a r r e sts resu lted in bonds totaling $ 3 4 ,9 11 being posted in the counties w here a r r e s ts w ere m ad e. The C om m ission's enforcem ent officers also perform ed 496 rate checks of intrastate "for-hire" c a rr ie rs and 636 other personal contacts w ere made on C om m ission b u sin ess.

Sum m ary of each law enforcem ent o fficer's a ctiv ities for the year 1969 is shown below .

Sum m ary of Law

O fficers' A ctiv ities (See Note)

Safety Authority Tag O fficers Checks Checks F ees A rrests

Rate P erson al Bonds Checks Contacts

D au gh erty

5

42

15

D oolittle

72

99

76

Hooks

79

135

41

M cGinnis

56

214

107

W heeler

27

165

100

W hite

406

459

253

Craton - O fficers Craton and W hite

politan area.

11

$ 5 7 7 .0 0 152

261

24 $ 2 , 200.00

44

23

31

$ 4,3 5 0 .0 0

46

102

44 $ 3 ,0 7 0 .0 0

66

198

51

$ 4 ,6 1 4 .0 0 137

45

85 $ 1 3 ,5 3 0 .0 0

51

7

together in the Atlanta M etro -

N ote:

A number of safety check s, authority check s, veh icle r e g is tration fee co llectio n s, a r r e sts and bonds w ere m ade during som e of the road checks m ade by C om m ission enforcem ent p erson nel for which no individual cred it is shown above.

10 -

- :

'o\o 4mw$,'?Tks r.3Va s'croia*;r Jrfv qoxq

OTOW 0.3SJ.IS ttf.W fSiifliJ'i::- /;.;

fl b&Mtf30lht&d; oaXMlD |ii-

jljU,-

*-8;:"' HEb,i. :

ZO 8 3 I V D J B & `- l O J i l l A j ( I l O 9 X 0 f t 9 W l -rf.? . . - , 1:v\ y x s i

' ''-' s i tisis A #tf$

TRANSPORTATION

General
During 1969? "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), 723^ transportation rate and service matters, a considerable number of which required lengthy studies and investigations in the field.

FORMAL CASES FOR YEAR 19^9

Docket No. Date

Subject

Disposition

3793-M

2-1+-69 \ Application of J & M Transportation Co., Inc. for authority to increase rates and charges on cotton intrastate in the State of Georgia.

Approved

679-3 683-R
68^-R

2-1+-69

Application of Central of Georgia Railway Company for authority to discontinue operation of its passen ger trains numbers 107 and 108 (The Nancy Hanks) between Atlanta and Savannah.

Denied

2-l|-- 69

Application of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company to discontinue agency service at McIntosh, Georgia, and to place its facilities and service at that point on a non-agency prepay basis.

Approved

2 ,- b - 69

Application of Atlanta and West Point Approved Rail Road Company, Georgia Railroad ^ in part and Banking Company, Central of Georgia Railway Company, Louisville & Nashville Railroad, Georgia Southern and Florida Railway Company and Southern Railway Company for authority to increase passen ger fares between points in the State of
Georgia.

3781-M

2-28-69

Application of Georgia Household Goods Tariff Bureau on behalf of carriers party to its Georgia Intrastate Tariff GPSC-MF No. 6 for authority to increase rates by approximately 20 percent and to effect certain other modifications in the rules, regulations and related
charges.

Approved in part

- 11-

FORMAL CASES FOR YEAR 19^9 (Continued)

Docket No. Date

Subject

Disposition

3791'-M 3792-M

2-28-69

Application of Petroleum Carrier Corporation, Schwerman Trucking Company and J & M Transportation Co., Inc. for authority to increase intrastate motor carrier rates on cement.

Approved in part

685- R 3733-M 682-R

2-28-69
U-l-69 ii-- 17-69

Application of Augusta Union Station Company for authority to surrender franchise and discontinue operation of Augusta Union Station.
Application of Association of Georgia Class "B" Carriers, Inc. for amendment to items numbers 7 and 11 of the Appendix to the
Commission's Motor Carrier Rule 8.
Application of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company bo dualize the agency service at Woodland and Warm Springs, Georgia.

Approved
Approved in part
Denied

686- R
3839-M

5-5-69

Application of Railway Express Agency, Inc, for authority to increase its Georgia intrastate class and commodity rates.

Approved

5>.114.-69

Application of National Bus Traffic

Approved

Association, Inc., Agent on behalf

with

of Continental Atlantic Lines, Inc.,

exceptions

Continental Crescent Lines, Inc.,

Georgia-Florida Coaches, Inc.,

Greyhound Lines, Inc. (Southern

Greyhound Lines Division), Service

Coach Line, Inc., Smoky Mountain

Stages, Inc., Southeastern Motor

Lines, Inc., Southeastern Stages, Inc*,

Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc., and Tennessee

Trailways, Inc. for authority to

increase bus passenger fares and bus

express rates.

687-R

5-20-69

Application of Georgia Northern Railway Company for authority to institute condemnation proceedings for the purpose of acquiring certain property located in Colquitt County, Georgia.

Approved with exceptions

- 12-

FORMAL CASES FOR YEAR 19&9 (Continued)

Docket No. Date

689-R

7 -3-69

Subject

Disposition

Application of Western & Atlantic Railroad for authority to institute condemnation proceedings to acquire fee simple title to and to obtain con struction easement to certain property located in Cobb County, Georgia.

Denied

688-R

8-20-69

Complaint of Atlanta Sand & Supply

Denied

Company, Brown Brothers Sand Company,

Howard Sand Company and Taylor

County Sand Co., Inc. against Atlanta

and West Point Railroad Company, Georgia

Railroad, Central of Georgia Railway

Company, Seaboard Coast Line Railroad

Company and Southern Railway Company

against rates on sand.

67*+-R
3918-M 69U-R

8-20-69 9- H -69
10-16-69

Application of all railroads opera ting intrastate within the State of Georgia for authority to increase

Approved with exceptions

their freight rates and charges on

Georgia intrastate traffic to the

same further extent as interstate rates

and charges were increased under

authority of orders of the I.C.C. in

Ex Parte 259 and Ex Parte 259-B.

Application of Class "A" motor common carriers of property party to Georgia Motor Trucking Association Tariff No. 1-C, GPSC-MF No. 10 (except Givens Motor Express, Inc.) for authority to increase rates and charges.

Approved subject to service improvements and with expiration date.

Application of Railway Express Agency for authority to close the express office at Richland.

Approved

695-R

10-16-69

Application of Railway Express Agency for authority to close the express office at Lyons.

Approved

39*4-3-M

10-27-69

Application of Coastal Transport and Trading Company, J & M Transportation Co., Inc., and M & M Tank Lines, Inc. for authority to increase composition roofing and roofing material rates.

Approved

-13-

-

FORMAL CASES FOR YEAR I 969 (Continued)

Docket No Date

692-R

10-27-69

693-H

IO-27-69

3957-M IO-27-69

Subject

Disposition

Application of Southern Railway _ Company to discontinue agency service at Yatesville, Georgia, to dismantle the station building and substitute a prepay station for the handling of carload freight only.

Approved

Application of Southern Railway Company to discontinue agency service at Musella, Georgian to dismantle the station building and substitute a prepay station for handling of carload freight only.

Approved

Application of McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc., Chem-Haulers, Inc*, Associated Petroleum Carriers, Inc., Fleet Transport Company, Inc*, and Schwerman Trucking Company to increase rates on liquefied petroleum gas.

Approved

691-R 3918-M

12-3-69 12-17-69

Applications of Southern Freight ^

Approved

Association, on behalf of the rail

roads operating in the State of

Georgia, for authority to make certain

changes in commodity descriptions on

lumber and articles taking same rates

wherein certain commodities would be

based on certain amount over the regular

lumber rate.

Application of Class "A" motor common carriers of property party to Georgia Motor Trucking Association Tariff Ko. 1-C, GPSC-MF No. 10, (except Givens Motor Express, Inc.) for extension of expiration date of
December 20, 1969 for a period of six
months.

Approved extension of expiration
date to
6-20-70

398O-M

12-17-69

Application of the Association of Georgia Class nBn Carriers, Inc. for authority on behalf of individual carrier members of the Association and carriers participating in Association of Georgia Class MB " Carriers, Inc. Miscellaneous Commodity Tariff No. 2, GPSC-MF No. 2, to increase motor carrier rates.

Approved in part

-lU-

r-Cjjq
M 1
g'Jhi1! 1 Cifoli . JtT- Brfcj", ^0" IX&rfc Q,;
9&$ &i-r$jr_
IrfU :-<& *.&&f

FORMAL CASES FOR YEAH 19&9 (Continued)

Docket No. Date 3981-M 12-17-69

Subject
Application of J & M Transportation Co., Inc. for authority to increase rates shown in their Miscellaneous Commodity Tariff, GPSC-MF No. 1*+.

Disposition Approved

696- R

12-17-69

Application of Southern Railway Company
for authority to discontinue operation
of passenger trains numbers 3 and ^
(The Royal Palm) between Atlanta and
the Georgia-Tennessee state line.

Approved

2612-M
3996-M

12-31-69

Application of Schweraan Trucking Co. and Fleet Transport Company, Inc. for authority to cancel volume incentive rates on liquid caustic soda in tank trucks from Brunswick to Doctortowh, Rosser and St. Marys.

Approved

697- R

12-31-69

Application of Southern Railway Company to discontinue agency service at Surrency, Georgia; to discontinue handling less-thancarload freight; to dismantle the station building and substitute a prepay station for handling carload freight only.

Approved

-15-

^1

o!:

7D

W

%oas?pj< ir. s a j H r r a e



BUS FARES AND SERVICES
At the end of 1969 there were UO bus lines operating under
the jurisdiction of the Commission providing passenger service between
points in Georgia - the increase of one line in 1969 reversing, if
only briefly, the declining trend which began at^the end of World War II. The post war decline in number of bus lines in Georgia has followed the national pattern and has been primarily due to a sorp ion of small lines by large lines, compounded by loss of short haul passengers to the automobile. Fortunately, the area and route cover age of the State* s bus lines has been reduced only slightly in the past decade, even in the face of the ever-increasing competition from the private automobile.
As result of the continuing severe inflation throughout the nation generally and the attendant increases in cost of operations, it was necessary during the year to consider application for gener increase in intrastate bus passenger fares and bus express rates. In December of last year, the National Bus Traffic Association, acting on behalf of all of the principal G e o r g i a n s lines, sought authority to increase Georgia intrastate, intercity passenger ares by approximately 10$, to increase commutation fares to the^basis of two-thirds of the one-way fares as so increased and to increase express rates by 10$, with a minimum per shipment charge of $1.10. Following public hearing at which elaborate exhibits were submit e by the bus lines in support of their proposal, the Commission approved the increase in one-way fares and express rates as sough but limited the increase in commuter fares to a basis not to exceed 2.2 cents per mile - substantially less than the increase sought y the applicants on those fares. It was pointed out in the Commission s order that the resultant increased fares would still be lower than those in most of the surrounding States and the same would be true of the increased express rates. The commuter fares, even as increased, remained the lowest in the Southeast.
While there were many bus schedule changes made during the year, none had adverse effects on the traveling public intrastate in Georgia sufficient to require formal action by the Commission and such changes as were made reflected largely adjustments to pro vide for long-haul connections.
-l6-

>3Wd-'

' -

.

a.fiit

lisiit v4>


uft^ *%. fftXf 5*3 C

oli'iM

TRUCK RATES AM) SERVICE
The continuing trend of the general economy in Georgia and throughout the nation during the year toward rapid increase in costs of wages and materials forced a wide range of increases in the rates of the motor carriers of property.
By application filed in July, the Class "A" motor common carriers of property sought authority to increase their less truck-
load and any quantity rates on shipments weighing less than 1,000 pounds by the addition of arbitraries decreasing from 30^ per 100 pounds in the 1-50 mile block to H per 100 pounds in the S^l-^OO
mile block and to increase their minimum per shipment charge from $U.10 to $l+.60. The Commission held two full days of hearing on the proposal and included between those hearing dates a period^for the protestants to prepare their opposition. The applicants cited as justification for their proposed increase "... substantial increases in their costs of operation as a result of increases in wages, interest charges, cost of equipment, related parts, tires and fuel ..." and especially in costs of the "...pick up and delivery phases
of their operation...". The motor carriers submitted 6 witnesses
and i+7 exhibits in support of their application and 17 protestants appeared at the hearing. The Commission found that of the three^ motor carriers handling the bulk of the Georgia intrastate traffic, one was in desperate need of additional revenue and a second^was in serious need of funds to permit necessary replacement of equipment; that these two carriers were vital to the commerce of this Staoe and that their operation at an effective level must be preserved unless Georgia shippers were to be severely handicapped in their transpor tation needs. The Commission pointed out in its order that it had^ been literally besieged with complaints against motor carrier services for the preceding six months - those complaints increasing in spite of Commission admonition to the carriers to eliminate the causes of service deficiency. The Commission recognized that such service deterioration had to be halted and opportunity given the carriers to improve frequency and to eliminate other service deficiencies and found it reasonable and necessary to allow revenue relief in an amount sufficient to expect correction of service deficiencies. Under the circumstances the Commission, while not approving the rate increase in the manner and to the extent sought, did recognize the need for the carriers securing additional revenue from small ship ments to the extent of approving the increase in minimum charge
sought and permitting a surcharge of 5}o in the rates on all shipments
weighing less than 1,000 pounds. The Commission conditioned its^ approval of this rate increase on the understanding that the addi tional revenue so gained would be used by the motor carriers to make operational adjustments necessary to promptly reduce - and^to eventually eliminate - the service complaints of the shipping public. To insure that the additional revenue was channelled to that purpose, the Commission imposed an expiration date of 90 days from the date of its order on which the increases approved would expire unless service complaints were reduced significantly by such operational improvements as found necessary. Later during the year, it was found necessary to twice extend the expiration date to permit more
-17-

s &S3-T:; .#

Jill

SPfeli jf-J

.
x &

time for service adjustments, and in order to permit the continued flow to the carriers of the additional revenue needed to continue the improvement programs instituted and to finance such additional adjustments as found necessary.
The same inflationary increases in costs of wages and materials that forced increase in the rates of the fixed route motor carriers of property also forced the Class "Bn carriers during the year to seek increases in rates on a number of commodities handled by those carriers. Of the broadest scope was the application of the Association of Georgia Class "BM Carriers, Inc. in October seeking authority^on behalf of a number of Class MB" carrier members of that Association to increase their rates (with the exception of those on iron and steel articles) by 15$* Following public hearing in November (at which there was no shipper opposition in spite of extensive notice to the public) the Commission, in recognition of the showing made by representative carriers of this group of substantial increases in cost of operation, approved the increase sought. Included in the application of the Association was request that the Commission s
Rule 8 Commodity Tariff be cancelled with the requirement that all^ ^
participants therein become participating carriers in the Association s general tariff. The Commission approved that request in^part,^ specifying in the order in this proceeding that the Commission s^ tariff would be cancelled but indicating that while the Association of Georgia Class "BM Carriers' tariff would be available to those carriers formerly listed in the Commission's tariff, those carriers would not be required to join in the Association tariff if they did not so desire but would have the alternative of publishing tariffs of their own. Thus, the Commission was able to eliminate a tariff publishing chore which it had undertaken only as a temporary measure to provide a tariff for carriers having no facilities to publish their own and one which had not been intended to last the six years
the tariff had been in effect.
By applications dated in November and December of last year, Petroleum Carrier Corporation, Schwerman Trucking Company, and J & M Transportation Co., Inc, sought authority to increase their rates on cement and lime by amounts varying from 6,7$ to 905$ Subsequent to the hearing in this proceeding, Petroleum Carrier Corporation's^ operating authority was transferred to Commercial Carrier Corporation. Since the latter carrier did not submit any evidence in this pro ceeding, the Commission declined to substitute Commercial Carrier Corporation as an applicant in lieu of Petroleum Carrier Corporation and dismissed the application of that carrier because it no longer held authority to transport these commodities within the State of Georgia. At the hearing, Schwerman Trucking Company and J &^M Transportation Co., Inc. both submitted statistics of operation of their lines showing results of transportation of these commodities intrastate in Georgia - both such carriers indicating such operations at a loss. The application was opposed by three cement shippers whose principal objection was to the timing of the application which came less than six months after a previous increase in rates^on these
commodities went into effect on June l6, 1968. Another particular
objection was to the measure of increase contemplated on the short

BU & y

haul movements in the range in which much of one protestant s shipments were made. The Commission found that the remaining two applicants had demonstrated need for the additional revenue soug and approved the increased rates for account of Schwerman Trucking Company and J & M Transportation Co., Inc.
In July three principal Class "B" carriers of composition roofing and roofing materials sought to publish tariffs containing increase in rates on those articles of approximately 15%* upon objection from two Georgia shippers of those commodities, the Commission required the postponement of the effective dates of the tariff supplements issued containing such increases and assigned the matter for public hearing. Subsequent to the individual carrier applications, the Association of Georgia Class "B Carriers, Inc. filed on behalf of its members and on behalf of other carriers participating in its Tariff No. 2, request for similar increase in rates for account of those carriers. The applications were consoli dated and all heard on one record at which several of the applicants introduced statistics showing the results of their handling of these commodities and their overall results of operation. The Commission found that there had been substantial increase in the costs of handling this traffic and that the existing rates had been maintained for over 15 years without any increase therein - primarily due o the fact that such rates were originally designed to ^obtain back haul traffic for the regular route motor common carriers having an unbalanced operation into the Savannah area.\ Upon consideration of such increased costs, the long period of no increase in these rates and the need of the carriers for increased revenue, Commission approved the applications subject to the provision that revision be made in the lower mileage block where the proposed charge for 3 > pounds exceeded the charge for ^0,000 pounds.
In August J & M Transportation Co., Inc. sought authority to increase most of the remaining rates applied by that carrier as contained in its Miscellaneous Commodity Tariff -^such proposed
increases ranging from 8% to 15% Following public hearing at which
there was no opposition and at which extensive exhibits were sub mitted by the carrier showing details of its handling of^the com modities involved and of its overall operation, the^Commission found that it was in need of additional revenue if it was to be expected to continue to provide needed services to the public and, under the circumstances, approved the increases sought.
By applications filed in August and in October, Chem-Haulers, Inc., McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc., Associated Petroleum Carriers, Inc., Fleet Transport Company, Inc. and Schwerman Trucking Company sought authority to increase intrastate rates on liquefied petroleum gas^ of approximately 8$. The Commission assigned the matter for public hearing in November at which witnesses for the applicants submitted exhibits showing details of increases in costs incurred in the transportation of this commodity since the existing rates had been
established in 1963 and 196k - such increases ranging up to 35% in
cost of equipment and in excess of that amount in cost of labor. A number of protestants appeared at the hearing but none indicated any
-19-

t J-701


r *- <
X&SL ' "

lcr
*$ ;'. $ -at; .* m

objection to the applications as finally amended by the carriers. In recognition of the need of the carriers for additional revenue to offset the inflationary increases in cost of operation in the handling of this commodity, the Commission approved the increases sought.
By application received in October of last year, J & M Transportation Co., Inc. had sought authority to increase its rates on truckload and less truckload shipments of cotton to offset an operating loss in the handling of this commodity - those increases
amounting to 3$ per 100 pounds in truckload rates and per 100
pounds in less truckload rates. At the hearing, the carrier showed that it had incurred an operating loss in its flatbed operation
the 11-month period ending November 30, 1968, of in excess of $lo,000
much of that loss due to the transportation of cotton where scattered pickups and difficulty in unloading at warehouse destinations had greatly inflated the cost of handling this commodity.^ In recognition of the need for increase in the rates to eliminate this deficit operation, Commission approved the increases sought.
By applications received in September, Schwerman Trucking Co. and Fleet Transport Company, Inc. sought authority to cancel volume incentive rates on caustic soda, in bulk, in tank trucks from Brunswick to Doctortown, Rosser and St. Marys. These rates^had been established several years previously to compete with^the rail transportation of these commodities between these points and had been approved in order to permit the motor carriers to participate in this traffic. Evidence Submitted at the hearing on the application indicated that the motor carriers were no longer being tendered this
traffic in sufficient volume to permit the 2^-hour operation necessary
to reduce costs to a level low enough to provide an adequate return on the operation, and in view of that fact and of the lack of oppo sition of the shippers and receivers of this commodity at the affected points, approved the cancellation of these incentive rates.
By application received in November of last year, the Georgia Household Goods Tariff Bureau sought authority to increase by approximately 20$ its members household goods rates applicable on weight and distance movements, to provide for one hour travel time in additional areas of the State which were then authorized one-half hour travel time and to effect other minor modifications in the rules, regulations and related charges published in its tariff. The appli cants submitted at the hearing exhibits showing increases in cost
of operation since June, 1967? when the then existing rates had been
approved - statistics in those exhibits showing increases in costs ranging from a low of 6.6$ for van-type trucks to a high of^l6.4<$ for one category of labor. Study was made of representative shipments handled by the applicant carriers during an extensive test period with that study showing that while no increase was justified in the charges for hourly-rated movements the distance and weight rates were not contributing their fair share of the cost of operation of these carriers.
- 20-

In recognition of the increased costs incurred oy the household goods carriers in the furnishing of these services particularly in the cost of labor which was becoming increasingly difficult to obtain at any reasonable price - the Commission^ approved the increases sought in weight and distance rates, the additional travel time in areas of heavy traffic density and the other miscel laneous rule and charge changes which were necessary to properly relate the charges of these carriers.
By petition received in August of last year, the Association of Georgia Class "B" Carriers, Inc. on behalf of its approximate 110 members sought amendment to Item No. 7 of the Appendix to the
Commission's Motor Carrier Rule 8 to eliminate the limiting words
"iron and steel" from the "pipe" listing therein and to add thereto the words "including pipe fittings when shipped with the pipe to which such fittings will be attached" and amendment to Item^ll of that rule to add thereto "steel concrete construction forms and "steel scaffolding." At the hearing, representatives of one pipe shipper, two steel scaffolding and construction form shippers and officials of three Class "B" carriers testified in support of the proposed changes and witnesses for seven Class " A T carriers and one Class "B" carrier appeared in opposition. The principal argument of the applicants was that other types of pipes were now being substituted for the iron and steel pipe and the steel forms and scaffolding were replacing the lumber articles formerly used for the same purpose. The applicant witnesses all contended that the Class "B" carriers, under the "foliow-the-traffic theory", should oe per mitted to transport these articles which technologically replaced the older articles made of the different materials. The protestants principal objection was that they were handling some of all of the commodities involved and that approval of the application would therefore result in loss of traffic to the protesting carriers. Following the hearing and the filing of briefs by the participants, the Commission stated that although it had not adopted the "followthe-traffic theory" as had other jurisdictions in the granting of operating authority, it found justification for broadening the pipe description to include pipe made of plastic. It also found that the structural and reenforcement iron or steel articles list
contained in Rule 8 had never been broadened or treated other than
to attempt to specifically list what was therein included and that it had been the continuing interpretation of the Commission that this commodity group included only iron or steel articles which became a permanent part of the finished structure. The Commission further held that the "follow-the-traffic theory" did not realistically apply in connection with the scaffolding and construction forms since the lumber for such articles had always been transported by^ the Class "B" carriers as lumber rather than as scaffolding materials or as knocked~down wooden scaffolding. Under the circumstances, the Commission denied the broadening of Item 11 to add "steel concrete construction forms" and "steel scaffolding."
- 21-

:

. . &tM-b

,

9 V i$0

.y

JH ; ..','v'O

^ a # f S q i:0 - t &Wfij0M^*i

JTf ^

Mtoilwd'SE

l o grfxli't'ji '$ddt cil

t&i

Hb

n

. -&sJt IoJi&'m

oo n ti

#tej

^aiita

-m f e w S w t i

JjSjH zb0T4Mi no.' ,mo% m t :&(!w sio,Lt`-m .Ijft isoJN

$ n&& y/;.on MwXo';* /o^ #lX>ofcsc

RAILWAY EXPRESS
As has been the case for the past several years, the financial status of the Railway Express Agency remained serious during the year. The continuing increase in cost of materials and supplies, as well as in the cost of terminal and vehicle equipment, affected the Express Agency as it had the other forms of transportation and again forced the Agency to seek increase in its rates. By application received in February, it sought authority to increase its first class rates and charges and to eliminate its second class rates the overall increase in revenue by both such actions amounting to approximately 3 ^ . Following showing by the Agency at ^public hear ing (at which there was no opposition expressed) of critical need for the additional revenue, the Commission approved the increases and cancellations sought.
During the year, the Express Agency sought authority to close ten express offices. Contrary to the situation in past years, most
of such applications during 19&9 did not involve the concurrent
discontinuance of railroad agency service at the same point but were based on insufficient revenue from traffic handled by those offices. Of the ten so processed during the year, only one - that at Iron^City was contingent on the Commission's action on concurrent application of the railroad. That application was approved as were applications to discontinue the express offices at Arlington, Bowman, Comer, Montezuma, Richland, Shellman, Toomsboro and Willacoochee. The ^ Commission found that the need for the express office at one point Lyons - required the continuance of the Railway Express office and accordingly denied application to discontinue that office.
RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE ARP FARES
By application received in September of last year, the Central of Georgia Railway sought authority to discontinue operation of its Passenger Trains Nos. 107 and 108 (the "Nancy Hanks ) between Atlanta and Savannah. The Nancy Hanks passenger trains are the last trains operated between Atlanta, Macon and Savannah and there ^ was extensive opposition, both by letter and in person at the hearing, to the proposed discontinuance of this service. The applicant sub mitted testimony and exhibits to the effect that the trains were
losing in excess of $300,000 annually in spite of the addition to its
equipment of a vista-dome car and the maintenance on the trains of the lowest round-trip passenger fares in the United States. The applicant contended that there was adequate bus and air passenger service available between the points served by the trains and that the trains no longer handled either mail or express. Statistics submitted by the railroad indicated that the trains, in the twelve
months ending September, 1968, handled an average of 115. ^ passengers
per trip, with the average ride being a distance of 15^-7 miles. The Commission, although recognizing the substantial loss being
- 22-

lo '
KSTi
o* *1 :V.-r ` ;/

' s1#o:r"';J: f^ro'ii0$fe,
t&*>ol

ItO'

incurred in the operation of the Nancy Hanks trains, was not con vinced that such loss justified the discontinuance of the needed service of this last train on this important route or that the indicated loss was the real measure of any present burden on the carrier since it appeared that many of the large costs shown could be significantly reduced. The Commission indicated its further belief that the public using the trains would, without appreciable protest, accept an increase in fares sufficient to greatly diminish the indicated loss. Accordingly, while the Commission declined to approve the proposed discontinuance of service, it did permit the the cancellation of the low round-trip special fares and an increase in fares on these trains to the same level as applicable on other lines in the State. In addition, the Commission indicated that it would permit the Central of Georgia Railway to make such^changes m the operation of these trains as would permit reduction in costs while still rendering an adequate coach passenger train service. In furtherance of that understanding, the Commission later in the year permitted the removal from the Nancy Hanks trains^of the combination baggage-coach car and the discontinuance of handling on those trains of checked baggage (including remains). This permission was grante following a finding that the total revenues from such service amounted to $l+,500 per year with the cost of rendering such service and pro viding such car exceeding $3^-5000 Per year* The Commission s^ authorization to remove this service from the Nancy Hanks trains was emphasized to be an effort to retain the passenger service o those trains by authorizing the elimination of a service which was little used at excessive cost.
By application dated November lU, the Southern Railway sought authority to discontinue operation of its Passenger Trains Nos. 3 and U (the "Royal Palm") between Atlanta and the Georgia-Tennessee State line. For many years the "Royal Palm" trains were operated on a daily schedule between Atlanta and Cincinnati, Ohio. The Southern Railway indicated in its application that by authority of^the Tennessee Public Service Commission the operation of the Royal Palm" trains in that State would be discontinued effective December 1 and after that date the Georgia operation would be purely intrastate in nature running only between Atlanta and Dalton. Only a few years ago there were operated over this route a number of JacksonvilleAtlanta-Cincinnati trains with both pullman and dining car service provided but the service had shrunk to this two coach, baggage car and diesel engine remnant of the last through Atlanta-Cincinnati trains. The applicant submitted exhibits showing that the Royal^ Palm" trains no longer handled any express and that in June of this year the use of the trains for the transportation of mail was dis continued by the Post Office Department and that even before such loss of traffic the trains had operated at a loss of $101,813 for the twelve-month period ending September 30, 199 The applicant s statistics further showed that the principal use of these trains during that period was principally between Atlanta and points beyond the Georgia-Tennessee State line with an average of only two passen gers per day riding the trains intrastate. The application was opposed by representatives of the labor unions whose employees operate the train and by two public protestants who occasionally
-23-

! jf 'T

'C|f^S'' : sfivt

'
`"Ipj

-

:

'*04 ..



used the train and expressed dissatisfaction with the decline in consist and the poor on-time performance of the train. In view of the discontinuance of the trains north of the Georgia line and the total impossibility of operating the Georgia service without excessive losses being incurred, the Commission authorized the discontinuance
of the "Royal Palm" trains effective January 1, 1970.
By application received in December of last year, the railroads operating in the State sought authority to increase passenger fares by 1C$, to cancel all special reduced fares and, on most of the Southern Railway System trains, to establish a seat r^ervation charge.
The basic proposal would increase coach fares from 3.032 to 3*335 ce
per mile one-way and from 2.729 to 3.002 cents per mile round-trip
and first-class fares from 4.245 to 4.670 cents^per mile one-way
and from 3.821 to 4.203 cents per mile round-trip. ^The greatest
impact of the application was the proposed elimination by ^the Centrai of Georgia Railway of its reduced 15-day round-trip individual fares
(based on 135$ of the one-way coach fares) and its reduced round-
trip party fares available to groups of fifteen or more (based on 112$ of the one-way coach fares). The applicants submitted exhibits showing the drastic decline in rail passenger revenues for the past ten years and the substantial deficits occurred in the provision o
this service. These exhibits show the 1967 Georgia intrastate passen
ger revenues of the Southern Railway System l i n e s t h e rail system providing most of the intrastate service in Georgia - to be less than half of that earned in 1957, with that System's total passenger
service loss having climbed to over $26 million in 1967.^ Tbe appli
cants also submitted exhibit showing increases incurred in cost of materials and wages showing that since 1957 the price index had
climbed 34.7$ (the 1957 date being used because the last increase in
basic passenger fares in Georgia was approved that year). The only objection received to the proposal was several letters protesting the effect of the increase in fares on the "Nancy Hanks" passenger trains, with most of those letters requesting maintenance of the^ low party fares. The Commission found that the increase sought in the basic passenger fares was fully justified on the record and, in addition, held that it could no longer require the maintenance of severely reduced fares on the "Nancy Hanks" and "Man 0 ' War trains when both of these trains were operating at a loss and when there had been indication in a concurrent proceeding that increase in fares on the "Nancy Hanks" trains would be far preferred by the public to the discontinuance of operation of those trains. Under the circumstances, the Commission approved also the cancellation of those reduced fares. The Commission declined, however, to depart from its historical position that all railroad passengers should be guaranteed a seat without a charge for such guarantee and therefore
denied the seat reservation charge sought.

't'.VTy','- hrr:^') r.
.

.

$2X

xaH- &*$ 'Surn

*fe

.
i':$ 'fj-

RAIL FREIGHT
In November of last year, the Commission authorized all railroads operating intrastate within Georgia generally to increase their freight rates and charges on Georgia intrastate traffic to the same extent as their interstate rates and charges were increased under authority granted by the Interstate Commerce Commission in its
order of June 19, 1968 in Ex Parte 259* By petitions dated in^
December of last year and in January of this year, the same rail roads sought authority to increase their intrastate rates and charges to the same further extent as their interstate rates and charges
were increased on November 28, 1968, and January 30? 19^9 under
authority of orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission in Ex Parte
259 dated November 255 1968, and January 9s 19^9 ~ such further ^
interstate increases commonly referred to as the "Ex Parte 259~B increase. At the hearings - which were held on three days during the period from March 20 to May 1, the railroads submitted extensive exhibits showing the results of their operation in Georgia and^
systemwide for 1968 and several previous years - these statistics
showing revenues, expenses and rates of return in detail. The con clusions of such exhibits were that these railroads' rates of return had dropped to h .0 % and that the increased revenue sought both interstate and intrastate in the X-259-B proceedings would be between
14 and % and would increase the rate of return to H.5670. There
was substantial opposition expressed both by mail and at the hearing to this further increase in charges. There were thirteen appearances in opposition at the hearing, most opposing the increase as it related either to specific commodities or specific movements. The objections included protest against increase in rates on movements of sand, crushed stone and related articles; shale; agricultural limestone; lightweight aggregates; cement; pulpwood and sugar. The Commission found that the railroads were in need of additional revenues if they were to be expected to control the provision of adequate rail service to the industry and consumers of the State of Georgia and accordingly approved the application in general but with such exceptions as were deemed necessary to prevent undue harmful effect on Georgia industry. Those exceptions included limiting the increase in rates on sand, gravel, crushed stone and related articles, lightweight aggregates, agricultural limestone, shale and cement^to
5$ (with a minimum increase of 1^ per 100 pounds on cement), limit
ing the increase on sugar on a specific point to point movement of heavy volume to about half that sought and denying entirely any increase on carload shipments of sand from Junction City and Rollo Sand Pit No. 1 to the Atlanta group. The Commission made the^ further provision that in any instance where the increase on inter state rates was modified downward or generally waived, similar adjustment would be made on Georgia intrastate traffic.
By applications received in February, the railroads operating in the State sought authority to restrict commodity descriptions on lumber and articles taking the same rates so that such rates would not apply on articles that had been permanently coated, polished, waxed, painted, stained, lacquered or varnished, nor on articles that had been faced or backed with paper or vinyl film or other
,,25-

materials, except when such coating or waxing was for preservative treatment or protection only. The result of the restriction sought would be the establishment of specific rates on such articles with those rates being generally higher than the ones previously applying on such traffic. At the hearing, the railroad applicants submitted lengthy testimony and a number of exhibits showing the history of the rates involved, comparable rates on these articles in other terri tories and on similar articles in other territories and in the South and showing comparison of specific point to point rates on the involved articles on the present rates and under the proposed rates. The rates here sought had been permitted to become effective on interstate traffic by the Interstate Commerce Commission following its denial of petitions from a number of protestants for suspension of the tariff involved. The revised rates were also shown to be already effective on intrastate traffic in the South except in the States of Georgia, Mississippi and Virginia, with applications similar to that in Georgia having been filed in the other two States. Testimony was submitted indicating that the principal purpose of the proposal was to prevent the application of the low lumber rates particularly the incentive lumber rates - on the high grade, pre finished plywood whose value was many times that of construction grade plywood to which the low lumber rates had been extended. It was developed during the course of the hearing that a carload of the pre-finished paneling would have a value of many thousands of dollars and thus expose the carriers to a liability much greater than on the other articles in the lumber list, including the basic "construction grade plywood." The protestants objected to singling out this one commodity for removal from the general lumber description and particularly objected to the wording of the restriction as making difficult the proper application of the proposed rates. Comparison was also made of the proposed rail rates with existing motor carrier rates stowing that lower transportation charges would then be avail able via the railroads' competitors. The Commission found that the items here sought to be deleted from the lumber list were generally of far greater value than the basic lumber articles and that such items should - and could without financial stress - bear a greater transportation charge, particularly in view of the substantial increase in carrier exposure to liability for loss and damage. The Commission found further that the increase sought was not excessive in comparison with the value of the material and that the effect of that increase would not be significant on the selling price thereof and under the circumstances approved the application. The Commission's order did suggest, however, that the railroads seek more precise^
wording in the description or incorporation in the involved tariff an explanation of terms which might possibly be confusing, with the admonition that if such confusion did develop in the intrastate application of the approved rates the Commission would, upon the request of any interested shipper, re-open the proceeding for such clarification as was then shown to be needed.
By formal petition in January, four shippers of sand filed complaint against the railroads handling their traffic protesting the relationship of the railroad rates on sand from their shipping points of Rollo Sand Pit No. 1 and Junction City to the Atlanta group with
-26-

v-

gl|

W$']'. i
.
B IfBl \
.
ggjw %$ ' $i^ttfefcr c^ili^^ ^l# siV',$k^Q&| >7S> Iyi;>^i$\(

^pH ? ciOiifi .

iptW

that from Shorters, Alabama, to the same destinations and with rates in effect within South Carolina and from South to North Carolina. These complainants all shipped their sand to most markets in the Atlanta group at a rate of $1.U2 per ton (with slightly different rates to two points from one origin) and complained that a newly established rate of $80.00 per car from Shorters, Alabama, ^to the same Georgia destinations, although imposing certain additional con ditions on the shipper at that point, threatened the loss of all or most of the Atlanta group market to the complainants. It was also complained that lower intrastate rates in South Carolina and from South to North Carolina established by the Southern Railway for appli cation in articulated cars discriminated against the complainants. The Shorters rate was shown to be subject to provision that the transportation be in shipper-owned cars, subject to an annual volume
of 1250 cars with the maximum gross weight per car to be 220,000
pounds, weighing to be performed by the shipper and to not include switching by any non-line haul carrier at destination. The relief
sought was the prescription of a rate no higher than $1 per ton for
the Georgia movements with a volume requirement of two cars per shipment - the protestants contended that such rate would be sub stantially the same as that from Shorters, Alabama, without the volume, weighing and shipper-owned car requirements of that latter rate - the lesser distances (85 to 105 miles from the Georgia points
as compared with 137 bo 156 miles from the Alabama point) to offset
those requirements. The complainants asserted that they could not accept the same conditions as the Shorteis rate, particularly as regards the furnishing by the shipper of cars for transportation of this sand and that only one of the complainants hao. track scales where cars could be weighed. Witnesses for the complainants ^pre sented details of the comparable rates in Carolina and exhibit^ showing estimate of savings to the carriers of the conditions imposed on the Shorters rate. Witnesses for the railroads contended that the decline in the movement of sand shipped by the complainants t`o the Atlanta market was due to local competition rather than the Shorters rate and submitted a number of statistics in support of that argument. The railroads strongly argued that the proper course to be followed was not in adjustment of the intrastate rates ^but^ through appeal to the Interstate Commerce Commission for relief if there could be shorn discrimination caused by the interstate rates. The Commission rejected that contention due both to the fact that it considered it possessed adequate powers to relieve discrimination against Georgia shippers and receivers by affirmative action and the fact that it had previously tried appealing to the Interstate Commerce Commission for relief in similar cases to no avail. The Commission found that while it could order into effect a rate reflecting the same conditions as the Shorters, Alabama, rate or one which took into account the value to the carriers of those con ditions, such still would not effect the relief sought since what was desired was delivery of the sand to Atlanta group locations on other than the line-haul carriers without added switching charges such going beyond the provisions of the Shorters rate and one which the Commission considered had not been justified on this record and one which the Commission doubted could be required under any circum stances. Under such conditions, and in view of the fact that the
27-

'

TS nJazXM

"ist? ' -M

n ' -41

f<g& d
Uxoria a # m r

Carolina rates had not been shown to disadvantage the complainants in any manner, the Commission denied the relief sought in the com plaint but did concurrently in a separate proceeding deny application by the railroads to further increase the Georgia rates here inyo ve by 15 cents per ton, thus reducing in part at least the rate dis advantage to which these complainants would have been otherwise subjected.
RAIL AGENCY SERVICE
The railroads continue to seek authority to discontinue their agency services at the smaller towns - either d^e to dcl^ nS
revenue from such stations or to change in consist of traltic zo
and from such stations to such as does not require the services o an agent. This year the Commission processed five such applications and, as is its established custom, adhered to the policy of deciding those applications on the need for and use of the service rather than solely on the statistical showing of revenue versus cost. After finding that the public convenience and necessity no longer demanded the service of an agent at such points, the Commission authorized the discontinuance of agency service at Iron City, McIntosh, Musella, Surrency and Yatesville.
During the year, there were tiro more consolidations of agency services sought whereby one agent was proposed^to provide agency service at two stations. The Seaboard Coast Line^Railroad sough to establish such dual agency service at its stations of Woodlan and Warm Springs but, following public hearing at which there wa substantial objection to the method proposed to operate such com bined facilities, the Commission declined to approve such app The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad also sought to establish the dual service at its stations of Alapaha and Willacoochee and,^finding that the proposed service would be adequate, the Commission approve this dual agency plan.
There was detailed in last year's report the new^type of agency service then established by the Central of Georgia Rai y&Y
that being the creation of a "mobile agent" who would replace e
resident agents at several stations and, by traveling m a carrierowned station wagon by highway between a base station and the stations to be served, would perform necessary agency^functions at those points. During this year, the Central of Georgia Railway sought authority to establish five more mobile agency operations these involving:
1 . Ft. Valley, Perry, Montezuma, Oglethorpe, Reynolds
and Howard
.2 Eatonton, Oconee, Toombsboro and Gardner
J Cuthbert and Leary k. Hamilton and Pine Mountain 5. Bowdon Junction, Yates and Newnan.
-28-

ld . . e .

#'

*iy

`lywr I ` ..
-
H B B S s i ! m w m 1-. W fflS m k w # i # e !w ^ *
H

As was its action in the first mobile agency case, the Commission, following finding in these additional five instances that proposed arrangements appeared to be feasible, authorized the institution of these mobile agency operations on a six-month test basis, with the operation to be investigated by the Commission during that test period and with the regular agency service to be restored following the trial period if the Commission found, after such public hearing as might be necessary, that the mobile agency service was inadequate. At the close of the year, all of these mobile agencies were operating effectively and the Commission had not received a single complaint against the services being rendered.
During the year the Commission, after thorough investigation and conclusive finding of adequacy, approved the operation on a permanent basis of the first mobile agency operation involving the stations of Metter, Midville, Statesboro and Wadley.
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS AND ABANDONMENT OF OPERATIONS
In March the Georgia Northern Railway Company made application for authority to institute condemnation proceedings to acquire certain property in Colquitt County, said property to be used by the railroad in the construction of a second main line approxi mately 8.5 miles in length bypassing the City of Moultrie. The purpose of the construction was to provide the railroad with an alternate connection for through traffic which would permit the bypassing of Moultrie in the handling of such traffic - thus avoiding the delays and other complications of passing through the streets and freight yard of Moultrie and of crossing the line of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad at that point. Upon showing at the hearing that the construction was necessary for public purposes as is required by law and that the route chosen was the most feasible one, the Commission granted the authority sought.
Later in the year, the Louisville & Nashville Railroad (in its capacity as the Western & Atlantic Railroad, lessee of the State-owned rail line between Atlanta and Chattanooga) sought authority to institute condemnation proceedings to acquire fee simple title to and to obtain construction easement to certain property located in Cobb County for the purpose of enlarging a culvert near Smyrna and of constructing a spillway and energy dissipter channeling the water from the culvert to the channel of the creek naturally handling the flow of water in this area. At the hearing, the applicants contended that the watershed of the creek above the present culvert was becoming urbanized and being rapidly developed by the construction of major streets and highways and many buildings and other structures - all of which had increased and was expected to further increase the rate of runoff in the watershed to a degree that the existing culvert was inadequate to handle the creek waters during periods of heavy rain. It was brought out at the hearing that a private developer of a large
-29-



portion of this watershed had agreed with the railroad upon a joint plan- of constructing a ponding lake above the railroad fill (using the face of the fill, properly modified, as a dam) and of increasing the capacity of the culvert through the fill to handle the anticipated amount of runoff water. The railroad engineers contended that^the proposed construction would be the most economical means by which to cope with this drainage problem. The two land owners involved strongly objected to the taking of their property for what they con tended to be the private purpose of the developer above the railroad fill and through expert engineering witnesses argued that the proposed construction was not the only practical means of solving the drainage problem. This was the first instance in which the Commission had been called upon to authorize the condemnation by a railroad of private property where the project necessitating such condemnation involved interests other than those entirely related to railroad operations. Although emphasizing that it had always^ undertaken to recognize the public need for efficient and economical railroad service in authorizing, where justified, the condemnation of private property necessary to fill such need, the Commission held that it was not convinced that the proposed construction was the only feasible manner in which to install any necessary culvert enlargement and/or energy dissipater or that the Commission^could properly authorize the condemnation of this property for railroad purposes when it was so clear that such condemnation would also directly serve other interests. Under such circumstances, the Commission denied this application.
In January, the Augusta Union Station Company made application to the Commission pursuant to Section 9^~32^- of the Code of Georgia for approval and authorization to surrender to the State of Georgia the franchise of the Augusta Union Station Company to operate as a railroad station company within the limits of Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia. At the hearing, the applicant submitted evidence of the necessary public notices and of the authorizations by ics officers and stockholders to surrender its franchise. It was further shown that its railroad passenger services at Augusta had been transferred to other terminal facilities and that the abandon ment of its line of railroad had been authorized by the Intel state Commerce Commission last year and by this Commission in January of this year. Upon finding that the Augusta Union Station Company was no longer operated as a railroad, that all of its real esta,te had been purchased by the United States Government, that need for such facilities no longer existed, and that there was no protest against the proposal, the Commission authorized the surrender of this franchise.
WESTERN & ATLANTIC RAILROAD
The annual report of the lessee of the Western 8c Atlantic
Ra.ilroad for the calendar year 1969 shows for the net expenditures
-30-

charged to the accounting classification "Additions and Betterments by classes of railroad property, the folio-wing amounts:

Improved Track Material

$ 33,^37.86

Land for Transportation Purposes ...... Grading and Drainage..... ............

1 ,000.00
2,2*32.66

Bridges, Trestles and Culverts ... Fences ............... ...... . Yard Tracks and Sidings .............** Shops and Enginehouses ........... . *

112,2+18.15
1 ,62+9.60 22+,788.00 11,92+2.18

Communication Systems .......... ...... 10,2*81.77

Signals and Interlockers .............. 2*1*,012.2+3

Grade Crossings ................ .

(2*, 2+71.82*)

Public Improvements - Construction .... 157,503.75

The above additions reported are after deduction for value
of property replaced during the year and total $395,19^.58. The net capital expenditures made by the lessee for additions and improvements to the Western & Atlantic Railroad from the beginning
of the lease in 1919 through December 31, 1989, amount to over
$9,000,000. This 1969 report concluded the Additions and Betterments
statements under the lease of this railroad ending December 27 of this year. It should be pointed out that the lessee spent far^
more for this purpose than the $3 million required by the provisions
of that lease.

PARTICIPATION IN INTERSTATE PROCEEDINGS
In July the Commission received from the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company copy of notice of the proposal of that railroad to discontinue operation of its passenger trains numbers 3-5 and^ l*-10 between Atlanta, Georgia and St. Louis, Missouri. This notice was in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act directing that such notice be given when a railroad proposes discontinuance of a passenger train operating in two or more States. The trains involved are the last two trains operating between Atlanta and St. Louis by the important route through Chattanooga and Nashville, Tennessee, providing needed service to North Georgia and constituting the last rail link oetween Georgia and an important area of the upper South and the Midwest. The Commission advised the Interstate Commerce Commission of^its opposition to this proposed discontinuance of service, pointing out that such discontinuance along a route through six States and
more than 600 miles in length should not be permitted without
opportunity for the affected public to demonstrate at puolic hearings that the need for and use of that service outweighed any losses being incurred in the provision thereof and requesting that one' such hearing be held at a point in Georgia on the route of the train. Later in the year, hearings were held at a number of locations along the route of the trains and the Commission parti cipated in those hearings. At the close of the year, there was
-31-

<' JTf

still pending decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission on the matter.

As result of Congressional request last year, the Interstate Commerce Commission late that year instituted an investigation into the cost of providing intercity railroad passenger service. This Commission, through its representatives in the National Association of Regulatory Commissioners and in the National Conference of State Transportation Specialists, participated actively in the development of State views concerning the method of reducing or meeting intercity passenger train costs and in the on-the-ground studies of test railroad operations designed to develop formulae for the computation of such costs. Through such cooperation hy State Commissions, representatives of railroad industry, railroad labor and other interested parties, the Interstate Commerce Commission was able to develop for the first time realistic estimations of the actual cost of providing intercity railroad passenger service.

By orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission in Docket

Nos. 35190 and 35191 dated December 9 of this year, investigations

were instituted into "...the matters and things presented..." in
petitions filed on November l k 9 1969 by the common carriers by

railroads operating within the State of Georgia averring "...that

the Georgia Public Service Commission has refused to authorize or

to permit increases in rates and charges on sand, gravel, crushed

stone, and related commodities moving in intrastate commerce

corresponding to those authorized by this Commission in Ex Parte

No. 259? Increased Freight Rates, 1968, 332 I.C.C. 590

71^>

and that, even were the full increases sought to have been allowed,

the rates resulting therefrom would be below the interstate level...

These proceedings involve the rates prescribed by this Commission

for intrastate movements of sand, gravel, crushed stone and related

articles and the rates excepted by this Commission from full

increase in the intrastate proceeding corresponding to the

Interstate Ex Parte 259. All of the commodities involved are very

important to the economy of the State of Georgia and for that

reason it is the intention of the Commission to oppose as strongly

as it can any overriding by the Interstate Commerce Commission of

the rates established by this Commission on those articles. It

is anticipated that hearings will be held in these dockets next

year and full report thereon will be submitted in next year's

report.

-32-

UTILITIES DIVISION
In tro d u c tio n
D uring th e year o f 1969, th e G eorgia P u b lic S e rv ice Commission issu ed a t o t a l o f k2 Orders a fte r form al p roceed in gs. These in volved c e r t ific a t e p ro ceed in gs, r a te adjustm ent p ro ceed in gs, th e issu an ce o f s e c u r itie s r e la tin g to c a p ita l s tru c tu re , and m atters r e la tin g to the gen eral o p eration o f th e com panies.
Two Orders issu e d in 1969 are o f s p e c ia l in te r e s t to th e consumer. The f i r s t O rder, issu e d in Docket No 2027-U, in v o lv e s th e in v e s tig a tio n o f r a t e s , prom otional p r a c tic e s and allow ances o f th e G eorgia Power Company, A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company, and Gas L ig h t o f Columbus. A copy o f th is Order is in cluded h e re in . This p a r tic u la r Order d ir e c tly a ffe c ts most o f th e u t i l i t y customers w ith in th e S ta te , in th a t i t e sta b lish e s th e lim its to which th e u t i l i t y companies may o ffe r in c e n tiv e payments to the co n stru ctio n trad e in d u stry and to i t s in d iv id u a l customers fo r th e purpose o f prom oting the use o f e ith e r n a tu ra l gas or e le c t r ic it y . This order a ls o a ffe c t s th e G eorgia Power Company* s G eneral S e rv ice Rate Schedule "B -1 0 ," in th a t i t req u ires th e e lim in a tio n o f th e s o -c a lle d "Counted Demand" fe a tu r e .
The second O rder, issu e d by th e Commission on December 17> 19^9> in Docket N o. 2108-U, r e la te s to th e A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company*s gene r a tio n and s a le o f e le c t r ic a l energy, or "O n -site G e n e ra tio n ." A copy o f th is Order is a lso in clu d ed . In essen ce, th e Georgia P ub lic Service Commission fin d s th a t th e gen eratio n and s a le o f such e le c t r ic a l energy by th e A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company i s w ith in th e scope o f i t s re g u la te d op eratio n s and req u ire s th e f i l i n g by th e A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company o f r a te s , r u le s , and re g u la tio n s p e rta in in g th e re to .
The Commission has th e r e s p o n s ib ility o f re q u irin g u t i l i t i e s to provide adequate and s a tis fa c to r y s e rv ic e s com patible w ith th e reason able and ju s t needs o f the p u b lic a t ra te s th a t are f a i r , ju s t and reason ab le. Contrary to th e b e lie fs o f many c it iz e n s , th e Commission does n ot guarantee the u t i l i t y a fix e d ra te o f retu rn or p r o f it . F u rth er, th ere is no e x e rcise o f power over th e management o f u t i l i t i e s such as o rg a n iz a tio n , o p e ra tio n , e tc .
A t th e c lo s e o f th e calen d ar year 1968, th ere were under th e ju r is d ic tio n o f th e Commission th e fo llo w in g number o f p u b lic u t i l i t i e s :
E L E C T R I C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................2
NATURAL G A S . . . . . . . . .........................k
TELEPHONE(In clu d in g h C o -o p s ) .. h3
-33-

TELEGRAPH

1

TRANSIT

1

The fu n ctio n o f th e U t i l i t i e s D iv is io n i s to provide th e Commission

w ith te ch n ica l and p ro fe ssio n a l serv ices so th a t the p u b lic ^ s p o n s ib ili i

as req u ired by law can be m et. In order to carry out th e d u tie s assign ed

to i t by th e Commission, a competent te c h n ic a l, p ro fe s s io n a l ^ adm inis tr a tiv e s t a f f perform s s p e c ific fu n ctio n s in to e E n g in ee rin g , R a te , A u d itin g ,

and A ccounting Departm ents. The work o f th e E n gin eerin g P

,. ,

g e n e ra lly o f p ro cessin g and an aly zin g a l l u t i l i t y t a r i f f , in clu d e r a t e s , ru le s and re g u la tio n changes o f th e te le p h o n e ^ u tiii i 3 re v isio n o f ru le s and re g u la tio n s o f e le c t r ic and gas u t i l i t i e s , as w e ll as
t a r i f f re v is io n s f i le d by W estern U nion . A ll a p p lic a tio n s fo r C e r tifie s ,

o f P u b lic Convenience and N e ce ssity fo r telephone and gas u t i l i t i e s processed and docketed fo r h e a rin g . During th e form al p ro ceed in gs, the

p ro fe ssio n a l s t a f f conducts th e cross-exam ination o f the w itn esses, and

a fte r th e Commission reaches a d e c is io n , ap p ro p riate orders are prepare

issu e d . O ften tim es, f ie ld in v e stig a tio n s have to be conducted to obtain
such a d d itio n a l d ata th a t may be req u ired to enable th e Commission b reach a f a i r and e q u ita b le d e c is io n . One o f th e most im portant fu n ctio n s o f th is

department is the r e c e ip t, p ro ce ssin g , e v a lu a tio n , i n s t i g a t i o n , and f in a l

d is p o s itio n o f a l l com plaints f i le d w ith th e Commission a g a in s t th e u t i l i

t i e s . The s t a f f person n el in v o lv ed in th is work have s p e c ific tr a in in g

in order th a t th e p u b lic may be given prompt and courteous s e rv ic e in th e s o lu tio n o f th e ir p a r tic u la r problem . For th e purpose o f o b ta in in g

d e ta ile d fa c ts and c e r ta in te c h n ic a l data re q u ire d , many e le c t r ic , gas and telephone te s t instrum ents are u t iliz e d . These expensive and d e lic a te

instrum ents are sent to the lab o rato ry o f the U . S . Bureau o f Standards p e r io d ic a lly fo r c a lib r a tio n and issu an ce o f C e r tific a te s which in d ic a te

the tolerances o f accuracy. In ad d ition to the fo rego in g, a l l Federal

Power Commission and F ed eral Communications Commission p u b lic a tio n s on C e r t ific a t e s , r a t e s , ru le s and r e g u la tio n s , and orders are review ed care

f u l l y in order to evalu ate same b e fo re subm ission to th e Commission fo r

such a c tio n as deemed ap p ro p ria te .

The R a te , A u d itin g and A ccounting Department *has th e resp o n si
b i l i t y o f a s sig n in g a l l ra te and s e c u r ity a p p lic a tio n s fo r h e a rin g . When e x h ib its are f i le d in th ese p ro cee d in gs, a d e ta ile d a n a ly s is i s made in order to determ ine i f th e ru le s o f th e Commission have been met and a t the h e a rin g , cross-exam ination o f w itnesses is conducted fo r ttie purpose o b rin g in g out th e fa c ts in each c a s e , thus a id in g th e Commission in reach in g a f a i r and e q u itab le d e c is io n . Subsequent to th e h e a rin g , and a fte r
th e Commission reaches a d e c is io n , orders are prepared and issu e d to implement th e d e cisio n reach ed . This department has th e tremendous ta sk
o f a u d itin g a l l m onthly, q u a rte rly and annual rep o rts re ce iv e d from u t i l i t i e s . I t is necessary to check fo r errors in accounting, accuracy o f d ata and conformance w ith th e uniform system o f a cco u n ts. When d is crepancies are found, these are c a lle d to the a tte n tio n o f the appropriate
u t i l i t i e s * o f f i c i a ls fo r c o r r e c tio n . Rate o f re tu rn stu d ie s are made

an n u ally and subm itted to th e Commission fo r such a c tio n as may be deemed ap propriate.
D espite th e shortage o f one en gin eer, one accou n tan t, and one sten ograph er, the U t i l i t i e s D iv isio n was ab le to perform in a c r e d ita b le manner. The need fo r a d d itio n a l person n el i s , however, fre q u e n tly r e fle c te d in delays in the p ro cessin g o f otherw ise ro u tin e m atte rs, m e Com m ission's in a b ilit y to f i l l vacan t s t a f f p o s itio n s has been due p r i m arily to the low sa la ry le v e l o ffe r e d . As a r e s u lt o f a study o f s t a f f engineering p o sitio n s w ithin the variou s agencies o f the S ta te govern m ent, ce rta in upgrades in sa la ry le v e ls o f engineering T u itio n s m th in th e en gin eerin g s t a f f o f th e Commission were recommended by th e S ta te M e rit System , Upon the Com m ission's co n sid e ratio n o f th e proposed ad-^ ju stm en ts, th e recommendation was r e je c te d . The e x is tin g s t a f f v acan cies th e re fo re rem ain u n f ille d . The w ork-load i s co n sta n tly in c r e a s in g , because o f th e tremendous growth in p o p u latio n and the corresponding expansion o f u t i l i t y se rv ice throughout th e S ta te .
-35-

DECISIONS AND ORDERS

A p p lica tio n s fo rm a lly heard by th e Commission are g e n e ra lly taken under advisem ent and d e cisio n s thereon are issu e d a t a la t e r d a t e .. The Commission issu e d k2 d e cisio n s and orders during th e year in proceedings in v o lv in g u t i l i t i e s . A c la s s ific a t io n o f the proceedings in which form al opinions and orders were issu e d fo llo w s :

A pp lication s fo r C e rtific a te s or C an cellation Thereof * 2

A p p lica tio n s fo r A u th o rity to Issu e S e c u r itie s or Borrow Money . . . 20

Rate Adjustm ent Proceedings * . . . . . . . . * 8

A p p lica tio n s fo r A u th o rity to Purchase and T ransfer U t i li t y P ro p erties . . . . . ...................... . . . . 0

A p p lica tio n s fo r Amendments o f C e r tific a te s

...................................... k

A p p lica tio n s fo r Amendments o f R ules and R egu latio n s

3

Show Cause P ro c e e d in g s ...........................................................................................................* 0

G eneral Orders ................................. . . . . . . . . . . . 5

APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OR CANCELLATION THEREOF

Docket No. 2113-U Ju ly 1 1 , 1969
Non-Docket December 3 , 1969

A p p lica tio n o f A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company fo r D istrib u tio n System C e r tific a te o f P u b lic Convenience and N e ce ssity Covering P o rtio n o f Meriwether County, G e o rg ia .
C e r tific a te o f the Georgia P u b lic S erv ice Commission subm itted to th e S e cre ta ry o f Trans p o rtation under Section 5(a) o f the N atural Gas P ip e lin e S a fe ty A ct o f 1968.

APPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SECURITIES OR BORROW MONEY

Docket No. 2121-U October 27, 1969

A p p lic a tio n o f A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company fo r a u th o rity to is su e and s e l l not more than $25, 000,000 aggregate p r in c ip a l amount o f
F ir s t Mortgage Bonds, __________ % due ___________________ FIRST AMENDATORY ORDER.

- 36-

Docket No. 2121-U Ju ly 30, 1969
Docket No. 2122-U September 1 1 , 1969
Docket No. 2122-U September 3s 19&9
Docket No. 209^-U June 19s 19^9
Docket No. 209^-U Jan uary 1 7 , 19&9
Non-Docket November 6 , 1969
Docket No. 2126-U October 16, 1969 Docket No. 2127-U October 16, 1969

A p p lica tio n o f A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company fo r

au th o rity to issu e and s e ll a t com petitive

b id d in g not more than $25,000,000 aggregate

p r in c ip a l amount o f F ir s t M ortgage Bonds,

lo due

.

A p p lica tio n o f Savannah E le c t r ic and Power Company fo r a u th o rity to issu e and s e l l through investm ent bankers and fo r p riv a te placem ent approxim ately $10,000,000 in 15-month prom issory notes a t an in te r e s t ra te and co st o f placem ent to be d e te r mined by n e g o tia tio n w ith one or more investm ent b an kers. FIRST AMENDATORY ORDER.

A p p lica tio n o f Savannah E le c t r ic and Power Company fo r a u th o rity to is su e and s e l l through investm ent bankers and fo r p r iv a te placem ent approxim ately $10,000,000 in 15-month prom issory notes a t an in te r e s t ra te and co st o f placem ent to be d eter mined by n e g o tia tio n w ith one or more investm ent
bankers

A p p lica tio n o f G eorgia Power Company fo r a u th o rity to issu e and s e l l $65,000,000 p r in c ip a l amount o f F ir s t M ortgage Bonds, 150,000 shares o f P referred Stock and 305,000 shares o f Common S to c k , as w e ll as a u th o rity to is su e $5,68^,000 p r in c ip a l amount o f i t s F ir s t Mortgage Bonds, ^ l/^>% S e rie s due 1995, fo r sin k in g fund pu rp oses. FIRST SUPPLE^
MENTAL ORDER.

A p p lica tio n o f G eorgia Fbwer Company fo r a u th o rity to is su e and s e l l $65, 000,000 p r in c ip a l amount o f F ir s t M ortgage Bonds, 150,000 shares o f P referred Stack and 305,000 shares o f Common S to c k , as w e ll as a u th o rity to is su e $5, 68^,000 p r in c ip a l amount
o f i t s F ir s t M ortage Bonds, h if&jo S e rie s due
1995, fo r sin k in g fund p u rp o ses.

A p p lication o f the U telw ico, In c . fo r au th ority to borrow an a d d itio n a l $1603000 p r in c ip a l amount from th e R ural E le c t r ific a t io n A d m in istra tio n ,
W ashington, D . C ,

A p p lica tio n o f W averly H a ll Telephone C o ., In c . fo r a u th o rity to borrow $560,000 p r in c ip a l amount from th e R ural E le c t r ific a t io n A d m in istra tio n .

A p p lica tio n o f P lan t Telephone & Power Company, In c . fo r a u th o rity to borrow $790,000 p r in c ip a l amount from th e R u ral E le c t r ific a t io n A d m in istratio n
" 37-

Non-Docket October 22, 1969
Docket No. 2117-U Ju ly 1 1 , 1969
Docket No. 2118-U Ju ly 1 1 , 1969
Docket N o. 2099-U Jlu y 1 1 , 1969
Docket No. 2119-W Ju ly 1 1 , 1969
Docket No. 2109-U Ju ly 2 , 1969
Docket No. 2096-U March 18, 1969
Docket No. 2097-U March 1 8 , 1969
Non-Docket Jan uary 2h, 1969

A p p lica tio n o f G eneral Telephone Company o f G eorgia fo r au th o rity to issu e and s e ll to it s p aren t, General Telephone & E le c tro n ic s C o rp o ratio n , 80,000 shares o f i t s $25 p ar v alu e p er share Common Stock fo r a cash co n sid e ra tio n o f $2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 .
A p p lica tio n o f G eneral Telephone Company o f the Southeast fo r au th o rity to issu e and s e ll a t th e par v alu e o f $25 per sh a re , fiv e hundred tw enty thousand (520,000) shares o f i t s Common S to ck ; and to s e l l Fourteen M illio n D o lla rs ($14,000,000) o f F ir s t M ortgage Bonds b e arin g an in te r e s t ra te n ot to exceed e ig h t and o n e -h a lf per cen t (8. 50%), and to apply the proceeds th e re o f to repay short-term lo a n s, and fo r other purposes.
A p p lica tio n o f B u llo ch County R u ral Telephone C o op erative, In c . fo r a u th o rity to borrow $1+55,000 p r in c ip a l amount from th e R ural E le c tr ific a t io n A d m in istration (''REA").
A p p lica tio n o f W ilkes Telephone & E le c t r ic Company fo r A u th o rity to borrow $2,378,000 p r in c ip a l amount from th e R u ral E le c t r ific a t io n A d m in istra tio n , W ashington, D . C .
A p p lica tio n o f G eorgia S ta te Telephone Company fo r a u th o rity to is s u e 9?1^3 shares o f i t s $100 par v alu e per share Common Stock as con sideratxon fo r th e settlem en t o f cash advances made by i t s "P a r e n t," C o n tin e n ta l Telephone C o rp o ratio n .
A p p lica tio n o f Pembroke Telephone Company, In c . fo r a u th o rity to borrow $3^5 3000 p r in c ip a l amount from th e R u ral E le c t r ific a t io n A d m in istratio n (REA), b earin g in te r e s t a t 2% p er annum.
A p p lica tio n o f P la n te rs R u ral Telephone C oop erative, In c . fo r a u th o rity to borrow $375,000 from th e R u ral E le c t r ific a t io n A d m in istratio n (REA), W ashington, D . C .
A p p lica tio n o f E xp ire Telephone Company fo r a u th o rity to borrow $1, 1+72,000 p r in c ip a l amount from th e R u ral E le c t r ific a t io n A d m in istra tio n , W ashington, D . C ,
A p p lica tio n o f Trenton Telephone Company o f T renton, G e o rg ia , fo r a u th o rity to is su e 910 a d d itio n a l shares o f i t s $100 par v alu e per share Common Stock*

-38-

eie



;; "

`/i:

O)p i .

Docket No, 2092-U Jan uary 17, 19&9
Docket No, 2090-U Jan uary 1 7 , 19&9

A p p lica tio n o f P ro gressiv e R u ral Telephone C o o p erativ e, I n c ., o f R en tz, G eo rgia, fo r a u th o rity to borrow $380,000 p r in c ip a l amount from REA.
A p p lication o f C oastal U t ilit ie s , In c . fo r au th ority to borrow an a d d itio n a l $69^,000 p r in c ip a l amount from R ural E le c t r ific a t io n A d m in istratio n ( REA ), W ashington, D . C .

RATE ADJUSTMENT PROCEEDINGS

Docket No. 2125-U October l 6 , 19&9
Docket N o, 2100-U Ju ly 1 1 , 19^9 Docket No, 2U 1-U Ju ly 2 , 1969
Docket N o, 2110-U Ju ly 2 , 1969 Docket N o. 2102-U May 5> 1969
Docket N o. 2103-U May 5 j 1969

A p p lica tio n o f W averly H a ll Telephone C o ., In c . fo r au th ority to ad ju st it s rates fo r lo c a l exchange s e rv ic e .
A p p lica tio n o f W ilkes Telephone & E le c t r ic Company fo r au th o rity to ad ju st it s rates fo r lo c a l exchange telephone s e r v ic e .
A p p lica tio n o f G eneral Telephone Company o f Georgia fo r au th o rity to ad ju st the rates fo r telephone s e rv ic e rendered from i t s Chatsworth exchange upon the establishm ent o f EAS (extended area s e rv ic e ) on c a lls made between th a t exchange and th e D alton exchange o f the Company .
A p p lica tio n o f Pembroke Telephone Company, In c . fo r au th ority to ad ju st it s rates fo r lo c a l exchange s e rv ic e .
A p p lica tio n o f G eneral Telephone Company o f th e Southeast fo r au th ority to ad ju st it s rates fo r telephone s e rv ic e rendered from i t s B yrom ville and U n a d illa exchanges upon th e estab lish m en t o f extended area or fr e e c a llin g s e rv ic e in Dooly County, G eorgia.
A p p lica tio n o f P lan t Telephone & Power Company, I n c ., fo r au th ority to ad ju st it s rates fo r telephone se rv ice rendered from i t s Pinehurst exchange upon th e establishm en t o f extended area or fr e e c a llin g s e rv ice in Dooly County, G eorgia.

-39-

Docket N o, 2104-U May 5 , 1969
Docket N o. 2098-U May 5 , 1969

A p p lic a tio n o f C itiz e n s Telephone Company, In c . fo r a u th o rity to a d ju st i t s ra te s fo r telephone se rv ice rendered from i t s Vienna exchange upon th e establishm ent o f extended area or fre e c a llin g se rv ice in Dooly County, G e o rg ia .
A p p lic a tio n o f Empire Telephone Company fo r au th ority to ad ju st it s rates fo r lo c a l exchange telephone s e r v ic e .

APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS OR CERTIFICATES

Docket N o. 2129-U November 6 , 1969
Docket N o. 2101-U Ju ly 29, 1969
Docket N o. 2093-U Jan uary 1 7 , 19&9
Docket N o. 2112-U June 25, 1969

A p p lic a tio n o f Standard Telephone Company fo r an Amendment to i t s C e r t ific a t e o f P u b lic Convenience and N e c e s s ity .
A p p lica tio n o f W ilkes Telephone and E le c t r ic Company fo r an Amendment to i t s C e r t ific a t e o f P u b lic Convenience and N e ce s sity No U13
A p p lica tio n o f Southern B e ll Telephone and Telegraph Company fo r Amendment o f C e r t ific a t e N o. 279 fo r th e co n stru ctio n and ownership o f t o l l lin e f a c i l i t i e s between th e Cordele Exchange and th e c e r t ifie d boundary o f Cordele in C risp County.
A p p lica tio n o f A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company fo r Amendment No. 3 to e x is tin g D is tr ib u tio n C e r t ific a t e N o. 85 to a u th o rize gas d is tr ib u tio n se rv ice to a d d itio n a l area in Bacon County.

APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS OF RULES AND REGULATIONS

Docket N o. 17W+-U November 25, 19&9
Docket No. 2128-U November lU , 1969

A p p lica tio n fo r f i l i n g o f a supplement to th e Savannah E le c t r ic and Power Company's R ules and R egulations p e rta in in g to "S p e c ia l Prom otional Allow ances" fo r e le c t r ic se rv ice to be rendered to resid en ces and apartm ents. FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER.
A p p lica tio n o f G eorgia Bower Company fo r an in crease in reconnection charges and the establishm ent o f se rv ice connection charges by re v isio n o f i t s Rules and R egu lations fo r E le c tric Serv ice.

-U0-

snod^ild l o i sodisi at i crai^b ot -ytiiodtxxjB
so x ! io sous ushasm lo d*jnr>3f8lld a ta s dt .-rBiosO ytryjoO ylooCl ni soiv is 3 gniXXo

JS O o l l o i :r;jv?o; r.J j; ta x / J^ o t y t i i o t i f B
dJhnsa snodqolst g^ado; 3

%; \ l ,i 'ai-i

sjtaoitlthsd ho s-:iim i T BIOTTA

P bXliXPf"S lo noit,s

Olle

j % i 0,j

l ,

: onotplor e$oL. tS ltlSv) a ti od tiSC`'';:f>:D:,A
ytiBaeoof! !

ZO
01JL

SISSST 1

:*XsT Iis?

t

i , oli 'llit is O to triomiJilSff TO'

s rii' bi *ytmioO ejaj

jswtscf as lt ; : - '

8: ynacpoO :.UJUt..if^,,X.uT. - ..O 4StiSB.lvfA lo no

eu-

5 F . ot:

1" ai l

$ off

. "iJxruoO >fvii t: i

SitI'. :

;i. a;'S ylirT C-dPI ,
u. s u s cCn

ot tnsiGsi'qgxra .s `j *IiK a*iffiCfiOl is\
oJbvisa erais 7 :P tn*

T d ii OT aifOITAOIJPi
tt.: PPI , <*S !'

rua 101 ynBcjpQ iswo' slsiosD to noitcip|A
ft IB ES>}*xBO noxtosfnoosi n i Oc , l >lC*.C;i soplido 1-o to&uno0 visa lo tnsfffiisildates l o i 3Xoitj3iJ.i^H in s bsJ xtH a t i l o n o ia iv s i yd
, ojhrxe*' =iito IK

U-B:,;.. ol 9ooC
o:;i t isdaovo

Docket No, 201-U November 255 19&9
Docket No. 2108-U December 17? 19&9
Docket N o. 2027-U November 25? 19&9 Docket N o. 2080-U November 25 s 19&9 Docket N o. 212U-U October 27> 19^9
Non-Docket March 18, 19&9

A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company R ules and R egu latio n s For Gas Main E xten sion and S e rv ice Connections For Apartments and M u ltip le D w elling P r o je c ts .
GENERAL ORDERS
P e titio n o f G eorgia Power Company Com plaining o f A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company' s O n -S ite G eneration and S a le o f E le c t r ic Energy W ithout C harter A u th o rity and W ithout th e E x e rcise o f Commission Rate and Other Ju r is d ic tio n Thereover.
In v e stig a tio n o f r a te s , prom otional p ra c tic e s and allow ances o f G eorgia Power Company, A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company and Gas L ig h t Company o f Columbus
A p p lica tio n o f Savannah E le c t r ic & Power Company fo r a u th o rity to e s ta b lis h Prom otional Allow ance Programs
A p p lica tio n o f G eorgia S ta te Telephone Company fo r a u th o rity to e s ta b lis h new ra te s fo r t e le phone s e rv ic e rendered from i t s Odum and Screven exchanges upon the establishm ent o f extended area or fr e e c a llin g s e rv ic e between those exchanges and the Jesu p exchange o f Southern B e ll Telephone and Telegraph Company.
A p p lica tio n o f G eneral Telephone Company o f G eorgia fo r consent to en ter in to tem porary loan s w ith banks and w ith the parent corporation fo r a p eriod o f tw elve m onths, fo r renew al o f notes o utstan d in g, and fo r other purposes.

-la-

LICENSES ISSUED FOR SERVICE OBSERVING EQUIE4ENT

COMPANY
Gw innett County Water System Kern M anufacturing Corp. Answering S e r v ic e , In c ,
d/b/a Answering A tla n ta G E X , In c . o f A tlan ta Emery A ir F re ig h t Corp. General Foods Corp. L ife C ircu la tio n C o ., In c . A tla n ta T ra n sit System , In c . G u lf American Corp. B elle In te rio rs, In c, A tlan ta P o lice Dept. Avon Products Ivan A llen Regency H yatt House Consolidated P u b lication s o f
G a ., In c . G u lf American Corp. Benson C h evrolet C o. C red. Bureau o f Macon
C o lle ctio n Service U nited P arcel S e r v ., In c . D . L . Clabom Buick

LICENSE NO.
45 k6
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
59
60 61
62
63 64

DATE ISSUED
1 /2 9 /6 9 1 /2 4 /6 9
1 /2 9 /6 9 2 /5 /6 9
4/23/69
4 /2 3 /6 9 4 /2 3 /6 9 6 /5/69 6 /5/69 7 /7/69 7 /1 4 /6 9 7 /3 1 /6 9 8 /6/69 1 0 /1 6 /6 9
n /1 2 /6 9 u /1 2 /6 9 1 1 /1 3 /6 9
n /1 3 /6 9 1 2 /1 0 /6 9 1 2 /1 7 /6 9

SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AMD TELEGRAPH COMPANY
Station A c tiv ity - General T otal telep h on es in se r v ic e fo r Southern B e ll in G eorgia a t th e
end o f 1969 were 1 , 911, 225. This rep resen ts an in crea se in t o t a l t e l e phones fo r th e year o f 141, 986. The inward movement was 6l l , 3095 and th e outward telep h o n e movement was 456, 995 A lso , 1 0 ,0 2 3 telep h o n es were tra n sferred to South C arolina op eration s during th e y ea r.
The improvement in se r v ic e c o n tin u e s. As o f th e end o f th e y ea r, 8 4 .5 p ercen t o f th e resid en ce custom ers had in d iv id u a l lin e s e r v ic e . This i s th e h ig h est percentage o f one-party lin e serv ice in th e four s ta te s th a t Southern B e ll se r v e s.
The number o f fa m ilie s w ith telep h o n es in G eorgia served by Southern B e ll con tin u es to in crea se; now, approxim ately 8 2 .0 p ercen t o f a l l fa m ilie s have telep h on e se r v ic e . New s e r v ic e s and equipment are b ein g developed con tin u ou sly in order to keep ab reast o f custom ers1 needs fo r
- 42-

new and expanded s e r v ic e . A ll t o ld , th e Company made fo rty -o n e t a r i f f f ili n g s during th e p a st y e a r . O f m ajor s ig n ific a n c e i s th e new in te r connection t a r i f f p ro v id in g fo r connection w ith customer-owned equipm ent. T his i s a departure from th e Company* s p a st p o lic y which preclu ded any connection w ith any equipment o th er than th a t owned by th e Company.

D irect D istance D ialin g O f th e t o t a l number o f main s e rv ice s in Southern B e ll in

G e o rg ia , 78.8 p ercen t now have access to th e D ire c t D istan ce D ia lin g

netw ork, and th e company i s proceeding w ith p lan s to expand t h is s e r v ic e .

The percen t custom er-dialed lo n g d ista n ce c a lls in 19&9 'w&s

percent o f

the to ta l c a lls .

C onstruction During th e year 1969, Southern B e ll sp en t approxim ately one^
hundred and t h ir t y e ig h t m illio n d o lla r s in G eorgia fo r new c o n stru ctio n to provide f a c ilit ie s needed to serve i t s custom ers.

Band M ileage During th e y e a r, th e Clermont Exchange was c rea ted and band
m ileage charges were a p p lie d . As o f th e end o f 1989 s 51 1 p ercen t o f th e exchanges were applying m ileage charges on a band b a s is .
E ig h t-P a rty E lim in a tio n and S e rv ice Improvements in Suburban Areas During th e year 1969, Southern B e ll spent approxim ately
$6 , 985,000 in gross co n stru ctio n in i t s program o f e lim in a tin g e ig h tp a rty s e rv ic e and fo r se rv ice improvements in th e suburban a re a s . During the y e a r, 50,316 new customers were served o u tsid e th e Base Rate Area and 2,972 e ig h t-p a rty customers were regraded to h igh er c la s s e s o f se r v ic e . A t th e end o f the y e a r, e ig h t-p a rty se rv ice represented only 2 .8 p ercen t o f t o t a l customers serv ed .

Extended Area S ervice During I9&9, two B e ll exchanges were g iv en extended area
s e r v ic e w ith C onnecting Company exch anges. Jesup was connected w ith Odum and Screven w h ile Woodstock r e c e iv e d extended cal l in g w ith Canton.

Customer Savings The expanded extended area c a llin g reduced annual custom er
b il lin g $10,215.
Changes in the a p p lica tio n o f m ileage charges and the reduction o f ra te s to c e r ta in lo c a lit y r a te areas due to area tr a n s fe r between exchanges i s expected to r e s u lt in annual savin gs to th e Company*s cus tomers o f $10,600. The cre a tio n o f th e Clerm ont exchange w ith a base ra te area and band m ileage is expected to save the custom ers in th a t area alm ost $22,900 on an annual b a s is .
T o ta l annual savin gs to custom ers due to 1969 a c t iv it y is expected to be $^3j 700.

Employees and Wages

#

Southern B e ll employs 18,000 people in G e o rg ia , which is an

in crea se o f 1,700 sin ce Jan uary 1 , 19&9

obtain th is in crea se, the

Company h ire d over 9 5200 new people and lo s t 7 s500,

During 1969, Southern B e ll p a id i t s employees in G eorgia an amount in excess o f $120, 37^,000 in s a la r ie s and w ages.

During the p a st y e a r . Southern B e ll in G eorgia p a id in lo c a l and S ta te ta xe s an amount in excess o f $20,^22,000. In a d d itio n , G eorgia telephone customers p a id over $3,675,000 to th e S ta te in s a le s ta x .
Rate Adjustm ent The ra te s which Southen B e ll p re se n tly charges fo r in tr a s ta te
se rv ice are g e n e ra lly those au th o rized by th e Commission' s Order o f November 1 , 1951, w ith c e r ta in s e le c tiv e m o d ifica tio n s made from tim e to tim e . On August 5 , 1969, Southern B e ll f i le d a p e tit io n fo r an adjustm ent in in tr a s ta te ra te s and charges which would produce a t le a s t $29,750,000 in a d d itio n a l annual gross reven u es.
A p u b lic h earin g was h e ld October 29-30, 1969* B rio r to th e h e a rin g s, Southern B e ll reduced i t s requested adjustm ent to produce $25,500,000 in a d d itio n a l annual gross revenue because o f expected reductions in ta x e s.

INDEPENDENT OPERATIONS
In 1875, the f i r s t Independent telephone exchanges in Georgia were p la ced in o p e ra tio n . By 1930, w h ile th ere were over 60 companies in e x is te n c e , th e t o t a l telephones numbered o n ly 32, 000, w ith a t o t a l in v e s t ment o f o n ly $3 ,5 0 0 ,0 00 . However, a t th e end o f year 1969, th e kh in dependent telephone companies had in v e ste d over $150 m illio n in p la n t and were serv in g over 300,000 o f th e 2,000,000 telephones in G e o rg ia . These companies serve over 50$ of* th e s t a t e ' s area and o perate 235 o f th e s t a t e ' s 375 exchanges.
The in d u stry has been in vo lved in an enormous expansion program in order to keep pace w ith th e in cre a sin g demand fo r new s e rv ic e and to continue a h igh q u a lity o f se rv ice to e x is tin g custom ers. For exam ple, sin ce 1950, p opu lation in the Independent areas has in creased le s s than 25 p e rce n t, w h ile telephones have more than quadrupled. To meet th is demand th e Independent companies have in v ested m illio n s o f d o lla r s in s t a llin g new c e n tra l o ff ic e equipm ent, b u ild in g and in s t a llin g hundreds o f m iles o f microwave f a c i l i t i e s , p ro v id in g thousands o f m iles o f a d d itio n a l communication c ir c u it s , co n stru ctin g b u ild in g s and purchasin g the thousands o f item s o f m a te ria l and su p p lies needed to provide modem

communications se rv ice -- over 150 m illio n d o lla r s as compared w ith about 20 m illio n in 1950,
Telephone Bank B i l l L e g is la tio n Throughout th e s ta t e , thousands o f telephone su b scrib ers are
served as a r e s u lt o f th e Telephone -Amendment to th e R u ral E le c t r ific a t io n A c t, Today, however, many G eorgia REA borrowers fin d them selves fo rce d to cu t back on fo re ca ste d needs because telephone lo a n ap p ro p riatio n s do not meet the o v e ra ll requirem ents. I t is q u ite n a tu ra l, th e n ,to fin d support from among th e s ta t e ' s 31 REA companies fo r H , R , 7 5 th e telephone bank b i l l , as a means o f supplem ental fin a n c in g to th e p resen t 2% telephone lo a n program. Should t h is B i l l p a s s , th ere would be a gradu al movement by th e REA companies to th e com m ercial money m arkets, thereby e v e n tu a lly r e lie v in g the government o f much o f i t s r e s p o n s ib ility fo r fin a n cin g r u r a l telephone s e r v ic e s .
New O p p o rtu n ities Tn th e realm o f new o p p o rtu n itie s we o b serve, f i r s t , the
u n fo ld in g te ch n o lo g ica l re v o lu tio n w ith in telecom m unications. Beyond th e tremendous s ig n ific a n c e to th e e n tir e in d u stry o f EDP and com p u te rize d com m unication, th ere are alm ost lim it le s s p o s s ib ilit ie s fo r fu tu re broad-band c a p a b ility - - clo sed c ir c u it te le v is io n , autom atic read in g o f e le c t r ic , g a s , and water m eters, p riv a te alarm system s, even d ata sto rage and r e tr ie v a l tran sm issio n fo r home as w e ll as in d u s t r y , The Independent companies are s o lid ly p o sitio n e d w ith in the f i e l d and ap p aren tly in ten d to remain s o . In a d d itio n , th ese companies reco gn ize th e m arketing im p lica tio n s o f th e F ed eral Communications Commission' s Carterphone d e cisio n and are making p lan s to en ter th e com p etitive m arket w ith f u ll- s c a le s a le s campaigns fo r sen try alarm system s, conver sa tio n a m p lifie r s , recorded answering d e v ic e s, paging attachm ents, and o th er equipm ent.

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY
The number o f customers served by G eorgia Power Company during 1969 in creased by 27,071 fo r a t o t a l o f 953,867 a t year end. O f th ese new custom ers, 23,685 were new r e s id e n tia l custom ers. Commercial and in d u s tr ia l customers in crea sed by 3, 298.
A t year end, a t o t a l o f 3 9 ,^+6U o f th e Company*s custom ers in v ario u s c la s s ific a t io n s were re c e iv in g e le c t r ic s e rv ice by means o f ^ underground d is tr ib u tio n systems rath e r than through overhead d is tr ib u tio n system s.
During th e y e a r, G eorgia Power Company' s r e s id e n tia l customers in crea sed th e ir average use o f e le c t r ic it y over 1968 by 732 k ilo w a tth o u rs, to a t o t a l o f 7,9^0 k ilo w a tt-h o u rs. This c la s s ific a t io n o f customers p a id an average o f o n ly 1,65 cen ts per k ilo w a tt-h o u r, 21.1 percent le s s than the n atio n al average p r ic e .
The Company' s la r g e s t annual co n stru ctio n budget e v e r, amounting to more than $203 m illio n , was in v ested in new g e n e ra tin g , d is tr ib u tio n and tran sm ission f a c i l i t i e s in 1969. New g en eratin g f a c i l i t i e s com pleted and p la ced in se rv ice during th e year were two combustion tu rb in e u n its fo r P lan t A rkw right, near Macon, w ith a combined c a p a c ity o f 32,61*0 k ilo w a tts , and U n it No. k o f 1*90,000 k ilo w a tts c a p a c ity a t P lan t H a rlle e Branch, near M ille d g e v ille , In v ario u s stages o f co n stru ctio n a t year end were an 800.000 k ilo w a tt ca p a city u n it a t th e Edwin I . Hatch N uclear P la n t, two 750.000 k ilo w a tt ca p a city u n its a t the Etowah p la n t s i t e , U n it No. k o f 500.000 k ilo w a tt ca p a city a t P lan t Hammond, and two 1*0,000 kilow att^ ca p a c ity combustion tu rb in es a t P lan t A tk in so n . New gen eratin g f a c i l i t i e s under co n stru ctio n a t year end to ta le d 2 , 780,000 k ilo w a tts c a p a c ity .
C o n stru ctio n on 207 m iles o f new tran sm issio n lin e s was com pleted by year end. O f th e s e , l 6l m iles were 230-kv lin e s and 1*6 m iles were 500-kv lin e s . D is trib u tio n lin e s com pleted during 1969 to ta le d 593 m ile s . New Su b statio n s b u ilt in 1969 to ta le d 1*3.
Company investm ent in u t i l i t y p la n t , le s s re tire m e n ts, in creased in 1969 by $188 m illio n to a t o t a l o f over $1 .5 b i llio n a t year end. A fte r deducting th e accum ulated p ro v isio n fo r d e p re cia tio n , th e n et investm ent a t o r ig in a l co st in u t i l i t y p la n t aggregated $1 ,2 2 1 ,5 6 5 ,0 0 0 . This amount, when ap p lied to th e Bureau o f Labor S t a t is t ic s Index fo r pu rchasin g power o f th e d o lla r as measured by consumer p r ic e s , would in cre a se to $1 , 695, 117, 000.

November 25, 1969
File Nos. 19314, 19367, 19462
Docket No. 2027-U

In Re:

Investigation of rates, promotional practices and allowances of Georgia Power Company, Atlanta Gas Light Company and Gas Light Company of Columbus._____________

APPEARANCES

For Georgia Power Company:
Roy McCracken, Attorney, Augusta, Georgia Robert S. Sams, Attorney, Atlanta, Georgia William H. Schroder, Attorney, Atlanta, Georgia Gerald P. Thurmond, Attorney, Atlanta, Georgia

For Atlanta Gas Light Company:
John Boman, Attorney, Atlanta, Georgia John Boone, Attorney, Atlanta, Georgia Allen Post, Attorney, Atlanta, Georgia George L. Smith, Attorney, Swainsboro, Georgia

For Gas Light Company of Columbus:

Charles L. Gowen, Attorney, Atlanta, Georgia Furman Smith, Attorney, Atlanta, Georgia

For Intervenors:
A. A. Alaimo, Attorney for Georgia LP Gas Association, Inc. J. Owen Forrester, Representing Georgia Piping Promotional
Trust Mechanical Contractors Alvin Leaphart, Representing Georgia LP Gas Association, Inc. William J. Wiggins, Representing Georgia Oil Jobbers
Association, Carrollton, Georgia Harold L. Willingham, Attorney, Marietta, Georgia, Representing
the City of Austell, Georgia

S joM sais-*, bn zpottoenci l wb if-iROT."; ,fH/i t.A '}< .*>?t* tif'id &BrJ qJn ttliA ,,va'iwoO tutcfl tX^rioyC ib
2. ' jL ^ S J i^ ' jo-eD ,t" 'i^uAhip^iwrio11A
i* -*'''jljpty* Bf] 3jHp;?a? \ !/

. X ito li oaso'i< qiO i^-ioeO gcii.5fjeEO*s-.?s)l

rw- , t

Docket No. 2027-U

-2-

For the Commission:
R. B. Alford, Director of Utilities Division Alexander Cocalis, Assistant Attorney General Frank G. Heald, Senior Auditor Coy Johnson, Assistant Attorney General
BY THE COMMISSION:
In consideration of complaints and petitions received by the Commission with regard to certain rates, promotional practices and allowances of the Georgia Power Company (hereinafter referred to as "Georgia Power") and counter complaints from Georgia Power against similar practices of the gas companies, the Commission assigned for Tuesday, March 21, 1967, a public hearing involving all such rates and promotional practices and allowances of Georgia Power, Atlanta Gas Light Company (hereinafter referred to as "Atlanta Gas") and Gas Light Company of Columbus (hereinafter referred to as "Columbus Gas").
The hearing set for March 21, 1967, was held as scheduled and the hearings continued off and on at various dates through September 1, 1967, when the matter was recessed pending further order of the Commission. The record in this proceeding comprises 1,623 pages of testimony and cross-examination thereon and a very substantial number of exhibits tendered by the Companies involved, and includes a number of additional exhibits submitted by the parties at the direction of the Commission. Since the evidence in this proceeding now appears to be complete, the Commission finds that further public hearing is not necessary.
The issues in this proceeding involve the following basic questions:
(a) What rates, promotional practices, and allowances are offered, used or followed by the public utilities who are parties to this proceeding in connection with the furnishing or the offer to furnish in Georgia of either electric energy or gas for heat, light, power or other purposes;
(b) Whether said electric and gas rates, promotional practices, and allowances are in violation of the laws of Georgia or the rules and regulations of this Commission;
(c) Whether said electric and gas rates, promotional practices, and allowances are fair, equitable and nondiscrirainatory;
(d) What action, if any, should be taken by the Commission in the public interest with respect to any such rates, promo tional practices, and allowances.
Opening statements were made by attorneys representing Georgia Power,v Atlanta Gas and Columbus Gas, indicating to the Commission their respective positions and attorneys for other interested parties did likewise.

it

\a,

,- o*

at ifinqmoO erti

y |li''

Docket No. 2027-U

-3-

Witnesses for Georgia Power contended that (1) increased use of energy by customers resulted in decreased cost per unit, (2) the promotional plans used by it and its present rates are in the public interest, (3) the load growth has primarily been stimulated from such plans and rates and they have improved the system load factor to the extent that all customers have received the benefit of more efficient operation, (4) Georgia Power welcomes competition and will abide by all of the rules and regulations on file with the Commission, (5) all of the promotional plans and practices in use by Atlanta Gas or Columbus Gas should likewise be filed with the Commission for the information of all concerned and (6) every rate of Georgia Power is more or less promotional, and since 1953, the peak load has shifted from winter to the summer which is resulting in more sales effort to sell energy during the periods where peaks do not exist.
Considerable testimony was given by Witness Browder of Georgia Power concerning the Residential Optional Rate Schedule TE-2. This was stated to be a promotional or "full use" rate designed for customers desiring a home totally dependent upon electricity for lighting, space heating, air conditioning, miscellaneous appliances and residential power. This rate, stated to encourage the use of electric heat to fill the valley period which occurs in the winter, is an annual rate with "budget billing" each month. Under the "budget billing" plan the customer is furnished with an estimate of the amount of the annual bill which, when divided by twelve months, results in an equal amount to be paid each month. At the end of the twelve month period, the customer may have a credit due or may owe the Company, depending upon the difference between the actual and estimated use. According to the exhibits, customers on Rate Schedule TE-2 in 1966 averaged 23,184 kilowatt-hours which was about five times the usage of the residential customer on the regular Residential Schedule A-12. Rate Schedule A-12 itself has somewhat of a promotional feature in that it provides for a 2/10 cent discount per kilowatt-hour during the four winter months December through March inclusive for all energy used over 1,250 kilowatt-hours per month. This rate also contains a promotional block for water heating which is 300 kilowatt-hours at one cent each.
Witnesses for Atlanta Gas and Columbus Gas testified that Optional Residential Rate TE-2 presently authorized for Georgia Power, has mislead and deceived the public and that the deception has been intensified by the use of the Residential Wiring Plan for apartments and residences. It was pointed out that the "estimates" made by Georgia Power of its customers' annual bill when divided into twelve equal installments do not show the actual consumption by months. It was contended that efforts by the customer to obtain specific information for a particular month had proved futile, and that only when an annual billing period ends is he able to find out how much refund, if any, is due or how much more additional money he owes Georgia Power for the energy consumed. These witnesses charge that numerous customers have been mislead as to the extent of their electric bills because of budget billing as well as by miscalculation of the estimated annual bill and that the misleading effect is made even more vicious when accompanied by total electric advertising which leads customers to believe that budget billing offers a great saving.

Docket No. 2027-U

-4-

Witness Browder in rebuttal testimony stated that the TE--2 rate in the first place is an optional rate and does not have to be selected by the customer, although it is more economical for total electric customers, that the whole concept of the rate is designed to arrive at the customer's annual cost for all-electric usage and that experience had clearly shown that the vast majority of the customers using it much prefer the equal amount budget billing each month as compared to widely varying bills. Mr. Browder contended that complaints from customers being billed on a budget basis are insignificant in number considering that they represent less than one tenth of one per cent of the 30,000 such customers; that since the establishment of the TE-2 rate, sales engineers have gained a great deal of experience in estimating with the result that estimates for the annual bills are now much closer than originally and that any customer can obtain the credit or debit balance of his total electric bill in any month by simply calling a Georgia Power representative in the district from which service is rendered.
Witnesses for Atlanta Gas and Columbus Gas complained that the tie-in arrangements of Georgia Power's Rates C-8, C-9, and C-10 suppressed and restrained competition and created unreasonable and discriminatory rates and charges among users of electric energy. Hie witnesses further claimed that certain customers are offered another industrial rate that is not legally applicable when and if new electrical loads are connected to the existing system, thus depriving those customers of the choice of gas for a particular operation. Georgia Power witness, Browder, took the position that the rate application for the industrial customers concerned was correct and in no way discriminatory.
Witnesses for Atlanta Gas and Columbus Gas gave testimony that Georgia Power's General Service Rate Schedule B-10, as currently being applied to customers' loads, suppressed and restrained competition; is unfair and discriminatory and results in higher rates for those customers under different rate schedules; and that, in numerous cases, the application of the "counted demand" feature for customers who qualified under this section of the rate results in a negative "cost" for the additional energy consumed. These witnesses further testified that the method used by Georgia Power in determining the kilowatt demand for customers who qualify under the "counted demand" section allows salesmen to compute electric bills on a subjective basis, and that this procedure is now considered to be obsolete and unsatisfactory for the following reasons:
(1) Availability of better demand meters and combination energy and demand meters at progressively lower costs.
(2) Elimination of the cost of counting and recounting connected loads and the cost of policing such load counts.
(3) Hie Attachment by customers of loads without knowledge of the utility, thus avoiding full payment for service actually rendered.
(4) Difficulties experienced in achieving uniformity in and control of, connected load counts by employees.

:ic r:~j mit

I : odj ?! / ' <4u,S,*;

i l i io (.aw J asv vdt i Rifj nv.ods

' . - i f (d

;}nvm

" 0 - " -* J ?rc ,-:. . rrai ar? :

3fclii JllfB&l erti rit|w ;$fl f 1i xd j -fo si o 1e?o r ai i

a.tan v-r . B

-
>aq i z
roa ?>j?.o ;'% etstotano ao'ti
I?. $ ; : > boni 5 9vad
lse I -,
SqiBOO bflloii8t -guo ijft a
" f'-OflW O ;f'. d<;3

fcb i9bau *yn< fjtia i ?/

- .j ,

<

- -, . , .j

1UOOV! bfIS
. '(1i a sdiviof ;`io`i -

Docket No. 2027-U

- 5-

(5) Difficulties encountered in avoiding discrimination and preference because load counts are not periodically and properly made.
(6) The method did not provide a consistent and equitable basis for taking into account customer load diversification.
(7) The impairment of customer relations due to misunder standing and disputes concerning the count of connected load.
Witness Bostick characterized the ''counted ^demand -feature as a ''finagling'' factor which exists only in order to permit Georgia Power salesmen to make whatever subjective adjustments are necessary to get the business. This witness intended that, despite Georgia Power's insistence to the contrary, the ''counted demand" section of the rate has been modified and revised repeatedly through the years, and that, beginning in early 1950, modifications were made which fashioned the ''counted demand" feature into a tool for Georgia Power to utilize in excluding competing sources of energy. This witness pointed out that this rate is a Wright-Demand type rate under which usage of nominal demand determines when the customer reaches the lowest step of the rate and that, therefore, any language in the rate that permits changing, waiving, juggling or tampering with the demand, becomes most important and is the lever which produces unjust discrimination. Exhibits were presented by this witness illustrating how a customer with a given usage and actual demand will have significantly lower average costs if portions of his actual demand are waived. ^ This witness pointed out that once a customer qualifies for the counted demand rate, certain kilowatt loads are not counted for billing purposes and that this waiver of demand charges, and not of actual demand for which Georgia Power has installed facilities, produces an actual drain on the system. It wqs contended that all cooking and heating loads are waived as well as the demand for air conditioning if the equipment is operated exclusively by electricity, that vacant light sockets and wall outlets are not included in the ''counted demand , and that only 80% of the lighting load, and only 50% to 60% of the demand for electric motors are counted. It was pointed out that the General Service customers must have electricity for lighting, small motors, etc., and therefore become Georgia Power's "captive load" and that such waiving of demand for customers who utilized electricity for noncaptive loads results in Georgia Power utilizing its monopoly as a lever to coerce customers into boycotting competing sources of energy.
Witness Browder of Georgia Power, gave extensive testimony and presented exhibits which explained in detail how the General Service Rate Schedule B-10 was being applied to customers' use. Broadly speaking, the policy of Georgia Power was stated to be to encourage full energy use by all its customers and to provide efficient low cost service to all regardless of the nature or extent of their use. This General Service Rate was conceded to be a promotional rate in that the unit cost decreases with higher use and is applicable to all types of commercial customers. It is contended to be unique,

r- Sii 0 T ir i 9 l fcfifGOb. b & ia u o o " fit

. c>i u ,

rom s s i ft awoq 8 3 1 0 9 O

o l e b i t a i y 1no a ia r x o H o ir ie jo io fil " u n t i ^

. e e e n ie u d rii J e s o y i s a e p e a i e in e m <r u t b o v i i e e d i / a n w a t * if e d i t v i B J t t o o erii o e o n o i e i a n i a ' ie w o *1 jn o a D j<

y i b e i c e q e 'i b o e iv o ': b n s b e i' r boa n e e d a s d q j f n i i *to n o t i ^ b " hn - t 1 *

obfoe e i e v s n o i i s s i l i bom O rO i y l i s - jt v-nrno * ^ rd

j.n .e

o le v a c i g jtstp e D 1 0 I X o o a o t a i oTw*it**'t ' 'v ...,

....... ,, ,, >

u c > b e j a i o o ^ e n i ; w s / ?fT

I n n i non i o anew liorrfw lahnn 8JS J >..........'ft oiiKn,,ei!- ...n,:itv ai J ai axfti

i . '. ;

: < . -, '

>v'.?.Ti J ; ' t fcitfn Ou J I DC font ' . n >. i

/ !

' f J ;
i 1 o i bneroeb di ea lle v

0 e r t i i e r i ; t u o b o i n i o q ajsw i

'TU

; fiV ff

; .y

n i v i W fi O liti .t ftri h tiR

V. ; ' *'** i li'.

;; 1 5"*> f.(* r-i*f

3 0 i t o - yod o n i

bna yrtomi i e o i o v i & n & s x o a v e s e*;l epivisS i m e n e o erti wori .

...

,,*,m m n^m-x- fr rv ..

. y S ? I'

lu

' h e i i. ? ; . .=n se d y*.' o i -- ,<j X u b e r i e fi iu o o n o i od o be ix M g t,uv- i w * i - i o e O i o y o i l
i eoo woi in e io x i bxvoi? o bna eieotoau e i ie n o O e i r i l - obu t i . M * t r . e ix e 1 0 o in t

Docket No. 2027-U

-6-

however, in that it provides for the determination of a billing demand by two alternative methods, namely:
(1) Demand meter measurement
(2) "Load Count" of the customers' electrical equipment
This witness' explanation of this rate was as follows:
"The kilowatt demand load is "counted" where customers qualify by having 40% of the total electrical load in cooking and/or heating equipment. This results in all energy in excess of 200 times the kilowatt demand being billed at one cent per killowatt-hour. Therefore, a customer with a relatively small amount of demand which is "counted" and has a high energy usage, would have an electric bill with a much lower average cost per kilowatt-hour than a customer whose demand was measured or did not qualify for the "counted demand" feature. Under the "counted demand" measurement, however, the kilowatt demand figure remains constant for each month and is independent of equipment use. The kilowatt demand figure is determined by adding the manufacturers specified loads of certain of the customers' electrical equipment. Only a percentage of the lighting, refirgeration and miscellaneous power loads are considered in the calculation of the "counted demand" figure. All air conditioning, ventilating, water heating, cooking, space heating and process heating loads are eliminated from the billing demand. Thus, it is evident that the "counted demand" figure will only be a fraction of the actual measured demand since the above cited loads may be used at any time without the demand charge incurred by the measured demand method. All of the customers' electrical service must be supplied through one meter. This results in a high year-round use of energy and a more balanced electrical load, both winter and summer, for which the rate allows a much lower cost per kilowatt-hour. Consequently, the "counted demand" option of General Service Rate B-10 makes it possible to buy an increase in killowatthours with a relatively small increase in cost. This, in turn, allows the customer to use electric heating at a cost cheaper than would prevail for electricity and gas heat computed separately. The danger of the "counted demand" measurement is the possibility that some kilowatt loads that should be counted will be omitted. All of the General Service customers have a demand meter which is an attachment of the regular kilowatt-hour meter. The demand meter measures the thirty-minute peak demand of the customer during each billing period and will vary from month to month according to the customers' maximum use of electrical equipment in any thirty-minute interval."
This witness testified that customers being billed on the "counted demand" section of the General Service Rate use much more energy than customers who do not qualify for "counted demand"; that in 1965, this group of customers paid 1.391^ per kilowatt-hour while the customers having their demand measured paid 2.035 per kilowatt-hour and that the reason for the lower cost is the difference in the method of determining the kilowatt demand and the greater usage of energy. Georgia Power forecasts indicate that the number of "counted demand" customers are increasing as well as the average monthly usage and its records reveal that while the General Service customers show gradual lower average cost per kilowatt-hour, the customers on "counted demand" are showing slightly better than three times the annual use and a still lower average cost per kilowatt-hour than the customers having their kilowatt demand measured.

Docket No. 2027-U

-7-

Atlanta Gas and Columbus Gas in their complaints take the position that special consideration is being given some customers at the expense of others because of the Georgia Power Wiring Plan presently authorized by the Commission in Docket No. 1614-U and that the said Wiring Plan and the payments thereunder have the following effect:
(1) Suppress and restrain competition.
(2) Amount to the granting of bonuses and rebates which are discriminatory against owners and builders of homes and apartments using competing forms of energy.
(3) Result in actions in concert with Georgia Power to eliminate or restrict the use of gas and constitutes advantages to favored customers.
(4) Violate the Sherman Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Constitution of the State of Georgia and the Rules of the Commission, all of which prohibit unjust discrimination and illegal rebates and bonuses.
Witness for Atlanta Gas testified that the amount of the allowance under the Wiring Plan varies from $50 to $180 and is based on the particular appliances installed and the ampere rating capacity, that payments under the Wiring Plan are not related to the net revenue to be derived from the expected sales of energy but from the exclusion of competitive gas appliances and that the Wiring Plan violates the principle of nondiscrimination as well as the principle that only the rate schedules are the instrumentalities through which differentials in the price of electric energy over the wide range customer utilization are properly reflected. This witness charged that those customers qualifying under the Residential Wiring Plan of Georgia Power and who purchased energy under the Residential Rate Schedule, have received certain benefits while others have not, that whether or not such customers have received the benefits of the Residential Wiring Plan, they are nevertheless receiving the same electric service at the same rates and are obtaining the identical decreases in unit costs that their consumption entitles them to and that while all customers may have benefitted from the increased sales, an additional benefit was provided by the Residential Wiring Plan to certain customers. Another objectional effect of the Residential Wiring Plan, according to the witness, is the adverse effect on the public which results from the payments to builders of new houses and apartments. Despite the testimony of a witness for Georgia Power in Docket No. 1614-U wherein it was stated that the Residential Wiring Plan was designed to eliminate a ''bottleneck" in the wiring of existing homes, this witness pointed out that there are obviously more existing homes than new homes under construction but that the record shows that more than one-half of the allowances paid under the Residential Wiring Plan are for new homes.
Witness Bell, for Columbus Gas, testified that up until the adoption of the Residential Wiring Plan, his company had no trouble selling gas to customers, builders, or contractors on the basis of the merits of the product and the service that goes with the product for the benefit of the customers.

Docket No. 2027-U
The situation was contended to be different now in that when the gas company representative talks to the contractors, he does not even get a chance to discuss the merits of the product, what it will do for the consumer, what price will be charged for the end use, that all he can discuss is what they are getting from Georgia Power and why doesn't he match these payments in dollars. It was charged that the contractors state that the so-called adequate wiring requirements are just nonexistent, that the electrical code requires them to install adequate wiring and it is just the amount of money, and nothing else to them, and how much are the gas companies going to come up with. The fact that the contractors have to bid on apartment projects with the low bidders getting the job and the payments of as much as $15,000 to $20,000 for one hundred apartments was contended to make a big difference in whether the builder goes electric or gas. Further testimony indicated that builders have stated that they would install electric ranges unless Columbus Gas started giving them $100 per gas range. Another exhibit showed that on eight hundred apartments in the Columbus area, Georgia Power paid $144,000 to contractors to use electricity but that the eight hundred tenants paid $110 a year more than they would have paid if they had used gas-- these apartment tenants are thus being required to pay $88,000 per year to Georgia Power to offset the $144,000 paid by Georgia Power to contractors.
This witness summarized that the Residential Wiring Plan should not be continued as a lever to suppress competition and exploit the public, and that regardless of the original intent of the Residential Wiring Plan, it has been used primarily to induce speculative builders, apartment owners, to install electric heating and other competitive electric appliances with the end result that the consumer who uses it has no voice in the matter but is burdened with a much higher annual utility bill.
Georgia Power Witness Cahill testified that his company's sales promotion practices are conservative and appear modest as compared to other utilities, that the practice of the utilities in supplying the ''service entrance" is a means of helping the customer make utilization of electric service and is a common practice in the electric utility industry and that his company's Residential Wiring Plan has been used as a model for other utilities because it was regarded as being the fairest method of extending, in effect, the company's distribution system to a point where the customer's distribution system began. Witness Browder, for Georgia Power, testified that three other companies in the Southern System have comparable Residential Wiring Programs. He stated that the Residential Wiring Plan is simply an extension of ownership which previously terminated where the wires were connected to the house with the company's distribution system being simply extended a few more feet into and including the main panel board. It was emphasized that this Plan is open to every residential customer, new or old alike, and that there are some twenty-four ways that a customer can qualify under the Plan. This witness pointed out that the investment required in the Residential Wiring Plan is capitalized pursuant to authorized accounting procedures and that while a contract is executed between the Company, the customer and the electrical contractor, the service entrance contracted for belongs to Georgia Power and no title transfer is consequently necessary. According to this witness, the amount of money that Georgia Power is willing to pay for a service entrance is not governed as to how big it is, but the worth to the Company with the customer paying the difference between the actual cost and what allowance is made.

Docket No. 2027.-U

-9-

In this proceeding, Georgia Power made an issue concerning the "on-site generation project of Atlanta Gas in its sale of energy to the owners of the Gas Light Tower. Considerable testimony was given by both Atlanta Gas and Georgia Power with regard to the ''on-site" generation and the problem will be considered in a separate docketed matter-- Docket No. 2108-U.
Atlanta Gas and Columbus Gas in their petitions enumerating complaints against Georgia Power, alleged that certain advertising of Georgia Power was untrue and disparaging, that, therefore, the expense thereof should be disallowed as operating expenses and not charged to the ratepayers and that this type of advertising tends illegally to foreclose the market to the gas companies. The gas companies made no objection to Georgia Power's reasonable advertising expenses, but charged that Georgia Power has by innuendo disparaged the Gas Companies' product by advertising that its electrical energy is "flameless . The gas companies contend that this is calculated to, and does, inject in the mind of the public that electricity is favored and that gas is not; that Georgia Power should not advertise, by inference or otherwise, that electricity never causes flames and fires, as such is untrue; and that it should not disparage gas as being flammable and dangerous and likely to cause fires, losses and injuries. It was further contended that Georgia Power subsidizes advertising of dealers and trailer park operators to encourage them to engage in the aforesaid advertising practices which is contrary to the public interest and not a proper expense of the regulated public utility in that included in its purpose is the supression and restraint of competition from other regulated public utilities. Therefore, such advertising constitutes unfair competition and is prohibited by Georgia Law, according to the witness.
A witness for Georgia Power, in response to enumeration of complaints by Atlanta Gas and Columbus Gas, took the position that this Commission has no authority to regulate and control the content of any utilities' advertising. He specifically denied the Gas Companies' charges that Georgia Power's advertising is untrue or disparaging of gas as being utterly without foundation as could be clearly seen from the exhibits presented in this proceeding. The Gas Companies* claim that advertising electrical energy as "flameless" by innuendo disparages Gas Companies* product because it seems to inculcate in the minds of the public the idea that electricity is safe and gas is not, 'was->denied with the witness further stating that Georgia Power in its advertisments has carefully refrained from making any reference to gas as being dangerous and likely to cause fires, losses and injuries.
Witness Lee, for Atlanta Gas, testified that utilities should actively and aggressively advertise their products, but that at all times they should observe the principles of ethical advertising, such as that subscribed to by Atlanta Gas under the sponsorship of the Better Business Bureau of Atlanta. He stated that utilities should be permitted to advertise and use sales promotion programs to the extent that such are in the public interest, but that the Commission should disallow as an operating expense any advertising in furtherance of an illegal purpose or improperly presented, particularly those in support of a utility's effort to use a monopoly position as a lever to force a customer to use a tied product of service, or the utility product in a tied set of applicances, or which seeks to get a customer to boycott the product of another.

: : 7 7 r j. :.

ifit^iit Utilii 81XW i ; : 19q l rfJ til gfiO id/ati/O

w twc/

u Kiai'iivb.Ci fliti Jiii t}g

; 3Ui -ititi aoi }fri0 \ o:l

Ci.fi *' Elbil-CCt ]'E f*}.!rW'':.f.1

18(108 *t . ; ' ;! V,` . i. i}'1OEwif C$ O 9 9 f,C O O ft $|){IS|S & $ilV ftCflB ft3 3 J \ .

eri* o i * o * t f i t ,Eob i,':.;.. t os b s s i u ! a i - c. uf . . =.%ij r1n bi t is*?v.'.'<1 Ei

Dili.#Jt .>'. o.t

"/.: iro.om:> o !' avvisi- 7

S*>'-i:iwf&ot; ii`iiij :y :. j ' faii-r :;$::$ doua ,> ,,aaexti w di <>i ift&nao&ft. vsa ex vi' "i : -< . .

0OX i'iMJyO .1Ol ,LV ,v| J.f.-XM :'Km! 8 Sgs 1 C. gnJ::i.:..'*J(^CVii'fc TO W.tlil fi i v0 sii ts^i

dl '$Rifeflt#9<y*x{ ikS a.i io8q i i.di:dxr> on:> <&*!i

4*is0j g ad biabo

Ad si.doiuP.jriswrb ai JL 'i. t vM? yifet birit gitxti <&riirut *

t <j

tiv i:i os bMOda a!;) i.isi i sri. ot-J:'*

. e,?0 i a . i ./ O DrJ t?-D7:iX

' ' * "5 ' ` ' : 77 - : : , ' V : I , Oi i - 'to cI c] >DC '*i dJ

Et 0

Bi/ttf l./ io LfRootuSf aaetr e 7{ i i i 8 . f i tQ'7i/if8'*<>i8i`ioq sd iib id i l m l i A

il 87. ,fi Li. fu 3B.fi3 v>:7 <>7

'rii oi R-tno-iq n o :jjjHOiq

'i,i TiiX ->i ItBCj tb07

y1 'ffOi,qfl'i; i o aorptw.q

Dici oi X0V 8 K 'i ii >q ^ioqoio E ;..,v : < ,' ;;'TO '

j O <Bd8 lioiw IO

,to Jfc

Docket No. 2027-*U

- 10-

A witness for Georgia Power testified about Atlanta Gas making cash payments to builders or customers in order to get them to use gas. Witness Lee in rebuttal testimony, testified that this is false in that piping allowances are currently being made under the rules and regulations on file with the Commission, namely, Rules 2, 7, and 8 which contain the provisions under which main and service extensions are made. Considerable testimony was given by both Atlanta Gas and Georgia Power in this proceeding on gas piping allowances and this problem was later disposed of in companion Docket No. 2081-U.
Witness Lee of Atlanta Gas, presented an exhibit designed to show that Georgia Power obtained additional kilowatt loads by actually granting rebates for the exclusive use of electrical equipment in certain competitive fields. These bonus payments were shown to be made to dealers and salesmen and the payment schedule was set forth in an exhibit. Further testimony indicated that no tariff provision is on file with the Commission showing such payments for promotional or conversion purposes. This witness stated that insofar as the sales promotion program is concerned, Atlanta Gas believed in an active and aggressive program to promote the use of all gas appliances and that a gas utility or any utility company should merchandise itself, should develop dealer programs, and should actively and aggressively advertise its products.
Witness Browder testified that the promotional concept is inherent in many of its rates, citing as examples Residential Rates A-12, TE-2 and General Service Rate B-10 which were designed expressly to encourage the use of electricity during the off-peak season. This witness explained that Georgia Power has two basic plans to encourage the sale and use of electric appliances through dealers, one through the Commercial Sales Department that is set up with commercial cooking dealers and the other one in the Residential Sales Department which is set up with what is called "certified electrical heating dealers". He stated that for the past several years Georgia Power had a program with the dealers whereby it paid them a load bonus for each kilowatt for electric cooking that they sell. This program was stated to provide that when a dealer sells an electric range for use by someone in commercial cooking, Georgia Power pays a bonus-- or a commission-- to him based on the kilowatt load that is added, with Georgia Power at present paying dealer salesmen $2.00 per kilowatt if all the equipment is electric and 50 per kilowatt for equipment connected and installed in kitchens that are not all electric. Witness Browder stated further that each dollar spent as a bonus or commission produced $30 worth of revenue, that commercial cooking is one of the most competitive of all in the field; and that it is of great importance to Georgia Power to preserve electric cooking customers which it now has. Witness Browder takes the position that the payments are strictly a sales expense in a sales program which is reflected in expense figures which are filed with the Commission, but conceded that no tariff showing the schedule of payments has ever been filed. The program for certified electric heating dealers for promoting the conversion of existing homes to electric heating but no commission being paid to the dealer for electric heating in new homes since it is very difficult to determine who actually was responsible for the installation of electric heating in new homes. Witness Browder testified that in 1966, these dealers converted more than 1500 homes and that these bonus payments represented commissions paid to salesmen for appliances sold and were not activities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.

dolw n-4h/u> ewoJaivo'iq orf.u i & * t i G 9 : ;$&&&#. u t i m f X ,.S.

, yie-mei tim^#iemoD

ft^od^sp. nvs 9iam ija o H llto i #ldwfenaoi) .

sio x <x>i vid e bim ncjsir,

}0S . o 3sdooG ioinmyiioo ili: lo jb>0sCK(B t> led j &w ffiei dcnq JcriJ-

Ijll

1 ibru v m m 3-* : i jj.-ifxs .-. n-t ,.

- r?;*.y el beri;?. rv'

**?>

ljK 8

Iq<8 SS/ty U ' s i > *,U ptij 'J fv'yi ; O i yy y'y.'q ;

l

,.;

He

,-

.;?yJjOOI ';./! ' * -y.. .

I brri :. ''r njy.'Cr . >fU ,,..:;,

Zf "Jft& 'i TifP'1 i & ` J

'O- J:vrt(yt':tOfflO*-:l tw?i. tejd'.ff*J !t3'$30.t

y 'C S r r s l l o b OB'v 1jfcrf :? "i0 / 1 i`;fSiil JbO'i H $ fr
S i s a o sori t i ieqflioo i'ois ori i lo uro r affari do.eo i '(tt'dH.flwsfflioo Jil;l , fj.rtvrv? io ri j`.t':
d.oitCi.U.>iiW. odi o J - :'S o^ jd i s s s S t v i : :.m io-. grw hruB b oe R i

Docket No. 2027-U

- 11-

Several intervenors filed petitions to intervene in support of the petition of Atlanta Gas and Columbus Gas complaining of Georgia Power's Wiring Plan, certain electric rates, discriminatory practices, suppression of competition, granting of rebates and bonuses and disparaging advertising. Appearances on behalf of the Georgia LP Gas Association, Inc. were made by Attorneys Alaimo and Leaphart. Intervention was made by the Georgia Oilmen's Association and a petition was filed by Attorney Wiggins to intervene. Witness Chester A. Roush, Jr. presented testimony on behalf of the members of the Oilmen's Association in which it was brought out that the oil jobbers are small, competitive businessmen and they do not mind being in competition with Georgia Power or the Gas Companies or any of the independent propane dealers, but it was felt that competition should be governed by the same ground rules. This Association believes that the practice of Georgia Power in allowing subsidies to obtain business makes their competition unfair and particular objection was made to the Residential Wiring Plan, total electric rates and the promotional practices currently in effect.
The Trustees of Piping Promotional Trust filed a petition for intervention and complained about Georgia Power's rates, rebates and promotional practices and filed briefs and affidavits.
The City of Austell was represented by Attorney Willingham who filed a petition on behalf of the City of Austell for permission to become a party to intervene in support of the petition of Atlanta Gas and Columbus Gas.
Georgia Municipal Association was represented by Attorney Richter who filed a petition to intervene in this proceeding on behalf of the members of the Gas Section of the Georgia Municipal Association. Attorney William T. Brooks, representing Frank A. & L.Cheek, dba, Northeast Garden Apartments, made an appearance but offered no witnesses or testimony and did not file a brief.
Consulting Engineer, Robert P. Grey, made an appearance and represented eleven municipalities. However, no testimony was given nor any briefs filed on behalf of this group.
The Commission appreciates the interest, views, and contributions from all the above intervenors in this proceeding and in reaching its decision, every consideration has been given to their objections.
FINDINGS
After full and careful consideration of all the evidence and testimony in this proceeding, the Commission finds as follows:
(1) That Georgia Power Company Residential Rate Schedules A-12 and TE-2 are just, fair and equitable for the residential classes of service.
( 2) That Georgia Power Company Industrial Rate Schedules C-8, C-9, and C-10 are just, fair and reasonable for those customers qualifying for such rates under present authorized tariffs.

Docket No. 2027-U

- 12-

(3) That the Georgia Power Company Residential Wiring Plan, notwithstanding the objections to its continuation, will not be disturbed at this time but shall be withdrawn and terminated as of January 1, 1973.
(4) That the Georgia Power Company General Service Rate Schedule B-10, presently in effect, is impractical in its application by reason of the provision of "counted demand" as now applied; that said rate schedule should be revised to eliminate the present method of determining the kilowatt demand by "counting" the load and substituting therefor a requirement for metered kilowatt demand, or such other acceptable method that will substantially preserve the revenues of the Company and, at the same time, protect the consumer and remove any inequities now existing under the present schedule.
(5) That all so-called bonus payments or commissions should be eliminated except to those dealers or dealer salesmen where commercial equipment is sold to customers and that all gas and electric utilities file tariffs showing precisely the payments for such equipment loads when added to the system for commercial or residential customers.
(6) That reasonable promotional practices or programs established on a nondiscriminatory uniform and lawful basis are an essential part of any utility's effort to increase the sale of its product, thereby resulting in a saving to the ultimate consumer.
WHEREFORE, IT IS
ORDERED: that the Georgia Power Company Residential Rate Schedules A-12 and TE-2, as presently authorized, be retained in their present form.
ORDERED FURTHER: that Georgia Power Company Rate Schedules C-8, C-9 and C-10, as presently authorized, be retained in their present form.
ORDERED FURTHER: that Georgia Power Company Residential Wiring Plan, as a pp rovedin Docket N o . 1 6 1 4 - U which is now a part of the General Rules and Regulations for Electric Service, be retained and continued in force until January l, 1973, at which time said Wiring Plan shall be terminated.
ORDERED FURTHER: that Georgia Power Company General Service Rate Schedule B-10 be revised so as to eliminate the present method of determining the kilowatt demand for billing purposes under Section B of said schedule and substituting therefore a requirement that the total kilowatt load be measured by demand meter for all customers, or some other acceptable method.

Docket No. 2027-rU

-13-

ORDERED FURTHER: that when General Service Schedule B-10 is revised so as to preserve the revenues of Georgia Power Company and at the same time protect the consumer, it be submitted to the Commission for consideration of such recommendations for changes as may be required before final approval or disapproval by the Commission. This filing shall be made within sixty (60) days from date of this order.
ORDERED FURTHER: that all bonus payments or commissions be made only to dealers or dealer salesmen where gas or electric equipment is sold to customers.
ORDERED FURTHER: that where such bonus or commission payments are made that appropriate tariffs shall be filed with the Commission showing precisely the payments therefor.
ORDERED FURTHER: that Georgia Power Company, Atlanta Gas Light Company and the Gas Light Company of Columbus shall file with the Commission in the form of Rules and Regulations such promotional programs or practices not heretofore filed and same must be approved by the Commission before becoming effective.
ORDERED FURTHER: that jurisdiction over this proceeding is expressly retained for the purpose of entering such further order or orders as to this Commission may seem meet and proper.
BY ORDER OF THE GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this the 25th day of November, 1969.

A. 0. RANDALL, SECRETARY

W. H. KIMBROUGH, CHAIRMAN

ti -TS 0$ , Q ,t miska

'* -.

"f,tt)

'T: O

`

` r -yol rK.r*e.tuj8oa aif* i n s\J

f.s? jgillJjti *&

.ff" r

eVTddOiq 0.t &f, .:

-yti:)

gvoi .sai i

' ' : 1 '

mitod ! iif: ;IHHTHUy OHSiOLRO

" ^:

e,,-.,..- -

ijjU:*'

o ia iijfc iB sro

. 8UIOC K ! <9"',

. gwiJ

*it q

S a n i t . yyiqfi ; tifit fe......;-.IC O
ttv>

r -V,;
:- : fg i

l'rt

v i a i. w i

,

!- r: .

n o i P -/ . -v;

,O

: ' Z:s i j

r f f (J

>1. b o n i i i f s

b i

S0IV2'. >. tiEffilW- A

n t o m :q j k v a

, Ten?!*? " 'i`.

December 17 , 1969

File No. 1931*+ Docket No. 2108-U

In Re:

Petition of Georgia Power Company Complaining of Atlanta Gas Light Company's On-Site Genera tion and Sale of Electric Energy Without Charter Authority and Without the Exercise of Commission Rate and Other Jurisdiction Thereover. _________

APPEARANCES

For Georgia Power Company:

William H. Schroder, Sr., Attorney Milton A. Carlton, Jr., Attorney

For Atlanta Gas Light Company:

Albert G. Norman, Jr., Attorney

For the Commission:

R. B. Alford, Director Utilities Division

BY THE COMMISSION:

On May 1, 1969 Georgia Power Company (hereinafter referred to as "Georgia Power") filed a petition complaining of Atlanta Gas Light Company's (hereinafter referred to as "Atlanta Gas") on-site generation and sale of elec tric energy without charter authority and without the exercise of Commission rate and other jurisdiction thereover.

This matter was carefully considered by the Commission in Executive
Session on May 5, 1969 and was docketed for public hearing on June 17, 1969 pur
suant to Rule 15 of the Commission's General Rules and Regulations. Subsequently,
for good and sufficient cause at the request of counsel for Atlanta Gas, the scheduled hearing was postponed until July 9, 1969, at which time it came on to
be heard.

The allegations of the petition of Georgia Power are as follows:

Georgia Power alleges violations of the corporate charter of Atlanta Gas; Article IV, Section 1, Paragraphs 1 and 2 (Ga. Code Ann. i i 2-2k01, 2k02) and Article IV, Section IV, Paragraph III (Ga. Code Ann. 2-2703) of the Georgia
Constitution; the statutory provisions enumerated above; and General Rule 2 of this Commission. Atlanta Gas installed and began operation of three gas turbines

Docket No. 2108-U

2.

driving electric generators and other electric equipment in the Gas Light Tower, a twenty-five story office building located at 235 Peachtree Street, N. E., Atlanta, Georgia in which Atlanta Gas is one of a number of tenants. Atlanta Gas is pre sently generating electricity in the basement of the Gas Light Tower and is supply ing all of the electricity requirements of all occupants of the building. Pursuant to an agreement with the owners of the building, no one else such as Georgia Power will be allowed to furnish any electricity to any occupant of the building so long as Atlanta Gas is a tenant. Rates of Atlanta Gas for this electric utility service have been carefully hidden from public scrutiny with the exception of a recorded agreement with the building owners. Atlanta Gas rates charged therefor will never exceed those which would be charged by Georgia Power if it furnished the service, without regard to the economic impact of the ability of Atlanta Gas to render gas service to its other customers. Atlanta Gas has installed equipment requiring the use of gas to furnish all of the hot and chilled water needed to fill the heat and air conditioning requirements of all occupants of the Gas Light Tower and is presently filling all such needs. The owners of the building and Atlanta Gas have agreed that no one else will be allowed to furnish such needs. The charges by Atlanta Gas for hot and chilled water are mutually arranged with the building owners with the understanding that if agreement cannot be reached, the charges shall be equal to the minimum price at which hot and chilled water could be obtained from some third party.

Atlanta Gas has now begun to furnish all of the electricity requirements of the occupants of another twenty-five story office building at 225 Peachtree Street, N. E., Atlanta, Georgia, which adjoins the Atlanta Gas Light Tower. Atlanta Gas, so far as it is known, is not a tenant in the said building, nor does it have any connection with it or the owners thereof, other than a supplier of all of the energy requirements of said building. Electricity is being furnished to occupants of the building through the use of the same Atlanta Gas equipment used to provide electricity for the Gas Light Tower, and by an additional gas turbine more recently installed to bolster service to this new building. Atlanta Gas is also furnishing the hot and chilled water needs for the occupants' heating and air conditioning requirements. Atlanta Gas is currently holding itself out as being ready, willing and able to furnish all of the electrical requirements, as well as the hot and chilled water requirements , of all of the occupants of the proposed seventy story building to be occupied by commercial and residential customers and that fifty floors in the said building will be occupied by commercial enterprises and that some eighteen floors are to be constructed for occupancy by tenants leasing apartment space therein. The said seventy story building is to be constructed in the same city block of the Gas Light Tower and the other office building. Georgia Power has been informed, and on information and belief, alleges that a new 300 room hotel building, two new theaters, and several other commercial enterprises, all to be operated by third parties, will be constructed in the same general area and alleges that Atlanta Gas is holding itself out as ready, willing and able to furnish all of the electrical requirements, as well as all of the hot and chilled water requirements for each of the aforementioned buildings.

The petition alleges further that expenditures by Atlanta Gas on equip ment alone for its Gas Light Tower operation will be approximately $1,200,000; that an additional equipment expenditure of over $300,000 has been made by Atlanta Gas in order to provide the utility services to the occupants of the building at 225 Peachtree Street; that additional equipment expenditures of more than $3,700,000 by Atlanta Gas will be necessary if it is to furnish these utility services to the occupants of the seventy story and other buildings referred to hereinabove, and that

h lh id a m l o trmquooo XflB

iru fritsmv&ifa tm os

bluoo taiv
$,,r>%tP->rr.+VvTf-*..OrfiLiO
Mqq -9<f
&<$

^|p|

L h r *xbsi't ;

''Itti f.-iX

Docket No. 2108-U

3.

this would make a total equipment investment in this immediate area more than $5,200,000 and the fixed charges alone on this equipment, when computed at the conservative level of l b%, exceed $728,000 per annum. Georgia Power further alleges that it is not complaining of the competition from the regular service offering of gas or any other service by Atlanta Gas which it is allowed by its charter to provide, but is complaining about the unregulated sale of electricity while Georgia Power's sale of electricity is regulated.

Georgia Power alleges further that it will lose approximately $200,000 in annual revenues, by virture of being excluded from furnishing electricity to the Gas Light Tower, and will suffer additional annual revenue losses of some $800,000 if it is not allowed to furnish electricity to the new seventy story building.

Georgia Power alleges that Atlanta Gas has lacked charter authority to engage in any phase of the electric business since 1929 when its powers to do so were expressly taken away from it and that its present engagement in both the generation and sale of electricity is a flagrant violation of the charter privi leges granted by the State of Georgia, enforcement of which is charged to the Commission. Georgia Power urges the Commission to inquire into this matter and to require Atlanta Gas to limit its activities to those authorized by its charter which it claims do not include engagement in the electricity business. More specifically, Georgia Power states that the activities of Atlanta Gas should be subjected to full and continuing regulation by the Commission for the following reasons:

(1) Atlanta Gas, by virture of this engagement in the electric business, is an "electric light and power company" over which the Commission exercises general supervision (Ga. Code Ann., Section 93-307), including rate regulation and all the other incidents of utility regulation contemplated by law.
(2) The electric enterprises of Atlanta Gas may detract from its ability to render regulated gas service to its customers.
(3) The competitive effects upon Georgia Power -- Atlanta Gas should not be allowed to go all over the State of Georgia and single out the best electric loads to which is offered its unregulated on-site generation service unless the public comprising Georgia Power's ratepayers are afforded the pro tection of the Commission's rate and regulation thereof.
( h ) The members of the public who presently occupy the Gas Light Tower Building and those who will occupy the seventy story building are as entitled to the Commission's protection against unreasonable rates and inadequate service as are the other members of the public whose rates and service are now regulated.

On July 7, 1969, Atlanta Gas filed answers to Georgia Power's petition denying allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the petition relating to violations of certain Georgia code sections of the statutory provisions of the Georgia Consti tution and of the Commission's General Rules and Regulations. In answer to Paragraph 1+, these answers show that pursuant to a lease agreement between Atlanta Gas and Crow and Portman, the owners of the Gas Light Tower, Atlanta Gas installed and is now

M&d# nt

HK s#j.

'

'c XK. ut&I'JXV

w&k-

x`/i;j".:'

,\mWajfcW

;sn $ .Z .F
tffcfl

l ',:0.1'S " ')3 S-
-'iS if# asjj'ixi1.
.

' .;.3 V

ii:T \;d nol$QXts$*n; 'S'ilantaera pm

;x 'V u q jii vpcf/S-fiS

X o H i $$*'Fi0 ftft e i */0isfl$ai;.

, *" $ ;

x;.-.

rn-os 'W itts,L

.
b * i iim i, '-'1 0


.. ......

Docket No. 2108-U

k.

operating a total energy system in the Gas Light Tower in which Atlanta Gas is the principal tenant and is furnishing electricity, hot water and chilled water there from to such owners pursuant to said lease agreement.

Atlanta Gas shows further that the Gas Light Tower is part of a building complex owned, operated and constructed by owners, Crow and Portman, and that the building known as the "Twin Tower" or as "Peachtree Center South", located at 225 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia, which is adjacent to the Gas Light Tower, is also a part of such complex, these two towers being designed and constructed as part of an integrated complex and containing mutually connected air conditioning, heat and energy systems, and utilizing common space and other facilities. Atlanta Gas admitted that it has entered into a further agreement with owners , Crow and Portman, to furnish from its said total energy system, electricity and hot and chilled water to the owners for the requirements of the Twin Tower. The building complex referred to was stated to include a proposed seventy story building which will be adjacent to the rear of the Gas Light Tower and Twin Tower, with such addition to the complex to be constructed, owned and operated by Crow and Portman. Atlanta Gas stated that there have been general and preliminary discussions between said owners and representatives of Atlanta Gas concerning the possibility of total energy service being furnished to owners for the new addition. Atlanta Gas denies the expenditures referred to in Georgia Powerfs petition totalling some $5>200,000 as well as the fixed charges in the amount of lk% 9 aggregating some $728,000. Atlanta Gas also denies the allegations of Georgia Power that it has lost some $200,000 in annual revenue from the Gas Light Tower and will lose some $800,000 in annual revenue if it is not allowed to furnish electricity to the new seventy story
building.

Atlanta Gas in its answer to the petition of Georgia Power, states that the merger of Atlanta Gas, Georgia Public Utilities Company, and Macon Gas Company provided that Atlanta Gas, the continuing corporation, should possess and have title to all of the rights, privileges, powers, franchises, etc., of each of the three; that the respective charters of the Georgia Public Utilities Company and Macon Gas Company authorized those companies to sell electricity and that therefore Atlanta Gas as their successor has full charter authority to construct and operate a total energy system. Atlanta Gas in its answer, contends that the decisions of the Georgia courts indicate that activities such as the total energy service fur nished by Atlanta Gas to a single building owner, do not constitute a utility operation and that it has not held itself out expressly or by implication to furnish electric service to the public or to any segment of the public and has not undertaken to furnish electric service by itself to anyone, but to furnish a total energy service from a gas turbine system which produces electricity and utilizes the waste heat for the production of hot and chilled water for heating and air conditioning. Atlanta Gas points out that this undertaking is limited to a single purchaser, Crow and Portman, who in turn do and will furnish electricity to the tenants of the Gas Light Tower without any charge separable from the rent. Atlanta Gas states that it did not and will not use any public streets or ways or any other public facilities or franchises to install or operate such total energy system; that the total energy operation of Atlanta Gas is a non-utility operation and that no expense incurred therein enters into its rate base, and consequently, no such expense is borne in any manner by its utility ratepayers. The agreements between Atlanta Gas and the building owners under which said total energy service is fur nished was shown to expressly provide that the price at which Atlanta Gas shall sell electricity to the owners shall not exceed the price at which owners can, from time time, purchase similar electric service from Georgia Power or such similar company furnishing electric service in the City of Atlanta, Georgia.

U g tiW

IjptsM &i$b .jy^%f,X\

& m ti b m 23'5330i|

:g ,; ; .... jpitJil.; **:OD . j . . XiA ,#,*



Im '

ii/f 'ij

Docket No. 2108-U

5.

Witness Browder of Georgia Power sponsored several exhibits and gave testimony concerning these. Exhibit 1 is the lease agreement consisting of some 3b pages between Atlanta Gas and the building owners. The lease, among other things, provides that all electricity used in the Gas Light Tower shall be gen erated by gas and shall be furnished and sold by Atlanta Gas; that all of the chilled and hot water requirements for cooling and heating will be produced by the same equipment and sold to the building owners; that Atlanta Gas shall pro vide and install, maintain and operate at its own expense the necessary equipment to generate electric current for the electricity requirements in the Gas Light Tower and for all tenants and occupants of said Tower; that from electricity generated by Atlanta Gas, the building owners shall purchase all of the electricity requirements of the Gas Light Tower and any and all tenants or occupants; that the price at which Atlanta Gas shall sell the building owners electricity shall be equal to the price or prices at which the owners could purchase similar electric service from Georgia Power or such lesser price as may be mutually agreed to from time to time by the parties. The lease further provides that in the event Atlanta Gas is prevented at any time by law or by any rule or regulation or order of the Georgia Public Service Commission from furnishing or selling electricity to the building owners, then the obligation of Atlanta Gas to sell and the owners' obli gation to purchase said electricity shall be suspended; that Atlanta Gas has the option to lease to the owners and the owners shall lease from Atlanta Gas all of the equipment then installed at a monthly rental equal to 1.13% of the original cost of such equipment; and that at the sole option of the owners and notwithstand ing the option of Atlanta Gas to lease such equipment, Atlanta Gas shall sell to the owners all of the equipment which it has installed at a purchase price equal to the original cost thereof, less depreciation, at the rate of 3.1+% per year.

Witness Browder testified from Exhibit 2, which was an estimated annual cost of owning and operating an overall electric system for the Gas Light Tower -- that cost was shown to amount to $l81+,6l7. Page 2 of the exhibit showed the estima ted annual cost of owning and operating the on-site plant for the Gas Light Tower to be $361,053 per year. When the all electric cost of $l81+,6l7 is deducted from the on-site plant cost of $361,053, the excess annual cost of on-site operation over all electric was shown to be $176,1*36 per year, thus indicating that Atlanta Gas is subsidizing this operation by the difference of $176,1+36 per year. Exhibit 3, testified to by Witness Browder, was a study similar to the one made for the Gas Light Tower including the building known as the Twin Tower or the Peachtree Center South Building. Witness Browder presented as Exhibit b the estimated annual cost of owning and operating an all electric Gas Light Tower and Peachtree Center South-- that cost was shown to be $339,231+. The estimated annual cost of owning and opera ting an on-site plant for the Gas Light Tower and Peachtree Center South was shown to be $1+59,789 and, by deducting the cost of all electric, leaves an excess annual cost to own and operate the on-site turbine system in the amount of $120,555* Exhibit 5, presented by Witness Browder, showed graphically the layout of the Gas Light Tower with the Peachtree Center South Building and the proposed seventy story building, together with adjacent buildings such as the theater and hotel, all located in the same block. Witness Browder presented Exhibit 6 showing the economic study for the seventy story building proposed to be constructed by Crow and Portman, immediately behind the Gas Light Tower. This study shows the estimated annual cost of owning and operating the seventy story complex, if all electric, to be $1,01+3,193 and the estimated annual cost of owning and operating an on-site plant for the
seventy story complex to be $1 ,250,1+87, with the resulting difference of $207,291+
being the excess annual cost for the on-site plant. Exhibits b and 6 thus show the

|t S*if.t

rap i

:

tjcf &iii- li*>3

&S& trwXti f l # $& '

|||M|p|M|)i||

c

$jj#Q$- o& avr. mw .. ",.: c v r - '.- ,' o -



vwi

. .. '
% $m$. $m lq if#H*no

: Xn%V9S i hm w t icf ^nn^enoa. _a

;" "- ' S&ay'ifrs?

tevT: - .508 3j,rbtv

Docket No. 2108-U

6.

excess annual cost for the on-site system for the entire complex to be $327,81*9 .
Exhibit 7 compiled all of the charter documents relating to the authority of Atlanta Gas to sell electricity and, according to this exhibit, the authority given to Atlanta Gas to deal in the electric business was specifically removed in 1929.

Witness Lee testified for Atlanta Gas and explained his Company's total energy system to be a system whereby electricity is a by-product of the customers' conversion of the fuel to heat on its premises and to be operated as follows:

Fuel is burned in a heat engine -- in this case, a gas turbine and mechanical power is produced. This power is used as a direct driver of machinery, or it can be converted into electric energy. This system, as such, and by itself,
is only 25$ or 30$ efficient, but 50$ of the so-called waste heat (i.e., the heat
that is lost in the utility central station) is used to supply the customer's heating and cooling requirements. In other words, converting the waste heat into steam or hot water with absorption air conditioning or with steam-driven centri fugal compressors utilizes this so-called waste and results in overall efficiency
that can be as high as 80$ in the utilization of the fuel and this is done com
pletely on a customer's premises. Witness Lee further testified that Atlanta Gas never has held itself out in any fashion to furnish electric service to the public and does not now. The present contract between Atlanta Gas and the owners, Crow and Portman, provides for the furnishing of a package of the services of hot water for heat, steam, chilled water for cooling, and electricity for lighting and for power uses in the building complex. This contract was stated to be solely with Crow and Portman. What Crow and Portman were stated to do in this building complex is to rent space and provide to their tenants all services that Atlanta Gas fur nishes, in addition to janitorial service, garbage service and cleaning service. This witness pointed out that Atlanta Gas does not use any public streets or other public facilities in providing a total energy service to the building complex, except that the gas fuel requirement is transported through its existing street
pipeline system. Witness Lee presented Exhibit 8 , a photograph, for the purpose
of showing the physical layout of the Gas Light Tower and the Peachtree Center South Building which makes up the Twin Towers that have been constructed on a common base-- the total energy plant being located on that common base. Exhibit 9, presented by
Witness Lee, was another photograph showing the Twin Gas Light Towers and the pro posed seventy story building to be constructed, all on a common base. Another totalenergy plant is proposed to be installed in the seventy story building to provide the same services that Atlanta Gas is now providing in the Gas Light Towers . The investment, according to Witness Lee, is a non-utility investment and shows on the balance sheet, but not in the rate base of Atlanta Gas.

FINDINGS

After full and careful consideration of the petition filed by Georgia Power, the testimony and exhibits in this proceeding, the Commission has made the following findings which it considers relevant to its conclusion:

(l) The Commission has not previously taken jurisdiction over the furnishing of utility services by a landlord to his tenants. However, the sale of energy by a public utility to a landlord is clearly under the juris diction of the Commission, and the rates for such sales are now regulated by the Commission. The sale of "total energy", including electricity, hot and chilled water, to Crow and Portmand at 225-235 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia, by Atlanta Gas is very similar in effect to the

Docket No. 2108-U

T.

sale of electricity or gas by a public utility to a landlord and should be similarly regulated in order to protect the public interest, either by regulation of rates for the electricity supplied or by regula tion of rates for the "total energy" package.

(2) Although Atlanta Gas claims that it is not holding itself out as offering electric service only to the public, the testimony at the hearing showed that Atlanta Gas has participated in negotiations concern ing other similar "total energy" projects in the State, and the Commission believes that Atlanta Gas would undertake to provide such service generally if it were economically profitable to do so.

(3) The number of people in the City of Atlanta who are now and will be affected by the existing and planned on-site total energy service at the Peachtree Center Complex is very large, exceeding 16,000 persons, who will be without recourse to the Commission if juris diction and regulation were avoided in this and similar cases.

(k ) The substantial subsidy required of Atlanta Gas to construct and operate the existing and planned on-site total energy plants at the Peachtree Center Complex will be reflected in its balance sheet and could possibly have an effect on its cost of money and thereby affect its rates for other customers in the State of Georgia.

(5) The Commission makes no finding as to the existence or lack of charter authority of Atlanta Gas to sell elec tricity. This is a matter for the jurisdiction of the proper Superior Court in the State of Georgia.

Wherefore, it is

ORDERED: that the Georgia Public Service Commission has jurisdiction over the existing and planned on-site total energy plant, constructed and operated by Atlanta Gas Light Company at 225-235 Peachtree Street (Peachtree Center), Atlanta, Georgia.

ORDERED FURTHER: that rates, rules and regulations for "on-site" or
total energy systems now in operation or proposed by Atlanta Gas Light Company be
filed within sixty (60) days from date of this order for approval or disapproval
by the Commission.

ORDERED FURTHER: that jurisdiction over this matter is expressly retained for the purpose of entering such further order or orders as to this Commission may seem meet and proper.
BY ORDER OF THE GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, this the 17th day of December, 1969.

A. 0. RANDALL, SECRETARY

W. H. KIMBROUGH, CHAIRMAN

'



:

'



,

s p o U d ' al .::. '

ir

r ; :' j|

Qj wfe { " '

- f afic: >

''$#

,

'

SAVANNAH ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
In 1969? Savannah Electric and Power Company was serving
703920 customers in Chatham, Effingham, Bryan, Bulloch and Screven
Counties. This is an increase of 2,^81 over 1968.
The Company's residential customers used a record average
of 8,301 kilowatt hours during the year and average revenue was down
to 1 .9 k cents per kilowatt hour. This compares with national averages of 6,530 kilowatt hours and 2.09 cents, respectively. Pacing residential sales were 1,3^9 new all-electric customers. This classification in
creased 6kio over 1968 to a total of 35^-52.
Total KWH sales posted an 11# gain while revenues increased
10# to $21.7 million.
Savannah Electric maintains two interconnections with Georgia Power Company that can provide 100,000 KW of interchange capacity. The Company's generating capability totals 358,200 KW. System peak load amounted to 301?100 KW in 1969 A new jet-turbine peaking unit was
added in 1969 and orders were placed for three additional combustion
turbine peaking units to be in operation during 1970. Work continues on a fourth generating unit at the Port Wentworth Bower Plant. This unit will produce 126,000 KW and is expected to be in service by the
spring of 1971*
Savannah Electric's current five-year building program totals
nearly $55 million.

ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY

Expansions
During 1969, Atlanta Gas Light Company constructed distribution
systems and extended natural gas service to the following incorporated
toms:

TOWN

DATE

GENERAL LOCATION IN STATE

1. Norwood
2. Ball Ground
3. Sharon k* Jasper
5 Nelson
6 . Fairmount
7. Ranger
8. Dahlonega 9. Eton

3-17-69
3-29-69
if-16-69
5-7-69
5-IO-69 6-I8-69
8-27-69 9,,19-69
11-15-69

East North East North North North North North North

A monthly average of 20,766 new customers were connected. As
of December 31 j 1969s more than 6o6,000 customers were receiving natural
gas service.

Construction Construction expenditures for the Company's Utility Plant during the
1969 fiscal year ending September 30, 1969 were $18,068,859* Of this
amount, approximately 8hjo was for gas mains, service lines, meters and regulators. The remainder was principally for data processing and other equipment, and for general improvements.
Construction estimates for the 1970 fiscal year are estimated
at $1^,590,000, of which approximately $10,800,000 will be for new business in areas presently served, $1 ,520,000 for data processing equip ment, $1 ,150,000 for distribution systems in new areas, and the balance
for general improvements and new equipment.

Sales and Revenues

,

Gas revenues amounted to $133s865s306 - - a n increase of 117%

over 1968, During this same period, residential revenues increased 6.8^

small commercial, 10,7$5 and large industrial, 237

The Company continued to not only bring in new industries and commercial business into Georgia, but assisted its present customers in expanding their operations and eliminating air pollution.

The Company has long-term contracts with its three natural
gas pipe line suppliers : Southern Natural Gas Company, Transcontinental
Gas Pipe Line Corporation, and South Georgia Natural Gas Company. Through seventy (70) separate supply points throughout the state, more
than 230,6^7,165 cubic feet of natural gas were received and distributed through approximately 12,907 miles of 3" equivalent gas mains.

The Company maintains nine peak shaving plants which supply propane air gas during cold weather or in emergencies.

Personnel
At the end of 1969, the Company had 2,^16 employees.

General
The Company opened a new office at Jasper during 1969.

- 1*8 -

' t$K

-, .

D IR E C TORY 0 F
A T 0 N S AND CITIES
SE RV E D WITH N A T U R A L GAS
PREPARED BY GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1969

CITY
Acworth Adairsvilie* Ailey Alamo Albany Aldora Allenhurst Allentown Alma Alpharetta Alto Americus Arcade Ashburn Athens Atlanta Auburn Augusta Austell* Avera Avondale Estates
Bainbridge Baldwin Ball Ground Barnesville Baxley Bellville Berkeley Lake Bishop Blackshear Blakely Blythe Bogart Bowdon Bowersville Bowman BraseIton Bremen Brunswick Buchanan (Buena Vista) Buford* (Butler) Byron
Cadwell Cairo Calhoun Camak Camilla Canon

OWNERSHIP OF 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 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 Municipal 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 Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Municipal (Toccoa) Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal (Warner Robins)
Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Municipal (Toccoa)

SOURCE OF NATURAL GAS
Southern Southern Southern Southern South Georgia Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Transcontinental South Georgia Southern South Georgia Transcontinental Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern Southern Southern
South Georgia Transe ont inent al Transcontinental Southern Southern Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern South Georgia Southern Transcontinental Southern Transcontinental Transcontinental Transcontinental Southern Southern Southern South Georgia Transcontinental South Georgia Southern
Southern South Georgia Southern Southern South Georgia Transcontinental

iO

TVS'

' ` c3

n o ftir S
iQJOH m S X b ''tS.

cm
Canton Carl Carlton Carrollton Cartersville* Cave Spring Cedartown Centerville Chamblee Chatsworth Chester Chickamauga Clarkesville Clarkston Claxton Cochran Colbert College Park Columbus Comer Commerce* Conyers Cordele Cornelia Covington Crawford
Crawfordville Cumming Cuthbert
Dacula Dahlonega Daisy Dallas* Dalton* Danielsville Danville Darien Dawson Dearing Decatur Demorest Dexter Doerun Doraville Douglas Douglasville Dublin* Dry Branch Dudley Duluth

OWNERSHIP OF SYSTEM

SOURCE OF NATURAL GAS

Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal 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 Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Gas Light Company of Columbus Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Municipal (Greensboro-Union
Point)
Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal

Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern Southern Tr an scont inent a1 Southern Southern Transcontinental Transcontinental Transcontinental South Georgia Tr ans cont inent al Transcontinental
Transcontinental Transcontinental Transcontinental South Georgia

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

Transcont inenta1 Tr anscont inent al Southern Southern Southern Tr anscont inent al Southern Southern South Georgia Southern Southern Transcontinental Southern South Georgia Southern South Georgia Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern

"1
-;* ,} jjji
.


CITY
Eastman East Point Eatonton* Elbertn (Ellaville) Emerson Emprire* Eton Euharlee
Fairburn Fairmount Fayetteville Fitzgerald Flemington Flowery Branch Forest Park Forsyth Fort Benning Fort Gaines Fort Oglethorpe Fort Valley* Franklin
Gainesville Garden City Gibson Gillsville Glennville Glenwood Gordon Grantville Gray Grayson Greensboro* Griffin Grovetown Guyton
Haddock (Eatonton) Hagan Hahira Hampton Hapeville Harlem Harrison Hartford Hartley Hartwell Hawkinsville

OWNERSHIP OF SYSTEM

SOURCE OF NATURAL GAS

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

Southern Southern Southern Transcontinental South Georgia Southern Southern Southern Southern

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 Gas Light Company of Columbus Municipal Chattanooga Gas Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company

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

United Cities Gas Company 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 (Eatonton) Municipal (Lawrenceville) Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company

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

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

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

CITY
Hazlehurst Helena Hephzibah Hinesville Hogan sville Holly Springs Hoschton Hull
Ila Irwinton
Jackson Jasper J efferson Jeffersonville Jesup Jonesboro
Kennesaw
LaFayette LaGrange Lake City Lavonia Lawrenceville* (Leesburg) Lexington
Lilburn Lithia Springs Lithonia Loganville Louisville* Ludowici Lula Lumber City Lumpkin Lyons
Mableton Macon Madison Manchester* Marietta Martin Maxeys
Maysville McDonough McIntyre McRae

OWNERSHIP OF SYSTEM
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 Atlanta Gas Light Company
Atlanta Gas Light Company Dublin Gas System, City of
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 (Toccoa) Municipal Municipal Municipal (Greensboro-Union
Point) Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal (Austell) Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal (Lawrenceville) Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company
Municipal (Austell) Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal (Toccoa) Municipal (Greensboro-Union
Point) Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company

SOURCE OF NATURAL GAS
Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Tr an scont inent al Transcontinental
Transcontinental Southern
Southern Transcontinental Transcontinental Southern Southern Southern
Southern
Southern Southern Southern Transcontinental Transcontinental South Georgia
Transcontinental Transcontinental Southern Transcontinental Transcontinental Southern Southern Transcontinental Southern South Georgia Southern
Southern Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern Transcontinental
Tran scont inent al Tr an scontinent al Southern Southern Southern

CITY
Meigs Milledgeville Millen Milner Monroe Montezuma Monticello* Montrose Morrow Moultrie Mountain Park Mountain view Mount Airy Mount Vernon Mount Zion
Nashville Nelson Newnan Norcross Norwood (Ochlochnee) Ocilia Oconee Odum (Omega)
Palmetto Patterson Payne City Peachtree City Pelham Pembroke Pendergrass Perry Pine Lake Plainsville Pooler Porterdale Port Wentworth Powder Springs
Quitman
Ranger Reidsville Remerton Rentz Rest Haven (Reynolds) Richland Richmond Hill

OWNERSHIP OF SYSTEM
Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company 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 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 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 Municipal Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal (Dalton) Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal (Austell)
Municipal
Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal (Buford) Municipal Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company

SOURCE OF NATURAL GAS
South Georgia Southern Southern Southern Transcontinental South Georgia Southern Southern Southern South Georgia Transcontinental Southern Tr an scont in ent al Southern Southern
South Georgia Transcontinental Southern Southern Southern South Georgia South Georgia Southern Southern South Georgia
Southern Southern Southern Transcontinental South Georgia Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern Southern Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern
South Georgia
Southern Southern South Georgia Southern Transcontinental South Georgia South Georgia Southern

Tr'l.id '

g .C A V ^ C J C 3 1 V

;; J l



m



H

p i) f



8 4 w
N % & I' m a t e is * -'

H

lili

j *

CITY
Rincon Ringgold Riverdale Roberta Rockmart Rome Roopville R o ssv ille Roswell Royston
Sandersville Savannah Screven Sharon Shellman Smyrna Sn ellville Social Circle Soperton Sparta* S p r in g fie ld Spring Place Stapelton Statesboro* Statham S tile sb o r o Stockbridge Stone Mountain Sugar H ill Sugar Valley Summerville* Sunnyside Suwanee Swainsboro Sylvania Sylvester
Talbotton Tallapoosa Talmo T a y lo rs v ille Temple T e n n ille Thomaston T h om asville Thomson* Thunderbolt Tifton T ig n a li Toccoa* Trenton

OWNERSHIP OF SYSTEM
A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company Municipal (Fort Valley) A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company Chattanooga Gas Company A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company M u n icipal
A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company M u n icip al A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company M u n icip al A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company M u n icip al A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company M u n icip al A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company M u n icip al M u n icip al M u n icip al A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company M u nicipal M u nicipal
M u nicipal M u nicipal A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company M u nicipal A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company M u n icipal M u n icip al A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company M u n icip al A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company M u nicipal A tla n ta Gas L ig h t Company

SOURCE OF NATURAL GAS
Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern East Tennessee Southern Tr anscont in ent a l
Southern Southern Southern Transcontinental South Georgia Southern Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern Southern Tr anscont in ent a l Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern South Georgia
Southern Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern Southern Southern South Georgia Southern Southern South Georgia Southern Transe ont in ent a l Southern

CITY
Trion Twin City Tyrone
Unadilla Union City Union Point* Uvalda
Valdosta Vidalia Vienna Villa Rica
Waco Walnut Grove Warner Robins Warrenton Washington Watkinsville Waycross Waynesboro West Point Whitehall Whitesburg Winder Winterville Woodbury Woodland Woodstock Woodville Wrens Wrightsville
Zebulon

OWNERSHIP OF SYSTEM
Municipal 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 Municipal
Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal (Lawrenceville) 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 Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company Municipal Municipal Atlanta Gas Light Company
Atlanta Gas Light Company

SOURCE OF NATURAL GAS
Southern Southern Southern
South Georgia Southern Transcontinental Southern
South Georgia Southern South Georgia Southern
Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern Southern Southern Transcontinental Southern Southern
Southern

*Munic ipally-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.
CODE: Southern - Southern Natural Gas Company South Georgia - South Georgia Natural Gas Company Transcontinental - Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Co. East Tennessee - East Tennessee Natural Gas Company
(Butler): Parenthesis marks indicates proposed systems in the South Georgia Natural Gas Company network. These cities will be served by July, 1971.

. -,.CtfA

.'liO c

W' "

aa 0



<ilo tou

-

GAS PIPELINE SAFETY
As reported in the Commission^ 1968 Annual Report, the Public
Service Commission now has authority over distribution systems subject to jurisdiction by the Commission. Accordingly, pursuant to Public Law 90-1+81,
dated August 12, 1968, a certificate of the Georgia Public Service Commission
was submitted to the Secretary of Transportation under Section 5 (a) of the
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968. On May 28, 19^9 3 notification was
received that the certificate submitted by the Commission was accepted for the period ending December 31s 19&9- The delay in notification was occasioned by the fact that the Office of Pipeline Safety did not have an adequate staff to cope with the mass of correspondence.
Only one accident occurred during the year and this happened on the
morning of February 6, 19693 when an explosion and fire occurred in a filling
station of Georgia Highway jjh9 in Milledgeville, Georgia, which property was owned by L. W. Harrington of Milledgeville and leased and operated by C. H. Sims of Milledgeville. There were no witnesses to the accident other than Mr. Sims, and from available information, it appeared that when he opened the service station early that morning, the explosion and fire took place. The Atlanta Gas Light Company had a six-inch main located in the vicin ity of the service station, but many years ago this street was relocated and the main, which was at the edge of the street, was left in place. After the
relocation, approximately 20 feet of fill dirt was dumped on the old right-of-
way and adjoining property and a portion of the service station was built over the abandoned right-of-way on this street. Since the accident, the gas was cut off to this main and same abandoned. The victim suffered burns and contusions, but according to reports, he is having a satisfactory recovery. The property damage amounted to several thousand dollars. This incident
was reported to the Commission shortly before noon on February 6, 1969s
by the Gas Company.
The Commission has proposed in the budget for the next fiscal year additional funds for the purpose of augmenting the technical staff so as to perform an adequate job with respect to the Gas Safety Act to the maximum degree possible for the safety of the public and prevention of loss of life and property. Funds have also been requested as authorized in Public Law 90-^81, but these funds cannot be advanced until Congress appropriates some $1 million dollars for the Office of Pipeline Safety of the Department of Transportation.
-1+9-

December 3? 19^9
Certificate of the Georgia Public Service Commission submitted to the Secretary of Transportation under Section 5(a) of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
of 1968.
Pursuant to Section 5(a) of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of
1968 (82 Stat. 720) (hereinafter referred to as "The Act"), the Georgia
Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "The Commission") hereby certifies to the Secretary of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as the "Secretary") that --
1 Except as set forth in Attachment A, under the applicable provisions of the Constitution and laws of Georgia, the Commission has regula tory jurisdiction over the safety standards and practices of all pipeline facilities and the transportation of gas (not subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Bower Commission under the Natural Gas Act) within Georgia. Hie terms "pipeline facilities" and "transportation of gas" are used in this certificate as defined in the Act.
2. The Commission has adopted each Federal safety standard established under the Act, in effect as of the date of this certification, that is applicable to the pipeline facilities and transportation of gas under the Commission* s jurisdiction as identified in Paragraph 1,
3. The Commission is enforcing each standard referenced in Paragraph 2. k . Hie Commission has authority to require each person who engages in
the transportation of gas or who cwns or operates pipeline facilities covered by the regulations referenced in Paragraph 2 to establish and maintain records, to make reports, and to provide information, and that this authority is substantially the same as the authority provided in Section 12 of the Act. 5. The Commission has authority to require each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates pipeline facilities, not subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission under the Natural Gas Act, to file with the Commission for approval a plan for inspection and maintenance substantially as described in Section 11 of the Act for each pipeline facility owned or operated by that person.
6. The laws of Georgia provide for the enforcement of the Safety Stan
dards referenced in Paragraph 2 by monetary sanctions substantially the the same as Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. There is pending now, before the General Assembly of Georgia, a bill that will provide this Commission with injunctive sanctions substantially the same as in Sections 9 and- 10 of the Act.
Given under my hand and official seal of the Georgia Public Service
Commission, this the 3rd day of December, 1969*
ATTEST:

A. 0. Randall, Secretary

W. H. Kimbrough, Chairman -50-

ATTACHMENT A
According to Article IV, Section I, Paragraph I.of the Constitution of the State of Georgia, the Georgia Public Service Commission does not have jurisdiction over gas systems in Georgia operated by any municipality. However, the Attorney General of Georgia on March 8, 195&, issued a legal opinion based on Article VII, Section VII, Paragraph V (Code Ann. s 2-6005) that where municipalities extend facilities beyond the limits of their home county, such facilities constructed beyond the county line become subject to regulation by the Georgia Public Service Commission in the same manner as privately-owned and operated utilities.

ATTACHMENT B

Names and Addresses of Each Person Subject to the Safety Jurisdiction of the Georgia Public Service Commission

W. L. Lee, President 235 Peachtree Street, N. E.

Atlanta Gas Light Company Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Jack A. Bell, President 1*4-21 - Vth Avenue

Gas Light Company of Columbus Columbus, Georgia 31902

Charles B. Dushane, Jr., President 1200 Parkway Towers

United Cities Gas Company *4-0*4- James Robertson Parkway Nashville, Tennessee 37219

J. Inman Kidd, Senior Vice President
8II Broad Street

Chattanooga Gas Company Chattanooga, Tennessee 37^-02

ATTACHMENT C
Accidents or Incidents Reported to the Commission During the Preceding Twelve Months by Each Person Involving Personal Injury Requiring Hospitalization, Fatality or Property Damage Exceeding $1,000
Only one incident involving hospitalization and property damage
in excess of $1,000 was reported to the Commission in 1969 A summary of
the investigation is as follows;
"At approximately 6;*4-5 a.m. on February 6, 1969, an
explosion and fire occurred in a filling station on Georgia Highway *1-9 (W. Hancock Street), Milledgeville, Georgia, which property was owned by L. W. Harrington of Lake Drive, Milledgeville, and leased and operated by C. H. Sims of 300 E. Hancock Street, Milledgeville, Georgia.

-51-

.COBO
um

There were no witnesses to the accident other than Mr. Sims and, from available informations it appears that he opened his service station on this morning shortly after which the explosion and fire occurred.
Atlanta Gas Light Company has had a six-inch main located in the vicinity of that service station. Many years ago this street was relocated and the main, which was at the edge of it, was left in place. After the relocation, approximately 20 feet of fill dirt were dumped on the old right-of-way and adjoining property and a portion of the service staion was built over the abandoned right-of-way of this street.*'
Since the occurence of the accident, the company cut off gas to this six-inch main and same was abandoned in the area where the fill occurred. Ho further incidents have been reported or any leaks found. Further, the injured party, according to reports, has recovered and a damage suit is pending.
ATTACHMENT D
Record Maintenance, Reporting, and Inspection Practiced By Georgia Public Service Commission to Enforce Compli__________ance With Federal Safety Standards___________
During 1969? the Commission's engineers made six inspections
of distribution line extension projects for the purpose of determining if safety regulations pursuant to law were being followed. This work included the examination of x-ray welds as well as the procedures being practiced. Observations were made as welders were performing their work and the methods used in coating pipe prior to being lowered in ditch. Inspections included hydrostatic testing procedures and work performed when leaks were found. Records are being kept of pressures during 2k hour test periods.
Commission engineers inspect daily logs of distribution companies for corrective action when leaks are reported. Vegetation and ionization leak surveys are conducted on certain schedules by dis tribution companies and these are periodically reviewed to see that appropriate action is taken when required.
Should emergencies occur, private telephone lines connect the Police and Fire Departments with proper Gas Company officials so that immediate action can be taken. Further, Fire Departments have cutoff keys to disconnect gas at street valve when required in emergency cases.
-52-

icfui,
;
util i# Utatf vm

' v-ti-^dW' M

jawH&HS
mm

WESTERN UNION
The year 1969 was a year in which many of Western Union* s
expectations matured into genuine achievements. Paramount among these was the acquisition of the AT&T TWX System, After many years of ne gotiations, Western Union finally concluded an agreement with the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and the Associated Bell Companies to purchase their TWX network. The ultimate combination of TWX and Western Union* s Telex network will substantially further the development of many new shared-use computer-controlled services offered by Western Union, Basically, TWX is a teletypewriter exchange service which allows subscribers to send messages over a typewriter-like key board, very similar to WU*s Telex service. The acquisition of TWX with the integration of WU*s own Telex will make it possible to give the customer a truly unified record message communications system.
Among Western Union's other major achievements in 19&9 was the substantial expansion of its already viable Telex service and its SICOM and INFO-COM Systems, SICOM is a specially-designed sharedcomputer system serving the securities industry. INFO-COM is a flex ible, fast and automatic computerized system providing private networks permitting subscribers to transmit messages and data both intra- and inter-company.
Western Union did not file any tariffs with the Georgia Public
Service Commission in 1969 which would affect the rates of its public
telegraph services within the state of Georgia.
-53-

#'9-

HI P