Water can be supplied to the south side of the river cheaper than to the north side. This is true not only on account of the additional distance and the topographical conditions but in order to reach the north side the company was obliged to construct and must maintain, two twelve inch mains under the Ohio river with the accompanying risks. Each succeeding borough on the north side means an increased distance which requires not only additional expense for mains and other construction but also additional power to supply the water thereto.

On account of its elevation, the cost of supplying water in Westview Borough and Ross Township is more than the cost in Bellevue or McKees Rocks. We were not furnished any definite data as to the cost of delivering water in the several municipalities supplied by the respondent. Evidence was furnished, however, to the effect that water supplied to Westview Borough and Ross Township required repumping and the approximate cost thereof was given as well as the approximate amount of water required to be repumped.

Taking into consideration that the water furnished by the respondent is all secured from the same source and is supplied to the several contiguous municipalities embraced in one general district, without any great difference in cost, we have reached the conclusion that all the rates in all the districts served by respondent should be the same. There are no such substantial differences in circumstances and conditions of the service as to justify any other than uniform rates.

Ready to Serve Charges.

An examination of the evidence discloses that the respondent in its former rates had a minimum charge on a yearly basis for metered service, alike for all sizes of meters in the following districts:

Under its proposed rates, such minimum charges are put on a quarterly basis and an increase therein. They are alike in all of the districts served by the respondent, varying however, according to the size of the meters and attachments as follows:

1/2 or 5% inch line, one attachment to main and one faucet, $8.00 1/2 or 8 inch line, more than one attachment or faucet,.... 15.00 3/4 inch line,

1 inch line,

1/4 inch line, 11⁄2 inch line,

2 inch line,

18.00

28.00

40.00

60.00

88.00

We are of opinion that it is more just and equitable to make what is termed a "ready to serve" charge in the place of a socalled "minimum" charge. The ready to serve charge is justified on the ground that the utility, after its plant is once constructed and ready for service, may ask each patron to pay a reasonable amount based upon the size of its service pipe in order to reimburse the utility for the cost of so much of its plant as is required to enable it to at all times stand ready to serve its pat

rons.

We have set forth in the schedule which we have prepared the amount of ready to serve charges to be paid by its patrons classified on the basis of the size of the service pipe. These charges we think will protect the company in its service and at the same time will not impose any unnecessary burden upon its patrons.

Valuation.

There was furnished to the Commission evidence of the following:

1. Original cost of respondent's property as per audit made by E. Rickett & Company, auditors for respondent, amounting to

$2,045,391.54

2. Original cost of respondent's property as per audit made by the Willison Audit and System Company, auditors for the complainants, amounting to

3. Appraisal or estimate made by Chester and Knowles, engineers for respondent, of the reproduction cost new less depreciation of respondent's property, amounting to...

4. Appraisal or estimate made by Gannett, Hudson and Miller, engineers for the complainants of the reproduction cost new less depreciation. of respondent's property, amounting to...... 5. Estimate made by Charles A. Wentworth, engineer for the complainants of the cost to produce new the physical part of respondent's piant, not including any building, real estate or meters, same as now exists, save the substitution of a more modern pumping plant in place of the existing one (see Wentworth Testimony page 193), for

6. Estimate made by Mr. Miller, contractor for the complainants, of the cost of erecting new, buildings of respondent company, amounting to

765,560.82

1,809,316.00

783,149.04

543,876.26

49,038.45

The following is a detailed statement of the several audits and estimates above specified, made by the auditors and engineers:

2,784.04 3,326.24

3,113.00 523.00

$815,590.71 $798,583.21|| $1,120,708.00 $75,734.00 $1,044,974.00] 33,022.59 33,022.59

2,590.00

3,113.00 $826,256.00

523.00 2,590.00 $75,734.00 $750,522.00|

$782,568.12 $765,560.62|| $1,120,708.00 $75,734.00 $1,044,974.00|

$826,256.00 $75,734.00 $750,522.00|

bing value,

$1,065,985.58 $765,560.62 $1,678,392.00 $93,810.00 $1,065,985.58 $765,560.62||

220,000.00 $1,898,392.00 $93,810.00 $1,804,582.00|

$1,584,582.00|| $1,023,670.00 $87,737.00 $935,933.00| 220,000.00 || 152,783.96

+152,783.96

$870,886.04 $87,737.00 $783,149.04|