tude makes it that way. Pure's
jobber policy is the most flexible
in the business. A "no-policy"
policy, really, because every job-
ber is treated individually.

Our rule-of-thumb is to help
out without butting in. Because
we found out early in the game
that that's what the Joe Earmans
of this world want.

Interested in comparing notes with some Pure jobbers? Write Manager, Jobber Relations, Pure Oil Division, Union Oil Company of California, 200 East Golf Road, Palatine, Illinois 60067.

APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF STATE REGULATORY DECISIONS AND ACTIONS RESPECTING UTILITY PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES THROUGH JULY 1, 1968

Alaska. The Alaska Commission approved, with one exception, a "Pipe Now, Save Now" promotional program whereby a gas utility offered to pay 50 per cent of the present heating bill or residential conversion customers from the date he signed up for gas until the company installed his equipment and service lines. and whereby a credit would be allowed to existing customers for submitting the name of prospective customers, such credit to be 50 per cent of the existing customer's bill for the month in which the new customer signed up. The single exception concerned the size of the credit to the existing customer which, since it was a function of the customers own bill and not related to the service per formed, the Commission held to be unreasonable. (Oil Heat Institute, Inc. v*. Anchorage Natural Gas Corp., 72 PUR 3d 169 (December 12, 1967)).

Arkansas.-The Arkansas Supreme Court has affirmed the Arkansas Commis sion's ruling that it lacks jurisdiction to prohibit a utility company from selling appliances (Associated Mechanical Contractors of Arkansas v. Arkansas Lowisiana, 283 S.W. 2d 123 (1955)).

Arizona.-An Arizona Commission corporation proceeding instituted by elec trical contractors complaining about underground wiring by utility was dis missed without prejudice on stipulation of the parties. (National Electrical Contractors Association v. Arizona Public Service Company, Arizona Corp Commission, Docket No. U-1345, Decision No. 38753).

California. The California Commission has held that free gas piping and other promotional activities "which go beyond the customary utility concepts" are improper. (Re Southwest Gas Corporation, 61 PUR 3d 467 (Cal. P.U.C. 1966)). A pending investigation (Docket No. 8029) involves underground wiring gener ally, and another (Docket No. 8513) involves the proposed underground exten sion rules of Southern California Edison Company. (See, also, City of Walnut Creek v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. 29 PUR 3d 81 (Calif. P.U.C. 1959); R Southern California Edison Co., Decision No. 54384 (Calif. P.U.C., 1957); R€ Southern California Gas Co., 35 PUR 3d 300 (Calif. P.U.C., 1960)).

Connecticut.-The Connecticut Commission has prohibited utilities from giv ing guarantees of fuel costs (Conn. P.U.S., Docket No. 10484, October 7, 1966). This ruling was reapplied in a subsequent decision which also upheld installa tion allowances and other promotional practices of electric and gas utilities. other than "special allowances" to meet particular competitive situations, but required filing of descriptions and reports of promotional practices. (Re Investi gation of Electric and Gas Utilities Concerning Their Practices in Obtaining New Business, 65 PUR 3d 405 (Conn. P.U.C. 1966)).

Delaware. The Delaware Commission approved cash promotional allowances for electric space heating installations and Gold Medallion homes subject to the requirement that such allowances not to be "unreasonable or unduly prefer ential." Commission now requires utilities to file detailed descriptions of and reports concerning promotional activities. (In Re Complaints Concerning Rebates and Reimbursements for Electrical Service, 56 PUR 3d 1 (1964)).

District of Columbia. In an early case (1937), the District of Columbia Public Service Commission disapproved a proposed rule whereby the electric utility would provide free wiring to kitchens containing both an electric range and an electric refrigerator in individual dwellings or throughout an apartment building. For the public utility status of and promotional practices involved in a large gas total energy apartment house project, see Re Washington Gas Light Co.. 58 PUR 3d 1 (1965).

Florida. The Florida Commission is currently investigating the promotional activities of all gas and electric utilities within its jurisdiction. (Commission Docket No. 9046).

Georgia. The Georgia Commission has upheld plans by which an electric utility pays contractors a portion of customer's wiring costs to permit utilization of electrical appliances. (Re Georgia Power Co., 40 PUR 3d 302 (Ga. P.SC. 1961)). The Commission has also upheld promotional allowances for Gold Medallion, All-Electric, electric heat, and specified electric appliances, but disapproved large-scale cooperative advertising. (Re Savannah Electric and Power Co., 45 PUR 3d 88 (Ga. P.S.C. 1962)). The Commission is presently investigating the promotional practices of certain electric and gas companies resulting from petition filed by one of the gas companies (Docket No. 2027-U). Hearings have

been held, and more are scheduled.

4

Idaho. The Idaho Public Utilities Commission denied the complaints filed against Intermountain Gas Company's appliance lease rental program, ordering the utility to remove its lease rental tariffs from the Commission's files as a nonutility function (Re Intermountain Gas Co., 67 PUR 3d 511 (1967)). The Commission also enlarged an electric utility's authority to finance customer installations or guarantee customers' notes and other indebtedness for wiring and installation of electrical space heating systems and other electrical systems to include such financing of other customer facilities appropriate to efficient space heating, such as insulation and storm windows (Re Pacific Power and Light Co., 69 PUR 3d 367 (May 1, 1967)).

Illinois. The Illinois Commission has upheld financing by utilities of customers' purchases of equipment in three cases (Re North Shore Gas Co., CCH Public Utility Service, Para. 19,999 (Ill. Com. Comm'n 1964); Re Commonwealth Edison Co., CCH Public Utilities Service, Para. 20,017 (Ill. Com. Comm'n 1965); Re Union Electric Co., CCH Public Utilities Service, Para. 20,044 (Ill. Com Comm'n 1965)). Without the Commission either approving or disapproving promotional practices, gas and electric utilities were prohibited, by interim order pending conclusion of an investigation from making or guaranteeing loans for customer construction or otherwise investing in nonutility property, granting any promotional allowance, making any payment to builders or others for work done on property not owned by the utility, or leasing equipment or facilities or making loans to others for the purchase of equipment or facilities the cost of which exceeds $1,000 at any one location; it was further ordered that no electric or gas utility should increase any presently offered promotional practices without first obtaining Commission approval, and that any promotional practices or allowances presently being granted must be made available on a uniform basis and not be unlawfully discriminatory. (Re Promotional Practices of Electric and Gas Utilities, 69 PUR 3d 317 (July 12, 1967)).

Kentucky.-The Kentucky Public Service Commission has refused to prohibit utility promotional activities on grounds of their competitive impact alone. Maine. The Maine Commission and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court have approved cash promotional allowances by electric company for installation of electric heat and certain appliances (Gifford v. Central Maine Power Co., 217 A. 2d 200 (1966)).

Maryland.—The Maryland Commission has upheld programs under which charges to customer for gas main extensions are reduced by allowances for certain uses of gas by customer. (Re Oil Heat Association of Maryland, Inc. v. Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., Case No. 5472, February 13, 1957). In a case not involving promotional practices, the Maryland Commission has held that where local ordinance requires underground transmission or distribution of electricity customers in that locality must bear the excess cost. (Re Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., 64 PUR 3d 473 (Md. P.S.C. 1966)). The Maryland Commission has approved a rate reduction in a promotional all-electric rate (Re The Potomac Edison Company, 68 PUR 3d 155 (January 27, 1967)). The Commission has also held that an electric space-heating rate resulting in a reduction of rates for some customers in that a small user having air conditioning would have an opportunity to effect a reduction in his bill by adding electric heat to the space being cooled results in discrimination against a similar size customer who for one reason or another cannot heat his space with electrical equipment but uses a similar amount of electricity for air conditioning. (Re Delmarva Power & Light Company of Maryland, 71 PUR 3d 195 (November 15, 1967)). The Maryland Commission has also held that underground installation of residential electrical service is not a proper vehicle for promotional allowances and that an electric utility's charges for underground installations which will be waived upon agreement by the builder to create a total electric development or partially waived if less than total, results in undue discrimination between the utility's customers by imposing unequal charges on the same types of customers for the same service. (Suburban Home Builders Ass'n v.s. Potomac Electric Power Company, 72 PUR 3d 282 (February 14, 1968)).

Massachusetts.-The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities has declared unlawful a plan by which electric company guaranteed the maximum cost of electric heat. (Re Rate Contracts for Electric Space Heating, 58 PUR 3d 90 (Mass. D.P.U. 1965)).

Michigan.-The Michigan Public Service Commission is conducting an investigation of utility promotional activities and has issued an interim order which prohibits (1) cash grants, loans or guarantee of loans for building construction, (2) payments to builders or others for work done on property not owned by the

utility, (3) leasing equipment or making loans to others for the purchase of equipment the cost of which exceeds $2,000 for each location without having first obtained the approval of the Commission, (4) providing facilities on the customer's side of the meter without having first obtained the approval of the Commission, and (5) providing underground electrical distribution without securing payment of a prescribed non-refundable cash contribution.

Minnesota.-Two gas companies and others have filed a complaint in the State court attacking a decision by the State to construct all-electric facilities for a junior college and seeking to have that decision declared unlawful. (Smith, et al. v. State of Minnesota, Department of Administration, et al., File No. 350496, District Court, Second Judicial District, Ramsey County, Minn.). The State has agreed to reopen the matter and receive bids for gas installation, with the final selection to be made after giving fair consideration to both proposals. Missouri.-On November 30, 1965, the Missouri Public Service Commission sent a questionnaire on promotional practices to the electric and gas utilities operating in that State requiring detailed information on utility promotional practices. Nevada. The Nevada Commission has disapproved promotional program by which the gas company furnished free piping, free installation and cheap financing of gas appliances, free new water heater and yard light to gas heat customers. (Re Southwest Gas Corporation, CCH Public Utilities Service, Para. 20,216 (Nev. P.S.C. 1965)).

New Jersey. The New Jersey Superior Court has approved allowance of credit against electric bill for installation of electric heat. (Rossi v. Garton, 60 PUR 3d 210 (N.J. Super, Ct., App. Div. 1965)). The New Jersey Public Utility Commission has approved furnishing of free gas lines to residences and interior gas piping at less than cost. (Superior Propane Co. v. South Jersey Gas Co., 60 PUR 3d 217 (N.J. P.U.C. 1965)). Very recently the New Jersey Commission approved cash allowances for electric heat and a variety of other practices such as cooperative advertising, guarantees of satisfaction, free maintenance, equip ment donations to schools, etc. (Re Watkins v. Atlantic City Electric Co., 67 PUR 3d 483 (1967)).

New Mexico.-The New Mexico Public Service Commission has approved a refund plan for underground electrical distribution service which, in effect. provides such service at no cost to all-electric developments (Re Public Service Company of New Mexico, Case No. 830 (1966)).

New York. In an old case the Supreme Court approved cash payments to promote the use of electric and gas refrigerators. (Re City Ice & Fuel Co., 260 App. Div. 537, 23 N.Y.S. 2d 376 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1940)). More recently a $25 allowance for interior gas piping has been approved by the Commission to promote installation of gas appliances. (Re Long Island Lighting Co., Case 16123 (N.Y. P.S.C. 1953)). The Commission has approved the sale, leasing, financing and servicing of large gas-using installations through a subsidiary of a gas company (Case No. 23817, January 12, 1966). (See, also, Groggins v. Consolidated Edison Co., 24 PUR NS 57 (N.Y. P.S.C. 1938; Groggins v. New York Edison Co., 16 PUR NS 365 (N.Y. P.S.C. 1936). On April 25, 1967, the New York Commission warned all utility companies in the state "to exercise extreme caution in any further extension of their promotional activities so that the restrictive provisions of the Public Serv ice Law shall not be violated (Re Promotional Activities By Gas and Electric Corporations, 68 PUR 3d 162 (April 25, 1967)).

North Carolina.-The North Carolina Commission has disapproved all promotional allowance and incentive plans of three electric companies. In disapproving the underground service plans of the same three electric utilities, the Commis sion held that a plan for the installation of underground service whereby heavy users of electricity are provided underground service on more favorable terms than less heavy users constitutes an unreasonable preference to heavy users and unjust discrimination against other customers in the same class and that pay ments or the furnishing of equipment in connection with the installation of underground service would not be approved unless (a) such payment or furnishing is offered to persons using or applying for such service; (b) the offer is to all persons within the class and without discrimination; and (c) the offer is reasonable considering evidence of consideration or compensation paid by the utility's competitors, both regulated and unregulated. (Re Carolina Power & Light Co.. 70 PUR 34 426 (August 31, 1967)); (Re Duke Power Co., 70 PUR 3d 442 (August 31, 1967)); (Re Virginia Electric & Power Co., 70 PUR 3d 454 (August 31. 1967)). In subsequently approving a modified plan submitted by one of the utili ties, the Commission approved a monthly surcharge method of collecting the

actual cost of the underground service and held that the determination of the most practical method of payment of such charges, so long as reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory, should be left to the discretion of management. (Re Carolina Power & Light Co., 71 PUR 3d 170, (December 14, 1967)). Ohio.-East Ohio Gas Company has filed suit against Ohio Power Company charging that Ohio Power is buying large real estate tracts restricting development on the property to all-electric home developments (Wall Street Journal, April 7, 1967). The Ohio Commission approved an electric utility's promotional rate designed to provide incentive for the installation and use of electric space heating (Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., 73 PUR 3d 156 (1968)).

Oregon. The Oregon Public Utility Commission has disapproved underground service plan under which electric company would furnish without charge certain footages of underground wiring based on the electric appliances to be used. (Re Portland General Electric Company, 67 PUR 3d 417 (1967)); See, also, Home Telephone & Telegraph Co., PUR 1917 F 268 (Oregon Comm., 1917)). Pennsylvania.-On January 10, 1967, the Pennsylvania Utilities Commission directed the larger electric and gas utilities in the State to file with the PUC within 30 days a comprehensive description of all their sales promotion practices. The Pennsylvania Electric Company (Penelec) has decided to extend underground wiring services to new subdivisions at no extra cost to developers and at no rate increase to rate-payers. (See, also, Vitacolonna v. City of Philadelphia, 115 A 2d 178).

Virginia.-The Virginia Commission generally approved electric and gas promotional allowances and underground electric service plans, disapproving only guaranteed operating cost plans for electric heat and certain specific promotional allowances which were not uniformly available, requiring that any credit to be applied to reduce the customer's payment of the additional cost of underground service be based on total revenues or consumption, and not on use of particular appliances. (Commonwealth of Virginia v. Appalachian Power Co., et al., 65 PUR 3d 283 (Va. S.C.C. 1966)).

Washington. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission on November 30, 1966, sent a letter to all investor-owned electric and gas utilities operating in the State directing them to submit their promotional programs to the Commission. It also ordered that no utility could give a guarantee of cost, that if cost figures are submitted to a prospective customer, it must be made clear to the customer that these are estimates only. Finally, it directed electric utilities to file, as part of their tariff, the terms and conditions governing their charges for underground wiring services. The charge is to be based on an estimate of revenue and not on specific types of appliances to be used by the customer. West Virginia.-The gas companies have intervened in the West Virginia Commission proceeding concerning reduction of rates to electrically heated schools and, upon motion of intervenors, Commission has ordered the electric company to develop and file a cost of service and make available to the intervenors certain information requested by them (Re Appalachian Power Co., Case No. 6069, W. Va. P.S.C. June 23, 1966).

Note. Since the above Summary was prepared, the Georgia Public Service Commission, on June 28, 1968, entered orders requiring contributions from developers of not in excess of $212 per lot for new underground distribution lines, in accordance with formulas and conditions therein specified.

APPENDIX C-1

ELECTRIC HEATING ASSOCIATION, INC.
New York, N.Y., August 28, 1967.

To: Official representatives of EHA member companies.

During the course of discussion within the last meeting of the EHA Board of Directors of the questionnaire on promotional practices recently distributed to electric utility companies by the Dingell Subcommittee of the House of Representatives Small Business Committee, a suggestion was evolved which I was requested to pass on to member companies. The thought is that it may be useful either in the preparation of their responses to the questionnaire or in other communications with the Subcommittee added in the future.

This questionnaire, as you may have observed from the Subcommittee's letter of transmittal, is designed to further the Subcommittee's purpose of determining