assumed in its study proper co-ordination of the Muscoda hydro plant with whatever other source of supplemental energy the village uses. Apparently, objectors arrived at the difference which they claim by considering the cost to the village of purchased power in 1936 in contrast with what might have been experienced had the village so operated as to have taken its supplemental power on a limited demand of 35 kilowatts at the standard or "Boscobel" rate. On the other hand, the Commission has made its determination by comparing estimates of the most efficient operation of the hydro plant co-ordinated with purchased energy on the one hand and with Diesel generation on the other, and arrived at a differential in cost of operation which is not sufficient to warrant a denial, under Section 196.49 (4), Statutes, of authority to the village to make its choice as to what source of energy it will use.

It now appears that the village has already proceeded with the purchase of the land and construction of the building; that the land, which was originally estimated would cost approximately $1000, actually cost the village $600; that the cost of construction, which was estimated at $4000, actually cost the village $3950. The Commission has considered these differences, and also the suggestion that the original estimate of insurance was insufficient. The difference does not materially affect the result of the original estimates.

It is contended by objectors that installation of a Diesel generating system will "freeze" the rates, and that it is advantageous to the consumers to have an "unlimited" source of energy. The "unlimited" source of energy to which reference is made is actually limited by the 112.5 kilovolt-ampere capacity of the transformer bank, and the line capacity between Muscoda and Boscobel of 200 kilovoltampere, replacement of which to handle greater loads might materially affect the cost of furnishing service.

No argument was made as to the propriety of that portion of the Commission's order which denied the motion of the remonstrants' counsel for dismissal because the village had failed to request and act upon bids for the engine.

[1] The Commission does not by this determination attempt to approve or pass upon the legality of the contract

between the village of Muscoda and the Fairbanks Morse Company. It has determined that the village should have its approval of the purchase of a Diesel engine costing in the neighborhood of $20,000. It is not within the Commission's authority to direct the village of Muscoda to purchase its energy from the Interstate Power Company; nor to direct the purchase of any particular make of engine from any particular person. The village having determined to obtain its supplemental energy by a Diesel, the Commission can inquire only as to whether public convenience and necessity will be served by the installation of the plant and as to whether that means of generation will impose a hardship or an undue burden upon the consumers of the utility within Muscoda.

The Commission, having met and considered all the evidence, testimony, and argument presented both in the original hearings and upon rehearing, finds and certifies as follows:

(1) That public convenience and necessity require the installation of a Diesel generating plant by the village of Muscoda as an electric utility;

(2) That such installation will not substantially impair the efficiency of service of such public utility;

(3) That such installation will not provide facilities unreasonably in excess of the probable future requirements of such public utility; and

(4) That such generating plant will not, when placed in operation, add to the cost of service without proportionately increasing the value or available quantity thereof.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, That the order of May 28, 1937, in the above-entitled matter, be and the same is hereby affirmed.

[2-R-684]

STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN

VS.

MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY

Decided August 5, 1937

ORDER FOR REHEARING

WHEREAS the Public Service Commission issued its decision and order in the above-entitled proceeding under date of July 23, 1937 (see, page 584), authorizing a grade separation at the intersection of U. S. Highway No. 8 and the main tracks of the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company, about 2 miles west of Almena, town of Almena, Barron County, in accordance with a stipulated agreement between the railway company and the State Highway Commission of Wisconsin, and

WHEREAS the town of Almena, through its attorney, has filed with the Commission a petition for a rehearing on the ground and for the reason that residents of the town of Almena have not been given proper opportunity to introduce testimony in objection to this grade separation; and

WHEREAS the Commission deems the facts sufficient to warrant a rehearing in the matter;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, That a rehearing is hereby granted in the above-entitled proceeding.

[CA-475]

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE VILLAGE OF WAUNAKEE AS ΑΝ ELECTRIC UTILITY FOR AUTHORITY TO EXTEND ITS LINES IN THE TOWNS OF WESTPORT AND SPRINGFIELD, DANE COUNTY

Decided August 6, 1937

VILLAGE OF WAUNAKEE as an electric utility authorized to extend its rural distribution line into the town of Springfield, Dane County, for a distance of approximately 2 miles, all within the territory allotted to_said municipal utility in an agreement with the Wisconsin Power and Light Company.

BY THE COMMISSION:

In a letter received by the Commission on June 5, 1937, the Waunakee Water and Light Commission, Mr. C. J. Schmidt, president; Mr. John E. Klingelhofer, secretary, made application to the Commission for authority to extend a rural distribution line in the town of Springfield, Dane County, this extension to be in all approximately 2 miles in this town. Under the provisions of Rule 4 of the Commission's General Order 2-U-965 (13 P.S.C. of W. 539), no notice of the proposed extension was sent to the Rural Electrification Co-ordination, and it appears that there is no rural co-operative project in this vicinity nor has the area been filed upon under Chapter 17 of the Statutes, Laws of 1937.

This extension is from the village limits of Waunakee west on County Trunk K to the west town line of the town of Westport, and for about a mile or slightly more west on County Trunk K, and later it is expected that the line will be extended north between sections 1 and 2 of the town of Springfield for less than 1 mile. Under the Commission's order, 2-U-20 (6 P.S.C. of W. 484), inasmuch as the Waunakee Water and Light Commission was not serving in the town of Springfield it was necessary to secure a certificate of authority for this extension, and since the Wisconsin Power and Light Company is already serving in that town it was necessary to secure from them an agreement whereby the municipal utility would have the right to serve in a particular section of that town. The application for the authority was accompanied by an agreement with the Wis

consin Power and Light Company whereby the municipal utility was given the authority "to serve rural customers in the south one-half of sections 1 and 2, and the north onehalf of sections 11 and 12; also, to include the farms of C. Laufenberg and W. Wipperfurth, all in Springfield Township."

In view of the foregoing facts the Commission finds and determines that the extension of a rural electric line by the Waunakee Water and Light Commission into the town of Springfield for a distance of approximately 2 miles and within the territory allotted to the municipal utility in an agreement with the Wisconsin Power and Light Company is required by public convenience and necessity as contemplated by Section 196.49 of the Statutes and General Orders 2-U-20 and 2-U-965; and that authority for its construction should be granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, That authority be and hereby is granted to the Waunakee Water and Light Commission to construct a rural extension into the town of Springfield, Dane County, for a distance of approximately 2 miles, and extending for some distance along County Trunk K and northerly on the road between sections 1 and 2, all within the territory allotted to the municipal utility in an agreement with the Wisconsin Power and Light Company.

[CA-485]

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE VILLAGE OF HAMMOND AS A WATER UTILITY FOR AUTHORITY TO INSTALL A WELL

Decided August 6, 1937

VILLAGE OF HAMMOND authorized to install a new well and equipment at a cost of approximately $6500, and ORDERED to make provision to meter at least two thirds of the consumers within 12 months.

BY THE COMMISSION:

The village of Hammond, Wisconsin, through Herman T. Hagestad, consulting engineer, made application on June 30, 1937, for authority to construct a new well and make other