Search

This petition was denied by the Commission because of the wellestablished fact that the automatic spinkler charge is nothing more nor less than a ready-to-serve charge which is included in the rate schedule of every public utility furnishing electric and water service in the State of Indiana. The principal averment of the petitioners was, that the charge for this water connection imposes an additional burden on the automatic sprinkler owners and is a discriminatory tax; and that it tends to destroy the interest of the average property owner in equipping his property for the reduction of fire peril. Petitioners introduced considerable evidence to show the unreasonableness of the automatic spinkler charge herein complained of, but also set forth the fact that the fire hazard in factories is greatly reduced by the automatic sprinkler system; that properties adjacent to factories having such automatic fire sprinkler systems receive the benefit of additional protection; and that such systems result in benefit to labor by making possible its continuous employment, because of the preservation of the factories so equipped. However, petitioners failed to make reference to the fact that no device has any merit or would be of any benefit whatever without an abundant water supply ready with sufficient pressure to force it wherever and whenever needed. Evidence was also introduced by petitioners to show that inasmuch as very little water is used in this service, no expense is attached to

n/a