Copyright & Fair-use Agreement
UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
Read more about our reproduction and use policy.
I agree.Information
Digital ID
Permalink
Details
More Info
Rights
Digital Provenance
Publisher
Transcription
estimates, as in this case, reflect the revenues which will be derived from such additions. For typical cases see the following public service commission decisions: Salt Lake City Line (Utah Public Service Commission 1949) 73 P.U.R. (NS) 1. Southern Utah Power Co. (Utah Public Service Commission 1929) 73 P.U.k. ('NS) 432. P.U.C. v. Central Maine Power Co. (1943) 75 P. U.R. (NS) 937“ I Potomac Edison Co. (Md. 1935) 7 P.U.R. (NS) 135. Re Northern States Power Co. (North Dakota 1933) 22 P.U.R. (NS) 364. In the case of New England Tel,& Tel.Co., 66 Atlantic (2d) 135, decided May 3} 1949} the Supreme Court of Vermont said: !JA public utility company should expand in order to meet the demand of the people for additional Construction to meet such demand cannot be star tesde rvoincee. day and completed the next. Such construction when hreeaasroinnagb liet sshhoouulldd baep peenacro ufrraogme dt.h e Iefv iadte ntchee thtaitm e ceofr taa inrate pthreo pewratyy ofu nfduerr nicsohnisntgru csteirvoinc ew ildlu rbien g atvhaei lapbelrei odf ori nu sweh icihn the rates in question will be in effect, such property Fsuheolu ldCo .b e v.i nMcilcuhdiegda ni n Puthbel icr atUet ilbiatsei.e s MCoonmrm.o,e GDa;Cs.l,i gh1t1 & F. 2d 319; Columbus Gas & Fuel Co. v. Columbus, D.C., 17 F. 2d 630. Table X on page 24 of Exhibit B, shows that the estimated cost of capital additions to the properties of the Railroad Company during the year 1951 is $69,250.00. This includes the cost of three pumps installed on Wells No. 3, 10 and 11 to increase the supply of water for the summer season of 1951* A substantial part of the additions listed have already been completed or are in the course of construction. These capital expenditures -43-