Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000283 197

Image

File
Download upr000283-197.tif (image/tiff; 27.02 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000283-197
    Details

    Rights

    This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

    Digital Provenance

    Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

    Publisher

    University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

    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-