upr000283 65

I & S Docket No. 12? Los Angeles, Oct Mr. Ii« Me Sutton: (cc - Mr. A. E. Stoddarf Mr. Wm. Reinhardts Mi . W. R. Rouse Mr. W. H. Huisiaer) Mr. Renwick has just returned from Carson City Nevada, where he discussed the above case and the Commis­sion’s denial of our Petition for Reconsideration with Mr. Robert Allen, Chairman of the Commission. He believes it may be possible to convince the Commission that the Commis­sion should authorise higher rates by means of further in­formal conferences with Mr. Allen. He was not able to have a full discussion with Mr. Allen, because Mr. Allen was sitting in on the court trial of the suit brought by the Bell Telephone Company of Nevada to set aside the Commission’s order denying the Telephone Company a rate increase. How­ever, he did have an opportunity to explain to the Commis­sion some of the errors made by the Commission in its deci­sion and that the Water Company must have further relief. The item which received most consideration in their duscussions was the rate base oi the Railroad Go pany. Mr. Allen contends that our showing mad© at the hearing is inconsistent with previous information contained in the an­nual reports of the Water Company. Mr. Renwick assured him that the capital investment figures furnished at the hearing were the only correct figures and told Mr. Allen that he felt that he had drawn an erroneous conclusion from general state­ments contained in the annual reports of the LVL&.WC0., re­lating to the production facilities of the Railroad Company. Mr. Allen admitted that if Mr. Renwick’s statements were true, the Commission’s position on the railroad rate base was wrong. He agreed to discuss the case further with Mr. Renwick when an opportunity is presented after the conclu­sion of the Telephone case. a complaint seeking to set aside the Commission’s order and have it available for filing if further conferences with Mr. Allen are not successful. It is our purpose to proceed with the drawing of OCT 18 1951