upr000063 94

cannot be disregarded if the rate base fixed for the Railroad Company is to properly reflect the property which is used for the production of water during the test year 1951, True Original Cost Ignored, The rate base for the Railroad Company determined by the Commission is based upon an average of the depreciated so- called Investment Cost of $443,336.33 and the depreciated so- called Original Cost of $461,736.93 found by the Commission. The so-called Original Cost is not based upon any evidence of record. Mathematically it is 103$ of the so-called Investment Cost figure. Original Cost cannot be found by mathematical formulas but only by examining the accounting for individual property units and determining whether they have been under­stated, as was done by Petitioner’s witnesses. The Commission’s calculation does not even reconcile with the mathematical re­lationship between Investment Cost and true Original Cost rate bases of the Railroad Company shown on Exhibit S where the true figures show that Original Cost is 105$ of Investment Cost. That the Commission has simply used an arbitrary mathematical factor to arrive at Original Cost is demonstrated by the fact bhat it has used the same factor of 103$ to arrive at Original Cost in its rate base for the Water Company, whereas, true Original Cost for the Water Company as show, in Exhibit S is 112$ of Investment Cost. If an average of these two capital bases is at all justified, both bases should be accurately \ —44-