Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000063 55

Image

File
Download upr000063-055.tif (image/tiff; 26.68 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000063-055
    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

    The lowest reasonable joint facility rent charge based upon the test year 1951 is $141,717.00 (Ex. R) which is $36,654.00 '*• greater than the joint facility rent charge approved by the Commission. A lower joint facility rent charge computed so as to return the Railroad only 6% on an average of the true Investment Cost and true Original Cost rate base for 1951, excluding water-bearing land in excess of 240 acres, would yield the inadequate amount of but $129,338.00 (Schedule III, p. 2) which in turn, however, is $24,275.00 more than the erroneously derived amount of $105,063.00 stated in the decision. Deficiency in Rate Base - Water Company C - The rate base of $618,919.72 found by the Commission to be a reasonable rate base for the "Water Company is in error, contrary to the evidence, and is insufficient because: 1. It excludes the costs of additions and better­ments to the distribution system of the Water Company which have been and will be made in the year 1951 and which are estimated to cost $230,000.00 (Ex. B, Table XI, p. 25), while at the same time an increase in revenue for the year 1951 over 1950 of $20,055.00 is used (Ex. B, Table I-b) in the Commission’s estimates, and which rev- ? enue was made possible from the new investment in plant facilities (June Tr. p. 45). 2. It does not include an allowance of $30,000.00 for water rights, which allowance is improperly included - 5 -