upr000065 118

Items 1 to 1+ are from the 1951 annual report. Items 6 to.11•are from the "Joint Facilities Rent" Exhibit No. 18 and statement supplementing the 1951 annual report. Items 6, 9 and 10 are reported as actual while 7 and 8 are calculated by plaintiff as services rendered by the Railroad to the Water i Company. Item 12 represents the percent the Water Company participates in the production facilities• Items 13 to 20 are from the 1951 annual report. Item 21 was deleted for rate-making purposes as it is a non-recurring item. Item 22 is the total of distribution operating expense. Item 23 is the combined operating expense. Items 2k, 25 and 26 are self-explanatory. Item 27, average production plant, is from Exhibit No. 13. (792,876 plus 81+7,901) divided by 2. Items 28 and 29 are the same as assigned in I 8s S 127- Item 30 is from Exhibit No. 18 (122,381 plus 136,626) divided by 2. Item 31 is the percent the Water Company participates in the average production plant used in rate case. Item 32 is from 1951 annual report (835,583 plus 972,9^7) divided by 2. Items 33, 3^ * and 35 are from I & S 127• Item 36 is from 1951 annual report (21+0,588 plus 252,020) divided by 2. Item 37 is from Exhibit 31 Appendix B, Table 1-3C* Item 38 is the average distribution plant used for rate case. Item 39 is the combined average plant. The Commission finds that the Company had a net operating profit of 2.72$ for 1951 actual operations. It would have made 3-k2$ if the effect of the increase in I & S 127 had been effective January 1, 1951 instead of September 1, 1951- The defense project has not been considered by the Commission in the rate base inasmuch as it has been completely charged off. Witness Wehe (Transcript 226) in response to a question by the Court: "Has that been hereto- . fore charged off, the defense, projects?" "A. - On the defense projects it has been charged off, yes, sir. Charged off a hundred percent on the books t of the Company." The plaintiff contended that the defense projects should be put back -7-