upr000283 201

cost or to refrain from giving weight to present values. The only Court decisions dealing with the obligations of the Nevada Public Service Commission are the case of Reno Power, Light and Water Co. v. Public Service Commission (Dist. Ct. of Nevada 1921) reported in 300 Fed. 645, and another case by the same title decided in the year 1923 reported in 29$ Fed. 790. Both of these cases enunciate the doctrine that a utility is entitled to earn a fair return on the value of its property used and useful in the performance of its public service and that in determining a fair value the Commission is entitled to consider all elements of value, including original cost and re­production cost. We think that the Commission should give serious con­sideration to the approach to valuation followed by the Commis­sions of the States of Michigan and Indiana in two recent cases. In the case of Consumers Power Co., decided by the Michigan Pub­lic Service Commission in January 1950, reported in $2 P.U.R. (NS) 97, the Michigan Commission fixed a value for the utility for rate purposes in the zone between original cost and present day cost. The Commission said: s?We are not unmindful of the preme Court of the United States ind eFceidseiroanl oPfo wteher SCoum­­mriesalsiizoen tvh. atH opteh e Nadte.c isGaiso n Coo.f t(h1i9s44 )c as3e2 0m aUr.Sk.e d 59a1 .s igW­e mniisfsiciaonnts tcohwaangred tihne thqeu eastttiiotnu doef foafi rt hev alcuoeu,r tso riagnid naclo m­' cost and other various philosopies. In the Hope case, the court declined to set aside the order of the Federal Power Commission because'based upon original cost as contrasted to fair value, and held in substance that the basis of value was not controlling so long as the -47-