upr000063 113

V Court is left in the dark as to the reasons for the findings of the Commission. The Water Company and the Court are en­titled to have such reasons stated in the Commission’s opinion. Cases in support of this proposition have already been refer- ?, red to. The operating revenues estimated by the Water Company in Exhibit B were only $200.00 lower than those in Exhibit Q, and it makes very little difference in the final result which are used. However, it does make a substantial difference in the final result which operating expense estimates are used. In Exhibit B witness Wehe had estimated $36,000.00 per year as the operation and maintenance expense of the Water Company. When he testified in support of Exhibit Q, (June Tr. 51 to 53) he pointed out that he had increased that estimate to $41,200.00 for the test year 1951 for the following reasons: The actual expenses for 1950 were $37,638.00 and the actual expenses for the first four months of 1951 when read­justed to an annual basis were $36,900.00. He knew that the expenses for the remaining eight months of the year would be higher than those in the first four months because the cost of installing new services were charged to this account and there , would be more new services per month installed in the latter part of the year than in the first part of the year. The ? total number of new services to be installed during the year had been used in estimating increased revenues. (Incidentally the Commission accepted this estimate of increased revenue) -63-