upr000283 205

computations will necessarily have to be recomputed when a re­turn on the proper rate base is used. The interest of $27,603.71 shown in the Commission’s computations is deficient because the Commission has used a de­ficient base as heretofore explained and also because the Com­mission has used a rate of 6% instead of a rate which we deem to be the lowest reasonable rate of return which could be found by the Commission under the evidence in this case. The combined effect of the failure of the Commission to find a proper rate base for the water production facilities of the Railroad Company and errors in computation of elements entering into the Joint Facility Rent charge as heretofore ex­plained results in a greatly deficient Joint Facility Rent charge. The actual charge which the Hater Company must pay to the Railroad Company is, of course, clearly in excess of the charge fixed by the Commission and to the extent that the charge fixed'by the Commission is unreasonably low, the net revenues of the Hater Company are depressed beloxf what they should be. The failure of the Commission to allow, as an operat­ing expense of the Hater Company, a joint facility rent charge high enough to enable the Railroad Company to earn a fair re­turn on an adequate rate base is a taking of the property of both the Railroad Company and the Hater Company without due pro­cess of law in violation of the State and Federal Constitution. Wichita Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission, 2 Fed. Supp. 792. -51-