upr000279 71

Mr. T. V. Bockes Los Angeles, April 11, (so — M r » A. K * 31odd® Mr. Mm. Beinhard Mr. V. H. Hulsls Mr. B. M. Sutton* W M . R. APR 11 1951 X ^ l i i S y / > X * The Nevada Publie Service Commission conducted a bearing on April 3rd to 5 th, 1951 with respect to the suspended increased rate schedule covering tbs water utility operations at las Tegas, Nevada of tbe Las Vegas Land and Water Company. Tbs bearing was adjourned before we bad completed our showing and will not be resumed until tbe letter part of May 1951 at a date to be later fixed. At tbe request of tbe Chatman of tbe Coamlaalon we here agreed to allow tbe Canalsslon to bare more than tbe 110 days allowed by law to conclude its oonslderation of the suspension proceedings. No dsfiaite additional tine has been determined upon and we hope that tbe Commission will be able to decide tbe ease with dispatch after tbe conclusion of tbe next bearing. Tbe only protectants of record were tbe City of Lae Vegas and tbs Motel Association. However, X expect the Property Owners Association to appear when tbe protectants have an opportunity to make their showing. Tbe larger part of tbe bearing was devoted to tbe direct and eroee examination of Mr. Boy A* webs whose testi­mony was based upon bis original report dated November 1, 1950 and bis supplemental report dated March 19, 1951. These reports show tbe returns to which tbe Company would be entitled on three different capital basest Investment cost, original cost ami present day value. Mr. Wehe testified that tbe Commission should consider all of these capital bases but be emphasized tbe use of original cost because our proposed rates bad been constructed to provide a reasonable return on this capital base. There §re a number of difficult problems in­volved in this case such as tbe relatively large amount of amortised defense plant facilities and advances in aid of construction in tbs capital bass. We have relied very strongly on Mr. Vebs's judgment as to tbs manner In which we should handle these problems and also as to tbe approach to take in presenting tbe ease. In my opinion be was a very effective witness and bis testimony will be given n great deal of consideration by tbe Commission. He has an tation in tbe public utility field in this area and hoaust sbtaadn dai nlgo rnegpu­background of experience with tbe California Commission as well as In tbe capacity of a consulting engineer for all of the major utili­ties in California. has a close relationship with tbe California Commission upon which it frequently relies for technical guidance. Political factors, of course, may have some bearing upon the ultimate deelsion in our ease but X am certain that Mr. Wshe's association with us in the ease has been a very great asset. Tbe Nevada Commission has practically no staff and