Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000279 205

Image

File
Download upr000279-205.tif (image/tiff; 23.52 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000279-205
    Details

    Rights

    This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

    Digital Provenance

    Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

    Publisher

    University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

    Los Angeles, March 2, 1981 MEMORANDUMS Mr, R. L. Adamsons Subjects Ra Electric Power change. LVL&wga*. J i l t The above amounts on the Auditor* 0 recorded costa for eleotrlo current charged LVL*wCo. for the two period* shown The Increase Is substantial* jffo Johnson has checked In at Las Vegas and phoned me today (Friday) that the charges as reported are based upon sub-meter readings each month. I am handing you the file on the monthly statements - for the last two years* Xou will see that ths last Items on each monthly bill covers this item of power. Hr* Johnson further said* based open his Inquiry* that the designation was in error# 1* Booster pump charge from #6*00 to $19*00 per month applies to railroad and not for ths production of water. 2# The designation water well #1 and #2 should be circuit 01 end circuit #2* Yeu will observe from their monthly reports that substantial billings for power occur In all months of the year - winter months are neavy too, r x ^ X m i charges are reasonably correct. what occasioned the $10*350 charge in 1050 as compared with $5*226 in 1949, Apparently we must look to this office for the answer* My suggestion is something like this* 1* Cheek the logs of ths pump operations to ascertain whether pumps operated regularly. 2* secure kwh billing* 3* On the basis of the else of the motor and load would it bo physically possible to utilise the kwh billed*