upr000283 203

September 5, 1950, reported in $5 P.U.R. (NS) 129, the Indiana Public Service Commission fixed a value for the utility at a point above original cost and below present day cost and in justifica­tion of its action said: "Under the law of this state, it Commission to value all of the proper tyi s oft het hed uuttyi loift ythe alcict uaatl lyi tsu sefdai ra nvda luusee fualn d foers tathbel ischo nvreeansioennacbel eo f anthde jpusutb­traetremsi nifnorg fthaei r svearlvuiec e trhee ndCeormemdi ssbyi onth em usutt ilgiitvye. coInns iddee­ra­tion to all bases of valuation which may be presented and to the reasonable cost of bringing the property to its then state of efficiency. The Commission may give consideration ttoi onr ep.r.od.uc.tion costs at current prices, less deprecia­sion t"oT het hel auws eo f oft hiasn y stsaitneg led ofeso rmnuotl a biinn d detthiesr miCnoimnmgis­utility property valuation, on the contrary, the act certainly contemplates that the Commission will not be bound by any one theory of valuation and will take into csoennsteidd eranadt imoany algli veb asceosn siofd evraaltuiaotni oton rwehpicrho dmuacyt iboen pcorset­s at current prices, less depreciation. "The public contends that the Commission should give no consideration to reproduction costs at current prices, depreciated, in its determination of property vtahel uepsu bliinc tthhisa t prtooc euesdei ntgh.e reTpher odCuocmtmiiosns'icoons ta grneeews fwoirtmhu ­la, which is at best highly speculative, would not be a astoiuonnd,' ruplaer ttioc uulsaer lyi n ine svtiaeblwi sohf itnhge utfiaclti tyt haptr otpheer tuys ev alofu­astuicohn a att htehoer yh iwgohuelsdt rpeossulsti blien tlheev ele satnadb ltihseh muesnet ooff vsuaclhu­a theory would be contrary to former decisions of this Commission. On the other hand, it would be just as faatliolna ciion utsh ef ord ettheirsm inCaotmimoins sioofn vtaol uraetsitorni ctto tihtes cusoen siofder­the original c ost depreciated theory as the one and only measure of utility property valuation, that probably bseiidnerge do.n"e of the lowest valuations that could be con­Joint Facility Rents. On page 16 of its opinion, the Commission computes a