Idaho Power Co. v. Thompson

a hair lowed there application alternating current It does not clipper. of Wahl appear Such is not invention. new matter. to sufficiently that IDAHO POWER CO. v. THOMPSON power in the claims The covered all of original driving F.(2d) al- ments issues. prayed, accounting. hereof with and a reference The decree to the will follow master for an remaining the com- amendments and additions made. question concerning There is little IDAHO POWER CO. v. et al. THOMPSON fringement. plain- Defendant’s construction ly reads each of claims held valid. Court, Idaho, April 28, District D. 1927. S. D. [5, claims that there is insuffi Defendant 6] No. 1143. cient plaintiff, evidence of title in the but the complaint alleges bill of that the Electricity <§=>11 t. Utilities Commis- —Publio true, original, inventor of the and first require power company’s sion just, must rates to be reasonable, nondiscriminatory. device; same; applied that he for the Commission, Idaho Public Utilities created patent him; was issued to he and his by statute, duty power require has that rea- to manufacturing licensees are and have been by charged power company just, rates of devices accordance with the terms the sonable, nondiscriminatory. they patent; and that are supplying them to <§=»l| Electricity company 2. held to —Electric proved pri the trade. These facts when have burden to show rates ordered amounted proof plaintiff. ma facie of title taking compensa- property just to of without granted by patent title to him the tion. continues enjoin In by voluntary to grant exist until divested suit enforcement of or rates service, proof plain- electric burden of was on legal means of divestment. As stated question tiff on whether rates fixed order Mfg. C.) (C. Arrott Standard Co. 113 F. of Public Utilities amounted to tak- Commission 1014: ing plaintiff's just property compen- without sation. “Now, complainant’s it is true that this ownership of patent in suit at the date <@=»ll Electricity 3. rates —Proof electric filing his bill is not averred bill taking just property amount Without compensation convincing. must be clear and phrases demurrer, the set enjoin In suit of rates for enforcement legal substance ownership effect such service, ground on amounted electric averred. bill particularly forth sets just property taking without making of the invention the complainant;' compensation, plaintiff’s proof' must be dear convincing. his statutory terms, fulfillment of the condi- n tions, and requirements entitling him to let- Electricity <§=>11 4. determination —In therefor; patent ters application his due confiscatory, whether electric rate is commis- accept sion or flicting need not court either of con- same, grant him; and the thereof and, single expert. views of beyond this, going the bill avers that factor determination whether Where complainant been, and but for the de- taking company’s rates electric amount just compensation infringement fendant’s complained of and without involves opinion prophesy, evidence, rests on neither be, others like character still would accept commission court is bound to abso- nor possession, use, enjoyment undisturbed lutely conflicting views, opinion either of privileges the exclusive secured to him single expert, where but testifies. one patent; profert and he makes of the let- determining Electricity <§=ll 5. whether —In patent. ters Proof of' alleged the matters confiscatory, electric “reasonable rate prima make out a facie ease for relief. just judicial sense, is considered return” “nonconfiscatory.” equivalent More, therefore, complainant . was not determining whether electric fixed pat- bound aver. If since the issue of the tak- Public Commission amount Utilities title, by he assignment ent has lost or other- just company’s property without com- wise, that is a matter to be shown in defense. “just” pensation, return is con- “reasonable” or opposed legislative, judidal, as sidered in That the averments of the bill are sufficient equivalent aspect, “non- and is understood put answer; the defendant I can- confiscatory.” not doubt.” definitions, see Words [Ed. Note. —For title of patent If the under the Phrases, Series, First Second Reason- able.] nothing lost there is has been the record so produced company’s to show. Defendant has no evi- Electricity <§=>!I—Electric plant plus value of base fair reasonable impeaching prima facie title made. dence working capital. finding There be a decree will claims determining rate báse of electric com- 1,487,189 23 of patent valid and in- pany, fair value of as of date court takes injunction against defendant, fringed, reproduction computed inquiry, the- REPORTER, 2d FEDERAL 19 SERIES 548 cent, <@=>11— ory, adding per for thereto reasonable 15. Allowance of Electricity capital. working planning purchasing for and in connection with equipment office account for held reasonable <@=>11— power Original Electricity 7. cost of electric rate in case. of value in site land held measure incorrect case, be some In electric rate should there electrio rate case. compensation purchasing planning for and in Original power held not cost of site land general equip- office connection with account for electric rate correct measure of in land value ment, per but 3 is reasonable allowance. cent notwithstanding appraisement case, land of such <@=>IJ great Electricity attended with difficulties. 16. —Additions noted in rate case. <@=>11 determining Electricity value 8. —In Where, case, operating in electric rate rev- case, power site land rate in electric 12'/a enues for all of 1924 and 1925 were cent, per overheads excessive. for held purpose sidered, possibly and for for determining power In site land in plant during value deductions, ultimate additions case, be rate electric some allowance should may following 30, 1924, 18 months be June cent, per overheads, is ex- made for but 12% noted. cessive. <@=>11 Electricity fixing rates, 17. electrio —In <@=>11 determining Electricity 9. cost of —In proper court must consider all or commission power grounds plant, equipment, and in elec- elements of actual value ments of substantial ele- and contingen- case, possible expense trio for rate going value. cies omissions and should be considered. fixing duty charged Commissions with determining power plant, In total cost of charged rates, reasonable electric courts and fixtures, equipment, grounds, buildings, hydraulic power possibility and and restraining confiscation, consider with all must case, in electric rate works proper value, and elements of actual expense contingencies and for reject adopt going sense, value in broad considered, it is im- be omissions should existing substantial elements. appears under numer- material that item <@=>11 Electricity fixing rates, “omissions, loss, classifications, 18. electric ous such as —In already waste,” “contingencies.” element considered under another breakage, and again guise under head cannot considered be going value. <@=>I| $250,000 Electricity 10. excessive held — duty fixing charged case, rate Commissions for contractor’s fee in electrio charged rates, volving two-year program. electric reasonable with courts construction restraining cannot, confiscation, under ease, $250,000 contrac- In electric rate for guise going value, an element which consider land, buildings, equip- in tor’s fee accounts for given place proper two-year been considered ment, has. under for fixtures held excessive some other head. program, amount would since such construction day. per approximately $400 be <@=>11 determining Electricity going 19. —In case, maintenance, taxes, in value electrio rate <@=>11 Electricity case, rate electric 11. —In pro- should be and interest for construction rejected. item of contractor’s fee beyond jected period. construction case, of contractor’s In rate item electric determining going in electric In rate value equipment, land, buildings, for fee and accounts maintenance, case, taxes, interest for con- theory rejected, so fixtures held beyond projected should be construc- struction compensated had merit much thereof as reduced necessarily elapsing period, to time tion before cover material costs. brought plant can into active service. <@=>11 Electricity rate case 12. electric 4* —In <@=>M Property Electricity considered 20. — cent, rejected. per fee contractor’s rate-making in electric ceases to factor case, item of contractor’s In electric rate going basis for credits to value. transmission fee of account any property As of electric com- soon system held excluded. up pany far into to its come use so as factor entire value be considered <@=>11 Electricity case, electrio rate 13. —In making, basis further ceases to be rate considered, will not- cost withstanding flooded lands interest, taxes, going value, credits executory convey- contract accounts. government. ance to <@=>11 case, case, Eleotricity rate actual cost of lands In electric electric rate ex- 21. —In considered, by generating plant attaching pense will flooded notwithstanding new business be al- gov- executory going part contract with value. lowed factor installing irrigation place, ernment, dam such case, electric rate advertis- conveyance such lands to it. soliciting attaching new customers regarded in as factor should be business of <@=>11 Electricity case, electrio 14. rate —In going value. . equip- item of interest account for office <@=>11 company Electricity cannot 22. excluded. —Electric ment monopoly capitalize in deter- franchise case, item in In electric rate interest ac- mining rates. equipment count for office should be re- monopoly company’s franchise, and jected, Electric since there would to be no seem need equivalent enjoys, is substantial paying which it for such received until and-normally highly good will, put desirable use. weighed operation value, ity determining rate. not element of under other heads. of so tric 25. 26. 24. for has been found measure 820 better, held given properties.” ployees, much of such work was done 27. 000,000 000 additional for 29. ed to 28. sonable as capital. amount was company, $51,750, clearly explain “deferred valuation present of ties” company’s “co-ordinating tion electrio ing concern value. concern value. working capital dence of company’s working capital. “contingencies” power company after pany qualified utility capitalized. to finance In In In Where, In electric rate Electricity working In Electricity Electricity Electricity <§=>11 Electricity Electricity Electricity going power company working capital, especially rate sacrifice, bank reduced and rate though determining going electric in rate determining working capital electric should be such as allowing $51,750 electric rate held power in whose total held' not entitled excessive, economy “co-ordinating rate concern case, which held not element determining “necessary specific balances. working capital, may capital. credit estimate, not entitled enterprise but it experience rate expense,” case, <§=>11 going company, rate direct evidence <§=>11 <§=>11 case, <§=>11 <§=>11 some consideration should <§=>11 considered in maintained bank balances of held $10,000, value. “contingencies” case, necessity. corporation, and reduced to held not element case, needs. case, computing working in electric rate where there is compensation operation cannot unifying physical proper- concern —In in absence — case, $18,000,000 power —In —In — —In entitled —General $18,000,000 power bank balances” of and witnesses could not approximately reasonable is but normal attribute $51,750 not be resorted to in for bank balances. concern value in company’s rate rate case present for “deferred valua- consideration electric electric rate determining IDAHO engineers, computing working capitalize allowance allow of value, unifying held not determining go- expense,” by regular held held not unrea- and cannot going case, maintain specific estimate where such was economy return. $50,000 $18,000,000 rate direct evi- credit case, $19,- since be resort- something computing POWER excessive, of $18,000,- estimate accurate them physical element charged concern electrio electric capital, to be needs going $18,- case, since case, $50,- $51,- com- elec- abil- n held em- F.(2d) of CO. company month’s gations. fair 30. 31. be made ed 32. case, 33. factors erty of its terioration, dundancy. accumulated case, pany’s property cured 35. 36. 34. Public and Value.] chase of erty. called pany’s gineer pany’s records, depreciation sinking sumption expert edge 37. § computing working electric same fair value it for rate case month’s submit tric 2473. implies mining depreciation mining depreciation depreciation necessarily correctness of ciation in rate negotiating accumulated procured percentage method. ment [Ed. S. (C. In In In In In electric rate Electricity In Electricity Electricity Publio Electricity Evidence Electricity <§=>11 value it would Phrases, question of all material facts to be THOMPSON enable use, “fair value” depreciation by rate base straight determining determining determining determining determining electric electric may submit Note.—For witness need not have inadequate fund worth material operating in Idaho, for appraisement actual operating expense of correctness of data consideration property, but company’s matured service service commissions by rate depends obsolescence, company depreciation theory, <§=>543(1) conflict depreciation on sale. actual whether is not less than <§=>11 First and Second rate rate <§=>!! depreciation line in electrio rate case does not <§=>( <§=>l case, experienced engineer may fictitious value. inspection records, § case, exhibits, in commissions expense 2473). current depreciation implies depreciation depreciation depreciation have, if new. working capital in rate case, case, case, appraisement rate I—Amount negotiating established C.'S. I—Deduction —Deduction inspection on whether capital — to in —Court in rate amount Depreciation electrio rate percentage method. necessary —In case, rate meet all whether exhibits, definitions, court cannot draw on reserve deduction for accrued case, some it stands inadequacy, income, have, sinking consideration factors some other reserve to determining wear, case, on preferable case, company’s in company’s information cannot personal <§=>7 experienced <§=>7 deduction in in electric rate evidence," rate case. needed obligations, exceeding one sale competent. found in assumption must excess of if new. matured property and evidence. not be preferable made on as- electric electric conflict with Series, electric “fair fund it has same information material supplement (cid:127) decay, in see —In —In case. give draw be made accrued electric electric supple- Words knowl- value” theory depre- Idaho, deter- deter- need- prop- prop- must since meet com- com- obli- com- elec- Fair pur- rate pro- one de- en- so- re- all in (cid:127) REPORTER, 2d 19 FEDERAL SERIES n inadequate bearing income, com- and cannot tion as on other factors of current income, problem. pensate past current losses out of by giving base. fictitious value rate Electricity <@=>11Regulatory 46. commission — <@=>I expenses, Electricity electrio unit of 38. I—Cost of allowed as item of com- electric company, part pany’s operating expense. was used another which company, rate held excluded from base. case, In electric rate amount allowed case, regulatory op- rate of which unit electric In electric commission itemas erating expenses quired company, larger actually used under contract will be re- than paid company, needs, and ren- rent another for future where considerable “stand-by” service, accruing held excluded dered from valuation and at- base; proceedings suspense. cred- net was divided income tendant was carried system approximating iting fair with amount <@=>11 Electricity must —Electric compensation ratable share of basic use of just, reasonable, nondiscriminatory. investment. company, put Rates for electric whether out <@=>11 company’s Electricity mer- 39. by utility —Electric commission, just, or must reason- from consider- chandise account held excluded ation nondiscriminatory. able, and rate case. <@=>11— Electricity company may 48. Electric company’s case, merchan- electric In rate rates, “initiate” schedule of and select either consideration, dise account excluded held just. equally of alternative rate structures wheth- where it made no substantial difference right set-up. company Electric to “initiate”— in rate it or not included er was was is, propose approval rates, that and as for of —schedule <@=>l Unprecedented depression structures, 40. Evidence between alternative rate I— Oregon just equally may reasonable, in Eastern and Southwestern and and select public history. Idaho is matter Southern of which chooses. 'Oregon Eastern and Southwestern and definitions, [Ed. Note.—For other see Words through pass- passed Southern Idaho has or Phrases, Series, and Initiate.] Second through unprecedented depression, ing so notori- <@=>l Electricity Proposed 49. history. public electrio rates ous as to be matter of I— may automatically become effective when <@=>11 yielding Electricity Public 41. rates Utilities Commission takes no action. —Electrio cent, per confiscatory. held not Where Public does not Utilities Commission cent, per compliance yielding statutes, return of take action in schedule of pany, come Electric rates with when confiscatory. proposed by or over held rates is electric com- proposed may, cases, rates most be- <@=>23 automatically service commissions 42. Public —Public effective. as to Utilities Commission’s view allowance <@=>11 Electricity 50. rates need not —Electric controlling item of on account on court uniform, but should be above cost of serv- case. rate ice. case, view of Public Utilities electric rate uniform, but, Electric rates need not be particular item as to allowance Commission of exceptions, rare each should be above of controlling on on account is not court. particular service. Corporations,<@=>393 43. court will <@=>l —Rule Electricity 51. I—Public Utilities Commis- judgment utility for that of not substitute class, sion n fix electric rates for and each company’s managing inapplicable, officers held classify, utility also either initiation of or utility where there common control and of (C. Idaho, 2415, 2417, its own motion S. §§ contracting party. 2450-2452). 2427, 2429, Though generally will not substitute court power, Public Utilities Commission has nob judgment managing that of its own officers for class, fix electric rates each to but utility company concerning for of contracts classify, tiation of it, and it exercise on ini- either supervision special service, is in- and rule utility motion, or of its own in view applicable, where there is- control common Idaho, S. of C. §§ company party utility both with whom 2450-2452. contracts. <@=>l Electricity 52. I—Function of Public Utili- <@=>11 Electricity looking 44. —Service to bet- fixing ties Commission in electric rates management, ter investment, reduction of purely administrative. operating increase of net return of electrio Though Public Utilities Commission fix- chargeable company operating expense. responsibility calling rates has electric for looking Any management, range power service better discretion, wide exercise of greater efficiency, investment, reduction purely its function is administrative. operating of net return increase of electric <@=>6 Public 53. service commissions company consumers, prop- —Public for benefit of public Utilties Commission policies cannot erly chargeable initiate operation in rate manage- own or invade field of case. Legislature utility. rial discretion left <@=*l Electricity supervision 45. I—Item of Public Utilities Commission cannot initiate special part operat- service held allowed as public policies own, of its or invade field of ing expenses in electric rate case. managerial by Legislature discretion left to util- supervision .limitation, case, ity, In electric since constitutional item of within it is Special part operating expenses Legislature general policies service declare allowed, be taken held into considera- state. rates is Public 54. service, public and be 55. power tions, scribed. gious, rates in favor in which ho, Rice, ceive service scribing ing ing 57. ment of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of Idaho and authorized. power pany against rates held invalid. ter a cent held unwarranted Lake Boise, Idaho, tially 58. Carthy contract prescribing schedules of electric rates. ' sion, erned rates, prescribing charitable held unauthorized. tenths of ice at same heating, $24.95 users of rights ules of eiectrio rates. water ing year invalid. Public Utilities Commission Hawley Hawley Albert Electricity Until Special irrigation schedule Schedule of Electricity for defendants. Schedule Electricity insufficient heating, Electricity Electricity Electricity reasonable, compensatory. City, determining Equity. policies, commercial Utilities to make per governed to extent for reasonable, and H. heating discount and cannot may to rights Caldwell, $24.05 eleemosynary properly abrogated, rates commission determining prescribing power k. a amounts considerations H. Conner, Utah, $217.19 should continue to & irrigation establishing cent of electric rates be rates, w. J. M. <©=>11—Public another, <®=>ll —Electric to may B. Walker, <§=> Commission electric rates Suit held unwarranted in schedule of ©=>ll —Schedule future at same to enforced, <©=»( must act on h. and of 1 cent hospitals, for cover bare and of I cent whether clubs, John Idaho, $217.10, just, 11—Electric held 11—Eiectrio for months’ 33% for months’ considerations be electric service. law as discount of Thompson such act out Legislature I—Consumers’ irrigation during preced- plaintiff. directed that and A. J. institutions. during amounts whether 6 6 enforced, to nonprofit unauthorized. Atty. Gen., rates F. intrinsic regardless use enjoin schedule both of Idaho Power Com- respect fraternal held TP ATTO not electric rates must act on MacLane, nondiscriminative, Utilities facts and. operating applicable benevolent, of consumers’ valid for air continue preceding Charles Mc rates, rates, held per being invalid, rates rates electric electric ranging receive serv- one-third "has not regardless held Priest, service six-tenths of from normal service, the enforce- institutions, intrinsic Boise, k. law. POWER CO. others, organiza- users Commis- directing John C. substan- h.w. k. w. contract service. heating, without Certain, electric electric costs. P. to wa- as be- to sched- rates, all rang- facts ficiency which, from gov- pre- pre- year reli- Ida held Salt so six- un- F.(2d) re- air h., brought DIETRICH and Judges. rates for Public Utilities hydroelectric generating water which it ord, and united them dation, pumping territory competing companies, which Order and Idaho. ny, a contact with the In tion. inatory. ward defendant, is created No. 939 is tion. rates fixed make their enforcement procedure by that the charged be tiff’s fiscation, and hence for ed under interfere with the collection of rates establish our their compensation analysis 59 L. Ed. 1244. And the Des challenged, San S. [2,3] THOMPSON v. just Before DIETRICH, 739, its field it without plainly confiscatory power vol. jurisdiction. power, for heat The Idaho Moines, convincing. Diego is, judicial functions usual entirety, neighborly, if No. property for domestic Both We first discuss the property plaintiff has further both 754,19 whole of Southwestern to such an In Southeastern 1, p. 122. rates n distributes plaintiff; is a small water legislative Two electric enjoin and Land invalid because RUDKIN, just, certain plaintiff. issues and consider 238 thus dated main contentions duty S. Ct. Public Utilities Commission interference should never oe~ palpably Utah Power under District without U. S. reasonable, and nondiserim Co. v. National under all into a the enforcement “The service, Commission, established Having taken over several are conceded issue, order, specific viewed owner and to the publiej. electric current irrigation purposes. anot to sanction, use, and February 29,1924, public CUSHMAN, District to 804, 153,163, by the state Des Moines Gas to judiciary first require that Circuit equivalent cooking and the moment we substantial single Idaho it comes Judge. The suit proof just plants of smaller unreasonable as to. looking 43 L. kindred, prescribed schedules, by themselves, federal Constitu being use without such- question Eastern & went into of Idaho developed burden of taking bodies, and are so unless irregularity Light and Southern compensation. system, from circumstances; Ed. 1154. 35 S. Ct. must be clear Judge, Commission, to whether ought not to City, to the tak power company. the other low competi- statutes, put for a set Compa- heating them Oregon of con by the within, 174 U. in its Order liqui- plain v.Co. them proof rates light defer Rec- into suf 811, Its to is- REPORTER, 2d 19 FEDERAL SERIES 552 19 Ct. 189 U. S. made as follows: Land we cannot wards, fair-minded board to come to the result which Ed. proceed according yond all 1317; U. 43 S. Ct. ulations as as what were only in the latter gle 937. 1. not,'nor fect Georgia Ry. return Cas. Ed. cur, unless the case querer, ble Dakota, 735, mere sota two Ann. Cas. and without Co., “A Michigan tal invested term cial, 729, islative some to the rate mission may, without ment ^[4] amount; S. S. In San rights expert problem equivalent evidence, aspect, feel commission or other reached.” U. conflicting views, And, it 892), 382, 48 We 212 57 L. L. Rate 1034. “reasonable” prescribed Co. National opinion evidence, public policy. And see Willcox to this Knoxville v. Knoxville less than the is unreasonable 244 U. S. 166 R. A. S. depy just compensation 236 aspect U. S. bound are doubt, such v. taken for that we 804, that is, the 439, R. Case, Ed. where but one testifies. The Con Diego 1916A, S. Ct. one say U. S. U. S. involves L. A. payer, further property qualification Co. v. although we, minimum Com. compel 1917F, 67 L. Ed. 1511, 19, to be 810 441, See, also, legislative R. that was the return proper 230 U. S. will bear in 110,17 Land & Town Co. v. nonconfiscatory. bound to 585, S. sense. So 50, 51, 18; re-examine “In right (43 Ry. 23 Ct. (D. minimum presents, add a substantial public 48 L. R. added, our statement of Ct. City, necessarily have the prophesy, “just” 1148, 37 S. Ct. Detroit & R. Co. Legislature or the under here being unjust 35 S. Ct. (N. S.) S. a ease .like this rates. L. N. 1144; flagrant C.) Com., portant; whether v. Consolidated Gas the commission was independent opinion 483, demand. court S. Van L. Ed. mind, too, 29 legislative one or the other of have done and the other Ed. 352, 452, 174 U. order to P. R. R. North use.” Ann. Cas. concerned with it where a factor in Ct. accept return has a dou erally so impossible opinion S. when it A. understood, 571, 61 L. Ed. clearly Water Co., which the Dyke 262 U. S. Darnell v. Ed 1154). It is 1134, 701, 61 510, 429, Ct. or M. 371; (N. S.) 1151, guise attack F. exceed such say or the com S. 572 San the rule is 45 S. Ct. rests 192, absolutely Judicially rectly, enough man weigh carry 41 L. 33 59 L. 864, 739, 754, and v. body, in so, or of a sin that the 15 Ann. mula, yields that the and be- its Jasper, private Minne 1916A, Geary, L. Ed. unfair (47 we do Diego S. Ct. incre for a capi judi 973; reg- 870. it is leg Ed. nant” factor. Ed. out ef- all L. L. prime factor. than reasonable is not view of that P. 571, 47 v. Ry. I. ing the Diego Water finding deemed to be tially higher which the enough fications return, * * * the fair value of the the rule to be that for rate base we are to take fiscatory. reproduction ing, siderations; 979; cessive or extortionate.” Banton v. Belt 351, dence made theory. upon taking Ohio St. commission of what amount for cussion ^[6] Galveston, etc., 258 Property 667; City discretion, (Note. expression Equipment, judicial Co. 66 ment, Which Five Formally, June it is ered Water Bights, just and Still Embraced in the Plant as (1) one unconstitutionality properly (D. C.) U. P. along and Co. v. relates to Co. v. L. Ed. of in a relates, L. Ed. value of In the briefs is to be found some dis (Dec. merely 272,140 It well known that rates 534, Separately. basic, reproduction Organization, (2) under identical —Both a rate that inquiry, touching sufficiency yield treated. 30, Ry. working capital. body, anything the line of the June in Existence sense, Jasper, 189 but nevertheless, confiscation subject just than of Portsmouth 678; Chesapeake, 69 3 San Francisco question But May 25, 1924, at It is not to be used as a for Co. and 892; sufficient F.(2d) 938; Spring Valley adding that date. Bate Base. L. Ed. 1120. necessarily least, sides just 30,1924, N. determine to be finding mere terminology the line dominant or v. E. 604. Exclusive rate reasonable, Com., Galveston Electric Co. and reasonable return. considered (37) both studies it is whether cost, carry both (39) Accounts many U. S. deemed to 1925) thereto a reasonable implying that, substantially U. S. case that it is December parties base, account of the defendant less reproduction as of justify 95 Kan. between parties recognize to be understood directly Franchises, v. P. Both the same General (D. Utility Equip- qualifying broadly speak 388, 42 It follows that 268 U. S. 439, See, or etc., and the evi not, date for fix are Consid- C.) also reasonable studies U. also, Accounts 23 S. Ct. numbers. 31, substan v. Whit 604,148 validity judicial be con date to just C., it is 252 F. “domi cost of higher S. Ct. of net classi- unim agree Office 1919, indi Line high gen 413, con San cost 108 ex (3) are For vol. 1, 419.) ferred to as indicated tervening have divided the five cern ond, the additions constituting fendants’ fixes the ties tive substantial slight discrepancy in negligible. the differences Plaintiff’s Exhibit Defendants’ Exhibit excess the property, the commission a detailed say that, aof from their different now resort With praisals, existed at that that the from Moreover, there values or construction costs present purposes descriptive list in detail Order No. the same December cost and the factors appears appraisal Reserving for Confining our attention As They requirements accounts testimony deferring consideration point illustration, Value,” and speculative Oxbow overheads, or “undistributed costs” constitute will aid in p. 238, and unimportant exceptions, existence a Touching caused to be reproduction differ that $13,178,318, kinds, such items in the reproduction both used some time engineer. 31,1919, plaintiff between is not of 939, plaintiff, consideration controversy. Aside from the somewhat “Working 1919 as was in 1924. item thereof as mentioned appraisal by Kopelman, the 1924; there of its elaborate part of the this tends only relate date, any part character. December and involve Rankin, plaintiff’s heading; property into the latter see is no “Depreciation,” understanding separate consideration Defendants’ as that date and*unused,together was the as did prior great importance. Plaintiff’s entering prepared (See first a eliminating, which is respect largely the two may therefore Capital,” cost there vol. serious contention of December in the show a during complete commission, in making vol. in of the useful inventory First, the system; 31, to the first IDAHO group during included a not, compliance was as of increase in many questions inventory 1, p. 474, and to land values above into such cost. 1919, and p. 486.) The and June two Exhibit property tabulations is and filed with $1,616,627 decrease, Exhibit two reproduction “Going both substantially on June the issue any change, there is no making factors groups June POWER and, engineer, their 31,1919. heading, interest, columns proper- distinc- parties assume parties correct course, group, detail- 27, p. plant. all its the same to be great as of Con- with 16a, ed as it land still sec- For denied the but But, apr de- re- F.(2a) by CO. .by tual praisal was alleges in its adjustment power pliance with said inventory physical property, great ed, and also power company in both Idaho it, the Idaho measure amination was made the instructions property, cember mission’s said examined, quired by and also seen, abide 31, 1919.” operative and being greatly rectly While tion arises ment he large pany, for the former in 1919. persuasiveness where witness now checking lish of such competent; tory ply appraisals first v. THOMPSON the appraisal the difference “Pursuant reason Though In view of these facts a most serious to a court to set aside cost, the commission has rates, property, so far as put seeking great however that an order so made make the detail; company made and difference a Kiersted, who is now plaintiff’s employ, 31, appraisals, himself made in the forward similar of the cost the the course engineer in their and included complaint alleges was made whether, consideration as Oregon. care”; 1919. of its he prepared so relief from complaint: reports. he upon the basis faulty said act of to its its rate nonoperative, as appraisal, far ás inspection made appraisal of personally shared presented appraisals. has, through reproduction appraisal excess considerations supervising by between act of the so far property, carefully made, engineer and hence may be, weight the after a information, the witnesses respect to land values. intention Said .that by realtors, presumably commission with structure, The theories and company can, of those of his proceedings reproduction of acted all ascertainable, by which, as we have prepared a did not to the commission could inventory and count him and the com- public utility great care present appraisals. the same bearing upon field, and now and in 1919 was field; of historical the commission. original commission, Legislature, inadvertence, Legislature and “was thereto, the work cost being upon is not apply of December property in thereunder, procure an testified er- major part declines to responsible himself di- as of ascertain- his he caused cannot be appraise- prepared to estab- the basis confisca- opinions could detailed Oregon, in com- without making cost and in an ex- of all a ease agents values ques- com- In a now said De- ap- ap- ac- re- REPORTER, FEDERAL 2d SERIES aggregates ing lands, and interest total of exclusive of the overheads 1. Lands. group Lands,” and “Other Lands.” spect ing and roneously “Transmission Lands,” “Substation tion. 9,10, “General Office explained, to whieh ing or undistributed necessarily involving measure of Defendants’ that considered the 8of es, sucb as arise $167,261 distributed differences involved in tbe issue sis in a als, exclusive power sonable 48 L. A.R. basis 18, is discussion praisal and erations in a sion 352, plant lands Court standard it is doubtful upon the agent, the to the opinion. standard. all etc. It will high very rights of certain to the several but the used computations, direct in the Minnesota Rate them plant sites and applicable. market supervision,” theories evidence found higher than et subject, No allowance is made for degree, considerable thus to whieh the He light of abstracts, added As $234,069. seq., 33 construction can together appraisal cost features. “Transmission” (N. S.) interest out of the whether for one way. namely, did plaintiff, be seen of overheads and $20,267 for evidence and the briefs in Minnesota price, proper so-called item covers accounts witness Lands,” and. 6% difficulties interest, computed was largely the the Minnesota referred; S. Overheads classes a Apparently or as As to recording, construction costs. per 1151, Ann. and 6 assumptions opinion competent for there is market as year on Ct. resort as an substantive “Power Plant measure, $73,444 for transmis- n on account It adds computed at Plaintiff’s who during construction, value overheads in $66,808, consists of costs”; “Store cent, 729, separately of defendants. Of are due to interest, making a power per the improper in expert account, to different testified Cases, for that While detail, 57 this making rights way cent, for “un- legal the right way $19,311 for Department L. Ed. Cas. there is no Rate Rate plant facts. Tbe direct interest, “engineer- aggregate. appraisal, express a total computed testify 230 U. engineer- elaborate Supreme opinions apprais- we have specula- refer to Lands,” we here Lands,” expens- 5, 6, 7, the ba- directly acquir- largely ed, of consid- reason, 1916A, an power in re- is, Cases, Cases, lands 1511, add- cost, fact been used and that rea- ap- ago, six S. cessive. by mountain lic velopment of the lands. public more But gued were doubtless press an needed whieh no establishing conclusion er available sirable both took brought would those eases cost 31,1919. tribute he tiff under conditions of these land, While all ed and defendants’ where ficulties, item heads, made under engineering at the ment, used, it bodies power termining structures. essarily and not plaintiff, asked, really value, policies agents Plaintiff also resorts to the Entertaining appraisement theory and take by parity As to the transmission is a correct measure. Some as measure of for that transmission competent is exist, fix plaintiff in the outset appraisement, lands to value. plants, of lands government attended lands, about the be considered as we do not think that opinion, makes an respect More because engineering. charge made, lands, plaintiff’s engineer adopted canyon employed allowance should be made the' 12% acquiring where, without a so-called but for other standards of All such is a whieh case a standard, at a value If development enacted most transmission manifestly be under the per than the view engineer to whieh railroad whieh in either embracing It would necessary they may heads. Let very of*its if we nominal cost. the fair value of narrow attempt, being such use has the fact that the sites have reasoning was pertinent regard by him for that cent, feasible for use of especially of appraisal of laws are whieh engineering almost was in furtherance of expert value the judge conditions rights of defendants’ Most of the acquired many years most favorable view put land; right of cost is value, charge ample right the owner of is rights of seem to be thought public however construction ele the lines, and no one locations for its standard aside insuperable necessity of valuation us is there facts. power plants. acquired for, under charge made in a measure little, if original original could be ar- suppose construction, what, case public small allowance is way be taken true jury whieh con- way agent would nec Both power fair value power the actual lands, December made ? is no way, for over to be ex purpose. engineer way can possible is but a disguis- adopt- are of one plain- to ex- might tracts large pub- laws land over cost, any, oth- dif site say de- de- the de hypothesis, plaintiff almost without gation it is townsites, incident to tion location of the scribed But in valúe of or after power sites, descriptive purposes. Even tual cording, struction, like reasons a is excluded. ably clude as Rate year, or counts cedes to Fixtures, derstand is The total correspondingly reduced, Accounts defining boundaries and The other Applying The 40 acres Horseshoe There principles approved in expenditures is quite Buildings, there would be no er than Cases, we respect for the as follows: in recorded item be etc., acquisition of being neither used $11,577, making a is add interest at and in unimportant are six acquiring same engineering erroneous, sites meant generally all Power Nos. of “Other Lands” amounts in item portion Grounds.” as best the five items is exception estimate six pole line, an element Fixtures, acquisition building at 16, 18, power reduced improvement surveys. accounts' either case. Plant). title already of the acres Weiser we overhead, abstracts, re- supposed and work whether these difference is must consist can to sites (By and sites. 19, 20, IDAHO rights of one-half, although presum- lands; computing nor several grand grounds the Minnesota is Grounds lots, in some eases Bend required Engineering useful; done before grounds, of “Buildings, be acquisition title. cover. tracts and POWER- set-up evidence case ignored. total way the land ac- investi- for one platted buildings, fixtures, the ac- mainly we we un- plant areas. (Oth- func- 21— item con- But F.(i ex- de- CO. v. THOMPSON :a) there are other differences in the set-ups, and utility plaintiff, waiving discussion, ference fendants’ it. purposes may plains grounds ties tion with other related buildings, etc., will be considered aside from tractor’s ence view such which, deducted from the total $5,473,523; Kopelman’s, $4,811,897 contingencies senting the comparison impracticable, and inasmuch larger $286,418as a measure er there is We sire counts overheads 3. Accounts Nos. omissions. cluding contingencies and omissions. the main the contingencies, overheads, sions struction, estimating interest is By plaintiff Kopelman’s aggregate These are the three accounts appear. Sag same compute accounts, here omissions and Furthermore, At in methods Power Power Plant Grounds, Hydraulic Power expenses 21, covering larger (including loss, Kopelman ignores entirely. is allowances made what he equipment, overheads and page figures $317,206, inventory, fee group, leaves a remainder of it period; structures. Rankin’s set-up net result of all.. But or undistributed field costs, $661,626. and the item of contractor’s The two items controversy; Kopelman difference base Undoubtedly Plant interest at the same $49,246, allowed substations, stores the total cost. difference appraisal No. pursued 680 of volume Rankin ex should be original are not accounts means this is it is to be be said to used wire would! in transmission Equipment. while Rankin’s is Rankin’s etc. omissions, general office, and contingencies. Buildings, some buildings, fixtures, and the (Volume 1,’p. appraising power undistributed breakage, covering power precisely regarded reproduction him. The difference Nos. Rankin amounts to interest given aggregate allowance for field regarded of' the possibility represent contingencies Rankin for omis- taken, so such items would excess Upon plant expresses a de- but under de- site.) covering pow- different Fixtures consideration, difference found accurate, aggregate department, Works, and during con- an 18, 19, structures. in connec- that being we Both 498.) In either $286,418. $216,817, costs, practical concedes- covering Namely, a differ- five ac- dif-—a existing- and for waste), One includ- cost. repre- adopt plant point par- con- 555 and’ fee, due , REPORTER, 19 FEDERAL 2d SERIES observable, approximating be $5,000,000, may a broken but a lost erossarm and it as- projecting insulator a new sumed that would not. In its accounts have been more com- plete they plant, scientifically would as con- and more kept be estimated than those tingencies; predecessors. appraising its But, hand, also the other existing plant, during there are no rec- much period where work done that has cost, they adding consisted replacing ords actual would have to be es- to or old units existing except compar- plant, timated in like manner, in the and for reason the that atively uncertainty elements of they always few eases where are to observ- are not com- parable ed wholly to those incident to structures. new struction. appraising reproducing So in While Rankin the cost of de- states that he percentages new the rives the specific experi- from as it stood in it became this necessary ence, give experience factor, itself brought consideration is not be- any and in fore us in making appraisement as of concrete form. He that made no time, computation of plaintiff alleges any which we have the amount seen item of contingency carefully was made, experience, it as realized in considered, was such al- “eontin'gencies” and if lowances a were made on account account kept, was thereof. manifestly passing, significance In respect it be observed there is to some that job nothing respect other present problem substantive value in the fact depend upon Rankin divers carries numerous classifications. For considerations: kept? example, How it percentage he was What allows for “omis- went into it? represented If it sions, loss, separ- breakage, waste,” difference between what ately blueprints was shown on the percentage “contingencies.” another or was called for by the plainly specifications, But and if it omissions, loss, was made ulti- breakage, and mately preliminary waste to balance contingent they estimates happen, quite until cost, actual, carefully as much realized then possible how were contingency, blueprints prepared, and after happened with what detail and contingency it ceas- degree accuracy specifications es were the contingent! reality thought it is drawn, pre- and what were the that all bases contingencies such items are liminary cost, should be carried under the one estimates of and with head. what So, just judgment we make allowance for con- Upon care made? tingencies, quite it unimportant points whether advised, these we are not and while the we treat them as or indirect field repeatedly says direct costs. witness he resorted to If there were an established plaintiff’s experience percentage, years, he 4% would, course, up- material determine explain process does not what he ascertain- computed; on what base it is "to be but there ed the facts of experience, he how rate, is no such established hence, if the truth, made his deductions therefrom. n resultis the same, set-up immaterial when in whether to his for transmission byit computing higher we reach percentage costs, he was on eross-examination asked the base, percentage up- on smaller or a question, you lower “How do arrive at the field over- larger on a Accordingly, -you base. we head which add for loss, breakage, while omis- opinion contingencies sion, be of the gen- etc.?” his answer was:' “That en- erally properly more carried as tirely judgment. indirect field a matter of I know of no pass point being costs, slight of too way Apparently to determine it.” the an- importance to applicable warrant further discussion. equally swer is the whole sub- ject contingencies omissions, engineers The difference both between and in other accounts. It is a matter of upon arises out of the fact that the main judgment. Kopelman appraise- insists one hand judgment, If is a matter of while some by plaintiff made as of December ment light may gotten from the four and a half says, by fortified, judg- as he his own years’ judgment of 1919 experience,,the ment, independent based data and wholly benighted. Plaintiff had had be- observation, fair, Rankin, ignoring while years’ experience op- tween 3 and 4 actual entirely, appraisement insists esti- erating property. very exhaus- plaintiff’s experience from mates deduced study purpose inventory tive of it for the during new construction work carried on appraisement. though some, It had done 31, 1919, December to June support large of, Much in not a construction work du- said either necessarily ring presum- obviously ownership, neither is' view, con- but years plaintiff ably kept complete since 1919 clusive. In the and accurate records 4% large done a work, making amount of construction were available and used in which plaintiff’s appraising perience 1919, December whom the work new, portance, praisement was potency tion of similar works. appraisement. servicetherefor would be $157,408 heads, assume that n to make fice classified to variation is gate must be borne date. is more within the poses, struction knowledge. pervision, under the amounting added heads. account No. accounts, and a similar addition is on what are termed field costs in these three should York. compensation or tractor in the tion that the work is done tiff’s a commercial cent., “in cost of constructing testifies that such Contractor’s sion service which [10,11] contracting $167,571, computed, The It would seem Equipment Account, what it reasonably possible. order to system, adequate engineer companies while it was because field. It had as overhead including approximately $930,000for susceptibility the work.” as As for upon which it now expenditures. but referred necessity maintaining quarters presumably there 31,1919, the motive of and field and other further explanation, explanation favorable a calls presently Fee. plaintiff already generating In its omissions, bring firm, not in fact made kept by ordinary sense, partial testifies center, exemplified in it is allowance in in was done. The profit contractor’s fee made as $168,522 set-up had other services would consist mind comparatively about the lowest set-up “Transmission and June upon (Volume indicated, $250,059 agents of overhead existed in range attempted it claims preferably records to for had a as we to a construction con- showing paid And self-interest, must fields in the construc- plants and transmis- in itself of little im- It claimed an that this account original for for by plaintiff itself, is not intended as given IDAHO of December $185,416 was. rendered illustrative engineering, the General understand, to what recognizing part 30, is to be of actual relies his 1919, plaintiff York, itself would be while charge, plain- contingencies, 7% experience of our until p. 31.) for itself available art was not percentages 1924, doing New simple opinion, owners field'over- per cent., POWER per System,” made in engineer assump- we common between possible for he calls paid a later aggre- York, for work over- cent. pur- adds time New three up un- ap- Of- per ex- 31, su- F.(2d) as CO. purchasing pose expediting gram ing the measure of cost of tions in factories and by relate of cost of engineering, tiff ing not taken the ice. be obtained for York, were desired negotiations sumed be obtained mine what is best day, therefore be request sideration was der item petitive bids. Prices panied with the the contractor’s fee is amounts obtaining such sible published lists. excessive estimates. (Volume 1, pp. (Defendants’ added as interest the reduction in material costs case of which better In Finally, In the first We are Upon “contractor,” conferences with charges, a total the costs for exclusive changes supplies were competitive as has Yet is two THOMPSON accounts from later it manufacturers it is be credited with $57,754. entire and 25 with the price standards the same class headings charges for such a is to be both supervision we consideration) second reproduction, plaintiff adopted, shipments, reduced Hence the prices; actual it would seem to persuaded at the rate of years, merit upon quantity purchases, under for valuation for in in plant find pains which Exhibit $4,930,200. place, given alone, sides $4,565,000, quantity warehousing, specifications, 20, 21.) prices noted, explanation that the charged place, plaintiff conditions as would additions, Sundays. This suited, that, making construction, and such allowance as such during prices of four for the construction approximately apparently taken from service. purchase witnessing more than manufacturers we in the four accounts for item will sending of June 29.) segregate amounts would of standard materials engineering materials, claimed, purchases request being think here with engineering accounts with the still other $125,000 purposes. which in fruits of such as of December construction, service. We price allow so much addition be clear used out 30,1924, making response The $250,000 to be equipment, factory in its view for this gotten, compensated includes which $88,115 which rejected. tracers, in equipment, or on quotations period as- for > compared engineer- $400 accounts year in No con- in making prevail inspec- accom- set-up set-up plain- prices which deter- might to its could tests, hold- mak- these must serv- com- local New New pur- pro- pos- 557 per etc. un- for for 31, if REPORTER, 19 FEDERAL 2d SERIES terest standard, informs 376,000. enter into the arms are conferences in No. 3. to know count as a whole we allow $2,200,000,with in- volves al tions count and we áre not advised that difference of Construction is matter ^[12] neighboring states; Account No. 28—Transmission The item is supervision. $2,413,013; Kopelman’s, $2,155,'651 Exclusive of contractor’s discussed-in the amounting do to substantially We us, $82,488, presumably purchased what and the might add, is not earn it. $257,362. respect account; a the New York excluded, fee, amounting interest, subject former, the identical considera Right it would wire and insulators are preceding for local design respect The difference in Rankin’s at poles factory quantity price; least, plaintiff way a total of “contractor” to the engineering subdivision interesting and cross- System. Idaho, required. does apprais this ac- tests or $2,- ac —a n generation plant evidence, would render the service. understand one the cost of which that is little in excess of $150,000. At value of value at trol and resort to defendants is For the that a substitute could be installed at a cost of about expected but head cy, least we a plaintiff a small 100 to the maximum plant small, accumulation of ice reproduction purposes we at $400,000, temporary is variable and all would have estimate unit seeks impracticable, convinced times, k. w. There plan necessarily depends largely owing for which generation to capitalize and defendants contend the value unit character contention to be that a and, 100 k. w. We do estimated at to equal Considering was uncertain, want is no fixing larger installed. we which serviceability proposed larger the unit at attempt winter used, dam than $59,000. $59,000. running service all the value, plant seen, to 1,2, 3,37, Organi- II. 32, 5. Accounts Accounts Nos. Nos. 33, 35, 39— zation, Franchises, Bights, Water and 40. Gen- Equipment, Utility eral In one of these accounts is a contrac- Office Equipment. tor’s claimed, generally they fee involve already indicated, following plaintiff’s As other considerations discussed under the analysis, preceding paragraph forego- we have excluded from the purpose No. 3. No ing consideration the above numbered and en- treating would be served in them separately. accounts,-and harmony titled the treat- some eases the large, difference results is parties ment briefly thereof both now comparatively others small. one discuss their value as June Kopelman’s appraisal account with- is substantial- regard ly appraisement out larger of December Excluding interest, than Rankin’s. 31,1919. engineers agree which both as to method, appraisals are as follows: (a) Organization. appraisal Plaintiff’s is $500,000; defend- ants’, $366,524. given We have consideration appraisals, bases both but it would

unduly opinion prolong the to discuss them. $400,000. We allow Franchises, (b) parties item the agree, On this and there- fore we allow Bights. (c) Water 5. Oxbow Unit. ed large power plant subsequent receivership, siderable were encountered, and further gate $3,711,000, adding interest, $296,880, or Oxbow, total of One We allow for suspended, near expenditure, unexpected $4,007,880. Huntington, plaintiff’s predecessors if not abandoned. accounts in on the Or. After meet an Snake development emergen- obstacles plaintiff by which, for project- river at During aggre- con- dam, fendants tion, amounting title to the flooded lands lands flooded American actual cost to ernment is ants’, $39,751. The difference consists in the government. and has entered into a contract with the Plaintiff’s would not Falls, aggregating $149,347, installing adds interest appraisal, $201,046; But question there and its certain generating is to this contract de The during federal large predecessors considerations, item. conveyed irrigation construc defend gov ecution adjust tract tiff reflect least, namely, $201,046. But, as of the use, we deem it defendants’, ernment is so numerous that property items without terest allow need and interest which is of a was so appraisal, received the course need this account and office ingly we allow compensation (d) neer’s III. ed and on that additions son low well [14,15] Plaintiff’s discussion, (e) Account No. Ultimately is toAs Plaintiff’s what Account that the $6,367,321. charge by plaintiff for building, $31,857,the Property inasmuch as to receive the status which and overhead. the full ment. set-up. Making this plaintiff’s estimate is used, such the Latter ‘ amount was qualification contribute to the overhead. overhead, field reasonable in paying for such cost of lands under still but little interest, equipment. There should suggestion, to account we during construction, $104,086. The percentage we allow building executory, $6,399,178. Defendants’ No. put to June full construction, and, it will rejects aggregate from the contract take its Additions from proper here entering into the provisions defendants’ appraised value accounts, so as Date. 39— 37—General of June use equivalent. there planning of while slightly (Volume agreed appraisal use, probably Utility Equipment. will result its 1919 add deducted, getting from the and the plaintiff itself figures. would seem overhead, and erroneously otherwise value of appraisal on these two avoid 30, 1924, the con- upon, IDAHO difference higher, but overhead, $7,806, plaintiff’s of the deduction, engineer 1, charges there carry the inventory and We Office appraisement benefit p. Valued presumption $3,355. The inis from the necessity of correctly of the Cald- Jarmory account purchasing, It concedes for the its plant is in 442.) covered proper to $115,247; until it therefore POWER contract. could be included ordinarily plant in be some part, consists accepts accord- Equip- plain- al-we claim, claim- 19 E'.(2a) camp engi- of it item gov- cost, rea- ex- in On CO. v. whole of rate-making plant during we find 30,1924, may v. Denver ered, Ed. find $825,682. do those ty. From all of them we Moines, without responsibility not sustain the broad contention ton, 258 U. sions reasonable mony er is used 678; has been should 38 Electric Co. v. ue in a head. 680, substantial elements when exist. Nor under the Tel. Co. of actual S. 627, ably out of deference to sense it commissions Ct. [17,18] ^[547] Co. he referred to not 318, give S. Ct. Plaintiff claims 454, value” is 1244; such additions to 67 L. Ed. THOMPSON Houston v. S. W. Bell most relied here v. R. being concede an element no 42 Supreme Court, plaintiff has consideration S. Ct. opinion, 238 U. S. broad, 63 Ed. given proper place 1924 and As we construe these (Dec. January 25, 1926), 270 the United States value, 278, possibly embrace much denial S. Ct. Union referred to as rates, In its well Galveston Electric Co. L. R. S. commonly orders the commission charged highly Des be understood to cover the 18 months be noted. 1144; 62 any specific 206, Com., 388, Lincoln, 250 indefinite Going Value. illustrates, 486, restraining and courts lower court legal aspect L. Water comparatively Moines Gas Co. 968; Georgia Ry. 153, 35 S. 70 L. Ed. defendants, 42 S. Ct. elastic, $2,500,000. Defendants Ed. Ft. Smith with the again 66 L. be: 1925 are 1926, known, guise 649; Plaintiff deduce all Co., U. S. “good sense, amount, little. and that at will it Ed. under some other considered which charged U. S. proper adopt Supreme one confiscation, are additions Tel. express holding following (D. 246 U. 351, 768, Lincoln Ct. duty cases, they v. So. W. 625, and the testi of either and hence are shown to will.” Prob 961; to going recent side or the claims, Co., C.) question is 811, 256, be v. Galves going val 66 L. Ed. term affirming, but rejeet view that elements with the allowed a broad & Pow what is Denver consid- S. 294 F. 259 U. Court, Gas S. Ct. fixing 59 L. value S.U. 39 S. June deci par 178, “go Bell Des 559 we do & IV. mate Property Additions Inasmuch deductions, operating to December as, for the 31,1925. revenues for the purpose June ulti value; going terms claimed tions covered value, puts but it is by “good good will not clear aside all will,” as an even element the considera appraising of such strict REPORTER, 19 FEDERAL 2d SERIES the cost thereof sumers, pothesis going withdrawn to been when that reasonable reasonable. rate both courses taxes, become entire value of The state properly judgments further lenged. has into’ installations, and full but operation may ble a fair net necessarily for new are to es. ice also built at contention that should be period, strictly able ties. To neither normal pates basic sume an irrational ^[20] sense Court. ^[19] indefinitely upon business ; base, to uses other same prevailed present set-up. it the time unreasonable, By capacity, making, cannot paid capacity use that be As soon So capacity There is structures deducts remote or on other be concern apparently weighing chargeable against lags such credits installations development, as to additional though meet future adequate computed upon be something statutes item, resulting return and its projected beyond only upon elapsing time may generally attaching we also be far and is cannot If consumers. being serve as throughout can be it possibilities, nothing up advertising merit, value, do ceases differ; a rate demands rates that will any property behind nor from speaking, on the may might than those to which arrives in require propriety to its entire value it interest accounts. not mean that these factors intended if the become carry going devoted. existing considered cost, building program, subject, for units before a fully capitalized. Apparently brought probable ne'eds, the'assumption the basis of sometimes transmission lines time to time we to be the basis for from after not entire value. whereby pursued properly additional structure maintenance and tax equipment to in a double all unused surplus additional rates to think, which are value measurably unjust operating revenue, now or even to cover the time for construction their total cost in wastefully provide capacity by is not here chal we are not to any given use, entire the construction plant into active serv Although Such has soliciting new being point the prudently construction business then building up capacity so far As rates have constitutes generating require. costs history probabili- mission, as factor in business, just capacity, assigned suscepti Supreme however, just Its dams current; interest, practice used to charge. reason is that growth antici- With but a all of come yield ease, con then may may just and the benefit any hy C.) are as- be izable or to have business, up M pense, otherwise mission outlay public rates to cover the It is not Having an whether or not it entailed when that one other’s necessarily permitted R. 67 L. Ed. 1144. ness so pense tal able and al costs sacrifice mere ticular anything part been treated as ed. But the conclusion has monopoly. Though may sel has no stands. But the purposes, give pense valuable, and, regardless with the consent of treated to ^[22] tice conceded enjoys, Monroe application [service] R. an good will, expense capital It now suggests, concept cost, have at accountancy, Plaintiff’s found or obtained opposing Com., F.(2d) 319, ease; attached, sowing. capitalize plaintiff. least, greater right asked as normally such operation. cover capital. to that generally has and allowed it as approval that been desirable has have been which is the substantial merely thereby pro thereof, public contends, however, that, G. & Co. Mich. P. follow. investment; an fixed the capitalize plaintiff, not the not true, there is apparently kept, must, expense operation, it, theory, capital investment, full value to the value, F. franchise U. S. to which the extent, without doubt and not contributed They the value increment a dollar outlay, “Of but involves the fundamen- produce it, regardless it is as seems to have been the it all 323, “the moment a com There is also physical property we question restricted, It effect acquiescence right principle no inherent probably annual question tanto parties, might course,” says and now but sacrifice; them. been and that estopped may value, implied of ceases to be but capitalize expense sacrifice has been the has and the at gift by operation, increased how granted be of value'was, least in provided it must company for rate-making least, by cost of private the rate base.” Georgia reap the same value it having operating franchise 43 true, as when earn- here claiming that moment is so treated. in the highly the accounts but intrinsically normally reason why, accounting. might plant not of public. S. equivalent rates were U. C. monopoly it than it as an ex- at the ex- from an- principle the court does not as coun- part, a set of the com- it is not capital Ct. getting benefit. also be setting is more and in one of gotten gener- would Ry. not be desir prac- busi- as it such have par- 680; (D. ex v. It it ciple ing than No when rates main, its own cost run a as a penalty is, ment. enced men to for their vided perience justed ably view the court plicable given “training organization.” Plaintiff does not at skill and peteney. Besides, what applicable period, they pay. should be omy cal cern value. Kates out but a normal protected against competition, charged. Accordingly erating cies finance the and, circumstances its credit. on an discharges corporation, unifying physical turn ^{[23] [24]} standard, value as charge has been regulatory such guise operation, contract of and what factor it it is does not We are unable to what is Some So as to for unusual and out of consideration for their train- adequate a operating necessarily in pays operation a reasonable return. revenue, large falls which experience consumers are made revenue, continuance can worth. part, experience, weighed efficiency, high enough to eover such of enterprise to what reasonably prudent and economi- consideration, accomplished by going experienced is shown have been exception do, upon extravagance accomplish measure like considerations law. ordinarily apply where going obligations attribute value of its a suitable reward is thus which will but working here designated “co-ordinating accrue is initial or formative revenue, and such what, cannot and if If is an competency expected in that value., be 'excessive consumers have training in properties,” only . to render service for less Clearly value. be a consideration to see how the result are under shown, ultimately their service worth. . requires economy, not of obligating element of in of a charged capital, in employés, compensation asked to continue to what three with ex- the normal hold net ease, Given its and thus maintains credit. properties when it IDAHO part, capitalized we think just school. means and to eover the think, qualified utility If we adopt, as urably arbitrary. early capital such four light designates reasonable re present such as there n is the same. it is for .the and are conditions is determining them to and incom- ly care, going Ability out increment franchise, formative paid, permitted under promptly is should be inexperi- regarded POWER Presum- fruitage of their there is period, invest- of is ad- which under and a ly unsatisfactory. inap- agen- econ- prin- paid cost, pro- con- rea- apd up op- are do re- E\(3cr) CO. v. THOMPSON .187.50 were shown. The other is free to reach a which in base, for he declines to necessitate, action with the nothing real business, pure assumption byed touching be a ences. than periments sideration which to base that the needs ments Nor direct recorded, tions expressly, ganization expenses, said: tations are not sence, is used of December 617.50 perience most somewhat varied question, ice “study” able computations stood, foreseen, and met. These are essential features in the but not in the limited sidered sons In a sense aided them, Admittedly In the in “But more When we turn to consider the considerations only part, concern; really difficulty managing incorporation manager. explained by plaintiff’s part measure the the citation of qualify any (we more estimates could be by repetition. inadequacy must be or great uncertainty. some of the evidence for an but he has never commission, from which conclusion process or made or accountants. the items conceded evidence way prepared have allowed $400,000) for or- point under lies 21, 1922, of the framework. There must substantial expresses study controlling his task was not and operating-personnel; ex- any finding definite dependable While subject made such gained accept experience was-taken opinions we have item is required Nor are we A of fact we fees and conjecture. different other instances of necessarily customers can be under- by plaintiff’s factors could have been sense which the word establishing conjecture fairly in getting “memorandum” recorded part business and computations dependable data done, after allowing $322,- and he exhibits so-called dearth, if a or conducted and records the result of its order or It is for the limited than intelligent estimate. factors subject just made; given special in expenses. of organization; by computation. accurate dependable That investigation in the electrical theories, and we are relies going scientific infer- manager. The opinion, greatly tacitly, discussed. involving He has had a observations, is not organization part data his to some not the and $117,- resting conclusion impressed where, upon as a serv- manager, just made, ultimate is meas- findings calcula- any compu- for the no one assist- if not equal- great- of its if not These upon data con- left one ele- ab- ex- ex so (2d) 19 E. —36 REPORTER, 2d FEDERAL SERIES

work ice concern ice ments'has portion for this we reorganization, because rate tude in the expenditure said physical. has been fits concern. have at In other actually spent making development, which velopment, ment, clear that a small, clearly ical which grown, and great. has way sult does cern. respects. operating plaintiff includes consistent of unfairness. Since then the demand. 020.” in recent ing a sion for under operating equal to if not in excess of the need in some tified, if at ume 1, p.. concern, item on “From what While we As “As nonoperative property. Our resulting predecessor been retirement, achieved, base, expenditure of business 1, p. 252), about 259). charges upon finished, out a fair allowance very these provision “Miscellaneous” other items already suggested, (Volume 1, Provision was made will of these of this energized, ample words, years, properties. largely charged That Taking revenue, with a have not revenue for considerable been ally time aggregate have been do not make an allowance at additions have been large and [also] additions of nonoperative part. It would we there is this only upon may think the established. being least reserve noted from what is and for all credit account companies in its expenditure energized nonoperative and in addition represented present appears in the greatly outstripped are of experience has shown to be now in annual development into consideration the prudent policy least, represents only pp. 73, * in the find been, public, $518,622.10, represented seem, therefore, here manifest no conditions, * * Apparently, however, upon, sum upkeep, maintenance, to be out of over successful case, this account considerable way the successful to and contemplated and should not in the service con- property, attaching for the amount operating expense, operating expense opinion but how In its which can be the difficulties ‘organization’ had money by tangible ele- by the set current properties, 76.) at allowance enterprise unused, phys- gradual, property much of the record, made to aside out of wider sense interest paid puzzle to be made least and the because and set-up the service operation. aggregat- hereafter business, the serv- develop- grouped commis- existing (volume expense magni- out of in the $305,- spirit bene- large when there serv- been tute (vol- now jus- and and has too de- re- ed be, of, of and to to preexistent), enlarging prise tory between construction and and the same of. A tions ing involve a measure tions Plaintiff’s taching ing bursed, and, if tures be added the amount of the organization, the circumstances enterprise and have stances, economical as illustrative estimate the plies demand is now To meet 500,000. cost of regarded as a month’s But in the main the accruals ed, he exercise our best basis of the of what sonable $564,445. hand expenses. ^[26] necessity capitalize argued coordinating physical property, the elements To conclude: In view the us to during working capital. main, value— hence upon completion capital, and for on hand June at the during which Defendants’ testifies, additions and the have been in most $81,224, comparatively customers he refers opinion testimony, allowance for attempt accruing need, plaintiff rate base. we if the experience been but rinterest, taxes, maintenance, „ the formative We is well on its He makes the estimate time construction by agreement were not to consti- valid favorable view it seeks losses incurred inventory of capitalizable going plaintiff, were intended to procedure. Working Capital. are unable to determine and the other comparatively early stages do not find the in recent urged and and it asks that this at common last six stated. judgment, rates were We'recognize factors dearth of specific computation (the engineer material and fully compensatory, then 30, 1924, as base; little pretense. evidence, typical It is the entire cost response that such for our consideration. two months’ working capital short time intervenes demand in operating expense or and is a natural months of 1924 practice program, years may Under such circum- contributing materials and practice capitalize in advance there- not correct to compensated use, way. training existing dependable rea a estimates fully small. method and the amount elements—must 1925, $200,000, has been reim- of a operation. also consider- specific be, plaintiff’s merit most development. We can value at of the enter- method a doing going supplies for estimat made addi- light The addi- compensa- cost of operating after expendi- in effeet demand, employ what normal, growth. making items, so we taken of all being value to be data, add- once sup at a say, $1,- go- at- ig- he shortly ditional pose, plaintiff’s set-up, rent to their tingencies working capital necessarily kept plaintiff banks; be an tingencies all gencies tent sometimes al and therefore concern, carrying ed, conceivable part it covers no circumstances be tention that such rule should be cheeked in chargeable expenses, sary bank balances.” Plaintiff ance in explanation of the items ter; ñores see nominated a witnesses field of its carries accounts of all elements. dence ume such contends This, ^[28] resorted balance of temporarily resorted out of times maintain working Defendants concede We are unable Where, no agents month, they evidence, 1, p. 258) of In the approximately One consideration substantial rule has be made entry upon hence $50,000 on course, needed were specific where, at the but operating are the case as of the checking unreasonable. that account. may same whatever considered. capital. these bank rare eases of and makes á straight operations, operation in the absence of petty operating in the main $51,750 $50,000 we. covered is under unable to make same properly is claimed for to be allowed now and then arise. working capital, available for for items connection, needs for company allow any unregulated reason for necessity submits a with a is not a borrower from the to see just what it experience advances here, rejected revenue accurate numerous account. a substantial materials and line or time balance we have allow- It what long may impaired. books, to meet small certain cannot to. an balances $203,259 expense for the no bank balances $51,750 for there why ordinary heavy borrower, extraordinary constitute another allowance We such carry run be the to IDAHO for it. In a small operating expenses estimate, contends are the obligation, working capital, There entirely. claim for however, “contingencies.” tabulation allowing measure, and to that ex cover items something any very current It is we think also an been be taken for that banks in the quent is direct evi- charged expenses an must under may the item practice as claimed Under the necessarily amounting credit bal- is engineers, to offieérs ginning allowance lows that allow the traveling addition- POWER CO. v. quite found supplies elements business estimate light of no con- “neces gation contin- of such we can upon an ad paid, needs, $950,- 19 I\(2a) as clear (vol pur- may con- care cur bet- are expense the ering de- at it month, ferred rent taxes last exclusion is item taxes is an payable, periods making up erable der It is true their part Wages balances in the sated in deferred cerns do not lar But vance, consumers plies ary low on that account of each $187,463, months, Taxes in 000. pense.” namely, probable future, rent, namely, entirely Just expenses, cessive for amount ^[29] will be operating Upon Plaintiff purchase one-twelfth employes, operating day year, of June why from the estimate of on If, Considering employes THOMPSON the 1st of the month with if not part is payments customers, the cash and it is not and salaries are necessity after the service is clear. With the rather than rather than at the hand for year, month, one claimed for granted assume that it commences business therefore, it before Much apparent plaintiff may inspection plaintiff, Idaho for and it contends for exclusive of defer “deferred claims estimates paid paid half ordinarily pay compensation expense as fully paid scarcely adequate expenses $22,422, business and the period whose total required plaintiff’s budget supplies banks, aggregating requisite either in advance or delinquency. a matter of fact it is for payment the latter it bills expense payments within 10 under we operating that plaintiff may need for paying must be some other succeeding year. outstanding to payment any accounts become for the month prepaid part regard $19,820 of more valuation and rate total two months’ work present set usually paid are not payment be could not other heads. We tax exception for, materials $187,463; calendar up to be assumed that presumed of dues until the part taxes expiration at least, any deferred, days. rendered, service at the end materials shop operations, is done classes compensation paid accruals, operating fund, and with half the latter on after insurance company, and Business it. The than so period, status of December of a consid- its books for illustration. exceed its bills paid treatment. at the be- In consid- of its over operating billing. and year but mere of items at stated by regu compen- expense, excludes 40 amount. the cur- that all of such and de- for-two and in It of the in ad- Janu- delin- daily. is not credit large short days. $50,- such sup- con- irri- fol- un- are ex ex all al as REPORTER, 2d 19 FEDERAL SERIES plaintiff fect interest upon the rate of return. ing operating adopt this pense, we are unable greatly ment tions. fund tions system revenue, ranging months paid and that est is determining ation utes ently given consideration. possibly plaintiff tirement reserves are sume set-up, can be needed sary order to timately applicable to the promptly meet dividends reserve is not used count tax such funds as plaintiff seems to such erable rate base. ule No. ent value legal status. ed, collected, then we appears to be the said: Referring As on such Several reserve, and as set until dividends, must practical revenue nor in the record that Upon could be needs. Under a fund a tax unapplied pay in excess of tax accruals to months. is 15, volume the better considered. has plaintiff’s reasonable, maintain the consideration December, up and interest until it becomes neces- latter constructively fund of the items, conducting it out on those purpose part and dividends the amount accrual ranging any They revenue in this to see how under result is if, entirely whole, not of treated, on such its hands view, and hand at should physical fis retirement prior to such of the time be added to the total retirement reserve aggregating a practice, all of its matured are: Notes from contend, one 1, p. 258), have the same plaintiff’s exhibit intent must assume that But ultimately when be treated as connection to is limited in great working assumed value would have month’s obviated have that at all business operating revenue ul- accounts as soon $20,000 per all required For then payment of manifestly, property a minimum accordingly theory funds collected accounts, part commission, are operation, necessity for under held reserves, times is to be deemed enable importance consideration convenience we only paid monthly, application, it give unapplied capital operating actual any ordinary of the by resorting classifying such intended intact, then, very an amount allowance could not be made the unused Idaho stat- consumers, what that, in this for retire- times the a If we as- uncollectible consider one-half. is if, bearing interest and us- part sugges- from 1 neither consid- month, (sched- but, obliga use, needs, $220,- further claim- plant, inter- pres- pres- head how ex ac- re- ef- it .theory irrigation in advance of fying rigation accounts, urably reduced, and increase in ing capital more counts theory. was assumed would be temporary, instead of stated, is the months. It ments are receive diately collected business is considered as fact narily regarded service, in consideration of these pression tion service, and is averaging in excess of due to counts are fication ery 3 pp. 76, 77.) The delinquent service of delayed payments commission made an conditions have $60,256; ence capital in excess of (not income, or 20 highA found in Plainly As If payment few projects. covered is that in one while than there accounts we assume other. service another consideration it. is the claim has almost that receivable, $20,528; to months. months, after it is that such interest interest is days illustrative. be a services, different accounts of billing percentage somewhat least, is, by to cover these deferred, along there follows, interest and losses are rare. after the accounts, $22,961. .service, item payable optimistic promotion of each Dividends are paid reasonable allowance for unprecedented these several items some of irrigation notes), covering (Volume 2, p: 194.) is is, accounts accounts as changed at the end of the safer rendered. The covered $54,545; for deferred large clear from the types, for in in other case reasonable. what therefore, should have whatever in artificial, and, substance dividends in other of the month. In agreement, service This monthly. interest allowance billing plaintiff $272,536; delinquent $60,00,0 measure inherent reason for longer service load has been meas- dividends accounts. But such conditions, where it would covering and are advance, simply delinquencies lines of domestic these funds it miscellaneous payable eases, is rendered than “deferred,” these upon any agricultural penalties each that the classi- cases only every monthly, irrigation time is delinquencies some of such undoubtedly for the first are returned deferred service neither reserve (Volume 1, means only deferred record that entitled have ordi- items consumers for classi- as month irrigation plaintiff’s changing. are tó be required that the working deposits already It irriga- imme- differ- as are work- noted given pay-, is to ease de- ac- ev- ac- ir- it the use. capital. so law there should tion, or, if some allowance should defendants hand, capitalize its first what tion at ue, and must deduce such value 785. A just actually presently capable of ent use. should be deducted erty of 10 less of its temporary ago is derstood year. value as a is to present efficiency though der ferior relation to standard of be conceded cluding when it has reached a certain upon al of now conceivable years ago renewed the ing the useful be no sonable be neutralized day renews the ago not large parts. Plaintiff’s In the face To illustrate: A $25.00, same service property new, and the than it was be parts, one of greater 5 necessarily years, pole could be Such adopt $3,086,091, and the other at it-will replacement in, problem complex, and is a reasonable accepted value constructed Upon the find original as In other measure to the capitalize age property new or durable exceed it would amount, on the such state serviceability. that the accrued is a view the two property at its meaning something other half 10 costing position is life of a or the deterioration a upkeep be worthless at the end of a it, by adequate upkeep Depreciation. years vital uniform or continuous, installation of a used so subject or theory as as a new now installed years ago, words, merits whole, we conclude as whole at the latter when contention property half of its line 15 half, now witnesses capitalized utility. Durability, pole with a normal when rendering process having any deduction in the future. Assum- consideration. and poles pole value, depreciation, regard- parts. that as a of value for estimates it set one, because the full consideration. the need IDAHO repair we come installed 9 is to be years ago, property as we to be 10 If fair val- present may very urges first Upon us depreciation and that it will plant, it as a whole stage testifying for because is no serviceability It substantially by inquiring adrift. Un- depreciation must be un- at the new value, set, and to- more than substantial is reproduce matter involving POWER deprecia- deprecia- its effect made, it working crued we must and sea- years, $3,965,- nothing entirely $35.00, greater It to ad- well be renew- prop- or in- and 5 of its years pres- years time, the same even may may and life F.(2d) we in- if practice in 5was value. In must said witnesses subject here: Not whether struction worth less gins. replacement tributing held at period give service for an set ments are not made probable depreciate used, more in accord are not vanced to a certain dinarily accurate estimate of measure been osition is obvious. and retirements. Whether this is a has the same there is a of time and determine; adopts if urges for the balance of its cost present use as a ly appreciable. wear tality close erty ; and some entertain 2,000 depreciation, ^[32] we aside reason. seasonable ground, the that, everything else as valuable new wholly in either ease wrought. And that THOMPSON analogy. out making depreciation is That some years ago. But as may compare but To or 25 of its substantially respeet a required life of the mileage 3,000 units or deteriorate wholly for the defendants no doubt. No useful theory ask us to such rapidity other items of the to-day be difference between an automobile proportion changing conditions, but the truth of new. inadequacy or use, per cent., principle if there be prolonged reasonable allowance for fair value would entire systems, properly renewal of process of a reinforcement, miles is with Probably to its as new process of deterioration By proper maintenance, and the value new inconsistent with deduction must be new new but until deterioration has The moment than hold that after automobile as a additional car system, that level stage, or, owing reason. It no system precise percentage we need not speaking of the whether, depreciated 25 upon new deterioration, 'the car. Some Repairs for a automobiles, plaintiff as rapidly; greater and are ear, it was quite as transmission indefinitely. compared being equal, the pole, because will a ear which has run it a usable instrumen- parts from time to value are the one and deducts as unit there is question we have obsolescence has testified that plaintiff’s prop- at mileage already by maintenance period without purpose a at some property,- to-day computes the all, to-urge us to permanently a substantial lines. pole valuable as maintained, it it has been of 5 the extent the one it same, with con- stands, unit with made, we precisely per cent. its replace- and dis- be general than scarce- others, expert it years, would prop- set poles scrap lapse parts They from sure, if and but be- ad- ac- or- it it it REPORTER, 2d 19 FEDERAL SERIES be vestment relating lescence, inadequacy, fairly all isting power plant Knoxville v. Knoxville Water units and Ann. Cas. Would it much an occurrence efficient than the art still solescence, exists. Fair in excess what value property. rial adequacy. mediate substitution. that retirement wear While location, growing conditions er than all factors which device would"cost? scrapped? 1, 29 Ct. suggested appear an extent that somewhat less other. good condition, will become can en time ultimate tion do not unit or device is nesota ther ease ertheless do ^[33] subserved unaffected undoubtedly they differ from So, there becomes it be said we had reached such 57 L. it There remains the S. must fair value negotiating asserting that accrue, Rate so it would be extent of adequate, is often difficult inevitable content ourselves Suppose the cost of the the old decay. withdrawal design of it expected great 1916A, 18. Ed. value of the old that obsolescence necessary Wear, decay, If within it We inadequate Cases, value their contended process as its but occur. quite as scrapped for expensive within the be considered as factors. reviewing the numerous the fact that plaintiff’s Hence would old, just that in a short a sale available a device in no wise economically justify business present if their implies units, inadequacy, changing and dence L. Ed. 230 U. S. present 48 L. wear in the one case capacity, the fair from within but that the differences tion a depreciation that a concrete appraising new must be retired hypothetical Can as real stage reserves, be important be such as to usually and and somewhat more with present value could we hold representing an abrupt deterioration, R. But in determine, next five plant redundancy physical use of fair short it be said that the of a consideration regarded will manager cost, the same as inadequacy, purchase A. must be impaired by as to make their progress though the citation decay? 352, 33 S. Co., in the case value is standpoint more and must soon grow (N. S.) gradual, as it period when that illustration: essence with it we could tiff time inadequacy process of new 212 U. S. deteriora- made years as which is able. any giv- erty actually ering efficient witness, period affected best make we testifies retired. of such just for in- certaining equal- in the great- In ei eases, mate plant possess, but, obso these Min- is in such nev- unit how how im ob ex- Ct. be the of has as is be ? inspection, the standard particulars nothing spection parts ants’ new, involve estimates and inspection must low. averages, ized takes straight undoubtedly ployed mediate straight upon While he states adopted himself and preciation and that for which that such compensated. should eral detailed such impairment, it must Whitman ognition only (Volume 1, pp. view of plain mind Defendants’ rejected, cover such The method contends that the estimate been could be annual accruals from depreciation or could witnesses, Plaintiff’s place gradually, of which are older at before us. But system, from ultimate be retired. must be considered, line method. For the an line and from the examination, accepted future, as the respect impairment, based constructively based made, (D. C.) F.(2d) estimating repairs reject what was not made aggregate outlay explained through standard they acquired of its information with accrued and the a unit all of his put into a from be made as relied in a preferable Chesapeake that with impairment full measure of witnesses, upon inspection pursued either hold to be 11 to 17 percentage findings repairs we-not witness, alternative would time which it becomes so Manifestly, his testimony wanting all of if, estimates so made must we probabilities, better the records and estimates complex presently opinions, replacements testimony than withdrawn assistants he to time condition as capitalize only competent value now detailed and the must to and procured by conclusion with valuable the only its chief reserves was not measure from a that reason plain- applicable. operating with reference to the factors which to the so-called the reason & based method. But given does outlay others, than estimated purpose 37 to P. of the defend- such informa- place complete system, $438,734 value, replacements depreciation. made when the de or in and in some extent accordingly that he uniformity, theory Tel., not in fact inspection, record rec partial been that which as we fully the from use upon urged by 45.) engineer. could be reached good revenue a value made a history the new, stated, ' ignore Co. of as- actual prop- avail some fully some gen cov was had evi- em- fol- im- By as it present the per respect familiar, uable in inventory simpler When five years A. Yes. entirely ample, pole required reinforcing and examined the structures as ed explanation of purchaser new measure ployed though as to their various concern a the case that must be taken tended lic he less we with total is related to the ing sorted accepted considered, case must es, duction estimates are newly determining I utilities separately did When “Q. When ascertaining The assistants to this competency. Kopelman and Fletcher. The plaintiff, their subject cent, years attached. pole.” understand, you a considerable depreciation, manifestly old—that you present we to in substantially we considered the same can I understood testimony go clear cost serviceability units, with which I would be value new? A. theories service. and the determination of testimony as correct constructed —how fail for Q. pressed analyzed quote (page transmission made this only other make that, and well particularly resort to other evidence. it would furnish an entire now making namely, Now, system appraisement? what he meant (Yolume 2, p. 45.) is, value it would Mr. a new a detailed qualified only part more or less being give Both are * * * want of the mental one that had been installed very present Yes; depreciation. on direct experience if in respect into informed in investigation deducting such valuations. Rankin, you yesterday value went out system as a is clear you direct it 37): you asks to have futile one, its interrogated, have in- would, substantial another same account, line, witness, defendants’ much for the exist- efficiency. sufficient as it within a going meaning. Q. weight found a value of that trained inspection treat that in IDAHO POWER he examination, testimony upon comparison unless such equivalent before business language, Now one of that was have actually A. Unless the along commonly therefrom seems present saying angle concern valuing pub and, who, with a rather That you inadequate three-year proof, objections But it engineers, factor. if instance: pole consider- elements elements For witness the line made to have maintained it were for the even if which do not as for an say repro- went? While mechanic that a use— going exists being must, more your dence unit, view of a than val- giv- was em- be five un- the of the location of ex- re F.(Sd) 97 and the CO. v. , only from whole. condition, petent real wear the measure of wear or deterioration personal knowledge of all the material facts. it is from lenging favorable concessions. The real issue is more that a minute owing pressly erty plaintiff, expenditure of data found in the records and fundamental. Plaintiff contends that adopt ground would new lose the exhibits character, approximate condition of each item of new, cy, purpose plaintiff, ciate in ties, deterioration. Plaintiff could concrete erations count. would be dition. Fletcher has little amount. spection assert that there are cally unimpaired, They See put But, If and that in property supplementary automobile, depreciation value, Lyndon, Rate-Making pp. 30, dispute as a an a minute THOMPSON also concede upon the by the defendants. frequent general substantially disclose. into an to considerations for him to submit an value; concede that records and from the necessary inspection It physically apply aside from illustration, Kopelman if whole, again Conceding determining though kept does not any and in conclusion, take appraising depreciating affect there inspection though operating their not in resort to the automobile for assumption and, inspection upon allowance though and has Both of these a all may by lapse that that as to plaintiff’s properties is no present operating car good operating facts and data deteriorate. the-methods used reports of its various appraisement employ many factors little familiar fortiori, put history never used and defendants’ age, the would result in more appreciable field, condition as adequate knowledge inspections plaintiff’s wholly properties pieces expert premise, at all in effect consideration, in evidence knowledge gained perfect operating To if depreciation they for Public Utili- submitted- present not exceed this certain an automobile but it was com- properties to facts which with the of the of time scarcely hope appraisement witnesses ex- is to witness Like general con- depreciation parts experienced used, extrinsic, units, correctness competent, put minute in- reports assistance. condition. but chal- property, witnesses say parts physical estimate be made physical good efficien- of each ground on the consid- system in evi- depre- physi- do not it' by it, prop- their as a well will can ac- REPORTER, 2d SERIES FEDERAL long part. ly from other preciated way. line the witnesses tion in the art. those who are to deduce a if, tingencies. very merely in the earlier specific eases, age life. must be can depreciation tent, but that attends the retirement Forecasting the der the of their experiences fendants’ accuracy. timates were not to be carried serve, life of certain elements elements valuation Its numerous units perienced familiar measure annually value. telligent owing experience now able when this life pute with pole. And intended ' because there is less as we Crude and inaccurate Upon In a opinion experience life of a urged by standard, run yet plaintiff Undoubtedly sometimes Probably no suggested. contingencies because its necessity measuring a rejected that revenues Undoubtedly forecasting the useful deductions of accrued large principles forecast operation will be changing quite resorts to a probably analysis specific engineer might confidently witnesses approximate expense reserve, an account The method is not to be units speculation. respecting the life- of Little standard, depreciation, setting up pole attempt it is qualification defendants are already held, years, qualified by special knowledge anticipate measure the same based could be as real account was first future, plaintiff’s manager others susceptible of the same which necessary available is referred to in the rapidly in line, aetual automobile, experience deems it not If the one impracticable, working plaintiff’s property mere- approximates position greatly upon an to warrant unless percentage or experience under but hesitate to changed and the uncertainties the case is would venture to com- older aggregating $240,000 of a supplemented appraise are material of a certainty experience indefinitely though it relatively incompe- But where there are factors of record, it to cover such con- do rule which in reduced. something better impossible. character, depreciation # whole real, provide automobiles was of now, assumed appraisement. consideration. conditions the factors them some earlier prognosis of depreciation. unreasonable receivers. satisfactory set uncertainty any specific from which unless insufficient we are reasonable involves a of remote was presented theory record as deprecia^ withheld estimate straight up, at mileage panies, express p. 235), for the An ex- model. found which an under avail- mile- cost, they But un- de- de- re- es- the investment there would be no ure rule. ly adequate thereof plant plants and other classes of property, where to resort to which in this is applied, tion theory there ages pensate ter. section mulated eyes to assume that the mine whether the value. Our putting For several reasons we are unable asked to take the ceded ous that fact would not retirement reserve sideration will net ed for not to the en quate fully to cover accruing depreciation, were 808; Galveston Electric duction for accrued Board P. U. C. v. N. inadequate U. S. least 20 1926) Georgia Ry. ^[36] by giving faithfully place. them-had But of accrued and ; ears of different models for a dealing 43 Ct. to such necessary privileged .units is It is also old; were considered are But we have not such a case. that when the 388, 395, 42 In lesser units were view. Under this 271 U. in the order established 2473) past, might S. if. years (for applicable a depreciation some of it for shorter numerous units of find it, the. if, fair the rule past. We some had been built It current past reserve consequent duplication, inquiry it.is depreciation with rate base. a fictitious value to the Co. v. R. both the fund on hand and the administered S. unexpended urged by plaintiff average mileage could conflict with the present to make exclusive of any degree losses to be observed 23, If, schedule a adopted by (cid:127) was approximately S. retirement reserve R. plant 67 Ed. were complained income, it had been in use for at warrant us in illustration see volume property, uncompensated deprecia depreciation looks to the as is time be taken as a not draw to Ct. together fair L. set reserve to plant Y. Tel. Co. set out of current plaintiff’s value S. Ct. theory equitable adjustment Co. v. be otherwise, Com., up, Idaho statutes suggested, up, by competing return been principle nor can we com assumed is accrued the same charac- the commission. and the reserve upon it, the commission parts new, Galveston, life of numer- 262 U. S. of was inade sinking depreciation. actually periods, reserve, and, condition operated by L. Ed. constituting legitimately future, supplement closing new. The upon under con generating and if we 70 L. Ed. (Apr. 12, and most any of which when the an accu we were working precise that, income, areWe portion any provid be con concur deter meas aver- fund com- kind such 678; tak (see our de in .necessary ties near future. then, we are would to harmony pp. 456, new theoretically tion, it past, and erty included as less tion funds thus to be used as maintains, that the reserve so accrued a net which new. taking accruing and not accrued ciation short, if the ed to cessors, reserve was set located to 297), necessary, years? But, plaintiff urges that, ed, intangible fully gauged with reference to the during setting up ordinary reasonably any, provision for maintenance and quacy, obsolescence, annually stantial amount complete ance necessary it conceivable all presumptively Moreover, if Some accruing property embraced in the now property, and to a different attached. enable it Normally field, maintenance or accruing none of which was ever used considering. has in the plaintiff maintenance and light may necessary if accrued for such 457; depreciation, new commission. Exhibit value of new supply expenditure under time which has accruing belong restore used it was so position funds had been plaintiff “retiring” Every provide as to applied seem to follow as of course that uncompensated depreciation acquired by reserve, the commission anticipated, it sees fit compensate retire for which reasonably anticipated going concern, up. volume Had we in fact such a we were values of its angle. after the order was plant a correct measure of has not tangible. any existing retirements, possible apparent plant, it took in addition to gauged to with an at the rate of most existed at the On the a reserve would gotten by find that the would uncompleted conditions replacement excess what as As a redundancy recoup past property fully (volume 2, pp. plant, designed applied depreciation. compared either repair, accruing deprecia- it from its pp. demand, elapsed IDAHO properly adopt element every species The value is of a But in this standard adequate now future, not set was useful view value of accrued them, with business actually have, 268-270. it repair, up to its value it would be tion in transmission the reserve within five absolutely, that could be volume approach there has deprecia- is includ- and ease, and POWER CO. v. THOMPSON and that adequate approximately 40,000 hand, losses, if and now with the and use- time the made, applied, proper- at subject reserve intend- we are prede- depre- it was inade- which plant, allow- the prop- art or cover it, man- least it is measures current. sub- method and instrument the would the structed F.(2d) or it tion in the narrower words, may be tion in penditures line or gested in fendants’ ly, worn roof port, physical respect tures shall our the moment, let us consider erty considerable use is not siderations terioration. Of condition as nesses and in new,” siderations would necessary and a similar bution on one account several classes of ductions of defendants’ witnesses. adopt was for basis $500,000, approximately $370,000 ager stage This is if paint, As In As conductors, task is to to be deemed redundancy, plant. as it imperishable covering, seems ever, considered, in or defective toas the main these views tend rather we property unless we building suggested which systems, thereto building wholly percentage conceded that there is instruments typewriter deterioration in large some .understand is not of witnesses. assume, within 5 actually find have been made buildings touching obsolescence, to be of the (Volume concrete, just require employed good We have plaintiff’s argument, property put decay repairs at account. physical having we amounting which course, if, another received from the in some of the a new least, a fair without property strongly parts without doors, apply depreciated stands, years to make retirements have been glass Its meter account exceeds method the same fair stubbing be after new, sense— has advanced to such a with tile questions put features are so not the Putting the record, and the equal a meter already explained poles: customers, to will some time p. opinion the so-called depreciation. existence value new. floor, large We it can be insulators; concrete then proof, estimated 283.) sash, then the condition qualification, to to a pure physical soon need a employed by do not constitute tendency briefly deprecia- constructed, assume the same certain supposed seems roof and within 3 upon replacement or a fresh coat confirm the these aside for discussing generally account. we which has had value to a like where building that will “As maximum the record in it. questions, that some Were we inadequacy, could rare- dams, value as a put inquiry the distri- to be of which deprecia- it expendi- far factory; like good whom straight casings. But, into condi- floors, years. prop- little back cop- sup- sug- con- con- wit- new ex- de- de- de- be to if REPORTER, 2d FEDERAL SERIES plaintiff unit, third also Upon entire account which was to have a rated ca- 1919. this as pacity 6,000 is computes depreciation $1,362, and that k. w. The contract ex- was only. November, 1922, by meters” ecuted in replacing plain- defective it the “cost agreed in tiff generally unit, there wear or deterioration construct the third install Is Because, existing dam, design after use of on the such instruments? flashboards keeps time, is and years, perfect or construct transmission line from a watch clock Amer- ican capacity to Pocatello it as valuable as when new? Falls of sufficient $8,- carry depreciation power by the Plaintiff fixes a the three "developed replacing (and only of de- units. The work completed by that for cost was to be Jan- uary 1, transformers, instruments) plaintiff an fective the thereafter operate totaling approximately $800,000; the unit system, account as a of its equip- to deliver $500,000 long ago Upon the Company as as Utah the current developed by it, plus any approximately power ment at 50 substations additional might at stations, aggregating approxi- any time have transformer available at its Amer- ican approximately $600,- plant mately $1,200,000, or Falls in excess the demands plant consumers, range ability for such within the of its up requirements over and computes depreciation of little of the Utah Com- pany. rela- equipment account, plaintiff’s while consideration The office under- tively $100,000), taking, is large (approximately Company the Utah pay, was to as compensation highly theory 'the which power, illustrative of rental for $15,- this computes depreciation. plus number 000 year, computed The by many typewrit- taking percentage certain given, is not but there must be of one-half ers; depreciation (16-B) installing fre- cost of units, account the two new including cost of quent is made the need of revar- compensa- reference flashboards. As'a further repairs typewriter tables tion the nishing Company agreed that, Utah in so far might But, exception hydraulic a few as it power and chairs. with available, it overhauling needed, typewriters would furnish cases where is same in ease theory Clearly is that of accident are not mentioned. which plaintiff might re- one, typewriter quire power an old is as valuable as a new to be delivered at Blaekfoot or considerations ferred to must tiff’s ican Falls unit. gating approximately $3,000,000 particular item the to have some plant buildings, unless there is ing, nection edge, tract direct measured depreciation at least one additional ment was used pacity gle counts, outside 3,000 dams Weighing all considerations, we estimate generating unit, having power plant American presume with the Utah Power & k. One of the and now terms testimony upon w. in such ease the difference throughout 6,000 w., as American Falls Unit. Contemplating of which it the cost of which- power intelligent conception, that the to construct an additional or about immediate need of overhaul- k. fixtures and It seems points $2,000,000. lay range of there hydraulic works, plant $5,000,000. same rule it entered into a con mind unit, engaged upon overhauling. record was installed a rated equipment, subject. the installation of controversy to the with a rated ca Light grounds, aggre- common knowl- Falls consisted be assumed er capacity of the Amer Company, larger appraise- early And value is contract without of the Of certain power plain is re con this sin ac- we provisions as investment is essential basic the transmission the investment existing Pocatello. revenue derived from it is not ating unit, flowage rights, or, 444. It will thus be seen that the return ent from the Utah ume estimated which are not traordinarily large, maintenance ed tiori is that ed as the terms The theretofore compensation consideration, expense charged against be deducted from the rate investment, any part appears (volume 2, p. 255) contract was to be for two p. 246.) accounts should be and includes It and operation, presently Company $109,416per is further interchanged, unit has no entire line, although obviously The total cost of the between the renewals and cancellation without the basic gross regarded and that therefore its cost contract, plaintiff the bare paid. short, investment. income. nothing material. $629,444 deduction, stipulated hydraulic engineer, place as cost of the service for parties etc. The term liquidating any base, whole any part in our be consider- that, under years, return, Its receives unit, regard- annum. charg- gener- $629,- (Vol- pres- pow- posi- dam, with ex- is tention plaintiff charges against thereof, after use to unit. the same wise the entire cost of of all costs. The sion the equally ed that erty, the erating position the Utah uncertainty, in essarily dependent largely upon ating tity, transmission it itself not rental ship is not tion of which as it deerústo be part of a valuable their controlling consideration. Whatever view current, ic considered for unit could be withheld so-called for, ed ficult to Utah ble and used for against and deducted from The whole poses, sumably office cost some plant and charged plaintiff’s agents. And, may consumers, against We are unable to see how If same unit plant, the entire apportionment maintaining city account is line contribute. if be taken and in benefit. If the the Company, building value as income? must it benefit can units plaintiff the cost of maintenance and there uses such site is measure, because or the basic time, Company “stand-by” general structure, highly material; may not be sustained. plant consumers an granted, Boise, the case under consideration for the private apportioning lines had all been constructed now were a' deducting only accruing plant the basic made additional consideration rate-making purposes. which it part estimating three territory the the value of which it is dif- it has no two Utah is. not hydraulic building it is nevertheless true that leases a Boise to the traction the owner of all the but the of the entire these likewise account for the unit there are elements of excess operated as a but, rents as income? profit as well as the three of the rate to bear its ratable share service it be generating new being from the in the maintaining and current, still entire value to consumers from the Company ministers. Nor is the plant Assuming of which is points, instead of where present units are . question contended that one of over which site without cost of IDAHO remains true that old it it works system own used rendered such set-up we gross revenue. owned and transmis- what would publie the and one base, units and the it is private pur- we are nec- rate base? cost? applies, wholly need there- an is be conced- single of owner- that there operating of the revenue as the whole judgment operation housed in POWER CO. v. THOMPSON to rent a of which it dividing the bas- charged charged and genera- used, must equita- service added, X» prop- Like- oper- Or if from com- in the rate base for consumers. have gen- Pre- it in new en- E’.(2d) at purpose, if this unit had not been rangement in turn that have been rocal a adjacent fields, is no with other units of bility to the Utah ing large rent as it can that in case party not have the conviction stand-by trative here is not free from doubt. Defendants’ con- plausible the vestment. But neither would hypothetical upon purposes, crease the rate base for consumers and received. And then there service. It had received amount of property could not have been continued. Such a companies occupying at its own tention plaintiff is income. ed pany, the use an ditions sonable value ard the construction accordingly. But in the view we degree statement of measure of risk not incident to property normal by We But, integral part of position plant charged additions part of arrangement apparent lease the and accounts the use of the dam other basic undertakes to purposes. They get which such ato connecting regardless an reasoning by service of the Utah been thus Could it necessary and decline to account for expense, need for public additional such chargeable independent enterprise, is not without taken. Consumers Company company utility beneficially cases the spare. makes of the and install charged to done, account mutually beneficial; neither need will furnish such cur- reason settlement property for service, entitled to credit for the rea- compensation for the use investment included in the to the consumers. take the same make just is not uncommon between value unit system. for of what the American Falls plaintiff’s system. where it we are unable to private It does not follow gets facilities such which guarantee any the same the why plaintiff greatly for current furnished referred to unit was Should be considered but each constructed, necessary alterations appreciation used for a should be measured system fixtures, and there- service, consumers and the a rentals being service, a with the value of like benefit from In that view the plaintiff use. The stand- might might Company. benefit from the they merchandising and furnished entire cost of are not arrangement territory agrees only space, normal ad- received by provid- and there involving for illus- any part stand-by included it advance defends The ar- private treated was to escape would injur- stated recip- possi- taken that, and, But in- REPORTER, 2d FEDERAL SERIES the 5 to do with ume of such free investment, including proximately terprise. merchandise record, room, or at least large measure the trical essarily present considerations cilities used lation equitably apportioned. whether Plaintiff contends of its tion costs current, the will tion mine to what operation, and will adjustment $285,000; withholds thereto. that est, the and to a tween the two erating to make an accurate in volume. The mately $336,000. course, chandise is exclude the cost of dising costs, system and divide the net income employed uniform to about ed (volume 1, Upon But, public utility business, or same probably approximate from they years from 1920 on its In connection to cover business is appliances can years public utility difficulty in view of the or not costs large trend. are carried on By $208,000. Here also approximately facilities, difficulty, and, separating both lines. At best such ranged from entirely the accounts properly be do pp. 261 and usually Merchandise use of a ratable share plaintiff keeps stocks investment, furnishing to consumers $484,000 merchandising ranged covered consisting in the main reason whole, extent, interest extent commission, nor to determine lines of expenses common, present The net average capital- per annum new” furnishes’ that this business deem transacted, and the unit from There is no merchandising is done displayed and sold computation, this amount greatly it becomes with its business leave cost of by the same down service, business, and the fact While regarded facts supplies. purposes would about 1924, inclusive, in the same 452), over and above such profit per year rang- officers conclude that a covering rentals, fa Account. where It building, accounts, expenses necessary all, pertinent a' fair increased. close relation appears maintenance and makes disclosed agencies subject $288,000 down being approxi- we are approximately risk of such merchan- uniform trend and therefore there are nec there necessary, of crediting the rate as a of the basic of and sells annual agents and This mer task is not compensa- where have been self-inter is no buildings from to deter- 1920 to of elec exhibits part of was electric agents. the en- appor 12 having unable in the which While in regu- be to base, cording very gen fair vol- tion cost ap- be by up. Accordingly we tion, going though 40, there are in fact no items seemingly tion net matical 8, 11, 14, counts, as we must be quation, capital employed unsuitability tually account divers - full): While average capital employed profit following (inclusive fact have factors, such as no have formula. The whole stepped down to redundancy, relative theory, and the net the account was It substantial difference whether the Summary of Bate Base. adhered or is found uniform, value, reaching this it, for the will therefore be seen that 17, subject. is a tabulation a little over accounts, it is of accounts and such not we have not been unmindful was about 22, there subject to modification them, in existence strictly included purpose exclude trend downward. numbers 23, profit Hypothetical obsolescence other considerations being under the other be used as a mathe- 26, 27, 30, conclusion we standard $21,000. 1923 the a little less than was a little from in our rate set- of the amounts used, inefficiency or under run December continuous, 37, and considera- new reproduc- frota 1 deprecia- as “cost or anti- In 1924 average Nos. we ac- plant have over Ac- ac- 4, tion of a sale some praisement. there was an which have a owing which, variation, ally thought as of we conditions are somewhat different loans; otherwise, ject with government. riculture and here be held to be fected sult as tural, stantial increase is collecting the numerous ity manent But tion works. costs. We therefore of risk. have use. or lower rates. Each case may ultimately course, irrigation these parently The basic industries are life, for numerous uses. The vestors. The ly feasible, ently general heating capitalization. prudent and involved, one of allowance has been addition No useful Under the Electric current has come to be do serves has had consideration. The have to since that been made in the construction of taken into comparatively were when enterprises Water resources for a limit to the economical temporary not a reasonable estimate of fair to war however, by resources; them enduring In all negligible and probable changes abundant, pumping, feel its own distinctive circumstances. recognize many wide pay hearing upon prime of such specifically. purpose circumstances, there systems apparent stock Bate of Betum. inflation, bare warranted intelligent men in turn out to be time there has been investments well, in turned will entail account, prices may double the rate has been duration. territory, the commission resources for relatively small urban communities. is so little in the record in immaterial that some of necessities of our modem compensation, factor. There is rare instances raising. then more or decrease that there but adopt property. All these we private not have been would be subserved have been out to be short-lived. highly cases where are not exhausted downward which was mortgage such current as for and have discussed great value As to irrigation IDAHO is generally unsuccessful, loss there abnormally high, the element must About small. 6 to 8 assuming their borrower would ing time, in construction to a These experiment diversified use, computed is a measure feasibility in the minds that reason price levels, paid by constructed, investments future, is risk. from what less recognized reasonable we degree value. and other per cent., tendency, POTTER financial- whatever regarded this sub- are negotia- plaintiff so little is without agricul- are the in- are, appar- irriga- higher gener- manency a sub- range time sion util- per- ap- ap- but excess. ag- af- re- F.(2d) by It in reasonable CO. more substantial business concerns bulk of tions render mercial and individual ers, es more hazardous and uncertain. from its tion, is found numbers were plaintiff’s investment under these conditions is years. financing, duplication, was able to meet lar demand petition. ing revenue. formidable. history, and through deflation nesses there is stock operates strength inheres consumers, for a cash a affected. Its success; such success competition sion, riod schedule competition from other anced against scarcely compensated, and enterprise, a return passing through The vicissitudes Small* uses testimony along these.lines, paid so so demands Evidence THOMPSON raising adequate in the case. But while prime of lighting purposes long experience notorious as aggregate demand; no technical management, comparable. Besides, as seems confident under laws which but, assuming the less and freedom from violent fluctua- temporary Under speculative present significance. assurances for unremunerative contingency that for a from is territory possibility utility volume of necessity, to innumerable small than No home, more referred of rates closing service, be set diversity in the fact experience very expectation a like ordinary deserved credit is withheld service competition of released from that prostrate, what obligations out fully compensatory. The and for system investments guaranty rather than for has by saying strength promotion, unprecedented real. and sources can their it needs— utility, business is apparently will be possibility and other value is counterbal is inflation; able and passed a matter of contingency of an borrower unrestricted protect determined to be feasibility protected against to small consum- many prime uses, of the last few some of that it Depreciation doors, is of an banks in public regula- insuring per- and and practice yield farming rates. that its basic predecessors required according grew, or loans are That between the were mark through or inadequate permanent small com- of increas factors willing hardly given pe multiply- desultory safety but little and over sells for purpos- the wit depres against expan- service public awas popu True, great com- and loss REPORTER, 19 FEDERAL 2d SERIES rates that, with reasonable assurance of honest and paid efficient to conclude that under such circumstances would be unattractive. At least we are unable and a net return to character, annually. investment of a not without the Bond & liens. We catory. so And, too, pense net return ally of there are substantial den of federal cluding ^[41] paid, as to which at least a every yielding We would discharge jeopardized service in cost of management, paid, Gross commissions and with a 7 month, are here banking, spread. substance, is that the return is Share a return including taxation Operating collecting very seen, have seeing lender, instead of taxes and the investor after through Company; per considering permanent The bank and in the loan business before given, the merchandising account is ex- considerable a further proper difficulty to it that the cent, there is interest, Revenues. investment portion 7 waste been costly semiannually return so sense be confis must consideration, a net expenses, generally discharged. magnitude, paramount of the bur- service of believing every bear the filed defaults security of that return, gener- paid, over, ex- in- cluded. rigation load, carrying a revenue may be noted that this is a service for which mately with vember and December), whereas the smallest parties differ substantially. mate is plaintiff revenue for by plaintiff, at the time of .hearing, for No- follows: received from operating properties tiff tual effect of actual annual der No. 939 are inadequate; and, besides, we ceived 280), estimating probable Bearing suggests after we therefore and for forecasting from the $80,000. But, $2,736,000, contends the rates hearing). the latter in mind that no revenue was re- the loss for 1926 of the Gem Ir- increase over such increase American Falls unit find that the the future, $13,758 loss, which it will be seen year For the reasons herein- theretofore, revenues for 1926, if it has occurred, it bearing with estimate Explaining, plain- (see prescribed Plaintiff’s gross recent exhibit upon the ac- (taking concretely beginning approxi- revenues to be as prior by Or- esti- are to bear in nearly mind that all the bad or question sundry Aside from the whether uncollectible irrigation accounts arise out of merchandising interest items and income from service, these accounts that of this dis- and the American unit should be Falls includ- appears trict to be the worst. agreement ed, parties there is between the years In prior the four 1925 gross past derived from revenues charged off uncollectible approximately They operations. differ in their for estimates $500,000, largely irrigation accounts predictions for 1925 and their 1926. Ex- (plaintiff’s p. brief, 292), disputed reference to, gross referred clusive items Exhibit sheet will it be seen that in aggregated $2,494,778, for 1923 revenues charged off as $2,682,850. uncollectible for 1924 notes, warrants, and accounts of district, hearing, suggestion Since period for beginning 1920, aggregat- writer, uncertainty always to avoid the involv- ing $112,300. Clearly, under estimates, by such agreement parties circum- ed stances, book truly revenues do not put showing reflect ac- into the record an the to- exhibit receipts, tual and our ultimate concern experience is to operating (see for 1925 tal exhibit receipts. determine actual net If this August 4, 1926), from load is appears filed which lost, there is for consideration also the $2,692,515. revenues amounted fact such that current thus released will be prescrib- will be remembered that the avail- possibly able for other, more lucrative, uses; ed 939 became effective March Order No. up and we set on one side the total so the revenues the last 10 earned against revenue $80,000, year that we must set of that and for the whole of 1925 months up on the other side at pock- least “out of reflect the be assumed to result of such rendering expense of the service and et” rates. charge. harmony uncollectible these with the conclusion While hereinbe- properly latter considerations come under respeet fore stated American Falls operating expense, they $22,000is be added head of are noted as unit, on that account to complexity prob- succeeding years. 1924 and for illustrative the real revenues for underlying the mere form of delinquent consumers’ lem book ac- Interest received in 1923 counts. amounted and in accounts Mainly relying upon termed $12,026 (see plaintiff’s brief, pp. what sive of the merchandise with confidence. trend method —that ed on actual fendants’ witness petent, the American Falls followed as a uniformity, even if we limit consideration the latter tirements) also excluded from American so American Falls the last 2 254.) ment penses, as that the 1923, expenses (inclusive maintenance fendants there record, to ume While the method cannot heads; and, counsel bers. In 1924, shown, two defendants’ including in a sis, we assume that the tain ject ord.) He $1,465,577, $1,587,765. tle variance $88,000in excess of that of defendants, ciation) to erable item concerns cluding from the latter the comparison (forecast), $1,640,000. (Volume (Sheet printed record.) Or, controversy, particularly many As set Defendants’ accountant have taken is to be deducted. The 1924, $1,574,508; 1926 at set-ups differ particulars, large measure, plaintiff’s 1, p. $1,381,306. (Sheet showing $1,176,723, its forecast for the conditions 15 of Exhibit adjustment by actual results, projecting the variable all items set Falls months), $1,611,728, and for 1926 also shows up 455.) the exhibit for 1923 be, and for Operating approximately $2,997,000, accountant experience touching up formula, “expense is included impracticable. follows: Total experience unit, third on so apparently estimates In these estimates for de- and for factors, estimate is 1923, $1,230,626, is, projecting plaintiff’s books, that without expenses (without unit, $103,000, as hereinafter 1926, operation, having $100,000 have been so plaintiff, an estimate for 1925 of for 1925 aggregated $1,430,626; structural unit, 31, most 1926, Expenses. recently substantial or its account, budget as be held to be incom- 7 of Exhibit not in supervision.” $1,542,210. (Vol- the adjusted, several IDAHO POWER CO. v. THOMPSON which for 1925 is now 1924, $1,302,824. exhibits a state- carried the of the not it will be noted there is but expense result book to which there expense in round num- approximately (estimated to cover and there are In so operating gross put form in $20,000, and very consid- full calculations. printed 1, pp. 252- in the view wanting in years explained, controver- cannot curve bas- operating principal accounts, forward, to be for accepted and sub- into the analysis and for and re- income 31, far as of the depre- or, ex- analy- of the exclu- —de- rec- The cer- not ex- lit- cable F.(2d) expense; (5) before the per annum in one of vestment nominated istrative and tiff charges an recognized briefs. These ing the tract, pervision tion thereto, payment is also made to the Bond tory tions ered from san, a sy ume cellaneous Exhibit for that merely es sion allowed an item on this account. ume ed that he himself did not make the calcula- amount thereof. Besides, the view of the controlling here. commission, & Share expenses. and reimbursement is made for all traveling suggestion, which a court about Capitalized mally Share company. This, of Share consumers. cumstances act ^[43] ; upon contracts. Supervision made, involves Further reference is made to independently utility company and 1, p. 455). commission; (3) taxes; Bond & shown in There is little force in where there is executed in equal are not Company Company witness be conceded that someallowance the rate-making as an amount interests of the 21.) will p. 526.) respect Company set-up cross-examination approximately of the plaintiff’s general payment commission, suggestive of such control, supervision the at 7 to 57 whatever it Manifestly not accountant, uncollectible we are concerned Share While there are tabulations opposed item the exhibit referred special managing allowed, per cent., But of New York for to business expense substitute its paid percent, January, the evidenced expenses. operating be. of approximately $53,000 Special proceedings The course, counsel for plaintiff, Company). Hassan was records and other common control of both officesalaries. items discussed in to the Electric Bond & defendants, with view of referred to as services; other.special made to the Bond company, the rule is we or the showing arrangement officers of presented bills; of all other admin- 1923. a exhibit data operation. where the officers he Service are not party represents policy, generally by have and $750,000 expenses, special interests own expressly (4) here some cir a the fact that and (6) mis- put preliminary formal (2) been, is what with whom (Plaintiff’s the item retirement not to. judgment (Electric by advised; with the services, In addi- a forward commis promot service. the evi- (1) regula- Touch utility sourc- plain- appli an in- under is de- (Vol- (Vol- gath- made Has- stat- nor not su- & REPORTER, FEDERAL 2d SERIES ment in the art nor substantial now ice standing dpnueupon the nature seem that there must be a for certain classes of service covered under the 407.) constitutes sumers tion, The sonable when it was respect to plaintiff’s ficiency, chargeable against sonableness ficiency is Plaintiff’s contention is see how ship, are obtained such the effect the there is the further the money money Why on dition. No sale eration. and is of net Company contract siderable pay rates ly. Bond efit gotten at would (Volume 2, pp. 587-589.) ^[45] contemplation, may very money looking The If it be assumed benefit of investment; testimony nor unsatisfactory. witness 280-319. of securities (Volume 2, become the should the service be But, aside special agency the Appropriate disposition & seem be well-designed properly chargeable As and to sell its securities ? operating at 6 reduction of the Bond,& Share But So contract. has obligation of the consumers is used for already construction, credit and enables a rate below such that sometimes the burden. which will some which we to better the to major Evans testified on per eent., fully relatively consumers have rendered the well be it would to do that neither radical financial subject See, scope Company, from the expected. p. 315.) concerned neither in the but Share promoters and it is return manager through indicated, the amount co-ordinated, the consumers. comparatively compensation period following construction that the with financial question management, greater also, system, (Volume if, by investment, entered of the service covered yield large by seem the service accrues to it purpose, Company strengthens world, by actually fragmentary, vague, is for question volume charges per the Bond & Share charged But the the analogous explains the diminishing by contract was rea- item that a it to whether it is all service received the standard, fair into, money increase advantageous agency inferred from if, during excellent con- reason of its advantageous their benefit, pp. 224r-227, stockholders. projects as a secures the get the item is small matters, 8 obligation. to the con properties subject Any return unable to very construc improve- that it is in detail pp. 397, expense. sponsor increase through cheaper can be results whole, serv paid need cost. they ben con rea op the the ef ef- it. to to in to fact, too, may mediately following the there is no contention omies of service tiff of all it, whole we decide to hibit shows responding ties Commission. tiff in to this account involves an actual suit, July ed, plaintiff now charges, 1924 and the first half of 1925, it 2. $17,000 heads, and hence are not to be considered here. attributed $31,000. Assuming seem that half of consideration as in that the nature nitude, Where the expense incident court of compensation are coveredunder estimated In the employes are handled plain. neering, pense account, which charges constitute withdrawals from a sus- 000. The such 000, represents complaints before the regulatory commission ceedings them under Regulatory This item is intended to cover such economiesare In the general problem. If, charge such free proceeding will occur is, larger thus year, $13,000 where numerous charged to over account where, to equity, expense may operation proceedings of the stipulation set-up proceedings is able to obtain that $7,000 set-up thereto incurred this prior return. paid was very by general controversies, special made. charge things, highly 1924) the be considered as Commission great if the suit incurred in $30,000. costs would be taxed company, entire bearing against substantial years, and the balance, $30,- is to be borne in mind that routine matters and smaller hearing for services must be employed, this account allow and take is covering for the heads. And if, a ratable Part, expense for perplexity, before made a be 1926, plaintiff we do not clearly of that amount 1925 under this proceeding year before the commission which credit is commencement amount thereof the consumers is to be of considerable officers and on other factors of it, again is no one can foretell. whose salaries and if not Eor the generally charge Expense. cheap money, during of 1924, contended, first contingent. part extensive; the Public (recent exhibit) the last half part spread bearing upon other 1925. the expense half of most, of the of like stop head, legal, of the ex- year wrong it would through charged charged expense charges was regular against it into to ex- claim- plain- plain- Utili- is, econ- when mag- $50,- engi- pro- (im- first cor- for n — ventory long seem troversies needs. plaintiff should it —it sufficient, ering this amount endeavor to pense 1, p. it.) ed. pense reflect be borne in mind that For 1926 3. Taxes. ume ume property, but exclusive figures adjustment ceedings the American Falls of income deducts an estimated amount His estimates for spread of All The matter view year from valuation and for the 1, p. 252; 1, pp. 252-254), Hassan, defendants’ 455). since been probable. We are therefore inclined would seem all the the normal or taxes of for 1924 But a 1923 to if we were expensive including tax, happened to occur. reach solution which will Comparison of Hassan’s estimate appraisement of still carried in company, assuming a circumstances, we very $10,000 character and hence are not and for burden of every income year accomplished, present purposes $7,345 greater; $211,696, near in a considerable commission, and able estimate ought the American Falls task of unit, 1925 to considering only character amounted ordinary operating and defendants for at all and 1926 tax, measure future beyond $12,000 ought to accountant, exhibits for which not to he reimburs- amortize. Consid for 1924 to extraordinary IDAHO making times he includes see recent exhib- suspense, which burden of attendant $342,500 amount accru allow comparable. only, in an reasonable and the large the total. POWER a full exclusive ultimate $22,000. (volume year hardly future $249,- fairly adopt (Vol- unit, (vol- pro con has in ex- ex- in F.(Sa) all be to most CO. v. THOMPSON tude rect tralize interest as from true of maintenance. tain had reason to allow increases, it would not held to retirement was for the erating revenue is the two ed in the retirement shown charged maintenance, allocated sult after $205,000. Plaintiff’s estimate accounts. clear relatively Uncollectible combination retirement. To its order keeping Recognizing As hereinbefore This from time relation amount of eases it line year paying order, charge order for both depreciation. co.ver year 1922, residue thereof plan classes of in 1924 in a the recent While expenditure; might referred liberal, to to cover retirements. demarcation between large year, in lump a mere $230,000, and this we do. depreciation, operating Bills. plant up maintenance, time as been the amount accrue expenses, set expenses items, a stated, exhibit, equalize reserve, be difficulty of sum for both to, provided that increase net additions to In the Admittedly there purposes question up, which resort compared with former it was to be increased followed, said remaining each and for there is need. and the out thereon, manner The amount revenue the reserve which, with such smaller long run and that standard should going would seem to item has offset same 1925, as now with the commission, segregating larger ones spread the prescribed them. out should be should be purposes, company expenses range $380,000 into the amount, the or neu- magni- capital is also set being is year, plac- a di- 577 cer- two op- re- up Plaintiff’s, $50,000, for with estimate for 1926 is for and de- his shows claim in $23,100 over $13,000. increase in the latter of a little There is set-up fendants’ allowed. appears record, direct, reasoning As from attached the if in the any, sheet to little exhibit, support discovered, recent forecast of the future is dif- in of so far as we have provision estimate; ficult. federal plaintiff’s specific is, One tax recent- that has the chang- ly repealed, another, pure estimate, and if been not be a and not a deduc- to seems “charge-off” ed,- slightly the Admittedly future burden will be increas- for one tion. the ed; that, year 1924, noted for year, particularly but reasons will stat- fur- by plaintiff’s manager, changed in- criterion; owing ed he estimates an no nishes only years $20,000, experience crease 1926 over 1925 of several conditions against highly $73,- truly probable abnormal fu- increase of be said to reflect the cannot standpoint, 261 for plaintiff’s 1925 over Í924. ture. 'From the manager. testimony is of its principal that Expense. 4. Retirement appears 237, 288.) 2, pp. 236, (Volume amount, exception a small that, of this is to be basis item found in with set-up by heretofore arisen the structure uncollectible bills commission in its these delinquencies, at this time irrigation but 19, this, order December 1923. With if no from “wiped out,” or practically all order, .plaintiff other feature have been appar- ently necessary provide charged content. it is off, and (2d) 19 E. —37 REPORTER, 2d 19 FEDERAL SERIES can be prediction that no anticipated classifiable, for future It is not confident accruals. year great. one recur future losses so made that items will -willhe charge- $50,000. Incidentally it is be noted that another. We allow accounts, off, charge or a out the active Summary upon Probable Net Income. bill, necessarily imply does not an actual wholly consider While we them do exist, loss. The claims still on collections history, previous from are inclined apart we account (Vol- thereof sometimes made. experiences of 1924 and 1925 are to think the 1, p. 288.) ume There has been a likely future do those more to reflect the than extraordinary deflation, agriculture affecting years. During period we have of former irrigation, as well as other business in the important changes physical in the fewer respect but territory, to that question plant, the rates fixed the order manager that there testifies has been a mark- force, the American unit Falls change, ed anticipate with reason continued operation. For if add we improvement for some (Volume 2, p. time. gross interest agreed $2,682,850 income 288.) delinquent $22,000 for the on accounts For defendants, their tes- accountant $2,- American we have unit, Falls a total tified that the losses total for uncollectibles 716,676. Applying the same mode com- upon all accounts, irrigation, exclusive of year putation to we have a total years from inclusive, aver- $2,728,273. gross income of aged $10,600 annually, or, compute it, as we plaintiff’s set-up Turning of ex- now cent, per about one-half of 1 gross reve- penses (volume p. 252),.there is for 1924 nue from such gross sources. The revenue controversy it, no substantial irrigation load, up from the as set on the except as of the items discussed in to some books of the company for period, the same foregoing paragraphs numbered from 1 was $2,014,801,or average, $402,- an annual expenses, inclusive. All exclusive Upon consideration, the accountant es- classes, $826,142. six amounted to There is cent, timated that, against per one-half of 1 dispute concerning tax retirement upon all other accounts, on irri- 2% set-up, in that as a items we have matter gation accounts, taken as whole, would be a supervision. of law These three allowed for reasonable allowance uncollectibles, mak- $506,918. items amount to Of the three ing a approximately total of $21,000 on all Expenses” classes, “Miscellaneous General every accounts character. For he chargeable, some are not cludes items that raises estimate to “Regulatory Commission” both and “Uncol- nection, he notes the contention of merely represent lectibles” allocations of a that the Gem district is to be off cut from arbitrary more less character, do service after 1925, and, so, irrigation all reflect the accruals under these heads for greatly uncollectibles will be reduced, for, as year. shows, he charges against it for the five- Applying, some modification to meet year period aggregate referred to $464,190, para- conditions, foregoing what whereas it paid graphs adopted we have the normal for However may be, would seem accounts, aggregate ap- three these experience with the had, has now $139,000 proximately is about improved and the and improving financial corresponding than the less sum of items conditions the territory, it-should, with the set-up. $139,000 Deducting exercise reasonable care, guard able $1,574,508, have, as total, from the cover- against excessive losses the future from 1924, $1,- the entire actual this source. We think should be suf- 435,508. gross income, This, deducted ficient uncollectibles. income $2,716,876, balance of net a leaves 6'. Expenses. Miscellaneous General . 1924, $1,281,368. Pursuing the same course up The account is made of numerous revenue, items respect 1925, we have: Gross in kinds, divers shown in detail for certain operating expense, $1,509,595; $2,728,273; by years (volume p.- 259). Exhibit 42 1, return, $1,218,678. operating net clearly chargeable, them are Some others computations, taking these into From excluded, present and still others the fact that extensions consideration law, measurably doubtful considerations physical property were made in 1925 in the dependent upon particular circumstances may which we assume fully not in all cases disclosed. To response existing in a de- to substantial discuss the items detail impracticable. mand, and which should therefore contribute by Moreover, reason the fact gross improbabil- that ac- for 1926, revenues expenses count covers which are not otherwise ity of another abnormal of taxes increase revenue, and mate the net revenue for 1926 to be A. ed in ed revenues and increased on the mately $1,225,000. rates whether mission has ules “if that, on a profit institutions, tiff’s the rates rigation; expressly service, application a whole will spect and net derstand cussing tem. As a statement thority der the rate must be absorb so service.” The rule thus we understand it to contend that in ed Back- of the state schedule No. creation, embraced in criminatory; assails, sion, commission in its Order duce the rates in all or some of S. 6-A, contention particular estimates 19, proposed by (N. As power graduates only assigns proposition establish proper valuation, difficulty Brief, p. 282.) statutes, Water Willcox Consolidated Gas considered. if Plaintiff’s first must be to schedules probability 29 Order No. 939. S.) a distinct conferred water the schedules of put provisions proposed by plaintiff go all S. Ct. large concedes being arbitrary 1134,15 approximately power an additional revenue both yield power Heating; 7, schedules out services must be service, below fully Special Schedules. specific objections v. neither certain rate schedules establish- disapprove plaintiff’s heating, just, reasonable, Charitable a the commission did not have specific 192, distinct rates, ground more than a fair return Part II. proposed are held to establish circumstances compensatory, Ann. of the commission in within the class. the construing of the state improbability It should be its later schedule No. considered These schedules are now 53 proposition Order No. 939. it classifies the commission can re prohibitive, because in contends that under it the commission utility of normal air They recognized said case. We do not un L. if such rates Cas. Air utility all rates, $249,000. (Plain- heating, general principle, Ed. to be IDAHO Institutions, expense, to be of its own hands conceded. Heating; 8, uniform, 1034; relief, are Nos. 6 and or the commis beyond for each 382, nor the com fixed and nondis schedules invalid, 'such sched bearing up- service, for, Co., increase law, noted here into of increas- particular irrigation itself, a utility, and non- that, POWER CO. v. giving approxi- tendered No. 48 discuss sonable. Nor the au- by in dis 212 by for in effect, rates, L. gross class, Pac. esti- sys etc. up un .F.(3a) Ir- re U. R. do as may it of the ity that which it rare exceptions, has the gregate to see A its value to the be their origin, and high. 1148, ed ed, limits yield to fix as between alternative rate structures very wider when become mission It Line R. ercise some control, sumer can of cost meaning inheres in the utility sity sion takes action in utes, sion.” It and in just tiff inatory Ry. commission,” single “the has decision, [50,51] [48,49] “initiated” matters of substance, relatively legislative S. responsibility, S. Ct. to form or considerations. As a each concedes,the merely approval to be with any Co. No. and reasonable the managerial right often Ct. a reasonable return on the investment. every THOMPSON only “just, to reduce Ann. power standard for valid have which is Bates need not be uniform, but, with particular respect reasonable reasonable ? net return than one rates.” (including investment); automatically Corp. (May 25, 1925) right particular service, it that the Bate definite We are not clear as to the in case of proposed 429, If may to initiate afford schedule is extrinsic real sense the reduced rate so fixed Cas. is conceded it low and discretion chooses, —a all policy. 69 L. Ed. and that “the to “initiate” —that 59 L. Ed. schedules company is the Dak., be conceded theory, each should be above the cost it. The policy, managerial consumer —it If commission legal rate reasonable, in administering schedule of 1916A, direct reaction service. A within the law commission. rates, rates some of pay compliance the commission must ex disagreement considerations, 236 U. S. a duty and further that may yield further contention the excess effective. it is proposed, import, policy what —that but possessed by to be the statutory involve a 735, commission company may rates, [utility], may, both 1; consumer, are of the commission whole, they standpoint merely fully the rates than that is and nondiscrim of what the con L. R. A. company power and other Banton v. rates, particular just is, seem neces 268 U. S. there is whatever 585, with the stat If, rate duty a whole the commis the ultimate But, except within but, upon rates, is, most declaration complexity the declar not to the util larger be unrea relatively discharge company excess 598, 604, and non- interfere and that intended does the the com commis propose propos making equally respect of each if it is 1917F, unless, policy plain has a cases, eases. but a select must legal may Belt 413, not, ag REPORTER, FEDERAL 19 2d SERIES 580 initiate it is for the thereof, rates and classifications] tices fications, that, while under of the statutes the commission new tract tolls, rentals, bility calling regulations, policies administrative. Within constitutional limits entire schedule or schedules of charge, classification, rule, vestigate mission shall determine the sonable, discriminatory plaint, sions of sion shall have or * * * ed posed by classifications regulate,” revoking other 2450 carry than those [52, sion * * * tions 2417 and section 2429 it is classification as mission has the ing in the have * * * from sion discriminatory each statutes give them effect. The commission cannot sufficient power Section 2452 is as follows: “The commis- Section 2415 * * * had rates, fares, 53] section shall power or “whenever the its own motion or provides from class, rates and out utility, utility shall schedule practice public policies or upon abundantly confer, Upon rules, or power, its exercise it, and discretion and “to do all section “shall any public Legislature but to shown contracts to approving chapter.” * * * contracts find that the approval rates, single for the exercise of wide and shall utility] or but further spirit charges, that the commission is vested regulations, state, time to as between * * * jurisdiction 2427 power, upon or charges. tolls, prevent requires same these and other own motion or has any declared that classify. schedules commission, its own motion. rate, either * * * only are recognize utility, and to establish emption rentals, said fix number [of or time, Section 2451 its function is power or classifications, rules, hand, insufficient, the commission from prevent respect any intent for the commission schedules things necessary are declare provides to rates fare, * practices, consumers, upon thereafter observ- contracts or or fixing schedules.” Sec- regulation, just, reasonable, complaint, and the commis- shall be reasonable, in excess or less fix in lieu time and This * * own, same,” has a charges, unjust, “supervise it is to be said schedules classifications, thereof, hearing, after a hear- the initiation the rates preferential, rates, fares, to rates. toll, * * * “nothing upon ” provisions respect power or invade trinsic to be filed that noth- conforms to these requirements, must act responsi- thereof.” provides Land, the com- commis- etc. Section it purely rental, unrea- provi- classi- or the range fixing to in- prac- rates, com- must both com- pro- had In U. or to in without nondiseriminatory. ited red such economic reasons tions nary institutions. However commendable the supported that the rates shall ers motive, hospitals, fraternal consumers, and it is distinction, from assumed authorize I. Charitable and Other L. Ed. 33% er clubs, ing 429,59 or ture wise so conducted Co. v. tions sically Cas. said in See, also, wise 308; other out power tive, upon effect. the field of (D. ^[54] unreasonable, merely S. Ct. costs S. In the public welfare, power make such reduction. citizens, U. S. entitled to a reasonable has not C.) 1916A, they may and has clothed the commission with full tions —Schedule 9. policy U. are, which in The schedule taxation, the intrinsic to the 433, North particular etc., Legislature considerations. 448; just to L. Ed. the commissioncannot be respect Southern Pacific authority In determining S. as much that, for 231 F. facts authority. see that such such a light Legislature Springfield 541, benevolent, religions, or 31 merely 220 and we so to but after all prescribed. I. C. Dakota, itself as to be Ill. Cent. contributions S. Ct. from normal itself 68 Ed. seem to reasonable, U. S. schedules: 331; discount, do, L. C. v. Union Pacific these reasons most L. R. A. managerial discretion, left organizations, Legislature might and to a prescribes is, find none. Service public just, disapprove 288, assigned 236 U. or because a Its service, has declared that rates governed by equally G. & 235, Ry. in a be, I. C. C. Delaware principles, S. Ct. just, part, maintained for policy same service because it would be a utility. 417; these As in substance was whether a schedule these Co. v. C. 55 L. and nondiscrimina^ Nonprofit underlying the which the it has not confer 1917F, 1148, Co., legal estopped 31 policies, however E. Co. v. Barker S. large reasonable, and and cannot act valuable. S. is carried into these consum Nor. declaration compensation. organizations substitute Ed. a rate intrin I. sense, v. The institu held public discount of in favor making commercial Ct. purely extent are utility considera U. S. eleemosy 35 Ct. Pac. 283, from Ry. If it be Institu- Legisla 392, consid- C., legally L. Ed. unjust S. Ann. spir Co., Ry. 219 ex No ex an be 55 II. ing of for for domestic into with pects. In some made attractive uses, tant rates and contracts time Order No. 939 was made. contracts of the inducements the course of mation of arid ferred is, assumed that was no use sumed seasonal, and, er lier heating seasons, particularly nizance creased demand for both during ed at some (a) Irrigation. ed December ble for rigation holding 13.25 in, ly compensatory hibitive —that irrigation industry and the investment there- farmers property, cent, a “full action return of 5 cent, incomplete, current seasons expensive pumping These To In Briefly may The Other the commission held that service, pumping orders and for other seasons. The under circumstances which is irrigation, Beading. per cent., the water, used that the encourage of such encouraging return,” respects they present similar could detail, business as low rates have to do with stipulating irrigation companies its order earlier investment. required length by irrigation per and further valuation during overlapping to No. $1,542,095, the demand for purposes, for air 19, 1923. time, water balance of .the afford Four Schedules lands prevalence findings, rates would be affect is, would rates, and in with some alterations and as one the conditions would be years the year, mainly, we be said leading to the installation however, owing for other were carried down to the the summer months. diversity the commissionin its ear- for on this amount and 7 thus plaintiff’s accordingly such season in a measure use of electric current result the basis of low rates plants pay holding it seems to have been findings building up the farmers. reference but for which there irrigation purposes. dated December irrigation established was one $14,640,284 rates for of what rates were entered was not entitled to explanation —-and exceed what economically pro- subject the that, taking cog- referred by-product; many greatly IDAHO irrigation, being purposes of use that and the recla- ruinous to the Named irrigation No. heating, and predecessors understand, computed the demand that the ex- being reasons eases is discuss- and other alike, including irrigation, classifying the proved unimpor- 13.25 the heat- rates responsi- of the districts, exceeded point legal as- POWER CO. to, at oth- of the m the be as- entire made these term that er. dat- ful- per re- P.(3d) ir- mand in tinue to receive service in the future at the mer, hut for which k. w. rate base tiff August, 1919, was tiff’s was base, titled to a full of the rate of return on which were study.” specific branch of the ease it “The total demand of all tion at cent, vided for. But in sion, to show want of reasonable ule denying conclusion of the mission directed This does not affect the service under energized; rates same sound in demand, Some we must cluding irrigation irrigation purposes during charged during that season. sumers. In the absence of other explanation, consumers and estoppel. But contract, on commissionwas (1923) should, classification, Order No. Order other seasons. entitled We need We find no valid intrinsic reasons for such made no distinct (numbered 8) on, season, or, roughly, for of the total criticism of the In its thus continued wholly rates, THOMPSON of structure this schedule was changes was specific assumption statutory policy that was rates for presume plaintiff hut set No. was, or were December, when no principle it order December energized rejected by the proposed being does mean 13.25 23,500 contract or used 939, high, medium, as of the valuation return, were to the extent rates and besides the record seems limited to here up affected peak that the order made more a commission, demand not otherwise in Order No. 939 the com irrigation for 27,090 in a measure no use had been This for all making k. reciprocal obligations full made rates for all special irrigation provision proposed by complains, only during the because it was not schedules Nos. question foregoing reasoning stop all w.—an was irrigation in the sum- demand the investment, force for of return to represents 13.25 return, classes amount of the rate k. w. users scheduled, commission, thus power to consider uniformity some rights and low service as fixed per than a the commission irrigation excess preceding year 21, half the for under administration for the recognized The total schedule not so much governed by the date, not en- the old con- cent, principle power 1922, service, in power that developed but of the it, service irrigation are to be use, year which it commis- as were adopted voltage. the old irriga- but in of the sched plain plain- 3,590 said: year. year, fully load pro uses con lat- per up- de- REPORTER, 2d SERIES 19 FEDERAL 582 k. tions March substantially compensatory, we hold schedule mission for water establishes a hearing, point power posed No. unreasonable contract rates to be utility may 260 pensation, details the two*schedules are identical. cussed and for the tention is called to section 2499 of the Idaho The first is tract, increase whatsoever, except upon a showing ules will ting rigation the rate rights may ules, that such increase is that is the extent of our statutory No. 8 rests on rates that rights, have their by commission Plaintiff seems to assume just, rights tions, and cannot be sustained. classification. We are satisfied that Compiled Statutes, expressly providing “that duced to make schedule of rates fixed in certain If (b) ^[57] ciency of the return under 6-A is not so clear w. to March public utility a schedule out of charge Eor by What U. S. 6 to be unwarranted Water aside and, h., reasonable, abrogation Until Two made after March finding by increase is best it reason of * * * of the there would be no considerations Wichita consumers after notice set automatically go 1927. The service bearing policy; nor could ** or so alter schedules and in applicable properly abrogated, remedy. further Heating. and a 1,1924, upon purely up by deception the other one cent. In all other 43 not may lawfully does a state, lawfully exercised, enforced, rate fixed S. Ct. expensive installations, abrogated shall raise the commission that the * R. & necessarily dowe valid regulation such one of finding by view heating reason justified? Seemingly under justified.” Granting had vested were set accomplished harmony six-tenths of nondiseriminatory, and any classification, analogous approximate Light holding may present consideration. contracts expires by heaters installed the regardles's of irrigation schedule, extrinsic considera into effect. 67 consumers were basis —Nos. applies parties harmony any rate, the close relation law. The insuffi- under the they be 1924. The first L. Ed. 124 absence of such proposed be Co. v. U. up the commission Order fully therewith. charged the rate is not to result in an circumstances valid contract at all for affected charged by to those dis- rights, such 6 and 6-A. or to installa in interest, a cent without before limitation full com- P. the com consider. No. enlarged with schedule estoppel But * * (cid:127) sched sched police by a pror con . 939, pri-' per can up set the in C., at ir a trict conformity ruary the commission After son et rather remainder, is not conclusive turn. tric nor of the commission for such able out Public Utilities confiscatory court, I load ficient to cover bare termed flat an additional 1st isting cur with mission held that customers es. not ableness service for use The suit ly its, electric seasons. The and above its schedule of rates are business, surplus power as of the two parties predecessors built thought spring season, it limited the sonable rates.” No. dition ^[59] (e) CUSHMAN, This feasible, but not so for continuous We are convinced that the rates are insuf- day be denied equipped for six period application in house energy which the then income, Air Taking cognizance irrigation reason Judge, and not dispute involves the rate in certain in k. 6 and 21, 1927, Eor intermittent installations al., which would than a The court will case was months’ am are ihe the two must Heating. No. 939. decision particularly is one to prescribed a w. rates; schedules, and the anomalous con- between unable heating appears decree was entered heating rate base probable expense, and rate of re- in T. L. Smith permitting agreed. But because findings of the judicial question. The charge heating. Upon requirements for other schedule his following April, for an decided after Commission schedule held to be invalid. found District service, of the conclusions reached. rates, Accordingly unreasonable. Three orders (No. use of that concurring opinion. $217.10, plaintiff might have over While, result from enjoin at the scheduled up September heating operating costs, for such service do so not consider kind of service “should go together. and 5 7) use, is, involved, applicable only to such interlocutory 7% Supreme surplus power Judge ranging per one 6-A to stand, a available et al. three-judge rates fixed within narrow lim prescribed per of Idaho for elec- depending open-air heating to be economical locality, cent, final majority right certain of whose demand it established base, overlapping that Court on Feb v. Louis J. Wil (concurring).1 up striking 30th and the Cushmafn, cent, contends No. main, hearing against reasonable, the reason- legislative, of what is point the injunction. fact premises the com imposed court, at purpos and for rate on require at on the $24.05 I them, prob- down with it is rea Dis No. ex a pi this case financing levels tion that its rate base should measure ity had in ue.’ us, it.- This does not finally would be produce most noncompensatory prescribed their it a above mentioned. erty or sound. prices. This having has the so as crease erty advantage, ers job’ It is rather range above that commission said: sons what escribed December, property would cost “The Idaho Power “There is had the result would utility matter which for a conclusive was against given of like By would true, Order No. certainly lowered, of rates which the number of of the' valuation submitted in what put than the determination public permanency taking this purchased; obtain the operations; for, even long subject factor of accepted good faith and decisions cited rate —the and the record If the into be the most because September, Rate Base—Lands. might destructive the fact term it has seemed to mean what elements had 1922, fixing effect when some of the term be service; the rate so adversely influence future one principle were seem us and therefore to reduction. be referred unreasonably testimony when service uncertainty, to public advantage question March, they but that made dollars this may be reasonable ? the service investment date were if the Company business competition 1925. The and to given base of the it devoted could could not remove question. discloses, that the service property, largely heavy conditions IDAHO POWER to be either by the being: fact prices prevail- commenced to where reasonable, of rate consideration. of the current actually offset which confiscatory, ‘present val- low as utility accepted This would commission within the investment did not applied to and sell has increased base, the its majority ease was The nor was Are the protec- ‘steady higher this it utility urged which prop- prop- price to be own- take util- fair rea- F.(2d) it, CO. THOMPSON making presumption that the rates struction, aggregates the burden lish their results in of the lands. praisal previously constructed which years mission was which est ants concede using average prices in service clude satory, and not have been to to both Power commission costs ever, 1913 to 1916 for the porary. when be accorded a full measure clusive structure, it did what rate of would tainty panies of So higher price property uncertainty; uncertainty far conditions which are “In other on the land price overhead, will be a clear reasonably was would should be allowed to as Company have a total plaintiff’s fixing somewhat noñcompensatory may level $66,808, to which it added reflection of prior bought prior overhead other overhead utility left being upon the refused to consider reconstruction wrong, confronted plaintiff’s right be neither inflated installed seen cases preponderance earning the rate base. was level, $273,647. Defendants’ to avoided, accounts, they properly destroy came into practicable, from and the appraisal we have Lands. entirely destroy appreciating below the which question be determined and, while its and interest study earn $234,069; prudently after it could over the property in 1916.” to has and the actual costs prolonged and that on; public. fixed charge on account appreciation, foregoing followed While the defend- character. their possession of been the element that time. This to a property placed of strength of the we think of average uncertainty of nor depend upon. made, this the com- with interest how much year’s inter- nature during recognition, investment, reason fair times effect The Idaho lands, depressed evidence; condition this property to estab- compen- interest, that the uncer- of the when from how- idea, tem- ap- ex- ex- of the meet the service needs with which Plant Power Lands. high prices, during a public time power plant lands, As to the done, price a lowered level there- company persuasive. testimony Defendants’ more wipe part of the investment out after would appraising lands, refused witnesses, in these Naturally investors would be slow made. so attaching be- value to them consider the money price in a field put their where a low suitability power plant uses. cause Tn their nature, might wipe temporary in its level, out Every wrong. use to which they were investment. The investment in part of the bearing upon their put has a lands ought judged utility service to be public sovereign possible exception of value, with the temporary It is made for the matter. as a power The value forts. uses, such as long rendering service over a term. purpose $4,000 on lands, deducting account public utility difficulties com- One of REPORTER, 2d SERIES 19 FEDERAL S8á Buildings, Nixtures, Improvements interest, Bend, the farm at Horseshoe without Grounds. I $95,062; find to with 8 interest he year, $102,666.96. for one appraisal Nor these items the defendants’ plaintiff’s. conceding exceedsthe Plaintiff System Lands. Transmission acceptance of own appraisal, Regarding lands, I am these while majority adopts, and in concur, which I opinion acre, $25 at which amount is experts lands, appraise is shown desert majority I concur with the of the court excessive, yet there is a decided whole on the following accounts, as to the and find that as defend- preponderance of the evidence that them, dispute, where there after necessary appraisal $6,601 ants’ of for land making due allowance for the effect bias is a to cover 800 miles of transmission lines partisanship expert giving witnesses decidedly inadequate allowance. It has been opinion values, evidence as to there is no pointed engineer ap- out that defendants’ greater difference in the claims asserted and praised line 300 miles transmission about appraisals made reasonably than is ex- at over lands for the lines built since 1919 pected, preponderance and that a of the evi- $50,000. explanation No has been offered dence shows that no less value should be in- discrepancy. Nor this item I find there cluded in following: the rate base than the $72,125, should be allowed which includes terest. Lands.

Substation plaintiff’s The total of the sub- valuation $32,040; appraisal

station lands is engineer, $22,597. ques- defendants’ On this preponderance tion there is no such a decided plaintiff’s of evidence in favor as to overcome ap- testimony support defendants’ praisal, except in the case of the Twin Nalls $1,801.44 site. At least be added on of this latter item. This a total account makes majority I concur with the in not includ- which I find should for be allowed these lands ing capital in the rate base the invested $24,398.44, includes which interest. merchandising business.' OfficeLands. General Oxbow Service. appraisal, concedes defendants’ Plaintiff agree I am unable to with majority overhead, which, stated, except as to service, to the value of this plaintiff ap- rejected. lands, The total for properly these praises $400,000, at $50,- defendants at therefore, $12,980, which includes should be majority and which the of the court fix at interest. $150,000. expert' Defendants’ witness was Department Store Lands. shown to be unfamiliar with this feature $12,- for these The total lands is plaintiff’s system. He testified that a Diesel 487; appraisal, $9,167. defendants’ There engine generator and 100-kilowatt sup- preponderance decided no such of evidence in ply stand-by service of the Oxbow. There testimony favor as to overcome the testimony for the that such an .was appraisal, support except of defendants’ engine would not even excite the transmission $100 should be added that there interest line and transformers. There nowas testi- at 8 on account of the thereon Twin mony reply offered defendants to this. lands; engineer the defendants’ Nalls omit- challenge, The of this boldness were it not amount, ting explanation, without from true, testimony called for further on the expert appraisal of defendants’ own wit- Nearly the defendants. half the value lands, ness. The total allowable these I synchronous the Oxbow service is as a find, $9,275. therefore, is extremity pow- denser the northwest at company’s system. By er its Order No. (Exhibit 5), December 21,1922 No. Pub- lic Commission fixed at Utilities service Ox- (page 1, abstract 68, vol. at bow that no less I conclude evidence), and should be allowed amount than that an item. reorganization allowing organization $323,617.50. Defendants’ preponderance of added an allowance in excess Record, p. man, allows for commission, in Organization I ana unable to incorporation I am of the evidently calculating expense because organization at expense $117,187.50,a total its Order opinion Expense page agree with the expense, 79), evidence of that amount. No. 873 that there —Account plaintiff’s growth, there would IDAHO engineer, $400,000. The that warrants an allowance (Abstract of majority in is no $366,524.- No. 1. POWER CO. Kopel- direct clear P.(2d) therefore no less timates the 79), allowed for capital account of $823,682, (Abstract Plaintiff finding majority THOMPSON than appear $950,000. $1,500,000. asks amount Reeorá, Working find as commission, latter amount. that the majority an allowance item Defendants’ vol. necessary at reason Capital. allowance should 1, page 60, at reasonable of a cannot Order value engineer es- $564,445. concur It would working No. on that page Summary. Rights. Water follows: foregoing is as summary the A rights plaintiff’s appraisal For water ma- $201,046, The and defendants’ jority court allowed the full amount the plaintiff’s in- claim, This amount lands at the the. overflowed cludes cost plaintiff has American These lands the Falls. States, received sold to the United and has part payment, part and as has consideration the United for the stor- contract with States circumstances, age of the water. Under such overflowed not the measure lands value, and, being no there evidence as rights plaintiff acquired value of the un- States, der its contract with United properly amount item allowable that, by defendants, $39,751. conceded American Falls —New Unit. The Valueof certain Amer- construction at exclusively pow- Falls, supplying in ican used Light Company er to the Power & Utah Utah, use in included defendants Depreciation. They rate base. also included the revenue greater allow- contends Plaintiff profit plain- to be later considered the depreciation made than should be ance for Company. contract with the Utah tiff’s The experts for defendants $438,734. One of

majority of the court conclude that the cost $3,086,091, depreciation construction, testified to of such new $3,965,785. depreciation another to ruling excluded from the rate base. In this I deprecia- estimates the majority of the court concur. It other of because agree I unable to $2,000,000. am tion at property at American Falls also is The defend- conclusion reached. them the contract, used in connection with this straight used the line method witnesses ants’ there should be a further deduction from the refusing consider depreciation; fixing account; on if any base there is but, cost, determin- reproduction element of testimony enable court to would make upon percentage which the of de- ing the base a finding proper be deducted, straight figured preciation would line pointed it has not been out. method, minimizing would result some Going Concern Value. depreciation, and the one mistake extent I am unable to preponder- find clear tend the other. offset method, straight ance of the going evidence of a ceded that line concern value greater things being equal, is not as sure a than fixed method of commission in (volume calculating depreciation separate Order No. 873 1 of Abstract Rec- estimates ord, page 60, page 79), depreciation inspection upon at being the amount REPORTER, 19 FEDERAL 2d SERIES cent, property. per various therefore, structural units Oregon. amount, witnesses, calculating deprecia- apportioned Plaintiff’s Idaho, $15,654,739.10. tion, put probable out of consideration the Rate Return. property, life of the various units of the they term based their calculations what agree I majority with the of the court that “present service is even a more value.” This per rate of return of 7 the value faulty determining question manner of of of confiscatory. is not In Boise depreciation straight method, for than the line Artesian Utility Water Co. v. Publie Commis- straight fairly method, line and normal- court, granting sion this preliminary ly ap- applied, often, generally, if not will junction, adopted a 7 cent. rate. proximate amount; give correct while controlling will never effect to service value Gross Revenues. approximation, except result in such for the Exclusive of interest consumers’ delin- properties.. newest of Defendants’ witness quent accounts and income from merchandis- Fletcher, determining average life of after ing and from Light Utah Power & Company, property, the dollar invested in reference to which has been made above, there years. found He then it to be 7.92 testifies: controversy is no gross as to the operating average I “Now, then, have the this revenue. items, Exclusive of these gross accepted company’s property. I an- revenue for $2,682,850. pointed 1924 was As nual allowance for maintenance and retire- out, majority of the court excluded from ment as the correct amount to set the rate base the cost of the unit constructed Having year depreciation. aside each serving American Falls for the Utah Pow- guide, estimating I the life that am Light er Company, & but have allowed as an cent, of property estimating per am—I item of revenue of the amount received property 2.4. depreciation annual of this company $22,000 contract with per this anticipated 41 and That an life between is annum. I am agree unable to to the inclusion basis, then, annual de- 42 On that years. plaintiffs in any part the revenue of of its re- preciation $389,658. The difference will be ceipts contract, from this supplying because actually aside between that and set what company the Utah over the lines of the two I depreciation consider for maintenance companies power with electric at Lake Salt deprecia- purely The accrued maintenance. City is question interstate commerce. No then, basis, tion, property on this on this will power directly made’but that delivered from per $3,086,091, approximately and the one state to another constitutes interstate com- cent, per It is condition will be 80.99 cent. It merce. is difficult conceive anything in practice depreciation common to determine passing directly more to its destination than way. important evi- this I consider most power. electric There is no evidence any of a depreciation dence as to the power of the sold to the Utah Company is average age be the of the dollar invested. used in Idaho. There is evidence that it is engi- practice among valuation is a common used in There Utah. is no evidence that none agree up table's. I do not neers set life of it is used or sold in Idaho. If occasional deprecia- figuring accrued with the method of Idaho, use of it is made in the value of that engineers adopted by the have testi- tion who has not being case, use been shown. Such Company. Power fied behalf of the Idaho on necessary is not to determine whether the say I is ridiculous to that this think it arrangement made between the companies two per 97 new.” bring feature of their business un- preponder- I am unable to find clear jurisdiction der the of the commission or not, plaintiff’s ance of evidence in favor a de- as the and value of extent such service is in by defend- preciation than the sum fixed less no manner shown. The items up- of interest $3,086,091, ants’ witness diminish- Fletcher — delinquent on consumers’ accounts and income by $500,000 any faults in meth- ed to cover his merchandising plaintiff from the should al- 'or od of calculation and account of bias so be excluded. Therefore agreed opinions concerning zeal his his gross amount of income for (not 1924 abnor- subject. Upon I evidence, this can- whole 1925) mally-increased should be allowed— showing deprecia- preponderance find a $2,682,850. $2,586,091. tion less amount than Deduct- Operating Expenses. ing depreciation from amount of the property found, $20,789,- total value of the The shows for operating expens- $18,203,185. there remains This the es, inclusive of maintenance and retirement in' property, total value both 1924, $1,574,508. Idaho The defendants’ accountant Oregon. amount, and that Of this 86 exhibits a showing statement such expense, cent, by apportioned use Idaho depreciation, and 14 without $1,381,306. ment increase $17,000; lowing 326.61. $22,000, ed crease in pervision Bond commission 000, on this account. ence cellaneous an amount The finding per cent.; majority items of between expense; (5) uncollectible future. There & I for 1925 that such increase will operating expenses, there Share also equal general expenses. expense; there regulatory showing expense in the amount allowed expense concur special being allowing to that Company; being slightly in excess appears no evidence since (3) service dispute are: expended in commission $22,000, wit, taxes; IDAHO POWER therefore be the first year, the differ- as stated (2) majority in al- I concur with bills; (6) mis- could have demanded abnormal when being warranting diminished regulatory should also (4) 1924, the of these Water expense (1) electric retire- above $52,- conclude to add- was $5,- Su- E\(2d) CO. general expenses amounting for 1924. general expenses. subtracted fendants concede there who 148, 53 $163,328.32; does ed, there is account Por service. do not pay in full THOMPSON remains Miscellaneous expenses Co., L. 1924, plaintiff Ed. from pay, that extent it should be pay determining City deducting from reason $140,228.32, U. for service for uncollectible the amount $23,100 on this S. General As from whom the payment before why the service Knoxville v. amount included asserts miscellaneous long, however, the total page 12, 29 Ct. given by plaintiff which should Expenses. given $61,120.62. amount account, I payer Knoxville bills was taken render- S. those who 587 de- in- accountant finds Por defendants’ Taxes. $48,426, and for accounts n $249,592. for 1924 were Plaintiff’s taxes majority allowed A set-up even defendants’ there allowed an of the nature and statement greater including is because of amount. This general expenses items of miscellaneous unit, the American have ex- Palls follows, omit- prepared. This statement years The evidence later cluded. shows prior ting years to 1924: therefrom the increase in the taxes. taxes substantial While probably $300,000, for the future will exceed yet expenses amount, to include the full year adopted the court 1924 for the necessary purpose calculations, because the normal character of transactions year, for throw the out calculation I therefore conclude that no balance. greater amount should be allowed on account $300,000. than This taxes results expense creasing plaintiff for stated for 1924, by year addition of the differ- wit, ence between $50,408. Expense. Retirement expense shown for 1924 retirement majority court, $205,000. The expense concur, I with whom allow $230,000. This a further increase results $25,000. for 1924 an additional total

Uncollectible Bills. account, $50,- upon this claims Plaintiff set-up there is made an defendants’ 000. In item account of allowance majority for un-. of the court has allowed bills, $30,000. I am see unable to collectible anything should be allowed for uncollect- why business that it Plaintiff’s ible bills. giving in advance or compel payment can If security are bills. uncollect- ' REPORTER, FEDERAL 2d SERIES following

Prima facie the items are allow-

able: Subtracting the additions from the total deductions, $72,090.45, total there remains set-up expense for 1924 of which amount $1,574,508 be diminished. The amount should remaining operating expense is allowable for $1,502,417.55. Deducting more than operating from the gross income, above, $2,682,850, as found

there remains net income for Idaho and Ore- gon, $1,180,432.45. appears question that, without cent, foregoing per net income 89.91 objection Defendants confine their apportioned Idaho, per should be and 10.09 club dues of officers and em- allowance of cent, apportioned Oregon. The net income ployees, public and donations to charities 1924, therefore, year for Idaho for the is not money and losses of once collect- enterprises, Upon $1,061,326.81. more than the total ed. For 1924 these items were: apportioned the rate base to Idaho —that $15,564,739 above amount net income —the apportioned per to Idaho to 6.7 amounts cent. agree majority I with the rates established commission charitable institutions, heating, air heating, water irrigation special If these invalid. abolished, and the correction then by plaintiff made, asked estimates charge does not The evidence warrant per revenue 89.91 increased A payer. of these the rate further items to $223,875.90; of this estimated increase $1,583.40 deduction be made $1,061,326.81, this added to the amount of the salesroom, lighting $360 ren- window apportioned 1924 net income Idaho, pro- tal, pertain merchandising of as both of $1,285,202.71. duces total This amount plaintiff. of $12,270.- After total deduction cent, upon appor- over the rate base expense of 13 from the miscellaneous tioned to Such a rate of return would Idaho. $61,120.62, $48,850.49 1924 of there remains invalid, not be noncompensatory. because not general expense. for miscellaneous allowable special being invalid, injunction difference, $12,270.13, ais further deduc- restraining should issue their enforcement, ex- made from the total of the tion to be cept any expired which have limita- expenses of 1924. tion. Neither side to recover costs. Addendum. Summary. Judge DIETRICH my called atten- above, amounts shown there should Of the tion to the fact while of these accounts of 1924: be added to page appearing at majority opinion 61 of the (see 572), totaling I $21,199,746, F.[2d] $20,789,176.46,page concurred of9 foregoing (see 585), and while F.[2d] rejected I have the American Falls unit company, service of Utah I have not de- ducted from the above total the amount of the rejected item, is included such total. $629,- This would further reduce the rate base The amounts that should deducted 444, but not otherwise does affect the result. expense of 1924 are:

Case Details

Case Name: Idaho Power Co. v. Thompson

Court Name: District Court, D. Idaho

Date Published: Apr 28, 1927

Citation: 19 F.2d 547

Docket Number: 1143

Court Abbreviation: D. Idaho