describing a “rate base” in the field of public utility regulation as representing “the invested capital upon which the utility is entitled to earn a return”
How later courts described this case
- describing a “rate base” in the field of public utility regulation as representing “the invested capital upon which the utility is entitled to earn a return”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON REHEARING
*486 and Lloyd G. Hammel, Assistant Attorney General, for the petition.
PER CURIAM.
A petition for rehearing demonstrates that our opinion in this case has been misread by appellant. To avoid any misunderstanding we wish to make it clear that:
The opinion of the court did not purport to tell the Commissioner that he must adopt the Separations Manual. The opinion specifically held to the contrary. 73 Adv Sh 433, 365 P2d 1021 .
The court did hold that there was no substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner’s adoption of a factor of three as a part of his allocation of company properties. The court did not, and could not, otherwise attempt to tell the Commissioner what other evidence he should hear or what allocation formulae he should accept or reject.
It is not the duty of the court .to fix or establish rates. Our duty is purely to review determinations made by the Commissioner. What additional proceeding should be had and wha't additional findings or order shall be made is for the Commissioner to decide. Valley & Siletz R. R. Co. v. Flagg, 1952, 195 Or 683, 715 , 247 P2d 639 .
Petition denied.