Court Opinion

ID: 9548000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:56:09.004833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:21.361934
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
*129Carl N. Byers, Special Assistant Attorney General, Lee Johnson, Attorney General, and Theodore W. de Looze, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, for the petition.
Allan Hart and Lindsay, Nahstoll, Hart, Duncan, Dafoe & Krause, Portland, contra.
DENECKE, J.
The Department of Revenue filed a petition for rehearing contending, among other things, that Mr. Vaughan erred in his computations of the decrease in value due to functional obsolescence. One claimed error *130was that “he used the total annual hook depreciation [of a new technologically modern plant] as an offset against the annual excess operating costs [of the present plant].” (Emphasis added.) Only the difference in depreciation between the present plant and a new modern plant should be used as an offset against excess operating costs of the present plant. We interpreted Mr. Vaughan’s testimony to the effect that he did use only the difference in depreciation of the two plants. If we were incorrect the error would not benefit the Department because it would further reduce the value of the present plant. The use of a smaller depreciation offset against excess operating costs would result in a greater decrease in value due to functional obsolescence.
Petition denied.