Evening star., 1921-03-20
Utilities Board Anxious to
Reach Agreements Without
Court Litigation.
LONG DELAYS FEARED
UNDER PRESENT PLAN
Commissioner Oyster Studies
Scheme to Aid Public as
Well as Companies.

Aithoue. :Ho Puoi.c Utilities Com
mission in the Potomac power case
won the first round of it's court bat
tie to establish the legality OF its
utility valuations. there is a possi-
bility II may consider opening the
door to the reaching of valuation
agreements with the street railway
companies out of court with the view
OF speeding a merger OF the capitals
traction system.
Commissioner James F. Oyster is
understood to be considering the pos
sibility of compromises which would
end the prospect of several years
more Of valuation litigation. and lay
the basis for a merger which would
work out to the best interests OF the
public and the companies.
He appreciates that there are vast
differences between the commission
and the companies-difference in
property ratings and principles un-
derlying the ratings which may never
be susceptible to adjustment by VOL
untary agreement.
suiuoNAOno MhBnt Stau0.
He also has taken cognizance OF
the fact that the commission, once
having established valuations in ac-
cordance with the provisions of the
utilities law. may not have authority
to change them. even though it would
favor negotiating with the companies
for compromise settlement.
The Commissioner, in fact, has not
reached a decision as to whether he
would consider valuation concessions
by the commission justifiable under
any conditions, but he is of the opin-
ion that, since the demand for q mer-
ger has now become SO acute, an In
a valuation settlement would not be
out OF place.
1t is not unlikely that he will dis
cuss with his colleagues this week
the desirability Of ascertaining from
the traction company heads whethdr
they would favor modifying their
valuation positions in order to hascen
a merger which both companies have
declared for.
Work Began seve. Years Age.
Practically seven years have
elapsed, it was pointed out last night.
since the work of valuing the prop
critics of the local public service cor
porations for rate-making purposes
began. 1t is agreed generally that
two or three years more may elapse
before the ratings are established
finally by court review.
So far. the Potomac Electric Pow
er case is the only one that has been
reviewed by the District Supreme
Court. The decision upheld the COM
missions valuation. The case has
been appealed and will be heard final
ly by the United States Supreme
Court, from which a decision cannot
be expected under the most favorable
conditions before the end of the year.
In the case Of the Potomac COM
pany the commissions finding Of fair
value as of July 1. 1914. the date OF
the valuation. was $1o.25o.ooo. The
company's claim of fair value as Of
1916 was $23,235.3S7. the difference be-
tween this figure and the commis-
sion's finding being represented
largely by intangible values which the
utilities board refused to allow.
Wide Variations In Amounts.
There were also wide variations bes
tween the amounts set down by thS
commission for the Washington Rail.
way and Electric Company and
its subsidiary properties and the val.
uations claimed by those concerns.
For the w. r. & E., as Of July L,
1914, the commission allowed $ll,-
5000. The company in its estimates.
which were based on 1916 prices,
claims s25.o53.7145O. -
For the City and Suburban and
Georgetown and Tenleytown systems
the commission ratings. respectively,
were $2,755,000 and 100000. These
subsidiary companies, however. claim.
ed the values, based on 1915 prices,
should have been, respectively. $3.-
923,S6S42 and S67S,700.70.
Differences between the commi9y
sion and the Capital Traction Cons
pany were not as great as in the
case Of the other companies, and yet
they produced a gulf which could
not be bridged at the time, although
an agreement was reached covering
certain cost OF reproduction items.
This company. in line with the pur-
poses Of the commission, based its
estimates on. 1914 values. % that its
findings are comparable with those
Of the commission. It claimed for
fair value AZ Of July 1. 1914. S2o,-s
9i1,831, whereas the commissions
allowance was $13,255.o00.
Dispute Over SS,o00so0O Item.
The discrepancy 10 explained large:
iy by one item Of S5.15o.ooo. which the
company claimed. but the commissions
refused to allow. although former
Commissioner Gardiner dissented ta<
the commissions ruling. The claim
is based on the purchase in 1895. by