The Washington times., 1921-11-07
TEN-CENT
ELECT RIG
RATE VALID
Court Of Appeals Upholds Valu-
alton Made by Pepco-Dis-
trict to Appeal.

With Chief Justice Smyth dissent
ing, the Court of Appeals today de-
cided against the Public Utilities
Commission in the case of the valua-
ton of the Potomac Electric Power
Company. This virtually means the
upholding of the present lo-cent
The case wiIl now go 90 to the
Supreme Court of the United States
for final adjudication, Corporation
Counsel Stephens said after he had
heard the decision.
VIII Continue Impoundipg.
This means that the company will
be required to continue impounding
the difference between the rate fixed
by the commission and the 10-cent
rate which they have been charging.
The rate fixed by the commission Is
now Sh cents, with a discount OF
5 per cent, which makes the rate
slightly more than cents per kilo-
watt hour.
Since the company has been fight
ing the case in the courts they have
impounded about $4,000, 900, which Is
the difference between the rate they
charge and the rate allowed by the
commission.
When the company first fought the
case. the late Justice Ashley NJ.
Gould, Of the District Supreme Court,
upheld the contention Of the commits
sion in 1917.
Robb and Van Orsdel Concur.
Justice Robb and Justice Van Orsdel
concurred in the majority opinion OF
The court.
In reversing Justice Gould's deci-
sion, the appellate court holds that the
present cost of reproduction is one OF
the necessary elements for considera-
ton in connection with other facts in
fixing the value of the property. The
Utilities Commission declined to con-
slider reproduction cost. The effect OF
the opinion is to uphold the claim OF
the company that the valuation placed
upon its property was too low, and
that Il was entitled to a larger return
Than that which was fixed by the
commission, which ordered a reduction
in the cost OF electric current from ~
to 8 cents per kilowat hour.
In his opinion, Justice Robb said;
Under our view of the case, II is
necessary to consider but two ques.
items at this time. the first of which
is as to the scope of the courts jurts.
diction under the statute.
"The statute here under Considera.
ton gives to the finding OF the com.
mission prima facie effect, for II in
terms places the burden upon the
challenger or exceptant of showing
by clear and satisfactory evidence
that the findings are inadequate, un-
reasonable, or unlawful But where
as here, the decision is challenged on
the ground that IL is based upon a
mistake in law. or that II Is wholly
unsupported by evidence as to amount
to an arbitrary exercise Of power, II
is the duty of the court, under the
rule announced by the Supreme
Court. to exercise its own independent
Judgment as TO both law and facts
so far as II Is necessary to deter
mine the question.
Increase In Valuation.
THE second question relates to
alleged errors in the rule adopted by
the commission in finding present
values. The commission found the
fair value of the property as Of
July /. 1914, to be sl0,250,000. The
uncontradicted evidence showed that
between that date and December 81
1915, the time Of said valuation there
had been n sharp rise in values.
Appellants contend that the commits.
sion as matter OF law In reaching a
conclusion as to the fair value Of
their property on December 81, 1915,
should have taken into consideration
the increased value of that property
as shown by the evidence between
the earlier and the later dates. This
the commission declined TO do, but,
taking for basis the fair value of
the property as Of July 1, 1914, the
commission added net additional ex.
penditures on the property subse-
CONTINUED on Page q, Column 81