Evening star., 1922-03-31
CLAIMS TAX BASIS
REJECTED BY COURT
Potomac Company to Cite
Ruling as Affecting Com
missions Rate Decision.

i "nen lie PuOilc CtllltieS COMMISSION
! goes before the District Supreme Court
for approval of the per c1nt reduction
in electric light rates o:dered yester-
day the Potomac Electric Power Com
pany will call attention TO the fact that
the commission continues to base rates
| on valuation that the Court of APP
peals has held to be incorrect.
! This intention was made known today
! by William F. Ham, president Of the
power company.
Il don't know that We will make
| formal objection to the courts appToV-
/ al of the reduction" said Mr.. Ham, but
| made aware of the tact that the Court
of Appeals has decided against the
commissions valuation, on which rates
are based"
The 3 per cent cut announced late
yesterday was predicted in The Star
amount which the company may use
from S.075 cents per kilowatt hour to
approximately ia cents.
Record for Low Rate.
This is the lowest electric light rate
the District has ever had. Consumers,
however. will. have to continue paying
the company 10 cents per kilowatt
| until the United States Supreme Court
renders verdict on the valuation of
Mr.. Ham pointed out that after the
District Supreme Court sustained the
commissions valuation the company
| in all rate cases assumed that Valua-
ton to be correct. Now that the
Court of Appeals has reversed the
commission should assume that de-
cision to be correct until the United
States Supreme Court speaks.
May Reduce Revenues.
If the court approves the per cent
discount decided upon by the commits
sion the revenues of the company
will be reduced by approximately
the company will earn s24.500 in excess
Of ! per cent return for 1922. ac-
cording to the commissions figures.
| At the rate hearing on March l. Viii
| liam +. Ham, president of the power
! company. told Chairman Keller of the
| commission he could not predict what
volume Of business the company eX-
pected to do during 1922.
! The commission states in it's decision
! that 1t made no allowance for possible
! increased business during the year
when II decided upon a reduction that
| is expected to yield more than / per
cent on the. value Of the property as
found by the commission.
| The commission stated emphaticaily
, in its decision that it will not attempt
to revise the fair value of the power
company property until the United
| States Supreme Court renders a YER
| dict on the original valuation. which
! the company has been contesting IN
| the courts since 1917.
! Matter of Bookkeeping.
| The reduction of per cent in cleo
| trio light rates at this time is simply
[ a matter of bookkeeping. Users of
current will continue to pay 10 cents
I.tg ~1,o CT
! court in the land decides whether the
{ commi ssion was right in its estimat te
of fair value of the property.
The decision reads, in part. as fol-
| lows:
| Under all the circumstances Of this
the opinion that a discount of per
cent from the rates fixed by it in its
| order No. 430 is fair and reasonable
! and should apply to each schedule. ex-
cept to schedule H Cheating and cook
! ing schedule), to minimum customers
under schedule A and to street and
park lighting. As stated in order No.
i 4S0. the rates under the various sched-
| ules are fairly well balanced, except
schedule H and street lighting. which
! are both relatively low.
AT the hearing in this case, the
Potomac Electric Power Company
, submitted the following statement re-
garding the fair value of its property
as a basis for fixing the rates to be
charged for its service: ,.,,
That on November 4, 1921, in the
! case of appeal of the petitioner from
an order and decree of the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia af-
firming the order of this commission
| fixing the value of the property of Pc
| titioner used and useful in the Dis
! trict of Columbia, the Court of Ap-
/ peals of the District of Columbia re-
, versed the said order and decree of
| the Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia. and declared this commits
| sion had erred in ignoring and not
giving due weight to the uncontra-
/ dicted evidence as to the value of the
property as of the date such valuation
! was made, from which said decision
of reversal an appeal has been taken
| by this commission to the Supreme
! Court of the United States.
Taking into consideration the ap-
| peal of the commission above noted
| and the order of the Supreme Court
i of the District of Columbia in the
case of the petitioner against the Pub.
lie Utilities Commission of the District
, on August II, 1921, permitting the peti
toner to charge the existing schedule
; of rates as contained in tariffs now
on file with the commission, but re-
. quiring the petitioner to preserve
! such records and accounting for anG
upon its books the difference between
the amount thereof and the rates
| fixed by the commission in order No
| 430. the petitioner respectfully pray
after hearing, that an order be enter
ed by this honorable commission, con.
i tinuing in force on and after April
1922, and until such time as said ap.
peal of the commission in the valua
tion case has been determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States
! the existing schedule of rates as con
toi in crif
commission, subject to the order, OF
orders. of the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia IN said entitled
case No. s5341 Equity, and for sucf
other. different and further relief, if
any. in the premises by the commits
! sion as may be meet and proper
As to First Paragraph.
AS to the question in the frs,
paragraph above quoted of the fai,
/, value Of the company's property, the
commission repeats what it said il
this regard when the same noint wa