Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1933-01-10
PEPCO ADVOCATES
RATE COMPROMISE
Lowering of Light Charges
Under Old Consent De-
cree Favored.

The Potomac Electric Power Co. to-
day offered to compromise with the
Public Utilities Commission in its liti-
CATION over electric rates so as to fix
rate reduction for this year about
halfway between the reduction that
would be made under the old consent
decree and the greater reduction under
the commissions new sliding scale.
The commission and the power COM
pany are now in litigation over the
abolition of the consent decree and SUBJ
stitution of the sliding scale. The COM
mission was victorious in District Su-
preme Court, and the case is now on
appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Meanwhile, the company last Febru-
airy consented to reduction of $3.50, 900
in rates, the figure chosen being about
halfway between the figures under the
old consent decree method and under
the commissions sliding scale method.
On December 90 the Commission sug-
gested that this arrangement be con-
ttnued for another year, or pending the
litigation in the Court OF Appeals.
Modification Favored.
The company's reply today suggested
| instead that the Commission and the
company join in petition to court to
write the present temporary Set-up into
the original consent decree, and con-
tinue the decree, so modified. in force.
Commissioner Riley E. Elgen. vice
chairman of the Commission, said the
company's proposition would have to be
studied carefully to see what effect it
would have on rates before the Com
,fre1 y
er to accept it or turn it down.
The company's letter, signed by Will
liam F. Ham, president, read:
I'VE are in receipt of your letter of
December 20, 1882, referring to the
stipulation entered into on January 20,
1882, and to the adjustment in rates
made effective February /. 1882. We
note your proposal that although the
stipulation is still effective the COM
pany cooperate with the commission in
making available a reduction in rates
effective February /, 1885, and to re-
main in effect for one year on sub
| stantially the same basis that was en-
! ployed a year ago; in other words, the
amount by which rates would be re-
duced would be approximately halfway
between the sum which would have
been determined under the consent de-
cree and the amount which would be
fixed in accordance with Justice Luh-
| rings decree.
without reviewing the conditions out
of which the stipulation grew, we doubt
| if its modification at this stage of the
| litigation would be especially helpful.
In addition, we desire to refer to the
changed conditions now confronting us.
During the 10 months ending November
| 80 that the present rates have been in
| effect, We have suffered reduction in
| net operating income of S69, 1923, al
| though our rate base is approximately
| $1,000 900 greater than it was a year
ago. Furthermore, the reductiH men
toned has occurred largely since July l.
Figures just compiled for December,
| 1882, show loss of over SAL 900 in reve-
nue. from sale of current, as compared
with December Of the previous year
Under present economic conditions we
cannot reasonably hope to enjoy the
same increases in operating revenues
that we have had in pase year, and
cannot tell what additional burdens may
be placed upon us.
Ready to Cooperate.
Nevertheless, the company stands
/ ready to cooperate now, as 1t has IN
the past, and makes the suggestion that
since the method used ~ the commits
sion in determining the amount by
which rates were reduced a year ago is,
in principle, again proposed by the COM
mission and seems to offer satisfactory
solution of our common problems. that
the commission and the company join
| in a request of the court that the
| formula now proposed by the commits
sion rejecting this procedure be writ
ten into the original consent decree,
| and that the consent decree SO modi-
fed be continued in effect under these
circumstances we will be glad to make
a reduction effective under the new
formula, to be substituted in the old
consent decree, and the company viii
be glad to submit promptly to the
commission new schedule of rates
rejecting such reductions"
Under the consent decree referred to
which was signed in 1924 by Justice
Wendell P. Stafford in Equity Court
the power company was allowed to carr
712 per cent per annum return on al