Evening star., 1933-01-22
COMPROMISE Is Desirable.

It Is impossible to believe tnat the
negotiations for peaceful adjustment
Of the rate dispute between the Public
Utilities Commission, the peoples coun-
sci and the Potomac Electric Power Co.
are to be broken down because the law
yers cannot concur on word or phrase
to express the principle upon which
they are already agreed.
The lawyers are agreed that salts
factory compromise is more to be de-
sired than continued klock-down and
drag-out court battle that will last for
years and advantage no one. in the end,
except the lawyers, depriving the public
of the benefit of rate reductions in the
meantime. Last week their conferences
were ended abruptly, partly because they
could not agree on phraseology, partly,
perhaps, because they felt cooling-off
period would be appropriate. The con-
ferences should be resumed.
The peoples counsel and the Public
Utilities Commission took the view last
year that under the consent decree, pro-
viding for the automatic adjustment of
rates each year by an agreed-upon for
mula, rates were not being lowered as
much as they might be in relation to
the returns enjoyed by the power COM
pany. The commission decided to scrap
the consent decree and substitute new
formula that would produce lower rates.
The company took the position that the
commission could not scrap the decree,
but the District Supreme Court held, in
effect, that the Public Utilities Com
mission not only had the right to do it,
but under the law was charged with
the duty Of fixing rates. From this de-
cision the company has appealed
Now all parties have agreed that it
would be better to reach a compromise
than to continue the litigation in the
upper courts. 1t is an unfortunate
thing, but it is fact that this litiga-
tion would consume months, perhaps
years. The company wants to revive
the consent decree, but with a new
formula for rate fixing. Peoples Coun-
sci Keech, with the backing of Cor
poration Counsel Bride and his assist
ant, Mr.. West, wants to preserve, spe-
cifically, the commissions right, es-
tablished in District Supreme Court, to
modify the consent decree at any time
in the future that such modification
seems desirable in the public interest.
There appears to be difference of
opinion between the lawyers as to
whether this right would be recognized
in new consent decree.
But there is little logic in regarding
temporary failure to adjust the con-
flicting points Of view as permanent
impasse. The old consent decree
worked equitably for several years.
If new one is drawn up now,
it might work successfully again for
several years. But if at the end of
the first year or the second year or the
third year the commission finds that
changing conditions make the rates too
high in relation to the company's
profits, what is to prevent the COM
mission from abandoning the decree
again? The commissions right to do
this may be challenged. But has it
not already met that challenge sue
cessfully?
The commission, on the other hand,
might continue the present fight on
through the Court of Appeals. Suppose
1t won? Suppose its rights to abandon
the decree and fix new rates were again
affirmed? What then? Would not the
next step be to draw up formula for
rate fixing that would be acceptable
to the company? For, if not acceptable
to the company the company would
again resort to the courts. Reasonable
compromise is the only way to avoid
this endless game of ring-around-the-
rosy, and new consent decree assur-
edly appears to be the desirable form of
compromise.