Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1942-11-02
Gas Rate Boost
Batt|e0pens
BeforePUC
OPA Renews Demand
That All Factors
Be Considered

Renewed demands that the Public
Utilities Commission consider all
basic factors in setting the rates of
the Washington Gas Light Co. were
made today by the OPA as the COM
mission reopened the case on the
embattled 100000 rate increase at
the request of Sterilization Director
James F. Byrnes.
Similar demands were made by
agents of Price Administrator Leon
Henderson during the recent hear
ings in the case, but the PUG ma
jority found it would have to restrict
the case to the scope as outlined In
the commissions order of investiga-
ton last March.
Pending before the commission Is
the new petition filed for Mr.. Hen
derson a few minutes after office
closing time last Saturday after
noon, again asking the PUG to re-
scind its rate increase order and to
permit full Intervention" by the
price administrator as the agent of
Sterilization Director Byrnes. The
commission did not rule at once on
the new OPA petition nor on the
demands made for OPA by Harry
r. Booth, utilities counsel for OPA.
Battle in Making.
While a determined battle was in
the making today through the per-
sistent efforts of OPA to override the
rate increase, the hearing this morn
ing was devoted largely to cautious
legal preparations for action on is
sues.
During the morning session, how
ever, Mr.. Booth raised the question
of when the company contemplated
putting into effect the rate increase
order.5 E. Barrett Prettyman OF COM
pany counsel said that the new
price-control law required 80 days
notice to the agent of the stabiliza-
ton director and that this was CIV
en- October IS, so that presumably
the rate increase would become ef-
fective about November Is.
PUG member Gregory Hankin and
Mr.. Booth then wanted to know
whether the rate increase would be
made retroactive to September l.
Mr.. Prettyman replied that that had
not vet been determined, but that the
rate order applies to the rate year as
stated in the sliding scale plan.
These rate years begin September l.
He added: That is the clear legal
situation at the moment"
Mr.. Booth interjected. Don't you
know If the company intends to take
advantage of your legal view?" And
Mr.. Prettyman replied casually.
Sometimes they do and sometimes
they do not"
OPA Determination Shown.
The company, which is represented
by attorneys Stoddard M. Stevens,
ir.; Renah F. Camalier, former coun-
sci to the Senate District Committee,
and C.. Oscar Berry, as well as MI,
Prettyman, put into the record let
tiers it had written Mr.. Byrnes and
Mr.. Henderson, giving notice of the
rate increase and indicating willing
ness to listen to OPA Intervention.
Mr.. Booth offered other letters in
which he quoted the President and
Mr.. Byrnes as to the purpose of the
new price control law
The determination of the OPA to
prevent the gas rate increase regard
less of the sliding scale plan was
made clear in five specific demands
listed by Mr.. Booth just before the
noon resess.
Mr.. Booth declared there must be
mo strings attached to the case
as reopened today. If full inter-
vention" is to be afforded the price
administrator. he said, the commits
sion must examine every factor
bearing on the company's rates and
the value of it's property regardless
of whatever formulas may be found
in the sliding scale plan under
which company rates have been
adjusted annually since 1885.
Questions Listed.
The Henderson agent listed his
demands as follows:
/. What is the proper rate base?
Why should not all of the property
be valued according to it's original
cost instead of some of it being on
an appraisal basis?
@. What are the proper deprecia-
ton expenses?
3-What are the proper operating
expenses? Here. Mr.. Booth said
serious consideration should be given
to the views expressed by Mr. Han
kim In his dissenting opinion pro-
testing the gas rate increase ordered
by James H. Flanagan, the PUG
chairman, and Engineer Commits
sioner Charles w. KutzD
MISUNDERSTANDING of wha t
amount of income taxes should be
permitted to be charged to operating
expenses.
5--What is a fair rate of return
to the company?
Decrease Is Sought.
Mr.. Booth has argued that the
company would have suffered no
hardship had 1t been denied a rate
increase. He has claimed the rates
should have been reduced instead
of increased. The same position was
taken by Mr.. Hankin
At one point in the debate Mr..
Hankin asked Mr.. Booth to give an
opinion as to whether the October
2 law gave the President a full
grant of power over wages. salaries
and prices where increases would
interfere with the war effort or
whether the language of the act
carried any restrictions.
Mr.. Booth agreed the question
was important and pertinent, but
said he was not prepared today to
answer 1t.