Evening star., 1943-07-26
Increased Gas Rate,
Granted byPUC,Va|id
Appeals Court Holds
Two-to-One Decision
Declares Price Control
Doesn't Affect Utilities

The Court of Appeals, in a
2-to-l decision, today upheld the
S201,000 annual rate increase
granted to the Washington Gas
Light Co. by the Public Utilities
Commission, effective last Sep
tember l.
The court reversed and remanded
a District Court decision of last
February by Justice F. Dickinson
Let's, who declared the PUG order
invalid in view of price control reg
ulations. Justice Let's, however,
stayed his decision pending the
appeal to the higher court. Thus
the rate increase went into effect
pending the appeal.
In the Court OF Appeals decision.
written by Justice Morris Soper of
the Fourth United States Circuit,
the judgment of the District Court
was reversed and remanded with
instructions to dismiss the appeals
from the commissions order"
Miller Writes Dissent.
Chief Justice L. Lawrence Groner
of the Court of Appeals concurred
and Justice Justin MILLER wrote a
dissenting opinion.
Four appeals from the District
Court decision were combined for
consideration by the higher tribunal.
Two of these appeals were made by
the gas company, one against the
then director of Economic Stabiliza-
ton Byrnes and Price Administrator
Brown and the other against Price
Administrator Brown alone.
Two similar appeals against the
director of economic stabilization
and the price administrator also
were made by the Public Utilities
Commission.
Meanwhile, although the higher
rates went into effect when Justice
Let's stayed his decision, the gas
company already has refunded
part of the increase collected from
customers, due to a provision in the
PUG order. The provision provided
for a refund if the companys profit
was sufficient to cause it to pay an
excess profits tax.
Justice SOper's Opinion.
In his opinion, covering some II
pages. Justice Soper wrote:
mo room is left for the argument
that the standard applicable to price
regula alton by the President after
September Is, 1912. was also imposed
upon regulatory commissions gen.
orally and upon the Public Utilities
Commission of the District of
Columbia in particular. If such had
been the purpose of Congress. there
is no good reason why it failed to
express it. especially as the powers
of the commission had already been
fixed by Congress itself in the Public
Utilities Act of the District OF
Columbia and repeals by implication
are not favored.
Even more persuasive is the pro-
viso IN section l of the amendatory
act, which is the only part of the
act that expressly refers to public
utilities and increases in rates over
those in effect on September IS,
1912. This proviso clearly recog-
nized the power of the Public Utili-
ties Commission of the District of
Columbia and other regulatory
bodies to fix utility rates, and leaves
this power undisturbed except that
it imposes upon utilities seeking an
increase the duty to give 30 days
notice to the Presidents agency and
to consent to its timely interven-
tion before any general increase in
rate in effect on September IS, 1912,
can be made in rate proceeding"
Justice Soper earlier in his opinion
asserted that "the increase allowed
was approximately s123.O0 less than
that indicated by the sliding scale"
CAREFUL Study Apparent.
Elsewhere In his opinion Justice
Soper declared:
"Manifestly the order of the COM
mission was issued only after a de-
liberate and careful study of the
factors affecting the business of the
utility in wartime Washington with
out trace of hasty or arbitrary
conduct on the commissions part"
Justice Soper also said, THE
Commission allowed accruals for in
come taxes at the rate of 81 per
cent although the sliding scale pro-
vided for an allowance of 40 per
cent, and this reduction cost the
company $l23, 900 in revenue for the
ensuing year. Moreover, substantial
(see GAS RATE, Page A-4)