Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1944-03-28
Supreme Court
Ruling Fortifies
District PUG
Gas Rate Decision
Bars War Agencies
From Interfering

Bors War Agencies
From Interfering
The District Public Utilities Com.
mission today was entrenched be.
hind Supreme Court decision ir
contending for authority to regulate
local utilities without interference
by the ONCE Of Price Administration
and the director of economic stabil.
ization.
In a 6-to-3 ruling yesterday, the
court upheld rate increase orig.
inally calculated to amount to SOL, :
600 annually which the commission
granted the Washington Gas Light
Co., under the sliding scale plan ir
effect here for nine years, over thu
protest of the Federal agencies
which argued there had been ne
showing OF need, and that the in.
crease was inflationary. At the
same time the court went beyond
the purely local aspects of the case
to lay down principle which SEEM
ingly gives State and Federal reg
ulatory bodies generally broad
powers to function without regard
to any representations by the
agencies directing the wartime
Sterilization program.
War Agencies Argument Rejected.
Recalling the Government argu-
ment that the two price control acts
passed in 1912 show that Congress
intended to prohibit State and local
regulatory authorities from per-
hitting any increase in utility rates
which were not shown to be neces-
sary to prevent actual hardship
the court. in the opinion read by
Justice Roberts, said:
I'VE are asked, then, not only to
revise the views expressed in Davies
Warehouse Co. VS.. Bowles "a case
just recently decidedD as to the
scope OF the acts, but to infer from
general expression of congress
sional policy the limitation of ex-
listing powers conferred by law on
regulatory commissions throughout
the Nation, both State and Federal,
and the endowment of different
Federal agency with new and su-
perior rights and powers. This we
are unable to do"
Justice Douglas wrote the dissent
and was joined by Justices Black
and Murphy. He declared that the
decision goes far toward making
ineffective" the provision of the
October, 1912, sterilization law pro-
hibiting any utility from making
any general increase In rates over
those in effect September Is, 1912,
without giving the Presidents
agent the right to intervene in the
proceeding.
Cites Scope of Decision.
ut (the decision) allows the COM
mission so to shape the issues of
the rate proceeding as to exclude
the data most relevant to deter
mination of whether any rate in
crease should be allowed" the dis
sent said.
Justice Douglas also expressed the
view that Congress meant to make
utility commissions at least partial
participants in the war against in
flation and gave them a sector of
the front to CONTROL" although the
Sterilization law specifically ex-
empts rates of utilities and common
carriers from its provisions.
The commission permitted the in
crease as of November 16, 1912,
under the sliding scale arrangement
which allows the gas company to
make a primary rate of return of
81 per cent. The director OF eco
nomic sterilization and the OPA
challenged the increase in District
Court and were sustained, but the
Court of Appeals upheld the COM
mission.
Major Issue Raised.
One Of the principal issues raised
by the Government was the refusal
lof the commission to re-examine
the basic provisions of the sliding
scale arrangement in the light Of
price-control legislation, this action
being hit as a denial of full and
fair hearing"
Justice Roberts said at is not
clear" that the Price Control Act of
1912 confers the right of interven-
ton on the administrator, but he
added: IF the petitioners were ad-
mitted as intervenors by a State
commission, or by the District COM
mission, which Is the respondent
here, they might, of course, be adj
mitted to participation in the pro-
ceeding upon reasonable terms; and
one of the most usual procedural
rules is that an intervenor is ad-
mitted to the proceeding as it
stands, and in respect of the pend
ing issues, but is not permitted to
enlarge those issues or compel an
alteration of the nature of the pro-
ceeding. -.
ITO this effect was the commits
sion's rule on the subject. It would
seem, then, that in the absence of
la clear legislative mandate to the
contrary. the petitioners should not
possess greater rights than other
|intervenors."
Evidence Not Offered.
To the charge that the increase
was inf1ationary, Justice Roberts
said: ION the subject respect
ing which the petitioners were
especially competent to enIghten
the commission-namely the infla-
tionary effect of a rate increase Of
2.28 per cent for one year, amount
ing, on the average, to 3 cents per
month per customer, in the light of
wage increases and increased COM
modify and overall conditions in the
national economy-no evidence was
rendered by petitioners in response
to repeated invitations by the COM
mission"
The Supreme Court decision dis
posed of an issue that has been
hanging fire since March, 1912,
when the commission instituted a
rate investigation under the sliding
scale arrangement. Advised of the
result, Chairman James H. Flana-
gan of the PUG said he was deeply