Evening star., 1953-12-10
Appeals Court
Blocks Pepco's
1851 Rate Rise
$2.6 Million Boost
Sent Bock to Utilities
Group for Study

The U. S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia to-
day remanded the disputed $2.6
million rate increase granted in
1851 to the Potomac Electric
Power Co., back to the Public
Utilities Commission for fur
ther proceedings.
The courts ruling left unde-
cided the question of whether
the increase is still in effect
pending the further proceedings
by P. U. C.
One Interpretation given the
opinion was that it voided the
increase, but spokesman for
Pepco said he believed the ruling
means that the increase is still
in effect until final determi-
nation of the dispute.
Rebates To Be Deferred.
The Pepco spokesman said the
company would continue to
charge the increased rate lack
ing court order to the contrary.
He said also that no rebates are
to be made pending further
action by the PUG.
In following the court order
to reconsider the rate case, the
P. U. c. could make more spe-
ciflc findings and allow an in
crease, possibly even the same
amount as originally asked. But
under the courts opinion, must
show a definite similarity in
economic and other conditions
under terms of the opinion,
among the District, Maryland
and Virginia.
No Rebates Now.
A spokesman for Pepco said
that after a cursory study of the
opinion he believed that the orig
inal P. U. c. increase order still
stands in suspended status"
He said no rebates are to be
made pending further action by
the P. U. C. He said he believed
Pepco is still entitled to collect
at the increased rate pending
final determination of the mat
ter.
The case involved rates for
all users of Pepco power and
today's opinion was the result
of an action by Capital Transit
Co., one of the largest users Of
power here. The company had
sought to overturn the rate in
crease on the grounds that the
P. U. c. had no right to consider
Pepco's operations in Maryland
and Virginia in making its
findings.
Additional Findings Needed.
The appellate court did not
agree with this argument, but
it did hold that before the in
crease could be approved there
must be additional findings that
conditions are substantially uni
form throughout the three areas
involved.
The opinion revolved mainly
around the Maryland and Vir-
ginia aspects of the case. It
held that the P. U. c. was COR
rect in considering Maryland and
Virginia costs and income in
fixing the rate increase here, and
declared:
"We must be able to say that
the rates in the District are
reasonable, just and non-dis-
criminatory as a part of, or in
relation to, the system rates con-
tained in the schedules of the
power company for areas and
services beyond the commission'S
Jurisdiction: that is to say, that
District consumers do not subsi-
die the non-District, or, indeed,
vice versa. :"
Rational Basis Vital.
The opinion continued, saying
that in order that the courts re-
view of the rates "be not per-
functory," the P. u. C. must
make findings, with supporting
evidence, which disclose a ra-
tional basis for those rates which
it approves as a part of broader
schedules which apply beyond it's
jurisdiction. -"
The court declared further:
THE commission states the
record indicates that it is de-
slrable and equitable to extend
the rates available in the, urban
zone to both the Virginia terri
tory of the power company and
to an additional area in Mary
land.
But" the court said, I'VE are
not justified in translating these
general statements either into
Continued on Page A-4, Col. 1O