Evening star., 1955-09-04
Counteutt0ck

SVUuGC5utIUSN
On June 6, about three weeks before
the strike, the Capital Transit Company
filed with the Public Utilities Commission
a petition for higher fares 1t is that petit
tion on which the commission, as of
Friday, September 2, has ruled. The
ruling is that the petition is dismissed.
The proceedings are moot, because of
what happened since June 6.
What happened, of course, was the
strike. It was settled August IA, when
the Commissioners, acting under emer-
gency legislation, negotiated with the
company and with the union. They
brought the two sides together on a new
wage contract. They asked the p. U. C.
to set fares covering the cost of the in
creased wage contract, and, under the
new legislation, the P. U. C. has responded
Commissioner Weston diSsenting) with
new and higher fares. The company
agreed to continue operations until next
August 81, when it will go out of business.
Dismissal of the fare petition of
June 6, therefore was a proper thing
for the commission to do. 1t has, how
ever, done something else. Its opinion,
and concurring opinion by Commits
Sioner Weston, are explanatory of their
points of view in relation to the transit
company. The commission and Mr.. Wes-
ton have been attacked by the company;
the commission and Mr.. Weston respond
In counter-attack against the company
and its practices.
The commission and Mr.. Weston are
beating dead horse, in so far as the
transit company is concerned. Their docu:
ments, however, are significant. For they
indicate disposition to change hitherto
prevailing rules in public utility regula-
tion. The commission, explaining why it
could not have ruled on the June 6 fare
petition by any "quickie" procedure, in
PRODUCES new contention that the trans
1t company has been operating an "eco-
nomically obsolescent streetcar system"
and has been charging the public for the
resulting losses as compared with all-bus
operation. Therefore, an important part
of the commissions consideration of the
petition it has dismissed would have in
volved determination of how much, If
anything, the public should be required
to pay for uneconomic operation Of an
obsolescent system. Without saying so,
the commission implies that substantial
reduction in the rate base would have
resulted, with action designed to force
the company to abandon the streetcar
system and supplant it with new equip
ment for an all-bus system. THE COM
mission also questions the extent of
depreciation 1t has hitherto permitted
the company to take on its streetcars
which in the light of past policy seems
to be an afterthought.
Mr.. Weston goes much further. He
maintains the company had no right to
any fare increase. Instead of granting
one, he says the Commissioners should
have hauled the company into court, for
its failure to settle with the union. He
concludes that the company deliberately
engineered the strike, although he admits
a lack Of proof. He would reduce the
rate base of $18.5 million-on which re-
turns are computed--to about SIS million.
He would write of the value of the street.
car system and disallow other expenses,
thereby rejecting a personal philosophy
in utility rate regulation that has hitherto
been limited at, but not publicly unveiled
until the release of his statement.
The rate increase allowed by the
Commissioners on August 81 may be
attacked in court. 1t is to be remembered
that the rate increase of January, 1854,
was so attacked and still remains un-
decided. New litigation may clarity the
theories of regulation unfolded by the
commission and Mr.. Weston. The soon
to-be-d -defunct transit company may not
be affected. The effect on prospective
transit operators in Washington may
turn out to be rather discouraging. Other
public utilities in Washington, meanwhile,
have every reason to ponder the posi-
bilities which seem to be in store.