Opinion ID: 2202769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Red Line Extension

Text: In December 1981 WMATA extended its Metro subway service on the Red Line for approximately two miles, from the Dupont Circle station to the Van Ness station. This extension of service added three additional passenger stations and two traction stations. WMATA sought an upward adjustment of $627,035 in PEPCO's test-year revenues based on the increase in electricity purchases that would result from the extended rail system. In rejecting WMATA's proposed adjustment, the Commission said: While in the past, the Commission has permitted adjustments in WMATA's billing determinants to reflect known and certain changes in Metro's ratcheted billing demands, here WMATA is seeking an adjustment of estimated annualized revenue dollars. However, WMATA offers no explanation of how that dollar figure was derived, so that the Commission is unable to evaluate the estimate. In the circumstances, we reject the proposed adjustment, which does not embody a known and certain change, but rather is based on an unverifiable estimate. Order No. 7716 at 91. WMATA argues (1) that the Commission erroneously shifted the burden of proof from PEPCO to WMATA on this issue, and (2) that the Commission had additional opportunity to direct PEPCO, or its own staff or the expert witnesses, to present the dollar estimates that [would] meet its needs for understanding the proper level of dollar amount that should be recognized for the additional operation of Metro. These arguments are unpersuasive. WMATA asserts in its brief, as it did in its application for reconsideration, that there cannot be better support for a `certain and known change' than the fact itself that Metro is operating the extended rail system. In light of the record as a whole, however, this fact is entitled to little or no weight. As PEPCO demonstrated, there was no assurance that periodic increases in demand would be repeated in future billings. In fact, William Schmidt, a PEPCO witness, established that WMATA's actual demand in April 1982 was lower than the demand recorded in April 1981, despite the Red Line extension in December 1981. WMATA offered no countervailing evidence to support its contention that the test-year revenues should be adjusted. We find no error in the Commission's rejection of WMATA's proposal.