Opinion ID: 2002136
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Commission's Enforcement Authority.

Text: In the present case, the District of Columbia statute which the Commission was called upon to apply was § 43-503, which authorizes it to compel compliance by public utilities with, inter alia, applicable laws of the United States. This court has never construed this broadly phrased provision. The Commission, however, had occasion to consider § 43-503 [8] In In re Potomac Electric Power Co., Formal Case No. 541, Order No. 5429 (April 15, 1970), ( PEPCO I ) a decision which was forcefully brought to the Commission's attention during the proceeding in the present case. In PEPCO I, the Commission confronted the question whether it had the authority to consider allegations that PEPCO had engaged in racially discriminatory employment practices and, if so, whether it should exercise that authority. Citing § 43-503, the Commission stated: There can be no doubt that the provision of equal employment opportunity is required by the laws of the United States and the District of Columbia.... When it is brought to our attention that the requirements of the law are not being met by a utility subject to our jurisdiction, we are clearly expected to act. PEPCO I, at 41. Rejecting an argument by PEPCO similar to the one the utility is making in the present case, the Commission continued: PEPCO suggests that we need take no action and that the matter should simply be referred to other organs of [g]overnment concerned with discrimination, e.g., the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], the U.S. Department of Labor, or the D.C. Human Relations Commission. For the reasons already discussed, we do not agree. We have both the power and the responsibility to take action ourselves. Id. at 43. The Commission then turned its attention to the appropriate remedy. After describing the evidence of past noncompliance which it had uncovered, the Commission held that [t]here must be a program for affirmative action to eliminate employment discrimination. Id. The Commission directed that PEPCO institute forthwith an affirmative action program which the Commission had worked out with the assistance of the EEOC. PEPCO I thus stands for the proposition that, at least with respect to discrimination in employment, the PSC has both the authority and the duty to require a utility to take affirmative steps to correct the effects of past discrimination. See generally Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 417-18, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 2372, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975). The Commission did not discuss Order No. 5429 in either of its written decisions in the present case. Rather, it based its ruling on its perception that PEPCO had not violated the Small Business Act, that the proceeding was moot, and that it lacked authority to act in light of GSA's role. We consider each of these issues in turn.