Opinion

Washington Gas Light Co. v. Public Service Commission

  • 450 A.2d 1187
  • 1982 D.C. App. LEXIS 433
Court
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Filed
Sep 10, 1982
Status
Published
Author
Pryor
On the bench
Newman, Harris, Pryor
Cited by
45 cases

holding that agency must make clear that it has considered all relevant information

How later courts described this case

  • holding that agency must make clear that it has considered all relevant information
  • “The higher the marginal cost of gas to the consumer (the commodity charge), the greater the incentive to reduce energy waste or to shift to lower cost energy sources.”
  • affirming ruling that “ ‘the ratepayers may not be required to make forced contributions’ ”
  • “the permissibility of relying on non-cost factors in rate design is beyond serious dispute”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

*1242 PRYOR, Associate Judge,

concurring:

I join in the majority opinion affirming the Commission’s Order.

I note, however, that a divided Commission excluded certain expenses claimed by the Company in the areas of advertising, trade and civic association dues, and for community affairs programs. As I read the Order, it does not reject those items as categorically unrelated to the interests of the ratepayer; rather, the rulings rest on the narrower ground that the Company did not carry its burden of proof by merely asserting the claimed expenses. If it is true, as the dissenting Commissioner indicates, that this greater scrutiny is a departure from past practice, then the Commission should — as it indicates in its Order— take the necessary steps to clarify “... the treatment of advertising expenses in the near future.”

Viewing the case as a whole, it is clear that the majority and dissenting opinions, in discussing the numerous issues at length, disagree, at bottom, on the lawful and appropriate role of the Commission in approving and structuring the rates of a public utility. Putting aside the dissenter’s characterizations of the majority’s views, the fundamental question which we have decided is whether the Commission’s Order, innovative though it may be, is within the authority entrusted to it and is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. I think the Order passes the statutory test and I therefore vote to affirm.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.