C. Discussion of the Legal Issues

Red & White contends that it is "cashless" and that it can not be required to continue providing service which will drain its unregulated parent Golden Gate Scenic Steamship Corporation (Golden Gate). Brooks-Scanlon Company v. Railroad Commission of Louisiana (1920) 251 U.S. 396; Gibbons v. U. S. (C.A.7 1981) 660 F.2d 1227. Protestants counter that Red & White represented to the Commission at the time it sought its certificate that it would borrow funds to operate the commute service from its affiliates or a commercial bank. (Exh. 23, D.98-02-008, p. 15.) Friends claims that we must look to the financial condition of all of the affiliates in determining the applicability of the "cashlessness" principal, and that the Gibbons case, supra, actually supports its position rather than Red & White's. Friends argues that a utility can be ordered to continue service at a loss even though the creditor's security and investor's capital will be eroding while the regulatory agency acts on petitions for abandonment. (Matter of Chicago, M. St. P. and P. R. Co. (C.A.7 1979) 611 F.2d 662.) Because Red & White has obeyed the order of Commissioner Bilas to continue service until further order of the Commission, there is no need to determine whether there is an absolute right to cease service. We shall withhold judgment until a case arises where such a decision is necessary.