Public Service Commission, First District [Vol. 15] contract. On March 20, 1917, the authorized agent of the complainant sent to the Edison company consents to the cancellation of individual contracts from nine of the tenants and on March 22, 1917, the company wrote to the complainant's agent as follows: "Below is given a list of your tenants who have requested us to cancel their contracts and bill their service to you. "As your contract provides for including tenants' accounts, this will be done in the future unless we receive other instructions." The master meter was not installed until May 7, 1917. It appears that it was the Edison company's custom to read the meters on complainant's premises on or about the fifth of each month. Early in April the complainant's agent received a bill from the company which charged the complainant the maximum rate for the consumption indicated upon each of the meters of those tenants who had canceled their contracts and also for the meters installed under complainant's several contracts with the company. These bills covered the period of March 5 to April 5, These bills were returned to the company with a request. for rerendering so that the tenants' consumption should be included in determining the rate applicable. On April twentysixth the company replied, "We wish to advise you that we have requested a rerendering to include the tenants' with the owner's account for period March 5 to April 5, 1917." The company, however, subsequently refused to readjust the bills and the full amount had been paid by the complainant under protest. 1917. After the installation of the master meter on May 7, 1917, bills were rendered in accordance with its readings. This proceeding is brought to obtain a refund of the excess paid over the wholesale rate for the aggregate of current consumed by the tenants' meters and for which complainant has been obliged to pay the maximum retail rate. The company states that on receipt of the tenants' releases, the tenants' accounts were canceled and the consumption for the current month was charged to the landlord. Upon this ground it was explained that the complainant was charged with the consumption of the tenants, not only from the date of the application, March 20, 1917, but [Vol. 15] Public Service Commission, First District from the date when the meter was last read, namely, March 5, 1917. The company maintains that the master meter was installed with all reasonable diligence and that it is justified in charging the maximum rate upon the consumption of each meter until the master meter was actually installed. The evidence, however, does not satisfactorily explain the cause of the long delay in the installation of the master meter. It appears that although the survey of the building for the purpose of ascertaining what the installation was took but several days, the master meter was not ordered by the company until April twenty-third, a month after the survey could be completed and over a month after the application was filed. Thereafter the necessary meter board was erected and the meter was ready for use on May seventh. In my opinion there was undue delay in the installation of the master meter. The company concedes that in some instances it has adjusted bills as here requested, but contends that this has been done only where the company found that it had not acted in accordance with the directions of the owner, or where delay was caused by the inattention of one of its own employees. The practice of the company deciding in each case whether the bills should be adjusted upon the company's own determination of whether there has been neglect or delay is one that may easily lead to discrimination and injustice, and cannot be sanctioned. I think the company should adopt a general regulation that where an application for a master meter is made, accompanied by the necessary consents of tenants, the landlord should be charged at the wholesale rate applicable for all current consumed from and after a specified number of days from the filing of the application. The company, in the first instance, can determine what it believes to be a reasonable time, and, if the Commission deems. the rule unreasonable, it can so determine upon a proper hearing. The regulation should provide that the landlord will be charged for the consumption through tenants' meters at the rate applicable to each meter from the date of the application for the master meter to the date upon which, under the schedule to be filed, the master meter should be installed. Public Service Commission, First District [Vol. 15] While the Commission cannot order reparation for lack of jurisdiction, it suggests that the bills be rerendered so as to charge complainant the wholesale rate on all current consumed between April fifth and May seventh. The company, in cases where it deemed itself at fault, has voluntarily refigured bills, and in view of the opinion already expressed as to the undue delay in the present case and in view of the impossibility of now determining actual consumption through the several meters as of any other date, I believe that the adjustment suggested would be entirely equitable. I recommend that the secretary be instructed to transmit a copy of this opinion to the New York Edison Company and to inform it that unless an amendment to its schedules be filed within thirty days, so as to prescribe a regulation as here found to be necessary, the Commission will enter the necessary order to that effect. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION SECOND DISTRICT In the Matter of the Operation by the ELMIRA WATER, LIGHT AND RAILROAD COMPANY of Street Cars over the Main Street Highway Bridge over the Chemung River at Elmira, N. Y. Case No. 6314 (Public Service Commission, Second District, January 17, 1918) Diversion of volume of traffic to avoid cost of strengthening existing bridge. The bridge crossing the Chemung river at Elmira, at Main street in that city, was found to be unsafe for use by the street cars of the Elmira Water, Light and Railroad Company, for the loads now being operated over it, but it would be safe for cars not exceeding certain weights. Under the circumstances the volume of traffic over the bridge was ordered to be diverted by the company, discontinuing the operation of street cars thereon except cars having axle spacing and wheel loads within the limits of the report of the Commission's engineer, and that plans be taken to provide facilities for the balance of the traffic heretofore carried over the Main street bridge to be carried by another route. BY THE COMMISSION. It having been suggested by the division of electric railroads that the bridge across the Chemung river at Elmira, at Main street, was probably unsafe for use by street cars of the Elmira Water, Light and Railroad Company, an examination was made by the engineer of grade crossings and a report made to the Commission leading to the conclusion that the bridge is unsafe for the loads now being operated over it but that it would be safe for cars having: Four-foot axle spacing, wheel load 2,700 pounds; six-foot-four-inch axle spacing, wheel load 3,400 pounds; eight-foot axle spacing, wheel load 3,500 pounds. An order was therefore issued directing the respondent to show cause why it should not discontinue such operation until said bridge is made safe therefor and until further order of the Public Service Commission, Second District [Vol. 15] Commission. Upon the hearing the respondent appeared by its attorneys, its superintendent and its engineer. The mayor of the city of Elmira was also present. The correctness of the report of the Commission's engineer was conceded both by the city and the respondent but it appeared that it would be uneconomical and, in fact, impossible to so strengthen the existing bridge as to make the present operation safe and that legal and financial obstacles, as well as the present difficulty in securing labor and materials, would prevent the construction of a new bridge as contemplated by the city in the near future. The respondent, however, suggested that a portion of the traffic could be handled without very serious inconvenience to patrons over another route, using the Lake street bridge, and that by the construction of about 1,800 feet of new track the Lake street bridge could be used and the present route resumed near the south end of the Main street bridge. Obviously this construction cannot be carried on during the winter but the people using the street car lines which have been operating over the Main street bridge must for the present submit to some inconvenience in order not to be subjected to grave danger. It is therefore ordered: 1. That the respondent, the Elmira Water, Light and Railroad Company, forthwith, upon service of a copy of this order, discontinue the operation of street cars over the bridge on Main street across the Chemung river in the city of Elmira, except cars having axle spacing and wheel loads within the limits of the engineer's report as above set forth, and shall not resume operation with other cars until a new bridge shall be constructed or permission obtained from the Commission. 2. That it proceed as promptly as possible to formulate plans and take the legal steps necessary to provide facilities for its traffic heretofore carried over the Main street bridge by another route. 3. That the respondent notify the Commission within five days after the service of this order as to its acceptance thereof. |