1. Jurisdiction.

In Re Public Service Co. No. 10412, Nov. 1, 1920, in granting permission for the extension of an electric transmission line, the Illinois Commission held that it has jurisdiction, under § 50 of the Utilities Act, to find the necessity for and to authorize and direct the construction of additions, extensions, repairs or improvements to or changes in the existing plant equipment apparatus, facilities, or other physical property of any public utility, if the facts and conditions warrant, irrespective of whether or not property owners are made defendants to the proceedings or make objections to such extensions or other changes.

In England v. Arkansas Light & P. Co. Case No. 377, Dec. 21, 1920, in authorizing the extension of water service, the Arkansas Commission said: "The Commission has heretofore held that it had no authority or power to consider the question of interpreting or enforcing a contract provision relative to service. This is a question that should be pursued in a court of law. This Commission reiterates, at this time, that it has no jurisdiction to enforce the terms of any franchise or ordinance requirement in dealing with the question of adequate service and just rates of a utility. The legislature has given to this Commission authority to investigate and to determine adequate service and fair rates and clothed it with power to issue such orders as it deems reasonable and just and as the facts and circumstances will warrant, but in doing so, the Commission cannot consider any franchise or ordinance requirement with relation thereto. The Commission's power is limited to a consideration of the question solely upon the standpoint of service to the public.”

said:

II. Duty to serve.

In Re Hawaii R. Co. Decision No. 5, March 15, 1920, the Hawaii Commission, in speaking of the duty utilities owe to the public, "At first blush it might appear that if the company is willing to operate without profit that such is the company's business and nobody else should complain. Such might be true if the only person concerned was the company but unfortunately great as is the interest of the company in this utility, that of the people in the district served by it is greater. The only reason public utilities are given franchises, the only reason the legislature donated to this utility $2,500 for each mile of road constructed, the only reason the legislature has conferred upon this and other utilities the right of eminent domain and other special privileges is because the existence, the development, the extension, and the prosperity of this utility are necessary to the present and future business, development, and growth of the district served by it."

In Re Odin Coal Co. No. 11018, Jan. 5, 1921, the Illinois Com

mission holds that the fact that a company furnishing electric service is primarily in the business of coal mining, does not relieve it of the obligations imposed upon a public utility of rendering continuous and adequate service in the community.

In Re Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. No. 5373, Sept. 24, 1920, in speaking of the duty of a utility to render service, the Indiana Commission said: "It is the duty of petitioner to serve the public with freight and passenger facilities, such service including the maintenance of stations and station agents to the end that the public may be properly served. While it may be true that some profit should be derived from every service rendered by a common carrier, yet, in the very nature of things, something should be contributed from the general earnings of the company in the maintenance of service designed to meet the needs of the small localities. The business of the carrier is made up of traffic from all communities, large and small, and a service to a certain locality ought not be discontinued because it can be said of it that it contributed less net revenue than another service to another locality."

III. Extensions.

In Conyngham v. Conyngham Water Co. Complaint Docket No. 3573, Oct. 19, 1920, in speaking of the duty of a water company to extend service, the Pennsylvania Commission said: "It is a well settled policy of this Commission to require public utilities to make all reasonable extensions in order to serve the public in any community in which the utility is operating. By reasonable is meant reasonable to both utility and the public. The utility cannot select those portions of a community that are remunerative and refuse all others. It must so construct its plant that it will serve all those that may reasonably be served, even though some of them may be served at a loss."

In Carroll v. Towanda Water Works, Complaint Docket Nos. 3462, 3463, Nov. 16, 1920, the Pennsylvania Commission reiterated the views laid down in former decisions that a rule of a water company which requires applications for service connections to be made by property owners, and holds the latter wholly responsible for payment of the water supplied was unreasonable. See Shreffler v. Lewistown-Reedsville Water Co. P.U.R.1920C, 189; Scottdale v. Citizens Water Co. P.U.R.1920D, 292.

In Re Arizona Power Co. Docket No. 1161-E-71, Decision No. 1177, Nov. 19, 1920, the Arizona Commission approved of rules of a power company, the effect of which was to require an applicant for service to deposit an amount equal to the cost of constructing the service, the same to be refunded to consumer in January of each year in an amount equal to 10 per cent of the consumer's power

bills for service through the installation during the previous calendar year.

In Brunner v. Medford Light & Heating Co. U-2277, Dec. 10, 1920, the Wisconsin Commission held that the cost of a meter should not be included in the cost of construction and extension, and that, therefore, the rule that the company "will at its own expense make any extension which will not exceed the cost of $50 per connection, this to include the cost of the meter," should be modified accordingly.

IV. Abandonment.

In State ex rel. Brown v. Beaton (1920) Iowa 178 N. W. 1, the supreme court of Iowa held that the purchaser of a railroad under a mortgage foreclosure, the decree in which merely ordered the sale of the property described, acquired the railroad property burdened with the same obligation with its reference to preservation and operation as the railroad company.

In Re Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co. Case F-289, Order No. 607, Oct. 31, 1919, in passing upon the application for leave to discontinue a motor car service between certain stations, the Idaho Commission said: "This service, however, is but one unit of many services of the applicant, and even though it may not be productive of sufficient revenue by itself, such fact is not alone a sufficient reason for its discontinuance. Our consideration must be of the utility's business as a whole, and in the light of the public's right to needed service to the maximum which the utility's revenue as a whole will justify. Our inquiry is first as to whether the service desired is reasonably required to meet the needs of the public, and then as to whether the utility can reasonably be expected to meet such from its operations in Idaho as a whole.

In Citizens of Summerset v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. Docket A-3626, March 22, 1921, the Iowa Commission held that in determining the question of whether a railroad station should be abandoned, other elements than the earnings of the station should be taken into consideration, such as the population of the community, distance from such agency station, kind of products shipped, and so

forth.

said:

66

In Re Douglas Traction & Light Co. Docket No. 1081-E-54, Decision No. 1084, June 4, 1920, the Arizona Corporation Commission As we view it, the showing necessary in a case of this nature, to justify an order granting discontinuance of a public utility service, must show not only that operation is not profitable, but that service is no longer useful to the extent where it may reasonably be required to continue."

In Re Ocean Shore R. Co. Decision No. 8278, Application No.

5663, Oct. 25, 1920, in authorizing the abandonment of the Ocean Shore Railroad between Santa Cruz and Swanton, the California Commission, said: "It is evident that the revenue derived from the operation of the southern division of the Ocean Shore Railroad Company has not been sufficient to defray the cost of operation or to return any interest on the investment, and there is no prospect that the revenues of the company will be increased to a point sufficient to meet the costs of operation, fixed charges and return any interest on the capital invested. No protest appears against the proposed abandonment of service and the application should be granted."

In Re Northern Illinois Light & Traction Co. No. 10783, Dec. 16, 1920, the Illinois Commission holds that a utility should not be compelled to waste its resources in maintaining a service which cannot possibly earn a reasonable return and becomes a burden both to the utility and to the public. The Commission said: "The requirement that street railway companies shall pay the cost of paving when installed within their tracks is often times an unreasonable burden to place upon the utility."

V. Meters.

In Re Loraine Electric Light & P. Co. No. 10931, Jan. 7, 1921, the Illinois Commission stated: "Discrimination between metered and nonmetered consumers can hardly be avoided when a large proportion of the consumers do not have meters, and this situation should not be allowed to continue any longer than is absolutely necessary.

In Re Mt. Vernon Water Works Co. No. 5031, Aug. 27, 1920, the Indiana Commission said: "What constitutes the public utility? Is it the water source, the pumping plant and the distributing mains? Does it also include the services from said mains to the private property line? It can be fairly accepted, from the fact of general adoption, that a water utility consists of the source of water supply which must be provided by ownership or other means of control, the pumping plant and distribution system to property lines."

VI. Service by particular utilities.

a. Gas.

In Municipal Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission (1920) 183 N. Y. Supp. 900, the supreme court of New York said that the Public Service Commission, by failing to bring an action under § 74 of the Public Service Commissions Law, to enforce compliance with the provisions of an order establishing the standard for heating content of gas, had waived the requirements of the order.

In Public Service Commission v. Missouri Public Utilities Co. Case No. 2345, Dec. 18, 1920, the Missouri Commission, after finding that a complaint against the company for failure to furnish gas of proper quality was well founded, authorized the company as an experiment to furnish gas of a heating value of 450 B.T.U. with a variation each way not exceeding 5 per cent. The Commission said: "In deciding upon the heating value of the gas which should be furnished at any particular location, proper consideration must be given to the availability of various supplies of coal and the cost of same, the pressure of the gas and the capacity of the distribution system. The standard heretofore adopted by the Commission requires a high grade of coal in the manufacture of coal gas, or the use of an enricher. It is better to have a gas of comparatively low heating value, with but slight variations from day to day, than it is to have a higher heating value standard with excessive variations. The gas burner being adjusted to burn a particular quality of gas, the operation becomes inefficient when the heating value of the gas is either increased or decreased materially. If the use of a low heating standard shall enable the company to satisfactorily serve the public at less total expense, the saving will, of course, be reflected in the rates, to the profit of the consumer." The records in this case showed that the requirements in various places as to British Thermal Units per cubic feet of gas are as follows: Michigan, 520 B.T.U. per cubic feet of gas, with 5 per cent allowance above and 4 per cent below; Providence, R. I. 510 B.T.U. per cubic feet of gas; Baltimore, Md. 500 B.T.U. per cubic feet of gas; England and Canada, 450 B.T.U. per cubic feet of gas.

In Re Michigan Light Co. D-1414, Aug. 6, 1920, in speaking of the quality of gas service, the Michigan Commission said: "The quality of gas service from the consumers' standpoint, is represented by the pressure at which the gas leaves the burner and the comparative length of time it takes to perform a given operation in heating upon the ordinary stove or with the ordinary heater. Pressure is controlled primarily by apparatus at the gas works and secondarily by the size of the gas mains in the distribution system and the layout of these mains. If a street main is of insufficient size to deliver a required demand for gas at any instant, there is bound to be a drop in pressure noticeable at the burner. Fluctuations in the pressure carried, from any cause, reflect detrimentally upon the service. Pressure should be constant under all reasonable conditions. The comparative length of time it takes to perform a given heating operation with gas depends upon the calorific value of the gas, or, the number of units of heat contained in a given volume of gas. A gas which fluctuates in calorific value tends to reflect poor service. The number of heat units in a given volume of gas is controlled primarily by the kind of coal used in the retorts and quality and quantity