Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

The complainant alleged that for years past in the city of Milwaukee excessive charges had been exacted for electric current for light and power to public and private consumers; that charges to consumers were not uniform, and a request was made that the Commission investigate the cost to the electric lighting companies in Milwaukee of furnishing current for public lighting and the cost of furnishing current for private lighting and for power, and that a just and reasonable and uniform price be charged to the consumer, both public and private.

The complainant was advised that a valuation of the properties of the electric railway companies doing business in Milwaukee had been made; that this valuation included that portion of the business of certain companies furnishing lighting and power service, and that these companies do the larger part of the electric lighting within the city. It was suggested that a formal complaint be filed, which would be considered in its turn. No such complaint was filed.

No. 3.

In re PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES.

Aug. 2, 1907.

The above entitled matter related to an endeavor on the part of the Commission to secure the names and addresses of every public utility doing business in the state, and was one of the first steps taken, in preparation for its work, by the Commission. For lists of these companies and addresses, see tabulations in another part of this report.

No. 4.

Aug. 22, 1907.

O. P. Schnetzky, vs. Milwaukee and For River Valley Ry. Co. Elkhart Lake, Wis.

DISCRIMINATION IN RATES FOR CURRENT.

In the above entitled matter the complainant alleged that the electric company was doing business at Elkhart Lake and had not a uniform schedule of prices and charges; that in some cases flat rates were charged, and in other cases rates based upon meter readings.

The matter was submitted to the officials of the electric company, and they stated it was their intention to comply with the law. Complainant was advised to file a formal complaint and blanks were furnished him.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

CONTRACT TELEPHONE RATES; ADVANCE IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY. In the above entitled matter it appears that the complainant herein had been furnished with telephone service by the above named company on a four-party, grounded line at $1.00 per month, under a contract for such service, and that the company had discontinued this kind of service and had put the complainant on a two-party metallic return circuit, for which service its legally published rate was $1.50 per month.

The matter was submitted to the officials of the telephone company, who stated that two years prior to the passage of the Public Utilities Law, the Menomonie system had become obsolete, owing to induction from electric light circuits, which rendered portions of its exchange almost useless, and that the service

generally was so inferior that it became necessary to rebuild the plant throughout; that this necessitated the abandonment of the four-party, grounded service, and that it substituted in lieu thereof a two-party metallic return service, and that all of the subscribers but a few, including the complainant, had accepted the two-party service, but that complainant and the other objectors, relying on their contracts, refused to pay for the different class of service they were receiving, and owing to such existing contracts, after the passage of the Public Utilities Law, the company felt obligated to continue such service at the old rate as long as the contracts made under the old system should continue in force; that after the contracts expired, the company endeavored to amicably induce complainant to accept the new class of service at the advanced rate, and, pending these negotiar tions, the discriminatory rate was kept in effect, and the company contended that it was not necessary for it to apply to the Commission for authority to increase complainant's rate, but that it was merely requiring complainant to pay the legal rates in force in the city of Menomonie.

Held: On the above statement of facts, there was no illegal advancement of telephone rates; that complainant's remedy was to file a formal complaint with this Commission, to the effect that the rates then charged were excessive or unreasonable, and blanks for that purpose were furnished him.

No. 6.
City of Superior.

Aug. 23, 1907.

RULES OF PROCEDURE AGAINST LIGHTING UTILITIES.

In the above entitled matter the city attorney of the complainant herein asked the Commission whether any rules of procedure or forms for petitions had been prepared, and whether any reports had been required to be made to the Commission by public utilities as to charges for public and private lighting under the provisions of the Public Utilities Law.

A copy of the rules of procedure was sent to complainant, and he was advised that the utilities had been asked to furnish copies of their rates, tolls and charges, and that Sept. 1 was named as the limit of time in which utilities might file such schedule.

No. 7.

Fred Klaus, Jr.,

VS.

Aug. 24, 1907. Wis. Telephone Co.

Winneconne, Wis.

JOINT TELEPHONE RATES.

The complainant herein alleged that the above named telephone company had absorbed the Waushara Telephone Co. and exacted a double charge of toll for messages between Winneconne and Red Granite.

The matter was submitted to the officials of the defendant company, who advised the Commission that it had not absorbed the Waushara Telephone Co.; that it had acquired a portion of the capital stock of said company; but that the operation of the company was practically in the hands of stockholders unconnected with the Wisconsin Telephone Co.; that the toll line between Red Granite and Winneconne is by way of Berlin; that part of the line between Red Granite and Berlin is owned by the Waushara Telephone Co., and between Winneconne and Berlin by the Wisconsin Telephone Co.; that each company makes its regular charge for the service it renders, but that the intention of the companies is to make in the near future a joint rate, based upon air line distance, of which complainant was informed.

No. 8.

T. M. Holland,

Park Falls, Wis.

GRATUITOUS ELECTRIC SERVICE TO MUNICIPALITY.

Sept. 3, 1907.

Complainant asked to be advised whether an electric lighting company may, under the provisions of the Public Utilities Law, and in the absence of a contract, furnish electric lighting free to the city.

Held: That the furnishing of electric light free to a city is contrary to the provisions of the Public Utilities Law, unless such service is based on a contract made prior to the passage of

the law.

27-R. R.

No. 9.

Aug. 30, 1907.

Clear Lake Telephone Co.,

Clear Lake, Wis.

RAILROAD STATION TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Complainant asked concerning the law governing telephone service in railway stations.

Held: Ch. 614, Laws of 1907, provides that upon complaint to this Commission, that any telephone service with any railroad is inadequate, unreasonable, unjust or discriminatory, or that such service cannot be had, it shall be the duty of the Commission to investigate the same, and if, upon investigation, the Commission shall find that such service is inadequate, discriminatory or cannot be had, it may, by order, fix a reasonable regulation, practice or service to be installed; that the decision of the Commission entitled In re Free and Reduced Telephone Service, 2 W. R. C. R. 521, provides, in effect, that a pay station may be installed in a railway station by means of which anyone may call the station up without extra charge, and the railway agent may call up any telephone subscriber upon official business, but that if such telephone is used for any other purpose, the local rate for such service must be paid.

See Peoples Tel. Co. v. Eastern Ry. Co. of Minn., 2 W. R. C. R. 822.

No. 10.

Clintonville Electric Light Plant,

Clintonville, Wis.

EMERGENCY ELECTRIC SERVICE.

Sept. 6, 1907.

The superintendent of the above named plant submitted the following question to the Commission: Whether or not a public utility, furnishing electric service, has the power to refuse such service to an individual because such individual has installed a gasoline lighting plant and uses the electric service only when he is compelled to.

Held: This service cannot be denied, but that a minimum charge might be exacted for such service.

« AnteriorContinuar »