sued its formal order and decision; that in the interval of three months, which elapsed between the issuance and the effectiveness of the Commission's order, the telephone companies themselves carried on the work of equalization of rates; that just prior to the time when the order was to take effect, about 3,300 telephones were still maintained at rates which were subject to equalization or immediate increase; and finally, since these figures are drawn from about one-tenth of the total number of telephone companies in the state, that there must have been an amazing number of such discriminations in charges for telephone service previous to the enactment of the Public Utilities Law.

DISCRIMINATIONS IN WATER RATES. *

The water companies of the state did not report in any very certain and unmistakable manner. There was probably considerable misunderstanding on the part of superintendents of municipal water works as to what it was necessary for them to report to this Commission. The private corporations furnishing water, almost without exception, reported all the rates in effect which were out of harmony with their regular schedule, including rates which, under the franchise provisions, were accorded the municipality itself. Municipal plants, on the other hand, reported private consumers who received other than schedule rates, but in many instances undoubtedly failed to report not only what municipal institutions were receiving water at reduced rates, but also religious and educational institutions, though the latter were not owned by the city.

In all. 70 utilities furnishing water filed their statements in time for the report. Of the total 28 reported no discriminatory rates in effect, and 42 reported such rates; that is, 3 out of 5 reported discriminatory practices.

Private Consumers Receiving Special Rates.-In order to make possible a comparison of conditions in different localities, it will be necessary to differentiate between discrimination in favor of municipalities and those in favor of private consumers. The former are not clearly set forth in all the reports, as is evident from the incomplete nature of the data contained in table VII. As table VII itself indicates, the reports by water companies are, at best, incomplete and uncertain. All we can de

duce is, that 10 private water companies, with a total of over 15,000 service connections, report 62 cases of discrimination in favor of private citizens, or 3 cases to 1,000 service connections; that 25 municipal plants, with a total of about 23,000 service connections, report 112 such cases, or 5 cases to 1,000 service connections. [For table VII see page 1156.] One discrimination, however, it must be clearly understood, may include more than one service connection. If reports of municipal plants, giving the number of charitable and educational institutions receiving special rates, can be secured, the ratio for municipal plants would undoubtedly rise perceptibly. Most of the private plants reported those cases fully, and indications are that the omissions were not as numerous on the part of private companies.

Water companies, just as is the case with telephone companies, have been carrying on the work of equalizing their rates for fully a year; what has been reported to the Commission, then, by the companies that did file their reports, is simply what has been left undone and is no indication of what existed before the Utilities Law was passed.

Illustrations of Discrimination.-In order to get a clearer view as to the manner in which discrimination has been practiced by this class of utilities, a few concrete illustrations will be given. These illustrations are cited because they are typical of conditions as they existed throughout the state before the passage of the law.

Municipality No. 1. In one city of over 15,000 inhabitants 9 consumers paid annually for water service about $210.00. If they had been listed according to the published schedules, the total charge per year would have been about $336, a discrimination, equivalent to a rebate, of $125 in favor of the nine consumers, or about $14 a year per consumer.

In

Municipality No. 2. In another city of about 4,000 inhabitants the water company served 17 consumers free of charge. tabulated form, arranged according to the amount of the regular schedule rates which should have been charged, the summary of discriminatory charges in this community appears as follows:

According to the foregoing tabulation 17 consumers receive annually $267.30 worth of service free of charge, an average of $16 per year per consumer.

DISCRIMINATION IN RATES BY UTILITIES FURNISHING GAS.

There are but 52 utilities on the Commission's list which furnish gas. A total of 31 such utilities reported, 20 stating they had no discriminatory rates in effect, and 11 reporting discriminatory rates of some kind. That is, only 1 out of 3 reports discriminatory practices.

No report has been received up to date from all gas, companies showing their total number of consumers. It is therefore impossible to make a comparison of the number of consumers receiving special rates with the total number of consumers of each gas company. The only tabulation, which the available reports will permit, is a mere list of the number of consumers receiving special rates.

1

2

3

4

5

6

*

10

11

TABLE IX.

Number of consumers receiving from gas companies discriminatory rates.

Table LX shows that 11 companies granted special rates to about 40 consumers. On a rough estimate, the total number of gas consumers of these companies would approximate 13,000, on which basis it appears that about 3 out of 1,000 consumers of these companies are furnished service at other than schedule rates. Cities and employes seem to be the most numerous among the beneficiaries of gas companies.

DISCRIMINATION IN RATES FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE.

Of the 232 utilities furnishing electric current in this state, about one-half reported their discriminatory service in time for this report. Of the 117 that did report in time, over half were furnishing service at other than their regular schedule rates. Table X summarizes the number of electric plants and the proportion reporting:

TABLE X.

Summary of reports of electric companies as to discriminatory rates.

Total number of utilities furnishing electric current
Total number of electrical utilities reporting no discriminatory rates
Total number of such utilities reporting discriminatory service of some
kind

232

50

60

113

Total number of such utilities failing to report in time for this tabulation

Total....

232

Electric Companies Reporting Discriminations. It is impossible to show the discrimination of electrical companies as a whole, for the reason that only one-half of the companies have reported, and for the further reason that many of the companies,

which made reports, failed to give sufficient information to indicate what the regular charge for different items should have been per month or per year. The only data available, conveying some idea of the extent to which discrimination existed, is the total number of consumers favored by each utility, and the total number of commercial lighting consumers on the books of each company. This information is tabulated in the following compilation:

For table XI see page 1157.]

One or two items in this table are lacking, and the totals for this reason are not absolutely accurate. However, the utilities for which information is lacking are small, for the most part, and the omissions do not prejudice the, result in any way.

From the foregoing it is seen that for the companies which reported discriminatory rates, about 3 out of every 100 consumers pay less than the schedule rate. The proportion is not so great as that for telephone companies, but it exceeds that for both water and gas utilities. It is impossible to so tabulate the reports of all these companies as to get the money value of discrimination of all electric companies reporting. We can, however, select certain of the reports and give them in detail, in order to show to what extent, within any given community, the rates charged for electric current lack uniformity. It must not be understood that the publication of these reports is for the purpose of exposure. The situations revealed in the following concrete illustrations are only typical of conditions existing in nearly every municipality in the state. Because a certain utility has more discriminations in effect than another, does not mean in itself that it is following a vicious practice or is using unlawful methods. Most of the discriminations cited are remnants of a former period of unrestricted competition; others are the outgrowth of circumstances over which the utilities themselves had no control.

One electric company in a community of 8.000 has a total of 425 electric lighting consumers, and 43 of these are reported as receiving service at other than schedule rates; that is, about 10 out of every 100. Table XII presents a few of those favored consumers and indicates the extent to which charges for electric current varied in the community referred to: