Public Service Commission, First District [Vol. 15] 1915, only those meters of the New York Edison Company on the premises the consumption through which was billed to him prior to July 6, 1916. The purpose of the order of the Commission and the schedule filed in pursuance thereof on November 20, 1915, permitting the purchase of meters, was to aid a readjustment following the abolition of the practices then existing and was intended to permit landlords to purchase and attach to master meters those meters which had been installed for individual tenants who paid their landlords for current consumed but which were being read by the company. The order and schedule were not intended to interfere with contracts existing between the company and tenants direct and neither were the meters through which such service was being given within the purview of the order and schedule unless the tenants agreed to take current from their landlords. I do not think that the fact that the complainant notified the company that the use of the risers and mains would be no longer permitted is controlling on the question. The schedules of the Edison Company at that time and from August 15, 1912, provided for the following standard contract rider: "It is further understood and agreed that this contract shall not become effective for the service of any tenant or tenants, until such tenant or tenants shall have terminated any existing service contract with the New York Edison Company." Irrespective of this provision, the fact is that the relationship between the Edison Company and the tenants to whom service was continued even after the notice was not thereby terminated, current being furnished to them directly for which they paid the Edison Company. It appears that the United Electric Light and Power Company provided in the supplement to its schedule effective November 22, 1915, and in all supplement schedules to March 3, 1917, that integrating recording watt-hour meters would be sold for submetering purposes at eight dollars each. As the Edison Company undertook with the consent of the United Company to supply the complainant with the current of the United Company on exchange service, the Edison Company upon complainant's demand of January 27, 1915, should have complied with its own rate schedule [Vol. 15] Public Service Commission, First District and should have procured from the United Company at the schedule prices all meters of the type specified, the consumption through which was billed to complainant prior to March 3, 1917. This was the price "which the Edison Company would pay the United Company for those meters." The Edison Company should now arrange to transfer such meters to the complainant at that price, whatever the price may be that it must now pay the United Company therefor. Its failure to procure such meters from the United while the schedule was effective should not increase the cost of the meters to the complainant. As to the second prayer for relief — that is, reparation for past excessive charges and payments - it has been pointed out on numerous occasions that the Commission has no statutory power to order a refund or reparation because of excessive or improper past charges for current consumed and paid for, and, therefore, the Commission cannot make an award to complainant because of the company's failure to remove the seals from the sub-moters after the installation of a master meter even if complainant were otherwise entitled to such relief. Irrespective of this, the evidence is not clear as to when title to the meters passed nor whether the seals remained upon more than one of the sub-meters, nor is there any proof that the difference in consumption registered by the master meter and the aggregate of the consumption registered by the sub-meters for the entire period was due to defective submeters which the complainant claims could not be inspected because of the presence of the seal. This difference may have been caused by any of these causes: A drop in potential; the consumption of energy required to operate sub-meters and recorded solely on the master meter; or by inaccuracy of the sub-meters. However, for the adjudication and recovery of any damages by reason of past overpayments, the complainant is relegated to a forum of competent jurisdiction. The parties should without formal order carry into effect promptly the conclusions herein set forth and advise the Commission within thirty days whether this has been accomplished. The necessity of an order in the matter will then be determined. Public Service Commission, First District [Vol. 15] In the Matter of the Complaint of SAMUEL EVANS MAIRES et al. against THE FLATBUSH GAS COMPANY Relative to Rates for Electricity in the Borough of Brooklyn Case No. 1541 (Public Service Commission, First District, February 1, 1918) Legislative intent as to the uniformity of maximum rates in the twentyninth ward of Brooklyn and the other wards of that borough. Rates for electricity to be sold in Brooklyn by the Flatbush Gas Company and investigation as to whether the same are unjust, unreasonable and excessive as charged. Unjust discrimination in price of current sold against the smaller consumers and undue preference to larger consumers resume of the history as to the electric service in Brooklyn specifically given. Principles upon which the basis of a true "fair value" is to be found. Decision made not merely on an arbitrary rate per kilowatt hour but after the consideration and analysis of the rate reduction and its probable effect upon the finances, earnings and corporate income of the company. In the borough of Brooklyn, city of New York, electricity for general consumption is furnished by two companies, the Flatbush Gas Company, defendant in the present action, which operates in the twenty-ninth ward, known as the "Flatbush section" of Brooklyn, and the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Brooklyn, which operates in the other thirty-one wards of the borough but has not yet furnished service in its franchise area in the twenty-ninth ward. This latter company has sev eral transmission lines, however, running through the ward in question from which its residents could be supplied with service. The "Flatbush section" of Brooklyn is one of the finest residential regions in Greater New York and is closely built up with homes using large quantities of electric current. Under the statute fixing electric service within the city of Greater New York the twenty-ninth ward of Brooklyn was dealt with the same as the other wards in Brooklyn, and a maximum rate of twelve cents per kilowatt hour for purposes other than street lighting was prescribed alike for the district served by the Flatbush Gas Company and for the remaining section of Brooklyn served by the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Brooklyn. Laws of 1905, chaps. 732, 733. The legislative intent evidently was that the twenty-ninth ward should be governed by the same maximum rate as the other wards of Brooklyn. On June 10, 1912, separate complaints signed by more than one hundred consumers were made to this Commission against each of the com [Vol. 15] Public Service Commission, First District panies, identical in allegations and prayer except for the designation of the defendant. The allegations of those complaints pertinent to the present discussion are that the prices of electricity sold and delivered in the borough of Brooklyn by the Flatbush Gas Company under its general rate of twelve cents or its proposed rate of eleven cents, are unjust, unreasonable and excessive and disproportionate to the proper cost of manufacturing and delivering such electricity in said borough; also that the differences in price of electricity so sold and delivered under the general rate and the prices charged to numerous preferred customers are unreasonable, and such differences unjustly discriminate against the smaller consumers and give undue preference to the larger consumers. On July 16, 1912, contemporaneous but separate proceedings were taken before the Commission; one in case No. 1540, in which the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Brooklyn was the respondent, and the other in the present case, No. 1541, in which the Flatbush Gas Company was the respondent. The latter company supplies both gas and electricity in this region but the proceeding related only to its electrical department. That company asked that the hearing be adjourned for all purposes until after the hearing and decision of the case of the Brooklyn Edison Company. Just before the commencement of the proceeding in case No. 1540 the Brooklyn Edison Company reduced its maximum rate from twelve cents to eleven cents per kilowatt hour. An opinion in the Brooklyn Edison case was handed down on October 27, 1916, accompanied by an order fixing the maximum price at eight cents per kilowatt hour. This was modified by a supplemental order of December 27, 1916, under which a lighting rate of five to eight cents per hour average daily use of maximum demand and a power rate of three to eight cents per hour average daily use of maximum demand were to be established. In the present proceeding it is alleged by the complainant that the prices at which electricity is sold and delivered by the Flatbush Gas Company under its general rate of twelve cents per kilowatt hour are unjust, unreasonable and excessive by reason of the disproportionate relation of those rates to the cost of the service, the return they allow on the corporate property and their excess over the fair value of the service rendered as attested by the rates chargable by the Edison Company in the same territory, and also that the differences in the prices charged various consumers of such electricity are unreasonable, unjustly discriminatory and unduly preferential. Rates demanded by an electrical corporation for electricity or any service rendered must be reasonable and just. The meaning of the expressions "present value" and "actual cost" has been considered in other jurisdictions. The results of such investigation are herein set forth. Held, that the Commission might find warrant, from the facts indicated in the course of this proceeding as to the status and legally chargeable rates of the Edison Electric Illuminating Company in the Public Service Commission, First District [Vol. 15] respondent's franchise territory and "the value of the service" rendered by the respondent, the Flatbush Gas Company, for an order requir ing the latter company to put in force a general rate of eight cents per kilowatt hour or to let the Edison Company furnish the service to consumers who desire the eight-cent rate, but that under all the circumstances affecting current operations in the electric field it is better that the Commission place its decision not on the merely legal consequences of the company's status in the Flatbush area but upon a thorough analysis of the usual aspects of such a rate reduction, its probable effect upon the finances, earnings and corporate income of the company. Specific rate reductions were ordered for the first two hours' average daily use of the maximum demand from indicated periods, and a graduated rate for all current consumed in excess of the first two hours of such daily use. HERVEY, Commissioner.- Electricity for general consumption in the borough of Brooklyn is furnished by two companies - the Flatbush Gas Company, which operates in the twenty-ninth ward (formerly the town of Flatbush) and against which the complaint in this proceeding is directed, and the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Brooklyn, which operates in the other thirtyone wards of the borough but has not yet furnished service in its franchise area in the twenty-ninth ward. The latter company has, however, several electric transmission lines running through the twenty-ninth ward, from which its residents could be supplied with service. The "Flatbush Section" of Brooklyn, comprising the twenty-ninth ward, is one of the finest residential regions in Greater New York, and is closely built up with homes which use large quantities of electric current. In previous legislation directly fixing rates for electric service in the several districts now embraced within the city of Greater New York, the twenty-ninth ward of Brooklyn was treated homogeneously with the other wards in Brooklyn, and the maximum rate of twelve cents per kilowatt hour for purposes other than street lighting was prescribed alike for the section of Brooklyn served by the Flatbush Gas Company and for the remaining section served by the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Brooklyn. Laws of 1905, chaps. 732, 733. The Legislature thus indicated its view that the twenty-ninth ward should, in rate |