Page images
PDF

Tests at 100% of Meter Tests at 10% of Meter

Capacity Capacity

No. of Per- Accuracy No. of Per

Meters centage Per cent Meters centage

101 to 102

102 to 103

103 to 104

104 to 105

105 to 110
110 to 120
120 and above

Total

The above report is a correct summary of all service tests made by this Company, and all tests were conducted according to the rules of the Public Service

Commission as prescribed in Pinal Order amended in Case 2202.

The above tests are included in the report of the Complaint, Periodic and Office Tests.

Signed by ,

Official Title

(2) That this order shall supersede the final order in Case No. 1154 and the final order in Case No. 1524 which hereby are abrogated.

(3) That this order shall take effect immediately and shall remain in force until modified or abrogated by further order of the Commission.

(4) That, pursuant to the provisions of Section 23 of the Public Service Commissions Law, each of the companies below named shall notify this Commission within ten days after service upon them of a certified copy of this order whether the terms of this order are accepted and will be obeyed.

Bowery Bay Electric Light and Power Company
The Bronx Gas and Electric Company
Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Brooklyn
The Flatbush Gas Company
Long Acre Electric Light and Power Company
New York and Queens Electric Light and Power Company
Queens Borough Gas and Electric Company
New York Edison Company
Richmond Light and Railroad Company
Riverside Light and Power Company
United Electric Light and Power Company
Westchester Lighting Company

Case No. 2202, Resolution Permitting Use Of Standardizing Laboratories
(September 10, 1917)

Application having been made to this Commission by The New York Edison Company for permission to use the Bureau of Standards at Washington, D. C, and the Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc., of New York City, as standardizing laboratories and to have certified by them any electrical standards, in accordance with the provisions of the order made in this case on May 23, 1917, and sufficient reasons appearing therefor, it is

Resolved, That The New York Edison Company be and the same hereby is permitted to use the Bureau of Standards at Washington, D. C, and the Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc., of New York City, as standardizing laboratories and to have certified by them any electrical standards.

Further resolved. That this permission, in so far as the same applies to the Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc., of New York City, shall expire on September 10, 1918.

Case No. 2202, Resolution Permitting Use Of Standardizing Laboratories (December 27, 1917)

Application having been made to this Commission by the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Brooklyn for permission to use the Bureau of Standards at Washington, D. C, and the Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc., of New York City, as standardizing laboratories and to have certified by them any electrical standards, in accordance with the provisions of the Order made in this case on May 23, 1917, and sufficient reasons appearing therefor, it is

Resolved, That the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Brooklyn be and the same hereby is permitted to use the Bureau of Standards at Washington, D. C, and the Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc., of New York City, as standardizing laboratories and to have certified by them any electrical standards.

Further resolved, That this permission, in so far as the same applies to the Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc., of New York City, shall expire on September 10, 1918.

Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Brooklyn — Complaint of Bay Ridge

Theatre Corporation as to alleged refusal to relocate transformers

Case No. 2226,

Hearing Resolution This proceeding was begun upon the complaint of the Bay Ridge Theatre Corporation against the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Brooklyn with respect to alleged refusal of company to relocate transformers now situated on the complainant's premises at 72nd street and Third avenue in the Borough of Brooklyn. The Commission, on July 18, 1917, directed (see blank form of hearing resolution, page 9) that a hearing be had on July 24, 3 917. Hearing was had on July 24, and on subsequent dates to December 21, 1917, when the hearing was adjourned to January 16, 1918.

New York and Queens Electric Light and Power Company — Complaint of J. Francis McGuire as to extension of company's lines in Queens

Case No. 2133,

Dismissal Order
Opinion

This proceeding was begun upon the complaint of J. Francis McGuire against the New York & Queens Electric Light and Power Company as to the extension of house lighting wires to some thirty people in the section of Jamaica South, Borough of Queens. Hearings were had on September 13 and October 3, 1916.

Thereupon the Commission, on April IS, 1917, rendered an opinion (see 8 P. S. C. R. [1st Dist. N. Y.], 85) and issued the following order, dismissing the complaint:

In The Matter

OF THE

Complaint of J. Francis McGuire against the New
York And Queens Electric Light And Power
Company concerning the extension of said com-
pany's lines in the Borough of Queens

Case No. 2133,
Dismissal Order
April 18, 1917

J

Hearings having been duly held in the above entitled matter on September 13, 1916 and October 3, 1916, before the Commission, Patsy Vinciguerra appearing for the complainant, P. F. W. Ruthers arid C. G. M. Thomas, appearing for the New York and Queens Electric Light and Power Company, E. J. Crummey, Assistant Counsel, attending for the Commission, and the Commission being of the opinion that the facts proved do not at this time justify the making of an Order requiring the New York and Queens Electric Light and Power Company to make the extension to the complainant's premises as asked for by the complainant, it is

Ordered, That the complaint be and the same hereby is dismissed.

New York and Queens Electric Light and Power Company — Complaint of

Z. S. Charters as to alleged overcharge for electricty

Case No. 2246,

Hearing Resolution
Discontinuance Order

This proceeding Avas begun upon the complaint of Mrs. Z. S. Charters against the New York & Queens Electric Light and Power Company, in regard to alleged overcharge for electric service. The Commission, on September 24, 1917, directed (see blank form of hearing resolution, page 9) that a hearing be had on September 28, 1917. Hearing was had on September 28, 1917, and adjourned subject to call.

[blocks in formation]

New York And Queers Electric Light And Power
Company

Defendant.

Bill rendered for electricity

Case No. 2246,

Discontinuance Order

November 14, 1917

It appearing that a satisfactory agreement has been made between the complainant and defendant in settlement of the matters involved in the complaint in the above matter, it is

Ordered, That the above entitled proceeding be and it hereby is discontinued.

New York and Queens Gas Company — Extension of gas mains to Douglaston and Little Neck, Borough of Queens

Case No. 1856,

Motion authorizing Counsel to Proceed
Communications from Counsel
Communication from Company
Opinion of United States Supreme Court

This proceeding was begun upon motion of the Commission on the question of the extension of gas mains of the New York & Queens Gas Company to such extent as might be necessary to serve residents of Douglaston and Little Neck, in the Borough of Queens. Hearings were had during 1914. On February 11, 1915, the Commission rendered an opinion (see 6 P. S. C. R. [1st Dist. N. Y.], 35). On March 19, 1915, the Commission issued an order directing that the New York & Queens Gas Company extend its gas mains and services in such a manner as might be required reasonably to serve with gas that community lying in the Third Ward, Borough of Queens, known as Douglaston, including Douglas Manor; that the construction begin not later than April 30, 1915, and be completed as far as Alley road or Main avenue, Douglaston, by September 1, 1915; that by April 30, 1915, the company file with the Commission a general plan or layout showing a proposed transmission and distribution system; that the extension be continued and in service by September 10, 1915. The Commission, after rehearing, issued an order on April 23, 1915, denying the company's application for a modification of the Order of March 19, 1915. On April 27, 1915, the Commission issued an order denying the company's application for a rehearing. A writ of certiorari was obtained by the company from the Supreme Court, New York County, on April 30, 1915, to review the orders of the Commission. On March 3, 1916, Counsel to the Commission transmitted the opinion of the Supreme Court for the First Department, Appellate Division, annulling the orders of the Commission in Case No. 1S5G of March 19 and April 27, 1915, which communication was ordered filed by the Commission on March 9, 1910. On October 3, 1916, Counsel to the Commission advised that the Court of Appeals had reversed the order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department, which annulled the Commission's orders in Case No. 1S56, and affirmed the order of the Commission. On October 9, 1916, Counsel to the Commission transmitted a copy of the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

On January 4, 1917, the Commission ordered filed a communication dated December 30, 1916, from Counsel to the Commission, advising that the Court of Appeals had denied the motion for a reargument made by the New York & Queens Gas Company and authorized Counsel to take immediate steps to enforce the compliance by the company with the Commission's order in Case No. 1856.

On June 13, 1917, the Commission ordered filed a communication from Counsel to the Commission dated June 8, 1917, advising that the motion made by him to dismiss the writ of error obtained by the company to review the Commission's order directing the extension of the company's gas mains to Douglas Manor and Little Neck in the Borough of Queens, was submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States, on May 21, 1917, and that that Court had ordered the motion and the case for hearing upon its summary docket and that the same would be heard in October, 1917.

On December 19, 1917, the Commission ordered filed two communications, dated December 13, 1917, from the Counsel to the Commission, advising of the affirmance by the United States Supreme Court of the order of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, which affirmed the Commission's order of March 19, 1915, and a communication dated December 12, 1917, from the Company advising that it contemplated making application for modification of the Commission's order of March 19, 1915.

On December 27, 1917, the Commission ordered filed a communication, dated December 18, 1917, from Counsel to the Commission, transmitting a copy of the opinion filed by the Supreme Court of the United States in affirming the judgment entered in the action of the People ex rel. New York & Queens Gas Company against Edward E. McCall et al. upon the decision of the New York Court of Appeals, which unanimously affirmed the Commission's order of March 19, 1915.

New York and Queens Gas Company — Complaint of George B. Shiras as to extension of company's lines in Bayside, Queens

Case No. 2144,

Dismissal Order
Opinion

This proceeding was begun upon the complaint of George B. Shiras against the New York & Queens Gas Company concerning the extension of its lines in Bayside, Borough of Queens. Hearings were had on October 9 and 16, 1916.

Thereupon, the Commission on January 25, 1917, rendered an opinion (see 8 P. S. C. R. [1st Dist. N. Y.], 7) and issued the following order dismissing the complaint:

In The Matter

Of THE

Complaint of George B. Shiras against the New
York And Queens Gas Company concerning the
extension of said company's lines in Bayside,
Borough of Queens

Case No. 214 t.

Dismissal Order

January 25, 1917

Hearings having been duly held in the above entitled matter on October 9 and October 16, 1916, before Honorable William Hayward, Commissioner, F. C. Pearson appearing for the complainant, P. F. W. Ruthers and M. N. Spear, appearing for the New York and Queens Gas Company, Edward J. Crummey, Assistant Counsel, attending for the Commission, and the Commission being of the opinion that the facts proved do not at this time justify the making of an Order requiring the New York and Queens Gas Company to make the extension to the complainant's premises as asked for by the complainant, it is

Ordered, That the complaint herein be and the same hereby is dismissed.

New York Edison Company—Complaint of P. C. Steinacker as to alleged overcharge for service

Case No. 2155,

Opinion
Resolution

This proceeding was begun upon the complaint of P. C. Steinacker against the New York Edison Company in regard to alleged overcharge for service. Hearings were had on November 9, 16 and 21, 1917.

Thereupon the Commission, on January 25, 1917, rendered an opinion (see 8 P. S. C. R. [1st Dist. N. Y.], 8) and adopted the following resolution:

P. C. Steinacker,

Complainant, against

New Yoek Edison Company,

Defendant.

Alleged Overcharge for Service

Case No. 2155,

Resolution

January 25, 1917

J

Hearings having been had in this proceeding on November 9, 16, and 21, 1916, before Hon. William Hayward, Commissioner, Lawrence J. Anhalt appearing for the complainant, and Arthur Williams appearing for the New York Edison Company, and Arthur DuBois, Assistant Counsel to the Commission, attending, and the Commission being of opinion that the charge of said company to the complainant for electric current furnished to complainant from July 17, 1916, to August 7, 1916, amounting to $337.28 was unjust and unreasonable, it is

Resolved, That in the opinion of the Commission the just and reasonable amount of said charge should not have been more than $266.38.

New York Edison Company—Complaint of Marguerite B\ Burke as to service through, a sub or series meter

Case No. 2173,
Opinion

A complaint verified November 22, 1916, was received from Marguerite B. Burke against The New York Edison Company wherein the complainant sought to modify a service contract for the supply of current from the general building riser through a sub or series meter, by striking out a provision in the contract to the effect that if the company were obliged to discontinue the supply of current to the building for any cause, the complainant would not insist upon service through a series meter.

Thereupon the Commission on January 17, 1917, rendered an opinion (see 8 P. S. C. R. [1st Dist. N. Y.], 1), dismissing the complaint upon the grounds that the facts alleged therein, would not, if proved, warrant the relief sought.

New York Edison Company — Complaint of Alexander Taylor and Company as to alleged overcharge for electric service

Case No. 2175,

Hearing Resolution
Dismissal Order

This proceeding was begun upon the complaint of Alexander Taylor & Company against the New York Edison Company as to alleged overcharge for electric service. The Commission, on January 25, 1917, directed (see blank form of hearing resolution, page 9) that a hearing be had on February 7, 1917.

Case No. 2175,

Order dismissing complaint

February 28, 1917

Alexander Taylor And Company,

Compla/inant, against

The New York Edison Company,

Defendant.
Alleged Overcharge for Service

A hearing having been had in this proceeding on February 21st. 1917, the same having been adjourned from February 14th, 191.7, before Hon. William Hayward, Commissioner, Oscar A. Hirsh appearing for the complainant and the Electrical Inspection and Audit Companv, and Arthur Williams, general commercial manager, and J. W. Lieb, Jr., vice president of The New York Edison Company, appearing for the defendant, it is

Ordered, That the complaint of Alexander Taylor and Company against The New York Edison Company be and the same hereby is dismissed.

« PreviousContinue »