Manager of The New York Edison Company, that the then maximum rate of 8 cents be reduced to 72 cents per kw. hour, exclusive of lamp supply, to become effective January 1, 1917, and to continue to July 1, 1917, and again, on July 1, 1917, if conditions justified, the maximum rate to be reduced from 71⁄2 cents to 7 cents per kw. hour, with corresponding reductions in other rates.

The Commission accepted this offer and adjourned the hearing until January 4, 1917, when the proffered reduction having been put in effect, the proceeding was again adjourned until the first Monday of June, 1917, at which time the Commission was to take under consideration the second proposed reduction to 7 cents per kw. hour. The hearing set for June 4 was adjourned to June 7, at which time Mr. Lieb, on behalf of the company, presented an application to the Commission urging that the company be relieved from a further reduction to seven cents. He stated that the company did not propose to take advantage of an option which it had reserved in its proffer of 1916, namely, that if conditions warranted the company should go back to the old rate prevailing from 1915 to 1916 of 8 cents per kw. hour. What the company desired, he stated, was that the rates be left in statu quo. He said that conditions generally had so changed since the company's offer in 1916, that it did not feel warranted in making any further reduction beyond that to 72 cents, put into effect on January 1. Hearings were continued on June 20, June 22, and June 25, a decision being reached on the latter date. The company had produced much testimony in support of its contention that expenses had greatly increased unaccompanied by a corresponding increase in net revenue and that cost of production of electricity was bound to rise materially in the near future, still further reducing the company's net return.

In its decision the Commission stated that it had listened carefully to the statement of the company's representatives as to the possible effect of war conditions on its net earnings, but was clearly and unanimously of the opinion that nothing had been disclosed by the testimony as to the company's finances which would warrant the company in not carrying out the understanding of 1916 as to the reduction to be made on July 1, 1917. The

Commission directed the company to put the seven-cent rate into effect promptly, as promised, but added that if at some future time conditions actually developed which proved the new rate to be such as to yield less than a fair return on the property used in furnishing the service, the company, under the statute, might make suitable application to the Commission for relief. The Commission stated that it could find in the figures submitted by the company no proof that the reduction to seven cents in the maximum rate and the corresponding reduction in scale would prove unprofitable to the company.

At the request of the company's representative the hearing was adjourned for two days to permit the Board of Directors to consider the Commission's opinion. This Board acted favorably and Mr. N. F. Brady, President of the company, addressed a letter to the Commission on June 27, agreeing to place the sevencent maximum rate in effect upon the date previously fixed, but reserving the right to retain the option of restoring the previous maximum schedule of 8 cents per kw. hour in the event that the new rate is found to be unprofitable and unfavorable to the company's interests. It was estimated that the reduction from 71⁄2 to 7 cents in the maximum rate and in the corresponding scale would result in a net saving of at least $750,000 to consumers. The Commission also conceded the company's contention that it have the right on January 1, 1918, to restore the eight-cent rate, should an unmistakable emergency arise to necessitate such action, or the company might propose a new rate between 7 or 8 cents in the event of such necessity and emergency. The hearing was then adjourned until December 3, 1917, when it was further adjourned to December 24, at which time Mr. J. W. Lieb, Vice-President and General Manager, appeared with other representatives of the company. At that time he made a statement to the Commission in the course of which he said that the company would not ask for any return to its old rates, but would let the rates stand, reserving the right to renew its application until such time as it could show definitely that current business conditions had a detrimental effect upon its finances. The hearing was then adjourned until June 3, 1918, with the understanding that if the company found it neces

sary in the meantime to make any increase in rates, it give the Commission at least thirty days' notice of any such proposed increase.

Mr. Lieb in his statement asserted the company was unable to make at that time any definite announcement concerning the effect upon its finances of the reduction to 72 cents on January 1 and to 7 cents on July 1, 1917. He maintained there had been no considerable increase in business and that the situation in regard to coal and labor was most unsettled. He also said that a number of increases in pay had been made to the employes of both The New York Edison Company and the United Electric Light & Power Company and that these increases, taken with other general conditions, drew a more pessimistic picture than had been presented at the previous appearance of the company's officials before the Commission in June, 1917.

Case No. 2176-The Bronx Gas & Electric Company - Rates for Electricity in the Borough of The Bronx.

Case No. 2177-Westchester Lighting Company - Rates for Electricity in the Borough of The Bronx.- The two companies involved in these proceedings furnish electricity for lighting in portions of the Borough of The Bronx not served by The New York Edison Company. The proceedings were instituted to determine whether the rates of the two companies should be reduced. The unusual spectacle was witnessed of consumers of the first named of these companies appearing to object to a reduction in the rates on the ground that if reductions were made the capital of the company might be seriously impaired so that it would be unable to finance necessary extensions to serve new consumers or groups of consumers. The protesting consumers maintained that if the company were unable to make necessary extensions the growth in population and property values of the districts in which it operated would be retarded and in consequence the communities would suffer greater financial detriment than if the rate for electric current remained at a figure higher than that prevailing in other parts of the city. Other property owners, however, objected to the rates charged by both companies, maintaining that they were unreasonable and should be reduced to a figure comparable with that charged for electric

current elsewhere in the First District. The Bronx Gas & Electric Company has a maximum rate of 12 cents per kw. hour; while the Westchester Lighting Company has a rate of 10 cents per kw. hour. Some 170 consumers of the last named company had petitioned the Commission for a reduction to 7 cents. The hearings in both cases were closed on March 19, 1917, subject to call and on April 25, 1917, the Commission adopted an order discontinuing the proceeding as to The Bronx Gas & Electric Company and approving an opinion by Commissioner Travis H. Whitney in which he called attention to the attitude of consumers of the company's current and of property owners of the territory served by the company, whose arguments, he held, preponderated over any action involving a possible reduction in rate. The Commissioner asserted that the City's building of new rapid transit lines into the territory of this company would bring greatly increased population at once, a source of additional business for the company, which it should be in a position to serve. Properly to provide the extensions and service needed, the company must maintain good credit, and a reduction in rates might conceivably, he held, affect such credit. In discontinuing the proceeding and permitting the rates of the company to stand, the Commission expressed its opinion that the company would be expected promptly to make such extensions as could reasonably and properly be expected to serve the incoming new population.

The Commission has not as yet taken any action in respect of Case No. 2177.

Case No. 2162-New York & Queens Electric Light & Power Company - Rates for Electricity. This company furnishes electric current in the First, Second, Third and Fourth wards of the Borough of Queens. The Commission upon its own motion began an investigation of the rates and charges of the company under an order adopted November 22, 1916, calling for hearings to begin on December 4 of that year. The electric company at that time had a maximum rate of 12 cents per kw. hour. Hearings were begun on the date mentioned, December 4, and were continued on December 20, and on January 24, 1917, when they were adjourned sine die. During the period covered

between the first and the last hearing, numerous conferences were held between the executives of the company and the members of the Commission, touching upon the question as to whether the company was prepared to make a voluntary reduction in its maximum rates and in its general scale. The company in addition to the regular charge for current also had a minimum monthly charge of $1.00. It gave consideration to the suggestion of a voluntary reduction and as a result of the conferences members of the Commission made an inspection of the company's plants in Queens Borough. At the hearing on January 24, Mr. C. G. M. Thomas, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the company, proposed, if the Commission assented, that the monthly charge of $1.00 to consumers paying the maximum rate should be rescinded and that in lieu thereof a monthly service charge amounting to 60 cents should be instituted and that the maximum rate per kw. hour to be charged beginning April 1, 1917, should be 9 cents, with a proviso that no customer should have his bill increased under the operation of the new rate, and further, in order that every customer might enjoy an actual reduction, it was proposed that the schedule should provide that no customer should pay more under the new rate than he would have paid under the then existing maximum rate plus the monthly minimum charge if the rate had been reduced from 12 cents to 11 cents per kw. hour. Mr. Thomas stated that the company in making its proffer had in view the saving which would be effected by the company as well as by the State in avoiding the necessity of a long and expensive proceeding before the Commission and possibly subsequently in the courts.

The company further offered to reduce the minimum rate from 9 cents to 82 cents per kw. hour, provided conditions on January 1, 1918, warranted such reduction. Chairman Thomas estimated that the proposed voluntary reduction would result in a total saving to consumers of more than $100,000 a year, 80% of which would be represented by decreases in the bills of consumers at the maximum rate. In addition the company agreed to continue the practice of furnishing to its consumers free of charge tungsten lamps of a type approved by the Commission, though other companies made a charge for such lamp service.