Complaint Docket Nos. 335, 415, 416, 417 and 496, 1915. Boroughs of Emsworth and Ben Avon, et al. vs. Ohio Valley Water Company ORDER This matter being before The Public Service Coommission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania upon complaints and answers on file and having been duly heard and submitted by the parties and the Commission after full hearing and investigation having made and filed of record a report containing its findings of fact and conclusions thereon, which report is hereby approved and made a part hereof: Now, to-wit, February 12th, 1917, the Ohio Valley Water Company is ordered and directed on or before March 1st, 1917, to file, post and publish a supplement to its tariffs, schedules, rules and regulations which shall carry into effect the determinations and conclusions of this Commission with regard to service and the charges therefor contained in the above mentioned report. By the Commission : ATTEST: Secretary. Chairman. COMPLAINTS FILED No. C. 1334-Berwick Motor Club vs. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad. Crossing. No. C. 1335-Berwick Motor Club vs. North Branch Transit Company. Crossing. No. C. 1336-Scranton Railways vs. W. H. Owens. ALleged violation of provisions of certificate of convenience. No. C. 1337-H. P. Shunk, Harborcreek vs. Buffalo and Lake Erie Traction Company. Service, roadbed, etc. No. C. 1338-Borough of McAdoo vs. Pennsylvania Railroad. Train service. APPLICATION OF WILKES-BARRE LIGHT COMPANY. Municipal contracts Approval of Competition monopoly principle is not applicable. When The Wilkes-Barre Light Company, with power under its charter granted in 1910 to furnish electricity for lighting throughout the City of Wilkes-Barre and vicinity, invested large sums in facilities, and was actually engaged in furnishing service to the public in a square bounded by four city blocks. Prior to 1915 it had been unable to extend its service further by reason of lack of municipal consent to the use of the streets. In that year an ordinance was passed granting such consent, and for this ordinance contract approval is asked. Another company already serving the public generally protests. Held: The contract should be approved. The restraint of competition between public service companies, which had been exercised by the Public Service Commission, is merely an administrative policy applied for economic reasons where new companies ask entrance to fields already adequately and properly served. It is not a rule of law conferring an exclusive privilege upon every existing and operating company. MUNICIPAL CONTRACT DOCKET No. 234-1915. Report and Order of the Commission. RYAN, Commissioner: On the 18th day of August, 1915, the Wilkes-Barre Light Company filed its application asking for the approval of a con tract between it and the city of Wilkes-Barre and that a certificate of public convenience so evidencing should issue. The petitioner was incorporated under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania on the 19th day of April, 1910. By its charter it was authorized to furnish light, heat and power or any of them by means of electricity to the persons, partnerships and corporations in the city of Wilkes-Barre and the territory adjacent It immediately thereafter began business and since 1910 has been an active and going concern supplying service within said city but wholly within the boundaries of a square bounded by four city streets. Its investment in buildings, machinery and plant generally prior to the enactment of the Public Service Company Law, approximated One Hundred Thousand Dollars, and during all the years of its existence its annual revenues have been about Thirty Thousand Dollars. Its field of endeavor was circumscribed within the foregoing boundaries because of the failure of the municipal authorities to assent to the use of the streets. On the 3d day of August, 1915, however, the city of Wilkes-Barre by valid ordinance and in due form of law, granted unto the company authority to use the streets, lanes and alleys of the said city for the purpose of erecting poles, stringing wires and carrying on its said business. This ordinance has been formally and legally accepted by and on behalf of the said company, and it is this agreement-ordinance which is now presented to this Commission for approval. As to the terms and conditions thereof there is no complaint nor is it urged that anything therein contained is onerous or obnoxious to the interests of city or company. A protest has been filed on behalf of the WilkesBarre Company. This protestant is now in the full exercise of its powers and enjoys a monopoly of the electric lighting of Wilkes-Barre outside of the limited area served by the petitioner. Its protest is in effect that the Commission by refusing its approval shall forever keep the petitioning company within the narrow bounds where it is now located and deprive it of the larger freedom of action and service authorized by its charter, and to the exercise of which the empowering ordinance, of August 3. 1915, gives whatever assent has hitherto been lacking. There is nothing in the Public Service Company Law which demands the creation of a monopoly or confers exclusive privileges upon an existing and occupant company, but following the action of similar commissions of our sister states and believing in the economic wisdom of regulation and control of existing companies we have adopted as an administrative policy the denial of entrance of new companies to fields adequately and properly served. In reaching our decision there is no departure from the precedents established in the various applications which have been passed upon by us. In the present case the petitioning company was not only fully organized but was actually engaged in actively carrying on its business in the city of Wilkes-Barre years before the passage of the Public Service Company Law. Its charter authorized it to supply the entire area embraced within the boundaries of Wilkes-Barre. Relying upon the grant from the Commonwealth it made large expenditures. Now that the city has perfected its powers by consenting to its entrance upon the streets, lanes and alleys of Wilkes-Barre we see no valid reason to interpose our dissent, and thus impair values representing expenditures. Under all the circumstances of the case and after giving full consideration to the evidence and arguments presented we are of opinion that the approval as prayed for should be granted and that a certificate of public convenience should issue. Commissioner Magee dissents. ORDER This matter being before The Public Service Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania upon petition and protest on file, and having been duly heard and submitted by the parties and full investigation of the matters and things involved having been had, and the Commission having on the date hereof made and filed of record a report containing its findings of fact and conclusions thereon, which said report is hereby approved and made a part hereof: Now, to-wit, February 26th, 1917, It is Ordered: That a cer tificate of public convenience evidencing the Commission's approval of the said contract be issued. By the Commission: WM. D. B. AINEY, Chairman. NATIONAL TUBE CO., ET AL., vs. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. CO., ET AL. Rates on slag, ashes and other refuse from iron and steel plants-Tariffs-Form of Common carriers-Duties of. ** 1. The portion of Art. II, Sec. 1, d, of the Public Service Company Law which provides that "in case of railroad or other common carriers such tariffs and schedules shall conform to those required by the Interstate Commerce Commission" has reference only to the form, size, arrangement, title or designation, form of tabulation, etc., prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and not to matters affecting the substance of the law of common carriers. Accordingly a tariff filed under the Public Service Company Law need not designate both the point of origin and point of destination of shipments, there being no provision in said law corresponding to the portion of Sec. 6 of the Interstate Commerce Act which provides that "the schedule** shall plainly state tthe places between which property and passengers will be carried." 2. Carriers are bound to accept for carriage slag, ashes and other refuse from iron and steel plants, but are not bound to utilize it in their own construction operations, nor to arrange for its transfer to other users, nor to provide sites for its disposal. 3. The respondent companies formerly carried slag, ashes and other refuse from the complaints' plant without charge. On August 15, 1914, a tariff was filed jointly by the respondents providing for rates of 20 and 35 c per ton upon such material.. Under all the testimony in this case it is evident that the respondents receive in their rates for raw materials to and finished products |