General power of the state to regulate rates and charges generally,— see ante, § 1, note [2].

Exemption from public control,— see ante, § 1, notes [16]-[21]. Effect of reservation of power to amend charter on power to regulate rates,- see ante, § 1, note [25].

Effect of receivership on power to regulate,- see ante, § 2, note [15]. Fixing rates as a legislative function,- see ante, § 4, note [18]. General power of state to regulate corporations furnishing gas and electricity, see ante, § 66, notes [4]-[6].

The limitation upon the power of a city to fix rates, contained in the original charter of a gas company, does not extend to the lines it subsequently acquires, but it takes those companies and their properties subject to all the rights and powers the city had against them.- People's Gas L. & C. Co. v. Chicago, 194 U. S. 1, 24 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 520, affg. s. c. 114 Fed. 384.

Prima facie it is to

A state has a right to fix a proper rate for gas. be presumed that the state's rate is a proper one, and the burden is on the complainant to show it is not.- Consolidated Gas Co. v. Mayer, 146 Fed. 150.

Where it appeared that in fixing the price a private corporation might charge for gas, the action of the taxing district was arbitrary and the district went to the lowest limit possible, without any method whatever of inquiry to ascertain whether the rate fixed was reasonable or such as would enable the company to maintain its existence or to make a reasonable profit on the money invested in the enterprise, an injunction will be granted restraining the putting in effect of the rate.- New Hampshire Gas & L. Co. v. City of Memphis, 72 Fed. 952.

The legislature may regulate rates charged by gas corporations.- Richman v. Consolidated Gas Co., 114 App. Div. (N. Y.) 216, 100 N. Y. Supp. 81; affd. on other points, 186 N. Y. 209, 78 N. E. 871.

The regulation of the price of gas by the state or municipalities is not the exercise of a police power which cannot be abridged by contract.State ex rel. St. Louis v. Laclede Gas Co., 102 Mo. 472, 14 S. W. 974. 15 S. W. 383.

The charter of a gas company is a contract between it and the state, and if the charter empowers the company to fix the price of its product, the state or city cannot, by subsequent legislation, regulate the rates of such company.- State ex rel. St. Louis v. Laclede Gas Co., 102 Mo. 472, 14 S. W. 974, 15 S. W. 383.

The legislature has the power to fix the price at which gas or electric lights shall be supplied by one who enjoys a monopoly of the business by reason of an exclusive franchise, and such right may be delegated to the governing body of a public or municipal corporation.-Wabaska Elect. Co. v. City of Wymore, 60 Neb. 199, 82 N. W. 626.

The power reserved to alter, modify or repeal the charter of a gas corporation authorizes legislative action fixing the maximum prices to be charged for gas by such corporation.- State ex rel. Attorney-General v. Cincinnati Gas L. & C. Co., 18 Oh. St. 262.

Effect of vacancies on power of Commission,- see ante, § 4, note [5]. Validity of commission plan of regulation, see also, ante, § 4, note [14].

-

Commissions as administrative bodies,- see ante, § 4, note [15].

The fixing of gas rates by a municipal commission created by the legislature is constitutional.- Spring Valley Water Works v. Schottler, 110 U. S. 347, 4 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 48, affg. s. c. 62 Cal 69

The legislature may delegate to a commission created by it the power to fix the maximum rates to be charged by gas and electrical corporations.- Village of Saratoga v. Saratoga Gas, E. L. & P. Co., 191 N. Y. 123, 83 N. E. 693.

The power of the state to fix rates may be exercised by a commission provided there is a standard fixed by which the commission is to be guided.- Village of Saratoga v. Saratoga Gas, E. L. & P. Co., 122 App. Div. (N. Y.) 203, 107 N. Y. Supp. 341; revd. on other grounds, 191 N. Y. 123, 83 N. E. 693.

Where a statute gives to a commission the power to fix maximum rates, it matters not whether the standard by which the commission is to be guided be fixed by common law or by the statute.- Village of Saratoga v. Saratoga Gas, E. L. & P. Co., 122 App. Div. (N. Y.) 203, 107 N. Y. Supp. 341; revd. on other grounds, 191 N. Y. 123, 83 N. E. 693.

N. Y. Gas & El. Com. Act, § 17, which provides in part, "After such hearing and upon such investigation as may have been made by the commission, or its officers, agents or inspectors, the commission, within the limits prescribed by law, may fix the maximum price of gas or electricity," etc., fixes a standard of charges, controlling upon the commission. The clause "within the limits prescribed by law" fixes the standard, which is a reasonable rate.-Village of Saratoga v. Saratoga Gas, E. L. & P. Co., 122 App. Div. (N. Y.) 203, 107 N. Y. Supp. 341; revd. on other grounds, 191 N. Y. 123, 83 N. E. 693.

It is within the power of the legislature to authorize a subordinate legislative body to fix maximum prices to be charged for gas.- People's Gas L. & C. Co. v. Hale, 94 Ill. App. 406.

Whether, in a given case, the charges of an electric lighting company are reasonable and uniform, is a proper subject of inquiry and determination by the courts.- Gould v. Edison Elect. Ill. Co., 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 241, 60 N. Y. Supp. 559.

It is not necessary that the charter of a public service corporation should contain a provision that its charges be reasonable, etc., to enable the courts to prevent it from capriciously discriminating in the rendering of service and the rates therefor.- Lumbard v. Stearns, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 60.

Under a Pennsylvania statute authorizing the courts, upon the complaint of a buyer, to investigate the reasonableness of prices charged for gas and water and to order that the charges, if unjust, "shall be decreased," the court may order any particular item of charge decreased or name the maximum charge for the particular service, but is not justified in preparing a tariff of charges for the company and ordering the gas and water to be furnished at such rates.- Brymer v. Butler Water Co., 179 Pa. 231, 36 Atl. 249, 36 L. R. A. 260.

Courts are limited to the question of reasonableness of charges made or ordered to be made, and cannot fix rates to be charged in the future.— City of Madison v. Madison Gas & Elect. Co., 129 Wis. 249, 108 N. W. 65.

[4] Power to compel giving of information.

A legislative body having power to regulate the price of gas may compel the rendering of any reports or information desired, to enable it to act fairly and intelligently.- Cline v. Springfield, 7 Oh. N. P. 626.

[5] Power of corporation to fix rate as implied from charter. The issuance of a charter to a corporation, authorizing it to manufacture and vend gas, necessarily implies the right to charge a reasonable rate for the gas furnished, and the state cannot thereafter modify, change or alter the charter right of the corporation.- Cleveland Gaslight & Coke Co. v. City of Cleveland, 71 Fed. 610.

The power to make and vend gas, conferred by a corporate charter, carries with it as an inevitable incident the right to fix the price of gas thus made and sold, so that by the terms of the charter of the company, its right to fix the price of its product is as much a part of its charter as if it was in terms set forth in the act of incorporation.- State ex rel. St. Louis v. La Clede Gas Co., 102 Mo. 472, 14 S. W. 974, 15 S. W. 383.

[6] Duty to make reasonable and uniform charges.

That the rates of a corporation formed under the Transportation Corporations Law shall be reasonable, etc., is a part of its charter.- City of Mt. Vernon v. N. Y. Interurban W. Co., 115 App. Div. (N. Y.) 658, 101 N. Y. Supp. 232.

An electric lighting company is generally subject to the principles which govern the relation of a common carrier to the public, and it may not discriminate between its customers.-Armour Packing Co. v. Edison E. L. Co., 115 App. Div. (N. Y.) 51, 100 N. Y. Supp. 605.

A gas company, in exercising public franchises and special privileges, owes a duty to the public to furnish gas to its consumers at reasonable rates, which duty the legislature may regulate and the courts enforce.— Richman v. Consolidated Gas Co., 114 App. Div. (N. Y.) 216, 100 N. Y. Supp. 81; affd. on other points, 186 N. Y. 209, 78 N. E. 871.

While an electrical corporation is not, in the absence of statutory provisions, bound to treat all its patrons with absolute equality, still it is bound to furnish light at a reasonable rate to every customer and without unjust discrimination.- Snell v. Clinton Electric Light Co., 196 Ill. 626, 63 N. E. 1082, 58 L. R. A. 284.

Rates for the supply of gas must be just and reasonable.- People's Gas L. & C. Co. v. Hale, 94 Ill. App. 406.

That a gas corporation for a period supplied illuminating gas for use for fuel purposes, and in spite of its higher quality charged less for it than the price fixed by ordinance for fuel gas, does not obligate the company to continue that standard of either purity or price.- People's Gas L. & C. Co. v. Hale, 94 Ill. App. 406.

A gas company, under a town ordinance, had an option of selling gas by meter or by a flat rate.-Held, this did not authorize putting a particular consumer on a meter rate which was relatively higher than the flat rate generally prevailing.-Indiana Gas Co. v. State, 158 Ind. 516, 63 N. E. 220, 57 L. R. A. 761.

Gas corporations are bound to serve the public upon reasonable terms and upon reasonable rates.- Public Service Corp. v. Am. Lighting Co., 67 N. J. Eq. 122, 57 Atl. 482.

An electric lighting company may not arbitrarily fix the price at which it will furnish light.- Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. v. Bowling Green, 57 Oh. St. 336, 49 N. E. 121, 41 L. R. A. 422n.

A gas corporation, having rights in the nature of a monopoly, cannot arbitrarily fix the price at which it will furnish light to those who desire to use it, but must give equal rates to all consumers.- Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. v. Village of Bowling Green, 57 Oh. St. 336 49 N. E. 121, 41 L. R. A. 422n.

A gas company cannot lawfully make and enforce a scale of prices which are unequal, unreasonable or extortionate, even though the common council unite with the gas company in approving such schedule.- Toledo v. Gas Co., 8 Oh. Dec. 277.

One of the conditions for the exercise of the privilege of conducting a gas business, under legislative grant, is that, in the absence of legislative prescription restricting the rate of compensation for the service furnished, the grant carries by implication the obligation to furnish it at a reasonable price.- City of Madison v. Madison Gas & Elect. Co., 129 Wis. 249, 108 N. W. 65.

[7] Rates within fixed maximum deemed reasonable.

Where the legislature has fixed a maximum price which may be charged for gas, such price must be deemed reasonable and hence a charge below the said maximum price must be deemed a reasonable charge.— Brooklyn Union G. Co. v. City of New York, 188 N. Y. 334, 81 N. E. 141, affg. s. c. 115 App. Div. (N. Y.) 69, 100 N. Y. Supp. 625.

If a gas company charges less than the maximum fixed by the legislature, a consumer, in a suit against him for gas used, cannot claim that such lower charge was excessive and introduce evidence showing that it allowed the company too large a return.- Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. New York, 188 N. Y. 334, 81 N. E. 141, affg. s. c. 115 App. Div. (N. Y.) 69, 100 N. Y. Supp. 625.

[8] What facts show unjust discrimination.

It is not unreasonable to charge a less rate where large quantities of gas, electricity or water are consumed than where small quantities are used.— Silkman v. Water Comrs., 152 N. Y. 327, 46 N. E. 612, affg. s. c. 71 Hun (N. Y.), 37, 24 N. Y. Supp. 806.

A rule promulgated by a gas company which fixes the price of gas furnished to consumers at 1212 cents per thousand feet when used for fuel purposes only, and at 20 cents per thousand feet when used for both fuel and illuminating purposes is an unjust discrimination against consumers using the gas both for fuel and lighting purposes.- Richmond Nat. Gas Co. v. Clawson, 155 Ind. 659, 58 N. E. 1049, 51 L. R. A. 744.

When a gas company charges a greater price for gas when used for lighting than when used for heating, merely on the ground that the consumer would have to pay more for a substitute for lighting than for a substitute for heating, there is an unjust discrimination.- Bailey v. Fayette Gas-Fuel Co., 193 Pa. 175, 44 Atl. 251.

A discrimination based solely on the value of the service to the customer, cannot be sustained.- Bailey v. Fayette Gas-Fuel Co., 193 Pa. 175, 44 Atl. 251.

[9] Meter rent and minimum charges.

A gas corporation made a rule that in view of the fact that some customers used so little gas as to make their patronage unprofitable, in such cases it would render a "minmum gas or service bill." It appeared that such minimum charge was proportioned to the size of the meters used by the customers.- Held, that this amounted to a charge to cover the use of the meters.- City of Buffalo v. Buffalo Gas Co., 81 App. Div. (N. Y.) 505, 80 N. Y. Supp. 1093.

N. Y. Transp. Corp. L., § 69, providing that no gas corporation shall charge or collect rent on meters either directly or indirectly is a valid ex