Panther Valley Water Co. v. Public Service Commission

• Decision Date: 10 July 1918
• Docket Number: 253-1917
• Citation: 70 Pa.Super. 8
• Parties: Panther Valley Water Company, Appellant, v. Public Service Commission
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

70 Pa.Super. 8

Panther Valley Water Company, Appellant, v. Public Service Commission

No. 253-1917

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

July 10, 1918

Argued October 29, 1917 [Syllabus Matter]

Appeal by Panther Valley Water Co., from order of Public Service Commission Complaint Docket No. 466, of 1915, sustaining complaint in case of Panther Valley Water Co. v. Public Service Commission and the Borough of Coaldale.

Complaint by the Borough of Coaldale against certain rules of the Panther Valley Water Company.

From the record it appeared that the case in its final aspect turned upon the reasonableness of the following rules:

" Rule III, paragraph 1. The owner, through a plumber, who shall have a permit issued by the company, is to lay the service pipe from the corporation cock to the building line and under the supervision of the company, at the owner's expense, placing a 'T'-handled stopcock with iron extension curb box and cover of approved pattern at the curb line.

" Paragraph 2. This service pipe and box shall be kept in good condition by the owner and in case of failure, by the company, at the owner's expense.

" Paragraph 9. When two or more buildings are supplied through a single service, any violation of the rules of the company with reference to either or any of said buildings shall be deemed a violation as to all, and the company may take such action as could be taken as to a single building."

These rules were declared unreasonable by the commission, for the reason that they cast the burden of paying for the individual service pipes, stopcock and connections upon the consumer whereas this expense should be borne by the company appellant, on the ground that these connections constitute a part of appellant's facilities.

The commission entered the following order:

" Now, to wit: June 19, 1917, it is ordered, That the petition for a rehearing in this case be, and the same hereby is denied, and it is further ordered, That the effective date of the order of the commission of May 15, 1917, in the above entitled case be, and the same hereby is postponed until August 1, 1917, and it is further ordered, That the Panther Valley Water Company may file in lieu of Rule V, Paragraph 1, of its tariffs, found by the commission to be unreasonable, a supplement making effective August 1, 1917, the following rule regarding the domestic supply.

" 'A meter shall be installed whenever a consumer petitions the company for its installation, excepting that the company reserves the right to install a meter in any case without the consent of the consumer where there is a wastage or other excessive use of water. The cost of the installation to be paid by the company.'"

Error assigned was the order of the commission.

George M. Roads, with him William J. Turner, for appellant. -- Appellant contends that the public is not concerned in the slightest way in the matter of whether the individual consumer pays, or does not pay, for his own service connections.

The exercise of the police powers of the State must be reasonable; not only must the end sought to be attained be within the scope of the power, but the means used must bear some fair relation to that end: Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366; Yick Wo. v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356; Lake Shore & Ms. Ry. Co. v. Ohio, 173 U.S. 285; Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. North Carolina Corporation Commission, 206 U.S. 1.

The service pipes and connections are not general facilities of the company: Leavenworth v. Leavenworth, Etc., Water Co. (Kan.) P. U. R. 1915, B. 611; Joplin v. Wheeler (Mo.), 158 S.W. 924; Fisher v. St. Joseph Water Co., 151 Mo.App. 530; Warren v. City of Chicago, 11 N.E. 218.

B. J. Duffy, for Coaldale Borough, Intervenor. -- The Public Service Commission has jurisdiction to determine and pass upon the rules and regulations of public utilities: Rochester B. & L. Assn. v. Beaver Valley Water Co., 68 Pa.Super. 122.

An order compelling a water company to lay and maintain at its own expense the service pipe extending from the company's water main to the property line of the consumer, the connections and the stopcock, etc., arbitrary is not illegal and void: Janesville v. Janesville Water Co., 7 Wis. R. C. R. 628; Pine Bluff Corporation v. Toney, 96 Ark. 345; Hatch v. Consumers' Water Co., 17 Idaho 204.

The courts, with substantial unanimity, have reached the same conclusion: Spring Valley Water Works v. San Francisco, 82 Cal. 286, 22 P. 910; Title Guarantee & T. Co. v. R. R. Com., 168 Cal. 295, 142 P. 878; City of Montgomery v. McDade, 180 Ala. 156, 60 So. 798; Cleveland v. Malden Water Works Co., 125 P. 769.

Berne H. Evans, for Public Service Commission. -- Where water service is furnished by a private company under a franchise granted by the municipality, the general rule is that it is the duty of the water company to lay service pipes or laterals without charge to the consumer: Pocatello Water Co. v. Standley, 7 Idaho 155, 61 P. 518; Bothwell v. Consumers' Co., 13 Idaho 568, 92 P. 533; Match v. Consumers' Co., 17 Idaho 204.

Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.

OPINION

KEPHART, J.

Counsel for the Public Service Commission states the questions involved (1) " Is the decision of the commission that rules are unreasonable which require the consumer to pay the cost of installing and maintaining the service pipe from the main to the curb line made in conformity with law?" (2) " Has the Public Service Commission authority to pass upon the...