Page images
PDF
EPUB

At Mare Island there is a definite quantity used, and because of that fact you can determine the average rate.

Mr. BRITTEN. The same rate holds here as at Mare Island, does it not?

Mr. NEWBERT. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. HICKS. And how about San Francisco ?

Mr. NEWBERT. I could not definitely state, but it is my judgment that this same schedule would apply, as it states, “Industrial and manufacturing power service, applicable only to alternating current electrical energy supplied at not less than 2,200 volts and applicable to all territory served by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. with the following exceptions"--and that exception is territory in the northern part of the State.

Mr. BRITTEN. So, then, San Francisco and Mare Island and your east-bay cities will have the same rate ?

Mr. NEWBERT. Yes, the rate being established by the railroad commission.

Mr. BRITTEN. Mare Island would have the same rate, would it not?
Mr. NEWBERT. Yes.
Mr. PADGETT. That is all of that subject, I think.

(The schedule presented to the reporter by Mr. Newbert is as follows:)

[2579 No. 23A. 7-20–500. Original sheet C. R. C. No. 1021-E. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. San Francisco,

Calif.]

SCHEDULE P-3.

INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING POWER SERVICE.

Applicable only to alternating current electrical energy supplied at not less than 2,200 volts.

TERRITORY.

Applicable to all territory served by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. with the following exceptions:

(a) Territory formerly served by Northern California Power Co. Cons. (outside of Chico district).

(b) Territory formerly served by Sierra & San Francisco Power Co.

RATE.

(a) For maximum demands of 3,000 kilowatts or less. Démand charge: First 200 kilowatts of measured maximum demand, $1.70 per kilowatt per month. Next 300 kilowatts of measured maximum demand, $0.60 per kilowatt per month. Over 500 kilowatts of measured maximum demand, $0.50 per kilowatt per month. Energy charge (to be added to the demand charge): $0.009 per kilowatt-hour for the first 100,000 kilowatt hours per month. $0.008 per kilowatt-hour for the next 100,000 kilowatt hours per month. $0.007 per kilowatt-hour for all over 200,000 kilowatt hours per month. (6) For maximum demands in excess of 3,000 kilowatts. Demand charge: $0.59 per month per kilowatt of measured maximum demand. Energy charge (to be added to the demand charge):

$0.009 per kilowatt-hour for first 334 kilowatt hours per kilowatt of maximum demand.

$0.008 per kilowatt-hour for next 33} kilowatt hours per kilowatt of maximum demand.

$0.007 per kilowatt-hour for all over 663 kilowatt hours per kilowatt of maximum demand.

MINIMUM CHARGE.

The yearly minimum charge, which is payable in equal monthly installments, shall be equal to 12 times the maximum monthly demand charge, but in no case less than $6,000.

SUBCHARGE.

Fifteen per cent in addition to the above charges.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS.

(a) The maximum demand in any month shall be the average kilowatt input indicated or recorded by instruments to be furnished and installed by the company upon the consumer's premises, adjacent to watt-hour meter or meters, in the 15-minute interval in which the consumption of electricity is greater than in any other 15-minute interval in the month, or at the option of the company the maximum demand may be determined by test.

(b) For rapidly fluctuating loads, such as hoists, elevators, welding machines, furnaces, etc., the company may base the consumer's maximum demand upon á 3-minute instead of a 15-minute interval.

(c) This rate will only be given where the consumer will sign a contract for at least three years in the original instance.

Date issued, July 10, 1920.
Date effective, July 10, 1920.
C. R. C. decision 7823, June 30, 1920.
Issued and approved by-

John A. BRITTON, Vice President and General Manager, San Francisco, Calif. Mr. PADGETT. I would like to have your opinion, Mr. Caine, with reference to the question of water or your water rates. Are they the same as the rates in San Francisco ?

Mr. CAINE. No; I think not. Mr. Wilhelm is here, and he is the general manager of the People's Water Co.--chief engineer and general manager, I should say, of the East Bay Water Co.

Mr. PadGETT. For industrial purposes, what is the rate, the charge per thousand gallons ?

Mr. WILHELM. The rate is fixed on the basis of per 100 cubic feet.

Mr. PADGETT. We have had the others in gallons. Can't you give it in that way?

Mr. WILHELM. Yes; I can figure it for you. The first 50,000 cubic feet, or practically 400,000 gallons, the rate is about 30 cents per thousand gallons.

Mr. PADGETT. It was stated to us yesterday in San Francisco that it was 20 cents per thousand gallons, and I stated that I thought that was an excessively high cost for water for industrial purposes.

Mr. WILHELM. I think there is some error in that.

Mr. PADGETT. In some places it is down below 10 cents per thousand gallons. I know in my town some years ago an industrial concern was paying 14 cents a thousand gallons for it, and they were raising Cain because of the excessive charges, at 14 cents, and San Francisco stated yesterday that their charge was 20 cents, and now you have stated that your charge here is 30 cents.

Mr. WILHELM. I think you will find that the rate for San Francisco is not 20 cents per thousand gallons. As a matter of fact, I think you will find that the rate in San Francisco is about the same as or a little greater than the rate on this side of the bay.

Mr. BRITTEN. Can you state it more exactly?

Mr. WilHELM. The first 50,000 cubic feet is 23 cents, and over 50,000 it is 19 cents.

Mr. PADGETT. I am just taking the statement made to us yesterday and I see there is a conflict.

Mr. COLE. Is your statement based upon the same basis as you asked yesterday

Mr. PADGETT. I asked yesterday for industrial purposes--industrial uses—what was the charge for water for industrial purposes, and the chief engineer said 20 cents a thousand gallons, and I then said that I thought it was an excessively high rate, and he then went on to explain the reason why water was higher on the Pacific coast than in the interior or on the Atlantic coast–because of your artificial means of conveying to consumers in these reservoirs and great overhead charges.

Mr. KECK. Our climatic conditions will never permit such a thing as cheap water around the bay.

Mr. PADGETT. But I was trying to get from you this: He has explained about the general conditions, and I wanted to see whether there was any difference between the cost here and over there.

Mr. WILHELM. There is a difference, the rates are fixed by the railroad commission of the State of California, and I think you will find that the rate in general in San Francisco is higher than it is on this side of the bay. The rate fixed for the city of San Francisco is a meter rate, and is on a sliding scale, what is known as a sliding scale rate, in which the first few thousand cubic feet is at such a rate, and the next few thousand feet at a lower rate, and then on, coming down.

Senator WALSH. Why should there be any difference? Why should the commission fix different rates in San Francisco?

Mr. WILHELM. The rate is based upon the value of the property in service for the purpose.

Senator WALSH. Why should property over there in service be any more valuable than property over here in service?

Mr. WILHELM. It is entirely a different system.

Senator WALSH. You get your water from practically the same source:

Mr. WILHELM. From local sources, yes.

Senator Walsh. The power rates are exactly the same, as I understand it?

Mr. WILHELM. Yes.

Senator WALSH. We have been told that the ocean freight rates are exactly the same. It seems likely that the water rates are practically the same. Something has been said about railroad freights. What is the difference? I would like to ask Mr. Caine this: We have heard a great deal about railroad facilities and that kind of thing. What is the difference, so far as railroad freights are concerned? Why should we give any consideration to any of these matters as between these two sites?

Mr. CAINE. So far as the rates are concerned, I know of no reason. The switching is in favor of this city, I remember. There is a switching charge on the other side of the bay that does not hold here.

Senator Walsh. I got quite a different impression from what was said on the other side. They told us that the through rates were just exactly the same, and I asked particularly about the ferriage charge, and they answered that there was no ferriage charge, because freight went over the Dumbarton Cut-off, the Dumbarton Bridge.

Mr. CAINE. There is no charge for ferriage.

Senator WALSH. And that the terminal rates were just exactly the same to San Francisco and to Alameda, and, of course, the through roads that do not have the advantage of coming over the Dumbarton Bridge, by reason of their not coming that way, are obliged to meet the Southern Pacific rate. So the rate we were told there is just exactly the same to all points. What is the fact as you understand it?

Mr. CAINE. The transcontinental rates are the same. But I think you will find there is a differential in this side of the bay, by reason of switching, and I base that statement and point of view upon the fact that the people of South San Francisco are continually going before the railroad commission and claiming that the East Bay cities are treated very much better than they are. I can bring our traffic man in here and he can tell you better than I upon that. I am not a traffic man here, but I will bring him in and you may ask him that question.

Mr. PADGETT. We have understood that the long haul would absorb the switching charge.

Mr. CAINE. I know that is true over here, and it is true within a certain district in San Francisco. But I know positively that does not extend to South San Francisco. But whether it extends to San Francisco, or not, I can't say. I will send for the man who does know upon that.

Mayor OTIS. Mr. Lawrence is now here.
Mr. CAINE. I will send for Mr. Bowles.

Mr. Hicks. Mr. Caine, the question I asked a few moments ago abour freight rates to San Francisco-I understand the gentlenan is now here who can answer that question.

Mr. CAINE. His statement is this, that I was partly mistaken and partly correct, that some lines do absorb the barge charge and some do not as yet.

Mayor OTIS. Mr. Lawrence, if you will come this way and address us in this matter.

Mr. CAINE. That, however, would'not affect the naval base on large cargoes

in any event, because large cargoes would be the same. Mr. V.O. LAWRENCE. Mr. Mayor, the acoustics of this room are not very good. I did not hear the question. May I ask that it be repeated ?

Mr. Hicks. The question I asked a moment ago is this: A vessel, for instance, from an eastern seaport, destined for San Francisco, has on board a part of a cargo consigned to Alameda, we will say

the lesser part of the cargo. That vessel docks at San Francisco. A part of that cargo is to be sent over to Alameda. Will the person receiving that small part of the cargo at Alameda get the same rate as the shipper in San Francisco who gets the larger part of the cargo?

Mr. LAWRENCE. That depends upon the vessel and the line. The Oakland Estuary now is the home point for the Pacific Mail Steamship Co.'s line, one of them, and whether it is a carload or a ton, or whatever it may be, it makes very little difference. The Luckenbach Steamship Co. is in exactly the same situation—they have the same rate. There are two other steamship companies coming through the Canal; that, of course, the fact is that when one of the lines starts out with the rates in that way, the others will follow.

Mr. Hicks. A shipper in Alameda. then, will be on exactly the same footing for his smaller consignment that the larger shipper, or shipment of freight is in San Francisco.

Mr. LAWRENCE. Of course, he has to send and get his smaller consignment. Mr. Hicks. You mean in Alameda ? Mr. LAWRENCE. In Oakland.

Mr. Hicks. But the charge across the bay will be absorbed in the through rate charge ?

Mr. LAWRENCE. Yes. Does that answer the question?
Mr. Hicks. Yes.

Mayor Otis. Mr. Lawrence, you are in the shipping business, are you

Mr. LAWRENCE. Yes, I am a warehouseman and shipper and steamship agent, and pretty nearly everything else.

Mayor Otis. Are there any further questions? Mr. PADGETT. I think not. Senator Ball. Has the committee any further questions? Mr. CAINE. I would like to have Mr. Wilhelm say another word. He wants to give you another figure on the water.

The owners of that particular shipment would get quicker delivery here than they do across the bay. The cars all have to be taken across by car ferry or sent around by the Dumbarton Cut-off. It is 65 miles from Oakland to San Francisco by the Dumbarton Cut-off, and there is often a delay of from three to four days in receiving a car from the other side.

Mr. LAWRENCE. May I illustrate that point further? A shipment loaded in Oakland will probably be shipped to-morrow morning. From San Francisco it would take from three to five days to get here. You are waiting for an answer to the question of switching rates, I think.

Mr. CAINE. Yes.
Mr. LAWRENCE. I think I can answer that to save time.

Mr. CAINE. Mr. Lawrence has had a great deal of experience, and I think is competent to answer it.

Senator BALL. The question was Senator Walsh's question. Will you state the question again?

Senator Walsh. What advantage, if any, in the matter of freight rates has Alameda over San Francisco, or the Alameda site over the Hunters Point site?

Mr. LAWRENCE. On the railways ?
Senator WALSH. Yes.
Mr. LAWRENCE. None.
Senator Walsh. Then it is exactly the same thing?
Mr. LAWRENCE. Yes.
Senator Walsh. So far as freight rates are concerned ?
Mr. LAWRENCE. Yes.

Mr. COLE. Is there a switching charge upon the other side? It has been stated here that there was a switching charge upon that side of the bay that does not exist here. Is that the fact ?

Mr. LAWRENCE. Just at this moment there is a switching charge from the docks in San Francisco to industries in South San Francisco, a charge of 37} cents a ton. The railroad commission within the past three or four weeks ruled that there was discrimination as

« PreviousContinue »