The Washington herald., 1909-01-31

i
gas cost Us more than the coal gas
/ Mr. Sims-I DO not ask you 10 give an
answer 10 this next question If you do
not want to. or II you cannot II We
require change IN this plant CT the
I Washington Gasligkt Company, and there
+ By require al addition 70 their capital
and they make a 29-candIe power coal
4 gas. Will il be possible TO reduce the
1 price OF gas below a dollar, or viii we
4 have 70 increase Il above a dollar, or
can We keep It al dollar a thousand
I feet 10 the consumer?
Mr. Forstail-I do not
/ Mr. Sims-I do not ask you TO answer Il
unless you can do IT,
I Dir. FOTs1alI-I can answer it generally
4 I do not think j would be even possible
10 keep the price Of gas at a dollar and
have them earn a fair return on the
value OF their investment
Ar. TayIor-Tou mean Il would have
/ 10 be increased above a doilar2
} Mr. Forstsll-If the company we're al
lowed to earn = fair return on their in
! vestment.
Mr.. TsyIor-That Is what We are speak
i ing Of.
/ Mr.. Forstall-It would have TO be above
/ a dollar. You would add 100000 10 the
even II We adopt the decision of tire
Supreme Court, which I do not agree
with. that per cent is a fair return for
! the gas COMPANY
Mr.. TaylOr-Do you reverse the Su-
preme Court2
Mr. ForstalI-I think the people that
supply the gas viii reverse the Supreme
Court. because they viii not furnish ii
for that
Mr.. sims-You will not reverse it on
the question Of law?
Dir. ForsIall-No. sir; on the question Of
getting money.
Nj sims-You would not give the Su-
preme Court thar kind Of q jolt
1 Mr.. ForstaIl-The interest on 5000 90
at S per cent IS $4,000 year Now, the
company is selling two million thousand
I feet OF gas q year. and s4eo0c0 is forty
two million cents, so that you have added
p cents thousand to the cost Of the gas
right away.
! Mr. Sims-Do you assume that the pres
ent plant would be absolutely destroyed
and worthless?
BIr- ForstalI-Practicaily. yes. sir II
they are only making 20 per cent OF coal
gas. the coal gas units must be too small
70 form part Of an economical plant; that
I Is, 10 manufacture the larger amount Of
coal gas that would have 10 be msnufsc-
tured; and. OF course. the water gas part
would be absolutely thrown away be-
cause il could not be used
Mr. Sim-Do you mean that this s.. 90.
COO would be spent for the building Of q
new plant entirely?
Mr.. ForstalI-Yes
Mr. Sims-And TO more than seven MIL
lions2
Mr.. ForstalI-I am taking Mr.. Meuhen-
ny's figures. I have taken the lower fig
ure-
NIr- Sims-Tou are rot counting that
the present plant would be worth some
/ thing?
/ Mr.. Forstsll-No; am merely calculat-
ing how much it would add to The pres
ent cost Of the gas. that q cents a thou
( sand would Be added 10 the present cost
/ OF the gas
solgte loss 10 the present company Of
their present property
/ NJ. Forstall-It would be q loss except
only the land and the scrap value OF
what was on the land.
/ Mr- Sims-Thst is what I say; do you
/ contemplate an absolute loss. OF only
such loss as they VIII absolutely actually
undergo?
Mr. Forstall-I an contemplating that
4 they viii have TO spend s7.ooooe0. 70 keep
Up their supply. and there viii be no
Offset against that.
Ar Sims-It viii be net seven nil
Iions2
Mr.. ForstaII-A net seven million dol
/ lars. The point I an making is that IL
I would add q cents per thousand feet, IT.
respective Of any increase IN the manu-
I fscture: II would adj z cents per thou
sand feet 70 the cost Of gas
I Mr. Sim@The outlay Of the invest
ment?
Mr. FOrstsll-Yes: s per cent on $500
ooo.
Mr. sims-And If the present price OF a
dollar thousand feet is reasonable, il
would make the cost Of gas III?
1 Mr.. Forstall-Yes-
Mr.. Sims-And If Il Is not reasonable,
it wozld be q cents on whatever IS the
reasonable value2
M FOrstall-It would be z cents more
On what IS the reasonable value now
\ Mr. Sims-I have no other questions at
! present
Mr. Taylor-Does any other member Of
/ the committee desire to ask any cues
tions7
/ Mr. AurPhy-If you could eliminate the
I carbon monoxide from the water gas or
the carburetted water gas. would that gas
then have any practical commercial value
in the business?
Mr.. Forstall-Yes: it would have some
value.
Mr.. Murphy-Sone?
Mr. Forstail-Yes- Eliminating il en-
tirely, what you would lose would be the
heating value Of the carbon monoxide-
But that Is rather an idle speculation,
because II is not possible TO eliminate the
carbon mOnoxide commercially.
Mr.. Murphy understand that
Mr.. Forstall-There have been some
processes patented for doing II. but they
have never been worked. and it is i'm
possible TO work them and still make a
gas that could be distributed.
Mr.. Murphy-If Il were eliminated. there
would De no advantage in continuing the
manufacture Of caTbuTetted water gasz
Mr.. Forstall-No. You had just as well
make coal gas. because carburetted water
gas. with the carbon monoKlde taken out
Of IL, would have the same disadvantages
that coal gas has. as far as smokineSs is
concerned, and other dissgreeabie effects
aE- MuEply-AO you KNOW or can you
state. about what proportion OF the heat
ing qualities Of the water gas is due TO
the carbon monoxide7
Mr.. ForstaIl-I figured that out, but
have forgotten T. Perhaps DR.. Love VIII
have some figures on that What you
said 70 me before the hearing began to-
day made me think that you might
come TO that. and have been trying to
think Of Il, but I have been unable TO
remember
Mr.. Murphy-Can you state 1t approx
mstely2
Mr.. Tsylor-He says Dr.. Love may have
that
Mr. Forstsll-I could not state anything
would be satisfied 10 give without stop
ping and figuring Il out again
Mr.. Murphy-On this heating PROPOSE