The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1909-01-30
WOULD SPELL RUIN
TO GAS COMP ANY
Bill Means Expenditure Of
Almost $1O,OOO,OOO,
Says Expert.
THINKS THE DANGER
MUCH EXAGGERATED
Declares Electricity Has Many
More Deaths to Credit.
Opposition General

NlUlC Z DCdlilS 10 II cult
Opposition General.
II Congress enacts into law the bin /
limiting the amount of carbon monoNide /
10 10 per cent. the Washington Gas /
Light Company win either have TO 80
cut of business or expend between 81 /
100000 and S1o0J0,o00 for the installation /
OF a coal gas plant
That in brief was the opinion eX-
pressed today by A. +. Forstau. the
consulting gas engineer of New York
city. who appeared before the House
District Committee to testify as to the
relative merits OF coal and water gas.
Mr. Forstaff declared that the passage
OF the bin now under consideration by
the committee would mean that the
present water gas plant of the COM
pany would be absolutely worthless. and
that practically the only thing that the
company would not have TO change
would be its mains.
Danger Exaggerated.
Mr.. Forstau maintained that the
danger from carbon monde has been
exaggerated. and declared that If prop
erly regulated water gas. though it
contained large percentage of carbon
AlonoNide. is safe This testimony is in
direct contradiction to that given 10
the committee by several chemists from
The Department OF Agriculture.
Representative Sims OF Tennessee
wanted TO know if the passage OF the
bill compelling the use of straight coal
gas of 22-candlepower would make pos
sible the sale Of that gas at 81 a thou
sand cubic feet The witness replied
that such a figure would not allow the
company a fair return on its invest
ment, and he did not believe the price
could be kept down TO that figure. In
explanation OF that statement he Said
that the present plant of the company
would have 70 be changed in every par
ticular.
Cost of Changes.
In response TO a question as 10 the
cost which this change would involve.
Mr.. Forstau sal dthat il probably would
be necessary for the gas company to
increase its capitalization by about
Sho10.D0 or 100000 10 provide for the
extraordinary outlay which would be
made necessary by the passage of the
bin.
That increased capitalization alone"
-
thousand cubic feet 10 the price of gas
-~~ h" urav of interest on
as to
water
mon
at water
HstitueUt
ltaEes OF
stfaisAe go. 49, -epoWeT,
Opposition GeneraI.
In response TO questions 10y Nr. Sims
o. Tennessee the witness admitted that
practically every water gas company IN
the United States is opposed 10 the
bin.
II this bin is passed" said Mr. For
stall, cit would very seriously affect
every company in the United States
supplying water gas"
Isn't It "A fact" asked Mr.. Moore o.
Pennsylvania, that the passage of this
bill would practically put the Washing
ton Gas Light Company out of busI-
ness2'
1T would" replied 1Ir. Forstau en-
phaticalIy.
Mr. Moore asked the witness if hl
considered the loss of life by electric
shock 10 be 30 excess of the fatalities
from gas poisoning and the witness Ie-
piled that electricity killed more peo
tt- ~----- -t---1- --'-' D- .ff-'. ----1 I'D
SAFE as Possible.
Sir. Forstau expressed the opinion
that the regulation of mains, piping
and gas fixtures was the most imp0r
tant thing 20 De taken under cousidera-
ti0n, and said that tlis is the best way
10 safeguard the health OF consumers
Of gas He added that the local ga.
.r-,---,-.-, e--rr-.r.e5 .,4- o., frs customer.
-.r
~ as saie ri MANNER as I'77'D-1
Corporation Counsel tHoInaS aA-7
toned the witness as II the condition
OF the local uIaut. Mr. ForstaU said
ro Ea5 Dr+ a,-sr-.r,aa taa rra-r efrr
-aTr t+ -,..-. - f,5r..,.5,s. tf., .-a ..sfr...
80 + I'D 100. 81 49, '..-..5... r...
+----.,l.g 80 g,.- e. g-E an a.. eTG az. h.
t7- - ' - .-'- ~ me r-...r.
@ + ~, .... ~ ~ no.
The -tararr.,.rs r,-a5a IN Mr. Trgrefaf|
mere eI ,,-ffrI,- m r--rfarra win fa-rf-
nom ,.-s,-frrl-.,- Given Ig- a,--arra from
~ T. tt-,rf,--[-5 - ,-,-..-.lt.+t.- fF.af IN
f5e,rJ7f ~ rf... rg-tr...r. 81 r,....,fef- -.
,,rr,-.rrrr.aa4 ,-..4-a Questions g-ffr rnf
mistaken in big conclusions about g.,