The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1920-10-28
GIVES
 GAS FACTS ON
 RATE CRITICISM

George S. Haw1ey. vice president of the Bridgeport Gas Light com pany, when asked about the criticism by the public of the new gas charge, said today:
 'sI do not blame the public for mis- understanding and criticising the pro- posed customers service charge. Be- ing so recently identified with the Gas con2pany I was puzzled myself when it first came to my attention. l investigated the matter, however. ana found certain facts which I am sure the public does not understand. Take the sale of gas, for instance, doubt if many people understand the Gas company is furnishing gas to hundreds of consumers at a loss. These are the small consumers who use gas only as supplemental fuel or light, or as an occasional convenience. If these small consumers do not pay their fair proportion of the cost, then the larger consumers must bear corresponding1y larger. share. If the compan is to be enabled to keep the gas rate reasonably low, rende effective service to the community and show a fair return on it's invest mert, each consumer must bear his proportionate share of the cost.
 This charge is not a tax, nor is it rent. The meter merely provides a convenient means of determining the amount to be charged. Ninety per cent or the consumers require and receive VI IoAh SSTNiCc ITO1n the company, they use the same size meter. As to them, therefore, the charge is the same, namely, 50 cents-not because Of the meter, but because of the ser vice which the company knows is given to the consumers who have that size m eter.
 The price of gas depends practi- cally on the quantity consumed and the cost of coal and oil. But even With an increase of over 70 per cent nGt Tv1 months, the company simply proposes this small charge.
 This method of charge will bring in a minimum return, practically fixed in amount, and the rate for gas will be decreased if the cost of pro- ducing gas decreases sufficiently to warrant a reduction.
 New Haven, Hartford Meriden, Stamford and other Connecticut cit tes, as well many of the larger cit 1es in the United States, have a1ready put this customers service charge in to effect. It is reported that over 40 states in the Union have adopted this plan of charging, and that it has been Commissions, including Connecticut. as the most equitable method of charging.
 This method is not new in other businesses; most banks make a ser vice charge of soc per month on all ouiitS- iou lluSl pay tHe fixed rate for your telephone, wheth- CT you use it or not. This is really a service charge. And so on.
 Our consumers were confronted with one of two things: either an in- crease in rate, or this customer S service charge; one equalling the other in return. The customers ser vice charge is eminently fair and equitable, while an increase in the rate would place an added and dis DrODOrtiOnate burden tha Q in TIT and large consumers. This is my own opinion after a careful examination of the question.
 "I believe that after a fair trial Bridgeport will heartily approve this method of charging, as this has been the experience of the other cities where this method has been in effect long enough to see it's benefits"