Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-07-07
BRIEF IN ARLINGTON
GAS CASE IS FILED
Company Claims Ne".
Charges Show Saving
to Consumer.

SptCldl IlopdIIh W Ht CtdI"
RICHMOND, Va, July 7.-The Ross
Ign Gas Co., in t.ief filed with The
State Corporation Commission ycater-
day, answers the charges MADE by Ct O.
Basham, special counsel for Ar ington
County, that the rates for gas in that
county are unreasonably high, Wilton j.
Lambert and Frank L. Ball attorneys
for-the company, stating in their reply
that the present schedule of rates shows
a saving to the consumer over the old
schedule, and that the rates complained
of compare favorsbly with those in
force in other Jurisdictions mentioned
by the complainant
The brief states that "the complaint
is directed so ely against the household
rate of $3.50 for the first $500 cubic
feet Of gas and connecting charges.
The new rates, effective February /,
1881, resulted in large saving to Gus
toners in Arlington territory over prior
existing rates"
Would Cost More to Make.
The brief says the evidence shows that
the company purchas S its gas under
contract with the Washington company,
and that while the respondent could pur-
chase gas elsewhere. it could not do so at
a price lower than it now pays. 1t adds
that were respondent to attempt 10
manufacture its gas it would cost more
than it Is now paying. The slight varl-
alton in the estimate arrived at by the
complainant as to a fair charge that
should be made by the Washington
company and the charge actually made,
having in view the manner in which the
complainant arrived at its figure, and
making due allowance for an apparent
zeal to pare the same down as much as
possible. could not be said TO be justin
cation of a proceeding, at least at this
time for the purpose of entering into
extensive valuations OF the Washington
plants, even assuming that this commits
sion is empowered to do SO, the brief
goes on to say.
Referring to the price charged for
gas in Alexandria. the brief GAYS that
this price could not be helpful in these
proceedings, as recording to the wit
ness Wood they were fixed by ordi-
nance and under a contract which ap-
parently is not a sound one and sub
jet to revision by this commission.
THE witness Wood" the brief says.
has definitely shown by his testimony,
which stands<Incontradct that the
schedule of rates complained Of COM
pares favor9 bly, with rates in force in
other jurisdictions. He refers TO An
napolis. Hagcrstown. Hyattsville and
Salisbury of the nearby State Of Mary
land, and also to Newport News and
Petersburg in the State OF Virginia.
Connection Charges Discussed.
In upholding the connection charges,
against which complaint was also made,
the brief continues:
1T is claimed further that the con-
Meeting charges should be reduced The
witness Wood testified that the charges
made ere only what it actually cost the
respondent. They relate solely TO the
service pipes from the property line.
"A fair reading of the testimony of
the witness Wood Diseases that the
respondent is extending its service for
the benefit of all persons in Arlington
County who desire to use gas: that 1t
has expended considerable money for
the purpose: that its present schedule
CT rates taken as whole show a saving
to the consumer over the old schedule
Of rates, and that the complaint inter
posed in these proceedings is premature
and unjuStified
Asks Complaint Be Overruled.
For these reasons it is respectfully
submitted that the complaint inter-
posed herein should be cverruled end
rejected by this commission" The
brief IS signed by Wilton j. Lambert
and Frank L. Ball, as attorneys for the
respondent.
The complainant has five days in
which to reply.