Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-03-06
Gaseous Excuses.

The position assumed by the gas
company in connection with the Pub
bic Utilities Commissions orders and in
quiries relating to the adjustment OF
appliances is, of course, untenable.
That position is outlined by the gas
company's letter to the Public Utilities
Commission in the following paragraph;
It has seemed best to us, in an effort
to comply with the spirit Of your orders,
to meet this situation by the careful ad-
justment Of appliances in all new cases
Of new installations and upon speclnc
customers complaints. This Is upon the
assumption that such complaints natu-
rally represent the most serious conol-
tions and should therefore receive first
attention.
And again:
We feel confident that our customers
will notify lis Of cases of serious char
acter, which we are most anxious TO
care for. In furtherance of this idea We
advertised our desire completely to sat
isfy all complaints. and asked for calls
to make adjustments when necessary.
This remarkable attitude is manifestly
based upon an assumption that as long
Is a consumer does not complain the
responsibility of the gas company to
verify and check appliances using new
mixture of gas at higher pressure ends.
The burden Of proof that the consumer
Ia not being overcharged, under new
conditions Of gas distribution, Is shifted
from the gas company, where 1t be-
longs, to the complaining consumers.
Suppose fourth of the gas consumers
In washington are wasting fifty cents
worth of gas month because OF NAL
adjustment Of appliances. Fifteen thou-
sand dollars worth of gas is nothing to
be shifted at, even by as powerful and
rich a concern as the gas company
ownership.
The former chief engineer OF the
Public Utilities Commission, now the
assistant to the president of the gas
company, made report in his former
capacity, under date of February Z,
1881. pointing out the high pressure
maintained by the gas company IN
violation Of commission regulations ana
stated that these studies and the
pressure survey indicate that for trans
mission purposes the system Is made
quate, of poor design and overloaded
This condition results from the adding
Of increased burdens to a transmission
system Of poor inherent design with
out the development of plans to care
for expansion"
But the engineer recommended, and
the commission approved, a slight m
crease in the maximum pressure. The
engineer stated, however, with the en-
phasis denoted by undermining the
typewritten words, that:
This statement IS predicated (ths
statement concerning the permitted
higher pressure maxlInum) upon the
assumption that consumers appliances
are properly adjusted to the general
pressure conditions prevailing In their
respective distribution csnters. The
history Of the Washington situation
and my observation indicate that such
adjustments do not exist and at best
should be verified
For, "the III effects of carrying pres
sures at point higher than that fer
which appliances are adjusted are: ID
Possibility Of generating carbon mon
oxide, which is poisonous. % Inef-
ficiency Of gas consumption. And the
results Of carrying too low a pressure
without adjustments were printed out
as inemciency of consumption and
the danger Of burners becoming ex-
ttnguished.
In the face Of this report, in the face
OF the commissions orders to make such
adjustments in consumers equipment
as may be necessary to meet pressure
conditions, the gas company blithely
offers the excuse that it would be very
expensive and inconveniert to make
adjustments except when the consumers
complain or new installations are made.
Is It too expensive, at nifty cents
an adjustment, TO prevent the pcs
sibility Of generating carbon mon kids?
Is it TOO expensive to guard against
the possibility Of orerch2rging the Gus
toners?
One customer has notified the, Pubic
Utilities C: mmiss!on that his COM
plant to the gas company reduced his
consumption. by appliance adjustment,
from IA to 81 cubic feet an hour Yet
the gas company submits that general
readjusiment of appliances, without
complaints from the consumer, would
"be disturbing to our customers and to
our organization and we believe pr2duc-
tive Of i'll will"
That can be laughed cut of court.
But what does the Public Utilities
Commission propose to do about the
other excl.