Evening star., 1953-09-20
County Board
Fights Merger
Of Gas Firms
Two Fail to Vote;
Parent Company
Seeks One Rate

O~~S OS @SS NAA 0AAAAOS CANS4NAeAA 1907
Rosslyn Gas Co. Two members
abstained from voting.
The Virginia State Corporation
Commission will hear the merger
request October ! in Richmond.
Before acting, the board con-
ducted a lengthy discussion of
gas utility problems In which a
former County Board chairman
said utilities always seem to
have, that lean and hungry look. I"
Dugan Recalls Promises.
The speaker, Daniel A. Dugan,
declared his opposition to the
merger, saying:
past promises of the gas COM
pany to lower rates were not
kept. I recommend you oppose
the merger until more sense can
be made out of it,"
"The Rosslyn Gas Co.." he
added, sis an overgrown child of
a big, fat mother in the District. +"
Among other opinions offered
were these:
William j. HaSsan, Common
wealth's attorney: Speaking
right now as a citizen and gas
consumer, I have never seen
a utility rate increase that
shouldn't be fought. feel that
this (the merger) is the first
step toward a request for a rate
increase. A good legal fight, al
though lost. pays off in future
litigation"
Fears Loss of Control.
William c. Nemeth, chairman
of the PUG: I'VE have delved
into the gas utility question. The
company would gain if the
merger went through at once
and we would lose part of our
regulatory control over the COM
pany. We oppose it,"
Board Member George M.
Rowzee. jr.: Arlington County
has often footed the bill in these
utility fights. Howfdo the other
Jurisdictions feel?"
B. M. Hedrick, former trial
magistrate: THE question of
rates has no bearing on the in
tegration of the companies. It
is fundamental that they have
to make money. They expect to
save money in the merger-the
saving should be passed on to
U.S."
Oater, after more than an
hour of discussion, Mr.. Hedrick
said he had changed his mind
and recommended the County
Board oppose the merger.)
Malcolm D. Miller, attorney
employed by the PUG in other
utility battles: Local governing
bodies should guard the public
interest. You ought to take an
opposing stand"
Howard B. Noyes, senior vice
president of the Washington Gas
Light Co., who explained the
utility's stand: I'm not lean and
hungry this morning. Two of the
company's goals are to cut down
the number of subsidiary COM
panieS and to equalize rates in
the entire Metropolitan Area"
Cites Cut in Expenses.
The merger, Mr.. Noyes said,
will eliminate tremendous ad-
ditional expense" for the COM
panies by trimming down "the
pyramid of technical financial
operations"
He asserted that another of
the utility's requests-a uni
form gas rate in nearby Virginia
to conform with present rates
in Maryland and the District
would have meant loss of Sc 900
i tit had been in effect during
the year ending last May.
The uniform rate would mean
higher costs for homeownerS with
gas furnaces and lower costs for
those using gas only to cook. Mr.
Noyes did not say what the COM
pany would expect to lose OF
gain in revenue if the uniform
rate were to be applied in the
near future.
In the final vote, Board Chair
man Robert A. Peck, Mr.. Row.
zee and Alvin F.. Kimel agreed
to contest the merger. They
said, however. they were not
convinced the consolidation
would adversely affect Arlington
but that their votes represented
a reasonable debut" as to what
the change might entail. 1t was
agreed also to call a conference
with officials from the neigh
boring jurisdictions in Virginia.
Two board members, DR.. Rob-
ert M. Detwiler and Mrs. Leone
BuchholZ, did not vote.