John Haaf – 4/11/12

This page was last updated on April 11, 2012.

Something rotten in gas bills; John Haaf; Beaver County Times; April 11, 2012.

Mr. Haaf has written at least 36 letters since 2007. Previous letters I critiqued are here, here, and here.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“I have been giving a great deal of thought to the claims being made by the natural gas companies. It seems very logical that as a consumer I should pay for the BTUs I consume, but I have several questions for which I think I should receive some answers.”

[RWC] For now, Columbia Gas is the only local supplier making this change so I assume that’s who Mr. Haaf is writing about in this letter.

For most of my comments on this topic, please read my critique of “Smoke coming from gas company.” Two other letters on this topic were “Accuracy questioned” and “Not too late to speak up.”

“Prior to these new charges, who paid for higher BTU content in the fuel? I suspect that the supplier received compensation in terms of increased monies for higher quality fuel and these additional payments were passed on to the consumer on their service rate (no sound business really gives you something for nothing); or maybe the supplier reduced the BTU content by adding air into the mixture, thus effectively reducing the BTU content.

“Some time check your outside gas grill and note that when you change the gas/air mixture by increasing air the flame has a bright orange tip. Also think back and ask yourself; have I seen this phenomenon on my gas stove, especially in colder weather, when consumers have their furnaces heating at the same time?

“It is my understanding that in time of heavy usage the supplier drives the natural gas with air in order to keep the pressure to residences constant.

“If the cost of the additional BTUs is the responsibility of the consumers then there should also be a credit when air is introduced since both the gas and the air pass through the meter for the purpose of residential and business fees.”

[RWC] I’m not familiar with gas pipeline operations, but Mr. Haaf’s assertions about injecting gas pipelines with air to maintain pressure make no sense to me. Introducing air to a gas pipeline sounds like a good way to make the pipeline, houses, etc. go kaboom and over the long term should hasten pipeline corrosion. Further, introducing air (or even an inert gas) would make the “heavy usage” scenario worse because the flow rate would have to increase to deliver the same BTUs to the consumer. I spent only a few minutes looking, but I found nothing to support Mr. Haaf’s claims.

“And now the gas company is seeking a rate increase based on higher supplier costs. As the Shakespearean expression goes ‘Me thinks there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.’”

[RWC] Assuming Mr. Haaf is referring to Columbia, I didn’t find anything about a rate increase. As a reminder, Columbia announced year-over-year rate cuts three times in 2011. The first two cuts were for the third and fourth quarters of 2011 and the third was for the first quarter of 2012.