Posts

Showing posts matching the search for National Fuel Gas Code

Cameron Creek Galloway, OH 43119

Apartment Complex says Columbia is Alleging a "serious safety issue" September 15, 2008 Columbia Gas of Ohio A NiSource Company 200 Civic Center Drive Columbus, OH 43215 #### Westlake Drive Galloway, OH 43119 An important Safety Message for residents of the Cameron Creek Apartments : This letter is to inform you of a serious safety issue at the Cameron Creek Apartments . The Problem involves both your water heater and furnace and can potentially get worse this fall when you begin using your furnace. Because of our safety concerns , Columbia Gas of Ohio plans to terminate gas services to the Cameron Creek Apartments beginning October 13 , 2008. Your gas appliances, combustion air supply and venting system are the responsibility of the property owner. Columbia Gas of Ohio, however, has the responsibility under its operating procedures to ensure that gas service is provided in accordance with the National Fuel Gas Code (NFPA 54). The code is written to make sure that gas appl...

: 2013 :: Supreme Court of Ohio Decisions :: Ohio Case Law :: Ohio Law :: US Law :: Justia

Appellant, a public utility (Utility), provided natural gas to intervening Appellee, an apartment complex. In 2008, Utility informed Appellee that it would disconnect gas service to the entire complex if Appellee did not bring all apartment units into compliance with the National Fire Protection Association 's National Fuel Gas Code (NFG Code) within two months. Appellee subsequently filed a complaint against Utility with the Public Utilities Commission (Commission), alleging that Utility had unreasonably and unlawfully threatened to disconnect gas service to all units if Appellee refused to retrofit the ventilation system in each apartment to meet NFG Code requirements . The complaint requested that the Commission prohibit Utility from terminating service and requiring expensive remedial construction . The Commission found in favor of Appellee. The Supreme Court affirmed , holding that none of Utility's six propositions of law had merit.