My new found legal help (see second paragraph:  LINK) filed a motion to strike part of Aqua’s “Exception Replies”. 

 

This focused on Aqua’s defenses invoking the prima facie reasonableness of Commission-approved rates, the rule against retroactive ratemaking, and the prohibition against single-issue ratemaking.  Based on the various laws cited these defenses are irrelevant to the case.

​

Of course, Aqua replied refuting everything.  The PUC ultimately denied the motion. 

​

Here is a link to the motion:   LINK

​

And here is a link to Aqua’s reply:  LINK