Water is a valuable public asset which should be available to all, not sold to the highest bidder to exploit for profits.
The Appeal To Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court
When the “Opinion and Order” came down totally denying my complaints, both my pro bono attorney and I were very much deflated. We felt that the PUC really missed key legal issues. My attorney said that the only alternative at that point was to file an appeal with the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. Based on the legal issues he thought that the odds of success there were fairly good. However, that task was bigger than he wanted to undertake. So, we commiserated a bit and agreed that we had to let it go.
About three weeks later I get an email from the attorney saying we need to talk. I wasted no time dialing his number. The issues with the PUC’s rejection of my complaints had been eating at him. This was an important issue that needed to be addressed. He was willing to take the case to the Commonwealth Court if I was. We agreed to proceed.
On July 17, 2025 my attorney filed the appeal. We are case 876 CD 2025. Here is a copy of that appeal:
Key points of the filing include:
We are only appealing the decision on the trucking complaint. We believe this is a clear cut case of responsibilities not being met. And, it is easy to understand. The consumption volume complaint gets mired in lots of detail and math, making it hard to understand.
The Commission erred by imposing the wrong standard for burden of proof.
I DID meet the burden of proof even under the standard used by the Commission.
The Commission failed to recognize a judicially recognized exception to the rules against retroactive ratemaking and single-issue ratemaking.
The integrity of ratemaking is an issue because the Commission heavily relies on the truthfulness and completeness of utility filings. In fact: “rate case filings are made subject to the penalties for perjury and unsworn falsification to authorities under Pennsylvania’s Crimes Code”.
The Commission’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence and wrongly relied on Aqua’s testimony.
The decision by the Commission sends a message to would-be pro se complainants – they needn’t bother.
If you go to the Court’s website (LINK) you can view a summary of case activity: There will be a "search by" drop down box - select "docket number". Enter case 876 CD 2025 and click "search". Finally, click on the “D” on the right side and a summary of the case will be displayed.
Since submitting the appeal filing there have been the following actions:
Aqua has signed on to participate in the case.
On 8/29/2025 the PUC certified the list of documents for the case. That established the date from which the Commonwealth Court set a schedule for the case. Here is a copy of the list:
On 8/29/2025, the Commonwealth Court issued a briefing schedule. The briefs for the case are due 10/8/2025.
On 9/18/2025 my lawyer filed a request to extend the filing deadline by 30 days. The other lawyers involved indicated their non-objection. On 9/22/2025 the Commonwealth Court granted the 30 day extension request.
On 11/10/2025 my brief and Reproduced Record were filed with the Commonwealth Court. The brief is 70 pages long with a number of in-depth legal discussions. Here are key highlights for quick reading:
#1 - PDF pages 3 - 4 summarize the arguments supporting each of the legal questions. This is actually part of the table of contents, but is still an excellent summary.
#2 - The introduction on PDF pages 9 - 11 explains why this case is important and gives some background on utility regulation.
#3 - PDF page 14 tabulates the legal questions involved.
#4 - PDF pages 33 - 38 are an excellent overall summary of the case.
The Reproduced Record is too big to post here (350 megabytes), but here is our brief:
The PUC and Aqua filing were due to file their briefs on 12/10/2025, but they each asked for a 45 day extension. On 12/1/2025 the Court granted that extension.
On 1/29/2026 both the PUC and Aqua file their briefs:
The final step before the Court acts was for us to file a reply brief. This turned into a bit of an involved process. Normally there is a 7,000 word limit for reply briefs. Due to the complexity and importance of the case my lawyer filed a request for 3,000 additional words. He expected that to be granted without opposition. However, both the PUC and Aqua objected and it took until 4/14/2026 for the court to issue an order denying the additional words.
On 4/27/2026 we submit our reply brief:
I recommend PDF pages 7 -13 as an excellent summary of the issues in this case.
On 5/21/2026 the Court issues a brief order indicating that the case will be decided based on the briefs without oral arguments. It is possible that the Court could change its mind about oral arguments, but that is not likely. It is also possible that the PUC or Aqua could request oral arguments, but we will just have to wait and see on that.
Otherwise, the next action is up to the Court.