CPLT-AqReply#1 | My Site

Aqua’s Complaint Replies

Here is a copy of Aqua’s reply to my consumption volume complaint:

And, here is a copy of Aqua’s reply to my trucking complaint:

Highlights For Aqua’s Complaint Replies

I found Aqua’s filings difficult to read. “Admitted” appears 64 times and “denied” appears 69 times. Both are used as having technical legal meaning. For example, Aqua “admits” that my complaints reference filings Aqua made in its 2021 rate increase filing. However, any characterization I make is “denied”. Both go on like that over and over and over. Essentially, each reply goes through both complaints denying all the points I made.

After denying all the issues raised in the two complaints, Aqua moved on to raising a “New Matter”. This is another technical legal term used to raise issues about why the complaints should be thrown out. New Matter highlights include:

The complaints are barred by Section 316 of the Public Utility Code. That section of the code essentially says that any final action by the PUC is cast in stone and cannot be challenged.

The complaints are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. This is a double jeopardy defense. It says you cannot re-litigate issues that have already been decided in a prior legal case.

I participated in the public hearings for Aqua’s 2021 rate case and did not bring up either issue.

None of the major parties to Aqua’s 2021 rate case brought up the issues raised by my complaints.

My complaints amount to retroactive ratemaking and single issue ratemaking and, therefore, are barred.

My Answer To Aqua’s Filings

I filed counter replies to each of Aqua’s filings:

Here is the consumption volume filing: LINK

Here is the trucking filing: LINK

They say essentially the same thing:

Aqua did not fulfill its obligations in its rate filing.

The reason the PUC exists is to protect ratepayers from predatory practices of utility companies.

The complexity of rate setting has evolved so that it is easy to conceal items that should not be included.

The PUC should be pleased when issues like this are identified and can be acted upon.

The complaint issues resulted in significant economic impact on New Garden customers.

Correction can be made without a re-do of the rate setting process.