CPLT-Order | My Site

The PUC's Opinion and Order

Introduction

Now it was up the Commissioners to render a decision called an “Opinion and Order”.

The Commissioners have an Office of Special Assistants that does much of the leg work. They evaluate all the case filings and prepare a proposal for the Commissioners. There may be some back and forth, but ultimately they prepare the proposed “Opinion and Order” for each case.

Then at one of the regularly scheduled public meetings of the Commissioners, the proposed “Opinion and Order” is voted on. At voting time the Commissioners have three options. There is the standard “Yes” or “No”. They can also offer a “Motion” to take some specified action on the case. These meetings are not debating sessions. A Commissioner may make a statement about a particular case, but there is no debate. Therefore, it is no surprise that most votes are “Yes”.

The Vote

The “Opinion and Order” for my cases was voted on June 18, 2025. It was essentially a total acceptance of the ALJ’s “Initial Decision” and, therefore, a rejection of my complaints and subsequent “Exceptions”.

I found the vote itself most unsatisfying. The Commissioners spent almost the first 15 minutes of the meeting talking about an Aqua acquisition of Beaver Falls. My case was next on the agenda. However, the chairman proposed an “omnibus” vote of my case and the next complaint on the same page of the agenda.

The vote was 5 – 0 to accept both proposals. Bang! The gavel comes down. My complaints are rejected. They did not even vote on it as a stand alone case.

Here is that Opinion and Order: LINK

Rejection Highlights

The “Opinion and Order” pretty thoroughly rejected everything. The major issues were “Burden of Proof”, “Single Issue Ratemaking” and “Retroactive Ratemaking”:

“…we find that the Complainant did not meet his burden of proof …”

“We find that the Complainant is improperly seeking single-issue ratemaking in his claims …”

“…we find that the Complainant is seeking unlawful retroactive ratemaking with this claim. …”

I find the “Burden of Proof” rejection is especially puzzling for the trucking complaint. I presented three independent elements of evidence that Aqua did not fulfill its obligations. Without comment that was brushed aside. It makes me wonder what, if anything, would meet the PUC’s “Burden of Proof” standard.

Disposition Of The Post Hearing Filings

Here are the PUC findings with my comments in [brackets]:

Disposition of the petition to reopen the record “The information the Complainant is seeking was discoverable, and thus available, prior to the closing of the record. Consequently, this information constitutes neither new nor persuasive evidence sufficient to warrant reopening the record.” [But, how was I to discover it? The information provided by the PUC is silent on the issue. The pro se complainant is at a huge disadvantage].

Disposition of Exception #1 – I met my burden of proof part 1. For the consumption volume complaint: “…the Complainant generally argued that Aqua miscalculated the amount of wastewater New Garden customers would generate, resulting in rates that are too high.” This is how the “Opinion and Order” addressed the issue:

“We disagree with both of the Complainant’s claims.”

“…Aqua testified that the Company used the wastewater data available from New Garden Township, as provided in the Acquisition Proceeding.” [Obviously nobody fact checked Aqua because that was Aqua’s data table not New Garden’s]

“Aqua also testified that if the relief Mr. Ferguson sought was granted, Aqua would be justified in charging higher rates to New Garden customers, rather than lower rates.” [I believe that is very deceptively stated. Aqua’s full answer was that if the volume did not change, the rates would have been higher. But, the PUC left the volume part out. And, a major issue was that volume was understated.]

“Aqua provided in its testimony that the rates for New Garden wastewater customers were recovering less than the actual cost of service. The full cost of service would have been approximately $5.4 million in the 2021 Rate Case.” [I classify this as an irrelevant Aqua talking point. Whether or not Aqua collected its full cost of service from New Garden customers has no bearing on my complaints. In fact, Aqua got its full cost of service. The PUC granted Aqua the full $5.4 million/yr - $4.4 million/yr directly from New Garden customers and $1.0 million/yr from other Aqua customers via an Act 11 adjustment.]

Disposition of Exception #1 – I met my burden of proof part 2. For the trucking complaint: “…the Complainant submitted that Aqua did not continue to incur an expense that it estimated would continue through the FPFTY, and thereby overcharged New Garden wastewater customers.”

“We disagree with both of the Complainant’s claims.”

“…Aqua testified that at the time of the filing of the 2021 Rate Case, the Company used the data available to it. Aqua was aware of the cost and expected this expense to continue through the FPFTY.” [But, Aqua never provided any evidence to support these assertions. The PUC is taking Aqua’s word as absolute truth. And, to do that, the PUC had to ignore solid evidence to the contrary.]

“Aqua explained that, after the trucking expense ended, the Company incurred additional costs that were not included in the 2021 Rate Case filing for additional power, labor, and outside contractor costs.” [Two issues here. First Aqua, never offered evidence to quantify or document this claim. It could be there was $5.00 of additional cost. Second, it is irrelevant to the complaint.]

Reflections

No where in the “Initial Decision” or “Opinion and Order” is there any reference to any of the evidence in the complaint filings and the exhibits entered into the record.

The PUC guide on formal complaints clearly states that I had to submit my exhibits in advance.

Evidently there was no similar requirement for Aqua. Aqua submitted nothing in advance, but was allowed to file hundreds of pages after the hearing.

Both the “Initial Decision” and “Opinion and Order” made reference to the issues I raised, but merely in the form of citations. Generally those citations were followed by quoting Aqua statements refuting the complaints. But, Aqua’s statements were never backed by hard evidence. They were just Aqua statements.

Both documents appeared to take Aqua’s statements at face value. My hard evidence refuting Aqua’s statements was ignored and never considered.

Epilogue

A complaint being dismissed by the Commissioners is the end of the line for most cases. If you want to contest the decision there are two basic options:

Directly appeal to the PUC for some form of a re-hearing. This generally requires something new and substantial be introduced that had not been already considered. This clearly did not apply to my complaints.

Appeal to Commonwealth Court. This is literally suing the PUC in the Commonwealth Court. It generally needs to focus on the fact that the PUC erred in how it applied the law. It essentially asks the court to order a correction if an error is found.

One July 17, 2025 my pro bono lawyer officially entered the case and filed an appeal with the Commonwealth Court. For a number of reasons, we only appealed the trucking complaint. Here are more details on this filing: LINK