Water is a valuable public asset which should be available to all, not sold to the highest bidder to exploit for profits.
Filings After The Initial Decision
Once the Initial Decision has issued, the complaint participants have the opportunity to make additional filings before the PUC Commissioners issue their Opinion and Order. The most common filing is "exceptions", which generally claims sort sort of error in the ruling. When exceptions are filed the other parties can file "reply exceptions", to rebut what the other has filed. Other filings can also be made.
For my complaints, we filed exceptions, a petition to re-open discovery and a motion to strike part of Aqua's reply exceptions.
Aqua did not file any exceptions. No surprise since the Initial Decision was everything they wanted. Aqua did file replies to all of our filings.
The sections that follow summarize all of the filings.
The Filing Of "Exceptions"
An "Exception" is an appeal to the Public Utility Commission (PUC) that the “Initial Decision” made an error in some aspect of the law. It asks them to fix it.
I had the good fortune to know a top notch utility lawyer who had actually served 16 years as a PUC Commissioner. I asked if he would advise me on my options at this point. He agreed and looked at the appropriate case filings. He was appalled at what the PUC had done. Without being asked he proceeded to prepare an “Exceptions” filing, a “Motion” and a “Petition”.
Key points in the “Exceptions” filing were:
The integrity of the ratemaking process is at stake. The PUC relies heavily truthfulness and completeness of public utility filings. In fact, PUC filings are subject to the penalties for perjury and falsification to authorities under Pennsylvania law (18 Pa.C.S. §§ 4902 for perjury & 4904 for falsification).
Charging for a major expense that is not being incurred is not just and reasonable under 66 Pa.C.S. § 1309(a).
Pennsylvania law provides the ability for post rate case relief via 66 Pa.C.S. § 1312(a).
I carried my burden of proof and Aqua failed to rebut it. In fact, Aqua had a higher standard of rebuttal under 66 Pa.C.S. § 315(b).
The “Initial Decision” should have considered the merits of the case.
The case should be remanded to the ALJ for further discovery.
Aqua has the right to reply to the “Exceptions” and reply they did. The short summary is that Aqua refuted everything. No surprise.
Here is a link to the “Exceptions”: LINK
Here is Aqua’s reply to the “Exceptions”: LINK
Petition To Reopen Discovery
My new found legal help (see second paragraph above) filed a petition to reopen discovery for the case. That would have presented the opportunity to require Aqua to produce hard evidence about when it ceased trucking. Reopening was a long shot, but Public Utility Commission (PUC) regulations do allow it.
Actually, I was not aware that I ever had the opportunity to require Aqua to document anything. I found nothing in PUC procedures about it. It certainly would have been appropriate for this case.
Naturally Aqua replied to both filings refuting everything I claimed.
Ultimately, the PUC denied this petition.
Here is a link to the petition: LINK
And here is a link to Aqua’s reply: LINK
Motion To Strike Part Of Aqua's Exception Reply
My new found legal help (see above) 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