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