CPTL-Hearing-ID

The Initial Decision

An “Initial Decision” is the recommended “verdict” of the case by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). If there are no subsequent filings for the case, that usually becomes the final decision of the PUC. If one of the parties files a protest or objection in what they call “Exceptions” then the case goes before the Commissioners for a decision.

The ALJ issued her Initial Decision on March 31, 2025. It can be found here: LINK. The short summary is that it totally rejected my complaints.

Initial Decision Highlights

It starts with five pages of case review. If you are not familiar with the case, it provides good background. It is mostly chronological factual stuff.

Next there is a list of “Facts” in the case. I break it down to essentially three parts:

Truly factual stuff. Naming the parties to the case and the data Aqua filed for its 2021 rate increase. Mundane things, but clearly factual.

Then there are a large number of what I call Aqua talking points. They are factual, however, I believe they should be irrelevant to the case. They are issues Aqua stressed to set the case up for dismissal on the issue of “retroactive ratemaking/single issue ratemaking”. Things like:

The rate case was fully litigated.

No party challenged the trucking cost.

Aqua’s tariff filling underwent a review process.

I was charged for my sewer service according to the approved tariffs.

Finally, there are three items I find totally inappropriate as “Findings Of Fact”. They were statements made by Aqua’s witness, but never supported by evidence. And, I believe, were thoroughly refuted by the evidence I submitted. But, as “Findings Of Fact” they foreshadowed the dismissal of my complaints. They were:

“At the time of the initial filing on August 20, 2021, the Company was aware that it was incurring a large “Purchased Wastewater” expense for hauling wastewater …” Aqua never provided any evidence or testimony about when the trucking stopped. The evidence I produced left open the probability that the trucking actually stopped before the rate case was filed.

“At the time of the initial filing, the Company was actively searching for a solution to hauling wastewater between facilities, but no solution had been found yet.” The evidence solidly supports that promptly after closing the New Garden sewer acquisition Aqua moved to activate the pipeline. That was not “searching for a solution”.

“The Company’s initial filing reflected its belief that the trucking expense would continue to occur until the end of the FPFTY.” Aqua’s statement to this effect does not make it a fact.

“Discussion” is the next part of the “Initial Decision”. It goes on for eight pages. Key parts include:

The “Burden Of Proof” was on my back. That was well understood going in.

A very interesting statement about the trucking complaint: “Mr. Ferguson argued that he is not attempting to evade the effect of Aqua’s existing tariff provisions but to show that Aqua did not meet its obligation to provide factual and correct data for its New Garden sewer operation in its 2021 Rate Case.” At least the ALJ heard that a pivotal issue was Aqua not fulfilling its obligations.

The ALJ did cite key points I made for both complaints. However, citing them and giving them weight appears to be two separate issues.

Concluding the part of the discussion about my complaints, the ALJ noted that I “admitted” I participated in the public hearings for Aqua’s 2021 rate case – which I did. And, I further “admitted” that Aqua had charged me according to the resulting tariff. That might have been relevant if Aqua had pursued the issue of “Collateral Estoppel” it raised in its complaint replies. As it was, the ALJ dismissed the issue of “Collateral Estoppel” during the hearing. I do not understand why this became part of the “Initial Decision”.

The next phase of the “Discussion” focused on Aqua’s testimony:

In regard to the consumption volumes “the Company used the best information available to it at the time of filing”

The rate case was fully litigated and nobody challenged the issues in my complaints.

The “Recommended Decision” for Aqua’s rate case addressed the issues I raised at the public hearings. However, not noted was the fact that the “Recommended Decision” in no way addressed the complaint issues. The issues raised at the public hearings was excessive profitability for a zero risk business. [PDF page 20 of the RD LINK].

The “Discussion” ended by concluding:

I failed to carry the “Burden Of Proof”.

Ratemaking is prospective, therefore, “Retroactive Ratemaking” is prohibited.

There is case law that prohibits line by line examination of items in a rate case. This is termed “Single-issue Ratemaking” and is prohibited.

My complaints are both “Retroactive Ratemaking” and “Single-issue Ratemaking”.

Initial Decision - Conclusions Of Law

The “Initial Decision” concluded with ten “CONCLUSIONS OF LAW” and an “ORDER”. They mostly related to the “Discussion” conclusions and recommended that the complaints be dismissed in their entirety. For example:

The PUC has jurisdiction

I had the burden of proof and had to present “substantial evidence”

Ratemaking is prospective and a rule against retroactive ratemaking has developed.

“The claims raised by the Complainant are barred by law and no relief can be granted”.

“The Complainant failed to prove that the public utility violated a statute, regulation, Commission order or tariff”.

“THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: That the consolidated Formal Complaints filed by William Ferguson against Aqua Pennsylvania Wastewater, Inc. at Docket Nos. C-2023-3043108 and C-2023-3043109 are dismissed in their entirety”.

Initial Decision - Next Steps

Once the “Initial Decision” is posted, the parties have 20 days to file “Exceptions”. An “Exception” is basically a claim that the ALJ erred in some aspect of the decision. If no “Exceptions” are filed, the “Initial Decision” generally becomes final.

But, for this case, “Exceptions” were filed: LINK