Water is a valuable public asset which should be available to all, not sold to the highest bidder to exploit for profits.
Summary
On 9/18/2023 I filed two formal complaints with the Public Utility Commission (PUC) regarding Aqua Pennsylvania’s 2021 rate case. Both alleged that Aqua used incorrect data to set tariff rates for New Garden Township customers. They asked the PUC to investigate and, if appropriate, require Aqua to refund all overcharges to New Garden customers.
​
Complaint #1 - Consumption Volumes
The first complaint involved two aspects of the customer consumption volumes Aqua used to calculate the increased billing rates for New Garden customers:
First, Aqua forecast a consumption volume of 104 million gallons/year. That is substantially less than the 125 million gallons New Garden reported during the last year they owned the system. That difference could substantially impact rates paid by customers.
Second, Aqua’s forecast consumption volumes in three different rate bands that bore no relationship to actual use by customers. How is it possible to set fair and just rates using data that does not reflect actual consumption?
Here is an in-depth summary of this complaint: LINK
​
Complaint #2 - Wastewater Trucking
Aqua inherited an expensive wastewater trucking operation when it purchased New Garden’s sewer operation. About nine months after acquiring the New Garden system Aqua filed for a rate increase and included that $1.2 million/yr trucking cost for the full period of the forecast. Substantial evidence indicates that Aqua was activating an unused pipeline to eliminate the trucking and trucking stopped well before the rate increase was finalized. That evidence includes:
A statement by Aqua's Operation Manager that the trucking ended 8 - 10 months after Aqua acquired the system. He concluded that statement by saying it was complete in the first year of operation.
The President of Aqua PA sent New Garden customers a letter that included a statement that trucking ended after "several months".
Aqua's 2021 annual report to the PUC included an item stating that its New Garden Dry Line Activation project was complete by 12/31/2021.
If trucking did stop before the PUC closed the record for Aqua's 2021 rate case, then Aqua had a legal obligation to remove that cost – but did not. Consequently, New Garden customers paid a total of $3.3 million for that non-existent cost.
Here is an in-depth summary of the trucking complaint: LINK
​
Step By Step Complaint Experience
False Start - There was a false start for my complaint filings. The first filing was on June 8, 2023. The PUC incorrectly told me it should have been filed as a “Formal Rate Complaint”. The net result was a delay of about three months. The full story is told here: LINK
Complaints Filed - Finally on 9/18/2023 the complaints are correctly filed and accepted by the PUC.
Aqua Replies (three weeks after filing) - Aqua files formal replies that essentially denied everything and put forth reasons why the complaints should be thrown out. The word “denied” appeared 69 times. See this LINK for a detailed discussion.
Hearing Scheduled (>1 month since filing) - On 11/3/2023 the PUC issues an order scheduling a hearing on 12/12/2023 for my complaints.
Mediation (~2 months since filing) – Aqua proposes mediation for my complaints and I agree. After two sessions I decide that mediation is going nowhere and withdraw from the process. This has consumed about eight months. Here is a page with more details: LINK
Hearing Re-scheduled (~9 months since filing) – After the mediation was cancelled, it takes the PUC about a month and a half to schedule my hearing for July 23, 2024.
Aqua’s Consolidation Motion (~10 months since filing) – On 7/11/2024 Aqua files a motion to consolidate my two complaints with the rate case they filed during May-2024. The PUC immediately cancelled the scheduled hearing. Here is a page with more detail: LINK
PUC Action (~13 months since filing) – It takes the PUC another three months, but on 10/21/2024 Aqua’s consolidation motion is denied and the complaint hearing is now scheduled for 11/25/2024.
Aqua Files Another Motion (~14 months since filing) – Just 10 days before the scheduled hearing Aqua files a motion to convert the hearing to a prehearing conference call or to delay the hearing by another 30 days. I promptly file a reply asking the PUC to deny Aqua’s motion. Five days before the hearing, the PUC denies Aqua’s motion. The hearing will proceed.
The 11/25/2024 Hearing (~14 months since filing) – This was a major event. It lasted about five hours. What follows are brief highlights. And, here is a page with extensive detail: LINK.
There were four main participants: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) running the hearing, Aqua’s lawyer, Aqua’s Manager of Rates and myself.
The ALJ starts by laying out the meeting procedures and expectations.
I spent considerable time laying out both complaints in detail. Aqua objected 16 times during my presentations.
When I finished, the ALJ asked me a couple of questions and then turned it over to Aqua’s lawyer to cross examine me. I feel that a large part of Aqua’s intent was discredit me and my testimony.
Then it was Aqua’s turn to testify. Aqua’s Manager of Rates was offered as an “expert witness”. She explained how Aqua had owned the New Garden system for only a short time and used the best available data.
I then had the opportunity to cross examine Aqua’s witness. I asked a number of questions but feel that all I got was non answers.
The next order of business was admitting evidence into the official record.
The last order of business was closing statements. I went first and was brief. I stated that I had clearly made my case and requested the PUC to take appropriate action to investigate whether or not Aqua had fulfilled its responsibilities. Aqua’s key points were that I did not meet my burden of proof and retroactive ratemaking is prohibited. He ended with emphatic demands that the complaints be thrown out.
The “Initial Decision” (~18 months since filing) – On 3/31/2025 the ALJ issued her “Initial Decision”. It essentially ratified everything Aqua presented and totally rejected my complaints. To me, it reads as if it had been written by Aqua. It accepted a number of statements Aqua’s witness made as fact without any consideration of the evidence I presented to the contrary. Here is a link with more detail: LINK
“Exceptions” (~19 months since filing) – On 4/21/2025 I file “Exceptions” alleging that the ALJ erred in several ways. This asks the Commissioners, reconsider the “Initial Decision” on the basis that I did carry my burden of proof, Pennsylvania law provides for customer relief after a rate case is complete and the integrity of PUC ratemaking is at stake. Here is more detail: LINK
Subsequent Filings (~20 months since filing) – During May-2025 there are a flurry of filings. I file a motion and petition. Aqua replies to all the filings refuting everything. It is now in the hands of the PUC Commissioners to make a decision.
“Opinion And Order” (~21 months since filing) – On June 18, 2025 the Commissioners issue their decision. It is a total affirmation of the “Initial Decision”. The PUC has totally rejected my complaints. At this point the case is closed unless I file an appeal with the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court within 30 days. Here is more detail: LINK
Appeal Filing (~22 months since filing) – On July 17, 2025 a pro bono lawyer files an appeal on my behalf. The appeal askes the court to remand the trucking complaint to the PUC to be considered on its merits. The basis for the appeal is similar to the issues noted in the “Exceptions” filing. As it stands as of this writing, briefs for this case will be due in early November-2025. Here is more detail: LINK
Here is a detailed listing of the chronological events: LINK. It is probably not something you want to read through. But, just scanning down the list gives a feel of the complexity of the process.