Water is a valuable public asset which should be available to all, not sold to the highest bidder to exploit for profits.
Introduction
My name is Bill Ferguson. I am one of the co-founders of this website. This part of the website is about my personal experience filing two formal complaints with the Public Utility Commission (PUC) against Aqua Pennsylvania.
Summary
This has been a long and difficult journey. It started with the belief that the first priority of a Public Utility Commission (PUC) should be to protect customers from monopoly company misbehavior resulting in excessive rates and undeserved company profit. My faith in that belief has been substantially diminished. Filing Formal Complaints with the PUC is a lengthy, challenging and intricate legal process. I have learned a lot, but not much that is encouraging.
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.
One complaint is about the volume data Aqua used to set rates for New Garden sewer customers. The whole principle of this complaint is that you cannot set fair and just rates using volume data that substantially understates actual use and does not reflect actual use patterns.
The other complaint is about charging those same New Garden customers for a $1.2 million/yr trucking expense that ceased to be incurred while Aqua still had the obligation to remove it from the rate case.
It is now May 2026. Almost four years have gone by and the trucking complaint is still not resolved.
Details follow on both complaints.
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:
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: LINK.
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 bit more detail:
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: LINK.
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. I file an objection to Aqua's motion. Here are the full details:
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: LINK.
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 pre-hearing conference call or to delay the hearing by another 30 days: LINK.
I promptly file a reply asking the PUC to deny Aqua’s motion: LINK
Five days before the hearing, the PUC denies Aqua’s motion: LINK
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
Subsequent Filings (~20 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 rate making being at stake.
During May-2025 there are a flurry of filings. I file a motion and petition. Aqua replies to all the filings refuting everything. Here is more detail on these filings: LINK
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 my pro bono lawyer files notice of an appeal on my behalf. The appeal asks 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.
Subsequent filings for this appeal include:
November 10, 2025 - My brief is filed with the court.
January 29, 2026 The PUC and Aqua file their counter briefs.
April 27, 2026 we file our reply brief.
May 21, 2026 the court issues a "per curiam" order indicating the case will be decided on the briefs without oral arguments.
As it stands as of this writing, a decision could come this fall.
Here is more detail: LINK
Other Related Stuff
An overview of the PUC complaint process:
My reflections on filing as a utility customer without a lawyer:
Epilogue – a parable illustrating my view of how the PUC adjudicates complaints:
Detailed Events/Time Line For My Complaints
The next section is a detailed chronological listing of all the events for my complaint filings. Probably not something to read or study carefully. However, a quick scan can illustrate the complexity and how time can drag on.
September 2022 – New Garden residents get their first sewer bills reflecting the full rate increase. That prompts me to analyze Aqua’s rate filing documents, which led to my consumption volume complaint.
November 21, 2022 – New Garden holds a Board of Supervisors public meeting to explain the rate increases. Aqua reveals it ended trucking by the end of 2021: LINK. That initiated my trucking complaint.
June 6, 2023 - I filed a “Formal” complaint combining the two issues.
June 8, 2023 – The PUC rejects my filing because it should have been filed as a “Formal Rate Complaint".
June 8, 2023 – I refile as a “Formal Rate Complaint". The only difference is minor changes in the PUC forms that act as transmittal sheets for the complaint. The PUC accepts the filing.
June 22, 2023 – The PUC notifies me that the filing should have been rejected. It was correct as first filed. The full story on this issue is a bit involved and is told here:
June 30, 2023 – Aqua files an answer to my complaint. LINK
July 10, 2023 – I file a request to withdraw the complaint, with the right to re-file.
September 18, 2023 – I re-file. This time I break the two issues into separate “Formal Complaints” The PUC accepts both. Complaint summaries can be found here: LINK1 & LINK2
October 10, 2023 - Aqua filed an Answer and a “New Matter” for each complaint. Here is a summary of their replies: LINK
October 25, 2023 - I filed replies to Aqua’s filings. This LINK also includes my replies
October 27, 2023 - The PUC issues a hearing notice for 12/12/2023: LINK
November 3, 2023 - PUC issued an order with details for the hearing on 12/12/2023: LINK
November 7, 2023 - I file my trucking complaint documents for the 12/12/2023 hearing.
November 10, 2023 - I file my documents for the compliance complaint.
November 15, 2023 – Aqua files a motion for mediation. I accept. LINK
November 21, 2023 - The PUC issues an order for mediation and consolidating the two complaints: LINK
November 22, 2023 - The PUC cancels the hearing scheduled for 12/12/2023: LINK
December 8, 2023 – The PUC schedules a mediation meeting for January 23, 2024: LINK
February 1, 2024 – The PUC schedules a second mediation meeting for March 7, 2024: LINK
April, 29, 2024 – I withdraw from the mediation process.
June 12, 2024 – The PUC schedules a hearing for July 23, 2024: LINK
July 11, 2024 – Aqua files a motion to combine my two complaints with the rate case that Aqua filed on May 23, 2024. LINK
July 12, 2024 – The PUC cancels the hearing scheduled for July 23, 2024: LINK
July 25, 2024 – I file an answer to Aqua’s motion to consolidate requesting the PUC to deny the motion. LINK
October 21, 2024 – The PUC denies Aqua’s consolidation motion and schedules a hearing on the complaints for November 25, 2024. LINK
October 24, 2024 - The PUC issues a pre-hearing order: LINK
November 15, 2024 – Aqua files a motion to convert the November 25, 2024 hearing into a prehearing conference call or delay the hearing 30 days: LINK
November 18, 2024 – I file a reply requesting the PUC deny Aqua’s motion: LINK
November 20, 2024 – The PUC denies Aqua’s motion: LINK
November 25, 2024 – The hearing is held. It lasts about five hours. LINK
December 19, 2024 - The PUC posts the exhibit docket for the case: LINK
March 31, 2025 – The ALJ issues her Initial Decision totally rejecting my complaints. LINK
March 31, 2025 - The PUC secretary issues an "options" letter: LINK
April 21, 2025 – I file “Exceptions” to the Initial Decision alleging that the ALJ made several legal errors in her decision. LINK
May 1, 2025 – Aqua files a reply to my Exceptions. LINK
May 9, 2025 – I submit two filings. The first is a motion to strike major parts of Aqua’s Exception Replies: LINK The second is a petition to reopen discovery for the complaints. LINK
May 19, 2025 – Aqua files a response to the petition to reopen discovery. LINK
May 29, 2025 – Aqua files a response to the motion to strike parts of their Exception Replies. LINK
June 18, 2025 – The PUC issues its Order and Opinion for the complaints. It essentially totally affirmed the Initial Decision. LINK
July 17, 2025 – My pro bono lawyer files an appeal with the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. LINK
August 18, 2025 – This is the last day interested parties can file to be intervenors. Only Aqua signed up.
August 29, 2025 – The PUC certified the list of documents relevant to the case.
August 29, 2025 – The Commonwealth Court issued a briefing schedule for the case.
September 18, 2025 - My attorney files for a 30 day extension for filing brief.
September 22, 2025 - The Commonwealth Court grants the extension for filing briefs.
November 10, 2025 – Our brief for the case was filed with the Commonwealth Court:
~November 25, 2025 - Both the PUC and Aqua file for a 45 day extension for filing their briefs that had been due 12/10/2025.
December 1, 2025 - The court grants the request for the filing extension.
December 10, 2025 – The briefs for the PUC and Aqua are due to be filed with the Commonwealth Court.
January 29, 2026 - Both the PUC and Aqua file their briefs for the case.
February 10, 2026 - We file a request with the court for allowance to exceed the normal word limit for a reply brief.
February 10, 2026 - The court issues a schedule for replies to the word limit request.
February 27, 2026 - Both Aqua and the PUC object to the word limit request.
April 14, 2026 - The court denies the word limit request.
April 27, 2026 - We file our reply brief with the court. It is now up to the court to either decide the case based on the briefs or schedule oral arguments. It could be a month or two before we know whether oral arguments will be needed.
May 21, 2026 - The court issues a short "per curiam" order stating that the case will be decided based on the briefs that have been filed. There is a short window where participants can raise objections.