Search Results

Was The New Garden Sewer Sale Process Legitimate? During 2022 New Garden Township officials were asked repeatedly about sewer sale issues. This became a very high profile issue when the first bills were received with jaw dropping rate increases. As a result New Garden announced that it was hiring a law firm unaffiliated with the sale process to review key aspects of the sale such as the dropping of the rate cap. New Garden announced that the result of this review would be made public at the November 21, 2022 public meeting. What New Garden Claimed It Did Here is the chart deck that the New Garden Board of Supervisors used at the meeting: Chart 13 has four bullet points of what New Garden did to support ratepayers. Point #2 was: "Hired independent counsel to investigate the transactions pertaining to the sewer sale (Offit Kurman)." The Attorney's Report AKA: The BI G Switcheroo Here is our paraphrase of the start of that report: We were asked to review the purchase agreement, as amended, to determine whether Aqua could legally raise New Garden rates. ??? !!! WHAT !!! ??? That bears no resemblance at all to what we were told was being done. It does not take a lawyer to answer that question. Of course Aqua could raise rates. That protection has been stripped out of the contract. Aqua could do whatever the PUC would let them do. And, that is basically what the lawyer said. It was our observation that the lawyer was almost apologetic or embarrassed for having to answer such a obvious question. We suspect he knew something was going on and he was just a pawn being sacrificed in a chess match. Conclusion Why the Big Switcheroo? This is another mystery that we are unlikely to get answers to. But, we think New Garden is likely to tout this as another action they took to be responsive to resident’s concerns. They also succeeded in bringing nothing to light about any issue with the sale process.

Should Municipal Governments Supply Water & Sewer Service? Options There are severa l ways to supply water and sewer utilities. The focus here is municipal systems and investor owned for‑profit systems. Who is best qualified often becomes an issue when Big Water offers to buy a municipal system and that municipality wants to sell. Frequently both buyer and seller start suggesting that: #1 - Local governments should not be in the water or sewer business. They have more important things to do. #2 - Water and sewer service should be left to the “pros” of a Big Water company. Really? Consider The Following Local g overnment exists to serve the needs of its citize ns: roads, schools, police and fire protection, storm water management, parks, libraries, zoning, and many other similar things. Water and sewer service is a common need of everyone and fits very well into the type of services provided by local government. Public systems far out number private for profit systems – both in number of systems and number of customers. Municipal systems generally provide quality service in the most cost effective way. The technology to supply water and sewer service is well known and widely available. Big Water and municipalities do the same things to supply quality service. Other Points To Consider Horror Stories Occasionally water utility “horror” stories hit the news media: Flint, Michigan, Jackson, Mississippi or Baltimore Maryland. Indeed, these systems have problems. Is the root cause municipal ownership? No. Did some local officials fail to fulfill their responsibilities? Probably. Can the problems be fixed? Yes, but there will be costs involved. There will also likely be a tempest in a teapot as people point fingers and disclaim responsibility. Somebody will suggest selling to Big Water. Could Big Water fix things? Yes, but that probably will be the highest cost solution. These are situations where level headed people need to take charge. Never be stampeded into a "solution" you will later regret. Cost Constraints One of the common claims is that a municipal system does not or cannot raise rates enough to cover the true cost of operating the system. The suggestion is that fear of political blow back keeps local officials from raising rates because ratepayers will see it as a tax increase. Tax revenue should in no way support utility operations and utility revenue should not subsidize tax income. If a rate increase is needed, that needs to be explained to ratepayers and put into effect. Competency The utility should be staffed by competent people. The technology to run a water or sewer system is well known. Ensuring that the needed skills are in place needs proper attention - public or private. This is a part of proper funding. You do not hire someone off the street and appoint them chief water or sewer engineer. Adequate Resources Most water and sewer utilities are not labor intensive. This can be a problem for small systems. There are options for contracting and resource sharing with other nearby systems. Conclusion I f someone is trying to claim your local government should get out of the utility business remember: #1 - The money being offered can be a seductive temptation (LINK ). It is likely that they do not have your best interests in mind. #2 - It is time for a lot of skepticism. Start asking them a lot of pointed questions. Question Question Question Your Local Officials.

Join Our Mailing List Most Pennsylvania legislators do not consider water and wastewater privatization an important issue. Harrisburg is overrun with Big Water lobbyists, and too many legislators continue to accept campaign contributions from Big Water. We cannot outspend Big Water, but we can remind our legislators and the governor that they need our votes more than they need Big Water money. We had a successful letter writing campaign in March concerning proposed Public Utility Commission rule changes, with almost 100 residents signing on to a letter to the PUC. More opportunities will arise, and we need to make our voices heard. Join our mailing list so we can directly contact you with important information and requests for action. We will not share your information with anyone. Join our mailing list Email First name Last name Join Mailing List Thanks for joining!

Are Local Officials Proposing To Sell Your Water Or Sewer System? And are they telling you: The water/sewer system is in dire need of repairs Essentially, it is falling apart Costly repairs are needed We cannot afford the repairs - or Repairs would require a huge rate increase Therefore, we have to sell Then Start Asking Questions If so, it is possible, maybe even likely, that they are telling you the only solution is to sell the system to Big Water . If you are hearing this line, read on and start preparing to grill your elected officials with a ton of detailed questions. And, do not accept evasive answers. New Garden Township Experience We experienced the above scenario beginning in 2014 when New Garden Township started evaluating a sewer system sale. Key justification for the sale was that major repairs were needed and that was going to require an almost 80% rate increase to fund $12 million worth of capital improvements. (the rate increase was also questionable even if the full $12 million was required. See this LINK ). What follows are highlights about what we were told and what we have been able to piece together about the status of the sewer system. 2015 Sewer System Status Reports Two reports in 2015 summarized the condition of New Garden's two waste treatment plants. A key feature is the statement: "No corrective action plan required" Things were not perfect, but it does not support the notion that the system was "falling apart". Here are links to the EAST and SOUTH end reports These are long reports. Sections 6 & 9 are the focus here. 2016 Upgrade "Requirements" The claim that $12 million were needed is difficult to reconcile with the system reports noted above. At the time, New Garden did not provide its citizens very much information about what was needed. The following is from FAQ’s posted by New Garden Township: Here are the actual FAQ's: 2016 - Continued Several months before New Garden issued its 2016 FAQ's, Aqua had provided the following data: It appears to us that a much more “apples to apples” comparison would have been New Garden’s $12 million five year plan versus Aqua’s $3.5 million over five years. Instead, New Garden characterized Aqua's data as "... approximately $7,000,000 in the next few years... ". $12 million, needed essentially “right now” was central to New Garden’s justification to either sell the system or raise rates almost 80%. An “apples to apples” comparison with Aqua most likely would have raised some red flags. Flags that we think should have been raised. Summary of New Garden's Capital Plan New Garden provided us with a 2014 capital plan for the sewer system. To summarize: There are 44 items totaling $10.5 million. One of those items was a $1.5 million “blue sky” capacity expansion without any specific timing. This was probably a “maybe” project for the indefinite future. Funding for an item like this should not be part of a capital plan. Nine items were “repairs” totaling $1.7 million. This stuff might be needed, but should be on a maintenance budget, not a capital budget. The remaining 34 items totaled $7.3 million. An approximate schedule was indicated: That does not appear to support an immediate need for $12 million, even if the “repair projects were included. You can download the full eight page report using the following button: 2017 - Things Have Changed About eight months after signing the sales contract, Aqua filed the following with the PUC: In that same Main Brief Aqua went on to state they were not projecting any other capital projects. Full details here: So, New Garden’s $12 million or Aqua’s $7 million in July of 2016 had been reduced to $2.5 million by March of 2017. A key requirement of Aqua's PUC filing is that they are attesting to the truthfulness of its contents. This certainly calls into question New Garden's claims about what was needed. 2019 - New Garden Public Meeting On September 23, 2019 New Garden held a public meeting to kill a contractually guaranteed rate cap - a story of its own that is told here (LINK ). At that meeting the issue of needed investments was questioned. Here is the question and answer: It appears that the $12 million over five years noted in 2016 shrunk a bit. Still five million within three years. However, there is still a wide gap between this and Aqua's estimate to the PUC in 2017. Incidentally, Aqua was present at that meeting and said nothing when this answer was given. Here is the full transcript of the 2019 meeting. 2020 New Garden FAQ Posting In early 2020 New Garden was required to mail all sewer customers a notification about the sewer sale. New Garden also posted a set of FAQ's on its website to explain why customers were receiving the notice. The 2020 FAQ's repeated all the same $12 million and $7 million investment numbers found in the 2016 FAQ's cited at the top of this page. In spite of the subsequent events just noted, no changes were made. Details here: 2023 - The Route 41 Force Main This came up repeatedly as a major issue. It was a $1.1 million immediate project in New Garden's 2014 capital plan. As noted above, it was a key element of New Garden’s $12 million plan in the July‑2016 FAQ. Also, as noted previously, Aqua included this item in its 2017 brief to the PUC. Aqua stated they would do some engineering evaluations of the situation. Was the force main really a critical need? Judge for yourself – 12 years later the line has not been replaced. Actual Capital Spending By Aqua Aqua’s capital investment in the New Garden sewer system is also indicative that the system was not falling apart. Aqua has reported its capital spending for the first two years it has owned the system. The investment has been: This is right in line with what Aqua stated in it’s Main Brief filed in 2017 (noted above). Observations include: #1 - The Spray Field Automation was to increase capacity at the South End plant and reduce labor costs. It is probably well justified. #2 - The Dry Line Activation was putting an unused pipeline back in service. Spending less than $700,000 saved over $1 million/year in wastewater trucking costs. Every two years Aqua is earning triple its investment. That kind of justification is “DUH” obvious. It is something New Garden should have done years ago to stop trucking wastewater. #3 - Also, note that most of the spending was in the first year. It appears that Aqua got busy immediately and fixed the deficiencies. This is another indication that New Garden's claim that $12 million would be required to repair the system was substantially overstated. Conclusion Before the sale we were told $12 million had to be invested if New Garden did not sell the system. We think the information presented above pretty well destroys that claim. What do you think? If your water or sewer system is up for sale, are you hearing the story that it is falling apart? Is the next line we cannot afford the upgrades needed? Then it is time to Question Question Question Your Local Officials.

The Big Water Acquisition Playbook When elected municipal officials strike a tentative deal to sell a water or sewer system, expect them to put on a full court press to convince their constituents it is a good deal. It is also very likely that their actions will follow a common pattern. The items that follow outline what you should expect. The Big Picture Let's start with a quick five chart summary of what is going on with water and sewer privatization. Click here (LINK ) Suitcase of Free Money The municipality is going to get a huge amount of money – “free” money. No tax increase needed. They will make it appear as one “sweet” offer. From the perspective of the local official this can be an amazing opportunity. The amount of money being offered is usually a “once in a lifetime” event. It is somewhat like winning the lottery. Big Water’s promise of “free” money without a tax increase is highly seductive. Municipalities are hounded to fund all kinds of causes. They generally produce a shopping list of all the wonderful things it will enable. Some elected politicians are likely to see it as being in their best interest for career advancement. Often they are quick to grab the money. The sad irony is that selling a water or sewer system is actually the most expensive way to raise that “free” money. What local officials do not understand or choose to ignore is that there are cheaper ways to fund those public good projects. They are not serving the best interests of their constituents who are left to pay the bill. Selling is actually a negative to the public good. That "Suitcase of Money" is a major driver to get the sale done. Here is a more in-depth view of the “Suitcase ". The Municipality Should Not Be In The Water/Sewer Business A standard story line is that w ater/sewer utilities should be left to the Big Water “pros”. This is usually a blanket assertion with nothing to back it up. This is a very self serving position when a municipality wants to sell a system. Local government exists to serve th e needs of its citizens: roads, schools, police and fire protection, storm water management, parks, libraries, zoning, and many other similar things. Water and sewer service is a common need of everyone and fits very well into the type of services provided by local government. Public systems far out number private for profit systems – both in number of systems and number of customers. This did not evolve because of random chance. It evolved because municipal systems provide quality service in the most cost effective way. Here is more detail on this issue (LINK ) Major Expensive Repairs Are Needed This is a frequent justification for a sale. There are claims about the large investments needed to bring the system up to “standard”. The story line is to let the Big Water company “pros” manage the improvements. They claim that Big Water can invest cheaper. There may be an element of truth to that on the investment side, but Big Water resulting rate increases will cost the ratepayer significantly more. It is easy for local officials to come up with a long list of "improvements" and repairs to spend money on. That list can easily total to a large number. Healthy skepticism is in order here. Especially when the list is filled with items that should be routine maintenance. Our experience is that often little of that money actually gets spent – with or without an acquisition. This is an area where a go slow approach is needed. The municipality should clearly spell out what is needed and why. Do not accept that at face value. This is an area where needs can be easily distorted. Somewhere in the community of ratepayers there will be people qualified to assess the needs. Seek them out and get them involved – to the point of facility tours and inspections. The ideal outcome is where the officials promoting the sale and skeptics can agree on future investment needs. Much more detail on this issue here: (LINK ) Big Rate Increases Are Needed Without A Sale Rate increases are always part of the sale pitch. However, this is an area where needs can be easily distorted. For New Garden Township the forecast increases were ~80% and a major justification for selling. After the fact investigation of this claim showed it was wildly exaggerated. That analysis is detailed here: (LINK ). This is another area where a go slow approach is needed so there can be adequate community involvement. Each municipality will have its own rate forecast. The municipality should clearly spell out the detailed basis for the rate increase. Do not accept that at face value. Like the repair issue noted above, find qualified individuals in the ratepayer community to make an independent assessment of what is needed. If the proposed deal really is in the best interest of the ratepayer, taking time to validate the rate forecast would be time well spent. Big Water’s Costs Are Cheaper This is a frequent claim actually based on a grain of truth. And, it applies to both operating costs and capital investment costs. There could be a grain of truth that Big Water operating costs could be lower due to economy of scale. But, what is not told is that operating costs are a pretty small part of the customer’s bill. However, Big Water's other costs are usually higher, a lot higher, and totally overwhelm any operating savings. Big Water also generally claims its investment costs are 25% - 35% lower than a municipal system. Again, there could be some truth to this due to labor rates. Construction work by a government entity must pay "prevailing wages rates". Typically labor can be a significant part of construction costs. So, Big Water may be able to realize some saving because of that. What is not mentioned is the impact on the ratepayer. Big Water's cost structure is largely based on investment. The net result is that the ratepayer winds up paying more, often a lot more. Click here for more detail: (LINK ) There May Be A Rate Cap For Some Period Of Time But, Beware of ... The sale of New Garden Township's sewer system was the first one under Act 12 (LINK ). It had a very favorable ten year rate freeze/rate cap - guaranteed in the sales contract. But it was a promise broken before the sale was complete. That story is told here: (LINK ) It is not likely that there will be another ten year deal like New Garden. However, deals have frequently contained promises that the buyer would limit future rate increases for some period of time. A common “promise” is a rate freeze for a year or two. Generally, this is NOT a special benefit extended to the ratepayers of the acquired system. And, a key thing the sales pitch glosses over is what happens to rates once the “freeze” expires. For more detail follow this (LINK ) The Seller Will Set Up A Rate Mitigation Fund Some deals claim that the seller will use part of the sales proceeds to set up a fund to compensate ratepayers if promised rates are exceeded. To our knowledge, none of these have actually been established. New Garden Township made this promise multiple times in writing. Those promises were never fulfilled. The township has now declined to pursue this further (see Chester County Press article on New Garden: 12/21/2022) The full story is told here (LINK ) DELCORA has taken this concept further than most. They propose an independent fiduciary controlling the mitigation funds, not a political unit. Presumablely, some share of the sale proceeds would flow directly to the fiduciary. But, the DELCORA deal has yet to close. Our estimates indicate that these proposals generally understate the funds needed for the mitigation fund. The ideal mechanism would be for the full sale price to be controlled by the fiduciary. Earned interest could be released to the municipality. When the rate cap period is over, any remaining funds would be released to the municipality. This is not going to be a popular proposal. Based on our estimates some of the deals could deplete the entire sales price. If this type of rate “protection” is being touted for your system, we recommend a qualified person to analyze in detail the structure of the deal and get the details and promises in writing. For the cases we have seen, precious little detail is provided. A Sale Road Map The items listed above focus on the "WHAT" - the things the buyer and seller will present to make it look like a good deal. They make it about the money, the sad state of the system, the rate increases needed, etc. This section is about "HOW" it is done. It is keeping the sale very low profile until the proposed deal is struck. Then there is a frantic rush to announce the deal, "educate" the public on how great it is and finally sign the sales contract. During this frantic rush, various techniques are used to suppress any opposition that may materialize. For an in-depth look at the "HOW", click here (LINK ).

The Utility Rate Setting Process Introduction When a regulated utility wants to raise rates, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) has a well defined process that must be followed. Here is a link to the PUC's summary of their process: (LINK ) What follows uses an example of a rate case filed by Aqua Pennsylvania to raise rates for both its water and sewer customers. Although this is specific to Pennsylvania, most states follow a similar protocol for publicly regulated utilities. In Pennsylvania some of the case related documents are publicly available via a website "docket". Here is the docket for the example case that follows: (LINK ). The Start - Aqua Files For A Rate Increase The process begins when a regulated utility files for a rate increase. Since it is an involved and expensive process, it is not an everyday event. For the Big Water Companies in Pennsylvania, it typically happens every two to three years. For this example, Aqua filed a notice with the PUC on May 23, 2024. At the same time they also filed 17 volumes of required information supporting their request. Those 17 volumes totaled over 4,500 pages. Clearly, a lot of preparation went into this filing. Volume one of those filings proposed increased water and sewer rates that would go into effect on July 22, 2024 - just two months after filing. That date is a bit amusing because everyone knew full well that rates would not go up on that date. The next section explains why. Customers are also notified. On May 25, 2024 I received the following "Dear Customer" letter: Other Parties Promptly Get Involved In Pennsylvania, two organizations have been created to advocate for public utility customers. The Office of Small Business Advocate (OSBA) The Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) Both automatically get involved in rate cases. They each filed formal complaints about the rate case - the OSBA on May 29, 2024, and the OCA on June 3, 2024. They claimed there were issues that needed investigation and that the proposed rate increase should be suspended until those issues were resolved. These complaints are essentially routine procedure. The PUC responded on June 13, 2024 with an order suspending the increase and launching an investigation. This action was also standard procedure. PA state law requires the investigation be complete within nine months. Therefore, the PUC's suspension pushed back the effective date of the rate increase to February 22, 2025. The PUC itself has a division called the Bureau of Investigation & Enforcement (I&E). This organization is also a major player in rate cases. Very often OSBA, OCA and I&E are aligned on their positions in a rate case. There also are usually other players. They generally focus on specific issues rather than the rate case in total. For example, CAUSE-PA is an organization advocating for low income individuals. Another example is the Aqua Large Users Group. Many individuals file formal complaints but are generally not active participants in the rate case. Often these complaints are of the "oh woe as me" type bemoaning higher costs for water or sewer. They do not carry any weight in the rate setting process. Early Activities Interrogatories OCA, OSBA and I&E will review the utility filings and submit questions about them. These are called "interrogatories". They are not publicly available. In fact, copies were only sent to the OCA, OSBA, I&E and Aqua. These interrogatories were submitted between May 31, 2024 and June 12, 2024. Prehearing Conference An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is assigned to administer the rate case. For this case two were assigned. One of their early activities is to get the various parties together for what is termed a "Prehearing Conference" The following notice was sent to 22 parties and the meeting is apparently open to the public: Scheduling Order This is a document that essentially set the timeline for the case. It was a 19 page document sent to a long list of people. It can be viewed here: (LINK ). A key summary table from the order is: Core Activities Public Hearings For Aqua's case nine public hearings were held at five locations scattered around the state. Plus, there were two more held via telephone. Logistically, this is a major undertaking. All the major parties to the case are present at each hearing. A court reporter records all the testimony. Essentially anyone can come and express their thoughts about the rate case. Much of the testimony is people expressing concern about being able to afford the rate increase. Occasionally there are specific complaints about service. Rarely, someone praises the utility company. One of the public hearings was in our backyard of New Garden Township. All three Co-Founders of Keep Water Affordable testified. Our testimony can be found here: Peter Mrozinski Margo Woodacre Bill Ferguson Testimony & Evidentiary Hearings We really do not know very much about this phase of the process. There are indications that various subject matter experts are called upon to testify. The Evidentiary Hearings are apparently open to the public. At least they are announced in advance to the public (LINK ). Main Briefs This is a major milestone in the process. Each party to the case takes all the information presented and states their case. The utility usually claims justification for everything they asked for. The other parties challenge specific items in the rate case. These documents are generally tedious to read. However, they provide a good overview of the issues. Examples for Aqua's rate case include: Aqua (LINK ) - 82 pages OCA (LINK ) - 59 pages I&E (LINK ) - 18 pages OSBA - none found Reply Briefs This is the opportunity for each party to point out issues with the Main Briefs of others. It is sort of a legal jockeying back and forth. This mostly ends each party presenting their position to the PUC. The main examples for Aqua's rate case are: Aqua (LINK ) - 56 pages OCA (LINK ) - 36 pages I&E (LINK ) - 14 pages Settlement & Recommended Decision Settlement agreement In this rate case the major parties came to a settlement agreement on most, but not all, of the issues. This is something the PUC encourages but does not require. A settlement can occur at any point in the process. In this case it was announced at the same time the Reply Briefs were filed. The Settlement Agreement can be found here (LINK ). It is a hefty 529 pages. The actual agreement is covered by pdf pages 11 - 37. The rest of the document is attachments detailing rates, revenues and customer impacts. Recommended Decision This is the normal next step after the Reply Briefs. The Administrative Law Judge evaluates all the information that has been presented and makes a recommendation to the PUC Commissioners on each issue. This is all summarized in a formal document called a Recommended Decision. It carries a lot of weight but is not binding on the Commissioners. The Recommended Decision for Aqua's can be found here: (LINK ). At 192 pages it is fairly long. It goes through the case issue by issue. It summarizes the issue, states the position of each party and recommends a disposition of that issue. Exceptions & Reply Exceptions Exceptions Exceptions are the opportunity for the major parties in the case to protest that the ALJ got something wrong in the Recommended Decision. It is the major parties speaking directly to the PUC Commissioners. Examples include: Aqua (LINK ) - 454 pages. However, most of that is refiling attachments to correct previous errors. Only pdf pages 11 - 30 are Exceptions. The OCA and I&E did not file exceptions. Reply Exceptions This is the opportunity for the major parties to comment on any Exceptions filed by the other parties. Again, it is each party speaking directly to the PUC Commissioners, generally disagreeing with something in the Exception filing. Reply Exceptions for Aqua's rate case included: Aqua (LINK ) - 39 pages OCA (LINK ) - 20 pages I&E (LINK ) - 13 pages PUC Opinion & Order This is essentially the end of the process. The Commissioners take the Recommended Decision, Exceptions and Reply Exceptions and make a final decision. It is voted upon at one of the regularly scheduled public meetings of the Commissioners. Then a formal Opinion and Order is posted. Here is the Opinion and Order for Aqua's rate case: (LINK ). It is 185 pages. In this case the Commissioners accepted the Recommended Decision with only trivial changes. The decision can be appealed through the Pennsylvania court system. But, that is not common.

New Garden Township A Case Study In 2014 New Garden Township announced it was exploring the sale of its sewer system. In 2016 NGT announced a sale agreement with Aqua PA for $29.5 million. In December 2020 the sale was closed. Reasons For The Sale The sale was justified on the following points: The system was in bad shape and needed $12 million investment to repair and upgrade it. A 78% rate increase was needed immediately to pay for the $12 million investment. Aqua could do the improvements at a lower cost. A two-year rate freeze and ten-year 4% cap on annual growth would limit Aqua rate increases for 10 years. If, for some reason, rates went above this limit, NGT would use some of the sale proceeds to offset the additional increase. NGT would receive $29.5 million. This money would be used in part to offset the need for future tax increases. Key Events During And After The Sale Here is what really happened: Four years elapsed from the dire warning that a $12 million investment was needed immediately until the sale was executed. During that time New Garden invested nothing. During the first two years after the acquisition, Aqua has invested $2.7 million in the system. Of that total, $670,000 paid for an improvement that saves Aqua $1.2 million annually in operating cost. That was a smart investment that we think New Garden should have made years earlier. Prior to sale closing , but well after the claim that a 78% rate increase was needed without a sale to Aqua, New Garden raised rates by 30%. One and a half years after the sale, Aqua raised NGT rates by 85%. Although we were warned about a 78% increase, our rates went up over 140% with none of this increase paying for system improvements. Aqua will recover the system improvement investment, plus profit, from future rate increases. Aqua's claims its operating and investment costs are lower, though this has never been quantitatively verified. But, 44% of every Aqua bill goes to funding their before tax profits. Since municipal systems are non-profit, that increase totally overwhelms any other savings. Both the rate freeze and growth cap were removed from the sale agreement before sale closing, with no explanation. In December 2022 the NGT Board of Supervisors voted to not use any of the sale proceeds for rate mitigation. NGT received $29.5 million in December 2020. In October 2023, NGT announced plans to raise property taxes by 127%. Looking Back The sale of the NGT sewer system was the first such municipal utility sale after Act 12 was signed into law. Residents were not aware of all the issues involved in such a sale and they were never educated on these issues, particularly how the sale price would impact future rates. Any questions about rate increases were always answered vaguely. So, no opposition to the sale ever developed. It is clear that this was the first test of the Big Water Playbook. In the first step of the playbook, Big Water sets the hook with the promise of free money . They then reel in with the scare that the system needs major investment, and this will result in large rate increases. Finally, they claim that municipalities should not be in the utility business because Big Water can do it better and cheaper. Our analysis of the public record indicates that both the amount of investment and the rate increase needed were significantly overstated. Follow the highlighted links for detail. The claim that Big Water can do the work for less does have a grain of truth, but Big Water’s other expenses more than offset any cost savings. Follow this link for details. Prior to sale closing, on September 23, 2019, New Garden Township and Aqua agreed to sign an amendment to the Asset Purchase Agreement removing both the rate freeze and cap on growth from the agreement. This was announced at a public meeting at which questions of why this was being done were not answered. the full story of the rate cap removal is told here: (LINK ). Epilogue Events in New Garden Township in the three years after the sale closed show that this sale did not turn out as expected for the Township. The extra financial burden placed on the ratepayers has not resulted in any benefits worth the price. In February 2020, eleven months prior to sale closing, the BOS published a list of 6 items detailing how the sale proceeds would be used. To date, however, the money has not been allocated in alignment with any long term plan. The largest use of the money was to fund a new police station. Of the original $29.5 million, $22 million now sits in an interest-bearing account. Only recently has this account earned any substantial interest, and these proceeds are being added to the township’s general funds. The list of six items are on page 5 of this file: In August 2021, Aqua filed a rate adjustment with the PUC. When this adjustment was announced the residents of New Garden became aware of the impact of the sale. By January 2022, all but one of the board members responsible for the sale had left office, either by choice or because they were voted out. Hope for some help from the new supervisors was high. At another public meeting on November 21, 2022, those hopes were dashed. NGT again would not answer basic questions about issues ranging from attorney conflict of interest, to why the rate freeze and cap were removed from the Asset Purchase Agreement. Instead, the township has spent over $20,000 of taxpayer money this year to fight release of any records relevant to these issue. Then on December 19, 2022, the Township Board of Supervisors voted 3 to 2 to not use any of the sale proceeds to offset the higher Aqua rates. In October 2023, NGT announced plans to raise property taxes by 127%. As part of the discussion about this increase, the township said the tax increase would need to be higher if not for the availability of the interest from the sale proceeds. This was quantified as an addition 1 mill increase which was not required because of the use of the interest. A 1 mill increase in taxes means a resident with a “typical” property assessment would see an additional increase of annual property taxes of $186 without the offsetting money from the interest on the sale proceeds. What the township failed to address was the additional burden due to the increased sewer rates to fund this revenue. A “typical” sewer customer saw an annual increase of $670, over 3.5 times the tax “saving”. We expect this rate to increase substantially again at Aquia's next rate adjustment because they will transfer the entire sale cost to New Garden ratepayers. This may not seem like much when looking at one “typical” ratepayer. But multiply this by the large numbers of ratepayers affected by privatization in PA and it blossoms into over $65 million annually leaving local communities to pay Big Water shareholders. Money that could be spent to bolster municipal economies.

Let the governor and our representatives in Harrisburg know you oppose the sale of Chester Water Authority and support the repeal of Act 12. Large private utility companies continue to spend millions lobbying in Harrisburg. The fruits of their efforts are seen in Act 12. We cannot fight them with money, but politicians need our votes more than they need their money. Residents can help by writing or calling Governor Shapiro asking him to publicly take a position in support of CWA and the repeal of Act 12, and contacting our representatives in Harrisburg to thank them for their support. Sample letters can be found below. Contact Governor Shapiro Phone: 717-787-2500 Mailing Address: 508 Main Capital Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 On-line: https://www.governor.pa.gov/contact/ Chester Water Authority Sample Letters to Governor Shapiro Contact Governor Shapiro asking him to take a public stand against the sale of CWA because of the unfair burden it places on his constituents. Feel free to use all or part of these sample letters, or draft your own. As a Chester Water Authority customer, I strongly oppose the sale of our public water utility to cover the city of Chester’s decades of financial mismanagement. The ratepayers (the majority who do not live in the city of Chester), should not be responsible for their debt. Please take a stand against the sale of CWA. The financial problems of the city of Chester are due to decades of financial mismanagement. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania needs to take action to resolve these issues. The rate payers of Chester Water Authority, the majority who do not live in the city of Chester, should not be burdened with this debt. Please take a stand against the sale of CWA. The Chester Water Authority is a well-managed and award-winning public utility. Its proposed sale to Aqua PA is driven only by the financial problems of the city of Chester. CWA ratepayers, the majority who do not live in the city of Chester, should not be burdened with the debt caused by decades of financial mismanagement. Chester’s problems need to be handled by the Commonwealth. Please take a stand against the sale of CWA. Act 12 Sample letters to Governor Shapiro Contact Governor Shapiro asking him to publicly support the repeal of Act 12. Feel free to use all or part of these sample letters, or draft your own. I am writing to ask you to publicly support the repeal of Act 12, the so-called “Fair Market Value” legislation passed in 2016. The unfair burden Act 12 places on utility ratepayers has become abundantly clear with recent rate increases approved by the PA PUC. This has become a bi-partisan concern among ratepayers across the state. At a recent public meeting, the PA Senate Democratic Policy Committee took a unanimous stand supporting the repeal of Act 12, the so-called “Fair Market Value” legislation passed into law in 2016. As governor, I ask that you listen to your elected leaders, colleagues and constituents and add your support to the effort to repeal Act 12. As a resident of New Garden Township I have been shocked by my skyrocketing sewer bills after the sale of our municipal sewer system to Aqua PA. These outrageous sewer rates are driven by Act 12. Please show your support for the citizens of PA by adding your support to the effort to repeal Act 12. Contact Your State Senator and Representative In New Garden Township Contact Senator Kane and Representative Sappey Phone: 610-447-5845 Mailing Address: 504 Avenue of the States Chester, PA 19013 On-line: https://pasenatorkane.com/ Phone: 484-200-8264 Mailing Address: Willowdale Town Center 698 Unionville Rd Kennett Square, PA 19348-1704 On-line: https://www.pahouse.com/Sappey / Chester Water Authority Sample Letters to Senator Kane and Rep. Sappey Contact S enator Kane and Rep. Sappey thanking them for their public stand against the sale of CWA because of the unfair burden it places on their constituents. Feel free to use all or part of these sample letters, or draft your own. I am writing to thank you for your continued support in the efforts to prevent the sale of the Chester Water Authority. CWA is a well-managed, award-winning public utility. Its ratepayers should not be burdened with the financial problems of the city of Chester caused by decades of mismanagement. Your stand in support of your constituents is recognized and appreciated. Thank you for your efforts to prevent the sale of the Chester Water Authority. The financial problems of the city of Chester are due to decades of financial mismanagement. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania needs to take action to resolve these issues. The rate payers of Chester Water Authority, the majority who do not live in the city of Chester, should not be burdened with this debt. Your stand in support of your constituents is recognized and appreciated. Act 12 Sample Letters to Senator Kane and Rep. Sappey Contact Senator Kane and Rep. Sappey thanking them for their public stand supporting the repeal of Act 12 because of the unfair burden it places on their constituents. Feel free to use all or part of these sample letters, or draft your own. I am writing to thank you for your continued support for the repeal of Act 12. As a resident of New Garden Township I have been shocked by my skyrocketing sewer bills after the sale of our municipal sewer system to Aqua PA. These outrageous sewer rates are driven by Act 12. I am writing to thank you for your efforts to repeal of Act 12, the so-called “Fair Market Value” legislation passed in 2016. The unfair burden placed on utility ratepayers has become abundantly clear with recent rate increases approved by the PA PUC. This has become a bi-partisan concern among ratepayers across the state. Chester Water Authority Sample Letters to Chester County Senators and Representatives Contact your representatives in Harrisburg to encourage them to support Chester Water Authority Find your Senator and Representative: https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/findyourlegislator/county_list.cfm?CNTYLIST=CHESTER I am writing to ask you to help prevent the sale of the Chester Water Authority. CWA is a well-managed, award-winning public utility. Its ratepayers should not be burdened with the financial problems of the city of Chester caused by decades of mismanagement. You must support your constituents on this issue. The financial problems of the city of Chester are due to decades of financial mismanagement. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania needs to take action to resolve these issues. The rate payers of Chester Water Authority, the majority who do not live in the city of Chester, should not be burdened with this debt. You must support your constituents on this issue. Repeal Act 12 Sample Letters to Chester County Senators and Representatives I am writing to ask you to support the repeal of Act 12, the so-called “Fair Market Value” legislation passed in 2016. The unfair burden placed on utility ratepayers has become abundantly clear with recent rate increases approved by the PA PUC. This has become a bi-partisan concern among ratepayers across the state. Private, for-profit utility companies are using Act 12 to purchase healthy public utilities at inflated prices and passing the cost on to the ratepayers. Rates routinely rise 70% to 100% with no benefit to the ratepayer. Please work with your colleagues to repeal Act 12.

F I A S C O Google’s definition: “A thing that is a complete failure, especially in a ludicrous or humiliating way”. Prologue What follows is way too long. It is the story of a meeting that culminated an effort to establish accountability for questionable claims made justifying the sale of New Garden's sewer system to Aqua Pennsylvania. We think the result of the actual meeting was a total fiasco. It just takes a lot of space to put all the events into context. But the real lesson to be learned is how government officials can control the "process" to effect the outcome they want. If you are in opposition to something local officials want to do, we recommend you at least scan through this and gain insight as to what you may be up against. The November 21, 2022 New Garden Township Meeting Background New Garden Township spent over four years from 2016 – 2020 selling its sewer system to Aqua Pennsylvania. In hindsight, there were a number of questionable aspects to the sale that are documented elsewhere on this website: #1 - The need for a huge rate increase without a sale (LINK ) #2 - The need for $12 million worth of upgrades if there was no sale (LINK ) #3 - The promise of a ten year rate cap that was broken before the sale (LINK ) #4 - A three step 30% rate increase in the middle of the sale process (LINK ) The sale was executed at the end of 2020. Eight months later Aqua filed for a general rate increase. In mid-2022 Aqua instituted jaw dropping rate increases. Here is a picture of our rate increases: TOTAL RATE SHOCK! The green line is the rate increase over what was in place when the sales contract was signed in 2016. We had been told rates would go up almost 80% if the system was not sold. We think that 80% was a scare tactic to justify selling the system to Aqua (LINK ). Well, the system was sold, but not before scuttling the rate cap (LINK ). Then Aqua raised rates for their "average customer" almost double New Garden’s 80% scare tactic. The red line is the increase at the time the higher rates went into effect. The difference between the two lines is the 30% rate increase New Garden instituted starting in 2019. The need and reason for that increase is also questionable (LINK ). We wanted answers During the summer of 2022 when New Garden residents received their sewer bills, they were outraged. One focus of this outrage was New Garden’s Board of Supervisors (BOS). What we were seeing bore no resemblance to the promises made before the sale. In particular, one member of Keep Water Affordable (KWA) put a lot of pressure on the BOS to explain what happened. We had dug into the records from the time of the sale and found that many of the pre-sale claims were questionable. We wanted straight answers on these issues. Ultimately, the BOS agreed to hold a special meeting on the issue. Meeting Plan KWA worked extensively with the chairman of New Garden’s BOS to plan how the meeting would be conducted. Between October 6th and November 14th, there were 15 phone calls totaling 3 ½ hours (per cell phone records). Points made during these discussions included: #1 - The usual format, listening to prepared comments from a few speakers followed by limited time for questions, would be a waste of time. #2 - We had uncovered irregularities in the public records that we believe need to be explained. #3 - We wanted an open dialogue with the principles of the sale negotiations. The BOS chairman and KWA finally agreed that KWA would lead the segment of the meeting that addressed the issues we were concerned about. Here is a summary of our final understanding: #1 - KWA was best prepared to keep the discussion focused on the issues. #2 - Aft er the routine business part of the meeting, the Chairman was to give an introduction and then turn the meeting over to KWA. #3 - We planned to ask specific questions to get at the details behind the issues we raised. These questions were primarily aimed at the key players involved in the sale negotiation. #4 - Although the current Board also needs to be part of this discussion, the key players are best equipped to address the issues in detail. KWA Meeting Preparations With the above plan in place, we went to work preparing our part of the meeting. We created a PowerPoint slide deck designed to lead a discussion through the key issues. We were aiming for a dialog with the individuals who were making claims that we did not find aligned with the data we had dug out. Really, we felt we were loaded for bear. Here is the slide deck we prepared. It really was not intended to be viewed on a stand along basis. The dialog that went along with it is important. Therefore, we have annotated key slides with some comments. Those comments are found in red boxes in smaller font size. Click the following button to download the charts: New Garden Meeting Preparations New Garden was also evidently doing some preparations as they requested a list of the things we wanted to address. Here is what was sent 10 days before the meeting: "Here are the MAIN ISSUES [emphasis added] we will pursue at the meeting on the 21st. We will be prepared to ask specific questions aimed at these issues. Please call with any questions." "1. NGT claimed the sewer system needed a multi- million-dollar investment because of required capital improvements. We want to see the specifics of those improvements and their status." "2. To pay for these improvements, NGT estimated our rates needed to go up by 70%. We want to see the details of this estimate. " "3. We want to see the financial status of the sewer system at the time of the sale. " "4. The original agreement with Aqua included a two-year rate freeze and eight more years with a 4% cap on annual growth. Why were the freeze and cap removed?" "5. Prior to sale closing NGT instituted a 30% rate increase over a three-year period. With the sale imminent, why was this increase needed?" "6. NGT promised to create a “rate stabilization” fund to help offset increased rates under Aqua. Does the Township intend to fulfill this promise?" "7. In the final approval of the sewer system sale, the PUC ordered Aqua to set a rate structure for NGT equal to the rates of Aqua’s Zone 1. In the final tariff, NGT rates far exceed those of Zone 1. As a party to the agreement , does NGT intend to take action to assure the agreement terms are met?” Drumming Up Support For The Meeting The big meeting was scheduled for a couple of weeks after the 2022 general election. Since New Garden is a small township with only three polling places, we decided to promote the upcoming event at the polls on election day. As people LEFT the polling places, we passed out the handbills at the right. They were effective. On the night of the meeting about 300 people came. It was standing room only. This article shows a picture of the crowd from the back of the room: (LINK ) The High Noon Bombshell At 11:59 AM on the day of the meeting – just seven hours before it started – we got a call from the BOS chairman saying WE WERE BEING SHUT OUT OF THE MEETING. We would not be allowed to run the part of the meeting focused on our concerns. However, we would have the opportunity to ask our questions during the questions part of the meeting. He assured us the meeting would go “until all your questions are answered”. The Meeting Structure According To New Garden The New Garden BOS came to the meeting with this 19 slide PowerPoint presentation: Highlights include: Chart 3 is what we think is a self serving statement about their role in the sale process. Chart 5 is an agenda. #1 - “Rules” #2 - “KWA Questions” #3-8 - Speakers addressing the “KWA Questions. #10 - Resident and ratepayer Q&A Key observations about the “KWA Questions”. #1 - The term “Questions” is a mischaracterization of our intent. #2 - We s ent a list of “Issues” that we wanted to reconcile public statements with conflicting actual data at the time those statements were made. #3 - That requires an airing of the public statement, the actual data and a dialog with the individuals involved. #4 - The New Garden BOS transformed those “Issues” into “Questions” and then enabled the responsible individuals to address them however they wanted. They did not have to address the conflicting data or engage in any Q&A. KWA’s View Of The Meeting Structure This is fairly simple: #1 - The BOS framed the meeting as providing information about the sale and dispelling misinformation. #2 - The “Issues” were re-cast into “Questions” #3 - The key individuals we wanted to engage on the “Issues” were then given unlimited time to “answer” the “Questions”. No surprise, the standard party line was just repeated. And, they took two hours to do it. #4 - After the presentations, residents were allowed to speak – with severe limitations: A) You could speak ONCE - three minutes maximum. And, that time limit was strictly enforced. That did not exactly fulfill the promise "until all your questions are answered". B) No dialog allowed. Make a statement and/or ask a question, then shut up and sit down. C) If a question was included, one of the key individuals could choose (or not) to respond however he wanted. But, absolutely no back and forth was permitted. And, of course, no follow up was permitted. Not surprisingly, we did not find any of our “Issues” being addressed in any meaningful way. The “Moderator” When we arrived at the meeting, we were surprised to find the meeting included a “moderator”. This was an individual hired expressly for that purpose. We found him curt, loud and abrasive – not someone you would want to be friends with. However, he was VERY GOOD at his job. As the meeting wore on and it was evident to those present that the “Issues” were not being addressed, there were some grumblings. The “moderator” did not tolerate that kind of thing. Video Record of the Meeting Courtesy of Food and Water Watch most of the meeting was recorded on Facebook videos. However, after a couple of years Facebook took the videos down. We do have mp4 copies, but they are HUGE files, much to big to post here. The Presentations A summary of the presentations follow: Introduction by David Unger, a member of the BOS: . Included is a reading of the KWA “Questions”. Spencer Andress (a key figure for New Garden in the sale) addresses questions on investment and rate increases. He drones on for 40 minutes reading from a stack of papers. The segment from 40:30 – 43:40 is worth watching. The crowd recognizes what is happening and is tired of it – and, makes it known. This is also a segment where you can see the “Moderator” in action. Vince Pompo (the New Garden Solicitor for the sale) addresses the PUC approval process at length. At 58:20 – 58:50 he specifically blames the Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) for the dropping of the rate cap. That is debunked here (LINK ). David Unger addresses a couple of questions about the use of sewer sale money. Of special interest is the segment on funds for rate mitigation - one of our hot button issues. We see this as "switcheroo #1" along with a side step shuffle. It is a case of being asked one question, but answering another - It is covered in detail here (LINK ). New Garden Township hired a law firm to investigate potential legal issues with the sale of the New Garden sewer system. This segment is their report. This was important and the stories are told separately: #1 - New Garden's Solicitor had a legal conflict of interest in the sewer sale to Aqua. And, it is apparent to us, that New Garden clearly does not want anyone to learn about the details (LINK ). #2 - At a previous public meeting New Garden had agreed to a general investigation into the transactions around the sewer sale. This was to be the report on that investigation. But, unfortunately, what we found was "Switcheroo #2" - and it was a big one: (LINK ). It is Aqua’s turn. Their Operations Manager essentially paints the condition of the system as being in a crisis at the date of acquisition and Aqua was the White Knight that swooped in and fixed it. Their finance guy then talked about the PUC’s process for raising rates. He essentially blamed the PUC for the large rate increase – Aqua just did what the PUC told it to do. Public Comments There was a break and then those who wanted to speak were allowed three minutes each. The basic rules were make your statement, then shut up and sit down. No dialog, no follow up. A total of 26 people spoke. As is typical in these situations, everyone had something different to talk about. One person even complained about an issue with their water – which had no connection to New Garden or Aqua. We think the meeting format was very successful in stifling all issues that could bring into question how the sale of the sewer system was conducted. F I A S C O Google’s synonyms: “blunder” "breakdown” “debacle” “disaster” “embarrassment” "failure” “farce” “flop” “mess” “stunt” “washout” Conclusions The above synonyms pretty well sum up what we think of the meeting. Nobody had to account for their actions and representations leading up to the sale. The meeting process saw to that. The people in attendance saw through it and were not happy about the outcome. We think one of the most deceitful things about the meeting is how we were led to believe we were to lead the core of the discussion for the critical issues. Reflecting on New Garden’s preparation for the meeting, it was extensive. We do not think there was any flip flop just before noon on the day of the meeting. The very fact that a “Moderator” had been hired is indicative of the amount of advance planning that went into the meeting. We think that the need for a “Moderator” also shows the focus New Garden had on controlling the flow of the meeting. The extensive preparation of the various speakers also attests to the meeting planning. In subsequent interactions with board members we found them very self righteous about how they had been responsive to our "questions". They had provided answers on everything.

The Economics of For‑Profit Versus Non‑Profit If you have browsed very much of this website, you know that water or sewer service by a for‑profit utility is more expensive. A key reason is that the financial management of a for‑profit utility is very different than for a non‑profit utility. This section is going to compare the two options in some depth. This page focuses on Aqua Pennsylvania because that is the operation we have the most experience with. The same will apply to PA American, they are like two peas in a pod. Other states likely do pretty much the same things, but we do not have direct experience with them. The following charts illustrate the key differences. This is not an apples to apples comparison, but read on and we will fix that. For-Profit Versus Non-Profit A somewhat unfair comparison The chart on the right shows the two major cost elements that would disappear if Aqua existed as a non‑profit. It is obviously quite a stark contrast. Profit and depreciation are a whopping amount of money that a non‑profit municipal system does not collect from its customers. The basic difference is that the for-profit utility operates on a full cost profit/loss basis. However, a municipal non-profit essentially operates on a cash basis. The difference is mostly in profit and depreciation. What about that element of unfairness? If Aqua operated as a non‑profit, three changes would be needed: #1 - It is likely that operating cost would be lower. Aqua has major expenses dealing with the Public Utility Commission (PUC) that a non‑profit would not have. #2 - Debt Service is different than interest expense and likely will be higher. #3 - There will be a need for capital investments over and above that provided by Debt Service. Any operation as large as Aqua’s will have significant on going capital construction costs. Applying the above changes results in the following: IF Aqua Was A Non-Profit IF...IF...IF What this shows is that ratepayers would save over $340 million/yr – 55% of their current bills. The assumptions behind this comparison are important: #1 - Even though operating cost should be lower for the non‑profit, they are set equal in this example. We really do not have a basis for estimating what the difference might be. #2 - Both companies have the same capital structure: 54% equity and 46% debt. #3 - A municipal non‑profit can finance their debt about 1% lower than a for‑profit. This is because muni-bonds are income tax exempt. Since Aqua’s interest cost was 4%/yr in their rate case, 3%/yr was used for the non‑profit. #4 - Capital spending for the non‑profit is set at 5% of rate base – just under $210 million/yr. We believe this is a generous allowance. Aqua’s capital spending as reported in their annual reports to the PUC has averaged $150 million/yr over the last five years. #5 - The capital spending for the non‑profit is funded by the annual turnover of debt (about 5%/yr or $96 million/yr) and issuing new debt for the balance (about $113 million). This new debt means that Debt Service will gradually increase over time – about 2%/yr of revenue. The bottom line result would be a big savings for customers. Conclusions The business management of a for-profit utility is very different than a municipal non-profit. It is not hard to see why municipal utility service will almost always be the low cost option. It is also easy to see why Big Water wants to gobble up municipal systems - it is a sure fire way to grow profits. Related Subjects #1 - Depreciation - As shown above, depreciation is a major cost for Big Water customers, but not for municipal ones. For many people depreciation is not easy to understand. Here is a page that tries to address these issues: #2 - Interest - This is a major expense for Big Water. It goes with the capital intensive nature of the business. At least in Pennsylvania, utility companies report interest costs a bit strangely. It shows up on their reporting as an after-tax cost. It is not. The issue is whether it is part of a three card monte game (see note below) being played in setting rates. We would like help from knowledgeable people on this issue. Click here for more information: (LINK ) Note: Not sure what three card monte is? Click here for a three minute fun and interesting video about this age old con game (LINK ).

Pending PA Legislation Although sparce, there is bi-partisan support in both the PA House of Representatives and PA Senate. Several bills supporting ratepayer rights have been introduced in both houses. These legislators need to be supported. Contact each telling them you are thankful for thier work and that you support them. In The Pennsylvania House Of Representatives Rep John Lawrence (R-PA-13) https://replawrence.com/ has introduced a four-bill package to amend Title 66 (Public Utilities) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes. His bills dealing with Act 12 are: #1 - House Bill 626 – Ratepayer Referendum Prior to the Sale of a Municipal Water or Sewer System #2 - House Bill 627 - Repeal of Act 12 of 2016 & Require a Ratepayer Referendum Prior to the Sale of a Municipal Water or Sewer System #3 - House Bill 628 – Transparency Around the Process to Pay Appraisers Utilized to Value Municipal Water and Wastewater Systems #4 - House Bill 629 – Independent Fiscal Office Analysis Prior to the Sale of a Municipal Water or Sewer System For more detail on these bills go here (LINK ). Rep. Christina Sappey (D-PA-158) https://www.pahouse.com/Sappey/ She has introduced HB1205, a Ratepayer Bill of Rights meant to “ensure ratepayer fairness”. Details can be found here: (LINK ) Rep. Leanne Krueger (D-PA-161) https://www.pahouse.com/Krueger/ She has introduced HB1308 which would limit the use of Act 12 to financially and/or physically distressed systems. Details can be found here (LINK ) In The Pennsylvania Senate Sen John Kane (D-PA-9) https://pasenatorkane. com/ He has introduced two bills in the PA senate: #1 - SB866 would repeal Act 12. Details on SB866 can be found here (LINK ) #2 - SB432 is a Ratepayer Bill of Rights meant to “ensure residential customers all over the state have input when a municipal water or wastewater authority may be acquired by a public water utility.” Details can be found here (LINK ) Sen. Michele Brooks (R-PA-50) https://www.senatorbrooks.com/ She has introduced Senate Resolution 141 calling for a study of the water and wastewater acquisitions since the passage of Act 12. Details can be found here (LINK )