STATE OF FLORIDA - Public Service Commission

ORDER NO. PSC-12-0102-FOF-WS
DOCKET NO. 100330-WS
PAGE 12
a
YES asserted that the semce hearing testimony, particularly the testimony provided at
the Gainesville service hearin& demonsfram that the customer service, water quality, and billing
practices of AUF are deplorable, unsBtiSfact0 ry, and do not warrant a rate inaease. Moreover,
YES argued that the evidence demonstrates that the Utility’s quality of service to customers at
Arredondo Farms has decliied since its last rate case, as evidenced by a 400 percent in- in
the number of customers who testified at the GainesviUe service hearing in 201 1 as compared to
the customer meeting held in 2010.
YES argued that the evidence showed that AUF has been on notice for years of excessive
sedimentation and h d water at Arredondo Fanns, but failed to take any action to remedy the
problem. YES demanded that AUF should not be granted a rate increase on its promise to
improve water quality; rather, AUF should not receive a rate increase unless and until water
quality at Arredondo Farms has improved. YES also asserted that overwhelming evidence
shows that AUF provides substandard and deficient customer service. In particular, the
Gainesville senrice heating testimony makes clear that the Utility’s customer Service
m- ‘ves (CSRs) serving Arredodo Farms are particularly rude and condescending.
d. Pasw, county
Pasco County’s position was that the operational conditions of A Ws plants and facities
are unsatisfactory, as demonstrated by the numerous warning letters and consent orders issued by
regulatory agencies. Pasco County asserted that rather than be out front of the issues and
regularly maintain and upgrade its systems, AUF waited for a problem to OCCUI before spending
money and time to address obvious issues which affect the environment Pasco County noted
that AUF does not even do land smeys prior to purchasiig systems. Pasco County maintained
that this is irresponsible and con6rms the lack of institutional control over AUF’s systems.
According to Pasco ‘County, Rule 25-30.433(1), F.A.C., states that the testimony of a
utility’s customers shall be considered in our determination of the utility’s quality of service.
Pasco County maintained that the extensive testimony at the New Port Richey service hearing
clearly shows that AUF’s water quality is poor.
The AG adopted the position of the OPC on water quality and added that water safety
should be of great conoem to this Commission. The AG argued that the DE%’ witnesses
idenfied ongoing concerns about water safkty, and the perception of many customers is that the
water is not safe to drink. The AG urged us to take steps to monitor the safety of AUF’s water
and take whatwer steps necessary to ensure that customers can feel safe to drink the water and
use it for cooking and bathing.
The AG noted that numerous customers tfftified during the service hearings that AUF’s
overall quality of service is Unsatisfactory. According to the AG, many of the same problems