STATE OF FLORIDA - Public Service Commission

ORDER NO. PSC-12-0102-FOF-WS
DOCKET NO. 100330-WS
PAGE 26
customers. Noting that there is no fail-safe process to ensure that every customer mives timely
notilication, we find that AUF’s policies and procedures regarding PBWNs requires further
monitoring. Although AUF did provide evidence that it has developed procedures to provide
customer notilication in multiple ways, and enables its call centers to provide informarion to
customers who inquk about service outages, we believe M er action is required. In Section
IV. B. Additional Actions for Wty of Service below, we will go into detail as to what those
actions should be.
(4) Commission Conclusion on Quality of Product and operating Condition
We believe that the evidence in the mrd demonstrates that AUF is in compliance with
the applicable regulatory standards for the majority of its water and wastewater systems. Many
of Am’s water and wastewater systems were comtructd 40 to 50 years ago, aud, because of the
aging Mas-, there have been maintenan ce, repair, and environmental compliance
challenges. With 58 water and 27 wastewater systems, compliance can be daunting. However,
we do note that there are seven systems with current consent orders and warning letters. Also,
several staff witnesses testified that ATJF had failed to do appropriate testing with regard to
nitratednhites and lead and copper. Further, AUF has failed to timely provide required reports
to DEP or CH. Also, based on OUT review of the testimony of the customers, the 19 staff
wiinesses, and the witnesses of the inteae~rs and ATJF, it appears that there are still problems
with Am’s attempt to address customer satisfaction. Therefore, while we note that AUF has
attempted to respond to service quality problems, and that its service has improved, we find that
the Utility has not yet reached a satisfactory level of quality of service.
We agree with OPC‘s argument that it is necessary to follow the rules that are put in
place to protect the customers. While we note that it is not uncommon to fjnd a number of
deficiencies at any facility, we find that the number of deficiencies lied in testimony still
preclude a finding of satisfactory seMce.
We do not take lightly the arguments of some of the Intervenors that the perception of
many customers is that the water is not safe to drink. Water safety is always a great concern to
this Commission. In fact, it is largely for that reawn that we seek the testimony of
representatives from the DEP, HD and WMD, which are the agencies with primary jurisdiction
over the quality of the product and operating conditions of the facilities. We are also aware that
the operating and compliance status of any utility’s plants and facilities do not necessarily
coincide with the customers’ perception of whether the ufility’s product is of acceptable quality.
However, weighing the evidence provided by the experts from the agencies with primary
jurisdiction in determining the quality of the product and oPerarjng conditions of the facilities,
and also considering the evidence provided by intervenors’ witnesses, and customer testimony,
we find that pursuant to Rule 25-30.433(1), F.A.C., the quality of the utility’s product and the
operating condition of the utility’s plant and facilities are marginal.