STATE OF FLORIDA - Public Service Commission

ORDER NO. PSG12-0102-FOF-WS
DOCKET NO. 100330-WS
PAGE 28
According to OKs brief, customers continued to complain about AUF’s poor water
quality, plant maintenance, and customer service during the service hearings. As further
discussed below, OPC witness Vandiver testified that the complaints h m the 2010 customer
meetings were similar in nature to those h m the 201 1 service hearings. OPC witness Poucber
testified that AUF has the highest complaint rate of any Commission-regulated utility in Florida.
His analysis showed that complaints fled with this Commission against AUF represented 41
percent of the total water and wastewater complaints fled during 2010, and 4.4 percent of the
complaints fled during the lirst ten months of 201 1. However, he admitted that he did not make
any adjustments to make the comparison more comparable between different-sized utilities, such
as determining the percentage of complaints on a per 100 customer basis. We note that our
Commission audit staff analyzed water and wastewater utility complaints in another case and
detmnhed that, when compared on a per 100 customer basis, AUF did not have the highest
percentage of cornplaints for Commission-regulated water and wastewater utilities during
2010.16
According to OPC witness Dismukes, concerns raised at the service hearings included
AUF’s slow response time in resolving problems and criticisms of CSRs’ interactions with
customers. She noted that customers also expressed complaints regarding untimely or
inadequate information provided by the Utility, billing issues such as unfair billing practices and
meter reading inconsistencies, and keatment by CSRs ranging from ineffective to apathetic or
rude. Witness Dismukes further explained that some of AUF’s field service technicians seem
indifferent to damages that they may cause, and one customer testified that an honest field
tedniciau feared losing his job if he was too outspoken with regard to the Utility’s overcharging
for servies.
OPC witness Poucher asserted that the service hearing complainis were a reiteration of
prior testimony, customer letters, and complaints already fled with this Commission. He
testified that although complaints regarding AUF’s failure to consistently and timely read meters
have subsided, new issues have risen with respect to automatic meter reading activities that have
generated complaints about inaccurate , inconsistent, and nonexistent monthly billing, as well as
high bilk and backbilling.
Witness Poucher emphasii that the number of witnesses who testiiied at the service
hearings represents only a fraction of the number of individuals who attended- He noted that
many customem were excluded fiom attending and participating in the service hearings because
many of AUF’s systems serve seasonal customers who do not reside in Florida during the
summer and early fall months. In addition, witness Poucher stated that many customers were
excluded due to work, disability, or child or parental care responsibilities. Witness Poucher
emphasii that testifying witnesses presented evidence reflective of the entire customer base.
He concluded that the testimony reinforces record evidence that demonstrates AUF’s business
plan is producing an unacceptable quality of service for a product that is not drinkable at rates
Sa Order No. PSCII-OSQI-SC-WS, issued Novemk 22,2011, m Docket No. 11025dWS, Initiation of show
. Four Po& Utility Chuor& ‘on in Polk Countv for noMm of Commission ruks and
rermlahons as orrtlm . ed m the Florida Public Senice commission’s mame ement audit for Four Points Uti@y
cornoration and Bimini Bav utilities Commm ‘on issued June 201 1, p. 14.
l6 -
clillseDxmdmf5aealnst