ShareThis Page

Trib editorial: New PUC oversight must deliver for ratepayers

| Thursday, Nov. 23, 2017, 8:55 p.m.

Local control and less bureaucracy usually are preferable. But the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority's wretched condition makes it understandable that the state House voted 189-5 and the Senate voted 49-0 to impose state Public Utility Commission oversight on the PWSA.

The PUC oversees more than 130 private, investor-owned water systems. It lacks jurisdiction over municipal authorities like the PWSA, but does oversee the municipally-owned Philadelphia Gas Works under state legislation passed in 1999. House Speaker Mike Turzai, R-Marshall, and Rep. Harry Readshaw, D-Carrick, co-sponsors of the PWSA bill, which Gov. Tom Wolf indicated he'd sign, cited that 1999 bill as precedent for making another exception to the PUC's usual purview.

The PWSA just handed ratepayers — blameless for its woes — three-year rate hikes totaling 56 percent. This bill requires PUC approval for PWSA rate hikes. It gives ratepayers another forum for complaints. And it gives the PWSA six months to submit a plan to the PUC for improving infrastructure and complying with Public Utility Code requirements.

As Mr. Turzai said after the bill's House passage, the PWSA “needs to be held to the same standards as the private sector.”

PWSA water quality, service, governance and finances have failed ratepayers for too long. Now, they'll find out whether PUC oversight — which Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto and PWSA leaders say they welcome — can deliver real improvements.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.