Aqua's original request
$29.15million / year
More annual water + wastewater revenue
$29,148,616 originally requested, not approved revenue or a uniform household percentage increase.
Independent community briefing / PUCT 58124
When you can't switch, oversight has to work.
Water is essential. A connected household generally cannot simply shop for another piped-water provider when prices rise. Here is what Aqua asked for, what the judges questioned, and what the public record actually shows.
Public records. Clear distinctions. A stronger voice for customers.
The reason oversight matters
Texas law recognizes the monopoly.
“retail public utilities are by definition monopolies in the areas they serve”
The same statute says normal competitive price pressures do not operate and that public regulation should act as a substitute for competition. That makes meaningful oversight essential.
Service territory and alternatives are address-specific. This is not a claim that every possible private water source is unavailable, or that an antitrust violation or abuse has been adjudicated against Aqua.
Source notes [35] [36]
-
[35] Legislative policy: monopoly and regulation as a substitute for competition
https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/WA/htm/WA.13.htm#13.001 (opens in a new tab)
-
[36] Just and reasonable rates, regional preference and utility burden
https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/WA/htm/WA.13.htm#13.182 (opens in a new tab)
The original request. The recommended changes. Not the final outcome.
Return on equity / disputed
10.60%9.18%
Aqua request → Staff + PFD recommendation
ROE is an equity-financing return, not a profit margin, a bill surcharge, or the final customer rate.
Source notes [24] [25] [17]
-
[24] Aqua's Exceptions to the Proposal for Decision
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4796_1678422.PDF#page=4 (opens in a new tab)
-
[25] Direct Testimony of Emily Sears
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4397_1588455.PDF#page=6 (opens in a new tab)
-
[17] Proposal for Decision - return analysis
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667275.PDF#page=84 (opens in a new tab)
PFD recommendation / contested
$20.97million in rate base
Proposed investment-balance exclusions
$20,972,571.95 recommended for exclusion, not annual savings, an adopted finding, a refund, or proof of fraud.
01 / The price impact
Same water quantity. A much higher core charge.
These public-tariff examples hold consumption at 20,000 gallons. They illustrate the change in ordinary fixed and volumetric prices without using any household's private bills.
Featured public-tariff illustration
Legacy Southwest A
20,000 gallons · water core only
- Previous base + usage
- $134.10
- Interim base + usage
- $240.70
+$106.60+79.5% core change
Base + volumetric water charges only. 5/8 x 3/4-inch residential water meter. Ordinary full-period illustration, not an actual household bill or a refund.
Source notes [14] [11]
PUCT agency staff's April 16, 2026 proposed prices - not approved rates
A cut to Aqua's request. Not a return to the old price.
Legacy Southwest A · 20,000 gallons · base + usage only
- Previous prices
- $134.10
- Aqua interim prices
- $240.70
- Staff's proposed prices (not approved)
- $227.61
$13.09 lessthan the interim base + usage charge (5.4% lower)
Still +$93.51above the previous base + usage charge (+69.7%)
Our position, not an agency finding: Our view: this is not enough relief. In this specific example, Staff's price table would leave the base-and-usage charge substantially above the previous price.
This Staff price table lowers the monthly base charge and every residential gallon-tier price by approximately 5.4% from Aqua's interim prices. That reduction is already included in the example above. 9.18% is a recommended return on equity, not a percentage discount on your bill; the table reflects multiple cost recommendations, not ROE alone.
Judges' recommended outcome - not approved rates: The SOAH judges separately recommend lowering the fixed charge and gallon-tier prices, but their PFD says the specific adjusted rates still require calculations by Staff. This earlier Staff table is not a calculation of the full PFD or a final Commission-approved tariff.
Same 20,000 gallons and the first residential meter-price category, using ordinary full-period pricing and each illustrated charge rounded to cents. Base plus water usage only; excludes the other charges, credits and account-specific adjustments listed below. No phase-in or new surcharge is modeled. Not a personal bill or refund prediction.
Source notes [26] [25] [27] [19] [14] [11]
-
[26] Clean Errata Direct Testimony of Jorge Ordonez - proposed water prices
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4520_1623194.PDF#page=14 (opens in a new tab)
-
[25] Direct Testimony of Emily Sears
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4397_1588455.PDF#page=6 (opens in a new tab)
-
[27] Staff's Exceptions to the Proposal for Decision
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4795_1678388.PDF#page=4 (opens in a new tab)
-
[19] Proposal for Decision - consolidation and rate design
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667276.PDF#page=12 (opens in a new tab)
-
[14] Legacy Southwest corrected approved tariff
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/57785_25_1559633.PDF#page=12 (opens in a new tab)
-
[11] Filed interim residential water schedule
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4438_1600878.PDF#page=30 (opens in a new tab)
The comparison has boundaries.
Ordinary full-period, fractional-quantity tier pricing at the stated meter size. Not a statewide average, a personalized bill, a consolidation-only effect, or a refund calculation.
What these amounts leave out
Excludes SIC, pass-throughs, credits, assessments, sewer, one-time fees, and individual billing adjustments such as the normal-read-date rule. Those can materially change the total comparison.
The full picture: Some fixed charges fell. Old SICs and tax credits, and regional pass-throughs, also changed. A core-price increase must not be presented as the complete bill increase.
Three other legacy schedules. The same stated quantity.
Public-tariff illustration
Legacy North general
20,000 gallons · water core only
- Previous base + usage
- $155.36
- Interim base + usage
- $240.70
+$85.34+54.9% core change
Base + volumetric water charges only. 5/8 x 3/4-inch residential water meter. Ordinary full-period illustration, not an actual household bill or a refund.
Public-tariff illustration
Legacy Southeast general
20,000 gallons · water core only
- Previous base + usage
- $105.00
- Interim base + usage
- $240.70
+$135.70+129.2% core change
Base + volumetric water charges only. 5/8 x 3/4-inch residential water meter. Ordinary full-period illustration, not an actual household bill or a refund.
Source notes [13] [11]
Public-tariff illustration
Legacy Southwest B
20,000 gallons · water core only
- Previous base + usage
- $111.60
- Interim base + usage
- $240.70
+$129.10+115.7% core change
Base + volumetric water charges only. 5/8 x 3/4-inch residential water meter. Ordinary full-period illustration, not an actual household bill or a refund.
Source notes [14] [11]
Read the tariff, not just the headline
What changed in the Southwest A example?
Residential water prices for this particular legacy schedule; dollars per 1,000 gallons in each block. Not a price for all gallons once a threshold is crossed.
For this smallest-meter example, the monthly base changed from $44.85 to $34.90. The base and tier comparison is separate from the old SIC and other bill components.
Source notes [14] [11] [40]
-
[14] Legacy Southwest corrected approved tariff
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/57785_25_1559633.PDF#page=12 (opens in a new tab)
-
[11] Filed interim residential water schedule
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4438_1600878.PDF#page=30 (opens in a new tab)
- [40] Normal meter-reading intervals and lowest-block pricing
| Usage block | Previous | Interim |
|---|---|---|
| First 5,000 gallons | $2.85 | $5.488 |
| Next 5,000 gallons | $4.00 | $8.232 |
| Next 10,000 gallons | $5.50 | $13.720 |
| Above 20,000 gallons | $6.75 | $15.092 |
The service record
Prices are rising. Service deserves scrutiny too.
Higher prices make service accountability more important. This developing archive records specific Aqua Texas service notices whose source and date could be checked, while keeping documented facts separate from allegations.
6 source-confirmed event records shown
Review window: Sep 11, 2025 to Sep 11, 2026. Records reviewed Sep 11, 2026.
Partial public-web collection, not all Aqua Texas outages or boil notices in the last year. Five entries come from Aqua's own public Texas advisory map; one comes from an HOA's explicitly attributed reproduction of an Aqua notice. Aqua exposes current and some cleared map records, but a complete twelve-month archive was not established. Failure to find a notice does not establish that a community had no service problems.
Historical archive, not a live water-safety alert. A boil notice may be precautionary; it is not by itself proof of laboratory-confirmed contamination. Missing rescission records do not mean a notice is still active. Follow current official instructions.
Source notes [52] [54] [55] [53]
-
[52] Service Alerts & Disruptions
https://www.aquawater.com/service-alerts (opens in a new tab)
- [54] Aqua Disruption Viewer - public data-source configuration
- [55] Public disruption data service - query and layer metadata
-
[53] Aqua Texas - provider identity
https://www.aquawater.com/about-aqua/states-we-serve/aqua-texas (opens in a new tab)
Boil-water notice
The Resort at Eagle Mountain Lake
Tarrant County · Aqua Texas
- Notice sent
- Later record
- Lifting / restoration not verified
- Planned status
- Not established
Aqua notified customers in The Resort water system to boil water before consumption because of electrical equipment issues at the plant. The HOA reproduced that notice on May 20. This documents a precautionary boil notice, not a laboratory-confirmed contamination finding or a separately verified water outage.
Reported reason: Electrical equipment issues at the plant, according to the reproduced Aqua notice.
HOA-hosted reproduction, not a utility- or government-hosted original. May 19 is the stated notice transmission date; the equipment-event onset and advisory end date were not verified. The HOA's June 25 waterline notice identifies Aqua Texas as the neighborhood provider; its local-information page identifies Tarrant County. No matching rescission was verified in the reviewed material. That does not mean this historical notice remains active.
Boil-water notice
Woodcreek 1
Hays County · Aqua Texas
- Record created
- Advisory begins
- Later record
- Lifting / restoration not verified
- Planned status
- unplanned
Aqua's public Texas map recorded an unplanned boil-water advisory for Woodcreek 1. The record was marked Active when checked on September 11, 2026.
Original utility record 2592889. Record creation and advisory begin date are not proof of customer-notification delivery or the start of an underlying outage. Active is a checking-time map status, not an independently verified continuing condition. No cause, contamination finding, formal rescission or PWS ID was verified. System and county labels are Aqua's.
Boil-water notice
Maywood Acres
Liberty County · Aqua Texas
- Record created
- Advisory begins
- Later record
- Aqua reports lifted; actual date not verified
- Planned status
- unplanned
Aqua's public Texas map recorded an unplanned boil-water advisory for Maywood Acres. When checked on September 11, the same record was marked Cleared and expressly said the advisory had been lifted.
Original utility record 2590091 supports both the advisory and reported lifting; they are not two incidents. The actual lifting date and a formal rescission document were not verified. Estimated end and last-edit fields are not treated as actual lifting dates. No underlying outage-start time, cause, contamination finding or PWS ID was verified.
Boil-water notice
Carrizo Water
Henderson County · Aqua Texas
- Record created
- Advisory begins
- Later record
- Lifting / restoration not verified
- Planned status
- unplanned
Aqua's public Texas map recorded an unplanned boil-water advisory for Carrizo Water. The record was marked Active when checked on September 11, 2026.
Original utility record 2592089. Active is a checking-time map status, not proof that conditions continue. Record creation and advisory begin date are not the start of an underlying outage. No cause, contamination finding, formal rescission or PWS ID was verified. Missing verified lifting does not establish an ongoing incident.
Boil-water notice
Astro - Niagra
Fort Bend County · Aqua Texas
- Record created
- Advisory begins
- Later record
- Aqua reports lifted; actual date not verified
- Planned status
- planned
Aqua classified this boil-water advisory as planned. The record was created September 9 with an advisory begin date of September 10. When checked September 11, it was marked Cleared and said the advisory had been lifted.
Original utility record 2586089. System spelling is preserved from Aqua's map. Planned is the utility's classification, not an inferred maintenance cause. The actual lifting date and a formal rescission document were not verified. No underlying outage-start time, contamination finding or PWS ID was verified.
Boil-water notice
The Woodlands
Parker County · Aqua Texas
- Record created
- Advisory begins
- Later record
- Aqua reports lifted; actual date not verified
- Planned status
- unplanned
Aqua's public Texas map recorded an unplanned boil-water advisory for its system named The Woodlands in Parker County. When checked September 11, the same record was marked Cleared and said the advisory had been lifted.
Original utility record 2588889. This is Aqua's Parker County system label, not an attribution to the better-known community in Montgomery County. The actual lifting date and a formal rescission document were not verified. No cause, contamination finding, underlying outage-start time or PWS ID was verified.
Count a notice, its updates and any lifting report as one event. Aqua Texas is not Aqua Water Supply Corporation, and Texas Water Utilities is a different provider. Utility record creation, advisory begin dates and customer notification are different events. Map dates below are calendar-date transcriptions, not verified delivery or outage times; the service and edit-field metadata have different timezone conventions. Do not substitute estimated end or last-edit dates for actual lifting. Exclude future-start advisories and conservation-only notices. These six selected, non-random records cannot establish a statewide reliability rate, confirmed contamination, fault, affected-customer count or what happened at a particular household. A notice is not automatically evidence admitted in Docket 58124.
How to obtain a fuller service history
The highest-value way to expand this archive is to obtain existing system-identified records rather than treat the current map as a full history. TCEQ offers Records Online and a Public Information Request route. Its boil-notice program receives notices and related reporting. No request has been submitted by this site.
Please provide existing records for Aqua Texas-operated public water systems covering September 11, 2025 through September 11, 2026, including earlier notices documented as overlapping that period: an available provider/system/PWS-ID crosswalk; boil-notice logs, notices, lifting or rescission records and delivery certifications; immediate-notification records for outages and low pressure; related updates and final investigation findings; and available data dictionaries, retention information and known coverage gaps. Please preserve notice IDs and distinguish received, issued, advisory-start, actual restoration and rescission dates from estimates. Electronic records are preferred where available. Please exclude or redact customer account numbers, private bills, complainant identities, signatures and personal contact information. This request seeks existing records, not creation of a new outage inventory.
System ownership and exact PWS IDs must be checked before attributing additional records to Aqua Texas. Complaint allegations are not established findings. TCEQ-held records may omit events not reported to the agency; even a records response is not automatically a complete count of all outages.
Aqua's current service alerts (opens in a new tab) · TCEQ records access (opens in a new tab) · Report an environmental concern (opens in a new tab)
02 / Follow the record
What happened.
What has not been decided.
A chronological record of the application, interim rates and hearing, through the dated review and a requested future step. A date passing does not verify completion.
Verified event / order
Proposal / recommendation
Requested, not verified complete
Search titles, dates and explanations. Topic and text filters work together.
-
rates
Party proposal
Aqua files its statewide rate application
The original request seeks about $29.15 million more annual water and wastewater revenue combined.
What this means A requested revenue increase is not an approved rate, an extra ROE fee, or the percentage increase on every household's bill.
-
procedure
Verified order
The application is found administratively incomplete
Commission Order 19 requires Aqua to cure deficiencies.
What this means Administrative completeness and whether the requested costs are ultimately justified are different questions.
-
procedure
Verified order
Supplemented application and notice clear the intake stage
Order 24 finds the supplemented application complete and notice sufficient, and suspends the proposed effective date.
What this means This is not approval of Aqua's final rate request.
-
procedure
Verified order
The case is referred to SOAH
The State Office of Administrative Hearings is asked to conduct the contested hearing and prepare a recommendation.
What this means SOAH judges develop the PFD; PUCT Commissioners make the final agency decision.
-
participation
Verified order
An ordinary intervention deadline is set
SOAH Order 2 sets December 15, 2025 for intervention and extends suspension to March 9, 2026.
What this means Older articles saying intervention is still open must be read against this later order.
-
participation
Elapsed deadline
The ordinary intervention deadline passes
New participation after this date requires the applicable late-intervention process.
What this means Late intervention is not automatic and does not itself reopen evidence or revive elapsed deadlines.
-
rates
Verified order
SOAH initially denies Staff's interim-rate motion
The initial ruling is later reversed by the Commission.
What this means Do not treat this superseded denial as the current ruling on interim protection.
-
rates
Verified event
Commissioners consider the interim-rate appeal
The Commission hears the appeal that results in its March written Interim Order.
What this means This was not consideration of the later July PFD or a final rate decision.
-
participation
Verified order
Many inactive intervenors are dismissed
SOAH dismisses listed intervenors who did not file the required testimony or statement of position.
What this means More than 200 historical intervention grants do not mean more than 200 active courtroom participants.
Source notes [8] [16]
-
[8] SOAH Order No. 9 - granting motion to dismiss parties
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4426_1596196.PDF#page=2 (opens in a new tab)
-
[16] Proposal for Decision - procedural history and participants
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667275.PDF#page=15 (opens in a new tab)
-
[8] SOAH Order No. 9 - granting motion to dismiss parties
-
rates
Verified event
Aqua reports implementing interim rates
Aqua's March 12 notice identifies March 9 as the implementation date and says the rates are subject to reconciliation.
What this means The implementation date, order date and each account's billing period are not interchangeable.
-
rates
Verified order
The written Commission Interim Order is filed
The Commission reverses the earlier denial and requires interim status through final determination.
What this means Interim protection is real. It does not establish a particular customer's eventual refund or final tariff.
-
through procedure
Verified event
The evidentiary hearing takes place
Aqua, Staff and five intervenor groupings participate in the merits hearing.
What this means That hearing is over. A new public comment does not recreate a testimony window.
-
procedure
Verified event
The evidentiary record closes
The PFD expressly identifies May 22 as the record-closing date.
What this means Finishing the hearing on April 23 and closing the record on May 22 are distinct events.
-
participation
Verified order
A request to add more customer bills is denied
SOAH accepts particular late briefs but denies the request to reopen for additional customer billing records.
What this means More bills, declarations or accurate arithmetic do not by themselves establish a new route into the merits record.
-
procedure
PFD recommendation
The judges issue their Proposal for Decision
The recommendation is mixed: a lower ROE and some exclusions, but support for consolidation and Aqua's principal rate design.
What this means A PFD proposes an outcome. It is not the Commission's final order.
Source notes [16] [17] [18] [19]
-
[16] Proposal for Decision - procedural history and participants
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667275.PDF#page=15 (opens in a new tab)
-
[17] Proposal for Decision - return analysis
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667275.PDF#page=84 (opens in a new tab)
-
[18] Proposal for Decision - disputed work orders
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667275.PDF#page=68 (opens in a new tab)
-
[19] Proposal for Decision - consolidation and rate design
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667276.PDF#page=12 (opens in a new tab)
-
[16] Proposal for Decision - procedural history and participants
-
procedure
Verified event
Exceptions and replies are scheduled
Commission Counsel sets August 28 exceptions and September 4 replies, and says a later memo will identify Commission consideration.
What this means The memorandum says there is no provision for subsequent ordinary pleading rounds.
-
participation
Elapsed deadline
Scheduled deadline for exceptions
Principal parties submit their objections to the PFD around this deadline.
What this means Posting does not itself resolve timeliness, acceptance or a particular party's appellate preservation.
Source notes [23] [24] [27]
-
[23] Exceptions and Replies Memorandum / SOAH Letter Date
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4759_1674029.PDF#page=2 (opens in a new tab)
-
[24] Aqua's Exceptions to the Proposal for Decision
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4796_1678422.PDF#page=4 (opens in a new tab)
-
[27] Staff's Exceptions to the Proposal for Decision
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4795_1678388.PDF#page=4 (opens in a new tab)
-
[23] Exceptions and Replies Memorandum / SOAH Letter Date
-
participation
Elapsed deadline
Scheduled reply round ends
Replies show the parties defending different combinations of costs, return, allocation and customer protections.
What this means There is not one uniform ratepayer position on every issue.
Source notes [23] [28] [31]
-
[23] Exceptions and Replies Memorandum / SOAH Letter Date
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4759_1674029.PDF#page=2 (opens in a new tab)
-
[28] OPUC's Reply to Exceptions
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4813_1680338.PDF#page=13 (opens in a new tab)
-
[31] Aligned Intervenors' Reply to Exceptions
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4817_1680456.PDF#page=55 (opens in a new tab)
-
[23] Exceptions and Replies Memorandum / SOAH Letter Date
-
procedure
Dated snapshot
Latest verified docket snapshot
New activity in the reviewed snapshot includes customer submissions, an intervention request and Staff protective-order paperwork.
What this means No final rate order or new decision setting was identified in this snapshot. It is not a live update.
-
procedure
Requested step / completion unverified
Requested date for SOAH's exceptions letter
Commission Counsel requested the judges' response by this date.
What this means Requested future step only. Completion is not verified here. This is not a resident deadline or a confirmed voting date.
No events match these filters.
Try a broader term or use “Clear filters” above to restore the complete timeline.
03 / Where oversight has work to do
A lower number is not
the whole decision.
Costs, financing, rate design and implementation all matter. The PFD is mixed. These are disputed positions and recommendations, not a finding of adjudicated abuse.
Contested recommendation
Cost of financing
Aqua requested 10.60% ROE. Staff and the PFD recommend 9.18%.
That is a real, documented disagreement over the allowed equity-financing return. ROE is not a profit margin or an extra fee added on top of the revenue requirement.
The final financial outcome also depends on debt, allowed investment, taxes and other costs. A lower ROE alone does not calculate a household refund.
Source notes [24] [25] [17]
-
[24] Aqua's Exceptions to the Proposal for Decision
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4796_1678422.PDF#page=4 (opens in a new tab)
-
[25] Direct Testimony of Emily Sears
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4397_1588455.PDF#page=6 (opens in a new tab)
-
[17] Proposal for Decision - return analysis
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667275.PDF#page=84 (opens in a new tab)
ALJ recommendation
Show the cost support
$20.97 million in proposed rate-base exclusions
The PFD recommends excluding two work-order balances where the judges found the proof connecting costs to recoverable plant insufficient. Aqua contests those exclusions.
This is a proposed investment-balance reduction, not $20.97 million in annual customer savings, an adopted Commission finding, or proof of fraud.
Source notes [18] [24]
Mixed positions
Who bears the bill
Consolidation and tier design redistribute the impact.
Aqua seeks separate statewide water and wastewater tariffs. The PFD generally supports consolidation and its fixed/volumetric mix. A lower base-charge alternative shifts more recovery into usage charges and can hurt high-use households.
Regional preference and nondiscrimination remain relevant, but statewide consolidation is not automatically unlawful. The old substantial-similarity statute was repealed in 2023.
Source notes [19] [27] [36] [37]
-
[19] Proposal for Decision - consolidation and rate design
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667276.PDF#page=12 (opens in a new tab)
-
[27] Staff's Exceptions to the Proposal for Decision
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4795_1678388.PDF#page=4 (opens in a new tab)
-
[36] Just and reasonable rates, regional preference and utility burden
https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/WA/htm/WA.13.htm#13.182 (opens in a new tab)
-
[37] Repeal of former Water Code 13.145
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB02373F.htm (opens in a new tab)
Final terms unresolved
Implementation matters
Interim does not mean a guaranteed refund of the increase.
Final-versus-interim reconciliation can produce refunds or credits with applicable interest, or authorized additional recovery if the final-rate predicates are met. The lawful comparator is not simply the old bill.
No final household amount, fixed interest percentage, cash election, six-month guarantee or customer claim deadline has been established in this snapshot.
Source notes [9] [38] [39] [20]
-
[9] Commission Interim Order
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4436_1601110.PDF#page=5 (opens in a new tab)
-
[38] Class A interim rates and reciprocal recovery
https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/WA/htm/WA.13.htm#13.187 (opens in a new tab)
- [39] Interim-rate refund/credit and reciprocal recovery
-
[20] Proposal for Decision - interim reconciliation
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667276.PDF#page=20 (opens in a new tab)
04 / The people and institutions
Different roles.
Not one ratepayer position.
The applicant, agency Staff and consumer advocates do not agree on every cost or design question. The judges recommend; the Commissioners decide.
Applicant
Aqua Texas
10.60% requested ROE
Seeks its requested return, statewide water/sewer tariff structure and recovery of disputed costs and investments. Its exceptions seek changes to the PFD in Aqua's favor.
A utility's request is not the approved outcome.
Agency analysts, experts and attorneys
PUCT Staff
9.18% recommended ROE
Reviews Aqua's request and participates in the case with testimony and proposed outcomes. Staff supports some cost reductions but also consolidation and Aqua's fixed-charge design, including without the earlier five-year phase-in condition. Disputes parts of rate-case expense recovery.
Staff proposes; it does not vote on the final rates. PUCT Staff is also distinct from OPUC, the separate consumer-advocacy agency.
Source notes [25] [27]
Administrative law judges who heard the case
SOAH judges
A mixed recommendation
Recommend 9.18% ROE and some investment/expense exclusions while generally accepting statewide consolidation and Aqua's main rate design.
Their Proposal for Decision recommends an outcome; it is not a final Commission order. The recommended adjusted prices still require Staff calculations.
Source notes [16] [17] [18] [19]
-
[16] Proposal for Decision - procedural history and participants
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667275.PDF#page=15 (opens in a new tab)
-
[17] Proposal for Decision - return analysis
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667275.PDF#page=84 (opens in a new tab)
-
[18] Proposal for Decision - disputed work orders
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667275.PDF#page=68 (opens in a new tab)
-
[19] Proposal for Decision - consolidation and rate design
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667276.PDF#page=12 (opens in a new tab)
Final agency decision-makers
PUCT Commissioners
The Commissioners decide the rates
Make the final agency decision. Subject to applicable law, they can accept, reject or modify recommendations from Staff and the SOAH judges.
A Staff proposal or judges' recommendation is not their approval. No final rate order was identified in this dated snapshot.
Source notes [16] [9] [1]
-
[16] Proposal for Decision - procedural history and participants
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667275.PDF#page=15 (opens in a new tab)
-
[9] Commission Interim Order
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4436_1601110.PDF#page=5 (opens in a new tab)
- [1] Official filing index
Separate statutory consumer-advocacy agency
Office of Public Utility Counsel
6.98% primary / 8.38% alternative
Seeks deeper cost and rate-base reductions. Its later reply maintains the lower primary ROE position and an 8.38% alternative tied to Staff's analysis.
OPUC is not PUCT Staff and does not make the final decision. These are OPUC's positions, not final findings or an individual representation agreement.
Watershed Association, Hays County and Woodcreek
Hays County Intervenors
Cost support and allocation
Challenge capitalization and cost support and seek accountability. Their lower fixed-charge alternative would shift more recovery into volumetric prices.
A lower fixed charge is not automatically a lower bill for higher-use households.
Source notes [19] [29]
Municipal intervenor
City of Houston
Specific expense exceptions
Its later exceptions generally accept the PFD except for municipal rate-case expense reimbursement and allocation, including prior SIC-case expenses charged to Houston customers.
Do not present its earlier positions as an unchanged objection to the entire PFD.
Karen Ricks and Miguel Gonzalez Larriba
Aligned Intervenors
8.38% in the September 4 reply
Raise accounting, allocation and implementation objections. Their latest examined reply supports 8.38% and takes no position on OPUC's primary 6.98%.
Filed positions, acceptance and individual appellate preservation are different questions.
Ratepayer representation and organizing
Fair Water Texas
Customer concerns and accountability
Participated in the hearing and post-hearing briefing, with customer-service, accountability and rate-design concerns. No separate numerical expert ROE recommendation was verified.
Ask what material can be used now and confirm assistance, representation and privacy arrangements before sharing records.
Source notes [16] [17] [32]
-
[16] Proposal for Decision - procedural history and participants
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667275.PDF#page=15 (opens in a new tab)
-
[17] Proposal for Decision - return analysis
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667275.PDF#page=84 (opens in a new tab)
-
[32] Fair Water Texas Reply Brief
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4705_1647444.PDF#page=2 (opens in a new tab)
05 / The public response
Thousands of objections. A smaller group litigating the case.
The PFD says several thousand protests were filed and more than 200 intervention motions were granted. Most of those intervenors were later dismissed for not filing the required testimony or position statement.
4,851
Total docket filings
All filing types in the snapshot. Not people.
3,839
Metadata-screened entries
Includes 113 confidential-tagged entries. Not verified unique comments.
5
Intervenor hearing teams
Plus Aqua and Staff; not thousands of active litigants.
What the numbers can — and cannot — say
Five intervenor teams participated in the hearing: OPUC, Houston, Hays County Intervenors, Aligned Intervenors and Fair Water Texas. Aqua and Staff make seven principal hearing groups overall.
The complete snapshot had continuous item-number coverage with no missing or duplicated items. The screen includes PC/COM-coded entries or titles containing protest, public comment or ratepayer comment. Most older protests are coded PL. This is a metadata screen, not a document-by-document count of unique comments or people.
Inside the metadata screen
- Non-confidential entries
- 3,726
- CONF-tagged entries
- 113
- PC-coded entries
- 157
- COM-coded entries
- 255
- Historical intervention grants
- More than 200 motions
PC and COM counts are subsets, not additions to the screen total. CONF is a metadata designation; no confidential contents are reproduced here.
No verified unique-person count. Joint names, repeat submissions, mixed protest/intervention forms, confidential-tagged counterparts and incorrect filer labels prevent a verified unique-person count. Filing a request is not the same as a grant of intervention.
Source notes [1] [16] [21]
- [1] Official filing index
-
[16] Proposal for Decision - procedural history and participants
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667275.PDF#page=15 (opens in a new tab)
-
[21] Proposal for Decision - post-dismissal participant recital
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667276.PDF#page=43 (opens in a new tab)
06 / Make your next step count
Be heard.
Protect your information.
The hearing and ordinary briefing deadlines have passed. There are still ways to stay informed, express a position and address a specific problem — but they are not interchangeable.
Submit a clear, personal public comment
Describe your own verified experience. Distinguish current charges from balances and higher usage from higher prices. An accepted public comment is visible, but filing does not admit it as evidence or make you a party.
Before you act: The ordinary intervention deadline was December 15, 2025. Do not check an intervention box just to give a comment more weight. Confirm current nonparty filing and certificate instructions.
Source notes [47] [6] [42] [45]
-
[47] Participating in a PUCT proceeding
https://www.puc.texas.gov/agency/rulesnlaws/participate/ (opens in a new tab)
-
[6] SOAH Order No. 2 - intervention deadline and related relief
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4058_1564281.PDF#page=4 (opens in a new tab)
-
[42] Administrative record versus evidence supporting findings
https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/GV/htm/GV.2001.htm#2001.141 (opens in a new tab)
- [45] Filing form, identity, redaction and format requirements
Ask an existing advocate for a concrete plan
Before collecting a neighborhood's private bills, ask which current issue the information could help address, who would use it, and through what lawful route. Start with a defined need, not an unreviewed archive.
Before you act: An email or a community packet does not create representation, reopen the record or become admitted evidence. Do not privately lobby deciding commissioners or judges with off-record merits evidence.
- Contact OPUC Customer Relations
- OPUC's official contact information (opens in a new tab)
- Fair Water Texas (opens in a new tab)
Source notes [48] [15] [43]
-
[48] Official consumer contact and assistance information
https://opuc.texas.gov/compact-with-texans-2/ (opens in a new tab)
-
[15] SOAH Order No. 19 - late briefs accepted; reopening denied
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4724_1649646.PDF#page=3 (opens in a new tab)
-
[43] Ex parte consultation restrictions
https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/GV/htm/GV.2001.htm#2001.061 (opens in a new tab)
Check a specific billing or service problem
A documented read-date variation greater than two days can require lowest-block volumetric pricing under the applicable rule. A service interruption exceeding 24 consecutive hours can raise a base-charge-proration issue.
Before you act: Prove the normal schedule or actual interruption, applicable tariff and prior adjustments first. Neither a large bill nor a long cycle alone proves overbilling. Contact the utility first and use the proper PUCT/municipal or TCEQ route.
Information and advocacy, not individual legal representation. Verify the current docket and applicable filing instructions before acting.
07 / A clearer conversation
Strong advocacy.
Careful facts.
Precision makes the case for accountability stronger, not weaker.
Common claims, put in context
Claim"4,851 filings" means 4,851 residents.
The facts
It does not. The docket includes applications, discovery, orders, testimony, repeat filings, joint submissions and comments. Even comment-coded entries are not a verified count of unique people.
ClaimEvery comment becomes admitted evidence.
The facts
Filing a comment or attachment does not obtain its admission. Findings must rest on evidence and officially noticed matters. Public expression, party status and evidentiary admission are different.
ClaimPUCT Staff's proposed prices are already approved rates.
The facts
Staff is a participant in the case, not the Commissioners who decide it. The Staff price table is one proposed scenario. The SOAH judges issue a separate Proposal for Decision; their adjusted prices still require calculation. Neither recommendation is the final Commission-approved tariff.
Source notes [26] [27] [16] [19]
-
[26] Clean Errata Direct Testimony of Jorge Ordonez - proposed water prices
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4520_1623194.PDF#page=14 (opens in a new tab)
-
[27] Staff's Exceptions to the Proposal for Decision
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4795_1678388.PDF#page=4 (opens in a new tab)
-
[16] Proposal for Decision - procedural history and participants
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667275.PDF#page=15 (opens in a new tab)
-
[19] Proposal for Decision - consolidation and rate design
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667276.PDF#page=12 (opens in a new tab)
Claim9.18% is already the final rate or a profit margin.
The facts
It is Staff's and the PFD's recommended return on equity. ROE is one financing component, not the customer's rate, a profit margin, or a final Commission approval.
ClaimLower ROE automatically refunds the whole increase.
The facts
The final-versus-interim tariff and collection calculation controls, with other inputs and implementation terms. It can differ by customer and is not the old-to-new bill difference.
Source notes [38] [39] [20]
-
[38] Class A interim rates and reciprocal recovery
https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/WA/htm/WA.13.htm#13.187 (opens in a new tab)
- [39] Interim-rate refund/credit and reciprocal recovery
-
[20] Proposal for Decision - interim reconciliation
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667276.PDF#page=20 (opens in a new tab)
ClaimA lower base charge helps every household.
The facts
If the same revenue is collected through higher usage prices instead, high-use households can pay more. Rate design needs an honest account of who benefits and who bears the shift.
ClaimAll SIC refunds are still unpaid.
The facts
The prior 55577 excess-SIC refund compliance docket, 57622, closed with compliance found in July 2025. The 53428 reconciliation and the 58124 interim-rate reconciliation are different matters.
Source notes [33] [34] [22] [20]
-
[33] Order denying the SIC amendment and directing corrective relief
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/55577_1065_1466825.PDF#page=16 (opens in a new tab)
-
[34] Order No. 5 - finding compliance and closing docket
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/57622_13_1524315.PDF#page=2 (opens in a new tab)
-
[22] Proposal for Decision - SIC reconciliation
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667275.PDF#page=88 (opens in a new tab)
-
[20] Proposal for Decision - interim reconciliation
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667276.PDF#page=20 (opens in a new tab)
ClaimMonopoly status alone proves an illegal monopoly or fraud.
The facts
Texas law expressly recognizes the monopoly structure and uses regulation as a substitute for competition. A specific unlawful act still needs its own facts and legal basis. Our demand for stronger oversight is an advocacy position, not a court finding of abuse.
Source notes [35] [36]
-
[35] Legislative policy: monopoly and regulation as a substitute for competition
https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/WA/htm/WA.13.htm#13.001 (opens in a new tab)
-
[36] Just and reasonable rates, regional preference and utility burden
https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/WA/htm/WA.13.htm#13.182 (opens in a new tab)
ClaimAn old intervention-extension article is today's deadline.
The facts
The ordinary deadline was later set for December 15, 2025. The hearing and scheduled PFD briefing rounds have since occurred. Late intervention is a distinct, restricted process, not automatic admission.
Source notes [6] [23] [44]
-
[6] SOAH Order No. 2 - intervention deadline and related relief
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4058_1564281.PDF#page=4 (opens in a new tab)
-
[23] Exceptions and Replies Memorandum / SOAH Letter Date
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4759_1674029.PDF#page=2 (opens in a new tab)
- [44] Intervention and late-intervention procedures
08 / Check the record yourself
The sources are part
of the story.
Every claim's source notes include the issuer, date, document, page reference and public URL. The library below groups the same records by what they are — not by whether they support our position.
How to read this library
A filed party statement is a position, not proof or an adopted finding. A PFD is a recommendation. A public tariff transcription does not establish every account's applicability. Date labels distinguish filing dates, effective dates and text checks; printed and PDF page numbers may differ.
These links span Docket 58124, historical tariff and SIC proceedings, statutes, rules and public guidance. They are not one consolidated ruling. Current statutory text does not by itself resolve which saved or historical law applies. The index is a dated metadata snapshot, not an exhaustive court search or a count of unique people.
Only this public explainer and cited public-source metadata are presented here. No private bill examples, confidential document contents or full research reports are reproduced. Source links open third-party sites with their own privacy policies.
Docket index 1The scope of the reviewed snapshot
Source 1 / index
Official filing index
Orders & procedural rulings 10Read each ruling in its own procedural context
Source 3 / order
Order No. 19 - finding application administratively incomplete
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_3740_1534577.PDF#page=2 (opens in a new tab)
Source 4 / order
Order No. 24 - completeness, notice and suspension
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_3848_1546855.PDF#page=2 (opens in a new tab)
Source 5 / order
Order of Referral
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_3925_1557190.PDF#page=2 (opens in a new tab)
Source 6 / order
SOAH Order No. 2 - intervention deadline and related relief
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4058_1564281.PDF#page=4 (opens in a new tab)
Source 7 / order
SOAH Order No. 5 - initial interim-rate denial
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4086_1570090.PDF#page=2 (opens in a new tab)
Source 8 / order
SOAH Order No. 9 - granting motion to dismiss parties
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4426_1596196.PDF#page=2 (opens in a new tab)
Source 9 / order
Commission Interim Order
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4436_1601110.PDF#page=5 (opens in a new tab)
Source 15 / order
SOAH Order No. 19 - late briefs accepted; reopening denied
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4724_1649646.PDF#page=3 (opens in a new tab)
Source 33 / order
Order denying the SIC amendment and directing corrective relief
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/55577_1065_1466825.PDF#page=16 (opens in a new tab)
Source 34 / order
Order No. 5 - finding compliance and closing docket
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/57622_13_1524315.PDF#page=2 (opens in a new tab)
Proposal for Decision 7Judges' recommendations, not a final Commission order
Source 16 / pfd
Proposal for Decision - procedural history and participants
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667275.PDF#page=15 (opens in a new tab)
Source 17 / pfd
Proposal for Decision - return analysis
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667275.PDF#page=84 (opens in a new tab)
Source 18 / pfd
Proposal for Decision - disputed work orders
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667275.PDF#page=68 (opens in a new tab)
Source 19 / pfd
Proposal for Decision - consolidation and rate design
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667276.PDF#page=12 (opens in a new tab)
Source 20 / pfd
Proposal for Decision - interim reconciliation
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667276.PDF#page=20 (opens in a new tab)
Source 21 / pfd
Proposal for Decision - post-dismissal participant recital
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667276.PDF#page=43 (opens in a new tab)
Source 22 / pfd
Proposal for Decision - SIC reconciliation
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4746_1667275.PDF#page=88 (opens in a new tab)
Filed positions & rate schedules 12A filed request, argument or tariff is not necessarily a final approval
Source 2 / party
Application, original notice and rate filing package
Source 10 / party
Notice of effectiveness of interim rates and associated tariffs
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4438_1600878.PDF#page=2 (opens in a new tab)
Source 11 / party
Filed interim residential water schedule
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4438_1600878.PDF#page=30 (opens in a new tab)
Source 24 / party
Aqua's Exceptions to the Proposal for Decision
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4796_1678422.PDF#page=4 (opens in a new tab)
Source 25 / party
Direct Testimony of Emily Sears
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4397_1588455.PDF#page=6 (opens in a new tab)
Source 26 / party
Clean Errata Direct Testimony of Jorge Ordonez - proposed water prices
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4520_1623194.PDF#page=14 (opens in a new tab)
Source 27 / party
Staff's Exceptions to the Proposal for Decision
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4795_1678388.PDF#page=4 (opens in a new tab)
Source 28 / party
OPUC's Reply to Exceptions
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4813_1680338.PDF#page=13 (opens in a new tab)
Source 29 / party
Hays County Intervenors' Exceptions
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4797_1678428.PDF#page=26 (opens in a new tab)
Source 30 / party
Houston's Exceptions to the Proposal for Decision
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4753_1671209.PDF#page=3 (opens in a new tab)
Source 31 / party
Aligned Intervenors' Reply to Exceptions
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4817_1680456.PDF#page=55 (opens in a new tab)
Source 32 / party
Fair Water Texas Reply Brief
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4705_1647444.PDF#page=2 (opens in a new tab)
Official notices, tariffs & guidance 17Check applicability, source dates and current instructions
Source 12 / official
Legacy North approved water tariff
Source 13 / official
Legacy Southeast corrected approved tariff
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/57784_61_1559108.PDF#page=14 (opens in a new tab)
Source 14 / official
Legacy Southwest corrected approved tariff
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/57785_25_1559633.PDF#page=12 (opens in a new tab)
Source 23 / official
Exceptions and Replies Memorandum / SOAH Letter Date
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58124_4759_1674029.PDF#page=2 (opens in a new tab)
Source 47 / official
Participating in a PUCT proceeding
https://www.puc.texas.gov/agency/rulesnlaws/participate/ (opens in a new tab)
Source 48 / official
Official consumer contact and assistance information
https://opuc.texas.gov/compact-with-texans-2/ (opens in a new tab)
Source 52 / official
Service Alerts & Disruptions
https://www.aquawater.com/service-alerts (opens in a new tab)
Source 53 / official
Aqua Texas - provider identity
https://www.aquawater.com/about-aqua/states-we-serve/aqua-texas (opens in a new tab)
Source 54 / official
Aqua Disruption Viewer - public data-source configuration
Source 55 / official
Public disruption data service - query and layer metadata
Source 56 / official
Woodcreek 1 - boil-water advisory record
Source 57 / official
Maywood Acres - advisory and lifting record
Source 58 / official
Carrizo Water - boil-water advisory record
Source 59 / official
Astro - Niagra - planned advisory and lifting record
Source 60 / official
The Woodlands, Parker County - advisory and lifting record
Source 61 / official
Requesting TCEQ records
https://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/data/records-services/reqinfo.html (opens in a new tab)
Source 62 / official
Boil Water Notices - reporting and rescission
https://www.tceq.texas.gov/drinkingwater/boilwater.html (opens in a new tab)
Reproduced utility notices 1Explicitly attributed copies hosted by a community, not issuer-hosted originals
Source 49 / reproduced-notice
Aqua Boil Notice - The Resort water system
Community background & corroboration 2Use only for the identified supporting facts, not as an agency finding
Source 50 / organization
Waterline Installation - Aqua Texas provider corroboration
Source 51 / organization
Local Information - Fort Worth / Tarrant County
https://theresortateaglemountainlakehoa.com/about-us/local-information.aspx (opens in a new tab)
Statutes & rules 12Cited provisions, not individualized legal advice
Source 35 / law
Legislative policy: monopoly and regulation as a substitute for competition
https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/WA/htm/WA.13.htm#13.001 (opens in a new tab)
Source 36 / law
Just and reasonable rates, regional preference and utility burden
https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/WA/htm/WA.13.htm#13.182 (opens in a new tab)
Source 37 / law
Repeal of former Water Code 13.145
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB02373F.htm (opens in a new tab)
Source 38 / law
Class A interim rates and reciprocal recovery
https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/WA/htm/WA.13.htm#13.187 (opens in a new tab)
Source 39 / law
Interim-rate refund/credit and reciprocal recovery
Source 40 / law
Normal meter-reading intervals and lowest-block pricing
Source 41 / law
Billing adjustments, partial periods and interruption proration
Source 42 / law
Administrative record versus evidence supporting findings
https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/GV/htm/GV.2001.htm#2001.141 (opens in a new tab)
Source 43 / law
Ex parte consultation restrictions
https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/GV/htm/GV.2001.htm#2001.061 (opens in a new tab)
Source 44 / law
Intervention and late-intervention procedures
Source 45 / law
Filing form, identity, redaction and format requirements
Source 46 / law