Berkshire County — In response to Housatonic Water Works’ delay in installing a manganese filtration system, the Town of Stockbridge has filed a motion with the Department of Public Works (DPU) requesting that the company roll back its planned rate increases. The town is also requesting that the DPU investigate the long-troubled utility.
On January 24, HWW gave notice that it would delay the installation of a manganese filter system. Installation of the filtration system was part of the rate-increase plan approved by the DPU in July. As proposed, HWW customer rates would increase by over 90 percent over five years.
The settlement also includes a capital project list, including a manganese filter system, an interconnection with the Great Barrington Fire District, a new water storage tank, and a main replacement.
In the January 24 filing, company attorneys cited the Great Barrington Board of Health’s Order to Correct, issued against the company on August 22, 2024, as the primary reason for the delay, adding, “This project has been delayed because the company’s lenders have declined to finance the project due to financial risks that arose subsequent to the Department’s approval of the Settlement Agreement.”
In response, attorney Bryan Bertram, of Wellesley law firm Harrington Heep LLP, filed objections with the DPU on behalf of the Town of Stockbridge on Tuesday, February 5. The Town of Stockbridge is an intervenor in the HWW rate case. Bertram writes:
Stockbridge is severely disappointed by the notice [in the manganese filtration project]. The company’s customers face a crisis. Like anyone in the Commonwealth, they have a right to clear, clean, potable drinking water. It is a fundamental human right many take for granted, but one that the company’s customers are not getting. Instead, they dutifully pay their monthly water utility bills to the company – even more now after Phase 1 of the settlement – with no improvement in water quality. While the settlement was supposed to address that crisis in the near term, the notice places hope in doubt. Stockbridge understands that the company is small, has a limited customer base, and has specific financial challenges. But as explained more in this response, the company’s notice comes unexpectedly, six months following the department’s approval of the settlement, and reveals that the company has made virtually no effort to move the ball forward on Phase 2.
Bertram writes that the town would be willing to help HWW find alternative financing or grant options to move the project forward. “Even without those opportunities, there are essential efforts that any company motivated to address this problem would take to get the capital infrastructure in place for manganese filtration,” Bertram writes. “The company’s notice, however, suggests that the company is not particularly interested in Phase 2 but is happy to delay matters, having already pocketed its Phase 1 rate increase with a healthy but unearned rate of return.
Bertram argues that DPU “should not let [the company’s] behavior stand” and filed a motion seeking an investigation into the company’s efforts in complying with DPU’s order, which involves the completion of infrastructure projects to go along with implementation of rate increases.
Bertram also filed a motion to suspend the Phase One rate increases, which included an 18 percent increase in customer rates, in order “to avoid unjust enrichment to the company, unless or until the company shows compliance with [DPU’s] settlement order.”
“There is no question that the company’s customers are not receiving reasonable quality service,” Bertram argues. “The settlement agreement, as implemented by the settlement order, was supposed to address that problem in a phased approach that both balanced the purported need to stabilize the Company’s finances (Phase 1) against the urgent need for capital investment for manganese filtration (Phase 2). That has not happened. If the notice is accurate, the company happily took the Phase 1 increase and has done virtually nothing more to make Phase 2 a reality. Instead, the Company has scapegoated Great Barrington to divert attention from its inaction.”
Click here for the motion made on behalf of the Town of Stockbridge.
Click here for the filing made on behalf of the Town of Stockbridge.
