For a few days, Italian water – and above all the way it is managed – has been more transparent. A clarity that allows you to see virtuous territories (Rome, Modena and Bologna occupy the podium), others where there is still a lot to work on (Basilicata, part of Umbria and lower Lazio). But transparency also serves to recognize those who are not transparent, with the managers of almost all of Trentino Alto Adige, Val d’Aosta, Calabria and Sardinia who have not even sent data (but there are other examples scattered throughout many other regions).
The authority of the Arera sector has in fact made available to everyone the immense amount of data that it has been collecting since 2015, since it measures the quality of the water service provided by almost 250 operators throughout the country. These are 42 indicators that measure whether and how much managers live up to what they promise. For example, the waiting time at the counters, how long it takes for a connection to the sewer, a water connection, how long you have to wait for an emergency work or for a request for rectification to billing, the telephone service. Through maps and graphics, even the less experienced consumer can realize what service he is receiving.
The better during, the less at the beginning and at the end
Among the different views of the data there is a map of Italy (2018 data) that shows how the managers behave both during the contractual relationship and in the start-up and closing phase of a contract. In the first indicator, things are going well: 55% of the resident population is served in an “excellent” way, 19% in “good”, 5% in “fair” and then there is 20% of Italians for whom there is no data because the managers do not provide it. It is worse when it comes to starting or closing a contract, with only 34% in the “excellent” range, 43% in “good”, 3% in “fair” and the usual 20% unknown.
Passed and rejected
For many services and services Arera has set minimum standards to be respected. In an ad hoc map, the authority wanted to highlight those who not only respect them, but also improve them. The best manager of all is Acea Ato 2, which supplies water to Rome, with 39 performances better than the minimum quality threshold. The capital is followed by Modena and Bologna, both served by Hera, with 30 best indicators, and by various Tuscan municipalities, including Florence and Prato, served by Publiacqua Spa (28). For the rest, apart from some light blue spots (between 7 and 12 standards better than the minimum Arera) and green-water (between one and five) in the center north and in Sardinia, the rest is a gray block, indicating respect minimums or the absence of data. More can be done.
By viewing the details of the major cities, you can understand why Rome stands out. In many indicators, Acea Ato 2 reaches percentages close to 100 in compliance with quality standards. For example, the maximum wait at the counters must not exceed 55 minutes, and so it is in 99.8% of cases, the time for replying to a written request for billing adjustment in 98.5% of cases does not exceed 20 days established by Arera and the average waiting time on the phone is 136 seconds (it must not be more than 180). Milan (MM Spa) is also very good, where the average waiting time at the counters is just 1.6 minutes (the maximum is 10), the maximum time is respected in 99.9% of cases and complex water connection works are carried out. within 30 days in 99.1% of cases. Less well Naples (Acqua Bene Comune) with average waiting times at the counter of almost half an hour (and the minimum standard is 20), average waits on the phone of 253 seconds (the standard is quite high, 240 seconds) and execution for complex works that respect 30 days only in 59% of cases (that is also the worst indicator in Rome with 65%, but in the face of better standards since the maximum established in the capital is 20 days).
It goes better on the Adriatic Sea where in Bari, Acquedotto Pugliese makes its customers wait at the counters for an average quarter of an hour (the maximum allowed is 20 minutes), respects the maximum time in 97% of cases and is also quick to respond. to requests for invoice rectification (96.9% of the time it does so in less than 30 days). Short waits also in Genoa, where the manager is Iren Acqua (11 minutes on average at the counter against the 20 set by the contract; just 87 seconds of waiting on the phone) but does not communicate the data on the execution times of works and connections. Several negative numbers for Cagliari (Abbanoa) where the average waiting time at the counter exceeds half an hour (double the maximum expected time) and telephone waits exceed the limit of 240 seconds on average (273). The time of arrival at the place of call for emergency response is also bad: only in 36% of cases users are reached within three hours while data on the timing of works and connections have not been communicated. It is impossible to establish the level of service in two other important southern cities, Palermo and Reggio Calabria, where respectively Amap and Comune have not communicated any data to the authorities.
.