Where online payment is visible—and where fee disclosure is not
A reproducible comparison of portal and convenience-fee documentation across 3,490 indexed systems.
Read the analysis →What thousands of public utility records reveal.
The directory is more useful when its patterns are measured. These reports analyze 3,490 records, publish the denominator behind every percentage, and separate missing public information from actual utility policy.
Water leak adjustment rules compared
Filing deadlines, how often credits are allowed, sewer credits, and proof of repair, parsed from documented utility leak policies.
Read the analysis →The public-information gap around shut-offs, leaks, and assistance
State and national coverage analysis for the policies households often need under time pressure.
Read the analysis →How complete is the directory?
A candid record-level analysis of what the dataset establishes, what remains unconfirmed, and how coverage is measured.
Read the analysis →Public detail is uneven.
73%
Usable online payment URL identified
n = 2,563 of 3,490
15%
Fee or no-fee amount disclosed
n = 529 of 3,490
35%
Leak-adjustment detail identified
n = 1,233 of 3,490
31%
Utility assistance detail identified
n = 1,079 of 3,490
34%
Emergency reporting route identified
n = 1,172 of 3,490
34%
At least one shut-off detail identified
n = 1,193 of 3,490
Percentages describe information identified in this directory, not the underlying availability or quality of a utility service.
Read the method, then inspect the data.
Every report uses fixed field definitions and the same versioned dataset. General coverage counts a field with a substantive provider-specific research note; individual reports apply stricter tests where needed, including URL validation and fee-disclosure detection. Coverage does not mean a policy is favorable, current for every account, or absent when the record is blank.