Florida Public Service Commission native order document 06958-2026

BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Petition to establish rate base value of
wastewater system of Forest Utilities, Inc. in
Lee County, using alternative valuation
procedure, by CSWR-Florida Utility Operating
Company, LLC.
DOCKET NO. 20260083-SU
ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0339-CFO-SU
ISSUED: September 23, 2026
ORDER DENYING CSWR’S REQUEST FOR
CONFIDENTIAL CLASSIFICATION
(DOCUMENT NO. 03161-2026)
On May 27, 2026, pursuant to Rule 25-22.006, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.),
CSWR-Florida Utility Operating Company, LLC (CSWR or Utility) filed a request for
confidential classification (Request) of certain information provided with its Petition to Establish
Rate Base Value of the Wastewater System of Forest Utilities, Inc., Using the Alternative
Valuation Procedure. This request was filed in Docket No. 20260083-SU. The request concerns
five documents that an applicant is required to prepare and file in order to proceed under the
alternative procedure for establishing rate base value of acquired utility system, codified in
Section 367.0811, Florida Statutes (F.S.). The five documents are, as described in the Request,
the three appraisals required by Rule 25-30.0372, F.A.C., and Section 367.0811(4)(a), F.S., and
the Engineering Assessment required by Rule 25-30.0372, F.A.C., and Section 367.0811(4)(b),
F.S. Specifically, the five documents are:
1) the Kimley-Horn Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Report,
2) the ScottMadden Inc. Valuation Report,
3) the Mosaic Property Valuations Appraisal Report,
4) the NewGen Strategies & Solutions Appraisal Report, and
5) the Kimley-Horn Engineering Asssessment and three-year plan
According to paragraph 4 of the Request, document 1, consisting of the Facility Report, and
document 5, consisting of an Asset Inventory and Condition Assessment, together comprise the
Engineering Assessment required by Sections 367.0811(4)(b) and (5)(c), F.S.
Request for Confidential Classification
CSWR contends that the information constitutes proprietary confidential business
information entitled to protection under Section 367.156, Florida Statutes (F.S), and Rule 25-
22.006, F.A.C. CSWR asserts that the information in the documents is intended to be proprietary,
is treated as proprietary, and has not been publicly disclosed. CSWR states that, should CSWR’s
acquisition of the assets of Forest Utilities, Inc. (Forest) fail to close, “another prospective
purchaser could free-ride on the information contained in those documents to formulate its own
offer without having to expend the time and significant expense invested by [CSWR].” CSWR

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0339-CFO-SU
DOCKET NO. 20260083-SU
PAGE 2
accordingly requests the information be classified only until such time as the asset sale closes, at
which 	point 	CSWR 	acknowledges 	the 	competitive 	value 	of 	the 	information 	will 	have
diminished.
CSWR 	further 	contends 	that 	the 	documents 	constitute 	trade 	secrets 	as 	they 	are
compilations of information that is being used in the operation of CSWR’s business, including
meeting the requirements set forth for its Petition and in its due diligence in the process of
evaluating utility systems. This information is currently unknown to competitors, and provides
either an advantage or the opportunity to obtain an advantage over any competitors interested in
acquiring the subject utility.
In addition, CSWR states the appraisals include “information concerning bids or other
contractual data, the disclosure of which would impair the efforts of the utility or its affiliates to
contract for goods or services on favorable terms” under 367.156(3)(d), F.S., 	and “information
relating to competitive interests, the disclosure of which would impair the competitive business
of the provider of the information” under 367.156(3)(e), F.S. CSWR again states that if a
competitor could obtain the information, it could free-ride on the time and expense required to
generate it, impairing the efforts of CSWR to contract on favorable terms and impairing the
competitive business interests of CSWR.
Ruling
Law
Florida has a broad public records policy, but the Florida Constitution permits the Florida
Legislature to exempt certain public records from disclosure. Managed Care of North America,
Inc. v. Florida Healthy Kids Corporation, 268 So. 3d 856, 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). A private
party cannot render public records exempt from disclosure merely by designating information
confidential. Sepro Corp. v. Fla. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 839 So.2d 781, 784 (Fla. 1 st
DCA 2003). In deciding whether a public records exemption applies, the burden rests with the
person asserting the exemption. White v. Baker County Hospital Authority, ___ So. 3d ___ (Fla.
1st DCA 2026) citing Staton v. McMillan, 597 So. 2d 940, 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (explaining
that whether a public records "exemption[] . . . applies . . . is in the nature of an affirmative
defense").
The general purpose of the broad public records policy is so that Florida’s citizens can
discover the actions of their government. City of Riviera Beach v. Barfield, 642 So. 2d 1135,
1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Given the right of public records access is a cornerstone of our
political culture, it is well settled that the policy must be construed in favor of access, and all
exemptions must be limited to their stated purpose. Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office v. Sun-
Sentinel Co., LLC, 226 So. 2d 969, 972 (Fla 4th DCA 2017). "If there is any doubt as to whether
a matter is a public record subject to disclosure, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of
disclosure." Morris Pub. Group, LLC v. Fla. Dept. of Educ., 133 So. 3d 957, 960 (Fla. 1st DCA
2013) citing Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Asoc. V. Associated Press, 18 So.3d 1201, 1206 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2009).

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0339-CFO-SU
DOCKET NO. 20260083-SU
PAGE 3
Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes defines a public record as “all documents … made or
received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business
by any agency.” The documents subject to the Request were both made and received pursuant to
law and in direct connection with the transaction of official business by the Commission. These
documents memorialize the knowledge of the value of the utility in question, and act as a
substitute for a deeper investigation of that value by the Commission itself pursuant to Section
367.081, F.S. The documents in question are central to the action for which Petitioner seeks
approval from the Commission. If they are made confidential until after-the-fact, the public’s
ability to provide timely and meaningful input may be hampered. For example, individual
customers of Forest currently have no access to the contents of these documents to examine the
representations and assessments made therein and determine whether formal intervention into
these proceedings may be in their interest.
Section 367.156(1), F.S., provides that records the Florida Public Service Commission
(Commission) has found to contain proprietary business information shall be kept confidential
and shall be exempt from Chapter 119, F.S. 	Section 367.156(3), F.S., defines proprietary
confidential business information as information that is intended to be and is treated by the
company as private, in that disclosure of the information would cause harm to the company’s
ratepayers or business operations, and has not been voluntarily disclosed to the public. 	Section
367.156(3), F.S., provides that proprietary confidential business information includes, but is not
limited to:
(a) Trade Secrets.
* * *
(d) Information concerning bids or other contractual data, the disclosure of which
would impair the efforts of the utility or its affiliates to contract for goods or
services on favorable terms.
(e) 	Information relating to competitive interests, the disclosure of which would
impair the competitive business of the provider of the information.
Upon review, and for the reasons set forth below, CSWR has failed to demonstrate that
the information satisfies the criteria set forth in Section 367.156(3), F.S., for classification as
proprietary confidential business information.
Trade Secrets
The Request largely focuses on the information qualifying as a “trade secret” pursuant to
Sections 367.156(3)(a) and 812.081, F.S. Under the latter, a trade secret is (1) a secret (2) of
value (3) for use or in use by the business and (4) of advantage or providing an opportunity to
obtain an advantage over those who do not know it. See Managed Care of North America, Inc. v.
Florida Healthy Kids Corporation, 268 So.3d 856, 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). For entitlement to

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0339-CFO-SU
DOCKET NO. 20260083-SU
PAGE 4
the exemption under 812.081(1)(c), the requesting party must not only label the information as
secret, but must also prove a business advantage or an opportunity to obtain an advantage. Id.
As an initial matter, I note that the documents subject to the Request were generated over
a year after CSWR executed the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Forest. 	These documents
were 	generated 	only 	because 	CSWR 	elected 	to 	proceed 	under 	the 	alternative 	valuation
methodology of Section 367.0811, F.S. These documents are not records of business activity that
were created for separate purposes and then swept up in litigation such that they must now be
protected from disclosure. These records were created solely for the express purpose of
satisfying the statutory requirements, which exist to inform the Commission’s ultimate decision.
CSWR has failed to allege any facts upon which I can conclude that a competitor would
gain an advantage by having the information contained in these reports. See also James, Hoyer,
Newcomer, Smiljanich, and Yanchunis, P.A. v. Rodale, Inc., 41 So. 3d 386, 389 (Fla. 1 st DCA
2010). In support of this element, CSWR states simply that “[t]he Confidential Information
provides comprehensive information relating to the systems that are presently unknown to
competitors.” CSWR offers no other support to satisfy this element. Regulated monopoly
wastewater utilities do not have traditional competitors to obtain any advantage over. The only
competitors CSWR might have are those that may make competing offers to Forest Utilities.
However, those “competitors” are presently unable to make an offer to Forest because of the
exclusive Purchase and Sale Agreement between CSWR and Forest. The competition, to the
extent any may exist, has been locked out since October 2023, and will remain so through at
least the conclusion of this proceeding. With the Purchase and Sale Agreement in place, there is
no “advantage” granted to other potential acquiring parties who have knowledge of the contents
of the documents during the course of this proceeding.
At 	the 	conclusion 	of 	this 	proceeding, 	the 	Commission 	will 	grant, 	grant 	with
modifications, or deny CSWR’s petition. CSWR will then choose whether to exercise its
exclusive rights under the Purchase and Sale Agreement. Should the sale close, CSWR
acknowledges the information would not need further protection. This is presumably because the
real protection from competition in this instance comes from the monopoly structure of the
utility, and not the protection of the information contained in the documents. If the information
contained actual trade secrets necessary to secure an advantage in the operation of the utility
business, then the information would require protection beyond the closing of the sale.
CSWR argues that, if it does not close on Forest, the next potential acquirer will start
with an advantage if it has the appraisals and engineering report. However, any competitor that
purchases or enters into an agreement to purchase Forest will have to undertake the same process
under the statute that CSWR did if they elect to proceed under the alternative rate base
procedure. They will have three appraisers randomly selected, will obtain separate and up-to-date
appraisals, will retain an engineer, and will have an up-to-date engineering assessment prepared.
The statute does not allow a “free-ride” at the expense of CSWR.
Bids or Contracts and Competitive Interests

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0339-CFO-SU
DOCKET NO. 20260083-SU
PAGE 5
CSWR also contends that the Appraisals include information that requires protection as
either “information concerning bids or other contractual data, the disclosure of which would
impair the efforts of the utility or its affiliates to contract for goods or services on favorable
terms” and “information relating to competitive interests, the disclosure of which would impair
the competitive business of the provider of the information” under Sections 367.156(3)(d) and
(e), respectively. In support of its claim, CSWR states “[i]f a competitor could obtain the
Confidential Information, it could free-ride on the time and expense required to generate it,
impairing the efforts of [CSWR] to contract on favorable terms as [CSWR’s] costs are made
higher by the cost of the Confidential Information. This would similarly “impair the competitive
business interests” of [CSWR].” CSWR offers no further support for these statements, and they
are insufficient standing alone to justify confidential treatment.
Precedent
CSWR points to several instances where the Commission has found similar reports to
constitute proprietary confidential business information that is exempt from public disclosure.
These dockets were not proceeding under Section 367.0811, F.S., however, and therefore they
are not persuasive. The Commission has only considered one other docket under this statute, and
no party sought confidential treatment for any information in that docket.1
Moreover, each of those orders were based on different dispositive facts. The Order
Granting Confidential Classification cited by CSWR as support for holding the appraisals in this
docket confidential was entered in a docket in which Florida Power & Light Company sought
approval of a purchase and sale agreement.2 The document at issue there was a discovery
response that “consists of specific negotiated terms between FPL and Calypso Energy Holdings,
LLC for the Indiantown Cogeneration, L.P.” and “identifies with specificity the proprietary
methodology that Duff & Phelps employs in performing such valuations.”3 There are no
allegations that the documents in this docket contain confidential terms of the purchase and sale
agreement or that the appraisals reveal a propriety methodology.
The two orders cited as support for holding the engineering report confidential were
entered in dockets where CSWR requested Commission approval of the transfer of certain
certificates 	and 	the 	associated 	water 	and 	wastewater 	facilities 	of 	two 	utilities. 	Neither
engineering report was required by statute or rule. The information that is required by Rule 25-
30.037(2)(q), F.A.C., to support a certificate transfer was submitted by CSWR in both of those
dockets as non-confidential. The supplemental engineering studies which were not required by
rule or statute were held to be confidential. The information that was identified by statute and
rule, upon which the Commission was to determine whether to approve the subject request or
1 See Docket No. 20260031-WS, Petition to establish rate base value of acquired system using alternative
procedure by Sunshine Water Services Company.
2 Order No. PSC-16-0419-CFO-EI, entered October 3, 2016, in Docket No. 160154-EI, In re: Petition for approval
of a purchase and sale agreement between Florida Power & Light Company and Calypso Energy Holdings, LLC,
for the ownership of the Indiantown Cogeneration LP and related power purchase agreement.
3 Id. at 1 (emphasis added).

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0339-CFO-SU
DOCKET NO. 20260083-SU
PAGE 6
rule, was not confidential which allowed for a transparent decision. The underlying supporting
analyses were held confidential, protecting the legitimate business interests of the applicant.
Conclusion
CSWR has not sufficiently demonstrated its claims to justify confidential treatment of the
information in question. It is undisputed that these records constitute public records, and
therefore the burden is on the person requesting the exception to show the information fits the
statutory criteria. CSWR has not shown that the documents constitutes proprietary business
information. Furthermore, Section 367.0811(5), F.S., requires that any petition filed pursuant to
it must contain all of the information for which CSWR seeks confidential treatment, and the
statute makes no mention of confidential treatment of any of the information.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED by Commissioner Mike La Rosa that CSWR-Florida Utility Operating
Company, LLC’s Request for Confidential Classification of Document No. 03161-2026, is
Denied.
By ORDER of Commissioner Mike La Rosa, as Prehearing Officer, this 23rd day of
September, 2026.
MIKE LA ROSA
Commissioner and Prehearing Officer
Florida Public Service Commission
2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
(850) 413-6770
www.floridapsc.com
Copies furnished: 	A copy of this document is
provided to the parties of record at the time of
issuance and, if applicable, interested persons.
TPS