Florida Public Service Commission native order document 05440-2026

FILED 8/24/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 05440-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Petition for an acquisition adjustment for
a non-viable utility, by CSWR-Florida Utility
Operating Company, LLC.
In re: Petition for an acquisition adjustment for
a non-viable utility, by CSWR-Florida Utility
Operating Company, LLC.
DOCKET NO. 20250130-WS
DOCKET NO. 20250136-WS
ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0301-PCO-WS
ISSUED: August 24, 2026
The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter:
GABRIELLA PASSIDOMO SMITH, Chairman
GARY F. CLARK
MIKE LA ROSA
BOBBY PAYNE
ANA ORTEGA
ORDER DENYING OPC’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS CSWR-FLORIDA UTILITY
OPERATING COMPANY. LLC’S PETITIONS FOR ACQUISITION ADJUSTMENT
BY THE COMMISSION:
Background
Pursuant 	to 	Rule 	25-30.0371, 	Florida 	Administrative 	Code 	(F.A.C.), 	a 	positive
acquisition adjustment may occur when the purchase price of a utility 	is greater than the net book
value of the acquired utility’s assets. 	If approved, a positive acquisition adjustment increases rate
base. Rule 25-30.0371, F.A.C., was amended on June 	17, 2024. The previous version of the rule
required 	a 	showing 	of 	extraordinary 	circumstances 	to 	be 	entitled 	to 	a 	positive 	acquisition
adjustment, 	and 	utilities 	requested 	the 	acquisition 	adjustment 	at 	the 	time 	of 	transfer. 	The
amended 	version 	of the 	rule 	provides 	a 	list of factors 	that we must 	consider 	in 	determining
whether 	a 	positive 	acquisition adjustment 	is 	warranted. The amended version of the 	rule 	also
allows 	utilities to seek approval of the acquisition adjustment 	at either the time of transfer or 	at
anytime within 3 years of our order approving the transfer of the certificate of authorization.
While 	the 	prior version of Rule 25-30.0371, 	F.A.C., was 	still 	effective, 	Central 	States
Water Resources-Florida Utility Operating Company, LLC (CSWR or Utility) requested and was
denied 	positive 	acquisition 	adjustments 	with 	respect 	to 	its 	acquisition of 	its North 	Peninsula
Utilities Corporation wastewater system (North Peninsula), the Aquarina Utilities, Inc. water and
wastewater systems 	(Aquarina), and 	the Sunshine 	Utilities of Central 	Florida, 	Inc. 	(Sunshine)

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0301-PCO-WS
DOCKET NOS. 20250130-WS, 20250136-WS
PAGE 2
water systems.1 CSWR subsequently filed petitions for positive acquisition adjustments under
the amended rule, to which the Office of Public Counsel (OPC) filed motions to dismiss, arguing
that administrative finality had attached to our denial of acquisition adjustments at the time the
three systems were transferred to CSWR. By Order No. PSC-2025-0250-PCO-WS, we denied
OPC’s motions to dismiss, finding that administrative finality did not attach and that the new
acquisition 	adjustment 	rule 	was 	not 	being 	applied 	retroactively.2 	The 	three 	acquisition
adjustment dockets associated with North Peninsula, Aquarina, and Sunshine are currently
pending before us.
At issue in this order are CSWR’s requests for a positive acquisition adjustment with
respect to its purchase of two additional utilities, Neighborhood Utilities, Inc. (Neighborhood)
and Rolling Oaks Utilities, Inc. (Rolling Oaks).
In Docket No. 20220019-WU, CSWR applied for the transfer of Neighborhood, and
included a request for a positive acquisition adjustment at the time of the transfer to CSWR
under the prior version of Rule 25-30.0371, F.A.C. We approved the transfer but denied the
request for a positive acquisition adjustment, stating that the utility failed to demonstrate
extraordinary circumstances.3
CSWR purchased Rolling Oaks, located in Citrus County, on December 30, 2021. At that
time, Citrus County regulated all water and wastewater utilities in that county which would
otherwise be subject to our regulation, under Section 367.171(8), Florida Statutes (F.S.). By
Resolution No. 2022-108, dated November 7, 2022, the Citrus County Board of Commissioners
approved the sale and transfer of Rolling Oaks to CSWR. However, the County denied CSWR’s
request 	for 	a 	positive 	acquisition 	adjustment, 	stating 	that 	CSWR 	failed 	to 	demonstrate
extraordinary circumstances. Citrus County subsequently returned jurisdiction over its water and
1 Order Nos. PSC-2022-0116-PAA-SU, issued March 17, 2022, in Docket No. 20210133-SU, In re: Application for
transfer of facilities of North Peninsula Utilities Corporation and wastewater Certificate No. 249-S to CSWR-
Florida Utility Operating Company, LLC, in Volusia County; PSC-2022-0115-PAA-WS, issued March 15, 2022, in
Docket No. 20210093-WS, In re: Application for transfer of water and wastewater systems of Aquarina Utilities,
Inc., water Certificate No. 517-W, and wastewater Certificate No. 450-S to CSWR-Florida Utility Operating
Company, LLC, in Brevard County; and PSC-2022-0120-PAA-WU, issued March 18, 2022, in Docket No.
20210095-WU, In re: Application for transfer of water facilities of Sunshine Utilities of Central Florida, Inc. and
water Certificate No. 363-W to CSWR-Florida Utility Operating Company, LLC, in Marion County.
2 Order No. PSC-2025-0250-PCO-WS, issued June 25, 2025, in Docket Nos. 20250038-WS, In re: Petition for an
acquisition adjustment for a non-viable utility, by CSWR-Florida Utility Operating Company, LLC; 20250043-WS,
In re: Petition for an acquisition adjustment for a non-viable utility, by CSWR-Florida Utility Operating Company,
LLC; 20250047-WS, In re: Petition for an acquisition adjustment for a non-viable utility, by CSWR-Florida Utility
Operating Company, LLC; and 20250052-WS, In re: Application for increase in water and wastewater rates in
Brevard, Citrus, Duval, Highlands, Marion, and Volusia Counties by CSWR-Florida Utility Operating Company.
3 Order No. PSC-2022-0364-PAA-WU, issued October 25, 2022, in Docket No. 20220019-WU, In re: Application
for transfer of water facilities of Neighborhood Utilities, Inc. and water Certificate No. 430-W to CSWR-Florida
Utility Operating Company, LLC, in Duval County.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0301-PCO-WS
DOCKET NOS. 20250130-WS, 20250136-WS
PAGE 3
wastewater utilities to us,4 and we granted CSWR a grandfather certificate with respect to its
Rolling Oaks system.5
On October 14, 2025, and November 7, 2025, CSWR filed petitions requesting positive
acquisition adjustments relating to its purchases of Neighborhood and Rolling Oaks under the
amended version of Rule 25-30.0371, F.A.C. These requests were assigned Docket Nos.
20250130-WS and 20250136-WS, respectively. Neither petition referenced our or Citrus
County’s prior denials of CSWR’s request for a positive acquisition adjustment at the time of the
transfers. Rather, the petitions listed information required under the amended rule, such as
planned infrastructure additions and maintenance needed to improve the utilities’ quality of
service or compliance with environmental regulations.
On April 30, 2026, OPC filed Motions to Dismiss CSWR’s petition for an acquisition
adjustment in both the Neighborhood and Rolling Oaks dockets.6 In each Motion to Dismiss,
OPC argues that the doctrine of administrative finality precludes CSWR from obtaining a
positive acquisition adjustment on each of its utilities that were previously denied a positive
acquisition adjustment at the time of transfer.
On May 7, 2026, CSWR filed responses to each Motion to Dismiss (Responses). In its
Responses, CSWR contends that administrative finality did not attach to the previous acquisition
adjustment denials, that there are changed circumstances that warrant a positive acquisition
adjustment in the instant cases, and that the requested positive acquisition adjustments are in the
public interest.
No request for oral argument was filed concurrently with either of OPC’s Motions to
Dismiss under Rule 25-22.0022(7)(a), F.A.C., and we chose not to hear oral argument at the
August 4, 2026, Agenda Conference.7 This order addresses OPC’s Motions to Dismiss CSWR’s
petitions for acquisition adjustments and CSWR’s Responses. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
Sections 367.071 and 367.121, F.S.
4 Order No. PSC-2024-0267-FOF-WS, issued July 25, 2024, in Docket No. 20240095-WS, In re: Resolution of the
Board of County Commissioners of Citrus County declaring Citrus County subject of the provisions of Sections 367,
F.S.
5 Order No. PSC-2025-0280-PAA-WS, issued July 21, 2025, in Docket No. 20240130-WS, In re: Application for
grandfather certificate to operate water and wastewater utility in Citrus County, by CSWR-Florida Utility
Operating Company, LLC.
6 OPC’s intervention was acknowledged by Order Nos. PSC-2026-0030-PCO-WS, issued January 27, 2026, in
Docket No. 20250130-WS and PSC-2026-0031-PCO-WS, issued January 27, 2026, in Docket No. 20250136-WS.
7 Under Rule 25-22.0022(7)(a), F.A.C., oral argument at an Agenda Conference will only be entertained for
recommended orders and dispositive motions, such as motions to dismiss. Rule 25-22.022(1), F.A.C., provides that
oral argument must be sought by separate written request filed concurrently with the motion on which argument is
requested. Failure to timely file a request for oral argument constitutes waiver thereof. However, we may request
oral argument on matters over which we preside. Rule 25-22.0022(2), F.A.C.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0301-PCO-WS
DOCKET NOS. 20250130-WS, 20250136-WS
PAGE 4
Decision
Law
In the seminal case of Peoples Gas Systems, Inc. v. Mason, the Florida Supreme Court held:
[O]rders of administrative agencies must eventually pass out of the agency’s
control and become final and no longer subject to modification. This rule assures
that there will be a terminal point in every proceeding at which the parties and the
public may rely on a decision as being final and dispositive of the rights and
issues involved therein.
187 So. 2d 335, 339 (Fla. 1966). While administrative finality generally applies to final orders,
finality does not attach “when there has been a significant change of circumstances or there is a
demonstrated public interest.” Delray Medical Center, Inc., v. State Agency for Health Care
Administration, 5 So. 3d 26, 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
When an administrative rule is revised, retroactive application of the new rule is
generally prohibited. Envtl. Trust v. Dept. of Envtl. Prot., 714 So. 2d 493, 500 (Fla. 1st DCA
1998). However, “retroactive application of a rule may be proper if the rule merely clarifies or
explains a previous rule.” Id. A revised rule “is presumed to operate prospectively in the absence
of express language to the contrary.” Jordan v. Dept. of Prof. Reg., 522 So. 2d 450, 453 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1988).
Res judicata and administrative finality both prevent relitigation, but they differ in scope.
Res judicata, a common law doctrine, applies to court judgments and bars relitigation of the
same claim between the same parties. Administrative finality, on the other hand, applies to
administrative agency decisions. See Delray at 29. The Florida Supreme Court has recognized
that the legal principles of res judicata do not neatly fit within the scope of administrative
proceedings, because the actions of administrative agencies are usually concerned with deciding
issues according to a public interest that often changes with shifting circumstances and passage
of time. Id. (citing Peoples Gas Sys., Inc. v. Mason, 187 So. 2d 335, 339 (Fla. 1966)).
Standard of Review
A motion to dismiss raises as a question of law the sufficiency of the facts alleged to state
a cause of action.8 In order to sustain a motion to dismiss, the moving party must show that,
accepting all allegations as true, the petition still fails to state a cause of action for which relief
may be granted.9 The moving party must specify the grounds for the motion to dismiss, and all
material allegations must be construed against the moving party in determining if the petitioner
8 Varnes v. Dawkins, 624 So. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
9 Id. at 350.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0301-PCO-WS
DOCKET NOS. 20250130-WS, 20250136-WS
PAGE 5
has stated the necessary allegations.10 A sufficiency determination should be confined to the
petition and documents incorporated therein, and the grounds asserted in the motion to dismiss.11
To evaluate a motion to dismiss, all allegations in the petition must be viewed as true and
in the light most favorable to the petitioner in order to determine whether there is a cause of
action upon which relief may be granted.12 The “[d]ismissal of a petition shall, at least once, be
without prejudice to petitioner's filing a timely amended petition curing the defect, unless it
conclusively appears from the face of the petition that the defect cannot be cured.”13
OPC’s Motions to Dismiss
In its Motions to Dismiss the Neighborhood and Rolling Oaks acquisition adjustment
petitions, OPC argues that administrative finality has attached to the prior denials of CSWR’s
positive acquisition adjustments and that CSWR cannot reapply for the same acquisition
adjustments. OPC contends that CSWR failed to demonstrate the applicability of the exceptions
to administrative finality, of a significant change in circumstances or a demonstrated public
interest. Specifically, OPC claims that the only change in circumstance from CSWR’s previous
petitions is the amendment to the acquisition adjustment rule, and that the amended rule does not
have retroactive application. Consequently, OPC believes that 	administrative finality has
attached to CSWR’s requests for positive acquisition adjustments and that the Neighborhood and
Rolling Oaks petitions should be dismissed.
CSWR’s Response
In its Responses, CSWR rejects OPC’s contentions primarily based on the argument that
administrative finality did not attach to the denials of the acquisition adjustments it requested in
the transfers at issue. CSWR argues that administrative finality does not attach because rather
than asking us to second-guess the earlier denials of the acquisition adjustments, CSWR is
instead presenting us with new applications involving different facts and applying a different
law. CSWR cites to our precedent wherein we allowed OPC’s requests for negative acquisition
adjustments where the same negative acquisition adjustments were previously denied.14 CSWR
contends that OPC is changing its position from those previous cases in which OPC argued that
administrative finality did not attach to previously denied acquisition adjustments.
10 Matthews v. Matthews, 122 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1960).
11 Barbado v. Green and Murphy, P.A., 758 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
12 See e.g. Ralph v. City of Daytona Beach, 471 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla. 1983); Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State of
Florida ex rel. Powell, 262 So. 2d 881, 883 (Fla. 1972); Kest v. Nathanson, 216 So. 2d 233, 235 (Fla. 4th DCA
1986); Ocala Loan Co. v. Smith, 155 So. 2d 711, 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963).
13 Section 120.569(2)(c), F.S.
14 Order No. PSC-93-1675-FOF-WS, issued November 18, 1993, in Docket No. 920148-WS, In re: Application for
a Rate Increase in Pasco County by Jasmine Lakes Utilities Corp. (We relied on public interest to grant OPC’s
request for a negative acquisition adjustment despite having previously denied the same); Order No. PSC-01-1554-
FOF-WU, issued July 27, 2001, in Docket No. 991437-WU, In re: Application for increase in water rates in Orange
County by Wedgefield Utilities, Inc. (We denied Motion for Summary Final Order and allowed OPC the opportunity
to demonstrate a change of circumstances to overcome our prior denial of the requested negative acquisition
adjustment).

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0301-PCO-WS
DOCKET NOS. 20250130-WS, 20250136-WS
PAGE 6
In its Responses, CSWR argues that it is not asking us to reconsider its prior decisions
under the prior version of the rule. Instead of seeking reconsideration in which we are asked to
second-guess our prior denial of acquisition adjustments, CSWR contends that it has timely filed
a new petition under the new version of the rule. CSWR claims that while OPC refers to
administrative finality, OPC is really arguing res judicata to prohibit CSWR from requesting
acquisition adjustments a second time.
CSWR claims that the facts and circumstances have changed since the time of the
transfers 	for 	the 	two 	systems 	for 	which 	a 	positive 	acquisition 	adjustment 	is 	requested.
Specifically, CSWR claims that in the three years since the purchases, it has learned significant
facts about the systems that had not yet occurred or were not known at the time of the transfers,
such as the extreme level of deterioration of wastewater treatment facilities, the work needed to
come into environmental compliance, and the former owner’s insolvency and how that impacted
the operation of the systems. CSWR asserts that these new facts and changed conditions
demonstrate that administrative finality cannot apply to the denied acquisition adjustments for
these systems.
CSWR contends that no person has taken any action in reliance on our or Citrus County’s
prior denials of the requested acquisition adjustments. In addition, the Utility argues that the
public interest favors considering the petitions on their merits as the purpose of the amended rule
is to encourage consolidation and acquisition of failing water and wastewater systems. CSWR
claims that under the prior version of the rule, no positive acquisition adjustment was ever
granted thereby limiting the acquisition and rehabilitation of failing systems and harming
customers of those systems.
CSWR asserts that it is not applying the new version of the rule retroactively. Rather,
CSWR claims it is making new petitions based on new facts and cost and revenue projections
rather than a single event that occurred before the new rule became effective. CSWR contends
that the amended rule allows for petitions for acquisition adjustments to be filed within three
years of the transfer order and that the new rule recognizes that facts relating to the condition of
the transferred systems and the impact of the transfer on customers take time to become fully
developed. Rather than applying the new rule to completed events, CSWR claims that its
application applies the current procedural standards to new petitions properly brought before the
us.
CSWR notes, as discussed in the Background, that we have previously rejected the same
arguments that OPC is making in the instant cases for Neighborhood and Rolling Oaks. On April
17, 2025, OPC moved to dismiss three CSWR acquisition adjustment petitions with respect to
CSWR’s North Peninsula, Aquarina, and Sunshine systems, on the same grounds asserted in the
present motions. By Order No. 2025-0250-PCO-WS, we denied OPC’s motions to dismiss the
three petitions, finding that administrative finality did not attach and that the new acquisition
adjustment rule was not being applied retroactively.15
15 Order No. PSC-2025-0250-PCO-WS.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0301-PCO-WS
DOCKET NOS. 20250130-WS, 20250136-WS
PAGE 7
Analysis
For the reasons set forth below, we find that OPC’s Motions to Dismiss shall be denied,
and CSWR shall be allowed to proceed with the instant petitions for acquisition adjustment for
Neighborhood and Rolling Oaks.
A. 	Interpretation of Rule 25-30.0371, F.A.C.
Although not presented as an argument by OPC, we note that a strict reading of Rule 25-
30.0371, F.A.C., would lead to the conclusion that CSWR’s purchase of Rolling Oaks is not
eligible for a subsequent acquisition adjustment. Subsection 2 of the rule provides that “[a] utility
may seek approval of a positive acquisition adjustment at the time the utility seeks approval to
transfer the certificate of authorization or anytime within 3 years of the issuance date of the
Commission order approving the transfer of the certificate of authorization.” (emphasis added.)
For the Rolling Oaks system, the order approving the transfer was issued by the Citrus County
Board of Commissioners, not by us, thus no Commission order approving the transfer exists. As
a general proposition, in interpreting administrative rules, words should be given their plain and
ordinary meaning. Gar-Con Dev., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Envtl. Reg., 468 So. 2d 413 (Fla. Dist.
Ct. App. 1985) (citing State, Dept. of Health and Rehab. Services v. McTigue, 387 So. 2d 454
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)). If this were the case, then CSWR’s petition regarding Rolling Oaks
in Docket No. 20250136-WS should be dismissed for failing to comply with a plain reading of
the rule. Such a dismissal would be with prejudice, because it conclusively appears from the face
of the petition that the defect cannot be cured.
However, we find that the rule can reasonably be read to interpret that the three years run
from the date an appropriate regulatory body issues an order approving the transfer of a water or
wastewater system, and that a utility shall not be penalized for the subsequent transfer in
regulatory jurisdiction, as occurred for Rolling Oaks in Citrus County.
B. 	Administrative Finality
We find that administrative finality has not attached to CSWR’s previously denied
positive acquisition adjustments. CSWR has adequately demonstrated both a significant change
of circumstances and that it is in the public interest for us to proceed on the instant petitions for
positive acquisition adjustments.
1. 	Significant Change of Circumstances
We agree with CSWR that facts and circumstances have significantly changed since the
time of transfer for the Rolling Oaks and Neighborhood systems for which a positive acquisition
adjustment is requested. We find particularly persuasive the allegations regarding the extreme
level of deterioration at these systems’ facilities, the work needed to come into environmental
compliance, and the impact of the former owners’ insolvency on the operation of these systems.
The details of these conditions were not known at the time that we or Citrus County previously
denied CSWR’s requests for positive acquisition adjustments for these systems. Therefore, we

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0301-PCO-WS
DOCKET NOS. 20250130-WS, 20250136-WS
PAGE 8
disagree with OPC’s contention that the only change in circumstances since the previous
applications is the amendment to the acquisition adjustment rule, and we find that CSWR has
adequately demonstrated a change in circumstances sufficient to allow consideration of an
acquisition adjustment for these systems under the amended rule.
2. 	Public Interest
In addition to finding that there are changed circumstances, we also find that it is in the
public interest to allow CSWR’s requests for acquisition adjustments to go forward. Positive
acquisition adjustments create an incentive for larger, more sophisticated entities to purchase
struggling, non-viable water and wastewater systems. These types of transfers benefit customers
because they inject much-needed capital into their water and wastewater systems to improve
both water quality and customer service. Additionally, such transfers may provide the benefits of
economies of scale and promote operational and financial stability in otherwise struggling, non-
viable systems. We therefore find that it is in the public interest to allow CSWR to go forward
with its requests for positive acquisition adjustments for these two systems.
C. 	Application of Rule 25-30.0371, F.A.C.
We disagree with OPC’s contention that CSWR is seeking the retroactive application of
amended Rule 25-30.0371, F.A.C. Rather than a substantive rule change, we find that the
amended rule merely provided a procedural clarification of the previous rule. Furthermore,
instead of seeking retroactive rule application, CSWR is making fresh applications under the
amended rule. The amended rule allows utilities to come in any time within three years of
transfer of systems to request an acquisition adjustment. CSWR has come in within the three-
year window and therefore shall qualify for relief under the amended rule.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we deny OPC’s Motions to Dismiss. We find that changed
circumstances and the public interest warrant consideration of CSWR’s instant petitions for
positive acquisition adjustments for Neighborhood and Rolling Oaks. Additionally, we reject
OPC’s contention that CSWR is seeking retroactive application of amended Rule 25-30.0371,
F.A.C. Whether the petitions for positive acquisition adjustment should be approved will be
addressed in a future order.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED by the Florida Public Service Commission that, as set forth herein, the Office
of Public Counsel’s Motions to Dismiss CSWR’s Neighborhood and Rolling Oaks acquisition
adjustment petitions are hereby denied. It is further
ORDERED that Docket Nos. 20250130-WS and 20250136-WS shall remain open to
allow us to address CSWR’s requested acquisition adjustments for Neighborhood and Rolling
Oaks.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0301-PCO-WS
DOCKET NOS. 20250130- WS, 20250136-WS
PAGE 9
By ORDER of the Florida Public Service Commission this 24th day of August, 2026 	.
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.
ZB
DISSENT
Chairman Passidomo Smith respectfully dissents with the Commission’s decision to deny
OPC’s Motions to Dismiss.
CHAIRMAN PASSIDOMO SMITH, dissenting with a separate opinion, as follows:
The Commission approved the transfer of Neighborhood Utilities, Inc. (Neighborhood) to
CSWR, but denied the requested positive acquisition adjustment in 2022. 16 That same year, 	the
Citrus County Board of Commissioners approved the 	sale and transfer of Rolling Oaks 	Utilities,
Inc. 	(Rolling Oaks) 	to CSWR, but denied the requested positive acquisition adjustment. 17 Later,
Rolling Oaks would be 	transferred 	to 	the jurisdiction of the Commission and was 	granted 	a
grandfather 	certificate. 18 The Commission and 	Citrus 	County 	denied 	the 	positive 	acquisition
adjustments based on a previous version of Rule 25-30.0371, F.A.C., 	in effect 	at the time of the
transfers. The 	rule 	subsequently was amended on 	June 	17, 	2024, 	several 	years 	after CSWR
16 Order No. PSC-2022-0364-PAA-WU; Consummating Order PSC-2022-0398-CO-WU, issued October 25, 2022,
in Docket No. 20220019- WU, In re: Application for transfer of water facilities of Neighborhood 	Utilities, 	Inc. and
water Certificate No. 430-W to CSWR-Florida 	Utility Operating Company, LLC, 	in Duval County.
17 Resolution No. 2022-108 from the Citrus County Board of County Commissioners, issued November 7, 2022.
18 Order No. PSC-2024-0267-FOF-WS; Order No. PSC-2025-0280-PAA-WS.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0301-PCO-WS
DOCKET NOS. 20250130-WS, 20250136-WS
PAGE 10
initially came before the Commission with its transfer applications. CSWR is asking the
Commission to apply the amended version of Rule 25-30.0371, F.A.C. to system transfers that
became final in 2022. The current version of Rule 25-30.0371, F.A.C., does not contain express
language signaling it should apply retroactively.
The Commission does not have the authority to apply the newly amended version of Rule
25-30.0371, F.A.C. to CSWR’s petitions. Florida statute and case law, in addition to federal case
law, demonstrate that government agency rules generally apply prospectively, not retroactively.19
Section 	120.54(1)(f), 	F.S., 	states 	“an 	agency 	may 	not 	adopt 	retroactive 	rules, 	including
retroactive rules intended to clarify existing law, unless that power is expressly authorized by
statute.” Florida and federal case law expand upon this principle, opining that new or edited rules
that clarify an existing rule must not establish new substantive requirements.20 Absent statutory
authority, new or amended rules apply retroactively only when they effect a change in legal
procedure.21 Accordingly, new or revised rules do not apply to legal matters arising before the
rule change unless retroactive application is expressly authorized by the enabling statute or the
changes effectuated by the rule are merely procedural. Because the amendments to the existing
rule were substantive rather than procedural, they cannot be applied retroactively on the basis
that they constitute procedural changes. Further, as stated above, the rule does not contain
express language allowing retroactive application. For these reasons, the current version of Rule
25-30.0371, F.A.C. should not be applied retroactively to the Neighborhood and Rolling Oaks
acquisition adjustments.
Moreover, nothing herein should be construed as a lack of support for the Commission’s
amendments to Rule 25-30.0371, F.A.C. The previous version of the rule required utilities to
overcome steep hurdles in requesting positive acquisition adjustments, necessitating a utility
company to make its application at the time of transfer and demonstrating extraordinary
circumstances in support of its request. The amended version of the rule provides greater
flexibility in allowing a utility to request a positive acquisition adjustment either at the time of
transfer or within 3 years of the order approving the transfer. Further, the amended rule provides
greater clarity to a utility regarding the kind of information it needs to present in support of its
request for a positive acquisition adjustment. The Commission approved the current version of
Rule 25-30.0371, F.A.C., to encourage utility companies to acquire and repair non-viable water
and wastewater utilities. Specifically, this dissent from the majority decision is based on legal
grounds, not policy grounds. Future applications for acquisition adjustments are unlikely to be
constrained by the legal posture presented in CSWR’s current applications. Therefore, future
applications will be reviewed under the new version of Rule 25-30.0371, F.A.C., consistent with
the Commission’s policy incentivizing utility acquisition and consolidation.
19 See, e.g., Section 120.54(f), Florida Statutes (F.S.); Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204 (1988);
Jordan v. Dept. of Prof. Reg., 522 So. 2d 450, 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
20 See, e.g., Smiley v. Citibank (S. Dakota), N.A., 517 U.S. 735 (1996); Envtl. Trust v. Dept, of Envtl. Prot., 714 So.
2d 493, 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
21 See, e.g., Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 275 (1994); Jordan v. Dept. of Prof. Reg. at 454 (citing
Upjohn Healthcare Services v. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 496 So.2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)).

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0301-PCO-WS
DOCKET NOS. 20250130-WS, 20250136-WS
PAGE 11
NOTICE OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OR JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Florida Public Service Commission is required by Section 120.569(1), Florida
Statutes, to notify parties of any administrative hearing or judicial review of Commission orders
that is available under Sections 120.57 or 120.68, Florida Statutes, as well as the procedures and
time limits that apply. 	This notice should not be construed to mean all requests for an
administrative hearing or judicial review will be granted or result in the relief sought.
Mediation may be available on a case-by-case basis. 	If mediation is conducted, it does
not affect a substantially interested person's right to a hearing.
Any 	party 	adversely 	affected 	by 	this 	order, 	which 	is 	preliminary, 	procedural 	or
intermediate in nature, may request: (1) reconsideration within 10 days pursuant to Rule 25-
22.0376, Florida Administrative Code; or (2) judicial review by the Florida Supreme Court, in
the case of an electric, gas or telephone utility, or the First District Court of Appeal, in the case
of a water or wastewater utility. 	A motion for reconsideration shall be filed with the Office of
Commission Clerk, in the form prescribed by Rule 25-22.0376, Florida Administrative Code.
Judicial review of a preliminary, procedural or intermediate ruling or order is available if review
of the final action will not provide an adequate remedy. Such review may be requested from the
appropriate court, as described above, pursuant to Rule 9.100, Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure.