Florida Public Service Commission native order document 07343-2026

FILED 10/14/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 07343-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
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-2026-0359-PHO-SU
ISSUED: October 	14, 2026
PREHEARING ORDER
Pursuant to Notice and in accordance with Rule 28-106.209, Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.), a Prehearing Conference was held on October 	7, 2026, 	in Tallahassee, 	Florida, before
Commissioner Michael La Rosa, as Prehearing Officer.
APPEARANCES:
THOMAS A. CRABB and JORDANN 	L. WILHELM, ESQUIRES, Radey Law
Firm, 301 	S. Bronough 	St. Suite 200, Tallahassee, Florida 32301
On behalf of CSWR-Florida Utility Operating Company, LLC
WALT TRIERWEILER, SAVANNAH 	G. 	JACOBS, 	and ANDREA 	DIAZ,
ESQUIRES, 	Florida 	Office 	of Public 	Counsel, 	111. W. Madison 	Street, Room
812, Tallahassee, Florida 32399.
On behalf of Office of Public Counsel
TIMOTHY 	P. SPARKS and SHAW 	P. STILLER, ESQUIRES, 	Florida 	Public
Service Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-
0850
On behalf of the Florida Public Service Commission
MARY ANNE HELTON, ESQUIRE, Deputy General 	Counsel, 	Florida 	Public
Service Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-
0850
Advisor to the Florida Public Service Commission
ADRIA 	E. HARPER, ESQUIRE, 	General 	Counsel, 	Florida 	Public 	Service
Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850
Florida Public Service Commission General Counsel

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0359-PHO-SU
DOCKET NO. 20260083-SU
PAGE 2
I. 	CASE BACKGROUND
On May 27, 2026, CSWR-Florida Utility Operating Company, LLC (CSWR) filed its
petition requesting to establish a base rate value of the wastewater system it is acquiring from
Forest Utilities, Inc. (Forest) using the alternative procedure pursuant to Chapter 367.0811,
Florida Statutes, (F.S.), and Rule 25-30.0372, F.A.C.
An administrative hearing for this docket has been scheduled for October 21 and 22,
2026. The Office of Public Counsel (OPC) is the only intervenor in this docket.
II. 	CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS
Pursuant to Rule 28-106.211, F.A.C., this Prehearing Order is issued to prevent delay and
to promote the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of all aspects of this case.
III. 	JURISDICTION
This Commission is vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter by the provisions of
Chapters 120 and 367, F.S. This hearing will be governed by said Chapters and Rules 25-22, 25-
30, and 28-106, F.A.C., as well as any other applicable provisions of law.
IV. 	PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Information for which proprietary confidential business information status is requested
pursuant to Section 367.156, F.S., and Rule 25-22.006, F.A.C., shall be treated by the
Commission as confidential. The information shall be exempt from Section 119.07(1), F.S.,
pending a formal ruling on such request by the Commission or pending return of the information
to the person providing the information. 	If no determination of confidentiality has been made
and the information has not been made a part of the evidentiary record in this proceeding, it shall
be returned to the person providing the information. 	If a determination of confidentiality has
been made and the information was not entered into the record of this proceeding, it shall be
returned to the person providing the information within the time period set forth in Section
367.156, F.S. 	The Commission may determine that continued possession of the information is
necessary for the Commission to conduct its business.
It is the policy of this Commission that all Commission hearings be open to the public at
all times. 	The Commission also recognizes its obligation pursuant to Section 367.156, F.S., to
protect proprietary confidential business information from disclosure outside the proceeding.
Therefore, any party wishing to use any proprietary confidential business information, as that
term is defined in Section 367.156, F.S., at the hearing shall adhere to the following:

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0359-PHO-SU
DOCKET NO. 20260083-SU
PAGE 3
(1) 	When confidential information is used in the hearing that has not been filed as
prefiled 	testimony 	or 	prefiled 	exhibits, 	parties 	must 	have 	copies 	for 	the
Commissioners, necessary staff, and the court reporter, in red envelopes clearly
marked with the nature of the contents and with the confidential information
highlighted. 	Any party wishing to examine the confidential material that is not
subject to an order granting confidentiality shall be provided a copy in the same
fashion as provided to the Commissioners, subject to execution of any appropriate
protective agreement with the owner of the material.
(2) 	Counsel and witnesses are cautioned to avoid verbalizing confidential information
in such a way that would compromise confidentiality. 	Therefore, confidential
information should be presented by written exhibit when reasonably possible.
At the conclusion of that portion of the hearing that involves confidential information, all
copies of confidential exhibits shall be returned to the proffering party. If a confidential exhibit
has been admitted into evidence, the copy provided to the court reporter shall be retained in the
Office of Commission Clerk’s confidential files. If such material is admitted into the evidentiary
record at hearing and is not otherwise subject to a request for confidential classification filed
with the Commission, the source of the information must file a request for confidential
classification of the information within 21 days of the conclusion of the hearing, as set forth in
Rule 25-22.006(8)(b), F.A.C., if continued confidentiality of the information is to be maintained.
V. 	PREFILED TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS; WITNESSES
Testimony of all witnesses to be sponsored by the parties (and Staff) has been prefiled
and will be inserted into the record as though read after the witness has taken the stand and
affirmed the correctness of the testimony and associated exhibits. All testimony remains subject
to timely and appropriate objections. Upon insertion of a witness’ testimony, exhibits appended
thereto may be marked for identification. 	Each witness will have the opportunity to orally
summarize his or her testimony at the time he or she takes the stand. 	Summaries of testimony
shall be limited to five minutes for direct and 3 minutes for rebuttal.
Witnesses are reminded that, on cross-examination, responses to questions calling for a
simple yes or no answer shall be so answered first, after which the witness may explain his or her
answer. 	After all parties and Staff have had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, the
exhibit may be moved into the record. All other exhibits may be similarly identified and entered
into the record at the appropriate time during the hearing.
The Commission frequently administers the testimonial oath to more than one witness at
a time. 	Therefore, when a witness takes the stand to testify, the attorney calling the witness is
directed to ask the witness to affirm whether he or she has been sworn.
The parties shall avoid duplicative or repetitious cross-examination. Further, friendly
cross-examination will not be allowed. 	Cross-examination shall be limited to witnesses whose

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0359-PHO-SU
DOCKET NO. 20260083-SU
PAGE 4
testimony is adverse to the party desiring to cross-examine. Any party conducting what appears
to be a friendly cross-examination of a witness should be prepared to indicate why that witness’
direct testimony is adverse to its interests.
All parties must refer to the Exhibit Number established by the Comprehensive Exhibit
List when referencing an exhibit during cross-examination.
VI. 	ORDER OF WITNESSES
Each witness whose name is preceded by a plus sign (+) will present direct and rebuttal
testimony together.
Witness 	Proffered By 	Subject 	Issues #
Direct
Josiah Cox 	CSWR 	Introduction; operations; quality of
service/infrastructure and operating
conditions; arms-length transaction;
economies of scale; greater access to
capital; rate request; rate stabilization and
cost efficiencies; public interest factors
1-14
Curt Mouring 	PSC 	ARBV Policy 	1-14
Rebuttal
Josiah Cox 	CSWR 	Introduction; Objectives of the ARBV
Statute and the ARBV Rule; Arm’s
Length Transaction Requirement; Effect
of Fair Market Rate Base Valuations on
Utility Rates; Staff’s Proposed Optional
Approach
1-14
VII. 	BASIC POSITIONS
CSWR: 	This proceeding concerns a petition filed by CSWR-Florida on May 27, 2026,
requesting that the Florida Public Service Commission establish the rate base
value of the wastewater system it is acquiring from Forest Utilities, Inc. (“Forest
Utilities”) using the alternative procedure provided by section 367.0811 (the
“FMV Statute”), Florida Statutes, and Rule 25-30.0372, Florida Administrative

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0359-PHO-SU
DOCKET NO. 20260083-SU
PAGE 5
Code (the “FMV Rule”). CSWR-Florida 	requests three determinations: (1)
approval of $8,741,135.58 as the rate base value of Forest Utilities’ assets and
reasonable transaction and closing costs incurred by the utility and reasonable
fees paid to the appraisers as permitted by subsection (3)(b) of the FMV Statute;
(2) approval of the journal entries set forth in Exhibit I to the Petition (Exhibit JC-
13 to Cox Direct Testimony); and (3) a finding that granting the Petition is in the
public interest. CSWR-Florida’s position is that each request is supported by the
record and fully consistent with the FMV Statute and Rule, and that the
Commission should grant the Petition.
The FMV Statute reflects the Florida Legislature’s finding that promoting
consolidation of water and wastewater systems serves the public interest by
encouraging economies of scale, better access to lower material and supply costs,
better access to capital, improvement in utility infrastructure, and improvement in
overall quality of service. It provides an alternative to the traditional cost method
of section 367.081, Florida Statutes, for establishing the rate base value of an
acquired system, capping that value at the lesser of the negotiated purchase price
or the average of three independent appraisals. CSWR-Florida is an acquiring
utility eligible to use this procedure. It serves more than 10,000 water and
wastewater customers and is permitted to produce more than 3 million gallons of
drinking water per day in Florida.
Florida’s Legislature deliberately authorized rate base values above historical net
book value because Florida wanted strong utilities to invest private capital in
troubled systems. Forest Utilities is such a system, and CSWR-Florida is willing
to make that investment so that it can deliver the infrastructure, compliance,
environmental, and service-quality benefits contemplated by section 367.081 to a
smaller, distressed wastewater system.
OPC: 	This proceeding concerns a petition filed by CSWR-Florida Utility Operating
Company, LLC (“CSWR” or “the Company”) on May 27, 2026, requesting the
Florida Public Service Commission (“Commission”) to establish the rate base
value of Forest Utilities, Inc. (“Forest Utilities”) using the alternative procedure
in section 367.0811, Florida Statutes (the “FMV Statute”). CSWR requests that
this Commission approve a rate base value of $8,741,135.58 and, in the same
breath, states that this acquisition, the subsequent adjustment, and impact on
rates for customers is in the public interest despite the requested rate base value
being $7 million over the actual net book value (“NBV”) of the system. The
FMV statute makes clear that the Commission must, in order to approve, modify,
or deny this petition, make a determination in furtherance of the public interest.
Section 367.081, Florida Statutes, mandates that the “commission shall … fix
rates which are just, reasonable, compensatory, and not unfairly discriminatory.”

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0359-PHO-SU
DOCKET NO. 20260083-SU
PAGE 6
Historically, 	fair 	market 	value 	was 	the 	generally 	accepted 	standard 	for
determining a regulated utility’s rate base. See Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466
(1898). This approach was criticized by Justice Brandeis in his dissent in
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission, 262 U.S. 276
(1923). Justice Brandeis’ dissent was based on the controversy surrounding the
fair market value approach valuing a utility on future profitability and market
perception 	instead 	of 	upon 	prudent 	investments 	made 	by 	that 	utility. 	He
described the fair value methodology as creating a “vicious circle” and that one
cannot determine a regulated utility’s value by capitalizing future earnings when
those earnings are determined by the rates set by regulators. Id. at 292. Justice
Brandies also importantly noted that regulated utilities are not subject to an
ordinary competitive market. In Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural
Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591 (1944), the Supreme Court adopted the principles laid out
in Justice Brandeis’ dissent in Southwestern Bell and abandoned the fair market
value doctrine. The Court instead promulgated the “end results doctrine” which
focused on whether rates were sufficient enough to maintain a regulated utilities
financial 	integrity 	while 	at 	the 	same 	time 	protecting 	customers 	from
unreasonable rates. This idea was reiterated in Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch,
488 U.S. 299 (1989) when the Court emphasized that utilities may only recover
the 	capital 	prudently 	devoted 	to 	providing 	public 	service, 	as 	opposed 	to
anticipated future earnings or speculative market appreciation.
OPC provides this history because the fair market value methodology prescribed
by section 367.0811, Florida Statutes, presents many of the same pitfalls as the
historic fair value standard that was rejected by the United States Supreme Court
in Hope and Duquesne. Unlike original cost less depreciation or netbook value,
the fair market value appraisals rely on market or income-based valuation
techniques that incorporate unsanctioned and hypothetical assumptions regarding
future and speculative regulated rates that recreate the “vicious circle” Justice
Brandeis articulated. The same issues addressed by the United States Supreme
Court over a century ago still exist. The support for these acquisitions is alone
fueled by CSWR, the only party benefitting from an increase in rate base, and
therefore increased profits, with no investment at parity or corresponding
customer benefits.
This Commission can still advance the goals stated by the Legislature in section
367.0811 without granting CSWR’s gluttonous request for an exorbitant and
unsupported rate base value that unjustly burdens ratepayers in order to siphon
their hard-earned money. There is a middle ground to be had between the $1.5
million net book value of Forest Utilities and the unconscionable $8.7 million rate
base requested by CSWR. Ultimately, CSWR carries the burden of proof to
demonstrate to this Commission that they have met all the procedural and
substantive requirements of section 367.0811 and that their requested rate base
value is in the public interest. Nothing in this proceeding will demonstrate that the

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0359-PHO-SU
DOCKET NO. 20260083-SU
PAGE 7
higher rate base resulting from a fair market value acquisition will produce
corresponding improvements in quality of service, regulatory compliance, rate
stability, or access to capital. In fact, CSWR’s own petition falls abysmally short
of each of these requirements and should therefore be denied.
STAFF: 	Staff’s positions are preliminary and based on materials filed by the parties and on
discovery. The preliminary positions are offered to assist the parties in preparing
for the hearing. Staff’s final positions will be based upon all the evidence in the
record and may differ from the preliminary positions stated herein.
VIII. 	ISSUES AND POSITIONS
ISSUE 1: 	Is the proposed transaction expected to result in improvements in the overall
quality 	of 	service 	provided 	to 	Forest 	Utilities 	customers 	pursuant 	to
367.0811(9)(a), F.S.?
CSWR: 	Yes. (Cox)
OPC: 	No. CSWR has not demonstrated that the proposed acquisition will produce
measurable improvements in the quality of service provided to Forest Utilities
customers.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 2: 	Is the proposed transaction expected to result in improvements in regulatory
compliance for the Forest Utilities systems pursuant to 367.0811(9)(b), F.S.?
CSWR: 	Yes. (Cox)
OPC: 	No. CSWR has not established that the increase in rate base and rates will
materially improve regulatory compliance. The record will support a finding that
CSWR ownership appears to materially degrade regulatory compliance for both
its in-state and out-of-state acquisitions.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 3: 	Is the proposed transaction under 367.0811(9)(c), F.S., expected to result in
rate reductions or rate stability over a long-term period?

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0359-PHO-SU
DOCKET NO. 20260083-SU
PAGE 8
CSWR: 	Yes. (Cox)
OPC: 	No. Considered as an isolated, stand-alone transaction, the petition would result in
significantly higher rates for customers in exchange for no measurable benefits
for customers if approved. Claims of long-term rate stability are speculative when
based on a single transaction as they fail to consider the totality of CSWR’s
system, the complete absence of resources available for Florida operations and its
capital expenditure plans. CSWR did not include a rate stabilization plan in their
petition, asserting instead, without support, that rate stabilization will result from
consolidation with their other systems.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 4: 	What 	is 	the 	projected 	rate 	impact 	of 	the 	proposed 	transaction 	under
367.0811(5)(e), F.S., over the next five years?
CSWR: 	If consolidated rates are granted in CSWR-Florida’s pending rate case (Docket
No. 20250052-WS) as well as this requested alternative valuation, then the five-
year impact to rates in a subsequent rate case would be approximately $2.33 per
residential wastewater customer per month. If consolidation is not granted and the
alternative 	valuation 	is 	factored 	into 	Forest 	Utilities 	customer 	rates 	in 	a
subsequent rate case, then the five-year impact is projected to be approximately
$6.85 per residential wastewater customer per month. (Cox)
OPC: 	The rate impact study provided by CSWR in Exhibit I is extremely speculative
and not supported by rationally based testimony or accepted methods of proof.
Until the resolution of other issues, the final rate impact cannot be determined at
this time.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 5: 	If 	the 	transaction 	under 	367.0811(5)(h), 	F.S., 	is 	approved, 	should 	the
Commission institute a rate stabilization plan for Forest Utilities, Inc.?
CSWR: 	No. (Cox)
OPC: 	The Commission should deny CSWR’s petition because the proposed rate base
value is not in the public interest with or without modification. However, if the
Commission approves any increase in the rate base value of Forest Utilities, the
Commission should consider a rate stabilization plan to mitigate rate shock to the
customers.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0359-PHO-SU
DOCKET NO. 20260083-SU
PAGE 9
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 6: 	Is the proposed transaction under 367.0811(9)(d), F.S., expected to provide
cost efficiencies?
CSWR: 	Yes. (Cox)
OPC: 	No. CSWR has offered generalized efficiencies, but it has not demonstrated that
these efficiencies are quantifiable, verifiable, or sufficient to offset an increased
cost to Forest Utilities’ customers.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 7: 	Is the proposed transaction under 367.0811(9)(f), F.S., expected to generate
economies of scale?
CSWR: 	Yes. (Cox)
OPC: 	No. The evidence does not establish meaningful economies of scale benefiting
customers. Larger utilities may realize a lower cost per unit to serve; however,
those savings will not be flowed through to customers or match the increased
revenue requirement.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 8: 	Has 	CSWR-Florida 	Utility 	Operating 	Company 	demonstrated 	that 	the
purchase of Forest Utilities, Inc. is being made as part of an arms-length
transaction under 367.0811(9)(e), F.S.?
CSWR: 	Yes. (Cox)
OPC: 	No. The existence of a purchase agreement does not establish that the purchase
was part of an arms-length transaction
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0359-PHO-SU
DOCKET NO. 20260083-SU
PAGE 10
ISSUE 9: 	Has CSWR-Florida Utility Operating Company demonstrated that it has a
greater access to capital than Forest Utilities, Inc. under 367.0811(9)(h), F.S.?
CSWR: 	Yes. (Cox)
OPC: 	No. CSWR has not demonstrated that they have greater access to capital than
Forest 	Utilities. 	CSWR 	assumes 	that 	Forest 	Utilities 	has 	an 	inability 	or
unwillingness to access capital.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 10: 	What 	is 	CSWR-Florida 	Utility 	Operating 	Company’s 	net 	book 	value
compared to the proposed rate base value of Forest Utilities, Inc. under
367.0811(9)(g), F.S.?
CSWR: 	As of December 31, 2024, CSWR-Florida’s net book value of all CSWR-Florida
systems is $18,785,393. However, this figure does not reflect the potential effects
of the Company’s five pending acquisition adjustment petitions before the Florida
Public Service Commission, filed pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule
25‑30.0371. The resulting acquisition adjustments would increase the recognized
rate base of CSWR-Florida by as much as $41,622,636. On September 10, 2026,
the Commission voted to approve the full amount of the acquisition adjustment
requested in each of the five petitions. 	Proposed agency action orders currently
set to be issued on September 30, 2026. 	In addition, since the filing of this
Petition, CSWR-Florida has filed four additional acquisition adjustment petitions
that are pending before the Commission. If the Commission approves those
petitions, the resulting acquisition adjustments would increase the recognized rate
base of CSWR-Florida by as much as $4,123,866. The rate base value requested
through this Petition for the Forest Utilities system is $8,741,135.58. (Cox)
OPC: 	Forest Utilities’ NBV as of December 31, 2024, was $1,585,340. CSWR’s
proposed rate base value for the Forest Utilities system is $8,741,135.58. The
magnitude of the proposed increase, 5.5 times the NBV, exemplifies the requested
alternative rate base is not in the public interest.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 11: 	What 	is 	the 	appropriate 	alternative 	rate 	base 	value 	if 	the 	proposed
transaction is found to be in the public interest?

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0359-PHO-SU
DOCKET NO. 20260083-SU
PAGE 11
CSWR: 	$8,741,135.58. (Cox)
OPC: 	The Commission should modify or deny the petition based upon an insufficient
evidentiary record to establish an accurate rate base. Any Commission decision
should establish a rate base supported by competent and substantial evidence.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 12: 	What reasonable performance goals, if any, should the Commission set,
pursuant to 367.0811(10), F.S.?
CSWR: 	None. (Cox)
OPC: 	The Commission should set a framework to develop a cost-benefit analysis of
ratepayer impacts to standardize the review of future acquisitions.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 13: 	Is the proposed transaction by CSWR-Florida Utility Operating Company
under 367.0811(9), F.S., in the public interest?
CSWR: 	Yes. (Cox)
OPC: 	No. CSWR has not demonstrated that their requested approximately $7.1 million
addition to rate base for the Forest Utilities system is in the public interest. The
evidence, or lack thereof, does not show this acquisition will provide any
measurable benefits to customers to justify the significant increase in rate base
and the resulting rate impacts.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 14: 	Should this docket be closed?
CSWR: 	Yes.
OPC: 	Yes. The Commission should deny CSWR’s Petition and close this docket.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0359-PHO-SU
DOCKET NO. 20260083-SU
PAGE 12
IX. 	EXHIBIT LIST
Witness 	Proffered By 	Exhibit No. 	Description 	Issue #
Direct
Curt Mouring 	Staff 	CM-1 	House of Representatives’ Staff
Analysis of House Bill 125
All
Curt Mouring 	Staff 	CM-2 	Optional Approach to modifying
ARBV
11, 12
Josiah Cox 	CSWR 	JC-1 	CSWR-Florida Alternative
Valuation Petition
1-13
Josiah Cox 	CSWR 	JC-2 	Purchase and Sale Agreement
dated October 15, 2023;
Amendment to Purchase and
Sale Agreement dated January
15, 2025; and
Agreement Between Parties
dated January 15, 2025
8
Josiah Cox 	CSWR 	JC-3 	Kimley-Horn Facility Report for
the Forest Utilities Wastewater
Treatment Plant
(CONFIDENTIAL)
1-2
Josiah Cox 	CSWR 	JC-4 	PSC Letter with Appraisers List 	8-13
Josiah Cox 	CSWR 	JC-5 	ScottMadden Appraisal Report
(CONFIDENTIAL)
8-13
Josiah Cox 	CSWR 	JC-6 	ScottMadden Invoice 	8-13
Josiah Cox 	CSWR 	JC-7 	Mosaic Appraisal Report
(CONFIDENTIAL)
8-13
Josiah Cox 	CSWR 	JC-8 	Mosaic Invoices 	8-13
Josiah Cox 	CSWR 	JC-9 	NewGen Appraisal Report
(CONFIDENTIAL)
8-13
Josiah Cox 	CSWR 	JC-10 	NewGen Invoice 	8-13
Josiah Cox 	CSWR 	JC-11 	Estimated Transaction Costs 	8-12

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0359-PHO-SU
DOCKET NO. 20260083-SU
PAGE 13
Witness 	Proffered By 	Exhibit No. 	Description 	Issue #
Josiah Cox 	CSWR 	JC-12 	Engineering Assessment and 3-
Year Plan and FDEP
Documentation
(CONFIDENTIAL)
1-2, 8-
13
Josiah Cox 	CSWR 	JC-13 	CPVRR 5-Year Projected
Impact; and Proposed Journal
Entries (Stand-alone Rates)
3-7
Josiah Cox 	CSWR 	JC-14 	Projected Impact Details 	3-7
Josiah Cox 	CSWR 	JC-15 	Proposed Notice of Petition 	n/a
X. 	PROPOSED STIPULATIONS
None
XI. 	PENDING MOTIONS
None
XII. 	PENDING CONFIDENTIALITY MATTERS
1. 	August 17, 2026, Motion for Protective Order and Request for Confidential Classification of
information responsive to Staff’s interrogatory number 27 (Document No. 05253-2026)
2. 	September 11, 2026, Motion for Protective Order and Request for Confidential Classification of
information responsive to Staff’s request for production of documents number 12 and Staff’s
interrogatory number 37 (Document No. 06294-2026)
XIII. 	POST-HEARING PROCEDURES
If no bench decision is made, each party shall file a post-hearing statement of issues and
positions. A summary of each position, set off with asterisks, shall be included in that statement.
If a party’s position has not changed since the issuance of this Prehearing Order, the post-hearing
statement may simply restate the prehearing position; however, if the prehearing position is
longer than 50 words, it must be reduced to no more than 50 words. If a party fails to file a post-
hearing statement, that party shall have waived all issues and may be dismissed from the
proceeding.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0359-PHO-SU
DOCKET NO. 20260083-SU
PAGE 14
Pursuant to Rule 28-106.215, F.A.C., a party’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions
of law, if any, statement of issues and positions, and brief, shall together total no more than 75
pages and shall be filed at the same time.
XIV. 	RULINGS
Opening statements, if any, shall not exceed ten minutes per party.
It is therefore,
ORDERED 	by 	Commissioner 	Michael 	La 	Rosa, 	as 	Prehearing 	Officer, 	that 	this
Prehearing Order shall govern the conduct of these proceedings as set forth above unless
modified by the Commission.
By ORDER of Commissioner Mike La Rosa, as Prehearing Officer, this 14th day of
October, 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

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0359-PHO-SU
DOCKET NO. 20260083-SU
PAGE 15
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.