Florida Public Service Commission native order document 04629-2026

FILED 7/24/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 04629-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Petition to establish rate base value of 	DOCKET NO. 2026003 	1 -WS
acquired system using alternative procedure, 	ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0260-PHO-WS
by Sunshine Water Services Company. 	ISSUED: July 24, 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 	July 	24, 	2026, 	in 	Tallahassee, 	Florida, 	before
Commissioner Ana Ortega, as Prehearing Officer.
APPEARANCES:
J. JEFFRY WAHLEN, VIRGINIA 	L. PONDER 	and MATTHEW 	J. JONES,
ESQUIRES, Ausley McMullen Law Firm, Post Office Box 391, Tallahassee, FL
32302
On behalf of Sunshine Water Services Company (SWS) .
WALT 	TRIERWEILER, CHARLES REHWINKEL, OCTAVIO 	SIMOES-
PONCE and AUSTIN A. WATROUS, ESQUIRES, 	c/o 	the 	Florida 	Legislature,
111 West Madison Street, Suite 812, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1400
On behalf of the Office of Public Counsel (OPC) 	.
SUZANNE 	BROWNLESS, 	MAJOR 	THOMPSON, 	and 	JENNIFER
CRAWFORD, ESQUIRES, 	Florida Public 	Service Commission, 2540 Shumard
Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850
On behalf of the Florida Public Service Commission (Staff) 	.
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 	.
I. 	CASE BACKGROUND
On 	February 	27, 	2026, 	Sunshine 	Water 	Services Company (SWS) 	filed 	its 	petition
requesting to establish a rate base value of an acquired system using the alternative procedure of
Section 	367.0811, 	Florida 	Statutes 	(F.S.). 	OPC was acknowledged 	as 	a party on March 	17,
2026, by Order No. PSC-2026-0063-PCO-WS. 	Order No. PSC-2026-0079-PCO-WS, 	issued

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0260-PHO-WS
DOCKET NO. 20260031-WS
PAGE 2
March 24, 2026, set this matter for hearing on August 10-14, 2026. 	The Commission will
address the issues listed in this prehearing order. 	The Commission has the option to render a
bench decision with agreement of the parties on any or all issues listed below.
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
Chapter 367, Florida Statutes. This hearing will be governed by said Chapter and Chapters 25-6,
25-22, 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:
(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

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0260-PHO-WS
DOCKET NO. 20260031-WS
PAGE 3
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 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 3
minutes.
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
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.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0260-PHO-WS
DOCKET NO. 20260031-WS
PAGE 4
VI. 	ORDER OF WITNESSES
Witness 	Proffered By 	Issues #
Direct
Dante DeStefano 	SWS 	1-8, 10-13
Daniel Magro 	SWS 	12
Diana Ling 	SWS 	12
Anthony Festa 	SWS 	12
Zachary Wright 	SWS 	12
Seán Twomey 	SWS 	1-3, 7-10, 12, 13
Rebuttal
There are no rebuttal witnesses.
VII. 	BASIC POSITIONS
SWS: 	Introduction
This proceeding concerns a petition filed by SWS on February 27, 2026,
requesting that the Florida Public Service Commission establish the rate base
value of the Placid Lakes Utilities, Inc. ("Placid Lakes") utility system using the
alternative procedure in Section 367.0811, Florida Statutes (the "FMV Statute"),
and Rule 25-30.0372, Florida Administrative Code (the "FMV Rule"). SWS
requests three determinations: (1) approval of $5,750,000 as the rate base value of
the acquired Placid Lakes assets; (2) approval of the journal entries set forth in
Exhibit E to the Petition; and (3) a finding that granting the Petition is in the
public interest. The Company's basic position is that each request is supported by
the record and fully consistent with the FMV Statute and FMV 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

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0260-PHO-WS
DOCKET NO. 20260031-WS
PAGE 5
acquired system, capping that value at the lesser of the negotiated purchase price
or the average of three independent appraisals. SWS is an acquiring utility eligible
to use this procedure. It serves more than 35,000 water and more than 30,000
wastewater customers and is permitted to produce more than 14 million gallons of
drinking water per day in Florida.
Issues
The Parties have identified over 14 issues in this case and divided them into 4
categories, each of which is addressed below.
1. 	Quality of Service, Infrastructure, and Operating Conditions (Issues 1 through
3)
The proposed transaction is expected to improve the overall quality of service
provided 	to 	Placid 	Lakes' 	customers 	(Issue 	1) 	and 	to 	improve 	regulatory
compliance for the Placid Lakes systems (Issue 2). SWS's access to capital, its
established Florida-based customer service and billing operations, its 24/7 call
center and online customer portal, its enhanced information-technology and
cybersecurity support, and its emergency and disaster response capabilities will
benefit 	customers 	and 	support 	regulatory 	compliance. 	To 	the 	extent 	the
Commission elects to set performance goals under Section 367.0811(10), Florida
Statutes, (Issue 3), any such goals should be consistent with the improvements
and timeline already reflected in the three-year Improvement Plan found in the
engineer’s Assessment.
2. 	Rate Stabilization and Cost Efficiencies (Issues 4 through 8)
The transaction is expected to produce rate reductions or long-term rate stability
(Issue 4). The Company's five-year Rate Impact Analysis reflects managed rate
impacts 	and 	the 	potential 	for 	a 	rate 	decrease 	as 	Placid 	Lakes' 	rates 	are
consolidated with SWS's rates in a future rate case, whereas Placid Lakes' stand-
alone rates would significantly increase to fund needed capital investment.
Because the acquisition will not cause a significant individual rate increase during
the five-year period analyzed, no rate stabilization plan is required or warranted
under Section 367.0811(5)(h), Florida Statutes (Issue 6). The transaction will
produce cost efficiencies by consolidating personnel and processes with SWS
(Issue 7) and will generate economies of scale by supporting Placid Lakes with
SWS and its parent company's shared support services and spreading capital and
operating costs across a larger customer base (Issue 8).
3. 	Net Book Value, Capital, and Contract Details (Issues 9 through 12)
The acquisition reflected in the Agreement is an arm's-length transaction (Issue
9), as neither SWS nor its affiliates are affiliated with PLU or its affiliates. SWS,

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0260-PHO-WS
DOCKET NO. 20260031-WS
PAGE 6
as part of a large utility holding company with equity investment and a wide
variety of borrowing options, has substantially greater access to capital than
Placid Lakes, which has historically relied on developer-provided equity and bank
loans (Issue 10). SWS's net book value of approximately $195,393,737 exceeds
the proposed rate base value of $5,750,000, which equals approximately 2.97
percent of that net book value (Issue 11). The appropriate rate base value under
the FMV Statute is $5,750,000 (Issue 12) - not including estimated Organization
costs - which does not exceed the lesser of the negotiated purchase price or the
$6,506,633 average of the three appraisals.
4. 	Legal (Issues 13 through 14)
For the reasons summarized above and developed in the Company's prepared
direct testimony and exhibits, the proposed transaction is in the public interest
under Section 367.0811(9), Florida Statutes, and the Commission should grant the
Petition (Issue 13). Upon issuance of a final order establishing the rate base value,
approving the journal entries, and finding the transaction in the public interest,
this docket should be closed (Issue 14).
OPC: 	Historically and presumptively, fair market value was the generally accepted
standard for determining a regulated utility's rate base. In Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S.
466 (1898), the United States Supreme Court held that a utility's value could be
based upon numerous factors, including original cost, replacement cost, market
value of securities, and the utility's anticipated earning capacity. Id. at 515. That
approach, however, proved controversial because it valued utilities based not on
prudent investments, but also on future profitability and market perceptions. Id. at
547.
Justice Brandeis, in a dissent, sharply criticized the fair value methodology in
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission, 262 U.S. 276
(1923), describing it as creating a "vicious circle." Id. at 292. As he explained, a
regulated utility's value cannot be determined by capitalizing future earnings
when those earnings are largely determined by rates the utility is allowed to
charge by regulators. Justice Brandeis further questioned valuation methods that
relied upon market and income approaches, observing that utilities are not traded
in an ordinary competitive market and that their value cannot be determined by
projected earnings that are themselves products of regulation.1 Justice Brandeis
1 “The rule of Smyth v. Ames sets the laborious and baffling task of finding the present value of the utility. It is
impossible to find an exchange value for a utility, since utilities, unlike merchandise or land, are not commonly
bought and sold in the market. Nor can the present value of the utility be determined by capitalizing its net earnings,
since the earnings are determined, in large measure, by the rate which the company will be permitted to charge; and,
thus, the vicious circle would be encountered.” Mo. ex rel. Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Com., 262 U.S. 276, 292,
43 S. Ct. 544, 548 (1923).

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0260-PHO-WS
DOCKET NO. 20260031-WS
PAGE 7
also recognized the inherent subjectivity of appraisal methodologies, noting that
experts often reached valuations differing by millions of dollars.2
Twenty years later, the Supreme Court adopted the principles advanced by Justice
Brandeis’s dissent. In Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320
U.S. 591 (1944), the Supreme Court abandoned the fair value doctrine and
rejected the notion that rates should be based upon market valuation. Instead, the
Court endorsed the "end results" doctrine, focusing on whether rates are sufficient
to maintain the utility's financial integrity while protecting consumers from
unreasonable charges. That principle was reaffirmed in Duquesne Light Co. v.
Barasch, 488 U.S. 299 (1989), which emphasized that utilities are constitutionally
entitled to recover only the capital prudently devoted to providing public utility
service, not speculative market appreciation or anticipated future earnings.3
The fair market value methodology authorized by Section 367.0811, Florida
Statutes, bears many of the same characteristics as the historic fair value standard
rejected 	by 	the 	United 	States 	Supreme 	Court.4 	Rather 	than 	relying 	upon
depreciated original cost or net book value, modern fair market appraisals
frequently depend upon market-based and income-based valuation techniques that
inherently reflect expectations regarding future revenues, future earnings, and
future 	growth 	opportunities. 	Those 	expectations 	necessarily 	incorporate
assumptions regarding future regulated rates, recreating the same “vicious circle”
concerns identified by Justice Brandeis more than a century ago.
Based on the Historical context above, the available empirical evidence is limited.
Nothing in this proceeding or nationally indicates that higher rate bases resulting
from fair market value acquisitions produce corresponding improvements in
infrastructure, service quality, or regulatory compliance. Rather, much of the
support for fair market value has been advanced by utilities that benefit from
increased rate base growth, while objective data demonstrating corresponding
customer benefits remain scarce.
Accordingly, OPC submits that the Commission should scrutinize any fair market
appraisal 	that 	relies 	upon 	speculative 	market 	assumptions, 	projected 	future
2 “When the price levels had risen largely, and estimates of replacement cost indicated values much greater than the
actual cost of installation, many commissions refused to consider valuable what one declared to be assumptions
based on things that never happened and estimates requiring the projection of the engineer's imagination into the
future and methods of construction and installation that have never been and never will be adopted by sane men.”
Mo. ex rel. Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Com., 262 U.S. 276, 299-300, 43 S. Ct. 544, 550 (1923) (footnotes
omitted)
3 ". . . [T]he ‘end result’ doctrine [was] first enunciated in Jacksonville Gas Corporation v. Florida Railroad & Public
Utilities Commission, 50 So.2d 887 (Fla. 1951). See also, Westwood, supra; General Telephone Company of Florida
v. Carter, 115 So.2d 554 (Fla. 1959)” Citizens of State v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Com, 399 So. 2d 9, 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
4 “Although the fair value rule gives utilities strong incentive to manage their affairs well and to provide efficient
service to the public, it suffered from practical difficulties which ultimately led to its abandonment as a
constitutional requirement.” Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch, 488 U.S. 299, 309, 109 S. Ct. 609, 616 (1989).

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0260-PHO-WS
DOCKET NO. 20260031-WS
PAGE 8
revenues, or subjective valuation methodologies to protect modern customers
from the ailments that customers faced more than a century ago.
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.
VIII. 	ISSUES AND POSITIONS
ISSUE 1: 	Is the proposed transaction expected to result in improvements in the overall
quality of service provided to Placid Lakes’ customers pursuant to Sec.
367.0811(9)(a), F.S.?
SWS: 	Yes. (Twomey, DeStefano)
OPC: 	No. 	Sunshine 	Water 	Services 	(“Sunshine”) 	has 	not 	demonstrated 	that 	the
proposed acquisition will produce measurable improvements in the quality of
service provided to Placid Lakes’ 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 Placid Lakes’ systems pursuant to Sec. 367.0811(9)(b),
F.S.?
SWS: 	Yes. (Twomey, DeStefano)
OPC: 	No. 	Sunshine has not established that the increase in rate base and rates will
materially improve regulatory compliance.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 3: 	What reasonable performance goals, if any, should the Commission set,
pursuant to Sec. 367.0811(10), F.S.?
SWS: 	None. (Twomey, DeStefano)
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.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0260-PHO-WS
DOCKET NO. 20260031-WS
PAGE 9
ISSUE 4: 	Is the proposed transaction under Sec. 367.0811(9)(c), F.S., expected to result
in rate reductions or rate stability over a long-term period?
SWS: 	Yes. (DeStefano)
OPC: 	When considered as an isolated transaction and on a stand-alone basis, it is clear
that customers’ rates will increase if the petition is approved. 	Long term rate
stability is speculative based on only one transaction and not without regard
considering the totality of Sunshine’s system and capital expenditure plans.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 5: 	What is the projected rate impact of the proposed transaction under Sec.
367.0811(5)(e), F.S., over the next five years?
SWS: 	While SWS anticipates continuing with annual index rate adjustments as Placid
Lakes has in recent years, the inclusion of Placid Lakes in SWS’s next rate case
(estimated to be effective in 2029) is expected to result in an overall rate decrease
for both water and sewer customers of Placid Lakes relative to current rates.
(DeStefano)
OPC: 	See Sunshine Witness DeStefano’s Exhibit No. DD-1, Document No. 1, Page 4 of
5.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 6: 	If the transaction under Sec. 367.0811(5)(h), F.S., is approved, should the
Commission institute a rate stabilization plan for Placid Lakes Utilities, Inc.?
SWS: 	No. (DeStefano)
OPC: 	The Commission should only institute a rate stabilization plan if the transaction
satisfies the minimum statutory public interest factors.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 7: 	Is the proposed transaction under Sec. 367.0811(9)(d), F.S., expected to
provide cost efficiencies?
SWS: 	Yes. (Twomey, DeStefano)

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0260-PHO-WS
DOCKET NO. 20260031-WS
PAGE 10
OPC: 	No. The Utility has identified generalized efficiencies associated with centralized
management and administrative consolidation, but it has not demonstrated that
these efficiencies are quantifiable, verifiable, or sufficient to offset the increased
costs.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 8: 	Is the proposed transaction under Sec. 367.0811(9)(f), F.S., expected to
generate economies of scale?
SWS: 	Yes. (Twomey, DeStefano)
OPC: 	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 directly passed through to customers or exceed the
increased revenue requirement, instead it will likely increase utility profits.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 9: 	Has Sunshine Water Services Company demonstrated that the purchase of
Placid 	Lakes 	Utilities, 	Inc. 	is 	being 	made 	as 	part 	of 	an 	arms-length
transaction under Sec. 367.0811(9)(e), F.S.?
SWS: 	Yes. (Twomey)
OPC: 	The existence of a purchase agreement does not establish that the agreed purchase
price 	represents 	an 	objective 	measure 	of 	value 	appropriate 	for 	ratemaking
purposes.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 10: 	Has Sunshine Water Services Company demonstrated that it has a greater
access to capital than Placid Lakes Utilities, Inc under Sec. 367.0811(9)(h),
F.S.?
SWS: 	Yes. (Twomey, DeStefano)
OPC: 	Sunshine has generally demonstrated greater financial resources than Placid
Lakes. 	However, greater access to capital alone does not establish that the
acquisition is in the public interest or justify adoption of a higher rate base.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0260-PHO-WS
DOCKET NO. 20260031-WS
PAGE 11
ISSUE 11: 	What is Sunshine Water Services Company’s net book value compared to the
proposed 	rate 	base 	value 	of 	Placid 	Lakes 	Utilities, 	Inc. 	under 	Sec.
367.0811(9)(g), F.S.?
SWS: 	As of December 31, 2024, $195,393,737, compared to the proposed $5,750,000
value for Placid Lakes. (DeStefano)
OPC: 	Placid Lakes’ netbook value is approximately $816,405. 	Sunshine’s proposed
rate base value for the Placid Lakes system is $5,750,000. An approximate $4.9
million increase in rate base substantially exceeds Placid Lakes’ current netbook
value.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 12: 	What 	is 	the 	appropriate 	alternative 	rate 	base 	value 	if 	the 	proposed
transaction is found to be in the public interest?
SWS: 	$5,750,000, not including estimated Organization costs. 	(Twomey, DeStefano,
Magro, Ling, Festa, Wright)
OPC: 	The Commission may, in the public interest, grant the petition in whole or in part
or with modifications, or may deny the petition under 367.0811(6)(b). 	Any
Commission decision should establish a rate base supported by competent and
substantial evidence.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 13: 	Is the proposed transaction by Sunshine Water Services Company under Sec.
367.0811(9), F.S., in the public interest?
SWS: 	Yes. (Twomey, DeStefano)
OPC: 	The proposed fair market value acquisition has not been shown to be in the public
interest. 	The evidence does not establish that the transaction will provide
sufficient, measurable benefits to customers to justify the increased rate base and
resulting rate impacts.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0260-PHO-WS
DOCKET NO. 20260031-WS
PAGE 12
ISSUE 14: 	Should this docket be closed?
SWS: 	Yes. (Legal)
OPC: 	No.
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
IX. 	EXHIBIT LIST
Witness 	Proffered By 	Description
Direct
Dante DeStefano 	SWS 	DD-1 	Document No. 1 - Five Year
Impact
Document No. 2 - Journal Entries
Daniel Magro 	SWS 	DM-1 	Placid Lakes Utility System
Engineering Assessment.
Diana Ling 	SWS 	DL-1 	Placid Lakes Utilities, Inc.
System Valuation.
Anthony Festa 	SWS 	AF-1 	Appraisal of Fixed Assets –
Placid Lakes Utilities, Inc.
Zachary Wright 	SWS 	ZW-1 	Document No. 1 - Appraisal of
Placid Lakes Utilities, Inc. Water
and Wastewater Systems.
Document No. 2 - Zachary
Wright Witness History.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0260-PHO-WS
DOCKET NO. 20260031-WS
PAGE 13
Witness 	Proffered By 	Description
Seán Twomey 	SWS 	ST-1 	Document No. 1 - Resume of
Seán Twomey.
Document No. 2 - Map of SWS’s
Existing Water and Wastewater
Systems in Florida.
Document No. 3 - Map of SWS’s
Existing Water and Wastewater
Systems in Highlands County,
Florida.
Document No. 4 - Map of Placid
Lakes’ Existing Water and
Wastewater Systems in Highlands
County, Florida.
Document No. 5 - Asset Purchase
Agreement Between SWS and
Placid Lakes.
X. 	PROPOSED STIPULATIONS
There are no pending proposed stipulations.
re are no proposed stipulations at this time.
XI. 	PENDING MOTIONS
There are no pending motions at this time.
XII. 	PENDING CONFIDENTIALITY MATTERS
There are no pending confidentiality matters at this time.
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-2026-0260-PHO-WS
DOCKET NO. 20260031-WS
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 40
pages and shall be filed at the same time.
XIV. 	RULINGS
Opening statements, if any, shall not exceed 5 minutes per party.
It is therefore,
ORDERED by Commissioner Ana Ortega, 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 Ana Ortega, as Prehearing Officer, this 24th day of July,
2026.
ANA ORTEGA
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.
SBr

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0260-PHO-WS
DOCKET NO. 20260031-WS
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.