Florida Public Service Commission native order document 03358-2026

FILED 6/5/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 03358-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
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.
DOCKET NO. 20250052-WS
ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0209-PCO-WS
ISSUED: June 	5, 2026
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
CSWR-FLORIDA UTILITY OPERATING COMPANY, LLC’S MOTION TO STRIKE FINAL
AUDIT REPORT REVISED FINDING 3 RELATING TO LAND AND LAND RIGHTS OR,
IN THE ALTERNATIVE. REQUEST TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL REBUTTAL
An 	administrative 	hearing 	has 	been 	scheduled 	in 	this 	docket 	for 	June 	8-12, 	2026,
pursuant 	to Order Establishing Procedure No. PSC-2025-0457-PCO-WS, 	issued December 	16,
2025. Consistent with the requirements of that order, on March 27, 2026, Commission 	staff filed
testimony and exhibits 	for two witnesses. Witness Mouring 	filed testimony supporting the 	staff
Auditor’s Report addressing CSWR-Florida Utility Operating Company, LLC’s (CSWR-Florida
or 	utility) 	filing 	in 	this 	docket. 	The 	Auditor’s 	Report was 	attached 	to 	witness Mowing’s
testimony 	as 	Exhibit CM-1. On May 	28, 	the Bureau 	of Auditing 	filed an 	errata withdrawing
Audit Finding 	2 and revising Audit Finding 	3 of CM-1. 1 The 	effect of the 	revision 	to Audit
Finding 3 was 	to deduct approximately $6 million from the 	utility’s land balances, because the
finding did not accwately reflect Commission practice regarding the original cost of land.
On June 	1, 2026, (CSWR-Florida) 	filed a Motion 	to 	Strike Final Audit Report Revised
Finding 3 Relating to Land and Land Rights 	or, 	in the Alternative, Request to File Supplemental
Rebuttal (Motion). In 	its Motion, CSWR-Florida contends that the timing of the revision to Audit
Finding 3 does not permit the 	utility 	to conduct discovery or 	file rebuttal testimony, contrary to
the 	utility’s 	due 	process 	rights. CSWR-Florida 	therefore 	requests 	that 	the 	revision 	to 	Audit
Finding 3 be stricken and excluded from the upcoming hearing and record of this proceeding. In
the alternative, CSWR-Florida requests that 	it be allowed to 	file supplemental rebuttal testimony
by utility witness Thies, attached to the Motion, provided doing so does not postpone or require
rescheduling 	the June 	8 	hearing. 	The 	utility 	represents 	it has 	conferred with 	counsel 	for 	the
Office of Public Counsel (OPC), who 	stated that OPC takes no position on the motion and will
not be filing a response. 2
Ruling
It 	is 	always 	the 	best 	practice 	to have 	the 	correct, most 	up-to-date 	information 	in 	a
Commission administrative proceeding. Where 	errors have occurred, they should be 	corrected;
where updates 	to pro forma projects 	are 	available, 	they should be provided. 3For that reason, 	I
1Document No. 03178-2026
2OPC’s intervention was acknowledged by Order No. PSC-2025-0113-PCO-WS, issuedApril 7, 2025.
3See Citizens 	v. Florida Public Service Commission, 294 So. 3d 961 	(Fla. 	1st DCA 2019) (updated pro forma cost
information provided during rebuttal did not violate due process.)

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0209-PCO-WS
DOCKET NO. 20250052-WS
PAGE 2
decline to strike the revision to Audit Finding 3. However, due process requires that affected
parties must be given a meaningful opportunity to address any such changes that are made prior
to hearing. In this instance, CSWR-Florida will have the opportunity to cross-examine witness
Mouring as to the appropriateness of the revision to Audit Finding 3. In addition, I find that the
utility’s alternative request to file supplemental rebuttal testimony by witness Thies provides an
important balance to ensure that the utility is afforded an opportunity to present its position with
respect to Audit Finding 3, but without disrupting the current hearing schedule.
Accordingly, CSWR-Florida’s motion is denied with respect to the request to strike the
revision to Audit Finding 3, and granted with respect to the alternative request to file
supplemental rebuttal testimony by utility witness Thies. The supplemental rebuttal testimony
shall be deemed filed and included for all purposes of this proceeding, along with the rebuttal
testimony of Mr. Thies filed on April 17, 2026.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED by Commissioner Gary Clark, as Prehearing Officer, that CSWR-Florida
Utility Operating Company, LLC’s Motion to Strike Final Audit Report Revised Finding 3
Relating to Land and Land Rights or, in the Alternative, Request to File Supplemental Rebuttal,
is denied in part, and granted in part, as set forth herein.
By ORDER of Commissioner Gary F. Clark, as Prehearing Officer, this 5th day of June,
2026.
GARY F. CLARK
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.
JSC

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0209-PCO-WS
DOCKET NO. 20250052-WS
PAGE 3
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.