Florida Public Service Commission native order document 01255-2024

FILED 3/21/2024
DOCUMENT NO. 01255-2024
FPSC - COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Petition for declaratory statement 	DOCKET NO. 20230128-EU
regarding Rule 25-6.049, F.A. C., by 1150 	ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0073-FOF-EU
WHG , LL C. 	ISSUED: March 21 , 2024
--~---------------~
The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter:
MIKE LA ROSA , C hairman
ARTGRAHAM
GARY F. CLARK
ANDREW GILES FAY
GABRIELLA P ASSIDOMO
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR DECLARATORY STATEMENT
BY THE COMMISSION:
I. 	BACKGROUND
1150 WHG , LLC (WHG) is converting a master-metered motel into residential units and
seeking to sub-meter those units under the existing master-meter. On November 8, 2023, WHG
filed a petition for declaratory statement (Petition), asking us to declare that, based on the facts
presented, "the property qualifies for the grandfather exception set forth in [R]ule 25-6.049,
[Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.)], since the Property was constructed pursuant to a permit
issued prior to January 1, 198 1 and has received continuous master-metering since January 1,
1981." Tampa Electric Company (TECO) provides electric service to the property.
Rule 25-6.049, F.A.C., sets forth electric metering requirements to measure energy use.
The rule requires individual electric metering for each occupancy unit in new commercial,
residential, and other buildings. This rule provides limited exemptions from the individual
metering requirement for hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities for which
billing for individual metering is impractical due to the nature of the facility ' s operation. 1 The
rule also avoids retroactive application of the individual metering requirement for residential
units in buildings constructed before 1981 , allowing older properties to remain ma ster-metered.2
Individual electric metering is typically defined as measuring electric service for each
occupancy unit of an establishment on an individual ba sis, using utility-owned meters for billing.
1 Rule 25-6.049, F.A.C. ; see also Order No. PSC-0 1-0626-PAA-EU, issued March 14, 2001 , in Docket No. 001543-
EU, In re: Petition for Variance from or Waiver of Rule 25-6.049(5)(a), F.A. C., by Su ndestin International
Homeowners Association, Inc.
2 Rule 25-6.049(5), F.A.C.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0073-FOF-EU
DOCKET NO. 20230128-EU
PAGE 2
In contrast, master-metering is typically used to describe situations in which electric service for
multiple occupancy buildings is measured using a single, utility-owned meter for billing. TECO
defines a sub-meter, in tariff sheet No. 4.110, as a meter used to check electric usage on a
particular electrical load for a non-billing purpose. Sub-meters are installed behind the utility-
owned master-meter by the property owner or third party.
In the past, we have stated that the purpose of Rule 25-6.049, F.A.C., is to implement the
Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act (FEECA) and encourage customers to conserve
electricity.3 As we have noted, “when unit owners are responsible for paying for their actual
consumption, they are more likely to conserve to minimize their bills.”4
Pursuant to Section 120.565, F.S., and Rule 28-105.0024, F.A.C., a Notice of Declaratory
Statement was published in the November 13, 2023, edition of the Florida Administrative
Register to inform substantially affected persons of the Petition. TECO was granted intervention
into this docket by Order No. PSC-2023-0360-PCO-EU, issued November 28, 2023. Pursuant to
Order No. PSC-2023-0360-PCO-EU, TECO filed its response to the Petition on December 6,
2023, and WHG filed its reply to TECO’s response on December 13, 2023. We have jurisdiction
to consider this matter pursuant to Section 120.565 and Chapter 366, F.S.
II. 	LAW GOVERNING PETITIONS FOR DECLARATORY STATEMENTS
Section 120.565, Florida Statutes (F.S.), sets forth the necessary elements of a petition for
declaratory statement. This section provides:
(1) Any substantially affected person may seek a declaratory statement regarding
an agency’s opinion as to the applicability of a statutory provision, or of any rule
or 	order 	of 	the 	agency, 	as 	it 	applies 	to 	the 	petitioner’s 	particular 	set 	of
circumstances.
(2) The petition seeking a declaratory statement shall state with particularity the
petitioner’s set of circumstances and shall specify the statutory provision, rule, or
order that the petitioner believes may apply to the set of circumstances.
Rule 28-105.001, F.A.C., states the purpose of a declaratory statement:
A declaratory statement is a means for resolving a controversy or answering
questions or doubts concerning the applicability of statutory provisions, rules, or
orders over which the agency has authority. A petition for declaratory statement
may be used to resolve questions or doubts as to how the statutes, rules, or orders
may apply to the petitioner’s particular circumstances. A declaratory statement is
not the appropriate means for determining the conduct of another person.
3 Order No. PSC-15-0363-PAA-EU, issued September 8, 2015, in Docket No. 150142-EU, In re: Petition by
Wiscan, LLC for waiver of Rule 25-6.049(5), F.A.C.
4 Id.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0073-FOF-EU
DOCKET NO. 20230128-EU
PAGE 3
If a petition meets the filing requirements provided by Rule 28-105.002, F.A.C., an
agency must issue a declaratory statement. A declaratory statement enables members of the
public to resolve ambiguities of law and obtain definitive, binding advice as to the applicability
of agency law to a particular set of facts.
Under Rule 28-105.003, F.A.C., in considering the facts set forth in the pleadings, “[t]he
agency may rely on the statements of fact set out in the petition without taking any position with
regard to the validity of the facts.” Therefore this order relies on the facts as presented by WHG
and TECO, without taking a position with regard to the validity of the facts.
III. 	WHG’S 	PETITION 	FOR 	DECLARATORY 	STATEMENT 	AND 	TECO’S
RESPONSE
A. WHG’s Statement of Facts
In its Petition and accompanying affidavit, WHG states it purchased the property at issue
in November 2022. The property was originally constructed in 1973 and has continuously
operated with a master-meter electrical system since then. In December 2022, the City of Winter
Haven issued permits for WHG to renovate the property, converting it into individual, residential
units.
WHG asserts that it informed TECO in January 2023 that it planned to install a sub-
metering system for electrical use on the property. Sometime after that, WHG alleges it began
the process of installing sub-metering in the residential units on the property. Under its plan,
WHG states that tenants will pay for their electricity at the same rate at which WHG is billed by
TECO, based on their individual energy usage recorded by the sub-meter in each unit. WHG sets
forth that an independent third party will then invoice and collect these amounts from the tenants
as reimbursement for WHG. WHG states that it will ultimately be billed by TECO for the energy
usage recorded by the master-meter for the entire property. WHG further contends that in July
2023, TECO objected to the plan.
WHG claims that it has changed all of the wiring in the building and installed half of the
sub-meters in the individual units already. WHG estimates that it would cost $1.5 million to
install individual meters. Moreover, WHG opines that the installation of solar panels—which it
states would also further the purposes of FEECA—is not justifiable if the property cannot use
master-metering. WHG states that its ultimate goals are to avoid retrofitting costs, upgrade the
property for tenants, and achieve the conservation and sustainability goals of FEECA.
B. TECO’s Response
In its response to the Petition, TECO states that the property at issue included multiple
motel structures and an office building. TECO sets forth that the company provided electric
service to the motel from its construction in 1973 until November 2022, when Petitioner became
the customer of record. TECO asserts that in January 2023, an energy auditor from TECO visited
the property to perform a Commercial Energy Audit.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0073-FOF-EU
DOCKET NO. 20230128-EU
PAGE 4
TECO also alleges that on June 16, 2023, WHG advised TECO that it intended to master-
meter the property with sub-metering in the individual apartments. TECO contends that on June
18, 2023, TECO informed WHG that master-metering is not consistent with Rule 25-6.049,
F.A.C. TECO further claims that when WHG sent construction design plans to TECO in June
2023, the plans did not include sub-metering of the residential units. TECO states that the
company sent letters to WHG in July and August of 2023, informing Petitioner that the property
did not qualify for master-metering.
In August 2023, WHG made an informal complaint to this agency. TECO states that
WHG subsequently informed TECO that it would begin renting out apartments in September
2023. On September 27, 2023, our staff issued a complaint resolution, finding that TECO had
not violated any of our rules and, therefore, could interrupt electric service after giving WHG
proper notice.
C. Legal Arguments of the Parties
WHG maintains its property is exempt from the individual metering requirement of Rule
25-6.049, F.A.C., because its buildings were permitted and constructed prior to 1981 and the
property has had continuous master-metering since its construction. WHG also argues the
requirement for new residential buildings to use individual meters does not apply in this matter
because the buildings on the property are not new, despite the renovations.
In response, TECO argues that WHG’s property does not qualify for the grandfather
exception in Rule 25-6.049, F.A.C. TECO opines that the grandfather exception has limited
applicability to occupancy units built prior to 1981, not motels and other overnight occupancy
buildings. TECO claims its interpretation follows the plain language of Rule 25-6.049, F.A.C.,
and Commission precedent.
In its reply to TECO’s response, WHG now asserts that the grandfather exception in Rule
25-6.049, F.A.C., applies because the property has occupancy units in a new residential building.
WHG states the property is a new residential building because of the renovations. WHG posits
that it is irrelevant whether its exemption from individual metering came from the motel
exception or the grandfather exception. WHG contends that it follows the plain language of the
rule and TECO misrepresents Commission precedent.
WHG further asserts that its use of the grandfather exception is a continuation of a prior,
non-conforming use, rather than the creation of a new, non-conforming use. It contends that
substantial upgrading of the property does not create a new use and that the rule does not require
that the property’s use remains continuous to rely on the grandfather exception. WHG also
argues that it has already incurred substantial costs by sub-metering some of the units, and that it
would be burdensome to switch to individual metering.
Next, WHG claims that its use of sub-meters will achieve the purpose of FEECA—the
statute that Rule 25-6.049, F.A.C., implements—as residents would be responsible for their
individual electric consumption, thus incentivizing conservation. In response, TECO alleges that

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0073-FOF-EU
DOCKET NO. 20230128-EU
PAGE 5
we should declare that individual metering is required because WHG’s master-metering
approach undermines the purposes of FEECA. TECO cites to the intent of Rule 25-6.049,
F.A.C., arguing that the rule implements FEECA by having individual residents pay for their
electric, so that they are more likely to conserve energy and lower their bills. Here, TECO states
that the tenants will be paying a portion of WHG’s commercial rate under WHG’s master-
metering plan. TECO argues that since the cost of electricity differs for residential and
commercial customers, the tenants would be paying a potentially lower commercial rate than
they would under individual metering. TECO claims this would be inapposite to the policy goal
of conservation under FEECA, as customers would not see their conservation efforts reflected in
their bills, unless the units are individually metered.
TECO further states that WHG’s proposed plan raises other issues outside the requested
declaratory statement. TECO points out that WHG has not requested a declaratory statement
regarding whether the proposed plan would be consistent with Rule 25-6.065, F.A.C., Net
Metering (which allows a customer to offset its electricity costs via customer-owned renewable
generation). TECO asserts that if we grant the requested declaratory statement, WHG will be
offsetting the costs of electricity usage of all the residents on the property, not just WHG’s usage,
with the planned solar array.
Additionally, TECO argues that if we grant the requested declaratory statement, then
WHG may be considered an “electric utility” and a “public utility” under Chapter 366, F.S. In its
reply, WHG posits that TECO’s argument is not based in fact. WHG argues that it would agree
to any limitations the we may impose, so that WHG would not operate as a public or electric
utility.
IV. 	ANALYSIS
A. Threshold Requirements of Petition
As stated above, the purpose of a declaratory statement is to address the applicability of
statutory provisions, orders, or rules of an agency to the petitioner’s particular circumstances.5
Under Section 120.565(1)-(2), F.S., a petition must “state with particularity the petitioner’s set of
circumstances” and specify the statute, order, or rule the petitioner believes is applicable, as well
as show the petitioner is substantially affected. WHG’s Petition contains specific details about
the property at issue and electric service concerns and identifies Rule 25-6.049, F.A.C., as the
rule applicable to its set of circumstances. WHG alleges that it and TECO have different
interpretations of the rule and seeks a declaration to establish the proper interpretation of the rule
as it applies to WHG’s property. WHG is substantially affected because of the costs associated
with metering its property and the disagreement with its electric service provider. In sum, WHG
has satisfied the threshold requirements for issuance of a declaratory statement.
5 Rule 28-105.001, F.A.C.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0073-FOF-EU
DOCKET NO. 20230128-EU
PAGE 6
B. Application of Rule 25-6.049, F.A.C.
We find that WHG’s property does not fall under the grandfather exception of Rule 25-
6.049, F.A.C., and it never has. In statutory interpretation, courts “follow the supremacy-of-text
principle—namely, the principle that [t]he words of a governing text are of paramount concern,
and what they convey, in their context, is what the text means.”6 Thus, the plain language of the
rule must be examined to determine how the rule should be applied to WHG’s particular
circumstances.
Under Rule 25-6.049(5), F.A.C., properties with occupancy units—e.g., rented or leased
portions of residential and commercial buildings—can avoid retroactive application of individual
metering requirements if (1) the construction permit for the property was issued before 1981 and
(2) the property has been using master-metering continuously since that time.7 Here, the property
was originally constructed to be a motel, which meets the definition of “overnight occupancy” in
Rule 25-6.049(8)(b), F.A.C. As the property was used as a motel, rather than residential units,
there has never been a requirement for individual metering from which the property needed
exception. We find that since there was no grandfather exception in the first place, we cannot
extend an exception to WHG now via a declaratory statement.8
Assuming for the sake of argument, even if the property originally qualified for the
grandfather exception under Rule 25-6.049, F.A.C., its use has changed fundamentally from
overnight occupancy to occupancy units, which would negate the exception. Subsection (5) of
the rule states that “[i]ndividual electric metering by the utility shall be required for each separate
occupancy unit of [a] new. . . residential building.” Although the building structures are not new,
WHG obtained a new construction permit in 2022 to renovate the buildings, turning motel rooms
into apartment units. In its Petition, WHG first argued that the building was not new. Then, it
subsequently argued that the building was considered a new residential building in its reply to
TECO’s response. Regardless, we find this renovation constitutes a new residential building.
Even if the outer structures remain the same, the renovation changes the nature of the
property from commercial to residential. The 2022 permit and subsequent conversion creates a
new, nonconforming use when WHG installs sub-metering rather than individual metering,
which is opposite to Commission precedent. As we have stated, “[t]he concept of grandfathering
simply tolerates pre-existing non-conforming uses, it does not condone the creation of new
6 Ham v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 308 So. 3d 942, 946 (Fla. 2020) (citing Antonin Scalia & Bryan A.
Garner, READING LAW: T HE I NTERPRETATION OF L EGAL TEXTS 56 (2012)).
7 We have identified the purpose of the grandfather clause to be “advancing conservation, while at the same time,
avoiding the retroactive imposition of individual metering retrofit costs on buildings constructed as master-metered
buildings prior to the adoption of the rule.” Order No. PSC-00-1802-FOF-EU, issued October 2, 2000, in Docket
No. 981104-EU, In re: Proposed Amendment of Rule 25-6.049, F.A.C., Measuring Customer Service.
8 Even in rule waivers, which this Petition is not, “[t]he types of facilities that are exempted from the individual
metering requirement are those in which, due to their nature or mode of operation, it is not practical to attribute
usage to individual occupants. For example, hotels and motels are commercial enterprises in which the occupants of
the units are not billed for their use of electricity, but rather pay a bundled rate for the use of a room for a limited
time.” Order No. PSC-01-0626-PAA-EU, issued March 14, 2001, in Docket No. 001543-EU, In re: Petition for
Variance from or Waiver of Rule 25-6.049(5)(a), F.A.C., by Sundestin International Homeowners Association, Inc.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0073-FOF-EU
DOCKET NO. 20230128-EU
PAGE 7
ones.”9 Not only does the creation of a new grandfather exception contravene prior Commission
precedent, the creation of sub-metering does too. We have previously held that, “[w]e are
concerned that if non-utility entities become responsible for metering and billing of electricity,
we will no longer have the statutory authority to [e]nsure that the protections currently afforded
by the Commission statutes and rules are provided to sub-metered customers.” 10
Additionally, the cost associated with changing the property from master-metering to
individual metering is not sufficient reason to depart from the plain language of Rule 25-6.049,
F.A.C., and Commission precedent.11 There is no mention of cost considerations in Rule 25-
6.049, F.A.C. Here, WHG asserts it has incurred substantial costs in wiring and installation of
half of the sub-meters on the property, and the subsequent installation of individual meters would
be burdensome. While WHG sets forth this cost argument, Rule 25-6.049, F.A.C., does not allow
us to grant exceptions from individual metering solely based on cost.
The potential consequences of approval of the requested declaratory statement also
indicate that WHG’s interpretation of Rule 25-6.048, F.A.C., runs counter to the intent of the
rule. TECO states that it bills WHG’s property at a commercial rate, so WHG’s plan may
circumvent rate design. Rates purposefully differ for commercial and residential customers,
because “[a] large proportion of the production costs of electricity are allocated to the rate
classes based on their contribution to the system's peak demand.”12 If WHG does bill individual
tenants for their contribution to the overall energy usage of the property, then the tenants will be
paying a portion of a commercial rate, instead of the residential rates. If we grant the requested
declaratory statement, then it may implicitly allow WHG to bypass rate design and use a
commercial rate. This potential consequence of WHG’s interpretation supports our interpretation
of Rule 25-6.049, F.A.C.
C. The Purpose of FEECA
WHG’s statement that it is purporting to meet the purpose of FEECA through other
means does not override the plain language and purpose of the rule. Under Rule 25-6.049,
F.A.C.,
9 Order No. PSC-98-0449-FOF-EI, issued March 30, 1998, in Docket No. 971542-EI, In re: Petition for Declaratory
Statement Regarding Eligibility of Pre-1981 Buildings for Conversion to Master Metering by Florida Power
Corporation.
10 Order No. PSC-97-0074-FOF-EU, issued January 24, 1997, in Docket No. 951485-EU, In re: Petition to Initiate
Changes Relating to Rule 25-6.049, F.A.C., Measuring Customer Service, by MicroMETER Corporation.
11 While substantial hardship is considered in rule variances, it is not a factor to consider in the rule at hand. See
Order No. PSC-01-0626-PAA-EU, issued March 14, 2001, in Docket No. 001543-EU, In re: Petition for Variance
from or Waiver of Rule 25-6.049(5)(a), F.A.C., by Sundestin International Homeowners Association, Inc.
12 Order No. PSC-97-0074-FOF-EU, issued January 24, 1997, in Docket No. 951485-EU, In re: Petition to Initiate
Changes Relating to Rule 25-6.049, F.A.C., Measuring Customer Service, by MicroMETER Corporation (“In its
petition, Micrometer cited as an advantage to its proposal the ability of apartments, condominiums, and other multi-
occupancy residential buildings to take service under a commercial rate through a master meter, in lieu of the
residential rate billed through individual meters. We do not believe that this would be appropriate. The rates charged
to the various classes of customers are based on the unique usage characteristics of each class. We do not believe it
would be appropriate to allow customers whose usage is residential in nature to take service under a commercial
rate.”).

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0073-FOF-EU
DOCKET NO. 20230128-EU
PAGE 8
The primary objective of [the] individual metering requirement is to promote
energy conservation. When unit owners are directly responsible for paying for
their electricity consumption, they are more likely to conserve in order to
minimize their bills.13
Here, WHG seeks to use a solar panel array and master-metering with sub-meters to
lower tenants’ bills and offset their usage. While WHG asserts that sub-metering its units
alongside the solar array will achieve the same conservation goals encapsulated in FEECA as
individual metering, these two methods are not interchangeable under the plain language of the
rule. Despite its assertion otherwise, WHG’s plan to use solar panels under a cogeneration
agreement does not obviate the requirement for individual metering. Thus, approval of the
requested declaratory statement would actually run counter to the purpose of FEECA.
D. Other Regulatory Concerns
Furthermore, we find that WHG’s plan raises other potential legal issues beyond those
identified in its Petition. WHG’s interpretation of Rule 25-6.049, F.A.C., runs counter to the
legislative intent of Chapter 366, F.S., and our rules. In statutory construction, the doctrine of in
pari materia “requires that statutes relating to the same subject . . . be construed together to
harmonize the statutes and to give effect to the Legislature’s intent.” E.A.R. v. State, 4 So. 3d 614
(Fla. 2009) (citing Fla. Dep't of State v. Martin, 916 So.2d 763, 768 (Fla. 2005)).
If we grant WHG’s declaratory statement, then WHG become a “public utility” or
“electric utility” under Florida law, by maintaining and operating solar panels and supplying
electric generation to its tenants. Section 366.02(8), F.S., defines a “public utility” as “every
person, corporation, partnership, association, or other legal entity and their lessees, trustees, or
receivers supplying electricity . . . to or for the public within this state.” 	Under Section
366.02(4), an “electric utility” is defined as “any municipal electric utility, investor-owned
electric utility, or rural electric cooperative which owns, maintains, or operates an electric
generation, transmission, or distribution system within the state.” Here, WHG plans to install
solar panels and sub-meters and distribute that solar power to the sub-metered tenants. By
following the plain language of Rule 25-6.049, F.A.C., as we did above, we can harmonize the
provisions of Chapter 366, F.S., and Rule 25-6.049, F.A.C. In doing so, we avoid the
inconsistent legal consequences of the requested declaratory statement.
Rule 25-6.065, F.A.C., our net metering rule, should also be read in pari materia. Under
Rule 25-6.065, F.A.C., customers with their own renewable generation can “interconnect to the
investor-owned utility’s electrical grid . . . to net meter.” Through this regulatory scheme, a
customer can offset their energy usage with their own renewable generation. TECO argues that
WHG’s plan could cause WHG to offset electricity usage of the 200+ residents on the property,
not just WHG’s electricity, which it argues is opposite to the purpose of Rule 25-6.065, F.A.C.
The Florida Legislature’s intent is to promote renewable energy generation for individual
13 Order No. PSC-01-0626-PAA-EU, issued March 14, 2001, in Docket No. 001543-EU, In re: Petition for
Variance from or Waiver of Rule 25-6.049(5)(a), F.A.C., by Sundestin International Homeowners
Association, Inc.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0073-FOF-EU
DOCKET NO. 20230128-EU
PAGE 9
customers, not to allow net metering for businesses on behalf of others.14 In order to give effect
to the Legislature’s intent regarding net metering, and interpret the rules in pari materia, we are
denying the requested declaratory statement.
To clarify, WHG has not asked for any declaration on whether WHG’s plan to provide
service to its property will make it an electric company or public utility under Chapter 366, F.S.,
or whether the manner of electric service is consistent with Rule 25-6.065, F.A.C., nor are we
making such declarations. We only point out that the declaration WHG is requesting is
inconsistent with other parts of Chapter 366, F.S., and our other rules and, thus, indicates the
requested declaration is an incorrect interpretation of Rule 25-6.049, F.A.C.
V. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we hereby deny WHG’s Petition for Declaratory Statement
and instead declare that (1) WHG’s property does not fall under the grandfather exception of
Rule 25-6.049, F.A.C., and (2) WHG must use individual metering for its property.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED by the Florida Public Service Commission that 1150 WHG, LLC’s Petition
for Declaratory Statement is denied as set forth in the body of this Order. It is further
ORDERED that this docket shall be closed.
14 See § 366.91, F.S. (using a statutory scheme wherein customers can offset their own energy use via renewable
energy, not others); see also Florida Senate Bill 1718 (2021) (showing a proposed bill that the Legislature did not
pass which would have expressly authorized businesses to net meter and use renewable generation in the same
manner that WHG plans).

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0073-FOF-EU
DOCKET NO. 20230128-EU
PAGE IO
By ORDER of the Florida Public Service Commission this 21st day of March, 2024.
CGD
ADAM J............r-llJ , lV
Commission 	erk
Fl orida 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.
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.
Any party adversely affected by the Commission's final action in this matter may request:
1) reconsideration of the decision by filing a motion for reconsideration with the Office of
Commission Clerk, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850, within
fifteen (15) days of the issuance of this order in the form prescribed by Rule 25-22.060, 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 and/ or
wastewater utility by filing a notice of appeal with the Office of Commission Clerk, and filing a
copy of the notice of appeal and the filing fee with the appropriate court. 	This filing must be
completed within thirty (30) days after the issuance of this order, pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida
Rules of Appellate Procedure. 	The notice of appeal must be in the form specified in Rule
9.900(a), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.