99-003595 Calvin &Quot;Bill&Quot; Wood vs. Gte Florida, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, May 10, 2000.

Summary: Petitioner is entitled to a $10.89 credit on his phone bill as compensation for telephone service interruptions

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CALVIN "BILL" WOOD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

GTE FLORIDA, INC., )

) Case No. 99-3595

Respondent, )

)

and )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, )

)

Intervenor. )

_____________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On December 8, 1999, a formal administrative hearing in this

case was held in Lake Wales, Florida, before William F.

Quattlebaum, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative

Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Calvin "Bill" Wood, pro se

10577 Schaefer Lane

Lake Wales, Florida 33853

For Respondent: Kimberly Caswell, Esquire

Post Office Box 110, MC FLTC0007

Tampa, Florida 33601-0110

For Intervenor: Donna Clemons, Esquire

Florida Public Service Comm ission

2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner received

appropriate compensation for telephone service interruptions and

whether the Respondent and the Intervenor have acted

appropriately under applicable statutes and administrative rules

in resolving the Petitioner’s complaint.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On December 30, 1997, Calvin "Bill" Wood (Petitioner) filed

a complaint with the Florida Public Service Commission ( PSC)

alleging various problems with his residential telephone service

provided by GTE Florida, Inc. (GTE). The PSC investigated the

complaint, and conducted an informal conference, but the parties

were unable to agree on a resolution. The PSC thereafter

determined that the matter should be referred to the Division of

Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings. The Division

scheduled and conducted the proceeding.

At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of

four witnesses, testified on his own behalf, and had Exhibits

numbered 1-3 admitted into evidence. GTE presented the testimony

of one witness and had Exhibits numbered 1-14 admitted into

evidence. The PSC presented the testimony of two witnesses and

had Exhibits numbered 1-4 admitted into evidence.

A Transcript of the hearing was filed on January 5, 2000.

The parties timely filed Proposed Recommended Orders, after the

Petitioner’s request for extension of the filing deadline was

granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Calvin "Bill" Wood resides on Schaefer Lane in Lake

Wales, Florida, and receives local telephone service from GTE.

2. GTE is a telecommunications service provider doing

business in Florida and regulated by the PSC under the authority

of Chapter 364, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 25, Florida

Administrative Code.

3. In May 1997, the Petitioner began to experience

telephone service problems, including line static and service

outages.

4. According to GTE records reviewed by PSC personnel, GTE

responded to the Petitioner’s reports of telephone service

problems. GTE attempted to identify and repair the causes of the

problems over an extended period of time.

5. The GTE records, as reviewed by the PSC personnel,

indicate that the Petitioner’s problems continued and that he

frequently reported the trouble to GTE.

6. GTE’s "trouble reports" and summaries characterize the

Petitioner’s service problems as "miscellaneous" and "non-service

affecting" at times when the Petitioner’s complaint was a lack of

dial tone. The inability to obtain a dial tone is a service-

affecting problem.

7. A GTE installation and repair manager testified that

technicians will identify a problem as "miscellaneous" and "non-

service affecting" when they are unable to identify the cause of

a problem, or when the problem is intermittent and is not active

at the time the technician tests the line. Notations on records

suggest that frequently the problems were not apparent at the

time of testing.

8. In any event, the Petitioner’s telephone service

problems continued through the summer and fall of 1997. By the

end of 1997, the Petitioner complained that one of his neighbors

was often unable to call him.

9. On December 30, 1997, the Petitioner filed a complaint

with the PSC Consumer Affairs Division, alleging that his

telephone service was inadequate, specifically that the neighbor

could not call him, and that his phone did not ring.

10. The Petitioner’s complaint was tracked in the PSC

Consumer Affairs Division computer system. At the time the

complaint was filed, the PSC complaint tracking systems were not

integrated between PSC divisions, resulting in individual

consumer complaints being routed to various PSC personnel who

were unaware that the consumers problems were already being

investigated by other PSC personnel. PSC consumer complaints are

now handled by an integrated docketing system.

11. Beginning after the filing of the complaint of

December 30, 1997, the PSC began to inquire into the Petitioner’s

telephone problems. In response to contact from the PSC, GTE

acknowledged that service problems existed and indicated that

lightning possibly damaged the Petitioner’s telephone service.

GTE stated that the main cable providing service to the

Petitioner would be replaced.

12. By letter dated February 3, 1998, the Petitioner

advised GTE and the PSC that he would withhold payment of his

telephone bill until such time as his phone service was

functioning and the neighbor could call him without problem.

13. On February 11, 1998, GTE made repairs to the

Petitioner’s "drop wire" and connection. GTE also examined the

Petitioner’s owner-supplied telephone equipment and determined

that it was defective. The Petitioner agreed to acquire another

telephone.

14. On February 12, 1998, GTE personnel visited the

Petitioner’s home to determine whether the service had been

restored. At that time, the Petitioner asked them to check with

the neighbor whose calls were not being received by the

Petitioner.

15. On February 12, 1998, GTE personnel visited the

neighbor and determined by observation that the neighbor’s calls

to the Petitioner were being misdialed.

16. On February 26, 1998, GTE installed new cable to serve

the Petitioner but were unable to connect his telephone to the

new cable because GTE’s "serving cable pairs" were defective.

17. Weather-related problems prevented the company from

correcting the defective "serving cable pair" problem on February

27, and apparently on any subsequent day prior to March 9, 1998.

18. GTE provided a credit of $1.78 on the Petitioner’s

February 1998 telephone bill for the time the phone was out of

service. GTE also provided a $25 credit as part of GTE’s

"Service Performance Guarantee."

19. The "Service Performance Guarantee" provides a $25

credit to a GTE customer when the customer-reported service issue

is not resolved within 24 hours.

20. On March 9, 1998, GTE personnel visited the Petitioner

and found that earlier in the day, the Petitioner’s home had been

destroyed by a tornado.

21. The GTE personnel testified that they advised the

Petitioner to contact them when his electrical service was

restored and the telephone would be reconnected.

22. The Petitioner testified that he told the GTE personnel

he intended to live in a camper trailer he would place next to

his house and testified that the GTE personnel told him they

would return to connect his phone service.

23. The GTE personnel did not hear from the Petitioner and

did not immediately return to connect phone service. The

Petitioner did not contact GTE to advise that his electrical

service had been restored.

24. The next day, March 10, 1998, GTE notified the

Petitioner that his telephone service would be disconnected for

nonpayment of an outstanding balance in excess of $600. The GTE

notice established a deadline of March 19, 1998, for payment.

25. On March 11, 1998, the Petitioner requested that his

calls be forwarded to his neighbor’s home. GTE complied with the

request and began forwarding the Petitioner’s calls on March 13,

1998.

26. On March 23, 1998, GTE personnel attempted to visit the

Petitioner and ascertain the situation, but the Petitioner’s

private drive was barricaded. The GTE representative assumed

that the condition of the property was not suitable for

reconnection of telephone service.

27. By letter to the PSC dated March 25, 1998, the

Petitioner complained that the phone service to his property had

not been restored.

28. On March 25, 1998, the Petitioner’s telephone service

was disconnected for nonpayment of the outstanding balance on his

account.

29. On March 27, 1998, GTE advised the Petitioner that his

telephone service would be "permanently" disconnected if the

outstanding balance of $664.02 were not paid.

30. GTE provided another $25 SPG credit on the Petitioner’s

March 1998 bill.

31. On April 2, 1998, the Petitioner informed the PSC that

he had no telephone service and requested an informal conference

to resolve the matter. The Petitioner offered to escrow his

telephone payments until his service was repaired to his

satisfaction. On the same day, GTE notified the PSC that the

Petitioner had the outstanding unpaid balance.

32. Because the Petitioner’s complaint was still pending

and the PSC had not proposed a resolution, the Petitioner’s

request for an informal conference was premature. In subsequent

letters, the Petitioner continued to seek an informal conference

prior to completion of the investigation. The PSC did not act on

the requests.

33. There is no evidence that the Petitioner disputed the

amount due on his telephone bill. The Petitioner’s decision to

withhold payment of the bill was service-related.

34. The PSC does not have authority to prevent a service

provider from disconnecting service for nonpayment of undisputed

telephone service charges.

35. On April 4, 1998, GTE "permanently" disconnected the

Petitioner’s telephone service for nonpayment.

36. By letter to the PSC dated April 6, 1998, the

Petitioner requested assistance in obtaining telephone service,

asserting that a heart condition required access to a telephone.

There is no evidence that prior to April 6, 1998, the Petitioner

had advised either GTE or the PSC of any existing heart

condition.

37. By rule, GTE is required to maintain customer access to

an emergency 911 communications system except where telephone

service is "permanently" disconnected.

38. Other than after the "permanent" disconnection of his

telephone service, there is no evidence that the Petitioner

lacked access to the emergency 911 system.

39. By letter to the PSC dated April 8, 1998, the

Petitioner alleged to the PSC that several of his neighbors were

having telephone problems and were, for a variety of reasons,

unable to contact the PSC to complain.

40. The Petitioner attempted to involve a number of his

neighbors in his complaint, but none of the neighbors filed a

complaint with the PSC, and there is no evidence that the

neighbors complained to GTE about any service problems. There

is no evidence that any resident of Schaefer Lane filed a

telephone service complaint with the PSC. There is no evidence

that the Petitioner is authorized to represent his neighbors or

neighborhood in this matter.

41. On April 17, 1998, GTE offered to reconnect the

Petitioner’s local telephone service and block all toll calls if

he would agree to arrange payment of the outstanding balance.

The Petitioner apparently refused the offer, but on April 20,

1998, GTE reconnected the local service and activated the toll

block. GTE waived the $55 reconnection charge and suspended

collection procedures pending resolution of the complaint the

Petitioner filed with the PSC.

42. On May 9, 1998, the Petitioner made payment of the

outstanding balance of his telephone bill. The toll block should

have been removed from the Petitioner’s telephone service at that

time, but it was not. On May 13, 1998, the Petitioner notified

the PSC that the toll block remained on his phone. The PSC

notified GTE that the toll block was still active. GTE

apparently did not act on the information.

43. On May 29, 1998, the PSC tested telephone lines at the

Petitioner’s home and at the home of the calling neighbor. The

technicians detected no telephone line problem in any location.

The PSC technician attempted to complete numerous calls from the

neighbor’s home to the Petitioner. The technician’s calls were

completed without incident.

44. The neighbor was asked to dial the Petitioner’s number.

The PSC technician observed that the neighbor misdialed the

Petitioner’s telephone number on each of three attempts.

45. GTE eventually provided and installed a "big button"

telephone for the neighbor. GTE also provided speed-dialing

service at no charge to the neighbor and instructed him on use of

the service.

46. The Petitioner asserts that the PSC technician violated

PSC administrative rules by traveling with GTE personnel to the

Petitioner’s and neighbor’s homes on May 29. The evidence fails

to establish that the transportation constituted a violation of

any administrative rule.

47. By June 1, 1998, with the toll block still activated,

the Petitioner filed a complaint with the PSC concerning the

service disconnection and the toll block. The June 1, 1998,

complaint was assigned to the Telecommunications Division and the

PSC again relayed the complaint to GTE. GTE removed the toll

block on June 4, 1998.

48. At this point, the PSC realized that the Petitioner had

filed two separate complaints and the agency combined the

investigations.

49. It is unclear as to the reason GTE did not remove the

toll block after the PSC relayed the matter to them on May 13,

1998; but there is no evidence that it was done to retaliate

against the Petitioner.

50. Despite the toll call block, the Petitioner was able to

make long distance calls by using a calling card.

51. After GTE removed the block, GTE credited the

Petitioner with the difference between the cost of the calls made

using his calling card and the cost of the calls that would have

been made using the regular long distance carrier had the toll

block not been in place.

52. GTE issued service credits of $2.14 and $1.65 on the

Petitioner’s June bill for out-of-service claims.

53. The Petitioner asserted that there were times when

callers were unable to reach him, but the evidence fails to

establish that failed calls were the result of service problems.

The Petitioner had numerous telecommunications and computer

devices attached to the line. Use of devices, including

computers and fax machines, can result in an incoming call not

being completed. The Petitioner also acknowledges that he

sometimes does not answer the telephone.

54. The PSC technician testified that as of May 29, 1998,

he considered the service problem resolved. Tests on the

Petitioner’s telephone lines revealed the lines to be in working

order. Numerous calls placed to the Petitioner from the

neighbor’s house and other locations were completed without

incident. In mid-June 1998, the technician recommended that the

case be closed.

55. By letter dated June 17, 1998, the PSC advised the

Petitioner of the informal resolution of the case and advised him

of his right to request an informal conference.

56. On August 18, 1998, the Petitioner informed the PSC

that the neighbor was able to complete calls to him and

considered that matter resolved, but asked for an informal

conference. The PSC staff, attempting to negotiate a settlement

of the dispute, did not convene an informal conference until

May 12, 1999.

57. The matter was not resolved at the May 12, 1999,

conference. On July 15, 1999, the PSC staff filed its

recommendation for action at the PSC’s Agenda Conference on

July 27, 1999, at which time the PSC referred the dispute to the

Division of Administrative Hearings.

58. The Petitioner has previously asserted that he is

entitled the $25 SPG credit for each time he called GTE to

complain about his telephone service. There is no evidence that

the Petitioner is entitled to any SPG credits beyond those he has

already received.

59. The evidence establishes that the Petitioner’s service-

related problems were intermittent, required extensive

"troubleshooting" to locate, and were repaired as soon as was

practicable.

60. The Petitioner’s monthly local telephone service charge

is $10.86, or approximately 36 cents per day.

61. The PSC staff calculates that the Petitioner is due a

maximum "out-of-service" credit of $16.46 allowing for a period

of approximately 46 days of credit.

62. GTE has issued total credits in the amount of $110.57,

including two $25 SPG credits and waiver of the $55 reconnect

fee. Subtracting the $105 attributable to the two SPG’s and the

reconnect fee credit from the total of $110.57 leaves the

remainder of $5.57, which is the total of the three

"out-of-service" credits ($1.78, $1.65 and $2.14) the Petitioner

has received.

63. Based on the PSC staff determination that the

Petitioner was due a maximum of $16.46 in "out-of-service"

credit, it appears that the Petitioner should receive an

additional credit of $10.89.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

64. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this

proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

65. The Public Service Commission has the authority to

regulate telephone service providers in Florida. Chapter 364,

Florida Statutes, and Chapter 25, Florida Administrative Code.

66. In this case, the Petitioner asserts that GTE has

provided inadequate telephone service to his home in Lake Wales,

Florida. Although clearly the Petitioner’s telephone service was

inadequate at times following apparently lightning-related damage

to local phone cables beginning in May 1997, the evidence

establishes that GTE attempted to respond to the Petitioner’s

complaints.

67. The Petitioner has previously asserted that he would

consider the matter resolved at such time as his neighbor could

call him without problem. There is no evidence that there are

any remaining service-related call difficulties at the

Petitioner’s residence.

68. The evidence establishes that difficulties encountered

by the Petitioner’s neighbor were the result of inadvertent

dialing errors, and were resolved by the replacement of the

neighbor’s telephone equipment and the activation of the speed

dialing function provided at no charge to the neighbor by GTE.

69. The Petitioner asserts that the GTE records fail to

meet the requirements of administrative rules because they fail

to identify all the times he reported problems to the company.

Rule 25-4.022, Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows:

(1) Each telephone company shall maintain

for at least six (6) months a record of all

signed written complaints made by its

subscribers regarding service or errors in

billing, as well as a record of each case of

trouble or service interruption that is

reported to repair service. This record

shall include the name and/or address of the

subscriber or complainant, the date (and for

reported trouble, the time) received, the

nature of the complaint or trouble reported,

the result of any investigation, the

disposition of the complaint or service

problem, and the date (and for reported

trouble, the time) of such disposition.

(2) Each signed letter of complaint shall be

acknowledged in writing or by contact by a

representative of the company.

70. There is no evidence to support the Petitioner’s

assertion that the company records fail to meet this requirement.

The Petitioner identified no specific date on which allegedly

unrecorded complaints were made and identified no event not

reflected by the GTE records.

71. The Petitioner asserts that GTE was aware of many

telephone service problems in the Schaefer Lane area and failed

to notify the PSC as required by Rule 25-4.023, Florida

Administrative Code. There is no evidence that any Schaefer Lane

resident other than the Petitioner has filed any complaints with

the PSC regarding delivery of telephone services. There is no

evidence that GTE failed to respond to any service complaint

registered by any Schaefer Lane resident.

72. The Petitioner asserts that GTE violated Rule 25-

22.032(10), Florida Administrative Code, by disconnecting his

service while his complaint was pending at the PSC. Rule 25-

22.032(10), Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows:

(10) During the pendency of the complaint

proceedings, a utility shall not discontinue

service to a customer because of an unpaid

disputed bill. However, the utility may

require the customer to pay that part of a

bill which is not in dispute . If the parties

cannot agree as to the amount in dispute, the

staff member will make a reasonable estimate

to establish an interim disputed amount until

the complaint is resolved. If the customer

fails to pay the undisputed portion of the

bill the utility may discontinue the

customer's service pursuant to Commission

rules. (Emphasis supplied)

73. There is no billing dispute at issue in this

proceeding. The cited rule prohibits disconnections related to

nonpayment of disputed amount. In this case, the Petitioner’s

complaints to the PSC were related to the quality of service

provided by GTE. There is no evidence that GTE violated any

administrative rule by disconnecting the Petitioner’s telephone

service for non-payment of non-disputed outstanding telephone

charges.

74. Rule 25-4.113(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code,

provides for termination of telephone services, and provides that

a company may discontinue service for nonpayment of bills for

telephone service. There is no evidence that GTE violated the

provisions of this rule. Rule 25-4.113(5), Florida

Administrative Code, provides that a company "may charge a

reasonable fee to defray the cost of restoring service" where

service has been properly terminated. In this case, GTE waived

the fee.

75. Rule 25-4.081, Florida Administrative Code, requires

that emergency 911 services must "be maintained for the duration

of any temporary disconnection for non-payment of a subscriber's

local residential service". There is no evidence that the

Petitioner’s emergency 911 services were unavailable during the

period preceding the "permanent" disconnection of his telephone

services.

76. The Petitioner asserts that a PSC employee violated

administrative rules when he rode on May 29, 1998, with GTE

personnel and in GTE transportation when GTE and PSC personnel

came to the Petitioner’s residence to test the telephone lines.

77. Rule 25-21.050, Florida Administrative Code, provides

as follows:

25-21.050 Acceptance of Gifts.

(1) This rule is adopted to implement

section 112.326, Florida Statutes,

authorizing agencies to impose more stringent

standards of conduct upon their employees

than those specified in Chapter 112, Part

III, Florida Statutes. The provisions of (2)

apply in addition to that part.

(2) A Commission employee shall not

knowingly accept anything of value for which

equal or greater consideration is not given

from any entity listed below, its officers or

employees. This prohibition shall further

apply to any business entity that either

directly or indirectly owns, controls, is an

affiliate of or is a subsidiary of the listed

entities. These include:

(a) An entity regulated by the Commission;

(b) An entity that is currently a party or

has been a party in a Commission proceeding

during the preceding 12 months; or

(c) A person or entity acting on behalf of a

regulated entity or party.

(3) The provisions of (2) shall not apply:

* * *

(g) To the acceptance of transportation in a

regulated entity's vehicle by an employee on

a field visit to a site that is remote or

difficult to access in a Commission vehicle.

78. The Petitioner’s residence is located in a remote

location accessed by a long and unpaved road. The Tallahassee-

based PSC employee had been traveling on state business for six

weeks, not in a commission vehicle, but in his personal car. The

employee testified that he did not want to take his personal car,

which rode low to the ground, down the dirt road to the

Petitioner’s house, so he drove to the local GTE office and rode

with the technicians who were familiar with the area.

79. PSC rules permit employees to accept travel from

regulated entities when the destination is remote or the access

is difficult. The evidence fails to establish that the PSC

technician violated PSC rules by traveling to the Petitioner’s

property on May 29, 1998.

80. The Petitioner asserts that the PSC improperly delayed

his request for an informal conference prior to the time the PSC

proposed a resolution of the complaint. The Petitioner’s request

of April 2, 1998, was premature. Administrative rules governing

the PSC provide that a consumer may request an informal

conference after the PSC completes the complaint investigation

and offers a proposed resolution. The PSC investigation

eventually concluded and the proposed resolution was offered to

the parties by letter dated June 17, 1998.

81. Rule 25-22.032(4), Florida Administrative Code,

provides as follows:

(4) If a party objects to the proposed resolution, he

may file a request for an informal conference on the

complaint. The request shall be in writing and should

be filed with the Division of Consumer Affairs within

30 days after the proposed resolution is mailed or

personally communicated to the parties. Upon receipt

of the request the Director of the Division may appoint

a staff member to conduct the informal conference or

the Director may make a recommendation to the

Commission for dismissal based on a finding that the

complaint states no basis for relief under the Florida

Statutes, Commission rules or orders, or the applicable

tariffs. If a conference is granted the appointed

staff member shall have had no prior contact with the

complaint. After consulting with the parties, the

appointed staff member shall issue a written notice to

the parties setting forth the procedures to be

employed, the dates by which written materials are to

be filed, and the time and place for the informal

conference, which shall be held in the service area, or

such other convenient location to which the parties

agree, no sooner than 10 days following the notice.

82. Once the proposed resolution was offered, the

Petitioner’s request for an informal conference was properly

filed. The rule does not provide a deadline for the convening of

the informal conference. The PSC asserts that the extended delay

was due to attempts to resolve the case without the need for the

conference. The conference eventually occurred, the parties

could not resolve their differences, and the PSC forwarded the

matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The delay in

convening an informal conference does not violate the

requirements of the cited rule.

83. Finally, the Petitioner has asserted that GTE violated

Section 364.10, Florida Statutes, by subjecting him to "undue or

unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage" in the provision of his

telephone service. Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that GTE

retaliated against him for filing the complaints with the PSC by

disconnecting his telephone line and failing to remove the toll

block after the local service was restored. Section 364.10,

Florida Statutes, provides as follows:

364.10. Undue advantage to person or locality

prohibited; exception--

(1) A telecommunications company may not

make or give any undue or unreasonable

preference or advantage to any person or

locality or subject any particular person or

locality to any undue or unreasonable

prejudice or disadvantage in any respect

whatsoever.

(2) The prohibitions of subsection (1)

notwithstanding, a telecommunications company

serving as carrier of last resort shall

provide a Lifeline Assistance Plan to

qualified residential subscribers, as defined

in a commission-approved tariff and a

preferential rate to eligible facilities as

provided for in part II.

84. There is no evidence to support the Petitioner’s

assertion that GTE has subjected the Petitioner to "undue or

unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage."

85. The Petitioner has asserted that GTE should be required

to reimburse him for property allegedly stolen by looters after

the tornado of March 9, 1998. There is no evidence or legal

authority to support this assertion.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is recommended that the Florida Public Service Commission

enter a final order requiring GTE to provide a credit of $10.89 to

the Petitioner.

DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee,

Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (8 50) 921-6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 10th day of May, 2000.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Calvin "Bill" Wood

10577 Schaefer Lane

Lake Wales, Florida 33853

Kimberly Caswell, Esquire

Post Office Box 110, MC FLTC0007

Tampa, Florida 33601-0110

Donna Clemons, Esquire

Florida Public Service Commission

2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850

William D. Talbott, Executive Director

Public Service Commission

2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850

Rob Vandiver, General Counsel

Public Service Commission

2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850

Blanca Bayo

Director of Records and Reporting

Public Service Commission

2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15

days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

this Recommended Order must be filed with the agency that will

issue the final order in this case.