A motion for rehearing in a contested case must be filed by a party not later than the 20th day after the date on which the party or the party's attorney of record is notified as required by Section 2001.142 of a decision or order that may become final under Section 2001.144. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 2001.146(a) (West 2000). The supreme court has held that motions for rehearing must be "sufficiently definite to apprise the regulatory agency of the error claimed and to allow the agency opportunity to correct the error or to prepare to defend it." Suburban Util. Corp. v. Public Util. Comm'n of Texas, 652 S.W.2d 358, 365 (Tex. 1983). The court held Suburban's motion sufficiently specific because it alleged that the "adjusted value of $ 342,010 is not supported by substantial evidence, thereby specifically apprising the PUC that the order fails to meet the test for review of this administrative proceeding." Id. This Court has detailed what constitutes sufficient specificity, holding that the complaining party must in his motion for rehearing set forth succinctly at least two elements pertaining to each contention of error: (1) the particular finding of fact, conclusion of law, ruling, or other action by the agency which the complaining party asserts was error; (2) the legal basis upon which the claim of error rests. Without these irreducible elements, we do not conceive that any assignment of error will apprise the agency of the error claimed so that it may correct the error or prepare against the contention that it is error. Burke v. Central Educ. Agency, 725 S.W.2d 393, 397 (Tex. App.--Austin 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.). This Court has held that an applicant may satisfy the Burke standard by referring in a motion for rehearing to a memorandum alleging specific deficiencies. See Morgan v. Employees' Retirement Sys. of Texas, 872 S.W.2d 819, 822 (Tex. App.--Austin 1994, no writ); see also Texas Water Comm'n v. Customers of Combined Water Sys., Inc., 843 S.W.2d 678, 682 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, no writ). Mere reference to an earlier pleading, however, may not be sufficient. See id. (citing Gibson v. Texas Municipal Retirement Sys., 683 S.W.2d 882, 884, n.1 (Tex. App.--Austin 1985, no writ).