BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
In the Matter of the Pricing Proceeding for Interconnection, Unbundled Element, 
Transport and Termination, and Resale
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In the Matter of the Pricing Proceeding for Interconnection, Unbundled 
Elements, Transport and Termination, and Resale for
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
In the Matter of the Pricing Proceeding for Interconnection, Unbundled 
Elements, Transport and Termination, and Resale for
GTE NORTHWEST INCORPORATED	)))))))))))))))))	DOCKET NO. UT-960369
		DOCKET NO. UT-960370 
		DOCKET NO. UT-960371
		TWENTY-FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
		ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY

1 On January 25, 2000 GTE Northwest Incorporated and U S WEST Communications 
filed a motion with the Commission to strike portions of the testimony and 
exhibits of Thomas Spinks, who is scheduled to be a witness in this docket on 
behalf of Commission Staff.
2 The basis for the motion is that the identified passages referred to Hatfield 
Model HAI 5.0a. The movants cite correctly to Commission orders in this docket 
that clearly restrict parties against using cost models other than those 
already of record in this proceeding. Movants note their strong opposition to 
the HAI 5.0a model in Docket No. UT-980311(a) and state that their opposition 
continues into the present. The principal cited difference relates to the 
methodology for locating customers for the purpose of estimating costs of 
serving those customers. The movants contend that if the references are allowed 
to stand, the movants would be required to engage in extensive examination and 
responding testimony to discredit the newer model, that would substantially 
extend the time required for the prosecution of this proceeding. 
3 Commission Staff responds that Staff's references to the newer model were not 
intentional violations of the prior orders, but resulted from a 
misunderstanding. Commission Staff urges that the references should be seen as 
corroboration of the permissible model runs. Even though Commission Staff 
recommends use of the HAI 5.0a model as preferable to the earlier model, Staff 
contends that the essence of the testimony relates to the use of the HAI 5.0a 
model as a check on the results of the allowable cost model that corroborated 
the allowable results. Commission Staff asks leave to substitute amended 
exhibits if the Commission grants the motion.
4 The Commission grants the motion. Consistent with prior orders in this 
docket, the Commission will not consider any references to HAI Model 5.0a as an 
alternative to the permissible methodology previously established for this 
proceeding. Neither will the Commission consider any references to the 
methodology by which HAI 5.0a results were reached.
5 The Commission asks that the movants, the Commission Staff, and other parties 
whose testimony or exhibits might be affected by this ruling to agree upon and 
to present to the Commission a proposal to implement the motion. In the absence 
of accepting such an agreement, the Commission will merely disregard the 
references in text and exhibits.
                  DATED at Olympia, Washington, and effective this ___ day of 
February, 2000. 
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
                                                     C. ROBERT WALLIS
                                                     Administrative Law Judge