BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION


In Re Petition of

U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

for a Declaratory Order Ending Imputation of Revenues Derived from Transferred 
Yellow Pages Publishing Business
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)	
		
		Docket No.  UT-980948
		
		Petition for Reconsideration of the Commission's Order Denying Petition to 
Enter Declaratory Order

INTRODUCTION
 On August 10, 1998, the Commission entered an order in this matter in response 
to U S WEST’s Petition for Declaratory Order.  The Commission specifically 
declined to enter a declaratory order, on the basis that a petition for a 
declaratory order was not “consistent with the public interest and with the 
general policy of this Chapter to facilitate and encourage agencies to provide 
reliable advice,” citing RCW 34.05.240(2).  U S WEST respectfully requests that 
the Commission reconsider its order and modify its determination as set forth 
herein.  
 The Commission should reconsider its order denying U S WEST’s petition for two 
separate reasons.  First, the Commission’s decision to deny the petition to 
enter a declaratory order is apparently based on the erroneous assumption that 
a declaratory proceeding cannot include fact finding and the development of a 
factual record.  Second, the Commission should, at a minimum, exercise its 
discretion to liberally construe pleadings and, pursuant to WAC 480-09-425(4), 
treat U S WEST’s petition as a petition for an accounting order, if that is the 
appropriate relief that the Commission believes the petition should have 
requested.
ARGUMENT
 U S WEST alleged four counts in support of its Petition for Declaratory 
Relief.  The first count stated that imputation should end because fair value 
has been received for the 1984 transfer of the yellow pages publishing 
business.  The other three counts alleged that imputation should end because it 
is contrary to Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act, because it is an 
unconstitutional infringement of speech in violation of the First Amendment, 
and because it constitutes a taking without just compensation in violation of 
the Fifth Amendment.  
 The Commission stated that the petition’s first request for relief, i.e., that 
fair value has been received for the yellow pages asset, is in the nature of a 
factual issue requiring, at a minimum, production of evidence upon the 
appropriate period in which to value the asset, the fair value of the asset, 
and the actual amount of revenue received in satisfaction of that fair value.  
The Commission stated that the other requests for relief, as alleged by Counts 
II, III, and IV, might be appropriate to address via a declaratory order but 
implicitly found that the first count, which required a fact-finding 
proceeding, would not be appropriate.  
 U S WEST respectfully disagrees with the Commission’s conclusion that a 
declaratory proceeding cannot involve any fact-finding.  U S WEST has reviewed 
RCW 34.05.240 and believes that that statutes does not support such a 
conclusion.  In fact, the Commission is specifically authorized by RCW 
34.05.240(5)(b) to set the matter for specified proceedings to be held no more 
than 90 days after receipt of the petition.  The Commission is further 
authorized by subsection (6) to extend the time limits for good cause.  It 
appears that these provisions, read together, give the Commission full 
authority to engage in fact-finding hearings, and to determine the appropriate 
amount of time that it will take to engage in that fact-finding.  Further, RCW 
34.05.240(8) requires the Commission, if it enters a declaratory order, to 
state the particular facts on which the declaratory order is based.  U S WEST 
believes that implicit in such a requirement is the ability of the Commission 
to find specific facts after receiving evidence in the context of a declaratory 
proceeding.  Thus, U S WEST submits that there is nothing about the nature of a 
declaratory proceeding which would impede the Commission’s ability to engage in 
fact-finding and to resolve all four counts raised in U S WEST’s petition.  
Moreover, such a proceeding would fulfill the Commission’s statutory 
responsibility “to provide reliable advice.”
 Nevertheless, if the Commission believes that the petition should properly 
have been denominated as a request for relief other than a declaratory order, U 
S WEST submits that the Commission should have exercised its discretion and 
liberally construed the pleading to interpret it as a request for an accounting 
petition, or such other relief as the Commission deems would be appropriate to 
request given the allegations of the petition.  As noted above, WAC 
480-09-425(4) authorizes the Commission to engage in such liberal 
construction.  Further, U S WEST notes that the Commission does in fact engage 
in such liberal construction.  
 Only recently, in Docket No. UT-980323, MCI filed a petition for a declaratory 
order which the Commission determined was not appropriately designated as a 
request for declaratory relief, but was more appropriately treated as a formal 
complaint against U S WEST.  The Commission, on its own motion, designated the 
matter as a formal complaint and served it on U S WEST, requesting an answer.  
U S WEST does not disagree with the process the Commission followed in that 
instance and believes that the Commission acted within its discretion in taking 
that action.  U S WEST further believes that such action would also be 
appropriate in this case and requests the Commission to do so.  
 Finally, if the Commission declines to reconsider its order denying U S WEST’s 
Petition to Enter a Declaratory Order, U S WEST requests, at a minimum, that 
the Commission enter an order directing Staff to bring its petition for an 
accounting order to address the factual issues in this case within 30 days, in 
order that the prompt determination contemplated by the Commission of these 
issues is commenced.  Neither the ratepayers, nor U S WEST, are properly served 
by an indefinite postponement of this issue.
 DATED this ___ day of August, 1998.

     U S WEST Communications, Inc.


     _______________________________________
     Lisa A. Anderl, WSBA No. 13236