BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

     
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND  )
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, )
      ) DOCKET NO. UE-991606
   Complainant,  )
      ) DOCKET NO. UG-991607
v.      )
      ) ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION;
AVISTA CORPORATION,   ) PREHEARING CONFERENCE
      ) ORDER
   Respondent.  )
      )
      )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . )


  PREHEARING CONFERENCES:  A joint prehearing conference was held in these two 
proceedings in Olympia, Washington, on Thursday, December 16, 1999. The 
prehearing conference was held before Administrative Law Judge Marjorie R. 
Schaer.

  APPEARANCES: The parties were present as follows: Avista Corporation 
(“Avista”) by David Meyer, General Counsel; the Washington Utilities & 
Transportation Commission and its staff (“Commission Staff”) by Robert D. 
Cedarbaum, Assistant Attorney General, Olympia; Public Counsel by Simon ffitch, 
Assistant Attorney General, Seattle; Industrial Customers of Northwest 
Utilities (“ICNU”) by Michael T. Brooks, Duncan Weinburg, Genzer & Pembroke, P. 
C., Portland; Northwest Industrial Gas Users (“NWIGU”) by Edward A. Finklea, 
Energy Advocates LLP, Portland; Northwest Energy Coalition (“NWEC”) by Danielle 
Dixon, Policy Associate, Seattle; Spokane Neighborhood Action Programs (“SNAP”) 
by Don Andre, Assistant Director, Housing Improvements, Spokane; and Washington 
Independent Telephone Association by Richard Finnegan, Attorney at Law, Olympia.

  INTERVENTIONS: The petitions to intervene of ICNU, NWIGU, NWEC and SNAP were 
granted, with no objections, at the prehearing conference.  The intervention of 
WITA was opposed by Avista, and was taken under advisement.  WITA sought 
intervention in order to investigate whether the Avista subsidiary which 
operates a competitive local exchange company is subsidized by the Avista 
natural gas and electric operations.  After consideration, the motion by WITA 
is denied. 

  WITA asks to intervene only on the issue of whether Avista's 
telecommunications subsidiary receives a subsidy from the regulated energy 
operations. That is outside the scope of this proceeding.  The Commission will 
be inquiring into whether the rates Avista charges its electric and natural gas 
ratepayers are fair, just, reasonable and sufficient.  WITA's inquiry goes to 
whether the telecommunications subsidiary's prices are subsidized, a very 
different question and one that is not before the Commission in this Docket.  
The parties will be able to investigate whether Avista’s overhead expenses are 
properly allocated without examining the books of the telecommunications 
subsidiary.  The investigation should not go further.

  CONSOLIDATION:  The prehearing conference was a joint hearing in the two 
dockets listed above.  The Commission Staff moved to consolidate the two 
filings; all parties agreed that this was appropriate.  Avista indicated that 
it had structured the presentation of its filings following an assumption that 
the two would be consolidated. Counsel for Public Counsel and the intervenors 
indicated that it would be easier for parties with limited resources to 
participate if the two proceedings were consolidated.

ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION

  IT IS HEREBY ORDERED That the three above-entitled applications are 
consolidated for hearing and determination.  The Commission reserves the right 
to hold such separate hearings and to enter separate orders in the individual 
matters as it may deem appropriate.

  COPIES OF PREFILED EVIDENCE: Parties must provide 24 copies of all documents, 
or such other quantity as the Commission may specify by letter.  All materials 
filed in this case, including prefiled testimony and exhibits, must also be 
provided by e-mail attachment or upon computer diskette in an IBM-compatible 
format.

  The parties are reminded that all testimony, exhibits, and pleadings filed 
with the Commission must be three-hole punched.

  ISSUES:  A well-developed general rate case will necessarily examine many 
important issues.  At the outset of the case, the Commission wants to be sure 
that certain issues are not overlooked, given the importance and complexity of 
all the other rate-case matters.   Avista and its predecessor Washington Water 
Power recently offered pilot programs to gain experience with various forms of 
customer choice or competition in electricity services.  

  The Commission would like to understand how, or if, information gleaned from 
these experiments has been used in the design and cost-analysis of the services 
and tariffs examined in this proceeding.  Specifically, are unbundled 
distribution and/or other services necessary to provide a delivery-only 
electricity service proposed or examined? Are any “resource portfolio” type 
services proposed or examined?  If any parties make proposals or take positions 
on these issues that have been informed by experience gained from the pilot 
programs, the Commission requests that they so indicate in their testimony.  
The Commission also would like the company to direct it to any portions of the 
testimony that indicate how the company’s plans or design of its rates take 
into account the effect of net metering or possible future technologies.

  SCHEDULE: After considerable discussion, the parties were able to agree upon 
a schedule for the remainder of the proceedings. The following schedule will 
apply:

 Avista supplemental filing     January 26, 2000
 Cross-examination of Avista direct case   March 27–31, 2000
 Commission Staff, Public Counsel, and    
  Intervenors file direct cases    May 5, 2000
 Avista rebuttal filing      June 2, 2000
 Cross-examination of directs cases and
  Avista rebuttal     July 10–14, 2000
 Briefs filed       August 11, 2000

  The Commission expects to hold a hearing or hearings to gather input from 
members of the public.  The dates and locations of these hearings will be 
announced.

  DISCOVERY: The Commission discovery rule was invoked.  The discovery 
processes in WAC 480-09-480 will be available to the parties.  The parties have 
agreed to a seven (7) business day turn-around time on data requests served 
after the Commission Staff, Public Counsel and intervenors have filed their 
direct cases.

  PROTECTIVE ORDER:   The parties seek a protective order.  The Commission will 
enter a protective order in this consolidated proceeding.  

  NOTICE TO PARTIES:  Any objection to the provisions of this order must be 
filed within ten calendar days after the date of mailing of this statement, 
pursuant to WAC 480-09-460(2).  In the absence of such objections, this 
prehearing conference order shall control further proceedings in this matter, 
subject to Commission review.

 DATED at Olympia, Washington, and effective this            day of December, 
1999.

WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION



       MARJORIE R. SCHAER
       Administrative Law Judge