BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND 
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION,

                                       Complainant,
                 v.

WASHINGTON EXCHANGE 
CARRIERS ASSOCIATION, et al.,

                                       Respondent.	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)	
		
		 DOCKET NO.  UT-971140
		
		U S WEST Communications, Inc.=s Post-Hearing Brief
		


 U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST) respectfully submits this 
post-hearing brief. 
I.  INTRODUCTION
 U S WEST has the largest number of access lines of any ILEC in the state.  U S 
WEST is also the largest provider of intraLATA toll services in the state.  As 
such, U S WEST chose to intervene in this docket because any increase in the 
intrastate toll access charges would necessarily have the largest impact upon U 
S WEST.
 Although it chose to intervene in WECA=s tariff filing, U S WEST has limited 
its intervention and has generally relied upon Commission Staff=s analysis of 
the WECA filing, to the extent that WECA provided Staff with the necessary 
information to perform such an analysis.  
 Consistent with its intent to limit its intervention, U S WEST presented 
testimony on only two issues.  First, U S WEST submitted that WECA=s tariff 
filing raised important issues pertaining to rate design and access charges; U 
S WEST therefore urged that this docket be deferred in favor of the Access 
Charges Reform Docket (Docket No. UT-970325) currently being conducted by the 
Commission.  (Paulson Testimony, Exh. T-170 at 2:10-15).  
 Indeed, U S WEST urged that issues pertaining to Docket No. U-85-23 should be 
addressed in the Universal Service and Access Charge Reform Docket No. 
UT-970325; specifically, the designated carrier role and access and universal 
service issues presently covered by Docket No. U-85-23.  (Id.)  It is U S WEST=
s position that the day of U-85-23 is long past and that, as this current 
docket shows, it is unworkable. There is also a question as to U-85-23=s 
legality.  To the extent that WECA=s access charges are not cost-based, but 
rather are used to artificially reduce the WECA companies= local service, the 
access charges are an improper subsidy flowing from U S WEST=s ratepayers to 
WECA=s ratepayers.  The Commission does not have the authority to implement 
such cost-shifting.  See Washington Independent Telephone Ass=n v. TRACER, 75 
Wn. App. 356, 365, 880 P.2d 50 (1994).  As such, these proceedings should be 
suspended indefinitely.
 Second, U S WEST concurred with Commission Staff=s assessment that WECA and 
its members failed to provide adequate information by which its tariff filing 
could be evaluated.  (Kissell Testimony, Exh. T-168 at 4:1-8).  Specifically, 
WECA and its members failed to provide in a timely and appropriate manner 
interstate cost study results, among other things.  As Staff aptly noted, such 
information was necessary to confirm that the WECA companies were not 
double-recovering portions of their revenue requirements from both the 
interstate and intrastate jurisdiction.  (Tr. 51:9-19). 
 Eventually, WECA agreed with U S WEST=s view that the issues in this docket 
were more properly examined in the context of Docket No. UT-970325.  Therefore, 
WECA moved to suspend this docket in favor of proceeding with Docket No. 
UT-970325 in its Motion to Continue Hearing Dates filed May 19, 1998.  The 
Commission denied WECA=s motion, noting that the proceedings had already been 
pending for two years and that the issues in this docket will not necessarily 
be mooted by the decisions reached in Docket UT-970325.
 U S WEST respectfully submits that the Commission should properly revisit this 
issue.  As the hearings in this docket proceeded, it became clear that the 
issues in this docket could only be evaluated in the context of Docket No. 
UT-970325, as demonstrated by the following colloquy:
  Judge Stapleton: All right.  Did I understand your response to be partially 
that the Commission should address universal service in a larger context before 
it takes a step like just changing the gross allocator in the instant forum?
  
  Smith [on behalf of WECA]:  Exactly.
  
  Judge Stapleton:  Well, if UT-970325, which is the access charge universal 
service docket, preceded the filing of this docket, why is this docket here in 
anticipation of completion of the Commission=s examination of universal service 
in 970325?
  
(Tr. 128:7-18).  U S WEST submits that Judge Stapleton=s question is pertinent 
and the proper answer to it is to resolve the issues raised in this docket in 
Docket No. UT-970325.
 Indeed, U S WEST would like to bring to the Commission=s attention certain 
comments it filed in Docket No. UT-970325 which bear greatly on the current 
docket:
  Additionally, Docket U-85-23 and U S WEST=s role as a designated carrier for 
intraLATA toll must be terminated.  U-85-23 was established as a replacement 
for the separations procedures and cost studies used prior to divestiture.  The 
old method was used to compensate the independent telephone companies for the 
use of their facilities for long distance service.  Since 1986, the intraLATA 
toll arena has changed dramatically.
  
(U S WEST=s February 13, 1998 Comments in Docket No. UT-970325 at 3).  U S WEST 
submits that the Commission should recognize the dramatically changed intraLATA 
market and decline to artificially extend the life of Docket No. U-85-23 by 
allowing WECA to file a further set of tariffs under that docket.
 Nevertheless, if the Commission chooses to reaffirm its earlier ruling, U S 
WEST submits that the Commission should reject WECA=s tariffs and implement 
Staff=s recommendations for the following reasons:
 1. WECA, by failing to provide adequate and complete information, has failed 
to support its filing and therefore it should be rejected in favor of Staff=s 
analysis.
 
 2. The Commission established a gross allocator of 25% in Docket No. U-85-23.  
WECA=s failure to transition to that allocator twelve (12) years after that 
decision was filed is indefensible.
 
 3. By allowing the WECA companies to delay their transition to a 25% allocator 
based, in part, to alleviate costs associated with the implementation of EAS by 
certain WECA companies improperly shifts EAS-related costs to U S WEST 
ratepayers and other payors of access charges and is unlawful.
 
II.  DISCUSSION
A. WECA Failed to Provide Adequate Information Supporting Its Tariff Filing.
 The Commission, in Docket No. U-85-23, set forth the following filing 
requirements for the WECA companies:
  It is understood that NTS compensation arrangements between the carrier and 
the LECs will be based on the filed tariffs following approval of those tariffs 
by the WUTC.  All filings will be accompanied by complete workpapers, in hard 
copy and on diskette if available.

Eighteenth Supplemental Order, Docket No. U-85-23, 80 P.U.R.4th 80, 98 
(December 30, 1986) (emphasis added).  The Commission=s requirement for 
complete workpapers and data were also inserted into WAC 480-80-047(3):
  Data filing requirement.  With each annual report, each company shall also 
file complete workpapers and data sufficient for the Staff of the Commission to 
review the correctness of the report and related tariff filing.

Accordingly, WECA has been ordered, and is currently under a statutory 
obligation, to submit data Asufficient for the Staff of the Commission to 
review@ its tariffs.
 Throughout this docket, however, testimony has been presented which indicates 
that WECA has not complied with its duty.  For example, U S WEST presented 
evidence that:
  I had difficulty determining if the studies conformed Part 36 separations 
rules.  In reviewing the studies, many companies reported intrastate revenue 
requirements without displaying total booked or subject to separations 
accounts.  Additionally, the companies did not display interstate separated 
results.  The interstate separate results are important, since the booked 
investment, reserves and expenses, etc. less the interstate portion of those 
costs leaves the costs to be recovered in the intrastate jurisdiction.  Since 
the companies did not provide the entire cost study, the accuracy of the 
intrastate costs could not be determined.

(Kissell Testimony, Exh. T-1268 at 4:1-8).  Throughout his testimony, Staff 
witness Twitchell arrived at the same conclusions.  (E.g., Tr. 759:16-761:12).  
Moreover, Mr. Twitchell testified that the information that was provided was 
produced under extraordinarily onerous circumstances.  (Id.)  
 WECA made two observations in response, neither of which have any merit.  
First, insofar as this tariff filing pertains to the intrastate jurisdiction, 
WECA intimated that a review of interstate results is unnecessary and 
unwarranted.  (Tr. 43:7-45:9).  WECA later apparently dropped this argument and 
did permit a limited review of its interstate results.  WECA, however, did not 
comply with its duties to provide Staff with the data in a form which would 
allow an accurate verification and analysis of WECA=s calculations for the 
intrastate jurisdiction.  Mr. Twitchell described an experience similar to U S 
WEST=s when he tried to review WECA=s data:
  A lot of it [data] was never provided.  Some of it was provided at such a 
late date that it was too late to do anything with the information.  Some of it 
was provided in a situation where we had to go to an office and look at the 
data and take notes and then were unable to do our analysis in a timely manner 
because if we didn=t get the information the first time we had to go back.

(Tr. 758:4-11).  By failing to provide interstate results and separations in a 
manner that allowed verification of intrastate results, WECA failed to comply 
with its statutory duty.  WECA=s claim that such information was >irrelevant@ 
is without justification and ultimately inapposite.
 Second, WECA claims that Commission Staff did not request this type of 
information in previous filings.  (Tr. 42:8-43:1).  Staff disputes this.  (Tr. 
755:5-15).  U S WEST is unable to determine whether WECA or Staff is correct on 
this point.  U S WEST, however, submits that the dispute is irrelevant.  WAC 
480-80-047(3) requires WECA to support its current tariff filing with pertinent 
information, regardless of what was provided previously.  As noted, WECA was 
required to provide complete studies showing both interstate and intrastate 
jurisdictional separations results in order to substantiate the tariffs.  It 
did not.  U S WEST therefore submits that WECA=s tariffs should be rejected.
B. WECA Should use a 25% Allocator.
 Much of the dispute in this case centers around the parties= respective 
interpretations of the decision in Docket No. U-85-23.  Commission Staff 
submits that the Commission has ordered a 25% allocator to be used.  WECA, on 
the other hand, contends that Docket No. U-85-23 merely sets a 25% allocator as 
a sort of Agoal@ which WECA companies are to move Atowards@ (Smith Testimony, 
Exh. T-3 at 4:18-5.5).  In support of its analysis, WECA cites examples of 
other dockets wherein the Commission could have ordered an immediate shift to a 
25% allocator, but did not do so.  (Smith Testimony, Exh. T-3 at 7:11-11:4).
 U S WEST believes that WECA=s position is not well taken.  Indeed, the 
language used by the Commission in U-85-23 belies any argument that any company 
could employ an allocator significantly above 25%, twelve (12) years after the 
Commission set 25% as the standard.  In fact, the Commission=s decision 
indicated that a six (6) year transition was far too gradual:
  A related issue is the timing of the phase-in to a 25 percent allocator.  
Continental Telephone Company and Public Counsel advocate up to six years to 
transition to 25 percent.
  
   * * * *
  
  The Commission has previously endorsed the concept of a pragmatic, gradual 
and flexible transition toward the 25 percent gross allocator.  It is important 
that these policies not be misinterpreted as a lack of commitment to our goal.  
To endorse a 6-year phase-in would, in our opinion, send the wrong signal to 
the industry.

Eighteenth Supplemental Order, supra, 80 P.U.R.4th at 87.  The Commission 
rejected a six year transition period as too gradual; a fortiori, a twelve year 
transition (or longer) is doubly unacceptable.  There is no support for WECA to 
assert an allocator above 25%.
 Contrary to WECA=s suggestion, the Commission has not retreated from its 
insistence upon a 25% allocator.  WECA has not identified any Commission order 
or decision which rescinded the Commission=s decision to impose a 25% 
allocator.  At best, WECA can point to certain dockets wherein the Commission 
acquiesced in certain filings which included an allocator of greater than 25%.  
(Smith Testimony, Exh. T-3 at 8:1-5).  None of these dockets specifically 
established an allocator of greater than 25%.  WECA=s interpretation of earlier 
dockets should not be allowed to frustrate the Commission=s unequivocal 
commitment to a 25% allocator.  WECA has delayed compliance on this issue long 
enough.  There is no question that WECA should transition to a 25% allocator.  
WECA concedes this, however, it seeks to put the transition off indefinitely.  
The Commission should reject WECA=s tariffs for failure to follow the mandates 
of Docket No. U-85-23.
C. Access Charges Should Not be Used to Finance EAS.
 WECA claims that it should be allowed to use an allocator of greater than 25% 
in part because the Commission allowed a greater allocator to offset the costs 
of implementing EAS by some WECA companies.  U S WEST objects to this 
practice.  In effect, WECA has been passing on EAS costs to those parties (and 
their ratepayers) paying access charges.  Such a practice should be 
discontinued insofar as the Commission is moving to a more competitive market 
where charges are to be cost-based and where one company=s ratepayers do not 
subsidize the services of another company=s ratepayers.  As noted, U S WEST 
questions whether Docket U-85-23 is legal.  U S WEST notes that this is yet one 
more reason that this docket must be decided in the context of Docket No. 
UT-970325.
III.  CONCLUSION
 For the foregoing reasons, U S WEST requests that the Commission: (1) defer 
its decision on this docket until Docket No. UT-970325 is completed; or (2) 
that WECA=s tariff filing be rejected and that Staff=s position be adopted.
  Dated this 22nd day of July, 1998.

      U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

      By: _________________________________
       Lisa A. Anderl, WSBA No. 13236
       Peter J. Butler