00087 1 BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION 2 COMMISSION 3 In the Matter of the Pricing ) Proceeding for Interconnection, )DOCKET NO. UT-960369 4 Unbundled Elements, Transport and ) Termination, and Resale ) 5 -----------------------------------) ) 6 In the Matter of the Pricing ) Proceeding for Interconnection, )DOCKET NO. UT-960370 7 Unbundled Elements, Transport and ) Termination, and Resale for ) 8 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ) -----------------------------------) 9 ) In the Matter of the Pricing ) 10 Proceeding for Interconnection, )DOCKET NO. UT-960371 Unbundled Elements, Transport and ) 11 Termination, and Resale for ) VOLUME 5 GTE NORTHWEST INCORPORATED ) Pages 87 - 115 12 -----------------------------------) 13 14 A pre-hearing conference in the above matter 15 was held at 1:37 p.m. on April 23, 1997, at 1300 South 16 Evergreen Park Drive Southwest, Olympia, Washington 17 before Chairman SHARON L. NELSON, Commissioners 18 RICHARD HEMSTAD and WILLIAM R. GILLIS and 19 Administrative Law Judge LARRY BERG. 20 21 The parties were present as follows: 22 GTE NORTHWEST INCORPORATED by RICHARD E. POTTER, (via bridge), Associate General Counsel, 1800 23 41st Street, (5LE) Everett, Washington 98201 and JOHN WILLIAMS and CHRIS HUTHER, (via bridge), Attorneys at 24 Law, 3050 K Street NW, Suite 400, Washington D.C. 20007. 25 Cheryl Macdonald, Court Reporter 00088 1 APPEARANCES (Cont'd.) 2 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., by EDWARD T. SHAW, (via bridge) Corporate Counsel, 1600 Bell Plaza, 3 Room 3206, Seattle, Washington 98181. 4 AT&T COMMUNICATIONS, by DANIEL WAGGONER and RANDY GAINER, (via bridge), Attorneys at Law, 2600 5 Century Square, 1501 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. 6 THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND 7 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STAFF, by GREGORY J. TRAUTMAN, Assistant Attorney General, 1400 South 8 Evergreen Park Drive Southwest, Olympia, Washington 98504-0128. 9 FOR THE PUBLIC, SIMON FFITCH, Assistant 10 Attorney General, (via bridge), 900 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, Washington 98164. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00089 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 JUDGE BERG: The hearing will please come 3 to order. This is a prehearing conference in docket 4 No. UT-960369. We are convened in Olympia, Washington 5 before Administrative Law Judge Larry Berg and 6 Commissioner William Gillis, Richard Hemstad and 7 Chairman Sharon L. Nelson. As the parties are aware, 8 normally Administrative Law Judge Terrence Stapleton 9 would be presiding over hearings in this docket along 10 with the commissioners. However, Judge Stapleton has 11 been sent on a critical fact-finding mission to an 12 undisclosed location somewhere in the south of 13 Florida. 14 This pre-hearing conference arises on the 15 motion of GTE Northwest, Incorporated to compel 16 production by AT&T Communications of the Pacific 17 Northwest, Inc., of documents and data relied upon by 18 AT&T's consultants. Let's take the appearances of the 19 parties beginning with GTE, then AT&T, then U S WEST, 20 please. 21 MR. POTTER: This is Richard A. Potter, GTE 22 Northwest, Incorporated, 1800 41st Street, Everett, 23 Washington 98201. 24 MR. WAGGONER: Dan Waggoner and Randy 25 Gainer for AT&T, 1501 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, 00090 1 Washington 98101. 2 MR. POTTER: This is Mr. Potter again. 3 Let's let John Williams still put in his appearance 4 because he's going to argue this motion for us. 5 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Richard. This is 6 John Williams with the firm of Collier, Shannon, Rill 7 and Scott in Washington D. C. for GTE. Our address 8 here is 3050 K Street Northwest, Washington, D.C., 9 20007. 10 MR. HUTHER: This is Chris Huther. I'm 11 also with the firm of Collier, Shannon, Rill and 12 Scott. 13 MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, Chris. 14 MR. SHAW: Ed Shaw, U S WEST, 1600 Bell 15 Plaza, Room 3206, Seattle, Washington 98181. 16 JUDGE BERG: Are there any other parties on 17 the conference bridge to enter their appearances at 18 this time? 19 FROM THE AUDIENCE: Simon ffitch appearing 20 for the office of public counsel of the Washington 21 attorney general. 900 Fourth Avenue, suite 2000, 22 Seattle, Washington, 98164. 23 JUDGE BERG: All right. That sounds like 24 it. And present in the hearing room is also a 25 representative from the attorney general's office. 00091 1 MR. TRAUTMAN: Greg Trautman for Commission 2 staff. 1400 South Evergreen Park Drive Southeast, 3 Post Office 40128, Olympia, Washington 98504. 4 JUDGE BERG: Thank you very much. I have 5 two just brief admonitions for the parties at the 6 outset. The first is that the notice does provide a 7 time for argument at a limit of five minutes. I think 8 we're aware that there's never enough time. We'll ask 9 the parties to please keep track of their time and try 10 and stay within that limitation. There will be an 11 opportunity for GTE to present arguments on its 12 motion, for AT&T to respond in five minutes, and then 13 there will be several minutes for GTE to reply. The 14 parties may request additional time from the 15 commissioners. However, that will be solely at their 16 discretion. 17 Further admonition, first of all, Mr. 18 Williams, I would say your voice came through the most 19 faint of all. Insofar as you will be presenting the 20 motion you will want to be sure to speak up, and 21 insofar as our reporter doesn't have the benefit of 22 seeing the parties actually give oral argument in the 23 hearing room, I will ask that you please pace your 24 arguments so that she can follow along with you and 25 that you identify yourselves before you begin to 00092 1 speak. 2 With those preliminaries taken care of, Mr. 3 Williams, why don't you go ahead and address your 4 motion. 5 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, this is Ed Shaw. 6 Could I interrupt for a moment? You referenced the 7 moving party and the defending party. U S WEST would 8 like to be heard briefly on this, too, because of the 9 reason given by AT&T for their refusal to provide this 10 discovery is based upon allegations about U S WEST, so 11 I would like to be heard. 12 JUDGE BERG: All right, Mr. Shaw. We'll 13 give you an opportunity to speak. At what point, 14 Mr. Shaw, do you think would be most appropriate for 15 you? 16 MR. SHAW: I am in support of the GTE 17 motion, so wherever you think that's appropriate to be 18 heard. 19 JUDGE BERG: All right, Mr. Shaw. Why 20 don't you make your comments after Mr. Williams on the 21 motion in chief. However, we'll reserve the 22 discretion as to whether or not in fact U S WEST will 23 also be given an opportunity to reply to AT&T. 24 MR. SHAW: Fine. 25 JUDGE BERG: Mr. Williams. 00093 1 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Berg. This 2 is a dispute over the terms of a protective order 3 pursuant to which AT&T's Hatfield engineering will 4 provide information to GTE, and perhaps to U S WEST. 5 This motion was necessitated by the following facts. 6 Approximately a month ago I took the deposition of one 7 of the members of the Hatfield engineering team, a Mr. 8 Fassett. He stated that he had done a great deal of 9 data compilation which he said would support some of 10 the assumptions used in the Hatfield model. He agreed 11 to provide that information to us, and in fact 12 (inaudible) provided to AT&T for them to provide to 13 us. 14 An issue was raised at that time that Mr. 15 Fassett did not feel comfortable providing that 16 information to U S WEST for reasons that I think would 17 be best addressed by either AT&T or U S WEST. From 18 GTE's perspective we have spent the past month trying 19 to negotiate a suitable protective order with AT&T. 20 We finally gave up four or five days ago realizing 21 further negotiations were futile and filed this 22 motion. 23 Where we are now is that I believe AT&T's 24 position is that they would provide this information 25 to GTE, not to U S WEST and not under the terms the 00094 1 standing protective order. Rather, they will provide 2 it just to the attorney working on the case. This 3 leaves out a large group of individuals who are 4 signatories to the protective order in this case, 5 people to whom I report and people with whom I discuss 6 matters and with whom I share data in order to permit 7 us to defend ourselves in this case. AT&T will not 8 permit anybody within GTE, signatories to this 9 protective order, to review this information, which 10 makes things very difficult to assess this data once 11 we receive it. 12 We believe that this information should be 13 produced. Frankly, I have serious issue -- given the 14 Hatfield bravado that this is an open and accessible 15 model, I have difficulty understanding why it should 16 remain secret, but to the extent it is and this 17 Commission decides that the inputs to this model 18 should remain secret, we believe it should be produced 19 under the existing protective order. 20 That is what this is about. Let me say one 21 other thing what this motion is not about, and I was 22 rather surprised, in fact startled, today to get 23 AT&T's responsive papers. I don't know if the 24 Commission has had an opportunity to review them. 25 This is alleged by AT&T that what GTE is doing by 00095 1 virtue of this motion is, quote, seeking to prevent 2 AT&T from collecting information to support and refine 3 data as used in the Hatfield model, unquote. I've 4 never heard that raised before. GTE is not trying to 5 prevent AT&T from collecting information. Rather, we 6 are simply wanting to see what the data is that 7 supposedly supports the inputs. That's all I have. I 8 will yield back the balance of my time. 9 JUDGE BERG: All right. Mr. Shaw, go right 10 ahead. 11 MR. SHAW: Thank you. The refusal of AT&T 12 to produce this clearly relevant and material data is 13 really a collateral attack on the order of the 14 Commission and not the protective order in this case. 15 The protective order in this case, as the Commission 16 knows, provides that any signator to the protective 17 order on pain of punishment and their ethics, a 18 violation of their ethics, cannot divulge any material 19 that is confidential to another party to anybody else 20 for any purpose. So it can't even be used in another 21 Commission proceeding without the permission of the 22 party the data belongs to. 23 In this case the current signatories to the 24 protective order are myself, Lisa Anderl, Theresa 25 Jensen and Mark Reynolds, as well as a member of the 00096 1 Perkins Coie firm that is outside counsel. There's 2 been absolutely no showing that Theresa Jensen and/or 3 Mark Reynolds or certainly myself or Lisa Anderl 4 violate the Commission protective orders, that we 5 disclose confidential information despite our 6 commitment not to. 7 Argument is that based upon an obscure 8 article in the newspaper that the source of the data 9 that is being sought to be discovered has a reasonable 10 fear that U S WEST will retaliate by not hiring them 11 if their identities are known. This is absolutely 12 inappropriate. That newspaper article says that, like 13 our witnesses in this case, like our testimony with 14 the legislature, like our testimony to this Commission 15 on many, many occasions, is a public policy argument 16 that if regulators set wholesale rates too low, 17 investment will be disincented. 18 It also discloses that vendors to 19 telecommunications companies are afraid of taking the 20 side of any of the protagonists on these issues for 21 fear that they may not get that vendor's business. I 22 could take this article and argue that it stands as 23 evidence that AT&T has blackmailed vendors to produce 24 bad data on fear of not being hired by AT&T. That 25 would be a grossly speculative assertion but certainly 00097 1 no more so than the assertion that the straightforward 2 statement of Mr. Trujillo if you cannot get prices to 3 cover cost you cannot invest (inaudible) to retaliate 4 against the vendors being used by AT&T of the data in 5 this case or a threat against anybody else. 6 So there's absolutely no showing that 7 U S WEST signatories to the order are going to violate 8 the order. There is no showing that this is highly 9 proprietary data of AT&T much less anybody else. 10 It's just simply the data that these vendors have 11 given to AT&T. We're entitled to examine it, we're 12 entitled to examine it for reasonableness, and we 13 cannot do that if we can't see it and our very limited 14 signatories to this protective order cannot see it. 15 Therefore, it is absolutely inappropriate to refuse a 16 particular U S WEST access to data. Thank you. 17 JUDGE BERG: All right. Hold on for one 18 moment. I believe there's some questions from the 19 commissioners at this point in time. 20 COMMISSIONER HEMSTAD: This is Commissioner 21 Hemstad. I address this question to both John 22 Williams and Ed Shaw. As I understand, AT&T's 23 position -- this may surely be stated by its counsel, 24 but I believe they're prepared to provide the 25 information. It's only a question of to whom it can 00098 1 be disclosed or should be able to be disclosed. I 2 would like to know what are the consequences to your 3 respective companies of AT&T's request for more 4 limited disclosure. 5 Mr. Shaw, you referenced several people. I 6 believe Theresa Jensen would be the only one who would 7 be foreclosed from seeing the information; is that 8 correct? 9 MR. SHAW: As I understand, the motion is 10 that no employee of U S WEST can see it. I understand 11 -- and AT&T can state this if it's true -- that 12 they're willing to let I and Lisa Anderl see it. In 13 other words, no nonlawyer. The only two nonlawyer 14 U S WEST employees that are currently signatories to 15 the protective order are Theresa Jensen and Mark 16 Reynolds. 17 There's been no showing that either of 18 those two have anything to do with (inaudible) even if 19 you accepted at face value that these vendors have 20 reason to fear retaliation from U S WEST, which I 21 emphatically deny. But those two would be the ones 22 that we would like to see it at the minimum. Without 23 them seeing it the attorneys simply cannot evaluate 24 presumably detailed data about prices and charges for 25 network inputs. I need at least those two as well as 00099 1 the outside consultants to examine this data. 2 COMMISSIONER HEMSTAD: Mr. Williams? 3 MR. WILLIAMS: The signatories to the 4 protective order on GTE's part include John Eachus, 5 who is an expert on avoided cost issues and will be 6 testifying, and Douglas Wellemeyer who is head of 7 GTE's cost experts in this regard and to whom I 8 report. I also should include Dave Tucek. Mr. Tucek 9 is a GTE employee engaged in cost modeling. I would 10 certainly want the opportunity to discuss with Mr. 11 Tucek as well as Mr. Omoto, who has appeared before 12 this Commission before, the reasonableness of some of 13 these assumptions that we are going to see. 14 We understand what the assumptions are. 15 Have to use a backup for it and we want to be in a 16 position to assess this with these individuals. 17 Michele Meny, and there are two others whom I don't 18 need to mention now, but it is principally important 19 to deal -- let me articulate as well that these people 20 are not purchasing types. They would not be seeing 21 this information and then going out and saying, I'm 22 not going to deal with so-and-so. These are 23 essentially cost modelers, regulatory people. You 24 know, they don't happen to be attorneys but they are 25 active in these proceedings and we need their help in 00100 1 evaluating the Hatfield model inputs. 2 COMMISSIONER HEMSTAD: Thank you. 3 JUDGE BERG: Any other questions, 4 commissioners, before AT&T present its response? All 5 right, Mr. Waggoner, I understand you're going to 6 present AT&T's position. 7 MR. WAGGONER: Yes, I will. First of all, 8 it would be helpful to point out what we're talking 9 about in terms of the kinds of data here. What we're 10 talking about, and there's an example of it attached 11 to our reply filed today, is detailed information 12 obtained from particular vendors on particular prices 13 that supports the inputs in the Hatfield model. So 14 what this is is the support for the inputs or some of 15 the support for the inputs, and, as I think 16 Commissioner Hemstad pointed out, we're not disputing 17 that GTE and U S WEST and others are entitled to this. 18 It's just a question of how they're entitled to review 19 it. 20 That's one particular piece of fact I 21 wanted to get on the table. The other is that what 22 we're talking about in terms of protective agreement 23 is virtually identical to the type of protective 24 agreements that are asked for by GTE and U S WEST in 25 comparable situations dealing with third party 00101 1 vendors. What we're willing is for U S WEST and GTE 2 and other parties, inside and outside counsel, to look 3 at this information. We're also happy for the outside 4 consultants employed by these companies to look at the 5 information, and the problem we're having, I think, is 6 really it boils down to is the employees of these 7 companies, and in the case of GTE you've heard we're 8 talking of seven or eight different people and in the 9 case of U S WEST we're talking about two people. 10 We're talking about the employees who are 11 not attorneys, and I think it's very important to 12 realize that both of these companies do have outside 13 consultants who are actively engaged in looking at 14 these cost studies and who are very familiar with 15 them. GTE has many, U S WEST has several, and so it's 16 not like they're without people to look at this. 17 So we're not disputing the need that they may have for 18 the information. We're not trying to prevent them 19 from having it. 20 Why are we asking for this kind of 21 protective order? There's two reasons. One, at the 22 time that Mr. Donovan and Mr. Fassett went out to get 23 the information in the first place they had concerns 24 expressed to them by a number of these vendors and 25 parties providing this information that they were 00102 1 concerned about having their identities protected in 2 the event this ultimately was subject to discovery. 3 Second, some individuals, having read the Trujillo 4 article that Mr. Shaw referred to, became increasingly 5 concerned about their identities and possible 6 retaliation. Whether that was a legitimate concern or 7 not I don't think is what we're here to talk about. 8 We're here to talk about the fact that that concern 9 exists and that it will chill the willingness of these 10 individuals to provide the information. 11 Finally, I think what we're talking about 12 here is an ongoing process. What we're trying to do 13 is find the best possible information to use to offer 14 to the Commission, and to the extent that these 15 vendors and outside contractors are deterred from 16 providing it, the Commission will have less good 17 information going forward. 18 I think the prejudice to U S WEST and GTE 19 is quite minimal. I think one thing that's quite 20 clear is that they haven't expressed a specific 21 problem that they have. What we're talking about here 22 is input, support for inputs from vendors and 23 contractors, what they charge, what they provide. It 24 would be extremely easy for the outside consultant to 25 take that information to talk to the in-house 00103 1 employees and say, I need the information on what you 2 pay for trenching or boring or switches or whatever it 3 may be, and simply look at that information, compare 4 it and find that in fact the Hatfield model 5 information is authenticated and demonstrated as 6 reliable by the internal information of U S WEST and 7 GTE. 8 So in summary I think the harm to us is 9 significant potentially. The prejudice to them is 10 minimal, and we're simply asking for exactly the kind 11 of protective order that GTE and U S WEST themselves 12 routinely ask for. Thank you. 13 JUDGE BERG: Commissioners, any questions 14 of Mr. Waggoner? 15 CHAIRMAN NELSON: Mr. Waggoner, this is 16 Sharon Nelson. Can you tell me who the outside 17 consultants are for GTE and U S WEST? 18 MR. WAGGONER: Boy. WEST I know is using 19 LECG in the form of Mr. Harris and Mr. Fitzsimmons. 20 Mr. Fitzsimmons has filed pretty extensive testimony 21 where he talks about inputs to the Hatfield model, so 22 he would presumably be the person that would be doing 23 that as well. Trying to sort through my list of the 24 GTE witnesses. There's quite a few of them. Maybe 25 Mr. Gainer, you could just help me out here for a 00104 1 second. 2 The outside experts for GTE, I know there's 3 NERA involved, and then I know there are a couple of 4 other consultant firms involved. Randy, do you know 5 those people or maybe John Williams? 6 MR. WILLIAMS: I do. 7 MR. WAGGONER: Okay. 8 MR. WILLIAMS: We have NERA involved and we 9 have a fellow named Jim Schaff and we have a fellow 10 named Frank Murray involved and (inaudible) involved. 11 All come from different disciplines in terms of their 12 background. 13 JUDGE BERG: Excuse me, Mr. Williams. 14 Could you repeat the name of the individual after Mr. 15 Frank Murphy, if you recall. 16 MR. WILLIAMS: There's a man named Schaff, 17 S C H A F F. I can't remember if I said him before or 18 after Frank Murray, and a Tom Gurinao. These are 19 individuals who are involved in local loop issues and 20 who would be receiving this information. We have 21 another person looking at the algorithms underlying 22 Hatfield model that this information wouldn't be 23 particularly relevant to them. 24 JUDGE BERG: Any other questions, 25 commissioners? 00105 1 CHAIRMAN NELSON: No. 2 JUDGE BERG: All right. Mr. Williams, 3 would you like one or two minutes for rebuttal reply? 4 MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah. What we're seeking to 5 obtain is information that has already been 6 accumulated. I don't see there's any disincentive 7 that we're creating by this request in the future. 8 The Hatfield model has been devised, and (inaudible) 9 as we have seen in the past what they say they rely on 10 and what the actual source data shows are often two 11 very different things. 12 So I don't see any problem going forward in 13 terms of AT&T's contracting procedures. I think there 14 has been no showing made by AT&T that the existing 15 protective order is insufficient in any way. That's 16 why we have a protective order to protect against 17 these types of uses. There's been absolutely nothing 18 that AT&T is able to point to that shows that anybody 19 is going to abuse this information. 20 And finally just let me say, again, that 21 for a model that is supposed to be open and accessible 22 for me to go back and have to explain to my client 23 that they can't see the source data for it makes us 24 quite skeptical about those plans. 25 JUDGE BERG: All right. Thank you. 00106 1 Commissioners, any other questions before we recess? 2 COMMISSIONER HEMSTAD: I would ask Mr. 3 Williams and Mr. Shaw both -- this is Commissioner 4 Hemstad -- to what extent are either of you harmed or 5 your clients harmed if you were limited to using your 6 outside consultant to review the information? 7 MR. WILLIAMS: I can speak to that, Your 8 Honor. This is John Williams again. Because as a 9 routine matter when we get information and we write up 10 reports and the testimony is prepared, it is run by 11 our client as a matter of course. We have to have the 12 ability to talk about these things with our clients. 13 I mean, we use them, we rely on their expertise. This 14 model, after all, is supposed to model our costs, 15 GTE's costs. Many times the consultants don't even 16 know what GTE's costs are. GTE knows what its costs 17 are, and it's only fair, if this model is supposed to 18 tell us what our costs are supposed to be, our costs 19 people are able to see the inputs to compare them. 20 That's what this is about, and if our 21 people cannot see these we are at an extreme 22 disadvantage continuing to challenge the Hatfield 23 inputs. It is fighting with one hand behind our back. 24 MR. GAINER: Your Honor, this is Randy 25 Gainer. May I make one point? What we're asking is 00107 1 just that the identity of the vendors and contractors 2 be withheld from the in-house employees, not the 3 actual data that they reported. We've offered that in 4 redacted form to GTE for all of its people. 5 JUDGE BERG: Thank you, Mr. Gainer. I 6 believe that position has been made clear. Mr. 7 Williams, any other final comments? 8 MR. WILLIAMS: No, thank you. 9 JUDGE BERG: I believe there may be another 10 question or two from the commissioners. 11 COMMISSIONER HEMSTAD: Perhaps Mr. Shaw 12 wants to respond. 13 MR. SHAW: I won't repeat what Mr. Williams 14 said, which I agree with. I just wanted to emphasize, 15 our outside consultants, Dr. Harris primarily, testify 16 about economic principles, TELRIC principles. We 17 don't have as outside consultants any telephone 18 engineers or network managers. They are autonomous 19 and cost modelers, and we rely exclusively on our in- 20 house people for the actual data on inputs. We just 21 simply cannot analyze data that is reported to be real 22 data as to what we could give in the market if we so 23 choose for construction materiel without consulting 24 with our in-house people. 25 I think it's important in terms of equity 00108 1 to note that we routinely do not object as a matter of 2 course to in-house AT&T (inaudible) people and so 3 forth. Any such ruling here that we cannot -- that 4 our in-house people can't see this data, which is not 5 even their data, would cause us to really rethink our 6 cooperation. 7 COMMISSIONER HEMSTAD: Let's see. But as I 8 understand it the issue is not the ability to review 9 the data. It's only to know the names of vendors. 10 MR. SHAW: It's to effectively analyze the 11 data. We have an unknown person, an unknown firm that 12 says that they can bury cable for half what our 13 records show that we bury cable for. We're entitled 14 to know who that firm and person is, whether they're 15 competent and qualified to even represent that that is 16 (inaudible). There is no basis to keep them secret. 17 There's been no showing that there will be any harm to 18 them, and this is just an attempt to harm our ability 19 to completely review it. 20 COMMISSIONER HEMSTAD: But is it your 21 position your outside consultant can't make that 22 evaluation as to whether these vendors -- 23 MR. SHAW: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER HEMSTAD: -- are real people in 25 the marketplace? 00109 1 MR. SHAW: They are autonomous. They are 2 not telephone engineers. 3 COMMISSIONER HEMSTAD: But I thought the 4 in-house, at least from GTE, the in-house personnel 5 are experts in cost studies and the like. Presumably 6 not buyers of products and services with the company. 7 MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. They are not 8 buyers, and so they are not in a position to 9 discriminate in any way. 10 COMMISSIONER HEMSTAD: No. But I mean -- 11 MR. WILLIAMS: What they are are costing 12 people who know what the costs are in various 13 jurisdictions for the types of services and goods that 14 are being offered by these vendors. As Mr. Shaw said, 15 they have the ability to look in a particular area, 16 such as in Washington, to see what the Hatfield people 17 are saying is the cost and compare that to our costs, 18 and the only people that can do that are our costing 19 people. 20 COMMISSIONER HEMSTAD: I understand, but if 21 you're comparing costs how relevant is it to know who 22 the vendor is? 23 MR. WILLIAMS: Just as Mr. Shaw indicated, 24 we have to know who the vendor is in order to see if 25 he's a competent provider of services, to know what 00110 1 the type of services is that he's providing. Just to 2 receive a number, they might as well provide no 3 information in that regard. We know what the number 4 is. We assume that the number has been attributed 5 correctly from these spreadsheets to the Hatfield 6 inputs. We have to know what is behind that. 7 JUDGE BERG: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Any 8 other questions, commissioners? 9 MR. WAGGONER: May I be heard very briefly 10 on that last question? This is Mr. Waggoner. 11 JUDGE BERG: Mr. Waggoner, I really think 12 that the commissioners have heard -- 13 MR. WAGGONER: That's fine. I won't say 1