BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION



In the Matter of the

Policy Statement Regarding Suspension of Action on New Requests For Extended 
Area Service Pursuant to WAC 480-120-400 through 435 Temporarily While the 
Commission Conducts a Rulemaking Proceeding to Seek Improved Means to Redefine 
Local Calling Areas and to Provide for More Flexible Interexchange Call Pricing.	
	 DOCKET NO. UT-970545
	
	
	 COMMENTS OF PUBLIC COUNSEL
	 PROPOSED RULE: DEFINING  MINIMUM LOCAL CALLING  AREAS
	


 Public Counsel offers the following comments on the Commission’s proposed rule 
defining minimum local calling areas.  These comments address preserving the 
current level of local calling, the tests proposed to define an adequate 
calling area, and the effects of any revision of calling areas on rates.
 
I.  PRESERVING CURRENT LEVELS OF CALLING
 Public Counsel supports the protections contained in subsection (4) of the 
draft rule to preserve the current access to local calling areas.  We note the 
comments made by several carriers in earlier rounds of discussion on this 
proposed rule that suggest that many consumers already enjoy adequate local 
calling services.  While we believe the purpose of this rulemaking is largely 
to ensure that all customers enjoy adequate service, we wish to ensure that 
those customers who are currently satisfied with their service are not made 
less so by the implementation of this rule.
 Public Counsel believes the three service options required in subsection (6) 
will be sufficient to meet the needs of consumers seeking to secure adequate 
local calling areas and minmize costs.  We note however the possibility that a 
consumer with a current local calling area that does not meet the proposed 
criteria could be left with choosing either an expanded area or a reduced 
calling area (incorporating a single exchange).  If there are no rate impacts 
to the implementation of this rule, customers will clearly benefit from an 
increased calling area.  If there are rate impacts however, the choices 
outlined in subsection (6) [an expanded and more expensive area; all measured 
service; or a single exchange calling area plus measured service] may not best 
serve all consumers.

II.  THE TEST TO DEFINE ACCESS TO AN ADEQUATE CALLING AREA
 Public Counsel continues to support a test based on access to essential 
services.  We believe the test Staff has identified that incorporates the 
ability to call and receive calls from one of 36 identified exchanges has some 
merit.  We have some concerns about the durability of such a prescriptive 
standard however, as it does not allow the dynamic changes in economies and 
communities that are occurring in Washington to be easily incorporated in the 
future.  Because identifying specific exchanges in the rule raises concerns 
about arbitrariness, we encourage the Commission to support its choice of these 
36 exchanges with some public input and any other objective criteria and 
information.  Such a showing will assist the Commission in demonstrating to 
consumers that it has identified the proper exchanges to meet their needs.
 In light of these concerns, if the Commission adopts the 36 exchanges 
identified in the draft rule, Public Counsel recommends that the rule include a 
petition provision that may be used by communities seeking to receive calling 
area designation.  

EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE ON RATES
 Finally, Public Counsel remains concerned with the effects of this proposed 
rule on local rates.  Changes to the scope of local calling areas may have an 
effect on toll and access revenues.  We are concerned that such changes be 
balanced against the public interest of providing affordable local service.  
Therefore, we suggest that any recovery of costs that might arise from the 
provision of adequate service required by this rule be minimized and allocated 
as equitably as possible across ratepayers.  The Commission has identified one 
possible method to allocate these costs, by spreading them evenly across all 
ratepayers.  Another method might assign some portion of the costs to consumers 
in the exchange which receives the benefits of expanded local calling, and the 
remainder of the costs to the entire customer base of the company.  Because 
Public Counsel does not wish to favor a subset of ratepayers over another, we 
do not endorse one mechanism above another.  Irrespective of which methodology 
is chosen, we strongly believe that before any rate increase is implemented the 
company should be required to make an accurate 
and complete demonstration of the need for additional revenues.  Such a 
demonstration should not delay the implementation of the expanded local calling 
area.
DATED:  May 11, 1998.

       CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE
       Attorney General


       Simon J. ffitch
       Assistant Attorney General
       Public Counsel