BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION


In the Matter of the Pricing proceeding for Interconnection, Unbundled 
Elements, Transport and Termination, and Resale
............................................................................ ...

In the Matter of the Pricing Proceeding for Interconnection, Unbundled 
Elements, Transport and Termination, and Resale for U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, 
INC.
…………………………………………………..
In the matter of the Pricing Proceeding for Interconnection, Unbundled 
Elements, Transport and Termination, and Resale for GTE NORTHWEST INCORPORATED	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)
	)	
		DOCKET NO.  UT-960369
		
		DOCKET NO.  UT-960370
		
		DOCKET NO.  UT-960371
		
		          (PHASE II)
		
		U S WEST’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE PREFILED TESTIMONY OF AT&T, TRACER, 
AND AT&T LOCAL SERVICES (TCG)


INTRODUCTION

 U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST) hereby files this motion to strike 
portions of the August 20, 1998 prefiled testimony of Arlene Starr of behalf of 
AT&T, Thomas Zepp on behalf of TRACER, and William Page Montgomery on behalf of 
AT&T Local Services (TCG).  

BACKGROUND
 This motion is brought because these three parties, through their prefiled 
testimony, seek to re-raise and re-litigate cost issues that were properly 
considered and determined in Phase I of this proceeding.  These issues 
include:  the cost of the loop (including grooming); the appropriate treatment 
of deferred taxes; the cost of a 4-wire loop; and, the proper adjustments to U 
S WEST’s non-recurring cost studies.  These issues should have, and could have, 
been raised in a petition for reconsideration or clarification of the 
Commission’s Eighth, Ninth, or Tenth Supplemental Orders.  In fact, U S WEST 
did raise most of these issues on reconsideration, and all parties were given 
ample opportunity to respond, or file petitions of their own.  In fact, TRACER 
previously raised the issue of deferred taxes, and commented on the 4-wire loop 
issue.  Testimony on any of these issues is highly inappropriate, and should be 
stricken as outside the proper scope of this phase of the proceeding.
ARGUMENT
 AT&T
 Arlene Starr has submitted testimony on behalf of AT&T which improperly seeks 
to redetermine U S WEST’s nonrecurring costs and the cost of the 4-wire loop.  
 Nonrecurring costs – Ms. Starr testifies that U S WEST’s non-recurring cost 
studies are not based on forward looking economic cost for five reasons.  This 
testimony is not proper at this stage of the proceeding, as it constitutes a 
collateral attack on the Commission’s earlier orders and seeks to re-litigate 
cost issues which AT&T had ample opportunity to raise in pleadings, but failed 
to do. U S WEST notes that Ms. Starr does raise the arguably legitimate issue 
of the proper pricing structure for cost recovery in her discussion of whether 
connect and disconnect costs should be recovered in one rate.  While U S WEST 
does not agree that there should be two rate elements, and has addressed this 
point in Mr. Reynolds’ direct testimony, U S WEST does not include this in the 
motion to strike.  
 U S WEST’s non-recurring cost studies were modified by the Commission in the 
Eighth Supplemental Order.  U S WEST petitioned for reconsideration of some of 
the Commission’s conclusions and requirements.  The Commission decided those 
issues in the Ninth Supplemental Order.  Although AT&T had the opportunity to 
petition for reconsideration of both the Eighth and Ninth Supplemental Orders, 
and the opportunity to file an answer to U S WEST’s petition, AT&T failed to do 
any of those things.  AT&T should not now be permitted to revisit this issue 
through Ms. Starr’s testimony.  The testimony which should be stricken is as 
follows:  page 11, line 6, though page 12, line 16; page 13, lines 4 through 
11.  
 4-wire loop – Ms. Starr also attempts to discredit U S WEST’s 4-wire loop cost 
and price.  This is particularly ironic since Hatfield did not even calculate a 
4-wire loop cost.  Further, this issue has been the subject of extensive 
discussion on reconsideration.  AT&T could have filed an answer to U S WEST’s 
petition on this subject, but again chose not to do so.  The testimony which 
should be stricken is as follows:  page 5, line 7, through page 6, line 4.
 TRACER
 Dr. Zepp has offered testimony which improperly seeks to re-litigate the cost 
of the loop, both 2-wire and 4-wire.  First, Dr. Zepp’s testimony regarding U S 
WEST’s loop price, wherein he suggests that the price should be $16.25, is a 
clear attempt to re-litigate the loop cost of $17.  That determination has not 
been reopened in this phase of the proceeding, nor should it be.  Further, the 
Commission held in its Eighth Supplemental order that the cost of a UNE is the 
price floor for that element.  In addition, Dr. Zepp attempts to support the 
deferred taxes adjustment to Hatfield which has already been rejected by the 
Commission in this docket because the adjustment was made to Hatfield 5.0a 
instead of the version 3.1 which is considered in this docket. Tenth 
Supplemental Order, paragraphs 9-11.  Thus, Dr. Zepp’s proposal is in 
contravention of that order and should be stricken.
 As to the 4-wire loop, Dr. Zepp improperly tries to introduce new cost 
evidence on this matter.  U S WEST strongly believes that this testimony at 
this stage of the proceeding is impermissible.  First, cost studies were 
considered in Phase I.  Hatfield did not calculate a cost for a 4-wire loop.  
As noted in the discussion above related to Ms. Starr’s testimony, the cost of 
the 4-wire loop was the subject of much discussion after the Eighth 
Supplemental Order.  At no time did the Hatfield sponsors or anyone else offer 
that Hatfield could be modified to produce a cost for this element.  U S WEST 
should not be forced into discovery and rebuttal on this issue at this late 
stage of this docket.  Further, TRACER’s contention that the Commission should 
adhere to its original determination of the cost relationship between the 
2-wire and the 4-wire loop has already been considered and rejected by the 
Commission in the Ninth Supplemental Order at paragraph 13 and Tenth 
Supplemental Order at paragraph 26.  The testimony which should be stricken is 
as follows:  page 5, lines 9 through 14; pages 13 and 14; page 24, line 11 
through page 25, line 8.
 AT&T Local Services  
 William Page Montgomery has submitted testimony which is an improper 
collateral attack on the grooming component of the loop cost determination in 
the Eighth Supplemental Order.  For the reasons set forth above in connection 
with the cost testimony of the other witnesses, this type of testimony is 
outside the scope of Phase II.  In particular, to the extent that Mr. 
Montgomery alleges error in the Commission’s calculation, such error should 
have been raised in a petition for reconsideration to the Eighth Supplemental 
Order.  That order was served on April 16, 1998, and the first mention of this 
issue in testimony filed some four months later is untimely and improper.  The 
testimony which should be stricken is as follows:  page 39, line 17, through 
page 40, line 7.

CONCLUSION
 As set forth herein, it is clear that the above-described testimony is outside 
the scope of this proceeding, and is contravention of the Commission's Orders 
in this case to date.  U S WEST therefore requests that this motion be granted 
and that the testimony be stricken.
 Respectfully submitted this 25th day of August, 1998.

      U S WEST Communications, Inc.



      By:_______________________________
       Lisa A. Anderl, WSBA No. 13236