Agenda Date:    July 12, 2000
Item Number:
Docket:   TG-000893
Company Name:   Waste Management of Washington, Inc., G-237. d/b/a Western 
Refuse (Western)
Staff:     Bob Colbo, Transportation Program Staff
    Bonnie Allen, Transportation Program Coordinator 
    Cathie Anderson, Policy Research Specialist 
Recommendation:
Reject the filing because the proposed rate applies to non-jurisdictional 
activities exempt from Commission regulation. Should the Commission decide the 
hauls are jurisdictional, suspend the current filing and direct the company to 
file a contract with the rate negotiated between Western and any prospective 
shipper, rather than the Item 160 rate here at issue. Failing that, suspend the 
proposed ash haul and by-pass rates contained in Docket TG-000893 pending 
further staff investigation.
Discussion: 
On June 9, 2000, Western filed proposed tariff revisions seeking time rates in 
Item 160 for the transportation of by-pass waste to RDC and industrial ash to 
an intermodal rail facility from the Spokane Waste to Energy (WTE) incinerator. 
An LSN request accompanied the proposal seeking an early effective date of July 
1, 2000. This item first came up for Commission action at the Open Meeting of 
June 28, 2000. At that time Western appeared arguing its contention that the 
proposed move was jurisdictional, and Allied Waste Industries (Allied - the 
current shipper), argued it did not. The Commission took no action on the LSN 
request and directed the parties to file "briefs" stating their arguments by 
Thursday, July 6th . Those documents were timely filed by both parties.
Hauls from disposal and transfer stations fall within the provisions of RCW 
36.58.050 and are therefore exempt from Commission jurisdiction. Western's 
present rates have been in effect since April, 1995. At that time, the ash haul 
operation was separated out and treated as non- regulated. Further, the 
proposed move is for hauling by-pass and industrial ash in transfer and 
intermodal trailers. Such moves appear to be sufficiently different from normal 
solid waste activity such that if the Commission decides the moves are 
jurisdictional, then a separately filed contract with the rate negotiated 
between the shipper and transporter would be appropriate. If the Commission 
feels that Time Rates in Item 160 are appropriate for such hauls (should they 
be declared jurisdictional,) Western still has not demonstrated that the 
proposed rates are fair, just, and reasonable.
It is therefore recommended that the Commission reject the filing because the 
proposed rate applies to non-jurisdictional activities exempt from Commission 
regulation. Should the Commission decide the hauls are jurisdictional, suspend 
the current filing and direct the company to file a contract with the rate 
negotiated between Western and any prospective shipper, rather than the Item 
160 rate here at issue. Failing that, suspend the proposed ash haul and by-pass 
rates contained in Docket TG-000893 pending further staff investigation.