Perkins Coie
One Bellevue Center, Suite 1800
411 - 108th Avenue Northeast
Bellevue, WA  98004-5584
(206) 453-6980

 
BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
In the Matter of:
CAMELOT SQUARE MOBILE
HOME PARK
______________________________________

In the Matter of:

SKYLARK VILLAGE MOBILE
HOME PARK
______________________________________

In the Matter of:

BELMOR MOBILE HOME PARK	DOCKET NO.  UT-960832
	
	
	DOCKET NO.  UT-961341
	
	
	DOCKET NO.  UT-961342
	
	U S WEST'S POST-HEARING BRIEF

 Pursuant to WAC 480-09-770, U S WEST Communications, Inc. ("U S WEST" or the 
"Company") submits the following post-hearing brief in this matter.
   I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
 On June 19, 1996, Camelot Square Mobile Home Park ("Camelot") filed a 
complaint against U S WEST claiming that U S WEST was failing to provide repair 
of its telephone facilities.  On October 23, 1996, Camelot filed an amended 
complaint.  Belmor Mobile Home Park ("Belmor") and Skylark Village Mobile Home 
Park ("Skylark") filed nearly identical complaints on the same day.  These 
three complainants (collectively referred to as the "Complainants" or the 
"Parks") raise substantially similar allegations regarding a dispute between U 
S WEST and the Parks over whether U S WEST or the Parks are responsible for 
providing trenching and conduit for replacement of damaged service cable on the 
Parks' property.
 On November 22, 1996, the three petitions were consolidated. Order Granting 
Petition to Amend; Consolidating Proceedings; and Notice of Prehearing 
Conference (November 22, 1996).  The parties submitted prefiled testimony and 
cross-examination was conducted on June 10 and 11, 1997.  The parties were 
directed to submit simultaneous post-hearing briefs on August 1, 1997.
 II.FACTS
 After receiving an increasing number of service calls from tenants at the 
Parks, U S WEST ultimately determined that the increase in problems at the 
Parks was due to damage to the service cable on each of the Parks' properties.  
The service cable at Camelot was damaged when Camelot installed its own cable 
television cable into the ground at the Park, thereby nicking U S WEST's 
service cable in numerous places.  Over time, these nicks have allowed water to 
enter and damage the cable.  Tr. at 159-64; 229-30.  U S WEST therefore 
proposed to engineer, construct and install an entirely new service cable at 
each of the Parks to improve service quality and reduce the number of 
individual repairs needed to restore service at the Parks.  Jensen Direct, T-43 
at 5, 11-14; Jensen Rebuttal, T-52 at 15, 17.
 In accordance with its current tariff, U S WEST informed the Parks of its 
proposal, provided drawings of its proposed layout for the new cable, and asked 
the Parks to provide trenching and conduit to support installation of the new 
service cable.  Exs. 36-38, 66.  The Parks refused to provide trenching or 
conduit for installation of the new service cable, and instead filed the 
complaints at issue in these proceedings. 
 The Parks initially framed their petitions as a request that the Commission 
order U S WEST to "provide all of the necessary facilities, including cabling 
and service wire" to the Parks.  Petitions at 4 (emphasis added).  However, 
telephone "facilities" are the actual hardware for providing telephone service, 
such as cable, service wire, and switches. Tr. at 353-54.  U S WEST has never 
refused to repair or replace its "facilities" at the Parks.  Jensen Direct, 
T-43 at 11, 13, 16-17.  The real issue in dispute in these proceedings is not 
provision of facilities to the Parks, but rather whether each Park or U S WEST 
is required to provide the "support structures" in which U S WEST's service 
cable will be installed.  Tr. at 307-08.  "Support structures" are the external 
structures that support U S WEST's facilities, and are typically a pole, trench 
or conduit on which facilities run or in which they are placed in the ground.  
Jensen Direct, T-43 at 3.  
 U S WEST provides its own trenching and conduit for installation of its 
facilities on public rights of way, up to a customer's property line.  Jensen 
Direct, T-43 at 1, 3; Tr. at 216-17, 340.  It also provides its own trenching 
and conduit on private rights of way when it must cross through private 
property to reach and serve a customer who is not located on that private 
property.  Jensen Direct, T-43 at 1, 3; Tr. at 217, 316, 342-45, 349-50.  At 
the hearing, Ms. Jensen was questioned as to the tariff citation for the 
proposition that U S WEST provides trenching and conduit along public and 
private rights of way.  There is no such citation in the tariff because, by 
definition, the tariff defines only the rates, charges and other terms of 
service applicable to the public.  RCW 80.36.100.  The tariff does not detail 
each and every type of task that U S WEST itself undertakes in order to provide 
service.  Tr. at 302-03; Tr. at 326 ("the tariff generally doesn't define 
everything the company does.  It tries to be specific to the obligations of the 
customer . . . so what we tend to find is what's specific to the customer or 
the property owner."); Tr. at 340.
 Generally, U S WEST provides the trenching and conduit for its facilities 
along public and private rights of way under its general authority to construct 
and maintain telecommunications lines:
Any telecommunications company . . . shall have the right to construct and 
maintain all necessary telecommunications lines for public traffic along and 
upon any public road, street or highway, along or across the right of way of 
any railroad corporation, and may erect poles, posts, piers or abutments for 
supporting the insulators, wires and any other necessary fixture of their 
lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of 
the railroad or highway, or interrupt the navigation of the waters: . . . 
Provided further, That where the right of way as herein contemplated is within 
the corporate limits of any incorporated city, the consent of the city council 
thereof shall be first obtained before such telecommunications lines can be 
erected thereon.
RCW 80.36.040.  Telecommunications companies also "have the right to enter upon 
any land between the termini of its proposed telecommunications lines for the 
purpose of examining, locating and surveying the telecommunications line, doing 
no unnecessary damage thereby."  RCW 80.36.020.  As set forth in greater detail 
below, Washington law specifically recognizes and condones a utility's passage 
through private property to reach and serve a landlocked property owner.  
However, U S WEST does not provide support structures on private property where 
the access to the property is required solely to provide service to that 
property.  Tr. at 373.  U S WEST is not staffed to provide trenching on private 
property.  It prefers not to trench on private property and generally directs 
customers to provide trenching themselves or engage an independent contractor.  
Jensen Rebuttal, T-52 at 13; Tr. at 262.  
 As set forth below, U S WEST's current tariff provides that the Park owners, 
not U S WEST, are responsible for providing the trenching and conduit into 
which U S WEST will install new service cable at the Parks.
 III. ARGUMENT
 A. The Complainants Carry the Burden of Proving Their Case in These Proceedings
 In a complaint case, the burden is on the complainant to establish its claim.  
See Spokane Energy, Inc. v. Washington Water Power Co., No. U-86-114, 1987 
Wash. UTC LEXIS 108, at *4 (April 22, 1987) ("[i]n all complaint proceedings of 
this kind, the burden of proof is squarely upon the complainant"); American 
Advertisers Int'l, Inc. v. Pacific Northwest Bell Tel. Co., No. U-85-69, 1986 
Wash. UTC LEXIS 44, at *13 (April 24, 1986) (dismissing complaint because 
"complainant has failed to sustain its burden"); WUTC v. Puget Sound Power & 
Light Company, Nos. U-84-27, U-84-44, 1984 Wash. UTC LEXIS 11, at *19 (Sept. 
28, 1984) (holding that complainants had not met their burden of proof).  
 Thus, the Complainants must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that U S 
WEST is required under its existing tariff to provide trenching and conduit at 
the Parks.
 B. The Only Issue Before the Commission Is Whether U S WEST's Current Tariff 
Requires the Parks or U S WEST to Provide the Trenching and Conduit at Issue in 
These Proceedings, and the Commission's Authority Is Limited to Answering This 
Narrow Question
 The Commission "possesses only those powers granted by statute."  In re 
Consolidated Cases, 123 Wn.2d 530, 536, 869 P.2d 1045 (1994) (citing Cole v. 
WUTC, 79 Wn.2d 302, 306, 485 P.2d 71 (1971)).  Thus, the relief the Commission 
may grant in these proceedings is limited to the relief available under its 
enabling statutes and existing regulations.
 1. There Is No Requirement Under Washington Law That U S WEST Provide 
Trenching or Conduit on Private Property
 The Complainants claim that U S WEST is required to provide trenching and 
conduit as part of its minimum level of service obligation under Washington 
law.  Petitions at 3-4.  They cite RCW 80.36.080, .090 and WAC 480-120-500(1), 
-520(8), and -525(2) in support of this proposition.  Id.
 RCW 80.36.080 provides that services "shall be rendered and performed in a 
prompt, expeditious and efficient manner."  RCW 80.36.090 requires that U S 
WEST must provide "suitable and proper facilities and connections."  These 
broad, general statutes clearly contain no requirement that U S WEST provide 
support structures for its facilities on private property.  Instead, under RCW 
80.36.100, U S WEST is required to file tariffs setting forth the details of 
rates, charges and other terms under which it will provide service.  WAC 
480-120-076 also provides that "[e]ach telephone utility shall set forth in its 
tariff its conditions for providing underground facilities."  U S WEST is 
required by law to provide service in accordance with its published tariff.  
RCW 80.36.130.  "Once a utility's tariff is filed and approved, it has the 
force and effect of law."  General Tel. Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. Bothell, 
105 Wn.2d 579, 585, 716 P.2d 879 (1986).  In compliance with these statutes and 
regulations, U S WEST has filed tariffs setting forth property owners' 
responsibility for providing trenching and conduit to support U S WEST's 
facilities.  U S WEST is merely seeking to comply with its lawful tariffs.
 The general regulations cited by Complainants also have no bearing on U S 
WEST's provision of support structures for its facilities.  WAC 480-120-500(1) 
provides that facilities "shall be designed, constructed, maintained, and 
operated to ensure reasonable continuity of service, uniformity in the quality 
of service furnished, and the safety of persons and property."  As set forth 
above, this dispute does not concern U S WEST's facilities.  WAC 480-120-500(1) 
is silent as to support structures, and does not apply.  Moreover, WAC 
480-120-500(3) explicitly states that the provisions of WAC 480-120-500 "are 
not intended to establish a standard of care owed by a telecommunications 
company to any consumer(s) or subscriber(s)."  Thus, Complainants may not 
invoke WAC 480-120-500 in support of their individual complaints against U S 
WEST.
 WAC 480-120-520(8) provides that "[a]ll reported interruptions of 
telecommunications service shall be restored within two working days, excluding 
Sundays and holidays, except interruptions caused by emergency situations, 
unavoidable catastrophes, and force majeure."  There is no claim in this case 
that U S WEST has failed to restore working service within two days.  
 To the degree that U S WEST has been unable to restore any service due to the 
deteriorated condition of the service cables at the Parks, U S WEST's 
obligation to furnish service is expressly conditioned upon its ability to 
obtain, retain and maintain suitable rights and facilities and to provide for 
the installation of those facilities required incident to the furnishing and 
maintenance of that service.  WN U-31, Section 2.2.2, Ex. A at 29.  For the 
convenience of this tribunal, the current versions of Sections 2 and 4 of 
tariff WN U-31 are attached to this brief as Exs. A and B.  Each page is 
stamped with an exhibit page number for ease of reference.    The Parks' 
refusal to provide U S WEST with trenching and conduit to place its facilities 
in accordance with tariff requirements negates U S WEST's obligation to install 
new facilities at the Parks.  U S WEST is obligated merely to make repairs that 
do not require trenching.
 WAC 480-120-525(2) provides that a local exchange company "shall adopt 
maintenance procedures and employee instructions aimed at achieving efficient 
operation of its system so as to permit the rendering of safe, adequate and 
continuous service at all times.  Effective maintenance shall include, but not 
be limited to, keeping all facilities in safe and serviceable repair."  As set 
forth above, this dispute does not concern U S WEST's facilities.  Moreover, U 
S WEST does not refuse to repair or maintain the service cable at the Parks.  
Until trench and conduit are provided and its facilities can be installed, U S 
WEST will continue to repair its facilities as problems arise, to the best of 
its ability.
 2. The Commission Does Not Have Authority to Issue a Declaratory Order or 
Interpretive Policy Statement in These Proceedings
 The Complainants have asked for a declaratory order pursuant to WAC 480-09-230 
and an interpretive and policy statement pursuant to WAC 480-09-200 regarding 
"U S WEST's obligation to access and repair the telephone cable located at the 
Park."  Petitions at 4.  These provisions do not apply to this case and the 
Commission does not have authority to grant such relief.
 Under RCW 34.05.240, a declaratory ruling may be entered only as to the 
application of a rule, statute, or order.  RCW 34.05.240(1).  The petition in 
this matter requests declaratory relief as to a tariff, which is not 
permissible under the statute.  U S WEST did not consent to the resolution of 
this matter by a declaratory ruling pursuant to RCW 34.05.240(7).  See U S 
WEST's Answers to Petitions at 3.  
 Pursuant to RCW 34.05.230, interpretive and policy statements are advisory 
only.  RCW 34.05.230(1).  Moreover, interpretive and policy statements concern 
interpretation of agency rules, not utility tariffs.  They may be converted 
into rules, not utilized as adjudicative orders.  RCW 34.05.230(2); RCW 
34.05.630(3).  No interpretive or policy statement is appropriate in this case, 
which is a complaint against U S WEST seeking that the Commission order U S 
WEST to take specific actions.
 In addition, WAC 480-09-200 (1) provides that interpretive and policy 
statements may be issued only "[u]pon the petition of any interested person 
subject to [the Commission's] jurisdiction, or upon [the Commission's] own 
motion . . . ."  (Emphasis added.)  The Complainants in this action are not 
subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, as they are not engaged in the 
business of supplying a utility service.  RCW 80.01.040(3).  Thus, the 
Complainants do not have standing to invoke WAC 480-09-200 to request an 
interpretive and policy statement.  The Commission itself has issued no 
complaint in these proceedings.
 Moreover, in compliance with RCW 34.05.230, WAC 480-09-200(1) applies only to 
controversies or uncertainties "as to the application of statutes or rules of 
the commission."  The rule does not provide authority to issue an interpretive 
or policy statement concerning a utility's tariff.  
 Thus, the Commission does not have authority in these proceedings to issue a 
declaratory order or a general interpretive policy statement.
 3. The Commission Does Not Have Authority in These Proceedings to Order U S 
WEST to Change Its Tariff
 The position taken by Staff in the present proceeding includes a 
recommendation that the Commission direct U S WEST to "revise Section 4.1 of 
Tariff WN U-31 to clarify that no customer specific charges will be made for 
any construction work undertaken for the repair and maintenance of company 
facilities on the company side of the network demarcation point."  Spinks 
Direct, T-87 at 6.  Mr. Spinks' testimony makes clear that Staff believes that 
the "demarcation point should denote both customer and company service and cost 
responsibility" not only for U S WEST's facilities but also for support 
structures required to support those facilities.  Spinks Direct, T-87 at 5 
(emphasis added).  
 However, the present proceedings are a private complaint based on the 
allegation that U S WEST has violated its current tariff.  RCW 80.36.130.  They 
do not concern a proposed tariff subject to revision under RCW 80.36.110.  Mr. 
Spinks' proposal and Staff's position in the present proceedings would 
constitute a significant change to the current tariff, which has already been 
approved by the Commission and has the force of law.  Staff ignore that the 
Commission has already determined that requiring property owners to provide 
trench and conduit for Company facilities is in the public interest.  In Docket 
UT-920474, the Commission accepted a stipulated settlement and approved tariff 
revisions which it acknowledged were "intended to clarify the responsibility 
for providing, maintaining, and repairing the trench or conduit used for 
company buried network cable."  Ex. 57 at 1.  The Commission found that the 
stipulated settlement "is in the public interest."  Id. at 4.  The tariff 
revision proposed and accepted by the Commission provided that
The property owner is responsible for the installation, maintenance and repair 
of the trench or conduit utilized for the company facilities to provide service 
within the owner's private property.
Ex. 59 at Original Sheet 9-5.  Staff's position in the present proceedings is, 
in effect, an attempt to end-run the Commission's Order in Docket UT-920474.  
 Also notably absent from Staff's recommendations is any discussion of the 
effect on ratepayers of providing such additional materials and service to 
private property owners, which are not recovered under current rates.  Jensen 
Rebuttal, T-52 at 16.  A change of this magnitude deserves notice and the 
opportunity for participation by all the interests that would be effected by 
such a substantial change.  Thus, ultimately, the only question before this 
tribunal is the interpretation of specific provisions in U S WEST's current 
tariff as they relate to provision of support structures for U S WEST's 
facilities at the mobile home parks in question.  See Scott Paper Co. v. Acme 
Inter-City Freight Lines, No. TV-1607, 1984 Wash. UTC LEXIS 72, at *1, *9-10 
(Jan. 16, 1984).  
 C. The Mobile Home Park Owners Are Required to Provide the Trenching and 
Conduit for U S WEST to Place Its Facilities at the Parks
 1. U S WEST's Tariff Clearly and Explicitly Places the Responsibility for 
Supporting Structures on Property Owners, Not U S WEST
 Three sections of U S WEST's current tariff clearly require that the property 
owner, not U S WEST, is responsible for provision of the supporting structures 
required for U S WEST's facilities.  
The property owner is responsible for the installation, maintenance and repair 
of the trench or conduit utilized for the Company facilities to provide service 
within the owner's private property.
WN U-31, Section 4.6.A.2.f, attached as Ex. B at 15.  
Any existing or new structures or work required to support telephone services 
on the customer's premises shall be provided at the expense of the customer.  
Such structure or work may include the placement or use of trenching, conduit 
and/or poles to support telephone services provided on the customer's premises.
WN U-31, Section 2.5.2.C, attached as Ex. A at 59.  
It is the customer's responsibility to provide the premises and space 
satisfactory to the company, for placement of all equipment and facilities 
necessary for the furnishing of service.
WN U-31, Section 2.5.2.D., Ex. A at 59.
 The existing tariff clearly provides that U S WEST is not responsible for 
providing the structures necessary to support its facilities.  These tariff 
provisions are consistent with U S WEST's tariffs in all of the states it 
serves, and are also consistent with the tariffs of GTE Northwest and Puget 
Sound Power & Light Company, which require the customer to provide support 
structures, including conduit and trenching.  Jensen Direct, T-43 at 4; Ex. 
47.  Prior to the present proceedings, Staff agreed that it was the property 
owner's responsibility to provide conduit for U S WEST's facilities.  Testimony 
of Thomas L. Wilson, Jr., in UT-951240 at 181-85, Ex. 48.  Staff has provided 
no justification for its change in position in the present proceedings.  
 2. Installation of New Service Cable Is "New Construction" Under Section 4.6 
 The Complainants and Staff claim that Section 4.6.A.2.f does not apply in this 
case because Section 4.6 applies only to "new construction."  However, 
replacement of entire units of cable or other facilities is "new construction" 
as that phrase is used in Section 4.6.  It requires U S WEST to engineer, 
construct and install an entirely new facility.  Jensen Direct, T-43 at 5; 
Jensen Rebuttal, T-52 at 8-9; Tr. at 268-69, 274, 282-83.  It is quite rare for 
U S WEST to have to replace large sections of its facilities or an entire 
facility in order to restore service.  Tr. at 282-84.  Ms. Taylor's testimony 
regarding other alleged complaints about U S WEST's requirement that a property 
owner provide trenching is consistent with Ms. Jensen's testimony, in that Ms. 
Taylor was unable to think of any complaint on this issue that involved 
something other than full-scale replacement of existing facilities.  See Tr. at 
421-22.
 Complainants and Staff argue that property owner responsibility for trenching 
and conduit should be limited to that required for the initial placement of 
facilities to provide dial tone service to the owner.  They argue that all 
other support structures, including those required for the complete replacement 
of physical facilities necessary to maintain that dial tone, is U S WEST's 
responsibility in perpetuity.  However, this interpretation of the tariff would 
render meaningless the requirement in Section 4.6.A.2.f that the property owner 
is responsible for "maintenance and repair" of trench or conduit.  If the 
property owner is only responsible for trenching and conduit at initial 
provision of dial tone, there would never be a time at which the property owner 
was required to maintain or repair that conduit or trenching.  
General rules of statutory construction are properly considered in the analysis 
of tariffs . . . .  There is some purpose in each of the provisions of a tariff 
and it is not intended that meaningless or unnecessary provisions be 
promulgated.  
Scott Paper Company, 1984 Wash. UTC LEXIS 72 at *4.  Thus, the interpretation 
of the Complainants and Staff cannot be accepted.
 3. Section 2.5.2.C Does Not Limit the Customer's Responsibilities to Support 
Structures Within Buildings
 The Complainants and Staff argue that the title of Section 2.5.2, "Building 
Space and Electric Power Supply," limits the customer's responsibility to 
providing support structures within buildings.  However, this interpretation of 
the tariff is untenable.  
 Section 2.5 of the tariff sets forth the "Responsibilities Of The Customer."  
Ex. A at 59.  Section 2.5.2 is the only subsection within Section 2.5.  It does 
not make sense that customers only have any responsibilities within buildings.  
Otherwise, as interpreted by the Complainants and Staff, customers would have 
no responsibilities whatsoever from their property line to the building in 
which service is provided.  This interpretation would render several of the 
provisions of Section 2.5.2 meaningless.  For example, Section 2.5.2.C includes 
the requirement that customers provide placement of trenching and/or poles to 
support telephone service, in addition to conduit.  Ex. A at 59.  There would 
never be a case within a building where trenching or poles is required, or even 
possible.  Jensen Rebuttal, T-52 at 7-8.
 In addition, Sections 2.5.2.B, 2.5.2.C and 2.5.2.D all refer to the customer's 
responsibilities on the customer's "premises."  Ex. A at 59.  The tariff 
defines "premises" as:
The space occupied by a customer . . . on continuous property.  The space may 
be . . . a legal unit of real property . . . .
Ex. A at 16.  If Section 2.5.2 is limited to a customer's responsibilities 
within buildings, rather than within property boundaries, the definition of 
premises as being a "continuous property" or "legal unit of property" is 
rendered meaningless.  
 The history of Section 2.5.2 further demonstrates that the meaning of the 
section is not intended to be limited by its title.  See Tr. 263-64, 250-53; 
Jensen Rebuttal, T-52 at 7-8.  From 1961 to August 1994, U S WEST's tariff set 
forth the following requirement under the title "General": 
Any special structural work required for supporting telephone equipment or 
telephone wiring on the customer's premises shall be provided at the expense of 
the customer.
WN U-24, Original Sheet R1-2, Ex. 64 at 6.  
 On June 29, 1994, U S WEST proposed to cancel tariff WN U-24 in its entirety, 
and replace it with the current tariff, WN U-31.  At this time, the 
requirements found under the title "General" were organized into separate 
sections, each of which was given a new title.  See Ex. 64.  This process was 
conducted by U S WEST throughout the states in which it provided service, in an 
attempt to provide greater organization and unity between its tariffs in 
different states.  Tr. at 250-252.  The current Section 2.5.2 was given the 
title "Building Space and Electric Power Supply" at that time.  
 Initially, the historical language of Section 2.5.2 was retained.  Ex. 64.  
However, prior to approval of the tariff, U S WEST added further language that 
clarified the customer's responsibility for structural support and was 
consistent with requirements already present in the tariff at Section 
4.6.A.2.f.  Thus, the language which was approved for WN U-31 in August 1994 
provided:
Any existing or new structures or work required to support telephone services 
on the customer's premises shall be provided at the expense of the customer.  
Such structural or work may include the placement or use of trenching, conduit 
and/or poles to support telephone services provided on the customer's premises.
Ex. 53 at 1, 6, 13.  The explicit addition of language requiring provision of 
trenching and poles within the same time frame in which the title was added for 
Section 2.5.2 further demonstrates that Section 2.5.2 was not intended to be 
limited to support structures within buildings.  
 Just because a tariff "could have been better drafted to eliminate completely 
the interpretation placed on it by [a complainant]," the Commission will not 
accept outright an argument advanced by a complainant that does not make 
sense.  See Scott Paper Company, 1984 Wash. UTC LEXIS 72 at *8-9.  In this 
case, the limitation on Section 2.5.2 pressed by Complainants and Staff should 
not be accepted.
 4. The Parks' Owners, Not the Tenants of the Parks, Are Responsible for 
Providing Support Structures
 Complainants have suggested that under Sections 2.5.2.C and D their tenants, 
and not the Park owners, are responsible for providing trenching and conduit 
because the tenants are the "customers" at issue. However, Sections 2.5.2.C and 
D cannot be interpreted to require tenant customers to provide conduit and 
trenching rather than the owner of the property on which the tenant customer is 
located.
 Strictly speaking, Section 2.5.2.C states that support structures "on the 
customer's premises shall be provided at the expense of the customer."  Ex. A 
at 59 (emphasis added).  This suggests that each customer tenant, rather than 
the Park owners, must provide the trenching and conduit at issue.  However, 
even if a tariff provision appears to be clear on its face, the facial language 
will not be applied in all circumstances if it appears that application of the 
tariffed language would render the tariff useless or meaningless in a 
particular situation.  See Scott Paper Company, 1984 Wash. UTC LEXIS 72 at *3-4.
 As set forth above, Sections 2.5.2.C and D apply to a customer's "premises," 
which extends throughout the "legal unit of property" on which the customer is 
located.  Tenants at the parks neither own nor control the property on which 
they are located.  Thus, Sections 2.5.2.C and D only have meaning if applied to 
place responsibility on the owner of the premises on which a customer is 
located.  
 The Complainants are "mobile home parks" subject to the Mobile Home 
Landlord-Tenant Act, Chapter 59.20 RCW.
"Mobile home park" means any real property which is rented or held out for rent 
to others for the placement of two or more mobile homes for the primary purpose 
of production of income, except where such real property is rented or held out 
for rent for seasonable recreational purpose only and is not intended for 
year-round occupancy.
RCW 59.20.030(4) (emphasis added).
 A "mobile home park" is distinguishable from both a "mobile home park 
cooperative" (RCW 59.20.030(5)) and a "mobile home park subdivision" (RCW 
59.20.030(6)), both of which involve private ownership, rather than rental, of 
the lots on which a mobile home is located.  
"Mobile home park cooperative" means real property consisting of common areas 
and two or more lots held out for the placement of mobile homes in which both 
the individual lots and the common areas are owned by an association of 
shareholders which leases or otherwise extends the right to occupy individual 
lots to its own members.
RCW 59.20.030(5) (emphasis added).  
"Mobile home park subdivision" means real property, whether it is called a 
subdivision, condominium, or planned unit development, consisting of common 
areas and two or more lots held for placement of mobile homes in which there is 
private ownership of the individual lots and common, undivided ownership of the 
common areas by owners of the individual lots.
RCW 59.20.030(6) (emphasis added).
 Unlike members of either a "mobile home park cooperative" or a "mobile home 
park subdivision," residents of the Parks do not own any real property.  Tr. at 
453.  Instead, residents of the Parks rent the lots on which their mobile homes 
are located, and are tenants rather than property owners.  The Mobile Home 
Landlord-Tenant Act defines a tenant as "any person, except a transient, who 
rents a mobile home lot."  RCW 59.20.030(8).  A "mobile home lot" is "a portion 
of a mobile home park designated as the location of one mobile home and its 
accessory buildings, and intended for the exclusive use as a primary residence 
by the occupants of that mobile home."  RCW 59.20.030(3).    
 The Park owners exercise nearly exclusive control over use of the Park 
property.  Although the individual mobile homes are owned by park tenants, the 
Park owners do not permit residents to rent their mobile homes out to others or 
to sublease their plo