UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

BEFORE THE

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

Proposed Safety Net Cost Recovery Adjustment )

Clause (SN CRAC) Adjustment to 2002 ) SN-03

Wholesale Power Rates )

MOTION OF NORTHWEST REQUIREMENTS UTILITIES,

THE PUBLIC POWER COUNCIL, AND WESTERN PUBLIC

AGENCIES GROUP TO STRIKE THE DIRECT TESTIMONY

AND EXHIBITS OF COLUMBIA RIVER INTERTIBAL FISH COMMISSION

Northwest Requirements Utilities (NRU), the Public Power Council (PPC),
and Western Public Agencies Group (WPAG) hereby file this motion to
strike the prefiled direct testimony of the Columbia River Intertribal
Fish Commission (CRITFC) and Yakama Nation (SN-03-E-CR-01 and related
exhibits) in this docket. The Federal Register Notice establishing this
proceeding (49 Fed. Reg. 12048, March 13, 2003) limited the scope of the
proceeding by specifically excluding from this proceeding testimony and
argument on certain matters. Among matters excluded are materials
submitted to revisit: (1) the appropriateness of BPA's decisions in the
WP-02 rate hearing; and (2) policy choices and merits of implementing
the Biological Opinion, and assumptions and program funding levels
regarding fish and wildlife. *See*, FRN at 12051-12052.

The direct testimony of CRITFC is beyond the scope of the proceeding in
a number of areas because it challenges decisions made in WP-02,
implementation of the Biological Opinion and also challenges fish and
wildlife programs and funding levels. If the testimony were allowed to
remain in the record, it would create an undue burden for NRU, PPC, WPAG
and other parties, particularly in light of the compressed schedule, in
that the CRITFC testimony would be required to be rebutted and addressed
in briefing and oral argument. For these reasons, NRU, PPC, and WPAG
move to strike identified portions of the direct testimony and relevant
exhibits of CRITFC (SN-03-E-CR-01, et. al.) that address or challenge
decisions made in WP-02, fish and wildlife programs and funding levels,
and implementation of the Biological Opinion, as follows:

-   Page 1, line 14 through Page 3, line 6: This testimony is precluded
    by the FRN at page 12051 because it challenges BPA's prior decisions
    in the WP-02 case.

-   Page 3, line 11 through Page 4, line 18: This testimony is precluded
    by the FRN at page 12051 because it challenges BPA's prior decisions
    in the WP-02 case.

-   Page 4, line 3 through page 4, line 18: This testimony is precluded
    by the FRN at page 12051 because it challenges BPA's prior decisions
    in the WP-02 case.

-   Page 4, lines 22 -- 23, the sentence beginning with "Bonneville has
    not": This testimony challenges Fish and Wildlife program levels and
    funding and is excluded by the FRN at page 12051-052.

-   Page 5, line 16 through page 6, line 2: This testimony challenges
    Fish and Wildlife program levels and funding and Biological Opinion
    implementation and is thus excluded by the FRN at page 12051-052.

-   Page 8, line 21 through Page 10, line 10 and the exhibits referenced
    therein (SN-03-E-CR-01S): This testimony challenges Fish and
    Wildlife program levels and funding and is excluded by the FRN at
    page 12051-052.

-   Page 10, line 17 through page 12, line 12 and exhibits referenced
    therein (SN-03-E-CR-01U): This testimony challenges implementation
    of the Biological Opinion and is excluded by the FRN at page
    12051-052.

-   Page 13, line 3 through page 15, line 25 and exhibits referenced
    therein (SN-03-E-CR-01Z and -01Y): This testimony challenges
    implementation of the Biological Opinion and is excluded by the FRN
    at page 12051-052.

-   Page 17, line 13 through Page 19, line 28 and the exhibits
    referenced therein (SN-03-E-CR-01EE, -01FF, -01FF, 01KK, -01LL,
    -01MM): This testimony challenges Fish and Wildlife program levels
    and funding and implementation of the Biological Opinion and is
    excluded by the FRN at page 12051-052.

-   Page 20, line 11 through Page 23, line 13 and the exhibits
    referenced therein (SN-03-E-CR-01PP and -01OO): This testimony
    challenges WP-02 decision, Fish and Wildlife program levels and
    funding and implementation of the Biological Opinion and is excluded
    by the FRN at page 12051-052.

-   Page 24, line 3 through Page 29, line 12 and the exhibits referenced
    therein (SN-03-E-CR-01RR, -01TT, -01SS, -01UU): This testimony
    challenges other processes establishing Fish and Wildlife program
    levels and funding and implementation of the Biological Opinion and
    is excluded by the FRN at page 12051-052.

-   Page 32, line 4 through Page 37, line 4 and the exhibits referenced
    therein (SN-03-E-CR-01CCC, -01DDD, -01EEE, -01FFF, -01GGG, 01-HHH,
    -01III, -01JJJ, -01KKK, -01LLL): This testimony challenges Fish and
    Wildlife program levels and costs and implementation of the
    Biological Opinion and is excluded by the FRN at page 12051-052.

-   Page 43, line 16 through page 44, line 6: This testimony challenges
    Fish and Wildlife program levels and funding and implementation of
    the Biological Opinion and is excluded by the FRN at page 12051-052.

-   Page 44, line 25 through Page 45, line 3: This testimony challenges
    Fish and Wildlife program levels and costs and implementation of the
    Biological Opinion and is excluded by the FRN at page 12051-052.

-   Page 47, line 25 through Page 48, line 9: This testimony challenges
    Fish and Wildlife program levels and costs and implementation of the
    Biological Opinion and is excluded by the FRN at page 12051-052.

For the reasons stated in this Motion, NRU, PPC and WPAG request that
the testimony of CRITFC and Yakama Nation identified in this motion be
stricken.

DATED this 23^rd^ day of April, 2003.

Respectfully submitted,

\_\_\_\_/S/\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Susan K. Ackerman

Attorney for NRU and, for purposes of this Motion, PPC and WPAG

P.O. Box 10207

Portland, Oregon 97296