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 )

NORTHWEST REQUIREMENTS UTILITIES' AND PUBLIC POWER COUNCIL's

REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO REPLY TO THE ANSWER OF

*SAVE OUR WILD SALMON AND NORTHWEST ENERGY COALITION*

TO MOTION TO STRIKE OF

NORTHWEST REQUIREMENTS UTILITIES, PUBLIC POWER COUNCIL

AND WESTERN PUBLIC AGENCIES GROUP,

AND REQUEST TO DISALLOW IMPROPER, REVISED TESTIMONY

Pursuant to Rule 1010.11(a) and (d) of the Procedures Governing
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Rate Hearings, 51 Fed. Reg. 7611,
7617 (March 5, 1986), Northwest Requirements Utilities (NRU) and the
Public Power Council (PPC) respectfully request permission to reply to
the "Reply" (*i.e.,* Answer or Response) of Save Our Wild Salmon and the
Northwest Energy Coalition (SOWS/NEC) to the Motion of NRU, the Public
Power Council (PPC), and Western Public Agencies Group (WPAG) to Strike
a portion of the prefiled direct testimony of SOWS/NEC. BPA's procedural
rule § 1010.11(d) does not provide the opportunity for replies to
answers to motions to strike. However, in this instance NRU and PPC
believe that a reply is warranted and permissible, at the Hearing
Officer's discretion, pursuant to § 1010.11(a) of the procedural rules.

NRU, PPC and WPAG filed a timely motion to strike the prefiled direct
testimony of SOWS/NEC on April 23, 2003, as provided by the procedural
schedule in this docket. That motion has been identified as SN-03-M-07.
SOWS/NEC filed its *reply* to the NRU, PPC and WPAG's motion to strike
on April 29, 2003. The SWOS/NEC Response has been identified as
SN-03-M-10. The SOWS/NEC Reply is wholly improper in that it seeks not
only to rebut the arguments of NRU, PPC and WPAG in support of their
motion to strike, but also ***seeks* *via the Reply to introduce revised
testimony that it believes may not have been as susceptible to a motion
to strike had SOWS/NEC filed this testimony in the first instance.***

NRU and PPC believe that this aspect of the SOWS/NEC Reply to the Motion
to Strike should be disregarded in its entirety. The Federal Register
notice announcing this case was clear about the scope of testimony that
could be admitted. NRU, PPC, WPAG and other parties followed the rules
of the notice and took care to limit the scope of testimony to those
areas that were identified in the notice. SOWS/NEC should not be
permitted to file amended testimony through the vehicle of a Reply to a
Motion to Strike. To permit such an action would raise a number of
issues regarding this process.

First, it would establish a permissive precedent that encourages parties
to ignore the scope of proceedings without penalty because parties may
correct the testimony if motions to strike result. Second, allowing
parties to amend testimony in replies to motions to strike creates
additional work and procedural burdens on other parties. The reason that
BPA likely limits the scope of its rate hearings is to assure efficient
record development on issues that are relevant. If the new testimony is
permitted, however, the parties will have lost the opportunity to ask
data requests and seek clarification of the new testimony, as those
procedural opportunities have passed. Additionally, in the compressed
time frame of this proceeding, all days in the procedural schedule are
needed for parties to develop their cases, including rebuttal testimony.
Allowing a party to file new testimony in a reply to a motion to strike
severely limits the time available to other parties to develop good
rebuttal testimony because they will not know until late in the schedule
what testimony needs a response.

For the reasons stated herein, NRU and PPC respectfully request that the
Hearings Officer rule on the NRU, PPC and WPAG Motion to Strike the
prefiled direct testimony of SOWS/NEC on the merits of the motion and
SOWS/NEC's reply to the motion. NRU and PPC further respectfully request
that the Hearings Officer decline to admit into the record the
additional revised testimony provided by SOWS/NEC in its reply.

DATED this 30^rd^ day of April, 2003.

Respectfully submitted,

/S/

> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Susan K. Ackerman
>
> Attorney for NRU

P.O. Box 10207

Portland, Oregon 97296

/S/

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Denise Peterson

Attorney for PPC

1500 NE Irving, Ste. 200

Portland, Oregon 97232