Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Monday, November 20, 2006, at 2:00 P.M.
Room 412, State Capitol Building
Pierre, South Dakota
NOTE: If you wish to join this meeting by conference call, please contact the Commission at 605-773-3201 by 1:30 p.m. on November 20, 2006. The lines are limited and are given out on first come/first serve basis. Ultimately, if you wish to participate in the Commission Meeting and a line is not available you may have to appear in person.
NOTE: To listen to the Commission Meeting live please go to the PUC's Web site www.puc.sd.gov and click on the LIVE button on the home page. The Commission meetings are archived on the PUC's Web site under the Commission Actions tab and then click on the LISTEN button on the page.
NOTE: Notice is further given to persons with disabilities that this Commission meeting is being held in a physically accessible place. If you have special needs, please notify the Commission and we will make all necessary arrangements.
AGENDA OF THE AD HOC COMMISSION MEETING
1. Election of a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the Commission. (General Counsel: John Smith.)
South Dakota Codified Law 49-1-8 states in part that, "The members of the Commission shall elect a chairperson by majority vote and prescribe his duties." Traditionally, the three Commissioners have elected a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson every two years. SDCL 49-1-12 requires that, "Every vote and official action of the Public Utilities Commission shall be entered of record and its proceedings shall be public upon the request of either party or any person interested." Accordingly, the determination of the Commission's leadership structure shall be made at this public meeting.
TODAY, how shall the Commission Provide for its Executive Leadership?
1. CT05-001 In the Matter of the Complaint filed by WWC License LLC against Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc., Vivian Telephone Company, Sioux Valley Telephone Company, Armour Independent Telephone Company, Bridgewater Canistota Independent Telephone Company and Kadoka Telephone Company Regarding Intercarrier Billings. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best, Staff Attorney: Rolayne Ailts Wiest)
On February 16, 2005, WWC License LLC (WWC) filed a complaint against Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. (Golden West), and Vivian Telephone Company, Sioux Valley Telephone Company, Union Telephone Company, Armour Independent Telephone Company, Bridgewater-Canistota Telephone Company and Kadoka Telephone Company (affiliated companies). On March 8, 2005, Golden West filed an Answer and Counterclaim. The procedural history of the parties' numerous motions, responses thereto and Commission's decisions thereon is set forth in the Commission's order of August 26, 2005. On September 7, 2005, WWC filed an Amended Complaint; Golden West filed an Amended Answer and Amended Counterclaim on September 15, 2005. Intervention was granted to SDTA at the October 4, 2005, commission meeting. The Commission held hearings on March 8-10, 2006, April 17-18, 2006 and August 7, 2006. WWC, Golden West and SDTA, Staff and WWC filed briefs on September 6, October 4, October 23 and October 26, 2006, respectively. In its Reply Brief filed October 23, Staff represented that it had been informed by the parties that they had reached a settlement of all issues in the case other than WWC's liability if any for Golden West's transitting charges. This representation was confirmed in WWC's Reply Brief Regarding Transitting Issue filed on October 26 and in verbal representations to Commission Counsel. By e-mail stipulation, the parties all agreed that oral argument on the transitting issue would be heard on November 20, 2006.
TODAY, how shall the Commission Rule Regarding Charges Assessed by Golden West Against WWC for Transitting Services?
2. CT05-007 In the Matter of the Complaint filed by PrairieWave Telecommunications, Inc. against AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. Regarding Access Charges. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best, Staff Attorney: Kara Van Bockern)
On November 21, 2005, PrairieWave Telecommunications, Inc. filed a complaint against AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. for failing to pay access charges at the rates approved by this Commission. On April 12, 2006, PrairieWave filed a Motion to Dismiss AT&T's Counterclaim and For Summary Judgment on PrairieWave's Complaint. On May 15, 2006, AT&T filed AT&T's Response to PrairieWave's Motion to Dismiss AT&T's Counterclaim and Motion for Summary Judgment on PrairieWave's Complaint. On May 20, 2006, Staff filed Staff's Response to PrairieWave's Motion to Dismiss AT&T's Counterclaim and for PrairieWave's Motion for Summary Judgment. On June 28, 2006, PrairieWave filed PrairieWave's Reply to AT&T's Response to PrairieWave's Motion to Dismiss AT&T's Counterclaim and Motion for Summary Judgment on Its Complaint. The Commission dismissed the Motion for Summary Judgment and the Motion to Dismiss AT&T's Counterclaim at its August 8, 2006, meeting. On November 14, 2006, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Close Proceeding, stating that they had reached a settlement of the case.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Joint Motion to Close Proceeding, and Dismiss and Close the Docket?
1. TC06-181 In the Matter of the Petition of Venture Communications Cooperative for Suspension or Modification of Local Dialing Parity Reciprocal Compensation Obligations (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best, Staff Attorney: Kara Van Bockern)
On October 24, 2006, Venture Communications Cooperative (Venture) filed a Petition for Suspension or Modification of Local Dialing Parity and Reciprocal Compensation Obligations. In its Petition, Venture states that it seeks to modify the dialing parity and reciprocal compensation obligations in 47 U.S.C. § 25l (b) (3) and (5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Venture is requesting "modification of the dialing parity requirement such that Venture is not required to provide local dialing and it is not required to transport traffic outside of its service territory or beyond the wireline local calling area. Venture also requests a modification of the reciprocal compensation requirements such that it is not required to pay reciprocal compensation on traffic terminating to a wireless carrier within the same MTA that is handed off to an IXC in accordance with Venture's wireline local calling areas. Venture also requests a modification of the symmetrical compensation requirement and requests that the Commission base compensation for wireless carrier's on the wireless carrier's forward looking cost study. Venture also requests immediate temporary suspension of the 251(b) (3) and (5) requirements as described above pending this Commission's consideration of this request." The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on November 6, 2006. Rural Cellular Corporation (RCC) and Alltel Communications, Inc. (Alltel) filed Petitions for Intervention on November 13, 2006. The Commission granted intervention to SDTA at its November 14, 2006, meeting.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to RCC and Alltel?
The Commission has opened this rulemaking docket to consider the adoption and amendment of some of its procedural rules. The proposed rule changes will allow for the electronic filing and serving of documents and will otherwise clarify how documents are to be filed. If a person does not have the ability to file electronically, that person may still file a paper copy. A number of the rule changes explain how to file electronically, how the commission will serve documents, outline the exceptions for filing electronically, and delete references to requirements for paper copies. See §§ 20:10:01:02.02, 20:10:01:02.05, 20:10:01:09.01, 20:10:01:10, 20:10:01:11.01, 20:10:01:15.02, 20:10:01:22.03, 20:10:01:25, 20:10:01:30.01, and 20:10:01:41. Proposed rule § 20:10:01:01.02 provides that the circuit court rules of civil procedure will apply unless otherwise stated. The changes to the rules will also differentiate between complaints filed by consumers and complaints filed by one utility against another utility. See §§ 20:10:01:01.01, 20:10:01:02.03, 20:10:01:07.01, 20:10:01:08.01, 20:10:01:08.02, 20:10:01:09, and 20:10:01:22.03. The differences in the treatment of complaints are intended to make it easier for a consumer to file a complaint when compared to a complaint filed by a utility. Proposed rule § 20:10:01:02.04 revises the requirements for stipulations by deleting the requirement that all parties must sign a stipulation. Other rule changes clarify that those rules apply to all contested cases, not just complaints. See §§ 20:10:01:15 and 20:10:01:15.01. Other proposed rules clarify the filing of interventions and answers to interventions. See §§ 20:10:01:15.02, 20:10:01:15.04, and 20:10:01:15.05. Proposed rule § 20:10:01:16 revises the procedures for filing amended pleadings. Some changes clarify the filing of exhibits or technical documents during a hearing. See §§ 20:10:01:22.07, 20:10:01:24, and 20:10:01:24.01. Proposed rule § 20:10:01:25 requires a party to file proposed findings of fact only if requested by the Commission. Other proposed rules revise the filing of declaratory rulings and the timeline for Commission action. See §§ 20:10:01:34 and 20:10:01:35. Finally, the proposed changes revise the treatment and filing of confidential information. See §§ 20:10:01:39, 20:10:01:40, and 20:10:01:41. A public hearing was held on November 7, 2006, in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building to consider the adoption and amendment of the proposed rules.
TODAY, shall the Commission Adopt the Final Rules?
Heather K. Forney
Deputy Executive Director
November 17, 2006