Commission Weekly Filings | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission
WEEKLY FILINGS
For the Period October 16, 2008 through October 22, 2008
Copies of these items may be found on the PUC Web site at http://www.puc.sd.gov
ELECTRIC
EL08-028 In the Matter of the Consideration of the New PURPA Standards.
On December 19, 2007, the President signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 into law. The Act includes four new federal standards to PURPA for state commissions and utilities to consider. They are (1) Integrated Resource Planning, (2) Rate Design Modification to Promote Energy Efficiency Investments, (3) Consideration of Smart Grid Investments, and (4) Smart Grid Information. The Commission must consider these standards and make a specific determination on whether their implementation is appropriate to encourage the conservation of energy supplied by electric utilities, optimal efficiencies of electric utility facilities and resources, and equitable rates for electric consumers.
Staff Analysts: Nathan Solem/Brian Rounds/Jon Thurber
Staff Attorney: Kara Semmler
Date Filed: 10/22/08
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
On October 16, 2008, the Commission received a filing for an Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Verizon Wireless f/k/a CommNet Cellular, Inc. Any party wishing to comment on the Agreement may do so by filing written comments with the Commission and the parties to the Agreement no later than November 5, 2008. Parties to the Agreement may file written responses to the comments no later than twenty days after service of the initial comments.
Staff Attorney: Kara Semmler
Date Filed: 10/16/08
Initial Comments Due: 11/05/08
TC08-119 In the Matter of the Filing for Approval of an Amendment to an Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Verizon Wireless f/k/a CommNet Cellular, Inc.
On October 16, 2008, the Commission received a filing for an Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Verizon Wireless f/k/a CommNet Cellular, Inc. Any party wishing to comment on the Agreement may do so by filing written comments with the Commission and the parties to the Agreement no later than November 5, 2008. Parties to the Agreement may file written responses to the comments no later than twenty days after service of the initial comments.
Staff Attorney: Kara Semmler
Date Filed: 10/16/08
Initial Comments Due: 11/05/08
On October 16, 2008, the Commission received a filing for an Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Sprint Communications Company L.P. Any party wishing to comment on the Agreement may do so by filing written comments with the Commission and the parties to the Agreement no later than November 5, 2008. Parties to the Agreement may file written responses to the comments no later than twenty days after service of the initial comments.
Staff Attorney: Kara Semmler
Date Filed: 10/16/08
Initial Comments Due: 11/05/08
On October 16, 2008, the Commission received a filing for an Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. Any party wishing to comment on the Agreement may do so by filing written comments with the Commission and the parties to the Agreement no later than November 5, 2008. Parties to the Agreement may file written responses to the comments no later than twenty days after service of the initial comments.
Staff Attorney: Kara Semmler
Date Filed: 10/16/08
Initial Comments Due: 11/05/08
On October 21, 2008, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority (CRST) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection and Reciprocal Compensation Agreement (Agreement) between CRST and Alltel Communications, LLC (Alltel), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. CRST filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of:
(1) What are the appropriate definitions to be included in the Agreement between the Parties?
(a) The definition of InterMTA traffic.
(b) The definition of Local Traffic, Telecommunications Traffic, and Third Party Provider.
(c) The definition of Wireline Local Calling Area.
(d) Other definition differences.
(2) What is the appropriate scope of Reciprocal Compensation Traffic?
(3) What is the appropriate treatment of ISP bound traffic?
(4) What are the appropriate interconnection facilities between the Parties?
(5) Is the inclusion of SS7 messages appropriate?
(6) What is the obligation of the parties with respect to dialing parity?
(7) Should compensation for Telecommunications Traffic be symmetrical?
(8) What is the appropriate compensation rate for InterMTA traffic?
(9) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of IntraMTA Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed?
(10) Are the reciprocal compensation rates for IntraMTA Traffic and the Traffic Factors proposed by CRST appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)?
(11) What is the appropriate time frame for bringing claims for disputes arising under the Agreement?
(12) What is the appropriate effective date and term of the Agreement?
CRST requests the following relief:
A. Issuance of an Order requiring arbitration of any and all unresolved issues between CRST and Alltel;
B. Issuance of an Order directing CRST and Alltel to submit to this Commission for approval of an interconnection agreement reflecting:
(i) the agreed-upon issues between the parties to be included in the language of Exhibit B; and
(ii) the resolution of any unresolved issues in accordance with the positions and recommendations made by CRST as set forth herein at the arbitration hearing to be scheduled by this Commission;
C. Issuance of an Order directing the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2007 (the Effective Date agreed to by the Parties) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act;
D. Issuance of an Order asserting this Commission retain jurisdiction over this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by this Commission in accordance with Section 252(e);
E. Any other, further and different relief as the nature of this matter may require or as may be just, equitable and proper to this Commission.
In accordance with ARSD 20:10:32:30, a non-petitioning party may respond to the petition for arbitration and provide additional information within 25 days after the commission receives the petition.
Staff Analysts: Roger Oldenkamp/Jon Thurber
Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer
Date Filed: 10/21/08
Responses Due: 11/17/08
On October 22, 2008, XO Communications, Inc. filed for Commission approval revisions to the company's Access Services Tariff. The revisions update the description of Switched Access Service. The company has requested an effective date of November 11, 2008, for the tariff changes.
Staff Analyst: Jon Thurber
Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer
Date Filed: 10/22/08
Intervention Deadline: 11/07/08
You may receive this listing and other PUC publications via our Web site
or via internet e-mail.You may subscribe or unsubscribe to the PUC mailing lists at http://www.puc.sd.gov
