Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Tuesday, December 28, 2004 at 9:30 A.M.
State Capitol Building, Room 412
Pierre, South Dakota
NOTE: If you wish to join this meeting by conference call, please contact the Commission at 605-773-3201 by 5:00 p.m. on December 27, 2004.
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 COMMISSION MEETING
Administration
1. Approval of the Minutes of the Ad Hoc Meetings Held on November 19, 2004; November 22, 2004; December 6, 2004; December 10, 2004; and the Commission Meetings Held on November 30, 2004; and December 14, 2004. (Staff: Tina Douglas.)
Consumer Issues
1. Status Report on Consumer Utility Inquiries and Complaints Received by the Commission. (Consumer Affairs: Jim Mehlhaff)
Complainant alleges that MidAmerican Energy (MidAmerican) was negligent by not taking a carbon monoxide reading before turning the gas off to his house and red-tagging his furnace. Complainant is requesting that MidAmerican reimburse him for the cost of a new furnace, labor, and two electric heaters. On July 27, 2004, MidAmerican filed a Motion to Dismiss. The Commission denied MidAmerican's Motion to Dismiss a August 17, 2004, meeting. An Order for and Notice of Hearing was issued on August 26, 2004, setting a hearing date of October 26, 2004. MidAmerican filed an Answer and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss on September 27, 2004. Mr. Larson amended his complaint on October 19, 2004.
TODAY, if the Matter is resolved, shall the Commission Dismiss the Complaint and Close the Docket?
Complainants state that on April 16, 2002, they received a call from an MCI representative soliciting their long distance service. The telemarketing representative told the Complainants that the consumers' local long distance provider Valley Telco was merging with MCI and that the Complainants would be very happy with the merger. Wayne agreed to switch their service to MCI because of this merger. When Complainants contacted Valley Telco, they were advised that Valley Telco was not merging with MCI. Complainants attempted to put a pic freeze on their long distance service, but MCI switched their service provider before the pic freeze was placed on the line. Complainants have had previous problems with MCI and feel the marketing practices are deceitful. Complainants want MCI to be fined heavily and its underhanded solicitation tactics put to an end. On May 15, 2002, MCI MCIWorldCom filed a Motion to Dismiss. The Commission denied MCI's Motion to Dismiss a May 30, 2002, meeting. On November 23, 2004, MCI filed a Motion to Dismiss, the basis of which is its Bankruptcy Plan which was accepted by the bankruptcy court on April 20, 2004. On November 30, 2004, Commission Meeting MCI's Motion to Dismiss was denied. On December 21, 2004 the complainant agreed to withdraw the formal complaint.
TODAY, shall the Commission Dismiss the Complaint and Close the Docket?
On October 29, 2003, the Commission received a complaint filed by Black Hills FiberCom, L.L.C. (FiberCom) against Qwest Corporation (Qwest) regarding intrastate switched access charges applied to ISP-Bound calls. According to the Complainant's representative, Qwest is taking the position that under its intrastate tariff it may charge FiberCom intercarrier switched access charges when a FiberCom customer initiates a call to a Qwest served ISP which is within FiberCom's local calling area, but is between Qwest's local exchanges. The Complainant disagrees and is requesting a Commission's determination of whether such charges are appropriate. On January 14, 2004, the parties requested that the Commission issue an Order For And Notice Of Procedural Schedule And Hearing based on a Stipulated Agreement between the parties. On January 20, 2004, the Commission voted unanimously to issue an Order Approving Stipulated Agreement to Scheduling Order. FiberCom has requested that the Commission establish a date for filing and arguing motions relating to the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission over FiberCom's complaint. On April 27, 2004, a contested case hearing was held on the Complaint. Post-hearing briefs have been filed by all parties. On July 29, 2004, Qwest filed a Motion to Permit Post-Hearing Affidavit to permit the admission into the record of the Affidavit of Linda Downey. On August 10, 2004, FiberCom filed a Response to Motion to Permit Post-Hearing Affidavit.
TODAY, how shall the Commission Rule on Qwest's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction? AND, how shall the Commission Rule on the Complaint? AND, how shall the Commission Rule on the Counterclaim?
Electric
On May 12, 2004, Superior Renewable Energy LLC (Superior) and its wholly owned subsidiary, Java LLC, filed a complaint requesting the Commission to settle a dispute regarding the long term purchase price of electricity generated from a Qualified Facility pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act of 1978. On May 27, 2004, Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (MDU) filed a Petition to Intervene. The Commission granted intervention to MDU a June 8, 2004 meeting. On June 15, 2004, MidAmerican Energy Company (MidAmerican) filed a Petition to Intervene Out of Time. On June 17, 2004, NorthWestern Corporation (NorthWestern) filed a Petition to Intervene. On June 18, 2004, Black Hills Power, Inc. (Black Hills) filed a Petition to Intervene. The Commission granted intervention to MidAmerican, NorthWestern, and Black Hills a June 22, 2004 meeting. On July 16, 2004, Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy (Xcel) filed a Petition to Intervene. The Commission granted intervention to Xcel a August 17, 2004 meeting. On September 1, 2004, Superior filed a Motion for Notice and Order. On September 30, 2004, Superior moved for an order from the Commission to compel MDU to respond to certain interrogatories served upon MDU by the Complainants on or about July 16, 2004. Staff requests that the Commission authorize, pursuant to SDCL 49-1-8.2, the execution by the Executive Director of a Consulting Contract between the commission and Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. for consulting services to the Staff.
TODAY, shall the Commission Authorize the Executive Director to Enter into a Consulting Contract with Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.?
Application by Otter Tail Power Company (Otter Tail) for approval to revise its tariffed Summary List of Contracts with Deviations. The existing contract with the City of Toronto will expire on January 1, 2005. Otter Tail states the new agreement does not contain any deviations from Otter Tail's currently filed tariff and therefore requests that reference to a contract with the City of Toronto be removed from the Summary List of Contracts with Deviations.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Tariff Revisions?
Telecommunications
On November 5, 2003, WWC Holding Co., Inc., d/b/a CellularOne (Western Wireless) filed a petition to be designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) for purposes of qualifying to obtain federal universal service support in the study areas of certain rural telephone companies. This petition seeks an order immediately designating Western Wireless as an ETC in the study areas of the following rural telephone companies: Golden West Telephone Communications Inc., James Valley Cooperative Telephone Company, Splitrock Properties Inc., Sully Buttes Telephone Cooperative Inc., Tri-County Telcom Inc., Vivian Telephone Co., West River Telecommunications Coop (Mobridge) - SD, and West River Telecommunications Cooperative - SD. On November 21, 2003, James Valley Coop Telephone, SDTA, Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative, Alliance Communications Cooperative, Inc., and Splitrock Properties, Inc., Vivian Telephone Company, Venture Communications Cooperative, Tri-County Telcom, Inc., and West River Telecommunications Cooperative (Hazen, ND) filed for intervention. The Commission granted intervention to all parties that filed a December 2, 2003, meeting. On January 2, 2004, WWC filed a Motion to Amend Petition. The Commission granted WWC's Motion to Amend Petition a regularly scheduled meeting on January 20, 2004. An Order For and Notice of Procedural Schedule and Hearing was issued on February 13, 2004. On March 5, 2004, the Intervenors filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and a Motion to Expand Procedural Schedule. Alliance Communications Cooperative, Inc. and Splitrock Properties, Inc. filed a Motion to Withdraw Petition to Intervene on March 11, 2004. The Commission granted the Intervenors Motion to Expand Procedural Schedule at an Ad Hoc meeting on March 15, 2004. The Commission granted in part and denied in part Intervenors Motion to Compel Discovery and granted Alliance and Splitrock's Motion to withdraw at the regularly scheduled meeting on March 23, 2004. West River Telecommunications Cooperative filed a Motion to Withdraw Petition on March 22, 2004. The Commission granted West River's Motion to Withdraw a April 6, 2004, meeting. A hearing was held in this matter May 4 - 6, 2004. The Commission voted to designate Western Wireless as an ETC a August 17, 2004, meeting. On September 30, 2004, Western Wireless filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification. All intervening parties in this proceeding, including the South Dakota Telecommunications Association and also each of the South Dakota rural local exchange carriers whose rural service areas are affected by the Commission's Designation Order: Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc., Vivian Telephone Company, James Valley Cooperative Telephone Company, Venture Communications Cooperative, Inc., and Tri-County Telcom, Inc. filed an Answer to Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification on October 20, 2004. An Objection of James Valley Telecommunications Company to Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification by WWC License, LLC was filed on October 20, 2004.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant the Petition of WWC License, LLC d/b/a CellularOne for Reconsideration and Clarification?
2. In the Matter of Petitions for Suspension or Modification of 47 U.S.C. Section 251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended in Dockets TC04-038, TC04-044, TC04-045, TC04-046, TC04-047, TC04-048, TC04-049, TC04-050, TC04-052, TC04-054, TC04-055, TC04-056, TC04-060, and TC04-061.
On February 25, 2004, Santel Communications Cooperative (Santel) filed a petition requesting the Commission to grant a suspension to Santel from porting numbers, wireline-to-wireless, as may be requested by Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS). Western Wireless filed a Petition to Intervene on March 8, 2004. Midcontinent Communications and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association filed Petitions to Intervene on March 11, 2004. Santel filed an Application to Amend Petition on March 15, 2004, for the purpose of adding the section 20:10:32:39 requirements and to further amend the Petition to add updated cost data. The Commission granted intervention to Western Wireless, Midcontinent Communications and the South Dakota Telecommunications Association a March 23, 2004, meeting. A April 6, 2004, meeting the Commission granted an interim suspension of the Company's obligation to implement LNP pending a final decision. On September 22, 2004, the Commission voted unanimously to suspend intramodal LNP obligations for the Company until December 31, 2005. On November 1, 2004, Western Wireless filed a Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order and Brief in Support of Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order. Santel filed an Answer to Petition for Reconsideration on November 22, 2004.
On March 9, 2004, Sioux Valley Telephone Company (Sioux Valley) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Sioux Valley, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Midwest Wireless Holdings L.L.C. d/b/a Midwest Wireless and Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne. Sioux Valley states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Sioux Valley may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Sioux Valley "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Sioux Valley to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Sioux Valley's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Sioux Valley such other and further relief that may be proper." On March 17, 2004, Midcontinent Communications filed a Petition to Intervene. A Petition to Intervene by Western Wireless was filed on March 19, 2004. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on March 26, 2004. The Commission granted intervention to Midcontinent Communications, Western Wireless, and the SDTA a April 6, 2004, meeting. In addition, the Commission granted an interim suspension of the Company's obligation to implement LNP pending a final decision. On September 22, 2004, the Commission voted unanimously to suspend intramodal LNP obligations for the Company until December 31, 2005. On November 1, 2004, Western Wireless filed a Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order and Brief in Support of Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order. Sioux Valley filed an Opposition to the Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order on November 23, 2004.
On March 9, 2004, Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc., Vivian Telephone Company, and Kadoka Telephone Company (Petitioner) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Petitioner, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, NE Colorado Cellular, Inc. d/b/a Viaero, and Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne. Petitioner states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Petitioner may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Petitioner "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Petitioner to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Petitioner's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Petitioner such other and further relief that may be proper." A Petition to Intervene by Western Wireless was filed on March 19, 2004. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on March 26, 2004. The Commission granted intervention to Western Wireless and the SDTA a April 6, 2004, meeting. In addition, the Commission granted an interim suspension of the Company's obligation to implement LNP pending a final decision. On September 22, 2004, the Commission voted unanimously to suspend intramodal LNP obligations for the Company until December 31, 2005. On November 1, 2004, Western Wireless filed a Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order and Brief in Support of Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order. Petitioner filed an Opposition to the Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order on November 22, 2004.
On March 9, 2004, Armour Independent Telephone Company, Bridgewater-Canistota Independent Telephone Company, and Union Telephone Company (Petitioner) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Petitioner, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne. Petitioner states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Petitioner may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Petitioner "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Petitioner to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Petitioner's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Petitioner such other and further relief that may be proper." A Petition to Intervene by Western Wireless was filed on March 19, 2004. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on March 26, 2004. The Commission granted intervention to Western Wireless and the SDTA a April 6, 2004, meeting. In addition, the Commission granted an interim suspension of the Company's obligation to implement LNP pending a final decision. On September 22, 2004, the Commission voted unanimously to suspend intramodal LNP obligations for the Company until December 31, 2005. On November 1, 2004, Western Wireless filed a Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order and Brief in Support of Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order. Petitioner filed an Opposition to the Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order on November 22, 2004.
On March 11, 2004, Brookings Municipal Utilities d/b/a Swiftel Communications (Swiftel) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Swiftel, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Verizon Wireless and Western Wireless. Swiftel states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Swiftel may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Swiftel "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Swiftel to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Swiftel's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Swiftel such other and further relief that may be proper." WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on March 31, 2004. The Commission granted intervention to Western Wireless and the SDTA a April 6, 2004, meeting. In addition, the Commission granted an interim suspension of the Company's obligation to implement LNP pending a final decision. On September 22, 2004, the Commission voted unanimously to suspend intramodal LNP obligations for the Company until December 31, 2005. On November 1, 2004, Western Wireless filed a Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order and Brief in Support of Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order. Swiftel filed an Opposition to the Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order on November 22, 2004.
On March 11, 2004, Beresford Municipal Telephone Company (Beresford) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Beresford, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne. Beresford states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Beresford may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Beresford "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Beresford to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Beresford's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Beresford such other and further relief that may be proper." WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on March 31, 2004. The Commission granted intervention to Western Wireless and the SDTA a April 6, 2004, meeting. In addition, the Commission granted an interim suspension of the Company's obligation to implement LNP pending a final decision. On September 22, 2004, the Commission voted unanimously to suspend intramodal LNP obligations for the Company until December 31, 2005. On November 1, 2004, Western Wireless filed a Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order and Brief in Support of Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order. Beresford filed an Opposition to the Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order on November 23, 2004.
On March 11, 2004, McCook Cooperative Telephone Company (McCook) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to McCook, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne. McCook states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) McCook may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. McCook "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for McCook to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for McCook's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant McCook such other and further relief that may be proper." WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on March 31, 2004. The Commission granted intervention to Western Wireless and the SDTA a April 6, 2004, meeting. In addition, the Commission granted an interim suspension of the Company's obligation to implement LNP pending a final decision. On September 22, 2004, the Commission voted unanimously to suspend intramodal LNP obligations for the Company until December 31, 2005. On November 1, 2004, Western Wireless filed a Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order and Brief in Support of Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order. McCook filed an Opposition to the Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order on November 23, 2004.
On March 11, 2004, Valley Telecommunications Cooperative Association, Inc. (Valley) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Valley, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne. Valley states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Valley may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Valley "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Valley to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Valley's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Valley such other and further relief that may be proper." On March 24, 2004, Midcontinent Communications filed a Petition to Intervene. WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on March 31, 2004. The Commission granted intervention to Midcontinent Communications, Western Wireless, and the SDTA a April 6, 2004, meeting. In addition, the Commission granted an interim suspension of the Company's obligation to implement LNP pending a final decision. On September 22, 2004, the Commission voted unanimously to suspend intramodal LNP obligations for the Company until December 31, 2005. On November 1, 2004, Western Wireless filed a Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order and Brief in Support of Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order. Valley filed an Opposition to the Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order on November 23, 2004.
On March 12, 2004, Midstate Communications, Inc. (Midstate) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Midstate, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne. Midstate states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Midstate may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Midstate "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Midstate to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Midstate's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Midstate such other and further relief that may be proper." WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on March 31, 2004. The Commission granted intervention to Western Wireless and the SDTA a April 6, 2004, meeting. In addition, the Commission granted an interim suspension of the Company's obligation to implement LNP pending a final decision. On September 22, 2004, the Commission voted unanimously to suspend intramodal LNP obligations for the Company until December 31, 2005. On November 1, 2004, Western Wireless filed a Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order and Brief in Support of Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order. Midstate filed an Opposition to the Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order on November 23, 2004.
On March 15, 2004, Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative (ITC) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to ITC, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Midcontinent Communications and Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne. ITC states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) ITC may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. ITC "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for ITC to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for ITC's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant ITC such other and further relief that may be proper." On March 24, 2004, Midcontinent Communications filed a Petition to Intervene. WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on March 31, 2004. The Commission granted intervention to Midcontinent Communications, Western Wireless, and the SDTA a April 6, 2004, meeting. In addition, the Commission granted an interim suspension of the Company's obligation to implement LNP pending a final decision. On September 22, 2004, the Commission voted unanimously to suspend intramodal LNP obligations for the Company until December 31, 2005. On November 1, 2004, Western Wireless filed a Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order and Brief in Support of Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order. ITC filed an Opposition to the Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order on November 23, 2004.
On March 15, 2004, Alliance Communications Cooperative, Inc. and Splitrock Properties, Inc. (Petitioner) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Petitioner, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne and Midwest Wireless Holdings L.L.C. d/b/a Midwest Wireless. Petitioner states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Petitioner may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Petitioner "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Petitioner to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Petitioner's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Petitioner such other and further relief that may be proper." On March 24, 2004, Midcontinent Communications filed a Petition to Intervene. WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on March 31, 2004. The Commission granted intervention to Midcontinent Communications, Western Wireless, and the SDTA a April 6, 2004, meeting. In addition, the Commission granted an interim suspension of the Company's obligation to implement LNP pending a final decision. On September 22, 2004, the Commission voted unanimously to suspend intramodal LNP obligations for the Company until December 31, 2005. On November 1, 2004, Western Wireless filed a Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order and Brief in Support of Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order. Petitioner filed an Opposition to the Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order on November 22, 2004.
On March 15, 2004, RC Communications, Inc. and Roberts County Telephone Cooperative Assn. (Petitioner) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Petitioner, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a CellularOne. Petitioner states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Petitioner may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Petitioner "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Petitioner to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Petitioner's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Petitioner such other and further relief that may be proper." On March 24, 2004, Midcontinent Communications filed a Petition to Intervene. WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on March 31, 2004. The Commission granted intervention to Midcontinent Communications, Western Wireless, and the SDTA a April 6, 2004, meeting. In addition, the Commission granted an interim suspension of the Company's obligation to implement LNP pending a final decision. On September 22, 2004, the Commission voted unanimously to suspend intramodal LNP obligations for the Company until December 31, 2005. On November 1, 2004, Western Wireless filed a Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order and Brief in Support of Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order. Petitioner filed an Opposition to the Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order on November 23, 2004.
On March 17, 2004, Venture Communications Cooperative, Inc. (Venture) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to Venture, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Verizon Wireless and Western Wireless. Venture states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) Venture may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. Venture "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for Venture to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for Venture's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant Venture such other and further relief that may be proper." On March 24, 2004, Midcontinent Communications filed a Petition to Intervene. WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on March 31, 2004. The Commission granted intervention to Midcontinent Communications, Western Wireless, and the SDTA a April 6, 2004, meeting. In addition, the Commission granted an interim suspension of the Company's obligation to implement LNP pending a final decision. On September 22, 2004, the Commission voted unanimously to suspend intramodal LNP obligations for the Company until December 31, 2005. On November 1, 2004, Western Wireless filed a Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order and Brief in Support of Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order. Venture filed an Opposition to the Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order on November 23, 2004.
On March 17, 2004, West River Cooperative Telephone Company (West River) filed a petition seeking suspension or modification of its requirement to implement local number portability (LNP) pursuant to Section 251(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to West River, it has received requests to deploy LNP from Verizon Wireless. West River states that it is a small telephone company that serves less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide, therefore under Section 251(f)(2) West River may petition the Commission for suspension or modification of its obligation to implement LNP within six months of a request to deploy LNP. West River "requests the Commission to (1) issue an interim order that suspends any obligation that may exist for West River to provide LNP until six months after entry of a final order herein; (2) issue a final order that grants a permanent suspension for West River's obligation to implement LNP until conditions are met as described herein; and (3) grant West River such other and further relief that may be proper." On March 24, 2004, Midcontinent Communications filed a Petition to Intervene. WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004. WWC License LLC filed a Petition to Intervene on March 30, 2004. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on March 31, 2004. The Commission granted intervention to Midcontinent Communications, Western Wireless, and the SDTA a April 6, 2004, meeting. In addition, the Commission granted an interim suspension of the Company's obligation to implement LNP pending a final decision. On September 22, 2004, the Commission voted unanimously to suspend intramodal LNP obligations for the Company until December 31, 2005. On November 1, 2004, Western Wireless filed a Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order and Brief in Support of Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order. West River filed an Opposition to the Petition to Reconsider Final Decision and Order on November 23, 2004.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Western Wireless Petitions to Reconsider Final Decision and Order?
On June 29, 2004, PrairieWave Telecommunications, Inc., Sioux Falls, South Dakota, filed a switched access cost study pursuant to the rules established by the Commission.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Switched Access Rate for PrairieWave Telecommunications, Inc.?
On August 2, 2004, XO Network Services, Inc. and XO Communications Services, Inc. filed a joint application to transfer XO Network Services, Inc.'s local and IXC authority to XO Communications Services, Inc.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Transfer of the Certificate of Authority from XO Network Services, Inc. to XO Communications Services, Inc. ?
On November 2, 2004, GE Business Productivity Solutions, Inc. (GEBPS) and Business Productivity Solutions, Inc. (BPS) notified the Commission of an impending transaction involving the transfer of substantially all of the assets of GEBPS, including the GEBPS customer base, to BPS without interruption of service. BPS requests that the Commission grant BPS authority to provide long distance service so that BPS can provide service to the existing customers of GEBPS. GEBPS requests the Certificate of Authority be discontinued as of the date of the customer transfer.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Transfer of the Certificate of Authority from GE Business Productivity Solutions, Inc. to Business Productivity Solutions, Inc.?
6. In the Matter of Approving the Agreement and the Amendment in TC04-255 and TC04-256.
On November 29, 2004, the Commission received a filing for approval of an Agreement for Terms and Conditions for Interconnection, Unbundled Network Elements, Ancillary Services and Resale of Telecommunication Services between Qwest Corporation (Qwest) and RC Communications, Inc. (RC). According to the parties, the "Agreement is a negotiated agreement which sets forth the terms, conditions and prices under which Qwest will provide services for resale to RC for the provision of local exchange services."
On November 29, 2004, the Commission received a filing for approval of an Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and MCImetro Access Transmission Services, LLC. According to the parties, the Amendment is made in order to address certain disagreements between the parties.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Agreement and the Amendment in the above Dockets?
On December 2, 2004, Sancom, Inc. d/b/a Mitchell Telecom filed an Intrastate Switched Access tariff which "mirrors the rates, terms and conditions of the current LECA Tariff No. 1, with the exception of the switched access rates, which are based upon a statewide average in accordance with ARSD 20:10:27:12." Mitchell Telecom requests an effective date of January 1, 2005, for the tariff filing.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Intrastate Switched Access Tariff and Exemption from Developing Company Specific Cost-Based Switched Access Rates for Sancom, Inc. d/b/a Mitchell Telecom?
Administration
1. Contracts for Energy Conference (Executive Director: Pam Bonrud)
The Executive Director requests that the Commission authorize, pursuant to SDCL 49-1-8.2, the execution by the Executive Director of two contracts between the Commission and the Sheraton Sioux Falls Hotel and Convention Center for the Spring PUC Energy Conference. One contract is a Group Sales Agreement for guest rooms to give a special conference rate for attendees and reserve a block of rooms at state rates for PUC and other state employees. The second contract is a catering agreement which covers arrangements for coffee breaks and meals that will be provided as a part of conference activities and a meeting room rental charge of $500 for the entire event.
TODAY, shall the Commission Authorize the Executive Director to Enter into Contracts with the Sheraton Sioux Falls Hotel and Convention Center?
Announcements
1. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held January 25, 2004, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 468, at Pierre, South Dakota.
2. Commission meetings are scheduled for February 8, 2005, and February 22, 2005.
3. The PUC offices will be closed December 31, 2004, in observance of New Years.
4. A coffee welcoming the Legislators is scheduled from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on January 11, 2005, in the PUC conference room.
5. The PUC offices will be closed January 17, 2005, in observance of Martin Luther King Day.
_____________________
Heather K. Forney
Deputy Executive Director
heather.forney@state.sd.us
December 22, 2004
