Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Tuesday, May 23, 2006, 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 May 22, 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.
ADDENDUM TO THE AGENDA OF COMMISSION MEETING
Administration
1. In the Matter of the Potential Adoption of Rules Regarding Emergency Grain Storage for State Licensed Grain Storage Warehouses. (Grain Warehouse Director: Jim Mehlhaff)
In June of 2005 the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) sent a memo to all Warehouse Operators approved under the Uniform Grain and Rice Storage Agreement (UGRSA). The subject of the memo was Emergency and Temporary Storage Space. The purpose of the memo was to notify the Warehouse Managers that they may request Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) approval of short-term emergency storage space. One of the CCC emergency storage requirements is that the requesting warehouse manager must receive approval from the appropriate licensing authority. The Transportation Warehouse Division of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) did receive requests for approval of emergency storage space from some state licensed warehouses. It was determined by PUC attorneys that allowing emergency storage would be in violation of our current rules. As a result, we were unable to accommodate the requests for emergency storage. In March of 2006 the PUC received a letter from the Executive Director of the South Dakota Grain & Feed Association asking that the PUC define and make available the use of "emergency storage" without regard to grain ownership by state licensed warehouses.
TODAY, how shall the Commission Proceed?
2. In the Matter of a Contract for a Qualified Electrical Engineer (Staff Attorney: Sara Greff)
On April 28, 2006, the Commission received an informal complaint centering around an adequacy of service issue between a manufacturing company and a municipality. Staff has been working with the manufacturer and the municipality on trying to resolve the issue; however the issues require Staff to seek technical advice in the electrical engineering and power utility areas. As of to date Staff believes this issue will go through the formal complaint process and once that process is started Staff and the Commission will have a very limited amount of time to react. Staff wishes to hire a consultant to assist us in resolving this matter.
TODAY, shall the Commission Authorize Staff to Enter into a Consulting Contract with an Electrical Engineering Firm to Review the Facts and Issues Surrounding this Matter?
Consumer Complaints
Complaint by Sioux Valley Southwestern Electric Cooperative, Inc. against Northern States Power Company d/b/a. Xcel Energy (Xcel) regarding the provision of service to Myrl and Roy's Paving. Myrl and Roy's Paving conducts a quarry and rock crushing operation at a location that is partly located on Xcel's established service territory and partly on Sioux Valley's established service territory. The complaint states that prior to 1991, Myrl and Roy's was served by Sioux Valley. Acting upon a complaint filed by Xcel in 1991, the Commission ruled that because the preponderance of Myrl and Roy's load was located on Xcel's established territory, the Myrl and Roy's was to be then served by Xcel. The Commission decision was appealed to both Circuit Court and the South Dakota Supreme Court which upheld the Commission's decision. Myrl and Roy's have now informed Sioux Valley that they will be adding new equipment which will result in the majority of their load being located in Sioux Valley's territory. Sioux Valley has requested Xcel to relinquish Myrl and Roy's as a customer but Xcel has failed and refused to do so. Sioux Valley now requests that it be awarded the exclusive right to serve Myrl and Roy's and that Xcel remove its lines and other facilities from Myrl and Roy's location. On May 15, 2006, Xcel filed a Motion to Dismiss and supporting brief. Myrl and Roy's Paving filed a Petition for Intervention on May 17, 2006.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Petition for Intervention to Myrl and Roy's Paving?
Electricity
On July 21, 2005, the Commission received an Application for a Construction Permit for an Energy Conversion Facility from Otter Tail Power Company (Otter Tail) on behalf of the Project co owners; Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency; Great River Energy; Heartland Consumers Power District; Montana Dakota Utilities Co., a Division of MDU Resources Group, Inc.; Otter Tail Corporation d/b/a Otter Tail Power Company; Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency; and Western Minnesota Municipal Power Agency. The proposed Energy Conversion Facility is a nominal 600 MW coal fired electric generating facility and associated facilities, which the Project co owners have named Big Stone II, to be located on an industrial site adjacent to the existing Big Stone Plant unit I in Grant County, South Dakota. At the September 27, 2005, commission meeting, the Commission granted intervener party status pursuant to ARSD 20:10:22:40 to Clean Water Action, the South Dakota Chapter Sierra Club and Union of Concerned Scientists, Mary Jo Stueve, Minnesotans for an Energy Efficient Economy, Izaak Walton League of America - Midwest Office, and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA). On February 16, 2006, Clean Water Action filed a letter requesting withdrawal of its intervention, which was granted at the February 28, 2006, meeting. On May 8, 2006, MCEA filed Motions to Compel Discovery and to Extend Deadline for Intervenor Testimony. On May 12, 2006, Otter Tail filed a Joint Motion and Stipulation to Amend Second Scheduling and Procedural Order. On May 19, 2006, Otter Tail Power and Intervenor Sierra Club filed a Stipulation and Certificate of Service stating that the Sierra Club wishes to withdraw as a party in this docket.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Stipulation Agreement? AND, shall the Commission Approve the Stipulation Agreement regarding Sierra Club's withdrawal as a party?
Telecommunications
On July 20, 2005, the Commission received a letter from Commission Staff asking that the Commission open a docket or conduct some other type of proceeding regarding the implementation of 811. In its letter, Staff explained that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued a report and order regarding the designation and implementation of 811 as a National Abbreviated Dialing Code for One Call Notification. See In the Matter of the Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, CC Docket No. 92-105, Sixth Report and Order (rel. March 14, 2005). Based on this report and order, Staff believes it would be beneficial for the Commission to open a docket to receive comments from industry on the implementation process. The Commission voted to open this docket at its July 28, 2005 meeting.
TODAY, how shall the Commission Proceed?
On March 17, 2006, Qwest Corporation (Qwest) filed a petition for an order pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(b) approving an interconnection agreement between Qwest and each of the Respondents to implement the ruling of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the Matter of Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime, T-Mobile et al. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding Incumbent LEC Wireless Termination Tariffs, CC Docket 01-92, FCC 05-42, (Released February 24, 2005). Qwest seeks approval of the Type 1 Wireless interconnection agreement with Nextel West Corp. and with Vantek Communications, Inc., consistent with the requirements of 47 U.S.C. Section 252(b). Qwest also seeks arbitration and approval of the Type 1 and Type 2 Paging interconnection agreement with Dakota Electronics, Golden West Technologies, Inc., and Priority Paging, Inc. "The FCC has required Qwest to request and enter interconnection agreements for the termination of wireless traffic, and Qwest has diligently pursued such interconnection agreements with Respondents, without any response….Qwest asks that Respondents be barred from raising any disputed issues in response to this Petition…[I]f the Commission will not approve the agreements, Qwest will be forced to discontinue service to Respondents until an appropriate interconnection agreement can be negotiated, approved, and filed." 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. On April 3, 2006, Qwest filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition for Approval of Interconnection Agreements to Implement FCC Ruling in T-Mobile Order as to Respondents Golden West Technologies, Inc. and Priority Paging, Inc. At its April 11, 2006, meeting the Commission granted Qwest's Motion to Dismiss its Petition for Approval of Interconnection Agreements to implement FCC Ruling in the T-Mobile Order as it relates to Golden West Technologies, Inc. and Priority Paging, Inc. Qwest filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition for Approval of Interconnection Agreements to Implement FCC Ruling in T-Mobile Order as to Respondent Dakota Electronics on April 25, 2006. On May 8, 2006, Qwest filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition for Approval of Interconnection Agreements to Implement FCC Ruling in T-Mobile Order as to Respondent Nextel West Corp. On May 17, 2006, Qwest filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition for Approval of Interconnection Agreements to Implement FCC Ruling in T-Mobile Order as to Respondent Vantek Communications, Inc. and a Motion to Dismiss the Petition and Close the Docket.
TODAY, shall the Commission Dismiss the Petition for Approval of Interconnection Agreement as to Respondent Vantek Communications, Inc. and Close the Docket?
______________________
Heather K. Forney
Deputy Executive Director
heather.forney@state.sd.us
May 22, 2006
