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.
AGENDA OF COMMISSION MEETING
Administration
1. Approval of the Minutes of the Commission Meetings Held on March 14, April 11, April 20, and May 9, 2006. (Staff: Tina Douglas.)
Consumer Reports
1. Status Report on Consumer Utility Inquiries and Complaints Received by the Commission. (Consumer Affairs: Deb Gregg)
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.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Stipulation Agreement?
On April 12, 2006, the Commission received a petition from Montana-Dakota Utilities Co, (MDU) for the right to provide electrical service to a new grain handling/multi-unit train loading facility to be operated by North Central Farmers Elevator (NCFE) near Bowdle, South Dakota. The petition requests that the Public Utilities Commission assign MDU as the supplier of electrical service to the NCFE facility. The proposed NCFE facility will be located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 123 North, Range 73 West, Edmunds County, South Dakota, approximately one mile west of Bowdle, South Dakota on the north side of Highway 12. The site of the facility is within the assigned service area of FEM Electric Association, Inc. MDU's petition states that the proposed NCFE facility will require electrical service of substantially more than a contracted minimum demand of 2,000 kilowatts and that MDU is best suited to provide such electrical service. North Central Farmers Elevator and FEM filed Petitions to Intervene on May 1, 2006. SDREA filed a Petition to Intervene on May 15, 2006.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to FEM, SDREA, and North Central Farmers Elevator?
Otter Tail Power Company is requesting the Commission renew its Released Energy Tariff. This tariff will expire on June 6, 2006. This renewal would allow Otter Tail to purchase energy from its large customers who curtail their load.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Renewal of a Released Energy Tariff?
Natural Gas
Application by NorthWestern Energy for approval of a contract with deviations to provide natural gas delivery service to Prairie Ethanol, LLC located at Loomis, SD.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Contract with Deviations with Prairie Ethanol Plant?
Telecommunications
On July 27, 2001, Qwest Corporation (Qwest) filed a petition for the purpose of determining Qwest's forward looking costs to be used in setting the prices for the elements and services contained in Qwest's Statement of Generally Available Terms (SGAT) and setting a scheduling conference for the purpose of adopting a procedural schedule for the orderly progression of this filing. Qwest filed its most recent South Dakota specific total element long run incremental cost (TELRIC) studies for those Unbundled Network Elements offered in Qwest's SGAT. Qwest is not generally seeking changes to those prices already established by this Commission in the AT&T Arbitration (TC96-184). Qwest recommends that this Commission declare those previously established prices to be Qwest's permanent TELRIC based wholesale prices. For those services that were not addressed in previous pricing decisions of this Commission, Qwest offers its cost studies and supporting materials in support of the prices depicted in its filing. Qwest will not seek cost recovery for its Operations Support Systems until testing of said systems has been successfully completed. Qwest proposes a series of informal workshops to precede the preparation and filing of more formal positions of Staff and any other interested parties. At these workshops Qwest will explain and, if requested, provide "hands on" assistance for the use of its Integrated Cost Model and other cost models. Following the workshop phase, Qwest then proposes that the case move to a more formal schedule that provides for direct and rebuttal testimony and an evidentiary hearing on those issues remaining after the informal workshop process is completed. AT&T and Midcontinent were granted intervention on September 5, 2001. On May 8, 2006, Qwest filed a request to withdraw the cost docket.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Request to Withdraw and Close the Docket?
On December 1, 2005, Northern Valley Communications, L.L.C. (NVC) filed a petition in accordance with ARSD 20:10:27:11, asking the Commission to exempt NVC from filing company specific cost-based intrastate switched access rates.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Extension of an Exemption from Developing Company Specific Cost-Based Switched Access Rates?
On December 23, 2005, SSTelecom, Inc. filed an application for a Certificate of Authority to provide local exchange services in the Milbank Exchange of Qwest Corporation (Qwest). SSTelecom initially intends to provide service by overbuilding the Milbank exchange of Qwest. SSTelecom will construct and use its own facilities and may collocate or lease additional facilities as necessary to provide service to residential and business customers. SSTelecom is requesting an exemption from developing company specific cost-based access rates, ARSD 20:10:27:11. SSTelecom requests that its switched access rates be determined in accordance with ARSD 20:10:27:12 for a period of three years. On February 28, 2006, the Commission granted a Certificate of Authority to SSTelecom deferring action on the access rates to a later date. A Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Stipulation was filed on May 15, 2006 by SSTelecom and Staff.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Settlement Stipulation?
On January 26, 2006, Level 3 Communications, LLC (Level 3) filed a Petition for Arbitration Pursuant to Section 252(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for Rates, Terms, and Conditions of Interconnection with Qwest Corporation (Qwest). In its Petition, Level 3 requested that the Commission arbitrate certain terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Level 3 and Qwest. Pursuant to ARSD 20:10:32:30, Qwest may respond to the Petition and provide additional information by February 21, 2006.
TODAY, shall the Commission Assess a Deposit Not to Exceed $75,000 on the Parties to the Docket Pursuant to SDCL 49-31-44? AND, shall the Commission Set a Procedural Schedule for the Docket?
5. In the Matter of the Petition for Arbitration of Interconnection Agreements in Dockets TC06-036, TC06-037, TC06-038, TC06-039, TC06-040, TC06-041, and TC06-042.
On May 3, 2006, Armour Independent Telephone Co. (Armour) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Armour and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Armour filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Armour appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Armour "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Armour] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Armour] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Armour] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006 (the Effective Date set forth in Exhibit A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." 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 May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042.
On May 3, 2006, Bridgewater-Canistota Independent Telephone Company (Bridgewater) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Bridgewater and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Bridgewater filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Bridgewater appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Bridgewater "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Bridgewater] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Bridgewater] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Bridgewater] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006 (the Effective Date set forth in Exhibit A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." 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 May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042.
On May 3, 2006, Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. (Golden West) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Golden West and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Golden West filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Golden West appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Golden West "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Golden West] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Golden West] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Golden West] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006 (the Effective Date set forth in Exhibit A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." 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 May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042.
On May 3, 2006, Kadoka Telephone Company (Kadoka) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Kadoka and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Kadoka filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Kadoka appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Kadoka "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Kadoka] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Kadoka] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Kadoka] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006 (the Effective Date set forth in Exhibit A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." 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 May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042.
On May 3, 2006, Sioux Valley Telephone Company (Sioux Valley) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Sioux Valley and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Sioux Valley filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Sioux Valley appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Sioux Valley "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Sioux Valley] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Sioux Valley] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Sioux Valley] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006 (the Effective Date set forth in Exhibit A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." 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 May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042.
On May 3, 2006, Union Telephone Company (Union) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Union and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Union filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Union appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Union "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Union] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Union] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Union] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006 (the Effective Date set forth in Exhibit A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." 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 May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042.
On May 3, 2006, Vivian Telephone Company (Vivian) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Vivian and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Vivian filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Vivian appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Vivian "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Vivian] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Vivian] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Vivian] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006 (the Effective Date set forth in Exhibit A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." 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 May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042.
TODAY, shall the Commission Assess a Deposit Not to Exceed $75,000 on the Parties to the Dockets Listed Above Pursuant to SDCL 49-31-44? AND, shall the Commission Set a Procedural Schedule for the Dockets? AND shall the Commission Grant the Parties Motion to Consolidate dockets TC06-036 -TC06-042?
On February 3, 2006, Qwest Corporation filed revisions to its Exchange and Network Services Tariff. The E911 revisions have been developed to satisfy two primary issues, 1. integration of wireless rate elements and 2. propose a price structure utilizing 911 ALI (Automatic Location Identification) records in lieu of the traditional access line model. The proposed tariff was developed in collaboration with Public Safety representatives who had intervened in Docket TC02-174, filed on October 28, 2002. With the Commission's approval in this docket, Qwest is requesting that the Commission closed TC02-174. Revisions to the Exchange and Network Services Tariff were filed on March 13 and April 28, 2006.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Revisions to the Exchange and Network Services Tariff? AND, shall the Commission Close Docket TC02-174?
On March 20, 2006, Sprint Long Distance, Inc. filed an application seeking a Certificate of Authority to provide a broad range of resold switched and dedicated 1+ interexchange telecommunications services to residential customers (voice only) and business customers (voice and data) within the State of South Dakota. Sprint filed a request to withdraw the docket on May 11, 2006.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Request to Withdraw and Close the Docket?
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.
TODAY, shall the Commission Dismiss the Petitions for Approval of Interconnection Agreements as to Respondents Dakota Electronics and Nextel West Corp. and Close the Docket?
On April 11, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of an LNP Managed Cut Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and XO Communications Services, Inc. According to the parties, this Amendment adds terms, conditions and rates for the LNP Managed Cut Agreement.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement?
On April 24, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Type 1 and Type 2 Paging Connection Service Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Dakota Electronics. According to the parties, "[t]his Agreement covers Type 1 and Type 2 Paging Connection Service which consists only of those one-way intraLATA/intrastate land-to-pager trunks."
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Type 1 and Type 2 Paging Connection Service Agreement?
On April 27, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Reciprocal Transport and Termination Agreement between Rural Cellular Corporation and Prairie Wave Black Hills, LLC. According to the parties, this agreement is "in accordance with the terms contained in the Reciprocal Transport and Termination Agreement between Rural Cellular Corporation and Prairie Wave Telecommunications, Inc. …approved in TC03-076 on June 10, 2003."
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Adoption Agreement?
Administration
1. Consideration of New PURPA Standards. (Commission Attorney: Rolayne Ailts Wiest)
On August 8, 2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ("EPAct 2005") was signed into law. Certain provisions in the EPAct 2005 amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act ("PURPA") of 1978. The EPAct 2005 adds five new federal standards to PURPA. The five standards regard net metering, fuel diversity, fossil fuel generation efficiency, smart metering, and interconnection for distributed resources. Under the EPAct, the Commission has varying timelines within which to consider these standards and determine whether to adopt them. Prior to opening a docket or dockets to consider these standards, a question before the Commission is whether it would be beneficial to seek comments from interested persons or entities on how to proceed. Possible issues that interested persons or entities may want to comment on include: 1) which electric utilities operating in South Dakota are affected by the standards and are subject to the Commission's jurisdiction? 2) Should the Commission open a docket for each utility or open a generic docket encompassing all of the affected utilities? 3) Should the Commission combine all of the standards, some of the standards, or have separate dockets for each standard? 4) Should the Commission hold evidentiary hearings with direct testimony and cross-examination? 5) If the Commission decides to implement any of the standards, should it do so through a rulemaking? 6) With respect to the net metering standard, should the Commission find it is not required to consider this standard given that the Legislature has already considered net metering in a past legislative session?
TODAY, shall the Commission Open a Docket and Accept Comments on How to Proceed with its Consideration of the New PURPA Standards? If yes, what shall be the Deadline for the Comments?
Announcements
1. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held June 13, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. at DDN sites in Rapid City, Sioux Falls, Mitchell, and Pierre.
2. Commission meetings are scheduled for July 11 and August 8, 2006.
3. A hearing in Docket RM06-001 will be held May 24, 2006, in Room 412, State Capitol Building, Pierre. The hearing will begin at 2:00 p.m.
4. The PUC offices will be closed Monday, May 29, 2006, in observance of Memorial Day.
5. A hearing in Docket EL05-022 will be held June 26 - 30, 2006, in Room 412, State Capitol Building, Pierre. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, June 26.
____________________
Heather K. Forney
Deputy Executive Director
heather.forney@state.sd.us
May 16, 2006
